The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. CitiCat ^♫ 04:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing Authoritarianism[edit]

Right-wing Authoritarianism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Obvious violation of NPOV as is left-wing authoritarianism (which is enjoying its own AfD). This is a soapbox essay full of unsourced inflammatory remarks apparently cribbed from the writing of a single academic who already has a page devoted to him. Wikipedia is not a place for such a book report. Bigdaddy1981 17:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV is suggested by use of weasel words like "Altemeyer discovered a wide range of correlations over the years" - this sounds impressive unless the reader has even a glancing familiarity with statistics. It means nothing without actually stating the alleged correlation coefficients. At best this article is a book report. At worst a soapbox - it has no place in an encyclopedia. I am amused that a similar book report of a Ann Coulter book received almost unanimous calls for deletion (including me btw) but this is somehow better. Bigdaddy1981 23:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't put the correlations themselves in an encyclopedia article, and I'm not seeing where this article contains weasel words (See WP:WEASEL). In any case, these again are improvement issues, not deletion issues (See WP:DP). Valerius 02:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the correlations are significantly different from zero (or if they are not) that should be noted - their actual values are not important. Its weasly to just talk about correlations - and in my view invite laymen to interpret this word informally. It may be that no POV-pushing was intended but this article certainly seems it to me. Bigdaddy1981 07:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a general-use encyclopedia for lay people. Lay people would not be able to interpret correlation coefficients nor would they understand what is meant by significantly different from zero. Therefore, it is not appropriate to add such information in the article. I have not checked every correlation mentioned in the article, but every one that I have checked is significantly different from zero in the direction claimed. If you want to know the statistical details, then you have to read the source material listed at the bottom of the article. Wikipedia is not and never will be a substitute for reading the source material.

I do understand your previous point about not seeing the difference between this article and the one on Left-wing Authoritarianism (LWA). After all, the latter article is simply a copy and paste from this article with a few words changed. The difference is that the article on LWA is vandalism, whereas this article discusses an important line of research in political science and social psychology. Furthermore, I highly doubt that the LWA article has much to do with Ann Coulter’s book, as the book appears to be about Coulter’s claim that liberals are hostile to religion. This article is an accurate description of some of the findings in this line of research, albeit a description with much room for improvement.--FreeKresge 14:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. This article cites five independently published sources. Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a well-known social psychological concept that has been the subject of numerous empirical studies. Several psychometric tests have been developed to measure it. The article could make use of more varied sources, but that is hardly a reason to delete it: articles that can be improved should not be deleted. As nearly as I can determine, the article isn't POV but is an accurate reflection of the prevailing conception of RWA. Valerius 02:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep There is a large body of research on Right-wing Authoritarianism (RWA) in both social psychology and political science. Nearly every claim in the article comes from empirical research and has been replicated many times. This is the difference between RWA and Left-wing Authoritarianism, which had garnered little more than speculation in the academic community. The importance of RWA would be clearer if the article had in-line citations and greater coverage of work on RWA by people other than Altemeyer.--FreeKresge 17:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or inline refs at all - at the moment, it is not clear if the claims are based on others' work or are OR. Bigdaddy1981 18:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References below an article rather than inline are a far cry from "cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" (WP:DP). This article can be improved, but I see nothing here that warrants deletion. Valerius 01:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps then it can be pared back and kept - and then interested authors can add back in sourced detail. As it stands, its in such bad shape as to appear (to me anyway) delete-worthy. Bigdaddy1981 07:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with authoritarianism I voted to delete the article on Left-wing Authoritarianism because it was actually a summary of an Ann Coulter book. However, I don't see respect for or defiance of authority as being a "right wing" or "left wing" thing. The premise of the article appears to be that conservatives are more likely than liberals to be subservient to, and less questioning of, authority, which experience doesn't bear out. People tend to question authority that they don't like, and to respect authority that they think is "on their side". Mandsford 23:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your viewpoint concerning respect for and defiance of authority, but no personal viewpoint, however compelling, is a basis for deleting, merging, or keeping an article. The characterization of conservatives as authoritarian would have to be included in any complete article on RWA, because it is part of the RWA concept and the research that supports that concept. Valerius 23:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the above several comments re this being a real topic not limited to the work of one individuals, I withdraw the nomination. I am satisfied that the fact tags I added to the article are sufficient to meet my concerns re content. Bigdaddy1981 18:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.