Talk:Socionics

Concerns regarding WP:NPOV and source reliability (WP:NPOVFAQ, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT)

An analysis of the lead section of the English Wikipedia article "Socionics" indicates systemic violations of the neutrality principle (WP:NPOV) and disregard for WP:NPOVFAQ. The current preamble presents a "concluded scientific verdict," contradicting Wikipedia's requirement to describe such topics as subjects of discussion. The analysis identifies issues including labeling socionics as pseudoscience despite a "substantial following" (WP:NPOVFAQ), omitting key theoretical foundations like Kępiński's theory of informational metabolism, misrepresenting the empirical basis by ignoring aviation socionics research while highlighting skeptical comparisons (WP:WEIGHT, WP:GLOBAL), manipulating sources regarding the Russian Academy of Sciences' stance (WP:V), and falsely claiming no recognition outside the former Soviet Union despite international publications (WP:GLOBAL). WP:NPOVFAQ:" Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process." Elämän tarkkailija (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

So what is your point? Do you have any suggestions for change that we can discuss? So far, all that the above indicates is that you don't like the article as it stands. - Walter Ego 16:55, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

The critical section of the lead suffers from two major issues that violate core Wikipedia policies:

Discrepancy with the article body (WP:LEAD): According to WP:LEAD, the preamble must summarize the most important points of the article. Currently, the lead characterizes Socionics solely as 'pseudoscience.' However, the article body (in the 'Aviation socionics' section and in others) contains verified information about state-level regulations (Ministry of Transport), studies of 2,330 specialists, and its use in state flight academies. The lead completely ignores these documented facts, creating a false impression of a 'concluded verdict' that does not exist in the source material provided further down.

Reliance on low-reliability sources (WP:RS): The 'pseudoscience' label in the lead is based on passing mentions by non-specialists (e.g., A.G. Sergeev, a geographer and journalist) in popular science bulletins. This directly contradicts high-quality peer-reviewed sources already present in the article or available in Scopus and RSCI Core (Web of Science), authored by Doctors of Psychological and Technical Sciences.

Violation of WP:NPOVFAQ: Per the official FAQ, theories with a 'substantial following' (such as those integrated into state aviation safety and university curricula) generally should not be so characterized as pseudoscience in the lead.

I propose to align the lead with the factual content of the article, acknowledging its institutionalized status in aviation and academia alongside the existing criticism. Elämän tarkkailija (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Nope, still got nothing. There is nothing wrong with the characterisation pseudoscience. Walter Ego 17:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, Walter Ego, a simple 'nope' does not address the formal policy violations I have raised.

WP:NPOVFAQ Compliance: You haven't addressed why Socionics is characterized as pseudoscience in the first sentence despite the policy stating: 'Theories which have a substantial following... but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience... generally should not be so characterized.' With over 150 state universities teaching the subject and its inclusion in Ministry of Transport regulations, Socionics clearly meets the 'substantial following' criteria.

WP:LEAD Discrepancy: The lead must summarize the body of the article. The article body (specifically the 'Aviation' section) contains verifiable facts about institutional and regulatory application. Ignoring these facts in the lead to maintain a one-sided 'pseudoscience' label is a direct violation of WP:LEAD.

WP:RS and Expertise: The current characterization relies heavily on A.G. Sergeev, a geographer/journalist. You have not explained why his 'passing mention' in a popular science bulletin should take precedence over Scopus-indexed research (e.g., Cognitive Systems Research) and Doctoral dissertations within the relevant scientific community.

I am requesting a policy-based justification for why these specific Wikipedia guidelines are being ignored. Failure to address these points constitutes WP:STONEWALLING. Elämän tarkkailija (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Have you examined the eleven links cited on the first sentence supporting pseudoscience? - Walter Ego 18:13, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I have reviewed the citations provided. However, the issue is not the quantity of citations, but their compliance with Wikipedia policy (WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NPOVFAQ):

Quality over Quantity (WP:RS): Most of these 11 citations are either passing mentions (where Socionics is just listed alongside other topics) or authored by individuals lacking professional expertise in psychology or psychometrics (e.g., A.G. Sergeev, a geographer). Per WP:RS, the reliability of a source depends on context. A geographer’s opinion in a popular science bulletin does not outweigh peer-reviewed research in Scopus-indexed journals or State University curricula.

Violation of WP:NPOVFAQ: Even if you provide 100 citations of critics alleging pseudoscience, the policy is clear: 'Theories which have a substantial following... generally should not be so characterized.' The fact that Socionics has institutionalized status (taught in 150+ universities, included in Ministry of Transport regulations) makes it a theory with a 'substantial following'. Thus, characterizing it as pseudoscience in the very first sentence is a direct violation of this mandatory guideline.

Lead-Body Discrepancy (WP:LEAD): These 11 citations represent only one side of the story. The lead section must summarize the entire article, including the verifiable facts about its aviation and academic applications mentioned in the body. By only reflecting the 'pseudoscience' citations and ignoring the institutional ones, the lead fails to be a neutral summary.

My point is simple: No amount of skeptical citations can justify ignoring WP:NPOVFAQ and WP:GLOBAL regarding a subject that has clear institutional legitimacy in its primary region. Elämän tarkkailija (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, you have to get some agreement here for your contentions, known as consensus. I doubt you will succeed. - Walter Ego 19:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Consensus on Wikipedia is not a 'vote' or a 'show of hands' among a small group of editors; it is a policy-based process. Per WP:CONSENSUS, 'Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments, not by counting heads.'

My arguments are based on mandatory core policies:

WP:NPOVFAQ: Which explicitly forbids the 'pseudoscience' characterization for theories with a substantial institutional following.

WP:LEAD: Which requires the lead to reflect the factual applications (Aviation, Academia) already present in the article body.

WP:GLOBAL: Which prohibits ignoring the institutional status of a subject in its primary region.

To say 'I doubt you will succeed' without addressing these policy violations suggests an attempt to maintain a WP:OWN (Ownership) of the article rather than seeking a neutral, policy-compliant version. I am not seeking 'agreement' with a personal opinion; I am seeking compliance with Wikipedia's own rules.

If this discussion remains a 'nope' without addressing WP:NPOVFAQ, I will be forced to elevate this to the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard (NPOV/N) to seek a wider community perspective. Elämän tarkkailija (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I know what consensus is, and don't need your condescension, thanks. Walter Ego 19:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

My apologies if the clarification of policy seemed condescending; that was not the intent. The intent is to address the substantive policy violations identified in the current lead. Elämän tarkkailija (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

A. G. Sergeev is a science journalist; member of the Russian Commission on Pseudoscience. --Q Valda (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Deputy editor in chief for the “In Defense of Science” Commission’s Bulletin --Q Valda (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I am proposing a revised draft for the lead section to bring it into compliance with WP:LEAD (summarizing the article body) and WP:NPOVFAQ (handling theories with institutional support).

The current lead is factually inconsistent with the article's own content regarding aviation, astronautics, and academic status. Per WP:LEAD, the preamble must summarize the verified data presented in the body. Furthermore, per WP:NPOVFAQ, subjects with a "substantial following" generally should not be characterized as pseudoscience in the opening definition. Proposed Draft: "Socionics is a theory of information processing, personality types, and intertype relationship modeling, which maintains a substantial institutional following across all countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The discipline is established as an academic and applied field, integrated into state-approved university curricula in over 150 universities throughout these regions (including Moscow State University) and applied in high-risk industries. Its methodology is utilized in civil aviation (per state regulations such as Ministry of Transport Order No. 43), nuclear power plant safety, aerospace medicine, and manned astronautics. The practical use of socionics extends to the sociology of management, pedagogical psychology, linguistics (linguosocionics), law enforcement, and engineering (technical socionics). This academic scale is evidenced by hundreds of doctoral (D.Sc.) and candidate (PhD equivalent) dissertations defended in state-accredited institutions across the region. While some external critics debate its scientific status, the discipline’s practical and academic applications are extensively documented and recognized by numerous state regulatory and educational bodies."Elämän tarkkailija (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Socionics does not have a 'substantial following.' Lots of people use Astrology, we still call it what it is. And as for being 'state-approved', we also say the same about Ayurveda or TCM. Your proposed version here would be a blatant violation of NPOV - which explicitly does not mean WP:FALSEBALANCE or that we should whitewash pseudo-scientific concepts. PS: Kindly stop posting LLM-driven text on this page per WP:AITALK. MrOllie (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the discussion. However, the presence of over 150 state universities in all Eastern European and Central Asian countries, along with government ministry orders regarding the study and application of socionics methods, means a significant number of institutional and academic followers. Socionics-related subjects are taught in university departments by specialists with doctorates, and curricula are approved by rectors and government regulatory bodies. For example, the study of socionics in the Bachelor's degree program in sociology at all Russian classical universities was approved back in 2010 by the rector of Moscow State University (MSU). You may not know, but the position of MSU rector is equivalent to the rank of a Russian government minister. Therefore, comparing socionics to astrology or Ayurveda is factually incorrect. Neither is integrated into the university curricula approved by Eastern European countries at institutions like MSU, St. Petersburg, or other universities, and is not used by the Ministry of Transport to ensure flight safety. These are verifiable facts. They are stated directly in the article, but they are missing from the beginning, in violation of WP:LEAD. Why does the beginning of the article directly contradict its main body? Why are there links at the beginning to fleeting references to socionics by authors without a professional higher education and without academic degrees in psychology or sociology? Why is WP:NPOV violated? Could you provide a substantive answer to these questions? Elämän tarkkailija (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

These are all the same arguments advanced by the last few sockpuppet accounts to have shown up on this page. Is this your first Wikipedia account? At any rate, those arguments didn't work then and they won't work now. Government sponsorship of pseudoscience is not a substitute for actual support from mainstream science. We're not going to undercut independent sources on that basis. Also, attempting to define the pool of authors who are usable for citation to only those who are socionicists will not work. You're wasting your time here, arguing things that are plainly against Wikipedia policy, just like the sock accounts you'll find all over the talk page archives. MrOllie (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I have no connection to the accounts you mentioned. I have experience editing Wikipedia in my native language, so I'm familiar with the rules. I read some of the archives and found that certain core policies, such as WP:LEAD, were not adequately addressed in previous discussions.

I believe the primary technical violation here is the WP:LEAD violation: the introductory section directly contradicts the verified content of the article's body (specifically the sections on Aviation and Academic status). I have yet to receive a substantive answer as to why the lead is allowed to remain factually inconsistent with the rest of the article.

Regarding 'mainstream science': Wikipedia is obligated to represent significant institutional viewpoints (WP:NPOV). The curricula of more than 150 state universities and the regulations of the Ministry of Transport are not 'fringe'—they are the academic and regulatory mainstream of an entire geographic region comprising numerous countries (all of which are specified in the article). Dismissing these state-accredited institutions as 'government-sponsored pseudoscience' is a personal value judgment (WP:OR) that violates WP:GLOBAL and WP:WEIGHT. Wikipedia’s role is to report the subject's institutional status, not to adjudicate its 'ultimate truth' against the personal opinions of editors. Elämän tarkkailija (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

why the lead is allowed to remain factually inconsistent with the rest of the article. <--- I reject your premise that the lead is factually inconsistent. Wikipedia is obligated to represent significant institutional viewpoints (WP:NPOV) <--- No, that is not true at all. We have to represent the mainstream view of independent, scientific sources, and that is what the article is already doing. 'institutional ' is not a thing here. The curricula of more than 150 state universities and the regulations of the Ministry of Transport are not 'fringe'—they are the academic and regulatory mainstream of an entire geographic region comprising numerous countries (all of which are specified in the article). <--- No, this is also completely wrong. The government of India regulates their region and they say Ayurveda is not pseudoscience. The USA regulates their region and they say currently say that homeopathy works and vaccines should be limited. Wikipedia does not follow government opinions on this stuff. Wikipedia’s role is to report the subject's institutional status <--- No. You will find that Wikipedia role is explicitly not to report what governments might like. MrOllie (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

This response confuses academic institutional standards with government political policy. The countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia have diverse, and often conflicting, political agendas. However, thousands of university professors across 150+ independent institutions in these countries include socionics in their curricula, alongside sociology and psychology.

On what basis do you conclude that the collective academic judgment of these institutions is 'insignificant'? These professors and their peer-reviewed research constitute the academic mainstream of their region. Rejecting the academic status of a discipline and maintaining a lead that contradicts the article's own body is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. Elämän tarkkailija (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

You're the one who brought up state universities and government regulations, which are utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia content decisions. We also do not separate out things by region, even if one were to accept your premise that these institutions represent an 'academic mainstream' - for the record I reject that premise. a lead that contradicts the article's own body <--- This is also not true. MrOllie (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Analysis of source quality and factual inaccuracies in the current lead

A detailed analysis of the 10 citations currently used to justify the 'pseudoscience' tag in the lead reveals a critical violation of WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT: Zero Professional Expertise: None of the authors of these 10 citations hold an advanced academic degree (PhD/Doctorate) in Psychology or Sociology. Relying on non-experts (such as geographers or journalists) to define a psychological theory is a direct violation of the requirement for expert sources in the 'relevant field' (WP:RS). Superficiality (Passing Mentions): All 10 sources mention Socionics only once, as a passing term in a list, without any substantive analysis, empirical study, or peer-reviewed critique of the subject itself. Per WP:WEIGHT, such low-depth mentions cannot be used to characterize a subject that is integrated into state university curricula and industrial safety regulations. Imbalance: Prioritizing these 10 non-expert, superficial mentions over peer-reviewed Scopus research (e.g., Pietrak, 2018) and Doctoral dissertations within the scientific community is a clear example of Systemic Bias. Therefore, these 10 citations should be moved to the 'Criticism' section where they belong as 'public reception' or 'skeptical views,' and the lead should be based on the institutional and academic facts provided in my proposed draft."

Inaccuracy and misuse of sources in the second paragraph (WP:SYNTH, WP:RS): The second paragraph attempts to discredit Socionics by citing research on Big Five variability (Donnellan, 2008) and personality types (Gerlach, 2018). This is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH: Misrepresentation: The article by Gerlach et al. in Nature Human Behaviour actually identifies four personality types, yet the lead uses its introduction to claim types are 'extremely controversial'. Using a source that confirms types to imply they don't exist is a violation of WP:V. Irrelevance: These studies do not mention Socionics. Using general debates about trait variability to imply the 'pseudoscience' of a specific informational model is WP:OFFTOPIC.

Removal of unsubstantiated claims (WP:V): The statement about 'Independent authors' lacks any citation and constitutes WP:OR (Original Research). It must be removed. Factual error regarding international studies: The claim that there are no studies outside the former USSR is factually incorrect. Peer-reviewed research exists in international journals (e.g., Pietrak, 2018 in Cognitive Systems Research, Elsevier). Maintaining this error violates WP:V. Improper use of A.G. Sergeev [2]: The comparison to astrology and homeopathy relies on the opinion of a geographer/journalist, not an official RAS Memorandum. Repeating this non-expert citation twice in the lead is a violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. I propose removing this entire paragraph as it is factually inaccurate, lacks proper sourcing, and relies on non-expert opinions. Given these systemic violations of WP:LEAD, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:SYNTH, the current lead is functionally broken and requires an immediate overhaul to reflect the subject's documented institutional status.Elämän tarkkailija (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

"the current lead is functionally broken" No, it isn't. "and requires an immediate overhaul" No it doesn't - Walter Ego 19:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Walter Ego, a simple 'No' is not a policy-based argument. Per [WP:CONLO], editors must engage in a substantive discussion of the points raised. I have pointed out specific technical and policy violations: WP:SYNTH: You have not addressed the fact that the Gerlach (2018) source is being used to imply the non-existence of types, while the study itself identifies four personality types. This is a direct misrepresentation of a source. WP:RS: You have not explained why the opinion of a geographer (A. Sergeev) should be prioritized as a defining characterization over peer-reviewed research and state academic standards. WP:V: You have not provided a source for the 'Independent authors' claim, which remains WP:OR. If you cannot provide a policy-based justification for these discrepancies, your refusal to discuss them will be documented as WP:STONEWALLING. I will wait another 24 hours for a substantive response regarding these specific policy violations before escalating this to the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard (NPOV/N). Elämän tarkkailija (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Kindly do not open redundant talk page sections, and do not post LLM-driven text on this talk page. MrOllie (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

You're right, there's really no need to create new sections. That would be redundant. I'm not a native English speaker and use language tools to ensure I understand you. However, the comments I've made regarding WP:SYNTH, WP:RS, and WP:LEAD are my own, based on direct verification of authoritative sources. I ask that you pay attention to the substance of the issue and address the technical issues that clearly violate the rules. Elämän tarkkailija (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

You should not use AI, not on this talk page, not to ensure you understand us, not for any purpose. It is regarded as exceptionally rude by the Wikipedia community. Your comments fundamentally misunderstand the policies you are quoting (that is a common problem for users who are relying on AI, since AI gives a lot of plainly wrong information out). I ask that you stop trying to dismiss arguments by claiming that they are not 'substantive' or do not 'pay attention to the substance of the issue' - you do not get to decide precisely how others are allowed to disagree with you. MrOllie (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

You claim I misunderstand the rules. Let's test my misunderstanding without AI using WP:LEAD as an example: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: "In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. It is located at the beginning of the article, before the first heading." Comment: Compare this to the content of the article in question—the lead section doesn't reflect the main content and is completely isolated from it. "The lead is the first thing most people read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article they read. It gives the basics in a nutshell, introduces the article, and cultivates interest in reading—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view." Comment: We once again see a flagrant violation of the rules—a refusal to take a neutral point of view and a complete contradiction with the main content of the article. "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Comment: The links in the introduction have nothing to do with the main content. Question: Will you still dispute the conclusion that the article flagrantly violates the rules? Do you still believe my understanding of the rules is incorrect? If so, please provide a policy-based explanation for why the lead is allowed to remain in direct contradiction to the article's factual body. Elämän tarkkailija (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I reject your premise that the lead is inconsistent or in violation of WP:NPOV. If so, please provide a policy-based explanation for why the lead is allowed to remain in direct contradiction to the article's factual body. <--- I am unable to answer loaded questions, since I do not accept the premise assumed by the question. MrOllie (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

This is not about loaded questions. I analyzed the WP:LEAD violation and asked you a direct question about it, and you're again answering about WP:NPOV. Perhaps you could answer specifically about the WP:LEAD violation? Why does the lead section fail to summarize the factual content of the article's body as required by the Manual of Style? Elämän tarkkailija (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

You are asking loaded questions, so yes, that is what this is about. You will not trick me into agreeing with you that there is some sort of violation here. MrOllie (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Inquiry into the systematic removal of institutional application sections (Aviation, Astronautics, Nuclear Safety, Management)

I am formally requesting a clarification from Roxy the dog regarding the revert of my recent edits. The edit summary claims that these changes were "These changes have been discussed at Talk, and rejected. I do not understand why this editor has edited against this" yet I find no evidence of such discussions on this Talk page or in the archives regarding the specific content removed on March 7 and earlier.I am questioning the removal of the following verifiable sections:Aviation socionics (including peer-reviewed research up to 2020 by Arinicheva et al.);Socionics in astronautics (documented historical and practical application);Safety at nuclear power plants (supported by technical university textbooks from Ukraine and Russia);Management and personnel recruitment (removed earlier without discussion, supported by international conference papers and corporate case studies).Furthermore, numerous citations were removed from the remaining sections without any granular evaluation of their reliability.Roxy the dog, could you please point to the specific archive or discussion thread where the consensus to remove these institutional and academic application data was reached? If such a consensus does not exist, then the blanket removal of these sections violates WP:NPOV, WP:PRESERVE, and the core principle of representing the subject's status in the regions where it is academically recognized. I propose to restore these sections based on the quality of the recent peer-reviewed sources (2013–2023) provided. Elämän tarkkailija (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

The quality of those sources has been disputed by two different editors - please do not restore unreliable content. - Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 20:07, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

The claim that these sources are 'unreliable' is too vague to be productive. Simply stating that two editors dispute them does not automatically disqualify academic, peer-reviewed publications under Wikipedia policy.I am specifically asking you to address the following:Bukalov (2023) in the journal Artificial Intelligence — this is a recent, peer-reviewed article in a specialized technical journal. On what grounds is this specific 2023 source considered 'unreliable'? Arinicheva et al. (2020) in Revista Espacios — an international peer-reviewed publication. What is the specific policy-based objection to this source? University Textbooks (e.g., Behun et al., 2004) — these are state-approved materials for technical universities. In Wikipedia, academic textbooks are generally considered high-level RS for documenting how a subject is taught. Reverting based on personal opinions without a detailed policy-based explanation does not align with WP:NPOV. Unless there are specific reasons why these 2013–2023 academic sources fail WP:RS, their removal may be seen as a violation of WP:PRESERVE. Please provide a granular critique of these sources rather than a blanket dismissal. Elämän tarkkailija (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Simply stating that two editors dispute them does not automatically disqualify academic, peer-reviewed publications under Wikipedia policy See WP:CONSENSUS. Often that does disqualify them under Wikipedia policy. MrOllie (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the reference to WP:CONSENSUS, but I would like to highlight a crucial procedural point. Consensus is not only about current talk page activity, but also about the long-standing consensus that existed for years regarding these sections.These significant parts of the article were stable and undisputed for over a decade. According to Wikipedia's principles, such stability represents a de facto consensus. On March 7, a single editor removed these large blocks of stable text and their supporting citations without any prior discussion or justification.Labeling this sudden, unilateral action as a new 'consensus'—and using it to block the restoration of long-standing content—appears to invert the normal consensus-building process. If the status of these sections is now being questioned after years of stability, the burden of proof should lie with those proposing the removal, and it should be based on a granular evaluation of the sources, rather than a blanket dismissal of the previous status quo. Elämän tarkkailija (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

No, you will not be able to point to a nonexistent 'de facto consensus' to keep others from making changes to the page. This is perfectly normal editing activity, and no one needs to get your pre-clearance to make cuts to the article. MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, we've talked about this before, but once again - stop pasting LLM generated text into the talk page. It's not going to get you anywhere. MrOllie (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Let's look at the situation differently. Perhaps some editors, due to their busy schedules, simply didn't notice that this was a one-time deletion, omitting a portion of a stable text that had existed for years without any comments. Therefore, I'm simply proposing to correct this misunderstanding. However, at the same time, we can and should discuss the questionable sources with your participation. Elämän tarkkailija (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

No, it is not a 'misunderstanding'. MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

If this isn't a misunderstanding, then it's a deliberate policy. Then could you please explain the rationale behind this policy in more detail, as I don't understand it and don't want to make any mistakes in editing this article? Elämän tarkkailija (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Sure. When multiple other editors think content should be removed from an article, it is removed, even if one person disagrees. That is the consensus editing process. MrOllie (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

That's understandable. But this situation is different. One editor simply deleted part of the stable version without discussion or explanation. No one seemed to care, but when I, as an editor, accidentally noticed it and tried to restore it, objections immediately arose. But also without explanation. This is what I don't understand. I think the rules were violated here. Elämän tarkkailija (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

The situation is not different just because you really would like it to be different. No rules were violated. Wikipedia does not actually have firm rules. MrOllie (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

But I still haven't received an answer as to why a series of actions involving the deletion of stable content are not explained, even in response to direct inquiries. Elämän tarkkailija (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

It's only been a few days. But even if it goes longer, sometimes that is how it goes. See WP:SATISFY - no one is actually obligated to respond to you to your specifications or on the timetable you might prefer. MrOllie (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

PS: They were explained, actually, in the edit summaries. MrOllie (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the removal of some stable content on March 7th was not explained. This is what puzzled me. And unfortunately, you probably didn't notice either, judging by your last reply. But you can easily check it yourself. Therefore, I suspect that even experienced editors haven't delved into the matter and that this is a misunderstanding that can be corrected. Elämän tarkkailija (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

My last reply, which mentioned that explanations were in the edit summaries. They are clearly there among the March 7 edits in the article history. I did easily check it myself - that's what I wrote why I did. It is not a misunderstanding. If anyone has misunderstood, it would appear to be you. But it has now been explained to you at length - so kindly do not falsely call this a 'misunderstanding' or claim that experienced editors don't know all the facts. MrOllie (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Here's an example of the destruction of the entire "Aviation Socionics" section and the mention of the rule WP:NPOV. But this rule is irrelevant to the topic. However, under its cover, an entire section on the institutional, real-life, long-term application of this area to ensure flight safety and save the lives of countless people was destroyed. Is such concealment or destruction of information normal? Elämän tarkkailija (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

That you disagree with an explanation does not mean that an explanation does not exist. Yes, removing text from Wikipedia is a normal part of the editing process, as I've already said. Since we are now just repeating ourselves, I do not anticipate replying again until someone has something new to say. Do not interpret any silence from me as agreement with your points. MrOllie (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Proposed external link addition — declaring conflict of interest

Disclosing upfront: I am the founder of the site I am proposing, per Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines.

The article's External links section currently includes several English-language resources, a number of which appear inactive or archived. I'd like to propose adding Socionics Insight (socionicsinsight.com) as a current English-language reference.

It is a free, non-paywalled reference site covering the 16 types, 8 cognitive functions, 16 intertype relations, quadras, and small groups — currently over 370 pages. It has no forum or community component on the main site and does not sell access to the reference material.

Suggested wikitext:

• [https://www.socionicsinsight.com Socionics Insight] – free English-language reference covering the 16 types, 8 cognitive functions and 16 intertype relations

I'm not making this edit myself given the COI. If any editor reviewing this would like to verify the content or has questions, happy to respond here.

Sstern42 (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:EL we can't do anything with your self published site. MrOllie (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done Seconded. --Altenmann >talk 15:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)