|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
This page has a redirect from "civility" but aside from incorrectly defining civility as referring "to behaviour between persons and groups that conforms to a social (ie. "civil") mode, as itself being a foundational principle of society and law" it doesn't mention civility again.
- The number one google link on civility talks about "the tenor of political debate" with a lack of it being involved in "the destructive ways in which the issues are being addressed".
- The number two google link is a George Washington transcription of rules for showing proper respect in "Company and Conversation".
- The number three google link's first two words are "Facilitating Dialogue".
Pretty much the entire article here is about political theories of what a good citizen is like *not* what good/effective behavior during discussion and formal debate is like. I don't know how to kill a redirect with a wiki but this redirect should be killed and a stub on *actual* civility should be started because civic virtue and civility are not the same thing.
Merger of incivility and civic virtue
I don't agree that the two subjects are the same thing, though there clearly is some overlap. More importantly, the merge tag was put on the two articles on 2 February and the redirect (the merger) was done a day later - without any discussion whatsoever that I can see (if there was any discussion at Talk:Incivility, that's gone now).
I wouldn't be so concerned about this if WP:CIVIL, a key Wikipedia guideline, didn't use the word "incivility" without really defining it, making an article about that word have a lot more important, I think. In any case, I don't believe it would hurt anything to keep the discussion (or possibility thereof) open for a week or so before closing out the matter. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 16:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disagree with the merge. Civic virtue is a broader understanding of one's long term relationship and responsibility with society. Incivility is a temporary impoliteness. Although there may be overlap, they are two separate ideas. --Knulclunk 05:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Don't merge These topics are not the same. futurebird 14:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
is PC mistaken for civility?
- Can you explain how this relates to improving or modifying this article? If it does not, please remember that this is not a discussion forum, it is the discussion page for an encyclopedia. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
More recent versions of article
I reverted to an older version - What happened to this article? For months it has been in a state of disrepair. The introduction was composed of a bunch of sloppily-formatted, nonsensical sentence fragments. "Civics for the success of the community" sounds like a partisan political group. It isn't a sentence by itself - it's merely the subject. Fuzzform (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Split off "Civility"
Like the many above who opposed the old redirect, the article confuses two distinct topics, "Civic virtue" and "civility". I propose either that "civility" be made its own article, taking material from this one, or that any unique stuff not related to civic virtue be put in the appropriate articles (e.g. etiquitte). The talk above all seems to support it. Is there any opposition to this? Morgan Riley (talk)
- Op47, the quotes, incivility, and bibliography all refer to civility, not civic virtue, which is a distinct and rather unrelated concept. That's what I am referring to. Morgan Riley (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Morgan Riley, Incivility is already a separate article. If you think the summary that is here should not be here then by all means remove it. It is not justification for splitting this article. The quotes and bibliography can't be spun off to make a new article. They are just irrelevant quotes (which you can remove if you require, as suggested above). If an article on civility could be split from this article then I would have done it rather than write the comment above. If you have additional material that is not mentioned here then it would be better to just create the article. Just to clarify, I am not against your suggestion to move the irrelevant info to a more appropriate article. Hope this helps. Op47 (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)