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 no consensus with some strong keep arguments - CrazyRussiantalk/email 18:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is out of process. It is still being discussed on DRV. --JJay 15:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It being discussed on DRV does not mean that this nomination here is "out of process." Intangible 15:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Intangible! Well we're discussing the deletion of the article here. The process wasn't follow, and there is no reason to have a debate on the necessity to have a debate on the deletion of the article: the debate is if we'll have it deleted or not. Tazmaniacs 15:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should not be having two discussions on two different deletion pages concerning the same article. Close out the DRV discussion and then nominate for deletion. --JJay 15:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term never gained currency in the literature - it does not appear in the Citation Index. You can't keep an article on a term obliquely mentioned (and not even defined!) once in a book Dr Zak 15:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, redirect to Economics of fascism. The term unfortunately is thrown around in the blogosphere by libertarians such as DiLorenzo, who compare government intervantion with the Fascist regimes of the 1930s. That article has a few paragraphs on Libertarian views; redirecting this will prevent the article from becoming an attraction for trolls and malcontents. Dr Zak 17:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that totalitarianism comprises both fascist and communist regimes, so it's not clear why this should redirect to only one variety. Redirecting to totalitarianism might make more sense, if there is actually something like a serious attempt at a definition that somehow bridges the gap between the two which we could then add to the article. ~ trialsanderrors 05:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Friedman. This neologism is not notable and was used once. It has no heuristic intent but only an ideological one, and recovers no historical or political reality. It ignores the importance of corporatism, autarky and militarism (notably the arms-race in the 1930's and agressive policies followed by fascist states) in totalitarianism, and is a deviation of the already problematic (but certainly notable and scholarly) concept of totalitarianism, which is, by definition, both "political" and "economic". Furthermore, although attention has been brought to the article by the preceding AfD nominations, the case was closed without justification (or rather, an erroneous "copyvio" change), and nobody has improved the article other than making it a quote of Friedman. The reason is simple: there is nothing to back this uninteresting concept. Tazmaniacs 15:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as noted before. 90 Google Books hits show a lot of room for expansion. This keep refers to the non-disambig version, for the record. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The last non-dab version belongs in Wikiquote. Any suggestions how a non-dab entry should look like? ~ trialsanderrors 17:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Suggestion :
Dictionary definition, and/or overview of the different definitions used or implied
First appearance/origins of the word + later uses, with or without quotes
Overview of the various arguments why or why not the notion "economic totalitarianism" makes sense, the value of the word in economical and political theory
On 1. We don't have any definitions yet. Neither Friedman nor DiLorenzo provide definitions.
On 2. According to my research: "Even more important, the changing climate of American culture is increasingly the threat of some form of totalitarian control which make the existence of privately-controlled education extremely precarious. And the growth of this economic totalitariansim with its political concomitants makes the work of racial advancement both more difficult and more necessary." -- The Impact of the War Upon Privately-Controlled Colleges and Universities for Negroes, Buell G. Gallagher, The Journal of Negro Education > Vol. 11, No. 3, Negro Higher Education in the War and Post-War Reconstruction (Jul., 1942), pp. 346-358. Also no definition.
On 3. Absent sources, WP:OR Value of the term in pol econ = 0, as amply discussed. ~ trialsanderrors 10:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you claim that the value = 0 if you have no sources to verify that claim ?
- Please don't look at the article purely from a (political) economist's view.
If you look below you'll notice I've done rather extensive research on the term. For any term we consider encyclopedic, we should be able to establish the following: 1. provenance, 2. a trajectory of usage starting from the original, 3. a commonly understood formal or informal definition. See conspicuous consumption, creative destruction, or irrational exuberance (finance) for typical examples of popular terms that have an economic origin (and not to forget, the Dismal science). "Economic totalitarianism" has been used on a smattering of (disjointed) occasions by a number of people, but there is no evidence that any usage actually caught on to the point that if we say "economic totalitarianism" we mean it in the way Friedman or Gallagher have used it. I'm by no means opposed to putting popular economic terms into Wikipedia, but I'm opposed to putting paleoprotologisms here that have no definition, no agreed-upon meaning and no history of usage to speak of. ~ trialsanderrors 17:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Valid argument. On the other side, if I were to read Friedman and encounter the term, I might look it up on Wikipedia. It would be nice if I then would find your above argument, that although the term is being used, it has no real commonly accepted definition or meaning. This would help me in putting the hypothetical Friedman text in perspective. --LucVerhelst 11:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is irrelevant. The 90 books might all have a different definition of "economic totalitarianism." Which one should Wikipedia editors pick? Intangible 16:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely relevant. If they have different definitions, it makes for even more expansion possibilities. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not relevant because the article uses the term as used by Milton Friedman (who nowhere defines it). Intangible 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, let's fix it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Google is not a substitute for library research. See WP:RS. Tazmaniacs 17:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So the use of the term in dozens of books isn't good enough? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not if you're not able to give the term a conceptual content, i.e. a meaning. See Trial and errors' comment scrolling down. Tazmaniacs 18:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Google book hits. Sandy 15:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Google books, + as shown by Tazmaniacs, it differs enough from "plain" totalitarianism to need an article by itself. It should however be expanded a great deal. --LucVerhelst 16:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe User:Tazmaniacs is saying something different, but I could be wrong. Intangible 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No, you are absolutely right. But in saying something different, he provided arguments that can be used pro keeping the article. That shouldn't be a problem, should it ? --LucVerhelst 17:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Of course it differs from "'plain' totalitarianism". The problem is that scholars already have a not-so-easy time to define properly totalitarianism (which circumstances of invention shouldn't be forgetted), and that "economic totalitarianism" is only a polemic, pejorative word which has no conceptual contents (i.e. it doesn't means anything). Tazmaniacs 18:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Tazmaniacs and Intangible. Dionyseus 16:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are enough book references to expand this article greatly. If anyone really wants this article saved, they would only have to go to amazon.com and use the search inside method to obtain more citations for free. Get to work because this only lasts for 5 days. Zos 16:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This Google search comes up with 227 unique hits, excluding Wikipedia and its mirrors. Looking through those, it seems that the phrase is mostly used as some sort of slogan/bugbear/rallying cry in the blogosphere. I see no way to expand the article; if you do please let us know. Dr Zak 17:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just did! My vote for keeping it is for expansion. It appears to me that it is in fact notable and appears in many books. If the contributors to the article are lazy and do not wish to make it WP:V then this is of no concern to me. Zos 17:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. : "there was also an economic policy component of fascism, known in Europe during the 1920s and '30s as "corporatism," that was an essential ingredient of economic totalitarianism as practiced by Mussolini and Hitler". Thomas J. DiLorenzo, "Economic Fascism", The Freeman, 1994. [1]. ---- + google books hits + a bunch of hits at google scholar [2], i.e. ample material for an article. --JJay 00:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you're going to base an article concerning political sciences on quotes you find Googling, I really wonder why we pay teachers to teach political sciences and analysts to observe and conceptualize politics? I mean, why bother reading books when you can describe a concept which is apparently related to totalitarianism (in appearance only, IMO), on which thousands of pages have been written? If no one has any real knowledge of this concept, I don't think just Googling in quotes to "write an article" is a really serious solution. I do understand, however, that this provides some leisure time. But isn't leisure time best satisfied by simply reading and withstanding from contributing to a subject which only way of approach is "Googling it through"? Tazmaniacs 18:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Di Lorenzo's provided link seems to equate "economic totalitarianism" with "economic fascism" and thus validates Dr. Zak's proposal to redirect it to Economic policies of fascism. Tazmaniacs 18:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Taz: Theres a difference between amazon's search inside and ghits. The former can be used just like anyone else uses a book to make statements within an article while the later is test in notability. Search inside is an electronic representation of pages concerning the search. With this method, you can easily source a whole article as long as its notable. You might have noticed that I specifically stated "Amazon.com" and not "google", or you might think they or one in the same. Either way, the article can be expanded once a serious contributor wishes to take the time to expand. Zos 18:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOV#Undue weight per sheer dearth of currency inside or outside the academic community. Zero hits in ScienceDirect (including numerous economics handbooks) and a total 7 of JSTOR article hits over sixty years, all completely unrelated to each other, and none in economics journals, none citing Friedman, show this term never gained a foothold in the academic debate. 120 total (65 unique) Google book hits is far too small to give a term encyclopedic billing. Economic engine gets 2770 hits, economic prowess: 1010 hits, economic wisdom: 2160 hits, economic literacy: 1220 hits, economic necessity: 26,200 hits, economic decline: 34,800 hits. Even economic symbolism, a completely meaningless term, gets 71 hits. I could go on and on. Just string two words together, "economic" and "something", and you're bound to get a couple hits. ~ trialsanderrors 18:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a lot of articles we could be making, in my mind. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about creating a economic something then? Tazmaniacs 18:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about economic fish [3], economic tree [4] or economic cloud [5] ? ~ trialsanderrors 19:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel we'd be better served with individual articles, including this one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it's worth keeping a separate article for the ill-defined term. The situation feels somehow similar to Brown's gas. Brown's Gas is a stoichiometric hydrogen-oxygen mixture prepared through water electrolysis under certain conditions. Supposedly it gives more heat than expected, the extra energy usually being derived from the electrodes breaking up during preparation of the mixture. It's a favorite of the "free-energy crowd". Once can either track down the history of the idea in its incarnations, attempting to write an impartial account at Brown's gas on what is a fringe subject and trying to keep the article free of trolls, kooks, pseudoscientists and shady salesmen. The alternative would be to add a few paragraphs to the article on, say hydrogen or oxyhydrogen to keep a balanced view of the subject matter and keep the article policed by people who know what they are talking about. (After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquygen I was thinking of writing a balanced history of the idea but then decided against it, it's an ephemeral subject.). Economic totalitarianism is certainly ill-defined (neither Friedman nor DiLorenzo attempt a definition) and a favorite of blogging wingnuts. Putting DiLorenzo's ideas into context with genuine, bona-fide uppercase Fascist economic practice of the 1930s seems the more sensible solution. Dr Zak 06:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DiLorenzo's "definition" is worthless. It's not even in a peer-reviewed article so that we could track citations. Discounting mirrors I get 12 unique hits for his definition, mostly blogs. The Von Mises Institute doesn't consider it worthy of indexing.[6] It's an idée fixe semi-popular among a couple of partisan bloggers, which is even more reason why we shouldn't include it. ~ trialsanderrors 07:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't arguing to keep this, rather this should be deleted. What I was trying to say is this: if the article turns out to be kept at the insistence of people a redirect is the lesser of two evils. Dr Zak 15:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but one of the problems is that we don't even know where to point the redirect, given how slim the factual basis is. ~ trialsanderrors 17:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The term is a neologism. Any random passage from a book by a famous author is not necessarily encyclopedic. 172 | Talk 20:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe deleting it is better. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and transforming it into a disambiguation page is only keeping it in order to be able to use the term anyway, despite its lack of sense. Tazmaniacs 14:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I got nothing else. I'm still waiting for the various keep voters to make a positive contribution. ~ trialsanderrors 15:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not sure if by giving this a seperate page we aren't giving a few blogging wingnuts undue weight. I still lean to delete this and only turn this into a disambiguation page if it comes back. Dr Zak 16:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's my argument above. I have a hunch that's where the word has currency, although no one wants to admit it. To be fair it was also used to rail against the IMF per my talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 16:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as per 172. 72.139.119.165 18:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 00:52, 20 July 2006 (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.