Talk:Economic totalitarianism

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 May 2006. The result of the discussion was List as a copyright violation.

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 July, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 July 2006. The result of the discussion was Speedy close.

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 July 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

editor answer to copyvio[edit]

Notice: The submission/definition for Economic Totalitarianism at the root of this controversy was added by me (as anyone who can read a server log may attest), and, to the best of my knowledge, PREDATES any similar definition as offered by Investor Dictionary. It was derived BY MYSELF several years ago in response to questions relating to my use of the term in various discussion forums, and in an essay authored by me which may be found at http://www.geocities.com/brittone/eco.html If there is any issue of "copyright infringement" here, such was NOT committed by me.

As to any threats regarding edit-blocking my IP, knock your silly selves out! Otherwise, this effort to clear my name of these charges shall CONTINUE to be added/appended to this page until such time as either this matter is resolved or you have done as you have threatened to do.

This answer makes it clear that it is indeed Original Research. This article should be deleted.Tazmaniacs 08:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beside the author is indeed correct, since the so-called "investor dictionnary" uses GNU free licence & took the article from [1], so it is probable that Free Encyclopedia took it from here. There is no copyright vio, just Original Research. Tazmaniacs 08:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least deleting the submission for being "original research" would be preferable to accusing me/the author of plagiarism. Now, why "original research" should be deleted on those grounds is anyone's guess.

Simply because Wikipedia:No original research. Tazmaniacs 14:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

afd[edit]

I doubt the definition currently used in the article is the same as the one Friedman provided in his book, but alas I don't have the book at hand right now. Intangible 19:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you get the book feel free to improve the article through editing. --JJay 21:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than tolerate that ugly, obtrusive template, I've deleted it and gone through and commented out anything that looks like it might be original research. --Tony Sidaway 02:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was closed on the (wrong) basis that it was a copyvio. However, most seems to think that it was original research which thus justified it being deleted. It has now turned into being only a quote of Friedman's article. Does a quote from Friedman justify a whole article on a neologism? Shouldn't we rather redirect this to Friedman, where his use of this unorthodox term be explained? Can we really make a Wikipedia article with only a quote? Tazmaniacs 14:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article at present is like a stub. Why do you believe that this is a neologism? There are examples of this term being used in print at least as far back as the 1930s. --JJay 15:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now inclined to the view that it should probably be a redirect to Capitalism and Freedom. It's a popular enough term among laissez-faire advocates to merit something, but not stuck out here on its own away from the main article on the work. I can't see any argument to delete it, and didn't see any such argument at the time of the close, which is why I didn't delete it. --Tony Sidaway 16:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friedman didn't even coin the term, he didn't define it and if he tried to give it currency he failed miserably per zero hits in econ journals on JSTOR. This parrot is dead. ~ trialsanderrors 00:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But he did write a very important book in 1962, you see. And we have an article on the book. The currency of the term is not academic, but in extreme economic liberal groups. It's pretty important to take the blinkers off when constructing an encyclopedia. The Beatles song, Yesterday, won't be found in Classical music circles. Ayn Rand's name won't be found much in mainstream philosophy. You don't find the term "economic totalitarianism" on JSTOR, which is an archive of academic journals. --Tony Sidaway 00:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"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. [2]. ---- + a bunch of hits at Jstor [3]--JJay 00:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Results 1-7 of 7 for « "economic totalitarianism" AND ty:FLA » (0.15 seconds)

100% A Realistic Approach to Labor Legislation

Wayne Morse The University of Chicago Law Review > Vol. 14, No. 3 (Apr., 1947), pp. 337-346

84% 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

72% Some Problems of Military Government

A. C. Davidonis The American Political Science Review > Vol. 38, No. 3 (Jun., 1944), pp. 460-474

72% Associational Socialism in a Pluralist State

Paul Hirst Journal of Law and Society > Vol. 15, No. 1, Law, Democracy & Social Justice (Spring, 1988), pp. 139-150

68% Cognitive Maps of Three Latin American Policy Makers

Jeffrey A. Hart World Politics > Vol. 30, No. 1 (Oct., 1977), pp. 115-140

68% Beyond Ideology

George H. Sabine The Philosophical Review > Vol. 57, No. 1 (Jan., 1948), pp. 1-26

56% Wool in the World Economy

Gerda Blau Journal of the Royal Statistical Society > Vol. 109, No. 3 (1946), pp. 179-242

Parrot's still dead. ~ trialsanderrors 01:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you've really lost me. Above you seem to give a whole load of references t to the term, but then you say, puzzlingly, "parrot's still dead." Could you please make your mind up? Is this a real term, in which case it's likely that someone will want to know about it, or is it just some made-up nonsense? --Tony Sidaway 02:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's all seven of seven finds (six actually because one is a false positive) over sixty years of research, covering multiple disciplines. Note zero hits in economics, no article actually defines the term and nobody bothers to cite ~~your hero St.~~ Milton. HELLO POLLY!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call! No, still dead. ~ trialsanderrors 03:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's seven more than the zero you claimed above, but still far less than the 40+ linked from google scholar. And of course there are the google book hits as well. --JJay 03:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What part of zero hits in econ journals needs translation? Again, since you must've missed it last time, compare to Economic engine, which yields 70 JSTOR hits, 2670 Google book hits, 2050 Google scholar hits, and is, for good reason, not a WP article, since it lacks a well-defined meaning, as does economic totalitarianism. But the beautiful plumage! ~ trialsanderrors 03:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Freeman is an econ journal, as per my citation above. Furthermore, are you opposed to political science? --JJay 17:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get your Monty Python reference. However you're only strengthening the case for keeping and expanding the article. Nevertheless the term is in use (as you've demonstrated), it's referenced in Milton Friedman's work (which we have an article on), and it has a reasonable currency outside strict academic research.

I also want to register a complaint about your civility (not the first time). You refer to "your hero Mr Milton". That's really not nice. Milton Friedman is a free market economist, so hardly my hero. --Tony Sidaway 03:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should worry about other things than my civility, e.g. find a way to adjust to the many, many complaints you received about your consuct as administrator. ~ trialsanderrors 03:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two issues are really quite different. User:Tony Sidaway may or may not be worried about his complaints - I don't know. But civility is a requirement for everyone. See WP:CIV. --JJay 03:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very familiar with WP:CIV. I fail to see which of the criteria "your hero Mr. Milton" meets. An ill-considered accusation of impropriety? There was good grounds from prior discussion to believe that TS hold MF in highest regard, but I'll happily strike it if he denies it. ~ trialsanderrors 03:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are absolutely no grounds to believe that I hold Milton Friedman in high regard. Cease your attacks. --Tony Sidaway 18:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

afd[edit]

I've nominated the article (again) for deletion. Let's see the votes. Intangible 10:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been arbitrarily closed, again. But User:Trialsanderrors did make a great job here! I liked the economic fish, and I guess someone, somewhere, in a deep dark cave, is thinking about cosmic totalitarianism or, but we shall wait the Great Days for this, whatabout democratic totalitarianism? Tazmaniacs 00:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't arbitrarily closed. Read the debate. --Tony Sidaway 00:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]