Talk:Definitions of capitalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For a May 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Definitions of capitalism


I added the OED definition at the top. This is not becuase I think their definition is better than the others, or even good. In fact, it is rather vague. However, OED is widely considered to be the authority on the english language, and they are very influential. Mgw 02:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How on earth is the de Soto qoute a definition of capitalism. He's clearly not defining capitalism but trying to understand what he considers to be capitalism. There is no definition there. RJII 20:13, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Using encyclopedias as definition entries

I have a problem with citing encyclopedias as definitions. Encyclopedias are not dictionaries and so they provide encyclopedic entries rather than definitions. Granted, they usually contain definitions in the content, but they're often intermingled with other encyclopedic assertions that go beyond defining. I think the article should stick to pure definitions, given the title of the article. RJII 21:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] critical "definitions"

Critical definitions should be excluded, because they are POV rather than descriptive.--Silverback 14:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Should all supportive definitions also be excluded? Ultramarine 14:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Definitions which talk about advantages and benefits rather than describing features or characteristics should be excluded.--Silverback 02:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That would exclude all definitions mentioning free market since the Wikipedia article claims that there is no coercion in such markets. Anyhow, where is the policy that definitions cannot be critical or supportive? Or is it a new policy that you just invented? There is nothing wrong with presenting a particular POV, if all other sides of the issue are also presented as well and no POV is proclaimed to be the truth without scientific evidence. Ultramarine 02:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ultramarine. NPOV does not demand a single authoritative voice, but rather the fair presentaiton of many POV's. Mgw 21:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Transfer this article to Wikisource

I think this article should be transferred to Wikisource. Wikipedia is not the place for an article comprised of original source material. RJII 02:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The collection and presentation makes it more and different than the original sources. Ultramarine 02:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marxist definition of Capital

Seeing as there's already a Marxist section, shouldn't there be a definition from Marx?

It would be nice but Marx never defined it since he never used the term "capitalism." He used the term "capitalist" but was referring to an owner of capital. RJII 19:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Restoration

I see that a vote is in progress, but even if the vote is in progress, may I make an edit? I think I can resolve the issues in the article, given the opportunity, but I see that the copyright discussion prevents editing for the moment. --Humble Guy 15:31, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, I'll do it in the Temp page, --Humble Guy 15:45, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation discussion

Background: this page has been deleted for due to copyright violations. The page consisted mainly of copied dictionary definitions. Following is a discussion from WP:CP regarding this page. --Duk 02:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I have nominated Definitions of capitalism and Definitions of socialism for deletion; there doesn't seem to be consensus either way. It has been argued that the articles violate copyright (the definitions have been copied from commercial dictionaries and encyclopedias). Other users have disagreed and suggested the lists to be kept, merged, or moved to Wikiquote. Are they acceptable to be kept anywhere on Wikipedia? - Mike Rosoft 12:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Quoting a definition from a dictionary or is not a copywrite violation. It's fair use. I don't know about "copyright" though.. RJII 20:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Definitions of socialism was listed here as a copyright violation of thirteen paper dictionaries on 2005-05-08 and deleted after the discussion period on 2005-05-16. This is the same copyrighted material re-posted, and is is a speedy deletion candidate. Definitions of capitalism contains exact copies of text from twenty-six (non-GFDL) copyrighted dictionaries and three encyclopaedias, and is a copyright violation on a massive scale. (This isn't "quoting a definition from a dictionary" as the author, and those who are for the inclusion of this text not because permission has been granted to use this copyrighted content but simply because they don't want their edit war with the author to start up again, would have us believe.) Like definitions of socialism, there is no non-infringing version to revert to. The article began with these violations. Uncle G 15:53, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
      • And it IS spelled "copyright" (right to copy), not "copywrite". If you can copy definitions of a word from a number of dictionaries, you can certainly look up another word in a single one. - Mike Rosoft 16:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
      • If definitions of socialism was deleted for that reason, it was wrongly deleted. The number of dictionaries is irrelevant. If it's not a copyright violation to quote one dictionary then it's not a violation to qoute one thousand dictionaries. RJII 03:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I doubt that either of these is a copyvio, they are just short quotes from many different sources. More context should be provided to be on the safe side, however, like adding a short comment/description/interpretation to each quote.--Fenice 08:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
    • So, how do we know if this is resolved so we can get the article back up? RJII 16:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I will remove the notices unless some actually shows copyright problems. Ultramarine 22:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bad decision

That's absurd. So, according to the reasoning for deleting the page, any definition quoted from a dictionary in any Wikipedia article is a copyright violation? Bullshit. The decision is wrong. RJII 02:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

this article consisted mostly of copyrighted material, that's not fair use. If you really think that this decision is wrong then I suggest an RFC. --Duk 02:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What kind of reasoning is that? That defies all rationality. If it's fair use to quote one definition from one dictionary, then it's still fair use to quote one definition from multiple dictionaries. Just because you compile everything that is fair use from SEPARATE SOURCES on one page, it doesn't make it a copyright violation. Whose copywrite is it violating? RJII 02:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is not a bad decision, but an abuse of administrator power. The discussion clearly indicates no 2/3 consensus. Ultramarine 20:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ultramarine, I didn't abuse my power, and a vote doesn't legitamize copyright violations. I did the best I could to judge this copyright violation. You can always ask another administrator to intercede, or file an RFC.
As for Fair Use- it does not mean that you can pillage anything that you want. Fair use requires a rationale, in this case there isn't one. The entire article was essentially copied. This isn't fair use. You should do some reading about how fair use works. Start with WP:FU, also there are lots of guides on the Internet. --Duk 23:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/f/Talk%7EDefinitions_of_capitalism_7ee0.html"