Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Producerism

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 of the debate was keep. Babajobu 05:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Producerism

• Delete. Not professional and another page exists for Conspiracy Theory in addition to the following points. Northmeister 20:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

HI, my name is Northmeister and I tagged the page for deletion.

Conspiracism seems also to be alike in its nature so I tagged that for deletion as well.

(The following are my reasons, they were also addressed in the talk page for this so the style reflects this as I pasted them here as well.)

• First, the sources listed for 'producerism' are questionable including a personal advocacy page set up by someone.
• Second, (GUILT BY ASSOCIATION) Most of the people or groups listed as 'producerites' or whatever you call them are people, groups, party's who associate themselves with the traditional economic views of: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin D. Roosevelt; or their party's: Federalist, Whig, Republican (whose philosophy from 1861-1930's is mostly like Buchanan's today with a few exceptions) or the New Deal Democratic Party; called the American System by Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky.
• Third, the 'producerism' article is an attack on that above mentioned system of economics and its proponents, grouping them as one and the same on all issues which is dubious to the extreme. For example, Buchanan is a Conservative on social policy, but believes in a mild form of the old American System of Hamilton and Lincoln, whereas, Perot's ideas and those in the Reform Party are in line with the American System of economics mostly but he and the Reform Party are neutral or progressive (in some circumstances) on social policy. These men and party's and their philosophy overall are not interchangeable and conflict on social policy and therefore do not hold to a unified system such as 'producerism' at all.
• Fourth, the personal attacks made on Lyndon Larouche (alluded to on his page here at Wikipedia) and others like H. Ross Perot (also in the conspiracism (another dubious term) page and your personal page) are obvious to your intentions and beliefs. You have a right to oppose the traditional economic system of men like Lincoln but not to defame someones character in the process! You can also label anything as an 'ism...like anti-American Systemism, if you will, as these pages are doing. These personal attacks are defamation of character and obvious bias attacks. LaRouche is an economist who embraces the American System of economics. He is also a Democrat, and advocate for certain progressive causes including being against Alito on the court. Perot is a successful businessman who desired to help the country and offered solutions that people did not vote for in the end, but he does not deserve personal attack or lumping him with the likes of Nazis, Fascists, or other tyrannical regimes. Neither does Buchanan who is no different from other Republicans except he does not toe the line on foreign policy (he holds to the traditional policy of neutrality expressed by Washington in his Farewell Address mostly) or economics (he holds to the American System (Philadelphia School) of Economics of Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Carey, Lincoln, President McKinley and so forth.
• Fifth, I am an educated man holding a degree in Political Science and History with particular concentration on American History. I have never heard of the word 'producerism' either in my field or in sociology before, except here and on a website linked from here that is quite odd and does not contain a DEFINITION of PRODUCERISM that fits the men and the philosophies already mentioned making this article even more suspicious! The 'producerism' page wishes to give a negative impression to anyone who believes not in laissez faire Adam Smith economics (Austrian School) or Planned Economy Communist economics (Marxist School) but in Traditional Capitalism or American System (Philadelphia School) of economics as practiced by our nation prior to the 1970's, by associating it with such things as Nazis, Fascists, Communists and other negative groups whose sin was Tyranny (see below).
• Sixth, and this is a problem on the Fascism links as well...Fascism's main point is rule by an elite or single man combined with private ownership of corporations (sometimes less so as in Fascist Italy that was more Socialistic in nature). Like Communism, it is a TYRANNY, not because it attempts to regulate the economy in this way or that (as many philosophies share the same traits depending on belief see Association fallacy on Wikipedia) but because of its restriction on individual LIBERTY (the freedom to do all you wish to do so long as no physical harm is done to others) or invasions into ones private life. Not understanding this causes confusion and allows attackers of any belief system to try to lump different political philosophies through a GUILT BY ASSOCIATION technique trying to discredit them.
• Seventh, an article in Wikipedia should be as neutral as possible, simply description with true example etc. It should not be made up stuff, (any 'ISM could be proposed then!) in order to attack people like Mr. Larouche (your personal page states your crusade against another 'ism Larouchism? Everything isn't an 'ism!) or Perot or Buchanan or by association some of America's Founder's like 1st U.S. Treasury Secretary Hamilton or America's Father's like President Lincoln who believed the same way as the before mentioned men on economic matters. READ Report on Manufactures, Harmony of Interest for historic examples of the American System or traditional capitalism practiced in the USA to see primary sources. You may also check out the Wikipedia link to American System) which I've also been editing to make it accurate and up to date on facts, though it still needs improvement so as to be neutral in points and to add links to the historic examples and primary sources available on the web from credible sources like Universities.

"""It does not follow the FIVE PILLARS. Guilt by Association is not Truth nor Fact. Lumping different people or groups together no matter the fancy word used for a purpose to discredit what someone does not believe is as wrong as the Nazis blaming the Jews for all of Germany's evils or for controlling the banks through Guilt by Association techniques!"""

• Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 20:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Northmeister, next time you might want to try brevity in explaining things here, as this is somewhat overwhelming, IMHO. In any case, I do agree that the page does violate all that you've mentioned, and it would take a valiant and lengthy effort to rewrite this into something NPOV. Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 20:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Is this for the deletion of Producerism, Conspiracism, or both? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It is for both (if that is how it works). --Northmeister 00:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Both. The articles are well-referenced and supported by citations. Both terms are clearly defined and enjoy academic use, with conspiracism somewhat more common than producerism. I don't follow the logic connecting the two pages, or urging their deletion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If you see who created both pages the connection is obvious that both are self promotions of his theories and who he connects them to and not objective in the least.--Northmeister 01:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Both. --Cberlet 04:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Producerism. I did not create the page on producerism, contrary to the false claim by Northmeister. The term is used in political science, history, and sociology, not as a guilt by association canard, contrary to the false and hyperbolic claims by Northmeister. Academic cites are listed on the page. Conspiracism. A term used in academia, and popularized by Mintz, an academic. This is another attempt by a fan of convicted criminal and crackpot Lyndon LaRouche to delete material that is critical of the type of conspiracy theories and dubious right-wing populist economic theories promoted by the LaRouchites; such as their idiosyncratic analysis of the "American System" political tradition. Academic cites are listed on the page.--Cberlet 04:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Tom Harrison. --bainer (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Both pages have cites to known marxist oriented (see their links for proof) and left wing political sites. I am NOT an advocate for Lyndone LaRouche except as to prevent character assassination from Cbert and synarchists like him, where does that come from? and personal attacks like that with no proof is not right for a forum like this? If you see the so-called "academic" links on the producerism and conspiracism page they are from the same site "The Public Eye" an advocacy site, not an academic site or credible source, and other authors listed write for that site. Some articles listed have nothing to do with the topic but talk of 'Populism', yet are listed as if they speak of Producerism in word. I do not make links to political sites or advocacy and neither should those links be listed as credible, they have an axe to grind just look at his diatribes against people he calls 'Right Wing'. Calling me right wing is like calling Marx a Capitalist, give me a break. Guilt By Association folks is not Facts and he does it again towards me, trying to link me to LaRouche. Check the site of his out you will see its marxist sentiment. --Northmeister 14:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Please make sure that you have fully read and fully understood Wikipedia's NPOV policy. While the articles in question may be biased towards a particular point of view, it is not correct to attempt to remove information quoted from verifiable sources, no matter how much you believe that those sources are in error and unfair. Wikipedia's neutrality does not mean that controversial topics cannot be addressed, or that controversial opinions and point of views cannot be presented (if they are notable); it means that such views must be attributed to those who hold them, and presented fairly, without asserting that any particular view is right. - If you hold an opinion that conflicts with the text, and you can come up with your own sources that back up this different opinion, by all means, go ahead and add this dissenting viewpoint to the article. If you believe that the article is biased and favors a particular viewpoint, go ahead and remove the bias; please read the NPOV tutorial on how to do that. However, you should not try to prevent significant viewpoints from being presented, no matter how strongly you disagree with them. 62.245.80.251 20:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I am the creator of the Producerism article, not Chip Berlet. Politically yes I admit I am left-wing but I consider myself sympathetic to Producerism. I don't think the article is biased against it. For some reason it has been targeted by the LaRouche people... I have no idea why. Who has any idea why they do anything? Probably they have some feud with Berlet. Mjk2357 03:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No sufficient reasons for deletion have been provided. -Will Beback 04:53, 10 February 2006
• Keep As above no good reason to delete. --The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of Wiktionary 21:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep No reason to delete either article, I fond them both well written, sourced and informative on a particular aspect that is not widely known today but nonetheless important in socio-politics. Piecraft 12:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment See the talk page on Producerism for more info on my objections. So far people wish to keep, and I am willing to keep that one if it is fixed or explained better. On the Conspiracism I have this to offer for your consideration:

• As per Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so-called "experts" are not to cite themselves and avoid neologisms.
• The Conspiracism article was created by User:Cberlet, aka Chip Berlet, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conspiracism&diff=38669244&oldid=9289545 Berlet cites himself http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conspiracism&diff=25614686&oldid=25614043 and an external link from the Chip Berlet article, "Finding Our Way Out of Oklahoma", by Adam Parfrey, Alternative Press Review, Winter 1996 http://www.altpr.org/apr7/oklahoma.html attributes this neologism to Chip Berlet, in violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms Other sources available on the internet also corroborate Chip Berlet is the author of this neologism.--Northmeister 23:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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.