Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coercive monopoly
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 01:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This concept does not exist in a form well-enough defined or widely-enough used to justify an article. The article's creation looks like an exercise in POV-pushing (see main user's involvement with coercion and natural monopoly for that user's point of view) - which seems to have been rather successful. Almost every single usage of the term in the sense described the article is traceable either to wikipedia's article or to people who use it informally (blogs etc) and have probably picked it up from there.[1] A single-figure number of more serious uses (usually with actual or implied inverted commas) do not justify the article. An encylopedia is supposed to reflect existing knowledge, and the very existence of the article makes a claim to an existence of an established concept, which claim is simply untrue. The actual meaning of the phrase "coercive monopoly" is "a monopoly on the use of coercion", in discussions of the state. Rd232 17:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Addition. I've only just bothered to read the article - I'd nominated on the conceptual issue alone. Frankly, regardless of the conceptual issue, the article is even more transparently a POV fork of government-granted monopoly and/or natural monopoly than I'd expected. Read the whole article - it's obvious. Rd232 14:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is what we've come to expect from you. You put up an article for deletion without even bothering to read it. RJII 13:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And what I've come to expect from you. As I said, "I'd nominated on the conceptual issue alone". The article content being bad merely reinforces the nomination, but doesn't make much difference. Or is there some level above "deletion" I don't know about? Votes for hyperdeletion perhaps, deleting nonsense from parallel universes? Rd232 10:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, you nominated based on the concept interfering with your POV. RJII 15:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And what I've come to expect from you. As I said, "I'd nominated on the conceptual issue alone". The article content being bad merely reinforces the nomination, but doesn't make much difference. Or is there some level above "deletion" I don't know about? Votes for hyperdeletion perhaps, deleting nonsense from parallel universes? Rd232 10:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is what we've come to expect from you. You put up an article for deletion without even bothering to read it. RJII 13:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Pathetic attempt at censorship. Everybody with a tangential knowledge in economics knows the term "coercive monopoly." It's a real term and a real concept. RJII 20:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment rather than deriding the nominator, can you show general usage of the term? I consider myself to have a tangential knowledge of economics but I'm not familiar with it. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't ordinarly deride the nominator, but he took a swipe at me in his comment above and accused me of POV pushing. He's lost all credibility in my eyes. See some of the external links in the article for general usage. This paper by Alan Greenspan is interesting: [2] RJII 21:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment rather than deriding the nominator, can you show general usage of the term? I consider myself to have a tangential knowledge of economics but I'm not familiar with it. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In view of my experience with RJII in the past, merely noting articles I've seen him involved with was quite restrained. As for the Greenspan link, this is another (occasional) usage of "coercive monopoly" which does not support the existence of an independent article, because it is used synonymously with government-granted monopoly. Funnily enough, for a year coercive monopoly was a redirect to that - before RJII came along and started defining it as something there is little evidence for. And as RJII brings up credibility; this sort of thing is (in my experience) typical of him - using isolated examples that don't prove his case to support sweeping generalisations. Rd232 22:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In my experience with R2d2, he has fought allowing any mention of pro-capitalist laissez-faire arguments in articles he edits. For example, in natural monopoly I had to fight tooth and nail to even mention that not everyone agrees that natural monopoly is a legitimate argument. Finally there is a paragraph in that article presenting the laissez-faire position. Obviously, here he thinks that an article identifying the term "coercive monopoly" is a threat to his POV as well. He wants it deleted as if the concept and term does not even exist. What is he afraid of? Maybe he works as an economic regulator? RJII 22:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Pt 2: Maybe mediation between the two of you is a better venue than AfD? — Lomn | Talk / RfC 22:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No need - RJII's behaviour has caused me to cease editing all articles in which he has an interest (with the recent exception of natural monopoly because this is one of the first articles I was involved with and harboured ambitions to make Featured, until RJII's involvement made me give up on that - as an alternative to giving up on Wikipedia altogether). Rd232 09:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is coming from a guy who can't stand to let anyone else contribute to an article. He seems to have ambitions of being the sole editor of any article he edits and not allowing any contributions from others. He is not an editor consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia at all. Hopefully, he'll eventually get a glimpse of what Wikipedia is about. His attempt to delete this perfectly legitimate article is just another attempt at trying to use any means possible to 'monopolize Wikipedia. RJII 13:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ROTFLMAO - an excellent application of the first law of politics: "always accuse your opponent of your own most obvious flaw". Rd232 14:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is coming from a guy who can't stand to let anyone else contribute to an article. He seems to have ambitions of being the sole editor of any article he edits and not allowing any contributions from others. He is not an editor consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia at all. Hopefully, he'll eventually get a glimpse of what Wikipedia is about. His attempt to delete this perfectly legitimate article is just another attempt at trying to use any means possible to 'monopolize Wikipedia. RJII 13:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No need - RJII's behaviour has caused me to cease editing all articles in which he has an interest (with the recent exception of natural monopoly because this is one of the first articles I was involved with and harboured ambitions to make Featured, until RJII's involvement made me give up on that - as an alternative to giving up on Wikipedia altogether). Rd232 09:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Pt 2: Maybe mediation between the two of you is a better venue than AfD? — Lomn | Talk / RfC 22:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In my experience with R2d2, he has fought allowing any mention of pro-capitalist laissez-faire arguments in articles he edits. For example, in natural monopoly I had to fight tooth and nail to even mention that not everyone agrees that natural monopoly is a legitimate argument. Finally there is a paragraph in that article presenting the laissez-faire position. Obviously, here he thinks that an article identifying the term "coercive monopoly" is a threat to his POV as well. He wants it deleted as if the concept and term does not even exist. What is he afraid of? Maybe he works as an economic regulator? RJII 22:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While I had not heard of the term prior to the article, it did not read to me as POV-push or fabrication, and I felt I learned something from it. I don't see how the Google link proves that the Wiki entry creates the term, rather than documenting an existing one. That is speculation. A search on my part showed that this term was used by Ayn Rand in an article on antitrust [3]. While she used it in conjunction with government-regulated monopolies, the term certainly predates Wikipedia. Perhaps this is an politically sensitive & economically debateable term. But it exists independent of this site and I think it deserves entry, not deletion. (My first post here ever, so please forgive errors.)
- It exists, but not as a well-established or well-defined concept - see my remarks above. Rd232 09:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a false remark from from the nominator. The term is very well defined and conceived. It's a monopoly that is maintained by the use of coercion, rather than by any other method, such as competitiveness. Very simple. RJII 13:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- religious monopoly - a monopoly based on religious faith in a product or company; deistic monopoly - a monopoly maintained by acts of god; and so on and so forth. All well definable, yet not well-established and therefore non-encyclopedic. Rd232 14:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I should point out that I do see a potential use for the term "coercive monopoly", in relation to things like the mafia. But the creation of an article which lumps together mafia and government is so jawdroppingly POV I'm disappointed people don't seem to recognise it. And regardless of whether a mafia-related usage would be useful, such usage is not established, and it is not up to Wikipedia to establish it. Rd232 14:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it "jawdropping" that you can't stomach the fact that governments engage in coercion. "Coercive monopoly" is a well-established term thas has been in use in political and economic philosophy for a least 50 years. And, if I'm not mistaken it was in use even over 100 years ago in political-economic philosophy of some liberals --I'll have to make sure on that. Admittedly, if your education is limited to that supplied by a university, you might not have been exposed to it. RJII 15:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Vague claims are cheap. Demonstrate. That's the Wikipedia way; that's how articles get improved. Rd232 18:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No need. There is enough information and links in the article to show that it's a real word and concept. I'm not fooled into thinking you have the slighest interest in improving Wikipedia --in the sense of exposing all knowledge. RJII 18:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the four external links, Greenspan is addressed above and DiLorenzo is about natural monopoly. Incidentally, Special:Contributions/Rd232. Rd232 08:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No need. There is enough information and links in the article to show that it's a real word and concept. I'm not fooled into thinking you have the slighest interest in improving Wikipedia --in the sense of exposing all knowledge. RJII 18:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Vague claims are cheap. Demonstrate. That's the Wikipedia way; that's how articles get improved. Rd232 18:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it "jawdropping" that you can't stomach the fact that governments engage in coercion. "Coercive monopoly" is a well-established term thas has been in use in political and economic philosophy for a least 50 years. And, if I'm not mistaken it was in use even over 100 years ago in political-economic philosophy of some liberals --I'll have to make sure on that. Admittedly, if your education is limited to that supplied by a university, you might not have been exposed to it. RJII 15:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a false remark from from the nominator. The term is very well defined and conceived. It's a monopoly that is maintained by the use of coercion, rather than by any other method, such as competitiveness. Very simple. RJII 13:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It exists, but not as a well-established or well-defined concept - see my remarks above. Rd232 09:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I haven't heard of the term either and a search on few economic glossaries & text books didn't return a result either. Rewriting to reflect only coercive practices of a monopolist or renaming the article to coercive practices of monopolies would address also the concern, the term is not invented. Pamri • Talk 10:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is an established concept. For example, Nathaniel Branden wrote about it in the The Objectivist Newsletter. here. This article seems to talk about it in much the same ways as Nathaniel Branden did back in 1962. Not everyone buys what he's selling but he's a respected author and political philosopher. Rx StrangeLove 00:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rd232 is correct in that the term is not used in mainstream economics, however there is a small but politicaly active group associated with Rand and the objectivist/laissez-faire camp that champion the concept. He is also correct that the term was created largely to advance a political agenda. However, I don't no if that is enough to warrant deletion. I would say keep only if the article explains who uses the term and why, otherwize delete. mydogategodshat 03:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Rd232 08:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how much more "mainstream" you can get than the chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan. RJII 13:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Now there's a shock - RJII missing the point. To recap what I said above on the Greenspan link: "this is another (occasional) usage of "coercive monopoly" which does not support the existence of an independent article, because it is used synonymously with government-granted monopoly." Rd232 22:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A government-granted monopoly is just one form of coercive monopoly. Not all coercive monopolies are necessarily government-granted monopolies. A coercive monopoly is one that coercively prohibits competition. It can include government-granted monopolies, government-monopolies, or firms not connected with government at all that are engaging in coercion to prevent competition. It would help if you would read an article before you nominate it for deletion. RJII 15:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently you are well-trained in the art of politics (ever read that book by Schopenhauer, or just picked it up off the TV?). Here we have "Ignore your opponent's arguments; engaging with him just makes it look like he might be right. Just repeat your position over and over." Rd232 17:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A government-granted monopoly is just one form of coercive monopoly. Not all coercive monopolies are necessarily government-granted monopolies. A coercive monopoly is one that coercively prohibits competition. It can include government-granted monopolies, government-monopolies, or firms not connected with government at all that are engaging in coercion to prevent competition. It would help if you would read an article before you nominate it for deletion. RJII 15:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Now there's a shock - RJII missing the point. To recap what I said above on the Greenspan link: "this is another (occasional) usage of "coercive monopoly" which does not support the existence of an independent article, because it is used synonymously with government-granted monopoly." Rd232 22:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep ··gracefool |☺ 19:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - neologism -- Arthur Rubin 00:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A neologism is "a new word, usage, or expression" (Merriam-Webster). Here we the see term used in 1962: [4]. If you think 1962 is recent, no offense, but you must be getting up in the years. 66.32.97.164 01:09, 27 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.