Talk:Inverted totalitarianism

sources

atm this page lacks secondary sources and is mainly made of primary research derived from 2 books by the same author. To establish notibility other sources are needed to show that this veiw is held by other ppl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digmores (talk • contribs) 00:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Based on No Original Research, Primary sources, and Secondary sources, there is little doubt that the two books cited are secondary sources. No Original Research states: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources." That is exactly what this article is based on, and as far as I can tell, it is adequately referenced.

Therefore, unless I'm missing something, according to Wikipedia's official criteria, no plausible and coherent case that this article contains original research can be made. No Original Research also states:

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must be able to cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that citations must be added for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.

All of these criteria are met. The sources cited cannot be more directly related to the topic of the article, since these two books are the main published works where the concept that the article is about is developed. -- Herzen (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I may have been hasty in calling this original research and i do apoligise if have caused offense, but still this article needs extra sourcing.

this page seems to me to be an article postulating the veiws of a certain individual and then using sources that he has written on his views to justify them. there are mentions of people such as Hanna Arendt (but no sources on his work and views) there is writing on eisenhower and the miltary industrial complex (there are no sources for them).

what my real purpose was to communicate that this article needs a more wide variety of sources i.e. other writers who have the same views and sources that confirm his observations

for example:

There are three main ways in which inverted totalitarianism is the inverted form of classical totalitarianism. First, whereas in Nazi Germany the state dominated economic actors, under Superpower, corporations dominate the state, with the government acting as the servant of large corporations and of what Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex. That the federal government sees corporations as its constituency rather than citizens is ensured by the huge amount of money required to attain federal office, in a system in which corporate lobbyists have an inordinate amount of influence in Washington, something which is considered not to be corruption, but "normal". Second, while the Nazi regime aimed at the constant political mobilization of the population, with its rallies, Hitler Youth, and so on, inverted totalitarianism aims for the mass of the population to be in a persistent state of political apathy. The only type of political activity expected or desired from the citizenry (now called the "electorate") is voting; low electoral turnouts are not seen as signs for concern about a weak democracy, but favorably received as an indication that the bulk of the population has given up hope that the government will ever help them. Third, while the Nazis openly mocked democracy, Superpower maintains the conceit that it is the model of democracy for the whole world:

the section above may or may not be true the reader and other contributers cannot be sure that things such things as miltary-industrial complex because it is not sourced (for the record i know from my own knowledge that statements in the section above are true)

not that im being mean nasty or anything like that but there are people on wiki who will remove this article for lack of sources I just meant to communicate that before one of those people came along and binned it.

if you would like any advice help or support i would be happy to offer it.

Digmores (talk) 05:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

http://novusconfidential.wordpress.com/2013/12/04/93/

Apparently I have not got the standing or in-depth knowledge needed to deal with the changes which have recently taken place wrt this page. I've attempted to contact Mr Wolin to no avail (understanding that the author is quite advanced in years now) and I've also attempted to contact Mr Corey Robin whom I believe is most knowledgeable about this theory, to no avail at the present time. So it will take some time to get the wiki page corrected, that is, according to the theory, and not based upon some personal opinion of Mr Wolin's work, so please be patient while work is in progress, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.157.28 (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

“Forms of government” template

Since it is very long, does someone know how to edit “Forms of government” template to give it a show/hide option? --Loremaster (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarification needed

The lead section needs to define inverted totalitarianism. It hints at it, but doesn't really say what the term means. The rest of the article is really jumbled too, and does not flow in a clear way.Spylab (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Still lacking explanation of how the name applies. —Tamfang (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed - took a couple passes at the article to try and improve it, but still ended up having to add a neutrality template as the article still has gaps in its discussion of the term. Superb Owl (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

As of now, the first sentence in the lede calls it a system and the second calls it a theory; which is it? JDZeff (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Notability

Because of the doubts expressed above, I have added a notability tag. Biscuittin (talk) 10:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to mention that the Irony of ironies will be your deletion of this article. Which is probably the best thing for it, as it will bring a massive Streisand Effect. 177.142.123.172 (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not a notable concept. One notable academic using it is not adequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

this page is all primary sources, needs criticism -- and please be careful to maintain neutral voice

This page formerly read like an essay written by someone who buys Wolin's views lock stock and barrel. In reality Wolin is expressing a viewpoint that is typical among the far left (in fact very much like Chomsky's book "Manufacturing Consent") but considered extreme and unrealistic by almost everyone else. I have tried to rewrite this page to be speak from a neutral voice. If you edit this page (that means any of you editing this page, especially if you believe Wolin's views), be very careful to maintain this neutral voice. This means that you must attribute all claims to Wolin (or whoever else makes them) rather than simply expressing them as fact, and you must avoid terms like capitalized "Superpower" in favor of neutral phrasing (i.e. "the United States").

Furthermore, this page is entirely primary sources. This is a big no-no in Wikipedia. It's critical that someone add sources that contain criticism, discussion, and summarization of Wolin's views. If no such sources exist, that indicates that this concept is not notable.

Benwing (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW in response to the user above who claimed that Wolin's book is a secondary source, you're totally misunderstanding the concept of primary and secondary sources. The concept of "inverted totalitarianism" was invented by Wolin. Therefore Wolin's book is a primary source for this concept because there isn't any source that's more primary. Simple as that. Note the following from Primary sources#Classifying sources:

Investigative journalism, for example, is a primary source of information. A book review, when it contains the opinion of the reviewer about the book rather than a summary of the book, becomes a primary source.

Benwing (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

////I would like to note as a random user that left and right are non-existent. It is just people generalizing.

Sources to add

These are reliable sources concerning inverted totalitaranism.

• Chris Hedges (primary source)
• Sheldon S. Wolin (primary source)
• Jeffrey W. Robbins
• Luke Bretherton
• Robert L. Ivie
• Nicolas J.S. Davies
• Wendy Brown
• Alex Carey, Andrew Lohrey

We should add them to avoid strange "notability" warning. Mc laudt (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Here we have 185 additional citations of the book: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=16672122981229525638&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en Strange "notability" warning indeed 177.142.123.172 (talk) 05:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

All except the first of the book references say only "Wolin uses the term 'inverted totalitarianism'" or quote Wolin's title. Please find references which actually use the term rather than quoting it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mc laudt and 177.142.123.172 that the strange 'notability' tag should be removed:

• Could the editor please explain and clarify the criteria necessitating the use of the term rather than quoting it. This criteria does not seem to appear in Wikipedia:Notability. For example, Chris Hedges (see below) uses the term often in his articles and interviews, but always, without exception, Hedges first gives credit to Wolin for the term. It is a matter of courtesy, proper referencing and giving proper credit to the original creator of the term. Thank you in advance for clarifying.
• The book Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism by Wolin (the source of most of the citations in the article) is the winner of a 2008 Lannan Literary Award: specifically, a Lannan Award for an Especially Notable Book
• The article contains citations from several reliable secondary sources (involving Chris Hedges): specifically, the two books by Chris Hedges, the article in Truth Dig by Hedges, and The Real News Network interview with Hedges.

See also:

• "Inverted Totalitarianism" by Sheldon Wolin. Article published in The Nation magazine May 19, 2003
• "A Kind of Fascism Is Replacing Our Democracy" by Sheldon S. Wolin. Article published on Friday, July 18, 2003 by Long Island NY Newsday, archived at Common Dreams website

It seems there is something like a consensus that the article easily meets Wikipedia:Notability. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Bias

"While the Nazis openly mocked democracy, the United States maintains the conceit that it is the model of democracy for the whole world."

I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment, but -- in the interests of intellectual integrity -- that is just MY opinion, and perhaps the opinion of as many as several billion other people. It is largely irrelevant that I agree this is a conceited position. I'd prefer to read this in a less biased tone.

I think the statement should either be re-written, or it should be quoted, in order to avoid Wikipedia sounding slanted.

68.190.23.42 (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The statement is within a bullet point headed "According to Wolin." What concerns me more is that the statement is followed by a lengthy quote from Wolin explaining the idea that was just summarized. Maybe if that quote was removed it would make the preceding statement sound less biased? Smithbones (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Some neutrality problems

We should try to fix this article's neutrality problems. I cannot fathom why any neutral editor might think we should repeat this at face value. bobrayner (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That is not a neutrality problem at all. This article is about a concept developed by someone who is an authority in his field. The edit you referred to accurately represents "inverted totalitarianism", as that concept has been presented by its creator. Sorry, but I don't get the impression that you understand what neutrality means. – Herzen (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but attribution can be made more explicit for editors like Bobrayner who find it ambiguous. BTW, whichever editor wrote "the state of insecurity in which this places the public serves the useful function of making people feel helpless, thus making it less likely they will become politically active, and thus helping to maintain the first dynamic" please stand up. I would like to give you a barnstar. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It is mindboggling that editors believe we should be linking to conspiracy-theory ranters like globalresearch.ca. bobrayner (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I have read Johnson's book review when it first appeared in Truthdig, a reliable source. It seems Johnson's book review appeared in Globalresearch.ca four days after it first appeared in Truthdig in May 2008, and that the GlobalResearch.ca source has been added to the 'external links' section of the WP article in January 2010‎. I do not read GlobalResearch.ca and was not aware that, according to Bob (and according to the WP article on GR.ca), it propagates conspiracy theories, and is not RS. Thank you Bob for alerting me to the problematic nature of globalresearch.ca. I've modified the WP article content to cite the original book review in Truthdig. Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Reception POV problems

What happened to the criticism of the book or term; all we have in the "reception" section is glowingly positive; I do not believe that those reviews are typical. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, but my quick glance reveals no missing attributions, which should be enough for our concerns. I just happened on this term, which MAY mean the damned MSM would reflexively call such talk 'Chomsky land' or conspiracy theory-like if they were to encounter this term at all. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin, I've taken a pass at the Reception section to give it more balance in its views while removing Beijing and Moscow-funded publications (which are unreliable for politics).

Should Chris Hedges be considered an unreliable source after working for Russian state media (RT America) for 6 years? Superb Owl (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

yes 2600:480A:3A13:8A00:85E:222E:669C:888A (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Word Usage

Please change "Outsourcing" to the word "Offshoring" -- true that the latter is a specific instance of the former, but outsourcing is not nearly as problematic generally as offshoring, which outsources jobs overseas out of reach of American workers, which was what the author was really trying to say. Minor, perhaps, but I think it helps build the argument better. Thanks. 73.192.234.85 (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Is the usage of "Herrenvolk" under the first paragraph part of a quote? If it isn't, it should be chaged to "Herrenrasse", since it is the more common and more directly associated term in German. I don'thave access to the original source. Analphabeth (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I have removed "Wolin belives", because he was a researcher, not a priest.

Corrected misunderstanding

I have changed "Wolin believes the United States resembles Nazi Germany in one major way without an inversion: the essential role propaganda plays in the system." because I cannot find anywhere he says so. Rather, he says that the US-propaganda system is the inverse of the Nazi-propaganda system. A quotation underpins this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjerke (talk • contribs) 08:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

I'm failing to see how recent edits by User:Superb Owl are an improvement. I don't understand why Edwin Kent Morris' paper arguing that Trumpism is a form inverted totalitarianism was removed. I also don't understand why we are giving undue weight to Arolda Elbasani as a critic when there's dozens of researchers saying exactly the opposite. I don't see a good reason not to rollback the current changes. Viriditas (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas, I removed Edwin Kent Morris since he published his paper without having any academic affiliation and the language felt inflammatory. Not opposed to putting it back if that is the consensus here but certainly not worth rolling back the dozens and dozens of other edits.

Arolda Elbasani was given extra weight on purpose as an effort to try and balance the NPOV of the article until additional critiques are added (UPDATE: removed Arolda Elbasani quote from lead after reading and citing other book reviews in reception that offer praise and criticism - will wait to summarize Reception section in the lead until gathering more sources). Superb Owl (talk) 05:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me, this argument appears disingenuous. Morris was associated with Radcliffe University shortly before the paper was published and was affiliated with Ferrum College after the paper was published. The paper has also been cited by other scholars in the field. Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Viriditas, can you please WP:Assume good faith and be more WP:Polite on this talk page?

I was just thinking citations might be a good metric to try and assess its notability - how many citations does it have? Superb Owl (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Google Scholar shows 16 citations. Viriditas (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

awesome, I'm fully on board with keeping it - apologies for not double-checking the talk page before adding that flag Superb Owl (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Have you read the paper? While I think Morris could have benefited from an editor, as some of his introductory material isn't needed and distracts from his subject, his 2019 paper is unbelievably prescient in its overall scope. He concludes, "Trumpism is the result of an indifferent American public increasingly oblivious to the difference between political fact and fiction, and a citizenry that does not seem to recognize, nor does it care to understand, why this heedlessness and indifference to politics is problematic in the first place." This is, writes Morris, exactly what Wolin was warning us about so many years ago. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

A while back but looking at my comments, it seems like the heated language made me think that the journal was likely not super reliable but am still learning how to vet academic sources (as you can tell). This seems like a primary source (somewhere between a blog post and a reputable peer-reviewed study). I have some concerns but hopefully we can find some more notable discussion of the term and not have to dive too deeply Superb Owl (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Viriditas regarding the removal of the Edwin Kent Morris paper and the undue weight given in the lead to the views of Arolda Elbasani. It looks like the latter has been addressed, and based on what I see discussed above I see no reason not to restore the Morris article to Further reading.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Superb Owl is still at it, trying to remove Morris from the article. It's hilariously ironic, since this kind of behavior is exactly what Wolin criticizes in Politics and Vision (1960)[2004]: "...the great "research universities" have become interlocked with corporate interests and with the propaganda machines represented by well-funded think tanks and conservative foundations...the most ominous development in the United States has been the virtual disappearance of dissident voices from the press and the media generally. The concentration of ownership of newspapers and radio and television stations in relatively few hands has produced a near-homogeneity of culture and opinion that, when it is not trivial, is either bland or stridently conservative." Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Completely forgot about this discussion @Viriditas - will remove the tag Superb Owl (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)