Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-luddism

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:04, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Neo-luddism

Sloppily-written, irredemably POV. I know of no persons or organizations who identify themselves as "neo-Luddite" - this is just a smear term. An entry on List of political epithets should be sufficient. This article is just a rant against individuals and organizations that various contributors disagree with. Firebug 22:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. A Google search for "neo-luddite" yields 24,000 hits. The term is in common usage in by some proponents; it's in the title of Theodore Roszak's "The Cult of Information: A Neo-Luddite Treatise on High Tech, Artificial Intelligence, and the True Art of Thinking" and is used frequently in the text of Kirkpatrick Sale's "Rebels Against the Future: The Luddites and Their War on the Industrial Revolution: Lessons for the Computer Age." While the article may be sloppily written, the subject is encyclopedic and should be made to conform with NPOV by avenues other than deletion. ElBenevolente 22:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. While vanishingly few people would claim themselves as 'neo-Luddite', it's reasonable enough to have a page discussing the concept and why some people are accused by their opponents of it. David | Talk 22:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Luddite, which already mentions this term. This list of purported neo-Luddite groups and activities is original research. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S. the article's talk page has an extensive discussion of the relevance (or existence) of the topic —Wahoofive (talk) 00:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Important topic, and if it's POV, it can be fixed. People like Kass and Fukuyama may not refer to themselves as neo-Luddites, but I've heard them called such by people all over the political map. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:11, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • I sympathise with this view, but have you read the article? It's such a mess I doubt it's fixable. Full of statements like this: "Infoshop.org is one of a number of propaganda fronts which simultaneously promote luddism and deny that it is any sort of organized movement, much like how Sinn Fein denied for decades any connection to the IRA." And: "Both have labelled the philosophy of transhumanism as, "the world's most dangerous idea," despite the fact that no transhumanist has ever attacked or sabotaged anyone or anything, while so far, leftist neo-luddites do so as a matter of right[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkeywrenching)." Can anyone seriously claim that this is NPOV? Firebug 03:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • No one needs to claim that inflammatory crap is NPOV. An NPOV article can be written about neo-luddism. Some of the information currently in the article is useful; there's no need to start from scratch. (Personally, I think the "prominent neo-luddites" section is useful, though I agree that sources are needed.) AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:41, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless this article gets a complete NPOV rewrite sometime within the next few days. As written it's just plain propoganda and full of errors. Kaibabsquirrel 03:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Luddite per Wahoofive, this could easily be covered there, and in a much better way. Prefixing "neo-" to an existing term doesn't really make it a new concept in any important way. It's just a neology. :D --Unfocused 05:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No, the two concepts are separate. Luddites were English workers in the 1800s. Neo-luddism is a modern movement. I don't necessarily disagree that both things couldn't be covered in one article, but would you delete Neoclassicalism for the same reason? AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 05:07, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • All right, you logic bombed me. Good shot. Neoclassicalism is a distinct movement based on imitation of ideal archetypes. But neo-luddites and luddites have the same underlying ideas and belief systems, so I don't think they're distinct enough for separate articles. I ask myself, if I were reading the luddite article, would I want to know how these exact same principles apply in the modern world? Yes. If I were reading the neo-luddite article, would I want to know the origin of these beliefs? Yes. Is there too much content for one article? No. So redirect and merge what's salvagable from the "neo" version. Re-read the neo-luddism article. Is there any sentence that has it's meaning changed by removing the "neo-"? I don't see any. --Unfocused 05:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Like I said, I don't necessarily disagree with you on the merge. I was just reacting to what seemed to me as a rather flippant dismissal of the article's subject just because it starts with neo-. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 05:49, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV rant. JamesBurns 05:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep: Fascinating subject of substantive, increasing importance. The intolerance demonstrated by attempts to stamp out such competing philosophies is hardly surprising, and smacks of censorship. Ombudsman 06:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep per ElBenevolente et al. Samaritan 12:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge the factual items from this article into articles on the persons or groups referenced, i.e. Earth Liberation Front, whose activities are extensively documented here, as well as articles on Kass, Fukuyama, Ehrlich, Capra, Meadows, etc. Then delete the neo-luddism article or redirect it to Anarcho-primitivism, and possibly transwiki a definition of neo-luddism in Wiktionary. Problems as I see them with this article:

1. 1. The neo-luddism article is categorized under "social philosophy" but attempts to describe a specific political movement. The social philosophy is well-treated under Anarcho-primitivism.
   2. The neo-luddism article presents facts and allegations about the separate actions and beliefs of individuals, groups, and organizations, but so far does not provide any specific evidence that these individuals, groups, and organizations are coordinated or related in any way in a single coherent "network" or "movement". Lukethelibrarian 18:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. Topic with encyclopedic potential.Capitalistroadster 06:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. POVness can be fixed, it's not ground for deletion. Alfio 16:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. User:Firebug has engaged in a campaign of cyberstalking of me on wikipedia and is pursuing a political agenda. He may be a sockpuppet of User:Meelar. Deletion is a vote to suppress important information about a dangerous movement, its prominent sympathizers, members, etc and the groups involved. Supression of information for political purposes should not be what wikipedia is about.Mlorrey 18:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Neither should inclusion of information for political purposes. A vote for deletion is not necessarily a vote to suppress information; it may be a vote to preserve the purpose of Wikipedia. The fact that you argue for keeping the article on the basis of the "dangerous" nature of the alleged movement instead of the encyclopedic nature of the subject suggests that if this article is kept, it is going to need ongoing attention and contributions from a wide variety of editors to eventually grow into an informative NPOV article (as suggested by a number of the "keep" votes above). Lukethelibrarian 19:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. While User:Mlorrey is apparently incapable of distinguishing NPOV from his own political agenda, Neo-luddism is an important movement especially as it has impacted the field of bioethics. Many important political movements of the past two decades have derived from Neo-luddite thought and whether or not you agree with those movements has no bearing on their importance.BrentN 01:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Distinct term. Madd4Max 12:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid term. Who is John Galt? 13:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This user's first and only Wikipedia edit Kaibabsquirrel 00:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.