User talk:Caremerger
- == Edits to the corporatism article ==
Your edits to the corporatism have involved the insertion of very biased material into the article which is a violation of Wikipedia's policy of NPOV. You have repeatedly added material linking corporatism to fascism and authoritarianism while disregarding other material mentioned in the article about forms of corporatism based on voluntary association of corporate groups and that corporatist systems have been enacted with popular support in democratic countries. Please stop trying to put corporatism in a negative light, and recognize that there are a variety of forms of corporatism, some authoritarian and others more libertarian. Also, the use of other Wikipedia articles as references is not accepted by Wikipedia as reliable sources, the references must be linked to a source outside of Wikipedia.--R-41 (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Your edits to corporatism are biased and disingenuous, paint the concept of corporatism in a positive light. The evidence of this fact is that you have deleted any reference to fascism that has been presented, when clearly Mussolini's National Corporatism is an irrefutable historic event. I have neither placed good, bad, or pejorative values on Mussolini—only stated the facts—which you have deleted.
- Furthermore, corporatism can only exist as the result of government force through sovereignly immune laws. If sovereign Immunity does not grant authority, then authority does not exist. Therefore, it is you who has bias, not me.
- You have deleted even references that I have linked from outside of Wikipedia. This, as I understand it, is completely outside of Wikipedia's guidelines. Please stop doing that.--Caremerger (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have not sought to minimize the fact that fascism included a corporatist economic system, I earlier put in a reference from a book by Howard Wiarda, a scholar on corporatism, that identified fascism, among a number of other ideologies as well. I do not believe that I have deleted any "facts" from the article, as the article contains a large portion on the topic of fascist corporatism that I have made no edits to in a long time. My concern is that your edits have overemphasized the application of corporatism by fascism, as many other ideologies have supported corporatism, including absolutists, Christian democrats, conservatives, liberals, progressives, reactionaries,and social democrats. To emphasize the fascist application of corporatism appears to be lumping many other non-fascist supporters of corporatism into the same category. I am sure that modern-day Christian democratic, conservative, liberal, and social democratic corporatists in Europe would disagree with identifying fascism as the main hub of corporatism. I have looked into the website you provided on state immunity and understand what you are trying to say, that corporatism appears to be identified with state supremacy in political affairs that places it outside of possibility to be reprimanded. Indeed I think you and I would actually agree on the point that state-sponsored corporatism has serious drawbacks especially in its application in state corporatism that typically allows the state to exert a dominant position over corporate groups in the system. I suggest that you look into different meanings of the word "corporate" such as in its application to a corporate group as well looking into non-fascist forms of corporatism to gain a more complete understanding of the basis of corporatism.--R-41 (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Again, the definition of the word "corporatism" has no opinion on "serious drawbacks", likes, dislikes, or attachment to the ideology. It is a descriptive term that has been used throughout history. The fact that you have subordinated fascism and sovereign immunity out of the introductory paragraphs, when clearly it has added significant historical value to the word, indicates your personal bias. Clearly, the meaning of the word "corporatism" has evolved, as does the meanings of all words. Furthermore, holding the opinion that state corporatism demonstrates serious drawbacks when a state exerts a dominant position over that which it has licensed in the first place is an absurd argument.--Caremerger (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edits[edit]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case[edit]
|
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJII for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- The allegations are false. However, even if they were true, the points in the article have nothing to do with me, as a person.--Caremerger (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- The place to mount your defence is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJII, not here. User:LeadSongDog come howl 18:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Blocked as a sock puppet[edit]
You may contest this block by adding the text
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.US National Archives collaboration[edit]
 |
United States National Archives WikiProject |
|---|---|
|