RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Mezionism

Mezionism | Result: Keep

Mezionism (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. This article does a piss-poor job of justifying its own existence let alone explaining what it is about I am not the Ombud's man 17:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep

1. I'm the author i will be building article further. mezionism is a neologism for "messianic democracy" which was outlined by J.L Talmon in 1952 Kashifv (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

   What's messianic democracy? I am not the Ombud's man 23:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

   It's totalitarian democracy as outlined by J.L Tamon in his critique of Rousseau Kashifv (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

   This type of answer is not exactly helpful. If you do not want to or feal unable to spell it out at the very least you could point to a good source on the topic. I am not the Ombud's man 01:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

2. Keep, but change the name to either totalitarian democracy or Authoritarian democracy. Mezionism seems to be an obscure term for a concept that other names describe much better. Bicycle^wheel 07:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

   Agreed, 'Mezionism' seems like a brand name. I will provide more reference of its use. Kashifv (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC).

   The page has been moved, so now we can discuss its content rather than its title. Bicycle^wheel 12:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

3. PBfreespace (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
4. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

• Couldn't this just as well go in the authoritarianism article? Though, it will need to explain itself clearer, what with all the sources it uses no less. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Goat

• Being an orphan isn't a great sign, but it's certainly missional: authoritarian representative democracy is a class of authoritarian ideology. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• It probably shouldn't be titled with a neologism that nobody uses, especially as there are other more or less descriptive phrases like "Totalitarian Democracy" that could be used. Annquin (talk) 11:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I am sorry for being stupid, but what is a totalitarian democracy? I am not the Ombud's man 17:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
    • It's one where the systems at play, in spite of being a democracy in some measurable ways, still lend themselves towards a totalitarian structure of government. For example: the way the Supreme leader in Iran gets to personally veto all candidates for office, including the Islamic Council(which elects the subsequent supreme leader). That system, in spite of being nominally a constitutional democracy creates a system wherein totalitarian control of power is both possible and incentivized. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
      • But isn't the Iranian regime described much better by the term "theocracy"? Also the term does not seem to describe any real ideology or system of government. I am not the Ombud's man 18:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
        • That's a bit like saying "Isn't the US a bicameral legislature?" as if it implies we don't have a court system. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
          • That's just silly. Iran leaves very little doubt about who wields the real power. And that's those who claim to represent god. In the US there is very little doubt that the bicameral legislature while important does not call all the shots. There is also the President and the Supreme Court and in the ideal US they would check and balance one another, but in the real US the President mostly dominates the conversation if not the legislation. I am not the Ombud's man 16:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
            • 'Mezionism' IS a neologism; however the term correctly references the Zionist arc of J.L. Talmon's inception of totalitarian democracy. Kashifv (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It's da Jooz! It's always da Jooz. Why did I get the hunch that "Zionism" wasn't there by accident? I am not the Ombud's man 22:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Do "totalitarian democracies" exist in the real world or are they just a theoretical fantasy? And if they do exist in the real world, can we have some examples, along with justification of why this term is a useful way of describing those examples? I've heard Iran mentioned, but I'm unconvinced that "totalitarian democracy" is the appropriate term to describe the current Iranian system – theocracy, or theodemocracy are likely better terms. There also seems to be some suggestion of applying the term to Israel, but, whatever faults Israel may have, "totalitarian" is scarcely the right word to apply to it. If a term has no real world referents, is there any point to it? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• the political scientist who described totalitarian democracy is Israeli it was his "judaization" of fascism (NOT a criticism of Israel). No known example of mezionism at a state level anywhere in the world. 74.95.6.5 (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • If it has never existed, and (unlike communism) no one of significance has ever even advocated it – why bother talking about it? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Communism doesn't exist in the real world but we still talk about it.^{— Unsigned, by: 174.218.136.179 / talk}

A number of governments, real world political parties and armed revolutionary groups have all claimed communism as their ultimate goal. Who has ever claimed to be working towards establishing a "mezionist" or "totalitarian democracy" society? This is why this topic is obscure political science navelgazing in a way in which communism isn't. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)