Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloward-Piven Strategy


 * 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 in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   No consensus (default keep).  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Cloward-Piven Strategy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Citations are entirely opinion pieces from unreliable sources like discoverthenetworks.com Bali ultimate (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. A few moments with google turns up scores of reliable sources concerning this idea:      . JulesH (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * cmt the first five you listed are clearly not reliable sources (all right wing mags/websites) the last might be a reliable source (cursory glance it appears to be an academic paper) accept nowhere does the term "Cloward-Piven Strategy" appear.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, the Washington Times is not a reliable source? Theseeker4 (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * cmt News articles in WT are probably ok. But op-eds, in WT or anywhere else, are certainly not rs (this particular one says sometihng about this "strategy" being used to have created the current financial crisis, in order to "destroy capitalism and support Mr. Obama." the whole thing looks like some weird right-wing meme.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The final source establishes only that there was a book written by Cloward and Piven in which the final chapter argued for this particular approach. There is no indication that it became a "strategy" or was ever known as such, that it would work, that anyone ever tried it, or that it is in any other way relevant to welfare in America.  The article repeats without any reliable sources a fringe theory that liberals have used the welfare system to bring financial ruin on America.  The article does not cover the fringe theory, it is the fringe theory.  I see no way the article could be reformed to meet WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV.  The correct way to report it would be to mention the subject an article about the book or the professors involved, but even there one would have to establish that it is a notable position of theirs.  Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Biased sources can be reliable sources, as long as we are careful to consider the bias of the source in its use. Unless you want to label them as "extremist", nothing on WP:RS discounts the use of the sources I provided. A large proportion of the notability of this topic is because it is a strategy that Barack Obama was accused of having used during his election campaign.  It was widely talked about in right wing sources of all kinds.  The ones I indicate are, I believe, generally respected publications, even if their bias is well known. While I wouldn't want to trust their opinions that Obama is involved with this strategy, I certainly would trust their descriptions of what it is.  And the fact that they make the accusation indicates notability.
 * As to the fact that the academic paper does not mention the strategy by name, this is somewhat unfortunate. It is, however, clearly discussing the same subject, and I don't see that the lack of use of a particular term means that this does not add to the notability of that subject. JulesH (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we don't elevate fodder of election-year attack politics into articles that presume that these things actually exist, nor is every claim coming out of the blogosphere a notable thing in its own right. Even far more reputable publications like Wall Street Journal or Fox News often carry editorials that coin concepts or arguments as attacks on people, organizations, or ideologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs) 15:49 15 December 2008  Stricken because it is now clear to me that this is more than election-year "fodder" - Wikidemon (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article is sourced -- and I use that term loosely -- almost entirely to "discoverthenetwork.org", which I challenge any rational observer to conclude is a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. -- Good Damon 19:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Weak keep - No reliable sources are offered, and I could find none in a google search, either for verifiability or weight. Further, the article seems to be part of a POV agenda.  Although there are indeed academics named Cloward and Piven who made an argument in one of their books, the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" as discussed above does not seem to actually exist, except as a term coined by a few bloggers and editorialists by way of bashing liberals who they claim are following it.  As a (hopefully neutral) analogy, suppose Oprah Winfrey writes that she can use her book club as a way to raise awareness of certain social issues in America, e.g. her opposition to factory farming.  If someone who opposed her on the issue, say a right wing think tank, wrote derisively about anti-farm liberals using an "Oprah strategy" of promoting books via book clubs, we would not write an article on "Oprah strategy."  It is not a strategy, just a statement of hers picked up as a political football.  Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ''Note - opinion changed from "delete" to "weak keep" in light of sources found by JeremyMcCracken. There are only a few, mostly redundant with each other, and some come from the promoters of the plan, but there does seem to be a small amount of discussion in academic / activist circles about this in the 1970s that got picked up later by conservative critics.  Given that the article is not bad at all as a brand new topic, but I think it should make clear that the "strategy" is a term given to a proposed action plan that was followed somewhat but not widely, as opposed to a new descriptive term given to a pre-existing phenomenon.  But that's a matter for ongoing editing, not an AfD discussion.Wikidemon (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep-It does seem notable.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep It has a handful of hits on g-books; I think there is enough discussion in print sources to make it notable. The sources currently there need work, though. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely not good enough. That the phrase "Cloward-Piven strategy" was used in several books doesn't mean anything, because the phrase seems to only refer to the strategy of flooding welfare rolls as a means of welfare reform, not as a means of bringing about "the demise of the capitalist system" as this article contends. The article would need to be rewritten as something like Cloward-Piven welfare reform stategy, and all of the existing text would need to be dumped. And with that, we would end up with an article about a deeply non-notable topic. So why bother keeping it? -- Good Damon 16:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about the rewrite- the abstract to the original article on The Nation's website (here) indicates they meant to implement "guaranteed annual income", which the Reisch and Andrews cite supports. Politically, that's about borderline between welfare and socialism, but that's just a word choice, not a need for a rewrite. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

They are free to do so and may add appropriate critical information to the article to that effect but the mere fact that the strategy is the subject of scholarship, as referenced in the article, is proof that it is notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Let’s look at another example of a disputed political strategy/theory. Conservatives would say there is no such thing as a vast right wing conspiracy and yet it has been talked about and written about extensively by reliable sources since Hillary Clinton began using the phrase during her husband’s presidency. Wikipedia has an article on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vast_right_wing_conspiracy. Whether there actually is such a “conspiracy” is irrelevant in terms of meeting Wikipedia standards for inclusion. The VRWC article should stand. The Cloward-Piven Strategy has been well discussed by reliable sources and therefore the article concerning it should also stand. Further thought: I'm not sure why everyone here seems to have ignored the 1966 article from the Nation magazine in which the professors explain themselves. Is there a reason none of you have mentioned it? I regret I could not provide a link to it because I could not find a copy of it on the Web, but I have read it and know it exists and its existence can be verified. Moreover, Bali ultimate misdescribed the WP deletion policy to me previously and gave me a stern warning for removing the tag. Although I didn't know there was a deletion policy I looked it up and coincidentally happened to be adhering to it. It may be found at [] and the relevant portion says: "If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page." I will now follow the policy and remove the tag but there is no reason why this discussion can't continue and why we can't all work together to improve the article. Syntacticus (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no actual "Strategy" with a capital S.  There is, instead, a coinage used for political purposes.  Some right-wing coinages, like "poverty pimp" or "Bush Derangement Syndrome", are notable enough for articles, but this one isn't.  Sixteen hits on g-books doesn't move me.  "Right-wing extremist" has 50 times that many and doesn't merit an article. JamesMLane t c 02:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per GoodDamon & JamesMLane. Note that the additional sources that aren't from right-wing/conspiracy sites do not discuss a 'strategy' to "bring about the demise of the capitalist system", but a grass roots welfare reform campaign which Cloward & Priven were involved in. The relation between this campaign and the 'Cloward-Piven Strategy' exists only in the minds of the conspiracy theorists, so using these reliable sources to bolster the theory's notability/credibility is entirely WP:SYNTH & only makes sense if you buy into the theory. Also doesn't appear to scope for an article on the conspiracy theory itself, as we don't have sources discussing it as a conspiracy theory.  Misarxist  14:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep * The article, which I created, was initially weaker than it is now in terms of reliable sources cited but it is shaping up nicely. The article describes an important though obscure political strategy. Apparently, some question the existence of the strategy. That's fine.
 * Wait- don't remove the AfD tag. That's referring to proposed deletions, which are a means of deleting an article without coming to AfD. (You tag the article with prod, and it's deleted after a few days if no one removes the tag.) We're past that now, so it has to go through discussion. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Syntacticus, you're correct that some political phrases are notable enough for articles even though the "other side" would dispute the very existence of the subject referred to. You gave Vast right-wing conspiracy as an example from the left; I gave Bush Derangement Syndrome as an example from the right.  Both of those have been so extensively discussed as to merit articles.  That doesn't mean that every phrase employed by a handful of polemicists must be similarly covered.  This one just doesn't qualify. JamesMLane t c 06:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete This doesn't appear to be a notable political term. It's briefly mentioned in one book, and then mentioned in a couple of papers by political partisans. Considering it's been around for 40 years, that's not much. It isn't even important enough to mention in the bios of either proponent. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:JamesMLane. Forty years on, it's still obscure. Wikipedia is intended to document notability, not be used as a vehicle for promoting it. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources found in this discussion which I think are sufficient to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment – The academic article Joyce Gelb and Alice Sardell (March–April 1974). "Strategies for the powerless: The welfare rights movement in New York City", American Behavioral Scientist 17 (4): 507–30 describes and analyzes the strategy in some detail. It does not refer to it as "Strategy" with a capital S, however. There is definitely nothing to suggest that it was an attempt to "bring about the demise of the capitalist system". Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I was tempted to close this discussion as "no consensus to delete; defaulting to keep" but I find myself more moved to express support for it because it clearly belongs in the project. The discussion above centers around whether it's a "Strategy" or a "strategy" as if that distinction affects notability; in reality there are plenty of reliable sources - books and magazines included - that address this concept on its own. The discussion also refers to whether or not such a strategy was/is/will be successful as if notability depends on the answer to the success of the strategy. There are any number of ideas and strategies that are notable but failed in their time; look at any 20th century war and you'll find a loser that had plenty of strategies that are notable, even if they failed. I agree the current sources are weak; I agree that notability does not automatically jump out in a cursory glance. However, it does not take too much digging to find that it is real, it is notable, and it has been discussed by scholars in each of the four decades since its introduction by two sociologists who also are notable. I'm off to add some text and references to show exactly that. Frank  |  talk  20:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – Frank makes a compelling argument. If this closes as keep I would consider a move to a different title such as Cloward-Piven welfare reform strategy, especially since as I was digging around for sources I discovered that Cloward and Piven later had something else that was also referred to (by other sources) as their "strategy"—a 1982 proposal to get more poor people registered to vote, by having social service workers double as voting registrars. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 21:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And it's in there now, along with criticism from one of its detractors. Frank  |  talk  21:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.