Portal talk:Fascism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics / Fascism (Rated Portal-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Portal  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Fascism task force.
 
e·h·w·Stock post message.svg To-do:

Thank you for your interest in maintaining the Fascism Portal!

Here are some Tasks You Can Do:
  • Watch the Maintenance page, where you can nominate selected images, quotes, DYK hooks, and articles, or discuss, deny, or approve the nominations of others;
  • Update the News section;

Adding a link to Anti-fascism[edit]

I'd like to add a link to Anti-fascism in this portal. Opposed? In favor? Input anyone? --Ma'ath'a'yü (aka:Proofing...huh?) 18:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Where? - DNewhall
I was thinking of putting it under Categories. I also was considering adding a box called Links, See Also, or Related Topics and adding it there instead. If I did that I would add links to several of the prominent fascism related topics in Wiki. I wanted to discuss this before I did it for ideas and input. I feel that the fascism portal, which should well be the launch point for any exploration of fascism, should contain at the least a link to the Anti-fascism page.--Ma'ath'a'yü (aka: Proofing)...huh? 23:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Fascism/New article announcements[edit]

How about it? —Morning star 14:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

An interesting idea Morning Star. I like the idea of adding a box for new articles as a means for students to easily access the latest work but what constitutes "new"? At what time are they no longer new? When they are no longer "new" where are they relocated? Perhaps a Box Title called Related Articles? There is probably a better title for this than that but something along those lines. The articles could be added as they appear or are discovered with the newest at the top of the list. What are your thoughts? Anyone?

--Ma'ath'a'yü (aka: Proofing) 19:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)...hmm?

Yeah, I think we'd have issues with deciding what's "new" and "old". Also, most of the other portals don't have new article announcements and the Fascism WikiProject would be the one's both adding most of the new content and interested in what's just been created and not all of them check the portal with any degree of frequency. I would see a new article list as more of something the WikiProject should take care of rather than the portal. - DNewhall

I see your point. Perhaps it would be better to place that as a sub header in the Fascism article itself. I think that a list should exist somewhere that can pull up the articles associated with Fascism. The {{Fascism-stub}} has been approved and is up and running. Maybe all the articles in question could be given the stub and a reference box or heading to the stubbed articles could be added. Now I would think there is a better way to tag them (i.e. add Fascism to the Categories of the articles) but how do we make a list of that and have it be a convenient - and tidy - thing on the Fascism page (or wherever it is placed)? Ideas? --Ma'ath'a'yü (aka: Proofing) 22:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC) ...hmm? |em@il

I was inspired by the example of Portal:Russia/New article announcements so I proposed it here, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism/New article announcements would be just as satisfying. I don't know how far back it would make sense to go... I just thought of it as a way of keeping track of new articles as they were created. —Morning star 02:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


Well it looks like an appropriate solution is in place. There is a New Wikipedia articles section on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fascism. I don't know when it was put in but it is there. I like it and think it serves the purpose. How about you Morning star? Anyone else care to pipe in? --Ma'ath'a'yü (aka: Proofing) 16:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Talk | @
Why golly, I'm suprised I missed that. Thanks! —Morning star 19:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Your welcome! But I wish to be clear I didn't add it, just spotted it. I did do a quick look at the history page there but didn't see who added it. For all I know it was inspired by your inquiry Morning star. So thanks to you as well! --Ma'ath'a'yü (aka: Proofing) 20:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Talk | @

Objection to inclusion of such terms as "White Nationalism" and "White Power" in Neo-Fascist series[edit]

I don't think terms like "white power" and "white nationalism" should be featured in the Neo-Fascist series. These terms are not directly related to fascism, and certainly not any more related than terms like "black power" and "black nationalism."

I agree, while these ideals are often associated with Fascism, they are not exclusive to it. --Dagonius VI (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I would disagree: "white power" is an important component of many neo-fascist movements, accompanying radical nationalism, anti-semitism and racism. In the United States at least, "black power" and "black nationalist" ideology was associated with the civil rights movement and efforts to overturn Jim Crow laws, and in this context they haven't been interpreted as a part of a fascist movement or ideology. Which is not to say that they might not have certain similarities (or that I endorse them), but they have a very different historical context. -Darouet (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

About Oradour-sur-Glane and about an ambiguous website.[edit]

I find the Oradour-sur-Glane article mixes various versions that I've read on the subject. Some lines (eg "Early on the morning of June 10, 1944, Sturmbannführer Adolf Diekmann, commanding the I battalion of the 4th Waffen-SS ("Der Führer") Panzer-Grenadier Regiment, informed Sturmbannführer Otto Weidinger at regimental headquarters that he had been approached by two French civilians who claimed that a German officer was being held by the Resistance in Oradour-sur-Vayres, a nearby town." at the beginning, or the paragraph called "Diekmann's conduct") can, in my opinion, be seen as revisionist, in the sense that they contradict the official version, that is, the mainstream version(regardless of knowing if this official version is the whole truth, and just the whole truth, or also contains errors... "Historical revisionism (negationism) = a particular form of historical revisionism concerned with the denial of facts accepted by mainstream historians"), that I've read on the French speaking wikipedia. If the French speaking wikipedia is right, these lines seem to be based on the version of Otto Weidinger, who of course inclines to minimise the committed crimes... (in this particular case, saying that "Diekmann informed Weidinger that a German officer was being held by the Resistance in Oradour-sur-Vayres" for instance, inclines to justify the reaction, the motivation, of the German officers ; the mainstream version says that the decision of this massacre for this example had been taken on June 9th, that is, before the kidnapping of the "German officer" ). Well, in view of what you can read in the French language wikipedia about the revisionist versions, some of the lines in the English speaking wikipedia seem to come directly from Otto Weidinger's version, while most lines, mixed with the latter ones, seem to come from the mainstream version. Please refer to the article of the French speaking wikipedia, that is quite complete, and to the paragraph of this article about the revisionist versions (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_d%27Oradour-sur-Glane#Le_r.C3.A9cit_de_Weidinger_:_une_th.C3.A8se_r.C3.A9visionniste)


By the way, speaking of revisionism, parts of the English speaking article seem to be influenced by this site http://www.scrapbookpages.com/, that contains quite a lot of revisionist pages (according to a man who's specialised in the WWII on the French speaking wikipedia, many of the pages of this site, that contains more than 1 300 of them, are revisionist ; see for instance http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Oradour-sur-Glane/OldPhotos/SSofficers.html). A source of the article links to this website, without any warning about the content of this website. Well, when you consider that this site may have been a source of the article, you understand better some mix-ups... In the last 3 days, I've been corresponding very much per email with the webmaster of this website. He knows very well his subject, is very nice and polite, but is also very revisionist (not only to speak of what he told me about the WWII, but also what he told me of the implication of the Jews in September 11th...). Once again I don't say that this guy and his thesis are necessarily wrong, but he and his website tell a version very, hmm.. let's say, different (euphemism). If you are interested I may forward you our mails, so that you see what he exactly thinks about the WWII and September 11th. That's very interesting and makes much clearer what you can read about his website. Well, I think that when you put a link in an article toward such a website, the least that you must do is to put beside a warning against some of the things that you can read on the website. On the French speaking wikipedia, all the links toward this website have been suppressed (not by me ; I had just put a warning, other wikipedians went to see more carefully the website in question and decided to suppress all the links). On the English speaking wikipedia, 68 articles link to this website...

For the discussion that we're having on the subject, see maybe also http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Projet:Nazisme#Site_douteux (in French), where you'll also find some extracts, in English, of the mails that I received from the webmaster of this website. I've also left a message on the Nationalsozialismus portal of the german wikipedia. I've also left a message to User:Brian_Crawford but haven't received any reply yet...

If you want to speak more about this, or about the website scrapbookpages that I mentioned above, you should maybe get in touch with, for instance, Couthon or Lebob, on the French speaking wikipedia. I've been a bit in touch with them, they seem to know much better the subject than me :-). I think that they can speak English.

We'd be glad to have your opinion on this subject.

Thank you for your comments :-) Matthieu, 62.178.30.180 (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC).

Anyone here?? Matthieu, 62.178.30.180 (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC).