Template talk:Social Credit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Threshold for inclusion[edit]

I'm glad that this template has been created, but I think that we may need to have a discussion about exactly who warrants inclusion under "people". Right now, Solon Earl Low is included, but any number of other members of Category:Alberta Social Credit MLAs aren't. Obviously we can't include all of those (especially since there are dozens of not-yet-existant articles that will belong in that category); is there something special about Low? Besides that, I'm not sure Wiebo Ludwig belongs there, as I don't think he has any particular connection to social credit theory or practice; in fact, despite following Alberta politics very closely (and having once met Mr. Ludwig), I did not until today know about his abortive run for the Social Credit leadership, which I infer was just about him choosing whatever vehicle happened to be available to espouse his views. Finally, while James Keegstra undeniably has a connection to social credit, it isn't really his claim to fame, and I'm concerned that by putting him on this template we're tarring social credit rather unfairly. It's one thing to include anti-semites like C. H. Douglas, whose reason for notability is directly related to social credit, but including Keegstra, who's notable primarily for his anti-semitic activities, seems a little unfair (and I say this as somebody with no particular regard for social credit). Thoughts? Steve Smith (talk) 19:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know what proof you have that C.H. Douglas was an "antisemite"? Chdouglas (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
This isn't really related to this template, so we should probably cut this conversation short, but for evidence of Douglas's antisemitism I'll refer you to virtually every scholar who's ever opined on the matter. Of course, they could all be wrong, but representing the views of scholars is what we're supposed to be doing around here anyway. Steve Smith (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
But it is related to the template. You are trying to pin anti-Semitism to Social Credit, and have stated that Douglas was an anti-Semite. You stated that virtually all scholars claim Douglas was an anti-Semite? Who is that? Janine Stingel, or Alvin Finkel? Could those scholars possibly be "biased"? Finlay would disagree: “Anti-Semitism of the Douglas kind, if it can be called anti-Semitism at all, may be fantastic, may be dangerous even, in that it may be twisted into a dreadful form, but it is not itself vicious nor evil.” and further, "It must also be noted that while Douglas was critical of some aspects of Jewish thought, Douglas did not seek to discriminate against Jews as people. It was never suggested that the National Dividend be withheld from them."
All these "scholars" wrote after Douglas' death and tried to pin this label on him when he had no ability to defend himself. Yes, we should be representing the opinion of "scholars", but those opinions vary. Was Douglas critical of some aspects of Jewish thought? Absolutely, but he was also quite critical of "Prussianism", but nobody goes around claiming Douglas was "anti-Prussian". The label "antisemite" is a ploy devised by certain people to preclude any critique of anything that Jews say or do, because if they are critiqued, then the criticism is "anti-Semitic".
What exactly is the purpose of this template? Chdouglas (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Um, you'll note that I suggested the removal of Jim Keegstra from the template, on the grounds that his inclusion unfairly tarred social credit; trying to portray social credit as antisemitic is the approximate opposite of what I'm trying to do. As for which scholars, yes, Finkel was one I was thinking of. David Elliott was another. Edward Bell, too. As for Finlay's "defense" of Douglas, calling is "anti-semitism", even in scare quotes, "fantastic, [maybe] dangerous" is not precisely a defense, and noting that Douglas did not actually advocate withholding a government benefit from Jews is damnation by the faintest possible praise. Finally, to the charge that these scholars (no scare quotes!) made their comments about Douglas once he was dead and had no chance to defend himself - well, that's kind of how historians operate. Anyway, the question of Douglas's anti-semitism remains immaterial to this template, so I'll not engage further in this discussion. Last word to you, if you want it. Steve Smith (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Finlay's statement about ideas being "fantastic and dangerous" was in reference to what OTHERS may TWIST Douglas' ideas into, but his statement in regards to Douglas himself was that it is debateable whether Douglas could be called "anti-Semitic" at all.
In reference to what historians do, I completely agree, but then again, as Napoleon Bonaparte once said, "History is a set of lies agreed upon."
As I asked previously, what is the purpose of this template? Chdouglas (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I suggest we drop the "People" section. Any list of people is problematic, as it's a way smearing people by a dubious association. For instance, we're linking a premier of a province, with a fringe neo-Nazi. There's no need for a separate "History" group, since almost everything about this topic is historical. Then, we should drop the subgroups with separate show/hide close buttons. So, we should be left with a simple template, with "Canada", "Oceania", "United Kingdom", and "Global" sections. --Rob (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)