Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fascism/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Cleaning List of fascists
I was going through the list of fascists and I'm wondering what the basis is for including certain people in it is. Roberto D'Aubuisson and Grigory Semyonov don't have any real info in their articles regarding them being considered fascists. Also, Gerald B. Winrod, J.B. Stoner, Gerald L.K. Smith , and Robert Jay Mathews are rascist nationalists but are they necessarily fascists? Someone with more knowledge needs to go through all the Japanese people too. - DNewhall
Objectivity? Your agenda is hardly transparent...
Looking at the American Front article, it's obvious there's no interest in providing factual information fit for an encyclopedia, but rather all I can see is a shared interest of amatuerish writers to push their shared agenda.
You are all failed human beings.
"A meeting was going on at the time, and those in attendance poured out of the shop to stop Heick from continuing any damage. A skinny, 40 year old Hippie, with a pony tail and glasses beat up Heick, whose buddy fled immediately."
"Heick and the White Power Skinheads were pressured out of San Francisco in the late-eighties, relocating to Portland, Oregon where they continued to cause trouble."
Hopeless, absolutely hopeless.
Brazilian Integralism IS NOT Fascism
It is just a rigth wing movement from the 30's, strongly influenced by Italian Fascism, but it is not Fascism. Totalitarianism was never their agenda, they did not worship a leader, they were absolutely not racist (they actually were one of the few political organizations at that time in Brazil to allow black people to join in).
LEt me examine the 7 criteria:
1. exalting the nation, (and in some cases the race, culture, or religion) above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.
[OK, they had that] ***personal oppinion > this is not a bad idea at all***
2. stressing loyalty to a single leader.
[Absolutely not and I can prove it if you doubt]
3. advocating violence or using modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition.
[NEVER, on the contrary, they wanted to be elected, and they were the ones to suffer violence and political supression]
4. advocating severe economic and social regimentation.
[No, just some]
5. advocating syndicalist corporatism.
[Ok, they had that]
6. advocating totalitarian systems.
[Not at all! They wanted something more like a direct democracy!]
7. declaring itself or holding itself out to be to be a fascist, national socialist, falangist, rexist, etc. movement.
[Never]
I URGE you people to take them out of the Fascism list! They only have 2,5 out of 6!
- I'm still inclined to label them fascist unless you can provide sources claiming otherwise. Kevin Passmore labels as them as fascist in his book.
- 1. Yes.
- 2. I thought Salgado was their leader of sorts. However, that "rule" is a bit incorrect since other fascist movements would be excluded. Many scholars (my POV is the more correct ones) elaborate that rule to be "stressing loyalty to a single party or leader acting on behalf of the people" which they would most likely fall under.
- 3. They were heavily into propoganda, had a militia, and fought against communists, so yes.
- 4. Maybe not "severely" but they advocated it.
- 5. Yes.
- 6. I can only find one source that even touches on this and wasn't very specific (text seemed to hint at being totalitarian though but didn't say it), so no opinion on this one.
- 7. No sources of them saying their fascist but many would consider Integralism to be part of the "etc." there.
- I haven't read much about them but what I have seemed to have said they were, in fact, fascist. - DNewhall
OK, Here is the thing: They were not a party and they did not had one. And Salgado said himself: "I'm not the leader: the Leader is an Idea" http://www.integralismo.org.br/novo/?cont=45&vis=
They did not had an armed militia. Yes, they fought against communists, but ideologicaly. In fact, when there was violence, it was usualy started by the comunists.
The regimentation they advocated was not 'from the top' as in a totalitarian regime, but from a type of 'organic democracy'.
Many authors simply say they were fascists becouse this is the easy way to go. But they were just nationalists from the 30's. If every nationalist movement from the 30's is to be labeled fascist, imagine what would happen...
- Kevin Passmore in Fascism: A Very Short Introduction on pages 86-87 says:
- "Fascism rarely flourished in Latin America because... [reasons]. [Describes what kind of dictaroships they were]. Brazil was sometihng of an exception." [Talks about Varga and "the fascistic Integralists."]
- Richard Griffiths in Fascism also mentions the Brazilian Integralists as fascists (very briefly, though) on page 70.
- What you say might be correct but scholars label them as fascist so until you can provile a reputable source saying otherwise we'll still have to label them as fascists. - DNewhall
All the references I know of are in portuguese. http://www.integralismo.org.br/novo/? I'll look into this and ask for some help. In the mean time, could the article on integralism at least be flaged as 'neutrality disputed'?
WikiProject cleanup listing
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Use of the term "EXECUTION" in articles referring to criminal acts of left or right.
I would like to question the use of the word execution with respect to the ideological and political victims of the left and right. Execution in the sense of death is defined as:
3. The act or an instance of putting to death or being put to death as a lawful penalty.
Hence the actions at Babi Yar by Jeckeln, Blobel and others were deemed acts of:
Crimes against humanity through persecutions on political, racial, and religious grounds, murder, extermination, imprisonment, and other inhumane acts committed against civilian populations, including German nationals and nationals of other countries, as part of an organized scheme of genocide.
These acts were not carried out with due process of law, genocide I understand was an illegal act even in NAZI Germany.
If my position is agreed with, then, I believe that all articles referring to the death of people in an illegal act should be referred to as murder and genocide, that the word execution is removed as it gives a sense of legitimacy to something that clearly is not. We are in danger of trivialising the horror's that took place in most of Europe in the first half of the twentieth century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmaciocia (talk • contribs) 20:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Does this fall within the scope of this project? __meco (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Only if the definition of the Unite Against Fascism group is used. It does not really fall into the general definition of fascism otherwise. Collect (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think the issue of you having edited that article is relevant to this thread. The reason I posted here is that one user insists[1][2] that the {{WikiProject Fascism}} template belongs on Talk:English Defence League, something which I seriously question. __meco (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Nazism is Not Fascism
I'm sick of people trying to put Nazism and Fascism as one. Skinheads, racism and all that junk have nothing to do with fascism, read up on Mussolini himself he rejected Hitler's ideas on race as nonsense. Since he created Fascism or at least was one of the creators of it his opinion should carry weight rather then leftist on here trying to taint Fascism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.116.53 (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Truth was actually not a Fascist publication - the accusations made by Josiah Wedgewood were refuted! (There had actually been a personal feud going on between Wedgewood and Truth's editor at the time, and this was Wedgie being naughty ..... I know this from parts of the Journals of the editor, but these were parts not published in Crowson's book). Can you please remove the Fascism flag from the article, as it's inaccurate? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I can do that myself, I've just realised! Sorry to have bothered you. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Cf. Wiki-Watch: the Law Department took no action - instead wiki-watch appears to be a private project in the name of the university. What's more, wiki-watch suffers a serious loss of credibility, cf. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:KarlV/Wiki-Watch_Juni_2011. Wiki-watch is not able to resolve the (imaginary) problem of communist or nazi-motivated edits. I doubt wiki-watch is worth mentioning here if it ever was. Renate Druschinski (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Political culture
There is a new WikiProject whose aim is to provide Wikipedia resources and a common discussion for political culture articles. This includes Anarchism, Corporatism, Oligarchy, Liberalism, Socialism and Fascism. Since this Fascism project appears to be semi-active, this could help revitalize the discussion, and expand the pool of possible editors. Greg Bard (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)