Jump to content

Template talk:Fascism sidebar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RS.ro (talk | contribs) at 20:38, 13 February 2007 (→‎Legionarism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

IMO the fascism template should only have major, undoubtedly fascist movements in it; otherwise it's just going to get too big and too controversial. I have modified it thusly. - Stlemur 13:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the recent string of modifications: as the template affects a large number of articles, significant changes to it should be discussed in this talk page before implementation. - Stlemur 22:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone mind if I trim down items redundant with the Nazism template? - Stlemur 20:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. I was thinking of doing that myself. - DNewhall

Draft:

This article is part of the
Fascism series.

This series is linked to the Politics and elections series

Varieties and derivatives of fascism
Neo-Fascism
Nazism
Rexism
Falangism
Clerical fascism
Austrofascism
Crypto-fascism
Japanese fascism


Fascism in history
Fascio
March on Rome
Italian Social Republic
4th of August Regime


Relevant lists
List of fascists
List of fascist movements by country


Related subjects
Fascist symbolism
Roman salute
Blackshirts
Corporatism
National syndicalism
Black Brigades
Actual Idealism
Fascist unification rhetoric
Conservative Revolutionary movement
Benito Mussolini
National anarchism
National Bolshevism
International Third Position
Neofascism and religion

edit this box

I'm not entirely crazy about it still...I think the template has a lot of trivia in it (Italian Social Republic?). - Stlemur 14:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made some mostly superficial changes. I think we should leave the Italian Social Republic in since I can't really think of any big reasons to take it out. However, I know there's a debate about the Greek fascism page but shouldn't we still leave that in until some concensus occurs reagarding it? - DNewhall
It definitely shouldn't be on the list twice, though. - Stlemur 17:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the links were getting a bit obscure, and one was on the template twice. Can we keep to the core topics?--Cberlet 04:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nazism and socialism - discuss and vote on which page text should appear

Discussions of the relationship between Fascism and socialism and Nazism and socialism keep appearing on multiple pages. On what page does the section on Nazism and socialism belong?

Fascism and ideology---Nazism in relation to other concepts---Fascism and socialism---Nazism and socialism

Please discuss and vote on this dispute at this talk page]. Thanks. --Cberlet 15:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horizontal template

Looking at Fascism and Freedom Movement (a particularly bad example), I'm wondering if the template should maybe be made horizontal and put at the bottom of pages it appears on. --Stlemur 13:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might work better. Are their other similar horizontal templates?--Cberlet 13:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring template

I think we can do away with the "Fascist political parties and movements" section and just move "List of fascist movements by country" to the "Relevent lists" section and "Fascism as an international phenomenon" can go in "Related subjects". - DNewhall

National Bolsehvism and National Anarchism are called fascistic by a number of published scholars. Why the deletion? I know they claim they oppose fascism--but that does not sweep aside the work of scholars.--Cberlet 14:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Cberlet. National bolshevism has a history entangled with pre-WWII fascism, it uses fascist imagery, it often embraces fascistic methods and goals (racism, violence as a political tool, Fuehrerprinzip...) --Stlemur 15:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing National Bolshevism was a mistake, however removing National Anarchism was not. The third sentence of the National Anarchism article states "National Anarchists completely reject Fascism as being Statist". - DNewhall

The self-claim should be noted on the page. That some scholars call National Anarchists fascistic cannot simply be dismissed. I can be persuaded, but many fascist groups claim to not be fascist or even claim to be anti-fascist. Hardly persuasive.--Cberlet 17:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, who're these scholars that call National Anarchists fascist? - DNewhall

Legionarism

Iron Guard is the second name of the Legionary Movement a.k.a. Legion of Saint Michael the Archangel, therefore it cannot be considered the name of the doctrine. In "Tara si Exilul" newspaper (official paper of the Iron Guard in exile), Horia Sima wrote the article "Sase decade de legionarism" ("Six decades of legionarism"). The article can be found here. Other referrences to "legionarism" can be found in this important political magazine, in this article and on the official page of the Romanian Chamber of Deputies, here ("legionarism" is used here by a well-known Romanian historian). But I think that next time you should check for yourself before reverting the edits. Nobody should waste time collecting things that you can easily find searching the web.--Eres 03:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Legion of the Archangel Michael later changed its name to the Iron Guard. When scholars refer to them they either use one name or the other (For example, Griffiths and Griffin use the Iron Guard, Paxton and Passmore use the Legion of the Archangel Michael). In English literature on fascism there is none, or very little, scholarly work that uses the term "Legionarism"; it's always one name or the other. Wikipedia takes the same approach. We have an article Iron Guard and Legion of the Archangel Michael and Legionarism both redirect to it since that is the term Wikipedia editors have chosen to prefer as the name (since scholars almost arbitrarily prefer one name or the other). If the Wikipedia consensus it to use Iron Guard than that should be the name in the template. - DNewhall 17:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then Falangism should be modified to The Falange. Legionarism is the doctrine of The Ledoinary Movement and I have clearly supported my point of view with the informations presented. The article shod be named Iron Guard, but the doctrine should be called "Legionarism". Just like falangism and la falange...--Eres 13:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. However, Falangism is commonly used as a descriptive term for a few movements whereas Legionarism is only used in regards to the Iron Guard and seems to be used very, very rarely if at all. It would make sense to make it Legionarism except that, unlike Falangism, the term is almost never used (if at all) by scholars. - DNewhall 18:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What scholars? Romanian political science scholars use "legionarism" in their works. But, anyway, wikipedists don't care about science, they only care about their own opinion.--Eres 20:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]