Talk:Christian Falangist Party of America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Fascism, an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to the fascist ideology, its impact on history and present-day organizations closely linked to both of these (ideology and history). See project page, and discussion.

This article may be listed on an index of fascist movements or people. Such listing may be controversial; feel free to contribute to discussions there. The presence of this Talk page-only template only implies that the subject is of interest to the associated WikiProject.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 26 February 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Article was full of POV language, dwelled on the party's logo too long, and made false statements regarding this party and it's positions. Also confused this American party with the Lebanese party that inspired it.

I have no clue about the party and it's positions, but I've attempted to wikify the article a bit and remove obvious POV. Please don't simply revert as the basic content has not changed. --Chiacomo 02:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I still have no idea what this has to do with some Lebanese party. No idea whatsoever. The article needs help or something -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:25, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

The American party was inspired by the Lebanese one. The original version of the article seemed to indicate that the two parties were one and the same, but that's inaccurate. Visiting the party's website should clear up the confusion.--The One True Fred 02:36, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
I have nothing but passing curiousity, and their website does little to clear confusion of any sort. Anyways, I just wanted to point out that this article needs work on this part. It goes right into while the Lebanese party has recently adopted the arms, without previous mention of that party. Etc. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:29, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Tried to sort this out, also wondering what to do about the phrase "Christian-supremacist."--The One True Fred 19:31, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)


Does this party admire Francisco Franco?

If what they say on the website is to be trusted, probably not.

You would think so given their name, but they never mention him. Epa101 (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobia

I have no doubt that the party is anti-Islam, and perhaps can be accurately labeled Islamophobic. However, I would like to question the assertion that islamophobia is a kind of racism. As Islam is not a race, how can being against Islam be a form of racism? OTOH, it's well-known that far-right parties often tend to be racist, and I wouldn't be surprised if this one is too. But anyhow my point is that racism has to be against a race, not a religion. Ngchen 03:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I move that the islamophobia section of this artice be deleted until more verifiable information can be provided. While this...martel360--I suppose this is a handle of some sort--may indeed be the most hatefilled racist of the cfpa, the comment is subjective at best. Not a single sentence of this article is defended with basic references, not to mention the horrible grammar, diction, syntax, and spelling--just to name a few. Mcjsfreak07 19:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

One of the only sources for reference concerning the party is the party website, which is cited several times in the article. --The One True Fred 04:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)



These Idiots think The Crusades were defensive?

The crusades were a response to Islamic violent expansionism across the Middle East. Do you still think Islam is a "religion of peace"? If you do, then you are in no position to criticize anyone of being out-of-touch with reality. 82.81.230.163 12:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Is this party really notable? They've never participated in an actual election, and apparently exist only on the web.

I did some minor edits to the page, but it still feels like it takes that party's PoV. The article makes no mention of some of their more controversial positions -- banning Gay pride Parades, preferential treatment for Christian and Jewish immigrants -- and barely mention others (the Silver Standard, school prayer, posting the 10 Commandments, opposition to Freemasonry).

If somebody comes up with a reason the party's notable I'll try to fix these problems.

Nickbii 02:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the article includes every single platform point and issue guideline they've released it's going to start reading like a flyer, I know that's not what you're suggesting but I'm not sure how to strike a balance between cramming the article with information or not providing enough. With controversial positions, we also have the problem of appearing biased by choosing what information to omit.
As for the notability issue, from I've seen the bar is set pretty low for American political parties. I know that's not a standard we're supposed to use, but I haven't seen any other - and this one has been around at least 6 or 7 years, claims to have been around for 22, did stage a presidential run but cut it off at the last minute when their candidate chose another path, and is now expanding into state affiliates. You're right that there's a lack of third party sources for information (besides politics1.com), I'll try to see if I can find more.--The One True Fred 16:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't belong to the crowd that thinks electoral results should be the main criteria for notability of political parties, but isn't it strange that there is no third party confirmation of any actual activities of the party? --Soman 14:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that alternative parties are so typically ignored, especially the smaller ones, I don't think it's so strange at all. For the most part, they seem to be focusing on party building, so besides their aborted presidential plans they're not doing much that would be merit a mention in the popular media, though they have gotten attention here and there from third party promoters, critics and showcasers.--The One True Fred 17:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

My problem with the info in the article is that it makes them sound like mainstream Conservatives. You read the article and you wonder why these guys aren't working for the GOP, but a lot of their ideas are far out of the mainstream. The Silver Standard was an issue in the late 1800s, when every paper dollar was backed by Gold. Farmers wanted Silver to be used, because that would drastically increase the number of dollars in circulation, increasing inflation. The farmers would then be able to pay off their mortgages with cheap money. That was a perfectly sensible political position for 1900, but in 2007 literally nobody backs their money with precious metals.

I'd agree they were notable as an American political party if they ran candidates, but they don't. At any level. Not County Commission, Drain Commission, not anything.

They certainly merit mention on the Falangist page, but I don't see them as an active political party. Nickbii 21:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I see that standard as problematic as well, as there are self-proclaimed political parties that specifically disavow elections, mainly hard-line communist groups, but also groups that are still in nascent organization or suffered problems prior to an election.--The One True Fred 21:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I for one am glad that this article exists, because I was able to read about them. How nice that Wikipedia has plenty of room! And of course, it is sourced, as it should be. —Toby Bartels (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It doesn't have a single third party source. --Soman (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination as Article for Deletion

This article has been nominated as an Article for Deletion. Can anyone come up with some press coverage that can help establish notability? If not, it will probably be deleted. Dgf32 (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

See above discussion, there isn't any. Please note that 'press coverage' is not sufficient for notability, but it needs to be more than trivial and reliable sources TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I found these two sources on line with out much effort at all. I'm sure there are more. Someone needs to integrate these citations and ones like them into the article instead of citing only party websites. [1] [2] Dgf32 (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Those are quite trivial mentions, I don't think they'd pass. That someone, should be you if you think they should be added. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 16:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian link sounds as if someone just did a Google search to find something funny to put in the article. Is the Falangist Party actually standing a candidate in the forthcoming election? Epa101 (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)