Template talk:Fascism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
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)
Anyone mind if I trim down items redundant with the Nazism template? - Stlemur 20:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- 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 Fascism in history Relevant lists Related subjects |
| 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)
- 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)
-
-
- 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)
-
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
- Might work better. Are their other similar horizontal templates?--Cberlet 13:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
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)
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)
-
-
- Well, who're these scholars that call National Anarchists fascist? - DNewhall
-
[edit] 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- You might be right about Romanian political scientists using the term, however, this is the English Wikipedia so we stick with the terms used in English literature. About what Wikipedia editors care about we have a policy on assuming good faith which we all try to abide by because if "wikipedists don't care about science, they only care about their own opinion" as you say then you, as a Wikipedist are simply editing this page to explicitly insert your point of view. - DNewhall 05:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course I am.--Eres 23:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Contested references
Ecofascism
Islamofascism
Left-wing fascism
These are highly contested issues, do they belong on a tmeplate at all?--Cberlet 14:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I disagree. The term and concept are not well-established in scholarship. Hot button political issue. The ideas are covered on Neofascism and religion and Clerical fascism, not on Islamofascism.--Cberlet (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Estado Novo not true fascism
Estado Novo in Portugal or Brazil are not generally characterized by scholars as fascist. They share some common elements and certainly were inspired in part by aspects of fascism but even parts of the New Deal had inspiration from fascist policies. There is a "taxonomical” difficulty in characterizing it as fascism; it is not fascism but at most a “para-fascism”. It is true of both Brazil and Portugal. They are not quite fascist, hence I am removing them from the template. Mamalujo 18:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] style change
The template is long and narrow, so I propose that we move multiple links into the same line. Yahel Guhan 23:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Small or large
I don't agree with the last edits of C mon on the template and I, as I oppose them, I observe that there is no consensus on them. I think it is fairly more practical to have templates without "show" buttons. They are more easily manageable. --Checco (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. I don't think the template was too big and it is not always obvious what will be under the various categories. I think the previous organization was better.Mamalujo (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I created a centralized place for discussion about the show/hide-issue here. I invite every one to participate. C mon (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
