Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Neo-Fascism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] What is the Path Forward now that Mediation has been Accepted?

What is the Path Forward now that Mediation has been Accepted? Cheers Will314159 13:56, 14October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why Cole is an expert on neofascism

from the neofascism article

  • Another approach is to say what various forms of fascism are not -- to define it as a reaction to the political and social theory ideas of the Age of Enlightenment crystallized in Rousseau's Social Contract, the French Revolution, and American Revolution[2].

a reaction is a denial. According to this premise neofascism=~SC where ~ is the logica negation symbol and SC stands for " the political and social theory ideas of the Age of Enlightenment crystallized in Rousseau's Social Contract, the French Revolution, and American Revolution "

  • By logic ~neofascism=SC
  • This is Cole's interest. From Juan Cole
  • Cole is president and treasurer of the Global Americana Institute, a group of academics specializing in the Middle East who are working to translate the seminal works of American democracy into various Middle Eastern languages. The group's web site states that the "project will begin with a selected set of passages and essays by Thomas Jefferson on constitutional and governmental issues such as freedom of religion, the separation of powers, inalienable rights, the sovereignty of the people, and so forth."[13]
  • Q.E.D. In fact anybody that has a strong interest in human right can spot fascism coming and going! Best Wishes Will314159 09:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I must disagree. By your logic
  • Since the Social Contract (SC) was a reaction to European monarchies:
  • SC=~monarchy and ~SC=monarchy
  • Cole is therefore an expert in European monarchies as well.
Sorry, but the flaw in your above logic is that neofascism is not a direct opposite of the Social contract. Sxeptomaniac 17:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

the fascists are reactionaries to SC yearning to the days of old. kingsdoms without the legitimacy of the rex but a substitute, a goverment of blood and soil. The Third Reich with the Fuehreher instead of Frederick? The Romanum Imperator without the Caeasar or Augustus but with Il Duce. The new Caliphate with ancient Sharie law, the Third Temple reviving an ancient tongue Take Care! Will314159 21:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Except that you listed multiple forms of government there. European Monarchies (whether feudalistic or the later variations), the Roman Empire under the Caesars, and a Caliphate are each different forms of government, and none of them are fascism (though the Roman Empire was much closer to what would today be called fascism than the others).
Besides, you're still making the same mistake: a false dichotomy. A reactionary movement is not, by default, the inverse of its predecessor. Sxeptomaniac 23:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cole is an expert on the Israel/Palestine issue

The questions being asked appear to me to be the wrong ones.

First, the question of whether the comments appear in a blog or an academic article is irrelevant. Juan Cole is a significant academic comentator on the politics of the Middle East. His principle means of communication is his blog. He also writes books, op-eds, is regularly invited to appear on discussion panels and media interviews. He is indisputably the author of the blog.

Blog comments are not in general noteworthy. They are noteworthy when they are on a top 100 ranked blog. Juan Cole's is the highest ranked academic blog on the truth laid bear at #54. The mere fact that the comments are on a blog rather than a newspaper should not be grounds for disqualification.

The most important issue is context. It is not the type of language he is uses lightly. In the referenced article he actually refers to a group of 10,000 protestors against the Sharon government in 2004. [1]. Indeed in the second linked article Cole explictly denies calling Israel a facist or even a racist state [2].

The articles make it very clear that the charge of fascism is leveled against a particular wing of the Likud party which later became the party after Sharon defected to form Kadima. It is certainly not a new charge in Israeli politics, Kach was repeatedly accused of being neo-fascist and unlike the Likud splinter is outlawed in Israel as a political party and listed as a terrorist organization by the US State department.

More significantly though Cole also uses the term Fascist to refer to Islamists including Iranian figurehead Ahmadinejad.

The points made are certainly made by a notable source and are presented as a matter of argument rather than rhetoric. I don't think the same can be said of Arafat or Chavez in this regard.

The notion that "[Blog comments] are noteworthy when they are on a top 100 ranked blog." is interesting. It does not appear in any WP guideline that I am aware of. Did you just invent that? Regardless, Cole's blog is not an academic blog. It is a personal blog, by an academic, but that does not make it an "academic blog"- it has no scholarly content, methods or practices. Quite the opposite. It uses non-scholarly langauge, ad-hominem argumentation, and in general is just a compilation of previously published material from the popular press. Using one blog (Truth laid bear) as a source for claims about another blog's reliability is pretty bizzare. You may feel strongly that 'The mere fact that the comments are on a blog rather than a newspaper should not be grounds for disqualification' - but WP policy is quite explicit that it is grounds for disqualification, expcept for some limited circumstances, which Cole's blog does not meet. Isarig 04:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)