User:Spylab/User talk:Spylab/archive8

Fascism in the political spectrum

The RfC on Fascism#Fascism in the political spectrum has now run one month and there are now two versions of the intro para:

Most scholars do not find the terms right and left very useful with regard to fascism, which incorporated elements of both left and right, rejected the main currents of leftist and rightist politics, and attracted adherents from both ends of the political spectrum. Hence, fascism can be called sui generis. Some scholars do place fascism squarely on the right or left.

Most academics describe fascism as extreme right, radical right, far right or ultra right; some calling it a mixture of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism. However, there exists a dissenting view that fascism represents radical centrism. Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.

Could you please comment at Talk:Fascism#RfC.

The Four Deuces (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Fascism is now subject to 1RR, see Talk:Fascism#stop the reverting madness - ONE REVERT per editor effective immediately. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Following this RfC, there is currently a proposal regarding the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to characterise fascism as "right-wing".

Even if you don't have much to say, it would be useful if you could let your view be known in order to help guide the discussion towards some sort of conclusion.

Please take a look: here.

Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Beat music

I have reverted your (clearly good faith) reorganisation of Beat music (kept the link changes) because it removed a sub-section on British Invasion which was a summary of that article with a "main" link, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Main article link. If you could just explain what you were trying to do on the talk page I am sure we can work something out by consensus on the organisation.--Sabrebd (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

On you last edit - I can live with that. Thanks.--Sabrebd (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism

Hi, I saw your comments on the talk page regarding the definition of the topic. Could you have a look at the the section on Estonia, it seems somewhat off topic and should be removed in my view. User:PasswordUsername (who was blocked for 72 hours of inserting this) had originally added this text to the article along with other contentious edits to other articles around about the same time. --Martintg (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loony leftBorock (talk) 08:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Kustom Kulture

Were you aware that there are two, almost duplicate templates Template:Kustom Kulture and Template:Kustom kulture? Clearly, this is unnecessary. What do you suppose is the best way to deal with this? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• I redirected the kulture template to the Kulture template because the related article is Kustom Kulture.Spylab (talk) 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Strange that two templates were created in the first place. I did not look closely, were they both identical? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't check every single link, but they were essentially the same.Spylab (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

My cursory glance indicated that was the case. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Nazism in the Middle East - Please discuss major cuts before putting them in

Hi - I think work on this article will proceed more smoothly, spylab, if you discuss your concerns and goals first. I appreciate that the article is long and could benefit from some careful editing. However, by slashing out major sections that you state are not directly relevent to Nazi actions, what you have done is remove the information that shows the indigenous Egyptian developments were very distinct from the present day outcome, thereby providiing evidence that the Nazi influence was the crucial factor in introduciing genocidal antisemitism into the Middle East, in the success of teh Muslim Brotherhood as the main vehicle for Islamic Nazism, etc etc, - in short, that it was the fusion of the previously unsuccessful Islamic calls for modern jihad with Nazisim that launched the modern Jihadi/Islamofascist movement. I don't have time right now, but I will look carefully at your edits and put back the material I think is crucial to understand the context of the Nazi impact. Please do not continue your slash and burn of this article. You have not read the primary sources yourself, as far as I can tell.--Cimicifugia (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Cimicifugia

• My response is at Talk:Nazism in the Middle East.Spylab (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You "moved sentence from random, arbitrary placement to the beginning of the section. They are all examples of pejorative usage."

Actually, they are not. Far from being "arbitrary" and "random" that sentence immediately preceded the following sentence for a reason: it is the one reliably sourced example of the term being used in a purposefully pejorative way. The others do not make that claim. Articles flow, they are not individual statements unrelated to each other. Please consider putting it back. Rockpocket 02:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

They are all obviously pejorative. Not one of the examples is positive.Spylab (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

According to whom? Rockpocket 02:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

-Continued at the Plastic Paddy talk page.Spylab (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

UAF

Hi Spy.

Don't you think a split between history (of the organisation) and activities (current and ongoing) would aid readability? Leaky Caldron 23:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No.Spylab (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe it would help. Either that or "History" is not a good description of the stuff in there. I know everything is "in the past", but their very recent activities, such as last week at the BBC, don't sit too well with stuff from years ago when they were formed. Leaky Caldron 23:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That's called recent history.Spylab (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would aid reader fluency via the table of contents, especially as the section grows. What is you objection (apart from not liking it)? Leaky Caldron 23:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If the section grows too big, that's a different story. Right now the section is a good size, and there is no need to split it up.Spylab (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. A section on it's anti-BNP activities would be logical if a size break is needed. Leaky Caldron 21:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Raised fist

Well done, that was an overdue tidy up of those articles. Fences&Windows 01:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)