Generalrelative (talk | contribs) |
Major Dump (talk | contribs) |
||
(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
::::::::::I see. You're just trusting other Wikipedia editors. Well, guess what? I own that book. And it doesn't say that on page 162. Not only does it not say that, but that section is specifically about Japanese national socialists. I challenge you to provide a quote from there that says that. "Large-scale capitalism" isn't even mentioned. [[User:Major Dump|Major Dump]] ([[User talk:Major Dump|talk]]) 16:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC) |
::::::::::I see. You're just trusting other Wikipedia editors. Well, guess what? I own that book. And it doesn't say that on page 162. Not only does it not say that, but that section is specifically about Japanese national socialists. I challenge you to provide a quote from there that says that. "Large-scale capitalism" isn't even mentioned. [[User:Major Dump|Major Dump]] ([[User talk:Major Dump|talk]]) 16:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::::I am indeed {{tq|just trusting other Wikipedia editors.}} That's called [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]] and it's a requirement. If indeed you did not find this statement on that page, I'd suggest first checking to ensure that you have the same edition. And if you do, you could take the time to find ''where'' in the the book this ''is'' stated explicitly. You can then correct the page number in the citation. That would be genuinely helpful. But assuming that the editor who added this was simply lying is a violation of behavioral guidelines. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 16:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC) |
:::::::::::I am indeed {{tq|just trusting other Wikipedia editors.}} That's called [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]] and it's a requirement. If indeed you did not find this statement on that page, I'd suggest first checking to ensure that you have the same edition. And if you do, you could take the time to find ''where'' in the the book this ''is'' stated explicitly. You can then correct the page number in the citation. That would be genuinely helpful. But assuming that the editor who added this was simply lying is a violation of behavioral guidelines. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 16:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::::The policy should be "Assume Good Faith But Verify." Wikipedia is loaded with statements that appear to be cited but are not. I don't see that statement like that in the book; there over 200 pages to look through. I do see it in another Payne book, "A History of Fascism," which is probably where it came from. It says "What fascists movements had in common was the aim of a new functional relationship for the social and economic systems, eliminating the autonomy (or, in some proposals, the existence) of large-scale capitalism...." Will you accept that as a source, and not revert my edit as long my wording does not distort the sentence in the source? [[User:Major Dump|Major Dump]] ([[User talk:Major Dump|talk]]) 16:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::Indeed, [[WP:V|verifiability]] is a core policy. Please do fix the reference. By the way, I see what you've left out at the end of the sentence. This is not permission to add undue discussion of "regulation" against consensus. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 16:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::Looks like FFF beat you to it anyway. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 16:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::Funny. I was waiting with bated breathe to see what your objection you were going to come up with this time to keep reliably sourced information out. It looks like you have no meaningful objection so far. Just "against consensus." You don't know what the consensus is now, because this is a new source. Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_revert_due_solely_to_%22no_consensus%22[[User:Major Dump|Major Dump]] ([[User talk:Major Dump|talk]]) 16:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:54, 7 February 2022
Philosophy: Social and political Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Politics Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
| |||
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Contemporary fascism (2008-present)
The current iteration of this section contains only one citations, and it is WP:PRIMARY. I'd argue that the presentation of this source is also probably WP:UNDUE (as well as potentially unencyclopedic in WP:TONE) but that would be worth discussing. Rather than blanking or posting a big banner, I'll invite any page watchers here who would like to improve the article to focus on that section, especially locating and then summarizing reliable WP:SECONDARY sources which discuss contemporary fascist ideology explicitly. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- I see that this section was added recently, just a few weeks ago. I think it's a good idea in principle, but needs a lot more work (and more sources). I assume that the article on neo-fascism would be the logical place to start looking for sources. My personal area of expertise is history, not contemporary politics, so I can't contribute much to a section on fascism after 2008 unless I do a lot of reading first. -- Amerul (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's my area too. The problem is quite fraught because there is no consensus among historians or political scientists about how the term fascism should be applied in a contemporary context (except in clear-cut cases like Greece's Golden Dawn which are rather the exception). Compare e.g. this from Robert Paxton versus this from Richard Evans (two of the biggest names in this topic area) on the question of whether Trump should be considered a fascist. Or this exchange between Peter Gordon and Sam Moyn. On top of that there are some pretty strong opinions among Wikipedia editors on the matter, one way or the other. So the trick will be to keep things impeccably sourced and impeccably weighted in accordance with those sources. No stress if it's not your thing. I'm tempted to just TNT the section, but perhaps others will instead prefer to build upon what's there. Generalrelative (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Whatever you do, please do not touch the question of whether Trump counts as fascist in this article. That's a powder keg bigger than Sarajevo in 1914. Debates would be endless and bitter. If we are to talk about post-2008 fascism, let's just stick to cases where an academic consensus exists. This is not the appropriate article to cover major controversies in contemporary politics. We could cover Golden Dawn and similar parties. -- Amerul (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've already been through the ringer on that one. My point is that there is really nothing but hard cases here. Golden Dawn, sure, which is why that's the single contemporary fascist group discussed on the main Fascism page. But once you get into "similar parties" the question becomes "how similar?" and soon you're on the slippery slope to January 6th. So we'd have to draw the line somewhere, and absent a scholarly consensus on how to do so it becomes a matter of carefully examining sources for reliability and weighing their significance to the mainstream discourse. No small task. Generalrelative (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Generalrelative's deletion of material
Here is what he reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism_and_ideology&type=revision&diff=1070294547&oldid=1070289535&diffmode=source
Quote from source: "Neither regime questioned private property and initiative, but at the same time, the market system no longer regulated the economy. The entire industrial and agricultural capacity of the state was subordinated to the goals set by the political leadership." Source: De Grand, A. J., Grand, D. E. (1995). Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany: the "fascist" style of rule. United Kingdom: Routledge.
This is reliably sourced. Generalrelative, you owe us all an explanation. Otherwise, it just looks like vandalism. Major Dump (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- But is WP:UNDUE in an article about Fascism and ideology, not one on Economy of Nazi Germany or Economics of Fascism, where you have already attempted to add similar material and could not find a consensus to do so. Your behavior is becoming disruptive, and is rapidly closing in on the point where it will be necessary to report you to AN/I. I would suggest that you give up your quest to insert material about Nazis and the regulation of business, which has been the thrust of almost ever edit you have made, or attempted to make, to Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Incidentally, you should read WP:Vandalism - the definition of what is and isn't vandalism on Wikipedia is precise, and does not include what Generalrelative did. Calling another editor's edit "vandalism" when it is not is consider to be a personal attack, for which you can be sanctioned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Your threats aren't going to stop me from trying to improve these articles, with reliably sourced material. Major Dump (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but you see, if your behavior continues, you can possibly be blocked from editing, in which case you won't be able to do anything to any articlesBeing reliably sourced is not the only requirement for material to be added to an article, it must also be relevant to the topic, and not be WP:UNDUE, a policy with which you haven't seemed to come to grips. If you add something, and other editors believe it to be undue and remove it, repeatedly, then you must not continue to WP:BLUDGEON discussions with the same arguments over and over again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- I entirely agree with Beyond My Ken here. Major Dump, please refer to the request I recently left on your user talk page, and to Amerul's extremely thorough explanations as to why this content is WP:UNDUE at Talk:Economics of fascism#Major Dump's edit. I will also ask you to please avoid referring to me as "he". I use they/them pronouns. Thank you, Generalrelative (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- This is not that article. This is a different article, about a different thing (fascism, not Nazism). A different sentence, saying a different thing. And a different source. Explain your deletion. Major Dump (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- The deletion has been explained, to everyone's satisfaction but your own. But, then, you were not satisfied when attempts to add similar material to Economy of Nazi Germany and Economics of Fascism were rebuffed, with very full explanations. You are exhibiting what is known on Wikipedia as WP:IDHT -- I didn't hear that -- behavior. Wikipedia editors have an obligation to engage and discuss with other editors when there is a dispute, but they are under no obligation to do so over and over and over again, on one article talk page after another - especially when done in such a rude manner. (You seem to believe you are our superior officer, and that you can command us to "Explain your deletion" or "Go!") Therefore, since you will obviously never be satisfied unless you are able to add material to articles that other editors disagree with, continuing this discussion holds no value. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Do you ever have anything meaningful to say about actual content. Or is your function just to run around telling people they're misbehaving? Major Dump (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- The deletion has been explained, to everyone's satisfaction but your own. But, then, you were not satisfied when attempts to add similar material to Economy of Nazi Germany and Economics of Fascism were rebuffed, with very full explanations. You are exhibiting what is known on Wikipedia as WP:IDHT -- I didn't hear that -- behavior. Wikipedia editors have an obligation to engage and discuss with other editors when there is a dispute, but they are under no obligation to do so over and over and over again, on one article talk page after another - especially when done in such a rude manner. (You seem to believe you are our superior officer, and that you can command us to "Explain your deletion" or "Go!") Therefore, since you will obviously never be satisfied unless you are able to add material to articles that other editors disagree with, continuing this discussion holds no value. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- This is not that article. This is a different article, about a different thing (fascism, not Nazism). A different sentence, saying a different thing. And a different source. Explain your deletion. Major Dump (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Sigh. Here we go again. Major Dump, although this is indeed a different article and your edit consisted of a different sentence based on a different source, the pattern is the same: You have taken a short excerpt from a source, which contained the magic word "regulation" (or in this case, "regulated"), and you put it into the article in a very prominent place in order to emphasize that fascists regulated the economy. What is different is that here we don't even seem to have a substantive content dispute, but rather merely a wording dispute. Before your edits, the long-standing consensus version said that fascism "sought to eliminate the autonomy of large-scale capitalism by bolstering private power with the state". That clearly implies that yes, obviously, they regulated the economy. The only thing missing was the explicit word "regulated" itself. You did not add a new point that wasn't there before, you merely rephrased an existing point to make sure the word "regulated" is used.
- As such, speaking only for myself and not for Generalrelative or Beyond My Ken, I don't object to this edit as strongly as I objected to your edits on the other two articles, because a wording change isn't as big of an issue as a substantive change like you advocated on the other articles. However, it's clearly part of a pattern of promoting the use of a specific term (regulation/regulated) across multiple articles on Nazism and fascism.
- Please understand that although you are editing different articles, these articles are all very closely related because they're about the same general subject (far-right governments in mid-20th century Europe). We are essentially having the same discussion for a third time now, with slight variations. Sure, it's not an identical situation as on the other two articles, but it's very similar and many of the same points apply. Your methodology still appears to be that you look for excerpts in sources that contain a specific phrasing you wish to promote, then you use those excerpts as proof texts to support that exact phrasing without regard for anything else that the source is saying immediately before or after the excerpt in question.
- As Beyond My Ken explained, just because a source contains sentence X that doesn't mean it is appropriate to add sentence X (or a close paraphrase of it) to any section of any article about that topic. An article on wikipedia is not meant to be an indiscriminate collection of quotes or paraphrases of quotes about its topic, even if those all come from reliable sources. -- Amerul (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- The fact that you prefer "ought to eliminate the autonomy of large-scale capitalism by bolstering private power with the state," sounds innocent enough, until we see that it wasn't sourced. I took out that unsourced statement, and replaced with something that was actually sourced (which also happened to provide source for the first part of the sentence about private property and profit motive. My source says, I quote: "Neither regime questioned private property and initiative, but at the same time, the market system no longer regulated the economy. The entire industrial and agricultural capacity of the state was subordinated to the goals set by the political leadership."). Generalrelative replaced what was unsourced and deleted what was sourced, the the opposite of what you should be doing on Wikipedia. If someone is going to do something like that, then they at least need to provide a source. Only then would it make sense to talk about what's the better source or better wording. If you want that to stay, where's your source? Major Dump (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- As Firefangledfeathers has noted [1] this is actually well supported by content in the article's body. Indeed, there is a whole section about it. See WP:LEADCITE for why we do not necessarily overburden the lead with citations. In this case the statement in question is sourced to Stanley Payne, Fascism: Comparison and Definition, p. 162. Major Dump, please check on this kind of thing yourself in the future before adding "citation needed" tags or posting accusatory comments on Talk. Generalrelative (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- I see. You're just trusting other Wikipedia editors. Well, guess what? I own that book. And it doesn't say that on page 162. Not only does it not say that, but that section is specifically about Japanese national socialists. I challenge you to provide a quote from there that says that. "Large-scale capitalism" isn't even mentioned. Major Dump (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- I am indeed
just trusting other Wikipedia editors.
That's called assuming good faith and it's a requirement. If indeed you did not find this statement on that page, I'd suggest first checking to ensure that you have the same edition. And if you do, you could take the time to find where in the the book this is stated explicitly. You can then correct the page number in the citation. That would be genuinely helpful. But assuming that the editor who added this was simply lying is a violation of behavioral guidelines. Generalrelative (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)- The policy should be "Assume Good Faith But Verify." Wikipedia is loaded with statements that appear to be cited but are not. I don't see that statement like that in the book; there over 200 pages to look through. I do see it in another Payne book, "A History of Fascism," which is probably where it came from. It says "What fascists movements had in common was the aim of a new functional relationship for the social and economic systems, eliminating the autonomy (or, in some proposals, the existence) of large-scale capitalism...." Will you accept that as a source, and not revert my edit as long my wording does not distort the sentence in the source? Major Dump (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, verifiability is a core policy. Please do fix the reference. By the way, I see what you've left out at the end of the sentence. This is not permission to add undue discussion of "regulation" against consensus. Generalrelative (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like FFF beat you to it anyway. Generalrelative (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Funny. I was waiting with bated breathe to see what your objection you were going to come up with this time to keep reliably sourced information out. It looks like you have no meaningful objection so far. Just "against consensus." You don't know what the consensus is now, because this is a new source. Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_revert_due_solely_to_%22no_consensus%22Major Dump (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- The policy should be "Assume Good Faith But Verify." Wikipedia is loaded with statements that appear to be cited but are not. I don't see that statement like that in the book; there over 200 pages to look through. I do see it in another Payne book, "A History of Fascism," which is probably where it came from. It says "What fascists movements had in common was the aim of a new functional relationship for the social and economic systems, eliminating the autonomy (or, in some proposals, the existence) of large-scale capitalism...." Will you accept that as a source, and not revert my edit as long my wording does not distort the sentence in the source? Major Dump (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- I am indeed
- I see. You're just trusting other Wikipedia editors. Well, guess what? I own that book. And it doesn't say that on page 162. Not only does it not say that, but that section is specifically about Japanese national socialists. I challenge you to provide a quote from there that says that. "Large-scale capitalism" isn't even mentioned. Major Dump (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- As Firefangledfeathers has noted [1] this is actually well supported by content in the article's body. Indeed, there is a whole section about it. See WP:LEADCITE for why we do not necessarily overburden the lead with citations. In this case the statement in question is sourced to Stanley Payne, Fascism: Comparison and Definition, p. 162. Major Dump, please check on this kind of thing yourself in the future before adding "citation needed" tags or posting accusatory comments on Talk. Generalrelative (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)