Talk:Fascism (United States)

message: This page is 100% one-sided POV. There is already a more balanced discussion of this topic at Neo-Fascism. --Cberlet 20:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a brief discussion of the topic at Neo-Fascism, however it is part of a larger article, and the pertinent discussion is buried at the very bottom.  An article on the specific topic of Fascism in the United States seems to be a more appropriate place for this topic to be presented - simply redirecting to Neo-Fascism seems an inadequate way to present the topic of Fascism in the United States.  If you feel that this article is lacking NPOV, please be more specific than identifying the entire page as POV - constructive criticism would be appreciated.  --Dschor 23:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason the discussion is at Neo-Fascism is that it allows people with different points of view to edit collectively.  This page is what is called a POV fork on Wikipedia. It represents one idiosyncratic POV. Also, there are no substantive cites on the entire page. It appears to be original research. As such it is subject to deletion. You show great energy, and that is to be commended, but you need to start a bit slower and learn some of the traditions and guidelines of editing here. Fascism is a complicated and highly contentious subject. Read some of the other pages on fascism and check out the discussion pages.--Cberlet 00:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This page was created in good faith, and follows the guidelines for wikipedia:content forking ("if one aspect of the article subject is more controversial than the others, it is perfectly legitimate to isolate that aspect as much as possible to its own article, in order to keep editing of the main article fairly harmonious").  The Fascism and Neo-Fascism articles certainly are relevant to the topic, but this example of Fascism deserves a distinct page.  This article has the potential to be a very strong entry in the wikipedia, providing that it is not deleted.  Deprecating this article in favor of the Neo-Fascism article may cause more problems than it solves, considering the controversial nature of the subject (as noted in the opening paragraph).  The article can be improved, and the controversy addressed more fully than in the Neo-Fascism article itself.  There is no restriction on editing this page - feel free to make constructive edits, but please do not request deletion of this article.  Doing so is an example of m:deletionism (see Wikipedia:POV fork): "a misapplication of deletion process, often to enforce a POV rather than to enforce NPOV, and often to outright negate the work of new contributors. This is a misapplication of deletion powers." --Dschor 14:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't doubt that this page was created in good faith, but nonetheless it is highly editorial and one-sided. I have added the POV tag. Also, for future reference, when putting in a template just put  instead of the code. - Stlemur 14:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Dschor 14:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I syuspect this page will begome a magnet for disputes. The section of the Neo-Fascism article on the U.S. was created to move just such a dispute  of the main Fascism page. I actually think this concpet would mature faster being edited on the Neo-Fascism where there are actual cites and several sides presented. As it stands, this entry just doesn't meet the minimal standards for being an entry. If folks want to move over the entire section on the United States  from the Neo-Fascism page, that might at least elevate this page from being 100% POV and 100% original research. I think legitimate criticism should be taken seriously. How does Dschor explain how this page can be 100% POV and 100% original research and meet Wiki standards and guidelines? Wiki is not a POV text slam.--Cberlet 15:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: If the comparison of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy to the United States is pure POV, please indicate a more appropriate comparison.  In attempting to describe the rise of Fascism in the United States, it seems fair to use a direct comparison with other Fascist regimes.  Feel free to edit the reference on the oldest still-extant Republic to something more accurate.  I realize that the last half of the article can be seen as inflammatory, and is not cited adequately - I do have a life, and can only do so much research in a day.  However, none of the statements made can be assaulted on factual grounds, save perhaps the 'liberty and justice for none', which is admittedly a rhetorical flourish that should be altered, and replaced by a reference to the ongoing fight over religion in the United States government.  I believe the remainder of the article is accurate, and welcome the input of experienced editors. --Dschor 21:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I made some revisions based on the advice given above.  Hopefully the tone has been moderated somewhat.  I look forward to adding much more content to this article, including some salvaged from the Fascism in the United States article that seems to have been deprecated in favor of the Neo-Fascism treatment of the subject.  The history of Fascism in the United States is certainly important, and ought to be incorporated into the article in subsequent edits.  This is only a beginning, and a fairly rough one, but it is better than failing to address the issue beyond the minor mention at the bottom of the Neo-Fascism article.  --Dschor 22:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I am still trying to add more info to the article, but it will be difficult if vandalism continues.  I have reverted to my previous edit (for obvious reasons).  --Dschor 00:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: It's been about a week since this article has been started, since then you have no cited any academic evidence asserting that the Republican Party under President Bush is a Fascist Party. I have sought assistance on this issue and a long time Wikipedian suggested that we simply revert your edits, that is what I am going to be doing on other pages related to this topic, until you can cite references that support your view points. I will also give this page 7 days for you to cite evidence before I put it up for a VFD. 
All this is in line with the policies to Wikipedia as I read them. This isn't an attempt to silence you, it's just that original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. PPGMD 16:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Encyclopedia was not written in a week.  I understand that there are folks here who are impatient with me. (Those who are impatient with you are generally fascists) This page is a perfect place to combine information on the topic that is currently spread out over multiple pages of the wikipedia.  There are many treatments of the topic as part of other articles, but nowhere is a comprehensive summary provided.  This is the ideal place for these sources to be combined into a cohesive article.  You are certainly free to revert edits that violate wikipedia policy, but reverting any and all edits is not in keeping with the spirit of wikipedia.  I started this article to avoid edit wars on the Neo-fascism and Fascism pages, and in the hope that it could be a NPOV entry on the topic.  I certainly will have trouble providing evidence if all my edits are simply reverted.  Rather than being destructive, why not add some more information to the article yourself?  VfD can be taken as a threat or a promise - and I see nothing wrong with an open debate.  It might be more productive to focus on improving articles rather than erasing them.  I am doing my part to make the wikipedia more complete, and I trust that we all have the same goal in this regard. --Dschor 21:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a threat, without citations and academic level references, this article does not live up to the standards of Wikipedia, that combined with the obvious POV slant, a tone that is nearly flamebait, and it's a fork of an article that already covers the subject quite well and is NPOV. Editors of the other pages expect you to provide evidence up front before you post controversial claims like the ones made on this page. The same is expected of new articles, a week should be enough to at the very least to find academic level references, if any exist. PPGMD 22:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also this is inline with the "spirit" of Wikipedia because the goal is the create a free, open information resource, without citations Wikipedia is useless as a information resource because there can be no peer review of the work.  I am giving you a chance to improve your work, and to bring it in line at least with refences, there is more then enough reasons to list it for a VFD right now.PPGMD 22:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  A number of citations have been added.  This article serves (hopefully) the purpose of collecting the various sources on Fascism in the United States that have been distributed on different pages, and creating a single page on the topic.  I appreciate the opportunity to improve my work, and hopefully others will have the opportunity to contribute as well.  This is a broad and contentious topic, but there is no need to jump to deletion as the best solution.  Improvement is better than deletion.  --Dschor 22:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic Research 

message: The last paragraph was extremely one sided and POV oriented, some of the statements just being plane wrong.  As a result I have made edits to fix this.  Also, regardless of the factual basis and citation for the last couple sentence, both of which I am willing to contend that there is none of, it reads like a political statement, and is extremely unincyclopedic.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 01:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits did make the entry more encyclopedic.  Glad to see another editor helping out.  BTW, page was blanked five minutes after your edit - I have reverted to your last edit. --Dschor 01:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed, thanks.  I should note that careful care must be taken to keep one point consistent throughout the article.  Any statement referring to the republican party as fascist must be removed or changed.  Reason being, it is unconfirmed wether or not it is fascist, and it is a heated debate.  As such, evidence for and against the arguement by various parties and multiple examples may and should be provided in the article to clarify example of the debate.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 01:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: George W. Bush Administration

message: I understand you're trying to make the article more balanced, but you must include scholarly sources for these kinds of assertions. Before you add anything else, please, go out and find some reputable printed source somewhere -- webpages won't cut it -- that back up your declarations of fascist ideology in McCarthyism, in the Reagan administration, and in the Clinton administration. Some important points to reiterate:
* Totalitarianism on its own, no matter to what extent, is not fascism
* Anti-communism on its own, again no matter to what extent, is not fascism
* Nationalism on its own -- you get the idea by now -- is not fascism.
We have a strict, scholarly, highly argued-over consensus definition. For every one of your assertions, it is simply unacceptable not to provide evidence in the form of scholarly work supporting each element of the definition. - Stlemur 12:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As you say - none of these things alone would constitute fascism.  This article is an attempt to show how in combination, they do.  These are aspects of fascism, and if the article cannot include the elements that are part of the definition, there is little hope for wikipedia.  --Dschor 22:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 29 December additions

message: This article truly represents the worst Wikipedia can get. I cannot believe that this pathetic POV is allowed to pass in a supposedly NPOV encyclopedia.(there is no such thing as POV--not by the author) If we can call Bush and the Republicans Fascist in Wikipedia, then why not make a page on how Bill Clinton killed Vince Foster? Or why don't we make a page on how Kennedy won the 1960 elections thanks to the Mafia? (for the humor impaired, this is sarcasm) 200.74.174.42 19:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. - Stlemur 19:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tried and failed on my part.  Being that I refuse to edit war, it will be impossible to 'fix it'.  Arkon 20:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You did not fail, you were simply boldly reverted, because your edit removed factual content from the article.  You are welcome to improve the article, but if you remove useful information, you can expect it to be restored.  Hopefully with attention from multiple editors, this article can be improved - at this time, too much attention has been taken simply protecting it from vandalism. --Dschor 20:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Factual content requires sources, which in this case were absent. Arkon 21:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It is generally better to incorporate the work of the previous editor than to simply revert. - Stlemur 21:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, but it is not generally better to incorporate unsourced POV bordering on OR. Arkon 21:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A link to PNAC is hardly POV or OR.  It is simply a fact that PNAC includes many prominent members of the Bush administration, and that the goals of the PNAC include some of the traits of fascism.  It is perfectly legitimate to include that information in this article.  --Dschor 22:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but what the article actually said was "The Republican Party, winning control of the Executive branch in the controversial 2000 election by a very close margin of votes in Florida, acted with haste to enact the agenda of the Project for the New American Century. "  Arkon 22:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note to Dschor. Reverting other editor's edits in the middle of a discussion is not proper conduct. Most of this page is uncited POV. Under Wiki guielines removing uncited POV material is appropriate. --Cberlet 22:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Declare your source that the PNAC is Fascist, or fascist leaning. PPGMD 23:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that, but that they "acted with haste to enact the agenda of the Project for the New American Century.". Arkon 23:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The PNAC may or may not be fascist, but the policies that it supports are part of the larger movement towards fascism in the United States.  It supports an imperial agenda, militarization, and its members are major players in the administration.  Moreover, the PNAC explicitly made clear the need for 9/11 as a pretext for the project's immediate implementation.  --Dschor 00:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is just nonresponsive. Arkon 00:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon me, but I am still waiting for the rationale for removing the link.  The PNAC is clearly engaged in organizing the U.S. government to be the world's military power, with the goal of promoting "American global leadership".  This includes enhanced police powers for the federal government, and is a critical component of establishing a fascist state at home.  The PNAC is part of a larger picture, and does not represent the entire breadth of the movement toward fascism in the United States, but it is a critical component of establishing a militaristic, nationalistic, imperialist regime in the U.S. --Dschor 00:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not up to us to establish our criticism, it is up to you to provide reputable published scholarly sources for your claims. It is that simple. POV and original research is not sufficient.--Cberlet 00:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think in this case the consensus is clear that the assertion of PNAC as a pro-fascist organization is going to require outside scholarly evidence. - Stlemur 01:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Exactly without indenpendent scholar sources, Wikipedia is worthless. Present sources, it's upto the people making the statement to back them up. PPGMD 01:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The assertion was not made that PNAC is a pro-fascist organization.  The assertion was made that their agenda has been acted upon by the Bush administration, and is part of a larger pattern that indicates increasing fascism in the United States.  What kind of source would you need to understand this?  --Dschor 10:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then find a source that elaborates on that agenda, and fingers PNAC by name. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. PPGMD 15:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with PaulinSaudi.  Logophile 01:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I am impressed that so many editors have noted the poor quality of this page, and yet none has deigned to add to the article.  I would appreciate some help, rather than being accused of bias for trying to start working on a subject that deserves to be treated as a full fledged article.  I am not an expert in this area, but I feel that there is enough knowledge in the wikipedia community to improve this article to a higher standard than I am personally capable of.  I must also apologize for being distracted by other issues on wikipedia.  Nonetheless, I think this article is valuable, even though it deserves massive improvement.  --Dschor 12:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not worth editing.  It should just be junked.  Morton devonshire 03:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think partly it's the magnitude of the task. It seems to me that everything since 1942 should be merged into Neo-Fascism. Tom Harrison Talk 12:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Not everyone has time to research a topic completely, since original research is prohibited you need sources, particularly with touchy topics such as Fascism, you better have at least a fairly complete and NPOV section to start out with. Thats why I suggested that this be merged with Neo-Fascism, there are many more editors of that article, and they are pretty good about NPOVing. Also you shouldn't start an article with a POV entry that would be seen as flame bait, like claiming that the Republican's are fascist right off the bat, there are plenty more examples of fascist attempts in this country during the 20th Century. In the AFD entry one poster gave a short list, you could start with those in the Neo-Fascism article, once the section gets too long, then you can move it into it's own article. PPGMD 14:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incredible

message: While I don't particularly have a position on whether it should be included in this article or not, it at least took pains to follow the such and such says this formulation.  The GWB portion would do well to do the same --unsigned comment by Arkon 03:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Doh, don't know how I forgot to sign Arkon 16:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FDR

message: This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 01:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't there be a tag on the talk page to that effect? If I knew what it was called, I'd put it up, but alas, I don't.BYT 12:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should just list it for deletion again, because the whole thing is just a political rant.  Morton devonshire 03:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looked much better before editors unhappy with the AfD vote decided to hack it to pieces.  --Dschor 04:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because no delete consensus was reached doesn't mean that the article was fine, editors are dealing with the problems that resulted in the article to be nominated as a AfD in the first place. A large number of the editors agreed with a merge, or basing the article on history not on current post-WWII administrations. PPGMD 04:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know if I'm one of the folks who "hacked to pieces" the article, but I'm trying to salvage what we can from this article. And if there isn't much left after removing OR and POV, perhaps there was some merit in the AFD, no? --Mmx1 04:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for Deletion debate

message: I recommend that this article stop around 1942, and everything after World War II be merged into Neo-fascism. Rather than try to edit it in place and then move it, how about if we move intact the sections George W Bush administration and Defense of Republican Party? It's fair to say that the second world war was a pivotal event for fascism; its post-war incarnation is distinctly different from that of the depression. There is plenty of history from the twenties and thirties, and maybe even earlier, to make Fascism (United States) an good solid page. Thoughts? Tom Harrison Talk 16:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I already moved the GWB sections right before I put the redirect, only the first 2-3 paragraphs of the section are unique to this article. And the final paragraph was uncited so I didn't move it. I put the redirect in, because whats left is an introduction and a two sentence section. PPGMD 18:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree substantially.  I'd like to work on an expansion of the Origins section into a broad overview, including business leaders reaction to Communism and the depression, anti-Fascist reaction (which includes the Sinclair Lewis cite), and then the "demise" of American Fascism at World War II.  I'd have to go through a number of sources, but I could put up a less sourced outline in a shorter time.  I also think we should just boot the two sections after Origins.  What do you think? Mornington Crescent 21:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That section is already a POV fork, but I agree remove, redundant now that its in the other article. PPGMD 23:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That sounds like an good approach. I had never even heard of the Silver Legion of America; I look forward to reading what you can assemble. It might be a good idea if everyone slowed down a little until we see what we can put together here. The controversial parts of the article are all over at Neo-fascism now, and I'm sure those paragraphs need some work. Tom Harrison Talk 05:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I look forward to your overview. Mornington Crescent 06:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Since there seems to be a new focus on this article perhaps a name change is in order? Perhaps "History of Fascism in the United States"? PPGMD 23:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we wait while the ongoing merger discussion has a few days?--Cberlet 23:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'd like to hear from anyone with an opinion. Tom Harrison Talk 01:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, my opinion is that the content in this article is so sub-standard that you ought to merge it into Articles for Deletion.  Morton devonshire 03:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A name change seems a little premature - this article has suddenly gained quite a few editors, and ought to be allowed to mature for a moment or two.  I think we've already had enough fun at AfD for now, and can focus on improving this article.  --Dschor 04:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change 

message: Please consider deleting this article.  It's just a tirade.  Morton devonshire 03:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was just through AfD; It closed with no consensus. Tom Harrison Talk 03:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'm close to losing all confidence in Wikipedia if crap like this can withstand a vote for deletion.  Morton devonshire 03:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are more compelling reasons to lose confidence in Wikipedia than this article.  If you think it could stand some improvement, jump right in.  --Dschor 04:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, folks certainly have taken you up on your offer to jump right in. I do believe that last edit was overzealous, I'll see what I can do about citing those deleted quotes. --Mmx1 05:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete this article

message: It appears that the merge discussion has been made moot by some zealous editing.  I think it would be wise to avoid gutting this article, as it will probably be needed once the Neo-Fascism article exceeds ideal length.  Hopefully we can get this all sorted out without a whole lot more trouble.  --Dschor 05:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire section on the GWB administration was moved completly into the Neo-Fascism article, I did that myself. The FDR section was moved to one the Nazism articles, don't remember the name, but it's linked on the Talk:Neo-Fascism page. If the section in Neo-Fascism gets too big we can start in under the proper name suggested in the AfD Fascism in the United States. Most likely based on the movements of the editors this is going to be renamed to a history based article. PPGMD 05:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: For the record, I agree with the editing. Mornington Crescent 06:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly see a lot of information that was not merged with any existing article, and has simply disappeared.  That seems like a step backwards.  --Dschor 07:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It disappeared, because it's POV.  Stick with the historical perspective pitched.  Otherwise, it gets deleted.  Morton devonshire 09:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a bit heavy-handed.  This article was a much broader one than you see before you now, and has been chopped to bits by folks who would prefer it had been completely deleted.  There is no reason that this article should be deprecated in favor of the main articles on Neo-fascism and Fascism, as there is plenty of content for a distinct page on Fascism in the United States.  NPOV does not mean delete all the content and remove all the references.  --Dschor 09:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See below.  Morton devonshire 09:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Check the edit history on Neo-Fascism, the entire GWB section was moved, that what you worked on for the most part, other editors went through and moved uncited and POV sections of it, since it was a merge, I simply moved it as a whole, no edits to the content. PPGMD 15:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited for Brevity? 

message: These discussions are at Fascism and ideology for the United States through WWII including the FDR administration; and Neo-Fascism for claims after WWII including recent Presidencies.  Removing the merger tags in the middle of an active discussion is not appropriate.--Cberlet 04:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is not about neo-fascism in general.  It is about fascism of all sorts in the United States.  Redirecting the page was bold, and I have removed the redirect.  The simple fact that you can't decide where to redirect this page reinforces my point that this article is needed as a central location for information on fascism in the united states.  Just stop editing the article if you don't feel like contributing, but please refrain from further redirects and removal of well-cited content.  Your POV is not the last word.  --Dschor 22:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly most editors who took part in this discussion disagree. This page has been redirected. Please edit on the other pages.--Cberlet 22:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No person would search for this topic and expect to be redirected to a general discussion of neo-fascism.  Redirecting this page is one step short of deletion.  Please reconsider your position, and take a fresh look at the idea of a page about Fascism in the United States.  This redirect is not appropriate, and will be reversed.  --Dschor 23:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at the votes in the AfD, one third were for keep, another third was for merge and redirect, and the final third was for delete. Two thirds thought this page wasn't good enough to stand on it's own, thats not including keep voters that are agreeing with the merge now. I agree with the redirect. PPGMD 23:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge and redirect is one thing, but this has been a purge and divide.  Much of the content was discarded by zealous editing, and what remained was divided into multiple other pages - there is no means to redirect the page to all of the content that has been removed.  I still have yet to see any cogent argument for why this content should be removed from this page, and the redirect is just plain wrong.  --Dschor 00:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Democracy can be annoying, but it allows for a group process. Please abide by the democratic group process.--Cberlet 00:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Does the neofascism page really now include all the information that was contained in this page? The redirect caught a lot of us by surprise. Babajobu 14:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PLEASE join the discussion and editing at Neo-Fascism or Fascism and ideology.--Cberlet 15:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NO, the neofascism page does not include all the information that was contained in this page.  The redirect may be a surprise attempt at unilateral deletion, and certainly, as you say, caught a lot of us by surprise.  --Dschor 21:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PLEASE join the discussion and editing at Neo-Fascism or Fascism and ideology.--Cberlet 21:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the redirect. Unfortunately I haven't had a chance to write up the summary yet. --Stlemur 21:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: We should be able to undo the redirect as soon as you have the pre-war material to put up. Tom Harrison Talk 21:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason to undo the redirect, since the overwhelming sentiment was to delete or redirect this page.  There is aleady a lengthy discussion of claims about FDR and fascism and other pre-war issues at Fascism and ideology. The discussion on that page includes materal brought in from several other pages. A lot of editing work has gone into it. If folks want to carve out that pre-WWII discussion from Fascism and ideology and create a new page with a new title, that would be appropriate. However this refusal to abide by what was the clear desire of a majority of editors is just plan tiresome, and it clearly violates the spirit of collective editing and the culture of Wikipedia. If folks recreate this page, it will just be nominated again for deletion, or have the material merged and redirected. It would be a total waste of time.--Cberlet 22:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I agree that a "redirect" vote should be regarded as a "delete" vote rather than as a "keep" vote. That's one of the ways that the AfD process is currently broken. "Redirect" is regarded as a variant of "keep", which seems pretty silly. If one third voted for redirect and one third voted for delete, that sounds like redirect to me. Babajobu 22:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible there is a better name; maybe he should add his material to Fascism and ideology. My point is that there is a place for Stlemur's work on pre-WWII fascism in America. Tom Harrison Talk 22:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No you have the results wrong, they are at the top of the page, the results of the vote was no consensus to delete, note the to delete part thats the only vote that counts in the AfD process. A number of the editors here have moved forward (including one that I would describe as a libral according to his bio), once Stlemur completes his outline of the history based article, we can move forward with that, until then the content has been merged and redirected. PPGMD 23:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the content has not been merged and redirected according to the guidelines.  It has been split into more than one article, which is not the proper means to conduct a merge and redirect.  There is little difference between a deletion and a blank, other than administrator action.  This page has been blanked, and the content has been removed and divided.  I can only support a merge and redirect if it follows the proper form of a merge - and this does not.  Despite the fact that a number of editors have performed this action, the article is not well served by a redirect to an article that covers only part of the material that was here.  This is not a proper use of merger.  If you wish to merge the page, post it on Proposed mergers.  Until then, leave the content so that others may edit productively.  --Dschor 23:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only content that you spent any time editing was the GWB/Republican section, that was copy and pasted right into the section in Neo-Fascism nothing was removed when I put it there, the some of the content that FDR was put in the other article. Stlemur is working on a Pre-WWII article, but that would be best in a new article, History of Fascism in the United States with a possible disambiguation on the Fascism in the United States page. PPGMD 23:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that this page has been split, and the redirect only points to some of the content that was taken from this article.  There is no provision for merging an article into two other articles, and then redirecting to one of them and not the other.  This article should discuss Fascism in the United States from origin to the present day, not redirect  to a general discussion of Neo-Fascism.  The edits over the past few days have directly contradicted the purpose of the article, which is to provide an overview of fascism in the United States.  Even when StLemur has completed the pre-war portion, there will still be no place to go for an overview of fascism in the United States.  This should be that place.  --Dschor 00:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have stated the same argument over and over, you have been over ruled, and we move forward. I am sick of argueing you you. PPGMD 01:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have provided no argument, have asserted a right to remove the contributions of others, and have reverted without justification.  I am sick of arguing with you, but I will not be told that I have been over ruled.  You have no right to do so.  --Dschor 01:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have provided our arguments, and we voted, and moved forward. You were overruled in the vote. PPGMD 01:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: These claims by Dschor are simply outlandish. And please learn about the little colons before the text to format properly.--Cberlet 03:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on it now. In the meantime, I think it might help if everyone about this debate backs down a bit and leaves things be for, say, 24 hours. --Stlemur 08:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is ongoing text editing and discussions going on over at Neo-Fascism and Fascism and ideology, where this page was redirected. Please note that any page titled History of fascism in the United States will conflict with several pages on neofascist and neonazi groups in the United States, as well as various pre-WWII pro-fascist movements and groups in the United States. Please take this discussion to Neo-Fascism and Fascism and ideology where it belongs. This page has been redirected by popular sentiment established through long discussion and a vote.--Cberlet 13:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge this page discussions