Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-08/fascism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article
StatusClosed
Request date15:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Requesting partyUnknown
Parties involvedUser:DanielRigalUser:The Four DeucesUser:CollectUser:Franklinbe
Mediator(s)Reubzz
CommentPrevious attempts at consensus have not been attempted

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|

]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|

]]

Request details[edit]

Where is the dispute?[edit]

The Talk Page of fascism (and here, please get in touch with Reubzz)

Who is involved?[edit]

A list of the users involved:

What is the dispute?[edit]

Talking about an article on American, Dutch and Belgian Neo-fascism there are a couple of different opinions. The article got deleted without a 'Speedy Deletion Tag' and since scientists are discussing the matter for over 100 years, I would like some more neutral comments, since most others are in my humble opinion biased. Thank You.

What would you like to change about this?[edit]

I would like a neutral opinion and constructive Tips, since I believe the people involved with this article have difficulty in this case to be neutral.


How do you think we can help?[edit]

Stimulate a neutral discussion.

Mediator notes[edit]

I will be glad to take this case. Reviewing it now --Reubzz (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes[edit]

Discussion[edit]

Note: Here are the reversion diffs so that you can see what was removed, by who and for what reasons:

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&action=historysubmit&diff=324555288&oldid=324552731
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&action=historysubmit&diff=324572983&oldid=324569939
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&action=historysubmit&diff=324588501&oldid=324588376
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&action=historysubmit&diff=324634913&oldid=324633488

--DanielRigal (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Franklinbe, who started this case, is a new user and seems to be a SPA exclusively focused on the Fascism article. He has a viewpoint he wants to promote which is incoherent but seems to be some sort of global neo-fascist conspiracy theory centred on the Benelux countries but also taking in the USA in general and IBM in particular. He wrote a POV section to that effect and inserted it into Fascism. It was removed by various other editors (including myself). He had a go at referencing it but relied on blogs and webforum postings. Even if the individual references were valid, the whole thing was an attempt at improper synthesis. He then started an RFC (which is still ongoing) on Talk:Fascism. As a result he was told about the various reasons why his text was not appropriate. Having got short shrift there, he now seems to be forum shopping by coming here. He is nothing if not tenacious. I don't think he is being intentionally disruptive but he has serious neutrality issues and seems to believe that everybody who disagrees with him is biased against his worldview. He has even suggested that Wikipedia as a whole is Fascist. Intentional or not, his presence on this sensitive article is disruptive. I am not sure how best to deal with it. I have suggested that the best venue for his polemic would be a blog or a webforum but he doesn't seem to have taken the hint. If a mediator is appointed and does not agree with him then I suspect that their advice will simply be rejected as "biased". I can't see it helping. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the blogs mentioned was of Filip Dewinter. One of the people mentioned in the article. The suggestion on Wikipedia beeing fascist is one of your wild fantasies. I do suggest that more then 50% of the people on wikipedia are Angelacs and that that does have something to do with the whole situation. Fascism also make people to affraid to talk openly.... like christianity.
    If you light up a house and kill the fire after 3 out of 4 people died inside, you're not a hero... that is what fascism is all about. --Franklinbe (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have reread what he wrote and I now realise that he was accusing my interpretation of Wikipedia of being Fascist, rather than Wikipedia itself. I have to hold my hands up on this one. In my defence, it isn't always easy to follow what he is saying, as you can see from the rather strange house fire analogy above. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Daniel! Let's do it in Dutch ;D--Franklinbe (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Finally, I would point out that we already have some decent coverage of Belgian neo-Fascism in Neo-Nazism" Daniel, neo-nazism and neo-fascism are not the same. On the fascism page you can find about 6 subcategories. Nazism is one of them. Neo-fascism is another sub categorie. Intentional or not, fascisms presence on this sensitive world is disruptive.--Franklinbe (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the taken mediator in this case, I would first like to get everyone's agreement to participate in this mediation process. My job is to be independant and neutral and try to find a compromise that all can agree with. Cheers! Reubzz (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK. I'm in. I don't know if we are meant to have an RfC and a mediation going in parallel but it doesn't bother me. I have already given a quick overview of my viewpoint above and provided the diffs that started this matter off. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC is a good way to get discussion going, but if it appears there is still conflict (neither side is willing to give up anything), then a mediation process would be a next recomended step. Reubzz (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)In the case at hand, mediation is not what is called for at this point in time. There is a current RfC on the Fascism article, and it appears the person pushing the added material has, so far, failed to gain a single editor in support of his position. Mediation is better suited where at least a couple of editors are on each side. You may note that The Four Deuces and I are in agreement on this. Further note the likelihood that the proposed addition runs afoul of WP policy in any event. I suggest that the mediator be the one to formally reject this request. If mediation over "neo-fascism" applying to Benelusx and the US is deemed suitable for mediation at this tome, I will participate. To Daniel: It is hughly irregular to have RfC on one day (started 12:22 8 November) and mediation started before the ink is dry on the RfC (three hours later, in fact) Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. As I have just started reviewing the matter I did not have time to see its full prior history. I would recommend that an RfC proceed in its due course before this mediation goes forward. I believe mediation to be a good process in the way that it is structured, but it is not to be used as a way to quickly end a discussion. Mediation does not require there to be more than one person holding the same opinion. While rare, it can be 1 vs. 1 or something to that effect. I would ask the person who filed the case to review the following questions before proceeding. I believe that if the filer believes there to be a dispute, I will have to ask all parties to assist in starting the process.

1) Does the discussion indicate consensus? - 2) Has the discussion lasted enough time for all arguments to be laid out? - 3) Has the atmosphere of the discussion been civil and balanced?

Please answer these questions in your mind and think if mediation is the step to follow. If it is, I will be ready to begin. Lastly, let me note that I will not formally close the case unless I believe the opening to be fruitless or another extreme determination.

Cheers! --Reubzz (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheerz Reubzz!! This is more what I would expect from Wikipedia.org
I'll do my best not to make the Rooky Mistakes i made in the first days.--Franklinbe (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Franlinbe, does this mean you want to continue mediation? or do you want to wait for the concludion of the RfC? Reubzz (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the discussion starting here you will see that Franklinbe's suggestions have no realistic prospect of being accepted by other editors. His comment to me "There is a big chance that you work for the US government" makes me doubt that he is approaching the article in a wholly rational manner. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since everything I write vannishes before I can finnish my cigarette...

1) Does the discussion indicate consensus? Nope, that's why you and the other Wiki People are here for.
2) Has the discussion lasted enough time for all arguments to be laid out? 2009 years and counting

3) Has the atmosphere of the discussion been civil and balanced? Check History!! About Wikipedia.org, nope, my subcategorie stub was removed immediatly.

--Franklinbe (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I have a dream that my future children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Free at last! Free at last! Thanks, we are free at last.... (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm) I'm going back to the article while you guys comment on the stuff written below. --Franklinbe (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)--Franklinbe (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheerz! (User:Reubzz) on your Question @ (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC) "does this mean you want to continue mediation? " Since, the requested mediation was 'unofficial', yes. t.i.a.[reply] 

--Franklinbe (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@4Deuces: Me too, sometimes ;)

These paragraphs all come from Wikipedia.org

Belgian stay-behind network The same year, the European Parliament sharply condemned NATO and the United States in a resolution for having manipulated European politics with the stay-behind armies. The Commission was created following events in the 1980s, which included the Brabant massacres and the activities of far right group Westland New Post. 

   * 1964 Operation Solo

   In 1964, Gladio was involved in a silent coup d'état when General Giovanni de Lorenzo in Operation Solo forced the Italian Socialists Ministers to leave the government.[28]

   * 1969 Piazza Fontana bombing

   According to Avanguardia Nazionale member Vincenzo Vinciguerra: "The December 1969 explosion was supposed to be the detonator which would have convinced the politic and military authorities to declare a state of emergency"

Licio Gelli has often said he was a friend of Argentine President Juan Perón. In any case, some members of Jorge Videla’s junta were discovered to be piduista, such as José López Rega, founder of the infamous anticommunist organization Triple A, Raúl Alberto Lastiri or Emilio Massera. The Vatican Bank was also accused of funneling covert US funds for the Solidarnosc trade union movement in Poland and the Contras in Nicaragua. Propaganda Due (aka P2), a quasi-freemasonic organization, whose existence was discovered in 1981, was said closely linked to Gladio.

NATO's "stay-behind" organizations were never called upon to resist a Soviet invasion, but their structures continued to exist after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Internal subversion and "false flag" operations were explicitly considered by the CIA and stay-behind paramilitaries. According to a November 13, 1990 Reuters cable,[11] "André Moyen – a former member of the Belgian military security service and of the [stay-behind] network – said Gladio was not just anti-Communist but was for fighting subversion in general. He added that his predecessor had given Gladio 142 million francs ($4.6 millions) to buy new radio equipment."

Ganser alleges that on various occasions, stay-behind movements became linked to right-wing terrorism, crime and attempted coups d'état

Switzerland was suspected of again creating a clandestine paramilitary structure, allegedly to replace the former P26 and P27 (the Swiss branches of Gladio). Furthermore, in 2005, the Italian press revealed the existence of the Department of Anti-terrorism Strategic Studies (DSSA), accused of being "another Gladio".

Internal subversion and "false flag" operations were explicitly considered by the CIA and stay-behind paramilitaries. According to a November 13, 1990 Reuters cable,[11] "André Moyen – a former member of the Belgian military security service and of the [stay-behind] network – said Gladio was not just anti-Communist but was for fighting subversion in general. He added that his predecessor had given Gladio 142 million francs ($4.6 millions) to buy new radio equipment."[12]

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism[1][2][3][4] with a corporatist economic system,[5] and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum. What the F*ck does that invented basterd have to do with Politics?!? Exept for keeping people affraid and obedient? If they're not, they get SHOT, GASSED, JAILED OR STONED TO DEATH!! --Franklinbe (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of this belongs in the Gladio article. Whether this specific view of Gladio is correct is something to be addressed in that article. But it does not belong in the Fascism article, which is primarily about fascist ideology and government, not what fascists did after the war. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of it is too fringe for Gladio. Collect (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that is what they call neo-fascism and I also think they deserve some Credit.
--Franklinbe (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"User:Franklinbe, who started this case, is a new user and seems to be a SPA exclusively focused on the Fascism article." Well... check the IP adress and you'll know more. I am more than interested now. ;)--Franklinbe (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-08/fascism&oldid=325533578"