Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 5

709:. If somebody searches for the term then we need to give them what they want. The problem is working out what that is. Some may be chuds, or those bamboozled by chuds, looking for anything to support the idiotic belief that fascism is left wing. For them, the current target is perfect. It explains where fascism really lies in the political spectrum. Far from legitimising this silly phrase, anything we can do to funnel people searching for it towards the truth of the matter is worthwhile. (There is a lot to be said for deliberately making redirects so that anybody searching for edgelord terminology gets pointed towards accurate information that will help to deflate whatever misconceptions caused them to do that specific search.) Others may be looking for something more specific without knowing the correct term to search for e.g. 887:. I think Levivich and DanielRigal's arguments are very compelling but ultimately founder on the the question of utility to the reader in the absence of a mention in the target. Redirects don't have to be mentioned in the target in absolutely every case, but I struggle to think of a case where it wouldn't be necessary, or wouldn't lead to avoidable confusion, for the name of a political concept to point to a target where that concept isn't directly discussed. This is compounded by the fact that there is a body of scholarship on "left-wing fascism" unrelated to right-wing both-sides-ism or Jonah Goldberg-type nonsense (I'm thinking mostly of work by 1060:. Both pages address the (real and alleged) interaction of fascism and left-wing ideologies. While having the term "left-wing fascism" mentioned at target would be preferable, the important thing with a non-neutral redirect is to point the reader somewhere that explains that term's non-neutrality (and if applicable its factual wrongness), and both of these targets do that (again, the current better than the alternative). There are many other non-neutral, problematic, and misleading terms that have been kept at RfD in the past, and I do not see this one as exceptional. And to address a few other arguments made: On the 545:"Delete" does not mean "delete and do not redirect", and no one objected to redirecting. Redirect was suggested partway through by one voter, and the only other voter to vote afterwards agreed. We could ping everyone who voted and see what the think. I'm still baffled that anyone would want to delete this redirect. Why erase this term from the encyclopedia, it's an obvious search term, and readers should be pointed to somewhere that explains what it is (and isn't). "Cuz the AFD" is a pretty poor argument. What is your substantive objection to this redirect? 991:" as a conceptual label for radical authoritarian socialism (particularly types associated with militant nationalism) is something that's intellectually valid, I think (and I strongly disagree with the notion that the label is just a political slur), the redirect as it stands shows the reader a place with serious information discussing how fascism in general fits in the broader left-to-right political spectrum. I'd rather expand that article than otherwise change things. Deletion is the wrong call. 3370:) of the merged content. Anyone should be free to boldly revert any of those two actions, and there's nothing requiring sending the restored article to AfD (though Rosguill above has cast doubt on its notability). Deletion is not an option because of the article content in the history that no-one is arguing should be deleted. Deletion, together with redirecting to Wiktionary, should be off the table for another reason as well: we already have an article on the topic right here on Knowledge: 1723:, but will explain a bit more. The film was originally meant to release in 2021, but was pushed back to 2022. Checking the history of the image, there seems to have been a poster with the old 2021 release date, but it was replaced with a 2022 poster. The 2021 poster was deleted, presumably as unused NFC. The 2021 image file name shouldn't have redirected to the 2022 poster because they are two different posters. — 2732: 2501: 1907: 1092:, and it could go in either direction. Either it's an attempt by right-wing sympathizers to spread the notion that fascism isn't only connected to right-wing ideologies, or it's an attempt by left-wing sympathizers to fight back against disinformation attempts by right-wingers trying to change the definition of fascism. Or maybe it's both at the same time. Either way, it's a useless, 705:. I know this is not one of the normal options but my !vote really is "NOT delete". There are multiple arguable options here, including the status quo, but deletion is not one of them. My "tentative delete" vote on the AfD was based on the awful state of the article that was proposed for deletion not a desire to expunge the term completely. In fact, I said that 916:(one of the proposed targets) will. Agree with Laterthanyouthink and Arms & Hearts that the current target does not mention or explain the subject, and is more problematic than useful to the reader. While I agree with the spirit of DanielRigal's NOT delete, the alternate option of disambiguation does not arise as none of the potential targets (including 2178:, which explicitly identifies old redirects from subpages as a type of redirect that should be kept. If there's consensus to delete this it might be worth seeing if there's consensus to revise that guidance page; I think the idea that anybody's going to stumble across a link to this in the wild and follow it is probably negligible. – 1690: 3483: 2454: 722:

the awful mess that got deleted, as well as to keep an eye out for general POV pushing. Maybe it is more trouble than it is worth? I'm not sure so I'm not going to advocate a specific outcome here. I just want to be clear that my delete !vote on the AfD was specific to that AfD and does not carry over to this discussion. --

3797: 2009: 1527: 1232: 350: 2595: 1351: 867:

per Levivich and DanielRigal, the information at the target is informative to a reader searching this term, as it both explains the RS consensus perspective of where fascism is positioned on the political spectrum, and provides additional context on the use of fascism as a pejorative for non-rightist

721:

would be arbitrary and almost certainly unhelpful to more people than it helps. I am not against a disambiguation page but it absolutely must prioritise the current target as the main item if it is to be valid. It would also need careful watching to prevent anybody morphing it back into anything like

3057:

would be better. Anyway, I am not sure what do; the current redirect is pointless (again, the target doesn't mention it), but deleting it would result in a loss of a past article without an AfD. Redirecting to unit of analysis is not ideal as that article also doesn't mention this. The old article

3052:

This was merged to level of analysis, but over the years, any mention of the term 'social unit' was removed from the target. The merge discussion (see talk page of both mentioned articlsS) was not attended - only the proposer suggested it and then carried out the uncontroversial merge. My query is

663:

I have no real idea what you want, what I do know is this has been an issue in the past. I suspect that if this redirect is kept it will be an issue again, for exactly the reason you state "I wanted to find out about the truth behind "left-wing fascism". If we said something about it in the target

2830: 3374:, as noted in the nomination. It may not currently have explicit mention of the term "social unit", but I can't see how this fact could possibly confuse readers: the article's title and first sentence are about "units", and the second sentence explicitly sets the context as being "social". Just 2465:

Neologism that doesn't appear to have any traction in English or Turkish (I searched for "Atatürkın sosyalizm" and "Atatürk sosyalizm"; the latter framing lends some results on Google Scholar, but appear to be relating to Atatürk's personal politics rather than Ulusalcılık). N.b., the current

800:. Unfortunately, Knowledge is getting a reputation for left-wing bias and when students, researchers and the general public discover that articles offering counterarguments to Knowledge’s ‘perceived wisdom’ are being deleted irrespective of their merits they will assume bias and be correct. 155: 1037:

instead (as I noted, I think the term would be searched by those encountering the perjorative version), but as this is the very next section after the current redirect section target, I don't think there's a problem. Both targets are clearly visible, and I think the higher target is more

609:

Now that we have Daniel and Slater's comments below, we can say that out of the 4 delete voters in the AFD, only 1 says this redirect should be deleted. That doesn't determine the outcome of this RFD, but I think it negates the "in line with the decision of the latest AfD" rationale.

3518:- the section on Social science perspectives does obliquely discuss the historical formation of institutions at a very theoretical and abstract level. I'm uncertain as to whether that's enough to satisfy a reader or whether deletion to encourage article creation would be preferable. 891:), which could be covered in the encyclopaedia but isn't; given we don't have any encyclopaedic coverage of that topic or related topics, we're better off making the reader aware of that rather than pointing them to something tangentially related and without a mention of the term. – 3041: 429:? Delete because there is no notable topic? Double what? Since when do redirects need to be notable? I mean, kind of the point of redirects is that they're used for search terms that don't have a notable topic... like left-wing facism... Are you new to RFD? :-P 398:

The original article was deleted because there is no body of literature to explain the notability of the expression. Basically, six authors had written "left-wing fascism," but they all meant different things and did not refer to one another. It's like the term

778:

which in its lead says: "...the mainstream view among historians and political scientists that maintains fascism is a far-right ideology" . I'd lean towards delete, else add more content at the target plus a redirect hatnote to Red fascism and Liberal fascism.

3329:. That venue is better suited to decide whether this should be an article, interwiki redirect, redlink, or something else. This was only ever redirected as part of a merger, and if none of the merged content survives, then the solution ought to be to restore. 2978:. The more relists, the farther away we get from a consensus. Some want to delete, some want to soft redirect to Wiktionary, some want to revert the redirection, some want to retarget to more relevant articles. It isn't clear which action is the best to take. 174:

disambiguation page, even though it is not real by the author's own admission. From the first edit in version history: "(This article was entirely fictional and used to dupe a grandparent in a game of Scrabble.)" Research verifies this is not a valid word.

2895:

per my comments at the previous Rfd: this term most commonly refers to the current target. Nothing has changed since the last Rfd; an IP bringing the same nomination with the same rationale when the consensus is clear is a waste of everyone's time.

2075:, the only reasons to keep a redirect with a malformed title like this would be to keep useful old history and possibly preserve old links, but none likely apply (the page had content for less than an hour in 2001 before being quickly redirected.) 2466:

articles for Ulusalcılık on both en.wiki and tr.wiki describe an ideological phenomenon that took place after Atatürk's death; "Kemalist socialism" would perhaps be an appropriate redirect, "Atatürk's socialism" is not and should be deleted.

1029:- A valid search term for those who are confused about the definition of fascism, probably due to the perjorative sense. This redirect properly informs such a person that "left-wing fascism" is an oxymoron. I definitely wouldn't 686:

article called "position on the political spectrum", which is the target of this redirect. I honestly don't know what you're talking about when you say the target doesn't talk about it, when there's a whole section devoted to it.

3913:

case that the 1938 film is based on. Searching French news online, while a few sources use "l'affaire Lafarge" in the context of the 2017 scandal, about half the time they appear to be using the phrase to refer to Lafarge itself

771:

The term is highly problematical and I'm not sure that a satisfactory article on the topic could ever be written. The target doesn't actually mention or explain it. Also, note in passing the article about a book called

925: 505: 1799:. From a search the only difference between the two posters seems to be the date at the bottom? I don't see why this poster was moved at all, it doesn't really seem to strictly meet any of the criteria at 1561:

I think the cited text of Athenaeus is pretty clear that the Satyrus mentioned is the one who wrote a biography of Philip and so the Peripatetic. I’d just make the change as this seems uncontroversial. -

3228:. Searching on Google Scholar, I wasn't able to find any literature analyzing the usage of the term social unit, which means that the best we can do is redirect the reader to a dictionary definition. 654:

left-wing? We don't accomplish that by censoring the term, by removing it entirely from the encyclopedia. Hook or crook my foot. You seriously think I'm trying to say fascism is left wing? Ffs, SS.

451:". As far as I know, it's not discussed at any other potential target except the current one. Readers who want to know what "left-wing fascism" is will find out by reading about it at the article " 2874: 1012:) is probably more appropriate. The "Fascist left" spoken about is very context specific aspect of Italian fascism and is not what most people would be looking for when searching this term. 1096:

redirect. We don't typically create redirects and point them to things that they're not, so that we can educate people about common misconceptions. Like, we wouldn't create a redirect for

2854: 3917:(i.e "the Lafarge company"), and not the scandal. A reader searching for this term on en.wiki is almost certainly going to be looking primarily for the film, whose original title is 2845: 1803:, a film planned for a 2021 release date having it's poster at a (2021) disambiguator seems like a reasonable enough situation to me, even if it was delayed to a 2022 release. 2739: 2508: 1914: 3494:

It does not seem as though the target article contains any specific information about its history. Readers searching this term will not find what they are looking to find.

39: 34: 664:(as in "experts agree fascism is not left wing" (or some such)), the fact is we do not. So we are (in effect) invot9iomg people to add something about left wing fascism. 1678: 3909:

and disambiguate with a hatnote. In French, it appears based on fr.wiki and Google Scholar results that the primary topic is still overwhelmingly the 19th century

1684: 682:

say fascism is not left wing, I just quoted it. Sheesh, how is "fascism is right wing" not the same as "fascism is not left wing"? There's a whole section in the

3471: 2442: 1064:

side I don't see it as relevant that this page was deleted at AfD when it was an article, since the concerns are totally different for a redirect; while on the

3477: 3133:

pre-merge/redirect version. (The link given by nom is wrong though, it gave me an error: "This site is only available in Mainland China.") Second option,

2448: 855: 1104:

in the hopes that the reader sees that "vegetarians are people that don't eat meat" and clears up any confusion. That's just not what redirects are for.

2024:

so I assume "Hip" isn't a music genre. Like its sister below, this redirect has been around a while, but this one isn't useful and might be misleading.

3785: 1997: 2237:

per Brainulator9. I agree it's not the most plausible title, but since it dates back to 2001, it should ideally be kept for attribution purposes.

1515: 1220: 338: 3791: 2583: 2003: 21: 1521: 1339: 1226: 344: 3279: 2610:-ing, as the search-term suggests racism by immigrants, not against immigrants. Deletion seems appropriate for lack off a suitable target. 2589: 2118: 238: 1345: 908:. Agree with the nom and TFD that this is an ambiguous subject. Keeping the redirect at the current target will not help readers reach 2878: 805: 17: 3915: 2117:

and now contains the first version of that article after it was imported; could it be moved or imported to the history of that page?

3029: 2818: 1804: 3837: 3760: 300:

redirect, but don't see that it's doing any harm, especially if it's a valid search term. No objection to changing the target. ~

3324: 3035: 2824: 2021: 849: 3258: 3000: 1739: 624:

as it seems a bit forkey, a way of keeping "left-wing fascism" by hook or by crrok. I am also unsure the target mentions it.

368:

does not cover what one would expect by typing "Left-wing fascism". I feel maybe the redirect should be either retargeted to

143: 2477: 2417: 1539: 801: 564: 3207:- The term is simply so vague and general that I can't see making anything useful out of it. Deletion is the right call. 3062:

pre-merge version, which could be AfD if anyone so desires. In either case, this redirect is currently not sustainable.

425:. Where else would the reader learn about what "left-wing fascism" is (and its various meanings) other than the article 149: 3855: 3574: 3212: 2703: 2202: 2104: 996: 784: 522:...delete per the AFD where two out of four delete voters suggested a redirect, which is why I created this redirect? 1672: 3943: 3870: 3809: 3622: 3589: 3540: 3296: 3175: 3145: 3084: 2638: 2256: 2183: 2137: 2043: 1823: 1666: 1567: 952: 896: 843: 742: 470: 3465: 3734: 3422: 2965: 2892: 2765: 2653: 2534: 2375: 1940: 1629: 1460: 1290: 1153: 408: 283: 79: 3960: 3932: 3897: 3859: 3695: 3670: 3644: 3611: 3578: 3557: 3529: 3509: 3446: 3383: 3358: 3341: 3313: 3285: 3239: 3216: 3195: 3164: 3125: 3104: 3074: 3004: 2928: 2905: 2882: 2791: 2707: 2688: 2667: 2642: 2621: 2558: 2336: 2305: 2281: 2245: 2229: 2187: 2159: 2126: 2108: 2091: 2063: 2033: 1970: 1882: 1866: 1843: 1812: 1787: 1765: 1743: 1714: 1661: 1653: 1592: 1571: 1555: 1488: 1421: 1402: 1371: 1314: 1252: 1195: 1114: 1080: 1047: 1021: 1000: 975: 941: 900: 879: 859: 823: 809: 788: 759: 731: 691: 673: 658: 633: 614: 598: 584: 549: 540: 526: 517: 492: 459: 433: 412: 389: 311: 244: 206: 184: 118: 3274: 1362:"Satyrus of Elis" appears nowhere in Enwiki and I'm not sure a redirect to the disambiguation page is helpful. 1017: 233: 2436: 2122: 3779: 3569:- This article ought to exist as its own topic. I think... thus, well, it appears best to have the text red. 3454: 3059: 3378:

there, and leave the door open for further changes whenever someone makes another big bold edit. – Uanfala (

3354: 2029: 1991: 1551: 1543: 1474: 1367: 1248: 1214: 1208: 1097: 2577: 3851: 3570: 3364: 3208: 2699: 2698:- Both immigrants and native-born citizens can express racist views. Deletion is the right call. I agree. 2223: 2100: 1796: 1775: 1708: 1509: 1333: 992: 780: 669: 629: 332: 2425: 3730: 3418: 2961: 2761: 2631: 2530: 2371: 1936: 1808: 1625: 1563: 1456: 1286: 1149: 819: 727: 594: 536: 513: 417:

Delete because it has different meanings? What? I don't understand how anyone could have a problem with

306: 279: 93: 75: 3349:

as vague and likely to cause confusion. I don't object to restore/AfD but don't know if it's worth it.

2179: 1203: 892: 2566: 814:

I don't think I have ever seen anybody talk themselves into the right answer for wronger reasons. ;-)

2397: 1322: 1175: 1105: 576: 404: 3505: 3262: 2657: 2571: 1106: 1013: 221: 137: 455:". I don't understand what the problem is. Also note the nom has been TBANed from "Russia" at AE. 176: 55:

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 5, 2022.

3768: 3664: 3441: 3350: 3252: 3099: 2995: 2922: 2901: 2682: 2607: 2553: 2412: 2389: 2299: 2086: 2058: 2025: 1860: 1734: 1648: 1586: 1547: 1483: 1396: 1363: 1309: 1244: 1190: 1167: 296:

The votes are fairly evenly split with a slight leaning to delete, and I agree this is sort of a

200: 112: 888: 403:. Each person using the expression will have a different meaning and there is no notable topic. 400: 2873:

per number of possibilities that the term "cyanide gas" would refer to other gaseous cyanides.

3954: 3847: 3816: 3688: 3638: 3551: 3379: 3307: 3138: 3121: 3068: 3017: 2785: 2665: 2430: 2329: 2239: 2215: 1703: 753: 665: 639: 625: 568: 556: 418: 385: 180: 126: 3729:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

3417:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

2960:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

2760:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

2529:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

2370:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

1935:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

1624:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

1455:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

1285:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

1148:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

928:) have a mention of the term. Delete so it can come back as a possible broad concept article. 278:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

74:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

3773: 3654: 3371: 3054: 3023: 2812: 2806: 2172: 1386: 1043: 1008:

per arguments above. The topic isn't covered in this section so a redirect elsewhere (maybe

921: 815: 723: 590: 560: 532: 509: 301: 297: 678:

What problems? This redirect has existed for a year, we've had no problems. And the target

3053:

inconclusive on whether this topic deserves its own entry, and as for the merger, I think

2209: 2175: 2114: 1800: 1093: 774: 3058:

did have some reliably referenced content, and I am frankly tempted to suggest restoring

3151:. I found it useful as it lists the social units present at different levels of society. 3495: 2980: 2780: 2393: 1417: 1171: 101: 1068:

side I don't think we should be making decisions based on what Fox News thinks of us.

963:

Previous relists have been productive so I'm hopeful one more relist can wrap this up.

3925: 3910: 3890: 3753: 3659: 3604: 3522: 3436: 3248: 3232: 3188: 3157: 3094: 2990: 2917: 2897: 2677: 2614: 2548: 2470: 2407: 2316: 2294: 2274: 2194: 2152: 2076: 2053: 1963: 1954: 1877: 1855: 1836: 1760: 1755: 1729: 1643: 1581: 1478: 1391: 1304: 1185: 1089: 934: 872: 688: 655: 642:" or clicks that link the first thing they see when they're brought to the target is 611: 581: 546: 523: 485: 456: 430: 195: 107: 3681: 3117: 3064: 2661: 2322: 381: 217: 97: 3225: 1778:

and the precedent that film redirects are kept when the film gets pushed back. --

650:. Do you not want to educate readers that the mainstream view is that fascism is 3459: 3333: 3012: 1072: 1055: 1039: 1009: 988: 909: 718: 714: 710: 448: 447:" (search for "fascist left"). It is not discussed at the proposed new target, " 373: 369: 361: 3367:) was a bold action, and so was the 2015 removal (in several unexplained edits 1779: 1101: 967: 648:

which is exactly what they should see when they search for "left-wing fascism"

572: 3825: 1413: 841:, that section does talk about fascism in regard to communist states. - LCU 531:

The outcome of the discussion was "delete", not "delete & redirect". --

3723:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

3411:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

2954:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

2754:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

2523:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

2364:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

1929:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

1915:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 17#Sonic Chrono Adventure

1618:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

1449:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

1378: 1279:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

1142:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

717:. I don't think we can guess which of those they want so a retargeting to 272:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

68:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

3886: 3749: 3600: 3153: 2171:

as ambiguous and confusing, but with the caveat that this requires us to

2148: 1959: 930: 481: 3747:. With the film as primary topic, added hatnote to the terrorist case. 2870: 1985: 1503: 1327: 1034: 917: 913: 838: 683: 644:

Most scholars place fascism on the far right of the political spectrum.

554:

Pinging the participants in the AFD in case they want to comment here:

452: 444: 426: 422: 377: 365: 326: 3972:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

3707:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

3395:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2938:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2719:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2488:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2348:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

1894:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

1602:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

1433:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

1263:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

1126:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

256:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2855:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 16 § Cyanide gas

2846:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 4 § Cyanide gas

2113:

Not useful as a redirect, but it was probably the original title of

2740:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 12#Faithfully flat

707:"it may be that there is scope for a valid article on this subject" 506:

Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Left-wing_fascism_(4th_nomination)

193:

G3 per creators own comment in the page history. Happy Editing--

3968:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

3815:, it also refers to a corporate scandal currently discussed at 3703:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

3391:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

2934:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

2715:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

2484:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

2344:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

1890:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

1598:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

1429:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

1381:, so this is a real person with pages on other wikis. Probably 1259:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

1122:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

252:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

171: 131: 3946: