User:Bobisbob2

Welcome to wiki. Feel free to reply here, or delete this text after reading, as any further discussion would take place on the Nazism Discussion page itself.

I reverted your edit of Nazism for the following reasons:

Removing Text follows All the rules for Inclusion, plus 1 additional rule

1. Do not remove text unless it breaks these rules WP:NOT, and others. WP:NOT is the list of rules that text must follow to be included.

So you see, Bobisbob2, the onus is on you, the responsibility is yours, to prove that the text you deleted breaks one of these rules. Your annotated contention concerning the deleted text was: "(fringe theory, Historians like Richard Evans disagree)". When I annotated my edit, "So say so", in response, I meant to show you the easy route, which is to include the theory of Richard Evans, suitably cited, in the article. So now we come to your second edit. Ignoring my reversion, which is a sign that there is something seriously wrong with one's edits, btw, you repeated the deletion, and annotated "(this is a controversial topic to which many histrorians[sic] disagree.)", much the same argument, but does not show the text to be WP:NOT, nor any other wiki rule. I must -at least- return the text to the best former state. If I were a saint, or a better Wiki editor than I have ever personally encountered, I might search out Richard Evans myself, and insert his hypotheses. However, since the only source even close to being authoritative on the subject of Nazism under Richard Evans is someone listed for something else, ie Richard Evans 'the Australian politician', my decision is to leave the research up to you. Anarchangel (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the lede is not the place to detail the debate on Nazism's alledged anti-capitalism. There's aready a section below for that. The lede should only have the elements agreed upon. Anti-capitalism is not one of them. Bobisbob2 (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You have given a good reason. Additionally, it seems to me that keeping it out of the lead is a measure toward preventing it being used to conflate nazism and socialism, in any case. Anti-capitalism could bolster, with quantity if not quality, the mediocre argument that Nazism's anachronistic definition of socialism is equivalent to modern socialism. However, I was hoping that the argument that there was a hypocritical contradiction between their stated anti-capitalism while coming to power, and their use of it to further their ends. Perhaps I will find this, and I will take your advice and put it elsewhere on the page.

It is regrettable that I jumped in without knowing the score. On the other hand, had you typed a short Edit Summary like 'anti-capitalism unsuitable for lead, by consensus', none of this would have happened, I can assure you. I hope to work with you in more cordial circumstances in the future. Anarchangel (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry for the misunderstanding. Bobisbob2 (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

anarchism template

Lysander spooner is barely known outside the USA. How can some one prefer him instead of errico malatesta who besides being one of the most important anarchists in Europe in South America hes also very important. Malatesta even lived in argentina and was also influential there. Also Bookchin is a central intelectual for green anarchism.--Eduen (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If you dont support your changes with arguments we cant go anywhere.--Eduen (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

How is Spooner more important than Malatesta? Spooner is not relevant outside the United States? You dont seem to know the history of anarchism that well. If you want to take people out i will say Howard Zinn but Malatesta is too much of an important person within anarchism. In the end you will have to explain how Spooner is more important than Malatesta and Bookchin. Personal tastes dont count here--Eduen (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)