Talk:Europe of 100 Flags
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
New and innovative
editWithin the context of a longer article in a dedicated work, describing this as "new and innovative" is perfectly reasonable, but here, taken out of context, it's too confusing, and does seem like a peacock term. How is this idea (from 1968) new or innovative? Who, specifically uses those terms? It's not clear if this was Spektorowski, or the article's contributors summarizing Spektorowski's points. What did Spektorowski mean? Restoring an ancient model is old and regressive, not new and innovative. Some indication or context on how this is new and innovative would solve this and would improve the article. The wording was subtly implying that he thought it was a good thing, or that the goals were even hypothetically attainable. Ethnic "purity" has no basis in scientific reality, so we need to guard against accidentally legitimizing fringe ideas, which is why I'm concerned this is glossing over some important details. Grayfell (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand your concern. The Wikipedia article doesn't seem to describe the subject as "new and innovative". GMGtalk 22:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, it got messy. A previous version said this. Here is a diff of relevant recent changes: [1]
- Grayfell (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ah. Yes, I wrote that. I suppose in my mind, with the attributed quote, I was thinking of it a bit ironically. Like a "new and innovative way of getting children to start smoking cigarettes." No qualms with the removal/rewording. GMGtalk 22:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the muddle. I've added another source to the expanded definition of what "multiculturalism of the right" is. I am also OK with the re-write. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- It seemed like an interesting and helpful point, so I tried to paraphrase with less, um, subtlety, I guess. I suspect (I hope) that irony was the author's intention. Wikipedia has a bumpy track record with that, and unfortunately, from past experience I suspect that this idea's adherents have an even worse grasp on irony. Grayfell (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think you're correct on both points. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)