Rightandright

Norsefire

Hi Rightandright

I've reverted your good faith changes to the Norsefire infobox; my reasoning is that Susan is no longer leader at the end of the comic - he's replaced by Creedy, who in turn is killed. Fascism is a better description of Norsefire's ideology than conservatism - I'm no conservative (as you can probably tell from my user page...) but it seems slight insulting to conflate conservatism with the actions of Norsefire - Britain between 1979 and 1997 bore no relation to Norsefire's Britain ;-)

I've also re-added Alan Moore's Cassandra statement - I'm not sure why you took it out but I think it adds to the article rather than detracts.

I've not touched anything else - I agree with the rest of your edits and accept that these edits were made in good faith too.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  00:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

...and you've reinstated the changes. Can I ask that you discuss these changes on the article's talk page? Your changes are - in my view - controversial for the reasons stated above. Norsefire political position is *not* conservative, they are a fascist party. Removing the part about Alan Moore's views regarding Britain's direction in the 1980s takes away an important part of the article and hinders the reader's ability to understand why Moore felt that Norsefire was a credible future for Britain. This part, in particular, has remained in the article for a considerable length of time (since before I've been editing the article) and I think it is fair to say that there is consensus for its continuing inclusion.

Please justify your changes. I have no objection to being bold, so long as it take place within the context of bold, revert, *discuss* - not bold, revert, revert, ignore.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  19:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rightandright

In case you didn't know, you can discuss controversial changes (such as those you are making to Norsefire) either by clicking on the articles "discussion" tab at the top of the article's page, by editing this page (click on the "discussion" tab, again at the top of the page), or - if you wish - by editing my talk page (click the link in my signature, then click on the "discussion" tab).

If you really don't wish to discuss your changes then can you at least provide a reference for your claim that Norsefire are a conservative party? As you know, Wikipedia requires that claims - particularly controversial claims - adhere to WP:Verifiability. Without a cite to support your belief, your changes can - and will be - reverted.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  18:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rightandright

Thanks for getting back to me - it did (eventually!) occur to me that you might not know how to respond; I'm glad that was the case and that you are keen to discuss.

Firstly, the article is about the comic as much as it is about the film; however, in both the film and the comic Norsefire is a radical, totalitarian party. Repressive policies against, say, gay people and political dissidents are typical of fascism but are not necessarily associated with conservatism - which is a belief in maintaining the status quo.

I don't believe that Adam Susan's past affiliations are relevant here; Mussolin used to be a member of the Italian Communist Party, for example, and in Germany the Nazi party were always the National *Socialist* German Workers' Party. Most commentators, however, consider the Italian Fascist Party and the Nazi party to be on the far-right wing (well beyond conservatism or ulta-conservatism, given their radical nature).

I tend to agree that Norsefire are anti-liberal, though note that neither the film nor the comic openly state that. However, I don't consider it relevant to ultra-conservatism - I'm anti-liberal, but I can assure you I am by no means conservative - I'm very, very far to the *left* of liberalism.

Finally, all of this is completely subjective. Numerous writers have described Norsefire as fascist and totalitarian; I am not aware of any published sources that describe Norsefire as ultra-conservative. If such a suggestion is to be made it would need to be cited, i.e. a reference to a published work that describes Norsefire in such terms would need to be provided. The term "ultra-conservative" is itself somewhat vague; does it describe someone who takes conservatism to an extreme - an absolute belief in the maintenance of the status quo - or someone who adopts a more radical viewpoint (like, say, Margaret Thatcher within the UK Conservative Party in the 1970s and 1980s)?

Cheers,  This flag once was red  19:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I'm not disputing that (in the film) Susan was a former member of the Conservative party; I'm simply saying it shouldn't be inferred from that that Norsefire is ultra-conservative, anymore than Mussolini's *Socialist* (quite richt, not Communist) past made the Italian Fascist Party an ultra-Socialist party (a claim that *could* perhaps be made, given the Fascists' belief in syndicalism).

Re: "seppresive policies against homosexuals are a conservative view". I strongly disagree; firstly, a Conservative Party MP, Edwina Currie, tabled a motion to equalise the age of consent - many of her colleagues on the Conservative bench supported it, even though it was eventually defeated. Even assuming that conservatives were uniformly opposed to gay rights, suppression of homosexuality is not exclusive to conservatives - Singapore has traditionally been fairly hostile to gay rights, despite being led by a Socialist party. The (left-wing) Baathists in Iraq were hostile to gay rights, too. The stereotypical anti-gay ideology is fascism - due to the Fascists' treatment of gay people in the early part of the last century.

I strongly disagree that religion tends towards homophobia and repression. In the UK, Christian Socialism had - and continues to have - an important role in pushing back reactionary beliefs and traditions.

Again, if you can provide a reference I'll be happy. Without a reference it's just original research.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  19:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Officialy, the church and bible oppose homosexuality and liberal sociological policies"

There is no "the church"; there are many churches, some of which oppose "homosexuality and liberal sociological policies" and some of which don't. The Church of Scotland, for example, don't. The Church of England is split - Anglican ministers in some countries have been openly gay, while Anglicans in other countries have been opposed to homosexuality.

"Norsefire clearly expressed ultra conservative sociological views so i believe it is best if we leave the label on."

If Norsefire clearly expressed these views, you can presumably provide a reference?

Again, without a reference this is original research and has no place in an encyclopaedia. Without a reference *I* don't think it is best if we leave the label on. Please provide a reference or remove the label: this is about WP:Verifiability, not your personal views (or mine, for that matter).

Cheers,  This flag once was red  20:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Moore's commentary

Why does it matter that Moore's commentary isn't from the comic?

It's referenced, and it helps the reader understand why Moore believed the UK in the 1990s would be as it was portrayed in V for Vendetta.

It's been in the article for a very long time, and I for one would be very opposed to removing it for such spurious reasons.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  20:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again

Moore's prophesy was that Labour would win the 1983 election and disarm Britain (V for Vendetta was first published in 1982 - before the Tory election victory). In the V for Vendetta mythos, this resulted in a nuclear-free Britain that managed to avoid the worst excesses of the 3rd World War, though Europe and Africa were hit pretty badly - at some point Evey cries when she thinks "no more elephants" when her mother tells her about Africa. After the 3rd World War the World was a mess, and with no exports going out or imports coming in Britain fell apart. In the power vacuum that developed, Norsefire grew strong.

I think that the cited reference has Moore remarking that he was a bloody awful Cassandra, because Labour lost the 1983 election, but I still think it's directly relevant as it explains how Norsefire came to power in Moore's mind. (In 1982 it was fairly reasonable - before the Falklands War - to believe that Labour would oust the Tories, and Labour leader Michael Foot was a staunch member of CND, so Moore wasn't entirely crazy with his prophecy).

Hope that clarifies,

Cheers,  This flag once was red  05:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Europe

Hi,

Please refrain from making changes to core articles with regards to Europe. The pre-existing wording has been agreed upon for a very long time, and reflects the wording used in other commercial encyclopedias. If you wish to propose a change, please use the talk page and secure a consensus. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Norsefire. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to blocking of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello. This is your last warning. If you continue to breach consensus with regards to Norsefire or Europe, you will be blocked from editting. Use a talk page to propose major changes please. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.  Talk  20:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

--Jza84 |  Talk  20:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United Kingdom. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You are edit-warring, and given your previous history and blocks, a warning now is appropriate.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Norsefire again

Please refrain from making that same, unverified edit against consensus. You wound up blocked for it before and the same will only happen again if you continue. Instead, discuss the change on the talkpage of the article: Talk:Norsefire and see if a consensus or a compromise can be reached. Thanks, ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 14:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring and 3rr violation on United Kingdom article

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit-warring after previous warnings on United Kingdom and 3rr violation which, given previous blocks and warnings, means action to prevent you from continuing this is required. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

.

Suspected sock puppet report filed

Hi

I've filed a suspected sock puppet report involving you at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rightandright.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  18:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Norsefire

"British Nationalism" as an ideology is cited - there is a reference to support that claim. The comic - contrary to your claim - does show what's going on outside England; Norsefire are fighting the SNA in Scotland (a comparison is made with the British government fighting the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland during the Troubles). I understand your belief in the importance of the motto "England prevails", but that's just a soundbite - comparable to a Battle of Britain fighter pilot talking about "saving England". British politicians from England have a long tradition of using England interchangeably with Britain.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: White supremacy: they got rid of homosexuals and dissidents too - all consistent with Fascism, which is already listed and cited. The bottom-line is: find a reference that supports "White supremacy" and then add it. If you can't find a reference, don't engage in original research, i.e. don't add it.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Partly that, and partly because we can (and have) cite a reference for Fascism (and British nationalism) but so far as I'm aware no reliable source has compared Norsefire's ideology to White supremacy. Wikipedia is based on verifiable facts; we need to say only what can be supported by reliable sources. We can't make claims based on our own interpretations of the comic.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Christian fundamentalism. Only add it if it can be cited. I take the view that clericalism is part-and-parcel of Fascism (the Falange in Spain, the Fascists in Italy, even the Nazis in Germany all placed great importance on religion) so specifying religion is redundant. But again it boils down to - can it be cited? If not, it shouldn't be there.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)