User talk:Butlerblog
 | Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following:
|
September 2024
[edit]I'm not trying to canvass but you should probably know that I filed an AN/I case regarding the IP you have (justifiably) been reverting so much in the last few days. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Biohistorian15 Thanks for the heads up. Hope you see some success in getting some resolution, but the IP range is vast and it has been going on so long, I'm pretty much numb to it at this point. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Isn't Christian Identity a form of neo-fascism
[edit]I noticed that "Category:Neo-fascism" and "Category:Christian fascists" got removed from "Category:Christian identity", even though there's more than enough evidence to show that Christian Identity has many political tenets with fascism and nazism (to say nothing of its adherents being fascists like Neo-Nazis themselves).Razzamatazz Buckshank (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Being a decentralized religious belief with no specific set orthodoxy, it's difficult to apply the category to it as a whole. While there are some obvious groups that would apply (Aryan Nations comes to mind), not every group is actually political in nature, and there is much cross-over with other groups that are more sovereign citizen/antigovernment/militia, but not necessarily "religious" (Posse Commitatus for example). There are elements of neo-fascism in CI in general (racism, nativism, etc), but actually being neo-fascist is something different and does not apply to all (for example Shepherd's Chapel). For categorization, it's better to categorize articles that are actually neo-fascist or neo-Nazi at the article level; but the entire CI category doesn't belong as a sub-category of neo-fascism. When you're categorizing a category, the parent category needs to apply to all entries into the child category, which it does not in this case. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank You
[edit]"There are a lot of leads like that, and just as many editors who, unfortunately, feel that it somehow proves a point to stick every label they can "prove" into the opening sentence. It degrades readability and is poor writing style. In this case, all of those labels are presuppositional to the label "neo-Nazi". But if you remove them, a bevy of editors will shout "These are well sourced" regardless of the pedantic writing style."
Encyclopedias do not intentionally have degraded readability, or an intentionally poor writing style, and ultimately it is POV pushing and censorship, by forcing the Reader into a particular "track", which then excludes from their potential list of unlimited options, other tracks that their free-thinking mind may want to travel. Intelligent people instinctively notice this, and rebel against it, and so the "encyclopedic Article" becomes an obstacle to learning and new awareness, instead of facilitating it.
66.25.69.185 (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding your opinion. I think we're on the same page. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)