User talk:BlueberryA96

Hello, I'm ZergTwo. I noticed that you recently removed content from Fascism without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Verified information, even if you dispute its factual accuracy, should generally not be removed without consensus, which you should achieve on the talk page if you want to restore your edit. ZergTwo (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for removing the material without adequate reasons presented for its removal and for not addressing it on the talk page. BlueberryA96 (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for your edits to the Template:Nationalism sidebar. As it mentions on the template page:

thank you! Yr Enw (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I have seen your edit on the Ba'athist Iraq page. You seem to have a bias for the Post-Gulf war Faith Campaign/Takbir version of the Iraqi flag. There is a reason why both flags appear on the page. As the flag represents a change in ideology. The original flag represents secular Ba'athism and was used for much longer than the second flag and was the flag used in the most significant conflicts (Iran-Iraq war / most of the Gulf war). The second flag was introduced following the Gulf war and is a religious variant of the original flag that was adopted by the party to gain religious support. The change in the flag is historically significant and should remain in the infobox. Babylonian1963 (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a bias towards the Faith Campaign version of the flag. It is you who has a preference for some reason for the 1963-1991 flag. I may be mistaken but I believe is you who have filled the Flag of Iraq article with images of the 1963-1991 flag. You seem to have a preference for that flag and you want that flag to show up more and you seem to dislike any preference for the 1991-2004 flag being shown over the 1963-1991 flag. You have said here that it is you who were the anonymous user who changed the infobox, all the historic country infoboxes I have seen show the latest flag, the 1991-2004, I think it is common sense to have the latest flag because it is the last representation of the country's flag. If the 1991-2004 flag was instead used only for one year an argument could be made that the longer used flag is more recognizable. But the 1991-2004 flag was used for 13 years, that is not an insignificant amount of time. BlueberryA96 (talk) 09:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I do not have a preference for either flag. But I believe that erasing the original 3 star flag (which did in fact last much longer and formed the basis of the other flag) from relevant articles makes no sense. The second flag is important as it was the flag used towards the end of the regime. Babylonian1963 (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by erasing? BlueberryA96 (talk) 09:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Both flags have different historical meanings in Ba'athist history and represent two different ideological stages of the Government and should be placed in equal importance on the articles concerning them. Both flags are historically important, but it could be argued that the original version of the flag is an equally historically significant flag. However it must be said that the original was used for much longer, used in most of the historical events concerning Ba'athist Iraq and formed the basis of the flag until 2008. Babylonian1963 (talk) 10:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Governments make major changes to laws and practices all the time, that does not rationalize why the 1963-1991 flag is so important that it be shown alongside the country's latest flag from 1991-2004. My argument is that the 1991-2004 flag was the latest flag of Ba'athist Iraq and it was used for a significant amount of time, the 1963-1991 flag can be shown in the article outside the infobox. The infobox with the two flags and two coat of arms looks cluttered and based on what I said above I believe that the 1991-2004 flag should be the ones in the infobox. BlueberryA96 (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Ba'athist Iraq contains two eras. Showing just the 1991 version of the flag ignores the other era which lasted much longer. Babylonian1963 (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Why does having two political eras justify having two flags in the infobox, the infoboxes of countries all tend to show the latest flag used. No, just showing the 1991 version of the flag in the infobox does not ignore the other flag or the other era as you are putting it, and the 1991-2004 flag was used for 13 years and that is not an insignificant amount of time. As said the 1963-1991 flag can be shown in the main body of the article. BlueberryA96 (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I will continue to support the status quo, including both flags equally in the infobox as it has been for many years. There is also a possible counter argument to yours, that the 1963 flag is the more historically important flag, as the other flag is simply a version of it with writing on it that lasted 13 years. You also ignore that the original flag was used alongside the 2004 flag and wasnt phased out until after the Baathist regime was overthrown, for example a well known use of it post-1991 is when Saddam kissed the flag on Television, the Takbir version was not used out of respect. During the Iraq War, the flag was still flown by many towns and military divisions. Babylonian1963 (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I am frustrating you on this, I have a different outlook on this than you do, so please do not get angry with me. We are having a disagreement because we are approaching the topic with different issues. My issue is that it is preferable to have the latest flag in the infobox. If the political changes were huge when Iraq adopted the 1991 flag then if you can demonstrate that it marks a clear break with the past decades when the 1963-1991 flag is used, then I will accept you stance and will end my argument for only one flag being preferable

It is true that older flags while they may officially end may continue to be widely used for some time, this is the case for the 2004-2010 flag of Serbia that can still be seen commonly used. But the article on the flag of Serbia does not show the 2004-2010 flag as equal to or more significant than the current flag of Serbia adopted in 2004. As mentioned above if you could provide solid evidence that the adoption of the 1991-2004 flag of Iraq was done at a time of a clear break from the previous years then I will support your stance and withdraw mine. BlueberryA96 (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The former flag of Serbia does not represent a large change. Simply a standardization. The difference between the two versions of the Iraqi flag have very strong ideological, historical cultural meanings. With many Iraqis today still identifying with both versions of the flags. They represent 2 different eras. Developing/secular Iraq and Post-Gulf war Iraq. Babylonian1963 (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

May it also be mentioned that this same problem exists on the First Republic of Iraq page, even though the 1963 flag is the latest flag. The original Qasimist flag is shown above it, as the Qasimist period flag is most commonly associated with the state and the distinct era that in flew in. Babylonian1963 (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

You have a good point now that you mention that article where there were definitely two eras. But that involved the violent overthrow of a government in 1963. Is the Ba'athist adoption of pro-religious policies at the same level of difference as the violent overthrow of a government? You have made a good point with the article on the First Republic of Iraq, I just don't know if the scale of difference between the time when the 1963-1991 flag was used and the 1991-2004 flag being used is at the same level of significance as in the First Republic of Iraq article. BlueberryA96 (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, as the Ba'athist ideology was initially meant to represent a secular nationalism. The adoption of the 1991 flag shows a deviation away from the founding ideology. Iraq was a progressive, secular and socialist state prior to the Faith Campaign. The flag represents a large social change in Iraq, a shift towards Islamic governance and authoritarian rule heavily based on religion rather than national identity. This is a page meant to represent the entire history of Iraq under Ba'athism. Only showing the flag that represents a deviation of this makes little sense. Babylonian1963 (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

That is a very good point, the changing from a secular state to promoting Islamic governance is significant. Alright I will end my argument for only the one set of flag and emblem. BlueberryA96 (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I support both flags as of now but I am willing to agree on a compromise, I would say that both have countering arguments for which one should be the only flag. The Takbir flag was the final one used, however it is only really associated with the US Invasion period and the late stages of Saddam's regime in Iraqi public memory, its common use on the English-speaking internet is due to it's association with the war and its use as a symbol of specifically Saddam Hussein's governance. The other flag was used during the longest and most historically significant period of Ba'athist rule in Iraq when the country was governed under the rules of Ba'athism (the namesake ideology of the page, and the principles on which the state was founded on prior to the Faith Campaign), the flag is also the more recognizable version of the flag, as the other flag is simply it with the Takbir handwritten on it. It must also be mentioned that the 1963 flag is still used today by the diaspora as representing a Pre-War Iraq in general, similar to how the former Afghan flag is used by that diaspora. Removing the Takbir version of the flag is also a problem, as it represents a large change in the regime's evolution to remain in power that is still very historically important to an article like this that is meant to display the entire history of the state. Both flags are historically important, and it is a very complex subject to remove one of them as it cancels out the historical, cultural and ideological importance of the other variant. Babylonian1963 (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The significance of the flag with the Takbir can't be understood correctly without the context of the previous flag. The normal version of the flag is severely underexposed outside of Iraq due to its lack of appearance on English Wikipedia and other non-Arabic sources, as the initial largely Western contributor base used only the flag that they most associate with Saddam and the Coalition invasion of the country (the Takbir variant) rather than the one used during the majority of this era of Iraq's history (the one without it), not knowing the historical, political, national and identity significance of that version. The Takbir version is a Saddam-specific modification of the 3 star flag and specifically represents only the late rule of Saddam following military defeat. It was a reactive political symbol placing his imprint on the national flag to stop disrespect of the Iraqi flag in Kuwait by adding sacred text to it and to gain support from some religious Muslims. Ba'athist Iraq is not ancient history, millions of people lived under these flags, saw them everyday and the addition of the Takbir was not a small political addition to the flag, it was an event that was experienced following a major defeat in Kuwait. This context is lost with the omission of either flag. Babylonian1963 (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of the context of the significance of the change in usage of the flag from the flag with the three stars only in the centre of the flag to the flag with the three stars and the Takbir. You are correct that it marks a major shift in political policy in Ba'athist Iraq with Saddam Hussein abandoning secularism and promoting Islam as a state-sponsored religion.

I have heard about the flag with the Takbir being created so that Kuwaitis would stop disrespecting the flag during Iraqi military occupation and annexation of Kuwait.

Your stance is valid and you are correct tnat the Western contributor base is largely unaware of the significance of this. I was unaware of the significance until you told me here and I agree with you that it is significant enough that both the flags and coat of arms of Iraq before and after the abandonment of secularism by the Ba'athist regime should be included. BlueberryA96 (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Most of what I said about him is actually prominent on his WP page. I am not a fan. But I prefer European theorists on fascism generally (Reich and his descendants). Simonm223 (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

From what I've skimmed from his writings his awareness of a variety of fascist movements doesn't appear unusual to me. I would have to read what he is claiming that Nazi Germany emulated from the Soviet Union. It is true that the Nazis did copy things from the Soviet Union. The Nazi regime had a five year plan if I am not mistaken similar to the something-year plans that the Soviet Union had and it had concentration camps that served as forced labour camps like the Gulags in the Soviet Union. BlueberryA96 (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Thing is that is just describing both soviet socialism and naziism as biopolitical regimes - and, yeah, no dispute there. But so was Italian fascism and so is American, British and (even earlier) Chilean neoliberalism. This is kind of another example of what I mean by preferring European theorists on fascism. Foucault avoided creating a false distinction that artificially vindicates "us". While Reich and his descendants (through Adorno) recognized fascism as rooted in psychological structures that can spontaneously arise. These are two things that Americans, especially, tend to be squeamish about. They want to say "but not us" about fascism. Simonm223 (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Besides the consensus not to have images, are you really saying Putin’s Communist Part is far left? Its policies are pretty right wing. Doug Weller talk 18:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

On the article on the Communist Party of the Russian Federation the infobox says it is far-left with three references. BlueberryA96 (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you recently removed content from Far-right politics without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Did you even read the article? Anti-communist is mentioned multiple times and source. This makes me worry about your competence. Doug Weller talk 18:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

You are not understanding why I removed it. I recognize that anti-communism is held by the far-right, I removed the reference on it from the sentence from the the intro because anticommunism is not currently mentioned in that sentence of the intro, the mentioning of anticommunism in that sentence appears to have been removed awhile ago. If you want to add mentioning it to that sentence then the inclusion of that reference is fine. Otherwise why have a reference on that sentence saying it is anti-communist while not saying it in the sentence. BlueberryA96 (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

The sensible thing would have been to put anti-communism back in the sentence as you also suggest now. Doug Weller talk 08:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Fascism, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

To be direct and clear, WP:OR issues seem to pile up in the article, but the first sentence already seems like a case of novel synthesis of published material. Falangism (Spanish: Falangismo) was the political ideology of three political parties in Spain that were known as the Falange This is, correct me if I am wrong, currently unsupported by any source, hence the very tenet underpinning the topic seems to rely on shoehorning content available in sources to an ad hoc frame. Perhaps editors thought that making an article exclusively about a political ideology (instead of a political movement, or faction, or a combination of the former) could be possible. Perhaps it could be, but it should then stay on topic by using sources with that framing, instead of staying in topic by degrading the integrity of the sources to suit the editors' goals.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

So there is no source saying that there is a "Falangism"? From 1934 onward I know that the Falange called itself "national syndicalist" after absorbing a party that called itself national syndicalist. Also for a few months Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera prior to forming the Falange in 1933 was in a political party called the Movimiento Español Sindicalista ("Spanish Syndicalist Movement") that appears to have been national syndicalist. So that appears to be one part of its ideology along with Spanish traditionalism added to it after the merger. So national syndicalism and traditionalism (in the Spanish context) could replace "Falangism" in the infobox of the FET-JONS article. I've heard "Falangist" being used to refer to supporters of the Falange.

I think the articles on the three different names of the party from 1933 to its dissolution in 1977 should be merged into one article titled "Falange" as is titled on the Britannica article on the subject: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Falange , it is needlessly complicated now with an article for each name, it was the same organization that absorbed other organizations into it and got taken over by the Spanish government in 1937, after 1977 with the party dissolving and multiple organizations called "Falange" claiming to replace it then separate articles are fine for those.--BlueberryA96 (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Falangism may have very probably developed as an ideology basically from the tenets of the 27 seven point program of the Falange, insofar the manifesto logically underpins an ideological platform, but ultimately the ideological side is the more inert and ancillary side and self-limiting angle for an ambiguous topic, and cannot see the reason for it to hijack the whole topic by degrading the integrity of the sources. Furthermore, the aforementioned explicit scope in the article (was the political ideology of three political parties in Spain that were known as the Falange, as it there was only one) seems be defined by Wikipedia editors. Ultimately the tracking of "falangists" across parties, regimes and forms of organization should be the most obvious/dominant form of tackling the topic than "an ideology". Surely, in reliable sources, you will easily find more information about the plight, actions, stances, loyalties, and influence of falangists than about "the evolution of an ideology" (whatever that may be). The former perfectly fits into the topic of "Falangism", but not one understood as primarily describing a political ideology. I don't agree at all with merging the articles of the parties.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Why do you think there should be different articles on the Falange Espanola, FE de las JONS, and FET y de las JONS?

I understand that the FET y de las JONS was the result of a government takeover of the FE de las JONS and merging the Traditionalist Communion and others into it and if I remember correctly there were people in the FE de las JONS who did not like what Franco changed in it as the FET y de las JONS. There have been political parties that have gone through having other major parties merged into them, major changes in ideology, but are considered the same organization. BlueberryA96 (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)