Jump to content

Talk:Red–green–brown alliance

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Sorry Dragula, I can't accept your edit of this article as it now stands -- you keep harping on this Alexandre del Valle character, even though he isn't the one who popularized the term, or caused it to spread into English, and you don't even have any particularly solid evidence that he invented it. I never heard of him before you dragged him out of his apparently well-deserved obscurity. Furthermore, the definition in the first paragraph is not acceptable, because it gives one single meaning which is by no means the only possible meaning of this phrase. AnonMoos

P.S. Why can't you discuss any political subject without launching into your little "warbloggers are bad people" jihad? There's not even any necessary connection between concern over anti-semitism and advocating the invasion of Iraq anyway, and when you collapse all distinction between these two things, then you're drastically oversimplifying the positions of those whose politics you don't like. AnonMoos 01:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. If you can't read the French language, then why not just accept your limitations in that respect, instead of trying to use the rather dubious link http://www.info-turc.org/article522.html to make up for this? AnonMoos 01:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AnonMoos, according to the articles cited, del Valle originated the expression "red-green-brown alliance" in... oh rats, it appears you've deleted the link to that article again. Now I'll have to go find it.

Dragula 09:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, found it again. According to the article in Nouvelles du Turq, Alexandre del Valle "is the one who coined the expression 'red-green-brown alliance'" Your own research shows as well that at least one of del Valle's earliest uses of some variation of this expression ("red-brown-green") occurred in an April 12, 2002 article in the Figaro.

Now then, your apparent preferred source - Roger Cukierman - first used the phrase "alliance brun-vert-rouge" (brown, green, red alliance) in a speech on January 27th/28th 2003. So, here are the major problems with your theory (of Cukierman as originator) as I understand it.

One, time only flows in one direction, so 2002 came before 2003.

Two, an established source, the Turkish News, claims that del Valle originated the term. He may be obscure from your POV but according to this article is a major voice in and influence on the French New Right. This has been corroborated by every other account I have read of him in the French press, BTW. You admit that you had never heard of del Valle before I brought him up; this does not suffice to persuade me of your expertise.

Three, your preferred source not only used the phrase a year later, and is nowhere credited in the press as its originator, but didn't even use the formulation of the phrase which is the title of this entry! Remember, this entry is about the 'red-green-brown alliance' - Cukierman reversed the order of the words in del Valle's phrase in his speech, so not only was he not originating the usage featured in the title of this entry, he was actually coining something new!
My suggestion is that if you want to focus on Cukierman as the originator of something, start a new entry for the phrase "brown-green-red alliance" instead. Then you won't have to mention del Valle at all, except as an influence. Otherwise, if we are going to talk about the "Red-Green-Brown" alliance (see the title of this entry and your own additions to other entries) then we should credit the originator of the term "Red-Green-Brown" alliance and explain what he meant by it before we delve into the later variations and reinterpretations advanced by various derivative thinkers.

BTW, I grew up in French-speaking Canada and wrote my senior thesis on Pierre Drieu La Rochelle, so I find your assumption that I am crippled by an inability to read French quite amusing. I should add that am not interested in you personally nor in your speculations about various topics unrelated to wikipedia and will thank you to kindly keep these to yourself in the future.

Dragula 09:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Challenging the third paragraph

[edit]

The third paragraph of this article is really about Alexandre del Valle, not about the RGB Alliance. The bibliographical references can be kept and put elsewhere, but the paragraph as such is polemical and poorly documented, based on a single, equally polemical article that predates 9/11 and the reassesment of Islamism that happened thereafter.

HenrikRClausen (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, del Valle has, since the year 2000 article mentioned above, extensively revised his opinion on the United States and its role in world politics, as noted also on his personal page [del Valle].

HenrikRClausen (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Red–green–brown alliance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Color code check

[edit]

Can we get some confirmation that the symbolism isn't the more intuitive red=socialists/communists/leftists, Green=Islamists, Brown=nationalists/"brownshirts?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.49.137.37 (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Campism

[edit]

Why does "Campism" redirect to this article, yet the term "Campism" is mentioned nowhere in the current version of this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"far-right" is not brown

[edit]

Far-right extremists and neo-nazi movements might like this colour, I strongly doubt that most current "far-right" parties in the western world have anything to do with facism and Hitlerism. Especially given the many left-wing causes of fascism such as collectivism, big government, welfare state, socialist economy, atheism. Mussolini has been a member of the Socialist party of Italy until 1914. To link a far-right position to being Hitlerite or Mussolini is a classical case of a straw man fallacy argument. 93.206.52.103 (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is plain incorrect, compare Mussolini's explicitly positioning fascism as opposed to left-wing ideologies. Fascists, whether historical fascists or contemporary neofascists, also do not consistently pursue "left-wing" causes like the named ones – it's merely a key strategy of right-wing populism (and historical fascism) to wield popular, superficially "left-wing" rhetoric and to pay lip service to some left-wing or progressive causes or cynically instrumentalise those causes for their own reactionary goals. The Fratelli d'Italia are strongly linked to Mussolini. Any attempt to disassociate the modern far right from historical fascism (and to classify historical fascism as "left-wing") is ideologically motivated pseudo-historical denialism. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing fascism (4th nomination) and especially Talk:Fascism/FAQ#Q1 (and Q4). The inflammatory conflation of left-wing movements with fascism has a long and ignominious history. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Campism" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Campism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 11 § Campism until a consensus is reached. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red–green–brown_alliance&oldid=1252165263"