Template talk:Third Camp

Naive question: Has Matgamna created theory on bureacratic collectivism? I'm surprised, and always thought of his as an eclectic combiner rather than a theorist. --Duncan 14:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I've never heard anyone suggest that before. I don't think there's much question that Matgamna has worked on Third Camp theory - for instance, applying it to a post-Soviet world. I wouldn't object to changing "Prominent theorists" to "Prominent figures", though, if you think that would clarify things. Warofdreams talk 00:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promenant figures works for me. --Duncan 15:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third camp isn't mentioned in that article; and it seems misleading to suggest that Solidarity is, more than anything else, third camp. If we are to use any template there, it should be Trotskyism. --Duncan 16:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My thinking was that Solidarity is noteworthy within the Third Camp, but not within Trotskyism in general. Part of my thinking in creating this template was to spur some work on the relevant articles, anyway, and the example of the Solidarity article not mentioning the Third Camp is a good one - something I hope to address. Warofdreams talk 02:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will look forward to seeing that but, in the meanwhile, I'll cut it from the template. Solidarity does not use this term. Be careful not to place organisations in categories they would not place themselves in. --Duncan 09:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to create a page on News and Letters Committees but it seems in danger of speedy deletion. Does anyone agree it should qualify as a third camp organization?Rmalhotr 03:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While there are some similarities in its outlook, I don't believe it describes itself as a Third Camp organisation. I've made some changes to the article which I hope will help establish its signficance. Warofdreams talk 04:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]