My training as a historian encourages me to be adverse to using single terms to characterize groups across time - despite whatever superficial similarities might exist. Such usage diminishes the differences between the groups and dulls the types of uniquenesses that are essential to the task of the historian. Our ability to understand the past and the present is damaged. There is also the matter of my particular training - George Marsden actually "wrote the book" on Fundamentalism (as well as this useful volume - Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism). Using the term outside of the American context has always been anathema to his students - aside from the otherwise mentioned professional matters.
That "so and so to the right of me" isn't really a very good definition. The notion that the AP stylebook has suggested limitations on the use of the term was encouraging news to me, even if widely ignored.
On the other hand, Martin Marty edited a serious of volumes as part of The Fundamentalism Project, but this was a comparative religions approach that many historians were uncomfortable with. It did, and does, have its virtues, in that it attempted to utilize the nugget of early American fundamentalism - militantly anti-modern in theology - to understand other religious movements across the globe. When carefully done, it was useful, but I'm inclined to think that this comparative use of the term fed into its dumbing down and eventually scandalous misuse. Okay, maybe I'm the only one that's scandalized.
An additional frustrating angle of this is that besides the above mentioned books, there really isn't any excuse for not understanding the relevant terms. Wheaton's Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals has some really useful and concise definitions of terms including Fundamentalism, Pentecostalism and other useful tidbits of information including other resources for research.
Really, its easy and fun and please don't call Christian Smith before you check a few links.