Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 → Archive 55

Fader reference ([46]) seems inaccurate.

In the definition section it says: "Fascist philosophies vary by application, but remain distinct by one theoretic commonality. All traditionally fall into the far-right sector of any political spectrum, catalyzed by afflicted class identities over conventional social inequities.[46]" I could not find anything remotely close to this in the referenced article neither in words nor in spirit. If others agree it may be worth removing it. Or did the actual reference get lost somewhere?--Technokratisch (talk) 12:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

We can always find another ref for that statement rather than removing it whole-cloth. Give me a minute. Simonm223 (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Done. Using Routledge. That'll cover this basic an non-controversial fact about Fascism. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
While I can't find a similarly sweeping statement ("one theoretic commonality", "any political spectrum") on pp.1-5 in the companion I am not motivated enough to question your authority this time. Maybe somebody else wants to look at it.--Technokratisch (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Routledge uses fascism and far-right effectively interchangeably. The specific phrase "far-right" shows up more than 300 times in the book. There's an extended quote on page 40 which is explicitly relevant to the statement being cited here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Also in the time it took me to move this to the correct thread see also page 107. Simonm223 (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I might get back to you in a months. At the moment I am still too angry at you for the way you treated me recently to have productive discussion.--Technokratisch (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Noticed something in the code

While I was in that section I noticed a CN tag on a statement about Italian fascism coming out of WWI national syndicalism. I know Reid Ross covers this at length in Against the Fascist Creep but while it's my personal favourite history of the political philosophy, due in part to its care to assessing the philosophical basis of the ideology, I understand why Reid Ross' book is not used as a preferred source (while it's a work of scholarship it's one written by a Geographer and published by an Anarchist press) - do we have another source that works for this history? Because that CN tag really doesn't need to be there. We should be able to easily find a citation for that. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's a tertiary source. I'm still looking for secondary sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Well sheeeit... I found a whole bunch of sources over here. See the last paragraph of the first subsection. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Work just got explodey so I may not have time to make fussy line edits today but I'll put it on my to-do list if somebody else doesn't get to it first. Simonm223 (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm reviewing some pending changes, but when I'm done, I may get to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Replacement image

I'm looking into who is claiming the copyright on the image of history's two most infamous fascists, but in the meantime could somebody please find a public domain image we could use to replace it? Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedia commons had another copy of the image; we'll probably want to keep an eye on this though. Simonm223 (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2019

In the first paragraph fascism is referred to as specifically (right-wing) on the first line of the paragraph and (far-right) on the last line, this is false information, fascism can and has been both left and right wing, request these statements to be changed to (left or right wing) Mikej321 (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, you'll probably have to establish a consensus on the talk page first. Roadguy2 (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

False information

The protected article on fascism has incorrect information. Some examples include claiming fascism is on the far right when it is on the far left, and that fascism opposes Marxism when it was actually the based off of it. The lack of mention to Giovanni Gentile as the creator of fascism is also particularly concerning. Some of the material and facts on this page appear to have been heavily altered for political reasons, which is VERY concerning. Thank you for taking notice of this complaint and please fix the errors. ProGamer116 (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

--Orange Mike | Talk 01:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  • This same editor brought this up 6 weeks ago (see Archive 47), which prompted me to add something about Gentile which was appropriate per WP:WEIGHT. This is a warning to the editor -- an IP at the time, and now ProGamer116 -- that continuing to bring this up would be disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2019

The idea of a linear left to right political spectrum is stupid, but in those terms, fascism would be left-wing. Contrary to popular belief, fascism can be most accurately defined as the political belief that the state is more important than the individual. This belief is what allowed fascists to justify pursuing "racial purification" of humanity. They considered the individual rights of those they killed as less important than the greater good that they fervently believed would come to humanity through the supremacy of a certain race. Essentially, fascism focussed on community, rather than the individual, which is undoubtedly a hallmark of the left wing.

In fact, Nazi is an acronym for National SOCIALIST German Worker's Party. (In German) Obviously a self-declared socialist worker's party is very clearly left-wing.

Also, the right-wing is always considered to be more focused on religion than the left, and fascist states were bitterly opposed to religion. The Nazis actually set up a religion called positive christianity which incorporated racial elements and the swastika, and was intended to gradually move Germany away from Christianity toward "mystical Darwinist vitalism" based on ancient Vedic (aryan) rituals. Mussolini was forced to cooperate with the Catholic Church to some extent because the Italian people were overwhelmingly devout Catholics. However, on a personal level, Mussolini was always very contemptuous of religion, and often privately referred to priests as "black flies".

Finally, when fascism was on the rise throughout Europe, it was the ideology of young liberals, based on bold new ideas like eugenics that conservatives shunned. Politicalunbiased (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Archiving. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2019

Change right wing to centrist. Fascism is not right wing because it has both parts of right and left ideology. State ownership is not right wing. And that is a fundamental building block of an ideology. To be factually accurate at least change it to right wing ideology with many left leaning ideals. 2600:8807:E80:2B30:43E:3C28:419B:FC82 (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  • My pleasure. The problem is that I don't believe the majority of these people actually care if the change is made or not, since their motivations appear to be either trolling, or showing up Wikipedia as a viper's nest of vengeful and arrogant left-wing activists attempting to suppress THE TRUTH (which, of course, is obviously the case). Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2019

remove right-wing, fascism does not equal right-wing nor vice versa 71.6.36.86 (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Please refer to the large note "Fascism is a right wing ideology" at the top of this page. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Substantial change to definition lacks RS

For years the treatment of "right wing" and "fascism" has been neutral in this article. The last sentence of the first para of the Lede had:

Fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.

Within the past month, the Lede was changed without any additional/new WP:RS so the the first sentence reads:

Fascism is a form of radical, right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by...

Prior to February 24, the Lede read:

Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by..."

Merriam dictionary is used as RS but it does not support our treatment of the term: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Changes:

Again, no new RS was added to make this amendment to the definition of fascism. The article's definition remained stable for years with the previous, neutral wording.

I'd like to see the direct quotations from RS that supports this change, not just a claim that "everyone says so". petrarchan47คุก 19:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you disputing that Fascism is right wing? Simonm223 (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you claiming that my comment is unclear? petrarchan47คุก 19:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes actually. You are asserting that calling fascism right-wing in the first para of the lede is not neutral. Why? Simonm223 (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

My question is whether RS supports this change, and since no RS has been added or cited, it appears to me that the change was made based on personal opinions alone. Please show the RS used to make the change. petrarchan47คุก 19:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The sources for this already in the article. Which of them do you object to? --Aquillion (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

What about RS around Mussolini, who after all instituted Fascism. He was arrested on 2 Socialist protests and edited Socialist newspapers, including Avante for 5 years until 1917. He supported war to overthrow the European Royal families, thus allowing the promotion of Socialism across Europe. His support for the war split the Italian Socialists, and led to him becoming Fascist. What in Mussolini's history supports him being Right Wing? Genuine question, because he seems to be Socialist to the core. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.160.19 (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini

Mussolini was of the Marxist school of Fascism, as per RS [1] 82.15.160.19 (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, both Hitler and Mussolini started out as socialists in some sense, but, as your source states, quickly became subservient to "monopoly capital", which is an essential feature of fascism, the cooperation between the wealthy capitalist business class and a totalitarian leader. Also, as your source says, attempting to equate fascism and communism because of some similarities is "patently superficial". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
You need a source that supports your theory. There is nothing in the jstor abstract about "Marxist fascism." Are you sure you are not referring to the Marxist theory of fascism? TFD (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
When the author says the standard versions of fascism originate broadly from two schools: the Marxist and the non-Marxist, he's clearly talking about how different scholars analyze fascism. Just look at the very next sentences:

The Marxist versions are easily more incisive than the non-Marxist ones. The interest of non-Marxist scholars, moreover, in the issue of fascism receded with the memories of Hitler's regime, and thereafter they took only a peripheral academic interest in the problem.

Or the paragraph after the next:

The non-Marxist scholars have usually stressed the anti-democratic nature of fascism, and on the basis of its manifest authoritarian structure they establish a close similarity between the Third Reich and the Communist states. This bracketing is patently superficial as it does not distinguish between the variant economic and social correlates of the two systems.... Marxist scholars have usually settled on the blatant suppression of Left democratic organs by Hitler as the lynchpin not only of their attacks on fascism but also of their analysis of this phenomenon.

Since that's just a preview I can't see the rest of the document, but I'd be very surprised if the author suddenly changed his terminology so completely. He appears to be setting up a dialogue between two schools of thought on the subject of fascism, which he will use to inform his own analysis. Can you quote the specific section where he says that fascism under Mussolini was Marxist? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The source states "The standard versions of fascism originate broadly from two schools: the Marxist and the non-Marxist". Mussolini spent years as a Marxist. It would seem only reasonable that the fascism originated by a near life long proponent of Marxism was influenced by Marxism. Suggest another logical scenario! Either way, given there is a school of Socialism originating from Marxism, as per the link, and as per history, then it is stupid to label Fascism as being only right wing, which is the point of this Talk. Fascism can be right wing, left wing, and as per our (I imagine Italian Fascist at the bottom of this discussion page) Third Way Centrist Fascism. Locking the page to defend a political position from your left wing perspective is in contradiction to the facts. Such vandalism to uphold a belief is what weakens the credibility of Wikipedia.82.15.160.19 (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

As Red Rock Canyon just explained to you, you're grossly misreading the source. --Orange Mike | Talk 11:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

How do I grossly misread the direct quote: "The standard versions of fascism originate broadly from two schools: the Marxist and the non-Marxist", the conclusion of this sentence is self evident, unless you come to it with preconceived belief.82.15.160.19 (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The Marxist version of fascism, according to your source, is that it is pro-capitalist and anti-socialist. TFD (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggest removing all reference to ideological spectrum and the far-right or far-left.

Discussion

No other definiton other than wikipedia has any reference to this. Everything I have read in the talk and in the change history suggest such references in this article are personal opinion and in particular references to far-right appear to come from left leaning (Based on their own comments here) editors: Ritchie92, Simonm223, Rjensen, Aquillion, Doug Weller, DanielRigal, Orangemike, & in particular Red Rock Canyon.

Several times Aquillion & Simonm223 claim that various references are not Reliable Source because the authors are biased right-wing while using references from left-wing authors as the sole "WP:RS" fot the inclusion of political spectrum and in particular fascism being far-right in the article. If authors and research from right-wing authors is WP:FRINGE and there-fore not a reliable source, then would it not be the same for left-wing authors[names redacted]. Thus making the categorization of fascism as far-right supported by un-reliable sources and therefore personal opinion. Categorization as either far-right or far-left is bias and the article should avoid politically motivated bias. 76.84.149.190 (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Dan

Provide reliable sources that the authors whose named I've removed are left-wing. WP:BLP applies on talk pages. As for me, in 10 years I've made 8 edits to the article, and have only edited this page 9 times, all in the last 16 months. You seem to be interpreting being anti-far right as being on the left. That would make Bill Buckley (who I met once) and the National Review left wing. Doug Weller talk 13:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
There's the Oxford English Dictionary definition: "An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."[1] The Oxford dictionary is perhaps the world's most respected dictionary
The argument against authors objecting to fascism as right-wing is that they are not reliable not that they are right-wing. Facts are not left or right.
TFD (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
It is, unequivocally, opinion and there are no RS that dispute the fact that it is a political ideology that assumes multiple forms, making it difficult to define. There are many more sources that support the aforementioned than the view that it is right wing. One tertiary source does not satisfy DUE or NPOV, especially when several others dispute it. What appears to be happening is WP:SYNTH and the opinion of a few authors who, in passing mention, have expressed their view that it is right wing. Adding it specifically to the lead in Wiki voice as either right or left wing is noncompliant with NPOV and DUE. Atsme Talk 📧 13:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Sure, there are multiple forms of Fascism. They are all considered right wing by mainstream historians and political scholars. Yes, even most who are right wing themselves.
If I wanted to make a complete fool of myself I could claim (correctly) that there are many forms of Communism and then wave my arms around wildly while vaguely insinuating that maybe not all of them are left wing (which they are) and hence it is unsafe to call Communism left wing (which would just be idiotic). --DanielRigal (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@DanielRigal: to further argue in favor of the point you've made, in the Soviet Union there were both Left Opposition and Right Opposition factions that emerged in the aftermath of the October Revolution. Members and critics of these factions accepted that the right-left spectrum could be used to assess political differences within the Communist party. None of this will alter the widely recognized fact that Communism is a Left-wing political ideology that understood itself to be an inheritor of the more radical tendencies of the French Revolution, or that fascism is a right-wing ideology with its own variations. -Darouet (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
       Just checked Communism article, no where in lead is it defined as left or right is just states what it is. Fascism should probably follow same template since it is all over the place.Sourcerery (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Why are we wasting time on this nonsense yet again? Please can we get a FAQ added to the top of this page and just refer people to that. Many of the people disputing that Fascism is right-wing are deliberately trolling or POV pushing in bad faith and do not deserve our attention. We can't assume bad faith in all cases though. Some of them are likely to be the confused victims of some very aggressive contemporary propaganda seeking to redefine Fascism, contrary to the settled academic consensus, as left wing (or "centerist", whatever the hell that is meant to mean) for blatantly tactical political reasons. A few others may be very naive conservatives who, knowing themselves not to be Fascist, assume that it can not possibly be of the right. A FAQ is the best way for us to provide decent, concise, referenced answers to those who actually want answers, and to just brush off the trolls, all without excessive repeated effort on our part. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with DanielRigal --the consensus of RS = far right/ right wing. The "far" indicates a taste for violent confrontations with established governments--not just a parliamentary voice. Rjensen (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I kinda agree and think it should be defined as opportunistic, probably roughly on the center, although highly authoritarian. I agree that left or right is meaningless since Benito Mussolini would change positions as he deemed useful. It is seen in sections Unprincipled opportunism, Ideological dishonesty. Also I don't think it opposed Marxism per say but only some elements of it, while embracing others so I think that is inaccurate. This is little dicey topic so I would define it as opportunistic (keep in mind socialism was in vogue and popular at the time and he was happy to embrace elements of it), populist (make trains run on time), authoritarian, with Roman and nationalistic element, later Nazi elements. I don't think it is such a clear cut ideology and can be even contradictory at time.Sourcerery (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Fascism isn't on the Left-Right spectrum.

After far too much research done for far too long, I've come to the conclusion that almost everyone that has made any kind of comment on this page is using more opinion than fact. Fascism is inherently anti-Left and anti-Right wing. Fascism has had both Left and Right wing people in leadership positions, but the ideology in itself is incredibly obvious. Centrist. It does not prescribe to Left or Right wing ideologies. It is the very enemy of both. I read too many threads of constant blaming and forcing the burden on others. Both sides are so fixated on naming Fascism as the other's ideology when it doesn't even fit on either side. The economic and Social politics are Authoritarian Centrist. Yes, there were Libertarians, Left, and Right wing people that worked under Fascism, but Fascism's fundamental core belief system is Centrist. ArcusLordOfGods (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, and we do not publish original research. Do you have a reliable source which describes Fascism as obviously centrist? Grayfell (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Blocked as another Stormcloak EthnoNationalist sock. Acroterion (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Fascism is Centrism

Hello. As someone who self identifies as fascist I'm slightly insulted that you call it a right wing ideology. Fascism is nothing more than authoritarian centrism. Indeed, it's nothing more than authoritarian populism. Fascism is merely a way to organize a state, and then provides guidelines for the state's intervention in the economy. Nothing more, nothing less. We can certainly debate whether or not the characters who espoused the glorious creed of fascism were right or left wing, but fascism is a centrist ideology pertaining only to the organization of government. Cheers Baldr The Brave (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC) (User blocked as sockpuppet. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC))

you need a "RS" = a published reliable secondary source for this claim. Rjensen (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

So I'm guessing fascist literature is out of the question then ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baldr The Brave (talk • contribs) 15:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course, we need independent academic sources. The idea that authoritarianism of any sort is centrist is plain wrong by itself. Doug Weller talk 15:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, there's a new argument. A nice, Orwellian way to sanitize extremism. And a nice troll with the "our glorious creed." Acroterion (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trolling friend. I unironically support fascist ideology and government. And the funny thing is that fascism is not extremism (perhaps you are confusing it with national socialism?) it is merely a way of organising the government. You confuse the ideology of fascism with those who've practiced it.Cheers Baldr The Brave (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You need a reliable source such as a textbook or academic journal article that explains this position, otherwise it is synthesis and cannot be added. I would point out too that fascist ideology, unlike liberalism and socialism, but like Stalinism and Maoism, is ex post facto, that is it was written after the movement was founded, and therefore it is impossible to separate the two. TFD (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Removed large note "Fascism is a right wing ideology" placed by Red Rock Canyon as it is WP:NPOV and violates the requirement to avoid stating opinions as facts.76.84.149.190 (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Dan

I didn't add that tag. It appears to have been added here [2]. That's before I ever edited this page, as far as I remember. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Anti-democratic and tyrannical

Suggesting different wording: Anti-democratic and dictatorial/dictatorship. Tyrant is kinda like absolute monarch which Mussolini never was in true sense. He was responsible to king, to Adolf Hitler. Not even nominally can Mussolini be considered tyrant.Sourcerery (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC) - Strike that he doesn't even qualify as dictator in full sense of term but kinda does nominally. Anti-democratic and authoritative is probably best wording.Sourcerery (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

What is header picture and are they of higher value and importance?

Is that first picture on article? Editor reverted my edit because it's header picture apparently that I changed, seeking to make it consistent with other political ideology articles. I would like to know as to avoid changing something so important without consensus.Sourcerery (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The two are iconic historical fascists, so it makes a good photo for the beginning of the article. To answer your question, though, the actual term is "lead image" (see MOS:LEADIMAGE). It's not in an infobox in this case, but the guideline says "lead or infobox," so it applies here. There are some special guidelines in the MOS as you can see, but no official/extra steps that are always needed before the change is made; there's no requirement that every article have one either, but I reverted because I have seen others edit according to this same consensus in the past (17 October, most recently). This is why I said that consensus should be gained here first.--MattMauler (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Addendum: FWIW, I would not be adamantly opposed to changing it for consistency's sake, but I think it should happen only after discussion here.--MattMauler (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

--- I agree that they are iconic, there is no disputing that. I am fine either way, just wanted to make this ideology lead image consistent with lead images on other ideologies (Communism, Nazism). Thank you for clarifying term.Sourcerery (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2019

In actuality, Facism is more aligned with liberal, leftist ideologies than right-wing. See the actual, real definition provided by reliable sources " totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life. " Israel Wright (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

See the discussion above – Þjarkur (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violations

How no one pointed this out? This article has so much copyright it's unbelievable? Aside from flat out made up quotes amount of copyright is beyond belief. Articles I created have sections copystriked within days. I'll just quote some of copyright so you can correct me if I'm wrong.

This is just first paragraph. Am I missing something? Are there written permissions?Sourcerery (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not have access to these books. Are there exact words from these books inlcuded without quotation marks? We can and often do "use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline), and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks" (WP:F).--MattMauler (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
No I wouldn't say they are properly quoted - verbatim textual excerpts, this one is also cited 5 times, don't one if that falls under brief. - Peter Davies; Derek Lynch (2002). The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right. Routledge. pp. 1–5. Here you can check for yourself - https://marxismo21.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Fascism-and-the-Far_Right.pdf This is just first paragraph by the way, probably good idea for someone to fine comb through this article.Sourcerery (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Can you point out specifically what text in this article is copied directly from these books, and where in the books it's taken from? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2019

Take out "right-wing" in definition of fascist and put left-wing. 69.178.231.103 (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2019

Fascism isn't limited to one political ideology, far right vs far left, it can be seen from both political spectrum. Please fix this. You're doing a disservice to the world by not having this correct. 168.208.215.217 (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Left-right scale

Duplicate of previous discussions, no reliable sources offered. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The roots of fascism are undeniably left-wing. Not right wing. Authoritarianism was typical for communism (stalin, mao, pot...). Benito Mussolini was member of the PSI, the marxist wing of it. Dinesh D'Souza, George D Watson and others have also clarified the left roots of fascism. The logical fallacy is, appeal to authority. The claim that most academics agree it was a far right politic system is not measurable nor would it change the fact that fascism was declared by Giovanni Gentile, a left-wing character. If you research him, it will become undeniably clear that fascism was based on left principles. Calling fascism right-wing is nothing but falsification of history with the sole purpose of activism i.e. making left look good and right bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.185.49.243 (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Mussolini was expelled from and denounced the PSI. You have provided no reliable secondary sources. This has been discussed at great length. Join a current discussion if you wish. O3000 (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Both of your sources are fringe and cannot be used for this or any other article. Watson, who was an expert on Victorian literature not in political science, argued that socialism has its roots in conservatism and hence is right-wing. D'Souza is a conspiracy theorist. TFD (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Should "right wing" be added to definition of fascism

Do reliable sources support a change to the definition of Fascism so that "right wing" is added to the first sentence of the Lede? petrarchan47คุก 20:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Brief history:

Mention of "right wing" in the Lede was for years situated only at the bottom of the first paragraph:

In 2014 it read

Although fascism is often placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum, several academics have said that the description is inadequate.

Without changing or removing sources, in 2015 it was amended

Fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.

This version remained stable until February 2019, when in addition to the "left-right spectrum" sentence, the primary definition (first sentence of Lede) changed from

Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by...

to

Fascism is a form of radical, right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by...

Related discussion:

Discussion

Reading through the discussion, I see a weak consensus in favor of adding "right wing" to the definition of fascism in the lede. If there are any questions about this close, feel free to ask me. Closed per request at WP:ANRFC. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aquillion, substantial changes to the Pedia, especially when it's to the Lede which represents a definition of a word, and when we have Google picking up our definition and adopting it as their own, needs to be supported by RS. The change should have been accompanied by a justification that includes RS and specifies the text within it that was used to make this change -- a change which diverges from other dictionary references and from our own longstanding Lede. Unless RS is shown, this change cannot be supported according to our own guidelines. petrarchan47คุก 21:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
So the essence of your complaint is that the fact that you have to look past the first paragraph of the lede for the many many many many RSes already there supporting that statement that literally no non-WP:FRINGE source disputes is a deal-breaker? That's some good WP:WIKILAWYERING right there. I suggest you back away from the WP:DEADHORSE. Simonm223 (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Do sources support this change? Not likely. The addition of "right wing" was made without any reference to the sources in the article, and edit summaries for this change do not suggest that sources played any role. For years, Wikipedia editors agreed that the previous wording adequately summarized the article, and I've seen no indication that any editors thought otherwise until this February when the change was made with no discussion, with only a reference to what seems like nothing more than personal opinion.
So we have:
This Atlantic article from 2016 (The Elusive Definition of 'Fascist') summarizes the issue thusly:
[Fascism was the 3rd most-searched word on Merriam Dictionary in 2015], between socialism and racism, which is just where fascism began in the 1920s. Now, many political commentators, especially on the left, detect a fascist moment in the Western democracies. But is fascism an accurate heuristic for the populist movements in the United States and Europe that have arisen in recent years, or is invoking the term just a kneejerk way of condemning political opponents? And if it’s inaccurate, might the word still represent a useful case study on the debased value of political language?
The problem, as they might say at Merriam-Webster, is in the definition. Scholars of fascism do not agree on what fascism means
If scholars can't agree, then how can we? The previous, long-consensed, nuanced version more accurately reflects the voices of scholars and definitions from other similar platforms. It therefore should be restored until a proper RS-BASED discussion has ensued.
The work we do here sometimes ends up in the press, and it is a good idea to always question: how would I feel about this edit/argument in this case? (I don't know of any such plans, but IMO this is a way to assess things from a NPOV.)
Imagine media honing in on how Wikipedians go about changing the definition of a widely used word... and looked at this case study.
Across the web, as of February 25th, the definition of fascism now includes "right wing" when anyone searches it on Google or Bing, or Alexa. The argument for making this change, when other sources have not, must be a good one. But if it is driven solely by politics and momentary talking points from cable news, that obvious bias will further erode WP's reputation. petrarchan47คุก 22:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm hoping for actual quotations, specific RS. A few examples would be helpful. petrarchan47คุก 20:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The purpose of and RfC is to get the comments of other editors, which is what you're getting, not for other people to do your research for you. I challenge you to provide even a single citation from a reliable source which supports "eft-wing." Until you do, I predict there is not going to be a change made here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
You're misrepresenting me. I asked Do reliable sources support a change to the definition of Fascism so that "right wing" is added to the first sentence of the Lede?. The person who makes a change to the encyclopedia is responsible for the supporting RS. This change was made without adding RS or explaining how existing RS was being read differently to justify this change. I don't need to provide RS as I am not suggesting a change. I'm saying that editors need to follow the PAGs and they haven't been in this case. petrarchan47คุก 20:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I suggest reviewing the sources already in the article, which are unequivocal. In any case, an RFC is not the appropriate place for drawn-out discussions - Fascism's identity on the right of the political spectrum is perhaps the most well-cited part of the entire article, and is such a basic part of the topic that failing to understand it implies a complete refusal to read any reliable sources on it at all before contributing (let alone the numerous ones already cited in the article.) I understand your concern that it was previously worded more cautiously, but that caution did not reflect the unified and unequivocal nature of the best sources, and therefore violated the WP:NPOV requirement to avoid stating facts as opinions. --Aquillion (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
when you cite sources, read them closely. For example you cite "Live Science" and it rejects the one author who opposes use of left-right. Then Yale scholar Jason Stanley. is cited. He says in that cite: I think it’s clearly right-wing....fascism tilts pretty heavily to the right in my view. "Vox" is cited a second time but the article states: I found wide agreement among scholars that Golden Dawn, the far-right party in Greece that draws direct inspiration from the Nazis, is fairly described as fascist. Rjensen (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
When an author says, I think and in my view, we do not state it as fact in WikiVoice, rather we use intext attribution cited to the author. There are different scholarly views and it is our job as editors to include those views per NPOV. According to what this RfC stated, the material changes longstanding stable material, and it has been challenged as violative of NPOV. To incorrectly state as fact that nearly half the US population are fascists in WikiVoice is not good for the project. Atsme 📣 📧 12:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
"To incorrectly state as fact that nearly half the US population are fascists in WikiVoice is not good for the project." Where is anyone suggesting or even hinting at that? By saying fascism is a right wing ideology, no one calls anyone anything. No one is even implying that anyone right of center is a fascist. Just that the ideology itself is on the (far) right wing of the (flawed) left-right scale. And that is the overwhelming consensus among sources as well. Or am i somehow misunderstanding what you meant by that? I mean, saying communism is on the (far) left wing does not make the other half communists either. 91.248.142.3 (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
So, now you went on from random and illogicial assertions like the one here and from distorting a source like you did below to pointing to other Wikipedia articles? Please actually cite the sources themselves instead of telling us to google. You know Wikipedia is not reliable, and i won't waste time looking through the sources only for you to tell me i looked at the wrong one. Especially after the way you tried to twist the source you brought up below, it would be nice to see exactly what wording any reliable source has. This really is quite shocking overall, but i guess others are fine with these time wasting 'arguments', especially in the case of a borderline troll argument like calling fascism right-wing makes everyone right of center a fascist. Making such a ridiculous 'argument' in all seriousness really touches on competence is required... 37.138.235.128 (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment To clarify, OP does not propose that it be removed from the lead entirely only that it be removed from the first sentence ("definition"), which restore the article to the version which had been the consensus up until about a month ago, when "right-wing" was added to the first sentence.--MattMauler (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Are there really WP:RSs that claim that fascism is on the left, or WP:FRINGE sources? That's often the case when a minority of sources claim the complete opposite of the majority. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Ian, your question is answered here, and in multiple scholarly sources. Adding academic text13:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC) Atsme 📣 📧 12:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
No reliable sources describe fascism as left-wing, although the belief is common in fringe far right literature. TFD (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Atsme, you might want to reread that Britannica piece. It starts off by describing the many different views of fascism, but never once states that fascism is a leftist movement. In fact, throughout the whole piece it consistently refers to fascism as a right-wing movement, and says that the one major commonality between all fascist movements is their opposition to left-wing politics. Here's a few quotes:
Unlike left-wing populism, fascist populism did not attribute workers’ hardships to big business and big landowners and did not advocate measures such as progressive taxation, higher pay for industrial and farm workers, protection of unions, and the right to strike.
Partly because they made concerted appeals to young people, fascist parties tended to have younger members than most other rightist parties.
There were a few, usually small, fascist movements whose social and economic goals were left or left-centrist.... However, the economic programs of the great majority of fascist movements were extremely conservative, favouring the wealthy far more than the middle class and the working class. Their talk of national “socialism” was quite fraudulent in this respect. Although some workers were duped by it before the fascists came to power, most remained loyal to the traditional antifascist parties of the left.
All in all, that's another good source supporting putting "right-wing" or "far right" in the lead.Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I did a "find" to locate the quotes you say came from the Britannica article, "Common characteristics of fascist movements", and nothing came up. Where did those quotes originate? The Britannica begins with the following statement: There has been considerable disagreement among historians and political scientists about the nature of fascism. Some scholars, for example, regard it as a socially radical movement with ideological ties to the Jacobins of the French Revolution, whereas others see it as an extreme form of conservatism inspired by a 19th-century backlash against the ideals of the Enlightenment. We are seeing such disagreement now with justifiable challenges to the lead. Britannica further clarifies (my bold emphasis): Secular liberals, for example, have stressed fascism’s religious roots; Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars have emphasized its secular origins; social conservatives have pointed to its “socialist” and “populist” aspects; and social radicals have noted its defense of “capitalism” and “elitism.” For these and other reasons, there is no universally accepted definition of fascism. There are numerous other RS that corroborate the Britannica's encyclopedic information. Cherry picking material from RS to fit a certain narrative while omitting material that doesn't is neither helpful to our readers nor compliant with NPOV, which is why we summarize what the RS is saying.Atsme 📣 📧 04:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I think you've noticed now that that article is 10 pages long. You might get a different impression if you actually read the whole thing instead of just the opening paragraph. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I knew how long it was, I just thought the find feature was more advanced. It appears that while you've found material that supports your position, you missed important material that doesn't, such as - Neofascism - The postwar period to the end of the 20th century: Finally, the gradual acceptance of democratic norms by the vast majority of western Europeans reduced the appeal of authoritarian ideologies and required that neofascist parties make a concerted effort to portray themselves as democratic and “mainstream.” Some neofascists even included words like “democratic” and “liberal” in the titles of their movements. We should not omit important material that doesn't support our narrative, especially when the article starts off with there is no universal definition. It's surprising to me that consensus would support opinion and individual views - not statements of fact - for inclusion in the lead in WikiVoice, especially when it is justifiably challenged with supporting RS that clearly dispute such inclusion. I'm done here. Atsme 📣 📧 05:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
They are much closer to libertarianism than traditional conservatism. They privatized state companies and hired Ludwig von Mises as an economic adviser. But that does not make them left wing. TFD (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
So above your 'argument' is, in essence, that calling fascism right wing is calling everyone right of center a fascist while there is no logical connection between it. Here your argument is that fascism cannot be called right wing because a source says they portray themselves as 'democratic', among other things, in some cherry-picked parts of a text you have not even read in full. Keyword there is 'portray', fascist parties are not 'liberal' or 'democratic' but put on a guise of being so, big difference. So not even here does it claim what you want it to say. They portray themselves as such but actually are not. Quite frankly, i think both issues you raised are highly problematic. Just throwing nonsense up to get a result more suited to your own political beliefs (which i really cannot understand as you surely are not a fascist, but just a regular right of center person) So, what is the big issue to be defended here? Because with those ridiculous arguments it is obvious that is it not really about npov or what have you. 85.16.226.58 (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, despite Pipes' very particular [3] (among other things, right-wing) historiographical approach, Fascism is almost always defined as anti-socialist and especially anti-communist. Hence the text from the OED I provided above: "...militantly anti-communist and anti-socialist..." -Darouet (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
History books can be argumentative and it does not make them any more less RS. Indeed, Pipes argues that "left historians" present fascism as a polar opposite of communism for ideological reasons. Pipes was a part of the "Soviet-slaying" totalitarian school of history and his views were most prominently opposed by the "revisionist school" of Soviet studies. UC Berkeley political science professor A. James Gregor also contends in The Faces of Janus: Marxism and Fascism in the Twentieth Century (2000, p. 20) that Fascists were almost all Marxists—serious theorists who had long been identified with Italy's intelligentsia of the Left which is obviously based in facts like Mussolini being the editor of the Avanti! party newspaper and indeed, the leading figure of the radical left wing of the party. As Rjensen has stated, Mussolini did denounce Marxism and shifted his positions a lot after 1921, but I think we're being dishonest if we completely omit the socialist roots in the lead. What makes it more complex that modern or 'generic' fascism is not the same as Italian fascism from which the term comes from, and 'fascism' and 'Nazism' are used as synonyms. --Pudeo (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Left wing fascism RS [6] Clearly states that Fascist Movement in UK was left wing, or derived from mainly left wing ideology. As such description of Fascism as right wing is inaccurate. THere are multiple sources and many reasons to conclude that Fascism formed from Socialist ideals. It is certainly impossible to argue that Fascism has anything in common with right wing laissez faire Capitalism, Fascism is almost certainly an extreme left wing version of "society above the individual' and 'big government setting up cartels for business'. Arguably Fascism is steeped in left wing idealism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.160.19 (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Did you read what that source actually says? It specifically states that 1. left-wing fascism is a contradiction in terms, 2. they were nonetheless able to use left-wing rhetoric as a tool to recruit working-class membership, but only up until it was contradicted by their actions, and 3. any genuine left-wing sympathizers within the movement were ultimately purged. All of this is clear from the abstract. --Aquillion (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Sources
  1. ^ https://www.jstor.org/stable/4365702?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
  2. ^ https://www.jstor.org/stable/4401913?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_Through_Joy
  4. ^ https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSDAP_25_points_manifesto
  5. ^ https://www.jstor.org/stable/2709374?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
  6. ^ https://academic.oup.com/tcbh/article-abstract/13/1/38/1717118
"Offshoot of Marxism"? Really? Reliable sources say absolutely nothing of the sort. Even the Fascist propagandists who sought to pass Fascism (or, more commonly, Nazism) off as a form of "socialism" went to great lengths to stress that it was not a Marxist sort of Socialism, as they hated Marx and Marxism with a violent and absolute fury. I'm not aware of anybody who seriously thinks that Fascism is an actual offshoot of Marxism, even among those who claim similarities and are strongly opposed to both. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Stanley Payne, in A History of Fascism: 1914-1945 (1996), places fascism in the context of the "radical right" and the "conservative right" in interwar Europe, arguing that fascism was close to the radical right and distant from the conservative right.
Robert Paxton, in The Anatomy of Fascism (2004), switches between the terms "fascist", "far right" and "radical right" in labeling political movements - for example Action Française in the interwar period (chapter 3, pp. 68-73). In the section with the title "Is Fascism still possible?" (chapter 7), he talks about post-WWII movements that could potentially lead to a fascist revival and consistently refers to them as "far right" or "radical right" (e.g. "Finally, a whole universe of fragmented radical Right 'grouplets' proliferated, keeping alive a great variety of far Right themes and practices" - pp. 173).
Kevin Passmore, in Fascism: A Very Short Introduction (2002), uses the term "extreme right" to refer to a category of politics that includes fascism but is not limited to it. (e.g. "There have, of course, been many movements that have espoused some features of fascism and not others. Some of these can usefully be seen as belonging to a wider category of extreme right movements" -- pp. 24)
John Weiss, in The Fascist Tradition: Radical Right-wing Extremism in Modern Europe (1967), identifies fascism as a type of radical right-wing extremism (obviously, as the title implies).
Elisabeth Carter, in The Extreme Right in Western Europe (2005), talks about... well, about the extreme right in Western Europe, and includes fascist, neo-fascist and post-fascist movements in it.
Paul Hainsworth, in The Extreme Right in Europe and the USA (1992), also goes through a number of political movements labeled "extreme right" and also includes fascism and its legacy among them.
Really, pick any book that labels itself a survey of the "extreme right", "far right" or "radical right", and you will find that it covers fascists, among others. So, to reiterate: The extreme right is the political family that contains fascism and its close relatives. That is how nearly all RS use these terms. To exclude fascism from the category of "extreme right" would be like excluding the first Roman Emperors from the category of emperors, on the grounds that the principate was different in many ways from a standard monarchy. Of course fascism is different from other types of right-wing politics, and is even different from other parts of the far-right. But fascism is also different from other types of nationalism, and that doesn't stop us from saying in the first sentence that fascism is nationalist. Members of the Scottish National Party are referred to as "nationalists" too (for example), and the difference between the SNP and fascist movements is vast. If we can call fascism nationalist despite the existence of other, vastly different nationalists, then we can also call fascism right-wing despite the existence of other, vastly different right-wing movements. -- Damoclus (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Note that recent, scholarly sourcess are preferred as RS; Churchill on fascism is neither. Newimpartial (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Elsewhere he wrote, "If I were Italian, I am sure I would have been with you entirely from the beginning of your victorious struggle against the bestial appetites and passion of Leninism. … Your movement has rendered a service to the whole world....It has been said that a continual movement to the Left, a kind of fatal landslide toward the abyss, has been the character of all revolutions. Italy has shown that there is a way to combat subversive forces." He also thought that Communism was created by the Jews. But even if we were to accept these views, your quote is not a definition. TFD (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
That's true. We should follow the reliable sources, which define it as right-wing.Newimpartial (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The problem with your argument of course is that not all reliable sources define it as right wing and consider it controversial. See atsme’s post above.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More