Talk:Fascism/Archive 54

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Fascism is only of the “right”? (Discuss Dispute tag)

‘ based on the consensus of political scientists, historians, and other reliable sources that Fascism is a (far) "right-wing" ideology and not a "left-wing" one’ The problem with this statement is that it is not the consensus of political scientist historians and other reliable sources. If anyone is actually interested in the subject all they need to do is to research “left-wing fascism“ and there are plenty of sources cited by reputable historians, political scientists and other reliable sources stating so, even Marxist organisations readily admit this and have done so via their publications. Worse, to add a “page note” stating that an incorrect supposition (which in turn is subject to punitive measures if you attempt to redress the balance) is clearly wrong, authoritarian and close minded. Finally, apologies, I did not see the page note before I added new citations in the lede. However, I do hope that Wikipedia editors understand this and prepared to be open-minded about the origins, ideology and use of fascism. Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Go to Archive 1 and Archive 2 on this talk page and you will see discussions on this topic going back to 2004. I bet you'll see some version of this discussion on every single archive of the talk page since then. This conversation has been held again and again and again and again and again on this talk page for more than seventeen years. This isn't a problem of not keeping an open mind. The problem is that you'll need some pretty hefty evidence to overturn that consensus. - Astrophobe (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

There's that word again "consensus". I don't think you people know what that word means. Even though it was invented by Socialists (hell, Nazi has the word Socialist in their name, but "Republic of North Korea", right?). Why don't you just tell it straight; You will never correct it no matter what. There is nothing in source material itself (written by Gentile, a socialist), which does not lean right or left. Pinning fascism to conservatives is a modern invention. It was wrong in 2004, it is wrong now. The fact that the wiki article has been wrong since 2004 is unavailing since articles as far back as 1966 pointed out how communist misuse the word against anyone who disagrees with them (see; Fascism, Right and Left - Hugh Seton-Watson). Some things never change. You also have extreme censorship, which itself is a form of fascism. A wiki editor, who should be ashamed of himself, deleted my previous comment as "empty venting", and you have simply said "fascism is a right-wing ideology" whilst threatning to ban anyone who disagrees with the "(non) consensus".Bears2077 (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Note that Seton-Watson proposes "Non-Marxist totalitarianism" as an alternate name for fascism, which is about as clear a statement that "fascism is not leftist" as one could get in 1966.

Read the FAQ. I won't bother responding to any more comments here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, there are numerous reliable sources from political scientists, writers et cetera confirming this. However, when I attempted to add the citations to the article they were deleted out of hand with no discussion which further confirms that some Wikipedia editors are not open to debating the issue. When I added new citations they in turn were deleted on the grounds that they were ‘counterfactual and unreliable’ even though the citations followed wiki policy to the letter.Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 07:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The Griffin book you added consistently discusses fascism as a branch of far right thinking. I just paged through the Hawkesworth book and I can't imagine where it says that fascism is a left wing phenomenon. Even if both of them said that, they would be radical departures from the consensus on this topic, and basing the lead section just on that would be WP:UNDUE. And changes like that require a consensus to be built on the talk page; as the banner at the top says, "This statement is the result of a very long process of discussion and debate and has strong consensus acceptance within the Wikipedia community". - Astrophobe (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Astrophobe: the citations provided by @Inadvertent Consequences:, do not support the assertions of Inadvertent Consequences. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, yeah, that's what I said four days ago. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

No articles by political scientists published in reliable sources have claimed fascism was not right-wing, other than a paper by Seymour Martin Lipset in the 1950s, which he later disagreed with. TFD (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

You are wrong. There are many sources that detail the origins of fascism, and they do not declare fascism to be a right wing ideology. Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism (published 1951), does not put fascism/nazism on the right but categorizes it with Stalinism as "totalitarian". The Road to Serfdom, by Hayek, published in 1944, traces the roots of Fascism and Nazism. Chapter 12, the Socialist Roots of Nazism, refutes the claim that Nazism has no link to the "left". Much of the book shows the birth of fascism/nazism is rooted in the socialism of the 19th century. Finally, if you read the platform of the Nazi party in 1920 (https://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm) it is clearly a socialist policy platform with nationalist overtones.Aseidave (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Arendt wasn't analyzing any totalitarian regime on a left-right axis, but analyzing the shared features of extremist leftist and extremist right-wing politics. She is in agreement with the majority of scholars that totalitarianism is a feature of extremist political systems, not a political system itself, and as such, never assigns a place on the left-right axis to fascism (though she implies several times her agreement with the consensus that it is right-wing).

Hayek makes it clear that Fascism is distinct from left-wing ideologies like Communism and socialism, and describes Fascism as a natural refuge retreated to by those in power when attempts to create a socialist/communist society have failed. Of course, Mussolini and Hitler's shared hatred of socialism was acknowledged by Hayek and used to contextualize this relationship between leftist politics and fascism. He even acknowledges that the societies which actually gave rise to fascism were not socialist or communist, though he downplays this for the sake of his greater point.

Arendt's work was a precursor to the horseshoe theory, and is frequently referenced (along with Lipset, who is discussed below) in that context. Hayek argues a much stronger relationship to left-wing politics than most believed without ever directly classifying fascism as left-wing, but, though it was quite popular at the time, it's long term impact was little more than creating doubt that the emergence of totalitarianism was limited to to extremist governments.

Neither Hayek nor Arendt ever actually claim that Fascism is left-wing.

The link you provided to the Nazi platform predates Hitler's rise to power, during which it is widely acknowledged that the party pivoted from left to right.

One cannot simply skim a few notable works on political science and expect to come away with a good understanding of the subject. One must read them in-depth and read other, complimentary and contradictory analyses in order to really understand what is being said by the author, and how their work has impacted the scholarly consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

It is completely meaningless to cite works from the 1940s for scholarly opinions on which ideologies are "right" and "left", because as a cursory look at our page on Left–right political spectrum will show, those terms barely existed then. If writers like Arendt use them in confusing and bizarre ways totally at odds with how other scholars use them, it's because they were functionally different terms from the way that we use them today. And interpreting Nazi documents is just the height of WP:OR. - Astrophobe (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, most sociologists and political scientists were aware of the paradigm and referenced it on occasion, but it certainly wasn't a part of the popular discourse on politics, nor the primary metric of judging political ideologies (it still isn't the latter, but it's a popular enough conception that modern political writers almost always work within it). As such, it'd be very difficult to find any work from that period which directly addresses the left-right continuum. Scholars just weren't working in that paradigm, so the most you get are passing mentions when they use it for grammatical (to avoid excess repetition of terms like "Marxist", "Socialist", "Authoritarian" or "Totalitarian") or rhetorical (to contrast different systems) purposes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

There's a long history of traditional liberals such as Hayek and Arendt comparing left and right unfavorably to their own centrist (at least for their times) politics. You need a source to say that they said fascism and socialism both were really left-wing or right-wing. You even see it in campaign literature: "We are not the party of big business or big labor, but of the middle class."

While it is good to challenge received wisdom, you shouldn't come to conclusions and search for sources that support them. Read those sources and understand their reasoning before you start quoting them.

TFD (talk) 04:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

No, they were deleted as you did not only add cites, and makes a major change as a minor edit.Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Care to explain what are you talking about? Personuser (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, his edits did not only add cites (which by the way is not a minor edit), they also made textual changes.Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Care to provide some examples?Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Please do not remove the dispute tag without discussion, that is completely unacceptable. Further, this accusation that I ‘added in citations and hyperlinks using the ‘minor’ option’ is ludicrous. If editors cannot read the edit history correctly then please do not make accusations when the evidence clearly shows all I did was remove an internal link to an in-line. Also, just because certain editors might not agree with the reliable sources does not mean that they should be removed either. I’ve never come across such a group of editors determined to maintain a falsehood. In closing, please do not keep reverting my edits without discussion and leave the dispute tag alone until we can properly discuss the issue. Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I engaged with your claims about the sources you added above. Discussing changes to the page based on reliable sources is the only purpose of a talk page. - Astrophobe (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no dispute. There is only fact on one side and ignorance on the other.

This is an encyclopedia, we report verifiable fact. In this case the verifiable fact is that, based on the consensus of subject experts, fascism is a right-wing ideology. That crackpots, ideologues, and a stray academic or two may say otherwise doesn't change that consensus, and it doesn't mean that what they say gets into the article, per WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE.

This is settled, and it's not going to overturned anytime in the foreseeable future; done, finito, tilt at a different windmill, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Inadvertent Consequences: "It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so." The sources say that you're wrong on this issue, as does the strong consensus of editors represented in the FAQ, as do I (a professional historian of the period). You can't get much more definitively wrong than that around here. So no, your "disputed" tag will not remain. For every editor with the time to engage and explain this to you, as Astrophobe has done with admirable patience, there are many more of us who support them. Generalrelative (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: I understand that you have written that you are a “historian of the period”, so what do you say about Copeland’s ‘Left-Wing Fascism In Theory and Practice’? (Oxford Academic Press Twentieth Century British History, Volume 13, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 38–61) or Seton-Watsons ‘Fascism Right and Left’? Best regards.Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 08:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Inadvertent Consequences: Coupland’s ‘Left-Wing Fascism In Theory and Practice’ does not say fascism was left wing. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Inadvertent Consequences: What do I say about them? Not much. Hugh Seton-Watson was a respected Russianist in the mid-20th century but nobody considers his 1966 essay an authoritative source on fascism. And I wasn't at all familiar with Philip M. Coupland's 2002 article. While I don't have time to read it I will let you know that Coupland does not appear to hold an academic post anywhere. Even if he is arguing in favor of your position here (which seems unlikely, judging by the article's abstract) he would still represent a fringe outlier in the field. I hope that's helpful. If you want to learn more about this topic I suggest engaging thoroughly with the talk page archives. And if you're looking for a book on the topic I recommend Robert Paxton's Anatomy of Fascism. Generalrelative (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: ah, the old trick of trying to discredit reliable sources and from your response ‘not much’ knowing absolutely nothing about a well-respected author and historian suggests, with the greatest respect a closed mind on the subject. Wait, did I say that out loud? Anyway, Coupland is a respected author with a PHD from the University of Warwick, three degrees in the social sciences and history. The author is also a published historian and was based at the University of Glasgow for three years.Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

This rather looks like the "old trick" of pointing out a clear an unambiguous scholarly consensus in order to make the point that having credentials doesn't mean that everything an author writes necessarily reflects that consensus.

But by all means, continue to WP:ABF here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Assume bad faith? really? I’ve had my edits deleted out of hand with no discussion, accusations made about my editing which were found-less and clearly reliable sources declared unreliable and yet I’m the one assuming bad faith? I recommend certain editors look up the definition for hypocrisy. Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

All sources you've cited state the opposite of what you claim. So whilst they are reliable, they do not support your assertion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

i’m unsure as to what you’re reading because I’m looking at these sources right now and they clearly state that racism is of the left as well as the right.Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Racism? Did you mean to type fascism? The Mass Psychology of Fascism – Willhelm Reich, Fascism – Roger Griffin, Encyclopaedia of Government and Politics: Volume 1 – Hawkesworth and Kogan, and ‘Left-Wing Fascism’ in Theory and Practice - Philip Coupland, are the citations you have provided and none of them state that fascism is left-wing, but in fact state it is right-wing. The first three of those sources are included in the current 13 sources showing that fascism is considered right-wing when placed on the traditional left-right spectrum. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Maybe you should stop worrying about the fact that you've been experiencing pushback and start asking why you're experiencing it. I'll give you a hint: It's because your sources don't say what you claim they're saying. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

RS are yet to be produced to back the claim, as such there is (as far asa I can see) no valid dispute.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. We already have a FAQ about this to answer exactly these questions. We don't need to expend effort responding to vague requests and open ended questions with nothing to back them up. If people want to ask more specific questions or make specific suggestions, with what seems to them to be plausible backing from reliable sources, then that is different. Most of the time those won't go anywhere either but, except in cases of obvious trolling, we should consider them.

Clearly there are a lot of people who are immune to the FAQ and I'm not sure what we can do to improve this situation. One small improvement would be for the FAQ to draw attention to some of the more prominent serious historians who are/were from the right themselves who wrote of Fascism as right-wing. If we can make it clear that they need to attack their own guys in order to argue this obvious nonsense then maybe some will realise that there is no point in it. Even so, many won't. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

One thing that could help would be adding something visible in the edit screen, since some editors skip the talk page alltogether, not sure how/if this is technically achievable. I was expecting the FAQ to link to a particular discussion, but browsing the archives gave me an idea of why this is not the case. Accusing editors of misusing the minor tag, insisting on it after being proven wrong and giving confusing reasons for why their edits were reverted surely doesn't help a smooth resolution of these cases and puts additional stress on editors addressing the same questions for the nth time. Personuser (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

What confusing reasons?Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:FAQ editnotice seems to address my first concern, though adding too many editnotices may be counterproductive. Personuser (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, currently the article has Template:Editnotices/Page/Fascism; all we need do is edit that template. But I wouldn't do it without carefully working out the content right here (or maybe at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Fascism, transcluding that discussion here.) --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I think a link to the FAQ would be a good addition, but agree that details need some carefull discussion. A disambiguation to Fascist (insult) may also help to avoid some similar discussions, but this is starting to merit it's own section. Personuser (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

It's clearly POV pushing for the article to just state with a straight-face definitively that Fascism IS far right wing, no dispute whatsoever. There are notable scholarly experts (not just extremist non-scholarly sources) that disagree with that, and everybody here knows this. For this article to be NPOV, it would have to note that not all sources agree. It was have to say something like "most sources consider Fascism to be far right wing, while a minority of sources consider it to be left wing or centrist." That's what NPOV is all about. Major Dump (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

But far fewer than say it is, and that is the point, it is a wp:fringe view that fascism is not just of the far-right.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Even if it's a small minority view, to be NPOV the article doesn't have to say the view is correct but only that some experts hold that view. There's not one word in this article that that anyone even questions whether it's far right. What are people afraid of here? Major Dump (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe this topic needs its own article. Major Dump (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you would need some very good sources to even try and start it, and its tone would have to make it clear its a a fringe view.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

You can keep claiming "There are notable scholarly experts (not just extremist non-scholarly sources) that disagree with that, and everybody here knows this" all you want; that doesn't make it true, or turn a fringe theory advocated by radical right commentators into actual historiography. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not claiming it's true. I'm claiming that for the article to be NPOV, it would have to note the disagreement. Major Dump (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

We only note disagreement when it is not Fringe Vs non fringe, we do not give equal weight to fringe views in the name of WP:FALSEBALANCE.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not advocating giving the view(s) equal weight. Major Dump (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes you are as you are arguing we can't say it is a fact, when academic conesensus is it is a fact. Thus you want to give equal weight to a fringe POV its not a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

You can definitely say it is a fact that fascism "is placed on the far right.." That's NPOV, as it's definitely placed on the right wing, by apparently the majority of writers. But it's also not placed on the far right wing by notable exceptions. Major Dump (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Such as?Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Such as the source I attempted to put in the article yesterday. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&type=revision&diff=1069361420&oldid=1069358976 Major Dump (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we treat fringe viewpoints in a way that is consistent with WP:FRIND. That means we do not rely on references from the fringe voices themselves but only independent subject-matter experts commenting on those fringe voices. Generalrelative (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

His views on fascism are often cited by other independent subject-matter sources. Are you going to revert my entry if I source him that way? Or would I be wasting my time? Major Dump (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:FRIND is one concern among many, including other aspects of WP:NPOV and also WP:RS. Further, I am just one watcher of this page among many. So I cannot make guarantees about what will be considered appropriate to add to the article. I can however remind you that the consensus to describe fascism as unequivocally a right-wing phenomenon is about as strong as consensus gets. As an account with few edits under your belt –– and none outside this narrow topic area –– I would imagine that your chances of getting this consensus to budge are next to nil (but that's just my opinion). Generalrelative (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

But he does not appear to be commenting on what other people have said, he appears to be putting forward a view at odds with the traditional interpretation of fascism (in fact he appear to be very much on the fringe, in fact, he seems to have been almost ann apologist for fascism). Also your edit was very poorly written as what the hell does "called left-wing which have also been constituted by racism, mass murder, and oppression" mean?Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

If any user wants to try and change this view it will be best to post any suggested edit here (back up by top-line RS). Then we can discuss its merits.Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The source, A. James Gregor's book, does not say that fascism is not right-wing, but that not all right-wing extremism today is fascism.[1] TFD (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

He's talking about historical Fascism explicitly, as opposed to neofascism in this: ""it is not at all clear that 'right-wing extremism' can be equated, with any confidence, to historical Fascism." Major Dump (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that is the passage being referred to, wp:v is clear. A source must explicitly say what you want to use it for. In this case it must say fascism is not always right-wing. Not infer it, not imply it, it must say it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I never made any claim in my edit that he said it's not extreme right wing. He's saying that he's not convinced that it is. That's the extent of what I wanted added to the article. Major Dump (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Then why do we need to, to refer to a very minor controversy that tells us nothing about the topic itself? Why do we need this one academic opinion of something he is not sure about? This really is an issue of wp:fringe and wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) TFD is right: that's not what the author is saying. And if he were saying what you misrepresent him as saying, WP:FRIND would apply. So either way, it doesn't appear that you have appropriate sourcing to even begin to challenge the consensus that fascism is an exclusively right-wing phenomenon. Generalrelative (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Major Dump, You have misinterpreted what Gregor wrote. He did not say he's not convinced that historical Fascism was not right-wing extremist, just that not all right-wing extremists are Fascists. A good way of avoiding that type of error is to read the book or article you are quoting rather than searching for quotes that you think describe your opinion. Gregor, who could be described as right-wing, objected to the mainstream conflation of the Right with fascism. The only rightful use of the term fascist was to describe the interwar parties of the Axis Powers and their allies. The term neo-fascist should be restricted to their successor parties that had kept the same ideology. So he would agree with calling the KKK, the Proud Boys or other far right groups as fascist. TFD (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

No I didn't misinterpret. Read the whole section. Major Dump (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

More:: "For a times, scholars in the Soviet Union were standard-bearers of just that sort of interpretation...Marxism-Leninism was left-wing, and Fascism in all its variants was right wing. Many academics in the West simply accepted such a construal of the then-contemporary world." Then he goes on to argue against the characterization. Major Dump (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

He's not arguing that Marxism-Leninism is not left-wing or that Fascism is not right-wing, but objects to conflating the Right with Fascism. As he says at the start of the book, "The central thesis of the work is that terms like “fascism,” “generic fascism,” and “neofascism” are often used with considerable indifference, applied uniquely to political movements and regimes considered on the “right” rather than the “left,” intended more often to denigrate rather than inform." Following WWII in fact, the terms right-wing and fascist were used interchangeably. Even today, no mainstream politician calls him or herself right-wing.

You probably read more into this because you believe that right-wing=free market capitalism. Gregor rightly points out that while Fascists initially supported free markets (Ludwig von Mises was the chief economic adviser to the Austrian fascist government), but had no ideological adherence to it, while many right-wing extremists, including Mises' followers in the U.S. Libertarian Party, do. But the same could be said about the European Right in general.

TFD (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

"Para-fascism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Para-fascism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 10#Para-fascism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

"Parafascism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Parafascism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 10#Parafascism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

"Fascismo" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Fascismo and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 10#Fascismo until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

"Left-wing fascism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Left-wing fascism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 10#Left-wing fascism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

"Profa" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Profa and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 10#Profa until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Removal of "Far-Right" label due to bias

WP:FRINGE POV-pushing with zero reliable anything to be found, nothing to do here Dronebogus (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Greetings. Obviously as you see the lead suggests that fascism is a Far Right ideology, but the arguments behind the usage of this label does not satisfy the policies and guidelines of the encyclopedia. In this process many Wikipedia policies and guidelines have been breached, including those mentioned in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Given the fact that Fascism was started by Benito Mussolini, he did never identify as right wing but instead self-identified himself as Marxist and Socialist and Leftist and also was once a directorate member of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI) and on top of that during his rule he practiced a socialist economy and never expressed any favor of capitalism. And also as you know, Far Right is the extreme version of right wing, and right wing's main features are support for (free market) capitalism and individualism which are not represented by Fascism and are quite opposite. Fascism is a collectivist ideology not individualist and by nature it's the opposite of capitalism and individualism. Yet ideologies and approaches such as Anarcho-capitalism are perfect examples of extreme versions of right wing, since such ideologies contain the major elements of right wing to the fullest extent. Besides, Nationalism is omni-spectral and universal when it comes to the political spectrum so the Nationalist part of National Socialism and Fascism must not be taken out of context or be attributed to right wing, as nationalism is not necessarily limited to right wing and is universal. For that please see Left-wing nationalism. Moreover there is no consensus among historians to define fascism as far right, for the reason that the topic is highly objected, biased, politicized and ideologically-driven. Due to the fact that the original fascists themselves never identified as right wing let alone far right, and due to the fact that they identified with quite opposite terms such as leftist, socialist and Marxist and finally because there is severe objection to the usage of the term far right for such ideologies, I hereby suggest the removal of this term from the lead. But if that's necessary to keep the content, we can simply mention the matter in the specified sections. In the end I would like to emphasize the fact that the sources which called fascism far right are mostly left wing and far left sources and are highly biased and I would like to mention that there is severe objection to this matter. For example right wing activist Dinesh D'Souza (1) and soviet-born Libertarian scholar Allen Gindler are among people who objected the usage of the term far right for fascism using historical facts and or fact based arguments. Allen says in one of his articles named How and why Fascism and Nazism became the right which was published by the Journal of Libertarian Studies: "Non-Marxist currents of socialism, such as Fascism and National Socialism, were excluded from the socialist camp and put on the right wing by Marxist-Leninist propaganda..." Thank you very much. The Stray Dog Talk Page 06:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC) This has already been discussed in the archives. Please consider: China is generally considered Far East, but from the persective of the Japanese, it is in the West... --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC) @Hob Gadling: First, please behave and do not humiliate me. You apparently are using personal attack through humiliation which is a breach of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Secondly as you know the term wiki in Wikipedia emphasizes the fact that no content here is necessarily permanent. Everything is editable and changeable. And as you see I'm challenging the outcome of that discussion and also the attitude of those who seemingly tried to intimidate users who may want to challenge the outcome of that discussion, which if it's true it would be completely against the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Please remember that WP:Wikipedia is not censored, consequently the only ones here who are to be excluded are censoring ones not the challenging editors. Plus in relation to what was discouraged by the template above, I didn't call for labeling Fascism as left wing which is evidently a wrongful act done by certain users, but I've just emphasized disregard for the the fact that Fascism is falsely called "far right" and suggested the removal of the term from the lead of this article and moving it to a specified section. I also challenge the usage of such an intimidating template in the talk page which is even in contrast with what the article says. The template says in its first bold sentence that "Fascism is a right-wing ideology" which is a false claim and generalization. Such paradox is absurd and in relation to the topic of this article it is quite ironic! Moreover I would like to inform you and others that if necessary I proceed to investigate the issue and solve it. So please remember that WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy and it is not ruled based upon a majority rule or polls, it is ruled based upon the weight and validity of arguments in accordance with the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. I understand why there is this amount of bias and sensitivity toward this topic, apart from the fact that sentimentalism has no place in an encyclopedia. Finally I would like to inform you that I'm going to bring the general talking point to be discussed in Meta-Wiki. Best Regards. The Stray Dog Talk Page 08:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Let's face it, you claim that sources which call fascism far right are mostly left wing and far left sources and are highly biased and then you tried to use the equally biased D'Souza and Gindler to disprove this. I don't think that's going to work, is it? Also, Meta is the WMF community site, but does not have any ability to affect content here. Black Kite (talk) 09:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC) I read your first five sentences, and some of them are not true, others are completely irrelevant red herrings. So, I skipped the rest because it is probably nonsense too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Let's face it again. First, based on what evidence you consider Allen Gindler (who is a political scientist and a non-controversial scholar) a highly biased person?! Second, I intentionally mentioned Dinesh D'Souza as an example of a prominent right wing personality, to emphasize the fact that right wing people severely reject this idea that fascism is a right wing ideology. One can not attribute a group of people to a certain ideology when those people reject that ideology and are not willing to identify themselves with that. Please face the fact that the absolute majority of right wingers reject what is labeled to them by highly biased far left propagandist, activists and ideologues, as a form of slur word. You're insisting on those highly biased ideologically-driven sources. Every cook praises his own broth, so we should recognize this term as a biased term which is not suitable to be in the article's lead, since those sources are highly biased and hostile toward right wing people. It is a very simple encyclopedic matter. Then we can move this talking point to a section specified to Left-wing Criticism of Fascism or sections alike. See I'm making sense and apparently my argument has more logical weight than yours. The Stray Dog Talk Page 09:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC) If D'Souza says that fascism is "left", that just means that his own position is right of fascism. Like China being west of Japan. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC) There's so much wrong here I don't know where to begin. So - "One can not attribute a group of people to a certain ideology when those people reject that ideology and are not willing to identify themselves with that." Yet, no-one is calling D'Souza a fascist. Indeed, it would be ludicrous to state that "fascism is a right-wing ideology, so all right-wing people are fascists". That's nonsensical, and the article, clearly, does not do it. Meanwhile, you're still insisting, with no evidence, that the article is based on "highly biased ideologically-driven sources" Please feel free to identify those sources rather than hand-waving and then this conversation can actually proceed. Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC) @Hob Gadling: We're reaching good points. Ironically, you're argument can be used against your own talking point and it is what I was trying to imply. Your argument is suggesting that the term far right is subjective or relative and it's not objective or factual, and or it only expresses viewpoint of certain people. That's what I've been trying to say since the beginning. Consequently we should not use this term in this article's lead and must use it specifically as a form of biased term, or a certain form of interpretation or criticism of certain people toward fascism. As I said it doesn't matter what D'Souza says. What matter is that he objects the idea of fascism being right wing and he is not alone. The absolute majority of right wing including intellectuals, activists, thinkers and so on object that too. We can not listen to leftists one-sidedly while their argument is not supported by historical facts. The fact is there is no "far east" here, since there is no historical and factual evidence of Mussolini and his ideology being matched to the extreme version of right wing (far right). That is baseless and even quite the opposite. There are only far left and left wing buzz against their opponents, nothing more. Allen Girdler suggests that Fascism is nether right nor left. See there is no consensus on that. Do we call communism and Anarcho-syndicalism far left in their articles' lead? So why we are committing a Double standard here? Isn't that because of bias and cognitive dissonance? Remember WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy, but apparently in this page it became one. I think this process must be reversed. The Stray Dog Talk Page 10:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Pick up and read any book on Fascism from a random library and you will find that Fascism is, in fact, a far-right ideology. This discussion is as baffling as it has been had multiple times. Virtually all of the scholarship on Fascism (which is vast as almost no other topic) knows that Fascism is a right-wing ideology. There is literally no reasonable discussion to be had here. It has nothing to do with wikipedia or bias or anything, it is just the reality - and one that has been so thoroughly documented as little else. All the fancy verbosity on display here changes nothing about this fact. --Mvbaron (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC) I re-opened the discussion, since not necessarily "every book" suggests that "fascism is a far-right or right-wing ideology" and even if it was true it's not still enough in this case, since Political science is not an exact science it's ideologically-driven and consequently, there is no objective consensus on one political spectrum. These books even suggest their own versions of the political spectrum. Just google "Political Spectrum" to see how many versions of it exist and are taught in universities even among leftists! Some leftist professors even call Libertarianism far-right!!! We have too many religious books that suggest the earth is flat, so should we put that on Wikipedia as a fact just because too many books suggest that?! Of course not. This argument of "too many books" doesn't work. Fascism and National Socialism are in contradiction with right-wing tenets including small-government, free-market capitalism, and individualism. You can't label an anti-capitalist or collectivist ideology as "an extreme version of a capitalist and individualist one" that is a mind-blowing paradox! In fact, right-wing ideologues like Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard (both of European Jewish descent whose ancestors fled anti-Semitism) created Libertarianism and Anarcho-capitalism which the latter is more fitted to be called far-right. Far-right is the extreme version of right and obviously, it can not be contrary to right-wing tenets. Fascism and National Socialism ideologies are completely contrary to main right-wing tenets. Fascism is big government, not small government, it's anti-capitalism, not pro-capitalism and it's a collectivist ideology while right-wingers reject collectivism and embrace capitalism and individualism. Please do not close this discussion until we reach a solution to this paradoxical problem. And finally please check out Ideological bias on Wikipedia and Reliability of Wikipedia. Wikipedia IS biased and this problem must not be denied and must be fixed as soon as possible. As I promised I will share this problem on Meta-Wiki to seek more help. Thank you for your patience. The Stray Dog Talk Page 05:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC) Utter BS. This is disruptive. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC) Please behave and don't use personal attack and any swear words. Be civil. If you have a point, let's discuss it. Why do you swear on me? Swearing and using the term "BS" is disruptive and disrespectful. What I'm doing is not. I'm being civil. BUT I've been subject to disrespect and even the threat of being blocked since the beginning of this discussion. I see that and understand what is happening here. Please be patient. There is no harm in discussion and talk. Let's not forget the irony of the name of this article. Thank you very much The Stray Dog Talk Page 06:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC) I'm going to provide and articulate my rationale and solution for this discussion. And will share it as soon as possible. Until then, please do not close this discussion. Thank you very much. The Stray Dog Talk Page 06:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC) Please just read the top of the page. The huge red notice wouldn’t exist unless this had been talked to death. Fascism is not conservatism, let alone right-libertarianism like you seem to be suggesting, and it’s based on an older strain of right-wing politics that predates the modernized American Reagan stereotype. Dronebogus (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC) I don't typically defend Ronald Reagan, but authoritarianism was not part of his ideology. Dimadick (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC) Rationale for moving the term Far-Right from the lead With all due respect, hereby I suggest moving the term far-right from the leading section of this article to a specified section dedicated to criticism and or scholarly view. This rationale relies on WP:Lead, Wikipedia:Biased phrases, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a democracy and WP:Be bold. Also this rationale emphasizes Ideological bias on Wikipedia and Reliability of Wikipedia. Finally the reasons are as follows: People of the political right including right-wing political scientists and political analysts do not receive fascism and predominantly and constantly oppose the idea that "Fascism is a right-wing ideology". Besides they don't identify with fascism and don't embrace it, on the contrary, they mostly denounce fascism very openly. They also use that term as a slur-word for their left-wing opponents demonstrating no reception or recognition for the term. For example, Jonah Goldberg who is a right-wing political analyst wrote a book called Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. As said in its article, the book argues that fascist movements were and are left-wing, in contrast to the mainstream view among historians and political scientists that maintains fascism is a far-right ideology. Dinesh D'Souza is another prominent right-wing commentator who shares the same view. This is important because we can't attribute fascism or any ideology to any group of people while they don't receive that or actively oppose that. The founder of Fascism Benito Mussolini never identified as right-wing, in fact, he did quite the opposite. Mussolini was born to and raised with socialist parents, self-identified as Marxist, and finally became a directorate member of the Italian Socialist Party. Meanwhile, after establishing his own ideology, he never described it as a right-wing ideology and never changed his hostility toward the political right. There are handwritings of him indicating that he was an anti-capitalist politician which is quite in contrast to the pro-capitalist approach of the right-wing. Far Right is supposed to be the extreme version of the right, and fascism doesn't satisfy that. Political right embraces small government, capitalism, and individualism while fascism rejects capitalism and is a collectivist totalitarian ideology. Anarcho-capitalism would be a perfect example of the far-right. Many political scientists and scholars rejected the idea that fascism is a far-right ideology. That would include many Libertarian scholars such as Dr. Allen Gindler of Mises Institute whose objections to misuse of this term have been published in many political journals. Political science is not an exact science, it is an ideologically-driven field of study. Hence there are many versions of what is called the Political Spectrum and it is not clear based on which version of it, fascism is considered far-right, and why the other versions are disregarded, as if there is a consensus, which is not. Since the beginning of its creation, the word Fascism has been used as a slur-word by many to smear people of different views. There is even an article in Wikipedia called Fascist (insult)) which indicates that matter. Through time fascism became a subjective term that anyone has its own interpretation of it, sometimes in contradiction to the original ideology. Many users questioned and objected to the current place of the term in the lead, and that emphasizes the fact that there is a very low chance for this term to last long on the leading section in the near future. Despite the fact that these users have been subject to intimidation by a quite bizarre and unfriendly and un-encyclopedic template that openly tries to stop users from editing and discussing what they desire to edit and discuss, which is quite in opposition to the policies and guidelines of this encyclopedia. For further reading please see: How and Why Fascism and Nazism Became the "Right", Fascism: Left, Right, or Neither, A New Approach to the Question of the Political Spectrum Polarization (Abstract), Arguments about the Leftism of Fascism and Nazism, Fascism: Why Not Here? - Brian E.Fogarty, Opinion: Tossing around ‘Nazi’ and ‘fascist’ as insults is reckless and historically illiterate, Fascists, Nazis, racists: Accurate definitions matter, H. G. Wells's 'Liberal Fascism' The New Illusion: “Fascism” in America, The Stray Dog Talk Page 09:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC) People who use "slur-words" are not reliable sources. Regarding they don't identify with fascism and don't embrace it, please consult the articles Subset and Affirming the consequent. Mussolini is not a reliable source. You are not a reliable source. Your cogitations are not relevant. Your opinion on political science is not relevant. When people are dishonest, I say they are like Donald Trump. Despite my using him as a slur-word, he still exists. Those users' opinions are not relevant. Too much work to look through those. Your first six bullet points were crap, so I don't expect anything from the seventh. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC) the overwhelming concensus of experts puts fascism on the far rtight of the spectrum. This is disputed by fringe writers like Jonah Goldberg and Dinesh D'Souza--who are not experts in European history--indeed neither one was a history major or attended graduate school or reads German. Likewise Allen Gindler an engineer who cites not a lot of Soviet books but not a single book or aticle in Italian or German. Rjensen (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC) to continue about point 7: (1,2) Allen Gindler is a private consultant to IT industry on database administration and cryptography. -> not relevant (3,4) Server not found (5) the book doesn't say anything about whether fascism is let wing (6) opinion piece, and doesn't say anything about whether fascism is let wing (7) opinion piece, in a blog, and doesn't say anything about whether fascism is let wing (8) completely unrelated? (9) completely unrelated? so, to summarize, none of the things you posted have anything even remotely to do with the question at hand or are written by random people on the internet... It is utterly bizarre to claim that fascism is left wing - in fact this attempt to re-write history is disgusting and mocks the murder of communists and everything perceived 'left wing' by the fascists. You should educate yourself and read one of the many high-quality sources this article already provides instead of reading random blog entries. Mvbaron (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC) For the record, 3 and 4 are more papers by Gindler. The other person typo-ed the url, forgetting the colon in the scheme. Note that Gindler is the further thing from a reliable source; he's essentially just some rando who likes to publish his own naval gazing about this subject. Note the publications (when they exist: some of these sources are simply directly uploaded PDFs). Literal fake news source, The American Thinker and the Mises Wire, a publish-everything-submitted-to-us clearinghouse. Interestingly, he's gotten a paper or two published in a more prestigious poli-sci journal, though not on the subject of fascism. A telling point. It's also worth pointing out that the two figures they mention as opposing this, Jonah Goldberg and Dinesh D'Souza are both fantastically unqualified to weigh in on the subject. Neither has an advanced degree in, nor any experience doing history, neither is an expert on political sciences, but are rather an exclusively populist writer/pundit and an unhinge conspiracy theorist/convicted felon, respectively. What we have here is the perfect illustration of an editor pushing for the inclusion of a textbook fringe theory by arguing that the fringe theory is true, rather than that it is not fringe. My advice is for someone with more experience than I to remove or collapse this discussion and for the rest of us to refuse to engage any further. Happy (Slap me) 12:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC) "Political right embraces small government, capitalism, and individualism" Who the hell defines right-wing by these terms? In Greek history, the right-wing is mostly identified with the ideologies of the Greek junta: staunch anti-communism, Christian values, and suppression of civil liberties. Dimadick (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Blatant Violations of Wikipedia policies including WP:Biased, WP:Lead and WP:Accuracy dispute

We were just over this last month, repeatedly text-walling identical arguments is WP:BLUDGEONING; user:TheStrayDog please do not do this again or you may be reported for disruptive behavior Dronebogus (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello again! Let me express my deepest gratitude toward my fellow Wikipedians. With all due respect and in my humble opinion, I insist again that this article's lead section is pushing a paradox that "Fascism is a right-wing ideology" despite the self-evident fact that right-wing is for minimizing the government control aka "small government" and maximizing individual freedoms. On the other hand, fascism is the opposite of that and is for "absolute government control". So I wonder how right-wingers who actively promote freedom of speech and want to de-centralize government and reduce many government authority and even are for isolationism and Non-interventionism and want to arm citizens are comparable to authoritarian fascists who did the opposite and banned arms from citizens and denied their individual freedoms by holding 100% government control? How right-wing individualist discourse which is always suspicious and dismissive of authority is put in the same box with a collectivist and pro-authority ideology is beyond comprehension. It is most likely part of the rivalry discourse of the left against the right and has no objective or factual basis. Plus, no prominent self-identified right-wing leader ever identified as fascist, and also the original fascists including Mussolini and Hitler, never identified as right-wing. But quite the opposite, original fascists self-identified themselves as being anti-right-wing, collectivist, socialist, and even leftist. Besides, the vast majority and the body of the right-wing population including ideologues, politicians, and activists did not receive the fascist ideology and rejected fascism as being a right-wing ideology and even use that as a slur word against their leftist opponents. They see "the fascist label" as part of the "Propaganda campaign of the left" against themselves. That is self-evident that all the so-called reliable sources used to back this paradoxical and self-evidently wrong "far-right label" (as a fact in the lead section of this article) are extremely biased leftist and anti-right-wing media outlets which the usage of their biased content will obviously violate many Wikipedia rules including Wikipedia:Reliable sources (Wikipedia:BIASED), Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:Lead and Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. Wikipedia doesn't care that how many sources say what, as long as that is self-evidently wrong or paradoxical. For example, it doesn't matter how many sources are saying the earth is flat, that must not be held as a fact just because of the number of sources, as long as it's a self-evidently wrong statement. Then consequently the far-right label must not be used as a factual term in the article's lead and must be moved to a specified section and treated as a viewpoint or criticism. Also, we have to put that in regard that Wikipedia users are predominantly identified as leftists which on some particular occasions will defeat the purpose of the encyclopedia, not to be a democracy and not to sacrifice facts in favor of the majority. Thank you very much. The Stray Dog Talk Page 13:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC) Read the FAQ. Acroterion (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia isn't concerned about whether information is wrong or paradoxical, but whether it reflects the body of literature on the subject. It may be for example that the moon-landing was faked, but until experts agree Wikipedia will repeat as fact that man landed on the moon. There are btw lots of errors in your facts. Do you think for example that the original Right, the ultraroyalists, was all about small government, free speech and individual rights? TFD (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC) The Stray Dog, please try to understand that what is "self-evident" to you is not accepted by historians or almost any other reputable academics who have written on this subject. Wikipedia can not proceed by such arguments from purely personal perception or idiosyncratic interpretation. You have already had one overlong attempt to relitigate this repeatedly settled and utterly uncontroversial matter rolled up. A second attempt, particularly under such an obviously inappropriate section heading, begins to look like disruptive behaviour. In addition to reading the FAQ, please read WP:STICK and have a look at the archived discussions on this page. DanielRigal (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC) In 1921, Mussolini said, “The State must have a police, a judiciary, an army, and a foreign policy. All other things, and I do not exclude secondary education, must go back to the private activity of individuals. If one wants to save the State, the Collectivist State must be abolished.” Fascism meets your definition of right-wing. TFD (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC) We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC) "right-wing is for minimizing the government control aka "small government" and maximizing individual freedoms." Says who? The article on right-wing politics identifies the key ideologies as anti-communism, nationalism, traditionalism, populism, opposition to secularism, and rejection of egalitarianism. The ones who support freedom instead are typically supporters of liberalism, eternally pursuing their ideals of liberty. Dimadick (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I would just like to add that there is no "may be reported" here if it happens again because I will report them. Nice hat btw. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

“May be” is the polite euphemism for “will.” Dronebogus (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Request for help in Russian Fascism

I have repeatedly tried to remove a source which doesn't look reliable or mention fascism https://localhistory.org.ua/texts/kolonki/viini-tvoriat-natsiyi-a-narodni-viini-tvoriat-neperemozhni-natsiyi/ and claims sourced to it, and I keep getting reverted. Please check the source and delete if appropriate. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&type=revision&diff=1107403530&oldid=1107400423 ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 22:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Generalrelative I am sorry to ping you against your expressed desire, but you reverted my edit with mistaken claims. Please can you check your edit. Thank you!♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 22:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• I have to agree. The cited source doesn't support the given text. Happy (Slap me) 23:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  It wasn't hard to simply locate reliable sources for these claims by the same author. I've added one peer-reviewed source, and one more recent free-access source. Generalrelative (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] your edit said "Restoring well sourced, WP:DUE content.)". I hope you are not WP:HOUND deliberately reverting my edits as a form of harassment. The readable source doesn't support the information you added to the article, please provide an extract from the other source supporting your edit as it isn't in sci-hub.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 00:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  FYI, you should have access to the Wikipedia Library, which includes some fairly comprehensive JSTOR access. Most experienced editors meet the access criteria. If you (or anyone) needs a copy of the article, you can also email me and I'll send a pdf.

  HOUND is a real stretch here, as GR was editing this article for 18 months before you showed up here. If you really feel like pulling on that thread, try somewhere that isn't this article talk page.

  Pinging Manyareasexpert, who added this content in May. It looks like you linked the wrong source; do you remember what source you actually used for this? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• The current sources fully support the cited text now, so there's nothing more to discuss here. Happy (Slap me) 12:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. The section is still a mess, very badly written, and biased so please try to improve it!♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 14:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I just reverted your recent edit. Trying to frame this legitimate debate as an attempt to "push" an idea by framing it the way you did is a violation of WP:NPOV. Happy (Slap me) 14:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean User:HappyMcSlappy. My edit was based on the most recent article I could find and I believe summarised the source accurately- "Before and after the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, there have been attempts to characterize Russia's regime under Putin as fascist. In her essay " So, Is Russia Fascist Now" Marlène Laruelle writes that it "is an easy, intellectually lazy way to make Putin understandable and predictable", concluding that calling Russia Fascist is "analytically wrong, and morally hawkish"" Please explain your editing better. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 14:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

"Attempts to characterize" is the language of an agenda. You furthermore paint it as a fringe agenda by immediately starting with a critique, before we've even heard what acknowledged experts are behind this 'agenda' and what their logic is. Your edit was a blatant POV shift, and unless you can show that it's a minority of experts who think there's something to this, language such as you used is an NPOV violation.

I would remind you that NPOV is a policy, so it's very important that we uphold it. Happy (Slap me) 14:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The switch from "a discussion among scholars is ongoing regarding" to "there have been attempts to" was a definite worsening of NPOV. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

User:HappyMcSlappy I clearly sourced my contribution. Are you disputing the validity of the source or my reading of the source? User:Firefangledfeathers that assertion was unsourced. What do you mean by a definite worsening of NPOV? Are you happy with the rest of the edit? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 14:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

If you cannot engage with what I actually said, and must make red-herring remarks such as "I clearly sourced my contribution" to respond to a complain that has nothing to do with whether or not you cited a source, then you cannot expect any of us to take you seriously. Happy (Slap me) 15:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

User:HappyMcSlappy Are you disputing the validity of the source or my reading of the source?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 16:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me. I have a watchlist.

I am -as should have been very obvious from my last response- doing neither. Please read and engage with my actual commentary, or stop responding entirely. Happy (Slap me) 16:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with a short summary of Laruelle and the order change on Umland, yes. My instinct is telling me we're picking out the wrong portion of Laruelle, but I haven't read it yet (does she make any substantive points?). We don't need a source to say there's a difference of opinion among scholars, it's an obvious summary of the following subsection. If you disagree, we could add a citation to Laruelle to the existing first sentence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can see she makes the point that only a minority of biased scholars claim that Russia is Fascist, something I think is common sense. cited a bit of the introduction and the conclusion. Interested to see your feed back when you have read it.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 14:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

She is also in a minority, of 1. Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven if you would like to improve this section please make helpful contributions and explain what you mean. That statement is obviously untrue, and I do not understand why you deleted my sourced reference to her from the article asking "Is she the worlds foremost expert on fascism?" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&type=revision&diff=1107542352&oldid=1107541735 She seems to be a respected authority on Russia. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 15:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

This review of her book by Mitchell A. Orenstein says Russia is Conservative, not Fascist . https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nationalities-papers/article/abs/russia-fascist-or-conservative/462AB739AB09C7BBE8529E1C72656FE4. 15:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC) ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 15:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

So, as I said she is not the only expert in the world, and I fail to see why her views need to be included, What does it ass we do not already say? Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

From that very source:

Laruelle quickly shows in the introduction that [the notion that Russia is fascist] is not a canard or a straw man. Many reputable scholars and public intellectuals have drawn parallels between the Putin regime, its actions, and European fascism, including Snyder, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Alexander Motyl, Vladimir Inozemtsev, Gary Kasparov, Anna Politkovskaya, Madeline Albright and Hillary Clinton. The term "fascism" has become part of the Western discussion on the nature of the Putin regime, even more so since Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Even your own sources make it clear that it's not a minority opinion, but a widely-shared one. Happy (Slap me) 15:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven why do you oppose including "In her essay " So, Is Russia Fascist Now" Marlène Laruelle writes that it "is an easy, intellectually lazy way to make Putin understandable and predictable", concluding that calling Russia Fascist is "analytically wrong, and morally hawkish"" These views aren't in the article at the moment, and she is not the only one to express them. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 15:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

User:HappyMcSlappy I don't understand what you mean. That article starts by saying that the idea that scholars think Russia is Fascist seems silly. If you manage to read that passage, or the article, and come out with the opinion that it's not a minority opinion there is something wrong with your reading. (Widely-shared is not the opposite to minority, minority means that less than 50% subscribe to it). ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 15:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

No, but the idea it is not a valid idea is, we do not need every variation of "its not true". Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Einstein famously found quantum mechanics to be 'silly', going so far as to dismiss quantum entanglement as 'spooky action at a distance'. A scholar's personal feelings do not make an expert consensus.

If you are not capable of appropriately weighting the claims "I think X seems silly," and "Here's a list of eminent scholars who support X," then you really have very little business editing an encyclopedia. Happy (Slap me) 15:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

User:HappyMcSlappy do you think Here's a list of eminent scholars who support X, means anything more than Here's a list of eminent scholars who support X? What exactly do you think it means?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 16:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Please. Stop. Pinging. Me. This is my second time asking in less than ten minutes.

And no, I don't think it means anything other than what it says. This is now the third time you have entirely missed a rather obvious point in this discussion. Happy (Slap me) 16:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

User:HappyMcSlappy appologies for pings - old habit. If it doesn't mean anything why did you cite it? Please can you summarise your argument for me, I am sorry, but I can't follow it. There is an article " So, Is Russia Fascist Now" by Marlène Laruelle in which she writes that it "is an easy, intellectually lazy way to make Putin understandable and predictable", concluding that calling Russia Fascist is "analytically wrong, and morally hawkish"" are you opposed to that information being included in the article, if so why! Sorry again for pings, and for finding your argument hard to follow! Best wishes! ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 16:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say it doesn't mean anything. The meaning is obvious; he provides a long list of eminent scholars who have argued that Putin's Russia is a form of fascism. That proves quite definitively that there is an ongoing debate about it. Orenstein's personal opinion that they are 'silly' is irrelevant. The debate exists, full stop. Your efforts to make it seem as if this is not the case, but rather just a few fringe figures arguing a fringe position is unsupported by even your own sources.

This is all I have to say on the matter. I'm not going to be drawn into a tangential argument here. Happy (Slap me) 16:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Moved from article

I'm moving the following statement from the lead of the article to the talk page:

Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete. They regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. A fascist state is led by a strong leader (such as a dictator) and a martial law government composed of the members of the governing fascist party to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.

I tracked down the citation because a collection of essays focusing on the First World War seemed like an unusual type of source for these statements. Specifically, the book is titled "State, Society and Mobilization in Europe During the First World War". Using the page numbering from the Cambridge website, the cited pages (237-239) fall in chapter 14, which is titled "The Italian experience of 'total' mobilization, 1915-20", and they refer to a section titled "The legacy of failed mobilization".

As far as I can tell, the citation does not support the text in the article. The section does indeed include some general statements about fascism, and has some interesting descriptions of how some of its characteristics were influenced by the preceding war. However, I wasn't able to find any mention of key points from the quote such as a one-party state, a dictator, or claims about democracy being obsolete. I also briefly checked other parts of the book without success. I'm fairly sure that this is a good source, and I'm also sure that alternative sources can be found so I've moved the statement here to preserve a record (and, as always, in case there's anything that I missed). Sunrise (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

From skimming the chapter the best I can come up with are "The strong anti-state sentiment in the country - which the liberal-democratic regime of the turn of the century had only managed to allay in part and for short periods - had emerged powerfully again after 1913" (p. 224), "Revolutionary attitudes were not exclusively products of a negative experience of mobilization, therefore, but were built on previous ideas of opposition to liberal Italy, both on the left and the right." (p. 234) (these two in relation to "Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete.") and "Whatever fascism set out to achieve was described as a 'battle'. There was the 'battle for wheat' to achieve self-sufficiency in food supplies; there was the 'battle of the lira' to permit the heavy revaluation of the currency in 1927; and there was the demographic battle, which aimed to produce more soldiers for future conflicts. The military metaphor was present throughout and constantly referred to." (p. 238) (this in relation to "prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties."). As you mentioned this could be a useful source, but not for what it is currently used to reference in the article. Cdjp1 (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Should China be included?

There's barely any sources discussing whether China is fascist (at least I could find), and I think including it here gives an impression of false weight. Of the given sources, one is a journalist writing an opinion piece, while other is a Sinologist; neither are really focused on analyzing fascism and political ideologies if I remember correctly. There are many other notable fascist movements and analogies not included here, and many reliable sources still describe China as Marxist-Leninist at core, which directly conflicts with fundamentals of fascism. The Account 2 (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree. TFD (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I also agree. Generalrelative (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)