Talk:Fascism

Extreme Right

I have reverted the lead to describe fascism as "extreme right", which is sourced. Note that fascist and related groups are invariably described as "far right" in other articles. I do not however consider it POV to label fascism "extreme right" rather than "far right". The Four Deuces (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As you are well aware of, problem is that different sources say different thing about position of fascism on political spectrum. Also, you have not explained this edit. Introduction to that section was much discussed on this talk page, and in that edit you were not "simplify language" but making significant changes to the meaning of the first sentence. -- Vision Thing -- 21:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The majority view is that it is "extreme right" and there is no reason why fascist topics are called far right but an exception is made for fascism itself. My edit to the "Political spectrum" section was to correct stilted language, but the meaning has not been changed. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't use other Wikipedia articles as arguments. They are not reliable sources under any interpretation. Also, can you explain how "but writers on the subject have often found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum difficult." has the same meaning as "some writers have found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum difficult." -- Vision Thing -- 21:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The word "some" means: "Being an unspecified number or quantity". (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000) Since no quantity of writers was specified, this is an accurate adjective. Also the Fascism article is part of Category:Fascism which is part of Category:Far right politics. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No quantity of writers was specified but that doesn't mean that "some" is appropriate, especially because none of the sources uses that wording. -- Vision Thing -- 13:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Slightly bemused to look back here and find that this debate is still going on, and that edits like this one are still being made, albeit that they have since correctly been reverted. Whatever the complexities of political categorisation and the inadequacies of the left-right spectrum, nothing much has changed in the real world for the last god-knows-how-many-months-and-even-years -

• The left-right distinction remains the most common, standard shorthand system of categorisation for political groups and parties
• Fascism is usually placed on the far or extreme right of that spectrum by the vast majority of both everyday and academic sources

While it is technically probably true that elements of fascist ideology can be seen as having origins in what might otherwise sometimes be interpreted as left-wing ideas - and I'm sure this can be reliably sourced, above and beyond the ruminations of Jonah Goldberg - to say as the very first words on the topic that Fascism has definitively taken from both left and right, implicitly in equal measure, makes for an utterly misleading opening statement. Sure, cover the complexity and nuance of the arguments later on, but please let's not make content here follow the tune of minority and borderline fringe viewpoints any more than much of it already does. --Nickhh (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that right/left issue shouldn't be mentioned in the first sentence at all, because of the complexity of the issue. However, The Four Deuces seems to insist on it. -- Vision Thing -- 13:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Then why are you constantly edit warring this "part left, part right" opening sentence back in, which you first inserted here? A total of three other editors (myself, the Four Deuces and XGustaX) have now come out against the specific wording you keep reinserting, while you yourself say you don't even want the broader issue addressed anyway in that sentence. This is beginning to look a little WP:POINTy. And btw you have missed the point of what I said, which was that while the issue of political categorisation is indeed complex, there is nonetheless a pretty standard broad-brush description available, which can be used - with more detailed nuance and caveats added later. --Nickhh (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at definitions by most scholars of fascism you will see that they try to avoid left/right terminology. My opinion is that we should follow that practice in defining fascism. -- Vision Thing -- 15:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

All of this is addressed in "Position in the political spectrum". The lead should reflect the majority opinion of fascism as extreme right. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with that.--Saddhiyama (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please just stop it VT. This has gone on for way too long, seemingly justified by utterly bizarre - and unsupported - beliefs and claims such as this latest "If you look at definitions by most scholars of fascism you will see that they try to avoid left/right terminology". In fact of course a review of most sources - including one limited to those you yourself cite in favour of your idiosynchratic interpretations - finds no such thing. Even those that raise questions about its efficacy start from the explicitly stated assumption that it is the standard terminology, and that fascism is usually read as sitting on the far right of it. Plus beyond that of course, they usually simply raise questions about precision, rather than necessarily rejecting outright that standard position. The latest version goes more than far enough towards accomodating any legitimate concerns on this issue. --Nickhh (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Vision Thing entirely. As do just about all of the reliable scholars in this field, try reading Roger Griffin, Zeev Sternhell, Robert Paxton, Stanley G. Payne and Renzo De Felice instead of comedians like Jonah Goldberg. Wikipedia is verifiability and academia is not a democracy. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I also concur. And since Schelsinger also held this position, the claim that it is in any way uniform that Fascism is "extreme right" fails. Collect (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Quoting names and simply asserting that they back up your contentions is all very interesting, but of course one needs to actually have read and understood what these people are actually saying. You may be right about one or two of the above, as I acknowledged above, but that still doesn't undo the mainstream view (in ordinary usage, as well as in academic discourse). Anyway, some of these claims of support from particular authors and scholars have been made and debunked before in the voluminous correspondence above, so it's a little odd to see them exhumed here. I really can't be bothered to spend hours digging around for evidence in respect of all of them, but here's one or two that I can present links to, so that others can at least get some idea of how accurate these claims are -

• Roger Griffin seems quite happy here to discuss these issues under the topic "extreme right", and to classify even modern parties as such, regardless of any new thinking or analysis that he has brought to the topic of fascism
• Arthur Schlesinger quite explicitly talks here of fascism as being "on the right" (full quote here - "When I named the book I wrote in 1949 The Vital Center, the "center" I referred to was liberal democracy, as against its mortal international enemies--fascism to the right, communism to the left").

What seems to be happening here is that one or two WP editors have a political viewpoint (presumably that they consider themselves right wing and don't wish to be associated with fascists, or that to be right wing means to be anti-statist or "anarchocapitalist" or whatever so how can fascism be right wing?), and they then scrabble around cherry-picking or even misrepresenting material in a bid to back that position up. You might not like the way things are categorised but please don't pretend that they are not categorised that way. That's just denialism --Nickhh (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not POV. Agreed, the mainstream classification is that Fascism is extreme right and Communism is extreme left and its not up to us on wikipedia to change that. I know some libertarians believe that any "strong state" ideology is automatically left-wing but this is as yet a minority definition. Personally i believe it is a misrepresentation of the left/right divide as it has existed and continues to exist in most countries. More often than not the difference between left-wing and right-wing is rooted in attitudes towards religion, the nation, class, etc, etc and the big state/small state argument is just a sideshow. But opinions aside we are not here to re-work the language. Maybe the libertarians preferred definition will eventually become the accepted norm but until then we should stick with the established usage (irrespective of whether it is right or wrong). Jameswilson (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Was fascism extreme right?

There is a dispute whether it is POV to describe Fascism as extreme right in the lead section. Comments from outside users would be appreciated. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem with it. This is by far the most common view of Fascism worldwide. I just looked it up in my old Collins Gem pocket dictionary (1992 edition) and it says "Right wing political system characterized by state control and extreme nationalism". Note the lack of any equivocation there. Other views should be included but not in the lead section. The use of "extreme right" makes it clear that Fascism is apart from the normal or legitimate right, which is important both for clarity and fairness. I think "extreme right" is better than "far right" at making this distinction. "Far right" can encompass some sorts of ultra-conservative and ultra-free-market views which don't deserve to be mixed up with Fascism. If we do have to have any equivocation here I would accept a wording like "generally placed on the extreme right", "most commonly ascribed to the extreme right", or something like that, but not a list of dissenting viewpoints. We have to at least make the lead section readable to a general audience and that won't be the case if it is full of equivocations covering minority viewpoints. Extreme right redirects to far right which makes it clear that Fascism is included there. It also includes the phrase "These categories are not universally accepted, and other uses exist, making comparative use of the term complicated." which is a nice simple way of putting it, without getting bogged down in specifics, and maybe we could reuse that here. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You might note that where there is no generally accepted definition of Fascism, that placing it in a specific place may appear problematic. You also might wish to read the protracted prior discussions thereon. WP does not accept dictionaries as reliable sources, by the way. Collect (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that my crappy old pocket dictionary was the font of all knowledge. All I wanted to show was a nice simple example of how little impact the dissenting views have on mainstream perception, which is what a pocket dictionary will tend to reflect. I have read some of the prior discussions of this and have been dismayed at the inability to reach a consensus as to the mainstream view given how well documented it is. This is not to diminish the legitimacy of the dissenting views, but simply to oppose their being given undue prominence, which, I think, would include being listed in the lead section. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal disclosure: I think fascism is the most extreme right wing ideology of the 20th century. My point: so what? I do not think it should matter what any dictionary says, simply because i think Wikipedia should aspir to be better than a dictionary (exception: dictionaries are authoritative sources for correct pronunciation, spelling, and good ones for etymologies). Long previous conversation notwithstanding, I think that the thing to do is to have a good section on Mussolini's fascism, then other fascist or quasi-fascist movements of the time, and then how the term is used more generally today (the meanings of words changeover time). I think at all times we should emphasize mainstream views among professional historians and political scientists. Is any of what I just wrote controversial? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I hear you, but what we need to decide here is what to put in the lead section before the article gets into this more detailed stuff. Lets focus on the specific question we are being asked here. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's not POV, in my opinion. Right-wing means traditionalism, conservatism, nationalism. Extreme right-wing means that those tenets are taken to limits they themselves may not withstand, thus creating a revolutionary, aggressive form of right-wing that may be confused with practices more characteristic of the left: Fascism. That's how I personally view it, at least. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• I do not see it as POV. There are classification problems with all ideologies, but fascism is the only one where editors seem upset about stating the mainstream view in the lead. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Also don't think it is POV, for reasons discussed rather a lot already. Think it would be a strong sign of POV being at play if the article went contrary to standard dictionaries within its first sentence. --FormerIP (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Far or extreme right wing in the lead, the alternate view further down. Just because a coupe of political writers ('scholars') have found a couple of tendencies of radical fascism and radical communism to be similar, that doesnt mean fascism is leftwing, and it certainly doesnt mean the prevailing viewpoint is that facism is anything other than extreme right wing. If fascism isnt extreme right, what is? With regards to POV, you cant avoid political POV, but you can limit how it is expressed, critically assess minority and majority viewpoints and ensure that balance is maintained in the article. Criticisms of the prevailing viewpoint are fine in moderation, but if you're against it and you have a great pile of dissenting references, why not create a separate article about Left-wing Fascism? Mdw0 (talk) 07:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have commented a few times already in the endless debate above, but will briefly reiterate my support for far/extreme right in the lead, with discussion and qualification from any serious sources about the complexities of the issue further down. I'm not sure it's even a POV issue - it's simply about what the standard mainstream terminology/classification for something is. The current wording even bends so far as to say "usually described as extreme/far right" rather than stating explicitly that it is. Several editors it would seem would prefer that fascism was not so described, but that's kind of irrelevant - it is described that way, by everything from your dictionary to the driest academic analysis. --Nickhh (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Agree that far/extreme right should be first in the lead, with some discussion after. We should go with what the majority of dictionaries, encyclopedias, text books, and other reference sources say. LK (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Claiming that the United States is but a small step away from fascism is a POV. Here is the thing, right, left, or center, you have to have a point of reference. What is fascism supposed to be to the right of? If you are going to define fascism as extreme right, then you must find an unbiased reference for what is right, middle, left, and extreme left in order to have a an unbiased POV. I think describing fascism as left or right, is in contract putting it into the same boat as republican|democracy|democrat. I think that is just not needed in order to get a good article. Neuromancer (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It is, moreover, a fact that while Mussolini was called far right by those on the left, that this article is not just about Italy but fascism in general, and on that there is a great deal of debate -- including Schlesinger in 1949 onwards who did not so characterize fascism in general. We already state that Italian fascism was considered historically on the right, but that is substantially different from asserting that fascism is intrinsically on the right. About thirty or more references have been routinely deleted from this article in the past making the point that fascism qua fascism resists placements on a simplistic spectrum. Collect (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I used to have awesome discussions about this in my political science courses. The end opinion was always that hyper-right and hyper-left are so incredibly similar that they turn the political spectrum into a political philosophy loop from an American POV. More specifically, from how divisive things are in our society the idea of bullying others around and not allowing for diverging opinions looks similar on either end. By no means am I suggesting that's what is used here. This is not Americanipedia.

There's also the problem of what was "left" and "right" has changed a lot in the past 50 years in the US. At the very least, it's rather fluid as can be seen by the 100% flop of most states going between "red" and "blue" during the 60s and 70s. The core ethics didn't really change much, but what we say is left and right here just twisted around. The global perspective has always placed this on the far right and I've never need any large attempts at saying otherwise. I'm not even sure if I feel qualified to comment about it on a global view since I long as decided that politics in the US are on a spectrum in a parallel reality which may or may not match up everywhere with the standard. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Fascism is "the right-wing totalitarian/corporatist ideology and political system devised by Mussolini" according to Brewer's Politics. On the other hand, the Penguin Dictionary of Politics says that "there is no coherent body of political doctrine that can be attributed to fascism because all fascist movements were opportunistic... the tendency to assume that any right-wing group, especially if it has nationalist overtones, is fascist is a debasement of political vocabulary".--Pondle (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• What some are describing as "dissenting views" are the position of the most preminent scholars and academics in this specific field. The claim that this movement is "far right" is simply the position which has been put forward in the theory of international socialism (specifically Marxism). That the street brawling twins - Nietzschean Socialists and Marxian Socialists dislike each other, is neither here nor there. The vast majority of academia (including most of the fascists themselves) describes fascism as an attempt to find a third way, or not part of the traditional spectrum at all.

The leading Blackshirts and founders of the movement, such as Benito Mussolini, Michele Bianchi and Dino Grandi - all from Marxist, Syndicalist and Anarchist political backgrounds. Adolf Hitler's party? The National Socialist German Workers' Party. Sturmabteilung and Ernst Röhm? ultra-revolutionary socialists. The same with Gregor Strasser and Strasserism (called "National Bolsheviks"). The far left "national syndicalist" economic policy of Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera's revolutionary Falange, and their socialist/anarchist inspired symbolism. One of the world's most preminent scholars on fascism, the Israeli historian Zeev Sternhell lays out the revolutionary syndicalist role in the inspiration of fascism, especially Sorel's central influence.

All of this can't be convinently swept under the carpet and the international Marxist position ran with. Academics don't attempt to, so neither should we. Mdw0 asks "what is the far right" if not these Nietzschean Socialists? The spectrum was defined at the French Revolution. On the far right is ultra-royalism, Bourbonism and exponents of Catholic theocracy (or in the East, Orthodox theocracy): Joseph de Maistre for instance is a well known example. The aim of the far-right is a restoration not a revolution. The High Middle Ages is the ultimate ideal and the saintly-absolute monarch a la Louis IX of France, the statesman. The Fascists on the other hand were associated with the Futurist movement, their "ideal" lies within the theoretical creation, through radical national revolution of a futuristic "New Man", "New Order" and a "New Age". Their man is not medievalist or restorationary, thus not on the right. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like The Truth, Yorkshirian. Surely you don't expect us to believe that everyone who calls fascism 'far right' is falling for Marxist propaganda? And isn't the fascist idea that they're 'not on the political spectrum' just their own propaganda? Are we meant to believe that National Socialism was actually a type of socialism just because of the name? Bolshevism and fascism were both revolutionary movements, but that's by-the-by on whether fascism is 'far right'. Fences&Windows 04:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot to say: there are mountains of reliable sources that equate 'far right' or 'extreme right' to fascism. Even if all these sources are wrong according to some academics, the lead of a Wikipedia article is not the place to correct a historic wrong. Fences&Windows 04:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, it has to be said that an otherwise interesting ramble around the connections between the origins, ideology and practice of the far left and far right is somewhat missing the point at issue. The point is, quite simply: is fascism usually described or categorised as being "far/extreme right", and should the lead reflect that? Whether that so-described far right is in some ways closer to the far left than to what is usually labelled the moderate right, or whether the far right, so-called, picked ideas from the left, are separate issues, as is whether it is a bad or inaccurate label in some way. Some academics - and some WP editors - clearly think that one or all of those is true. But even those that do tend towards this view, or at least to a more complex interpretation of the overall issue - eg the above-cited Zeev Sternhell and Roger Griffin - still use the "right-wing" template when discussing fascist parties, eg here and here. That is the label that is used, for better or worse, even by those who subsequently raise issues with it - this isn't the place to discuss what things ought to be called in a WP editor's ideal world, or to discuss the intrinsic nature of fascist movements. We seem to be making something relatively simple and easily verifiable into some POV bunfight.--Nickhh (talk) 06:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. None of Yorkshirian's proposed sources supports the idea that the description of fascism as right-wing is not mainstream. On the contrary: Eatwell writes that fascism "is normally seen as 'extreme right'", Griffin writes that it is "counter-intuitive for most political scientists to deny that fascism belongs to the right rather than the left", with Renton going further, saying that denying that fascism is on the right "is not just dishonest to the past, it is also dangerous". The only one of Yorkshirian's sources that does not explicitly acknowledge that the mainstream view is that fascism is right wing, is Gregor, and he does not deny that this is the mainstream view, and quotes numerous authors who hold that view. There are plenty of sources that describe the positioning of fascism on the right as the mainstream position; while there are many scholars who question this view, none deny that it is the mainstream view that they are questioning. Unless editors can supply significant sources that deny that the scholarly consensus is to consider fascism right wing, it seems clear to me that we ought to describe it as such in the lead, with the scholarly debate fleshed out later in the article (as it currently is).VoluntarySlave (talk) 07:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from our friends on the left here? Or quoting two or three words, rather than a whole sentence or paragraph to present a distorted review of what is actually said in the sources by the scholars? The academic sources provided posit the scholary evaluation of this political movement as third-way or radical-centre. Here they are again for any hands which slipped over ears.

• Roger Griffin: "That fascism constitutes a third way discourse is a long-accepted argument."[1] Griffin believes that fascism was a form of "mass-mobiling paligenetic ultra-nationalism, intent upon carving a third way between liberalism and socialism".[2]
• George Mosse: "Fascism was a revolution attempting to find a Third Way between Marxism and capitalism".[3]
• Richard Thurlow, positions fascism as: "The construction of a model of generic fascism as a third force, taking the form of an alternative revolution". Which attacked decadence and liberalism, exalted heroic values and elitism, advocated a revolutionary form of nationalism, and drew from both ends of the political spectrum."[4]
• Roger Eatwell, argues that fascism is; "a form of thought which preaches the need for social rebirth in order to forge a holistic-national radical Third Way"[5] Eatwell "shared Griffin's notion of a third way".[6]
• Zeev Sternhell authored an entire book exemplifiying fascism as a third way force, titled "ni drioite, ni gauche" (Neither right, nor left)."[7] Sternhell stresses the work of radical leftists Proudhon and Sorel at the core of fascism, along with some figures of the right such as Drumont. Sternhell thus concludes, "Fascism then is is 'ni driote ni gauche', neither right nor left".[8] Sternhell has also positioned it as a "new variation of socialism" or "certain type of socialism" and even portrays it as recruiting primarly from the left (presumably a reference to Mussolini's Marxist career and his syndicalist and anarchist friends like Grandi and Bianchi).[9]
• Richard Griffiths, dedicated an entire section of his book on this called "Third Way: Reactions to the Crisis of the Early Thirties"[10]
• Hamish Macdonald states that; "The intention was to find an alternative third way in politics, which would appeal to those who had fought for their country and bring together nationalists and socialists".[11]
• Ernst Nolte positions fascism is a "Third way of European history, which is in the most far-reaching sense anti-traditional, as well as anti-modern; or more specifically, fascism is no less a challenge to bourgeious society than to Marxim. Such considerations support the conception of the autonomy of fascism".[12]
• Walter Laqueur says: "Fascism did not belong to the extreme Left, yet defining it as part of the extreme Right is not very illuminating either. In many respects, fascism was not conservative at all in inspiration but was aimed at creating a new society with a new kind of human beings."[13]

These are just a few examples. So this is clearly rather a case of WP:Verifiable, rather than WP:Truth. And broad, scholary, academic consensus—what is accepted presently as the empirical fact of the matter by academia—which rejects the interpretation put forward in international Marxist theory. The shere amount of high profile scholars who disagree with that interpretation can only mean it is not WP:NPOV to claim this as simply a "far-right" movement. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure in what way a large number of quotes flagging up the well known "third way" concept (which btw - as your sources in fact show - is not usually a reference to the left-right distinction as such in any event), and stressing the complex issues involved in the studies of fascism, have much bearing on the rather simple and direct "is fascism usually described as being on the right of the left-right spectrum" question. There is no doubt a fascinating argument to be had about whether a Steak and kidney pudding is really, in its fundamental essence, in fact a pudding or really, secretly, in whole or in part a pie, and we could quote Gordon Ramsay and Delia Smith back and forth to each other, but we'd never get away from the fact that that's what it is called. I and I assume everyone else have read your arguments and most of your links. You don't appear to have read any of those put against you. Let's let others speak, if they can face it .. --Nickhh (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, the matter of differing academic sources is already dealt with in some detail further down in the article. As Nick says, the question this RfC is about is simpler, I think: taking all that as read, is it appropiate for the lead to refer to facism as "far-right" or "usually seen as far right" (or similar wording), given that this is by far the most common position out there. In common with other posters, I've had this talkpage on my watchlist for a while and so I am far more familiar already than I would like to be with all the cites you give. --FormerIP (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to argue whether fascists were really right-wing, just whether they are generally considered right-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The general consensus is that fascism does not fit well on the political spectrum. Almost every scholar of the subject over the last quarter century has said that. You can hardly find a work on fascism which doesn't say there is a taxonomic problem, or that it doesn't fit well on the left or the right, or that it incorporates aspects of both. When scholars do use the terms "extreme right", "radical right" or the like they invariably say that the term is used out of convenience, academic inertia or intransigence, not that it is an accurate label. Most scholars do not use the term "right" in their definition of fascism for this very reason; it is not very accurate and useful to do so. Because placing it on the "right" is almost universally seen as problematic by scholars of the subject, it should not be in the lead. Mamalujo (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, Yorkshirian, none of those sources support the idea that "fascism is right wing" is not the mainstream position. Your quotations of a number of descriptions of fascism positioning itself as a "third way" are completely irrelevant. Please try and find some sources that deny that the mainstream position on fascism is that it is right wing, rather than the sources you have provided so far, which explicitly assert that this is the mainstream position.VoluntarySlave (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a clear attempt at sophistry, to try and negate the verifiable pieces of information presented before you. You can't find sources which claim the "the mainstream opinion is the sky isn't purple". That doesn't mean we start an article saying "The sky is purple". The position of Marxist theory is "fascism is far-right", yes, but the position of academia and the world's most preminent mainstream scholars, as shown above is "fascism is neither left nor right, but takes something from both, its a third way". The scholars above are discussing the political spectrum, they say its a "third way", not "far right" or "far left".

This is an encyclopedia, a tool of education, we have at our disposal peer reviewed academia, thus that is who we go with here. Wikipedia works on verifiability, neutrality and reliability, not democracy or hearsay. Mainstream experts on the subject position this on the political spectrum as a "third way", then so should we in the intro, its really as simple as that. There is no good reason to just throw academia out of the window and litter the article (the intro at that) with disinformation, because academia happens not to fall in line with dogma in the Marxian secular religion. - Yorkshirian (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You should probably take a look in the talkpage archives, where what you are talking about has been discussed. It's common ground that there are non-standard views amongst some academics. These are relatively few in number, and are already given coverage in the article. The mainstream view might be a Marxist dogma in your eyes, but in reality it isn't and whatever you want to call it, it is the mainstream view. --FormerIP (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As just explained, Wikipedia works on verifiability and reliability. The mainstream academic view from educated experts in this specific field is presented above—third way, they tell us. The position which you and some other contributors claim is "the mainstream" view, appears to be personal heresay or WP:OPINION. No respectable or reliable scholars presenting a rationale for this view have been presented or found, its equivelent to flat earthism within the circles of academic specialists on fascism. A democracy of editors personal opinions Wikipedia is WP:NOT. While Leon Trotsky's "Fascism: What it is and how to fight it" is an interesting polemic, from a historical perspective and perhaps deserves its own article, it obviously shouldn't be used for the basis of an article for a serious encyclopedia itself. As it is outside the realm of academia and reliability. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You would need a reliable source that says the mainstream academic view from educated experts in this specific field is that fascism was not right-wing - just listing the views of a number of academics and concluding that most of them do no think it was right-wing is original research. You should read the archives where this was discussed. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You may have noticed, next to that list of academics names above is a body of text. These pieces of text we call quotes. And within them, the academics are presenting their conclusion on where fascism is on the political spectrum. With me so far? Within these conclusions, they place it not as "far-right" (as is your personal WP:OPINION) or "far left", but as a "third way". This can clearly and explicitly be seen above. Next to these quotes are external links, to scholary books presenting this (neither I or any other editor magically forced them to present this, so clearly not original resarch). "I heard down the gas station a guy once say he thinks fascism is far-right" kind of stuff, is WP:OR and also not WP:reliable for a serious encyclopedia. Verifiability, not opinions, please. Our own personal opinion do not matter, only what is presented in reliable sources. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and none of those quotes are at all relevant to the question of whether or not the mainstream interpretation of fascism is that it is right-wing. Your quotes are relevant to whether or not fascism is a third-way discourse, but that is a separate question - fascism could be (and in fact is) both a third-way discourse and a right-wing ideology, and that is precisely what a number of these sources claim; the Renton piece you link to, right in the process of discussing Sternhall, says that fascism "is commonly described as as right-wing phenomenon." Again, the request for sources is simple: a number have been provided (the article contains five) that say that the mainstream position on fascism is that it is right wing; if you object to this being reflected in the article, you need to provide sources that explicitly say that this is not the mainstream position which, as I say, you have so far failed to do.VoluntarySlave (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes Fascism is Extreme Right. Have you seen anyone more Extreme Right lately?Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Fascism" and "submission"

Fascism is mostly used about countries with a large share of Catholics. It is however also used about Saddams Iraq, which has a large share of Muslims. Both these religions requires a high degree of submission from the average population. I propose to add the following sentence in the introduction, by appending to the second paragraph:

"Fascism prefers countries with a large share of religious submitters among the population." —Preceding unsigned comment added by St.Trond (talk • contribs) 12:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi St. Trond. I think that's a claim that many would take issue with, for a number of reasons. The main thing would be for you to provide a WP:RS that agrees with you. If it is just your opinion, then it can't really go in the article. Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 13:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

While there may be parallels, RS do not support the Ba'athists as fascists. BTW 2/3 of Germany was Protestant and there is no indication that the Nazis were stronger among Catholics. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In the elections when the National Socialists came to power, the Protestant-Prussian parts voted for them in much higher percentage than Catholic-Bavarian parts. Here is a map showing the results. I'm not sure how much religion was a motivating factor for them, maybe people in East Prussia were just more directly annoyed by the Treaty of Versailles, because it cut their land corridor off from the rest of Germany. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

To Yorkshirian: NSDAP: National Socialist German Labour Party, this sounds more left than right to me. The higher vote shares applies to areas near Soviet. Hitler made a treaty with the Vatican Reichskonkordat. Lutherans outside state controlled "Deutsche Christen" were persecuted. It was Hitler's Catholic faith that motivated the Holocaust. What about sticking to fascism? St.Trond (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The evidence shows that Protestants abandoned the Communist, Socialist, Liberal and Conservative parties, while Catholics remained loyal to Catholic parties. Your point that Germans living closer to the Soviet Union were more anti-Communist is however correct. In fact the strongest support for Nazis in North America came from the Volkdeutsch who resented Communism more than the Reichsdeutsch since they had first hand experience. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Neo-Fascism (Belgium / Netherlands / United States of America)

My part of the article got deleted fast... wonder why ;)

---

In Belgium the fascist movement and political parties rose from early 20th century and are still operative at this moment.

In the city of Antwerp there is a statue, inaugurated in 1950 by Mayor Lode Craeybecks, with a plaque saying "Labour makes Free", as in the Nazi concentration camps 5 years earlier with neighbour Nazi Germany. He is also the one Belgium named the Crayebecks tunnle after.

There is not much neutral information on Lode Crayebecks for the days between 1937 and 1946.

The Mayor of Antwerp in 2009, Patrick Janssens is from the same Political Party as Lode Craybecks, the Socialist Party. One of his colleagues in the French speaking part of the country, Laurette Onkelinkcx, was voted as the most powerfull woman in Belgium by Trends Magazine in november 2009. The same party also ruled over integration and sholing for the last years. Wearing of hijab is now forbidden in schools.

Another big Political Party is the extreem-right, racist and nationalist party Vlaams Belang with main characters Filip Dewinter, Gerolf Annemans, Bart De Bie, Karel Dillen and Frank Vanhecke. Vlaams Belang was derived from Vlaams Blok, wich was convicted for racism on april 21, 2004.

The link between Belgium, the Netherlands and the United States of America, Fascist Government #1 Worldwide, is clear through the Gladio Network, where CIA operatives connected and teamed up with terrorist brigades and geurilla commando's to spread fear in Europe and beat communism. The murder of Lahaut is also connected through that network.

IBM is one of the US companies who delivered software to Nazi Germany.

What is wrong about these statements?? Most references are allready on Wikipedia... --Franklinbe (talk) 02:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Ich habe es auch nicht gewusst. Hope I don't get Shot for this stub... --Franklinbe (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

While all your information may be true, the section violates no synthesis: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Also the article is about fascism not neo-fascism. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Fascism has subcategories wich are stated in the article. I was just adding another subcategorie, just as nazism is one. Second, 'fascist' is a term used as the color 'yellow'. Other people say you are that 'in that specific state' while you cannot tell whether you are or are not. I do not know I have cancer, the doctor tells me.--Franklinbe (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

PS:"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia ;)--Franklinbe (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinbe (talk • contribs) 03:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC) 

Fascism is defined in the article and does not include neofascism. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

1) The defenition of fascism is not obsolete. Wikipedia Dutch leaves things out. Japan might put extra criteria in it.
2)7 Variations and subforms is the sub-categorie I put it in.
3) There is a big chance that you work for the US government or are offended by this because you are American and thus not neutral. US recently attacked Luxemburg and Switserland verbally but still has Nevada as a Tax Shelter. Comes close to Fascism to me. --Franklinbe (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Peops, they deleted it again after i reposted around 5AM. Sources will follow later today. Need a bloody cigaret. --Franklinbe (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This section is a mish-nash of material not related to the article. Collect (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Rfc Is the material related to to the article?

Is the material related to to the article? Should it be deleted? When yes, Why?

It is indeed a stub. It's also an open workplace so you can bring in some more info and structure in if you want. 'Not related' to the article is your opinion. Please explain yourself. --Franklinbe (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: In case anybody is confused by what we are being asked to comment on, it is essentially this diff. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete The section does not conform with the definition given in the article and also is incoherent. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• oppose Stuff like "IBM sold to the Nazis" is totally irrelevant to the issue of Fascism. The proposal is a melange of OR and unrelated material which has no place in this article at all. And worse yet, such a section would readuly be used for coatracking attacks on every group or person which anyone has ever called "Fascist" as an epithet. Collect (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

@4Deuces: "Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have engaged in long and furious debates concerning the exact nature of fascism.[25] Since the 1990s, scholars like Stanley Payne, Roger Eatwell, Roger Griffin and Robert O. Paxton have begun to gather a rough consensus on the system's core tenets. Each form of fascism is distinct, leaving many definitions as too wide or too narrow.[26][27]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinbe (talk • contribs) 12:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

@Collect: "Fasces (pronounced /ˈfæsiːz/, a plurale tantum, from the Latin word fascis, meaning "bundle"[1]) symbolize summary power and jurisdiction, and/or "strength through unity"." Nazis used the same kind of slogan as the US: "One Nation under God" And "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinbe (talk • contribs) 13:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the government and the fascist movement" "We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." .... More proof coming soon. --Franklinbe (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

By such a claim, Ancient Rome was "fascist." The origin is found, moreover, in anciet Greece in Aesop's Fables. Trying to link such use to "fascist" is not a good idea. The symbol is one of unity, not of "summary power" in any way. WP seeks verifiable sources for claims, and claims must be relevant to the topic of the article. Collect (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"A bundle of rods bound together around an ax with the blade projecting, carried before ancient Roman magistrates as an emblem of authority. [Latin fascēs, pl. of fascis, bundle.]" the symbol is mainly one of authority. Using Fables doesn't make you expert on knowledge either... and 'not a good idea' is your opinion.--Franklinbe (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WP seeks verifiable sources? Most of them got Murdred!!!
Noone gives me a good reason why my sources aren't good enough.

Wikipedia:Civility Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. (like deleting after 1 sentence) Be especially welcoming and patient towards new users. Resolve differences of opinion through civil discussion; disagree without being disagreeable. (look at the history of this page....) --Franklinbe (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

@Collect: About the 'not a good idea'... If you have a big calculation, and the first thing to do is solve 1+1=... and you fill in 6.... the rest will 99% of the time also be wrong. That is fascism and the world we live in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinbe (talk • contribs) 14:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete / Oppose reinsertion. The content added was an incoherent rant and did not fit the structure of the article. It was a complete self contained chunk that has a non-mainstream POV and did not belong in an encyclopaedia. There is also the fact that some of it was obviously nonsense. How could IBM sell software to the Nazis? What would they run it on? They never had a stored program computer that had any notion of software. The CNet article used to reference this claim doesn't even mention software. I have not all checked the other references but I notice that they include blog and webforum postings which are very far from being WP:RS. Finally, I would point out that we already have some decent coverage of Belgian neo-Fascism in Neo-Nazism, although it focuses on recent events. That could be expanded with more historic information (covering 1945-2004), but certainly not with the text we are considering here. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

@Daniel:
"Computer software, or just software is a general term used to describe the role that computer programs, procedures and documentation play in a computer system. 'Software' is sometimes used in a broader context to mean anything which is not hardware but which is used with hardware, such as film, tapes and records." Wikipedia
Not including 'Non mainstream views and articles' is discriminating and is your opinion. Since over 80% of the world can't read English, many things are not mainstream, like Yoga. It doesn't sound like Wikipedia, more like a fascist view on the world.--Franklinbe (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

And yet your reference still does not mention software even in this wider sense. It is an improper reference for the content although this says more about the content than the reference. Furthermore the IBM thing is not even relevant to the subject heading it appears under. The whole thing jumps almost randomly from topic to topic.

As for the rest, I would point out that we do have an article on Yoga. We have a responsibility to present a neutral point of view. That means making it clear what is mainstream and what is notable but non-mainstream and covering all these things in a clear and detached way. We do not have to include every individual non-notable conspiracy theory here and certainly not your personal viewpoint. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."
The only ones who might be biased and represented unfairly are you, since I was going make another link towards Mr Blair & Co. What happened to 'Speedy Deletion'? Didn't know having a wrong reference makes it OK to delete an article... --Franklinbe (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

@Daniel: It does when we're talking about neo fascism....--Franklinbe (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"During the Holocaust, IBM's New York headquarters and CEO Thomas J. Watson acted through its overseas subsidiaries to provide the Third Reich with punch card machines that could help the Nazis track down the European Jewry (especially in newly conquered territory)."Wikipedia IBM got money from the US and the US from IBM. The US is responcible for what happens with it's money, thus is the US a fascist regime. When you killed your wife and the cops can't prove it, you are still a murderer. Doesn't mather what the Law says in your country.--Franklinbe (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me give you some advice. You are clearly not able to step away from your viewpoint and write neutrally. That is fine, a lot of people can't, but it does mean that you are not going to get anywhere trying to edit an encyclopaedia. I strongly suggest that you get yourself a blog, and put your opinions there, or start participating in some political webforums where advocacy is welcome as part of the political debate. You will be able to promote and debate your theories without people like us telling you that you have chosen the wrong venue and removing them. We are not here to debate politics with you. We are only here to discuss how best to document the information we have from other reliable sources, you know, things like published history books and academic research, not stuff on blogs and webforums and certainly not stuff inserted directly into Wikipedia. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a blog host. We have to stick to encyclopaedic standards. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

1) It is not because it can be found in the mainstream history books that it's correct info and that it did happen. History is created by men and men make mistakes. Most men are biased, especially when they get money from the one writing about.... my article was as dry as a good Sherry
2) Allthough your former president said so, not the whole world has to listen to American/Commonwealth Laws or morale.
3)You are not following Wikipedia's Vision Yourself. (couple of lines up)
--Franklinbe (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: There is now a Mediation Cabal case about this matter here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-08/fascism --DanielRigal (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race in the future years to come.[2]

   — Diderot

Who decides what knowledge is verifiable when fascist regimes have been killing their opponents for years?
What general system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinbe (talk • contribs) 17:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

MedCabal Case

Hello Editors! A mediation cabal case has been opened regarding this article and its subsequent talk page. If you wish to join the mediation process, please indicate so on the case discussion page and on my talk page. My job is to guide a reasonable discussion to find an equitable solution to the dispute. This can only take place if 1) everyone enters the process with a good-faith effort in mind to reach an end AND 2) their agreement to participate throughout the whole process, while it is voluntary to partake.

I am reviewing the talk page and the dispute as it has taken place to gain an understanding of the matter. Once all parties have indicated their acceptance of the case proceeding, I will follow a process similar to the process that some MedCom cases have progressed, to find a consensus conclusion to this problem.

Cheers! -Reubzz (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that opening mediation after an RfC has been on for all of three hours might be deemed premture. Collect (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Collect, I have made my statement on the status of the mediation on the case page. Please redirect all statements about this matter there, the above is intended as a notification. Happy Editing! Reubzz (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

@Collect, you could be right. Killing people because they believe communism is a better way to go is a bit premature too, I believe. But it happened anyway. That's why i'll first go read some more wiki rules, before I piss you of again. Happy Dicussing!! Ttys--81.165.167.7 (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

@Collect, you could be right. Killing people abroad, just because they believe communism is a better way to go, is a bit premature too, I believe. Especially if it happens by the same ones who defended those that thought killing Jews would be OK . But it happened anyway. That's why I'll first go read some more wiki rules, before I piss you of again. Happy Discussing!! TTYS --Franklinbe (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)