Talk:Fascism

Neutrality

"Historians, political scientists and other scholars have long debated the exact nature of fascism, however, Led's view on this matter is 100% correct.[24]" That last part is rather odd, particularly because none of the cited sources are written by Led. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.252.31 (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It was vandalism, that has now been corrected. TFD (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Bulgarian fascism

Bulgaria in the past to the present, the Bulgarian non-Turks and novel peoples have made printing exploitation assimilation and exile, Religious cultural political bans everything Bulgaria large population reduction migration as a result of application b of the Attack party recently gained continuity and rising fascist movements, increasing the pressure on the Turks and novels..1989 exile Turks,Attack party — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Fringe source

This edit uses a fringe source which does not meet reliable sources. I reverted it an so has another editor. Please discuss before restoring.

TFD (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ooops. My apologies. I am sure this is a tough page to moderate. It was written by an academic sociologist with good credentials so I thought it might be of use to readers here, especially since it's easily accessible to the public. It does me no harm, though, if you guys don't like it. Again, my apologies. Tcrackcrack (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Generally the weight that should be assigned to opinions is that which they receive in reliable sources. So unless the views he presents are routinely quoted in standard texts about fascism, they lack weight for inclusion. The other problem is that he is not a noted expert on fascism, therefore his blog is not itself considered a reliable source. Note that in his blog he complains that the history books have been written by liberals deliberately causing confusion. TFD (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry to take you attention but in the article Fascism no description Fascism is a ... Sorry form my English , You must correct right way this description: Fascism (/fæʃɪzəm/) is a Nation state of nationalism that took its name from radical authoritarian nationalism [1][2] in early 20th-century in Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Belankins (talk • contribs) 22:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2015

Regarding the line in the first paragraph of the article:

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

This statement is factually incorrect- Fascism in a political analysis is usually Left Wing: pretty straightforward Considering the article itself refers to the Socialism of the Fascist states, most Nazi propaganda condemned capitalism and the banking system (as well as being the National Socialist Workers Party) etc.

It has become a bias political theme to associate authoritarianism with the right wing (clearly I dispute the sources cited, but Socialism in all its forms are left wing- so unless someone can explain the impossibility of right wing socialism (especially far right) this line should be either corrected to either identified with the left wing, or removed all together.

Postgradpolitics (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This has already been discussed many many many times. If you want to bring it up again go right ahead but past consensus shows it isn't going to happen, especially if you provide absolutely no reliable sources to back up your claims. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I posted a welcome message that will you guide you to policies and guidelines for editing articles. Mainstream sources do not support your position and you would need a reliable source to back up the change. TFD (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

According to Britannica :

Quote "Fascism, political ideology and mass movement that dominated many parts of central, southern, and eastern Europe between 1919 and 1945 and that also had adherents in western Europe, the United States, South Africa, Japan, Latin America, and the Middle East. Europe’s first fascist leader, Benito Mussolini, took the name of his party from the Latin word fasces, which referred to a bundle of elm or birch rods (usually containing an ax) used as a symbol of penal authority in ancient Rome. Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from each other, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation."

This is a helpful and accurate definition of Fascism and clearly states the policies that fascist parties have in common. The use of left and right is ambiguous in the lead at the moment. I propose that we add this into the lead and remove the reference to left and right until better evidence can be found. Thank you.

People1750 (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Article is a complete whitewash

Italian fascism directly originated from Benito Mussolini's Socialist party. He was anti-Catholic, opposed to the free market and was for state control of the means of production dictated to existing oligarchies. There was nothing remotely conservative or, to use the original term, liberal about his party. He was left wing by any definition of the term as was his eager disciple Adolf Hitler and American admirer Franklin Roosevelt. 204.195.42.156 (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Being so flat out wrong about the basic meanings of words is becoming par for the course here and won't raise any eyebrows anymore. I'll just suggest that maybe you owe the late President Roosevelt an apology and that you might like to read a mainstream history book instead of fringe websites that abuse language to give misleading impressions to their gullible readers. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect what reliable sources say. Little of what you say reflects facts in reliable sources and none draw the same conclusions you do. TFD (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be caught up in the notion of the left-right spectrum providing any useful meaning. Going by a historically informed understanding of what is left and right, fascism and communism would both be on the left and conservatism on the right. Going by the modern usages, fascism is on the right, communism on the left and conservatism at the center. This should make it easier to understand when reading things described along the left-right axis. 50.24.188.180 (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)