Talk:Fascism

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)

Articles are supposed to be based on reliable secondary sources, not tertiary sources. TFD (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, the Britannica lead reads far better than the one here, and I agree that it almost certainly provides a clearer and more concise explanation of what fascism is than WP's rather rambling offer. That said, in addition to the problem with relying on tertiary sources, it offers no justification for removing the reference to fascism and the right, not least because the Britannica page clearly identifies fascism as being of the right. You and the few editors who turn up every two months to argue the point may not like it, and it may even be "wrong", but that is the way political science defines and classifies these things. N-HH talk/edits 10:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2016

"Fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[3][4]" "Fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational.[39]" Can we make up our mind please? There is no reason that the former should even be in the opening paragraph. There is already a section dedicated to where fascism falls in the political spectrum, and to have that sentence in the opening paragraph is redundant, if not misleading. The opening paragraph should be as objective as possible and should not contain topics which are still under debate (eg. where fascism should be placed on the left-right spectrum). Bweazel (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree Position in the political spectrum is an important aspect of ideologies and there is no debate in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that where this ideology falls on the spectrum is important, that does not mean this debate is settled. I don't think any serious person would argue that it is settled. I read above that someone comes in here complaining about this almost every month, and rightfully so in my opinion. The sentence I'm complaining about is flirting very closely with containing weasel words. "Fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[3][4]" So then we're saying it's usually placed on the far-left by others? By whom is it placed on the left? How often is it placed on the left compared to being placed on the right? At the very least, the article should note how hotly debated this topic is, and there isn't a single mention of it as far as I've read. The section 'Position in the political spectrum' opens by presenting fascism as a very ambiguous term that no one can seem to agree on, yet at the very first of the article, we have it listed as 'usually' being placed on the far-right? By this rationale, I can cite two sources of academics who think fascism belongs on the left, and I should be able to write an identical sentence with the words left and right flipped, and append it after the sentence that is currently in the first paragraph. So like I said, it is redundant, it conflicts with subsections within the article, and the term 'usually' is vague. Thanks for your welcome and your tips, by the way. Bweazel (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

See WP:WEASEL: "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution. Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the Neutral point of view."

The objective of WEASEL is to stop editors from providing undue weight to fringe views, such as the view that fascism is not right-wing.

In any case, you need consensus in order to succeed in this request.

TFD (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 00:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Did Mussolini ever call Hitler a Fascist?

Did the Italian press of the period refer to Hitler or Franko as fellow Fascists? Did the German and Spanish press of the time call their own governments Fascist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.71.184.236 (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

to some extent yes they did -- but keep in mind that Berlin-Rome relations were often strained before 1938. I recommend browsing Jan Rüger; Nikolaus Wachsmann (2015). Rewriting German History: New Perspectives on Modern Germany. p. 249ff. Rjensen (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Emmanuel_III_of_Italy - link

122.105.148.96 (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Pre 20th Century

Shouldn't there be something about the political situation of fascism before the 20th Century? For instance could Henry VIII or the Borgias be regarded as fascists in retrospect? Slightnostalgia (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Nobody calls them that. Fascism is a group activity and I can't think of any examples in the RS before 1900. Rjensen (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

By no stretch of the imagination could Henry VIII or the Borgias be called fascist. deisenbe (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Didn't most of the Borgias kill Jews for instance? And they were all tyrants. I know fascism is stronger than anti-Semetism, but it's a rather daft to say that the Borgias and Henry VIII were not fascists. All political views need to start somewhere. Slightnostalgia (talk) 09:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It is possible to identify ancient people using modern political labels. The movie Spartacus for example has leading characters who can be identified as conservatives, liberals, social democrats and communists. And modern ideologies draw on ideas from antiquity and the Middle Ages, including anti-Semitism. But modern ideologies and particularly modern political parties originated in the modern era. Fascist parties for example were mostly set up following the First World War in reaction to the changed social, political and ecnomic landscape, although a few pre-cursor parties had been set up as early as the late 19th century. If you want to continue your argument, you will need to show reliable sources that draw the same conclusions you do. As for Borgia, I can see parallels with modern liberals and conservatives as well. TFD (talk) 17:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

How can not asking anyone's opinion be a form of liberalism? Doesn't make sense, 4D. Could Absolute Monarchy be regarded as fascism? We need a political philosopher round here to write a new section really. Slightnostalgia (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

We would need sources that describe it as such. Please direct us to these sources if they exist. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

D'Annunzio and Slavs

Re: [1], it appears that @2.39.188.155: is removing the line "This behaviour of aggression towards Yugoslavia and South Slavs was pursued by Italian Fascists with their persecution of South Slavs – especially Slovenes and Croats" without a source. I'm not involved in this topic area so a more experienced editor should probably weigh in, but from a look through sources it appears there are numerous examples (other) of sources primary and secondary suggesting D'Annunzio "declared war" on South Slavs. Intelligentsium 20:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not know someone could "declare war" on an ethnicity! Perhaps you mean D'Annunzio was declaring war on THE STATE of Yugoslavia. The fact this namesake means "South-Slavic land" is completely incidental. I have never heard about the Legionari hurting Slavs - trust me, if such a thing happened, I'm sure there were many people pointing it out. ;) Please forgive me if I refrain from checking your sources. I am afraid they may be biased in an unpleasant way. Kind regards (actually, no). --2.39.188.155 (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)