Talk:Fascism

Bias

This article seems to be very biased against Fascism. The articles about the far left, Communism and Anarchism, seem to be much more open to their topics, while this article uses the word "they" to describe us, as well as slanderous comments against fascism. Nearly every other political viewpoint's articles are neutral, using what they believe and accept, while this one tells of what we "reject and resist". For example "Fascists reject and resist the autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists' nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated". This is very "they" and very negative, while "Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the separation of church and state." shows a much more positive, "this is what we believe" kind of language. Physics1313 (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

In academic literature there are scholars who defend communism, liberalism, conservatism etc. but none who defend fascism. Even scholars who oppose communism, liberalism, conservatism etc. find some positive elements in these ideologies, but none find any positive elements in fascism. Articles must represent scholarly views. If you think that fascism has had a bad rap you must persuade scholars of this at which point we will change the article. TFD (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

In academic literature there are scholars who defend communism, liberalism, conservatism etc. but none who defend fascism.

Actually, there are some, such as David Irving; but the quality of their evidence and research is generally of such poor quality, and their arguments so very misguided and unpersuasive, that really they don't help their cause at all, and only do their opponents the favour of not having to think of new things to throw at them.

Nuttyskin (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

By "academic literature". I meant peer-reviewed journals and books from academic or university publishing companies. TFD (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotection

There has been a steady stream of edits from the 71.* IP range, but no talk comments from that range. A particular concern is that an IP from that range keeps restoring a paragraph about fascism in China, which seems not to enjoy any support from other editors. I have semi-protected the article for one month. If you would like to comment for or against the semi-protection, please do so here. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

OK no mention of the "goverment" of Juan and Eva Peron Argentina was it also Facist?

Searched article no reference I could see Re: Juan and Eva Peron were was his regime Facist? or??/ Thanks!NOVA BAKUNIN (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The "consensus" view today is that only Germany and Italy were fascist and Peron was "para-fascist". Obviously the article should explain this and does not. TFD (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Article is too long!

The article seems to be planned well, but it might do with being broken down into separate sections. As it is, this article looks like a wall of text. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is a train wreck...

Possibly the most biased article I have seen in Wikipedia.

Beowulfborealis (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to point out some specific areas or sections where the content shows bias, and what sort of bias it shows? Simply calling the article a "train wreck" does nothing to improve it. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll throw in a bias reference. Fascism is neither left wing nor right wing, yet it appears as though some left winger has gone through every article about any form of government and labeled anything disagreeable as right, even while throwing in arguments that contradict their own explanations. Can we move past the left vs. right name calling and just give a genuine article about fascism without the left vs. right argument? This certainly expands into the "related" Collectivism article where they try to call it extreme right wing when arguably right wing is more of individualism. Fascism is neither - it's closer to totalitarianism, which is also neither left or right leaning, though individual fascist and totalitarians may have more left or right ideas. Even many of the citations in this article and most political articles are from bias sources. Pecosdave (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments of this type are too vague for us to take any action on, or even discuss meaningfully. If you feel that some of the sources are no good then you need to identify which sources you are complaining about and state clearly why you believe that each one does not represent mainstream thinking on the subject (which you should reference with other sources you feel we could use instead). Failure to accord with your own views is not, in itself, evidence of bias. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I find that the introduction is biased, while the section about where it is on the political spectrum is far more balanced. For example the introduction states that: most scholars consider fascism to be on the right, and it states that it's on the far right. However, the political spectrum section states the more balanced perspective that it's hard to place as either left or right. The introduction nees to be changed to reflect the contents of that section. SR Boxer (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The introduction is not meant to cover everything in detail. If it did it would be the same size as the whole article. It is correct that there is a general academic consensus that puts Fascism on the far right and that is enough for the introduction. Other views, be they historical, non-mainstream contemporary, or just the same ideas expressed differently are better left for the appropriate section.

Feel free to suggest a minor tweak to the lead if you think that would help but please try not suggest bulking it up with unnecessary caveats.

--DanielRigal (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

People are afraid to say anything positive or even just neutral or objective about Fascism because the majority are ignorant and think "Fascism" automatically equals "Nazis." It's ashame we will never have a neutral toned, objective article on Fascism. Seems too many people think Fascism has to include Nazi-esque idealology. They can't seem to grasp that Fascism by itself is just another socio-politicol philosophy and does does not by default have to include anything Nazi-esque. Jersey John (talk) 07:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

We base articles on how subjects are seen in reliable sources, which do not see fascism in a favorable light. However, readers are welcome to follow links to fascist writings and make their own judgments. TFD (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I deleted a definition that 1) falsly quoted a Time magazine article (reference #20) and 2) was a blatant attempt to equate Fascism with the idea of the Melting Pot (basically, a philosophy that attempts to prevent Balkanization is being equated to Fascism). Since the reference was the author's own definition and twisted historical fact to make the argument, it does not fit in Wikipedia as it shows obvious bias.