Jump to content

Talk:Fascism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kbruen (talk | contribs) at 12:04, 9 September 2019 (→Regarding changing right wing to left wing: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


RfC: Description of Fascism in the lede sentence

There is a consensus to identify fascism as far right in the opening sentence of the article. The number of editors expressing a preference for option B, and the strength of the arguments in this section and elsewhere on this page, establish a clear consensus in favour of this label. – bradv🍁 02:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In an effort to stop going around in circles, let's try to clarify where everyone stands on the various possibilities. I believe that all of the below descriptors have support from reliable sources. I have not included any mention of not being on the right at all, because I do not believe there is a reliable source to support that possibility. If someone wants to vote that way, they must provide a bona fide reliable source to support their vote, or it will be struck.

Here are the choices:

  • A. right wing
  • B. far right (wing)
  • C. extreme right (wing)
  • D. radical right (wing)

Please bold your favored descriptor in your answer. If you can live with a number of these choices, please list them in your order of preference - we'll do a simple statistical analysis of the results.

This is a survey, it's not intended to be threaded discussion -- we've had plenty of that above. Let's just try and see what people's preferences are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes from the RfC initiator to the closer

(1) A previous RfC [1], held in March - April 2019, found a "weak consensus" among the editors on this page to add "right wing" to the first sentence of this article's lede.

(2) Much has been made of "weak" in the close. It should be noted that the close was made by a non-admin who, at the time, had been editing Wikipedia for around 8 months. The raw vote was 24 supporting adding "right wing" and 10 opposing, or 70% supporting.

(3) To describe Facism as "right wing" in the lede sentence remains the standing consensus.

(4) The purpose of the current RfC is not to overturn that consensus, but to determine in what way, if any, "right wing" should be characterized. Four options were presented, which represented all the choices for characterizing "right wing" which had arisen in discussion.

(5) To that end, removing "right wing" was not one of the choices presented, and editors who sought to !vote in that manner were required to present a citation from a (neutral, non-POV) reliable source to support their !vote.

(6) As part of the terms of the RfC, participants were warned that !votes which sought to to remove "right wing" but which did not provide such a citation would be struck out.

(7) Some editors have voted "None of the above" without providing the citation required, and those !votes have been struck out. However, one of those !voters has edit warred to remove the strike outs.

(8) The closer is asked to consider that, whether they are struck out or not, "None of the above" !votes which have not provided a suitable citation from a neutral, non-POV reliable source, as per the terms of the RfC, are not responsive to the question posed by the RfC.

(9) I have not !voted in this RfC.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

  • Comment This edit will then cause a repetition in the third sentence of the lede: Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.. I think this sentence is more accurate so it would be bad to take it out. However repetition is also ugly. That's why what I would actually mostly favor is to have: "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical, authoritarian ultranationalism [...]" in the first sentence, and as a second sentence: "[...], [Fascism] is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum." This avoids leaving the far-right detail at the end of the lede, giving it enough weight, and also follows what the sources say. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • E - none of the above. I think there are serious works portraying it as one side of Socialism, and serious questioning on the topic. At any rate a fine-gradation label stated as if settled precision fact seems over-simplifying or categorical inappropriate to what technical works would portray. It also seems to have aspects at odds with what is commonly thought right-wing U.S. aspects, e.g. being contrary to capitalism or individualism. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Beyond My Ken: Oh, it's not a mainstream view, but there certainly have been scholars in top universities which have argued for that. Harvard University professor Richard Pipes in Russia Under The Bolshevik Regime (1994, p. 253): Given the opportunity, Mussolini would have been glad as late as 1920-21 to take under his wing the Italian Communists, for whom he felt great affinities: greater, certainly, than for democratic socialists, liberals and conservatives. Genetically, Fascism issued from the 'Bolshevik' wing of Italian socialism, not from any conservative ideology or movement. UC Berkeley political science professor A. James Gregor The Faces of Janus: Marxism and Fascism in the Twentieth Century (2000, p. 20) that Fascists were almost all Marxists—serious theorists who had long been identified with Italy's intelligentsia of the Left --Pudeo (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pipes would fall under WP:PROFRINGE - especially considering his open propaganda efforts. And I am not familiar with Gregor, but a cursory inspection suggests he's a pretty fringe figure too. I mean he founded a Eugenics organization. Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Beyond My Ken - Mmm. It would be easier to simply accept this is a Request For Comment and I gave you a comment. However, as you want more, I'll submit that your ONUS to any edit saying it is just a specific flavor of only right-wing would be a harder one for you to meet as any 'total' claim is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL one. Other than the common colloquial usage of this word, portraying the technical meaning being solely a particular kind of right-wing runs up against my simply knowing of it being in debate here and outside, the example of British Left-wing fascism, articles to the contrary from sources like Britannica and BBC and the Telegraph and Vox and WND, or of contrasting views from definitions such as Webster. Doing a simple Google check seems enough to show it is a premise somewhat in contention, as would examination of archives or the fact it's implicit in the cautions in this TALK to not bring it up yet again. If you'd prefer doing Google Scholar instead of ordinary Google, I think you'll find published works there as well, more authoritative if less easily read and found. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The statement which presented the RfC is quite clear. I assume that you read it, and then chose to paticipate. In line with the statement, please provide a reliable source supporting your conjecture within the next 24 hours, or -- as I said I would do in the statement of the RfC -- I will be striking your comment. If you'd prefer to withdraw it yourself instead of providing a reliable source, you can hat this entire section. Of course, any other editor can provide a reliable source for you, but the source provided must fulfill the requirement of WP:RS and not be FRINGE or POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Beyond My Ken Thanks for mentioning that, I should have started with I do feel the RFC is improperly worded there, and ask you improve the wording by: (1) Delete "strikeout" and just leave it at a request bona fide RS, or at least replace it with "hat" as strikeout would be improperly editing another users comments; (2) Since the RFC description is saying "If someone wants to vote that way" as a fifth input category, amend the options list to have "E - None of the above" as a clear label for that; and (3) please expand the intro to more clearly state the edit intended by RFC -- the title indicates it is about "Description of Fascism in the lede sentence" but not what value a survey will be put to.
  • I also request your permission to shift all of this (except my initial input) down to the meta-discussion section as a better division of dialogue, especially if we're going on into much extended giving of RS and discussion of content/policy. But really, I would again suggest just making the changes to RFC text and accept this was my input. Please ping back to let me know about moving this section and whether you really want me to keep going with more discussion -- and whether that would be intended for inclusion as part of the "Description of Fascism in the lede sentence" or something else. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck, no source provided. The issue was aready dealt with in an earlier RfC, which is why its not a topic of this RfC. If you want to keep going around in circles, please start a brand new section on the talk page below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Beyond My Ken -- Undoing strikeouts. As I said before Strikeout is violation of policy Per WP:TALKO "Striking out text (e.g., ...) constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or as otherwise provided in this talk page guideline." (i.e. of a sock puppet or editor inputs despite being banned). I see no remark on moving, so am not moving. Your response re where to provide further RS seems a bit iffy and I'm unclear on intent, but will start a subsection as requested as a place for it and etcetera without further doing it within the Survey section. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring the strikeout, which were clear conditiin of the RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Undoing strikeout - Policy violations are not allowed just because you said so. Please stop doing that. Markbassett (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Beyond My Ken -- Undoing strikeout yet again - again, this is not allowed per policy, please stop edit warring contrary to TALKO. See where I asked for changes to RFC. You can do other things but not strikeout which would be to edit others comments and show indications as if they were a banned user or sock puppet. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer B or C -- the difference is C = the sense of using violence to overthrow an established govt. Pipes says Mussolini 1920-21 had an affinity for Bolshevism, not for socialism. The Bolsheviks were extreme enemies of the state --they used violence to overthrow the government and that's what M wanted to do. The Italian Communists and Italian socialists both vehemently denounced M and his movement. Some fascist movements (as in UK, US, Portugal or Nazi Germany) did not call for violent overthrow (Hitler did not repeat his violent attempt in 1923; instead took power in 1933 peacefully and legally--). Rjensen (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • E - None of the above Beyond my Ken has deleted several of my comments to this talk page, including my early comment for this RfC (which no one owns so requested comments should stay intact). This comment was also deleted; it preceded this RfC by a few hours. The first of my comments to be deleted is this one, which also relates to the issue at hand.
I will make this simple. The same editors who have tended to this page, have also been taking care of the Definitions of fascism article for years. To this day, the term "right wing" is not mentioned in the 4 paragraph Lede of Definitions of fascism. How is it possible that we are now obligated to accept that "right wing" is such a prominent feature of "fascism", it must be mentioned in the first sentence? I will note here, again, that no editors had questioned or complained about the lack of "right wing" in the Lede first sentence for the past few years, if ever. The addition of "right wing" to the first sentence here was done in a drive-by edit here and has caused much controversy since then. The controversy is not adequately summarized by BMK and others as being solely "change it to left". The controversy has mainly circled around whether that change has support, whether a "weak consensus" justifies such a change, and what was wrong with the long-consensed version (which a quick search through the TP archives will show). No one here complained about the former version, which addresses "right wing" in the last sentence. Now that Google favors Wikipedia, the first sentence of this article is the official definition of the term across the globe. Therefore, it requires a strong consensus and measured discussion if we are to change the definition, especially considering we diverge from similar sites that give definitions (save Oxford). Merriam Webster and Encyclopedia Brittanica don't mention right wing at all in their summaries. You can vote on which flavor of "right wing" to add, but this does nothing to justify the change to the definition and will not stop the controversy surrounding it. Silencing editors for pointing out the edit history and lack of justification for adding "right wing" to the first sentence says that editors engaged in this censorship are not confident in their argument. And they shouldn't be. To say now that we must absolutely, no questions asked, change the definition, whilst showing no history of a discussion about why this should happen prior to the drive-by, makes little sense. Lastly, I would hope that at WP, we don't "vote" on definitions. With Google spotlighting us, perhaps we should be taking this process much more seriously. It has been quite unserious thus far. petrarchan47คุก 03:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source is you, and the other long-term editors of this and the related "Definitions of fascism" pages. "Right wing" doesn't even make it into the 4 paragraph lede of the "definitions" article, meaning that if it is a primary aspect of the definition, then the editors have done an absolutely shoddy job given that you all have overlooked this glaring omission for years. Similarly with this page, you went from being perfectly fine with the nuanced version (with "right wing" in the last sentence), to, without reason or discussion, finding it impossible to consider anything other than having "right wing" in the first sentence sans nuance, calling the long-standing version "mealy mouthed". That makes no sense - unless this present version isn't actually following the sources that gave rise to the previous version (as well as the the "definitions" page and it's lede), and is actually based on POV. I believe this change to the definition results in a weaponization of the word "fascism" to 'condemn political opponents'; the forced simplification of the definition is contrary to the work of experienced editors here, and of scholars, who "do not agree on what fascism means".* petrarchan47คุก 07:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous, if WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source then certainly, Wikipedians are not a reliable source. You've been here for 3 years, you should know that by now, so please stop the b.s. If you have a reliable source to support your position, post it. If not, please stop commenting, as your contributions are not moving the discussion forward, they're just making us spin our wheels, and I think most of us have had enough of that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A in the historical sense, B/C for the post-WWII/1970s sense. In the historical sense, I don't think it is correct to describe fascism as "far right" - in the interbellum period fascism was mainstream right-wing politics. Following WWII, and moreso following the collapse of the fascist regimes in the Iberian peninsula, fascism has come to be deep in the far (or extreme) right - however this is an evolution of the right/left spectrum over time. While some (or, again, most recent ones) fascist movements are radicals (vs. the current society in which they operate - radicals by definition attempt to overthrow the established order) - not all fascists are (e.g. it would be hard to describe fascists in Italy of the 1930s as radicals - as they were the establishment!). Contrast Communism - historically I think it would be correct to state left-wing, and radical would be wrong for Soviet communists in 1922-1991 (in 1991 the anti-communists were radicals) - however in many recent political spectrum (country dependent) - communist movements would be far/extreme-left. Sources, per my impression, tend to differ according to the period and type of activists/politicians they cover. Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • B, D, or A, in that order of preference. I do agree with Icewhiz's contextual analysis above at a historical level but I think there's a complication in the article: the first sentence equivocates a little bit between fascism as a sort of ideal type (the present tense up to "... of the economy") and the historical early 20th c. movement (from "which came to power"). The ideal type is not the same as historical post-WWII fascism; it encompasses all of the historical instances at a higher level of abstraction. This, I think, is primarily what's expected in an article on "fascism" which deals with the concept's different facets, and in that case it should follow the contemporary social-scientific consensus describing fascism as such, rather than the historiographical one locating it as a political position 70+ years ago or at any other stage of its history. I'm not a fan of C as I think "extreme right" is just a more loaded way of saying "far-right". —Nizolan (talk · c.) 18:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • E, Would it be possible to say that it was something more akin to radical centrism? You could easily outline radical right wing social policy alongside the statist economic and security policies to define it as such. Plus I've read some substantive works defining it as a political tactic in Eastern Europe and Asia rather than as an ideology. That being said I feel that definition belongs further down in the controversies over defining this weird term. Bgrus22 (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • B is what I have encountered most often. A and C would both do as second choices. D has been appropriated by a number of oddities that sometimes seem to have little to do with what is considered "right wing" by the casual observer, so I think that might be a little misleading. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raw count

The 30 days is up on the RfC, so I thought I would do a raw count. The closer will also have to consider strength of arguments.

Option A - "right-wing"

  • 1st choice - 3, plus 1 more for historical fascism
  • 2nd choice - 1
  • 3rd choice - 1
  • 4th choice - 2
  • Total: 8

Option B - "far right (wing)"

  • 1st choice - 17, plus 1 more for post WWII fascism
  • 2nd choice - 3
  • 3rd choice - 0
  • 4th choice - 0
  • Total: 21

Option C - "extreme right (wing)"

  • 1st choice - 3
  • 2nd choice - 4
  • 3rd choice - 3
  • 4th choice - 0
  • Total: 10

Option D - "radical right (wing)"

  • 1st choice - 3
  • 2nd choice - 5
  • 3rd choice - 0
  • 4th choice - 0
  • Total: 8

Other

  • Three editors !voted but did not choose any of the options presented in the RfC

My conclusion, which is unofficial until someone closes the RfC, is that "Option B", "far right", is the clear preference, both by number of 1st choice votes, and by the number of editors who accepted it as a choice. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and change the lede sentence of the article to reflect this obvious consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-commentary and general discussion

  • Bad RfC its not up to you to decide under what criteria votes will be "struck", especially not before even seeing those hypothetical votes and the arguments contained within. Your comments about restricting the choices to only the ones that you unilaterally chose is both inappropriate and has a chilling effect. This whole RfC should be struck. Galestar (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it is up to me. Take a close look at the wording above: "An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion." I'm the editor asking, and I define the question being asked. if you don't like it, don't participate - but, you know, I'm beginning to think that you don't work and play well with other people. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure you could ask whatever you question you want, but putting these kinds of restrictions and biases into your question makes it a Bad RfC that is useless for actually determining consensus. Then your edit-warring to strike-out other people's makes it even more of a Bad RfC. Galestar (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sure, there are sources to support each descriptor, but there are also sources that say fascism is hard to define, and that scholars really don't agree. This RfC is worded in a way that indicates these are the only choices, when that is not the case. Only a few months ago , this was the version BMK and all editors at this page agreed on, which treats the right wing issue in the last sentence; I favor this version as most representative of RS. I would also expect to see a nod to those scholars who have differing opinions, as was included in the article years ago, but was deleted because someone didn't like the way it was worded. petrarchan47คุก 05:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am asking the question, and these are the only choices I'm interested in, because as far as I am aware, they are the only choices with support from reliable sources, and I want to find out which of these choices are preferred. If you want to define away Fascism as being on the right, you're going to have to come up with a source that says it's not right wing, in which case I'll alter the question and allow that case -- otherwise, as the RfC specifies, that vote will be struck, and not considered in the statistical analysis. So, either find a source, or choose one of the available options, or don't participate, it's not compulsory. You can start your own RfC if you want to, but admins look askance on dueling RfCs, and I've seen it lead to blocks. Up to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[STOP REMOVING MY COMMENTS. Re-adding the following after BMK deleted for no reason.] You were fine with it for the past few years. What made you change your mind? Did you find new/different sources? petrarchan47คุก 03:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments weren't removed, you simply caught me in the middle of moving them elsewhere, but I changed my mind and moved them back, but struck out your !vote, which violated the terms of the RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason you ignored my question? It's important: You were fine with this version for the past few years. What made you change your mind? Did you find new/different sources? Beyond My Ken petrarchan47คุก 07:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's completely unimportant what one editor says, we're looking here for a consensus among multiple editors. I have not !voted in this RfC, and have no intention of doing so, so my opinion, now, or in the past, is totally irrelevant. But if it helps you any -- people aren't rocks, they can change their minds in response to new information or to a new understanding of old information That's what makes us rational beings. Anyone who doesn't change their mind when circumstances change or they re-evaluate the available information has more in common with an inanimate object than a thinking person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What about putting it in the second sentence? --Ritchie92 (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)Also, I'd like to remind everyone that a recent RfC about whether to remove "right wing" or not -- run before IPs and non-auutoconfirmed accounts were restricted from this page, and were therefore able to skew the results -- closed as a "weak keep". I lot of mileage has been run on the tires of that "weak", but -- as I tried to explain on my talk page, to no avail - a "weak keep" is still a keep. Just take a look at AfD, and you'll see that any discussion closed as "week keep" results in the article being kept, and any discussion closed as "weak delete" results in the article being deleted. "Strong deletes" aren't deleted any more than "week deletes", and the same goes for keeps. So the RfCs "weak keep" was a keep, which is yet another reason (a recent consensus) that removing any mention of Fascism being on the right is not an option inthis RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But that is because deletion is a binary operation: either one deletes or one keeps (except the cases in which there can be a merge, but still you either delete the page or not, there are no other possible options). An edit instead can be deleted, modified, reworded, moved, there are so many options that make the decision about an edit non-binary. The analogy of a RfC result with an AfD result is not a good one. --Ritchie92 (talk) 06:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But none of those option were the consensus, according to the closer. The consensus was to keep "right wing" in the first sentence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody denies that. I'm just saying that weak actually has meaning in the case of RfC (otherwise why even bother deciding on weak and strong), and your argument with the analogy to the AfD is not so good: Strong deletes are the same as weak deletes because there is no logical way you can delete a page more. Regarding edits and RfC, weak consensus concerns the fact that there are probably more options and possibly still room for improvement, and the final decision is not totally undisputed and uncontroversial. Again, otherwise why bother distinguishing between weak and strong consensus at all? --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fascism is indisputably seen in scholarly circles as a far-right ideology, and I agree with Beyond My Ken that attempts to dispute this are tedious and time-wasting. For the lead to begin by stating something like, "Fascism is hard to define, and scholars really don't agree", would be an insult to the intelligence of readers and an act of negligence on the part of this site's editors. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While true of what fascism developed into, Proto-fascism and its elements have had a complex origin. Some of the figures we mention as proto-fascists in the article were affiliated with the Conservative revolutionary movement in Germany, the Irish Republican Brotherhood in the United Kingdom, Action Française in France, and the Macedonian Committee in Greece. Dimadick (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lets stick with this wording for now, and create another RFC about a more nuanced wording seperatly.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve not seen any serious work that suggests fascism is at odds with capitalism. Alas, essentially all governmental systems have problems with individualism. O3000 (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fascism in the sense of motivated for national good or centralized control sense doesn’t match to the Capitalism basis of private ownership for profit — decentralized control, sometimes to the detriment of workers or nation. And isn’t it obvious that trying to force a left/right linear model is problematic and has been contentious for long time ? (Look at archives.) Maybe just acknowledge - in article text - that putting political ideologies into a spectrum is imperfect, execution is messy, and some dispute does exist ? It’s not like science has a right o meter measurement. I like the article uses “characterized” rather than stating as unambiguous fact something that is not objective fact, would be nice to see a distinction also accepted in TALK. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hitler reversed the European trend of state ownership and engaged in mass privatization, even privatizing public services.[1] O3000 (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Germà Bel (13 November 2004). "Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany" (PDF). University of Barcelona. IREA. Retrieved 10 August 2018.
I'm transcluding this discussion to the discussion section. Also please note that WP:NOTFORUM and WP:OR apply. @Markbasset: you mentioned reliable sources supporting the WP:EXTRAORDINARY assertion that fascism is socialism. Please provide them or I'll hat this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Simonm223 - Beyond My Ken requested a brand new section for any going further, so I'll do that. Would have been simpler to just take RFC input but I will AGF and do what I can to clarify. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cites to support other positions

Beyond My Ken requested a brand new section for any going further into E-none of the above, which may have been offhand but seems a decent idea so here it is. A simple google seemed to find a lot of it not being a settled thing including mentions of "Left-wing Fascism", so here I'll try to put in URLs of those I mentioned briefly before, as that seems to have been repeatedly requested. The context or intent these are wanted for is a bit undefined -- the RFC seems trying to do something about the lede -- I will presume this continues informal as just for discussion background.

User:Atsme said in 'We're not going to litigate this again' that it's neither and offered the cites which do not say right or left wing.

  • Merriam-Webster] : 1.often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

I also offered cites that mentioned left-wing and/or said it was complicated, which in order I named I think were:

The sea is wet, not matter how many sources do not say so.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Dictionary definitions are not acceptable
(2) "Left wing fascism" is so-called to differentiate it from ordinary fascism, which is right-wing. It's a different animal entirely. Incidentally, WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
(3) The Brittanica article does not tackle the question of whther Fascism is right-wing at all, simply the problem of definition, which is well known, and not relevant to this RfC. However, the article goes on to list and explicate the "general characteristics that fascist movement ... have in common":
  • Opposition to Marixsm
  • Opposition to parliamentary democracy
  • Opposition to political and cultural liberalism
  • Totalitarian ambitions
  • Conservative economic programs
  • Corporatism
  • Alleged equality of social status
  • Imperialism
  • Military values
  • Volksgemeinschaft
  • Mass mobilization
  • The leadership principle
  • The "new" man
  • Glorification of youth
  • Education as character building
  • Spirituality and opposition to decadence
  • Violence
  • Extreme nationalism
  • Scapegoating
  • Populisn
  • Revolutionary image
  • Antiurbanism
  • Sexism and misogyny
  • Acceptance of racism
  • Identification with Christianity
While some of these characteristic are shared with non-right-wing ideologies such as Marxist-Leninism, their sum total shows Fascism to be, in its essence, an extreme form of a right-wing ideology.
(4) The BBC article does not tackle the question of whether Fascism is right-wing at all, simply the problem of definition, which is well known., and not relevant to this RfC.
(5) The Telegraph article is an opinion piece.
(6) The first Vox piece is, again, about the definition problem, and does not tackle the question of whether Fascism is right wing. The second piece iis an opinion piece.
(7) The World News Daily is never, under any circumstances, considered to be a reliable source.
(8) The Google search results are opinion pieces.
(9) "Half of all authoritarians are left-wing" has no relevance to this question at all.
The standing consensus on this talk page is that Fascism is right-wing, as determined by the previous RfC. This RfC seeks to determine in what way, if any, "right wing" should be characterized. It is not about overturning the standing consensus. This is why your !vote above was not responsive to the question asked, and was struck. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Beyond My Ken Unh hunh. Well you didn’t ask for any of that so should be no surprise. When I said a casual google caused me to doubt this was a settled thing, folks asked me to show so I did. If you want more than evidence of what I saw, about the existence of dispute and that RS exist which do not go into r or l .... then ask. These sources just show the ONUS is hard to meet. Piddling on the, does nothing to change that large prominent RS exist which do not support this theme, the assertion that it is settled and always said and just needs to figure out exactly what part of r-wing it is. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The standing consensus on this page is that Fascism is right wing. The RfC I started is to try to settle in what way, if any, "right wing" should be characterized. It was not designed to overturn the standing consensus. According to the terms of the RfC, to !vote "None of the above" - i.e. that Facdism is not right wing -- one has to provide a citation from a reliable source to support that contention. You have not done this. You have presented a melange of different sources that show that Fascism is hard to define. This is a well known problem, but it is irrelevant to the question at hand, and does not fulfill your obligation to present a citation from a reliable source to support for intended !vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have multitudinous academic sources that contradict Vox. Sorry but journalists take second-fiddle to academics. They're not WP:DUE mention in the lede of the article, when the nuances of fascist third-positionism and entryism are spelled out farther down anyway. Simonm223 (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Beyond My Ken Yes, observably the stated consensus is r-wing. But when you do a WP:RFC you are going outside the pocket universe and get what RFCs are - Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input and even asking for changes to the RFC -- that is the policy. So you are going to see other views, including that in most of the universe it seems not a prominent statement about fascism and that it seems not a settled thing. 'Characterized' seems a reasonable adjective here, but definite statements or trying to narrow it further seems inappropriate. That other inputs say NO wing or even that sometimes Left wing is the point. The sources I provided are as said, showing that presenting it as settled fact and a specific section of right-wing seems an awfully strong assertion that fails even a simple check at Google or Google scholar that shows a strongly different view of things. That should have been better just observed as a simple input with simple remark about what I'd looked at. Not attacked as heresy and any source to the contrary attacked in detail. Simple TALK, they were just telling you why I thought the RFC position is problematic. I suggest you consider that Britannica, Websters, BBC, etcetera are indeed RS of note and repute and WEIGHT, and try working on the RFC intent is to hear other voices that it seems this is failing to do so. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:GREENCHEESE because your insistence that an RFC on how to describe right-wing based on academic sources pulling up refs like "The World News Daily" to support removing that statement altogether is pretty much textbook WP:TEND and this makes this digression classic green cheesing. Simonm223 (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk page protection

Hi. Before the month of temporary protection comes to an end, I think it might be useful to reach an agreement and explore the lawful options regarding how to systematically tackle the issue of IPs and sockpuppeteers that will inevitably come to this talk page asking for "right-wing" to be changed to "left-wing". The presence of the banner on top and the constant archiving cannot be an efficient solution (trolls don't care about the banner, and don't read into the archives). The archiving can even become slightly aggressive and lead to controversies, as this one reported by myself in the AN/I. In that thread, User:Acroterion had more than one thing to say about the strategies for protecting the talk page, and I think it is worth to discuss about them directly here. I am not an expert of what is and is not technically possible on WP regarding page protection, but I think it's an important matter. As it might be inferred, I am against any generalized "ban" on further discussions on the topic "right-wing in the lede" that results in plain deletion or archiving of talk-page contributions of long-term and good-faith editors. I am – of course – in favour of a "ban" against vandalism, trolling, IPs, fascism-is-left-wing nonsense, etc., which is the point of this thread I just started. How do we implement the (hopefully selective) ban?

I take the freedom to quote here Acroterion's contributions to that thread, so that we have a basis to start with. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I semi-protected the talkpage a couple of days ago, in part to remove the incentive to aggressively archive contentious drive-by edit requests. I don't see a present reason for archiving things right away now that there isn't a daily parade of new editors and IPs landing on the talkpage to demand that the article be altered to fit their POV or to explain that academic sources should be ignored in favor of partisan commentary. The semi-protection of the talkpage is something of a last resort - as evidenced by the above, the repetitive partisan talkpage activity was eroding the patience of experienced editors. The protection is for a month, and I welcome suggestions for a longer-term solution that doesn't involve lots of archiving or daily patient explanations to agenda-driven new editors.. Acroterion (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Continuing my comment from above, I've semi-protected the talkpage for a month, which appears to have dealt with the proximate cause of the dispute in this thread. As WP:PROTECT notes, semi-protection of article talkpages is to be used sparingly. However, that policy was formulated primarily to deal with occasional individual vandals and POV-pushers. What's appearing on Talk:Fascism and similar pages is a steady stream of new editors and IPs who are convinced that fascism, for instance, is a handy universal label to apply to people they oppose, and expect the article to reflect that POV rather than reflecting academic and historical analysis. These editors are clogging the talkpages. I see no reason to believe that this will change when protection expires, and some longer-term solution will be needed.
  • Right now, WP:PROTECT suggests that semi-protected talkpages redirect edit requests to WP:RFED, which isn't really set up to deal with that sort of traffic. I think we're going to need a project space page linked on long-term semi-protected talkpages that can handle this traffic, where editors with the patience and inclination to do so can winnow serious requests from the forum speech and trolling, allowing the article talkpages to be used as intended, and allowing editors on those topics some rest. That project page can link to WP policy, offer suggestions on reading archived discussions, and perhaps help to educate newcomers on how to approach perennially contentious topics. Acroterion (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


— User:Acroterion

As I have said before I (personally) do not see this as an issue, just say "not going to happen" and let it run its course. Once we have answered we can (if we want) ignore it, or respond with "NAy, nay, and thrice nay". I dislike the ideas of shutting down any question no matter how dumb until it has been considered.Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that many are not just "dumb questions", but purposeful partisan trolling, disconnected "edit requests", or weird self-made political theories. WP:NOTAFORUM must be enforced: Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, and to my mind you feed them when you react how they want. We can enforce policy just by saying no, and then leaving the trolls to stew.Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having watched this phenomenon for years, it is my feeling that it's not going to go away, and that it will make normal talkpage discussion here difficult for the foreseeable future. Terms like fascism and racism are weaponized, and their use in partisan circles has little to do with their actual meaning or significance. Accordingly, we get the random edit requests, which can be ignored fairly easily, and we get more productive threads clogged with partisan commentary and griping from naive editors, and outright trolling, pushing other editors' buttons. I don't expect it to get better, and in a few weeks we'll still have to deal with it. I would rather not extend protection without an alternate process. Probably VP/P would be the best venue for a broad discussion, since the problem is broader than this talkpage - it's just the most acute manifestation, and I believe we need a new or better process for the project as a whole to handle misinformed editors and malicious trolling, while not excluding new editors and IPs with useful suggestions. The situation is similar to the introduction of extended confirmed protection, and this might be a trial run for a new process. Talkpages are meant for discussion of article improvement, not for the education of individual people who want to argue with the sourced article content. Acroterion (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fascism=Left-wing is a popular discussion point in far right websites drawing a stream of historical revisionists to this and other articles about the extreme right. I don't think it will end, and suggest permanent semi-protection. There is precedent: Mass killings under communist regimes was fully protected from 2011 to 2018. TFD (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't want to see what happened there to become a precedent; full protecting an article for seven years isn't really a meaningful answer, and as a result of it the article was stuck in a really shoddy state (there was one particular edit to the lead that never had consensus but which stayed stuck there because it happened to be the version that got protected; the nature of edit requests for protected pages meant that after that consensus was required to remove it even though it had been a bold edit to begin with. But more generally our sourcing and editorial standards improved a lot over seven years, and nobody was realistically going to go through the fairly torturous and often-thankless process of fixing it in a draft or via edit requests.) I mean obviously semi-protection is different because it's not that hard for people to get the ability to edit, and the unusual thing here is applying it to talk anyway; but I'm leery about anyone pointing to that particular incident as a precedent for anything. It is more an article that slipped through the cracks than anything else. --Aquillion (talk) 06:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permanent semi-protection is the way to go, IMO. In any case, if someone really wants to post, all they need to do is to register an account and make 10 edits. That's a pretty low bar. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permanent semi-protection including at article talk is critical here. It won't stop the socks, but at least it will require they create an account which is subject to checkuser. Simonm223 (talk) 12:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permanent semi-protection is really the only way to be sure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permanent semi-protection I'm not sure that a complete ban on discussion of the placement of "right-wing" in the lead or its wording is necessary (the discussion above seems to be proceeding in an orderly fashion), but there definitely needs to be some measure to deal with the constant spam of newly arrived very aggrieved users who can't be bothered to read even the most recent talk page post, which already addressed the exact same questions. Just looking through the archives, you can see that's been going on for years, and has certainly intensified in the past few months. Maybe eventually it'll slow down enough that the semi-protection isn't necessary, but it doesn't look like that will happen soon. But in the meantime, if more experienced, long-term editors still want to discuss the issue, then that shouldn't be prevented. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since there seems to be a general sentiment for permanent semi-protection, then it would be helpful to craft an edit notice to explain that, perhaps integrated with or in support of the FAQ. Acroterion (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose to permanent protection: Policy and longstanding community consensus expressly, directly disallows this, even in cases of substantial disruption. Look, insofar as I spend a lot of time responding to RfCs, I have seen a the uptick in disruption linked to articles relating to right wing politicians and politics, and I can well imagine how the drumbeat of comments from new editors in this space--predicated more in their perceptions about the WP:truth than our relevant content policies could grow tedious, but this proposal (aside from being something that cannot be authorized in this space as a procedural matter) would be a clear case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Let's recognize a few relevant points of policy and community consensus here (and please forgive me for the length of the following comments, but there is a lot of unpack and consider here, which I feel the !votes above do not take enough account of):
1) As Slatersteven points out, the article itself remains protected and thus these editors, no matter how vocal and persistent, cannot alter it. Therefor this proposal is in no way necessary to protect our froward-facing content and is being proposed merely to spare our editors the annoyance of regularly seeing new editors make poor and redundant arguments for changes to the article. And I'm sorry, but that is just not a compelling enough reason to violate the community prohibition on long-term protection, even if we give our regulars here every benefit of the doubt as to the fact that they propose this measure not to suppress countervailing views (and honestly, the distance between those two motives is short and subject to conflation and unconcious bias, even in very experienced editors).
2) At the end of the day, this remains the encyclopedia that anyone can edit: permanently protecting the article itself is already an extreme step, and there is a reason why the community, despite many long and arduous periods of disruption across many articles over the years (yes, including numerous talk pages that put this one to shame in terms of disruption), has consistently found permaneant protection of talk pages to be a step too far in using tools to shut down potential disruptive discussion, in that it is likely to shut down a lot more input than just that of the disruptive elements. Remember, WP:Consensus can change: I doubt very much that it is going to change with regard to the issues here that are the points of contention, but that's really beside the point--we simply do not shut down further discussion on a topic, no matter how convinced we are that we've got it right as it is. We sometimes censure or block individual editors who cannot WP:DROPTHESTICK, but what we do not do permanently shut down discussion to an entire class of editor (here, non-extended confirmed), many of whom will be acting in good faith, nor do we ever declare an issue "settled" such that any disagreement as to that point is discouraged. The banner at the top of the page already pushes the line on what our policies say should be done to forestall further discussion on a standing consensus: this proposal would clear that line by miles.
3) Even if we were going to adopt this approach in this particular case, it could not be done in this space, by a group of editors working on the article itself and arguing against an approach to the content, the discussion of which would be hindered or prohibited by this proposal. This is not a content issue, and therefor it does not fall under the purview of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. We already have a policy/strong community consensus that says in express, direct terms that permanent protection is not to be used in this way. As a procedural matter, that policy cannot be overruled in this space, no matter how many interested editors !vote for it, and no matter how convinced those editors are of the necessity. A carve-out of this nature would need to be made through either a WP:PROPOSAL at Wikipedia talk:PROTECT or at a central community discussion space like WP:VPP.
4) There are potential unintended consequences to this approach which could actually make the disruption to the article far worse: allowing edit requests functions as a kind of pressure release valve for new (or even just blatantly WP:NOTHERE) editors. They may nit get their way, but at least they have expressed their dissatisfaction over the issue--many probably move on thereafter and forget that they ever even commented here. However, if you thwart their ability to be heard at all, and give them the impression they are being WP:CENSORED, some will make it a mission to make sure they are heard. They way they would do that in this case is by registering a new account for the sole purpose of getting above the extended-confirmed edit count and returning here to enforce their view. At that point, their new status allows them not just to continue the rhetorical battle here, but also to directly edit the article, increasing disruption and allowing in-advisable changes to the content of the article itself that otherwise would not have been made. In extreme cases, such editors may even aggregate on off-project spaces to share their grievances at being shut out of the discussion and organize disruption. And that's not a fantastical projection in the slightest: it happens every day on this project.
So, on the whole, while I certainly can understand the vexation of editors here having to look at the same or similar requests over and over again, that is at the end of the day simply just the nature of the beast for certain articles, and something that has to be accepted by editors choosing to volunteer their time on certain disruption-prone articles. Regardless, our policies are clear on this matter: we do not permanently close down access to discussion and the consensus process to all non-registered editors, as it is too antithetical to numerous core principles of the project, and those looking to change this and establish a new standard should take their arguments to the appropriate policy/community pages. This of course does not technically prohibit an admin from applying temporary semi-protection to the page repeatedly, but at some point this is likely to be perceived as de facto permanent protection and would need to be discussed. Regardless, use of a permanent protect function on the talk page would clearly be against policy, and I can tell you that there are plenty of editors like me who, while 1000% sympathetic to the kind of disruption taking place on articles such as this right now, would nevertheless have to oppose that move as inconsistent with policy. This situation does raise the question (which Acroterion touches upon in their nuanced and thoughtful comments about the balance of interests here) of what new tools/processes we might develop to address situations where the disruption is particularly pervasive--that's definitely fruitful grounds for discussion, but as Acroterion has also already pointed out, VPP is probably the appropriate space for it, as it goes beyond any one article. Snow let's rap 19:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be satisfied with permanent semi-protection. The other possibility would be for us to take this to Arbcom and request DS be place on the article; the problem here being that the dispute is mostly with whack-a-mole throw away accounts and other trolls so finding appropriate involved editors to create the case could prove bothersome. Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You don't absolutely need a named account to bring an issue before ArbCom; you only need to make a case for substantial disruption. Rather, the real problem that I perceive with such an approach is that DS are not super effective with regard to random IP edit inquiries. However, I would submit to you that the way you have framed the issue there begs the ultimate question and thereby presents a false choice: you suggest that these are the only two tolerable options, and that we absolutely must do one of them. For starts, I don't think permanent semi protection is an option at all: we have a major policy that expressly disallows this, one which represents a highly valued community priority of not denying access to the consensus process to new editors or those who (for whatever reason) choose not to register. Furthermore, insofar as this is not a content matter but rather a process / community issue, we can't just override that important principle here as a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS matter. And if we tried, someone is bound to take the matter to ArbCom, AN, or VPP, and I can almost guarantee any of those forums would result in a community consensus to reverse, meaning nothing would be gained but a giant waste of community time.
I suppose you can make the argument for an WP:IAR approach, but I just don't see it, personally. It would be one thing if were talking about something directly impacting the article's content, but we're not: we're talking about a lot of annoying redundant edit requests. And if the balancing test is between the two options of 1) having a little clutter on the article talk page and its archives/regulars having to look at redundant requests on the one hand, and 2) disenfranchising every single un-registered editor from every further content discussion regarding this highly important article for an indefinite term of time, on the other hand, then I have to say that the annoyance of having to respond to (or hell, just note and ignore) the requests is by far the lesser of two evils--or in any event, the one policy/community consensus tells us to embrace first, of the options. Snow let's rap 05:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Our semi-protect has been off for less than what? A week? And we've already had "make it say left wing" edit requests, an edit-war over fascism being a far-right ideology and pretty egregious WP:NPA violations (an editor accused of being a fascist). I'd say the case for substantial disruption is pretty strong. And an Arbcom finding could overrule the Protection Policy, no? Simonm223 (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"an Arbcom finding could overrule the Protection Policy, no?"
Probably? I don't think that particular question has ever been addressed by the community or the committee itself, but let's put it this way: given the rather broad respect for ArbCom's remit these days, I'd say if they decided to place indefinite page protection on article, I suspect it would not create a furor of objection from the community. But it probably would lead to extended debate, insofar as it does abrogate the long-standing community consensus that we do not permanently protect talk spaces (which is largely seen as curing the disease by killing the patient). In any event, if anybody thinks the matter is fit for ArbCom's review, there's no reason to discourage them from taking the matter to the committee. However, by comparison, we (a handful of editors on a talk page) are certainly not remotely empowered to ignore the express wording of WP:PROTECT, which says that permanent protection is not to be used on talk pages, which is momentous WP:CONLEVEL above anything we might decide here. As such, I doubt very much that any admin is likely to risk their own credibility with the bit by applying permanent protection against the express wording of the very policy that defines the limitations of one of the relevant tool, especially since it would be likely to be undone shortly thereafter in a very public way.
All of which means that the editors here who really feel that there are exceptional circumstances warranting permanent talk page protection will need to make that case in one of a few ways: 1) Take it to ArbCom (as discussed above), 2) Add wording to WP:PROTECT via a WP:PROPOSAL at Wikipedia talk:PROTECT (it would probably need to be advertised at WP:VPP and/or WP:CD, insofar as it would be a significant change to a major policy), or 3) One could maybe could get this cleared at WP:AN/WP:ANI; it's debatable that this is an appropriate approach towards abrogating such an important policy as WP:PROTECT, but at least if you got a large enough turn-out in an AN/I discussion, you'd have a higher WP:CONLEVEL than just half a dozen involved editors on a talk page. However, I must tell you bluntly that I don't think either ArbCom or the community (whether solicited through VPP or AN/I) are likely to support changing the policy or creating a carve-out for these circumstances. I don't doubt that the disruption here has been noteworthy (again, I volunteer a lot of time to RfC and I've seen how bad it can get in the last couple of years when it comes to major articles concerning certain political concepts and individuals), but the community has dealt with much larger and more problematic incidences of disruption over the years, and in none of those cases did it decide that permanent talk page protection was a justified response. Advocates for breaking with long-standing consensus to apply it here would need to make a very substantial case to get ArbCom or the larger community on board for changing that principle. That would mean a much more robust case for disruption than what you've discussed above. For example, when you say:
"Our semi-protect has been off for less than what? A week? And we've already had "make it say left wing" edit requests..."
The simpler solution (by far) is simply to ignore these requests, at least insofar as we are talking about the ones coming from drive-by editors who themselves have taken no time to address the standing consensus. Why is it that you feel just ignoring such requests is not in the power of the editors here? Such requests are a minor annoyance at best: they don't reach our forward facing content, and the clutter to the talk page is manageable (especially if one does not feed the trolls). Ignoring these requests would be much less of a headache than all the debate that would be required to create a carve-out for permanent page protection on this one article. And it leaves our many good faith IP editors with access to discussion and consensus processes: robbing them of that access would require more significant justification than "we don't want to see redundant edit requests, and we don't have the strength of will to just ignore them when they do occur." It's just not a reasonable, in-proportion reaction to the scale of the problem.
"...[and] an edit-war over fascism being a far-right ideology"
Which involved extended-confirmed editors. The article itself is already under permanent semi-protection. Adding that protection to the talk page would not have prevented any edit wars to the article itself (which non-extended-confirmed editors already are prohibited from editing). Look, I'm totally sympathetic to your views here, believe me, and if you can gain consensus to permamently protect the article through an appropriate forum, I won't lose any sleep over the IPs not being able to push the "its not right wing" angle here against consensus. But this has to be handled through appropriate processes and we do need to discuss the inevitable implications of making a major change to the manner in which our page protection policy operates, particularly insofar a it would open a window for certain talk pages to become "experienced editors only" spaces. That's clearly against policy and community consensus as they stand now. If that's going to change (with substantial consequences for the openness of this project when it comes to controversial topics), it needs to take place at a higher level than this talk page, and with a higher threshold of community involvement. Snow let's rap 00:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fascism=socialism is a fairly popular issue on a number of fringe websites that encourage their followers to change this article. So is the gun control led to the Holocaust argument. While there is nothing wrong with these people participating, it is disruptive for them to jump into the discussion without at the minimum having some familiarity with Wikipedia principles. In particular NOSYN requires the article to report conclusions in reliable sources rather than form our own conclusions through evaluation of the evidence. TFD (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2019

omit Form of radical, right-wing 147.58.158.26 (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding changing right wing to left wing

Since it has been a subject of debate recently from commentators such as Dinesh D'Souza, with strong arguments brought against categorising fascism as right wing, I think the Wikipedia page should not only (somewhat vaguely, if I'm allowed to say my opinion) state why fascism is "far-right", but also show why claims by commentators that is it actually left wing are wrong. Kbruen (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fascism&oldid=914793715"