Talk:Fascism

Antifa

You are invited to participate in Talk:Antifa (United States)#RfC: antifa and terrorism, a discussion about whether to include that activities by American anti-fascists were labeled as domestic terrorism by the Trump administration. R2 (bleep) 22:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Economics of Fascism

Can we have some additional eyes on Economics of fascism? There's a small dispute there over whether Fascism opposed international socialism, or just Marxism. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

We're not going to litigate this again

Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

It cannot be said that this article is perfect, and that there is no way to improve it, and those things can -- and should -- be discussed here. But whether "right-wing" should be changed to "left-wing" is not one of those things. That issue is settled and will not be re-discussed on this page, since doing so is essentially not about the article, it is about the attributes of Fascism in general, and therefore violates WP:NOTAFORUM. Any attempts to re-litigate the issue in violation of that policy will be deleted or archived, per the warning on the big pink box above. Those who insist on attempting to do so will be reported to admins for [[WP:Disruptive editing]. Beyond My Ken (talk)

It would be like folks constantly demanding that the Earth is flat. I looked. It isn't. O3000 (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Very few of the discussions you refer to are a good faith attempt to litigate anything. The goal is rather to astroturf the existence of a "debate". The means of doing so is to saturate the talk page with (at best and most charitably) unsourced assertion. It's far from unique to Wikipedia or even to this topic. One solution is aggressive archiving of the talk page; another I used to sometimes see on pseudo-medical topics is to transplant the edit to the user's talkpage. It's very tempting to try to debate them because it's so trivial to dismantle their argument. No matter how satisfying, that's a mistake. They win the debate simply by participating; their goal is legitimization of doubt, not truth. CIreland (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

To that end I've semi-protected this talkpage for a while - a review of IP and new account edits here doesn't turn up much in the way of serious discussion. Acroterion (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I know that semi-protection of an article talk page isn't often done, but this certainly seems like a circumstance which calls for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It's an unusual measure, but in this case I think it's justified, given the number of drive-by commentaries and the time it takes to address each one. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Personally I think this just feeds their sense of liberal persecution.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Probably, but who cares about that? The talk page is for improving the article, not therapy for the victims of liberalism. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

True, but if they genuinely think this is an improvement it does no harm to at least go "no its not, see the archive" and then close and let nature take its course regards to archiving.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with User:Slatersteven: the talk page has worsened since "right-wing" is in the lead and this is a fact. By the way, one of the motivations that were brought to justify the insertion of "right-wing" in the first sentence (specifically see comments of User:Simonm223 in an archived – although still ongoing – discussion) was indeed related to targeting one specific group of the population i.e. conservatives. I quote: one thing that the people upset over calling fascism right-wing fail to mention about socialism and communism is that no socialists or communists dispute that their ideologies are left wing. As such, it's less urgent to put it in the lede because a casual reader will already accept socialism is a leftist political position. Basically according to the user Wikipedia somehow has a mandate to contrast the (small) number of people who think that fascism is left-wing, while this is not necessary for socialism and communism because nobody thinks those are right-wing. This sounds like a case of WP:NOTCENSORED: Wikipedia should not modify its content just to deal with the intricate psychology of some members of society. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The point is that left-wing isn’t added to communism or socialism because it has become redundant. This is not the case with fascism due to the long time efforts of those on the right to reposition fascism as left wing. And, I don’t think it is a “small” number of folks that believe fascism is left wing. I think it is a significant number. Ergo, it’s not redundant, but informative to include the language. Indeed, the near constant flow of editors challenging this is evidence that the language is needed and valuable. O3000 (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia should not be modified considering the feelings of a part of the society, it should be agnostic to all of that. Your point is like saying that if and when the flat-earth society gains more and more members, we should change the lead of Earth to "Earth is a round planet" in order to contrast those people... (by the way, where do you take the data to say they are a "significant number"?) --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome to argue that left wing should be added to the articles on communism and socialism. My point is that it is needed here as so many folks think it is left wing, as evidenced by the constant arguments. As for "my data", I said "I think" not "I know". We are here to inform. We should not make the article less informative because it upsets misinformed readers or to make our jobs easier. O3000 (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Except we do not say "right wing" we say "radical right wing" but link to the right wing article. Thus is can be argued we are being disingenuous. Either we should say "right wing" or link to the far right article (which is what radical right is a euphemism for).Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Good point. O3000 (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion about the definition of right-wing Atsme Talk 📧 01:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

When the issue is POV, as it is in this case, it tells us NPOV has not been achieved. The main symptom is instability. POV errors are typically corrected over time, and NPOV is achieved with a balanced infusion of information. Fascism is not a clearcut extreme right-wing view as it has been presented in the lede. There's a false equivalency - right-wing in the US is different from right-wing in Europe. The Oxford definition of fascism: The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also Fascist. The right-wing nationalists in Europe were not governed by a Constitutional Republic, and those totalitarian governments and monarchies didn't even come close to being the same right-wing as the American GOP. The US is not a democracy, either - we have an electoral college. Americans have preserved individualism over the rule of totalitarianism, the collective or greater good, and/or political elitism (although every government has areas in need of improvement). Merriam Webster - an American dictionary - defines fascism as follows: 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. The differences are stark. See the NYTimes article: “What we found especially interesting is that it encapsulated a trans-Atlantic phenomenon,” she said. “Often, when looking at words, you’ll find one that’s a really big deal in the U.K. but not in the U.S.” Atsme Talk 📧 21:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC) All American legislators at the local, state and federal level, all state governors and other state officials, all county official, all city officials, all of them are directly elected. To say the US is "not a democracy" because "we have the Electoral College" is to make an absurd over-generalization. We're a liberal democratic republic where the voting franchise is (now) very broadly construed. That's more of a "democracy" then you're going to find in most of the rest of the world. In any case, your essay isn't in the least helpful in regard to the subject at hand. Please stop encouraging the crazies bu continuing to discuss this subject. If you must express your opinions about what "right" and "left" mean, please start a blog, here, its a clear violation of WP:NOTAFORUM. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC) No, BMK - you can't just archive a discussion based on WP:DONTLIKEIT. I was not incorrect when I said we are not a democracy but I did not go into detail because it would be skirting NOTFORUM. There is a problem with the lede of this article, and the banner at the top of this page is not helpful and very OWNISH. Consensus can change, especially when we are having so many issues with disruption over the lede of this article. It is not going to just go away. Take a minute and refresh your memory about the kind of goverment we have, and why right-wing is not the same definition here as it is in Europe. I've added some links for you to read about why the US is not a "democracy" in the way that so many people mistake it to be, you included: NYTimes, WaPo,The Hill (op), and National Review - I think that's a good balance of sources without me having to waste too much time on it. The US is what I said it is, and yes, we have progressive minded people who think we need to fix what isn't broke. I refer back to the NYTimes article and the debate to make changes to the curriculum. I've collapsed this discussion - not to end it as you did archiving it to thwart further discussion. I understand NOTFORUM, but having a discussion about a problematic lede is how we fix problems. Have a bowl of ice cream and relax. Atsme Talk 📧 01:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

So, "no" to any further discussion about changing "right wing" to left wing". When I scroll through the recent archives, I don't see any overt attempt to argue for such a change, but I see many iterations of "fascism is not on the right/left spectrum", "remove right wing from the Lede", and the RfC which came on the heels of the recent addition of "right wing" to the first sentence of the Lede, which questions why the long consensed version of the Lede should not be restored. If fascism is unquestionably defined as right-wing, why wasn't this change made to the Lede until only a few months ago? Why did all the editors sign off on the previous, more nuanced version, by virtue of the fact that there was no discussion about changing it? The RfC result was "weak keep" - weak support for changing the definition of a term (given that WP is the top search result for that term on Google, Alexa, etc.) is an argument for not making the change, and for continued conversation. petrarchan47คุก 23:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that a close that says "Weak Keep to add to lede" actually means the opposite? What? The RFC was held, it was resolved. Trying again to get a different result, or arguing that actually yes means no isn't helpful. Parabolist (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

What I think he's saying is that the RfC was done after the change had already been made -- the close was a weak consensus to keep right-wing in the lede. Had the RfC been held before anything was changed, it could well have produced a different result. Also, note that consensus can change, and based on the discussion above there are likely at least a few editors who !voted one way in the RfC who might think differently today based on events in the past few months.

In addition, while I can see why it has been done, the recent semi-protection and especially the rapid archiving of active talk-page discussions is starting to bother me quite a bit. To me it's becoming reminiscent of an Orwellian-style system that goes through and removes any chance of opposition it might face. Highway 89 (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

"Owellian"? Yeesh, no. This isn't a forum for sharing the same tedious opinions over and over again, and if these posts start to pile up it only encourages more time-wasting. To facilitate improving the article, this page should be archived very frequently. CIreland has it exactly correct. We have to be very careful not to read too much into the raw quantity of "opposition". Grayfell (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell, I think the discussion is healthy. Anyway, I just removed the template at the top of this page because it inaccurately states that "Fascism is a right-wing ideology" and we know that is not true, but it led me to re-read the lede which states "Fascism is a form of radical right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. And I'm ok with it. I'm now wondering if it was that darned ole template at the top of this page that was causing me to subconsciously conflate it with the lead. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I restored the template, which is accurate, and which was the result of a consensus discussion. Cut the shit, Atsme. You've done nothing but be WP:Disruptive on this page, and it's most likely to wind up with you being sanctioned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Gee thanks for the 🔥 gaslighting 🔥. I'm thinking perhaps you're too close to be objective as the template's creator. Sorry, but it's ugly, inaccurate in its brevity, misrepresents the article, acts more like a WP:POV fork and serves no good purpose at the top of this page. It's an in-your-face imposition on every editor who disputes its accuracy. And you're accusing me of disruption? 🥂 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)