Talk:Fascism/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Collectivist?

An editor insists on this in the lede. The cite he gives is [21] which says on page 266 that "collectivism" is the key element in Communist and Fascist ideology. He asserts that the fasces in and of itself represents collectivism (interesting since it was on the US dime all through WW II). I guess the US was officially collectivist as a result <g>. I asked him to come here and make his case for this edit which he has insisted on through multiple reverts. Should he not do so, I would ask for the opinions of others whether "collectivist" should be added to radical, authoritarian and nationalist. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the fasces are on the US dime. But why would you think that maks the US fascist as a result? Images on currency are not the same thing as US government policy. What are you thinking? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The other editor made a big deal that the fasces as a symbol are inherently collectivist <g>. It is not my opinion for sure. "(No such thing as a non-collectivist fascist. The collectivism is even symbolized in the fascist symbol pictured. It's essential to fascism.)" Alas his cite says it is also Communist, which sorta takes some of the wind from his sails. Collect (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, fascism is collectivist, but this is redundant since we already have "nationalist." Nationalism is a form of collectivism, where the collective is the nation. PhilLiberty (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

But Nazi fascism wasn't nationalist but racist. These are both forms of collectivism. In the Italian version the individual sacrifices for the nation, in the Nazi version the individual sacrifices for the Aryan race. Collectivism covers them both. Introman (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Nazi fascism was clearly nationalist. A part of it was reclaiming German-speaking areas such as Sudetenland, and other German areas taken by the Treaty of Versailles. PhilLiberty (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It was nationalistic, but not at it's foundation is what I'm saying. In Nazi fascism the nation is secondary to the race, whereas the nation itself has a higher cause of serving the race. The highest collective exalted is the race. Not so for Italian fascism, where the most exalted collective is the state. Introman (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly fascism made some inroads into the U.S. The symbol on the dime is one of these influences. The U.S. isn't overall fascist but it is influenced by fascism and as a result has some fascist characteristics. Introman (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It's in plenty of sources as being essential to fascism, so there's no reason to remove it. Introman (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for specifying the dime is due to fascist inroads in the US. The "Mercury Dime" dates to 1916. Mussolini musta took fascism from TWW. <g>. Collect (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

this is a question for Collect which is why I am placing it after Collect's comments. I am not interested in what other's think, I am asking Collect: Yes, the fasces are on the US dime. But why would you think that maks the US fascist as a result? Images on currency are not the same thing as US government policy. What are you thinking?Slrubenstein | Talk 21:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I fear you misread my post. I specifically do not think the design of the dime has anything at all to do with collectivism or fascism, or anything much more than a traditional symbol dating back millenia. Introman is the one who is claiming that, not I. I fnd the copncept of claiming the design of the dime makes the US "fascist" to be quite far away from any rational position. Clear, I trust? Collect (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Clear. thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 22:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

But fascist IDEAS predate that is what I'm trying to say. Fascist ideas in the U.S. were first introduced by Alexander Hamilton, a collectivist. This is before it was called fascism. Introman (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying the U.S. is fascist. I'm saying it's partly fascist. It has a pretty clear collectivist/fascist influence, among these being the belief that the individual ought to sacrifice for the collective. You see this conspiciously in Obama's rheotoric, for example, speaking of "collective responsibility." Of course this fascist ideology is always in conflict with more traditional American ideology of individualism, where the individual ought to be left to pursue his untrammeled self interest. Introman (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

After FDR proposed the New Deal, Mussolini wrote an open letter congratulating Roosevelt for coming over to the fascist ideology. The War Boards of WWI and the New Deal industrial boards were virtually identical to Mussolini's corporatism. (Interestingly, the War Boards were labeled "war socialism" instead of the more accurate "war fascism.") Mussolini (and Hiter) were quite popular in the US in the 1930s, and generally got good press. PhilLiberty (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The New Deal and Fascism were both corporativist. That does not make the new Deal Fascist. There were different froms of coporativism popular at the time. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Italian and Nazi corporatism were different forms too. That doesn't make them both not fascist. Introman (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and the fact tht they are both European does not make the US European. Corporatism, which all three have in common, is not enough to make all three Fascist. If two are fascist, it is because they have other things in common (and not shared by the US) Slrubenstein | Talk 22:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Different writers have different definitions of fascism and differ on what they see as its essential characteristics, and also will include different groups in their lists of fascists. Therefore it is no surprise that we cannot agree on a definition. If we do we are giving undue weight to one opinion, synthesising secondary sources or using original thought, none of which provides for a good, balanced article. Perhaps we could say something like:

Fascism refers to the ideology and government of the Italian Fascist Party, to ideologies and governments modeled on them, and to similar ideologies and governments. There is no agreement over fascism's core aspects or which ideologies or governments are fascist.

The Four Deuces (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(out) It took a lot of work to get consensus on the current wording. Feel free to do a request for comment on any other version use [22] to make an RFC which wil be auto-posted to WP:RFC/A, but absent any new consensus forming, I suggest we stick with this as relatively clear and succinct. Else we will end up with the fifteen cite concatenation of the past. Collect (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I cannot see where consensus was formed, which explains why people are still posting to this discussion page. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

22 Archives here-- did you think this was all there was? See here though for "scope of article", "references", "actually taking shape", "classic liberalism" etc. where this took shape without argument over the course of mid-December to 11 February where you made no comments on the lede. On 26 Feb you commented about the lede "I finished high school, Collect, but I have no idea what you are talking about. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC) (from above) " The only real comment I found by you about the lede was that you wanted it to include a specific statement on April 6. Care to show me why a stable version for several months does not appear to have consensus? Collect (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What I said April 6 was "I think it would be helpful if the lead mentioned the dispute in the definition of fascism and its essential characteristics." It would have been helpful if you told me at that time that discussion was closed and no further changes could be made. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like we are discussing it -- but absent a consensus to muddy up the lede, I would suggest we discuss on the Talk page and not make the same edits over and over which are not in line with any consensus at all. Reasonable? Alas the prime mover for "collectivist" seems not to enter the discussion at this stage. Collect (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I am discussing this on the talk page and not making any edits at all. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Mussolini himself described fascism as collectivist and anti-individualist. That we're having this dispute is bizarre. Introman (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

And? That makes it a requirement that all fascists hold that position? Can we add "anti-inferior races", "anti-entrepeneurial", "anti-non-established church", "anti-disabled people", "anti-gold-standard"? A few hundred more which have been associated with "fascism" in at least one book -- and pile them all equally into the lede? I trust you see the problems on that path. This article was there once. Collect (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A philosophy which holds that an individual ought to put his own interest aside and serve the state is by definition collectivist! That's what political collectivism is. The collectivism of fascism is fundamental to it. Introman (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

By definition? Interesting that you use that claim. "collectivist adjective 1. subscribing to the socialistic doctrine of ownership by the people collectively " which does not correspond at all to your claim as to its definition. Collect (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you think the state is? It's a collective. "Both the extreme right (fascism) and extreme left (communism) of the political spectrum are extremely collectivist (the individual must subordinate self to the state)." --- Triandis, Harry Charalambos. Individualism and Collectivism. Westview Press, 1995p. 168 Introman (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered writing your own dictionary? Most people I know actually use the major ones, but I would be interested to see some of your definitions! Are dictionaries a bad source of definitions now? Collect (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

""collectivism has found varying degrees of expression in the 20th century in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. How many sources do I have to present for you to learn that fascism is collectivist?Introman (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(out) and perhaps you will note that the EB quote you give does not back your claims. (EB is tertiary source by the way) Collect (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations. You know "tertiary source" means. What's your point? Introman (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to establish what "collectivist" means in fascist philosophy. There are two sorts of collectivism: political or social collectivism, and economic collectivism. Fascism is definintely collectivist in social nature; however, economically, it strongly supports private property and the free market. It's the economy that's up to debate, in my opinion. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 09:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

With such a mjor dichotomy, ought we insert such a misleading term into the lede? Ought we return, as Introman seeks, to the old version with the entire bushel basket in the lede? Collect (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No fascism does not support private property and a free market. It supports government control over business, where ownership is shared by government and private sector and a highly regulated market. This is collectivist too, as it these business are required to serve the interests of the state. Introman (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Corporatism

Since corporatism is the primary economic manifestation of fascism and common to all fascist systems, I don't understand why some people here want to delete it. Please explain. PhilLiberty (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure you can stick anything as common to ALL forms of fascism. Even the Economics of Fascism article mentions there is no identity. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Soxwon (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You can't. Corporatism occurred chiefly in Mussolini's (not Hitler's) rhetoric; it had no substantial presence in Spain or Rumania (granted, Rumanian Fascism existed only in a wartime economy). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Rhetoric is less important than action - actual policies. Both Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany had corporatist policies. Here's DiLorenzo:

So- called corporatism was adopted in Italy and Germany during the 1930s and was held up as a "model" by quite a few intellectuals and policy makers in the United States and Europe. A version of economic fascism was in fact adopted in the United States in the 1930s and survives to this day. - Economic Fascism

As for Spain: "As a political and social system, corporatism reached the height of its influence earlier in the century in certain European countries: in Spain, it shaped the structure of labour relations during Primo de Rivera's dictatorship and Franco's regime."[23] Corporatism was just as much a part of fascism as authoritarianism. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

1. We deal with corporatism in a section now. 2. Some of the fascist groups so identified definitely were not corporatist. 3. If we add every concept which people associate with fascism we will have a totally unwieldy lede. 4. The purpose of a lede is not to be all-encompassing of everything in an article but rather to give a short easy-to-understand summary of the main points. WP:LEDE "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. (See news style and summary style.) Accordingly, editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, especially if they are not central to the article as a whole." "The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered, by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, give the location and time context. Also, establish the boundaries of the content of the article (for example List of environmental issues is only about the effects of human activity)." Note: "Covering every single topic in the article in the opening" is not part of the guideline. Collect (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Corporatism is mentioned in passing, with very dubious claims. I don't believe the claim that "German Nazism officially rejected it." There's a reference to a book with no quote. I have a quote saying "corporatism was adopted in Italy and Germany during the 1930s" contradicing that. 2. Name a fascist state without corporatism. I think corporatism is a necessary condition of fascism. In economic texts, fascism means corporatism. 3. Right, but we should add the important defining aspects of fascism, and corporatism is every bit as important as nationalism. 4. Corporatism is a main point of fascism. You don't understand fascism unless you understand its economic arrangement. PhilLiberty (talk) 04:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

How do you reconcile "fascists" who decidedly do not use "corporatism"? Seems that the exceptions rather make it hard to claim it is a necessary part of fascism. And, by the way, when I studied economics, the texts made no such claim. Collect (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There are no fascists who do not use corporatism. You have yet to name one. The econ section of the article is bullshit, and totally contradicts standard texts on fascism. E.g.

Noel O'Sullivan's five major themes of fascism: corporatism, revolution, the leader principle, messianic faith, and autarky.

The Fascism Reader by Aristotle A. Kallis:

"1. Corporatism. The most important claim made by fascism was that it alone could offer the creative prospect of a 'third way' between capitalism and socialism. Hitler, in Mein Kampf, spoke enthusiastically about the 'National Socialist corporative idea' as one which would eventually 'take the place of ruinous class warfare'; whilst Mussolini, in typically extravagant fashion, declared that 'the Corporative System is destined to become the civilization of the twentieth century.'"

It looks to me like someone is either making a false citation (making a claim and citing a book which doesn't support the claim, with no quote), or is citing a small minority opinion. Every citation I can find says corporatism is a necessary part of fascism. PhilLiberty (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've found that user Collect doesn't care whether sources are presented to him. He deletes material even if it's sourced. Introman (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As evident in the Neoconservative article you both need to learn to read on.

http://books.google.com/books?id=tP2wXl5nzboC&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=Noel+O'Sullivan+fascism&source=bl&ots=lpGcBoM-as&sig=YBJ64Ruip0c7vPlVh4ndB9PSb8M&hl=en&ei=DPDlSeeyBsSrtgeBk-yXAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA158,M1 Hitler's economic policies took a backseat to racial profiling. Those who insisted on economic corporatism were murdered. The Italians used corporatism, in the sense that any of the three conflicting views of economics presented by Mussolini were labeled corporatism. In essence, both talked about corporatism, but instead did many things that conflicted under the label of corporatism, which is what the text states. Soxwon (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because Hitler's corporatism didn't have top priority does not imply that the Nazi regime was not corporatist. And just because a State is inconsistent in its policies (like all governments) does not imply that it has no policy. This would be like saying that, since the USSR had local markets and a black market, that it wasn't communist. Clearly the Nazi regime's economic policy was corporatism. That their racial policy took priority does not negate that fact. The citation given supports the fact that Italy and Germany were corporatist. PhilLiberty (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you read? The article made it clear they were only corporatist in name not in practice, and if those advocating actual economic corporatism were put to death, that doesn't seem to leave room for the practice. Heck the Nazi paragraph starts off saying that the Nazi version and the Italian were different. It states clearly that it was coporatism in a "romantic sense rather than the economic sense." Soxwon (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read it, and it does not say or remotely imply that "they were only corporatist in name not in practice." It does discuss different interpretations of corporatism, and how its practice did not fully correspond to the theory. Please find a quote from it that says they were only corporatist in name only. You can't because it doesn't say that. PhilLiberty (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"Corporatism in this sense was obviously just a formula for warmongering," plz explain how this fits? Soxwon (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nationalism, racism, and the leader principle can also be used for warmongering. That in no way implies they were not fascist policies. You need to read earlier in the paragraph you quote - the part about how "the corporate system" was one "in which individuals and groups could use the State as a non-coercive[sic] device for maintaining voluntary[sic] self-discipline." Clearly corporatism. PhilLiberty (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you think National Socialism is? The Nazis obviously wanted to tie the Volk together, which is partially the definition of corporatism - that is, the theoretical side of the system which suggests "gathering the nation together in one corporate body." Of course, Nazi economics differ from the original, Italian corporatism; but the general idea of holding all people together and avoiding class war is entirely Third Positionist and corporatist. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm particularly concerned with the other definition of corporatism, the cartelization of the economy into industrial/corporate/regulatory boards. Of course, fascists are corporatist in the broader sense, too, but this seems to be covered by "nationalism." PhilLiberty (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that corporatism is a defining feature of all fascist regimes, especially economically, when you have the Nazis killing those who advocated the economic portion of corporatism (George Strasser was one such victim) and Mussolini changing its meaning to fit the situation. It meant first a new social order, merging the classes, then a new political order to keep discipline (and in this interpretation, he stated it was tied to no one political system and thus doesn't seem to be a part of fascism), then finally a new form of democracy (which conveniently allowed him to take over Parlaiment). All this shows it was really just a convenient term to further his agenda. If Italy can't keep it's role straight, and Germany de-emphasized its role in the economic sphere, how can you claim it's a tenent of ALL fascist economies? Soxwon (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that Italian Fascism didn't influence other European fascist movements entirely. It served as a core from which the general Fascist ideology spread. Other fascist movements still had their own local agendas and policies. Therefore, the fact that Mussolini was highly opportunistic and rarely stuck to his word doesn't mean other European fascists didn't, either. Spain's corporatism, as far as I know, was pretty successful. Every historical fascist movement supported the Third Position - it's a necessary element if you want to distance yourself from communism and capitalism. I'm not entirely sure about Japanese fascism; I'm not thoroughly documented. But it's only rational that various fascists practiced corporatism to varying degrees. Just like contemporary countries practice democracy to varying degrees - some practice capital punishment, some don't. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

But to say it was the primary economic manifestation is ludicrous given the complexity and diversity demonstrated. While it was a facet to some degree, I don't think it was as prominent a feature as authortarianism and nationalism. Soxwon (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If you look at it from a purely economic standpoint, that is, the behaviour of the economic units, then collectivist behaviour would be an accurate description of the way the fascist governments expected their idealistic economies to behave. Nationalism and authoritarianism are political behaviours, not econonomic ones. However, the economic policies were secondary and subservient to the political ones - war, domination, strength of the nation. That may be the unifying theme here, that the economics was, and is, so overpowered by the political agenda that the fascist economies could only be subservient to the inevitable political adventures in war and nationalism that follows fascists gaining power. Mdw0 (talk) 08:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Since all fascist regimes engage in corporatism more or less successfully, there is nothing "ludicrous" about saying so. Sure, there is diversity in how corporatism is implemented, beginning with which firms/unions to favor. But that's only to be expected - it's the nature of corporatism. PhilLiberty (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What happened? Someone found a single source sympathetic to corporatism, wherein the author made an ad hoc addition to the definition of corporatism in his book to exclude fascist regimes. This is ridiculous. One might note that there exist people who deny that fascism is corporatist, but simply excluding a consensus defining characteristic is not right. PhilLiberty (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Saxwon, you haven't answered why your one guy, who simply makes an ad hoc stipulation that corporatism can't be totalitarian overrides the historians who consider corporatism to be an integral part of fascism. PhilLiberty (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello all, just wandered in here and was puzzled by the NPOV tag. Is this the discussion in relation that?--Happysomeone (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The dispute I believe was made by an editor who I believe is alone, Introman and I had reached an agreement. R-7 moved what was in the intro to the economics section and I'll await what discussion ensues to comment further. Personally I like Introman's FINAL (not the one PhilLiberty tried to put in) version best. Soxwon (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Despite leading experts on fascism saying that corporatism is a defining feature, such as Noel O'Sullivan and Aristotle A. Kallis quoted above, two editors want to leave corporatism out of the lede. That is what this particular discussion is about. This just in: Russia Today Interviews Gerald Celente. Celente says:

America is going from what used to be the major capitalistic country in the world of free market – a crusader – into what Mussolini would have called fascism: the merger of state and corporate powers. So it is not socialism as people believe, it is socialism’s egalitarianism. It’s not communism where the state controls monopolies – it’s fascism, plain and simple. The merger of corporate and government powers. State-controlled capitalism is called fascism, and fascism has come to America in broad daylight. But they’re feeding them it in little bits and pieces. First AIG was too big to fail. Mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were too big to fail. Banks too big to fail and auto companies. And now we give money to the people that make the auto parts. And now there’s talk about the technology companies, wanting their piece of the action. The merger of state and government is called fascism. Take it from Mussolini; he knew a thing or two about it.

The two editors seem to want to censor out this aspect of fascism, for who knows what reason. PhilLiberty (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Your "source" does not help your cause. Gerald Celeste is not a WP:RS. Soxwon (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The sources cited in the article (first footnote) are Noel O'Sullivan[24] and Aristotle A. Kallis[25]. Reliable enough for you? PhilLiberty (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, is the guy who wrote the book on corporatism good enough for you? Soxwon (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Here is a link about Howard J. Wiarda[26]. He's a good source, but he doesn't override the two who disagree with him. And as noted above, Wiarda gives no rationale for his ad hoc claim that corporatism can't be fascist. The other experts think it can. Nor does Wiarda support his claim that fascism is always totalitarian. Fascism is authoritarian, but not necessarily totalitarian. By taking "corporatist" out of the initial definition, you seem to be claiming that Wiarda's opinion trumps all the other experts. My version of the lede acknowledges that some (like Wiarda, the only one we know of) disagree that corporatism is part of fascism. So I'm putting it back in. PhilLiberty (talk) 06:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

lede

Is anyone at all in favor of the bloated lead we now have? It is, IMHO, nearly the worst one we have had, but the proponent is pursuing a claim that I am specifically editwarring against him -- so if others do not apprecuiate this sort of edit, please make it clear. Collect (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the edit has to be VERY concise and its points that are not widely disputed, and that are based on reliable sources that show the intentions of fascism as an ideology. As there are many half-rate scholars like Jonah Goldberg who publish material about fascism that is completely biased (i.e. I say Goldberg is half-rate because his arguments in his book "Liberal Fascism" were totally torn apart by an amateur interviewer who took the time to read actual quotations of Benito Mussolini that totally discredited Goldberg's argument). And now this VERY IMPORTANT POINT : It is true that Hitler and the Nazis initially endorsed corporatism as being in line with National Socialism, but it is also true that the Nazis later abandoned their support of corporatism because they claimed that it institutionalized class division and class identity which was not in the interests of the Nazis' pursuit of a unified biological community of the German nation. (Bear in mind that I am a moderate socialist social democrat, so I am not using socialist in a pejorative manner). Read page 49 of Mark Neocleous' 1997 book that is simply titled Fascism, it is where I found out about Nazism's stance on corporatism. However it is accurate that Nazism like Italian Fascism was seeking a third way from communism and modern capitalism (i.e. supercapitalism as Italian Fascism described it). Nazism's early support of corporatism was not a violation of socialist principles because Mussolini himself said that corporatism could be defined as state capitalism or state socialism, as he claimed that both were the same thing: they both involved government bureaucratization of the economy. (Bear in mind that I am a moderate socialist social democrat, so I am not using socialist in a pejorative and accusing manner). Another important point: Some say that fascism cannot be generic because of differences between fascist movements, this is a flawed argument. Mark Neocleous in his book which I mentioned earlier, addresses this flaw. Neocleous says differences between fascist movements occured because they were all nationalists who based their agenda on their nation's history. For example, Neocleous says that Italian Fascism spoke of the supremacy of the state, because it saw states as the founders of nations because of Italy's history of the Roman Republic being responsible for unifying the people of Rome, thus people are indebted to the state. Neocleous says that Nazism did not speak of the state as the founder of nations and instead spoke of the supremacy of the Volk (meaning either: people, nation, or community) because of the German nation's history of not having a single state that created its culture, thus the state is indebted to the Volk. Anti-semitism of the Nazis was rooted in German history, while anti-semitism was not rooted in Italian history, so it was not an objective of the Italian Fascists. Plus one final point: If a generic agreement is impossible about fascism, why would Mussolini give groups like the Nazis and the Ustase training grounds in Italy prior to them taking power? Why would Hitler and the idolize Mussolini, copy Italian Fascism's view of national conflict and war as "revolution", propose a "March on Berlin", copy the Roman Salute, propose to copy corporatism, continuously attempt to seek alliance with Mussolini despite tensions over Austria if he did not agree with core principles of fascism itself? Why would Nazis themselves say that Hitler was "Germany's Mussolini" if they did not admire Mussolini and his fascist regime? Why would Mussolini in 1933 say "Hitler's victory is our victory" if he did not see close similarities between his and Hitler's agenda? If the answer to these is that they are all just multiple coincidences combined with multiple close similarities that cannot possibly be attributed to a generic fascism, then I would say that any scholar who says this has not done her or his research well, because the Nazis self-described their attachment to Italian Fascism's views and held extremely similar points of view with only minor differences. Generic fascism is the formula of fascism, individual differences on one or two minor issues with Italian Fascism while agreeing with everything else does not mean a negation of it being fascist, it just means that it has minor differences that it is adjusting for, for the sake of the nation (i.e. Italian Fascism connected itself with Roman Catholicism to spur national unity, but British Fascism never connected itself with Roman Catholicism because such was not useful for national unity).--UNSC Trooper (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the edit has to be thoroughly thought out. On R41's note: that's more or less my thinking, too. Fascism has to be different in order to satisfy a nation's needs; this is local fascism. Unlike Marxist socialism, which has a pre-determined international agenda. Oh and, R41, I removed that reference tag you inserted halfway into your text. Not sure what it was supposed to mean. Hope it's okay. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps searching for a "generic" or consensual, or all-purpose definition of fascism is counter-productive to the authors here and to readers. I don't at all regard Collect's drafts or the other authors as attempting something so simplistic, yet as with the "political spectrum" thread, the discussion keeps coming around to examples and counterexamples to try to illuminate the "core principles". I am reminded that in Michel Foucault's "Society Must Be Defended" (1977), he writes: "the nonanalysis of fascism is one of the most important political facts of the last thirty years". The above talk and the WP article itself takes me a long way in trying to understand fascism historically. Perhaps the analysis flounders on competing economic/political/ideological/historical frameworks that simply aren't up to the task. If I am to use the term "fascism" or "fascist" historically and analytically, then it helps to know that it is a series of historically contingent movements, alliances, and appropriations which were locally very useful.68.42.27.11 (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not counterproductive to find a generic definition of fascism, it is a worthwhile endeavor. I have said this repeatedly but I will say it again, the only people who can never be satisfied with the definition of fascism are capitalists and Marxists, because capitalists want to say that it is a form of far-left socialism while Marxists and the far-left try to say that it was far-right capitalism. I am a social democrat but I recognize that the Marxists are exaggerating just as the capitalists are. Fascism rejected the extremes of BOTH modern capitalism AND communism. They opposed both of them because they both were internationalist ideologies which fascists claimed caused class conflict and thus the division of nations. Mussolini left it up in the air himself about Italian Fascism's position on capitalism vs. socialism, saying that fascism's economic system of corporatism could either be seen as state capitalism or state socialism which he claimed were the same thing but he opposed modern capitalism and communism. All Fascists were radical nationalists who saw an authoritarian single-party state as necessary to repel both modern capitalism and communism. For the history of why it arose in Italy here is the summary: 1914 = World War I, Italy divided between nationalists wanting to join the war to regain Italian populated territory from Austria-Hungary and anti-war activists including communists who opposed the war as a "bourgeois war". In 1914, Mussolini - a communist at the time who felt attachment to the cause of liberating Italians from Austro-Hungarian rule suggested that Italy remain at peace, but favour France, Russia, and Britain - the communists in the Italian Socialist Party were outraged at Mussolini, they kicked him out of the party. Mussolini was now alienated and felt that the communists had betrayed Italy, he turned pro-war and joined the nationalist camp where he was more respected. 1917 = Russian Revolution + violent strikes in Milan. The Russian Revolution brings in the totalitarian Bolshevik government of Vladimir Lenin who calls for revolutions across Europe and the world to end the "bourgeois war". Milan has such a revolt, communists and anarchists engage in mass violence, many people are killed, the Italian army has to be sent in to put down the revolt. Mussolini and the nationalist camp grow absolutely outraged at the communists and socialists and others who are creating such class conflict which they see as tearing the Italian nation apart during a war to unifying Italians in Austria into Italy. 1918 = war ends. 1919 = Peace agreement, the peace agreement does not fulfill the aspirations of Italian nationalists who claimed Dalmatia as historically a part of Italy. The communists support the predominantly Slav residents in Dalmatia and support the Wilsonian concept of self-determination of all nations. Now the nationalists and communists are absolutely opposed to each other. Later in 1919, Italian nationalist Gabriele d'Annunzio captures the Croatian town of Fiume, the Italian government opposes d'Annunzio's aggressive move. Mussolini copies d'Annunzio's blackshirted militia and title of Duce and forms a nationalist movement dedicated to honouring soldiers of World War I, the Italian Fascist movement in late 1919. One of its goals then was to overthrow the Italian liberal government for its failure to press for Italy to gain Dalmatia and the other goal was to destroy those communists, pacifists and anti-nationalist socialists who the Fascists and other nationalists saw as to blame for problems in Italy's war effort. After 1919, Mussolini made accomodations to socially right-wing nationalists by lessening Fascism's initial far-left economics that proposed mass nationalization, and eventually to a centre-left economic system of corporatism to appease both the moderate political left while advocating socially right-wing policies of supporting the concept of a social hierarchy of nations and races, union of church and state, promoting traditional family values, and defining women's role as a mother and a caretaker while men were defined as a worker and a warrior.--R-41 (talk) 05:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

By appealing to nationalists, workers, left-wingers, right-wingers, and elites through means to accomodate them in a state dedicated to absolute national unity and national progress, Mussolini mustered a coalition of support to keep out communists and liberals by rejecting communism's internationalist egalitarian and class conflict approach while rejecting liberalism (in the classical liberal sense of the time) for supporting representative democracy in Italy which then as is now has been extremely fractioned among multiple factions, making effective government extremely difficult. Fascism also blamed classical liberalism for its support of individualism and international capitalism at the expense of national unity and a collective national conscience. Fascism rejects all movements advocating anti-nationalism, class conflict, representative democracy, egalitarianism, internationalism, individualism, and pacifism. While communism sees the world in conflict between classes, fascism sees the world in conflict between nations or races. Fascism in a sense is Bolshevik communism's nationalist rival, they both advocate a single-party state and totalitarian rule, but their objectives are different because they view the world differently. Oh, and I forgot to mention earlier, a major influence for Italian Fascism was the Italian Nationalist Association (ANI). The ANI aroused revolutionary nationalism during World War I, claiming that war was a form of revolution and that the ANI was willing to tear down the government and the monarchy if Italy did not join the war to regain Italian territory. A number of ANI members, including its corporatist economist Alfredo Rocco became a highly influential Fascist as did another ANI member, Luigi Federzoni. The ANI's major spokesperson and de facto leader, Enrico Corradini,preached left-wing nationalism that spoke of Italy as a "proletarian nation" and called for "national socialism" was influential on Mussolini, because he too initially thought of creating a "national socialist" movement during WWI prior to founding Fascism, and afterwards he too spoke of Italy as a proletariat nation fighting against bourgeois nations and Bolshevik nations. Also, Mussolini like the ANI spoke of war as a form of revolution. I hope this is helpful--R-41 (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As I reread the discussion under the "lede", I am again struck by the confoundedness of defining fascism. Counfounded because the evidence offered in favor of a "generic" definition is always grounded in historically specific examples. I do not propose that we abandon a worthy endeavor to try to understand it, nor should we fail to muster reliable scholarship for this purpose. As an introduction to the article, however, I was trying to suggest, historically, fascism has been extraordinarily resilient and pliable (or like jelly). The discussions under numerous headings throughout the talk (e.g., religion, gender, nationalism, statism) suggest that fascism must be understood in its various historical and geo-political incarnations. I brought up Foucault before because this discussion has required people to revisit a whole host of central concepts (liberalism, war, power) before the discussion can progress. That is important to acknowledge, and when the nuances of the discussion are lost, then subsequent analyses suffer.68.42.27.11 (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Lisa (I apologize for failing to sign my previous comment except as assigned as "User talk:68.42.27.11".

Since even historians and political scientists disagree on the definition, I put in a sentence to that effect. I also added two lists of defining characteristics. To wit:

Historians and political scientists disagree on a precise definition, however; some would omit one or more of the preceding themes, while others would add many more.

I hope this is satisfactory to everyone. PhilLiberty (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Old version did that too, but I'm happy with either, though the second smacks a bit of weasel wording (not your fault not sure how else you'd say it). Soxwon (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Fascism is defined by the first four sources as a combined phrase of radical and authoritarian nationalist ideology not a radical AND authoritarian AND nationalist ideology

Someone keeps changing the intro phrase to one that is disconnected. Fascism is essentially a "radical and authoritarian nationalist ideology" as said by four sources. The SUBJECT and PURPOSE of fascism = nationalism, the MEANS to achieve its subject and purpose = radicalism + authoritarianism. But it is not a radical AND authoritarian AND nationalist ideology, because that divides the purpose in three, it is radical and authoritarian in pursuing its nationalist goals. Now I urge the person to please consult the discussion page before reverting this again because a minor change of words can alter the entire meaning of a sentence.--R-41 (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lucy: "Perhaps searching for a 'generic' or consensual, or all-purpose definition of fascism is counter-productive to the authors here and to readers." That is the cause of lengthy discussion and numerous edits.

The problem with finding a definition is that we must first identify the population (who is a fascist). But in order to determine who is a fascist you need a definition (what is a fascist). The definition radical and authoritarian nationalist ideology applies to groups that are not universally considered fascist, like third world dictatorships. On the other hand, if we reject some of those groups, then the definition cannot be comprehensive.

The Four Deuces (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if you can define it all? Mussolini made a speech saying that system was adaptable to the environment as noted above and indeed, the system is designed to work under any circumstances and be tweaked to fit need. Soxwon (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be mentioned that there are varying definitions of fascism, some broader which may include groups not generally considered fascist, and narrower ones that exclude some groups that are considered members of the club. There is no clear definition - it is this conceot that must be made clear. Mdw0 (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me weigh in here one more time. I have reread pertinent chunks of the article and the discussion, and I realize that this discussion has occurred many times, frustrating all concerned, and I apologize for that. Taking my cue from The Four Deuces, Soxwon, and Mdw0 who have picked up the concern, at the end of long discussions of corporatism, collectivism, and the unwieldy introduction that Collect identifies as one of the article's weaknesses, I hope my comment will help. In two key places in the article, the editors have made very clear that what fascism was and is have been hotly contested by scholars. These important qualifiers occur in the Definition and in the section on Variations and Subforms. When I reread the article's introduction, however, fascism appears as a timeless "is" before it slips into an historically specific example in the sixth sentence. As I have tried to argue, perhaps unsuccessfully, there was, indeed, a factual, historical, and verifiable emergence of fascism. What it was and how it influenced and was influenced by contemporaneous events and forces is supremely important. It was a "radical and authoritarian nationalist ideology", so I adhere to R-41's phrasing and reasoning. I only object to the "is"--as the present tense implies that fascism is an essential and therefore timeless form of polis.

Readers should be able read the article and come away being able to separate the perjorative sense of fascism and its overuse, from the historical and analytic sense that allows comparison to similar though not identical movements elsewhere. Now, if my quibbling over "is" is taken as a claim that fascism cannot be historically defined nor analyzed from then to the present, then I have done a disservice. On the other hand, if we can agree to situate it historically and then use the many many scholars to recognize that its roots are far deeper than the 20th century, and also to agree that subsequent movements share many if not most of those "radical and authoritarian nationalist" tenets, then the section on Variations and Subforms can incorporate and subsume the article's subheadings of: non-universal characteristics, demographics of race, gender, social darwinism, religion, and parafascisms today (not necessarily in that order). I place no further personal stake on this article other than to distinguish past and present forms. Thank you all for a most stimulating discussion. (Lisa/Lucy) 68.42.27.11 (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Political spectrum

I removed the following because it is ambiguous, unsupported by the citations and in fact contradicts most reliable sources: Historians do not place all fascists in the same position on the political spectrum - groups have been placed "left, right and center," or not even in the spectrum at all. However another editor has re-inserted it. The sentence should not be re-inserted until it has been properly written and properly sourced. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The same editor has reversed my deletion with the notation "three cites is enough for spectrum". The Four Deuces (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

First -- you were the one who suggested the wording which you now delete. Second - the sources fully support the sentence. I shall add more, or course, now that three is insufficient. Collect (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No matter how many sources one cites saying that 2+2=4 it still does not support the statement that 2+2=5. Having said that may I request that you read the citations for this sentence. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

With seven sources now for the wording in the sentence, and since you were the one who suggested the sentence, and per WP:V == the sources are verifiable which is what WP requires, and considering I am willing to give another seven sources, might you decide to accept the fact that the sentence is sourced enough? Collect (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, the references do not back up the sentence's assertion. The first one added (Woolf), for example. says that British Fascism "made some historians uncertain where to place fascism in the political spectrum" (my italics). but the word some is omitted from the lead sentence. It is incorrect to give undue weight to minority views. But the lede sentence does not even say that individual historians have uncertainty, so the reference is irrelevant. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(out)If SOME historians disagree, then it is clear that historians disagree. It is the opposite of saying that all historians agree. And with seven cites now, of which several specifically refer to left, right and center, it is clearly fully cited. And agaoin, I am willing to add another seven here. Collect (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The lead sentence does not say that historians disagree, rather that they do not place all fascists in the same position on the political spectrum. Conceivably they are in agreement over which fascists are leftists, rightists, centrists, or outside the political spectrum. The sentence is ambiguous. As for historians disagreeing, historians disagree on many things, but articles should describe significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence (See: WP:Fringe theories. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Since it says no such thing, I wonder what you are worried about. And I submit that Schlesinger is a prominent historian ... see [27] "the moderate right and the moderate left are side by side against fascism and Communism " from The Vital Center: The Politics of Freedom

By Arthur Meier Schlesinger, "Arthur M. , Jr." Schlesinger Published by Westview Press, 1988 ISBN 0306803232, 9780306803239 274 pages Collect (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you referring to when you say since it says no such thing? I did not say that it said anything. I said it was ambiguous. Also, you have provided a link to a source that presents the mainstream view of fascism as right-wing, and shows this in a diagram. May I suggest that you read the references you provide and re-write the lead sentence to reflect what the sources actually say. Let me summarize. The lead sentence you are defending is ambiguous and the citations do not support any possible interpretation of it. Therefore I will delete it because it is confusing and misleading to readers. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

How many cites do you want?

Historians do not place all fascists in the same position on the political spectrum - groups have been placed "left, right and center," or not even in the spectrum at all.

Appears quite fully cited at this point. If you disagree, please post an RfC. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. Before we discuss this extensive list, I would be appreciative if you could clear up the ambiguity in the statement: Historians do not place all fascists in the same position on the political spectrum - groups have been placed "left, right and center," or not even in the spectrum at all. Could you please explain what this means. I read it to mean: All historians are agreed in placing various fascists or fascist groups across the political spectrum from left to right and other groups outside the spectrum. But that theory fell apart in earlier discussions. Perhaps you could elucidate. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It was your wording -- recall. There is no specific opinion about facists groups and their position in the olitical spectrum. Some historiams have placed some in the left, soe place some in the right, some place some in the center, and there is no single "one size fits all" which historians en bloc plaace fascists in. And some (in fact many) feel the entire left-right dichotomy does not work for fascism in the first place. You were upset at "do not agree" and so we went with your choice of words. Currently it should have enough cites to show that not all hstorians agree, that, in fact, the issue of "left right or center" is not only not regarded with anywhere unanimity, that many feel it is not an aswerable question at all. It defi itely does not ' mean "historians are agreed in placing various fascists or fascist groups across the political spectrum from left to right" or anythiong remotely close to that claim. If historians feel the "spectrum" bit is impossible to use for fascists as a single group, then that is pretty clear. And while you opined at length, the sources (and WP is about csources, and not about individual opinions) support the sentence quite well. I have another 20 or more ready to add, but if you wish to continue, please use an RfC on the topic. At this point, you are the only one here who disputes the validity of the statement. Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Your statement: There is no specific opinion about facist groups and their position in the political spectrum. Some historians have placed some in the left, some place some in the right, some place some in the center, and there is no single "one size fits all" in which historians en bloc place fascists. And some many feel the entire left-right dichotomy does not work for fascism in the first place. (edited for typos)

This statement at least is unambiguous even though it is unsupported by the references. You should replace the ambiguous sentence with this passage so that at least we can agree on what it is we are disagreeing upon. Even if there is an RfC, at least it will be clear what is in dispute. Please do not take these comments to mean that I agree with you. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Then I am willing to go the la nguage which you gave the current wording as your improved version. Collect (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Political Spectrum New Lead Sentence

The sentence now reads:

Historians do not agree on the place of all fascists on the political spectrum, whether fascism is left, right or center, or even whether the political spectrum is properly applied to various fascist groups at all.

However, please refer to WP:Undue: Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each....Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view. Most of the basis for the sentence comes from Lipset's 1960 essay in Political Man. Lipset was the only author to state that fascists could belong to either the left, right or center. Salazar in Portugal was an example of a right-wing fascist, while Peron in Argentina was an example of a left-wing fascist. But the editors of the article do not accept Salazar and Peron as fascists, and this theory is is not defended today. So the claim Historians do not agree on the place of all fascists on the political spectrum is false.

Lipset's article is also the main source of fascism as centrism, which is where he placed Italian and German fascism. But again this is a minority view. so the dispute "whether fascism is left, right or center" is providing equal weight to mainstream and fringe views.

Incidentally of the 11 references that Collect provided, 3 refer to pages directly quoting Lipset. The majority of the other sources are quoted out of context or do not support the sentence. For example Collect quotes Illusions of Grandeur as stating "Fascism can be described as a sort of authoritarian centrism". But several lines later it says "It is more usual for fascism to be defined as a movement of the right...."

So please re-write the sentence to reflect neutrality. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

And EIGHT do not. I shall gladly add more -- now that you refuted your own wording, refuted the compromise wording -- where to next? I am willing to put this up for RfC if you like. Collect (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Left-wing, Right-wing Political spectrum issue: Addressing inconsistencies and assumptions

One of the worst forms of interpretations of fascism is the left-wing versus right-wing political spectrum analysis. First of all, as a left-wing social democrat I will admit that the political left all too easily lumps fascism on the political right, just as the political right all too easily lumps fascism on the political left. The problem is that the position where people stand on the political spectrum will affect their views, i.e. fascism is accepted as being to the right of communism but to the left of laissez-faire capitalism. But what does left-wing and right-wing really mean? My assumption is that the judgement of left-wing versus right-wing that results in fascism being branded right-wing is if left-wing equals egalitarianism and cooperation (both social and economic) and right-wing equals competition (not just economic competition, but social competition) and a socially hierarchical based society. If left-wing stands for egalitarianism, and right-wing stands for competition as well as economic and/or social hierarchy, then fascism is right-wing. However this view of putting social and economic views together may overemphasize the social side, as economically right-wing people who are in favour of competition and social hierarchy usually want minimal government intervention, while economically left-wing people who favour economic egalitarianism and economic cooperation want significant government regulation, in this case generic fascism on economical issues is anti-egalitarian, supports the preservation of social hierarchy (i.e. class hierarchy) but wants economic cooperation and class collaboration for the sake of national unity as part of nationalism and uses large government intervention when the government deems that a private enterprise is failing to fulfill society's needs, this could place fascism as economically centrist, centre-left or centre-right. So if my assertions about social and economic left-wing and right-wing views are correct, it appears that the economic Third Position or Third Way centrism is what fascism is economically, but socially, it is much more right-wing, in the definition of social right-wing that I described above. If fascism is socially right-wing, that would explain its ability to gain support from socially right-wing groups and individuals which is what many authors focus on pointing out when the say fascism is right-wing. I say this to urge people to look into indepth reviews of fascism, especially by scholars who focus on the subject of fascism like Roger Griffen and Stanley Payne, rather than poor sources like the average dictionary or a book which mentions fascism briefly, which is written by someone who wants a concise definition and does not have significant knowledge on the subject.--R-41 (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Contrariwise, the problem is that what we settle on "radical authoritarian nationalism" is not really a spectrum issue, as RS cites here point out. Many "right wingers" are opposed to governmant interventionism in the economy, and may "left wing" egalitatians favor government interventionism, for example. And most "social right wingers" in the US are highly opposed to any sort of rigid government authority - hence the percentage of gun toters, and number of religious sects. Fascists want everything neat and orderly, which means no guns wandering around, and government controls over religion (found in Germany, Italy and ther fascist areas). Socially, I submit Putin is quite "fascist" even though his background is "communist." And, of course, many of Mussolini's first supporters were socialists. I rather suggest, moreover, that fascism appeals primarily on a pragmatic v. idealist axis and not a right-left axis, and not really just on an anarchist-dictatorship axis. In WW II "fascist supporters" were basically congruent with Germans and Italians in the US as far as any documentation is concerned, and most of them had a social democrat sort of background. The postwar pejorative usage is not really part of what we should consider "fascism." But heck, there are still hundreds of words not actually related to "fascism" at all in the article still <g>. And societies which have everyone agreeing will stagnate (hence the reason why Egypt developed precisely to that point, then stopped, China went to that stage a few times, then was overrun, Rome got to that state, and the Vandals arrived, etc.) Collect (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem may be what spectrum you use. The one used by academics is right/center/left = upper/middle/working class (aristocrat/capitalist/labor) = conservative/liberal/social democrat. [In this spectrum, both major American parties are liberal, although they call themselves conservatives and liberals (roughly similar to conservative liberals and social liberals)].

Economic and social policies do not determine where a group fits on the spectrum, rather they are developed to advance class interests, and change over time.

Traditionally the fascists were seen as protecting the upper class and hence on the right. But fascists put themselves outside the political spectrum, and Griffin and Payne agree. They meant that they did not represent a class. Lipset interprets that as a middle class position which places them in the centre.

The Four Deuces (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha! The problem is the spectrum you say "academics" use is not used by all academics at all. In fact, I can not find any current academic article making the claim you made as to what the spectrum is. Perhaos you can give a cite for your claim precisely? Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You are probably much more up to date with modern scholarly journals than I am. But Lipset explained it in his article "Fascism -- Left, Right and Center" a version of which can be found here, published as "Fascism as 'Extremism of the Middle Class'": http://books.google.ca/books?id=tP2wXl5nzboC&pg=PA112&lpg=PA112&dq=fascism+left+right+center+lipset&source=bl&ots=lpGbtoOW6x&sig=tA17CmwRAY8Dj1wRND3nycgJNFg&hl=en&ei=hX7KSf6uDsbrnQf897WNAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

By the way, please do not use terms like "Aha!", "(sigh)" and "your claim", put academic in quotes, overuse italics and bold type, end your comments with "Thanks" and generally take a confrontational and condescending attitude. It's immature and impolite and does nothing to encourage discussion.

The Four Deuces (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your editorial guidance -- I have only been online for 27 years now which means I probably have made more posts than you. (I have read read over 4 billion words online which I suspect is more than you have read ever and had to virus check about a terabyte of files). Show me your precise cite for "The one used by academics is right/center/left = upper/middle/working class (aristocrat/capitalist/labor) = conservative/liberal/social democrat. " Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the article? The Four Deuces (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I read the article, and it does not support your claim as quoted. Gosh -- ya think it might not be supported by that article as you cited it? Collect (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you think it says then? (BTW, looking at the article, it is an abridged version of the original, 46 pages reduced to 8, but still shows how the spectrum is used. You can find the full article in Political Man, which is on Questia. I noticed this because I wondered how Collect could read the whole article so fast.) The Four Deuces (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Lipset states that the origins of "left-right" went back to the late 18th century, and were expanded in the nineteenth century. The left were egalitarisn, the right was aristocratic. Further that class lines are not the only marker of political behaviour (he cites religion and regions as example for this). He specifically does not claim that a "left right" spectrum is particularly valid (indeed he says it is not); he does not assert that class differences are the sole marker on the spectrum (in fact he says the opposite). So you are using a cite which claims, in fact, the opposite of your assertion. And this is in common with his other works, so you can not claim you just chose the wrong one. Collect (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I note you later added a comment about "8 pages" -- when this first came up months ago I read well over fifty pages on the topic, so the eight pages was nothing. I already knew what the rest said. Collect (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"class lines are not the only marker of political behaviour, ... does not assert that class differences are the sole marker on the spectrum...the right was aristocratic". So in what way does he say that class is a marker in the political spectrum? The Four Deuces (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Lipset quotes Robert M. MacIver, The Web of Government (1947), pp. 216, 315 on p. 222 of Political Man: "The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the center that of the middle classes". The Four Deuces (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the Lipset cite you gave where he makes it clear that class is NOT the only determinant on the political spectrum? I do not see how he could have made it any more clear than he did. Collect (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I searched for the word "not" in the article and could not find it. Could you please provide the quote and page number. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Since Lipset named other factors, it would seem that it is an odd cavil indeed to say that he must use the word "not" when he gives the specific counter examples. Did the counter-examples (such as religion and region) escape your notice in the article you cited? Collect (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just trying to find your quote. I could not find where Lipset "named other factors", or "when he gives the specific counter examples". And yes, "the counter-examples (such as religion and region)" escaped my notice. Could you please provide the quote and page number. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Quickly, your cite page 113 "other dimensions, like religious differences or regional conflicts, account for political behavior which does not follow class lines." Page 117 "Data from a number of countries demonstrate that classic fascism is a movement of the propertied middle classes, who for the most part normally support liberalism, and that it is opposed by the conservative strata ..." Lipset goes into much more detail in his books, however. Collect (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You just proved my point. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop the viscious arguing. Let's think this through rationally and discuss not argue, as this is a discussion not an arguing page. On the social side, fascism is commonly seen as right-wing - i.e. it is anti-egalitarian, it favours social hierarchy and social competition over social equality. Economically it is commonly seen as centrist, centre-right, or centre-left (i.e. supports the preservation of classes, supports private property, supports private enterprise but is willing to use social welfare and government intervention to solve economic problems). From a social perspective, the argument that fascism is "far-right" or "radical-right" may be very accurate, but economically, they are not located on the extreme right as that would mean total economic competition, total economic hierarchy, and total rejection of government intervention into the economy based on the concept of total economic competition. Fascists allow a significant degree of economic competition and economic hierarchy but not that would come at the expense of national unity. Fascists would intervene in the economy when private enterprise failed or was insufficient, or to promote national unity. The Dopolavoro system in Fascist Italy and KdF in Nazi Germany were two examples of major social welfare and government assistance programs that provided goverment subsidized recreation and entertainment facilities, government construction projects for the unemployed, and government-subsidized vacations for workers that were very economically left-wing in nature.--R-41 (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I may be totally wrong here, but isnt the political spectrum political, not economic? Of course certain political bents generally enforce certain economic standpoints on the behaviour of government, but that's only one small aspect of economics. Surely if there is an economic spectrum it exists on multiple planes both macro and microeconomic, and doesnt closely correspond with any political one. There are plenty of left-wing groups who are anti-government, especially the Anarchists, and plenty of conservatives who support government intervention such as protectionism. The link between a political and economic spectrum, if either of those things coherently exist, is tenuous to say the least. I think the assumption of certain economic preferences to left or right wingers is heavily influenced by today's mid-range social democrats, liberals and conservatives, who may be large, influential groups today, but in the range of political viewpoints only occupy limited space in the centre of the political landscape, and whose policies are very similar, but whose minor differences are highlighted in the media. Mdw0 (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Classical Liberalism when comparing economic fascism , see: The concise encyclopedia of economics -Fascism . I don't see how one can avoid clarifying classical liberalism with it's laissez-faire economics for some points in this article. There's a difference to the liberal social arguments with when one is basing them on an economic model of laissez-faire capitalism vs. the socialism/fascism/communism - IMO. Keyword, property rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.9.79 (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

First sentence of "Fascism in the political spectrum"

Currently, the first sentence has only 11 refs. Is the sentence properly cited? Is the sentence not neutral? —Collect (via posting script) 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the current first sentence:

Historians do not agree on the place of all fascists on the political spectrum, whether fascism is left, right or center, or even whether the political spectrum is properly applied to various fascist groups at all.

Is the sentence worded in any non-neutral manner? Does it violate WP:UNDUE? Is it adequately sourced? Collect (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Why has this been placed on a biography RfC? Would not politics be a better place? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

RFCbot was specified for politics -- will try a fix. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, you list twenty footnotes, when there are only twelve references. The first eight do not relate to the sentence and should be omitted. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I used reflist -- it does not have the option to so finely tune as you might wish. The list is automatically generated by the template. OK? Collect (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The statement gives undue weight to the assertion that Historians do not agree on the place of all fascists on the political spectrum. The only basis for the assertion that different fascists can occupy different places in the political spectrum is a 1960 article by Lipset[28], which is indirectly cited four times in the footnotes. Whatever the validity of Lipset's theories, they should not be given undue weight.

Also, the sources do not support the assertion Historians do not agree...whether fascism is left, right or center, or even whether the political spectrum is properly applied to various fascist groups at all which gives equal weight to the four possible positions.

Below are comments on each of the twelve footnotes.

1. Social Science and Political Theory - refers to S. M. Lipset, Political Man ( 1960), ch. V

2. The Fascism Reader - refers to S. M. Lipset, Political Man ( 1960), ch. V

3. British Fascism - refers to S. M. Lipset, Political Man ( 1960), ch. V, provides no other example of fascism as of the center or left

4. Fascism in Europe - the quote in the footnote "historians uncertain about where to locate fascism in the political spectrum" leaves out the beginning of the phrase. It reads "have sometimes made historians uncertain about where to locate fascism in the political spectrum". It does not state that they placed fascism in different parts of the spectrum and uses the term right-wing throughout to describe fascism.

5. Fascism: Post-war fascisms - this reference goes to an article in the book by Bill White (neo-Nazi) about neofascism. I don't want to read his article but it is a primary source.

6. Illusions of grandeur - says "It is more usual for fascism to be defined as a movement ot the right...." (same page)

7. Sociology Responds to Fascism - says nothing about where historians place fascism

8. Latin fascist elites - refers to S. M. Lipset, Political Man ( 1960), ch. V

9. Terrorism today - does not question fascism's position in the political spectrum and says: "The terrorists on the two political extremes of left and right are in truth apposites, more than opposites."

10. The birth of fascist ideology - the writer Zeev Sternhell has a minority opinion that Italian fascism began as a left-wing movement but by 1920 had begun to shift to the right (same page) and became right-wing when the Italian Fascist Party was finally formed in 1921.

11. The Vital Center - this book unequivocably considers fascism to be right-wing and the page that the link goes to actually has a chart where Fascism is listed under "Right".

12. The Social science encyclopedia - on the page preceding it states: "there has developed since the 1930s a broad tendency to refer to any form of right-wing authoritarian system that is not specifically socialist as fascist." Clearly this article groups fascism on the right, even if they struggle with other rightists.

The Four Deuces (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of an RfC is to get new input -- not extended old input. Collect (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Question for The Four Deuces, doesn't the fact that Lipset's article was cited several times give it some weight? Academics don't usually cite crap four times.

Lipset's scholarship alone makes it worthwhile to quote him. Also, his unique interpretation makes it interesting. But it does not make his point of view the mainstream view. Central to his thesis was the fact that support for liberals collapsed as the Nazis increased in strength and concluded that the middle class had switched from liberalism to fascism. But more recent research shows that liberals did not switch to fascism. Another problem with his theory is that he gives Salazar as an example of a right-wing fascist and Peron as a left-wing fascist, but more recent scholarship excludes them as fascists (something that Collect among others has argued in the discussion pages). So his opinions should be reflected as minority. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Question for Collect, it seems Four Deuces does have a point, most refer to fascism as right-wing, are there any other sources? Soxwon (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And many say it is not properly shoved into a left-right dichotomy, and many "fascist" groups are, indeed, labelled as other than right wing by the historians writing about them. With as many cites as are given from RS, it appears that the sentence as worded is quite proper. The sentence specificaly says that there is disagreement -- what more can we do? By the way, the current concept is that "left-right" is a poor way to label groups. Collect (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Modern text [29] "In recent years the political 'spectrum' has been largely replaced as a conceptual tool by a political 'horseshoe' ... It is relatively easy for some voters to shift their support from communist to fascist parties and vice versa." Collect (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of scholarly writing places fascism squarely on the right. This is a no-brainer; dissenting views shouldn't have anywhere near their current prominence in the article. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I've read, from what I remember, and from the books I have on the topic, fascism is typically described as rightist, as a counter-Enlightenment reactionary political movement, etc. I would not be surprised at all, however, to find out that some historians might disagree with that interpretation. I think the best solution here is to just mention that the sources disagree without giving undue weight to those in the minority. How about the following....

Historians generally regard fascism as a right-wing political movement,[citations here] although many disagree about whether the traditional political spectrum applies to fascism, or about where to place fascism in that spectrum.[other citations here]UberCryxic (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sentence that The Four Deuces wants to delete has been a long standing consensus version. Among others, the most prominent scholars of fascism Stanley Payne, Roger Griffin, Zeev Sternhell and A. James Gregor don't agree with the placement of fascism on the right side of the political spectrum. -- Vision Thing -- 21:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I had thought a dozen footnotes would have been sufficient (the precis offered of some of them is inaccurate in many places). Current texts make the use of a "spectrum" seem quite antiquated at best. Collect (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the best way to determine what weight to give different points of view is how they are presented in textbooks. If we draw up a list of the top scholars and compare what they say it is original research/synthesis. The four scholars are not the most prominent scholars of fascism, there are many others. Sternhell's theories have been widely criticized and Gregor has little credibility. I don't think that Payne and Griffin deny that fascism is part of the right. Griffin's point was that they differed from the traditional authoritarian and conservative right. Certainly non-mainstream views should be presented but they should not be given equal weight to the mainstream. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you asserting specialist knowledge here? Collect (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I am basing my conclusions on my reading of the materials presented in this section, including following the links. BTW when you write Current texts make the use of a "spectrum" seem quite antiquated at best, I think that these writers are referring to the use of the spectrum to describe contemporary politics not European politics c. 1918-1945. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should give the dictionary definition first:

"fascism /fashiz’m/ noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice. " [30] Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Which historian wrote that? Collect (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the overall article, I'm surprised that "righ-wing" isnt mentioned until "Fascist as epithet" section. So I retract my suggestion.'OED defines fascism as "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government"' should be added into the overall lead. Prolly after the first sentence. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I sugess such would be demonstrably against consensus. Collect (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix is absolutely correct and I note that the Oxford English Dictionary is highly regarded and here is a list of their consultants who are considered experts in their field.[31]. While consensus is a good thing, it is also important to change our views as new and better evidence is presented to us. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

All right, its been more than a day and noone but Collect objected. So I dont see the consensus he was talking about. Btw the quote I had was from Compact OED, I'm gonna add the description from full OED:

“ The principles and organization of Fascists. Also, loosely, any form of right-wing authoritarianism.

1921 19th Cent. July 148 The Fascismo was born in the provinces, where the extremistic menace was stronger. 1922 Q. Rev. Jan. 148 A section of the Press..now veered completely round to the cause of Fascism. The Fascist terror increased in intensity. 1923 Contemp. Rev. Jan. 44 We do not want Fascismo in this country. Ibid. Nov. 557 Fascism in Germany will never be more than one of several factors. 1925 Weekly Westm. Gaz. 10 Jan. 320/2 The outrages which have been associated with Fascism have gradually alienated much of the support which it won two years ago. 1934 tr. K. Heiden's National Socialism xvii. 354 The electoral victories all over Europe with which the Labour Parties have replied to German Fascism. 1936 Discovery Dec. 378/1, I have strongly criticised modern education and the methods of handling youth generally as inculcating excessive respect for authority and thereby conducing to the growth of Fascism. 1939 A. COBBAN Dictatorship v. 124 In March 1919..Fascism was still..a revolutionary and socialist movement, hostile to the monarchy, to finance, and to parliamentary government, demanding social reform and workers' control, but separated from the other branches of the socialist movement by its intense nationalism. 1965 L. VENNEWITZ tr. Nolte's Three Faces Fascism II. ii. 87 Maurras was the first man in Europe who as a thinker and a politician drove conservatism beyond the limits dividing it from incipient fascism. 1971 Tablet 26 June 616/2 (title) The ghost of Fascism.

DRAFT ADDITIONS MARCH 2006

Fascism, n.

depreciative (chiefly Brit.). In extended use (usu. with preceding modifying word): the advocacy of a particular viewpoint or practice in a manner perceived as intolerant or authoritarian. Cf. body fascism n. at BODY n. Additions, health fascism n. at HEALTH n. Additions. [1939 D. THOMAS Let. July (1987) 389, I think that to fight, for instance, the fascism of bad ideas by uniforming & regimenting good ones will be found, eventually, to be bad tactics.] 1973 Times 13 Oct. 14 There is a fundamental fascism of the left which is the real problem in the universities: they are theologically right, as they believe, and you are so wrong that you should even be denied the freedom to speak. 1974 B. HODDESON Porn People vii. 121/1 You get a sort of monosexual fascism that takes place, that says, ‘this is how you'll ball.’ 1994 Daily Tel. 20 Dec. 17/3 The new health 'n' safety fascism..has demanded measures on track and trains which could not have been envisaged at the time when the cost was first projected. 2003 Independent 4 Mar. 19/2 This hysterical response to the interbreeding of the ruddy duck with the protected white-headed duck reflects a rather puerile, ‘anoracky’ fascism, and is misguided on several counts.

”

Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

OED

WP:RS is fairly explicit -- dictionaries are not "reliable sources" for articles. "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." Collect (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

LEAD is not the place for detailed discussions. So using tertiary sources there make sense. Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And WP:RS seems to indicate that your wholesale removal of twenty secondary sources which disagree with you is wrong. Collect (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest Phoenix of9 not wikistalk? Soxwon (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect, which sources did I remove? Do not make false accusations.

Soxwon, I responded to a RFC. I am interested in political articles connected to Germany such as Germany (duh), West Germany, etc. The sad truth is that Fascism has such a connection. AGF and comment on content. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me -- I regarded your statement above about the "left right and center" sentence to indicate that you did not support using those sources. Do you support placing the sentence back in the article? Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You said here and in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that I removed many sources. As I said, please retract false accusations. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Enough, Phoenix of9, surely you could find other German articles to edit w/o going to one where there's an editor with whom you've had repeated problems in the past to the point you filed an RfC? This seems like flamebaiting if it's not wikihounding. Soxwon (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You dont make sense so dont expect a response from me to you, in future. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors opinion

• Based on WP:RS, the use of the OED in this case is inappropriate. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• The OED is a fine source, some would say the finest, if you're using it to define a word or learn about its history. It's better to use multiple dictionaries though. It seems like that bit and its reference should go in the etymology section, and not the lead. Neither the whole article, nor any substantial portion would be based on the one source, so it would be compatible with WP:RS.Synchronism (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Omission of "right wing" in the LEAD seems highly non-neutral tho. Maybe we can say OED defines fascism like this and XYZ disagrees? Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. If there are reliable secondary sources, then we should use them instead. Soxwon (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion."

LEAD is where you give "overviews or summaries" so use of tertiary sources in the LEAD is FINE. Also since I havent deleted any sources, I'm NOT using any tertiary sources IN PLACE OF secondary sources. Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Well I'm not totally up to speed on what is going on here, so without addressing neutrality directly: the purpose of the lead is to summarize an article's content; new information shouldn't be presented there. If the article makes numerous mentions of the political right in the body, then an adequate summary would represent that.Synchronism (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Read above, there was this suggestion: "Historians generally regard fascism as a right-wing political movement,[citations here] although many disagree about whether the traditional political spectrum applies to fascism, or about where to place fascism in that spectrum.[other citations here]". Maybe we can add that in "Fascism in the political spectrum" section, add dictionary definitions (including OED) in etymology section and mention something like "it is sometimes considered a form of right-wing authoritarianism" or something like that in the LEAD? Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The WP:RS policy does not classify dictionaries as tertiary sources. They are not in fact compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing source. They are secondary sources because they are the results of scholars who research primary sources in order to determine the meanings of words. In fact the Oxford English Dictionary is the most reliable secondary source for the meanings of words in the English language. It is common sense that if one wants to know the meaning of a word that one consults a dictionary. Ironically, the twelve sources presented in the footnotes do not support the interpretation that User:Collect has provided.

Also could we all please assume good faith. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries are compendia and summarizing souurces, but they are also (especially OED) the result of the scholarly research of primary sources.Synchronism (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trying to parse individual sentences of our policies and guidelines... look at intent behind the policies and guidelines instead. You are all dancing around the core issue... the OED is the single most reliable source for the meanings of English words. It does not matter whether we classify it as a Primary, a Secondary or a Tertiary source. Blueboar (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

1) Are you aware of criticisms by Oxford linguist Roy Harris? 2) Our own guideline on reliable sources says that Items that are signed are preferable to unsigned articles. In my opinion that means that signed academic and peer-reviewed publications take preference over unsigned entries in dictionaries. 3) How can OED be the single most reliable source for defining something as ambiguous fascism when the most prominent scholars of fascism can not come up with definition that is shorter than one very long paragraph? -- Vision Thing -- 18:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that the issue is also being discussed in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and at Village pump [32] Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

OED is a reliable source for the common meaning of a word, which is what this kind of article should be opening with. Next question. Rd232 ^talk 17:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, except putting a basic definition on Fascism is next to impossible considering the ambiguity as to what constitutes basic characteristics. Soxwon (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats why we need multiple definitions in the article. However OED definition is appropriate for the LEAD. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(editconflict)But if there is that much arguing then I'm not sure how you can justify boiling it down to one particular POV. If there is so many varied views, then the lead should reflect that. Soxwon (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Phoenix. And Harris's criticisms of OED relate to its reliance on printed academic sources, while sometimes ignoring spoken language and non-academic sources. That does not apply here. And if scholars cannot agree on a definition, is not the OED the best source? Otherwise we would have to decide which one academic to use as a source. The OED has done that for us and they are better qualified than any one of us to do this. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, isn't that ignoring other POVs rather presenting the competing and rather disjointed views presented by scholars? Mussolini himself stated the system was made vague on purpose to be adapted to each unique situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs)

We need to start the article somewhere. OED provides accepted common usage, we should start with that. Specific scholars' understandings (which may contradict that) should be presented after that. Rd232 ^talk 20:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I agree with including multiple definitions including OED. So I agree. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. We should present the subject as it is commonly understood and present alternative views according to their weight. We should also remember that the views of Mussolini, Bill White (neo-nazi) and other fascists should be considered primary sources and therefore only have weight to the extent that they have been commented upon in secondary sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) Books citing Mussolini are clearly secondary sources, and should well outrank unsigned tertiary sources in any article. As for Bill White -- he has exceedingly little to do with this article, and I do not know why it is important to mention him so often. Might you tell me where he is cited in this article? Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned Bill White (neo-nazi) because you took his article, which originally was published in Pravda as a reliable secondary source which you argue should be given more credibility than the OED. It is the most egregious example of what I find wrong with your comment: "Currently, the first sentence has only 11 refs. Is the sentence properly cited? Is the sentence not neutral? —Collect (via posting script) 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)"

Here is where you cited him:

^ [3] Fascism: Post-war fascisms, Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman, Taylor & Francis, 2004 ISBN 0415290201, 9780415290203 528 pages page 385|quote=...a new synthesis of doctrine -- 'beyond left and right' -- that is, coalescing around a number of tendencies[33]

And no, the fact that Mussolini's comments are quoted somewhere does not mean that they somehow become a secondary source, and we should now treat him as another expert on the subject.

The Four Deuces (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I never used the WP Bill White article ANYWHERE as a "reliable source." WP articles, in fact, are specifically disallowed in WP as sources. The "Bill White" section cited was in a book vetted by actual historians, which is what is required per WP:RS. Just like books which contain the words of Mao are usable -- it is the book which is being cited, not the background of the person being quoted. I strongly suspect, in fact, that Mussolini was a Fascist, but that does not make his words irrelevant when discussing fascism, does it? Books by noted historians are secondary sources, and quotes in them are properly used as coming from a secondary source. Else no quotes could ever be used in any article. Collect (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The book cited is a collection of articles on fascism by different writers, some of which are re-printed from peer-reviewed journals and books. But the article by Bill White (neo-nazi) is published in its entirety without comment, and was originally published in Pravda, which is not a peer-reviewed journal. The quote you gave was a direct quote from Bill White which you used as a reliable secondary source, in preference to the OED in order to support non-mainstream opinions. It appears that rather than reading the literature and summarizing what it says, you have formed an opinion then searched for sources that appear to support it. That is why four of your 12 sources are actually references to the same 1960 article from Political Man. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A book edited and assembled by historians is a valid secondary source. Ask at RSN if you like. I found, by the way, that virtually every source on Apollo XIII refers to the same material -- I suppose therefore that it is not RS to use any quotes about Apollo XIII because they all had the same source? If you delete 3 sources because they quote the same person, that leaves only 9 sources.<g> Collect (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a notice on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.[34]. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) Apparent consensus there is that OED is fine for stating historical common usage of a word in English, but not for a definition of a word as far as being acceptable to specialists in the field, or for detailed discussion in an article on WP, and not for handling any meanings outside English of a word. Collect (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not my understanding of the discussion. One writer disagreed with the definition of archeology in Collins concise dictionary but the OED is authoritative. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) Not just "one writer." The OED shows how the word was used, but does not claim to provide any specialized defiitions of the words. In the case at hand, we have cites that no single definition is used. Collect (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Opinions given by academics are primary sources in this case (?)

I'm not sure whether I'm missing the point here (please tell me if you think that I am), but if the question is "what do academics think about whether fascism is right wing?", then wouldn't articles by academics (eg Lipsat) where they set out an opionion be primary sources with regard to the question at hand? The probem then being that no single primary source can answer the general question "what do acadmics think..?"., only the more specific question "what does this academic think..?". This is one of the reasons that primary sources should be treated with caution on WP. The problem could be resolved by using secondary sources, such as literature reviews, standard textbooks etc. Thanks. --78.148.14.222 (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WP practice is that published material by academics is automatically considered a "secondary source" and not a "primary source." In the case at hand, the question is what the opinions of historians as a group are, and thus any individual opinion can be used to indiacte that different historians have different opinions. See ]]WP:RS]] etc. Collect (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 78.148.14.222 that it is original research to review different scholars opinions and formulate a view about how prevalent various opinions are. Lipset's article was a primary source for what he thought but is also a secondary source because he discusses what other scholars thought. Of course it is better to use a more current writer. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect: are you able to explain what makes you think that it is WP practice for the words of academics to be automatically given the status of being "secondary sources"? Because I'm really not sure about that. WP:RS doesn't seem to address the issue and, although I appreciate it won't settle the matter, the WP article on Primary sources says: "In the history of ideas or intellectual history, the main primary sources are books, essays and letters written by intellectuals". Furthermore, if academic work in this case is always a secondary source, then that must mean that nothing is a primary source, which surely can't be right.

Different historians do have different opinions. Obviously true with regard to a range of topics. But it seems to me that the issue is how the difference of opinion should be portrayed in the case in hand. Lipsat's essay appears to be a note of dissent which pretty much proves the existence of a consensus against him. It may be worth a quick mention. But instead, it seems to have been used to give the impression that this is a question on which the academic community is totally divided.

Whilst I don't think dictionaries and encylopaedias are useful as sources on this question, it does seem to me that they have a use to benchmark our work here. There's a simple test, I think, that if the contents of a WP article are significantly at odds with what all the world's reference works say, then there is a good chance that something has gone wrong.

BTW, I'm the same anon as posted just above. --78.150.144.169 (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We are not saying anything about ratios of opinions, only that they differ. If you wish to rewrite WP:RS go there and propose your change, but all we can do here is follow the policies and guidelines already set. And WP:RS sets forth that a scholarly opinion published by a third party (the publisher) is a "Secondary source" whether one likes it or not. Dictionaries and encyclopedias are "tertiary sources" again per WP:RS. Collect (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The article does appear to say something about the ratio of opinion, just not directly. It reads as if there is considerable debate on the issue. It creates a lack of clarity and errs by the omission of giving making no reference to any consensus (which very clearly does exist). I'm not proposing to rewrite anything. But I can't see where WP:RS says what you claim it does. Give me the quote and I'll concede the point. It is clear from WP:NOR that at least some scholarly opinion counts as "primary source" (eg "original philosophical works", which is close to what we are dealing with here). --78.150.144.169 (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Wikipedia itself, although a tertiary source, should not be used as a source within articles." Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#History has "Historical research involves the collection of original or “primary” documents (the job of libraries and archives), the close reading of the documents, and their interpretation in terms of larger historical issues." Thus stating that the work of a scholar published in the field is not "primary". Then we also have Wikipedia:SECONDARY#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources which specifies "Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.[3][4][5] Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims only if they have been published by a reliable secondary source. " Thus also including published work in a field as a "secondary source." In point of fact, several sources explicitly state that there is disagreement about where Fascism is on the "political spectrum" and whether the "spectrum" is valid at all. Thus no OR or SYN issues. As requested. Collect (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

On the first point, I am not questioning the credibility of any of the sources. On the second, I'm not making any particular case for using dictionaries or encyclopadias as sources.

On the third point, I think you are just mistaken. You have produced a non sequitur. What is suggested by the policy is that "hitorical research" constitutes a secondary source. But the question is not primarily one about historical research. Defining a concept such as "fascism" is a question of political science or philosophy, and there are no documents from which direct information about the question can be drawn other than the writings of academics and intellectuals. These are out primary sources.

The writings of academics on a particular matter of opinion (as opposed to fact) and not "at least one step removed" when the issue to be addressed is of the form "what are the atttitudes of academics to the matter of opinion x", so they do not fall under the definition of "secondary sources".

The section is effectively a literature review undetaken by wikipedians, and I think it is OR, because, in simple terms, a user or users have effectively sought to answer a question implied by the section heading by researching the question themselves, rather than by relying on research conducted by others. The preferable way to approach the section would be to base it on secondary sources (published literature reviews, academic textbooks) and then introduce primary sources in a way that doesn't change the basic tenor of the section. As far as I can see, this would serve the purpose and reduce the possibility of bias. I can't think of a downside, so why would there be any objection? --89.242.191.100 (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The current texts are fairly uniform in denying the applicability of "political spectrum" entirely. Collect (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Surely you can't be suggesting that currently published politics textbooks are "fairly uniform in denying the applicability of "political spectrum" entirely"??? --82.69.202.14 (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Current texts which deal with Fascism are now fairly uniform that "political spectrum" (left-right) is not applicable to that topic. Indeed, the use of "political spectrum" is now seen as dated, with many sites online shoing an economic axis and an authoritarian-libertarian axis as distinct. Fascism is authoritarian, but that is orthogonal to the economic policy axis, and there are other axes as well. Collect (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect, the first point you make is, I think, very clearly untrue. I would agree that some writers on the subject will make the (quite sensible) point that the l-r spectrum is not unproblematic, but that's a slightly different matter. Plus, i'm guessing that you're still proposing to prefer primary sources. Acamdeic opinion that boils down to the statment "fascism is a right wing ideology" being viewed as either false or not properly meaningful, whilst probably not unsustainable, is very much a fringe view. Do you think you'd be able to provide evidence of it being something other than a fringe view (eg something like a textbook, as discussed above)? --78.144.216.191 (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

WP definitions of "primary" wrt sourcing are clear. Writings by authorities which get published are considered "secondary" by those definitions. If you wish to change it, then go to those policy and guideline pages. And with a dozen sources being cited, it would appear to be beyond a "fringe view" that a "political spectrum" is not a valid measure here. Thanks -- but if you wish to debate "primary" this is not the place to do it. Collect (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It is WP:OR and WP:SYN to determine the prevalence of experts' views by reading how experts regard their own views. Instead, we must follow WP:RS and get an expert's view of what the prevalence of experts' views are. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying that historians disagree when sources specifically make that very statement is precisely what we should do. As sources say "historians disagree" it is neither OR nor SYN to quote those sources. Collect (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) Any statement which synthesizes multiple points of view must be attributed to a published source. In other words, before a Wikipedia article can say "historians disagree on where to place Fascism in the political spectrum", we need a published source which says exactly that – not a Wikipedia editor who has conducted his own analysis of several sources and who has concluded that the sources indicate that historians disagree. It really doesn't matter whether the analysis is correct; if it's made by a Wikipedia editor rather than a reliable source, it can't be used. WP:Verifiability and the subsection WP:SYN are very clear on this. It's even stated outright in the very first sentence of WP:Syn: "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources."

End of story. Any synthesizing statement must be attributed to an actual source in which that specific, explicit synthesis has already been published. And once you have such a source, you only need one. A dozen references, none of which actually make the direct claim they are being cited to support, are not acceptable. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Factchecker atyourservice's clear explanation of WP policy. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This appears to me to make things clear: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Consensus --89.241.135.133 (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC

Proposal

Here is a source I would propose to use in the opening of the section: http://books.google.com/books?id=tP2wXl5nzboC&pg=PA79#PPA79,M1 I would propose sticking closely to the wording of the source, so something like:

Most academics describe fascism as "extreme right", "radical right", "far right" or "ultra right". However, there exist dissenting views that fascism represents "radical centrism" or a mixture of "authoritarian conservatism" and "right-wing nationalism". Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may more typically be associated with the left (for example, welfarism).

Please note that the last sentence is perhaps not strongly supported by the source cited. However, I think it is true and further support for it could easily be found if need be.

Overall, I think that these three sentences would make a good first paragraph for the Political Spectrum section. Cheers. --89.241.135.133 (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I demur. And use of "most" is OR at best -- far more so than saying "historians disagree." The fact is that most current work specifies the authoritarian axis as orthogonal to any economic axis. Your cite in fact says that "ideologies are better seen as multi-dimensional." Page 7 of your cite specifies that it drew "from a broad spectrum of political persuasions. " Page 112 of your cite has Lipset placing fascism in the centre. Thus using your cite for the claims you wish to make is quite problematic indeed. Collect (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"Most" is not OR because it is directly supported by the source given: It is normally seen as "extreme right".... Unless you want to argue that "is normally seen" denotes something radically different from "most describe as". You could try, I suppose.

The important thing is the statement in the source regarding the consensus on the issue. The fact that other views are acknowedged within the same book is not really relevant, because none of these are directly about the consensus, and they don't therefore negate the statement at the beginning of the conclusion on page 79. --89.241.135.133 (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If your source gives substantial weight (as it does) to the other opinions, it is a misuse of the source to use it for only the opinion you like. Collect (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

But this isn't a question of weighing one thing against the other and deciding which wins. We are dealing with two citable facts which are not mutually exclusive: 1) that there is a consensus on this issue; 2) that there are views which dissent from that consenus. The appropriate thing to do is to say both of those things in the section. Logically, stating the consensus should come first. But after that, I'm certainly not opposed to you or other editors citing other sources. --89.241.135.133 (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The current wording gives proper weight to almost all opinions. Collect (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It makes no mention of there being a consensus, and gives the impression that the academic community is confused. --89.241.135.133 (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the wording, but would leave out the example of welfarism, which was not inconsistent with right-wing thinking at that time. (Note that the Conservatives introduced the welfare state into Germany over Liberal protests.) The Four Deuces (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Among academics, there is no consensus. Nor does your cite claim that there is, as it clearly cites the disagreements about even the applicability of a "political spectrum" here. Collect (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Four Deuces: Do you have an alternative example, then? It seems to me that last sentence needs some example, or it is slightly weaselly.

Collect: Consensus does not mean the same thing as unanimity. In any event, my proposed opening paragraph does not use either word, it uses the word "most", which is supported by the source cited. --89.241.135.133 (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet you said "Historians differ" was OR. Your source does not use the word most, while several of the prior sources did say "historians differ" or "disagree" ... which way do you like it? Collect (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Which sources are you talking about? --89.241.135.133 (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Try [35] (read about pp 130 on). [36] but you need a hard copy for this one. And so on. Journal articles are numerous on this. Collect (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The Google source says "the contributors (to book x) disagree about what kinds of groups are to be labelled right". But it doesn't say anything about whether any of these groups are fascist, so I don't see how it is relevant. It also isn't about academics generally, just about a particular book. And so on, I imagine. With the offline source, it would be helpful if you were to type out the sentence, along with the sentences either side, to ensure that context can be taken account of --89.241.135.133 (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

IP: the claim that there was anything left-wing about fascism is problematic. The claims made were that they did not restore monarchy, established church and aristocracy, that they used left-wing rhetoric and that a minority of their leaders were former leftists. The same arguments could be used to argue that the Reagan administration was left-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The new start is not only a gross misstatement of the cite (not even) given, it is a gross misstatement of what current academics say about using a "political spectrum." Collect (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to accurately represent the quote, but perhaps you could suggest a better phrasing. Also, current academics who use the Nolan Chart apply it to current politics. Otherwise we would have a paradox that the French revolutionaries were right-wingers who overthrew a left-wing king. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Last I checked, the article is intended to apply as well to "current politics" -- ought we have a separate "Historical Fascism" article? Collect (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The majority of this article is about parties/governments that pre-date the 1971 Nolan Chart. In no way do I object to showing this interpretation, just insisting that it be given its proper weight. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I note you deleted 7K of fully cited information which included your own desideratum of "right wing" in it. Might you explain which of the sources was not reliable? Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not that the sources were unreliable, just that they did not support the text. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)