Jump to content

Talk:Fascism/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30→Archive 35

Comments on whether it is a MINORITY or MAJORITY view that Fascism is not right wing?

As I stated above, I think the best way for us to proceed on this issue is to reach some kind of agreement as to whether the views we're debating are views of a minority or majority, and of what or whom. Unfortunately, the comment has gone unheeded. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  • As I stated above, I think that fascism (with both an upper- and lower-case "f") is typically conceived as right-wing by both laypeople and scholars in general. The best substantiation for this are the OED definitions for fascism, stated above: "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government"; "extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice"; and "loosely, any form of right-wing authoritarianism". Another less direct example is that the MSN Encarta encyclopedia entry for fascism has an entire subsection entitled, "Compared To Other Radical Right-Wing Ideologies". While I don't deny the existence of scholarly debate as to the fitness of a linear left-right spectrum in describing fascism, we have so far not seen any source asserting the prevalence of such views. Nor do any of the specific views cited so far appear to say that Fascism is anything other than right-wing. Until shown otherwise, I can only assume that this "Fascism != right-wing" view is a minority view. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fascism is considered right wing. A Google books search for "fascism right wing" gave 4,643 hits.[1]

  • Of the first 50 books in that search, only one of the books, the very first one, speaks of fascism as though it were other than right wing, and even that one takes great pains to qualify its distinction.

The nature of fascism, by Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman

Anarchangel (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Robin Hood's Barn

This is "Robin Hood's Barn" time. The facts are that

  1. Fascism is not a unitary item.
  2. That not all "Fascists" can be typified as being on a left-right line.
  3. That many concepts in fascism are generally regarded as "left wing" and that some left wing groups have been typified as "fascist" by experts in the field.
  4. That the validity of a simple "spectrum" was derided ny Schlesinger in 1948, five decades before 1999, and that he is considered a substantial expert in the field.
  5. That multi-dimensional and non-linear sytems have been widely proposed as an alternative to the single line.
  6. That multiple sources state that the position of fascism in the political spectrum is contentious within the community of histoprians and political scientists.
  7. That it is not up to WP editors to somehow determine "majority" and "minority" views when multiple sources point out that the meaning of "left" and "right" is historically variable, is variable by political position of the society, is variable by the political position of the person making the judgement and so on.

Unless you assert your own expertise, it is important that we deal with reliable sources, and those sources agree with the statements I just made. By the eay, Encarta is specifically not a reliable source. Nor, as stated at WP:RS/N is the OED "definition" valid for making statements about the position of political scientists or historians, nor does it claim to be such a source. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could you please move those comments (whatever you are hoping to show with them) out of this section and respond to the question directly? Are you saying, then, that it's a majority view that fascism is not, cannot, or should not be classified as right-wing? And if so, among whom is it a majority? PS, some of your comments are nonsense, for instance it's absolutely the charge of WP editors to determine which views are in the majority and which are in the minority. In any case, none of what you've said suggests any reason why the WP article should not say that fascism is generally conceived as right-wing ideology. Thank you most kindly! Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


Read my points, clearly stated. I note that I stated that it is not up to WP editors to decide on what is a "minority" or "majority" view where such a large number of variables exist. We can only relate what "Reliable Sources" state. Might you address each fact stated? And I note you still seem to forget that the OED is not RS in this matter, nor is Encarta etc. Collect (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Collect, sources have been presented which do describe, in clear language, fascism=rw as a majority (or "normal") view. No sources have been presented that give any contradicting picture. You are right that we should be concentrating on sources. If fascism=rw is in fact not a majority view, then it should be possible to find a source that says this. Anything else is hot air. Robin Hood's barn? Collect, you have been here since January, and you are still argung a point for which you have not been able to find a single RS. --FormerIP (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Reliable sources don't edit Wikipedia. Editors do. I suppose I cannot make you respond directly to anything, but could you please move your comments out to another section so that this section can be used for its intended purpose, to prompt discussion of whether the fascism!=right-wing view is a majority or minority view? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The guiding principle here is reliance solely on "reliable sources" -- I consider Schlesinger and the other 18 sources given to be "reliable" even though they have repeatedly been deleted. And still no response to the listing of facts given above, which makes me even more certain of my position on the lede. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Collect, "reliable sources" are only good for the things they actually say. None of your sources appears to comment on the specific issue of whether fascism=rw is a majority/minority/common/unusual view. I suggest the issue should be taken to WP:ORN. --FormerIP (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Source saying that the question of whether fascism was an ideology of the right, left or centre is contentious for historians has already been presented in my proposed lead. And another source says: "A central feature of fascism that most analysts have found difficult to come to grips with is its fusion of socialist and nationalist ideas. As a result fascism has not been easy to place on a conventional left-right continuum." (emphasis is mine; source is Sociology Responds to Fascism, 2004, p. 222.) -- Vision Thing -- 17:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Which comports quite nicely with Schlesinger's position om 1948. I would add that Schlesinger is regarded as a world historian, and to lower him as being "only an American" is not in our proper power on WP. He wrote extensively on Communism, on foreign policy, and the Cold War, and was certainly qualified to write on how historians view the use of a linear political spectrum. Collect (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I think a lede along the lines of Vision Thing's last post would be appropriate and would solve our dispute - I even think using the very quote would work: "A central feature of fascism that most analysts have found difficult to come to grips with is its fusion of socialist and nationalist ideas. As a result fascism has not been easy to place on a conventional left-right continuum." I would even be agreeable to a third sentence along the lines of "It has often been characterized as right-wing, but many scholars consider it left wing, radical center or in a class by itself, beyond the left-right political spectrum." Mamalujo (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Surely there must be some sentence which lets readers know that the assessment of fascism as right wing is far, far more common than any assessment of it as left wing or "radical center". I agree that many scholars have a difficult time pinning it down, but pretty obviously the conventional understanding of fascism as right-wing needs to be mentioned - even if it's not qutie right. john k (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Which is astonishingly close to the old lede "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." Collect (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is not for "Popular Politics" but for an encyclopedia, and therefore we must use the best secondary sources possible to give a scholarly article. "Conventional understanding" would mean we should give "nukular" as the pronunciation of "nuclear" in such articles, and we should say that electricity is the "movement of electrons" just because that is the "conventional understanding." "Conventional understanding" is "there is no gravity in space" - but we ought not fall into that trap either. The task is to get the article right - not to further "conventional understandings." See Josh Billings Collect (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it this sort of attitude which - laughably - throws out OED as a reliable source? Of course conventional understanding matters. And frankly the longer this discussion continues with a few people unwilling to accept the blatantly obvious, the harder it is to WP:AGF. Point 1) Fascism is widely thought of as right-wing by the general public. (Get over it.) Point 2) Scholars have generally, but not universally or without qualification, thought of it as fundamentally right wing. (Get over that, too.) Point 3) Recent scholarship emphases the problems in assigning a multi-dimensional phenomenon like fascism a place on a one-dimensional left-right spectrum, but it remains more associated with the right. That is all for summary. Can we get on to more interesting discussions now, like the details of Point 3? Disembrangler (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The OED was discussed on RS/N and determined not to be a reliable source for any specialized definitions - if you wish to discuss this at RS/N, feel free to do so, The consensus on not using the OED was clear. Most people think electricity is electrons moving on a wire. Shall we start there? Collect (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hate to break it to you, but unlike physical phenomena, language is socially defined. If people think fascism is right-wing, then that in itself is meaningful, and not wrong in the way that thinking the sun goes round the earth is wrong. Also was the RS/N discussion specifically about Fascism, and if so who took part? Disembrangler (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, don't mean to be overly nitpicky, Collect, but when electricity moves along a wire, the electrons involved do in fact move. The description you deride is not incorrect. But lets not debate it. --FormerIP (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Nope. Electrons migrate on the order of 6 inches per second -- not 186,000 miles per second, and the energy of electricity is carried by the Poynting vector which is actually outside the wire itself <g>. A splendid example of "common knowledge" being false, as you demonstrated so well. Thanks!!! Collect (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
During elecrtical conduction through a metal, electrons move in the direction of current. That's a perfectly true statement. Other aspects and interpretations may also be valid, but they are equally aspects and interpretations about the same phenomenon. It would be bad sciecne to put them into a hierarchy. Let's not discuss it any further, though.--FormerIP (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Vision Thing, your new source is still hitting the nail on the thumb. It is not disputed by anyone, I think, that the question of placing fascism on the political spectrum can be complex and problematic. We already have sources for that. The more pertinent question, which Factchecker has been trying in vain to draw people's attention to is: "Is there any evidence out there that contradicts the contention that fascism is most commonly viewed as right-wing?". Frustratingly, there still appears to be an attitude on the part of some that "no, but will this do?" (though, of course, not directly saying that) is an acceptable response.
Also, if you read the whole chapter you took the quote from, you'll see that it is only dealing with the view amongst Brtish sociologists between 1930 and 1945 in any case.
Incidentally, I wouldn't necessarily be averse to a para that went something like "Specialists have often found the task of assigning fascism to a point on the politcal spectrum complex, buy it is normally characterised as "extreme right"..." I think it would need a firmer source that the one you have just provided, but I am sure that can be achieved.--FormerIP (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad we are getting somewhere because that is very close to my original proposition (Question of whether fascism was an ideology of the right, left or centre is a contentious issue for specialist on the subject. While it is normally described as "extreme right" such terminology is often used erratically and scholarly consensus is that fascism was influenced by both left and right. A good number of historians see fascism as "a doctrine of the revolutionary centre" or as a mixture of left and right. Moreover, a number of scholars highlight aspects of fascist ideology which are typically associated with the left). The first sentence describes the issue as contentious, but immediately at the beginning of second it is stated that fascism is normally seen as extreme right. I believe that is a reasonable compromise for all. -- Vision Thing -- 07:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, but your previous version is still unacceptable from my POV, for the reasons stated at the time. How about the wording I just proposed for the first sentence, as a compromise? Would you be comfortable with that? If not, what are your reasons?--FormerIP (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Electricity is "normally characterized" as being the movement of electrons. Alas -- specialists in the field are the ones whose reliable sources must be used not what "common perceptions" are. Promoting and perpetuating misconceptions is not encyclopedic in any sense of the word. Where we have reliable sources from peropls who know what they are writing about, it is fatuous for us to promote wrong beliefs. VT's propoal is correct and follows the sources. Not what you "know" -- citing Billings "It's not ignorance does so much damage; it's knowin' so derned much that ain't so. " Collect (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
In the first place, most people have no idea what electricity is, scientifically speaking. Electricity is "normally characterized" as the thing that makes our televisions and lights work. What does this have to do with anything? john k (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Any previso on the possibility of fascism displaying some characteristics of the centre or left is fine, so long as it is backed up by references and it is explained that these are minority examples. The lead has to say 'Fascism is regarded as radical right wing, and displays these far-right characteristics.' Then in the second sentence you have your previso, to cover other examples, and to note that not everyone agrees even what fascism actually is, let alone where it sits on a spectrum commonly regarded as too restrictive to accurately describe every version of every poltical viewpoint. Mdw0 (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I think Vision Thing's proposal is a good starting point. Here's a revised version:
The question of where fascism should be placed on the political spectrum has been a somewhat contentious one. While fascism is normally conceived as being on the extreme right, many scholars view such a designation as overly simplified, and point to elements of fascism deriving from the political left. As a result, some historians dispute fascism's placement on the political right, arguing that it is "a doctrine of the revolutionary centre" or a mixture of left and right.
Thoughts? john k (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, we invoke Josh Billings. Our task is not to say what we think is the common perception, 'but to use reliable sources to indicate the current perceptions of historians and political scientists.' Hence "normally conceived" is an extraordinarily hard claim to get RSs for indeed. Nor is "normally conceived" (if is it "popular perception" we are looking act) something which is relevant to an encyclopedia article. We have already seen people who "normally perceive" electricity as the movement of electrons. Putting that into an article on electricity would, however, be damaging to the encyclopedic goal. Our goal should be to write an article devoid of misperceptions. Collect (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Collect: "normally" is the term used by the source. I'm concerned that you may be adopting the royal "we".
John, "contentious" is technically true, and it is supported by a source, but it is not NPOV to make it the leading fact in the section. To start by saying the matter is contentious gives the impression that arguments are fairly evenly spread and a roomfull of academics would be at loggerheads over the issue. The reality is that there are a few sources (some even claim as many as eighteen) which are vaild and in some cases unarguably notable and which vary from the commonplace view that fascism is right wing. To that extent, the issue is "contentious", but that is far from being the most important thing to say about it. If it is necessary to make a compromise, then that is not the compromise to make.
The last phrase "or a mixture of left and right" would need some clarification, I think. There plenty of sources that see fascism in this way but also have a bottom-line view that fascism does have a definite place on the spectrum (usually right, but also centre in a significant number of cases). To characterise those sources as seeing "a mixture of left and right" without immediatedly acknowledging the spread of their bottom-line positions would be misleading, I think. Then there is the Eatwell view, which sees fascism as syncretic, a genuine case of it being "a mixture of left and right". It is not clear how widely shared this view is (sources needed?), but I think the distintion between this and sources which merely acknowledge the left-wing influences on fascism should be made. --FormerIP (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Further "many scholars view such a designation as overly simplified, and point to elements of fascism deriving from the political left" I think could be misleading without clarifying that most of those who are you are referring to see the "right-wing" designation as basically correct, although over-simplified.--FormerIP (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Collect: First, I am completely not wedded to the wording, but we ought to have some sort of sentence which indicates the common perception of fascism as a political movement of the right. If there is a wording for this that you think would work better, that is fine. I might suggest "traditionally conceived," or something of that sort. That being said, I think the premises you are working from are completely wrong here, and deeply misleading. The electricity thing is just a completely useless analogy that you keep on making. Unlike electricity, defining the "political right" is not something which can be right or wrong - it is inevitably and always a subjective judgment, so the analogy is pointless. To put this at its most basic level - common perception of scientific concepts is stupid to talk about, because scientific concepts are, more or less, right or wrong. But the common perception of a movement's place on the political spectrum is important, because the political spectrum is completely subjective, and as such, "common perception" of it is at least as important as what political scientists or historians say. Political scientists don't own the political spectrum. It is not simply that perceptions are as important as reality in terms of this issue. It's that perceptions create the reality - the "political spectrum" is nothing but an agreed upon fiction that people find useful as a tool to describe political movements. It has no external reality beyond people's perceptions, and as such, a very commonly held understanding of fascism as a right-wing movement is at least as important as anything political scientists may have to say on the subject.
FormerIP: I think virtually any in depth study of fascism will admit to the complexity of placing fascism on the political spectrum. They don't necessarily deny that it's on the right, because most studies of fascism aren't interested in such labels - why should they waste time arguing over something which is basically completely subjective and meaningless? But insofar as they do discuss the issue, I think few specialists are content to just say "fascism is a movement of the far right," and leave it at that. Can you find any studies of fascism which do such a thing? It's been a while since I took my comps, but my memory is that the basic comparative works on fascism that I've read (Paxton, Payne, Griffin) are not really interested in that kind of thing. They tend to take it for granted as a starting point that fascism is basically a phenomenon of the right, but much of their actual analysis tends to be towards complicating that picture, rather than presenting arguments for why fascism should be seen as being on the right. Again, can you provide sources which do not suggest such a thing? That being said, as with Collect, if you prefer a different word to "contentious," that would be okay, but I'm not sure what would do the job. I already said "somewhat contentious," which is hardly very strong - I'm not sure how you get any weaker than that. On "mixture of left and right", I'm open to change, but it is a case which I put pretty weakly. I merely said that "some historians" argue that. This seems to be uncontroversially true. Finally, on the issue of "over-simplified," I think this leaves things open. I attributed that view to "many historians," which allows us to include both historians who think that the characterization of fascism as being on the right is "basically correct, but oversimplified," but also those who are less convinced that fascism is basically on the right. Both groups, I think, would agree in seeing the OED definition, for instance, as an over-simplification, even if some of them would dispute the idea of fascism as being on the right at all, while others would basically agree with it.
To all: I proposed that as simply an effort to refine Vision Thing's original proposal to make it better. I think the best way to proceed would be to continue to refine it. john k (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Clearer explaination of elements - Why is it extreme right? For example,
Fascism is normally conceived as being on the extreme right because - here OED definitions and elements of fascism that match extreme right wing views - nationalism, elitism etc. Many scholars view such a designation as overly simplified, because of the variety of forms defined as fascist, and the question of where fascism should be placed on the political spectrum has been a contentious one. Some point to elements of fascism having similar elements as the extreme left - such as revolutionary fervour, state control etc. Some political scientists even regard fascism as "a doctrine of the revolutionary centre" with extreme elements of the centre of the spectrum enforced, - such as -.
For your opening gambit clear examples of the political views are important.
The goal of a broad political article like this one havine NO misperceptions when editors come from their own political frame of reference is pretty much impossible. The goal is to have an article where the broader strokes come first and the minority viewpoints are included. Mdw0 (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
John: I agree with most of what you say, but my objection was more specifically about the use of the word "contentious" in the leading statement, because it is misleading to begin the characterisation in this way. "Contentious" later in the paragraph or in the body I would probably be fine with. Referring to "complexity", which as you say is indisputable, within the leading statement would not be ideal, but that's something I could live with, because it is much more apt than "contentious".
I'm not all that precious about my own exact wording, but would note that it had a lot of discussion and got a lot of support. It has also incorporated some objections and has been a basis for a lot of the discussion above. I would say that concentrating on amending one old version would be better than proposing entirely new ones. Of course, if people generally think Vision Thing's version is better, then fine. But if we switch out attention each time a new paragraph is proposed we will end up going back through discussions we've alrady had and we really will never get to the end of this. --FormerIP (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
A newly amended version of that para could be something like...
Specialists on the subject have often found the issue of where to place fascism on a left-right spectrum to be complex, but it is normally assigned as extreme right, radical right, far-right or ultra-right. However, there exists a dissenting view that sees fascism as "a doctrine of the revolutionary centre". Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.
--FormerIP (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
We don't have a source for "complex", but we have sources that say "contentious" and "not easy to place". Maybe the latter would be more acceptable because its meaning is pretty close to "complex"? -- Vision Thing -- 20:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) "Normally assigned as" has not been given any scholarly cite from people expert in the field, hence is not proper in the lede. And since we also have Schlesinger and others stating that a loinear spectrum fails (is a "fallafy" if you prefer) and since he was a noted expert, it would seem reducing him to being a "dissenting view" is highly POV. Recall the eighteen cites of releable sources ruthlessly purged already. Recall the old lede which was proposed as a compromise a long time ago by The Four Deuces which stated that "Historians disagree" which is clearly a proper statement. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

@Mdw - Firstly - "state control" in the abstract is not a feature of left or right, and should not be mentioned as something which makes fascism seem leftist. As I think I've said several times before, implying that "state control" is something inherently leftist is to deny the place on the right of, well, virtually every right wing movement outside the anglosphere up through World War II. Secondly, I generally am not a particularly big fan of getting into details here. Fascism is normally seen as being on the right because it has always been seen as being on the right; because Mussolini described it as right wing; because fascist movements in power invariably allied with pre-existing non-fascist groups that were generally considered to be right wing; because fascist movements were bitter enemies of the groups generally seen to be on the left, communists and socialists. In the aftermath, we can point to things like extreme nationalism, elitism, and so forth, but this is all second order. Similarly, the main "left-wing" elements of fascism are basically either stylistic - they imitated socialist mass politics and the like; or historical, in that so many fascist leaders were ex-leftists. Any quasi-leftist policies (which do not, again, include statism, which can be found equally on both left and right) are merely a coincidence arising out of the stylistic or historical points. Basically: "left" and "right" are arbitrary concepts that have no inherent meaning. As such, pointing to specific policies or ideologies is to miss the boat. john k (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
@FormerIP - I don't see why we need to say all those different terms that mean the same thing. Furthermore, I don't like focusing on aspects of fascist ideology - as I noted above, I think that it is fascism's historical origins and fascism's style which are more closely tied to the left. I also don't like the repeated opening of sentences with "However" and "Moreover," which seems stylistically awkward to me. john k (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
@Collect - Schlesinger was not a noted expert on fascism. He was a historian of the United States! You know, a country which has never had any significant fascist movement. In his study of American history, his principal work was on the Jacksonian period - which was, you know a century before fascism appeared. What work he did on the twentieth century was largely about the American presidency, which, again, has little to do with fascism. Schlesinger was speaking in his mode as a public intellectual/commenter on the politics of his own day, not as a historian. And even with all that, Schlesinger doesn't support your point, because he obviously takes for granted the idea that communism is far left and fascism far right. He thinks the similarities between the two make the whole political spectrum idea problematic, but he doesn't even cast into question the idea that fascism should be placed at the far right end of such a spectrum. I'll add, though, that I will join you in not liking the word "assigned," which seems odd to me, and implies a degree of certainty that is not really present. There is nobody who has the authority to "assign" a political movement to a place on the spectrum. Fascism is "viewed" or "understood" or "described" as being on the right, not "assigned" to it. john k (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


When I gave political scientists, RFD said that I needed "historians." Note the use of the word "historians" in the old lede. AMS was not only an historian, he was, indeed, American, which does not make him unable to discuss other factors of history -- just as an Italian historian is not precluded from writing on the US. AMS, in fact, was one of the major American historians. His citre specifically belies the claim that only "Libertarians" dispute the linear political spectrum quite clearly. He did, in fact, write extensively on world affairs, and not just on Americans, so that is rather a straw issue. And his teaching work also was not exclusively on the US, also mooting that claim. Further his statement refers to another historian, which rather implies that he was familiar with the work of others, that he read current journals in his field, and that he was not hopelessly mired in only knowing about Jackson <g>. I already gave a host of "political scientists" cites which have been removed (more than 30 actually -- 18 for the old lede, and many more from the body of the section -- removed because of the reason that they wete not "historians". One can not reasonably require "historians" and then bar them saying one needs "political scientists" after all of the political science cites get yanked, can one? BTW AMS's "The Vital Center" and "What About Communism" were both quite clearly works involving judgement about world political movements (specifically Communism and Fascism), rather completely mooting your arguments that he was not an expert on any such topic. Collect (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I never said that only libertarians dispute the linear political spectrum. I said that only libertarians advocate a multi-dimensional political spectrum. And of course Schlesinger wrote extensively on many topics, but his opinion on fascism is that of an educated layman. Schlesinger was a historian of nineteenth century America. He was not a specialist on fascism, and any writing he did on fascism was as a popular writer for a popular audience, not as an academic. If you had cited a historian whose actual academic work is on subjects relating to fascism, like Ian Kershaw or Richard Bosworth or Robert Paxton, I would make no objection. I am myself a historian (well, almost...stupid dissertation), so of course I have no objection to citing historians. I have a problem with you citing this historian, because this is way outside his range of specialty. And the reason your cites are problematic is because you take a bunch of stuff out of context in order to prove a point you already want to make. You're not interested in what all these sources are arguing - you're merely interested in using them to back up a point that you've already decided. john k (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(oput) The problem is that it is not only libertarians who posit multi-dimensional political spectrums or who dispute the use of a linear spectrum. Schlesinger was not just an "historian of nineteenth century America," so that is a specious argument. And since you proffer no cite for your claim about libertarians, and proffer no specialist expertise, we must rely on WP rules -- which is that we use reliable sources and cite what they actually say, not what an editor "knows." And the point I "decided" is that there is, heavens-to-Betsy, disagreement! Collect (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Who posits multi-dimensional models and whether or not they are Libertarians seems to me to be connected only extremely tenously to the current discussions.--FormerIP (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. Nobody disputes that there is disagreement. This is a straw man. Beyond that, I don't see why you get to quote Arthur Schlesinger on subjects having nothing to do with his area of expertise, but the OED is supposedly out of bounds as a source on the meaning of words in the English language. Schlesinger of course wrote about all kinds of subjects, and not just the Jacksonian era. But his writings on contemporary politics are not the writings of an academic. They are the writings of a "public intellectual" - which means an intellectual writing about subjects on which he has no more expertise than anyone else, but hopes you won't notice that. They have no more claim to expertise than the writings of an op-ed columnist. That isn't to say he's wrong - even op-ed columnists are often right, for that matter, and public intellectuals tend to be smart people who know a lot. But they have no particular expertise on the matter. You seem to think that because a) Schlesinger is an eminent historian; and b) he wrote an article talking about fascism, that therefore c) Schlesinger is an eminent historian on the subject of fascism. But that's not how it works. Schlesinger's writings about communism are basically anti-communist polemic. He leverages his reputation as a historian to make his arguments seem to have more force, but it really has nothing to do with his area of expertise. Beyond that, this is very tedious. You keep going back to arguments that are, as FormerIP says, only tangentially related to the subject at hand, so let me just ask a brief, direct question. Is there any phraseology that you would accept which would acknowledge the idea that fascism has typically been seen as a phenomenon of the right? I can't speak for others, but that is basically the only real stake I have in this. I'm happy to include as much (accurate) material explaining how much more complicated the situation really is as you can stand. But some acknowledgement of the basic fact that fascism is seen as being on the right seems necessary to me before going into the rest. john k (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
AMS wrote extensively on Communism and Fascism. Not just in his "popular" books. So what we are left with are the insurmountable objections that he was an American who was anti-Communist. Which leads you to dismiss his work as "anti-communist polemic." WP:RS does not make the same distinction you make, that all who disagree with your position are only writing "polemics." If you read the old lede, you will find that the main point is that historians disagree. Well -- they do disagree. And if you wish to reread the RS/N on the OED you will find that it was stated not to be acceptable where reliable sources are in dispute -- the OED is not a reliable source on Fascism per se at all. Moreover since you agree that historians disagree, why not go back to the simple direct sentence from before?
Collect, I'm mostly without Internet, so I will keep this brief.
  • Unless I am reading the wrong places, you are dramatically misrepresenting the discussion of OED at RSN. Where, exactly, was the OED "stated not to be acceptable where reliable sources are in dispute"??
  • Do you think you could state in 50 words or less why you object to the WP fascism article stating that fascism is generally seen as right-wing? Try as I may, I can't seem to get a straight answer, or even a direct response to any question I ask, let alone one that makes any sense or observes WP policy. Thanks so much. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
1. Making personal asides in edit summaries does not help you. 2. You need a Reliable Source for your claims -- and the RS/N discussion which you refer to is readily available for reading. 3. Saying you cant get a "straight answer" sounds a bit PA-ish to me. Read WP:NPA. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Collect, (1) the RS/N discussion I'm looking at IN NO WAY "states that it is not acceptable to use the OED where reliable sources are in dispute". Thus, Collect, I am given the appearance that you are *lying* in an attempt to improperly influence the outcome of this "debate". If I am mistaken, and looking at the wrong RS/N, please direct me the correct discussion in which you say the OED was held to be unacceptable as a source. Otherwise, if we're talking about the same discussion, can you please stop completely misrepresenting what was said? (2) Saying "I can't get a straight answer" is a natural response to the fact that you feel the need to get lost on 1000 word original research investigations rather than respond directly to anything anyone asks or requests of you. A perfect example of this is that my previous comment requested that you PLEASE show me which discussion is the one which you say held the OED to be "unacceptable" as a source. But you refuse to even give a simple answer and go on spouting nonsense rhetoric about fictitious PA's while carefully refusing to answer the question. Thank you most kindly, and have a wonderful, sweet, serene, blessed summer's day! Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
This is of course nonsense about my objection to Schlesinger. Firstly, I continue to dispute that Schlesinger discussed either communism or fascism at length in any scholarly academic work. Secondly, the problem is of course not that Schlesinger is either American or anti-communist. Robert Paxton and Stanley Payne are both American, and obviously ought to be cited in this article. Walter Laqueur is anti-communist, and would also be appropriate to cite. Schlesinger is not worth citing because he is not a scholar of fascism. His work primarily deals with American history. Whatever study he has done of fascism is superficial. He is not a useful source on fascism. And I'm completely unimpressed by your contention that he wrote about fascism "not just in his popular books." Besides Age of Jackson, almost all of Schlesinger's historical output was largely outside his original area of specialty, and virtually all of it was written for a broad popular audience. In particular, The Vital Center is a polemic, and not a work of scholarship. It is a work which was meant to persuade people to support liberal politics, not a work seeking to understand and explain communism and fascism. It is obviously useful for an understanding of popular perceptions of fascism, but not as a dispassionate scholarly analysis of the subject. The Vital Center is useful to us as a primary source on how American liberals in the 1940s viewed fascism and communism, but nobody today would read it to actually learn about fascism and communism themselves. And obviously, the very title of Schlesinger's polemic is sufficient to remind us that Schlesinger doesn't even support your viewpoint. The "Vital Center" is liberalism, which lies between totalitarian communism on the left and totalitarian fascism on the right. Yes, Schlesinger argues that these two totalitarianisms of left and right often resemble one another more than they resemble any form of liberalism. But Schlesinger's basic premise is obviously that fascism is on the right - otherwise the title makes absolutely no sense. john k (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
You appear sure that Schlesinger did not write about Communism and Fascism -- although he had two full books on the subject, as well as articles (which,, apparently, do not count as they are not "scholarly academic works"? As dfor the work you disagree with being a "polemic" by your definition, that says more about your position than about his. As for your use of "obviously" -- that fact is that AMS's words do not include "obviously" -- do you have specific expertise in the field you would wish to invoke? Collect (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not intimately familiar with Schlesinger's works. Were the articles published in scholarly journals? Beyond that, I haven't said I disagree with Schlesinger, but The Vital Center is obviously a polemic. Here is a Claremont Institute fellow writing in the Wall Street Journal describing all of Schlesinger's work as polemic, but noting that The Vital Center is the most famous work which is openly a polemic. On the other side of the political spectrum, we here have Sam Tanenhaus in the New York Times explaining that The Vital Center transcends mere polemic; and here is E.J. Dionne calling it "a polemical volume". Here is the left wing Partisan Review also calling The Vital Center a polemic. Seriously, The Vital Center is a polemic. Here is Robert Rutland calling it a "biting polemic." Seriously, it's a polemic. john k (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
It sounds very much like it might be a polemic. But to what extent does this actually matter, since it has not been suggested as a source for the article anyway?--FormerIP (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Collect isn't suggesting it should be a source for the article? Then this is even more of a tangent than I thought. john k (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I *think* he is just suggesting it as evidence that people other than Libertarians proposed multi-dimensional models for visualising political positions. I think this is of no paricular interest. I'm sure Collect will speak for himself, though. --FormerIP (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's all very irritating. Why does he grab on to these tangential points and then argue them so fiercely? Basically, we have Schlesinger who is a) not actually arguing what Collect thinks he's arguing; b) not a good source even if he were arguing what Collect thinks he's arguing; and c) even if he were a good source, only supporting a very small debating point in d) an argument that is only connected by the most tenuous basis to the larger argument. Sigh. john k (talk) 03:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attacks. Collect claims that he was personally attacked. My advice is that we concentrate on the arguments not the arguer. We should state that Collect's arguments are wrong or inaccurate rather than that they are misleading. It is possible that Collect actually believes what he states. BTW Collect if you check your facts before presenting them then people will be less likely to attack you personally. It is human nature to assume that when totally inaccurate information is presented as fact that it is deliberate. I pass no judgment on this and assume that you were merely mistaken. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

To characterize Collect's arguments as "wrong" seems, in my view, to not at all get at the problem with them. For the most part, his arguments are not "wrong." Rather, Collect is taking correct premises and using them to make an argument that they do not actually support. Perhaps saying his arguments are "flawed" or "fallacious" would be better than "misleading," but the whole thing becomes tedious. Collect takes sources out of context and then presents them to support a viewpoint that they don't actually support. I don't doubt that he actually believes what he's saying, but I don't think the argument can be characterized as simply an honest divergence of views. The whole reason this is going on forever is because Collect is apparently committed a priori to certain views on this subject, and looks at evidence only insofar as it supports the viewpoint that he already has. I don't think this arises out of active dishonesty, but it's something quite different from merely being wrong. I don't see how it's a personal attack to accuse someone of POV pushing when this is obviously what they are doing. (And POV pushing is almost never done dishonestly - almost always the person pushing the POV believes in that POV very deeply, and thinks they are improving the article. That's why it's so difficult to deal with. Pure trolls, vandals, and ignoramuses can be dealt with easily enough.) john k (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Fascism vs Fascist Ideology

The "consensus" historians define fascism as an ideology and the difficulty of classifying fascism relates to ideology not fascism in power. Perhaps we could point out that fascist government (including groups that are not included as fascists by the consensus historians but are generally considered fascist) were invariably right-wing as were their allies and neo-fascists. While the consensus historians do not attempt to place fascist ideology, i.e., the platform of the Italian Fascist Party from 1919-1921 and the platform of the Nazi Party before the Night of the Long Knives, on the political spectrum they agree the it is usually considered to be far right. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"Invariably"? Nope. Try looking at the appearance of Russian Fascism etc. Early manifestos of Mussolini? Socialist. Sorry TFD, you are going to have a hard time finding a reliable source for that claim <g>. Collect (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Russian Fascism? The Russian Fascist Party appears to have been a right-wing emigré party in China. Are you referring to something else? As far as more recent movements, I've never heard anyone describe Zhirinovsky as anything but "far right". Beyond that, what do either Russian fascism or the early manifestos of Mussolini have to do with fascist government? BTW, to get beyond fascism strictly speaking, do you agree that Victor Emmanuel was on the right? That Hindenburg, Papen, and the Prussian officer corps were? That Franco was? That Antonescu was? That Pétain and Laval were? john k (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Try [2] pages xi etc. [3] dealing with the Russian Orthodox Church and Fascism. Laqueur whome you favor at [4]. Knox at [5] asserting elements of Fascism in Russia. Lane writes of specific Russain Fascist groups [6] etc. [7] multiple cites. Allensworth has [8].
Looking quickly through the sources you link, they largely seem to describe Russian fascism as a phenomenon of the right. For instance, in the first link, its discussion of the Russian Communist Party pretty much conflates the idea that the Communists are actually (and paradoxically) on the far right with the idea that they are fascists. john k (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Zhirinovsky? Lots of books overtly calling him a Fascist. How many would you like? [9] "For the great many of liberal observers .. Zhirinopvsky is a fascist." [10] "the Russian fascist Zhirinovsky." [11] "Zhirinovsky's views were both fascist and imperialistic." Glad to educate you on the hundreds of books describing Zhirinovsky as "fascist."
I don't think I was denying that Zhirinovsky was fascist. I'm denying that he is described as a leftist or a centrist. When placed on the political spectrum, he is always described as being on the far-right. john k (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
As for Mussolini, I suggest that material written as a Fascist manifesto is, indeed, related to Fascism. Victor Emmanuel had virtually nothing to do with politics, and Hindenburg was an aged war hero, not chosen for any political beliefs. Franco, per long discussions here, rather inherited the Falangist mantle, but his actual government was pragmatic more than anything else. Petain was also an aged war hero and not an ideologue of any strength or specific position. Alas, using "fascist" as a convenient pejorative became the vogue a long time ago, despite illogic. Thanks! Collect (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
It might be related to fascism, but not necessarily to fascist government. As to that, I agree that Hindenburg, Victor Emmanuel, Franco, and Pétain were not fascists. Victor Emmanuel's political beliefs were certainly obscure, but his appointment of Mussolini arose largely out of a fear of socialism and increasing disdain for liberalism, and obviously he was a great aristocrat - these certainly combine to form a picture which would more or less place him on the right. Hindenburg was elected president as an aged war hero, but he was originally supported by the parties of the right - the Nationalists and the People's Party, primarily. His political beliefs were quite clearly on the right, and increasingly reactionary by 1932. The kamarilla he surrounded himself with was entirely reactionary. He allowed Brüning to govern by decree so as to keep the Social Democrats out, and supported Brüning's increasingly right-wing policies. Then, when he got sick of Brüning, he appointed an openly reactionary cabinet under Papen. Note for instance von Papen's interior minister, von Gayl, who abolished the guillotine as too leftist and returned to beheading people with axes. In general, they were all militaristic monarchists. Pétain's political ideology before 1940 was certainly also unclear, but once he came to power he was promoting Action Française types and generally going to war with the Enlightenment and the French revolution. Franco certainly used the Falangists rather than particularly believing in their ideology, and yes, he was a pragmatist. But he also won a civil war in which his side represented, in addition to Falangists, monarchists and Catholics, and his opponents included socialists, liberals, and communists. So, I ask again, would you be willing to characterize these people as being on the political right? john k (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
John's question was not whether these people were fascist, but about whether you would assign them to the political right. And I don't think he was suggesting Zhirinovsky to be a non-fascist, he was asking you if you would position him on the right or not. --FormerIP (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I hesitate to assign people to any part of the spectrum when they do not have any basis for so being assigned. Can you tell me even one of von Hindenburg's "far right" political statements, for example? By 1933 he had significant senility -- hardly a matter of a political spectrum issue <g>. A major personal speech by Victor Emmanuel II? In 1943 he renounced the Ethiopian and Albanian crowns, and announced an armistice with the Allies. So therefore I would not assign any of them to any particular political positions at all. I tend to think that where there is no evidence, one should not judge. YMMV. And he stated that no one called Zhirinovsky a fascist -- I pointed out that this was precisely wrong. Clear? Collect (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
No, he said "I've never heard anyone describe Zhirinovsky as anything but "far right". He clearly meant "as opposed to far-left, centre etc", not that he had had never heard him described as anything else whatsoever (eg male, fascist, Russian etc). --FormerIP (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This is pretty tedious. Are there any authoritarian political figures in the interwar period whom you are willing to assign to the political right? What did the political right consist of in interwar continental Europe? Was there a political right in interwar continental Europe? We seem to have reached the point where basically nobody is on the right. john k (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This may be a useful direction in which to take things - I'm genuinely not sure either way. Think there may be difficulties because fascists in power clearly didn't stop having ideology. Fascists who did not gain power, on the other hand, may be no less important than those who did in terms of adding to our understanding of what fascism is. If we are able to ascertain any additional/differering information about "fascism in power", then surely that will be detail for the body in any case - our priority should surely be to sort out the lead paragraph, after which I reckon discussions will become a lot easier. To my mind, it seems clear enough what the issues are here, but there seems to be difficulty in getting them discussed directly. Should we maybe be trying to focus more directly on the main issues, rather than proliferating the number of areas for discussion at the present time? --FormerIP (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that anything is working here, since Collect seems completely unwilling to accept any of the same premises as the rest of us. john k (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This article and most of the sources define Fascism as an ideology, not as a form of government. Do you have sources that support that distinction? -- Vision Thing -- 20:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you could clarify your question. The "consensus" historians define fascism as an ideology that was followed by Fascists and Nazis before they came to power. They question where this ideology fit on the political spectrum. But fascists in power and neo-fascists were right-wing. This is an obvious problem that should be explained in the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Mark 3 political spectrum proposal

Specialists on the subject have often found the issue of where to place fascism on a left-right spectrum to be complex, but it is normally described as extreme right. However, there exists a dissenting view that sees fascism as "a doctrine of the revolutionary centre", and number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.

What objections are there to this paragraph? --FormerIP (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No source for "often." No source for "specialists." No source for "normally described as extreme right." Uses "however" which is a weasel word. "Dissenting virew" implies that the view is not widespread -- while there are a large number of sources with that view. Uses "writers" where the virews are held by historians and political scientists. "some types" is unsourced. Avoids all mention of fascists asserting that they are in the center. Completely ignores all issues about the political spectrum's linearity. Couple more minor objections. It does get a F-K grade level of only 16.4 at least. Collect (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is as good as the Mark 2 proposal, but I can live with it. I assume that it can be peppered with wikilinks and references that address Collect's concerns above. What we need is a short paragraph that a general reader can understand. We don't want lots of in-line clarifications making it hard to read but we do need it to be fully verifiable. I would try to replace the word "specialists" though. On a separate note, can we try to calm down and not use shouty big fonts and bold text. This isn't going to be settled by shouting. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Daniel: Can you elaborate on why you think it is not as good as Mark 2? It may be that changes have been made which ought not to have been.
Collect: Thanks for your repsonse. I think there are a couple of points to make:
  • Words and phrases normally only need to be sourced where they might reasonably be viewed as contentious points.
  • If a word or is unsourced and considered too strong, then we should go for more conservative phrasing, until it becomes unconentious. So "often" would become "some", then if that was contested it would become "a few".
  • If a word or phrase is unsourced and considered not strong enough, then a source will need to be found which justifies stronger phasing. Note that this will need to be a single source, per WP:SYN. So "often" can become "ususally" or "always" only on the basis that there is a source for this, not on the basis that an editor is able to find a certain number of examples.
That understood, it would be helpful if you could explain, in each case, whether and why the wording you have drawn attentin to is contentious. It would also be helpful, where possible, if you could suggest better (ie less contentious or better-sourced) alternatives.
"Often" - what is your objection to this? Do you have a source which backs a stronger wording? I'm assuming it is not the case, but do you prefer a weaker wording?
"Specialists" - this has come from various objections about the way in which Eatwell's sources are described, the most common being that we must say who they are. They are a wide range of historians, sociologists and political scientists. Is there a way of describing these people you would prefer?
"normally described as extreme right" the source for this is Eatwell: [12]. Do you have a reason to doubt the validity of this source?
"however" - what do you mean by describing this as a weasel word? It just means "but".
"dissenting view" - I don't understand what you are saying here. If there is a "normal" view, which is sourced, then other views are "dissenting views". Yes, that they are in the minority is implied in the word, but this seems to be established and appropriate, IMO.
"writers" - if there is a view in favour, I would accept "historians and political scientists. However, I would make the point that it is proper to include other types of writers, and we should not make a list of their various professions and qualifications. "Writers" is a good shorthand.
"some types" - The only logical alternative to this would seem to me to be "all types". Do you have a source that suggests "all types"?
"fascists asserting they are in the centre" comes in what will be the second para and is also contained in the page lead. This seems to me to be prominent enough. If other editors agree, this fact could be mentioned in the lead para, but I think it would be a bit undue.
linearity of the spectrum - yes, it does ignore this, but it is such an incredibly marginal issue that I don't think the idea of including it in the lead para can be seriously entertained. --FormerIP (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


"Often" "Normally" etc. are decidedly POV terms. As is the assigning of "Specialists" to those who have the correct view, and "writers" to those who disagree. Also "normal" v. "dissenting" absent a source making that particular statement is OR and/or SYN per se. And "Some types" is not necessarily required in the sentence at all -- "all types" is a straw man as an argument. The lede should cover the summary of the entire section in a readable and accurate manner -- thus since the "centre" part is integral and substantive, it should be included in the lede. And I assure you that the issue about the applicability of a linear spectrum is a significant issue as I pointed out again with cites above. Leaving it out is directly violative of NPOV from the get-go. Thanks! Collect (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Collect.
What are your alternative suggestions? --FormerIP (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

FormerIP, this proposal is an improvement but its main problem is that it doesn't properly reflect the weight given to certain positions by sources.

Proposal fully supported by sources that is in between yours and mine would look like this:

Most analysts have found it difficult to determine whether fascism was an ideology of the right, left or centre.<ref>"The dispute amongst historians concerning fascism's 'negative' or 'positive' nature overlaps with another contentious area of scholarship, the question of whether fascism was an ideology of the ''right, left'', or ''centre''." Thomas P. Linehan. British fascism. Manchester University Press. 2000. p. 6</ref><ref>"A central feature of fascism that most analysts have found difficult to come to grips with is its fusion of socialist and nationalist ideas. As a result fascism has not been easy to place on a conventional left-right continuum." Stephen P. Turner, Dirk Käsler. Sociology Responds to Fascism. Routledge. 2004, p. 222</ref> It is normally described as "extreme right" although such terminology is often used erratically.<ref>"It is normally seen as 'extreme right', though right-wing terminology is often used erratically" Roger Eatwell. A spectralsyncretic approach to fascism. The fascism reader. Routledge. 2003. p. 79</ref> Scholarly consensus is that fascism was influenced by both left and right<ref>"The broad area of scholarly consensus which now exists, admittedly one with highly fuzzy boundaries, is that: fascism [...] has drawn on a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right". Roger Griffin. Che cos'è il fascismo? Interpretazioni e prospettive di ricerche, Ideazione editrice, Roma, 2003, pp. 97-122.</ref> and a good number of historians see fascism as a mixture of left and right or as a neither left nor right.<ref>"While very few historians place Nazism unambiguously on the left, the progressive end of the spectrum, a good number regard fascism as a mixture of left and right or a movement that is "neither left nor right."" Roderick Stackelberg. Hitler's Germany. Routledge. 1999. p. 3</ref> Moreover, some scholars call into question whole left-right terminology claiming that ideologies are better seen as multidimensional.<ref>"Moreover, left-right terminology fails to bring out that ideologies are better seen as multidimensional, and that at some levels there can be significant overlaps between ideologies". Roger Eatwell. A spectralsyncretic approach to fascism. The fascism reader. Routledge. 2003. p. 79</ref> -- Vision Thing -- 11:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the proposal is fine although I would reverse the two phrases in the first sentence. Collect's objections all appear to be problems relating to the use of a political spectrum itself. If people want to know more about the political spectrum and whether it is a valid tool then they can read that article. I would reply to Vision Thing that his proposal gives too much weight to dissenting views, and some of the quotes seem to be misleading. The writer who uses the term "left, right or center" does not in fact state that any writers placed fascism on the left or center and appears to be using the term to mean the political spectrum. The fact that fascism contained left-wing elements does not make it left-wing. Universal suffrage is left-wing in fact the major left-wing demand in the nineteenth century, yet we do not assume that people who believe in it are left-wing. In fact the Left had a major influence on all political thinking at least until after the Second World War. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Fascism has been popularly assigned as right-wing, though the use of a linear political spectrum for Fascism has been disputed, with multi-dimensional or non-linear spectrums being proposed as early as 1948. Some aspects of fascism are viewed as "left, right or centre." Fascists such as Mosley have described fascism as "extreme centre." Which should cover your main thesis while also covering what is in the section, which is the purpose of a lede for a section. Collect (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Why change "normally" to "popularly" and "extreme Right" to merely "right-wing", when the terms "normally" and "extreme Right" are what appear in the source. Disagreement with the linear spectrum is not specific to fascism. I think that Mosley's description of fascism as centrist was specific to British Fascism. In the UK the term "right-wing" would appear foreign where no one called themselves "right-wing". The Four Deuces (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The sentence should properly summarize the material following. The examples in the cites about the political spectrum being hard to apply to fascism, refer to fascism -- which makes them quite pertinent. I offered this as a way to get a suitable compromise done -- I am sorry you are so set on "extreme" etc. And as Mosley wwas not the only one who used "centre", it is clear that fascists outside the UK did in fact use such terminology. And with all of this supported in the following section, there seems little reason not to accept the compromise. Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
BTW, the term "right-wing" appears frequently in every UK paper I found -- thousands of cites in each, to be sure. Thus "right-wing" is not likely to be a confusing term to anyone in the UK. Collect (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, "right-wing" is perfectly okay for a UK audience. However, the source does not say "right-wing", it says "extreme right". I'm puzzled as to why you would want to change this.--FormerIP (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Mainly because the purpose of any lede is to produce a summary, not to iterate cites already provided, nor to use exact quotes. As "right wing" is clear, and I suggest no one has a problem with it in the lede here, while several do have a problem with "extreme right", why not just compromise here? We would only need "extreme right" if we wished to use that precise term in quotes, per WP citing policies. If we are not using quotes, the term "right-wing" is clearly acceptable. Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
First sentence can be replaced with: Most analysts have found it difficult to determine place of fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum. Meaning remains the same and it is still supported by both sources. -- Vision Thing -- 19:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Collect/FormerIP: I wrote "In the UK the term "right-wing" would appear foreign where no one called themselves 'right-wing'." (Note the past tense.) I was referring specifically to Mosley's time, explaining why he would not use the term then. Churchill and Chamberlain did not call themselves "right-wing", only Communists did. But Churchill did call Nozzis "far right". My point was Mosley's opinions should not be included in the first paragraph.
Vision Thing: I accept that analysts might find it hard to place fascism on a left-right spectrum. Police found it difficult to catch the Unabomber. The outcome is more important than the difficulty of the task.
The Four Deuces (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


As Mosley was not the only person to use the tem "centre" and as it has been used by others in other countries as well, your cavil that somehow "extreme right" would make more sense in the UK than "right wing" does is puzzling. Why is it so necessary to you to use "extreme right" when I find the prevalence of contention about a linear spectrum to be notable. I suggest that most literate folk understand "right wing" quite sufficiently well. Even in the UK. Collect (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The Four Deuces, that is a compromise wording to avoid word "contentious" to which FormerIP objects. -- Vision Thing -- 20:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Vision Thing, your first sentence proposal above is not supported by the source - I assume you are looking at Sociology Responds.
  • Firstly, "most analysts" and "not been easy" occur in different sentences, and there is no direct logical link between the two.
  • Secondly I think taking the two sentences out of context and deciding on the alternative wording including "difficult" is highly misleading. Four Deuces' Unabomber analogy is apt. If that article began "Police have found it difficult to catch the Unabomber", this would be true and I'm sure supporting sources could be found, but it is obviously an unsuitable fact with which to begin. The impression given is that experts have generally tried and failed, but if you read the quote in context and the following pages, it is clear that this is not what is being claimed by the source. This is why I would prefer "complex" or "complexity", which would do away with this ambiguity.
  • Thirdly, the chapter from which the quote comes deals only with the writings of British sociologists between 1930 and 1945, so it would be misleading to use the source in the way you propose without clarifying this inline.
I think the strongest statement which this cite can support is something like the one I already proposed: "Specialists on the subject have often found the issue of where to place fascism on a left-right spectrum to be complex". Even then, the source is not really good enough, because of the UK 1930-45 thing, but if we can agree to a compromise then I will take on the job of finding an alternative source which gets rid of this problem. --FormerIP (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
If you are rejecting wording from Sociology Responds, that only leaves us with wording from British fascism, and that is The question of whether fascism was an ideology of the right, left, or centre is a contentious issue for historians. Concerning Unabomber analogy, I don't see anything misleading with the sentence "Police have found it difficult to catch the Unabomber" if it is followed with "Unabomber was finally caught in 1996 after FBI...", and that is what we have in this case. -- Vision Thing -- 20:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
You are presenting a false dilemma, Vision Thing. I object to both the word "contentious" and the word "difficult", for reasons I have already explained. My preference is for neither. But I am willing to compromise, as I have suggested, with "complex", which I think is a word whose use here cannot be disputed. --FormerIP (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I sort of see your point about the Unabomber analogy (although I think most bystanders would think the information was being presented in the wrong order). If we said "Police have found it difficult to catch the Unabomber, but he was finally caught in 1996", then it would kind of be okay, because the misleading impression given by the opening words is immediately negated. To make this work in our lead sentence, we would have to immediately negate the misleading impression that there were a notable number of failures in the task of placing fascism on the political spectrum. ie we would need to add wording along the lines of: "...but, for the most part they have succeeded in so doing".--FormerIP (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Dilemma is real because that are only two options supported by sources (or if we are to have it your way, only one is supported - but that leaves us with only one option). Your alternative is no alternative at all because you have not presented a source that supports it.
Analogy with fascism is not perfect because Unabomber was unambiguously caught. Placement of fascism on political spectrum on the other hand is still surrounded by a fair amount of ambiguity and caveats. Because of that I think that two sentences are needed. -- Vision Thing -- 22:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
We are not obliged to follow the exact wording of the sources, provided the wording used is fair. I am proposing that "complex" conveys precisely what is meant, but avoids the ambiguity and potential to mislead, when taken out of context, of the words "contentious" and "difficult" (you'll note that your own choice of wording, "difficult" also isn't used in the source). In my view, a cite is only needed for the specific word "complex" if there is genuine reason to suspect that it might not be true. Although some editors might prefer other (in my view less NPOV) wording, I don't think it can be reasonably disputed that the statement "Specialists on the subject have often found the issue of where to place fascism on a left-right spectrum to be complex" is true and fair comment. It can be rejected, for sure, if genuine grounds for thinking it is untrue or a distortion are brought forward, but my impression is that no-one thinks this. It can't rejected simply on the grounds that a single word within it is not cited. --FormerIP (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I properly understand what you are getting at when you talk of "ambiguity and caveats". This may or may not be true, but it is surely inarguable that, if a statement has the potenital to mislead, then we should either not make it at all or immediately add wording that defuses that potential. --FormerIP (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you have objections against any other part of my compromise proposal? -- Vision Thing -- 13:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, multiple objections, but I would prefer not to encourage the discussion of alternative proposals to the lead para which has been suggested. If we start doing this, we are pretty much guaranteed to go round in circles forever. I think it would be better if you critiqued and suggested alternatives to the proposal at the top of the section. Please note, I am not trying to stifle debate - your comments can be as radical as you like. But explaining why you disagree with the wording which everyone else has been dicsussing would be better than just presenting new wording. --FormerIP (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussions about your and mine versions are complementary. If we leave the first sentence aside for a moment, first of my objections to your version is that even though fascism is normally described as extreme right scholarly consensus is that fascism was influenced by both left and right. Second objection is that "there exists a dissenting view" is a weasel wording. We have a source that explicitly says that a good number of historians see fascism as a mixture of left and right or as a neither left nor right. Third objection is that your lead doesn't mention a question of whether left-right political spectrum is an appropriate instrument for describing fascism or would some multidimensional spectrum be better. -- Vision Thing -- 09:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think simultaneous discussions would be complementary, I think they would be confusing. On your objections, the first is a true statement, but I don't see how it is an objection. On the second, I don't see how it is a weasel word, but do you have an alternative to propose? (Come to think of it, "alternative"??) On the third, I'm not sure we do have such a source - could you draw my attention to it? On the forth, I don't think this is a very important detail, but it is covered in the body. No way is it important enough to include in the lead para. --FormerIP (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
1) Your version doesn't mention that it is widely accepted that fascism was influenced by the left (even though it is normally seen as extreme right). 2) I propose that we use a wording from one of the sources ("a good number of historians see fascism as a mixture of left and right or as a neither left nor right"). 3) In the same paragraph were Eatwell says that fascism is normally described as extreme right he also says that "left-right terminology fails to bring out that ideologies are better seen as multidimensional". 4) To maintain NPOV it is important to mention in the lead that conventional left-right political spectrum is not without critics and/or to mention some other political spectrum. -- Vision Thing -- 16:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
1)It does mention "aspects" which are viewed as right wing. I agree that it is true that this includes influences, but I think separating these out is detail for the body. I can envisage a compromise where "influences" is inlcuded in the lead. Overall, both left and right influences should be included. 2) "A good number" is rather inexact and would be weaselly taken out of context. The prosal that's already there is, I think a lot clearer about what these potitions are. 3) This is the opinion of only one source, so I don't think it belongs in the first para. 4)No. This is a minor point bordering on irrelevant. The section is about the position of fasicsm on the spectrum, not a discussion of different ways in which the spectrum is presented and used.
I think it might be useful to focus away from the wording for a while and talk instead about what we are trying to achieve, then come back to it. Would you care to join me lower down the page?--FormerIP (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Collect: you are mistaken about what you say regarding the purpose of the lead paragraph here, because it is not a WP:LEAD. As far as I am aware, there is no guidline about how the leading paragraphs of individual sections and subsections should be constructed (although I'll be happy to stand corrected if there are). The only relevant issue is that the contents of the sources should be accurately reflected in the text. What you appear to be doing is tweaking here and there to suit your POV. --FormerIP (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Interesting since I was told it was "best practice" in all my English Writing courses to have the first sentence (lede sentence) in any section be an overview. In which case, we might well start off with the Mussolini quote and avoid any wrangling at all. And as I have no POV other than getting article properly written, I fail to see where you are headed. If no lede sentence is needed, then let us dispense with it entirely. Is that your position? Collect (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you suspect it might be my position?--FormerIP (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any impartial observer could dispute the broad (in a good sense) accuracy of the statement "Fascism has most commonly been described as being on the extreme right" as an opening statement in respect of this sub-topic, in respect of public perception, self-identification and academic consensus. After that, the article section can and should discuss the nuances and complexities involved, the possible limitations of the categorisation and the imprecision of the underlying terms etc etc. However, that is the right way round. Conversely, an opening statement to the effect that "Most analysts have found it difficult to determine the place of fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum", is, to be quite frank, utterly misleading, and unrepresentative of the overall consensus on this point in the real world, even if simple quotes pulled without context from one or two sources - however respectable those sources may be - can be found that appear to back it up. And I'm not sure how far WP should go to find compromise between the two options. The fringe theories noticeboard is that way, if it's needed. --Nickhh (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

ps: I spotted this after it came up on WP:ANI the other day, and am not going to get involved in it, beyond adding the above comment. Most of the more detailed points I would make have already been made, and debate would anyway surely be better focused on the more complicated and less obvious aspects of content here?

It is not "fringe theory" when it is in part subscribed to by Schlesinger and other eminent historians and political scientists. <g>. And with now over twenty sources, I think "one or two" is misleading. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I haven't seen that there are "twenty sources" that explicitly make the claim that "Most analysts have found it difficult to determine the place of fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum". Schlesinger certainly doesn't make that claim. And even if there were twenty that make this assertion, there are probably 1,258 that support a very different conclusion. Cherry-picking via Google to support a POV and holding out against the obvious really doesn't help this place. --Nickhh (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually I have a list now of over sixty reliable sources -- I started with 3, then added as they were systematically deleted <g>. And with current textbopoks agreeing on the problems with a linear spectrum, eliding it entirely seems odd indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Collect seems to have missed the "NO" in "NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH" ;) Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC).
Snarkiness is the mode? Listing reliable sources is not "original research" by the way. And trying to reach compromises is how articles actually get improved. Collect (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Collect, may I refer you to WP:RS#Academic Consensus:
The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor. For example, even if every scholarly reliable source located states that the sky is blue, it would be improper synthesis to write that there is a scientific consensus that the sky is blue.
The Four Deuces (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


Which means the quote specifically about many people finding the political spectrum contentious clearly qualifies as a proper RS for that claim. Thanks for supporting that point. Note that my proposed compromise does not make any claims as to how many hold a position -- just that the positions exist and are held by experts in the field. WP does not require that any source assert "consensus" when no such claim is made using that source. What we do have is a specific source denying a consensus. Collect (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Collect, surely you understand by now that the objection to the "contentious" source is not that it not an RS. It is that it is misleading when taken out of context and that it does not contain information that is important enough to the subject to warrant it being stated before anything else (per most editors who have commented here). --FormerIP (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I think Collect has decided that there are two options here. Either there is a consensus that Fascism is on the political right, or there is no such consensus. But that's not it at all. The issue isn't that there is a consensus that fascism is on the political right. It is that there is a consensus that fascism is normally placed on the political right. Many people disagree with that placement. But that's the whole point - they disagree with the idea that fascism should be placed on the extreme right, not that this is where it is normally placed. john k (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you and note that the administrator User:KrakatoaKatie pointed out to us Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect (see: Talk:Fascism#stop the reverting madness - ONE REVERT per editor effective immediately. One of the conclusions of the RfC was that "This RfC has shown a strong consensus that Collect has been tendentious and disruptive with his edits to political articles," and Collect is restricted to WP:0RR on all political articles. So I think a lot of discussion with Collect is unfortunately unproductive. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Try NPA someday -- that RFC/U was a Clusterfuck orchestrated by a group which used CANVASS etc. to "front load" the RFC -- if you look at the actual independent comments, you will find that those who actually were not canvassed overwhelmingly pointed out that the RFC was based on two cases of "edit war" and on an ongoing mediation (which was successfulk after the complainant dropped out) and that the other complaints were primarily made by folks with content disputes, including two who managed to get indef blocks for a while and a combined more than 40 blocks of the others, etc. You also made a complaint on Aat least N/EW that adding "Sir" in an article was a violatio of that 9RR -- which was laughed at by admins. For anyone interested, see User:Collect/Concerns, and User:Collect/actual summaries. I shall not name the editor who made those edit summaries for obvious reasons <g>. Look at your own log. Collect (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Mark 4 political spectrum proposal

While commonly seen as right wing, scholars point out that clasifying fascism on the commonly used left-right political spectrum poses taxonomic problems and is not very useful, as it incorporates elements of both left and right and attracted followers from both the left, but more often, the right. Contrary to the common characterization as right wing, some scholars characterize fascism as an extremism of the center, some characterize it as left wing, looking to its socialist/syndicalist roots, while others place it in a category of its own beyond left and right. Mamalujo (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


My chief objection here is that not all fascism falls into any one single category -- different groups of fascists have been quite different in political position -- it is not a unitary creature. That is, some fascists have decidedly been on the right, some in the centre, and some on the left depending on which groups they are, and from what vsntage point they are being looked at. Collect (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
If you have RS which say so, please include it in the section, and if they are RS I would be agreeable to a sentence or phrase in the intro. But personally I think there is a generic fascism which cannot sometimes be left and sometimes right. I agree to some extent with Gregor and Sternhell. I think fascism was a species or revision of Marxism. I think Communism and fascism are quite close and, in fact, I think both Russia and China today are at least quasi-fascist. I think the appellation of right to fascism based on authoritarianism, nationalism and militarism is spurious. You see all three among avowedly orthodox Marxist, although the nationalism is often obscured under a mist of claimed "international socialism". I do think that fascism sought a number of syntheses, but was to the left of liberal democracy, right wing authoritarianism and monarchy. It originally sought support of the left but that political space was already occupied, thus it gained ground as a bulward and a reaction against orthodox Marxism, hence the far left calling it right wing and reactionary. I think it's ridiculous to call Mussolini's government, which which grew government jobs from about 500,000 to a million jobs in 1930 alone and health and welfare spending from 7% of the budget in 1930 to 20% in a decade(see article), right wing. My opinion, of course, is beside the point. There is a common perception of fascism as right wing (remaining among lay people but waned among specialist scholars), and I think my proposal says that, accomodating those who want that in the lede without overstating the case, while presenting the other views. Mamalujo (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


(outdent) No offense, but this proposal is an unconditional failure, worse than all the previous proposals.

  • (1) It gives far more weight to minority views than the mainstream view; it's supposed to be the other way around.
  • (2) It's weasel worded. Beginning a sentence with "scholars point out" implies that the view that follows is a scholarly consensus, but this is fiction. Nor is it clear who you mean when you are speaking of "scholars".
  • (3) Do you have any source confirming that the perception of fascism as right-wing has "waned among specialist scholars"? Or do you only have sources written by scholars who no longer accept that view?
  • (4) Do you have any source confirming a scholarly consensus that the political spectrum is "not very useful"? Or just individual sources claiming it's not very useful? Or just sources (such as the Schlesinger source) which merely point out problems with a particular way of looking at the spectrum, but do not suggest that the concept of the spectrum, itself, is obsolete or "not very useful" ?
  • (5) The sentence beginning with "Contrary to..." suggests that all scholars reject the classification of fascism as right-wing, since it only mentions scholarly views which reject the typical characterization, and the language "Contrary to the common characterization as right wing..." implies that these various views refute the common characterization. Again, this is unsubstantiated fiction.
  • (6) Am I crazy, or is this just your own novel synthesis of a number of sources asserting problems with classifying fascism as right-wing?
  • (7) Following your aside, How on earth can you say that Mussolini's Fascist government can't be called right-wing because of high levels of government spending? Since when does "right-wing" primarily mean "fiscally conservative"? Is this the generally understood meaning when classifying fascism or other political movements as "right-wing"? I think not, and I fear you are fatally confused about the terms of this discussion.

Basically you have bent over backwards to say, not quite explicitly, that there is a scholarly consensus that the common perception of fascism, as right-wing, is wrong. But we haven't seen any sources to substantiate this. Your proposal is summed up by your Talk Page comment: "I think the appellation of right to fascism based on authoritarianism, nationalism and militarism is spurious," and, pursuant to reflecting that view, your proposal is thoroughly POV-pushing, synthesizing OR. Utterly unacceptable. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Factchecker. Also please note that Sternhell was talking about influences on fascist ideology, specifically the ideology of Italian Fascism before 1921 and German fascist ideology before 1934 and he has no problem with describing fascist government as right-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to me to be a "mark 4 proposal", but a completely new one. It's also unsourced and highly POV. --FormerIP (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki is a Joke

Wiki has just become so bizarre with the extremists that edit here. This article was so clearly written by a delusional liberal just spewing his/her opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.184.141 (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Political Spectrum: what are we trying to achieve?

Leaving aside the exact wording, it seems to me that there are a relatively small number of issues that form the subject of dispute here. Let me outline what I think they are...

  • Whatever the exact wording, almost all of those who have commented here are of the view that there exists a normal/majority view that fascism is right wing, and that this is our "headline story" for the section. There are a number of sources to support it. However, there are two editors in particular who seem unwillingly to allow this fact to be stated.
What's the reason for opposing its inclusion? Perhaps you don't agree personally with the idea that fascism is a right-wing phenomenon, but it would seem hard to deny that this is a minority position.
Are you able to explain your reasons? I think it would be helpful to understand where the objection is coming from. Nobody denies that there is much else that can be said, but what is you objection to that specific key point.
  • Those who agree with the "fascism is normally seen..." statement all seem to agree also that there are numerous things to be said after that. My proposal includes saying that there is a small but significant body of opinion that sees fascism as centrist, and that there are aspects to fasicsm where experts see "somthing of the left".
Clearly there are other things that can also be said, but three editors appear to me to want to give weight, both in terms of wording and in terms of which facts are selected, entirely, or almost entirely, to various arguments which they think tell against the idea that fascism is right-wing. This doesn't seem to me to conform to the general spirit of NPOV. Perhaps those editors who take the position I describe could offer a defence against this accusation.
  • The same three editors seem to think it is highly relevant to point out that multi-dimensional models for represeting relationships between political ideologies have been proposed at various times. This is undoubtedly true, but I think, and my impression is that many others agree, that it is of limited interest to the reader. As has been pointed out may times, most of these still have a right-left axis. Adding information about debates over frames of reference doesn't normally seem right. For example, articles which mention people's race don't also see the need to include information about some academics seeing race as a largely social construct. Articles which mention the speed of light don't tend to clarify that this may differ in different media. What distinuishes this case so that it becomes important to elaborate on the concept itself?
Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with almost all of that. The one reason why I think it might be fair to mention, or allude to, the multidimensional models (very briefly) is that everybody now agrees that Fascism is an extreme ideology, even the people who see it as economically centrist. The two dimensional models that support it being at the economic centre don't deny its extremism but express it on the other axis. This is probably not what the Fascists themselves had in mind when they tried to paint themselves as a "third way" to make themselves sound more palatable. Maybe we don't have to talk about two dimensional models explicitly but perhaps we can qualify "centre" in a similar way that we say "extreme right" to distinguish from the more normal right wing ideologies. I am not sure how best to say it. "Extreme centre" wouldn't make much sense. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

== Problems with some recent POV insertions ==

Please see repetition of this post, below

Recently, a couple of pieces of fairly POV material have been inserted without mention on the Talk page. We are in the midst of a long-running debate on how to reflect controversial or minority views on Fascism. There are a number of problems with the material that was added. Here are the sentences in question:

1st: "Thus it is not surprising that most fascist intellectuals started out as Marxists."

2nd: "Most scholars see the extremist Rousseauian aspects of the French Revolution's Reign of Terror as a precursor to Fascism."

This raises a number of serious problems:

  • (1) Inserting POV material without discussion, in the midst of a long-running debate on how to reflect minority or dissenting views, is not conducive to consensus-building.
  • (2) Both assertions are sourced to a single, highly controversial book, whose author is regarded as a controversial scholar on Fascism due to perceptions that he sympathized with Italian Fascism, or was an apologist for it.
  • (3) Not only that, but they both cite the introduction to the book, written by another scholar who is regarded as controversial, who even acknowledges in the introduction that the views of Felice's being described have been controversial.
  • (4) Not only that, but the author of the introduction also notes that Felice saw the link between Fascism and Western radical tradition as spurious. Generally speaking, this means "false" or "incorrect".
  • (5) It is highly questionable whether the introduction, itself written by a controversial scholar, to a controversial book, written by a controversial scholar, is acceptable as a source for a statement of fact such as "most fascist intellectuals started out as Marxists."

Then, we have some serious procedural problems with the way Mamalujo has presented the material:

  • (6) It is weasel-worded. "Thus it is not surprising..." Highly POV-pushing. Additionally, the assertion about the link to Rousseau is made into a one sentence paragraph, at the close of a section that only has one other paragraph.. thus appearing to give it even more weight. Indeed, if we represent Felice/Leeden's views at all, it may be wise to attribute them directly in the text to avoid UNDUE.
  • (7) The assertion "Most scholars see the extremist Rousseauian aspects of the French Revolution's Reign of Terror as a precursor to Fascism." is a major distortion of what the source (the introduction to De Felice's book) says. The introduction by Leeden actually says that most scholars of fascism would agree that fascism contains both a well-defined theory of human progress and a conception of the popular will that ties it to the extremist Rousseauian themes of the Terror. So, not only is this supposed "consensus" not quite what Mamalujo is presenting it as, it's only a hypothetical consensus that the author of the introduction is saying probably exists, and ultimately it's doubtful that this one controversial introduction to a controversial book is an acceptable source for a claim of widespread scholarly consensus. Nor is it clear that Ledeen is actually saying mosts scholars of fascism would agree explicitly with the link to Rousseau, rather than the "theory of human progress and... conception of the popular will".

So, in a nutshell, we have the following problems:

Inappropriate timing to insert POV claims, during the midst of debate; questionable sourcing; serious misrepresentation of the questionable source; and weasel-wording.

My request is that Mamalujo (and anyone else) avoid making such POV, politically charged analysis while we are having this discussion about how to represent dissenting views; and take considerably more care in selecting sources and then accurately reflecting exactly what they say rather than distorting them to make them fit better with a particular viewpoint. In the meantime, I have removed these assertions from the article entirely. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a similar edit to the article on the French Revolution.[13] The Four Deuces (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
It appears he's chosen to simply edit war rather than attempt to provide some sensible explanation for how that source is supposed to support the claim he's inserting. He reverted you, I reverted him. Could you post on his Talk before this gets out of hand? We should probably keep the discussion focused on a single talk page – preferably this one, since this is where the dispute started. Also because a purported tangential link to Fascism is not especially on-topic for an article on the French Revolution. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


Please avoid declaring material as "edit war" as that is a very serious charge to make. And unless you are stalking someone, I am surprised you found his other edits -- I had not noticed you beoing active in the FR article, to be sure. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
"...that is a very serious charge to make. And unless you are stalking someone...".
Oh irony. --FormerIP (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Pardon me. I guess I should have said, "It looks like he's chosen to simply ignore the objection that his proffered source completely fails to substantiate the assertion, and instead has forcibly reinserted the material which falsely claims, based on a fundamental misrepresentation of a single controversial source, that there is an academic consensus regarding a purported ideological relationship between Fascism and the Terror as seen in the French Revolution."
Would that be acceptable to you?
And, I found his edits because – get this – they were pointed out to me right here on the talk page, about two inches above this sentence. But thanks for the suggestion that I'm stalking him. That's obviously not a serious charge that one should be very careful in making. And thanks ever so much for your characteristically pertinent and needed commentary. Best! Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
And as it was TFD who found the edits, it is clear to what I was referring. I had not, in fact, been aware of either of you eduiting that other article in the past at all. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC) edited for "sic patrol" And when I wish to make a statement about you as an editor, I would use FCAYS or the like. Collect (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The previous sentence complained about my statement that Mamalujo was engaging in an edit war. Any person giving your statements a normal English reading would immediately conclude that the next sentence, which used the pronoun "you" without supplying any further antecedent, was also referring to me. If this was not your meaning, you objectively failed to make that clear. I'll chalk it up as a simple misunderstanding which could have been avoided, for example, by saying "And, TFD, I am surprised you found his edits..." Regardless, "moist kindly" sounds like a brand of baby wipes. :) Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Collect, I do not like being accused of stalking. When Factchecker mentioned Mamalujo's edits to the Fascism page I went to his user contributions page to see what if any other changes he had recently made to the article.[14] I could not help noticing that the following two consecutive edits seemed to be similar:
22:17, 9 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Fascism ‎ (→Historical causes of the rise of fascism: Intellectual ties to the Reign of Terror, cite. Also, most fascist intellectuals started as Marxists, cite.)
22:06, 9 July 2009 (hist) (diff) French Revolution ‎ (→Historical analysis: most scholars see Terror as tied to fascism, cite)
The Four Deuces (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
In short -- you examined Mama's contributions to see where to revert him - right? Collect (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we could create a whole subsection of this talk page and keep it reserved for accusations of Personal Attacks, Stalking, Sockpuppetry, failure to AGF, sic patrol, etc etc etc? It makes it very difficult to have a topical discussion when every thread is peppered with such things. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Collect, I do not know why you would draw that conclusion. I wanted to comment in this section. However when it appeared that the same POV, misleading and inaccurate edit was also inserted into another article I reported it here and then deleted it in the other article. Some people take these articles at face value. Please note that Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. (Please see WP:Wikihounding). By the way please Comment on content, not on the contributor. (See: WP:NPA). The Four Deuces (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, Collect, I noticed that forty minutes after I had reported vandalism to an article about a school in Alberta to an administrator[15] that you reversed the vandalism.[16] (The vandal had copied the fascism article over the school article.) May I ask how you were aware that this article had been vandalized? The Four Deuces (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(out)It appeared to be vandalism - the vandalism to Fascism [17] and [18] attracted my notice. Placed the "redirect" on a watchlist -- and it definitely appeared to be a problem. Waited - then reverted what I considered to be vandalism. Did you miss the edits to Fascism made by that IP? Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The IP entered the redirect at 23:20, 9 July then reversed it 2 minutes later.[19] For two minutes then the following would have appeared at the top of the Fascism page: "Old Scona Academic High School" redirects here. For other uses, see Old Scona Academic High School (disambiguation). At 23:24 9 July the vandal then changed the High School article, which was his final edit.[20]. You reversed the vandalism at 21:42 10 July, 22 hours after it occured. So I don't understand the following:
Why would you consider the edits to Fascism to be vandalism when the second edit reversed the first edit 2 minutes after it was made, and not an error that had been reversed?
What were you waiting for? The vandalism to the High School article occurred 2 minutes after the second edit to Fascism.
The Four Deuces (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I waited for someone else to fix it -- when no one did, I removed the vandalism. Are you seriously upset that I fixed an article in some way? I can't find any edit by you in that article -- did you use a different account? BTW, looking at the spoor of vandals is done by a lot of editors -- automatically checking edit histories of IPs is often revealing. How did you happen upon that vandalism? Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting that you found the fact that an IP had re-directed an article to Fascism for 2 minutes to be "vandalism" and then put the High School article on your watch list, which you have informed me contains over 700 articles, yet never looked at the IP's edits or the re-direct article. Then you waited almost 24 hours and only reversed the vandalism to the High School article within an hour after I had reported it.

I had checked recent edits to the Fascism article after I had read on the talk page about wacky edits and then noticed the IP's edits. I do not remember whether I went straight to the re-direct article or to the IP's edit history. Rather than wait for someone else to correct the article, I tried to undo it but was unable and so contacted an admistrator. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


IOW you had absolutely zero connection to the High School article, and are upset that I fixed the vandalism for some reason? I dunno where you got the 700 articles from -- my watchlist is only at 506, and since most articles are not all that active, 228 changes cover 24 hours -- is that a problem of some sort? I have edited 1300 distinct pages etc. but I do not place every one of them on the watch list, to be sure. Is there a point you wish to make here -- other than being surprised I reverted a vandal somewhere? Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
What you actually wrote was I now have several hundred pages on my watchlist (about seven hundred including talk pages)[21]. I should have said pages not articles. And well done on reversing vandalism! The Four Deuces (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
As each article has a talk page, in general, the total of all "pages" is indeed over 800 now. I am glad you are not upset at vandal-fighting. Collect (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fascism/Archive_28&oldid=304403063"