Talk:Fascism/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

This is Ridiculous

Fascism is a far right wing ideology, if you must you the French Revolution analogy.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Apconig (talk • contribs) 20:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Professor Stackelberg

(out)Please note the extensive references to Stackelberg at Google Scholar.[1]. Note that he edited The Routledge Companion to Nazi Germany, he is an expert of fascism, his writings have been peer reviewed and his theory of fascism in the political spectrum was specifically written about by Roger Griffin in "The Concept that Came Out of the Cold: the Progressive Historicization of Generic Fascism and its New Relevance to Teaching Twentieth-century History".

Also could you please discuss before making deletions.

The Four Deuces (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Search at Google Scholar shows that Stackelberg is rarely cited. His "Hitler's Germany" was cited 9 times. [2] For comparison, Hayek's "The road to serfdom" was cited 2303 times [3], Payne's "A history of fascism" 97 times [4], Sternhell's "Neither right nor left" 62 times [5], and Gregor's "Interpretations of fascism" 23 times. It might be best to compare Stackelberg's "Hitler's Germany" to Goldberg's Liberal Fascism that has 4 cites (it was published in 2008, Stackelberg's book in 1999) [6]. If we are going to have a paragraph discussing Goldberg's views, then we can have a paragraph discussing Stackelberg's views. -- Vision Thing -- 12:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Vision Thing: Being "rarely cited" on Google Scholars demotes one's academic credentials to the status of Jonah Goldberg? Are you seriously saying that? Please. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm using The Four Deuces's standard for establishment of credentials. And 9 cites for a book old 10 years is an extremely small number. -- Vision Thing -- 19:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm a good man, and thorough. I'm not involved in a dispute on how to gauge scholarly merit, but I certainly could be! If a raw one-time manual count of Google Scholars references to an author were indicated as a sufficient benchmark for scholarly notability, I would certainly object to that basic claim. Somehow I think there was more to your earlier dispute with Four Deuces than you are letting on; if you think it's pertinent to this discussion, please elaborate.

Here is a bio of Stackelberg indicating his academic credentials.

• Roderick Stackelberg is Professor Emeritus in History at Gonzaga University, Spokane, Washington. He received his A.B. from Harvard in History and Literature in 1956, an M.A. from University of Vermont in 1972, and a Ph.D. in History from University of Massachusetts, Amherst in 1974. He taught Developmental Reading for Baldridge Reading Services, English and German at the Hartnackschule in Berlin, and English, German, and Social Studies at Lake Region Union High School in Vermont. After completing his Ph.D., he taught History at San Diego State University, University of Oregon, and the University of South Dakota before coming to Gonzaga University in 1978. He became Associate Professor of History in 1981 and full Professor in 1989. He served as chair of the History Department from 1987-1993. In 1997 Roderick Stackelberg was appointed the Robert K. and Ann J. Powers Professor of the Humanities at Gonzaga, a position he held in addition to being Professor of History until he retired in May of 2004.

I don't want to get involved in a fist fight, but I think that's considerably more significant than Goldberg's academic pedigree. Just an undergrad degree from a relative unknown? Vs. Harvard grad + Master's + history PhD + professorships + chair of a history department? Seems like an intellectual blowout. Just saying, let's not draw any hasty conclusions on Weight from that manual one-time Google Scholars reference comparison. Pretty weak proposition, no? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, VT, if you edit references sourced to Hayek could you please read the source first (there is a link) so that the text actually reflects what Hayek said. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Spylab, I wonder if could look at your edits to Hayek again. E.g., the deletion of The German establishment had not been opposed to socialism, merely to its liberal elements of internationalism and democracy. However once socialists abandoned these and moved to the right, they combined to drive out liberalism. This omission changes the meaning of the passage and makes it appear that Hayek thought the Nazis were socialists and implies that they were left-wing. In fact he thought Nazis were composed of the traditional Right and socialists who "betrayed" socialism and moved to the right. Historically the Right had been attracted to the collectivist views of socialism but not their internationalist and democratic views. (Also you took out the footnote.) The Four Deuces (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) Please note that the proposed new lead is still just a proposal. The current proposal was inserted into the article; I removed it. The article topic is what, 60 years old? We're in no rush. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you go ahead and remove The Four Deuces's Stackelberg addition? That is also under discussion. -- Vision Thing -- 19:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

VT, you said something similar to me on my talk page a while back. I think it is perfectly normal and acceptable for editors to delete material they disagree with whilst preserving material they may not disagree with but others do. Why do other people's work for them? --FormerIP (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

VT, I put in Stackelberg's comments because it is a recent explanation of the mainstream view of fascism on the ideological spectrum. If you have a better source, could you please provide it. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that isn't an explanation of the mainstream view of fascism on the ideological spectrum. According to you, Stackelberg claims that fascism is extreme right-wing "because of its opposition to communism and equality." Under that definition all conservative parties are "extreme right-wing" and on a par with fascism. You don't need me to point out how much such a view is ludicrous and out of the mainstream. -- Vision Thing -- 16:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems like a pretty straightforward reading of the source. I'm not sure exactly what your objection is or why you say Stackelberg's view is "ludicrous and out of the mainstream". I'm afraid I do need you to explain what you mean. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, it would be helpful if you could suggest a better source for explaining why fascism is normally considered right-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It is straightforward, but it is not a mainstream view. Mainstream view is not that "extreme right" is any ideology that opposes communism and equality. -- Vision Thing -- 22:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, ignoring for a moment that this language is not quite what the source says, I would ask where in the political spectrum you would place an ideology that opposes communism and equality(!) Far-left? Anyway, Stackelberg offers this explanation of the meaning of the political spectrum:

• "Historians usually describe the great nineteenth-century ideologies of conservatism, liberalism, and socialism with the help of a conceptual model that places these movements on a continuum from right to left in accordance to their preference for the hierarchical status quo (the right) or liberalizing and equalizing reform (the left)." Hitler's Germany, "Fascism and the Conservative Tradition", p. 16

So, are you saying that his description of the meaning of the political spectrum is wrong? Are you saying that he is wrong to place fascism at the "extreme right" based (in part, at least) on its opposition to communism and equality? And, not for nothing – this is a big reason why I think TFD is asking for a source – what is your basis for saying that this view is wrong or is not mainstream? Your objection, besides seeming to me like it does not make any sense, would have a lot more force if you could tie it in to some authoritative view or source. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(out)The sourced material that VT removed states:

According to Roderick Stackelberg, fascism was seen by its contemporaries as right-wing, and was supported by traditional right-wing elites in its rise to power. He considered fascism "extreme right-wing" because of its opposition to communism and equality. Stackelberg stated that fascists blamed liberals for advancing socialism, and that fascists shared with traditional conservatives attachment to authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, and respect for social rank and marital virtues.[7]

I reinserted it but removed it after VT complained that this represented a second reversion. However I would ask VT to kindly re-insert this text or something from another WP:RS explaining why fascism is "extreme right-wing". The Four Deuces (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Section doesn't contain an explanation that placing fascism on a political spectrum is an extremely difficult question or explanation about scholarly consensus about both left and right influences on fascism. I think that those are more important questions that need to be addressed first. -- Vision Thing -- 08:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

VT, are you saying that TFD shouldn't be allowed to add content he wants on the grounds that disputes over content you would like to add should be resolved first? That would seem highly unreasonable. --FormerIP (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that means that searching for a RS explaining why fascism is "extreme right-wing" is not high on my list of priorities. I stated my objections to Stackelberg above and The Four Deuces still hasn't replied to them. Instead he is posting templates on my talk page on how I'm currently engaging in an edit war and at the same time he is the one who broke 1RR. -- Vision Thing -- 12:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have replied. Stackelberg seems like quite a reliable source, with established academic credentials, and his view well within the mainstream. I will ask you again to please elaborate on your objection that Stackelberg's view is "ludicrous" and "out of the mainstream", or to state why Stackelberg might otherwise not be a RS for this topic. Also, please see (above, in bold italics) Stackelberg's general description of the left-right political spectrum as a model for discussing ideologies. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Your stated objections to Stackelberg were that he was not notable and that his opinions were wrong. I explained to you why he is a notable expert on this subject. The fact that you do not agree with him is irrelevant. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The other objection seems to be that Stackelberg gives an explanation of why fascism is seem as right-wing, whereas as VT would prefer to see an explanation of why it is extreme right-wing. I would support this preference, but would also say that until such an explanation can be found, the wording TFD has come up with is relevant to the section and it accurately reflects and RS. Not everyone seems to like WP:IMPERFECT, but I think it applies again. If you think we can do better, then the ball is in your court. But you should WP:PRESERVE TFD's wording in the meantime. --FormerIP (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Factchecker atyourservice, fascism was a revolutionary movement. That doesn't sit well with "preference for the hierarchical status quo". As for Stackelberg, his book was cited 9 times in 10 years. Judging by that his views are not notable enough to be discussed in this section. In Fascism and ideology maybe, but not here in the main article. -- Vision Thing -- 12:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what status you expect your vague and uncorroborated assertion to have. Based WP:V my expectation is that it is "none whatsoever". How can you possibly think that a published source by a scholar with academic credentials on the subject could be disqualified as "ludicrous and out of the mainstream" based on your opinion as a Wikipedia editor ?

Your claim about Google Books is ridiculous. Completely ridiculous. The idea of counting Google Scholars references – which you appear not to have done accurately, anyway – and proferring the result as an authoritative measure of notability is only slightly less ridiculous than your completely random insistence that "9 cites in 10 years" proves non-notability. Nor is it clear what you could mean by saying that he's notable enough for one of the sub-articles, but not this one. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS. It says: "Wikipedia articles should cover all significant views, doing so in proportion to their published prominence among the most reliable sources." and "The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes." -- Vision Thing -- 14:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of this discussion, suppose I'll grant you that all of Stackelberg's actual credentials are moot in the face of a Google Scholars search – can't really say I actually find it a convincing position, and it's stated that Google Scholar's citation functionality is "limited to the recent articles that are included" and that it returns fewer results than commercial indexes. But, supposing it for the sake of argument: I'm not convinced the fact that G.Scholars only produces 14 cites since 1999, shows that the work has not entered mainstream scholarly discourse.. it is also in the collection of several libraries, for example Oxford University and the NY Public Library. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the first sentence? Even if for the sake of this discussion we assume that Stackelberg's credentials are good as gold, his views would still need to be covered in proportion to their published prominence among the most reliable sources. And if 14 cites are enough for a 3 sentence overview, then Gregor's 23 cites should be enough for a 4 sentence overview and so on. We would need two articles just for covering all the views on political spectrum. -- Vision Thing -- 21:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not quite it, I think. Differing views on particular issues should be given in proportion to their notability. There is no rule about giveing proportional space in the article or section overall. That would be very difficult to do. On this particular issue (why fascism is described as right wing), Stackelberg is currently the only source that has been proposed. So he currently enjoys 100% of the notability. And the amount of space given to any particular material should be decided based on the relevance of the material, not the status of the source.--FormerIP (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You say that differing views on particular issues should be given in proportion to their notability. I agree, and that is a reason why I insist that we need to determine does Stackelberg's view corresponds to mainstream view or not. If it corresponds to mainstream view then material that The Four Deuces want to add to the section should be added. If it doesn't correspond to mainstream view then notability of Stackelberg's view drops dramatically. On another note, why do you think that fascist alliance with radical right-wing parties (information already included in the article) is not a reason why fascism is normally described as a right wing? -- Vision Thing -- 12:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Vision Thing, WP:RS refers to citation indexes/indices. Google Scholars is a citation index, and one which is noted to only contain recent publications and also noted to be of lower quality than commercial indexes. This does not mean that a Google Scholars search becomes the single, authoritative way of establishing scholarly notability. Rush Limbaugh's two books "See, I Told You So" and "The Way Things Ought To Be" together have over 110 cites, yet he has no academic credentials whatsoever. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Google Scholar is a citation index that The Four Deusces, not me, chose to support his argument for inclusion of Stackelberg's view. -- Vision Thing -- 18:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

So? Like I said before, if you want to connect this to a dispute you are having with Deuces, don't delay in explaining the relevance. In the meantime I'm going to have to suggest that Google Scholars is neither our first nor final authority on determining scholarly credentials and notability. It is an aid, nothing more. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you know for some better tool that we can use in order to determine someone's scholarly credentials and notability? -- Vision Thing -- 20:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any such index will suffice all by itself. There won't be any "One Stop Shop For All Your Scholarly Credential Verification Needs" ... otherwise content disputes would be so easy to resolve. I think to some degree, plain old judgment is needed – although I realize this answer will probably annoy you since our judgments on the subject oppose each other, and I admit this seems to be a problem which presents its own separate set of difficulties.

Anyway, Stackelberg's credentials are strong, he appears to have published dozens of articles and books, overall his work has been cited numerous times, and in particular Hitler's Germany seems to have been peer-reviewed pretty extensively, as recently noted by a user at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I think that's the proper place to continue this discussion. For whatever it's worth, you seem to be the only editor arguing that Stackelberg is not notable on the subject of fascism. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(out)Here is the quote from Stackelberg:

In terms of their fundamental goals, however, the crucial determinant of location on the political spectrum if “left” and “right” are to retain their conceptual usefulness, fascism and communism belong on opposite extremes. It is helpful to conceptualize fascism as an extreme right-wing movement not only because it was dedicated to the destruction of Marxism and communism (after all, two movements of the extreme left, Chinese Maoism and Soviet Communism, could also be violently opposed to each other), but because of its fundamental opposition to the value of equality. Fascists regarded egalitarianism in any form, but particularly in the form of racial equality, as the source of the ruination of humankind. It was this opposition to equality and democracy that made fascists so congenial to the traditional right-wing elites on whose help they depended to obtain power. In the perception of its contemporaries, fascism was a movement of the far right. [8]

I am welcome to suggestions on how this may be best summarized. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake, Stackleberg does use the word extreme. Seems to me that VT's objection, if I still understand it correctly, would be adequately dealt with by phrasing such as "because of the strength of its opposition to communism and equality". --FormerIP (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that The Four Deuces forgot to list one characteristic that changes a lot. That characteristic is opposition to democracy. Quoted paragraph also shows that Stackelberg's analysis is not a part of the mainstream view. In his analysis he particularly stresses fascist opposition to racial equality, and mainstream view is that racism is not a defining characteristic of fascism. You can be fascist without being racist. -- Vision Thing -- 12:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As stated above, I'm not sure how your own analysis of the topic can have any bearing on the article. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

And also that he ascribes the position on the far right as being "in the perception of its comtemporaries" which is quite different from him placing it there himself. Also "extreme" as a noun does not justify anything more than its use as a noun. Collect (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I will add in then that they were opposed to democracy. However, it is wrong to exclude Stackelberg's opinion because you believe it to be wrong or founded on a mistaken view of fascism. Note that we are merely mentioning his opinion not stating that it is factual. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

My comments are based only on what the cite actually says. Nor do I make any statements based on considering any expert "wrong" nor have I done so in any post. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

While carefully reading that single paragraph, did you also notice the words "It is helpful to conceptualize fascism as an extreme right-wing movement"? Also, I'm not sure what you are hoping to establish by talking about usage of "extreme" as a noun vs. as an adjective, but did you notice the words "extreme right-wing movement"? It seems to me that you did not. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Try using the full sentence then in any claim. "Conceptualize" seems an extraordinary word, indeed. Collect (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever that is supposed to mean, Collect, if a proposal comes to the table you can object to any wording you find "extraordinary" (!) In the meantime, it would be helpful if you would read things carefully before responding to them, especially when arguing with another editor about "what the cite actually says". Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, you want to introduce a Stackelberg's opinion in order to explain why fascism is considered right wing. However, you haven't provided one bit of evidence that Stackelberg's opinion corresponds to the mainstream view and judging by the paragraph that you have provided his view on fascism differs from the mainstream view. -- Vision Thing -- 14:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with the conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic found in reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic, each must be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted to be "the truth". Instead, all of the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, and not just the most popular. An article should not assert that the most popular view is the correct one, nor should this be implied by mentioning some views only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.[9]

What reason do you have to omit the view of fascism as right-wing from the article?

The Four Deuces (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Such view is not omitted. It is discussed in second and third paragraph of the section. -- Vision Thing -- 21:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) I rather think I called for the use of a full sentence. I did not think that qualified as an objection to the use of the full sentence at all. Using a full sentence from a cite generally does qualify as citing the cite accurately. I also think the qualification in the final part of the quote above referring to comtemporary views is pertinent. The post you seem to be referring to was a response to an apparent claim that I opposed any claim because I thought it was "wrong." Rather I support a full range of cites being restored to the article. Collect (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What you just said is not an accurate reflection of the comment you made approximately 90 minutes ago. You clearly suggested that Stackelberg's statement that the far-right designation by contemporaries of fascism indicated that he himself did not agree with or support that placement. This is directly refuted by the text. You also said that using "extreme" as a noun "does not justify anything more than its use as a noun", implying that the passage doesn't directly describe Fascism as being "extreme right-wing", when in fact it does. Reading the source text carefully will help guarantee that you don't make elementary mistakes when offering your own analysis of it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Trying to state that I "suggested" something 'when I did not suggest it' is not helpful to the talk page discussion. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh? You didn't suggest it? Then why don't you tell me what you meant by the following assertion:

• And also that he ascribes the position on the far right as being "in the perception of its comtemporaries" which is quite different from him placing it there himself.

You were not claiming that Stackelberg does not categorize fascism as "extreme right"? Do explain. Also feel free to explain what sensible/pertinent comment you were trying to make regarding nouns and adjectives. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Just asserting that an actual quote should be used. Do you dislike using the actual quote? As for "extreme" being used as a noun, it is used as a noun in the first sentence provided. After "if l and r are to retain their conceptual usefulness." Collect (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine how "...which is quite different from him placing it there himself" is merely an insistence on using the direct quote, when the direct quote also indicates that Stackelberg also places fascism at the extreme right. It's also a fairly odd assertion that by saying, "Also 'extreme' as a noun does not justify anything more than its use as a noun" you merely meant to point out that "extreme" was used as a noun in a source. Your sentence continues.. "does not justify anything more than its use as a noun", which any normal person would read as an insinuation that the word "extreme" has somehow improperly been used as something other than a noun, and that you are complaining that this is unjustified. If you are being sincere in saying what you meant, then your original statements can only be described as bizarre and unintelligible. It's pretty important to speak clearly and accurately. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Factchecker you could draft a new version for inclusion in the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would be useful until we have sources that everyone finds acceptable, but whatever I would propose would most prominently feature the mainstream "right-wing"/"extreme right-wing" categorization while carefully stating the existence of any objections or criticisms that are well-substantiated. If we can't directly substantiate the prominence of such views, I would give them a very limited reading, if any. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(out)Actually VT is the only one who has deleted this text that was fully supported by a reliable source. I am sure that Collect would not delete properly sourced material. No one else seems to object. BTW I have posted to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Fascism. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment prompted by RS/Noticeboard query. My opinion is that it is a reliable source on Nazi fascism. Editors not happy with the material been supported with this source should find equally reliable sources that either criticize this source or counter the info put forward by it.--LexCorp (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a question of whether "Hitler's Germany" is a reliable source. It is a reliable source for Stackelberg's opinion without a question. Issue is whether Stackelberg's opinion on why fascism is seen "extreme right-wing" reflects mainstream view and does it merit a inclusion in the section. -- Vision Thing -- 21:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The sourced material that VT removed states:

According to Roderick Stackelberg, fascism was seen by its contemporaries as right-wing, and was supported by traditional right-wing elites in its rise to power. He considered fascism "extreme right-wing" because of its opposition to communism and equality. Stackelberg stated that fascists blamed liberals for advancing socialism, and that fascists shared with traditional conservatives attachment to authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, and respect for social rank and marital virtues.[10]

The issue is merely whether Stackelberg can be quoted as a reliable source to explain the opinion that fascism is right-wing, not as a source that this is the mainstream view. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If the edit is as stated above I don't see any problem at all. He is a reliable source on Nazi Germany. He states that according to his expert knowledge those were the views of contemporaries of Nazi Germany. The edit explicitly state this is according to Roderick Stackelberg. If other sources disagree then include them also so as to balance the issue.--LexCorp (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, you are presenting a false dilemma. Stackelberg is a reliable source for Stackelberg's opinion on why fascism is right-wing, but that does not imply that his view should be included in the article. The issue properly addressed would be: should we rely on Stackelberg's opinion to explain to readers the reasons why fascism is normally described as extreme right-wing movement? -- Vision Thing -- 12:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

VT that is not the issue at all. Please read my previous post. Nowhere does it say that Stackelberg said "fascism is normally described as an extreme right-wing movement". It says nothing at all about the prevalence of this view. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

See section Bi-partisan proposal. FormerIP had said: "The reasons why fascism is right wing should be covered (per The Four Deuces). I agree with this in principle, but am unable to identify a source which gives a succinct and fair overview. If anyone can do this, then it can be inserted." In response to his request for a source which gives a succinct and fair overview of the reasons why fascism is right wing you have proposed Stackelberg's "Hitler's Germany". So either Stackelberg's "Hitler's Germany" gives a fair overview of the reasons why fascism is right wing or it does not. -- Vision Thing -- 18:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain your comment : So either Stackelberg's "Hitler's Germany" gives a fair overview of the reasons why fascism is right wing or it does not. What does that mean? The Four Deuces (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that he is saying Stackelberg was your answer to the problem of sourcing an overview or explanation of the general view of fascism and why it is right-wing. He is arguing that if it's not a mainstream overview then it shouldn't be used at all. This, coupled with his argument that it's not a mainstream overview, is leading him to conclude that Stackelberg shouldn't be used at all. I would tend to take issue both with his contention that the view is not mainstream, and with the idea that the source can't be used if it's not an overview. VT appears also to be saying that allowing Stackelberg as a non-summarizing source will open the floodgate for numerous other views which he says will have to be reflected, given what he claims is Stackelberg's non-notability, which he seems to further intertwine with a previous debate with you in which you apparently asserted Google Scholars as a measure of scholarly notability, and which he now seems to be insisting is the only measure we should be using, thus leading to his conclusion that Stackelberg's Hitler's Germany is non-notable because Google Scholar only returns 14 cites. I'm not sure I find this whole apparatus of an argument to be convincing. Apologies if I am misstating VT's position. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No need for apologies, you gave a fair overview of my position. -- Vision Thing -- 20:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

...and yet there are no cookies on my Talk page! [runs away sobbing] Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's actually a hindrance to citation in WP that scholars so invariably give the author's name and date and not a book title. The Google Scholar search for R Stackelberg with the initials of two other Stackelbergs removed gives 58 hits. And there'd be presumably a few Stackelberg cites that would be left out of that because he or another author listed a cite of someone called e.g. O. Henry or H.R. Pufnstuf or Jesus H. Christ. Anarchangel (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added in the view that fascism is right-wing. Although we may wish to place them on the left, we must accept that some academics place them on the right. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I notice that User:72.219.161.154 has reversed my entry (Undid revision 304808298 by The Four Deuces (talk) Change not addressed on talk).[11] I notice that 72.219.161.154 has made no contributions to the talk page and no previous edits to the article. (The IP is from Orange County, California according to my IP locator.) Could 72.219.161.154 please explain this edit. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Such view is already present in the article. You have failed to answer any of my arguments. -- Vision Thing -- 15:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that you reversed my edit? The Four Deuces (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Vision Thing, what do you mean by this? Haven't I been answering your arguments for days? Deuces as well? What about those commenting at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard? Would it be more accurate to say that your arguments have not been answered to your satisfaction? Definitely not the same thing. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I didn't reverse your edit, but I agree with 72.219.161.154's edit summary. -- Vision Thing -- 17:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Factchecker atyourservice, you gave a fair overview of my position but in the end all that you said was "I'm not sure I find this whole apparatus of an argument to be convincing." without explaining why you don't find my argument convincing. -- Vision Thing --

That's because it was an overview of your position, for the benefit of Four Deuces; not an overview of my objections, for your benefit. I had previously commented extensively. However I will oblige you by providing a summary:

• (1) Your primary justification for the claim that Stackelberg should be rejected is that his view is "ludicrous and out of the mainstream", which appears to have no basis other than your opinion.
• (2) Your next best justification for the same claim is asserted by counting Google Scholars cites for a single one of his recent publications. I have repeatedly objected to that as being some universal, debate-ending system of measurement, to be used in a vacuum.
• (3) Even if it were, we don't have a standard by which to interpret the number or quality of citations shown by Google Scholars. Your claim is based on a highly subjective analysis of the Google Scholars search result. I think that this search tool has the potential to substantiate whether a scholarly work has been peer reviewed, but not much more. Drawing detailed conclusions about WP:Weight based on nothing else, and especially in the face of a competing analysis, seems rash.
• (4) Your argument that Stackelberg should not be cited unless his view is a mainstream overview – and again, I'd argue that it is – is quite vague. You suggest that, after admitting Stackelberg to the discussion, the section would necessarily become awash with views by unmentioned, hypothetical scholars who you suggest would be just as notable as Stackelberg and, therefore, essential to mention just because they are as notable as someone else who is cited. The vagueness of the claim about other "just as notable" scholars gives me pause, and there's no particular reason why all scholars of a certain level of notability should be cited, just because one is. The aim of WP:Weight is to reflect views in accordance with their prominence, not individual scholars. What you need to do in order to show your claim is establish that your view is underrepresented, not simply show that this or that notable scholar has been omitted.
• (5) Again, your position on Stackelberg's notability seems to have been extensively rebutted at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Regardless of what is said here, I think you're going to need to continue to plead your case there before it can have sway over the article.

It's my position that your arguments against including Stackelberg as a source have been defeated, although there may still be an open question as to how mainstream his view is and whether it constitutes an overview. These questions would, of course, affect any assignment of WP:Weight to his views. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

2&3) I prefer objective to subjective methods of verification. Google Scholars search results are only objective tool that we have.

4) I agree that "The aim of WP:Weight is to reflect views in accordance with their prominence, not individual scholars. What you need to do in order to show your claim is establish that your view is underrepresented." Since you want to add Stackelberg's view please establish that it is underrepresented in relation to its prominence.

5) I said right at the beginning of that discussion that "This isn't a question of whether "Hitler's Germany" is a reliable source. It is a reliable source for Stackelberg's opinion without a question. Issue is whether Stackelberg's opinion on why fascism is seen "extreme right-wing" reflects mainstream view and does it merit an inclusion in the section." [12] It is an issue of WP:Weight, which brings us back to the point #4. You claim that Stackelberg is notable and I claim that he is not notable enough, but like you said it is basically irrelevant if this or that notable scholar has been omitted. What is relevant to show is that his view on what makes fascism "extreme right" deserves an inclusion and WP:RSN is not a proper place for discussing that. -- Vision Thing -- 08:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there consensus to include a quote from Stackelberg in this article?

Here are some options to decide this, in ascending order of how much time it would take:

1. Consensus is obvious, there's been enough discussion. (If so, state the result you consider obvious).
2. Ask an uninvolved admin (or experienced editor) to close this discussion, and say whether consensus exists, one way or the other.
3. Hold a straw poll, and rethink the matter after a reasonable period.
4. Open a formal WP:Request for comment and get it advertised.

Please comment on whether one of these options would be reasonable. Note that the 1RR restriction still exists. I just thought that there ought to be some way to move forward, given the heavy volume of discussion so far. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

As there is already a request at RS noticeboard on this specific issue, I see no reason to have an RfC. In my opinion the request established that Stackelberg's comments should be included and I would welcome an uninvolved administrator to close the discussion. (So my vote is 1 or 2, 4 if necessary.)

I think it would be helpful if you moved this section to the end so that it would receive wider attention.

The Four Deuces (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If the same standard for determining consensus is going to be applied as for bi-partisan proposal for the new lead then inclusion of Stackelberg's view is not supported by consensus. -- Vision Thing -- 08:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest the discussion is deadlocked far upstream of Stackelberg, on the weighting of the whole section and its sources, so not only is there no consensus on Stackelberg, that's not the real issue. The discussion needs to proceed forward with the weighting of the entire section. I still wonder if a relevant WikiProject would be a good source of advice on the topic and sources. I'll be back tomorrow night. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

New source

James Gregor in Mussolini's Intellectuals (Princeton University Press, 2005) states the following: "This book appears after almost four decades of study, conferences, discussion, and publication. Over those years, students of "fascism," as a subject of inquiry, have seen its "essence" change, in the judgments of scholars, from a movement of the "extreme right" into one that was neither of the "right" nor the "left."" -- Vision Thing -- 18:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A. James Gregor provides Walter Laqueur as his source for this statement. Gregor's statement:[13] Laquer'sstatement:[14] However looking at page 13 of "Laqueur's Fascism I fail to see where this statement was made. Perhaps VT could enlighten us. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not necessary for VT, or anyone else, to do so. Gregor is a reliable source and his work says what it says. Looking behind his work to his sources is OR. Mamalujo (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not WP:OR. WP OR states "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought." Are you saying that the Fascism article should contain information that is incorrect? I do not know if there is a policy for or against this, but I can set up another RfC to find out. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because you don't think his footnote supports his assertion does not mean it is incorrect. Your second guessing of his analysis is the OR, i.e. it is your original thought. Mamalujo (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, OR relates to what is included in articles not what is discussed here. If his quote were included in the article and I wrote that it was incorrect, that would be OR. By the way, do you think it is a correct statement by Gregor? (Do you think that it matters?) The Four Deuces (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Laquer's statement is on a page 13 at the end of the first paragraph. -- Vision Thing -- 16:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but he was not discussing what other scholars thought about fascism. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. Gregor is the one who is saying what other scholars think about fascism. -- Vision Thing -- 08:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and he gives Laqueur as his source for "what other scholars think about fascism". The Four Deuces (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he gives Laqueur as an example. -- Vision Thing -- 11:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) I will wait before posting a question on this. Gregor is a leading proponent of scientific racism and has continued the studies of fascists into racial theory. If you, User:Vision Thing and User:Mamalujo consider him to be a reliable source and someone whose opinions you respect and share, then I will post a query about him. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Not for nothing, Vision Thing, but this work fails to live up to the standard which you are insisting on for Stackelberg. It's only got 5 citations to it on Google Scholar.

However, ignoring this, my comments on this source are as follows:

• (1)I am getting the distinct impression that Gregor's scholarship on the subject may be regarded as controversial. I think this question should be explored further. Do you have any comment on whether it is mainstream or controversial?
• (2)The work appears to acknowledge that the view of fascism as right-wight is ubiquitous, for example in the first pages of Chapter One: "

"What remained constant over seven decades was the incorrigible conviction that "paradigmatic Fascism," the Fascism of Mussolini, was "based on myths, intuition, instinct . . . and the irrational, rather than on a closely argued system based on a detailed analysis of historical, political and economic trends." Given such a characterization, Italian Fascism has been considered the anti-intellectual source for all the "right wing" political movements of the past century. In fact, some commentators have held that all contemporary right-wing movements find their origin in a single "Ur-fascism"--an identifiable fons et origo malorum. While Fascism, in and of itself, apparently possessed no identifiable ideological substance--being little more than a collage of contradictory ideas --it has been argued that whatever ideas are to be found, they are shared by every right-wing political impulse..."

(page 2)

"Generic fascism, it would seem, shares a common, if irrational, substance with the entire political right wing. That substance, devoid of meaning, finds its origin in the nonthought of Mussolini's apologists. It is argued that the nonideology of fascism is linearly related to all the "extremist" thought of contemporary Europe and North America. We are told that if we would discuss contemporary extremist thought, we must "denotatively define" the range of our inquiry--and definition be made in terms of its "ideology"--and, finally, that "the extreme right's ideology is provided by fascism.""

(page 3)...

"Fascist studies, it would seem, as an intellectual, historic, and social science discipline, has collapsed into a clinical study of an omnibus, psychopathic "right-wing extremism." "By extreme right" is meant "that political/ideological space where fascism is the key reference"--with fascism being little more than a "pathological form of social and political energy."12 As a consequence, the study of Italian Fascism is treated as the antechamber to the scrutiny of contemporary right-wing political psycho-pathology--to include any and all groups, movements or regimes that have been identified by anyone as "fascist," any time during the twentieth, and now the twenty-first, centuries--as well as any that might somehow be associated with one or another form of irrationalism and criminal violence."

(page 3)...

"The "extreme right" is essentially and irremediably irrational and criminal--because Fascism was uniquely irrational and criminal.15 The connection advanced is an empirical one. To be convincing, it would have to be shown that Fascists in general, and Fascist intellectuals in particular, were possessed of nothing that might pass as right reason or moral purpose--and that somehow the contemporary "right-wing extremists" share that unfortunate disability."

(page 4)...

—James Gregor, Mussolini's Intellectuals

• To be sure, it appears that Gregor is arguing against the view he is describing and explaining. But notice that he seems to say that this view of fascism, as irrational and right-wing, represents the near totality of scholarly thought on the subject – I am basing this on the sentence beginning "What remained constant over seven decades..." – even if he is saying that thought was all wrong and has been successfully challenged by newer, more groundbreaking, work. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My opinion and respect about other people's work is irrelevant. What might be relevant (especially in the light of Factchecker atyourservice's recent comments) is opinion of other prominent scholars of fascism about his work. Zeev Sternhell and Stanley Payne, arguably world's two leading experts on fascism, think highly of his work.

• Zeev Sternhell: "Professor Gregor is one of the rare specialists in Italian fascism to have made a truly original contribution to the study of the subject. His books always provide food for thought and are challenging, intelligent, clear and well written."
• Stanly Payne: "This is the only account in either English or Italian of the formation of Italian Fascist thought over a period of forty years. Gregor is the leading specialist in this area in the English-speaking world. His work is strikingly original." [15] (emphasis is mine)

Also, unlike Stackelberg,[16] Gregor is frequently cited [17]. -- Vision Thing -- 16:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

At best, you seem to have shown that there is a group of specialist scholars which holds this view. Didn't Four Deuces suggest such language as part of an earlier compromise proposal? As an aside, the Google Scholar searches you link appear to show that Stackelberg is also frequently cited...

Anyway, since Gregor appears to draw heavily on the work of Sternhell and Payne, it's a little unsurprising that they give positive reviews. But do you notice the language they use?

• "...one of the rare specialists... to have made a truly original contribution..."
• "...the only account in either English or Italian of the formation of Italian Fascist thought over a period of forty years... his work is strikingly original..."

If his work challenges the conventional understanding of the subject matter – as Gregor says himself in the source text – and is new and original, wouldn't that by definition seem to be the opposite of a consensus view... i.e., a minority view? Remember, a view can be compelling and have very prominent adherents, yet still be in the minority. We'll need to answer this question in order to weight the view appropriately. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that sentence "Gregor is the leading specialist in this area in the English-speaking world." speaks for it self. Google Scholar searches show that one Gregor's work has more cites than all works of Stackelberg on the first page of the search results (you need to be careful not to mix R(oderick) Stackelberg with other Stackelbergs). Also, quote that I have provided is not a Gregor's opinion, it is a report on the current judgment of scholars about the place of fascism on the political spectrum. -- Vision Thing -- 17:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's saying he's not notable; but being the leading specialist in an area does not mean his view is mainstream. From his own words it appears he challenges the mainstream. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, do you understand a difference between instance when scholar is reporting something and instance when he is expressing his opinion? -- Vision Thing -- 08:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Do you understand the concept that a scholar, especially one with controversial views, might allow his views to color his "reporting" to the point where it actually isn't quite "reporting" but a continued promulgation of the views he shares and is arguing for? Do you understand that Gregor's very oblique wording in the quote you presented is far from a clear and complete statement on the prevalence of the views he is describing, and even further from clearly and definitively substantiating a claim that there is a widespread consensus that Fascism is neither left nor right wing? Do you understand that "mainstream view" might mean something more than the views of specialists on a particular subject? And do you understand that Wikipedia has policies which help guard against erroneous reflection of sources by establishing painstaking processes for attributing opinions to those who produce them? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if VT explained his criteria for WP:RS. In other articles VT argued strenuously for use of a paragraph from the appendix of a textbook, British politics today as a definitive source for the definitions of right-wing and left-wing.[18] The Four Deuces (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My criteria are explained here and here. -- Vision Thing -- 17:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the Gregor source support very well the notion that seeing fascism as extreme right is the most common view AND that certain experts such as Gregor himself and Eysenck have argued against this most common view (like I suggested above). If everyone would be willing to just stand back and look at the article from a neutral distance it should be easy to build a neutral wording regarding this.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, and I would only add that if the view has been received as controversial – as opposed to unique, and original, but unobjectionable – or if there is, to any extent, a mainstream answer or rebuttal to the view, then those facts should also be reflected, simply because we're supposed to give more weight/page space to the mainstream view. My own expectation would be that, since Gregor's work appears to challenge nearly the entire body of existing scholarship on the subject, we are probably going to find that it has been received controversially, and may not yet enjoy truly widespread acceptance. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Maunus, I was willing to take a step back and work on a compromise solution, but it is perhaps fortunate that bi-partisan proposal was rejected by The Four Deuces and Factchecker atyourservice. In the light of Gregor source it is obvious that bi-partisan proposal didn't reflect most current view among scholars. -- Vision Thing -- 08:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Maunus appears not to have read Gregor's quote at the beggining of this thread. For anyone who can read, what he says is clear. He says those studying fascism have seen what is view as its "'essence' change, in the judgments of scholars, from a movement of the "extreme right" into one that was neither of the 'right' nor the 'left.'" In fact, in the Faces of Janus, Gregor establishes how close fascism and communism are. Now as to Four Douces approach of looking behind this noted scholar's statement. It is not necessary for him to quote some other scholar saying what he himself has said, nor to cite every single scholar who was a part of this paradigm shift (the waning of the view of fascism as right wing). Laqueuer clearly supports his view, as does most every other scholar, a few of the liberal scholars and much of the Marxist scholars being an exception. The actual state of scholarship is that virtually every work by someone in fascism studies in the last decade and a half contains the assertion that putting fascism on the right is "problematic", "not very illuminating", "simple" or the like, or that fascism is neither right nor left. In fact, even the source which some editors here claim as support for the idea that there is a consensus that fascism is right wing, undercuts that idea. It is speaking of what had been the consensus and attacked that view arguing for a syncretic view. Fact checker siezed upon this statement of Gregor's for support that there is a consensus that fascism is right wing: "What remained constant over seven decades was the incorrigible conviction that "paradigmatic Fascism," the Fascism of Mussolini, was "based on myths, intuition, instinct . . . and the irrational, rather than on a closely argued system based on a detailed analysis of historical, political and economic trends." The constancy Gregor is talking about is the view of fascism as almost wholly irrational, whereas he maintains it is an ideology like other ideologies. Then from there he moves to a second step where he talks about what this incorrigible view meant with relation to the right wing. Factchecker conflates the two steps to say something Gregor does not. Further, even if Gregor were saying what Factchecker says he is, it would not support the view that there is currently a consensus that fascism is on the right, because Gregor used the past tense "what remained constant over seven decades". He did not say remains. And given the birth date of fascism, it would appear that, as stated in the first quote by Gregor in this thread, that view was eclipsed years into the last century. Mamalujo (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Mamalujo, not to sidetrack, but what do you mean by "liberal scholars"? The term liberal is ambiguous. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In historiographical discussions in fascism studies the term has been used in the sense of classical liberalism (which would encompass both modern conservatives and liberals). Renton, for example, uses the term "liberal theories" and "liberal historians" to distinguish such scholars and views from Marxist scholars, such as himself, or others outside of classical liberalism, i.e. classical conservatives (monarchists and the like), neofascists, etc. He specifically encompassed Payne, Griffin, Eatwell and Sternhell within the classification of liberals. It is not meant in terms of the modern narrower political usage. Mamalujo (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I just wanted to be clear. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Mama, I can assure you that my reading comprehension is quite good. I assume Maunus can vouch for him/herself. I didn't conflate any two points; Gregor casts the connection himself in the text I already quoted: "Given such a characterization, Italian Fascism has been considered the anti-intellectual source for all the "right wing" political movements of the past century"...etc Indeed, despite asserting his view, he does appear to indicate that a considerable majority of what has been written on the subject, by specialists and nonspecialists alike, for between 40 and 75 years, has treated it as right-wing ideology, and treated the historical fascist governments themselves as right-wing, albeit not without qualification. So, in view of the fact that this account was published in 2005, by a fascism specialist writing about apparently recent work of fascism specialists, and explicitly states that it is in full opposition to decades of discussion on the same topic, could you please explain where you feel this source stands in the larger context of the section, in terms of how you would like the view articulated and attributed and how to weight it with respect to other sources? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for any slight to your reading comprehension. I don't have an objection to saying that the tendency, more common or predominent view had been or even has been to see fascism as right wing. I think, however, there are lot of reliable sources which put in doubt whether that is now the reigning view. I think the "normal view" of those in fascism studies has, as Gregor and others have said, changed from a "movement of the 'extreme right' into one that was neither of the 'right' nor the 'left.'" Now that can be said while still saying that most support came from the right. Another view which is lacking in the proposed ledes is that some scholars see fascism as left-wing, not "incorporating" left wing ideas or having left wing "aspects", but that some see it as being on the left. Another point which hasn't really been discussed here is that a number of the top scholars have said that use of the term right largely persists out of academic semantic intransigence, despite the fact that it is not really apt. Those scholars are basically saying just because they call fascism "radical right" or "extreme right" as a shorthand doesn't mean it fits there. But in our discussions, people have siezed upon this usage. It is a terminology which has been used so often it just continues to be used. Mamalujo (talk) 01:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you realize that that is exactly what I wrote above in my suggestion for a compromise wording - that the majority of laypeople see it as extreme rightwing (probably mostly because of traditional word use) but that scholars do not see the issue so simple and see traits of both traditionally left, right and central values in fascism. Whether or not Gregor uses the present tense the quote shows that he agrees that fascism has traditionally been seen as right wing - but that he and other scholars (such as Eysenck) are responding to this traditional view that they want to change. I really don't see how or why we are disagreeing. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

So what this appears to mean is that fascism did not derive from the traditional right (although it governed from the right) but is still called right-wing because it is the source of current political ideologies and movements that are called right-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Maunus, Gregor is not saying he "want(s) to change" the view of fascism as right wing, he is saying it has changed. Deuces, am I getting you right. Are you saying fascism is the source of current political ideologies that are called right wing? Are you trying to say Anglo-American conservatives (which are typically included in the right) are descendents of fascists? I'd also like to return to an issue raised above about Gregor as a reliable source. I don't think his purported support of scientific racism (a claim which he strenuously denied) or eugenics forty years ago plays any part in whether he is a reliable source on this issue. Eugenics, a discipline which I find deplorable, had a long history of credibility in American academic institutions. Margaret Sanger, Oliver Wendell Holmes and many scholars at so venerable an institution as Cal Tech were among those who succumbed to its way of thinking. Gregor's scholarship had sufficient credence to be a professor at UC Berkeley. He is a reliable source regarding fascism, regardless of the merit of his work half a century ago on unrelated issues. Mamalujo (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that that is what the quotes above say. And anyway I don't think we can take Gregor's word that it "has changed". As it has been noted above his research is respectable but his conclusions controversial. We would need a third party source - preferably a text book or general introduction to state that the view of fascism as has changed completely also among laypeople. What we can show by combining the sources of regor, Stackelberg and Eysenck is that there are widely differing views in the scholarly establishment. However I think it is yet to be demonstrated that laypeople's understanding of fascism is not that of right wing extremism. (In fact I consider that Gregor's quotes actually shows that he was aware that it was at the time of writing)·Maunus·ƛ· 18:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider English conservatism to be a "right-wing movement" or American conservatism to be conservative. (Their ideologies are better described as liberal conservatism and conservative liberalism respectively.) If these terms are used to describe them, they are certainly incorrect from an historical perspective. However I should have used the term radical right. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"I do not consider" is a splendid example of why editors must not inject their opinions into articles. Collect (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, could you please elaborate? I fail to see where anyone's talking about doing that. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider English conservatism to be a "right-wing movement" or American conservatism to be conservative. (Their ideologies are better described as liberal conservatism and conservative liberalism respectively.) If these terms are used to describe them, they are certainly incorrect from an historical perspective. However I should have used the term radical right. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC) appears to state that the editor has an opinion about whether English conservatism etc. are "right wing movements." Does that not appear to be the case? Collect (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

All I can suggest is that some close reading of the comments might clear up your apparent confusion. On the other hand, if you are able to identify some attempt by Four Deuces to "inject [his] opinion into [the] article", please elaborate on it, in detail, here. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(out)Collect, this is a talk page not an article. In fact the article is not even about conservatism in the UK or American conservatism. If you read above my comments were in response to Mamalujo's use of the term "Anglo-American conservatives" which he said "are typically included in the right". So I am not inject(ing) [my] opinions into articles, merely answering M's question to me. Kindly redact your claim. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

My "claim" was that a post said what the post said. Redacting a claim about an exact quote of a post makes no sense at all. The only thing the talk page is for, is improving the article, so it is unclear what the purpose of that colloquy was, other than was was apparent in the exact an full quote. Nor did I state that you inserted your opinions into any article - just that the post furnished clear confirmation of why the policy exists. I would aver the same had Maunus made the comment in a post, by the way. As near as I can tell, he made no such comment about his opinions. Might you furnish a quote from his posts where he states his opinions as having any weight in improving the article? Thanks! Collect (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Collect. I think I get what you are saying, despite your repeated obfuscation. Please, when I ask you to elaborate on something, don't repeatedly respond in riddle. It's obvious we thought you meant he had tried to inject his opinions into the article – which he isn't trying to do – and I asked you to explain. Further obfuscating comments, not the appropriate response.

So: what you are saying, roughly speaking, is this: "The opinions expressed by The Four Deuces are so ridiculous that they are a perfect example of why editors should not be allowed to inject their opinions into articles."

Am I correct? --Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote nothing of the sort, I am bemused by the direction of this colloquy. Collect (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I was attempting to read some logic or rationality into what you said. Looks like there is none to be had. Your comments simply don't make any sense. Full stop.

If you would care to explain what you DID mean – what is this now, the fourth time I've asked you in 24 hours? – PLEASE OBLIGE. --Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I answered you. If you do not like the answer, fine. Badgering me with bold fonts is not a proper use of article talkspace. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You posted words on a page. That is not the same as answering a question. You made zero attempt to explain what you meant. Please explain what you meant when you said that Four Deuce's comment "is a splendid example of why editors must not inject their opinions into articles." You've said you didn't mean that he was trying to inject his opinions into the article. You've said you didn't mean that his opinions were ridiculous and thereby a good example of why it would be dangerous for editor opinions to be injected into an article. So what did you mean? Please help me understand by explaining, and again I will beg you to make a clear and direct response instead of speaking in riddles and talking about how you are bemused at how we are misunderstanding your words. Since we obviously misunderstand, please explain. This is my fifth request... --Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Attempt to bring this to a head

Alright, have we come with anything workable that the majority of the parties involved can agree upon? Soxwon (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No-one seems to have raised any objections regarding the factual accuracy of the wording at Talk:Fascism#Revised_proposal, above. However, this wording has failed to gain consensus because users do not seem to think it strikes the right balance. I'd suggest that critiquing and adapting this still offers the best way forward. Looking at a lot of different sources is only going to result in a lot of long, divisive and inconclusive discussion (as with Stackleberg and Gregor). Think we should be trying to identify what areas of agreement there are, rather than seeking out sources which are only likely to ever say the same few things, just with new wording. --FormerIP (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Rescued from archive:

Writers on the subject have often found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum complex (1), but it is normally described as "extreme right" (2). There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both the left and the right. (3) A number of historians have regarded fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things. (4)

(1) Turner, Stephen P., Käsler, Dirk: Sociology Responds to Fascism, Routledge. 2004, p 222

(2) Eatwell, Roger: "A Spectral-Syncretic Appraoch to Fascism", The Fascism Reader, Routledge, 2003, p 79. [19]

(3) Griffin, Roger: "The Palingenetic Core of Fascism", Che cos'è il fascismo? Interpretazioni e prospettive di ricerche, Ideazione editrice, Rome, 2003 [20]

(4) Stackleberg, Rodney: Hitler's Germany, Routeledge, 1999, p 3 [21]; Eatwell, Roger: "A 'Spectral-Syncretic Appraoch to Fascism', The Fascism Reader, Routledge, 2003 pp 71-80 [22]; Lipset, Seymour: "Fascism as Extremism of the Middle Class", The Fascism Reader, Routledge, 2003, pp 112-116 [23].

--FormerIP (talk) 09:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

All it needs now is a comment that because the very use of a linear spectrum is difficult, other systems have been proposed as early as 1948 which place totalitiarian systems close to each other. And to avoid passive voice, try "Scholarly consensus is that ..." Collect (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this places too much emphasis on the difficulties that writers have had placing fascism on the political spectrum. It should be noted that the difficulty relates to fascist ideology not fascist government. This same problem occurs with all protest movements which may contain a wide range of people and present an eclectic list of demands. There is no uncertainty that fascist government was right wing.

As for non-linear spectra they were designed to reflect modern political ideology and are not relevant here.

The Four Deuces (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the compromise attempt looks very good and I think that Collect's suggestions for improvements make it even more so. I do think that the multi spectred models are relevant since many of them (like Eysenck's) were designed exactly because of perceived inadequacies of the traditional model in describing fascist ideology. It is not true that such models are not applicable on historical manifestations of fascism - they were designed specifically for such an application. I think the article is mostly about fascist ideology (the -ism sort of gives that a way) and I think the difficulties of description are of utmost importance in that regard - but I would not oppose adding a phrase mentioning that historical fascist governments have embodied right wing values. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

While Eysenck designed his scale because of perceived inadequacies of the traditional model in describing fascist ideology most of these scales were devised to describe contemporary politics. Eysenck btw placed fascism on the extreme right in his model. His model should be discussed in the section but placing in the first paragraph is misleading as it appears to contradict the belief that fascism was extreme right-wing. A link to his article: [24]. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My chief objection, mentioned before, is that this version mentions the caveats to the typical view before giving the view itself. Would anyone be opposed to reversing the order so that the statement of fascism as far-right is made first, followed by the statement of difficulty? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) "Contemporary" as of 1948, I suppose -- that is when at least one non-linear model specifically referring to fascism was discussed. More than six decades ago. Seems that they are therefore quite relevant, indeed. Collect (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI the fascist governments in Italy and Germany were removed from power in 1945 and ceased to be a major force in those two countries. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You are both being needlessly confrontational, sarcasm is not going to get the knot worked out. In 1948 fascism and totalitarian ideologies was among the most studied subjects in politology, psychology, sociology etc. Not just to understand the past but also to better predict the future. It was exactly the detailed study of fascism in the lightof WWII that made scholars realize that the multi spectral model was necessary to understand both the past of fascism as well as its contemporary manifestations (Spanish fascism was still going strong). Of course the development of these models to better understand fascism should be discussed in the article. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, Maunus, Four Deuces did agree that models such as Eysenck's should be discussed. He merely asserts, as far as I can tell, that it would be misleading to open the section by discussing them, rather than opening with the standard view and working forward from there. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

True, I apologize if it seemed that I didn't recognize FourDeuces suggestion as such. I must have lost track of the current issue which seems to be whether (and if yes how) the lead should mention that there is competing views on the positioning of Fascism in the political spectrum. I think that it would be misleading not to mention it - but I could accept to tone it down to a mere mention. rewording the proposal to something like "Fascism is normally described as "extreme right", but since the latter half of the twentieth century writers on the subject have often found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum to be more complex(1). Currently there is a scholarly consensus that fascism incorporated traits from both the traditional left and the right political wings.(3) While most fascist governments have aligned themsleves with conservative values, philosophers have seen the fascist ideology either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things. Political scientists have also seen similarities between fascism and other authoritarian ideologies."·Maunus·ƛ· 18:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Factchecker atyourservice's earlier comment that together with the lead we should do the weighting of the entire section. My proposal is (each line is a new paragraph):

• lead
• view that fascism is the extreme right movement
• view that fascism is neither the left or the right
• other views (fascism is the left wing, fascist's own views)
• discussion about political spectrum -- Vision Thing -- 09:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

VT's suggestion seems fine to me. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

To me too.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I basically agree, but would note three things:

1) The lead paragraph should give the most important information by way of an introduction. It should not summarise All the relevant information (ie is is a different thing from a WP:LEAD.

2) We should be strict about organising things according to the different views that are out there (as per VT's proposal). Sources are there to guide and illustrate, they are not themselves the subject to be discussed.

3) The discussion about the polticial spectrum should be extremely brief, because these issues are hardly mentioned by the sources. In general, the article should reflect the way in which academics discuss the topic. They generally assume conventional l-r to be the appropriate frame of reference (Eatwell being the most notable voice introducing other considerations). It would be gross OR for us to hit that note harder than they do.

--FormerIP (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the lead paragraph shouldn't be affected by either the content or by the order of appearance of other paragraphs. -- Vision Thing -- 10:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you would say that. WP:LEAD clearly says that the lead must mirror the article contents quite closely (while observing WP:UNDUE of course) - specifically it says that the lead should have at least a sentence summarising each section of the aticle. I realise that this could be bypassed under WP:IAR, but it would require go arguments, and at this point you have only asserted a preference that the lead shouldn't include certain viewpoints that exist in the article, but not presented arguments for this preference.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD is about the lead section of article, not lead of article's sections. If I'm not mistaken, both FormerIP and I were talking about the lead of section 'Position in the political spectrum'. -- Vision Thing -- 14:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I am not accustomed to calling the first paragraph of a section the lead - but I see what you mean and agree. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Fuller proposal

Okay, here is a proposal based on the structure suggested by Vision Thing. I don't necessarily claim it is perfect, so please just pass comment.

Writers on the subject have often found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum complex (1), but it is normally described as "extreme right" (2). There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both the left and the right. (3) A number of historians have regarded fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things. (4)

Historians such as Eugene Weber (5), David Renton (6) and Robert Soucy (7) view fascism as squarely on the ideological right. Rod Stackelberg views fascism as right-wing because of its opposition to socialism and its anti-egalitarian stance (8). Stanley Payne states that pre-war fascism found a coherent identity through alliances with right-wing movements (9).

A number of fascists, including Benito Mussolini (10), Giovanni Zibordi (11) and José Antonio Primo de Rivera (12) posited their ideology to be neither right nor left, a position which is regarded as credible by a number of contemporary historians, including Seymour Martin Lipset (13) and Roger Griffin (14) . Walter Laqueur says that historical fascism "did not belong to the extreme Left, yet defining it as part of the extreme Right is not very illuminating either", but that it "was always a coalition between radical, populist ('fascist') elements and others gravitating toward the extreme Right". (15)

Zeev Sternhell sees fascism as a right-wing or centrist anti-Marxist form of socialism. (16)

Roger Eatwell sees terminology associated with the traditional “left-right” political spectrum as failing to fully capture the complex nature of the ideology. (17)

(1) Turner, Stephen P., Käsler, Dirk: Sociology Responds to Fascism, Routledge. 2004, p 222

(2) Eatwell, Roger: "A Spectral-Syncretic Appraoch to Fascism", The Fascism Reader, Routledge, 2003, p 79. [25]

(3) Griffin, Roger: "The Palingenetic Core of Fascism", Che cos'è il fascismo? Interpretazioni e prospettive di ricerche, Ideazione editrice, Rome, 2003 [26]

(4) Stackleberg, Rodney: Hitler's Germany, Routeledge, 1999, p 3 [27]; Eatwell, Roger: "A 'Spectral-Syncretic Appraoch to Fascism', The Fascism Reader, Routledge, 2003 pp 71-80 [28]; Lipset, Seymour: "Fascism as Extremism of the Middle Class", The Fascism Reader, Routledge, 2003, pp 112-116 [29].

(5) Weber, Eugen. Varieties of Fascism: Doctrines of Revolution in the Twentieth Century, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, [1964] 1982. p. 8.

(6) Renton, David. ‘’Fascism: Theory and Practice’’, London: Pluto Press, 1999..

(7) Jenkins, Brian (ed). ‘’France in the Era of Fascism’’, Oxford: Beghahan Books, 2005, p 66.

(8) Stackleberg, Rodney: Hitler's Germany, London: Routeledge, 1999, p 17

(9) Stanley G. Payne, Fascism: Comparison and Definition. University of Wisconsin Press, 1983, p3.

(10) Neocleous, Mark. ‘’Fascism’’. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997. p. 54.

(11) Renton, David. ‘’Fascism: Theory and Practice’’, London: Pluto Press, 1999, p 57.

(12) Neocleous, Mark. Fascism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997. p. 58

(13) Lipset, Seymour. ‘’Political Man’’, New York, Anchor Books, 1960, p 141

(14) Griffin, Roger. ‘’The Nature of Fascism’’, London, Routeledge, 1991.

(15) Laqueur, Walter. ‘’Fascism Past, Present and Future’’, Oxford, OUP, 1997.

(16) Sternhell, Zeev, in Laqueur (ed.), Fascism: A Reader's Guide, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976, pp. 315-76.

(17) Eatwell, Roger: "A Spectral-Syncretic Appraoch to Fascism", The Fascism Reader, Routledge, 2003, pp 79-80.

--FormerIP (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Aren't those sections little thin on content? -- Vision Thing -- 13:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Mussolini also at times explicitly called fascism a right wing movement. john k (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

VT: Do you mean that you think there are important things not covered, or that the main things are covered but you would like to see more detail?

John: Don't mean to be a pain, and I'm sure you are absolutely right, but would you be able to provide a cite for that?

Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the "Right," a Fascist century. "Doctrine of Fascism" (1932), by Benito Mussolini.[30] The Four Deuces (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

FormerIP, I will try to compose a paragraph for neither the left or the right view. -- Vision Thing -- 18:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The above proposal is most notably flawed in that it fails to state that some see fascism as left wing. The section on Sternhell is patently wrong. In fact, the very opposite of what is stated is true. The source fails verification. Although Sternhell says fascism is "neither left nor right", it is fascism's leftist qualities which he stresses:

The scholar who has gone the furthest in insisting on the left-wing sources of fascism, especially of French fascism, is Zeev Sternhell. Indeed, Sternhell has contended that "in many respects, one can write the history of fascism as that of an incessant attempt to revise Marxism, of a permanent effort toward neo-socialism." Although Sternhell has also described fascism as "neither Right nor Left," it is its leftism that he underscores. According to Sternhell, fascism launched "assault upon capitalism" and aimed at a "socialism for all." In France, "real, authentic fascism was always on the Left, never on the Right," while in Italy fascism was "an unprecedented war machine against the the bourgeois order, "which is why "so many men of the Left slid toward fascism during the interwar period". Fascism's return: scandal, revision, and ideology since 1980 By Richard Joseph Golsan p. 133.

Similar statements of Sternhell's position are in "Where have all the fascists gone?" By Tamir Bar-On at p. 22. Gregor and Robert, to name a couple, also see fascism as more left wing. Gregor, Rua and de Benoist tend to see fascism and communism as evil twins, or fascism as the socialism of the proletariat state. The above proposal completely misses all of this. I also think the section should include that the consensus or normal view among French speaking writers is that fascism is left wing (source in one of my earlier posts.Mamalujo (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mamalujo. I think you are failing to make an important distinction between two different questions, both of which are relevant. First: where do historians etc place fascism on the political spectrum? Second: what conceptions do historians etc formulate regarding the genealogy of and influences on fascism, specifically with reference to the history of left-right politics?

On the first question, it seems extemely clear that most historians etc place fascism on the right, some place it in the centre and virtually none place it on the left. The idea that fascism is on the left is a WP:FRINGE view. None of the sources we have looked at actually make the case that fascism is on the left, even if some might discuss the issue.

On the second question, almost all (if not all) sources that discuss the question say that fascism takes influences from both the left and the right, as is already stated in the first paragrpah of the current proposal. I tend to think this sentence is adequate, but if it is to be elaborated on, this should be done in a balanced way (ie it would not be acceptable just to add in extra detail about the lw influences).

Sternhell, for example, does highlight the role of Marxism in the development of fascism. But this does not mean he thinks fasicsm is left wing and, in the final analysis this is not what he says. To make the leap of logic for "Marxist influence" to "left-wing" would not only be WP:OR, it would just be plain wrong in this case.

I notice, as well, that you have slightly misquoted your source. It should read "real, authentic fascism was always born on the Left, never on the Right.

Lastly, it is also plain wrong, on a number of counts, to say that there is a "consensus or normal view among French speaking writers...that fascism is left wing". As I have said before, I would be happy to include a mention of the French "immunity thesis", because I think it is interesting and reasonably noteworthy, but I also think that proper consideration of the sources is required. You appear to me to be seizing upon a false interpretation of it to support the idea that fascism might be on the left. A good thing to read to start getting an understanding of it would be the introdction to this book.

Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

PS I've added a neutrality tag to the section. Given how long the disputes have rolled on for, thought it was probably overdue. --FormerIP (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

FormerIP - whether or not, the belief that fascism is on the left,is a "fringe" view is a matter of opinion, your opinion. I think it's fine to decide the "majority" view, but I think that those kind of assumptions cannot be made when deciding whose views should be allowed on this site. Especially when the opposition that has that view numbers in the millions. I don't even know why this is so difficult to settle. Why aren't both views allowed on this issue. I personally believe it's absured to say fascism is on the right, but I don't believe in silencing those that think that way. Reputable schollars, historians, and almost every right wing information source places fascism on the left. I'm not here to argue their point, just to say that it's not a radical stance when MILLIONS of people: watch news sources[virtually every comentator on fox], read books[liberal fascism], study historians[already been mentioned by others], and make statement at rallies[tea party protests] all saying that fascism is on the left. It's one thing for left wing people to argue their case, but it's bordering on radicalism to accuse MILLIONS people as being "fringe". Please, just put both views on the site and let people decide for themselves whether or not it's "fringe". —Preceding unsigned comment added by InquistiorV (talk • contribs) 19:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi V. See my comments below. The only other thing I'd add is that I'm not really in a position to comment on Fox News and the demonstations it sponsors. My only experience is on clip shows encouraging me to giggle at the strangeness of the big wide world, alongside Japanese gameshows and inventive Dutch commercials. Apologies if you're a fan.--FormerIP (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Inquistior, it seems to me that you're just reacting emotionally to the word "fringe" as if it's being used as an insult. Nobody is accusing millions of people of being "fringe"; the discussion really has nothing to do with whether the idea is on TV news or accepted by lots of ordinary people who find it compelling. At the same time, a fringe view can be propounded on Fox news (or [insert liberal publication here]), and be accepted by millions of viewers, yet still be a fringe view. Instead of giving a gut reaction to the name of the policy, you should read the policy and see the concrete terms it lays out on the subject of reflecting the prevalence of published viewpoints. At the same time, it would help to read WP:Verifiability and its related discussion of the relative quality of sources. For example, it's unlikely that anything from any newspaper or TV news show, talk radio host, news anchor, etc., would have much place in this discussion, which deals primarily with academic views on the subject. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)