Talk:Fascism/Archive 40

This is an archive of past discussions about Fascism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

→

Ba'athism was inspired by fascism!?!?

As described in the article (with photo of Saddam Hussein).

What on earth?

Ba'athism was clearly inspired and closely modelled on Soviet socialism/communism - hence the secularisation of Iraq (along with other Middle Eastern countries like Syria and Egypt), and close connections with the USSR. Hell, Saddam even borrowed liberally from the types of personal propaganda and iconography used by Stalin, even quoting him during the Gulf War. Is this article serious? :O I'll delete this material in a while if nobody raises any solid objections. 137.43.194.64 (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I really don't have a "dog in this fight," as I really am not very knowledgable about Ba'athism...but the section is well-cited with RS. Before you can delete it, you need to show that: (a) The citations do not say what they are being used to represent; or (b) it is a "fringe" viewpoint, not shared by most scholars or academics (and you'll need cites for that as well). --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As there is evidence of Soviets, National Socialists, Fascists, and others helping Ba'athism, I'd say a fair view is that Soviet communism, National socialism, Fascism, and other generally authoritarian ideas influenced Ba'athism. Derpian (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to mention that just because it is Arab socialism does not mean it is marxism. Marxism is a form of Socialism but not all Socialism is Marxism. Derpian (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is completely wrong. Especially in the beginning.

I don't know why anyone would say " but deny that they are entirely against democracy and espouse to create an authoritarian democracy that derives its goals from the general will" when it's blatantly obvious that fascism is opposed to democracy in the first place. Anyone taking grade school social studies knows that. " fascism declares its opposition to bourgeois nations and declares its support for the victory of proletarian nations. " is also blatantly incorrect because fascism is based off of the needs of the state over the individual, strongly anti-communist, and derives it's power from the employer's control over the working man. I might not have a source, but all I need to do is look in my history textbook and see how it's blatantly wrong. Sources should be checked for credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.225.86 (talk) 04:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you find some reliable sources. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The claim about democracy is based on a single comment made by Mussolini when he explained why he opposed democracy, then said fascism was the true democracy. Most sources on fascism ignore the comment entirely, as should we. The claim in quotes misrepresents the source, Fascism, p. 21-22.[1] There is a lot wrong with this article. TFD (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Completely confusing wording

Mussolini said that Fascism is revolutionary against liberalism "since it wants to reduce the size of the State to its necessary functions."

Two things:

liberalism ... you need to distinguish (especially for Europe-related political article) between liberalism (European meaning of the word) as "State is not the solution of problems, state is the problem" and liberal (US meaning) as a variant of what Europeans call social democracy.
it ... given the previous confusion, I am really not sure who Mussolini meant as to be reducing the size of the State and whether he meant it to be right or wrong.

Ceplm (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Not clear what it means, and I cannot find the quote in the source mentioned. I will therefore remove it. We should not be quoting Mussolini anyway without secondary sources explaining what he meant and what relevance his comments had to fascist ideology. TFD (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Ref cleanup

I've run a ref cleanup tool, and I see this article has a large number of unused refs (they are now listed in red in the ref section). Those refs are defined in the article, but not used (I see most if not all not used because the section they were for has been commented out). I'll leave it to editors more familiar with this article to finish cleanup (either remove the refs, move them here, or restore the content that uses them). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Intro size

A user has addressed concern over the size of the intro. The intro size is acceptable by Wikipedia standards. as Wikipedia policy states that for an article with more than 30,000 characters, three or four paragraphs should be used for the intro. This article is over 30,000 characters and has four paragraphs in the intro, so it is not too long by Wikipedia standards.--R-41 (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

They are excessively long paragraphs and the lead fails to present a coherent introduction to the topic, emphasizing the main points. TFD (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I have reduced the size of the paragraphs.--R-41 (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Pinochet?

Liberal bias? How can an article on fascism neglect to mention Pinochet and his mass murder of socialists in Chile? Speak of these dead and how much more uncomfortable were the Chilean conservatives then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.205.48.23 (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Left and Right Wing?

Wikipedia is showing its liberal bias again by stating that Fascism has a more right than left wing flavor to it in the closing sentences of the introduction. It fails to mention that all of the reforms that fascism seeks to make were all left wing rather than right wing in that they sought a proletarian revolution and society, and they sought to improve upon capitalism and the free matket. Liberals would be far more at home in a fascist economy than would a conservative. Wikipedia has a liberal bias, and it is showing in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainNicodemus (talk • contribs) 01:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about the larger point, but certainly this bit is odd: "...fascism's goal to promote the rule of people deemed innately superior while seeking to purge society of people deemed innately inferior is identified as a prominent far-right theme." The desire to purge society of people deemed innately inferior is also a standard feature of modern western liberal societies. Researchers state that in the U.S., for example, 90% of individuals with Down Syndrome who are identified as such in utero are terminated. So this happens at both ends of the right-left spectrum. Plain jack (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD, I have reorganized material, added new material in a more narrow, coherent manner

Reorganization of the main body of the article has been discussed for years, but nothing was done. I have decided to undertake WP:BOLD and reorganize the tenets section. I have reorganized it into major themes that scholars like Roger Griffin, Stanley Payne, and others identify in fascism. Up until this point it had become bloated with irrelevent material and badly disorganized, it spent too much time addressing narrow POV points such as users who would add a following sentence contradicting the previous sentence, especially the section on religion, that was making the article incoherent. The main body still needs more re-organization though, I have commented out the economics section because it needs to be reorganized, and there is good material in it, but it is not focused enough and gets distracted into too narrow examples and discussions of minor issues.--R-41 (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Britt's 14 Characteristics of Fascism

Why isn't there any mention of Laurence Britt's definitions?

Is there an objection to adding it? Diegueno (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You would need to show that this specific list has obtained broad recognition. Do you have any sources that mention it? TFD (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

If I understand the request correctly, I have found the following links recognizing Britt's definition:

More articles which copy the first article are:

Is that satisfactory? Diegueno (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No all it means is that a few bloggers have discussed it on the internet. TFD (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you be kind enough to give me an example or some direction as to what would make Britt's definition worthy of inclusion in the definition? Diegueno (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If an upper year university textbook on political ideology mentioned it. See WP:WEIGHT. TFD (talk) 07:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Remove footnote reference please

Hi, can someone please remove footnote 47 in which it states that O'Brien (me) defines the early fascist movement as republican. I do absolutely nothing of the sort. Thanks. Pauleybaby (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I looked at the source, pp. 52-53, which everyone can read here and agree that it does not support the text and will remove it. I would greatly appreciate any other comments you might have on the article. TFD (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction between Summary and Definition

The summary of the article has an extremely definitive tone to it, outlining and marking exactly what makes up Fascism. Yet the definition section of the article elaborates extensively on how there is no "true" definition of Fascism. So which is it? Is Fascism a strictly definable term or is it a catch-all term that has no weight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.76.233.161 (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. TFD (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

If the definition section actually took serious effort to describe with some detail the definitions proposed by historians who study fascism such as Roger Griffin, Stanley Payne, Zeev Sternhell, Emilio Gentile; significant commonalities would be visible. If you read the works of these major scholars fascism, you will find that their descriptions of it are remarkably similar. The definitions section needs definitions, currently that section isn't providing any serious effort to note the detailed descriptions of the ideology provided by major scholars on fascism, beyond a quote or two from them.--R-41 (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The lead takes an agreement by Griffin, Payne and Sternhell on the fascism and have treated it as definitive, which is not the case, and a violation of weight. TFD (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

TFD, you are grasping at straws with your criticism of the lead. The lead is thoroughly backed with sources, and very closely follows what mainstream scholars have identified with fascism. It took a very long time to develop a stable lead intro, years ago there were vicious arguments about it - because before the arguments died down, no one had taken the time to examine sources on fascism. The lead has had disagreements in the past, but it has been relatively stable for several years and there have been few complaints about it, other than complaints of size from time to time. I regard the intro as stable, not perfect but stable, I believe tearing it up and starting from scratch will open up a can of worms. If you propose scrapping the existing lead and starting from scratch, then that is your proposition and you will be responsible for presenting an alternative introduction. It is easy to criticize things, but harder to create things - if the intro is unacceptable to you, you better have a proposition for its replacement.--R-41 (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Weight requires us to explain different views and not submit the views of any position as definitive unless it is generally agreed by scholars. Also, Griffin has recently said that he never viewed fascism as just an ideology, contrary to how the lead is phrased. TFD (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You are saying what Griffin did not describe it as, what did Griffin describe it as? A political philosophy rather than a political ideology? The first sources describe it as promoting radical authoritarian nationalism, people in the past appear to have presumed the term "ideology" to be commonsense of what was being described, but if they are wrong, then explain what Griffin describes it as. And again, if the intro is unacceptable to you, you should be doing more than criticizing it, you should be presenting here a proposition for its replacement.--R-41 (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Stanley Payne in A History of Fascism, 1914-1945 on page 5 quotes Roger Griffin describing fascism in terms of a political ideology, quoting Griffin as defining fascism as "a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism".--R-41 (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with the OP. Seems like one of the few things sources agree on is that defining fascism is complicated and that fascist universals are hard to pin down. Yet our into quite confidently states that fascism quite certainly this, that and the other. That seems like a pretty poor show. Formerip (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

R-41, see Griffin's article, "Studying Fascism in a Postfascist Age. From New Consensus to New Wave?".[2] He says, "Having surveyed empirical evidence for the spontaneous emergence of a broad, though contested, scholarly convergence around this approach in the historical and social sciences in the last two decades, even beyond Anglophone academia, the article suggests that this development is part of an even wider phenomenon." It does not say that there is no dissent and in fact tries to rebut criticisms. He mentions also detractors, "making the obvious point (which I have never denied) that fascism is not only an ideology, and has to be studied in its unique concrete manifestations and developmental (narrative) arcs." TFD (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

What is Griffin saying it is then? He says it is an ideology and...? A philosophy? Or something else?--R-41 (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

He does not say, but most textbooks on political science say it was both an ideology and political movement. Many writers question whether there is a fascist ideology at all. TFD (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, so you are saying that the article should say that in spite of multiple scholars identifying such an ideology, we should say that it may not even exist. That's sounds like good old relativism taken to extremes - that people haven't completely agreed on defining something, so thus it is not definable and may not even exist. And who are the "many" writers? TFD, you always seem to have the relativist conclusion with any article involving a definition, that there is no complete agreement, therefore it is no definable, and therefore it may not exist. But let's take your proposition to its natural conclusion, in your version of the article, almost everything that is written on the article now should be deleted, except for two sentences that says "There may or may not have been an ideology of fascism. There is no complete agreement on what such an ideology is, if it even existed."--R-41 (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV means, "means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.... This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." We should be able to write articles following that principle. We can explain various views without showing bias. TFD (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

What are the POV biases in the article TFD? P.S. how about you write that version of the article that you want? From what you've said, it will not take long, it will only be the two sentences I said before saying: "There may or may not have been an ideology of fascism. There is no complete agreement on what such an ideology is, if it even existed."--R-41 (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The POV bias is that it treats one viewpoint, albeit perhaps the most widely accepted, as definitive. I will try to find a source for writing a better lead. TFD (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

TFD you just said this "The POV bias is that it treats one viewpoint, albeit perhaps the most widely accepted, as definitive". Be careful with what you are saying, what you are saying is bordering on violation of the first stated policy on WP:FRINGE that says: "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence." Any introduction will require significant opinions that hold prominence in scholarly work on fascism, to be substantially represented. Your criticisms have been heard and debated, now you need to present your alternative introduction for the discussion.--R-41 (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Neutral Question, Confusing Article

When I read "right wing" like most people in 2012, we think of people who want limited central government. If "right wing" in the 1930's meant unlimited federal government, then that is diametrically opposed to everything right wing stands for today. There is nothing even remotely similar to, for example, a right wing Tea Partier who wants government out of people's lives, and Fascism that gave 100% control and unlimited centralized government. Can you please help readers understand in the article that when you use the word "right wing" you are referring to a limited definition that is not commonly understood by most people today. It leads to confusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 11 December 2012

The problem has always been that there is no universal definition of "right wing" constant over different places and times. Nor of "left wing" for that matter. Collect (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Then why does this article go out of its way to categorize a political system that advocates unlimited central government control over all aspects of society as "right wing?" Perhaps in the interest of the purpose of Wikipedia it should be left out, since "right wing" in 2012 western society is synonymous with people who want government out of their lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Many modern "Tea Party" Conservatives are in fact extremely Statist and Big Government...when it comes to social issues, where they want Big Government to intrude into peoples' lives to a far greater degree than even the most ardent Socialist. You are repeating a "Big Lie." And the only way to apply any consistency to the terms "Left" and "Right" is to use their original meanings from their creation in the French National Assembly: "Left" = Pro-Egalitarianism, Pro-Progress, etc., while "Right" = Pro-Tradition, Pro-Church, Pro-Status Quo, Pro-Social Stratification. Big and small government has absolutely nothing to do with either term, and never has, historically or now. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 21:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Evidence? Federal CENTRALIZED Government regulation is anathema to the right wing. You are citing fallacy without backing up your claims. Which tea party group advocates unlimited CENTRALIZED government? Or are you confusing federal government with local government? I think also what you are doing is confusing a broad scope definition (i.e. a Trait) to edge cases. I would personally consider myself right-wing, not due to any social belief, but based on the principle of limited central government. Most 'academics' would call me right wing, and I would agree with them. Limited central government is foundational to todays modern 'right wing'. I dont care whether gay people get married, if that is what you are referring to. You cannot prescribe the trait of big government to "right wing", even if you are able to identify some edge groups that may advocate one. When we speak of traits, the 21st century right wing advocates limited central government (note the word CENTRAL) more than any other. This is backed up by polls across every polling agency, and empirically testable. The concept of "federal regulation" is not popular among right-wingers, nowhere near as popular among leftwingers. You can prove this statistically and scientifically, and it has already been done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86(talk) (talk • contribs) 00:35, 12 December 2012‎

There's a word in American politics for someone who is anti-Big Government on economic issues, and ALSO anti-Big Government on social issues (homosexuality, separation of church/state, etc.): Libertarian. It's also why Libertarians are described as being "Fiscally Conservative and Socially Liberal". (See Cato Institute, David Boaz, Gary Johnson, etc.) Social Conservatism, on the other hand, is extremely Authoritarian, and pro-Big Government. Many of the big Tea Party "stars", like Michelle Bachmann, are extremely pro-Big Government when it comes to issues like homosexuality, Christianity, and abortion. Either way, none of this has to do with Fascism. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 12:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This issue comes up all the time. Policies change over time and vary by country. Both "Right" and "Left" in the US have used the power of central government to enforce their policies. TFD (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to pose this intellectual challenge to wikipedia authors that regularly ascribe the term "right wing" and "left wing" in regard to political philosophies. I myself see Big Government as a direct threat of freedom. I want to see the US Department of Education, for example, shut down. I want to see vast amount of federal regulations disbanded. I believe in local government with a vastly limited federal government. Based on THAT ALONE, and nothing else, academics and professors (and probably most of you here) would look at me and say "right wing". Now why would they do that? Why would you, or anyone on Wikipedia call someone like me "right wing?" I never said anything about social issues at all. You label me "right wing" based solely, and 100% on, my profession of limited government. So wikipedians violate their own logic when they readily ascribe the tag of "right wing" to people like me who believe in limited government, and then turn around and tag "right wing" to something else (i.e. fascism) that is diametrically opposed to the exact same idea they used to tag me. You need to be consistent. Does the belief that central government is inherently corrupt and should be vastly limited denote right wing or does it not? If you call me "right wing" then you have already violated your rational defense of fascism as right wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 12 December 2012‎

If you want to know why they call your views right-wing, you should begin by reading their works. But this page is here for improving the article. And we are supposed to reflect what experts say. I notice you continue to raise this issue across a number of articles, for example at Talk:Nazism/Archive 14. You also claimed that Chip Berlet (b. 1949) and Jared Lee Loughner (b. 1988) were classmaters. (See Talk:Jared Lee Loughner/Archive 1) Not helpful. TFD (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

What does my contributions to other articles have to do with the validity of my point on this one? Are you really going to commit a poisoning the well fallacy against me, and then follow it with a strawman? Even if I made 1 million posts across the internet regarding fascism, it in no way has any bearing on the point I am making here. I redirect to my original concern, which is valid about this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You have raised the same questions across and numb er of articles and patient editors have replied. Their main response is that we do not weigh evidence and determine what is or is not right wing. Your continued raising of the same issue, along with making a ridiculous claim about the author of some of the sources used in these articles is disruptive. Also could you please sign your postings. TFD (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Not really, the last time I checked the goal of Marxism was to develop a stateless society.. Marxism is still right-wing.. Last time I checked, most Anarchist are anti-capitalist and left-wingers... --TIAYN (talk) 07:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

China

I have reverted an edit by 24.6.168.89 who wants to add China to the list. I reverted and asked him/her to come here in my edit summary, to no avail. (I thought this page was under 1RR, but I digress). I do not think it belongs here without an academic source, but I would be happy to hear other opinions. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

To be clear the edit refers to the modern People's Republic of China, not Chiang Kai Shek's nationalist Republic of China. Lots of governments have been called fascist, including Western democracies. We would need to establish that it was a substantial opinion before including, per WP:WEIGHT. That probably requires academic sources. TFD (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Racism

"though fascism's goal to promote the rule of people deemed innately superior while seeking to purge society of people deemed innately inferior is identified as a prominent far-right theme" This appears twice in the article. This is inaccurate factually and historically. Racism and especially eugenics has been a left wing Progressive ideology:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1220 http://www.salon.com/2006/03/04/bruinius/ http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/retrospectives.pdf

Please remove the protection and allow someone to correct this. Thank you. The HITMANACTUAL (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The progressives were not actually left-wing and you need a source that contradicts the specific claim made about the fascists. Also, Flynn's book is fringe and could not be considered a source for any article. TFD (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh brother. Nothin' like some Right-Winger "discovering" Jonah Goldberg's debunked book... --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

For the billionth time, fascism is commonly identified as having a strong far-right theme of purging people deemed inferior from society. Far-right involves support of supremacism. Regardless of what the other political views of a person or group are that could be left-wing to right-wing, support of supremacism is associated with being far-right in nature.--R-41 (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

@TFD Progressives were very much left wing, and I did provide many sources. Who is Flynn?

@Bryon Because it's inconvenient to you doesn't mean it's "debunked".

R-41 Said: "For the billionth time, fascism is commonly identified as having a strong far-right theme of purging people deemed inferior from society". Yeah that's actually Nazism genius. Fascism had very little to do with supremacy or racism. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005455 Many Jews even served in high posts in Italian Fascist Party.

So what I was told is indeed correct. Wikipedia is edited by liberals and will use their editing privileges to block facts on ideological grounds. Great! Way to make an unbiased Encyclopedia. The HITMANACTUAL (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Daniel J. Flynn is one of the two sources for your first link, the other is Goldberg. Neither is within the mainstream. TFD (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact, many of the world's foremost authorities on the history of Fascism and WWII have spoken out about Goldberg's "book", and they did indeed "debunk" it. Exhibit A [3], Exhibit B [4], and Exhibit C (from a Right-Wing historian) [5]. But of course, I'm sure that a journalist with no background whatsoever in history is more knowledgeable about the subject than these people. LOL. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

And of course, neutral doesn't mean "agrees with my view of the world" or "agrees with something I read in one book or heard on the radio the other day". It means with fair representation of all mainstream viewpoints, per the WP:NPOV page. And the mainstream consensus viewpoint is that fascism is often, to a lesser or greater degree, associated with racist and nationalist ideas (and that Nazism is usually seen as a form of fascism). It's one, but not the only, indicator. And it also doesn't mean that you don't find racism and racists in other political groups and ideologies, particularly historically. None of this is liberal dogma or bias being imposed on Wikipedia, it's just this place reflecting the majority real-world descriptions and classifications of things and ideas; if and when you can change that, WP should end up changing too. Good luck with that. N-HH talk/edits 21:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

@TFD Facts are neither mainstream nor non-mainstream. Nothing in the sources I provided is factually incorrect. It's irrelevant who wrote them. You said: "The progressives were not actually left-wing" Now that is blatantly untrue. Progressive movement was very much left wing, form Margaret Sanger to Woodrow Wilson.

Bryon Morrigan said: "But of course, I'm sure that a journalist with no background whatsoever in history is more knowledgeable about the subject than these people. LOL". Spoken like someone who has obviously not even read the book. Hell I don't think you even read the sources you gave me. Very little of what Jonah wrote is factually challenged.

N-HH said: "And the mainstream consensus viewpoint is that fascism is often, to a lesser or greater degree, associated with racist and nationalist ideas". Factually incorrect. Nationalism yes (which is mostly left wing. See Mao, Castro, Kim Jong et al), racism NO. That's Nazism. Fascism has very little to do with race. As I already showed in my source, Jews were very assimilated into the Italian society and held high positions in the Fascist Party and govt until the late 1930s. Mussolini himself was an avid anti-racist. Race was not a factor in Fascist Italy. That's a historic and factual statement. I'll source it again - http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005455

Yes the lack of ideological bias from the editors is obvious, especially Bryon Morrigan who is a paragon of objectivity. The HITMANACTUAL (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Look, if you want a forum to discuss these sorts of things, to present your own analysis of fascism, racism or your favourite books etc, or to have someone explain to you the difference between the broader concept of racism and anti-Semitism more specifically or between different conceptions of nationalism, there are other places you should really go to. Thanks. N-HH talk/edits 23:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Nobody is interested in "teaching" you the basics of political science, Mr. Hitmanactual. There aren't enough hours in the day to point out the errors in your posts...which are most certainly NOT based on "facts." You will convince nobody here, as we're all way more educated on the subject, as well as what constitutes a "Reliable Source", than you, and any silly edits based on conspiracy theories and fringe wackos will be summarily reversed, if not by me...then by someone else. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 00:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

One of the "facts" in Goldberg's book is that the "radical" Canadian politician William Aberhart was a disciple of the American fascist Father Coughlin. What he does not mention is that Aberhart was "radical right wing" and his version of "conservatism", which emphasized individual responsibility, limited government, etc., is now the dominant faction in Canadian conservatism. As you say, facts are "neither mainstream nor non-mainstream." They are true or false. Non-mainstream sources that inform your opinion falsify the facts, which is why they are not reliable sources. I do not understand why people like you insist on such obviously untrue ideas such as 9/11 was an inside job, Obama was born in Kenya, fluoridation is a Communist plot. Why not argue your opinions from actual facts? You would be more persuasive if you argued your opinions from facts rather than false information. TFD (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Also you should read Where have all the Fascists gone, which explains how the belief system you are defending has its roots in fascism. TFD (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Progressivism encompassed pretty much the entire spectrum in the early 20th century. Many progressive ideas are core conservative views today - recalls, referendums, elected judges, primaries, etc. TFD (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Far right in lead

Returning to this article after dying of boredom a while back from the endless debates over the above point, I see it's pretty much been excised from the lead altogether. I guess the endless bids by people citing fringe sources or their own "but fascists believe in big government" analysis to claim it is actually a left-wing philosophy, or some kind of third way (something many fascists themselves claim of course), have finally worn everyone else down too. A while back we at least had the accurate if slightly weaselly "usually identified as being on the far right of the traditional political spectrum" (or something like that) in the first sentence or two; now we have the even more dilute and contentious – not to mention mangled and bizarre – phrasing, which is also relegated to the final para of the lead:

"combined left-wing and right-wing political views. Fascists have commonly opposed having a firm association with any section of the left-right spectrum, considering it inadequate to describe their beliefs, though fascism's goal to promote the rule of people deemed innately superior while seeking to purge society of people deemed innately inferior is identified as a prominent far-right theme"

The first two parts of that are probably worth keeping in some form or other as records of historical development and self-description respectively (although the implication of an equal combination is a little odd), but the third part is a total wash-out. Is that really fascism's "goal" in all cases? Is that all the lead is going to say about the bog-standard, near-universal classification of fascism as being a far-right philosophy? WP is meant to inform people who read its pages and follow mainstream, standard descriptions and taxonomy. Whether a minority likes it or not, or think the description supposedly implies something negative about their own politics, the left-right divide is the standard, basic spectrum used for spot descriptions of political movements and parties, and fascists are usually placed on the far right of it, in both middlebrow discourse and academic analysis. N-HH talk/edits 10:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Reversion

OK, so two different users refactor and copyedit the lead, adding manifestly relevant – but previously absent – details about things like militarism, the fact that fascism started as a European phenomenon, the role of the leader and the state in fascism, examples of prominent fascists and the use of the term currently. In addition, I open talk page threads first to highlight the problems .. and R-41 then comes along and undoes them all pretty much. The only thing they haven't done is reinsert the specifically made-up content I did highlight above (other than the point re Mussolini's quote and obsolescence). The claim that the additions were unreferenced is missing the point. Leads don't have to be referenced as long as they offer a broad summary of the article itself (or state the blindingly obvious). The claim that the edits they are reverting "removed info" is bizarre, given that R-41's reversions are the ones that have removed far more information. So we lose references to Europe, militarism, the leader principle, monumental architecture and neo/post-fascism, but reacquire "physical training" and a couple of badly phrased sentences? Come off it. Pique reverting is not the way to build a well written and informative article. I'll hold off restoring the additions for now, but I'd be eminently justified in doing that, by any objective standard (as would anyone else). N-HH talk/edits 09:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with N-HH on this one... Secondly, what the fascists said and did are two different things, and I don't think R-41 has understood that... --TIAYN (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with N-HH's changes. I recognize that the "consensus" historians claim that fascism was an ideology, on the same intellectual level as liberalism and socialism, but that is not actually a consensus view. We should have a separate article about their theory and this article should include what fascists actually did, rather than what the consensus historians claim they believed. TFD (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

We only have one article - so, like it or not, the "theory" of fascism (however amorphous it may be, and however versed in political pragmatism it may be) still has to be covered. And where the general consensus from historians is clear, it is hard to claim that we ought not cover it. Collect (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm quitting Wikipedia. I'm tired of wasting time and effort here, only to get uncivil attacks by N-HH on his talk page in which he says that my reverts to several changes he did "wrecked" the intro and that such reverts were a "disgrace", and he is essentially accusing me of being a liar, look up proletarian nation and fascism and you will find multiple books that speak of it. Architecture is nothing in comparison with economic policy. The issue of militarism, was stated more clearly in fascism's known advocacy of "action" or direct action. I agree with Collect. N-HH added material with no sources at all and changed a sentence from saying that fascism was anti-conservative to that they were "somewhat" opposed to conservatism, the source said it was anti-conservative. I can see the article is going to deteriorate until it is a postmodern relativist statement saying "there many have been an ideology called fascism, but there is no agreement on what it is if it is anything beyond a linguistic construct", years of effort to improve the article are going into the trash can.--R-41 (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Rethink it. N-HH does not appear to have WP:CONSENSUS for his interesting views. Collect (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

All I am going to say further is that I don't support the changes made by N-HH, including his alteration of sentences - going from saying that fascism was opposed to communism and Marxian socialism to saying that it opposed socialism in its entirety. Material in the article shows that this is not accurate. One of the major fascist ideologies, Nazism claimed it was socialist - whether it was in practice of government is distinct from its ideological claims. N-HH has removed all mention of fascism's anti-conservative themes. N-HH's changes are directed to emphasize that it is anti-socialist, while de-emphasizing anti-capitalist themes and anti-conservative themes recognized by scholars like Stanley Payne and others. That's all that I am willing to say about this.--R-41 (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be missing the point that the bulk of the changes R-41 was reverting were not mine. Shall we actually look at what was done to the article rather than spouting off?

With my edit two days ago, I removed a few contentious statements which were plain inaccurate (and not sourced, despite appearing to be so), as explained in some detail by me in the above thread. I also in fact added something about fascism being anti-conservative; as well as utterly uncontroversial statements about fascism emerging in Europe, and the use of the term (or otherwise) these days. Other changes were basic copyediting and tweaks to improve some of the phrasing.
Then another editor – not me – made these more substantive changes, adding again key points about fascism which had been absent from the lead, for example about the leadership principle, naming Hitler and Mussolini as examples of fascist leaders, talking about militarism, parades and architecture etc. Those changes also added emphasis in respect of fascism's anti-socialist nature. None of those observations are controversial in mainstream thinking. Indeed, for a decent generalist encyclopedia entry trying to summarise fascism, they needed to be included.
I then did some further copyediting, including trimming some repetition, especially in the part about the economy (while leaving plenty of content on that, eg about autarky and the mixed economy).
Then R-41 pretty much rolled the clock back to their version of the lead, albeit without some of the more specific claims and points that they seem to have accepted were flawed. In doing so, they removed all mention of fascism as an initially European phenomenon, all reference to the veneration of the leader and the state and to militarism and often ethnocentrism – pretty much defining features of fascism as commonly understood, you'd have thought, along with the authoritarian nationalism. And, the icing on the cake given what has been written above, removing the explicit sentence I had actually added about fascism often being in conflict with traditional conservatism.

You couldn't make it up, as Richard Littlejohn might say. He might also say that the Nazis were socialists. But they weren't of course, at least in the sense of socialism as usually defined in political terminology, which they were very much avowedly opposed to, both in theory AND practice. As for the conservatism point more generally, fascism is indeed different to and often opposed to traditional conservatives, but at the same time fascists were quite happy to accommodate with conservatives when necessary. They did not do that with socialists. Again, this is a matter of mainstream record and analysis. Thanks. N-HH talk/edits 20:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

One final note: fascists were quite happy to accomodate with socialists' and even Marxist-Leninists' economic ideas when necessary. Mussolini recognized socialist figures like Henri de Saint Simon, Charles Fourier, Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, and Georges Sorel as socialists that fascism admired, while denouncing Karl Marx and Marxist socialism, and this is in the article and sourced. Nazi economic policy had been reported in scholarly books to be strongly related to Soviet command economy economic policy such as with four-year plans, creating state-owned firms like KdF that produced weapons and vehicles, it differed in that it kept private enterprise. The Nazis recruited ex-communists into their ranks in the early 1930s. Hitler in public and more importantly in private shared Fascist Italy was the first country to recognize the Soviet Union, in exchange the Soviets gave Italy economic resources, including providing such resources to Italy in the midst of the Second Italo-Ethiopian War after Italy faced sanctions upon being condemned by many countries in the world. I am not a Tea Party nut saying this, I am a left-wing social democrat and a socialist who is not afraid to acknowledge that the fascists did indeed cooperate with self-described socialists, and admired certain Soviet policies. That's my defense, if others will take it seriously is up to them, I do not intend to spend any more time on Wikipedia beyond responding to insinuations that I am some anti-socialist lunatic fringe which are false.--R-41 (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

That is just more synthesis which is the wrong way to develop any article. It is faulty logic anyway, trying to prove a predetermined conclusion by gathering flimsy evidence. 90% of the editors of the National Review were ex-communists, Fred Koch made his fortune under Stalin, Sun Myung Moon was a pallbearer at Kim Il Sung's funeral, therefore American conservatism is really socialist. TFD (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. The above simply tries to stitch together a theoretical conclusion based on one-off claims and observations that are at best cherry-picked and/or only tangentially relevant, and at worst dubious factually (eg re Italy being the first state to recognise the USSR; or that this actually demonstrates that fascists co-operated with socialists, at least outside the world of international realpolitik), while falsely claiming that others have accused them of being, or implied that they are, an "anti-socialist lunatic". Not only that, but it totally fails to specifically address the actual content of the lead one way or the other or the process and logic that led to the recent changes and additions to the lead. It does nothing to rebut or counter any of the arguments posted above by me or others in either regard. Finally, to the extent that the claims have some mainstream analytical purchase, albeit in a very broad sense – ie that fascism supported state intervention in the economy and borrowed ideas and themes from, and had some roots in, socialist discourse etc – those points are reflected in the current lead. Things can have things in common with each other without one being a variety of the other or directly related to it. That is how most mainstream scholarship views the relationship between fascism and socialism, and nothing random WP contributors assert to the contrary, based on their own reasoning, is going to change that. N-HH talk/edits 23:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

What I just said is in the article and there are reliable sources to back it up. The fact that the Fascists as founded in Italy in World War I had strong syndicalist socialist heritage is recognized by the respected scholar on fascism, Zeev Sternhell who in his work The Birth of Fascist Ideology: From Cultural Rebellion to Political Revolution has said that fascism could be identified as being connected to a nationalist anti-Marxist socialism, and Sternhell has directly addressed the influence of syndicalism on the original Italian Fascism, including syndicalist Georges Sorel. Upon founding Fascism in World War I, Mussolini self-described the movement then as supporting a form of socialism but rejecting Marxism, this is directly addressed in Paul O'Brien's Mussolini in the First World War: The Journalist, The Soldier, The Fascist Plus stating that fascism was influenced by communism in the Soviet Union is not a minor claim nor "stitched", it is from a major book, François Furet's The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century directly addresses the the relations between fascism and Soviet-style communism, including common values and goals held between them. The book Beyond Totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism Compared edited by historians Michael Geyer and Sheila Fitzpatrick shows there have been strong similarities between Stalin's Soviet Union and Hitler's Nazi Germany in addition to serious differences between them.--R-41 (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The article needs to be worded better and the statement restored on what its prominent far-right theme is: supremacist goals of purging society of inferior, but that it originated from national syndicalism with both left-wing and right-wing influence. And not exaggerating that its origins were primarily right-wing which is false, as is clear with Sternhell's and O'Brien's works mentioned above. The current intro distorts those facts of its origins through emphasis, saying "Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists, who combined elements of left-wing politics with more typically right-wing positions"". Remove "more typically" and replace "positions" with "politics" and that sentence would be fine. The intro awkwardly addresses fascism's opposition to class conflict and promotion of class cooperation, it should just say "Fascism opposes class conflict for dividing a nation and promotes class cooperation to unify the nation". These are my last attempts to try to demonstrate to you the problems with saying that fascism opposed socialism in its entirety, it opposed Marxian socialism for certain for its emphasis on class conflict, its opposition to nationalism, and its egalitarianism, but fascism originated with syndicalist roots.--R-41 (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. A bullet-pointed response:

As noted several times now, the lead already expresses all those points that you make to do with left-wing elements and influence, opposition to capitalism and the role of the state, including in economic matters.
And does so with due weight and balance, since individual writers and scholars, however respected, do not get their views reproduced as gospel on topics where there is wide debate. Citing them after searching through Google Books, as you continue to do does not provide a trump card or negate what different writers say, especially when those others constitute the mainstream majority. Plus experience has told me to doubt the claims you make about what your latest pet book says (and for example, looking at the O'Brien book you trumpet, it clearly talks about Mussolini's "break with socialism in .. 1914" and describes "anti-socialism" as a "key component" in his later, fascist-phase writings).
As also noted, saying X has something in common with Y is not to say that X is a form of Y or vice-versa, or that X is half-Y. This is basic logic.
This article should not be saying that fascism is some kind of middle-ground or even primarily leftish philosophy, which nonetheless has one identified far-right element; or that said one element is simply "supremacism". That has mainstream classification back-to-front and is what genuine "distort[ion] .. through emphasis" would look like.
As to its origins, as noted, we all know that Mussolini came from a socialist background and some socialist ideas feature in fascist theory more generally. Again, the lead says much of this. But German Nazism and Francoist phalangism especially (if we wish to include Franco) did indeed have far more immediate and stronger roots in both the traditional and radical right and, indeed, ruled in alliance with them or under their cover for at least part of the time.

And can you please stop constantly rewriting your posts? It makes it impossible to respond properly. N-HH talk/edits 13:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you cut it out with the "Sigh" - stop being so uncivil. You are behaving so uncivil and so arrogantly, that you refuse to even investigate O'Brien's book, instead you snidely respond that I am "trumpeting" it - stop with this rhetorical nonsense - either at least attempt to look up the source and other sources, or just say that you have no intention whatsoever of considering anything of what I have said. Sorry if I rewrite my posts, I am a perfectionist, my fault. I have two of those books literally in my hands right now that I took out as part of university studies, so don't guess that it is all just from Google Books.--R-41 (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The sigh is primarily because I keep having to repeat myself and rebut the same points over and over as soon as you find the latest book to mis-cite and/or cherry-pick from (however you are reading them). And tweaking a post once or twice shortly after posting is one thing; make about 20 separate consecutive additions, often with significant gaps in time between them, and adding huge chunks of argument is another. It means anyone responding constantly hits the "edit conflict" wall, even though no one else has come in, and a structured response suddenly makes less sense. And, finally, I for one do not think that clunky and repetitive phrasing such as "Fascism opposes class conflict for dividing a nation and promotes class cooperation to unify the nation" is better than what we have now. N-HH talk/edits 13:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

My point that I have repeated but do not sigh over is that I believe that you have made a poor re-write of the intro. My proposal for amending the sentence on the class conflict sentence, is not "clunky", it is clear and to the point on class conflict. You mention Franco. Franco is considered a quasi-fascist authoritarian conservative, like Salazar, he diluted Falangism from being fascist to being a clerical conservative nationalist ideology with few if any radical goals. Why did you add "more typically" for the right-wing element of its national syndicalist roots? Does the source say that its national syndicalist origins were "more typically" right-wing?--R-41 (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

R-41, you should be aware that just because some writers hold certain views it does not mean that those views enjoy mainstream acceptance. Furet's view that fascism developed out of the ideals of the French Revolution and Sternhell's view that fascism developed in 19th century France for example. The New Right wants both to distance itself from and to rehabilitate fascism. While we can point that out, it is POV to write the article from that standpoint. TFD (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Major and respected historians on fascism such as Stanley Payne and Roger Griffin cites Sternhell. To N-HH and TFD: if you are not familiar with the influence of Sternhell's work, and therefore you are in no position to disregard his work. To N-HH: if you are not familiar are disregarding his work out of rhetorical diversion. P.S. to N-HH: Saying that I regularly mis-cite books and will continue to is stereotyping me based on one mistake, it is disrespectful, and it is a personal attack.--R-41 (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You know that I am familiar with Sternhell because we have discussed his writings many, many times in the past. You should also be aware that just because a writer enjoys respect does not mean that every single opinion he expresses is authoritative. Specifically his view that fascism developed out of the 19th century French extreme right or "proto-fascism". You raised this issue earlier when you wanted to claim that fascism was a form of democracy, remember? TFD (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, when writing a tertiary-source account of something, such as an encyclopedia entry, you can't take as gospel one source or opinion. No one is saying that Sternhell's work should be disregarded (or that they are not familiar with it), just that it is not the end of the story. As to mis-citing books, R-41, I have found multiple instances of it in your additions across several articles in the last couple of weeks (and previously). To name just a couple, how about the British nationalism article? The proletarian nation misunderstanding? The O'Brien stuff just above? It is not a one-off, it is a real problem, and one you seem to lack self-awareness about.

Can you also please stop insisting that I "re-wrote" the intro. I did not – as I explained above in some detail, most of the additions came from another editor. As to the specific point you keep raising about the two words "more typically", which I did add, that is an obvious reference to nationalism, social conservatism (up to a point), support for hierarchy and all the other things that are rooted in most variants of fascism. It also, as a stylistic qualifier, stresses the contrast between the right and left elements (and the fact that fascism has both is something you are very insistent about of course). And, no, formulations of the sort "Cleanism doesn't like dirty things but does like clean things" is not good writing. Arguably it's clear, but you can't say anything kinder than that. N-HH talk/edits 14:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec)IOW - the person is undoubtedly respected in his field, and is RS by Wikipedia policy - but if you do not like one of his claims, that claim immediately ceases to be RS? I read and reread WP:RS and did not find that interesting view expressed in the policy. R-41 is correct on this. Collect (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Where did either I or TFD make such a claim: ie that he is not a reliable source or that what he says should not be factored into the debate? N-HH talk/edits 14:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Collect, facts and opinions are separate concepts covered by separate policies, verifiability and weight. While we can assume that all the facts in rs are accurate, we cannot assume that all the opinions expressed are facts. Notice that different scholars may have different opinions. TFD (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It is correct that "facts" != "opinion" -- that said, if a source is accepted as a "reliable source in its field" then all of the claims made in that source are of equal reliability for Wikipedia purposes. We do not say and can not say "when the author is 'right' then the source can be used and when the author is 'wrong' then we can not use the same source". Yet that appears to be precisely what is sought here. R-41 s well aware of WP:RS and is using that policy correctly here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read three things:

WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE.
The above discussion, so you can point us all to where anyone has said "we shall not use Sternhell as a source".
The lead, which, as I keep having to tell R-41, is chock-full of points and material ultimately derived from Sternhell, eg about the links and similarities between socialism and fascism, the problems some commentators note with putting fascism on the left-right spectrum etc. Arguably it over-plays his views.

Then come back and say something relevant. Cheers indeed. N-HH talk/edits 15:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:AGF and WP:CONSENSUS before making ad hom posts here. See above posts: You should also be aware that just because a writer enjoys respect does not mean that every single opinion he expresses is authoritative. certainly looks like "he is a respected author but we won't use 'this' statement." Your argument here clearly supports including his "wrong opinions" to be sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Collect, stop confusing opinions with facts. It is a poor approach to editing articles. TFD (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)\

And using ad homs instead of dealing with posts seems to be a problem here. Collect (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

And which part exactly, of TFD's uncontroversial – one would have thought – statement "just because a writer enjoys respect does not mean that every single opinion he expresses is authoritative", which you have quoted above, means or implies "and therefore we will not use that writer as a source", which was the question I put to you? TFD also made the explicit point that we can and should note such opinions but simply that we will not write an article to them. That is, of course, standard WP policy as understood, I thought, by most people. Also, which "statement" of Sternell's are you even claiming we are not using and refusing to use? No specific statement is under discussion. I'm not engaging in ad-homs, I'm pointing out some issues to R-41 – yes, including with their approach to editing; comments that I do not resile from – and asking you to read a couple of things, explain what the exact problem is and actually engage coherently with a specific point rather than just basically saying, "You're all being mean to my buddy but they're probably right". N-HH talk/edits 17:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

He appeared to suggest that with which he does not agree, even if it is an RS source, should not be used in the article for that reason. Such a bit of logic is not found in WP:RS. As for the weird ad homs flying around - they do not benefit the article, nor my opinion of those who post tem, so I wonder what their actual purpose is. Collect (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

No, as I explained very clearly just above, TFD did no such thing. Nor did I at any point. If it appears that way to you, you need to refocus a little and, as advised, read up a bit before weighing in. Nor have I engaged any off-topic personalisation of the points at issue, I have just been a bit robust in confronting specious argument and the persistent misunderstanding and misrepresentation of sources, policies and the article text itself, as well as of others' comments (which continues in your latest post; or is stating that an "ad-hom" too?). Such arguments and misrepresentations are a bigger problem than the occasional highlighting and brusque debunking of them. Anyway, we are going round in circles, as usual. Despite your insinuation, it's quite clear who's actually derailing or avoiding any rational discussion here, and my weekend starts here. N-HH talk/edits 17:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Collect has a longer history of misinterpreting policies, sources and other editors' comments, then entering into extensive pointless discussions. If Collect has anything constructive to say about the wording of the lead, he should say it now and stop insulting other editors. TFD (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow -- when you pile on ad homs you do not seem to wish to stop! But perhaps you should reread the purpose of article talk pages? It does not include telling everyone how evil the other editor is. Really! My posts above were to the point and suggest that R-41 is correct in his views expressed on this article talk page. Collect (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

N-HH, I'm going to say it as it is, you are a rephrensible, uncivil user whose aggressive, insulting, and baiting behaviour towards me and Collect has disgusted me far long enough. If I made mistakes in reviewing some books or paraphrases that you think misrepresent the source, that does not compare with your repeated baiting and insulting of users. It is clear that you have no intention to listen and calmly address the criticism on the writing by me or Collect, and instead you throw out baiting comments like this: "it's quite clear who's actually derailing or avoiding any rational discussion here, and my weekend starts here". N-HH, you are a disgrace and a coward to bait people.--R-41 (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I will not partake in this nonsense any longer, so N-HH go ahead do whatever you want, I am quitting Wikipedia. I hope that N-HH is eventually reported for his repeated uncivil insulting and baiting behaviour. But I'm too tired of attempting to talk civil with this reprehensible person, I'm guilty of being uncivil at this point, and it doesn't matter now, I'm taking responsibility for that because I'm gone from Wikipedia as of now.--R-41 (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I have addressed any specific points you and Collect have made (eg the use of Sternhell, the phrase "more typically", the relationship to socialism, the content of some of the specific books you have cited, RS vs NPOV & BALANCE etc). Please see various replies above. Saying I have not and have no intention of doing so, or Collect repeatedly claiming – wrongly – that TFD said we can't use Sternhell's work (while nowhere saying themselves what they suggest should actually happen with the article itself), is where the ad-homs and derailing are coming in. And I have not been deliberately "insulting" or "baiting", at any point. I have not used offensive or abusive language. Everything I have said has been on topic and related to the content of the article or to the editing of it. I have simply, as noted, pointed out some problems with your arguments and what you erroneously claimed certain books or authors say (and what other people here have supposedly said; or not said). If you choose to take that personally, that's your lookout. In particular, let's look at that last sentence of yours above, quoting my response to Collect. Did you not even notice that that was a response or rebuttal to Collect's pretty much throwing that accusation at me first? And has it not occurred to you that some of the short language here might just be because I am just as frustrated with you – and with good reason – as you claim to be with me? No one has a monopoly on virtue. N-HH talk/edits 10:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for the lead

Everything's getting a bit convoluted upstairs. Any specific further suggestions anyone has for the lead can perhaps be placed in this new sub-section? As noted, I'm broadly happy with it as it is now as an overall introduction. I think it covers the ground fairly and represents what the article and what the generality of mainstream sources have to say about fascism as a whole. N-HH talk/edits 10:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The status quo ante as of 23 Feb 2013 was fine. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

That last comment was not constructive at all.. It seems to me that you guys are more interesting in writing shit about each other then to actually improve this article.... Not good. --TIAYN (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I see R-41 has yet again cut a swathe through the amended lead – removing presumably uncontroversial and basic, informative recent additions eg about fascism originating in 20th century Europe, about Hitler and Mussolini, about its focus on the state and the leader, about militarism; and doing so without justifying, discussing or explaining anything here. No one individual owns this page and it would be interesting to see some form of justification for the removal of all that information. N-HH talk/edits 08:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason for removing this information and ask that R-41 explain his reasoning. TFD (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll give R-41 or anyone else time to respond but, absent that fairly soon, I will restore the information (and will happily rebut each of the claims in the individual edit summaries they used when removing it all bit by bit and restoring their own previous verbatim phrasing for the extant material). Subbing and reviewing additions and changes is one thing, repeated outright removal to restore a previous editor's preferred version and wording another. If R-41 is genuinely retired and therefore not going to respond here, fine, but in that case they can't have it both ways and continue nonetheless editing the lead itself to excise and revert pretty much anyone else's edits to it from the last couple of weeks or so, both prior to and post that retirement. N-HH talk/edits 23:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you abide by WP:CONSENSUS which qute clearly indicates such unilateral edits are improper. Even if you give folks a wole day before making such wholesale restorations - in fact, I think it makes sense for you to start an RfC here giving outsiders a chance to voice opinions. One does not get real consensus by driving anyone away. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no discussion on the talk page establishing a consensus for the R-41's version of the lead. Consensus emerges through discussion of alternatives and you have not made any arguments for opposing N-HH's changes. TFD (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I demur - it is N-HH;s edit which does not have consensus. In such a case, an RfC is the normal procedure, not name-calling. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there any reason why we should go directly to an RfC rather than have you explain why R-41's version is better? If your reasoning is persuasive it would save the efforts of other editors who wish to reply. It would also be helpful in preparing an RfC since we could report why you oppose the changes. TFD (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I quite politely suggested that an RfC is called for - I think discretion would have you concur, but that is up to you. I have seen your modus operandi at the discussion on defining the United States at DRN, and think it unlikely you will be easier to discuss matters with here. Let's get others onto the page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You made the unreasonable conclusion at the noticeboard that because the U.S. has incorporated territories in the past, that the unincorporated territories of the United States must be incorporated, contrary to sources provided, without providing any sources. We are supposed to write articles based on sources, not our personal synthesis. In this case you have not even presented your opinions, let alone sources. Could you please explain why you prefer one source over another and avoid personal attacks, which is a poor substitute for rational argument. TFD (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

For God's Sake! Try reporting my posts accurately or not at all from now on -- it is beyond me to keep up with horrendous and outrageous misstatements about what I clearly posted at DRN (primarily the facts about the Northwest Ordinance which seems to antedate the Spanish-American War as far as I can tell) - and it is not really a "great debate tactic" to misrepresent what others write. Cheers -- now you know precisely what to do. Collect (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I explained to you that Congress incorporated territories into the United States under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 but did not incorporate the territories acquired from Spain in 1898. The legal status of the territories was decided in the Insular Cases and several sources were presented at the discussion. However rather than read the sources or even the Wikipedia article, you chose to persue your personal synthesis. TFD (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Ad nauseam - but you failed to realise the very limited value of the Insular Cases in that discussion and seemed to ignore the Northwest Territory example - and your post above was so far away from my posts that it was an unrecognizable depiction of the truth. Nor did you find yourself in the majority in that discussion - making this side-discussion quite odd indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

@Collect. Let's make this simple (and get back to fascism, as it were):

I have consistently been asking for further opinions, not least by opening this sub-thread, and have given R-41 themselves time and space to address concerns here without knee-jerk reverting. However, R-41 seems to feel they don't have to bother (selective retirement, it seems), and I suspect others won't join in if discussions are going to degenerate like this.
This is not about "my edits". As I keep having to say, most of the content R-41 is repeatedly removing, without properly explaining why, was added by another editor. There may not be 100% clear consensus for the version I have restored, which includes those edits, but there's certainly nothing vaguely approaching consensus for R-41's constant removal of relatively uncontroversial (objectively speaking) material and their restoration of a truncated, unilaterally drafted lead.
Can you please address specific points about specific content? For example, is it wrong for the lead to state that fascism emerged in 20th century Europe? That it tends to promotes veneration of the state and its leader? That is it militaristic? Etc. This is what R-41 is taking out of the lead. Perhaps they can be improved or finessed, but simply blanking them out is not constructive.

Nor do I see that we are at RFC stage yet. Thanks. N-HH talk/edits 09:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Bad habits are hard to kill. Collect does make mistakes, but he can be correct on a number of things as he is on the deterioration of this article. Plus N-HH says he demands consensus before any major changes are made but then he makes and allows massive changes by himself and others like JSquish when he likes them and when there was no request for consensus for those changes and when there is no firm consensus for those edits! But go ahead N-HH, restore the bullshit that implies that fascism borrowed from socialism as a whole but took out class conflict - because we all know every socialist supports class conflict - BULLSHIT. --R-41 (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC) (redacted personal attacks made in obvious anger) Collect (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The point about consensus is that no one has given any reason for removing the changes or additions I and JSquish made, and we have several users saying they're fine with them. Some of them, especially mine, were basic copyediting. By contrast, I and others have argued in some detail about the problems with your version of the lead but you have not explained them. As to class conflict, the version I preferred does not say, imply or suggest anywhere that all socialists believe in class conflict, so I don't know why this seems to be such a massive problem or why it is causing you such apparent anguish (and I have of course seen the comments redacted by Collect on your behalf. As usual, they say far more about the user making them that the one they are directed at). Per this one edit of yours (part of the succession), I have no huge problem with adding "Marxist" as a more specific qualifier to the word socialism at that point, about class conflict, but not having it there does not carry the meaning you seem to think and suggest that all socialists, without exception, use such language or focus on the issue. It just implies it's a common theme in socialist discourse – as it is and, especially in the early 20th century, was (and not just among Marxist socialists). In that edit, I do however take issue with the other change, which makes it read that fascism opposes "mainstream" socialism. What kind of socialism – as the term is commonly understood and used – do/did fascists support? (Answering "National" Socialism doesn't count). And how about my specific other questions at point 3 above re the content you have been outright removing? N-HH talk/edits 15:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Me and Collect know exactly what you are about, you hypocritically demand others gain consensus before making edits, while you do whatever you want. And yes I am mad as hell at you, and I sincerely meant what I said in that insult, every word of it, and I am glad you read it because you deserve every word of it, I don't think you deserve the dignity of respect when you say to me that I "ruined" and "wrecked" the intro by reverting changes that I sincerely thought were bad, or when you say that you expect me to continue to mis-cite things, or when you snobbishly said to Collect when he appealed to specific Wikipedia guidelines "Then come back and say something relevant. Cheers indeed." - even mocking Collect's regular use of the term "Cheers" at the end of his sentences. Don't bullshit me or Collect that you didn't intend to insult Collect by saying that, you did and you know it.--R-41 (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

When you've composed yourself, perhaps you could review the last two days history of changes to the page itself and the concurrent activity on the talk page (as well as previous recent activity here) – and just check to see which version of the lead we have sitting there right now, and whether I have actually reverted any of your most recent interventions – and then revisit your accusation that I am the one just doing "whatever [they] want". Not to mention of course that, if I was so minded, I would by now have gone to ANI about what is going on here and you would have been blocked, or something close to it. N-HH talk/edits 18:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Do as you please, I know what I've done, I know it is wrong, and I am mad as hell. I am not scared of your threats, I'm at least being honest in my anger with you. P.S. per your comment to my addition to your talk page, never post any comment on my talk page ever under any circumstances.--R-41 (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

R-41, You changed "socialism" to "Marxist socialism".[6] Yet in the 1930s, the main socialist party (the "SDP") was Marxist. Both orthodox and revisionist Marxists accepted class conflict, but differed on their interpretations. (See Why War, p. 76.[7]) You write that the edit is "Labelling all socialism as supporting class conflict." That is not my reading. While Social Democrats did not "advocate" class conflict, and sought to reduce it, it did not mean that they rejected the theory. TFD (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

No, revisionist Marxists who supported reformism like SPD member Eduard Bernstein, supported cooperation of all people regardless of class, and opposed promotion of class conflict. Yes fascists opposed Marxism as a whole. Fascists were influenced by syndicalism - a type of socialism, and were particularly influenced by revolutionary syndicalist Georges Sorel. The fascists didn't reject the theory of class conflict either - they promoted class cooperation as its solution.--R-41 (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The phrasing simply implies that discussion about classes and class conflict was prevalent in socialist discourse, and that fascism took something from this. It was and it did. It doesn't matter that some socialists might question the nature of class conflict, whether it existed at all or what to do about it, because the wording does not say – or even suggest – that they all thought the same thing. This is a non-point based on a massive over-interpretation of and over-inference from one passing phrase. N-HH talk/edits 16:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

R-41, you are correct that the SPD opposed promotion of class conflict and supported cooperation. That does not mean however that they denied the conflict existed. And since they were Marxists too, your qualification of the term "socialism" with "MarxisT" is redundant. It also implies that the fascists were socialists. If you and Collect want the article to say that, you should provide a source. TFD (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I am focusing on the influence of socialism on the ideology. I have given you not only a source, but multiple sources showing the influence of socialism upon fascism. I have told you of the influence of Georges Sorel's syndicalism on fascism, and Sorel's influence is described and sourced. But I imagine that you will respond by rejecting these, accuse me of cherry-picking etc. as you did before, and then the viscious cycle will begin again with you claiming that there are no sources supporting what I'm saying.--R-41 (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The connection between syndicalism and fascism is your personal opinion based on minority views. The article for example says "Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists", and the source used is Sternhell's book, p. 161.[8] But Sternhell does not say that and his views about the influence of syndicalism is in a minority. TFD (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The decisive influence of Georges Sorel and revolutionary syndicalists (NOT syndicalists) like Corridoni and Alceste de Ambris on the birth of fascist ideology is not a minority view, but a fully established fact. You can usefully read the first volume of the fundamental work of Renzo De Felice about Mussolini "Mussolini il rivoluzionario", where this is described at length, with documents. Among them, a personal acknowledgment of Mussolini himself, given to Yvon de Begnac and reported on his Taccuini. Actually, Sternhell did not discover anything, but made a brilliant work of systematization. The weak points of Sternhell are others, but this is not the place to discuss them.
About the sentence "Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists" I partially agree with Four Deuces: revolutionary syndicalists (above all Corradini) gave a decisive contribution to the establishment of fascist ideology and program, but did not "found the Fascism" (again, read de Felice, where the process of Fascism's birth in the war and after war years is masterly described and documented). I think that this sentence should be changed accordingly.
A last personal point: Fascism has been a largely Italian phenomenon: trying to write something about fascism (and Mussolini) - above all historically - without reading (and knowing) the Italian works on the subject is a hopeless enterprise. Unfortunately, the main work of Felice has never been translated into English, because of obvious reasons (they are eight volumes more than 7,000 pages long) but, without knowing it, the danger of involuntary "cherry picking" among minority - and often plainly wrong - sources (what de Felice ironically described as beautiful skyscrapers founded on wooden piles ) is real. Alex2006 (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I think there's broad agreement among authoritative sources in the real world that there was influence from socialist ideas of the time on fascism and that some of the ideology and some fascists had roots originally in specific groups of a leftist bent. In turn, there's broad agreement among editors here that the lead and article need to reflect this; the only issues are a) how to phrase references to this influence; and b) the broader issue of text implying that fascism, once up and running, might, in some way, be a form of socialism. Regardless of the RFC below, it seems we might be better of losing, or at least qualifying, the explicit claim that it was "founded by .. national syndicalists". On b), we really can't have any suggestion of that as anything other than a fringe view. I don't think even Sternhell, for example, says as much as that. N-HH talk/edits 11:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sternhell wrote, "The France of integral nationalism, of the revolutionary Right, was the real birthplace of fascism. We have already demonstrated this elsewhere, so it does not have to be dealt with here. Moreover, France was the birthplace of Sorelian revolutionary syndicalism, the second elementary component of fascism." (The Birth of Fascist Ideology, p. 4) In Fascists and Conservatives, 2004, p. 22, Martin Blinkhorn writes, "In discussing the syndicalists' role within fascism the most difficult task is to ascertain their degree of influence. The revolutionary thrust of their ideas has been well documented. There can be little doubt that on ideological grounds they were the nemesis of all the conservative interests that flocked to fascism after the March on Rome. The rediscovery of this revolutionary component of fascism corrects crude Marxist interpretations of fascism as a pliable tool in the hands of captialists. At the same time, concentrating atention of one strand of fascism raises the danger of an opposite distortion, for while it is sufficiently clear at the current stage of research that the syndicalists were indeed strong enough to leave their mark on the regime, it is no less apparent that their major proposals for restructuring Italin society were decisivvely defeated in the 1920s."[9] We appear to be overstating even what Sternhell wrote, which is against the neutrality policy. TFD (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually from what you are quoting TFD, Sternhell himself is not ignoring non-syndicalist influences he states the primary influence of right-wing integral nationalism to fascism. In fact perhaps the wording on the national syndicalist roots of fascism description part in the intro that is from Sternhell could be adjusted to additionally say what Sternhell has also said that it was "inspired by revolutionary integral nationalism and Sorelian revolutionary syndicalism". Indeed as Alex2006 has said, the influence of Sorel on fascism as well as national syndicalists is not a minority view isolated to Sternhell, this is widely recognized, including in Stanley Payne's major work A History of Fascism. Payne mentions that Sorel's influence on Mussolini and fascism. Payne also states the role of national syndicalism as a "pillar" in Fascist Italy's economy but claims in practice protectionism proved the more important part. Here is what Payne saying this on Italian Fascism: "The two pillars of Fascism's economic policy had been national syndicalism and protectionism. Both were implemented, but the latter was rather the more important aspect." So it is an important issue with support from multiple scholars as I and Alex2006 have been saying.--R-41 (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

TFD is correct that other material needs to be included. I believe that fascism's far-right supremacist stances need to be mentioned clearly as they were in the Woshinsky source. Also fascism's major conservative element of promoting unifying national traditions needs to be mention. But that needs to be delicately handled too, as this conservative element of the ideology co-existed with fascist promotion of modernization and anti-conservative stances in regards to modernization issues - especially on the economy and its exaltation of modern technology - Cyprian Blamires' World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia, Volume 1 that is held as a reference book in many English language university libraries, is a good source to refer to for brief summaries on fascism's relationship with modernism and modern technology. If this needs to be added below for discussion, I will move it there.--R-41 (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is another citation from la Dottrina del Fascismo from Mussolini himself: "Nel gran fiume del Fascismo troverete i filoni che si dipartono dal Sorel, dal Péguy, dal Lagardelle del Mouvement socialiste e della coorte dei sindacalisti italiani, che tra il 1904 e il 1914 portarono una nota di novità nell'ambiente socialistico italiano, già svirilizzato e cloroformizzato dalla fornicazione giolittiana, con le "Pagine libere" dell'Olivetti, "La Lupa", di Orano, il "Divenire sociale" di Enrico Leone. MUSSOLINI, Opera Omnia, XXXIV, p. 122, from: De Felice, "Mussolini il rivoluzionario", p. 41, Einaudi, Milano, 1965.Alex2006 (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it is the wrong approach to look for sources connecting fascism to syndicalism. Rather in the lead we should reflect what a mainstream source would say in a short description of fascism. Instead we decide that although fascism was a great river with many strands, we will concentrate on those that originated on the Left. TFD (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

TFD, that is assuming bad faith and an accusation. I have Payne's A History of Fascism, 1914-1945 in front of me as a paperback book. This book was a mandatory reading in my university on a course on fascism.--R-41 (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with TFD. Not only is this is all getting a bit bogged down in esoteric and technical detail, given that we are discussing the lead, but it's slightly working back to front in terms of focusing on one connection as if it was the key one and then looking to see what evidence we can find to stress it, rather than taking a step back and looking at the wider view and multiplicity of influences (which, in the lead, are only going to need to be laid out very, very broadly). N-HH talk/edits 20:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

What TFD has just said is inaccurate, I am not advocating that that the article "concentrate on those that originated on the Left". National syndicalism included right-wing nationalists who merged their ideas with syndicalists. Second, national syndicalism is not a minor matter on the origination of the original Fascist movement in Italy. Third, it is actually inevitable that "those who originated on the Left" will need to be paid attention to because the principle leader and major founder of fascism, Benito Mussolini originated on the left and moved rightwards.--R-41 (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

In the 19 page introduction, neither Sorel nor syndicalism are mentioned. Sorel's influence on Mussolini is briefly mentioned on p. 83. If Payne had written this article, chances are he might not have mentioned them at all and certainly not in the lead. TFD (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

We don't have to have Sorel in the intro, it could be, but it doesn't have to. Fascism evolved on its own pace after it was created - so yes after it was founded figures like Sorel became less important than fascist figures themselves, but Sorel is important in its origins, multiple scholars attest to that. As for national syndicalism, again this is what Payne says on Italian Fascism that national syndicalism was very significant, though protectionism was more significant, as said here: "The two pillars of Fascism's economic policy had been national syndicalism and protectionism. Both were implemented, but the latter was rather the more important aspect.".--R-41 (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

As noted, we are getting a little hung up on detail here. And let's hang on a second as well: I'm not sure anyone should be diving in to edit the lead right now, with this discussion going on and the RFC opened up below. Especially a user who "retired" while blazing off a volley of personal abuse at someone else in the discussion (ie me), which included, ironically, totally untrue claims that I would just revert everything and was doing whatever the hell I wanted with the article. N-HH talk/edits 20:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

With quitting Wikipedia I am like a bad smoker trying to quit - it's a problem, I am helping Collect out here, because I think he's right. I should quit, and yes it's self-humiliating that I am even bothering to help him, I am probably wasting my time, given the inability of people to cooperate here as noted by TIAYN. I'm not talking to you N-HH any further. If people are willing to have a serious conversation on this, then please listen I am offering sources and reasons. At least TFD is listening, reading the sources, and having a dialogue.--R-41 (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Well actually, Collect dived in to help you out of course. Anyway I'm not the one who recently called another editor "a jerk" an "asshole", a "disgrace and a coward" and a "hypocrite" or now – with monumental self-righteousness – "not talking" to that same other person when they are, contrary to your assertions, acting perfectly constructively on this talk page, and with a clear focus on specific points since they got reinvolved on it (I think I'd have rather more right to take the "not talking to" position vis-à-vis you as it happens). And you're now taking the high ground about others supposedly not "co-operating"? This is too funny. You're ANI-bound buddy, and probably UserRfC-bound and all, re your regular mis-citing of sources, when I get the time to do either. N-HH talk/edits 21:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Then report me if you want, do it or don't then move on. If you are gung-ho on getting revenge on me for my sincere extreme vulgar anger with you, go ahead, I'm guilty as charged and I will graciously plead guilty, it's your move. Heck, by doing so you will help me quit this smoking-like addiction with Wikipedia by getting me blocked. P.S., for your own good, you may want to cut down your fortune telling of predicting that I always have and always will mis-cite sources - it is uncivil and it's predicting the future - you will likely respond that you have "firm evidence" that I will continue do so - but you will say so out of anger, and will cite only big boo-boos that I admit I make from time to time, rather than looking at the large number of contributions that other contributors have complimented me for making. It's not like we are really going to listen to each other well with our mutual anger with each other, so why should I bother conversation with you, nothing rational that I or you are saying will say will overcome our current animosity that will consciously or subconsciously affect all of our conversation with each other, we are both in that frame of mind. I didn't ask Collect to remove what I said, but I e-mailed him to say it was fine for him to remove them after he did so, so stop hinting that me and Collect is my sidekick or that I am his, I have disagreed very strongly with Collect in the past. On topics related to fascism we have happened to agree on a number of things. In this case I agree with Collect and have been willing to help him here with the RfC. N-HH, take your problems with me to the ANI, I will plead guilty to gross incivility, I will be blocked, you will have your retributive satisfaction of feeling that you have destroyed me on Wikipedia, I will move on from my angry vulgar outburst with you, and will be gone from Wikipedia once blocked - freed from my addiction to it, it's your move - do as you please.--R-41 (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Alright then N-HH, you've gone on to edit other things and won't answer this, to demonstrate to you the authenticity of my character and the authenticity that I am sincerely and extremely angry with what you have done here, I'll report myself for the uncivil vulgar swearing insults I made against you, say that I was and remain extremely angry at you as you are of me, and I will request the administrators that they should consider indefinately blocking me or banning me from Wikipedia, as I have grossly crossed the line. I hope you relish that I am intentionally self-destroying my account and further contributions here, because I know that you have a bloodthirsty urge for retribution against me.--R-41 (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There, I have reported myself to ANI for my vulgar personal attacks on N-HH, that I did because I was and still an extremely angry with him, I even say that I am not opposed to an indefinate block or ban if administrators see fit, my actions crossed the line, I am not ready to apologize to N-HH for what I said because I still am extremely angry at him, and indefinately blocking or banning me from Wikipedia would finally kill my smoking-like-addiction to Wikipedia anyway that I need to get rid of anyway. Here is the link to the ANI: [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by R-41 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 11 March 2013‎