Talk:Fascism/Archive 49

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

→

Archive 55

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2019

Please, could you change the last sentence in the introduction's first paragraph from: "Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum."[6][7][8][9][10][11]" to the more nuanced: "Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, anarchism and favoring collective identity and State supremacy upon individual rights and freedom, fascism has been classified as far-right,[6][7][8][9][10][11] as far-left,[1] [2] [3] [4] and also as an alternative "third" position outside of the left-right spectrum.[5] [6] [7]" Thank you. Ajñavidya (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Not done. The reality is that reliable sources place it on the far right. Whether or not they are correct is another matter. TFD (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand your point. However, beyond the discussion of what constitutes "reliable sources" and what not in the context of classifying a political ideology, I would like to remark that Wikipedia adheres to a policy of neutrality and not to a consensus-based policy. Wikipedia neither is nor it is supposed to be Academia. Ajñavidya (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means this is a work of scholarship. Neutrality is decided by reliable sources (including academic ones) as evaluated through consensus. Do not reopen this request again until you have consensus. As explained in the big red box at the top of the article, this is extremely unlikely, since this has already been discussed countless times. Grayfell (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality in Wikipedia means representing expert opinion in proportion to their acceptance rather than our own. So neutrality means that since there is consensus in academic sources that fascism was far right, we describe it that way. TFD (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I reopen this discussion because after analyzing several other discussions in this talk section I have come to consider that the same topic has been deemed with weak argumentation (such as ad hominem and genetic fallacies against the presented sources) referring to a supposed consensus which the recurrence of these discussions and their respective sources proves as non-existent. Specifically in my case, are the sources I've quoted flawed in some way? Do they fail in achieving certain standard? Do they violate any Wikipedia's specific rule/s I am not aware of? If so, could you please point at the cause of why my edit request which adds more information and doesn't deny the previous one (in tune with Wikipedia's aim on neutrality and source-grounding) about what fascism is could be not further included in this article. Ajñavidya (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

As usual in these requests, your sources are not respected political scientists and historians, but a mixture of pop culture websites, ideological screeds, and other non-reliable sources. This topic has been studied by serious scholars since the rise of Mussolini, and there has never been any serious disagreement among subject matter specialists that fascism was far right in funding, practice and effect. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I could re-examine these sources in search of rigor, if that is your request. Claiming that all of them are "unreliable" and "ideological screeds" is a genetic fallacy that could be applied to any source provided in this article (or any other article whatsoever) based on the subjective opinion of any particular librarian. Even in scientific matters, according to Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines, arguing that a theory/opinion is "fringe" is a not a valid reason for dismissing that theory/opinion, although further clarifications can and should be made in order to remark its "fringe" status. Moreover, I have to disagree with the claim that "there has never been any serious disagreement among subject matter specialists that fascism was far right in funding, practice and effect." As it was aforementioned by another person in this talk section, there has been substantial academic discussion about what constitutes fascism in the view of various scholars; so, the statement that classifying fascism solely as a far-right ideology rests upon wide consensus is debatable. Ajñavidya (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Since you've asked, I'll go through the sources you've provided and tell you why they are unacceptable. They are, 1: an opinion column on a newsblog. 2: A video essay from Dinesh D'Souza. 3: An essay with no listed author and of unknown provenance ("a document that was circulated within the Red Eureka Movement in late 1980"). 4: A document written by a marketing consultant on behalf of the advocacy group he runs. 5: An interview with a philosopher about his recent book. (This one is actually funny, since the author says in the interview, I think it’s clearly right-wing. Part of the problem is that “right” and “left” are tricky to talk about, and it’s true that there are dangerous forms of extremism on both sides, but fascism tilts pretty heavily to the right in my view. Did you read the article before trying to use it as a source?) 6: An essay on medium by someone who uses a false name. 7: The Amazon page for a book. The book itself is already discussed in some detail in the article Fascism#Fin de siècle era and the fusion of Maurrasism with Sorelianism (1880–1914)

The reliability of a source for a particular claim is based on several factors. Does the publisher have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Is the author a recognized authority in the field? It also depends on the claim being made. None of these sources are reliable for the claim "fascism is left-wing" or "fascism is neither right nor left". The Daily Journalist does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and even if it did, opinion pieces are only considered reliable sources for claims about the views of the author. Richard Larsen is not a recognized authority on the subject of fascism. Likewise, Dinesh D'Souza is not a recognized expert on fascism, so his video is not a good source for this article. The mysterious document on the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism isn't a reliable source for anything at all, since even the publisher doesn't know where it came from. The piece on the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform website is only reliable for claims about the views of that organization. The Vox interview would be reliable for quoting the author interviewed, and the book itself might be a reliable source for the article, since the author appears to be an expert of political philosophy. The Medium essay is again not reliable, since it's unclear who the author is, and Medium as a publisher just hosts essays from basically anybody. An Amazon page is not a reliable source for anything other than the fact that the book exists.

"Neutral point of view" means fairly and proportionately reporting all significant viewpoints published in reliable sources. Adding claims sourced to a bunch of random web pages will not improve the article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. I still think that it is relevant to include the classifications of fascism as a "third position" ideology and as a far-left ideology, along with the far-right classification already being displayed in the article, even if they are remarked as relying on non-rigorous sources (for now), in an "according to X" fashion. Nevertheless, I will try myself to research for more polished sources to be included in the future. P.S.: I modified the Amazon link for a Goodreads link instead. I know it doesn't change anything but just want to make it clear. Ajñavidya (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

On a procedural note, this edit request has been answered in detail by several editors; please review WP:IDHT before setting the request as "unanswered" any more. -sche (talk) 08:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2019

CHANGE: "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical, right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism," TO: "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical, authoritarian ultranationalism,"

Facism has nothing to do with Right-Wing politics. 174.26.84.176 (talk) 05:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: As the big red box at the top of this page explains, reliable sources overwhelmingly disagree with your assessment. Grayfell (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Influence of Bakunin is an inaccurate representation of the cited material

The wikipedia article says:

The anarchist Mikhail Bakunin's concept of propaganda of the deed, which stressed the importance of direct action as the primary means of politics, including revolutionary violence, became popular among fascists who admired the concept and adopted it as a part of fascism.[93] That's news to me--very interesting news. So I went to the library and grabbed the text cited, European Fascism by S.J. Wood. The page cited does mention anarchists, Bakunin, propaganda of the deed, and fascists, but it DOES NOT attribute propaganda of the deed to Bakunin or cite POTD or Bakunin as influences on the fascists. It's just a paragraph discussing anarchists in an essay about fascists in Spain.

Here's the passage in question:

"By 1920 or so this movement [he means an anarchist-federalist movement that in the previous paragraph he says kept fascism from becoming a strong movement] was far the strongest movement in Spain, perhaps over a million strong, dedicated to the overthrow of existing society, relying on violence (the propaganda of the deed), though owing as much to Proudhon the federalist as to Bakunin, and something also to George Sorel, the propagandist of violence, a skeleton to be found in the genealogy of most fascist movements."

This passage is completely misrepresented in the article as it is now. Please remove this reference. Or if there is a better citation, I would really like to know.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.108.210 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I removed it. My reading of the source is that the Spanish anarchists were influenced by George Sorel who was also an influence on fascism. It does not say that Bakunin influenced fascism and in any case the source is so far removed from the topic and so fleeting in its mention that it makes no sense to use it. TFD (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2019

Fascism is not right or left oriented but more about suppressing people in a authoritarian manner. 63.140.24.169 (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sumanuil (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2019

Fascism is NOT a right wing phenomenon. Fascism is left wing. Hilter was a socialist and the Nazis were socialist. Remove "right-wing" from the description. Wikipedia definition is "A right-wing, authoritarian, nationalist ideology characterized by centralized, totalitarian governance, strong regimentation by business and government of the economy/marketplace and of society, and repression of criticism or opposition." This is contradictory, Left wing ideologies are authoritarian and centralized. Socialism and Communism for example are centralized and authoritarian. 2600:1700:1430:EB40:24E1:A107:D5F6:E4BD (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: You need to provide reliable secondary sources supporting this change before any change is made. Currently the overwhelming majority of reliable sources describe fascism as right-wing. Authoritarianism can happen on the left and the right of the political spectrum.--MattMauler (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, please see the template message at the top of this talk page. This exact issue has been discussed extensively already, so if you have new info to provide, please make sure not to restate previous arguments.--MattMauler (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2019

"Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism[1][2] characterized..." Should be changed to "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical political philosophy, movement, or regime, authoritarian ultranationalism[1][2] characterized..." 72.93.83.170 (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Absolutely not This is a highly contentious request and is inappropriate for an edit request. Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Just a comment: I see, now its "highly contentious", but at the same time people feel free to just remove the discussions about the issue from this talk page altogether. So when and where should it be discussed? --Ritchie92 (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    • There are websites specifically set up to discuss alternative views rejected by mainstream scholarship. TFD (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be funny? It looks like some people are avoiding the issue by replying always the same thing. The discussion is not about whether fascism is right-wing (it obviously is, as per reliable sources). The point is whether this feature belongs to the very first sentence in the definition. This, as far as I know, only happens here on Wikipedia, and nowhere else in other reliable encyclopedias or dictionaries. --Ritchie92 (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is about removing "right wing" from the lead. Usually people want to do that not because they consider the political position unimportant, but because they consider it incorrect. Many other encyclopedias and dictionaries mention it early on. An example is "Fascism" in the The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. It begins, "A right-wing nationalist ideology or movement." TFD (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• I just think that change is unnecessary, and ungrammatical. The "or regime, authoritarian ultranationalism" bit in particular is just not the way sentences work. Maybe that first clause could be improved. "A form of... ultranationalism" might be a little vague, since we're defining one "-ism" in term of another. However, I think the rest of the sentence and the lead does a good job of explaining what that means, as a movement, a philosophy, and a type of regime. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

It's right wing according to what definition of right wing? European, US or what? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Since when is there more than one? Sumanuil (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that confuses me as well. As opposed to "liberal" and "conservative", the meanings of which can be very different in different places, I don't think the same is true of "far-right" and "far-left". Or am I missing something? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Since I don't have European dictionary, could you explain how it differs from the American definition. TFD (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• The larger point here is that we are simply not going to allow this talk page to be a place where people can ask over and over again to either remove "right-wing" or replace it with "left-wing". It is a settled issue, and no respectable mainstream political scientist or scholar accepts that Fascism is anything except a right-wing ideology. Still, the requests keep coming. They're annoying, and they violate WP:NOTAFORUM, which is why they're archived right away, and why there's a big pink warning near the top of the page telling everyone not to bother asking for such changes. It simply is not going to happen, not matter how many times it is asked for, no matter how politely or impolitely the question is posed, no matter what personal political views are presented to support it.
  No Wikipedia article is going to say that the Earth is flat, or that the Moon is made of green cheese, and none is going to say that Fascism is a left-wing ideology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
• Seriously, the concept by the huge number of folks, with near-zero edits, trying to alter this comes to a misunderstanding of the German word Nationalsozialismus pushed heavily by extremist sites. Are we to re-litigate this every three days? O3000 (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
• At least in most cases, I don't think this is an issue of editors disagreeing with the predominant RS position of categorizing fascism as right-wing. In the case of this and many other edit requests, the issue is simply whether "right-wing" is appropriate and/or relevant enough to put in the first sentence of the article. This position isn't completely unfounded; in addition to the question of whether or not it is relevant, there are NPOV concerns there that could be debated at length. Unfortunately, I'm leaning towards agreement with Ritchie92 here; the fact that edit requests continue to be made here suggests to me that it's not a settled issue, yet it seems each time a discussion is attempted, it is quickly shut down. Highway 89 (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I supported its inclusion in the RFC, but maybe at this point it'd be better to remove it. The third sentence of the article already says Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum, so it's not necessary to have in the first sentence, and maybe that would stop this endless bullshit on the talk page. However, that's not why I oppose this edit request. The suggested additions are just bad. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
• It's quickly shut down because there was an RfC on this, and consensus was determined. When editors who have never before edited the page suggest it again, they are often unaware of this consensus and sometimes also unaware of the scholarly support for the "right-wing" description--sometimes (rarely), as you say, taking issue with the placement of the descriptor. I don't think threads should be archived hastily as described above, because that seems like biting newcomers; HOWEVER, I also don't think entertaining most of the requests at length makes sense either. The vast majority of them are not as clearly worded as yours, Highway89, and they usually have no clue what the RS actually say. As I've said before, I think right-wing should be in the lead; doesn't matter where in the lead (to me). I don't think it would stop the "endless bullshit" as Red Rock Canyon suggests, but it might reduce it.--MattMauler (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

It's really worrying that users feel free to simply archive ongoing discussions just because of their personal opinion. Anyway, I think these users actually do not care about ending the right-wing discussion once and for all: the number of IP users "bullshitting" about fascism being left-wing actually increased exponentially since when the term "right-wing" is in the lede. If you actually wanted to end this craziness you would support removing right-wing from the first sentence and keeping the description as "far-right" (or modifying that description to make it clearer) in the following sentences but still in the lede. --Ritchie92 (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: you're moving into a borderline personal attack with the above, and the number of IPs and new users hasn't really changed. Acroterion (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)