Jump to content

Talk:Fascism/Archive 51

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53→Archive 55

We're not going to litigate this again

Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

It cannot be said that this article is perfect, and that there is no way to improve it, and those things can -- and should -- be discussed here. But whether "right-wing" should be changed to "left-wing" is not one of those things. That issue is settled and will not be re-discussed on this page, since doing so is essentially not about the article, it is about the attributes of Fascism in general, and therefore violates WP:NOTAFORUM. Any attempts to re-litigate the issue in violation of that policy will be deleted or archived, per the warning on the big pink box above. Those who insist on attempting to do so will be reported to admins for [[WP:Disruptive editing]. Beyond My Ken (talk)
It would be like folks constantly demanding that the Earth is flat. I looked. It isn't. O3000 (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Very few of the discussions you refer to are a good faith attempt to litigate anything. The goal is rather to astroturf the existence of a "debate". The means of doing so is to saturate the talk page with (at best and most charitably) unsourced assertion. It's far from unique to Wikipedia or even to this topic. One solution is aggressive archiving of the talk page; another I used to sometimes see on pseudo-medical topics is to transplant the edit to the user's talkpage. It's very tempting to try to debate them because it's so trivial to dismantle their argument. No matter how satisfying, that's a mistake. They win the debate simply by participating; their goal is legitimization of doubt, not truth. CIreland (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
To that end I've semi-protected this talkpage for a while - a review of IP and new account edits here doesn't turn up much in the way of serious discussion. Acroterion (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I know that semi-protection of an article talk page isn't often done, but this certainly seems like a circumstance which calls for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
It's an unusual measure, but in this case I think it's justified, given the number of drive-by commentaries and the time it takes to address each one. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Personally I think this just feeds their sense of liberal persecution.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Probably, but who cares about that? The talk page is for improving the article, not therapy for the victims of liberalism. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
True, but if they genuinely think this is an improvement it does no harm to at least go "no its not, see the archive" and then close and let nature take its course regards to archiving.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with User:Slatersteven: the talk page has worsened since "right-wing" is in the lead and this is a fact. By the way, one of the motivations that were brought to justify the insertion of "right-wing" in the first sentence (specifically see comments of User:Simonm223 in an archived – although still ongoing – discussion) was indeed related to targeting one specific group of the population i.e. conservatives. I quote: one thing that the people upset over calling fascism right-wing fail to mention about socialism and communism is that no socialists or communists dispute that their ideologies are left wing. As such, it's less urgent to put it in the lede because a casual reader will already accept socialism is a leftist political position. Basically according to the user Wikipedia somehow has a mandate to contrast the (small) number of people who think that fascism is left-wing, while this is not necessary for socialism and communism because nobody thinks those are right-wing. This sounds like a case of WP:NOTCENSORED: Wikipedia should not modify its content just to deal with the intricate psychology of some members of society. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The point is that left-wing isn’t added to communism or socialism because it has become redundant. This is not the case with fascism due to the long time efforts of those on the right to reposition fascism as left wing. And, I don’t think it is a “small” number of folks that believe fascism is left wing. I think it is a significant number. Ergo, it’s not redundant, but informative to include the language. Indeed, the near constant flow of editors challenging this is evidence that the language is needed and valuable. O3000 (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Again, Wikipedia should not be modified considering the feelings of a part of the society, it should be agnostic to all of that. Your point is like saying that if and when the flat-earth society gains more and more members, we should change the lead of Earth to "Earth is a round planet" in order to contrast those people... (by the way, where do you take the data to say they are a "significant number"?) --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
You are welcome to argue that left wing should be added to the articles on communism and socialism. My point is that it is needed here as so many folks think it is left wing, as evidenced by the constant arguments. As for "my data", I said "I think" not "I know". We are here to inform. We should not make the article less informative because it upsets misinformed readers or to make our jobs easier. O3000 (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Except we do not say "right wing" we say "radical right wing" but link to the right wing article. Thus is can be argued we are being disingenuous. Either we should say "right wing" or link to the far right article (which is what radical right is a euphemism for).Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Good point. O3000 (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Extended discussion about the definition of right-wing Atsme Talk 📧 01:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

When the issue is POV, as it is in this case, it tells us NPOV has not been achieved. The main symptom is instability. POV errors are typically corrected over time, and NPOV is achieved with a balanced infusion of information. Fascism is not a clearcut extreme right-wing view as it has been presented in the lede. There's a false equivalency - right-wing in the US is different from right-wing in Europe. The Oxford definition of fascism: The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also Fascist. The right-wing nationalists in Europe were not governed by a Constitutional Republic, and those totalitarian governments and monarchies didn't even come close to being the same right-wing as the American GOP. The US is not a democracy, either - we have an electoral college. Americans have preserved individualism over the rule of totalitarianism, the collective or greater good, and/or political elitism (although every government has areas in need of improvement). Merriam Webster - an American dictionary - defines fascism as follows: often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. The differences are stark. See the NYTimes article: “What we found especially interesting is that it encapsulated a trans-Atlantic phenomenon,” she said. “Often, when looking at words, you’ll find one that’s a really big deal in the U.K. but not in the U.S.” Atsme Talk 📧 21:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

All American legislators at the local, state and federal level, all state governors and other state officials, all county official, all city officials, all of them are directly elected. To say the US is "not a democracy" because "we have the Electoral College" is to make an absurd over-generalization. We're a liberal democratic republic where the voting franchise is (now) very broadly construed. That's more of a "democracy" then you're going to find in most of the rest of the world.
In any case, your essay isn't in the least helpful in regard to the subject at hand. Please stop encouraging the crazies bu continuing to discuss this subject. If you must express your opinions about what "right" and "left" mean, please start a blog, here, its a clear violation of WP:NOTAFORUM. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
No, BMK - you can't just archive a discussion based on WP:DONTLIKEIT. I was not incorrect when I said we are not a democracy but I did not go into detail because it would be skirting NOTFORUM. There is a problem with the lede of this article, and the banner at the top of this page is not helpful and very OWNISH. Consensus can change, especially when we are having so many issues with disruption over the lede of this article. It is not going to just go away. Take a minute and refresh your memory about the kind of goverment we have, and why right-wing is not the same definition here as it is in Europe. I've added some links for you to read about why the US is not a "democracy" in the way that so many people mistake it to be, you included: NYTimes, WaPo,The Hill (op), and National Review - I think that's a good balance of sources without me having to waste too much time on it. The US is what I said it is, and yes, we have progressive minded people who think we need to fix what isn't broke. I refer back to the NYTimes article and the debate to make changes to the curriculum. I've collapsed this discussion - not to end it as you did archiving it to thwart further discussion. I understand NOTFORUM, but having a discussion about a problematic lede is how we fix problems. Have a bowl of ice cream and relax. Atsme Talk 📧 01:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

So, "no" to any further discussion about changing "right wing" to left wing". When I scroll through the recent archives, I don't see any overt attempt to argue for such a change, but I see many iterations of "fascism is not on the right/left spectrum", "remove right wing from the Lede", and the RfC which came on the heels of the recent addition of "right wing" to the first sentence of the Lede, which questions why the long consensed version of the Lede should not be restored. If fascism is unquestionably defined as right-wing, why wasn't this change made to the Lede until only a few months ago? Why did all the editors sign off on the previous, more nuanced version, by virtue of the fact that there was no discussion about changing it? The RfC result was "weak keep" - weak support for changing the definition of a term (given that WP is the top search result for that term on Google, Alexa, etc.) is an argument for not making the change, and for continued conversation. petrarchan47คุก 23:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that a close that says "Weak Keep to add to lede" actually means the opposite? What? The RFC was held, it was resolved. Trying again to get a different result, or arguing that actually yes means no isn't helpful. Parabolist (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
What I think he's saying is that the RfC was done after the change had already been made -- the close was a weak consensus to keep right-wing in the lede. Had the RfC been held before anything was changed, it could well have produced a different result. Also, note that consensus can change, and based on the discussion above there are likely at least a few editors who !voted one way in the RfC who might think differently today based on events in the past few months.
In addition, while I can see why it has been done, the recent semi-protection and especially the rapid archiving of active talk-page discussions is starting to bother me quite a bit. To me it's becoming reminiscent of an Orwellian-style system that goes through and removes any chance of opposition it might face. Highway 89 (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
"Owellian"? Yeesh, no. This isn't a forum for sharing the same tedious opinions over and over again, and if these posts start to pile up it only encourages more time-wasting. To facilitate improving the article, this page should be archived very frequently. CIreland has it exactly correct. We have to be very careful not to read too much into the raw quantity of "opposition". Grayfell (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Grayfell, I think the discussion is healthy. Anyway, I just removed the template at the top of this page because it inaccurately states that "Fascism is a right-wing ideology" and we know that is not true, but it led me to re-read the lede which states "Fascism is a form of radical right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. And I'm ok with it. I'm now wondering if it was that darned ole template at the top of this page that was causing me to subconsciously conflate it with the lead. Atsme Talk 📧 03:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I restored the template, which is accurate, and which was the result of a consensus discussion. Cut the shit, Atsme. You've done nothing but be WP:Disruptive on this page, and it's most likely to wind up with you being sanctioned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Gee thanks for the 🔥 gaslighting 🔥. I'm thinking perhaps you're too close to be objective as the template's creator. Sorry, but it's ugly, inaccurate in its brevity, misrepresents the article, acts more like a WP:POV fork and serves no good purpose at the top of this page. It's an in-your-face imposition on every editor who disputes its accuracy. And you're accusing me of disruption? 🥂 Atsme Talk 📧 04:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The reason these discussions go nowhere is because the people who disagree with describing fascism as right-wing consistently fail to cite reliable sources for that, while we have extensive sourcing in the lead that it's right-wing. So I'd suggest, at a bare minimum, setting a rule that anyone raising the topic again has to provide at least one WP:RS-quality source comparable to those already in the article to back their argument up, and that if they don't, then the section gets hatted / removed for WP:FORUM reasons. Unlike some of the other hot-button topics on Wikipedia, this is something that has attracted extensive coverage by high-quality academic experts within the field over the course of multiple decades, so I don't feel there's much point in wasting time on discussion that ignores that. --Aquillion (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Antifa

You are invited to participate in Talk:Antifa (United States)#RfC: antifa and terrorism, a discussion about whether to include that activities by American anti-fascists were labeled as domestic terrorism by the Trump administration. R2 (bleep) 22:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Economics of Fascism

Can we have some additional eyes on Economics of fascism? There's a small dispute there over whether Fascism opposed international socialism, or just Marxism. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Fascism and Populism

Hatting proposal by banned sockpuppet.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Is Fascism Populism? I think it is, Roger Griffin and John Lukacs are already in this article and they agree. Therefore I propose adding populism to opening sentence, here is something interesting to read on topic [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aocdnw (talk • contribs) 14:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I think we may be in danger of overloading the lede sentence.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Fascism in its early stages does have populist aspects to it, but it is not a defining characteristic, since it is primarily a device used to bring the Fascists to power. I would object to adding populism to the opening sentence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Reasonable concern, but I don't think it would be an issue. Another proposal, in addition to populist, would be cult of the leader/charismatic leader. Aocdnw (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I think we already have enough detail in the first sentence. TFD (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
You would need to show that most scholars consider it populism. TFD (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
There are sources that support that populism is an, often contradictory, element of fascism but that's not its central definition. An example, Reid Ross discusses defining fascism in nuance in Against the Fascist Creep: Following the Cold War and shifts in fascist organizing techniques, a number of scholars have moved toward the minimalist “new consensus” refined by Roger Griffin: “the mythic core” of fascism is “a populist form of palingenetic ultranationalism.”12 That means that fascism is an ideology that draws on old, ancient, and even arcane myths of racial, cultural, ethnic, and national origins to develop a plan for the “new man.”
Dissenters from the Marxist camp like David Renton favor an evolution of Leon Trotsky’s analysis, viewing fascism as a cross-class alliance between the petite bourgeoisie and the ruling class, which were intent on destroying the vanguard of the proletariat.13 Post-structuralists like Michel Foucault present fascism, instead, as a product of the accumulation of power and a psychological temptation to be resisted by developing an “art of living.”14 Still other leftist dissidents focus greater attention on the war waged by fascism against modern notions of state and capital, highlighting fascism’s character as a revolutionary ideology that poses an intellectual ­conundrum for the left.15
In my opinion, there is no contradiction between palingenetic ultranationalism and a cross-class alliance. Ultranationalism assumes a cross-class “national community.”

So while we can see that the populist element is present in the more consensus opinion of scholars, if it lacks that element of palingenetic ultranationalism, it's not fascism. Likewise, if we accept the Marxist definition of fascism, it's hardly populist at all and instead effectively wears populist clothes to forward the class alliance of the petit bourgeoisie and the ruling class and crush the proletariat. In fact, just about the only thing academics in general agree on is that fascism is best situated on the far-right. Simonm223 (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I think part of it may be the time period. Until recent decades, populism referred mostly to the 19th century agrarian movement in the U.S. It was then revived in the 1980s to describe new right-wing parties with no connection with historical fascism, partly to distinguish them from neo-fascists. Inter-war Fascism of course did not belong to either. TFD (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Ultimately, discussion of fascism and its contradictory relationship to populism is definitely due in the body but it is not a central enough requirement of the ideology to be used in the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that discussing the relationship should be in the article, but not in the lede. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Not just any palingenetic ultranationalism, but “a populist form of palingenetic ultranationalism.” Since ultranationalism is already mentioned, why not add full quote? Also, linking to Palingenetic ultranationalism would probably be better instead of Ultranationalism. Aocdnw (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd support putting that in the body - but I fear it's a bit of a specific and technical term for the lede. We have to assume that people hitting this page may only have the vaguest idea of what Nationalism is. Throwing an academic term like Palingenetic ultranationalism at them out of the gate is iffy. Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Well for one thing the article should not endorse any definition but report them with due weight. Your source says that a "a number of scholars" use the so-called consensus theory. Also, the word "populist" is added by Roger Griffin[2] and is not in the original "consensus" definition. TFD (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
My source mentions the "new consensus" definition and then quickly mentions not one but two competing definitions before stating that two of them (the new consensus and the class alliance definition) aren't at odds with each other. As I have said throughout, while a fulsome discussion of fascism must touch on how it uses populism, it's far too reductionist to call fascism, "populist," especially in the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Entire definition “a populist form of palingenetic ultranationalism” is by Roger Griffin and is consensus among scholars. Aocdnw (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I rather doubt that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
It isn't and you wound need a source that says it is. TFD (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Why are you doubting that Beyond My Ken, you literally quoted Britannica in "RFC, Cites to support other positions" that supports Roger Griffin position and fact it is consensus? Aocdnw (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Here is the sum total of what Britannica says under the "Populism" subheading:

Fascists praised the Volk and pandered to populist anti-intellectualism. Nazi art criticism, for example, upheld the populist view that the common man was the best judge of art and that art that did not appeal to popular taste was decadent. Also populist was the Nazi propaganda theme that Hitler was a “new man” who had “emerged from the depth of the people.” Unlike left-wing populism, fascist populism did not attribute workers’ hardships to big business and big landowners and did not advocate measures such as progressive taxation, higher pay for industrial and farm workers, protection of unions, and the right to strike. In general it spared the wealth of the upper classes—except that belonging to Jews.

The section points out aspects of Fascism which are populist, but gives absolutely no support to the idea that its populist aspects are significant enough (i.e. per WP:WEIGHT) to be included in our lede as a primary component. It's the 20th out of 25 subsections in the Britannica article describing various aspects of Fascism, so the Britannica editors obvious didn't place a lot of importance on populism as a component of Fascism. Nor does the section say anything at all that could be construed as supporting what you cite as a "consensus" view among scholars.
I suggest you drop this campaign to put populism in the lede and concentrate instead on improving the coverage of the populist aspects of Fascism in the body of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
It's in addition to "Against Fascist Creep" which says Roger Griffin's interpretation is "new consensus" which would make it WP:DUE. Aocdnw (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
There was discussion about the consensus theory in the archives, if you can find it. Essentially, despite the name, it is not a consensus among scholars although it has large support, other definitions are still used. I suggest your approach should not be to find something you want to put into the article and look for sources to support it, but to familiarize yourself with the literature and make sure the article reflects it. TFD (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
It is literally in the article, Definitions section? If it's not consensus, what is and why are they calling it "new consensus"? Aocdnw (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Of course it's in the article as are other definitions. If you want to know why they call it the new consensus theory you should read an article about it. TFD (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Why can't you tell me since you claim it's not consensus despite self describing name? Aocdnw (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
See Roger Griffin's essay, "Studying Fascism in a Postfascist Age. From New Consensus to New Wave?" where he explains all this. TFD (talk) 04:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I mean it clearly says that "new consensus" is consensus at the moment and it looks like Griffin is quite pleased with it, and bragging a little. Aocdnw (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
And Griffin may be hasty declaring it a consensus, new or otherwise. That said, his definition is certainly popular among scholars and is due mention in the body. But simply put the lede should introduce concepts, not throw social science word salad at the newbies. So certainly the concept of national myth, of blood and soil, of a pseudo-mystical connection between a people and a place, these elements of fascism, which scholars call, "Palingenetic Nationalism" are very much due in the article. In detail. In the body. But the lede should cut to the heart of the matter - Fascism is a far-right nationalist political ideology. This is both supported by a plethora of RSes from both the new consensus and the Marxist camps and is simple enough for a layperson to immediately understand. Simonm223 (talk) 12:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The abstract says, "The article suggests a way of mapping the remit for Fascism: Journal of Comparative Fascist Studies by considering how far a “new consensus” has formed between specialists working in this area which conceptualizes fascism as a revolutionary form of ultra-nationalism that attempts to realize the myth of the regenerated nation....[The] broad, though contested, scholarly convergence" sees fascism as...is the tendency for scholars to take seriously the utopian ideological and cultural dynamics of political phenomena once generally dismissed as exercises in the monopoly of power."
So first, he is using the term consensus to refer to the fact that a number of researchers working independently have come to the same conclusion. That is not the same as for example with climate change where consensus means that it has become the only reasonably defensible position, it remains "contested." Secondly, he does not say that the consensus includes calling fascism populist. The consensus is seeing fascism as an ideology, Previously most scholars saw it as merely a reactionary coalition.
TFD (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Aocdnw has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Sourcerery; he seems to have been the only one proposing / supporting this, so I'm hatting for now. Feel free to unhat if someone else wants to argue for specific changes in his place (since some mention of the relation between fascism and populism might be worthwhile), but it might be better to start a new thread, since this one was basically a bunch of people talking to him and he's no longer able to reply. --Aquillion (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

We're not going to litigate this again

Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  • The reason these discussions go nowhere is because the people who disagree with describing fascism as right-wing consistently fail to cite reliable sources for that, while we have extensive sourcing in the lead that it's right-wing. So I'd suggest, at a bare minimum, setting a rule that anyone raising the topic again has to provide at least one WP:RS-quality source comparable to those already in the article to back their argument up, and that if they don't, then the section gets hatted / removed for WP:FORUM reasons. Unlike some of the other hot-button topics on Wikipedia, this is something that has attracted extensive coverage by high-quality academic experts within the field over the course of multiple decades, so I don't feel there's much point in wasting time on discussion that ignores that. --Aquillion (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a genuine issue here of we say X but link to Y. Either we remove "radical" place a comma or link to far right. Also has anyone shown that sources call fascism right wing as opposed to radical or far right (because that is what we are saying with the link to right wing)? When (in fact) we do not say that (openly and implicitly).Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't ask, all that does is confuse the issue. Do some research and see what the sources say. I'm betting they say that Fascism is radical right-wing. If you find out otherwise, report it here, and adjustments can be made to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Once again, we’re conflating “fascism is not right-wing” and “the first sentence of the lede is worded poorly”. The former is an unsourced claim, the latter a valid NPOV issue. As noted previously, the lede paragraph already contains a sourced statement on this issue: Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum. It’s unnecessary to put this claim in the first sentence as well. Highway 89 (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
We just had a huge RFC on this a few months ago, and I don't think anyone has really explained why anything would have changed since then. The fact that fascism is far-right is central to how it's described and a core part of its identification among mainstream academics, so it belongs in the first sentence. Tweaking the wording slightly is certainly an option, but in that case it would be good to make a specific proposal so it doesn't get immediately buried in the perennial dispute over whether to have it at all. --Aquillion (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually I addressed the reason continued discussion here is warranted, even after the huge RfC, but my comment was archived immediately afterwards. Essentially, the RfC was not closed by an experienced editor, and the finding was "weak support" for the major change to the Lede's first sentence. The fact that this change from the previous, long-consensed, more nuanced version which treated right wing in the final sentence of the Lede's first paragraph had only "weak support" is, in my view, an argument that it should not have been changed. This change to a definition of a word, a change reflected across the globe via every Google search and Alexa request for the meaning of "fascism" should have overwhelmingly strong support, especially since we veer from other similar sites' definitions (with Oxford being the one exclusion).
My other point was that the attempts to discuss this are not being properly represented here. The RfC was a question about whether the previous version or new had more support in RS, not whether fascism is left wing. For 4 years, "Fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum" at the end of the first para was considered perfectly acceptable by all the editors here. The change that has caused such grief was not made after editors realized they'd been wrong all this time, nor after any discussion, but by a drive-by edit with no reference to RS. The justification for the addition to the first sentence was We need "right-wing" or "far-right" immediately in the lead sentence, otherwise the sentence can easily apply even to ideologies like Stalinism.
It was only after the fact that editors decided they liked that version, and have now come to a point where they are disallowing any questions, have misrepresented the complaints, and are archiving TP comments without reason. petrarchan47คุก 18:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I have, and every source I have found say "radical right wing", not "right wing".Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Is not a statement that it is "radical right-wing" also a statement that it is "right-wing"? Do you have any reason to argue that radical right-wing is not a subset of right-wing, but rather a separate concept alltogether? If a source states the Taj-Mahal is a big building, would it be incorrect for an article to state that it is a building using that source? Honest question, as I'm new to editing and don't know the standards used. Sajberhippien (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree that this is not about making the lead left-wing or right-wing...it is neither. There is a simple solution to end the controversy without losing good editors: restore the lead to its most recent stable version. The sections in the body can be updated to incorporate the inevitable changes over time, or we can simply create new sections and potential spin-offs. This article was stable until this edit on Feb 23, 2019 when an editor decided to add "radical right-wing" to the lede which caused disruption and instability. It is a sign of the times, but WP should not be sucked into making radical changes per WP:RECENTISM. It may be coincidence, but it certainly coincides with the Trump resistence and Antifa movement, which have their own issues. Exacerbating the article's instability is the template at the top of this TP. It is inaccurate in its brevity, extremely misleading and serves no good purpose. A similar template for left-wing does not appear on Talk:Left-wing fascism - perhaps it should, and the two articles should be linked...I don't know. I provided links to a variety of RS during the RfC. The majority present fascism as highly debatable and difficult to define, including Merriam-Webster, an American dictionary. WP should not be the source that determines the ultimate political definition of fascism when there are multiple academic and historic documents that contradict such a generalization as it relates on a global scale and timeline. Defining it as presented in the lede raises the issue of WP:SOAPBOX. Different times under different forms of government define fascism in Europe, not in the US which has never had a radical right-wing totalitarian government or anything that even comes close to what historically defines fascism. It appears that SYNTH is the only way such a generalization can be accomplished. We also need to keep in mind that WP is ever-changing, which is why it is important to title our articles correctly, and present them from a NPOV that will endure the test of time. The opinions of historians and scholars are everchanging and so is WP as a live publication. Atsme Talk 📧 18:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
That is a patently absurd request. Simonm223 (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with Trump, Antifa or RECENTISM. O3000 (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
It's the timing, and as I said...coincidence, so relax. Atsme Talk 📧 18:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Far-right vs. radical right vs. right-wing in the first sentence seems worth discussing (my intuition based on my memory of sources I've seen is that the most common descriptor is "far-right", a term that is treated as practically interchangeable with fascism), but for that it would probably be best to try and put together a big list of quotes from notable academics to see how they define or describe it. Something like that would be useful to point people to when this discussion comes up again in any case. (ie. in the sense of "these are the sort of sources we're relying on; you need something disagreeing with these of at least somewhat comparable mainstream prominence.") --Aquillion (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Far-right is typically the domain of ultranationalism and xenophobia. The main article on far-right politics offers the following as American representatives of the far-right: Tea Party movement, Patriot movement, Paleoconservatism, Dominion theology, and White nationalism. Dimadick (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Why do we not just change "radical right wing" to "far Right"? its what we are saying (and what the article does).Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Fascism is right wing, fascism is on the far edge of the right wing, fascism is a radical ideology. All these things are true. Why, then, is this discussion happening? Where is the supposed improvement to the article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Because every source I have seen does not say it is right wing, but either radical or far right and we go with what RS say. So if RS say it is far right (and radical right is just a variation on that) so should we. So we should link to far right (which is what fascism is) and not right wing. We point the reader to the correct definition, according to RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
My opinion is that almost everyone here is vastly oversimplifying a subject which still has scholars scratching each others eyes out (as will happen in academia). Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe but we go with what RS say, not what we know to be true.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Please list the RS's you are relying on to support your position. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
How about the ones we use for this statement "Most scholars place fascism on the far right of the political spectrum." or are you saying this is inccorect?Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually, those are fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Now do you have any that contest that it is not far right?Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, Paxton Anatomy of Fascism is rather indecisive about it, and never really settles down to a concise description. Of course, he's got a thorough discussion of the subject, but I don't think he can be used as support for any pf "far-right", "extreme right", "radical right", or "right wing". That's because, as a scholar, he's not looking for fast labels, but is trying to produce an in-depth examination of the nature and causes of Fascism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Well then its needs to be tagged failed verification, cause its what its being used as a source for.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah, no, it doesn't - I was referring to his discussion in the introduction, not to the specific pages referenced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far-Right is nuanced in their definitions but most frequently links fascism precisely with the second half of the title, as a far-right ideology. And Against the Fascist Creep which is one of the most accessible academic histories of fascism and anti-fascism (and one that focuses largely on the topic of fascist entryism) starts by saying, "fascism remains decisively on the right." Which they in turn cite to Norberto Bobbio, Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction, trans. Allan Cameron (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 60–72 Simonm223 (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
We definitely are oversimplifying, but that's because we do ultimately need a single-sentence intro in the lead. Most scholars would probably view any single-sentence summary of fascism as an oversimplification. Still, we need something. The article can go into more detail further down. --Aquillion (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
What's wrong with what we had? I've seen no complaints about the stable version of the first sentence. "Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy, which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe." Even BMK liked it😊. petrarchan47คุก 04:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I prefer the term extreme right, which refers to a party family. See for example Cas Mudde, The Ideology of the Extreme Right. Google books shows the term is fairly common.[3] TFD (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2019

Fascism is NOT "far right-wing," this is misleading and should not be in the first part of the definition of fascism. Far-left idealists are fascist in their violence and radical leanings also. Violence, suppressing opposition, and more are indicative of fascist characteristics REGARDLESS of political party...which more left-leaning are suppressing moderate conservative views than vice versa. Think Antifa.

See "Dictionary.com" for a better definition.

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism. (initial capital letter) a political movement that employs the principles and methods of fascism, especially the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43. Stormyblueeyez (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Please read the warning at the top of this page framed in pink and read the archives. O3000 (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2019

omit Form of radical, right-wing 147.58.158.26 (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

No. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2019

Please see the FAQ
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

omit Form of radical, right-wing 147.58.158.26 (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

No. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding changing right wing to left wing

Please see the FAQ for why this is not happening.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Since it has been a subject of debate recently from commentators such as Dinesh D'Souza, with strong arguments brought against categorising fascism as right wing, I think the Wikipedia page should not only (somewhat vaguely, if I'm allowed to say my opinion) state why fascism is "far-right", but also show why claims by commentators that is it actually left wing are wrong. Kbruen (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

D'Sousa is a WP:FRINGE source. Put bluntly, he's loud and stupid. And we've been over this a thousand times. Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Description of Fascism in the lede sentence

There is a consensus to identify fascism as far right in the opening sentence of the article. The number of editors expressing a preference for option B, and the strength of the arguments in this section and elsewhere on this page, establish a clear consensus in favour of this label. – bradv🍁 02:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In an effort to stop going around in circles, let's try to clarify where everyone stands on the various possibilities. I believe that all of the below descriptors have support from reliable sources. I have not included any mention of not being on the right at all, because I do not believe there is a reliable source to support that possibility. If someone wants to vote that way, they must provide a bona fide reliable source to support their vote, or it will be struck.

Here are the choices:

  • A. right wing
  • B. far right (wing)
  • C. extreme right (wing)
  • D. radical right (wing)

Please bold your favored descriptor in your answer. If you can live with a number of these choices, please list them in your order of preference - we'll do a simple statistical analysis of the results.

This is a survey, it's not intended to be threaded discussion -- we've had plenty of that above. Let's just try and see what people's preferences are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Notes from the RfC initiator to the closer

(1) A previous RfC [4], held in March - April 2019, found a "weak consensus" among the editors on this page to add "right wing" to the first sentence of this article's lede.

(2) Much has been made of "weak" in the close. It should be noted that the close was made by a non-admin who, at the time, had been editing Wikipedia for around 8 months. The raw vote was 24 supporting adding "right wing" and 10 opposing, or 70% supporting.

(3) To describe Facism as "right wing" in the lede sentence remains the standing consensus.

(4) The purpose of the current RfC is not to overturn that consensus, but to determine in what way, if any, "right wing" should be characterized. Four options were presented, which represented all the choices for characterizing "right wing" which had arisen in discussion.

(5) To that end, removing "right wing" was not one of the choices presented, and editors who sought to !vote in that manner were required to present a citation from a (neutral, non-POV) reliable source to support their !vote.

(6) As part of the terms of the RfC, participants were warned that !votes which sought to to remove "right wing" but which did not provide such a citation would be struck out.

(7) Some editors have voted "None of the above" without providing the citation required, and those !votes have been struck out. However, one of those !voters has edit warred to remove the strike outs.

(8) The closer is asked to consider that, whether they are struck out or not, "None of the above" !votes which have not provided a suitable citation from a neutral, non-POV reliable source, as per the terms of the RfC, are not responsive to the question posed by the RfC.

(9) I have not !voted in this RfC.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

  • Comment This edit will then cause a repetition in the third sentence of the lede: Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.. I think this sentence is more accurate so it would be bad to take it out. However repetition is also ugly. That's why what I would actually mostly favor is to have: "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical, authoritarian ultranationalism [...]" in the first sentence, and as a second sentence: "[...], [Fascism] is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum." This avoids leaving the far-right detail at the end of the lede, giving it enough weight, and also follows what the sources say. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • B, D, C, A in that order appear to fit RS the best. O3000 (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • A They basically all amount to the same thing, given the grammar of the first clause. If we were just saying "Fascism is ___" then probably "extreme right" would be most accurate. But that's not how the sentence is structured. Leaving it at just "Fascism is a form of right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism" makes a somewhat unwieldy sentence slightly more readable. We don't really need any more descriptors in that clause. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • B. "Far" right seems like a perfectly adequate adjective. All of these adjectives essentially mean the same thing, but "extreme" and "radical" as adjectives just feel too sensationalist for a professionally written encyclopedia article. It is also WP:CONSISTENT with our article on the subject which is titled Far-right politics. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • B as that seems to best supported by RS.--MONGO (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • B per RS and Rreagan007. signed, Rosguill talk 19:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • B, second choice C. A doesn't go far enough, while D links to a disambiguation page and appears have different meanings in the US and Europe and so might not be suitable. I also agree with Ritchie92's proposal to move the far-right claim to the second sentence, which would also make the lead more readable. Highway 89 (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • D - I have always heard it described as radical. B - "Far right" - is an acceptable second option, but I think that term is a recent and largely American way of describing it, which would not be my preference. The others are worse.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • E - none of the above. I think there are serious works portraying it as one side of Socialism, and serious questioning on the topic. At any rate a fine-gradation label stated as if settled precision fact seems over-simplifying or categorical inappropriate to what technical works would portray. It also seems to have aspects at odds with what is commonly thought right-wing U.S. aspects, e.g. being contrary to capitalism or individualism. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Beyond My Ken: Oh, it's not a mainstream view, but there certainly have been scholars in top universities which have argued for that. Harvard University professor Richard Pipes in Russia Under The Bolshevik Regime (1994, p. 253): Given the opportunity, Mussolini would have been glad as late as 1920-21 to take under his wing the Italian Communists, for whom he felt great affinities: greater, certainly, than for democratic socialists, liberals and conservatives. Genetically, Fascism issued from the 'Bolshevik' wing of Italian socialism, not from any conservative ideology or movement. UC Berkeley political science professor A. James Gregor The Faces of Janus: Marxism and Fascism in the Twentieth Century (2000, p. 20) that Fascists were almost all Marxists—serious theorists who had long been identified with Italy's intelligentsia of the Left --Pudeo (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Pipes would fall under WP:PROFRINGE - especially considering his open propaganda efforts. And I am not familiar with Gregor, but a cursory inspection suggests he's a pretty fringe figure too. I mean he founded a Eugenics organization. Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Beyond My Ken - Mmm. It would be easier to simply accept this is a Request For Comment and I gave you a comment. However, as you want more, I'll submit that your ONUS to any edit saying it is just a specific flavor of only right-wing would be a harder one for you to meet as any 'total' claim is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL one. Other than the common colloquial usage of this word, portraying the technical meaning being solely a particular kind of right-wing runs up against my simply knowing of it being in debate here and outside, the example of British Left-wing fascism, articles to the contrary from sources like Britannica and BBC and the Telegraph and Vox and WND, or of contrasting views from definitions such as Webster. Doing a simple Google check seems enough to show it is a premise somewhat in contention, as would examination of archives or the fact it's implicit in the cautions in this TALK to not bring it up yet again. If you'd prefer doing Google Scholar instead of ordinary Google, I think you'll find published works there as well, more authoritative if less easily read and found. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
The statement which presented the RfC is quite clear. I assume that you read it, and then chose to paticipate. In line with the statement, please provide a reliable source supporting your conjecture within the next 24 hours, or -- as I said I would do in the statement of the RfC -- I will be striking your comment. If you'd prefer to withdraw it yourself instead of providing a reliable source, you can hat this entire section. Of course, any other editor can provide a reliable source for you, but the source provided must fulfill the requirement of WP:RS and not be FRINGE or POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Beyond My Ken Thanks for mentioning that, I should have started with I do feel the RFC is improperly worded there, and ask you improve the wording by: (1) Delete "strikeout" and just leave it at a request bona fide RS, or at least replace it with "hat" as strikeout would be improperly editing another users comments; (2) Since the RFC description is saying "If someone wants to vote that way" as a fifth input category, amend the options list to have "E - None of the above" as a clear label for that; and (3) please expand the intro to more clearly state the edit intended by RFC -- the title indicates it is about "Description of Fascism in the lede sentence" but not what value a survey will be put to.
  • I also request your permission to shift all of this (except my initial input) down to the meta-discussion section as a better division of dialogue, especially if we're going on into much extended giving of RS and discussion of content/policy. But really, I would again suggest just making the changes to RFC text and accept this was my input. Please ping back to let me know about moving this section and whether you really want me to keep going with more discussion -- and whether that would be intended for inclusion as part of the "Description of Fascism in the lede sentence" or something else. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Struck, no source provided. The issue was aready dealt with in an earlier RfC, which is why its not a topic of this RfC. If you want to keep going around in circles, please start a brand new section on the talk page below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Beyond My Ken -- Undoing strikeouts. As I said before Strikeout is violation of policy Per WP:TALKO "Striking out text (e.g., ...) constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or as otherwise provided in this talk page guideline." (i.e. of a sock puppet or editor inputs despite being banned). I see no remark on moving, so am not moving. Your response re where to provide further RS seems a bit iffy and I'm unclear on intent, but will start a subsection as requested as a place for it and etcetera without further doing it within the Survey section. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Restoring the strikeout, which were clear conditiin of the RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Undoing strikeout - Policy violations are not allowed just because you said so. Please stop doing that. Markbassett (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Beyond My Ken -- Undoing strikeout yet again - again, this is not allowed per policy, please stop edit warring contrary to TALKO. See where I asked for changes to RFC. You can do other things but not strikeout which would be to edit others comments and show indications as if they were a banned user or sock puppet. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I prefer B or C -- the difference is C = the sense of using violence to overthrow an established govt. Pipes says Mussolini 1920-21 had an affinity for Bolshevism, not for socialism. The Bolsheviks were extreme enemies of the state --they used violence to overthrow the government and that's what M wanted to do. The Italian Communists and Italian socialists both vehemently denounced M and his movement. Some fascist movements (as in UK, US, Portugal or Nazi Germany) did not call for violent overthrow (Hitler did not repeat his violent attempt in 1923; instead took power in 1933 peacefully and legally--). Rjensen (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • E - None of the above Beyond my Ken has deleted several of my comments to this talk page, including my early comment for this RfC (which no one owns so requested comments should stay intact). This comment was also deleted; it preceded this RfC by a few hours. The first of my comments to be deleted is this one, which also relates to the issue at hand.
I will make this simple. The same editors who have tended to this page, have also been taking care of the Definitions of fascism article for years. To this day, the term "right wing" is not mentioned in the 4 paragraph Lede of Definitions of fascism. How is it possible that we are now obligated to accept that "right wing" is such a prominent feature of "fascism", it must be mentioned in the first sentence? I will note here, again, that no editors had questioned or complained about the lack of "right wing" in the Lede first sentence for the past few years, if ever. The addition of "right wing" to the first sentence here was done in a drive-by edit here and has caused much controversy since then. The controversy is not adequately summarized by BMK and others as being solely "change it to left". The controversy has mainly circled around whether that change has support, whether a "weak consensus" justifies such a change, and what was wrong with the long-consensed version (which a quick search through the TP archives will show). No one here complained about the former version, which addresses "right wing" in the last sentence. Now that Google favors Wikipedia, the first sentence of this article is the official definition of the term across the globe. Therefore, it requires a strong consensus and measured discussion if we are to change the definition, especially considering we diverge from similar sites that give definitions (save Oxford). Merriam Webster and Encyclopedia Brittanica don't mention right wing at all in their summaries. You can vote on which flavor of "right wing" to add, but this does nothing to justify the change to the definition and will not stop the controversy surrounding it. Silencing editors for pointing out the edit history and lack of justification for adding "right wing" to the first sentence says that editors engaged in this censorship are not confident in their argument. And they shouldn't be. To say now that we must absolutely, no questions asked, change the definition, whilst showing no history of a discussion about why this should happen prior to the drive-by, makes little sense. Lastly, I would hope that at WP, we don't "vote" on definitions. With Google spotlighting us, perhaps we should be taking this process much more seriously. It has been quite unserious thus far. petrarchan47คุก 03:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Struck, no source provided. This issue was already dealt with in an earlier RfC, which is why it's not part of this RfC, which deals with a separate issue entirely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
The source is you, and the other long-term editors of this and the related "Definitions of fascism" pages. "Right wing" doesn't even make it into the 4 paragraph lede of the "definitions" article, meaning that if it is a primary aspect of the definition, then the editors have done an absolutely shoddy job given that you all have overlooked this glaring omission for years. Similarly with this page, you went from being perfectly fine with the nuanced version (with "right wing" in the last sentence), to, without reason or discussion, finding it impossible to consider anything other than having "right wing" in the first sentence sans nuance, calling the long-standing version "mealy mouthed". That makes no sense - unless this present version isn't actually following the sources that gave rise to the previous version (as well as the the "definitions" page and it's lede), and is actually based on POV. I believe this change to the definition results in a weaponization of the word "fascism" to 'condemn political opponents'; the forced simplification of the definition is contrary to the work of experienced editors here, and of scholars, who "do not agree on what fascism means".* petrarchan47คุก 07:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous, if WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source then certainly, Wikipedians are not a reliable source. You've been here for 3 years, you should know that by now, so please stop the b.s. If you have a reliable source to support your position, post it. If not, please stop commenting, as your contributions are not moving the discussion forward, they're just making us spin our wheels, and I think most of us have had enough of that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • A in the historical sense, B/C for the post-WWII/1970s sense. In the historical sense, I don't think it is correct to describe fascism as "far right" - in the interbellum period fascism was mainstream right-wing politics. Following WWII, and moreso following the collapse of the fascist regimes in the Iberian peninsula, fascism has come to be deep in the far (or extreme) right - however this is an evolution of the right/left spectrum over time. While some (or, again, most recent ones) fascist movements are radicals (vs. the current society in which they operate - radicals by definition attempt to overthrow the established order) - not all fascists are (e.g. it would be hard to describe fascists in Italy of the 1930s as radicals - as they were the establishment!). Contrast Communism - historically I think it would be correct to state left-wing, and radical would be wrong for Soviet communists in 1922-1991 (in 1991 the anti-communists were radicals) - however in many recent political spectrum (country dependent) - communist movements would be far/extreme-left. Sources, per my impression, tend to differ according to the period and type of activists/politicians they cover. Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • B, D, or A, in that order of preference. I do agree with Icewhiz's contextual analysis above at a historical level but I think there's a complication in the article: the first sentence equivocates a little bit between fascism as a sort of ideal type (the present tense up to "... of the economy") and the historical early 20th c. movement (from "which came to power"). The ideal type is not the same as historical post-WWII fascism; it encompasses all of the historical instances at a higher level of abstraction. This, I think, is primarily what's expected in an article on "fascism" which deals with the concept's different facets, and in that case it should follow the contemporary social-scientific consensus describing fascism as such, rather than the historiographical one locating it as a political position 70+ years ago or at any other stage of its history. I'm not a fan of C as I think "extreme right" is just a more loaded way of saying "far-right". —Nizolan (talk · c.) 18:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • E, Would it be possible to say that it was something more akin to radical centrism? You could easily outline radical right wing social policy alongside the statist economic and security policies to define it as such. Plus I've read some substantive works defining it as a political tactic in Eastern Europe and Asia rather than as an ideology. That being said I feel that definition belongs further down in the controversies over defining this weird term. Bgrus22 (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • B is what I have encountered most often. A and C would both do as second choices. D has been appropriated by a number of oddities that sometimes seem to have little to do with what is considered "right wing" by the casual observer, so I think that might be a little misleading. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Raw count

The 30 days is up on the RfC, so I thought I would do a raw count. The closer will also have to consider strength of arguments.

Option A - "right-wing"

  • 1st choice - 3, plus 1 more for historical fascism
  • 2nd choice - 1
  • 3rd choice - 1
  • 4th choice - 2
  • Total: 8

Option B - "far right (wing)"

  • 1st choice - 17, plus 1 more for post WWII fascism
  • 2nd choice - 3
  • 3rd choice - 0
  • 4th choice - 0
  • Total: 21

Option C - "extreme right (wing)"

  • 1st choice - 3
  • 2nd choice - 4
  • 3rd choice - 3
  • 4th choice - 0
  • Total: 10

Option D - "radical right (wing)"

  • 1st choice - 3
  • 2nd choice - 5
  • 3rd choice - 0
  • 4th choice - 0
  • Total: 8

Other

  • Three editors !voted but did not choose any of the options presented in the RfC

My conclusion, which is unofficial until someone closes the RfC, is that "Option B", "far right", is the clear preference, both by number of 1st choice votes, and by the number of editors who accepted it as a choice. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and change the lede sentence of the article to reflect this obvious consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Meta-commentary and general discussion

  • Bad RfC its not up to you to decide under what criteria votes will be "struck", especially not before even seeing those hypothetical votes and the arguments contained within. Your comments about restricting the choices to only the ones that you unilaterally chose is both inappropriate and has a chilling effect. This whole RfC should be struck. Galestar (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, it is up to me. Take a close look at the wording above: "An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion." I'm the editor asking, and I define the question being asked. if you don't like it, don't participate - but, you know, I'm beginning to think that you don't work and play well with other people. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Sure you could ask whatever you question you want, but putting these kinds of restrictions and biases into your question makes it a Bad RfC that is useless for actually determining consensus. Then your edit-warring to strike-out other people's makes it even more of a Bad RfC. Galestar (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment Sure, there are sources to support each descriptor, but there are also sources that say fascism is hard to define, and that scholars really don't agree. This RfC is worded in a way that indicates these are the only choices, when that is not the case. Only a few months ago , this was the version BMK and all editors at this page agreed on, which treats the right wing issue in the last sentence; I favor this version as most representative of RS. I would also expect to see a nod to those scholars who have differing opinions, as was included in the article years ago, but was deleted because someone didn't like the way it was worded. petrarchan47คุก 05:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Again, I am asking the question, and these are the only choices I'm interested in, because as far as I am aware, they are the only choices with support from reliable sources, and I want to find out which of these choices are preferred. If you want to define away Fascism as being on the right, you're going to have to come up with a source that says it's not right wing, in which case I'll alter the question and allow that case -- otherwise, as the RfC specifies, that vote will be struck, and not considered in the statistical analysis. So, either find a source, or choose one of the available options, or don't participate, it's not compulsory. You can start your own RfC if you want to, but admins look askance on dueling RfCs, and I've seen it lead to blocks. Up to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
[STOP REMOVING MY COMMENTS. Re-adding the following after BMK deleted for no reason.] You were fine with it for the past few years. What made you change your mind? Did you find new/different sources? petrarchan47คุก 03:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Your comments weren't removed, you simply caught me in the middle of moving them elsewhere, but I changed my mind and moved them back, but struck out your !vote, which violated the terms of the RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason you ignored my question? It's important: You were fine with this version for the past few years. What made you change your mind? Did you find new/different sources? Beyond My Ken petrarchan47คุก 07:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
It's completely unimportant what one editor says, we're looking here for a consensus among multiple editors. I have not !voted in this RfC, and have no intention of doing so, so my opinion, now, or in the past, is totally irrelevant. But if it helps you any -- people aren't rocks, they can change their minds in response to new information or to a new understanding of old information That's what makes us rational beings. Anyone who doesn't change their mind when circumstances change or they re-evaluate the available information has more in common with an inanimate object than a thinking person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
What about putting it in the second sentence? --Ritchie92 (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (ec)Also, I'd like to remind everyone that a recent RfC about whether to remove "right wing" or not -- run before IPs and non-auutoconfirmed accounts were restricted from this page, and were therefore able to skew the results -- closed as a "weak keep". I lot of mileage has been run on the tires of that "weak", but -- as I tried to explain on my talk page, to no avail - a "weak keep" is still a keep. Just take a look at AfD, and you'll see that any discussion closed as "week keep" results in the article being kept, and any discussion closed as "weak delete" results in the article being deleted. "Strong deletes" aren't deleted any more than "week deletes", and the same goes for keeps. So the RfCs "weak keep" was a keep, which is yet another reason (a recent consensus) that removing any mention of Fascism being on the right is not an option inthis RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
But that is because deletion is a binary operation: either one deletes or one keeps (except the cases in which there can be a merge, but still you either delete the page or not, there are no other possible options). An edit instead can be deleted, modified, reworded, moved, there are so many options that make the decision about an edit non-binary. The analogy of a RfC result with an AfD result is not a good one. --Ritchie92 (talk) 06:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
But none of those option were the consensus, according to the closer. The consensus was to keep "right wing" in the first sentence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Nobody denies that. I'm just saying that weak actually has meaning in the case of RfC (otherwise why even bother deciding on weak and strong), and your argument with the analogy to the AfD is not so good: Strong deletes are the same as weak deletes because there is no logical way you can delete a page more. Regarding edits and RfC, weak consensus concerns the fact that there are probably more options and possibly still room for improvement, and the final decision is not totally undisputed and uncontroversial. Again, otherwise why bother distinguishing between weak and strong consensus at all? --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Fascism is indisputably seen in scholarly circles as a far-right ideology, and I agree with Beyond My Ken that attempts to dispute this are tedious and time-wasting. For the lead to begin by stating something like, "Fascism is hard to define, and scholars really don't agree", would be an insult to the intelligence of readers and an act of negligence on the part of this site's editors. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
While true of what fascism developed into, Proto-fascism and its elements have had a complex origin. Some of the figures we mention as proto-fascists in the article were affiliated with the Conservative revolutionary movement in Germany, the Irish Republican Brotherhood in the United Kingdom, Action Française in France, and the Macedonian Committee in Greece. Dimadick (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Lets stick with this wording for now, and create another RFC about a more nuanced wording seperatly.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I’ve not seen any serious work that suggests fascism is at odds with capitalism. Alas, essentially all governmental systems have problems with individualism. O3000 (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Fascism in the sense of motivated for national good or centralized control sense doesn’t match to the Capitalism basis of private ownership for profit — decentralized control, sometimes to the detriment of workers or nation. And isn’t it obvious that trying to force a left/right linear model is problematic and has been contentious for long time ? (Look at archives.) Maybe just acknowledge - in article text - that putting political ideologies into a spectrum is imperfect, execution is messy, and some dispute does exist ? It’s not like science has a right o meter measurement. I like the article uses “characterized” rather than stating as unambiguous fact something that is not objective fact, would be nice to see a distinction also accepted in TALK. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Hitler reversed the European trend of state ownership and engaged in mass privatization, even privatizing public services.[1] O3000 (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Germà Bel (13 November 2004). "Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany" (PDF). University of Barcelona. IREA. Retrieved 10 August 2018.
I'm transcluding this discussion to the discussion section. Also please note that WP:NOTFORUM and WP:OR apply. @Markbasset: you mentioned reliable sources supporting the WP:EXTRAORDINARY assertion that fascism is socialism. Please provide them or I'll hat this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Simonm223 - Beyond My Ken requested a brand new section for any going further, so I'll do that. Would have been simpler to just take RFC input but I will AGF and do what I can to clarify. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Cites to support other positions

Beyond My Ken requested a brand new section for any going further into E-none of the above, which may have been offhand but seems a decent idea so here it is. A simple google seemed to find a lot of it not being a settled thing including mentions of "Left-wing Fascism", so here I'll try to put in URLs of those I mentioned briefly before, as that seems to have been repeatedly requested. The context or intent these are wanted for is a bit undefined -- the RFC seems trying to do something about the lede -- I will presume this continues informal as just for discussion background.

User:Atsme said in 'We're not going to litigate this again' that it's neither and offered the cites which do not say right or left wing.

  • Merriam-Webster] : 1.often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

I also offered cites that mentioned left-wing and/or said it was complicated, which in order I named I think were:

The sea is wet, not matter how many sources do not say so.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
(1) Dictionary definitions are not acceptable
(2) "Left wing fascism" is so-called to differentiate it from ordinary fascism, which is right-wing. It's a different animal entirely. Incidentally, WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
(3) The Brittanica article does not tackle the question of whther Fascism is right-wing at all, simply the problem of definition, which is well known, and not relevant to this RfC. However, the article goes on to list and explicate the "general characteristics that fascist movement ... have in common":
  • Opposition to Marixsm
  • Opposition to parliamentary democracy
  • Opposition to political and cultural liberalism
  • Totalitarian ambitions
  • Conservative economic programs
  • Corporatism
  • Alleged equality of social status
  • Imperialism
  • Military values
  • Volksgemeinschaft
  • Mass mobilization
  • The leadership principle
  • The "new" man
  • Glorification of youth
  • Education as character building
  • Spirituality and opposition to decadence
  • Violence
  • Extreme nationalism
  • Scapegoating
  • Populisn
  • Revolutionary image
  • Antiurbanism
  • Sexism and misogyny
  • Acceptance of racism
  • Identification with Christianity
While some of these characteristic are shared with non-right-wing ideologies such as Marxist-Leninism, their sum total shows Fascism to be, in its essence, an extreme form of a right-wing ideology.
(4) The BBC article does not tackle the question of whether Fascism is right-wing at all, simply the problem of definition, which is well known., and not relevant to this RfC.
(5) The Telegraph article is an opinion piece.
(6) The first Vox piece is, again, about the definition problem, and does not tackle the question of whether Fascism is right wing. The second piece iis an opinion piece.
(7) The World News Daily is never, under any circumstances, considered to be a reliable source.
(8) The Google search results are opinion pieces.
(9) "Half of all authoritarians are left-wing" has no relevance to this question at all.
The standing consensus on this talk page is that Fascism is right-wing, as determined by the previous RfC. This RfC seeks to determine in what way, if any, "right wing" should be characterized. It is not about overturning the standing consensus. This is why your !vote above was not responsive to the question asked, and was struck. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Beyond My Ken Unh hunh. Well you didn’t ask for any of that so should be no surprise. When I said a casual google caused me to doubt this was a settled thing, folks asked me to show so I did. If you want more than evidence of what I saw, about the existence of dispute and that RS exist which do not go into r or l .... then ask. These sources just show the ONUS is hard to meet. Piddling on the, does nothing to change that large prominent RS exist which do not support this theme, the assertion that it is settled and always said and just needs to figure out exactly what part of r-wing it is. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The standing consensus on this page is that Fascism is right wing. The RfC I started is to try to settle in what way, if any, "right wing" should be characterized. It was not designed to overturn the standing consensus. According to the terms of the RfC, to !vote "None of the above" - i.e. that Facdism is not right wing -- one has to provide a citation from a reliable source to support that contention. You have not done this. You have presented a melange of different sources that show that Fascism is hard to define. This is a well known problem, but it is irrelevant to the question at hand, and does not fulfill your obligation to present a citation from a reliable source to support for intended !vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • We have multitudinous academic sources that contradict Vox. Sorry but journalists take second-fiddle to academics. They're not WP:DUE mention in the lede of the article, when the nuances of fascist third-positionism and entryism are spelled out farther down anyway. Simonm223 (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Beyond My Ken Yes, observably the stated consensus is r-wing. But when you do a WP:RFC you are going outside the pocket universe and get what RFCs are - Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input and even asking for changes to the RFC -- that is the policy. So you are going to see other views, including that in most of the universe it seems not a prominent statement about fascism and that it seems not a settled thing. 'Characterized' seems a reasonable adjective here, but definite statements or trying to narrow it further seems inappropriate. That other inputs say NO wing or even that sometimes Left wing is the point. The sources I provided are as said, showing that presenting it as settled fact and a specific section of right-wing seems an awfully strong assertion that fails even a simple check at Google or Google scholar that shows a strongly different view of things. That should have been better just observed as a simple input with simple remark about what I'd looked at. Not attacked as heresy and any source to the contrary attacked in detail. Simple TALK, they were just telling you why I thought the RFC position is problematic. I suggest you consider that Britannica, Websters, BBC, etcetera are indeed RS of note and repute and WEIGHT, and try working on the RFC intent is to hear other voices that it seems this is failing to do so. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:GREENCHEESE because your insistence that an RFC on how to describe right-wing based on academic sources pulling up refs like "The World News Daily" to support removing that statement altogether is pretty much textbook WP:TEND and this makes this digression classic green cheesing. Simonm223 (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fascism/Archive_51&oldid=1136720931"