Line 283:
Sorry Wikipedia but you have this wrong totally wrong you should have left wing up there [[User:Timskylark|Timskylark]] ([[User talk:Timskylark|talk]]) 05:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
: It's right wing. [[User:Nigos|Nigos]] ([[User talk:Nigos|t@lk]] '''•''' [[Special:Contributions/Nigos|Contribs]]) 05:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
== Remove "right wing" from lead ==
So I've been following this discussion for a while without posting in it, because this sort of thing is what often irritates me about Wikipedia. According to the [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2019-01-01&end=2019-07-01&pages=Talk:Fascism pageviews analysis tool], talk page views increased substantially when "right-wing" was first added around the beginning of March, and haven't declined back to background levels. That amount of controversy suggests we might have done something wrong. It doesn't help that the current content of the page seems to be guarded by several people who dismiss any proposals to change with "no, because RS" without much of a real discussion.
To be clear, I am '''not''' saying fascism isn't far-right. Nor am I arguing it should be described as anything else. I'm saying it shouldn't be in the lead sentence. The lead paragraph already has the "far-right" sentence, which can probably stay. But clearly there's a bit more nuance to it, since there's a whole section in the article about the political leanings with a decent amount of content.
It's also worth noting that on articles for undeniably left-wing topics, such as [[socialism]] and [[communism]], don't include anything remotely similar to "left-wing" in even their lead paragraphs even though they are clearly far-left. This article throws that at the reader in the ''very first sentence''. This is why I believe the inclusion in the lead sentence is at least partially politically motivated by the viewpoints of many editors here, and would violate [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]]. [[User:Highway 89|Highway 89]] ([[User talk:Highway 89|talk]]) 15:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
:That is a far more valid reason for removing it (not the traffic, consistency of approach).[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
::Actually it's not a valid reason at all. Please review [[WP:OSE]]. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
:::I am aware of other stuff, but I am also aware that if you have two similar (or even related) subjects that are treated by different standards [[wp:NPOV]] may also come into play.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 16:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
:::[[WP:OSE]] also states: "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else." The way I see it, there are very real NPOV concerns here when looking at the encyclopedia as a whole. Including this in the lead sentence appears to have been little more than political bait to start arguments, since the rest of the article does a pretty good job explaining the political nuances of fascism. [[User:Highway 89|Highway 89]] ([[User talk:Highway 89|talk]]) 16:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
::::Please [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. The text is as it is because that's what reliable sources say -- not because anyone is trying to start an argument. [[User:Objective3000|O3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 16:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::I think the issue is that both socialism and communism are described by RS as left wing, yet that is not the their opening sentences. This is why I say there is some validity to this point, I cannot see a valid reason for the difference. Now there is an argument for saying "well put it in those articles then", none the less I still find it strange.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 16:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::Of course, 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. Literally the only people who dispute that are a few left-comms who have no-true-scotsman'd the entire history of socialism and they would constitute a [[WP:FRINGE]] position on socialism. However, the tendency by fascists to try and claim (erroneously) that their political ideology represents a distinct third-position means that, in order to avoid [[WP:PROFRINGE]] in this case, it's far more important to situate fascism as it is viewed by academics, clearly and carefully and the academic consensus is that fascism is a far-right ideology. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::Far right and right wing are not the same, and we do not link to far right.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 16:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::That is irrelevant to my statement. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::I don't think anybody was intentionally trying to start an argument when this was changed, and I didn't mean to suggest that. I'm just saying it could be interpreted that way. Sorry for any confusion. [[User:Highway 89|Highway 89]] ([[User talk:Highway 89|talk]]) 18:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::What it comes down to is that I'm so sick of people coming in to this page and going against the tenets of [[WP:PROFRINGE]] to help and reinforce the in-universe perspective of fascists that their ideology is somehow different from other far-right authoritarians. I understand that most are probably regular old conservatives who are hurt that Fascism gets tied to their ideology while moderates aren't tied in a similar way to socialism. But this misunderstands the point of the designation here (as a [[WP:FRINGE]] compliant counter-point to the in-universe statements of fascists), it misunderstands the relationship socialists and communists have to the concept of "the left" (we embrace it), and it misunderstands the permeability of conservatism to fascist entryism compared to that of liberalism to socialist entryism. Frankly socialists rarely try to move into liberal spaces and make them more socialist because [https://www.jstor.org/stable/25701458?seq=1/analyze historical] [https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/decline-of-europes-social-democratic-parties/ attempts] to do that failed. Generally, rather, the objective with regard to liberalism of socialists is to set a very clearly delineated boundary and to attempt to draw the left-most liberals over it. Regardless of whether one is supportive of the ''ideologies'' in question, it's quite a [[WP:NPOV]] compliant, neutral fact that socialists and fascists have very different tactics for handling the center-left and the center-right respectively. And this difference requires differences in handling. Simply put, despite both being relatively extreme political ideologies, the objectives, self-understanding, and tactics of socialism and fascism are ''far too dissimilar'' to use one as a template for how we handle the other. And frankly centrists want it both ways on Wikipedia considering that any attempt to create [[Mass killings under capitalist regimes]] would be PRoDded so fast it'd make your head spin with [[WP:OSE]] being used as a central argument why it wasn't relevant. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
:I said in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fascism/Archive_48#RfC:_Should_%22right_wing%22_be_added_to_definition_of_fascism RfC on this very topic] that it doesn't matter to me whether it's in the first sentence or elsewhere in the lead, and I am still of that opinion. To say that this topic hasn't had "much real discussion," however, is false. It has just taken place before (which is why we have the {round in circles} template message above), so rather than restate the same arguments, editors stick to the consensus pretty strongly.--[[User:MattMauler|MattMauler]] ([[User talk:MattMauler|talk]]) 16:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I suggest we change it to far right, as that seems to be what moist people seem to be really talking about.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 08:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
It sounds like a case to point out [[WP:NOTCENSORED]]. I find the idea to alter well sourced article content to pamper to some hurt feelings a bit excessive. // [[User:Liftarn|Liftarn]] ([[User talk:Liftarn|talk]]) 09:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
:what we say (and thus I presume what is sourced "radical right-wing"), but we do not link to [[Radical right]], we link to [[right wing]] which is not the same thing.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
::I am not opposed to targeting [[Radical right]] rather than right wing. However I don't see it as entirely necessary either; as long as we aren't removing the statement from the lede I'm more neutral about the specifics of the wikilink. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 11:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
::ETA - [[Radical Right]] is, on inspection, a disambiguation page. [[Far-right politics]] would seem a better fit if a wikilink change was deemed necessary. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 11:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
::::Yep, but I just wanted to avoid any further arguments when we see "radical right is not far right" arguments.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::I wouldn't be opposed to targeting [[far-right politics]] in the first paragraph, but I still think we should leave political stuff like this out of the lead sentence. [[User:Highway 89|Highway 89]] ([[User talk:Highway 89|talk]]) 14:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::If you don't want {{tq|political stuff}} in the lede of an article about a political ideology you may need to consider not participating in articles about political ideologies. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
{{Warning Fascism left-wing}}
::::::(copied from the top of this page. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy,''' <small>the dog</small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 14:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
== Antifa ==
|