Talk:Fascism: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Article Images

Line 31:

}}

__FORCETOC__

~~== Please remove the "radical, right-wing" from the general definition of Fascism ==~~

Fascism is not "right winged". Fascists can lean "far left" as well. Using vague and hard to define political party terms in the general definition of the term "fascism" is extremely irresponsible and wrong. Please remove the "right winged" from the definition. You could also remove "radical" as well, seeing as that is more of an opinion than a key general definition. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.38.44.164|24.38.44.164]] ([[User talk:24.38.44.164#top|talk]]) 18:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

~~:Already discussed. There are btw no far left fascists any more than there are far right communists. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 18:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)~~

:: How true. I find it hard to imagine that the "far left" (socialists and communists) would be in alliance with, and happy support of the big capitalists in their countries. They are, pretty much by definition, enemies. The alliance of the right wing, fascists, and capitalists is obvious. -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) '''''PingMe''''' 18:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Fascism is seen as a political movement or political religion than an ideology. Hugh Trevor-Roper put it, "an ill-sorted hodge-podge of ideas" Hitler in fact described his ideas as a ''Weltanschauung'' literally meaning world view. In this sense, a worldview is a complete, almost religious, set of attitudes that demand commitment and faith, rather than invite reasoned analysis and debate. <ref>{{cite book |last1=Heywood |first1=Andrew |title=Political Ideologies: An Introduction |date=1992 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillian |isbn=9780230367258 |accessdate=6 June 2019}} states p 16: "fascism is usually portrayed as 'far right' "</ref>

:The more I look into this, the more I am convinced that we have made a grave error by adding "right wing" to the definition. It is not supported by reliable sources, which actually support its immediate removal.

::From '''Centrism in Italian politics''' ([https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13532940802367554 PDF] [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-italy/article/centrism-in-italian-politics/32A01950465E237716CE7BECDB5F86E9 Cambridge.org]

:::Underlying the thinking of all centrists is a refusal to side with either of two opposed alternatives conceived of in spatial terms as positions lying on either side of the one occupied by the centrist position itself. This is true whatever the substantive content of the positions we are talking about. Thus, within the Marxist political movement, ‘centrists’ were those whose ideological outlooks reflected a position between the revolutionary and the reformist. Fascism, too, sought to establish its credentials as a centrist force, claiming to offer a ‘thirdway’ between communism and liberalism. ''Mark Donovan & James L. Newell (2008) Centrism in Italian politics, ModernItaly, 13:4, 381-397, DOI: 10.1080/13532940802367554''

~~::From [https://www.livescience.com/57622-fascism.html Live Science]~~

:::Fascism is a complex ideology. There are many definitions of fascism; some people describe it as a type or set of political actions, a political philosophy or a mass movement. Most definitions agree that fascism is authoritarian and promotes nationalism at all costs, but its basic characteristics are a matter of debate. (''Nowhere in the article is "right wing" mentioned.'') The cite from was written by "Jessie Szalay is a contributing writer for Live Science. She covers animals, health and other general science topics." -- not a RS

::The distillation of all that I've seen is: there is no simple definition of fascism. The only accurate description would include nuance, and lots of it. It does not lend itself well to a one-liner (such as the first sentence of the Lede). Even with the nuance required to summarize [[WP:RS]], using "right wing" as a descriptor does not have support. As I mentioned in the RfC, WP's counterparts Britannica and Merriam Webster, uphold my contention: [https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism Britannica] does not mention "right" in their Lede paragraph; [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism#h1 Merriam Webster] does not mention "right" whatsoever. The [https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism Simple English Wikipedia] also makes no mention of "right". What they have in common, as did en.Wikipedia prior to the very recent change, is ''nuance''. There are articles devoted to the fact that [https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/fascism-populism-presidential-election/510668/ "fascism" is not easy to define], yet we are here defending the idea that it is easy, that we have done what scholars could not? '''[[User:Petrarchan47|petrarchan47]][[User talk:Petrarchan47|คุ]][[Special:Contributions/Petrarchan47|ก]]''' 02:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

::: Sometimes you just have to look harder. (1) ''Webster unabridged dictionary'' includes "fascism" under the definition of "right wing." (2) Encyclopaedia Britannica does not use it in the lede but does use "right" a lot: eg ''"During the Great Depression, thousands of middle-class conservatives fearful of the growing power of the left abandoned traditional right-wing parties and adopted fascism. The ideological distance traveled from traditional conservatism to Nazism was sometimes small, since many of the ideas that Hitler exploited in the 1930s had long been common currency within the German right."'' (3) The ''Cambridge advanced learner's dictionary'' defines "fascist" as "a person of the far right in politics". (4) The quotation above from ''Live Science'' was written by "Jessie Szalay is a contributing writer for Live Science. She covers animals, health and other general science topics." -- she has a degree in nonfiction writing and is not a very reliable source. (5) The quote from 'Centrism in Italian politics' is about how the fascists positioned themselves in Italian politics before they power, and does not deal with how reliable sources position them in political history in 2019. [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen|talk]]) 07:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

::::It sure isn't easy to define Fascism, and that is actually my entire point. I don't believe any of what you've said justifies the addition to the lede sentence. '''[[User:Petrarchan47|petrarchan47]][[User talk:Petrarchan47|คุ]][[Special:Contributions/Petrarchan47|ก]]''' 01:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

::: Fascists have only come to power with the support of the Right and never with the support of the Left. Mussolini led the [[National List (Italy)|National List]], which included other right-wing parties. Hitler went into coaltion with the Conservative Party. Their main opposition were Socialist Democrats and Communists. Center parties on the other hand, frequently form coaltions with either the Left or the Right. That's actually the origin of the left-right concept, that political parties would seat themselves in the legislature closest to the parties with which they were most likely to cooperate. Hence the fascists are far right. There are no examples of centrists working with fascists to the exclusion of parties on the left or right. The centrist Liberal Democrats in the UK for example would find more common ground with either the Conservatives on the right or Labour on the left than they would with the far right British National Party. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 12:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

:::: It's incredibly nuanced, like our previous definition. I appreciate you and your comment. I don't know how it would help with content creation, as we have to rely on outside sources which don't agree that Fascism neatly fits into the "right". The previous version of our Lede paragraph allowed for the fact that not all scholars refer to the "right-left paradigm". I'd be interested in seeing this article include a balanced overview of all reliable sources. It is possible though that the subject creates too much emotion for the majority of editors to remain neutral. This wasn't the case during the Obama years, when we didn't hear the word so often, and I maintain that this article was much more encyclopedic then. Without the emotional charge, Wikipedians in prior years did not argue that it is "right wing", but followed what the sources say - which is that not all scholars agree and that it's not easy or simple to define. So they chose not to [[WP:OR|''create'']] a simplified definition. '''[[User:Petrarchan47|petrarchan47]][[User talk:Petrarchan47|คุ]][[Special:Contributions/Petrarchan47|ก]]''' 01:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

::::The arguments supporting fascism as a right wing ideology are simply not convincing. We would have to change the definition of right wing to make it fit - round peg in a square hole - and that doesn't count the variations of right vs left relative to the interpretations of individual academics, historians, and the prevailing views of the general population in each country. We have an article on [[Left-wing fascism]]. There are far too many elements involved to stereotype fascism as either right or left. It is what it is, and it's fascism. Sadly, it's highly unlikely this article will ever be stable as long as contentious material remains in the lead. Happy editing! [[User:Atsme|Atsme]] [[User talk:Atsme|Talk]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 01:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

:::::It's not that nuanced. The screaming fanatic in the MAGA hat for example railing about the deep state, the elites and the banksters, while bearing a superficial resemblance to populists on the left, is still on the right. (Go ask him.) [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 03:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

::::::And how do you classify the screaming fanatics wearing black hoods yelling death to cops or celebrities spewing hatred like the one holding a decapitated head, or another who wanted to blow up the white house? What about the Berkeley riots (again, black hoods) and violence on college campuses, and the radical calls to change the US Constitution and electoral college, or the college administrators refusing to allow free speech by prohibiting certain speakers? When different parties are involved opposition is inevitable, and one party is almost always going to dislike or even hate the other. Resistence to Bush and Obama was far less violent than what we've seen of late. In a nutshell, there is no cut and dried definition of fascism. The definition most people will support is the one that aligns closest to their own. Fascism is its own ideology with different elements mixed in, and I'm of the mind that it is as wrong to stereotype fascism as either right or left as it is to stereotype "protests" in that same manner. [[User:Atsme|Atsme]] [[User talk:Atsme|Talk]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 14:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

:::::::You classify those in your first sentence as anarchists -- the opposite of fascists. After that, sorry, but you appear to have just posted some unconnected thoughts. [[User:Objective3000|O3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 14:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

:::::::The screaming fanatics in black are anarchists, which puts them on the far left. In fact, there are a number of videos of anarchists physically attacking people in MAGA hats. Kathy Griffin is a Clinton supporter, wherever that falls in the political spectrum, it's not on the far right. Whether right-wing, centrist or left-wing supporters are more violent is irrelevant to this discussion. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 16:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

::::::::Exactly, and that's why we go with what RS say, and the widespread opinion is that fascism is difficult to define because it includes both right & left wing elements. Later folks. [[User:Atsme|Atsme]] [[User talk:Atsme|Talk]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 21:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::Fascist: “A person of right-wing authoritarian views” – Oxford English Dictionary. This has been the definition for decades. It was derived from Fascista, a body of Italian nationalists formed to combat Communism. [[User:Objective3000|O3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 21:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

~~::::::::::Nope:~~

::::::::::*"Just as Marxists, liberals, and conservatives differed within and between various countries, so too did fascists." [https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism/Varieties-of-fascism Britannica]

::::::::::*"Fascist: 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." [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism Merriam-Webster]

::::::::::We look at the widespread definitions - not just the Oxford which is only one definition. The more variables brought forward only serves to prove the point that it cannot be defined as either right or left. [[User:Atsme|Atsme]] [[User talk:Atsme|Talk]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 22:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::::Except that none of these "widespread definitions" actually denies that fascism pertains to the right or asserts that it belongs to the left. For this argument to be relevant, there would have to be actual, reliable sources disputing the attribution of fascism to the right, not merely sources that are silent on the matter. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 00:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

::::::::::::Perception. [[User:Atsme|Atsme]] [[User talk:Atsme|Talk]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 04:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::::::The first quotation is comparing fascists with "Marxists, liberals, and conservatives" only in the sense that they all had regional/national differences. Well, [[Barbecue#Styles|so does barbecue]]. That doesn't mean that barbecue is Marxist, liberal, or whatever. (Did Marxism and liberalism also include [https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism/Varieties-of-fascism "acceptance of racism" and "identification with Christianity"]?) The second quotation doesn't contradict the OED definition, and in fact defines fascism using qualities of [[right-wing politics]] such as nationalism, hierarchicalism, and authoritarianism. (I think we'd give [[WP:WEIGHT|greater weight]] to the OED over Webster's in any case.) —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 02:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

~~::::::::::::::"identification with Christianity" Britannica emphasized the Christian identity of the fascist movement and its opposition to atheists and humanists.:~~

*"Most fascist movements portrayed themselves as defenders of Christianity and the traditional Christian family against atheists and amoral humanists. This was true of Catholic fascist movements in Poland, Spain, Portugal, France, Austria, Hungary, Croatia, Bolivia, Argentina, Chile, and Brazil. In Romania, Codreanu said he wanted to model his life after the crucified Christ of the Orthodox church, and his Legion of the Archangel Michael, a forerunner of the Iron Guard, officially called for “faith in God” and “love for each other.” "

*"In France, Valois, Taittinger, Renaud, Bucard, and La Rocque were all Catholics, and Doriot, previously an atheist, appealed to Catholic sentiments after he became a fascist. Although Maurras was an agnostic, he defended the Catholic church as a pillar of social order, and there were many Catholics among his followers. The fascist intellectual Robert Brasillach described the Spanish Civil War as a conflict between Catholic fascism and atheistic Marxism. Drieu La Rochelle rejected liberal Catholicism but praised the “virile, male Catholicism” of the Middle Ages and the “warrior Christianity of the Crusades.” "

*"Although fascists in Germany and Italy also posed as protectors of the church, their ideologies contained many elements that conflicted with traditional Christian beliefs, and their policies were sometimes opposed by church leaders. The Nazis criticized the Christian ideals of meekness and guilt on the grounds that they repressed the violent instincts necessary to prevent inferior races from dominating Aryans. Martin Bormann, the second most powerful official in the Nazi Party after 1941, argued that Nazi and Christian beliefs were “incompatible,” primarily because the essential elements of Christianity were “taken over from Judaism.” Bormann’s views were shared by Hitler, who ultimately wished to replace Christianity with a racist form of warrior paganism. Although Hitler was cautious about dangerously alienating Christians during World War II, he sometimes permitted Nazi officials to put pressure on Protestant and Catholic parents to remove their children from religious classes and to register them for ideological instruction instead. In the Nazi schools charged with training Germany’s future elite, Christian prayers were replaced with Teutonic rituals and sun-worship ceremonies."

*"Despite the many anti-Christian elements in Nazism, the vast majority of Nazis considered themselves to be religious, and most German anti-Semites supported Christianity purged of its “Jewish” elements. The pro-Nazi German Christians, who were part of the Lutheran church in Germany, held that Christ had been a blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryan, and male members called themselves “SS men for Christ.” In many German families children began their prayers before meals with the phrase, “Führer, my Führer, bequeathed to me by the Lord.” "

*"In Italy, Mussolini signed a concordat with the papacy, the Lateran Treaty (1929), which, among other things, made Roman Catholicism the state religion of Italy and mandated the teaching of Catholic doctrine in all public primary and secondary schools. Later, many practicing Catholics joined the conservative wing of the Fascist Party. In 1931, however, Pope Pius XI issued an encyclical, Non abbiamo bisogno, that denounced fascism’s “pagan worship of the State” and its “revolution which snatches the young from the Church and from Jesus Christ, and which inculcates in its own young people hatred, violence and irreverence.” Although many Italian fascists remained Catholic, the regime’s mystique contained pagan elements that glorified the spirit of ancient Rome and the military virtues of its soldiers."

**Business as usual for Christians to oppress and persecute other people, but this Christian identity says nothing about their position in the political spectrum. Christianity comprises a large number of political movements, from conservative [[Christian democracy]] to leftist [[Christian socialism]] and [[Christian communism]]. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 08:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

::look at the right-wing options ''Dictionary of Modern Political Ideologies'' Page 67 by Michael A. Riff - 1990: gives the context here: ''The right wing' in a country may well consist of strongly conflicting elements — laisser-faire liberals, anti-Communists, authoritarians, monarchists, jingoes. Fascism (see FASCISM) is certainly a 'right wing' political creed'' [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen|talk]]) 05:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

:::Look at the left-wing and no-wing options beginning with [[Left-wing fascism]]. Rjensen, I'm not challenging the existence of your sources and published opinions that support your POV. I agree with you in that regard. My argument is simply that other sources exist with opposing opinions and different views about what defines fascism. Zeev Sternhell authored ''"Neither Right Nor Left"'' (Princeton, 1995). Another definition for the economics of fascism is that it's "socialism with a capitalist veneer" (''"The Library of Economics and Liberty"''), and on and on ad nauseam. The opposing RS and contentious debate over the varying opinions of academics, historians and researchers are the reason the proposed right wing definition in the lede, in Wikivoice, is noncompliant with NPOV; i.e., the sources cited support a single definition among many, which makes it POV. I see our job as editors to include all significant views, not focus on one POV over another. With regards to the above RfC, keep in mind that NPOV policy states: {{xt|This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.}} [[User:Atsme|Atsme]] [[User talk:Atsme|Talk]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 14:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

::::As I pointed out above, although Sternhell called his book ''Neither Left nor Right: Fascist Ideology in France'', he clearly refers to it as the "revolutionary right," distinct from legitimism, orleanism and bonapartism, but nonetheless part of the Right. And he points out that the Right evolves and survives by taking ideas from the Left. (As I pointed out, so has the Trump movement.) Your other source, that calls fascism "socialism with a capitalist veneer" is not reliable. The author, Sheldon Richman is a journalist and contributor to libertarian sites who as far as I know has no relevant academic qualifications and is not published in peer-reviewed academic journals and holds a number of questionable views. In conclusion, no reliable sources exist with opposing opinions. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 18:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

:::::In doing the research and reliable sources, I recommend going beyond the title of books and actually looking at some of the contents. This is possible thanks to Google and Amazon. As TFD points out, Sternhell insists that French fascism is based in the right. He states it explicitly on page 1: "It was in France that the radical right soonest acquired the essential characteristics of fascism." Read {{cite book|author=Zeev Sternhell|title=Neither Right Nor Left: Fascist Ideology in France|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ccgIu6oYkREC&pg=PA1|year=1996|publisher=Princeton UP|page=1}} [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen|talk]]) 19:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't participated in the discussion so far (and I won't be able to from now on - too many RL obligations), but I did vote in support of having "right-wing" in the first sentence, and I'd like to also add my perspective here.

The main argument against adding "right-wing" to the first sentence is based on the fact that fascism is a complex and controversial topic and there is no single definition of it that all RS would accept. This is true. But the same argument could be used against calling fascism "a form of... ultranationalism". Not all RS call fascism a form of ultranationalism in their definitions. In fact, the specific term "ultranationalism" does not appear in any of the RS quoted in this discussion so far! And yet we use it in the first sentence, because, while most RS don't explicitly call fascism "ultranationalist" when defining it, almost all RS talk extensively about extreme nationalism as being a core element of fascism. There is a clear scholarly consensus that fascism is a form of ultranationalism, even if most RS don't contain a sentence explicitly saying "fascism is a form of ultranationalism".

The same holds true for the appellation "right-wing". While not all RS explicitly call fascism "right-wing" when defining it, almost all RS that talk about an "extreme right", "far right" or "radical right", include fascism in that political category. So I believe that calling fascism right-wing is just as warranted as calling it ultranationalist. I don't see how the argument about the controversial nature of fascism would apply to the appellation "right-wing" in particular, more than to the other things we say about fascism in the first sentence. ''Everything'' about fascism is controversial.

I also think that the first sentence we have right now adequately reflects the lack of a precise consensus on the nature of fascism by keeping things relatively vague and broad. We call fascism "a form of...". That's good. It indicates that what follows are a few general characteristics of fascism. Fascism is a form of radical right-wing authoritarian ultranationalism - but not all radical right-wing authoritarian ultranationalism is fascist. -- [[User:Damoclus|Damoclus]] ([[User talk:Damoclus|talk]]) 20:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

:If RS give multiple perspectives, views and definitions than article should reflect that? Also if no RS given calls it ultranationalist than article shouldn't have that word included either.[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 21:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

::I can't think of a source that does not call it that although not necessarily in the same words - they may use extreme instead of ultra for example. While different definitions may place different emphases on various aspects, I don't know of any that exclude it. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 00:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

:::First sentence is clearly not quoting sources. "Fascism is a form of radical, right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism". You either say ultranationalism or you say radical nationalism, but you don't say both. Sources say radical which applies to words coming before nationalism and nationalism as well. Sources given don't call it right wing either. From quoted source, Paxton 2004 - Anatomy of Fascism - "Italian revolutionaries used the term fascio in the late nineteenth century to evoke the solidarity of committed militants. The peasants who rose against their landlords in Sicily in 1893–94 called themselves the Fasci Siciliani. When in late 1914 a group of left-wing nationalists, soon joined by the socialist outcast Benito Mussolini, sought to bring Italy into World War I on the Allied side, they chose a name designed to communicate both the fervor and the solidarity of their campaign: the Fascio Rivoluzionario d’Azione Interventista (Revolutionary League for Interventionist Action). At the end of World War I, Mussolini coined the term fascismo to describe the mood of the little band of nationalist ex-soldiers and pro-war syndicalist revolutionaries that he was gathering around himself." Page 4. Later in 1930s when fascism was in decline, Mussolini will blame unease alliance with conservatives and bourgeoisie. Sources quoted have nuances that article is lacking. [[Robert Paxton]] "Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." Looks like there is lot original research on this article.[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 11:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

::::Finding sources that use the term "ultranationalism" takes seconds.[https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&tbm=bks&q=Fascism%E2%80%8E;+%22ultranationalism%22&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikpsGa-MzhAhWNQRUIHTH0CSkQBQgoKAA&biw=1920&bih=944&dpr=1] I'm guessing that most sources call it "far right"[https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&biw=1920&bih=944&tbm=bks&ei=D8WxXOX8FYCZ1fAPuLKUgAw&q=Fascism%E2%80%8E%3B+%22far+right%22&oq=Fascism%E2%80%8E%3B+%22far+right%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...102568.103981.0.104386.9.9.0.0.0.0.71.541.9.9.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.71...33i10k1.0.ixrnxJMHbfo] so if you think that would be better, fine. [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 11:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

~~:::::Then change sources, because given sources don't.[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 11:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)~~

::::::Doug, most tertiary sources do not stereotype it as right wing or left wing. There is also some concern about [[WP:SYNTH]], but the bottomline is the existence of RS that have justifiable challenged other RS that stereotype or label fascism as either right or left wing, and it is noncompliant with NPOV to ignore that argument. [[User:Atsme|Atsme]] [[User talk:Atsme|Talk]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 11:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

:::::Far right and right wing are both used by RS and both “true”. Far right would likely fit NPOV better as it is more restrictive and would probably be more palatable to those on the right that are not fascist. I’m OK with either. The fact that some right-wing sources point to the German proper name Nationalsozialistische as “proof” that it’s leftist is not NPOV. Ultranationalist is a given. [[User:Objective3000|O3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 11:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

::::::Umm, Atsme, that is simply not true. The vast majority of secondary/tertiary sources identity fascism as a right-wing phenomenon. There are a few sources that also discuss "fascism of the left" as a parallel but distinct phenomenon, and there are a few <s>no true scotsman</s> right-wing sources that sepatate Fascism from "true" right-wing politics, but it would be UNDUE to give substantial WEIGHT to either. The right-wing denial that Fascism is "of the right" is essentially a FRINGE position. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 12:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

:::::::Uhm, Newimpartial, I never said what you're alleging I said. If you're going to criticize something I said, then please quote me accurately - "most tertiary sources do not stereotype it as right wing or left wing." If you disagree, feel free to name the reliable tertiary sources that support your position. [[User:Atsme|Atsme]] [[User talk:Atsme|Talk]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 15:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::Are you making a distinction between "stereotyping" Fascism as right-wing and "identifying" (my term) or characterizing it as right wing? Because sources for the latter have been amply presented on this Talk page. They include literally all mainstream scholarship on Fascism... [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 13:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy,''' the Prod.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] can you verify revert that you just did by reading quoted sources and then, after you do, self revert. Thank you.[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 13:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

~~:No. [[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy,''' the dog.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 13:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)~~

~~::Oh so you are gonna disregard quoted sources? Then why are they quoted?[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 14:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)~~

:"He states it explicitly on page 1: "It was in France that the radical right soonest acquired the essential characteristics of fascism." Read Zeev Sternhell (1996)." Jensen, read a little further. Sternhell traces the ideological ancestry of French fascism on page 6: "That conflict did not go back only to the [[interwar period]]; it came into being with the appearance, at the end of the ninteenth century, of a radical, popular, and socialistically inclined right, which heraled the way for the fascism of the twenties and thirties. This pre-fascism (which ideologically was already a mature form of fascism) immediately clashed with the conservative right; their collaboration on specific issues for particular purposes cannot conceal their essential opposition. ... The traditional, liberal, and conventional right played the same role toward prefascism and then toward fascism itself that [[social democracy]] plays toward [[communism]] in times of extreme crisis." The writer traces French fascism's origin to [[Cercle Proudhon]], and from there to [[Charles Maurras]]' [[Maurrassisme]] and [[Georges Sorel]]'s [[Sorelianism]]. He also traces French fascism's origins further to [[Georges Ernest Boulanger]]'s Boulangisme (synonymous with [[Revanchism]]), and [[Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]]'s own anti-intellectualism and anti-romanticism, and his contempt for bourgeiois and liberal values, for democracy, and for [[liberalism]]. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 14:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

::What you are quoting neither supports definition as right wing, neither as ultranationalist. Read source that has 3 pages given for that one sentence, Paxton (2004), pp. 32, 45, 173. Not one page talks about fascist place on political spectrum, neither it calls it ultranationalist. In fact page 173 talks about neofascism and 1994? Sources given support populist, which is not in sentence for some reason?[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 14:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

:::Sternhell sees prefascism (sic) as a radical right, in opposition to a conservative right. Then traces its origins. It supports definition as right wing. I did not comment on ultranationalism, as I fail to see the difference between a nationalist movement and an ultranationalist movement. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 14:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

::::Pre-fascism or proto-fascism belong in [[Proto-fascism]] article. edit: Just reading literature on fascism that is quoted here and among literature is Sternhell. Sternhell, Neither Right nor Left: Fascist Ideology in France;. So what you are claiming is not true. [[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 15:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

:"nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." " [[Nationalism]] already has expansionist goals, and the ideology has been connected to many [[secession]] movements, campaigns for [[political union]], and [[irredentism]], since the late 18th and early 19th centuries. [[Expansionism]] and [[Expansionist nationalism]] are not somehow unique to fascism. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 14:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

::I didn't say it doesn't support nationalist, in fact my edit did indeed put that definition while removing ultranationalist which has no basis in sources.[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 14:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

:We cannot use Sternhell's book to arrive a different conclusions than he did. He calls inter-war fascism part of the Right. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 16:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree: Remove “radical right-wing”. That was not Benito Mussolini's (founder of the term) definition. Adding “right-wing” gives a false (political) implication and does injustice to an honest and fair education. [[User:CloudShy|CloudShy]] ([[User talk:CloudShy|talk]]) 14:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Facism is radical far left as it all hinges on government control. Giovanni Gentile is the father of fascism and was a devout socialist and Neo-Hegelist up until his founding of fascism. Gentile was a devout student of the ideologies of Marx and Hegel. [[User:Fascistslayer|Fascistslayer]] ([[User talk:Fascistslayer|talk]]) 17:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

:{{re|Fascistslayer}} sorry, but drop-in editors such as CloudShy who never edited again and you, although you might edit again, simply don't understand how Wikipedia works. How could you without more experience and knowledge of our policies and guidelines? Please also note that this is not a forum to discuss fascism - just the article. The mainstream consensus today is that fascism is far-right. [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 17:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

~~{{ref talk}}~~

~~=== break ===~~

::Whether or not “fascism” is or is not “right wing” may be debated, but that really isn’t the issue here. The real issue is that there seems to be a distinct and glaring double standard when it comes to comparing the political leanings of “fascism”, as to how it is worded within the article, to how other articles that could be considered “left wing” are written.

::Editor TFD states writes above “There are btw no far left fascists any more than there are far right communists”. This viewpoint basically concedes that communism is in and of itself a left wing viewpoint. So when you go to the communism page, if it were written like the fascism page, you would find “radical, left-wing” in the lead in paragraph, right?

::Non only is the term “left-wing” not found in the lead in, you won’t find that term on the “communism page” until you go deep into the page, under “Left communism”, roughly the 16th section of the page. The term can also be found buried even further within the page. Yet that is only the beginning of this double standard.

::So perhaps we can look at Marxism, another topic that is generally viewed as “left-wing”. Once again, the term “left-wing” is found buried on the page, in fact, not actually part of the page itself at all, at least, not as encyclopedic knowledge, it is only found under the categories at the very bottom. Again, this is not supportive of what is happening on the “fascism” page.

::Lets move on now to “socialism”. The term left-wing is in fact mentioned 13 times total (9 times within the content of the article), and it is doubtful that anyone would argue that socialism is NOT left-wing. But even for socialism, you won’t find the term “left-wing” mentioned until deep within the page, no where near the lead in paragraph.

::The most telling fact of all about this entire discussion is the fact that Antifa, or “anti-fascism”, is the opposite of “fascism” by the very virtue of the name itself. Yet on the “anti-fascism” page, yet again, you won’t find “left-wing” until you go deep into the page, buried in the second to last paragraph discussing only one aspect of the anti-fascist movement.

::But within the “anti-fascism” page you find statements that admit to the idea of anti-fascism having held many different political positions over the years, right in the lead in, quote “holding many different political positions, including social democratic, nationalist, liberal, conservative, communist, Marxist, trade unionist, anarchist, socialist, pacifist and centrist viewpoints.”

::The obvious question then is this: If those fighting fascism come from so many different political philosophies, then how in good conscience can editors on the fascism page pigeon-hole the ideology of fascism into strictly “right wing”? Is the anti-fascism page, with all of its sources, completely wrong in the description of who all has fought fascism over the years? Or, more likely, are the editors on this page, the fascism page, putting on blinders and tunnel visioning the idea that fascism can “only be right wing” based on the very narrow viewpoints of the editors themselves and a few choice sources that back their own political ideology?

::You can’t have it both ways. Either the “anti-fascist” page has to be wrong, or the “fascism” page is wrong. Please explain, and don’t use the cop-out “well, I didn’t write that page” excuse either. Both pages exist on one platform, Wikipedia, meaning they should match. I for one am against labeling any wide range ideology as “left” or “right” within the lead paragraph due to the complexities inherent to each ideology. This needs to be fixed. It looks very foolish, to be perfectly blunt.[[User:RTShadow|RTShadow]] ([[User talk:RTShadow|talk]]) 21:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

:::[[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] Please take your argument about other pages to those pages as it really isn't the same thing. Language is not that simplistic. Fascism and anti-fascist are not necessarily polar opposites. Communism and fascism are not polar opposites. We must look at reliable sources separately in each case. In a simplistic view this may seem contradictory. But, we are not here to perform original research. We just document RS. [[User:Objective3000|O3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 21:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

::::I agree with Objective3000. Wiki editors are responding to the needs of our readers. In recent years the world has seen a resurgence in many countries of far right wing and neo-fascist politics. (there is far less activity on the far left) Some readers get mixed up so the editors try to help them out by explaining that the reliable sources RS consider fascism on the far right. The job of Wiki editors is to report what the RS say. The articles on left wing topics don't seem to have similar problems so a similar solution is not needed there. [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen|talk]]) 21:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

::::Your WP claim is wrong. I specifically stated I do NOT want those pages changed, I have provided those pages as evidence that THIS page is not correct in the presumptions. Also, you did not have an issue with communism being brought into the discussion above, my friend, until such time as the topic did not agree with your viewpoint? “Fascism and anti-fascist are not necessarily polar opposites” would you like to explain, because your statement is contradictory to common sense, to be perfectly honest. Do not use WP incorrectly to attempt to discredit a user simply because you disagree with their viewpoint. Everything I have discussed is in fact valid. I am not asking for changes to other pages, I am using those other pages as evidence that the “Fascism” page itself is not correct and should be changed. You are attempting to use a WP as a weapon to discredit a response because you don’t agree with the viewpoint.[[User:RTShadow|RTShadow]] ([[User talk:RTShadow|talk]]) 21:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

~~:::::Sorry, I honestly don’t know what you are talking about, and you have no idea what my "viewpoint" is. [[User:Objective3000|O3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 21:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)~~

:::"the idea of anti-fascism having held many different political positions over the years" I think this is a situation fitting the old adage "war makes strange bedfellows". People from otherwise different political schools of thought may align against fascism, because they view it as a mutual threat or because their ideologies are essentially opposed to one or more of fascism's aspects. For example, Italian fascism's restrictions or outright banning of "pornography, most forms of birth control and contraceptive devices (with the exception of the condom), homosexuality and prostitution" is not viewed positively by [[freedom of speech]] activists, [[abortion-rights movements]], [[LGBT social movements]], and [[sex workers' rights]] activists. Movements which are not usually allied to each other will still be unlikely to favor fascism's return to power. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 22:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

:::[[User:RTShadow|RTShadow]], that's a good point but there is a good answer. In the 1970s olitical scientists identified major "ideological families" of parties, which included communists, socialists, greens, liberals, Christian democrats, conservatives and "extreme right" parties. This last category presented difficulty, because unlike all the other families, its members did not necessarily have a shared history, literature or self-identification. Since then a new family has emerged, combining post-Communists, Trotskyists and left-wing social democrats and this political family is variously known as left, far left or radical left parties. The articles on these parties do in fact refer to their categorization. See for example, [[Syriza]] ("coalition of left-wing and radical left parties") or [[Podemos (Spanish political party)|Podemos]] ("left-wing populist party"). [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 23:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

::::None of that matters - we go by the prevailing view in RS and that happens to be that it cannot be easily defined - and the reason for that is because it has so many different meanings. To say it any other way is POV and noncompliant with NPOV. [[User:Atsme|Atsme]] [[User talk:Atsme|Talk]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 23:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

::::Look, it's as simple as this. No. We are not going to obfuscate what fascism is. And we get somebody new asking us to do that once a week or so which is why we have the big warning box up at the top of the page. It's frankly exhausting having to go over and over and over this. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 23:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

:::::If it were as simple as what you say, the article would be stable but it's not, and the reason it's not is because it's not accurate. [[User:Atsme|Atsme]] [[User talk:Atsme|Talk]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 23:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

:::::: {{ec}} False. It's not stable because Conservatives generally don't like fascism being put into their tent and, based on the spurious logic of people like Dinesh D'Sousa have desperately tried to pass the buck for fascism to its most strident opponents. But muddying the waters doesn't change the fact that top-tier sources, and reality, concur - fascism is a far-right political ideology. It is. It just is. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 23:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

::::::: That is not a valid argument. <ref>https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/115/Just-Because-Fallacy</ref> — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gointomexico|Gointomexico]] ([[User talk:Gointomexico#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gointomexico|contribs]]) 22:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

::::::There is a lot of discussion in right-wing blogs claiming fascism is left-wing. But if we were to give credence to their views we would have re-write articles on evolution, global warming, the moon-landing, water fluoridation, vaccines, the holocaust etc. etc. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 23:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

::::::::I can't believe you said that, TFD...😳 [[User:Atsme|Atsme]] [[User talk:Atsme|Talk]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 00:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

~~:::::::::Don't be. The reason I am familiar with them is my interest in extreme right politics. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 04:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)~~

:::::::Yes, we have this discussion over and over. It always ends the same way. RS state fascism is right wing. We follow RS. [[User:Objective3000|O3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 00:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

::::::::Frankly, if you are looking for doughnut theory to be included in the lede on fascism, [http://twitter.com the website for that idea is not Wikipedia.] [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 00:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

{{out}}I was alerted to this conversation by the OP. Those touting the "It's right wing and no one who's anyone disagrees" need to cite sources. We had a "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fascism/Archive_48#Discussion_2 Request for Comment (RfC)]" asking whether sources support the change made to WP's definition of ''Fascism'', and the result was a '''weak consensus'''. Changing the definition of a term in the encyclopedia should have the type of consensus editors are claiming this has - but it does not. In fact, of the main sources, only Oxford and Wikipedia call "fascism" right wing. Prior to the RfC, our own article [[Definitions of Fascism]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Definitions_of_fascism&oldid=882503248 had] a Lede section that read:

:What constitutes a definition of fascism and fascist governments has been a '''complicated and highly disputed''' subject concerning the exact nature of fascism and its core tenets debated amongst historians, political scientists, and other scholars since Benito Mussolini first used the term in 1915.

:A significant number of scholars agree that a "fascist regime" is foremost an authoritarian form of government, although not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. Authoritarianism is thus a defining characteristic, but most scholars will say that more distinguishing traits are needed to make an authoritarian regime fascist.

:Similarly, fascism as an ideology is also '''hard to define'''. Originally, it referred to a totalitarian political movement linked with corporatism which existed in Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. Many scholars use the word "fascism" without capitalization in a more general sense, to refer to an ideology (or group of ideologies) which was influential in many countries at many different times. For this purpose, they have sought to identify what Roger Griffin calls a "fascist minimum"—that is, the minimum conditions that a certain political movement must meet in order to be considered "fascist". '''According to most scholars of fascism, there are both left and right influences on fascism as a social movement, and fascism, especially once in power, has historically attacked both left, moderate right wing and the opposition in the radical right''' in order to maintain power.

~~Other sources that don't include "right wing" in their definitions are:~~

*[https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism Encyclopaedia Britannica]

*[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism Merriam Webster]

~~The Atlantic's take:~~

:[Fascism was the 3rd most-searched word on Merriam Dictionary in 2015], between socialism and racism, which is just where fascism began in the 1920s. Now, many political commentators, especially on the left, detect a fascist moment in the Western democracies. But is fascism an accurate heuristic for the populist movements in the United States and Europe that have arisen in recent years, or is invoking the term just a kneejerk way of condemning political opponents? And if it’s inaccurate, might the word still represent a useful case study on the debased value of political language?

:The problem, as they might say at Merriam-Webster, is in the definition. '''Scholars of fascism do not agree on what fascism means''' [https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/fascism-populism-presidential-election/510668/ The Elusive Definition of 'Fascist']

Thanks for the ping, '''[[User:Petrarchan47|petrarchan47]][[User talk:Petrarchan47|คุ]][[Special:Contributions/Petrarchan47|ก]]''' 20:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

::The Atlantic is not due any weight here. It's an opinion journal and Routledge is pretty damn clear on a definition. Does the OP care to [[WP:CANVAS]] anyone else? [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 21:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

:Indeed, there have been disputes about the definition of fascism. The only point of agreement among all scholars has been that it is far right. Similarly conservatism has been difficult to define. The only point of agreement is that it is on the right of the political spectrum. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 22:34, 20 June 2019 (UT

::I'm not an expert of the sources relative to this topic, I just see some logical flaws in this discussion. What perplexes me is that, even if everybody agreed that fascism is right-wing (and I firmly believe that it is), the question to answer should be the following: Should the adjective "right-wing" belong to the ''very first'' sentence of the lead, i.e. the definition of fascism as "a form of ultranationalism"? I feel like it's a bit like if in the definition of "Dolphin" we wrote "The dolphin is a ''grey'' aquatic mammal": of course everybody agrees that dolphins are grey but it sounds weird to specify ''that'' in the definition. In the case of fascism, I think its position on the right-wing must still be reported, maybe somewhere else in the lead section and/or in the rest of the article, but it could be moved out of the first sentence (and the short description) without a major loss of meaningfulness in the definition. Just my two cents. --[[User:Ritchie92|Ritchie92]] ([[User talk:Ritchie92|talk]]) 07:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

:::Well the usefulness of the [[political spectrum]] itself has been questioned before.: "[[Political science|Political scientists]] have frequently noted that a single left–right axis is insufficient for describing the existing variation in political beliefs and often include other axes. Though the descriptive words at polar opposites may vary, often in popular biaxial spectra the axes are split between socio-cultural issues and economic issues, each scaling from some form of [[individualism]] (or government for the freedom of the individual) to some form of [[communitarianism]] (or government for the welfare of the community)." [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 07:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

::::Regardless of whether political scientists see a left-to-right spectrum as overly-simplified, reliable scholarly sources refer to fascism as far-right. While noting their entryist tendencies and decoherent ideology is appropriate in the body of the article, the lede should summarize clearly. And that's what it does. Regardless of whether conservatives like the connotation that fascism is closer to them than other ideologies. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 11:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

:::::You continue to harp about fascism being "right wing" so that you can avoid the actual topic at hand: you are using a double standard to attach the political leanings of one page (fascism) while ignoring the fact that the same standards are not being used on communism, marxism, socialism (all left leaning, with nothing in the lead in paragraphs), and most notably, anti-fascism. It is one thing to state that it can be defined as right leaning, it is another thing entirely to place the term within the lead paragraph. That definitely implies that, outside of right wing mentality, fascism doesn't exist. Regardless of whether or not that is the intent, that is the appearance that is given. The term should be removed from the lead and discussed within the article, as is the standard on other politically volatile articles on Wikipedia. [[User:RTShadow|RTShadow]] ([[User talk:RTShadow|talk]]) 22:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

::::::As I explained about, it is not use who are doing this but reliable sources and there is actually a reason for it. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 01:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

:::::::Furthermore, per [[WP:OSE]] just because something is handled in a specific way on one page does not mean a similar situation must be handled in the same way on a different page. Unless you believe there's a specific MOS guideline this page is breaking, it's irrelevant what they do on pages about other political ideologies. I mean, just consider that [[Mass Killings Under Capitalist Regimes]] remains to be deemed non note-worthy. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

~~{{hat|[[WP:NOTFORUM]] digression and responses that boil down to no [[WP:OR]]}}~~

::::I concur with removal, as Fascism doesn't align particularly well with either ideology. To say that it aligns with a right wing philosophy is political attack. While this is fine normally, it makes Wikipedia look like they are using Orwellian tactics to pursue a singular ideology and impacting Wikipedia's general credibility. Post a link to Wikipedia on Twitter and see how that goes, and this is the source of my concern, credibility.

~~::::A simple though experiment can fully obliterate the argument that Fascism is a right wing ideology:~~

::::If conservatism is about the limited role of government (in the USA at least) then more right of conservatism is Libertarian. Somewhere to the right of that would be anarchy. None of these philosophies espouse control that is seen in Fascism, so to make a correlation to right wing philosophy is simply an attempt at political discourse instead of distribution of knowledge.

~~::::Ask yourself what is to the Right of Fascism? What ideology is to the left of Fascism? Nothing, it stands alone.~~

::::Others have made the argument that Fascism is a left wing Ideology, but I disagree. Fascism is so far out of the realm of logical political discourse that no ideology can contain it, nor should it. While true liberals in the US and other countries espoused Italian Fascism as the future of Liberal discourse, they eventually disassociated themselves from it. Putting on a spectrum is a logical fallacy.

::::The discourse on the page has descended general into one side arguing logically at times, while the other side is stubbornly refusing to listen to any form of discussion or logic by supporting their position without thought by quoting definitions from arcane dictionaries that noone trusts or believes, straw-men arguments (There are btw no far left fascists any more than there are far right communists) and general logic flaws (The ideological distance traveled from traditional conservatism to Nazism was sometimes small...). I can only assume that this is not what the Wikipedia organization is after, and you will make a decisive action to settle the situation by removing "Right Wing" association from the article. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gointomexico|Gointomexico]] ([[User talk:Gointomexico#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gointomexico|contribs]]) 21:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

:::::Yet more [[:WP:OR|original research]]. For the love of all that's human, could we please stop with such NOTHERE discussion and confine ourselves to what authorities on the subject (a.k.a. reliable sources) actually say? [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 21:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

::::::Facism is not a far right ideology, and grew out of or from communism/socialism. <ref>https://www.conservativedailynews.com/2015/08/fascism-is-far-left-not-far-right-on-political-spectrum/</ref> — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gointomexico|Gointomexico]] ([[User talk:Gointomexico#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gointomexico|contribs]]) 23:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

:::::::Please read [[WP:SOURCETYPES]] and note the preference for ''scholarly'' sources ([[WP:NEWSORG]] might also help). The source you cite in your comment is not a reliable source. It's not scholarly; it's clearly marked as an opinion piece, and the author is not an expert--He has a BA and works in finance.--[[User:MattMauler|MattMauler]] ([[User talk:MattMauler|talk]]) 23:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

:::::It would be easy to give a point by point rebuttal, but in the end we have to present the conclusions found in reliable sources, not our own, per [[WP:SYN|no synthesis]]. Please understand however, that I have read all your arguments before. They originally appeared in [[Cleon Skousen]]'s article for the [[John Birch Society]], "What is Left? What is Right?" In it, he explains how the French revolution was a right-wing revolution against the left-wing monarchy. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 22:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

~~We go with what RS say, and stop trying to bludgeon your way though.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 16:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)~~

~~{{hab}}~~

~~{{ref talk}}~~

Fascism doesn't represent a side of politics. It's neutral, the use of fascism is widespread. If you want the proper definition go to Webster's Dictionary. [[User:TheSleep13|TheSleep13]] ([[User talk:TheSleep13|talk]]) 18:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

::This page and talk section are truly a definitive example of what is wrong with Wikipedia. This idea that there is some "general consensus and therefore we will NOT change anything" is appalling. Obviously the amount of discussion regarding this topic shows that there is no general consensus. No one answered any of my questions regarding the placement of "right wing". Might I ask another? Can you provide me with ONE major page, just one, that uses the term "left-wing" within the lead paragraph? I looked myself, I can't find any. The answer "the way other pages are done does not define this page" is like turning and facing the wall in denial, nose in the air. If a multitude of similar pages that discuss ideologies are provided in which the same format is not being used, why then is it okay for this page? You've allowed your personal left-wing bias to cloud your judgment. And before you accuse me of the same, albeit the other side of the political aisle, remember, I'm asking for a fair approach to this article in comparison with every article I can find that would be thought of by the average person as "left-wing".[[User:RTShadow|RTShadow]] ([[User talk:RTShadow|talk]]) 04:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

== Fascism definition ==