Talk:Fascism/Archive 29

Problems with some recent POV insertions (take 2)
Please keep commentary in this section ON-TOPIC.

Recently, a couple of pieces of fairly POV material have been inserted without mention on the Talk page. We are in the midst of a long-running debate on how to reflect controversial or minority views on Fascism. There are a number of problems with the material that was added. Here are the sentences in question:

1st: "Thus it is not surprising that most fascist intellectuals started out as Marxists."

2nd: "Most scholars see the extremist Rousseauian aspects of the French Revolution's Reign of Terror as a precursor to Fascism."

This raises a number of serious problems:


 * (1) Inserting POV material without discussion, in the midst of a long-running debate on how to reflect minority or dissenting views, is not conducive to consensus-building.
 * (2) Both assertions are sourced to a single, highly controversial book, whose author is regarded as a controversial scholar on Fascism due to perceptions that he sympathized with Italian Fascism, or was an apologist for it.
 * (3) Not only that, but they both cite the introduction to the book, written by another scholar who is regarded as controversial, who even acknowledges in the introduction that the views of Felice's being described have been controversial.
 * (4) Not only that, but the author of the introduction also notes that Felice saw the link between Fascism and Western radical tradition as spurious. Generally speaking, this means "false" or "incorrect".
 * (5) It is highly questionable whether the introduction, itself written by a controversial scholar, to a controversial book, written by a controversial scholar, is acceptable as a source for a statement of fact such as "most fascist intellectuals started out as Marxists."

Then, we have some serious procedural problems with the way Mamalujo has presented the material:


 * (6) It is weasel-worded. "Thus it is not surprising..." Highly POV-pushing. Additionally, the assertion about the link to Rousseau is made into a one sentence paragraph, at the close of a section that only has one other paragraph.. thus appearing to give it even more weight. Indeed, if we represent Felice/Leeden's views at all, it may be wise to attribute them directly in the text to avoid UNDUE.
 * (7) The assertion "Most scholars see the extremist Rousseauian aspects of the French Revolution's Reign of Terror as a precursor to Fascism." is a major distortion of what the source (the introduction to De Felice's book) says. The introduction by Leeden actually says that most scholars of fascism would agree that fascism contains both a well-defined theory of human progress and a conception of the popular will that ties it to the extremist Rousseauian themes of the Terror. So, not only is this supposed "consensus" not quite what Mamalujo is presenting it as, it's only a hypothetical consensus that the author of the introduction is saying probably exists, and ultimately it's doubtful that this one controversial introduction to a controversial book is an acceptable source for a claim of widespread scholarly consensus. Nor is it clear that Ledeen is actually saying mosts scholars of fascism would agree explicitly with the link to Rousseau, rather than the "theory of human progress and... conception of the popular will".

So, in a nutshell, we have the following problems:

Inappropriate timing to insert POV claims, during the midst of debate; questionable sourcing; serious misrepresentation of the questionable source; and weasel-wording.

My request is that Mamalujo (and anyone else) avoid making such POV, politically charged analysis while we are having this discussion about how to represent dissenting views; and take considerably more care in selecting sources and then accurately reflecting exactly what they say rather than distorting them to make them fit better with a particular viewpoint. In the meantime, I have removed these assertions from the article entirely. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue is with one source? Why not post to RS/N on that single source then, asking whether it meets WP standards? Collect (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, that's not it at all. Re-read. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I did. Both assertions are sourced to a single, highly controversial book, whose author is regarded as a controversial scholar on Fascism due to perceptions that he sympathized with Italian Fascism, or was an apologist for it. appears to question whether the book can be used as an RS at all.


 * (3) Not only that, but they both cite the introduction to the book, written by another scholar who is regarded as controversial, who even acknowledges in the introduction that the views of Felice's being described have been controversial. appears to question whether an introduction to an RS book (positing that the objections are taken in order) is still RS.


 * (4) Not only that, but the author of the introduction also notes that Felice saw the link between Fascism and Western radical tradition as spurious. Generally speaking, this means "false" or "incorrect". Which is not an RS issue but one of definitions.  Certainly discussable here.


 * (5) It is highly questionable whether the introduction, itself written by a controversial scholar, to a controversial book, written by a controversial scholar, is acceptable as a source for a statement of fact such as "most fascist intellectuals started out as Marxists." goes right back to the first issue -- if a book is RS, then it is citable in WP at face value.  Sum of all this is that your primary place to ask is at RS/N. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * But Factchecker seems to be arguing that it may not be such an RS. RS/N is a secondary place. The primary place to discuss it is here, until such time as no clear conclusion can be reached. An RS is citable, but it doesn't follow that it must be cited. --FormerIP (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:PRESERVE actually applies here (as it rarely does). If the material is from an RS, and it represents a salient point of view, as it appears to, then it should be represented in the article. Thus the proper issue it -- is the source a "reliable source" for WP?  And that should either use a Request for Comment here, or a listing at RS/N.    Collect (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that RS/N is premature. We should work toward consensus first.  The Four Deuces (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would be premature, but it would also be a side issue. Mamalujo's edit was "Thus it is not surprising that most fascist intellectuals started out as Marxists" (my emphasis). Could there be a clearer case of breaching NPOV? There's nothing to discuss, IMO. --FormerIP (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the precise language of the section from the source being used? It would help to see the precise language at issue from the source. Thanks! Collect (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Collect,

When I asked you to re-read my very clearly worded explanation, I was hoping that you would not completely ignore/ completely fail to understand the more serious problems with the edit, which I carefully spelled out in detail. As it turns out, you seem to have obsessively focused on a single, less serious, objection, and now you are acting as if that was the only point I raised. Even though I specifically asked you to re-read what I said, you still ignored the central points.

So anyway, to summarize my clearly worded explanation, which absolutely should not need further clarification to an editor who reads and understands English: the main problems with the edit, besides the sourcing questions, are that they are both SYN/OR which substantially distort the source material. The problems with weasel wording and the insertion POV-pushing material in the midst of a pertinent debate, like the questions regarding whether the source is appropriate, are entirely moot, despite being quite serious. In other words, there is no way the edits could stand regardless of sourcing questions. Hope this helps, but FYI it gets quite cumbersome having to explain things multiple times even when the original explanation was perfectly clear. I should not have had to comment again after asking you to re-read the original post. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am earnestly trying to deal with WP policies and if that is "obsessive" so be it. You aver that the source material is distorted -- 'which is why I asked for the text of the source material to be placed on the talk page.'  All material which has opinions in it is "POV" pretty much by definition -- WP does not say "do not list any POV stuff" it says we should take vcare to balance POVs.   ASbsent placing the text before us, it is hard for anyone to determine preciely what distortion is alleged. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if you ever read what I write, before you concoct your response. I didn't say there was anything obsessive about focusing on Wikipedia policies; I pointed out, rather, that you obsessively and persistently ignored the substance of what I was saying, instead choosing to quibble about an ancillary detail which was, as I said, moot. Additionally, I didn't say the edits were "POV" – I said "POV-pushing". Surely you recognize the difference. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Collect, how can you dispute that the source material is distorted when you have not in fact read the source material? Factchecker, as the disputed material has been deleted and Mamalujo has not responded, perhaps we should return to discussion of the intro paragraph.  The Four Deuces (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Deuces, if you have some idea of how we could proceed with a productive discussion on this talk page, I'm all ears. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am asking as many others may be reading this colloquy. Where something is disputed as being "distorted" it is quite normal for the material to be placed in the talk page so that all will know precisely what material each editor is using for claims. Otherwise, I could never be sure that any two editors were looking at precisely the same material. Is there any real reason not to post the text you aver is distorted? Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since it is no longer part of the article, any further discussion serves no purpose. It appears now that no one wants the material re-inserted.  If someone wants to explain why it should be included then that is up to them to argue their point.  The Four Deuces (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * IIRC, the discussion was initated by you. If yo wish to not have a discussion you started, fine, but inferring anything more is not tenable. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Collect, I have already considerably surpassed my obligation in explaining, quite thoroughly, what the problem was with those edits. I could have simply reverted them with minimal comment. A simple and expected use of the edit history will answer any questions you may have about the source text – I'm not going to sit and re-type pages from a book in PDF format that's already readily available for you to read. In short: if you feel you have any salient point to make, make it. Beyond that, I will not waste more of my Saturday with your filibustering. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Try not accusing those who ask for information of "filibustering" -- counting lines on this page, you account for more than twice as many lines as I -- which might seem to indicate where prolixity lies.  You make assertions and use the assertions as proof of your assertions . All I asked for was actual text that you dispute -- surely a reasonable point of view. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you have time to count the number of lines we've posted on the talk page, but can't be bothered to take a simple trip to the edit history. Anyhoo, you can divide the number of lines I have posted on the talk page by TWO, since I spend about half of my time repeating things which you have characteristically refused to understand, or worse, things which you have proactively distorted into a straw man ready to be knocked down. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Four Deuces. The reasons for deleting the material have been stated and no-one is trying to re-introduce it, so let's move on. --FormerIP (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could start a new section. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Political spectrum: seven statements
Please comment on the following statements which could be put together to form a lead paragraph.

Please add, with sources, any additional statments which you would like to suggest.

One
Specialists on the subject normally describe fascism as extreme right.

Source:
 * Agree but it would be helpful if some reasons could be found. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn described why the Nazis were considered right-wing (which bothered him as an ultra-reactionary) in his book Leftism Revisited and mentioned that they sat on the far right in the Reichstag.  The Four Deuces (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope. No source provided makes that specific statement at all. Collect (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you explain how you think the source fails to make the statement? It's almost exactly the same wording. --FormerIP (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I had not seen the precise claim made in any source so far provided -- asking me how a non-existent source fails to do something is tenuous at best. Note the compromise I had suggested above -- that it was generally placed on the right.  No assertion of "specialists" is needed here at all. Collect (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The source is linked to just above, next to the word "Source".
 * It says: "Most attempts to produce a generic definition of fascist ideology have been linked to a particular conception of where fascism stands on the left-right spectrum. It is normally seen as extreme-right...". If you don't think this is an acceptable source, could you explain why? --FormerIP (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Non-existent source?" Is it too much to ask that you pay attention, or have we blown right by WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and entered the realm of WP:ICANTSEETHAT? Recent discussions would indicate the answer is Yes. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Simple -- "Specialists" is not found within a mile of the quote. Collect (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Any suggested alternative? It's pretty clear that the reference is talking about scholars – historians, political scientists, or otherwise – as ordinary people don't sit around attempting to formulate a "generic definition of fascist ideology". At the same time I wouldn't particularly object to simply saying that fascism is normally seen as right-wing by people in general (i.e., including both academics and laypeople) – because that's true. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This shouldn't be the first sentence and it shouldn't say specialists. Also, there is no mention of consensus view that fascism was also influenced by the left. -- Vision Thing -- 21:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What about statement four, below? --FormerIP (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and if you don't think it should say "specialists", what do you propose instead? --FormerIP (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer "It is normally seen/described...". "A number of writers" is not the same as "consensus" or "normally". -- Vision Thing -- 21:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't object to something along the lines of "it is normally...", but editors have previously raised the objection that it is important to say who exactly is of the view described. It would be disingenous to claim that Eatwell is unclear on this point, so I think the best thing would be come up with wording that will satisfy both the objection that we need to include a "who" and the objection that "specialists" may not be the right word (although, I must say, "specialists" is the most apt word I can think of).
 * I don't get your reference to "a number of writers". Both the statement and the source use "normally". --FormerIP (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is response to your question about statement four. -- Vision Thing -- 08:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Two
However, placing fascism on the political spectrum has often been considered complex, and there exist a number of alternative views.

Source:
 * Agree. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "However" is a weasel word. And it should be made clear that not only are there differing views about specific groups of fascists, but also that there are views that linear political spectrums in general fo not fit this issue. Collect (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you explain how you think "however" fits the definition of a weasal word in this case? Can you provide a source for the existence of views that that "political spectrums in general do not fit this issue"? --FormerIP (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have given a slew in the past ... and see WP:WTA.  Collect (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Schlesinger reference did substantiate the existence of views that using a linear political spectrum to analyze fascism does pose problems. I am having trouble seeing "however" as a weasel word in this case, however. We have to use some word to differentiate dissenting views from the mainstream, or, rather, to set the stage for explaining them in the first place. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see where the source says "complex" or anything like it. -- Vision Thing -- 21:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We could go, more simply, for "there exist a number of alternative views". --FormerIP (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Three
Fascism has been seen as a centrist movement of the middle class.

Source:
 * Agree, but perhaps it should be mentioned near the end of the paragraph because it is a lesser known analysis. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually too simplistic per the sources discussing this view -- unless in conjunction with non-linear views of the political spectrum. Collect (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you explain why you think it is too simplistic? --FormerIP (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps because Fascist movements did not necessarily draw on the "middle class" for their primary support -- vide Germany and Italy. Collect (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are right about this, but the thing is that the source disagrees. --FormerIP (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In which case, the claim should be sttributed to one source, and a more general statement also made covering the other sources using the word "centrist", "centre" or the like. Collect (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay so would you be happy with "Seymour Lipsett sees fascism as a centrist movement of the middle class"? --FormerIP (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No weight is given to this view. Sentence that would replace "centrist" with "left-wing" or "right-wing" would be equally true. -- Vision Thing -- 21:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Except they wouldn't be sourced. --FormerIP (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * True, but my point is that simply saying "Fascism has been seen as a centrist movement" doesn't give much information to the reader about how widespread is this view. -- Vision Thing -- 08:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Four
A number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.

Source:
 * Agree. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Some" is more accurate than "a number of" in any case. And if we use "specialists" before, we should use "specialists" here as well.  I do not really know what makes some "speciailists" and others "writers". Collect (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Some would be okay by me, but the same word is already in the sentence, so it does raise a style issue. "Specialists" occurs in the first statement as a result of previous discussions where "acadmics" was not liked. What are you suggesting? "Writers" in bothe cases? "Specialists" in both cases? --FormerIP (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not think that where contentious claims are made that distinctions should be made implicitly between classes of authorities and RS authors. Either all are experts, or none are. Collect (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the source p. 71 or some other page? I can't find anything on p. 71 that supports this. I would prefer if you would also quote the text that supports your statements. -- Vision Thing -- 21:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The source is p165. I'm not particularly attached to it - it was originally put forward by another editor. Perhaps you think it is not a good source. Do you have a better one?
 * I'd be happy to abandon this statement in favour of something similar to your statement ten. --FormerIP (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. -- Vision Thing -- 08:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Five
Roger Eatwell sees fascism as primarily syncretic and best considered apart from the conventional left-right framework.

Source:


 * Was Eatwell talking about fascist ideology or fascist government? I know that he refers to neo-fascists as right-wing.  The Four Deuces (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Syncretic"? Can we use English? And with a significant number of experts didliking the linear spectrum, we need not just deal with Eatwell in any case. Collect (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Syncretic is good English. Eatwell is not distinguished by his "disliking the linear spectrum", but by proposing a syncretic model. As far as I'm aware, he is the only source to do that. --FormerIP (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually mainly used in grammar AFAICT ... why not have him say that fascism fuses disparate groups? Which is pretty much what he says. And a lot easier to grasp. Collect (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * But it isn't actually what he says. Syncretic is a technical term with a specific meaning. If you can think of a short alternative way of expressing the same thing, then we can use that, but personally I doubt it will be possible. We can wikilink the word for the benefit of people who might not have come acrcross it before. --FormerIP (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No individuals should be mentioned by name in the lead per undue weight. -- Vision Thing -- 21:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually Eatwell does not use "syncretic" as an adjective for Fascism, for as part of "spectral syncretic" meaning his approach to fusing views of the political spectrum. At no point does he use "syncretic" to indicate what Fascism is. Collect (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the title of Eatwell's essay includes the word "syncretic" and he summarises his approach as "seeing facsism as a spectral-syncretic ideology". This does not exactly mean "fusing views". --FormerIP (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * He says he uses a "spectral syncretist approach" which is far different from the apparent claim being made. His conclusion is clearly that Fascism has the property values of the right, and welfarism of the left -- shall we make sure that is mentioned?  Surely more accurate than "syncretic" is. Collect (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you able to pinpoint where he makes that characterisation? --FormerIP (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Try page 80 for one example. Collect (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Collect's statement "that Fascism has the property values of the right, and welfarism of the left" is an incorrect characterization of the source. Eatwell wrote "between private property relations more typical of the right and a form of welfarism more typical of the left".  It is not saying that welfarism is left-wing or that fascism took its welfare policies from the Left.  It is more likely that they were copying the advanced welfare system pioneered by Germany's Conservatives.  The Four Deuces (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's also part of a much longer list, and I don't think there's good reason to highlight just that bit. Perhaps the whole thing is too long to relate it all, but thing we should attempt to summarise, rather than selecting a personal hightlight.--FormerIP (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Six
Fascism is usually differentiated from right-wing conservatism by reference to its radicalism and emphasis on popular engagement, as contrasted with conservative traditionalism and elitism.

Source:


 * I think it is more accurate to say that it differs both from traditional conservatism and the reactionary Right. Right-wing conservatism seems inexact.  The Four Deuces (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? Why not say "Fascism is not the same as traditional conservatism" as it is made clear that it opposes traditional conservatism. If you wish "right wing" simply say "Fascism is distinct from all other right wing groups" and be done with it.  BTW, Mussolini was quite "elitist" in many respects. Collect (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it not better that the statement includes an explanation as to why? --FormerIP (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope. All we add is SYN and OR at that point. It is sufficient to say that it is not the same as other right wing groups.  Collect (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't OR, becuse it is directly from a source. --FormerIP (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a snippet from a long essay which includes wondrously contradictory statements as well. The source deals with the BUF specifically, and does not attempt to make overreaching generalisms about Fascism.   Indeed, the source says Fascism has the "dubious distinction of having been more widely defined than any other ideology" etc.  And "elitism" is not near the rest of that discussion in the source.  Why not say Fascism is not a "generic phenomenon" and that it has "diverse and often contradictory elements"  which is clearly supported by the source cited?   Collect (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This doesn't belong to the lead of this section. Differences with other ideologies should be discussed in the preceding section. -- Vision Thing -- 21:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Seven
Many political scientists have posited multi-dimensional alternatives to the traditional linear left-right spectrum.

Source:

Comment: This is currently in the body of the section. I am very much opposed to promoting it into the first paragraph because it is of such marginal interest.

--FormerIP (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with IP. People who create models typically place a variety of ideologies in their spectra, including fascism.  However they usually make no distinction between right-wing authoritarianism and fascism.  As for the spectra that use an economic left-right axis, it makes no sense to apply it to an earlier time period.  Unless there is some study that has attempted to apply modern spectra to fascism, it should only receive a brief mention at the end of the section.  The Four Deuces (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If it is accurate (as it surely appears to be) then it is proper for the start of the section. (though "and non-linear" would appear an apt addition. And "proposed" is easier to read than "posited" no? Collect (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "If it is accurate...then it is proper for the start of the section" - please explain your reasoning. --FormerIP (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The aim appears to be to give an overview of the section. If so, then each part of the section ought to be represented in it. Eliding what is actually a major issue would disserve the readers. Collect (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that isn't the aim at all. You seem confused again about the difference between this and a WP:LEAD. --FormerIP (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have far too many classes in writing, I suppose. If we are summarizing the remainder of a section, we ought to do so fully and accurately. Anything less is a disservice to the reader. Collect (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A summary necessarily leaves some detail out – that's an intrinsic part of its usefulness as a summary. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Leaving out that which you happen to disagree with is not a valid summary . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs)
 * No personal attacks, please. If you can't rebut it, shut it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but I don't think either I or Factchecker actually disagree with the statement, we just don't think it is important enough to mention. Which is a legitimate reason to leave it out. --FormerIP (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Something like this should be included in the lead but I prefer other versions. -- Vision Thing -- 21:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Eight
Most analysts have found it difficult to determine place of fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum.

Source: "The dispute amongst historians concerning fascism's 'negative' or 'positive' nature overlaps with another contentious area of scholarship, the question of whether fascism was an ideology of the right, left, or centre." Thomas P. Linehan. British fascism. Manchester University Press. 2000. p. 6 "A central feature of fascism that most analysts have found difficult to come to grips with is its fusion of socialist and nationalist ideas. As a result fascism has not been easy to place on a conventional left-right continuum." Stephen P. Turner, Dirk Käsler. Sociology Responds to Fascism. Routledge. 2004, p. 222 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vision Thing (talk • contribs)


 * Neither of the sources support the statement. Linehan calls the issue "contentious". I don't think anyone disputes this basic proposition, but it doesn't support "most analysts have found it difficult".
 * Turner does not make a direct connection between "most analysts" and "not been easy", and he is talking, in any event, only about British sociologists of the 1930s. It is also clear from the surrounding passages that he is of the view that the exercise was "difficult" but that it was usually achieved.
 * As per the previous "unabomber" discussion, it would be misleading to say "found it difficult" without also clarifying with something along the lines that it was "invariably accomplished". --FormerIP (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What if we combine it with sentence #9? It would look like this: "Specialists on the subject have found it difficult to determine place of fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum, although it is normally described as "extreme right"." -- Vision Thing -- 08:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There might be some milage in that.
 * First point I would make is minor. The use of the word "although" makes it come across as if the specialists are a bit thick ("They found it difficult, yet it was staring them in the face all the time!"). So I would prefer something else. "But", for example.
 * That aside, it seems there are two things that are disputed.
 * Firstly the order - I want "normal" first, you want "difficult" first.
 * Secondly the wording "difficult" versus "complex". You will say complex is unsourced. I will reply that the word itself doesn't need to be sourced, since the source does support its meaning. You will point out that "difficult" appears in a source, bur I will claim the word is misleading and only used in any case in relation to British sociologists of the 1930s.


 * What say we cut a deal?
 * Here are two versions of a first sentence. Each one gives a prize to both sides of the discussion...


 * 1) Specialists on the subject have often found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum complex, but it is normally described as "extreme right".


 * 2) Specialists on the subject normally describe fascism as "extreme right", although they have often found difficulty in placing it on a conventional left-right political spectrum.


 * I'm willing to let you pick either one of those two. I can only make this offer on behalf of myself, not other editors, obviously. Of course, you're not obliged to go for either, and you may have other comments.
 * NB: I've added the word other, since otherwise I think it reads like it is talking about a single instance where a given group of specialists encountered said difficulty. I've also used "although" in the second version, since the problem I talked about above does not arise. Think "found difficulty in" is slightly more elegant that "found it dificult".
 * Go on, pick one...--FormerIP (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I prefer first version. Wow, I believe we have an agreement. -- Vision Thing -- 08:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hurrah!
 * Think that means the discussions about statements one, two and nine are redundant, so I've closed those sections. --FormerIP (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Nine
It is normally described as "extreme right" although such terminology is often used erratically.

Source: "It is normally seen as 'extreme right', though right-wing terminology is often used erratically" Roger Eatwell. A spectralsyncretic approach to fascism. The fascism reader. Routledge. 2003. p. 79


 * This just adds extra wording to statement one, above. In your version "such terminology is often used erratically" needs explaining, because it is far from clear what it is supposed to mean. What Eatwell means is that terms such as "far right", "radical right" etc are also used. My original propsal covered this, but other editors objected that this additional information was unnecessary. --FormerIP (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ten
Scholarly consensus is that fascism was influenced by both left and right.

Source: "The broad area of scholarly consensus which now exists, admittedly one with highly fuzzy boundaries, is that: fascism [...] has drawn on a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right". Roger Griffin. Che cos'è il fascismo? Interpretazioni e prospettive di ricerche, Ideazione editrice, Roma, 2003, pp. 97-122. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vision Thing (talk • contribs)


 * I'd be happy to use this as a more properly sourced alternative to my own statement four. --FormerIP (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Eleven
A (good) number of historians see fascism as a mixture of left and right or as a neither left nor right.

Source: "While very few historians place Nazism unambiguously on the left, the progressive end of the spectrum, a good number regard fascism as a mixture of left and right or a movement that is "neither left nor right."" Roderick Stackelberg. Hitler's Germany. Routledge. 1999. p. 3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vision Thing (talk • contribs)


 * I don't have access to Stackelberg - would you be able to cut 'n' paste the surrounding passages to my talk page? I think it is important to make some attempt to quantify "a good number", if possible. Otherwise, I would settle for "some".
 * It seems to me to be cherry-picking to not also inlcude the "very few" part. --FormerIP (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See if you can access this. -- Vision Thing -- 09:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you know what the footnote (4) says - it's on a restricted page for me. Thinking it might throw some light on "a good number". --FormerIP (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * He just notes that "neither left nor right" is the title of Sternhell's book. I think this proposal is better that #3 simply because we have a source that determines how widespread is this view. It is not very precise (a good number) but it is better than nothing. Another source that supports this is Eatwell who presents similar wording ("others have seen fascism as 'neither left nor right', as a doctrine of the 'revolutionary centre'"). -- Vision Thing -- 08:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Here we have a further point of ambiguity, though. Does "neither right nor left" mean "centre" (per Eatwell) or does it mean "off-spectrum" or something similar (I would suggest that some people will read it that way)?
 * If it means "centre", then we could look at combining this statement with "three" above. If it means "off-spectrum", then we need a source to refer to that is clear on the matter. If it sometimes means one thing and sometimes another, then we need a way of distinguishing. --FormerIP (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If it always or mostly means "centre" (although I am not personally sure about this), then we could have something like:
 * A number of historians regard fascism as a middle-class, centrist doctrine which is "neither left nor right" (optional: or a mixture of the two).
 * Citing Lipset and Eatwell. --FormerIP (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We can use all three sources (Eatwell, Lipset and Stackelberg). I think that "centrist doctrine" should be qualified as "radical", "extremist" or "revolutionary" and I'm not sure that "middle-class" should be mentioned because it seems out of place. So how about: "A number of historians regard fascism as a revolutionary centrist doctrine or a mixture of left or right"? -- Vision Thing -- 14:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with "revolutionary" and I can live without "middle class" (although with a little hesitation - Lipset seems to see this bit as extremely important. I would like to make a minor change to the ending so it explains a little more.
 * Your version reads like there is one grouping that says fascism is centrist and one that says it is a mixture of right and left. I think, however, that it is more the case that there is a grouping who see it as a mixture, some of whom see it as right and some of whom see it as centrist in the final analysis. Some may also see it as "a mixture of right and left and that's that".
 * How all that can be captured, I'm not sure. I think "and/or" may be the way to go, but it seems a little too simple and may not be enctcolpedic. This would give us:
 * A number of historians regard fascism as a revolutionary centrist doctrine and/or as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right.
 * How does that sound? --FormerIP (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In cases where it is important to mark an inclusive or, MOS suggests to add "or both" at the end. That would give us: "A number of historians regard fascism as a revolutionary centrist doctrine or as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or both." -- Vision  Thing -- 21:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd give it a slight tweek to try to avoid the confusing interpretation "...mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or both (the left and the right)":
 * A number of historians regard fascism as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things. --FormerIP (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is good enough for me. So it seems that we have an agreement about three sentences (8, 10 and 11). Is that enough for the lead? -- Vision Thing -- 10:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Twelve
Moreover, some/many scholars call into question whole left-right terminology claiming that ideologies are better seen as multidimensional.

Source: "Moreover, left-right terminology fails to bring out that ideologies are better seen as multidimensional, and that at some levels there can be significant overlaps between ideologies". Roger Eatwell. A spectralsyncretic approach to fascism. The fascism reader. Routledge. 2003. p. 79 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vision Thing (talk • contribs)


 * This does not support "some/many scholars" - it is Eatwell expressing his own personal view, which I think is better summed up in statement five. --FormerIP (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Fourteen
''As Fascism has no single accepted definition, so its placement on any political spectrum has been debated. It was normally regarded as being "right wing" though some scholars point out left wing and centrist influences in some of its incarnations. Political scientists also debate the applicability of a linear political spectrum at all for Fascism, with various non-linear and multi-dimensional alternatives being proposed.''  Collect (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * None of this is sourced, and it appears to cover a number of things in one go, which i would suggest means it should be spread over a number of independent statements. What happened to thirteen? Superstition? --FormerIP (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I assure you all is readily sourceable -- and, in fact, is primarily sourced by the remainder of the section. It is brief, and AFAICT covers all the points being iterated.  Is there any part of it which you feel is wrong as far as saying what is in the section?  And I am not a triskaidekaphobe. Collect (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * IMO the best thing to do is to break things down into individual statements, and be expicit as to what the sources are. That way we can hopefully arrive at some mutually supported statements, or some statements where the objections are at least understood. --FormerIP (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Whilst I am content to let the later sentences stand on their own -- with a short statement as to what is found in the section at the outset. I take it, moreover, that the tenor f this proposal is fine?   It generally is better to use twenty words where a hundred would be chosen by a committee   Collect (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by "with a short statement as to what is found in the section at the outset". I think the tenor is not bad, but also not perfect.
 * What I would like to achieve is a selection of statements that no-one stongly objects to. I think it would then be easier to formualate a lead para, and perhaps parts of the body, without returning to the same issues over and over. --FormerIP (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you object strongly to this new attempt at a compromise? Collect (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The first sentence is WP:SYN. While there is no single accepted definition of fascism, it is wrong to assume that this explains why its placement on any political spectrum has been debated.  The final sentence is confusing:  Political scientists also debate the applicability of a linear political spectrum at all for Fascism....  Does that mean that the linear spectrum is fine for all political ideologies but the emergence of fascism led political scientists to develop multi-dimensional models to deal with it?  We shouldn't be distracted by challenges to the linear political spectrum.  These issues are best dealt with in articles specifically about the political spectrum.  All this does is dilute the main fact that fascism is normally seen as right-wing.


 * By the way, Stackelberg explained why fascism is considered right-wing in his book Hitler's Germany, which is lacking in the section. He also explains why liberals and the Right have difficulty placing fascism on the political spectrum and why they have difficulty accepting that the validity of the political spectrum.  The Four Deuces (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK -- so Fascism has no single accepted defintiion. Its position on a linear left-right political spectrum has been debated. It is normally viewed as being right wing. Some scholars point out left wing and centrist influences in some of its incarnations. Political scientists also debate the applicability of a linear political spectrum at all for Fascism, with various non-linear and multi-dimensional alternatives being proposed.  addresses any SYN claims. As for the last part -- it is important to several here that it be mentioned, and I fail to see why it should be elided.  As the claims are sourced, it is unclear why they should not be used. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The statement Fascism has no single definition really belongs under "Definitions", not here. The statement about the normal view should appear before the statement about its position being debated.  Why do you think that political scientists debate the applicability of a linear political spectrum at all for Fascism.  Does that mean that only fascism presents any problems?  The Four Deuces (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) Why? Is it not salient to the entire problem is the political spectrum -- heck Stackelberg emphasizes the problem of defining Fascism  which should mean it is not controversial to you being discussed just as he does. And the last sentence makes no comment about anything other than Fascism -- if it were more general, it would undoubtedly not be apt for the section. So it does not address other "isms" which means no inference ought be drawn at all. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the paragraph that explains how Fascism has no single accepted defintiion is salient to Fascism's "Position in the political spectrum". You have mere replaced a stated causal connection with an implied one.  And excessive discussion of various models of the political spectrum is unneccessary, and dilutes the main information conveyed in the paragraph.  The Four Deuces (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP works on consensus. As you are not arguing that any of the claims made are false, it is clear that some other reason should be proffered. At this point just saying "unnecessary" is insufficient per WP:PRESERVE as a minimum. As for the fact that Fascism is not unitary, and has no single accepted definition -- that is in the primary lede in the first place -- so arguing against it here is odd.  Further, many of the sources refer specifically to it not being a single definable ideology -- which makes the reference here fully proper.  Frankly, this is a valid compromise again -- and should be accepted. Collect (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not really. Your proposal is as bad as Mamalujo's in that it gives far too much weight to the minority views. You should abandon this attempt -- it was bad judgment to start a new, limited, rambling, unstructured discussion in the midst of a thorough, highly structured discussion, already underway, on reaching points of consensus. The structured discussion, above, is a much better discussion, as it presents some chance for editors to agree/disagree on specific points rather than endlessly debating the "whole hog". That said, this would be a bad proposal even if no others were already on the table. But it's pointless and destructive to simply abandon the prior discussion for no reason. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus discussions are not owned by anyone. The fact is that this is a valid compromise which uses "normally" as you earlier indicated was important. The ideal compromise is never "perfect" but is meant to address the concerns of all involved -- which this one does.   As for assertions that a proposed compromise is "pointless and destructive" I fear your position is not going to get sny compromise done. Collect (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Straw men everywhere. I didn't say I owned the discussion. I said that what you have done, which is to start a very non-specific, unstructured, "everything and the kitchen sink" discussion, while we were already in the midst of a highly structured discussion seeking to build consensus on specific claims, and then work from there, was the result of poor judgment. The structured discussion above provides a vastly better opportunity to reach a consensus, and this discussion merely distracts from it without adding anything productive.


 * And, I'm not saying your proposal is "not perfect", I'm saying it's very bad, and worse than all the others (except Mamalujo's). Nor am I saying that "a proposed compromise is pointless and destructive". I'm saying that this discussion is pointless and destructive, since its only real effect is to distract from the more serious and thorough one, above, and it should not have been started while the other one was underway. My position is precisely to seek compromise, not thwart it by starting an inferior and redundant discussion that is doomed by its own poor timing and thoroughly haphazard nature. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My general view of this proposal is that it is incoherent, biased and contrary to sources, and violates WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:POV and many other Wikipedia policies. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the proposal is good but I would modify it as follows :''As Fascism has no single accepted definition, its placement on any political spectrum has been debated. It was normally regarded as being "right wing", though some scholars point out left wing and centrist influences. Some specifically calling it left wing or extremism of the center. Political scientists also debate the applicability of a linear political spectrum at all for Fascism. Some maintain it is in a class by itself and others propose various non-linear and multi-dimensional alternatives.''  Mamalujo (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you say to all the objections that have already been raised, though?--FormerIP (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing fully (all fresh sources, I still have the older twenty to add if needed here):

Fascism has no single accepted definition      Its placement on any political spectrum has been debated. It was normally regarded as being "right wing" though some scholars point out left wing and centrist influences in some of its incarnations. Political scientists also debate the applicability of a linear political spectrum at all for Fascism, with various non-linear and multi-dimensional alternatives being proposed.

As it is clear that every word is fully sourced, and no OR nor SYN is here at all, all objections are AFAICT met. Collect (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * All the objections remain. (1) You've distorted your sources – some of them don't even appear to come close to saying what you say they say; (2) you're stringing them together to produce your own novel conclusions -- classic SYN, even if you didn't use words like "because" and "however"; (3) the whole proposal thoroughly gives UNDUE weight to the idea that Fascism cannot or should not be seen as right wing.


 * Again, this discussion is out of place, interrupted a more serious discussion, and your proposed compromise, which really just seems to be a version of what you have wanted to insert without compromise in the first place, is very bad. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Collect, I think the main thing here is the approach you seem to be taking. The statements in 1-12 are presented individually in bitesized bits in order to allow focussed discussion. They are also mostly evolved to some extent from previous discussions and so take account of suggestions raised by editors. The excercise appears to be getting us somewhere, but I think it is a shame that editors are being drawn away from it and spending energy on explaining why they think your alternative suggestion is inappropriate for the time being.
 * It seems to me that by instead presenting a whole paragraph in one go, consisting of entirely new wording, you are inviting everyone to take ten steps back. You may not like the statement-by-statement approach, but you only have to say so.--FormerIP (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems obvious that there can never be consensus on Collect's new definition, and I suggest we close this discussion. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As each source is fully cited and precisely conforms to the statements made, I fear that your objections are quite invalid. As for asserting that "there can never be consensus" on a compromise -- I fear that is not a valid way of achieving consensus at all. I proposed a fully sourced compromise, and get greeted with "never" which, to my mind, indicates a fundamental unwillingness to discuss compromise.  As for "close this discussion" see WP:OWN.  This discussion is not closed, no matter how much you decline to look at the comproimise offered.  Collect (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's already been pointed out to you that you have started a profoundly un-promising consensus discussion, opening with a proposed wording that is rife with flaws, and in doing so you have effectively cut off, and distracted from, the highly structured consensus discussion above, which was actually beginning to show some signs of agreement. It's already been pointed out to you that resistance to your "compromise" suggestion is based on the fact that it is terrible and distracts from the better discussion, not because those who object to it have some "fundamental unwillingness to discuss compromise". You're just trying to paint a negative picture of your opponents without actually winning any debate points. And, your proposal really does not conform to the sources very well, despite what you say. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The objections to this proposalare not well founded. While objections to the exact phrasing and some fiddling with the wording is fine, the objections that it is OR, SYN or not supported by sources are pure bunk. Indeed, the citations already within the section are sufficient to source this lede. I think people are now just digging in their heals and are unwilling to compromise. Mamalujo (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What I've seen of your edits suggest you understand very little of these policies, so it's hard to take your complaint that the objections are "pure bunk" seriously. As for digging in heels and being unwilling to compromise, you might try looking in a mirror. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Collect I did not say "close the discussion" I said "I suggest we close this discussion." Please note that there is a specific difference between a suggestion and an order.  Since you and Mamalujo want to continue on this proposal I have attempted to re-jig it, removing non-sequitors, extraneous detail, implicit WP:SYN, and correcting its illogical sequence and lack of verb tense agreement.  Here is the result:
 * Fascism is normally regarded as being "right wing", although the place of fascist ideology itself on the political spectrum has been debated. Some scholars point out left-wing and centrist influences. Some political scientists also debate using a linear spectrum for political ideologies.
 * The Four Deuces (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Deuces, you're just putting lipstick on a pig, all for the sake of indulging the disruptive habits of a disruptive editor. The pig is still ugly. My suggestion is to return to the structured discussion above and find which points of fact, if any, we can agree upon, rather than trying to massage the flaws out of this all-in-one proposal, which glosses over all of the underlying complexities and paints an oversimplified and perhaps distorted picture. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is better to go back to the discussion above. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thence: Many writers have historically placed fascism on the right of the "political spectrum." Lipset, in his paper "Fascism -- Left, Right and Center," and others have placed it in the centre.  Others refer to left-wing and centrist influences on various fascist groups.  Many political scientists debate the applicability of any linear spectrum for fascism and other ideologies, and some have proposed non-linear and multi-dimensional spectrums.    Although I fail to see why the issue of definition is a problem for you as several sources specifically cite it as the issue preventing categorization of fascism.   Collect (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Proposal is so bad it's nearly impossible to discuss. Minimizes the mainstream view. Appears to give too much weight to Lipset, while failing to substantiate who the "others" are. Presents left-wing and centrist influences as though these rebut the right-wing classification. Sentence beginning "Many political scientists..." is a significant distortion of the only substantiating source I've seen (Schlesinger) which simply says the linear depiction of the political spectrum is sometimes problematic... he does NOT question the "applicability of... a spectrum", but utterly upholds the concept of the political spectrum in the work cited. The blurb about multi-dimensional spectrums is also presented as if to rebut the placement of fascism at the right end of the spectrum, or to uphold the claim that the political spectrum is somehow "inapplicable". All of this wording also has the effect of implying that "non-linear" spectrums do not distinguish between left-wing and right-wing, which, from what I've seen from the stated sources, they actually do. Going forward you really need to illustrate each point directly with source text, or this whole discussion is pointless. (Oh wait.. it already is.) Again, the unstructured kitchen-sink approach is a bad approach, and your proposal is still very bad. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And here I thought TFD was seeking a compromise -- saying that a proposal is nearly impossible to discuss when it is substantially the same as TFD's proposal is odd -- though I guess TFD's striking out of his own proposal indicates something. Collect (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When a proposal has more serious problems than it has sentences, that ought to be a sign. TFD's attempt to make your proposal acceptable was also bad. Neither passage merits a whole lot of discussion. You can keep trying to portray me as being unwilling to compromise, but you're not going to escape the underlying terribleness of your proposal. Rejecting a proposal in no way indicates unwillingness to compromise. The proposal deserves to be rejected. And again, the structured discussion above will be the best place to find agreement on individual points of fact/analysis, and then proceed with the wording of an actual compromise. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your own words belie you "Deuces, you're just putting lipstick on a pig, all for the sake of indulging the disruptive habits of a disruptive editor." Your objection is with me personally and not with anything else, and you make personal attacks to do so.   My aims here have repeatedly been directed at compromise -- yet your response is "never."  Now try working on the sections I am going to add soon. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) I could spend a lot of time on this talk page discussing how I feel your words reveal your true intentions. However, I'm going to ignore the silly comments you've made about me personally, especially since some of them indicate you still can't keep clear in your head which other editor you are talking about, when making comments directed at other editors.

Your proposal is still rife with problems, which I have detailed. Deuces' attempt to squeeze some sort of acceptable passage out of what you proposed (which was *very* bad), was indeed "putting lipstick on a pig". Or, if you prefer, trying to "draw blood from a stone". Don't let the colorful metaphors distract you from the fact that I'm talking about how much your proposal is utterly contrary to multiple core policies – just like your insistence on forking and thoroughly muddying the discussion with this unhelpful approach (and I already explained why it's unhelpful, so don't go claiming that I am "unwilling to compromise", as you've already done, just because I say your approach is unhelpful).

Back on topic, please. And, if you really want to get something done, once again I will suggest you return to the thorough, structured discussion which you interrupted with this "compromise proposal". I'll also go so far as to say that you should participate in that discussion instead of starting yet another new one. Thank you so very much!!!! Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Where I wish to refer to FCAYS, I shall endeavour to use the initials. Elsewise, as I have iterated in the past, I use "you" as the second person pronoun in English grammar.  The talk page is the discussion area -- even when FCAYS declines to discuss a compromise.  Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So when you're speaking directly to me, and using the pronoun "you", you mean to refer to everyone on the page... because that is who you are speaking to? And you expect intelligent people to pick up on this? Bizarre. Anyway, in your most recent post before this one, you were speaking directly to me the entire time, as evidenced by the fact that you opened with a quotation of me. You then said the words, "yet your response is never". This was something that Four Deuces said. You cannot claim that you meant this comment to be directed at somebody else. It was obviously directed at me. Correct? Please answer yes or no... Correct? Yes or no? Whatever else you post, please make sure to respond so that I will know we are both in the same universe, both on the same talk page, both speaking English.


 * PS, when have I ever declined to discuss a compromise? I told you, at length, why yours was terrible. Your response has been to verbosely ignore me. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Collect, all the editors appear to be proficient in the English language. But please note that the second person pronoun (this actually applies to other languages as well) may be either singular or plural.  Unfortunately in English we have lost the original first person singular (thou) that remains in French and German (tu and du).  However, most English speakers are still able to indicate whether they are referring to a group or to a specific individual.  Usually if one is referring to a specific individual, one actually addresses that person.  If one is referring to a group, one normally emphasizes the fact by referring to the group even using colloquial terms like "youse guys" or "you all".  The Four Deuces (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For what its worth I think that section in and of itself is fine, although you could probably lose the quotation marks. Mdw0 (talk) 06:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's my £0.02's worth. Proposal number 14 above (ie the one following no.12) is concise and impartial, and would definitely improve the article. The objection of SYN is spurious (the construction "As..., so..." does not imply cause and effect). Likewise the objection of lack of sources would seem to have been abundantly dealt with. The objection of "undue weight" cannot be really taken seriously, since the proposal merely summarises the remainder of the section. Unless there was some other major objection I missed in the above discussion, I suggest you use it (ie, specifically, As Fascism has no single accepted definition, so its placement on any political spectrum has been debated. It was normally regarded as being "right wing" though some scholars point out left wing and centrist influences in some of its incarnations. Political scientists also debate the applicability of a linear political spectrum at all for Fascism, with various non-linear and multi-dimensional alternatives being proposed.). I think it's better with the quotation marks, by the way. Zombie president (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it is concise, but it's hopelessly partial, not impartial, as you say. The objection of SYN is not spurious, but is instead appropriate whenever an editor makes original points but attributes them to a source which did not make those points. The objection that the passage does not accurately reflect its sources cannot be answered simply by adding even more sources that don't support the passage; almost like WP:Bombardment except with additional gross violations of WP:VERIFIABILITY. You may find it easier to take the objection of UNDUE seriously upon realizing that fascism is, and has been, overwhelmingly thought of as a right-wing authoritarian ideology or government type and noting, by contrast, that the passage Collect proposes bends over backwards to minimize that fact and thereby suggest that the mainstream view is wrong.. you may also note that WP:SOAPBOX applies. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if only for consistency, left wing isnt in quotation marks so right wing shouldn't be, as though it was silly or spurious to associate it with fascism, which its not. Or as if right wing politics didnt really exist. Mdw0 (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. (It's just that exactly what is meant by the term has not been mentioned in the article up to this point.) Zombie president (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi ZP. I think you're missing what the issue is about slightly. There are two opposing views on how the para should be consctucted. One (my preferred version) says that fascism is normally described as right wing, but there are various other views which have been expressed. This is sourced. The other (Collect's preferred version) says that experts are more-or-less equivocal and its all very unlcear and anybody's guess. This goes against the source material, but it is possible to construct a paragraph that gives this impression if you are selective about your sources and employ a little WP:SYN and distortion.
 * For a while now, it has not been possible to introduce material supporting my version into the section without starting an edit war, to the extent that the page is now on an admin-imposed 1RR regime. So the fact that Collect's new proposal may reflect the rest of the section is neither here nor there, because that material as it stands does not represent the subject in a balanced way in the first place.
 * You'll notice that that there are some other discussions going on above. These include some positive steps forward, one of which is a tentative agreement between me and an editor who tends towards Collect's view on a crucial first sentence for the paragraph. Rather than engage in this discussion, Collect has decided that now would be a good time to propse an entirely new first paragraph (or, in fact, the substantially different new paragraphs in quick succession - very diffcult to work with something that won't stay still). I'm sure he can't be doing it deliberately, but the effect of what he is doing is to undermine positive work and drag everyone back into pointless, negative discussions which have been trodden a hundred times already.
 * --FormerIP (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the summary, IP. My suggestion would still be to proceed with the proposal, since it does reflect the rest of the section as it now stands (this is, after all, exactly what it should do). Editors could then contribute to the rest of the section, point by point; if this resulted in a substantially different slant, obviously it would then be altered to reflect that. Thanks again Zombie president (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ZP, please turn your attention to the following text, which appeared as part of the comment to which you were replying: "For a while now, it has not been possible to introduce material supporting my version into the section without starting an edit war, to the extent that the page is now on an admin-imposed 1RR regime. So the fact that Collect's new proposal may reflect the rest of the section is neither here nor there, because that material as it stands does not represent the subject in a balanced way in the first place." In other words, there is no point in constructing a lead paragraph to closely match a section body which is disputed, under discussion, and likely to be changed. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your nout here and for pointing out that no SYN is involved in the compromise proposal. Collect (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * SYN is definitely involved, but that's not all! It's a cornucopia of serious problems, as mentioned. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The best course of action may be to go back to the administrator who put the article on 1RR and see if we can follow a dispute resolution process. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I really think users taking a look at statements 1-12 and offering comments would be better, as least for now.
 * It really does seem to me like we are not much distance from, as it were, a bipartisan solution, which could resolve things substantially if that discussion isn't stifled. It's such a shame for users to be instead disussing the behaviour of an editor (whatever the rights and wrongs, that's essentially a negative thing to be doing) and a proposal which has no realistic prospect of going anywhere (since it is clear that it is strongly and fundamentally opposed by a number of editors). --FormerIP (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) "A number of editors"? When it is very close to the TFD proposal -- I think your "number" is small at this point. Collect (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The number isn't the important thing Collect. I think the strength of the objection is fairly clear. There have been other proposals, goinh back over a period, where areas of remaining dispute appear to be narrower, and which stand a much better chance of attracting some sort of consensus. --FormerIP (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I count five likely supporters of the compromise -- six if TFD supports his own words, and 1 who seems totally opposed. I submit "consensus" is not "unanimity" and would ask you to reconsider FIPs opposition. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Where the consensus lies probably depends slightly on which of the hundreds of comments that have been posted over the last six months you choose to select, but I would say that there is an utterly overwhelming consensus overall that fascism is generally considered right-wing, and that this should be the most prominent fact.
 * At the moment, you have three different lead paragrpahs of your own under discussion, and so much confusion has been sown that I think it is hard to say exactly who opposes or supports what. And I'm sure TFD will speak for himself. FormerIP (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal
''Fascism has no single accepted definition[19][20][21][22][23][24] Its placement on any political spectrum has been debated. [25][26] It was normally regarded as being "right wing" though some scholars point out left wing and centrist influences in some of its incarnations. [27] [28] Political scientists also debate the applicability of a linear political spectrum at all for Fascism, with various non-linear and multi-dimensional alternatives being proposed. [29][30]'' was my specific compromise proposal.

In response to TFD's offered compromise: ''Many writers have historically placed fascism on the right of the "political spectrum." Lipset, in his paper "Fascism -- Left, Right and Center," and others have placed it in the centre. Others refer to left-wing and centrist influences on various fascist groups. Many political scientists debate the applicability of any linear spectrum for fascism and other ideologies, and some have proposed non-linear and multi-dimensional spectrums. ''  was offered in an attempt to finish the lengthy discussions here.

The rationale for mentioning Lipset is to get a single source for the term "left, right and centre." If you accept the phrase without a specific cite, that should be fine. TFD also asked that the fact that there is no definition for Fascism to be elided here, though I suggest that it furnishes a strong basis for explaining some of the issues in placement -- if scholars can not agree on what fascism is, how can we expect agreement on anything about fascism? As for removing former suggestions -- that is not how talk pages work on WP ... there is no limit on number of suggestions when the goal is to reach consensus (which is not "unanimity" by the way). Collect (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly the same deal-breaking problems as before. Declaring the objections to be non-existent and then reposting the same thing doesn't really help. Minimizes majority view at the expense of giving undue weight to minority views. Distorts sources. Attempts to give the impression (i.e., pushes the POV) that there is no clear idea of where Fascism lies on the political spectrum, when there is a clear idea that Fascist/fascist ideology and government are right-wing and authoritarian, although this general view is not without some objections. And that is still all the discussion this proposal merits. Remember, finally, that you can't WP:VOTE to breach core policy. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * FCAYS objections are iterated. If we do not even have the ability to define Fascism, it is clear that this is important.  The aim is to avoid POV by expressly stating the range of opinions. Omitting the range, in fact, would be definitely POV. Collect (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * When you simply ignore objections and repost your POV-pushing proposal as if they did not exist, it's appropriate to also re-post the objections. It's fatuous to say they're "iterated", as if that means anything worthy of note.


 * Who said anything about omitting opinions? As I've repeatedly pointed out, one of the main problems is that you're trying to give undue weight to minority opinions. Ceasing that will be the first step towards reaching an actual compromise. The next step will be to reflect your sources carefully and accurately, and avoid reading too far into them or jumping to unfounded conclusions. Given those two fundamental fixes, the rest will likely fall into place. I look forward to it. Thank you most kindly. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Factchecker's exceptions to this proposal are not well founded. He says: "Attempts to give the impression (i.e., pushes the POV) that there is no clear idea of where Fascism lies on the political spectrum, when there is a clear idea that Fascist/fascist ideology and government are right-wing and authoritarian, although this general view is not without some objections."  There is not a clear idea where fascism lies.  Almost every source, including those who say it is right of some sort, says it is problematic.  To say it is right wing and authoritarian are not the same thing - communist governments are at a minimum authoritarian and they are not right wing.  My objection is to the phrase "Others refer to left-wing and centrist influences on various fascist groups."  While that may be true, it understates the case.  Virtually all writers, even those who call it right wing, talk about the left wing influences, but, more than that, some say outright that it is left wing (not just left influenced).  There are a good number of Anglophone scholars who say that.  Among Francophone scholars that is the consensus. I think the lede should explicitly say that some scholars consider it left wing or a variant of socialism or Marxism, or something of that sort.  Sternhell for example calls it "a new variant of socialism" and "a certaint type of socialism".  I also think we should lose the phrase "in some of its incarnations".  It suggests that some fascisms have left influences and others don't.  This contradicts, or at least ignores, what is in fact now a consensus, although not overwhelming - that there is a generic fascism.  Also missing is those scholars such as Gregor who toss fascism, national socialism (some see them as different) and communism together under the banner of totalitarianism. Mamalujo (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. For the moment, I'll ignore everything else but this one question:


 * Are you making a claim that Fascism being right-wing is a minority view, and that likewise the notion that Fascism is not right-wing is the consensus/majority view? Not for nothing, but this is a question of mine that went completely unanswered whenever I've raised it in the past, despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that it goes directly to the heart of this debate.


 * The rest of your comments – which are not without flaws – I will address at some other time. For now, let's not allow ourselves to be distracted from this one incredibly critical question. So, let's hear your answer, and I invite Collect, Vision Thing, and anyone else to also add their thoughts. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is an overwhelming academic consensus that fascist government was right-wing and I am unable to find any academic writing to the contrary. If anyone knows of any academic who disagrees then I would like to know so that I could read a differing opinion.  The only dispute about fascism is about their ideology before they came to power and that only applies to Italian and German fascism.  There is no dispute about the ideology of any other fascist regime in Europe or elsewhere - the consensus is that they were right-wing.  Also, fascists never came to power alone - they came to power as part of right-wing coaltions including other reactionaries and conservatives.
 * There is also a majority view that fascist ideology was right-wing. However there are minority opinions that it was centrist or that it was influenced by the Left.
 * The Four Deuces (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me make sure I understand you, Deuces. I'd hate for the discussion to get lost on simple semantic confusion. When you say that you are "unable to find any academic writing to the contrary," you don't mean to say that you can't find anything that denies Fascism was right-wing, merely that you haven't found anything that claims the consensus identifies Fascism as anything other than right-wing. Correct? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (comment by Deuces copied from my talk page ~ Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)) "I am referring to fascists in power. I cannot find anyone who says that fascist government was not right-wing.  Sternhell thought that fascist ideology developed from left-wing thought but that they moved to the Right once in power.  The Four Deuces (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)"

Can those who feel Fascism is not right-wing please state whether they feel this is a MAJORITY or MINORITY opinion? (academic or otherwise)
I've repeatedly asked this question. ''I've also repeatedly asked that comments be kept on-topic. Please oblige.''

So far, only those editors claiming that the consensus view of Fascism is that it is a right-wing ideology or form of government have been willing to comment on the question.

It would be incredibly helpful if those taking the opposite view, or any intermediate view, would either:


 * (a) Assert that it is a majority/consensus view, or,
 * (b) Admit that it is a minority view which opposes consensus

I don't see how we can proceed with any useful discussion unless we can establish baseline positions on this question.

Thanks. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is it essential that we state whether or not the belief that it is right wing is a majority position, when almost every commentator, including those who call it right wing, says that placing it on the political spectrum is problematic? Mamalujo (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Am I understanding this correctly: your position is that, in the section of the article entitled "Position on the political spectrum", it is not important to state what the majority view of acadmics is on the question (?).
 * Are you also serioiusly claiming that almost every commentator sees the placement of fascism on the political spectrum as problematic? Do you really mean to say that most commentators who discuss the issue acknoweldge the existence of minority views? In any event how would a statement such as "placing fasicsm on the political spectrum is problematic, but I place it on the right" (you appear to be saying that this is a commonly held position) be used as evidence against the idea that it is normally described as right wing? --FormerIP (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mamalujo: the answer to your question is as follows: since we're in the midst of a dispute as to where scholarly consensus places Fascism on the political spectrum, with a few people espousing the view that it's either not right-wing or impossible to accurately characterize as right-wing, we need to determine whether that view is a minority view or not, in order to determine how the view should be weighted in the article text. See the following policy statement under WP:UNDUE:


 * "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."


 * Please note that this policy is a fundamental part of WP:NPOV. Also, I wonder where you are getting your information that "almost every commentator, including those who call it right wing, says that placing it on the political spectrum is problematic". I rather suspect that this is your own opinion which you have formed after having read one or more sources. If not, I am now requesting that you substantiate it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mu Talk of a spectrum in this case is not helpful.  One might as well try to define the topic in terms of the Blues and the Greens or suppose that the Orange Revolution is a continuation of the Glorious Revolution. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's an attempt to "define the topic" (except in the sense that all edits to wikipedia are in some sense an attempt at defining something). It is an attempt to provide information which may be of interest to readers. --FormerIP (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) Again -- it is not a proper question -- the feelings or opinions of editors do not count when writing an encyclopedia article. And this is also true of any sections - the requirement is that we use reiable sources and not that we try injecting any of our own opinions into it. Collect (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the gut feelings of users are not of very much interest, but I think Factchecker is trying to find out if anyone claims any vaild reason for disagreeing with the sources regarding the normal placing of fascism on the right. It does seem to have been difficult to ascertain this, and I think Factchecker's concernt is in tune with yours. Users, such as your good self, who have been trying to exclude reference to the "normal" view may be "injecting their own opinions", since their reasons for wanting to exclude this information have at no stage been given. --FormerIP (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can show me that "right wing" is not found in my compromise? Seems to me that bit is quite prominent in it. As I have not sought to exclude any references, while others have deleted dozens of references, it seems odd indeed to accuse me of excluding any reliable sources . Collect (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your various "compromises" (?!) have failed to acknowledge the primacy of the view that fascism is right wing. Your last compromise, for no apparent reason, puts right wing in the past tense. You also seem intent on proposing an unbalanced quantity of material making various tenuous claims which seem designed to suggest that any view that fascism is on the right should not be trusted. I think the purpose of Factchecker's enquiry is to ask on what basis you engage in this (from his point of view) distortion. I personally think it would be useful if you were to humour him by explaining what underlies your thought processes in this regard . --FormerIP (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Collect, in your proposal, the prevailing view is not so prominent, but, as I said, pretty badly minimized. You never did even respond directly to my objections. And, you don't want us to reference the OED, for some reason. In fairness, it does define fascism as right-wing. Does this not sufficiently establish that the mainstream consensus view of fascism is that it is right wing? Again, you've yet to substantiate any scholarly consensus to the contrary. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am unsure as to what you really seek here. The OED def was discussed at RS/N -- that you disagree with the result there should not make you upset at me personally for the opinions expressed there.   And it is not any of our "opinions" which count -- what counts is what you can find acceptable reliable sources saying. Many articles on WP manage to convey issues without the editors voting on what is a "majority" or "minority" view of the expterts. Honest!   Collect (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(out)I'm not upset at any comments on a freaking noticeboard. How can you think this to be a pertinent line of commentary? Nothing was said on any noticeboard, so far as I'm a ware, to say that the OED cannot be used as a source for a general statement that Fascism is categorized as right-wing or that it is typically regarded or defined that way.

The questions of whether you think the opinion is consensus or not are only necessary because you keep insisting on some kind of article slant that says or implies that it's not an ideology classified as right-wing, or that the whole spectrum idea is inapplicable, etc. and for these views to be featured with prominence or even primacy they would have to be extensively substantiated and this does not simply mean piling links of people who say that's so but reliable authorities talking about majorities. Synthesizing sources, as I have said repeatedly before.

Please, if you can reliably substantiate everything with direct and specific reference to source text, (i.e. not just making very broadly POV-pushing statements and then listing 10 footnotes which don't really say that) please just end this now by doing so. But I don't think you can. The particular viewpoint you are trying to present is skewed. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please address the issues instead of attacking the editor. each source has a full quote precisely in line with the use of the source, which makes your iterated accusations otherwise a tad vacuous for a talk page. Collect (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see a personal attack in Factchecker's comments. However, calling another editor's comments "vacuous" seems judgmental to me. Sunray (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)