Talk:Fascism/Archive 30

The best way forward
We need to formally request Dispute Resolution, specifically Ask About The Subject, and direct comment to both of the following two WikiProjects: [Philosophy and Religion], and [History and Society].

As multiple editors are involved in this dispute, I would ask that we each prepare some communication to those from whom we seek guidance. Informally, I would request that each editor only ask questions rather than making proclamations, and confine themselves to no more than two statement/questions and no more than 100 words. In particular some may find it useful to prepare one statement for each project, although I'm not sure if this is what I will do.

I think that proactively exposing the question to these audiences will both provide more serious and disinterested commentary, and additionally also provide the additional interested commentary which is perhaps needed on both sides of the debate. Ha! Isn't that great! By which I mean horrible. Well, sort of. But such is life. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mediation Cabal might be better. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Question: Why do you focus only on right/left axis?
Why does it seem that editors here focus only on the right/left axis of describing political standpoints when political scientists have known that using this axis alone cannot adequately describe all stand points? Nearly all political spectra used today are at least two dimensional. It seems obvious to me that fascism is not as much characterised by a specific place on the left/right (= progressive/conservative) axis, but by its extreme authoritarian standpoint on the authoritarian/libertarian axis (in a Eysenck type system). ·Maunus· ƛ · 14:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is constructive but I add that the key thing is, not what Wikipedians think, but what significant viws from notable sources say. maybe there have been some politicians, political scientists, historians, or political sociologists who have used the left-right axis alone ... our task is to determine I they are significant and from notable sources. My hunch is that Maunus is right that many experts who have published on Fascism have gone beyond the two dimensions.  But the bottom line is this: instead of debating left versus right, we should be focusng on: what are the notable sources? Who are the significant views? And take it from there. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is why I addd the link to Eysenck who is among the worlds most notable political psychologists and who was the first to show the commonalities in political standpoints between authoritarian progressive communists and authoritarian fascists (that come in both progressive and conservative strands).·Maunus· ƛ · 15:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly that should be included in the section "Fascism in the political spectrum", but the main disagreement (which is probably hard to follow) is about the weight that various viewpoints should be given in the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI
If people who watch this page are also interested in how Wikipedia is governed, be sure to check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Useless Discussion?
"'"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." (from FIP) and 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  from FCAYS appear to say we should not even discuss any changes as they wish to rewrite the entire section for which we are seeking a new opening even though the proposal reflects the section as it stands. This is an interesting position -- propose a summary and then write the section to match your summary is putting the cart before the horse. Now if this is the position of editors discussing the proposal, then it is clearly time for an RfC on the proposal rather than have us waste time with absolutely no chance of agreement. Collect (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you recall Collect you already set up an RfC on May 19 (2 months ago), when you entered: "RFCbio | section=First sentence of "Fascism in the political spectrum" !! reason=Currently, the first sentence has only 11 refs. Is the sentence properly cited? Is the sentence not neutral? !! time=21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC) " and started a discussion at Talk:Fascism/Archive 25.  Both FormerIP and myself have contacted all persons who have edited this page since at least January.  The Four Deuces (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Collect: Deciding that Fascism is not-right wing, and that this is the primary concept that should be conveyed by the section, and then deciding that you're unwilling to even discuss anything to the contrary – yet also, apparently, being unwilling to assert that the view you wish to push is a majority or consensus view – is putting the manure before the horse. Have you considered the possibility that this is why our endless discussions have gone nowhere? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In the case at hand, we have a tacit agreement that the proposal does correctly and accurately reflect the section at hand. The issue here now is whether once we have a consensus that the proposal does accurately reflect the section, is it proper to veto it because an editor wishes to rewrite the entire section instead?   Note also that the current proposal is not the prior sentence, but based upon your imput again (as the prior one had been). Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That certainly has not been a "tacit agreement", otherwise we would have been discussing what is in the section rather than referring to external sources for help in drafting the first sentence/paragraph. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What "agreement"? Your proposal improperly minimizes the mainstream view that Fascism is a right-wing ideology or government type. It's not a good summary if it distorts or puts an unsourced, conjectural spin on the section it's summarizing. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Collect, I have tried and failed to resolve my problems with you which are among other things that I believe you are trying to give undue weight to minority opinions, distorting sources, and claiming that there had been consensus or agreement when there had not been. I believe now that the best course of action is to set up a WP:RfC/U which I will do if you or any other editor agree that this is the best course of action.  The Four Deuces (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you admit the proposal does correctly handle what is in the section, cavils about what you would like in the section are not a real argument against the compromise. Collect (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Characteristically, your comment successfully ignores the comments of everyone else. For example, TFD has just said that there was not an agreement (implying that HE does not agree) yet you persist in saying there was, and you are literally telling him he agrees with you, while disregarding his denial of that claim. You now appear to be saying that even if there are problems with the section itself, your proposed lead (which I wish you would stop calling a "compromise", since it's not) will be OK because you claim it accurately summarizes the problematic material. (It doesn't.) And then there is the objection that the first paragraph isn't really supposed to be a summary, anyway. You just complained about "cart before the horse" but you are dragging out (and misrepresenting) every procedural rule in the book just to avoid having a pertinent discussion on the content itself. Just as you appear unwilling to discuss whether the view you are pushing (Fascism is not right-wing) is a majority or minority view. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Collect, your objection is based on a false presmise. The contents of a WP:LEAD are supposed to summarise the contents that follow. As I have explained a number of times, there is no such guideline in relation the first paragraph of a sub-section, which is what we are dealing with here, nor would such a guideline be at all sensible. Imagine how tedious it would be to read a WP page if the information was constantly being summarised.

I would suggest that all we need to do is use the first paragraph to put the most important information first. The rest of the section may be perfect or it may be awful, it really makes to different. Without an effective first paragraph, it is a random and not very helpful collection of facts.

I must have blinked and missed the "tacit agreement". I guess it must have been lost somewhere amidst all the paragraphs and paragraphs of dispute.--FormerIP (talk) 15:02, 17 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.

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)


 * It is a question irrelevant to how the first sentences of a section should reflect what is actually in the section. Collect (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The first section of a section is part of the section, so how can it not? Your objection could be met by inserting the material twice, but I don't think that would be sensible.


 * PS Have you inserted your comment in the wrong section? It seems more related to what is above.--FormerIP (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The section break was inserted after my response to the question -- hence it is clear that any confusion arises from prople editing the talk page to add such breaks, not with those who write before the breaks are artificially inseminated here.  And FIP and FCAYS probably should try to address inproving the article page instead of commenting on editors. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * IP's comment was not about the section break. He made the comment before I inserted the section break. His comment was about the fact that you insisted on posting a comment in the wrong section. You posted about how "the first sentences of a section should reflect what is actually in the section". That was the previous discussion, and attempting to continue that discussion in this section was pointless and its only real effect was to interrupt this section. Hence, I had to repost it again in order to keep it uncluttered with your off-topic nonsense. And, since ad hominem comments are a central tool in your filibustering, tendentious, POV-pushing repertoire, and you use them constantly, your complaint about "commenting on editors" thoroughly rings hollow. PS, you might care to RELEVANTLY STATE IN THE BELOW SECTION whether you feel the views you support are majority views or not. At this point I suspect you are just dodging the question. Thank you most kindly. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In order to avoid giving the wrong impression to new readers, I want to note that these comments all originally appeared in the section which I created above, asking whether the particular views were thought to be majority or minority views. Attempting to keep that section filled with on-topic discussion, I have created an arbitrary section break separating these comments from what I hope will be a fruitful discussion on the prevalence (academic or otherwise) of the views we are debating regarding the placement of Fascism in the political spectrum.

Collect, thanks so much for taking the time to undo the section break, without bothering to reply to the request. As I recall, the last time I asked this question and you refused to respond, I also found it necessary to repost it after you insisted on adding non sequiturs and did not bother to reply to the request. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It has been a while since I have participated in any discussion here. I do not want to forward a position when i am unclear on the issues.  I know that part of it involves the very longstanding argument over whether Fascism is left or right (or whether this distinction is even helpful).  I hve only to comments.  First, it is not for us to decide whether Fascism is left or right, or neither.  It is for us to find significant views from notable and reliable sources that say anything on the matter.  Second, th lead of the article should introduce the contents.  I there is any conflict over the lead, it is usually best to make sure that conflicts concerning the body of the article have all been resolved.  That way, the only conflicts over the lead should concern phrasing, not substance.  I guess i have a final suggestion - 3RR, notoriously misunderstrood, is not punishment but remedial and just meant to provide someone with cool-off time.  I know no one hear has violated 3RR or merits a block.  But it also looks like people have been deadlocked for a while.  I do not mean to be intrusive, but my advice is this: for all editors to stop editing this article for a few days - focus on other articles you are interested in, or have thought of starting.  Just give yourselves a break, voluntarily. Come back in a few days and you might see ways to resolve your conflicts that you don't see now. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Second, th lead of the article should introduce the contents. I there is any conflict over the lead, it is usually best to make sure that conflicts concerning the body of the article have all been resolved. You are right in principle, Slruberstein, but the contents of the article lead are not in direct dispute here. --FormerIP (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Article is currently under 1RR and there hasn't been edit warring for quite a while. -- Vision Thing -- 18:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Bi-partisan proposal
I call this a bi-partisan proposal because it has been worked on by a number of editors, primarily me and Vision Thing - we have generally taken opposing views in this long-running debate.

It has involved making concessions, so I suspect no-one will think it is perfect. However, the question I would ask editiors to consider is is it reasonable. I would propose that if it is, then it should be adopted, then we can move on to other things.


 * Specialists on the subject have often found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum complex (1), but it is normally described as "extreme right" (2). There is, however, a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both the left and the right. (3) 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. (4)


 * (1) Turner, Stephen P., Käsler, Dirk: Sociology Responds to Fascism, Routledge. 2004, p 222
 * (2) Eatwell, Roger: "A Spectral-Syncretic Appraoch to Fascism", The Fascism Reader, Routledge, 2003, p 79.
 * (3) Griffin, Roger: "The Palingenetic Core of Fascism", Che cos'è il fascismo? Interpretazioni e prospettive di ricerche, Ideazione editrice, Rome, 2003
 * (4) Stackleberg, Rodney: Hitler's Germany, Routeledge, 1999, p 3 ; Eatwell, Roger: "A 'Spectral-Syncretic Appraoch to Fascism', The Fascism Reader, Routledge, 2003 pp 71-80 ; Lipset, Seymour: "Fascism as Extremism of the Middle Class", The Fascism Reader, Routledge, 2003, pp 112-116.

The proposal leaves three particular issues unadressed. However, I would suggest that it will be sensible, if users find it acceptable, to park these issues, adopt the proposal, and then continue discussion with a view to adding material as appropriate. The outstanding issues are as follows:
 * 1) The reasons why fascism is right wing should be covered (per The Four Deuces). I agree with this in principle, but am unable to identify a source which gives a succinct and fair overview. If anyone can do this, then it can be inserted.
 * 2) It is important to strongly stress that there are multi-dimensional models which position political doctrines in relation to one another. Editors seem to be sharply divided on this issue. My own view is that it is already mentioned in the section, but should not be given undue prominence. Compare:
 * Nelson Mandela became the first black President of South Africa in 1994. However, academics commonly see race as primarily a social construct, and often regard the designation "black" as not strictly meaningful.
 * Johnny Depp is 5' 10 tall. However, medical professionals often prefer to refer to Body Mass Index, a function of height and weight combined.'
 * I would suggest that if there are still editors who see this as an important issue, then the best thing would be to launch an RfC on that specific question.
 * 3) The statmement "fascism is normally described as "extreme right" is false. No editor has made this claim directly, but it appears to me that at least one editor believes it. Any objection to this statement ought to be substantiated. If it can't be substantiated then it should be abandonned.

Cheers.--FormerIP (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Why do you consider that "Specialists on the subject have often found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum complex" more important than "it is normally described as "extreme right""?  Why do you think "a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both the left and the right" has any relevance to its placement on the left-right spectrum?  Why do you think that "a number of historians regard fascism as a revolutionary centrist doctrine" when this was merely a theory proposed in 1960 by one writer and later forgotten?  Fascists were considered to be right-wing because they sat on the right side of the Chamber of Deputies, they came to power with the help of right-wing deputies and they followed right-wing policies once in power.


 * In response to your statement "The reasons why fascism is right wing should be covered (per The Four Deuces). I agree with this in principle, but am unable to identify a source which gives a succinct and fair overview. If anyone can do this, then it can be inserted" please note what I said above:


 * "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)".


 * While there are multi-dimensional models of the political spectrum, few writers attempt to apply them to earlier historical eras.


 * The statement "fascism is normally described as "extreme right" is false" may or may not be true but I based my statement upon the statement in Eatwell's article in The fascism reader where he states fascism ''is normally seen as 'extreme right'".


 * And I don't know what "bi-partisan" means (in this context). Please explain.


 * The Four Deuces (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Four Deuces: I personally agree that the "complex" statement is not the most important one and should not really go first. However, it seems to me that making a concession on this is one way of working this discussion towards a conclusion. The resulting sentence does not go so far as to distort realitity, it is just (IMO) slightly unsatisfactory. But better that, I think, than another four years of going round in circles.


 * I would defend the "influenced by left and right" statement, though, since I do think this is relevant. It may be more prominent here than in what would be my ideal version, but the same thing applies - concessions that don't harm too much are better than continuing to not get anywhere.


 * "A number of hisotrians regard" is intended to refer to the three positions that follow, not just the centrist one. Perhaps the wording could make this clearer - if you can think of a way to do this without things getting embroiled in complications, then please do. I also don't think it is entirely fair to say that Lipset's view is "forgotten" - it is cited by a number of more recent sources.


 * If you are able to use Stackelberg as the basis for a second sentence explaining why fascism is considered right wing, then please, please propose one. Incidentally, I think readers are likely to be interested in policies and philosophies, rather than where they sat in the debating chamber.


 * I think you're misundestanding me in terms of "extreme right is false". What I mean to say is that anyone who holds this view needs to present sources or hold their peace.


 * By "bi-partisan", I mean what I said above: a number of editors have worked on it, mainly me and Vision Thing. Since the two of use are of generally opposing views on the issues, then this counts as an "across the divide" initiative, IMO. --FormerIP (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll wait to see what other comments there are. I will try to write something to explain why Stackelberg and others considered  fascism right-wing.  (But the seating arrangement is important, because parties were assigned their seating arrangements according to ideological spectrum and btw still are in the European parliament.)  The Four Deuces (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And again -- the section is specific that other spectrums exist, and it is misl;eading to elide any mention of them here. Also "however" and the like are WTA. Lastly, the word "specialists" is undefined, and not supported by all the sources. Thus:  Writers have normally placed Fascism on the "extreme right" on a linear political spectrum.  There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both the left and the right. A number of historians and political scientists 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. Others have proposed non-linear spectrums, including multi-dimensional ones, where the use of "left" and "right" for Fascism is no longer used.      Collect (talk) 02:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I thin the discrepancy is largely between layman's usage and the usage in political theory. I do think that for the majority of lay readers fascism is a right wing ideology. However for political scientists it is not that simple. I think the fact that many political sciences have invested their time in showing that fascism is not only a right wing ideology speaks to the fact that the general public does consider it to be so. I think we can illustrate this by stating something to the effect of "While fascism is often considered an extreme rightwing ideology a number of historians have taken issue with this wide spread view"·Maunus· ƛ · 15:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have a specific source that states your view? The Four Deuces (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Four Deuces, do you have specific reasons to oppose some of these statements or are you intentionally trying to sabotage the process with general questions? Do you have any sources that contradict anything that is written in the proposal? Btw, I'm perfectly fine with leaving the section as it is, without the lead paragraph. -- Vision Thing -- 18:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * VT - could you please avoid terms like sabotage and comment on the edits instead. It is not up me to provide sources to contradict what is in this proposal, rather it is up to you to provide sources to support it.  The Four Deuces (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Collect, I don't see how "writers" is better than "specialists". I agree that "however" is probably little confusing because the first sentence contains two different propositions so it should be removed from final version. I would like to add "Others have proposed non-linear spectrums, including multi-dimensional ones, where the use of "left" and "right" for Fascism is no longer used." but it seems there is no consensus on that for now. -- Vision Thing -- 18:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mainly because no source exists to justify specifying "specialists" as though they were a separate determinable category from other historians and political scientists. We have, by the way, more than ten editors who have agreed that the non-linear spectrums should be mentioned, which means I feel we do have the needed consensus for that. Collect (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Collect, non-linear spectrums are mentioned in the section already, so this a red herring. More spectifically, though, there is not a consensus for anything like your proposal. --FormerIP (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note,  , ,  ,  ,  ,  and four other distinct editors all with the same position here  Is ten editors enough to make consensus against 2 (3 if we include Anarchangel))?  Collect (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Collect/Vision Thing: I think Vision Thing is right to point out that a consensus on the question of multi-dimentional models is unrealistic for the time being. I propose that we agree what can be agreed for now, draw a line under 90% of what has been holding us back, and then begin a more focussed, productive disucssion on outstanding issues.

For consideration though, here is my view. We should be guided by the sources. Somebody recently said: "the requirement is that we use reiable sources and not that we try injecting any of our own opinions into it". Very true.

The fact is that none of the sources we have been considering place any importance whatsoever on the existence of multi-dimensional models, and there is no discussion of the various multi-dimensional models that may have been proposed elsewhere. The only possible exception is Schlesinger, who discusses one alternative model. However, it has been suggested that Schlesinger should be ignored as a polemicist. I have not formed a view on this, but would note that his opinion does not appear to cited by any of the other sources we have considered (ie it has failed to enter into the mainstream discourse). Either way, his words do not seem notable enough to give them a special mention in the opening paragraph.

Now, given that the sources do not make much reference to multi-dimensional models, it would seem hard to defend the idea of giving prime real estate to information about them, in terms of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, surely?

There may be things that can validly be said about multi-dimensional models, but these need to be directly drawn from sources relevant to the subject matter. The judgement of an editor that certain information is important is not good enough when the sources do not discuss it.--FormerIP (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PS Please don't respond to any of this right now, I'm only posting it so you can appreciate my position. Like I said above, I think the best thing right now is to try to reach agreement on those issues where it is immediately possible and park more divisive issues for now. --FormerIP (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

F. A. Hayek
I added a paragraph to the end of "Position in the political spectrum" summarizing Hayek's views as expressed in The Road to Serfdom. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion has going phrase by phrase, and now a whole paragraph about Hayek. Could that be condensed somewhat? Anarchangel (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Nevermind. False alarm. Anarchangel (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi TFD. I don't necessarily disagree with the substance or relevance per se of what you've added, but it does seem quite a lot of attention to a single source, particularly since the source in question does not seem to be cited by the others, and the author is most famous for his views on socialism and free markets. These don't exactly make him middle-of-the-road in this context. --FormerIP (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought that the section should include all reasonable views of which Hayek's is at one extreme. I do not think it should receive greater weight than the others.  I'll see if it can be shortened.  The Four Deuces (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Hayek's view should be included (not necessarily singling him out but stating the view that he, among others, holds), but an opposing view should be included, too. He is by no means the only one who saw Nazism as opposed to the ideals of the French Revolution.  However, there are scholars who see Nazism, and more generally totalitarianism, as flowing from the mass politics and revolutionary nature of the French Revolution and being tied in particular to ideas of Rousseau. I included an addition to that effect.  Mamalujo (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Four Deuces: Like I say, I am not opposed to citing Hayek, but think it should be cut down quite a bit. I am a little nervous that Hayek is clearly a rw poster boy, so it would seem a logical thing, therefore, to also inlcude the views of someone like Chomsky or Althusser. I also wouldn't be opposed to that, but note the potential for brand new dispute, when we have quite enough on our hands already, IMO.

Mamalujo: I also agree that there is a noteworthy discussion to be had about the relationship of fascism to the enlightenment. It appears to be simultaneously an outright rejection of the enlightenment and also to be strongly influenced by enlightenment ideas. However, I think your recent edit is wrong to posit a dichotomy between this and the influnce of monarchism and the 19th century right - both things may be true. In any event, I think it would be a real acheivement if this can be properly captured in the article. However, once again, I think it would be useful to put some of the current controversies to bed before opening up new ones. --FormerIP (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Perhaps we should trim down the addition, including removing the refernce to the French Revolution to avoid that sticky wicket. Mamalujo (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the paragraph which no longer reflects what Hayek actually said. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Revised proposal
This takes into account the objections to the words "specialists" and "however" and the objection around lack of clarity by in the last sentence by including the word "either".


 * Writers on the subject have often found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum complex (1), but it is normally described as "extreme right" (2). There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both the left and the right. (3) A number of historians have regarded fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things. (4)


 * (1) Turner, Stephen P., Käsler, Dirk: Sociology Responds to Fascism, Routledge. 2004, p 222
 * (2) Eatwell, Roger: "A Spectral-Syncretic Appraoch to Fascism", The Fascism Reader, Routledge, 2003, p 79.
 * (3) Griffin, Roger: "The Palingenetic Core of Fascism", Che cos'è il fascismo? Interpretazioni e prospettive di ricerche, Ideazione editrice, Rome, 2003
 * (4) Stackleberg, Rodney: Hitler's Germany, Routeledge, 1999, p 3 ; Eatwell, Roger: "A 'Spectral-Syncretic Appraoch to Fascism', The Fascism Reader, Routledge, 2003 pp 71-80 ; Lipset, Seymour: "Fascism as Extremism of the Middle Class", The Fascism Reader, Routledge, 2003, pp 112-116.

The Four Deuces has agreed to write an additional sentnence explaining why historians have used the rw description. If this takes a while or is contentious, I would suggest that there is no reason not to add the other sentences with a view to adding TFD's extra sentence as and when.

Many thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree. It elides all mention of why the left-right spectrum has problems, and I will not assent to a pig in a poke for an added sentence as being consensus. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there a way to word this that avoids words like "normally?" I can think of different ways:
 * Most scholars identify Ffascism as a right-wing ideology because of its emphasis on x. Many, however, have identified it as leftist, pointing out y.  Several scholars have argued that the left-right spectrum is inappropriate, because of z

There are other not very complicated ways to parse these things:
 * Opponents of Fascism generally identify it as right wing. Fascists themselves aver the terms left or right.  Most scholars consider it left-wing
 * Political scientists typically identify fascism as right wing. Historians, however, differ as to whether it is left or right wing depending on which country they study.  Sociologists ...


 * You get the idea. Obviously I made up the different stances.  My point is that it is more helpful to use terms like "mainstream, majority, minority, a few" or to distinguish views not only by the view but by the viewer (virtually all political scientists agree x; historians are thoroughly divided over y) - and this can be different academic disciplines, or scholar vs. non scholar, opponent vs. proponent, politician versus scholar, scholar versus journalist, whatever.


 * The result would require one or two more sentences than what has been proposed, but would be more informative and precise. Instead of saying it is "complex," you would be showing people why it is complex. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Slruberstein. I'd be happy to see "most", "majority" etc in there, but it's one of the things that has been the subject of objections ("the source doesn't use the word 'most'"). Hair-splitting? Perhaps, but "normally" is part of the compromise that looks (to my eyes) necessary in order to draw things to some sort of conclusion.


 * The "because" part is what The Four Deuces is working on.


 * I'm open to the idea of explaining certain things more within the para, but I think it would generally be better to actually give the more detailed explanatory stuff in the body, rather than in the lead para. --FormerIP (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Whilst I suggest the "distinctions worth making" sections above would lead to what you suggest in an orderly manner. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I added in a paragraph explaining why Stackelberg considered fascism to be right-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed it because Stackelberg is not notable enough. His views shouldn't be discussed in such short section. -- Vision Thing -- 19:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What makes you say that, VT? He is a university professor and has a number of books on Nazi Germany published by Routeldge. If that doesn't count as notable enough, surely most of our other sources are similarly excluded (?)
 * PS where do you stand on the new version of the lead para proposal? --FormerIP (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See my answer to The Four Deuces below. As for the new version of the lead para proposal, I think it is good. I'll go ahead and add it to the article. -- Vision Thing -- 12:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * FormerIP, without commenting on the rest, I'll point out one thing that puzzles me. After all the discussion we've had on "right-wing" being the mainstream view, why does your proposal always open with the statement that "writers" – some number of them, which we aren't even taking pains to quantify? – have found the placement to be complex? That statement makes it sound as though the primary mainstream view is that it's difficulty to classify or, at least, it seems to sharply diminish the weight given to the "fascism = right-wing" view. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I struck a deal with Vision Thing a few feet up the page. In effect, he agreed not to push for alternative wording around "complex" which would have represented (IMO) a half-truth. I agreed in return not to insist on a formulation where "normally viewed" had to come first. I agree that this does diminish the paragraph, but not to the exetent that it crosses into being unacceptable. Of course, other editors are not obliged to support this compromise. However, my view is that an imperfect paragraph that is basically an accurate reflection of reality beats an interminable dispute.


 * If you and/or other editors find the demotion of "normally viewed" beyond the bounds of acceptability, then clearly further discussion is needed. However, perhaps you might consider whether it is just barely acceptable. If so, could the para not be inserted for now? This wouldn't prevent editors from continuing to discuss the wording with a view to amending it.--FormerIP (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we are trying to decide, in a massively haphazard way, how best to reflect a scholarly debate which is ongoing and whose merits (or lack of) have yet to be widely determined to the extent that would be required for us to represent it at the level of detail that is being proposed. I would rather the article remain silent on any issues which it can't (for whatever reason) accurately reflect. A bad compromise is much worse than nothing at all. If we can't come up with acceptable, sourced synthesis which adequately encapsulates the relevant views, then I think we should simply decide on which opinions are notable, cite them directly and attribute the views to their adherents in the article text, and avoid making any analysis which might be shaky, unsubstantiated, or skewed. Thus, I would fight you to the death (metaphorically speaking) over the claim that an imperfect compromise is preferable to endless debate. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay I hear you. But the article as it is is not "silent" - it's a cherry-picked or more-or-less random collection of views that different people happened to like, with Mussolini topping the bill... Are you telling me you'd fight someone to the death for that? --FormerIP (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PS I'd say WP:IMPERFECT applies here. --FormerIP (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh.. no, I don't mean that. Similar to page protection not being "an endorsement of the current revision", by saying I'd prefer to avoid problematic compromises, I don't mean that what's already in the article is somehow preferable. As for WP:IMPERFECT – bleh, I hadn't seen that, what an outrageous policy! However, I don't think it necessarily recommends cutting corners just because WP is a work in progress and imperfection can be excused. But going back to your original question, no, by objection to problems with our compromise proposals I don't mean that we should be stuck with what's currently in the article. If a deadlock prevents us from adequately synthesizing the section, I suspect we would need to turn our attention to the section itself (such as it is). Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are right in that the policy doesn't recommend cutting corners. But I think it does recommend tolerating the fact that other editors may cut corners. ie if another editor adds something which you feel is not perfect, you can edited it so as to improve it, if you like, but you shouldn't delete it soley for its imperfection.
 * If we are to to turn to body of the section instead, I confidently predict a sequence of very long, very confusing disputes, a lot of effort trying to relatively simple things over and over and, eventually, we will arrive at deadlock and another imperfect compromise. So I think your quest for perfection is snookered either way. --FormerIP (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if me omit a summary paragraph we still have the problem of the order of the different viewpoints. I think the problem is that some editors have non-mainstream views of politics that are obtained from fringe writers and non-traditional news sources and which are unsupported by academic writing.  The Four Deuces (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

stop the reverting madness - ONE REVERT per editor effective immediately
I came across this skirmish a few days ago when Vision Thing requested semi-protection of the article. I agreed at first, then reversed myself and pointed everyone to my talk page. I said I would fully protect the article if this mindless reversion didn't stop. In the interim, one IP editor has been blocked for violating WP:3RR and Soxwon is one revert away from violating 3RR himself.

Instead of full protection, which will please no one, I am imposing a one revert rule instead of the usual three reverts. Any editor - new, old, anon, dynamic IP, static IP, makes no difference - may make one revert in a 24 hour period.

The restriction is effective immediately. This version of the article is the baseline - I have not read it and I do not care if it is right or wrong or in Chinese. It is the starting point for now.

This is not to say the article cannot be edited. I'm talking about reverting - but if the effect of the edit is to revert to a previous version you favor, it will be considered a revert for this purpose.

If 1RR is not observed, editors could be blocked and it is likely that the article will be fully protected indefinitely. EdJohnston and I will look in frequently to check progress and I have posted at WP:AN as well.

I also encourage you all to use dispute resolution - I've searched for this elusive RfC to which some edit summaries refer and I can't find the thing. Someone should post a link to it. If it's older than 8 months or so, another dispute resolution step should probably be used or a second RfC filed. I now realize that it is Requests_for_comment/Collect.

Play nice, guys. Work it out like the sane people I know all of you must be. Thanks. - Krakatoa  Katie  03:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That RFC/U was made using User:Ikip/guests and User:Ikip/Disclaimer. I suggest you remove it from your list of important things about the editors here. Note also the editor overlap with the current ArbCom on AMIB.  Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK.


 * Juts FYI Katie, there was another RfC about the contents of the lead para to the "political spectrum" section. I'm not sure if that's important for you to know or not, but just to avoid potential confusion. The current discussions are really an extension of that. Hopefully we can get to an agreement about how that para should be worded, since I think that's the main problem at the moment.


 * PS: for everyone's info: I've decided to get an account in order to continue on the article, since I think not having one has caused confusion here and there and probably not helped. Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * An article RfC was set up here by Collect on May 17, at Talk:Fascism. Though the RfC listing may have technically expired, since 30 days have gone by, I don't know if it produced a talk page consensus of how Fascism should be placed in the political spectrum. Maybe one of the participants would like to summarize how it stands. Even though voting is evil, if further discussion seems unlikely to change any minds then somebody could assess how many people support each of the various positions. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It did not attract much in the way of fresh views, alas. Collect (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the whole RfC. My impression is that it made slow, difficult progress but no consensus. I think a main stumbling block is getting people to understand that finding ten sources that say something similar and calling that an "acedemic consensus" is a form of synthesis and has no place in formulating the paragraph. It feels like that point-of-view is gaining ground. There is a proposed lead being discussed which (it seems to me) takes account of all other objections that have been raised. In other words, I can't see any good reason why consensus is not at least possible. The objection: "I have ten sources which add up to a countervailing consensus" hopefully won't come up again, but it will only be possible to sure when editors who have expressed that view in the past comment on the current proposal. I hope that does happen. Don't know what the policies say about this, but my view would be: "if you abstain, you can't complain".--82.69.202.14 (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That's my take, anyway. I don't claim to be disinterested and it may take me some time to get used to remembering to login before I post...--FormerIP (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: I don't really think voting would help very much, Ed. IMO the issue is not how many people think what, but why they think it. I don't think this is a case where it's a finely-balanced question of perspective. IMO (and I'll accept criticism if it is due for saying this) there are some editors who don't appear to get the issues involved. --FormerIP (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the IP. It think it may be a case of I just don't like it.  Some editors oppose putting in that fascism is normally considered right-wing and present dissenting opinion as evidence against this conclusion but have not presented any source that contradicts it.  Also, they do not seem to have the same  understanding of the term "right-wing" as it is used in the sources.   The Four Deuces (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And it is not up to anyone to "know" anything as an editor -- our task is to use reliable sources, and those sources are not as uniform in their assertions as you are in your assertions. And I note that you "know" what the sources mean, even when what you "know" is contradicted by the source.    See Josh Billings.   The rule is WP:V not WP:Iknowalltheanswers.    Collect (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Collect's comments about another editor don't really seem relevant here. Let's focus on policy and content. I'll start: the prevailing view of fascism, both for laypersons and, as I understand it, academics in general, is that it is an extreme right-wing ideology or political philosophy. This fact should be reflected in the Wikipedia article devoted to Fascism, and it should be relatively simple to find appropriate sourcing. Insofar as any discussion is made on the subject of views which either dissent from this prevailing view or complain that it is overly trite or simplistic, WP:V/WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH must be strictly observed, as with everything else. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Prevailing view? Not according to the multiple cites given. Applicability of "political spectrum"? Not in current texts. It is SYN to assert "prevailing view" without using the cites to say "prevailing."   The facts are simple -- WP uses a rule about "reliable sources" and it is those sources which have been sytematically removed from the article contrary to WP:PRESERVE, WP:NPOV etc.  As for assertions that your view is "prevailing" -- that is not used as a rationale on WP. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not my view, Collect. It's the prevailing view. I think you can confirm this for yourself with relative ease. If not, I'll make an attempt to do it for you. Best! Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not, moreover, the view of all the deleted sources . Which makes it hard to asset that it is "prevailing" at all. Collect (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No – this does not in any way make it hard to (correctly) assert that it is the prevailing view, even if you are right in your analysis of these sources (QNED). Your claim is logically defective, i.e. it does not make sense. Please strikethrough. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strikethrough your claims -- it is those which are not supported. I furnished eighteen cites -- and was willing to give about 250 more if that is what it takes to convince you that "prevailing" is a gross misstatement .   Instead -- all you and friends can do is delete every source you do not like -- no matter how eminent the authors.    And again, WP uses RS as sources, not personal opinions. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I draw everyone's attention to the discussion at the end of Talk:Fascism? A source for a prevailing view has been proposed, along with proposals for a lead para for the section. If this is debated and critiqued a little then it could develop into a consensus version. Or it might not. But, either way, some kind of progress will have been made and there might even not be a further edit war. Cheers dears. --FormerIP (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * PS If you have an additional confirming source, that would of course be helpful, Factchecker. --FormerIP (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * this does seem an argument-settlingly helpful source. We have a general statement saying fascism is normally linked with the right-wing, and some specific statements about how there are ideological complexities that link doesn't capture. Disembrangler (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a great source. Argument-settlingly so? No so far, but we'll see...it's actually the same source as the current proposal is based on. (Did you catch that, everyone? There's a current proposal...it is at the end of this section.) --FormerIP (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That quote was from Roger Eatwell's article. The following source, which was presented above as part of the 16 sources of evidence of dissenting views is also helpful, and I recommend that everyone read its discussion of fascism on the political spectrum.  It explains dissenting views before explaining the usual view (no idea how the page numbering works):  Illusions of grandeur: Mosley, fascism, and British society, 1931-81, David Stephen Lewis, Manchester University Press ND, 1987 ISBN 0719023548, 9780719023545 291 pages page 1993 ''It is more usual for fascism to be defined as a movement ot the right....   The Four Deuces (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I will take a look around for something that will satisfy everyone. It will be sort of hard to find a source that explicitly states something that is usually taken for granted. For example, I somehow doubt we could find a source explicitly saying "The prevailing view among astronomers is that Copernicus was correct in asserting heliocentrism." Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That is extremely easy to source . -- Vision Thing -- 15:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the above source (Eatwell's article in Kallis' book) is an argument settling source at all. For one thing the article advocates a spectral-syncretic approach to fascism, not one pegging it as right wing. It is absolutely not endorsing the view that it is right wing. As far as it being a statement of what the scholarly consensus is, it is not useful for that either since it is almost two decades old. Also it pointedly says "left right terminology fails to bring out that ideologies are better seen as multidimensional" and that one definition which describes fascism as right wing “completely fails to see fascism's radical side." I would propose that the intro merely state that scholars disagree about whether fascism simply fits on a right left spectrum at all and that those who do feel it does disagree about where it belongs.  Then set forth those who feel it is ambiguous, syncretic or sui generis. Then those who view it as right, left and center.  Trying to say what the preponderant view is is a difficult task which will only lead to argument and no conclusion, especially since the view of fascism appears to have been in flux over the last quarter century.  Moreover, from what I've read of those who study fascism, the preponderant view among contemporary scholars seems to be that fascism synthesized left and right and does not fit well on the spectrum. Almost all the major scholars of the subject say that. Mamalujo (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To quote Kallis: "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', though right-wing terminology is often used erratically, and fascism is sometimes also conceived as 'radical right', 'far right' and 'ultra right'. Moreover, left-right terminology fails to bring out that ideologies are better seen as multi-dimensional..." I called the source 'argument-settlingly helpful' because this quote seems to precisely capture everyone's views here, as far as I can see. I don't think anyone here is seriously arguing that "right-wing" isn't clearly the baseline position; the issue is that many historians criticise (in different ways) the oversimplification involved in that baseline. The issue is whether that should lead us to throwing up our hands and ignoring the baseline (captured also - I do think we shouldn't ignore this - in the OED definition). By all means let's summarise the criticisms, but it would make those criticisms meaningless if we didn't acknowledge the baseline position they're criticising. Disembrangler (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Though as an admin I have no vote in this debate, I'm puzzled that finding acceptable wording would be such a hard problem. It appears that the scholars hold a range of views. Even if it should be true that newer, 'better' scholarship doesn't put fascism clearly on the right, it should not be hard to summarize the variety of opinions that are actually held. Above, someone is looking for a source for 'the prevailing view'. I don't think it's essential to find such a source. It is surely not up to us to reconcile scholarly conflicts; we just report what's out there, and let the reader make up their own mind. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The point of contention is really about whether or not it is appropriate to characterize fascism as "right-wing". This is a question of identifying (using sources, directly, not our own gut feeling), what the "prevailing view" is. Most dictionary and encyclopedia entries do this very plainly in their first sentence, without feeling the need for clarification. However, Wikipedia seems to have historically taken a different view, and in the fairly recent past there appears to have been no reference at all to the position of fascism on the political spectrum (and you'll note that it is a very long page).

At present there seem to be three distinct positions in play as to how the section should start. All three may be subject to refinement of wording, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that their version should have exclusive domain, just that it should be the staring point:


 * (A) By saying there is a scholarly consensus describing fascism as "right-wing";
 * (B) By saying that there is no scholarly consensus on the matter;
 * (C) By saying that most scholars reject the use of the terms "left", "right" and "centre" altogether.

I support (A), which is also supported by two sources:  and. So far, no sources have been presented which support (B) or (C), but a number of editors have presented sources which they think can be combined to back their conclusions. This is WP:SYN, however.

There's a possible position (D), which Ed may be hinting at, which would be: "Leave out the lead altogether, just present a mixture of sources and let the reader decide". This is the status quo, but I think this is no good at all. It would mean failing to provide the reader with the information they have come here for, and it would make it look, by default, as if (B) is true. Moreover, it wouldn't stop the wrangling, because disputes would move onto the terrirory of what should be included and excluded and what order things should be presented in. If anyone seriously supports (D), then I would invite them to go and propose it at Talk:The Holocaust.--FormerIP (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. A lede is not to supposed to anything more than give a summary of what follows. 2. You elide material from the eighteen sources from the closing sentences into nothing -- when Lipset, for example, and others explicity say that there is controversy about "left, right or center" entirely. Thus making the lede into a one-sided non-summary is clearly inapt.  And the fact is that there is widespread disagreement about the utility of saying "right wing" when the primary attribute is authoritarianism.    Shown by several hundred sources. Collect (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In answer to (1), we are not dealing with a WP:LEAD, but with the lead paragraph to a sub-section, so what you say is not directly relevant, Collect.


 * In answer to (2), none of the eighteen sources you provided support your conclusion. They are not worthless per se, but none of them say what you are trying to make them say (WP:SYN). All you need to do is find a single source that makes your case. But it needs to be explicit. The Lipset quote is certainly worth including in the section, but I think you are making the mistake of thinking that "controversy" is the opposite of "consensus", which it isn't. You're falling into the trap of a false dilemma. For example, in the debates over Climate Change, there is scientific controversy, but there is also scientific consensus (here is the WP page about it). "Controversy" is really a negation of "unanimity". I certainly don't deny that there exists controversy, but that was never the question we were discussing.


 * Ditto "authoritian". Fascism can be "right-wing" and "authoritarian" (indeed, I'd say it is). The two things are not mutually exclusive. --FormerIP (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest a position (E) there is a scholarly consensus that fascism is best placed on the "right-wing" part of the political spectrum, but that such placement, if simplistically interpreted, can obscure the multi-dimensional nature of a complex ideology. (cf Kallis above) Disembrangler (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with that, but I also think it is just an extended version of (A). To restate the proposal for the lead para:


 * "It is normal to position fascism as extreme right, although the terms 'radical right', 'far right' and 'ultra right' are also used. However, there exists a dissenting view that fascism represents 'radical centrism'.[fn] Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left."


 * ie: Please don't make the mistake of thinking that there is any proposal to say "fascism is right wing" and then nothing further.


 * I also think the rest of the section could be improved so as to more effectively capture the complexities you are referring to, but I don't think it would be wise to start discussing that until the current discussion has concluded. One mountain at a time. --FormerIP (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The section should explain after the introductory paragraph why fascism was considered right-wing and explain what right-wing means, i.e., support of the aristocratic and business establishment. All of the dissenting views accept that definition and their dissent is based on the degree to which fascists actually did this.  Editors from the United Kingdom should be aware that American middle class populists and libertarians consider themselves to be right-wing and get offended when compared to the historic European right, so that they consider Louis XVI "left-wing" and George III a "liberal".  The Four Deuces (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll?
Would anyone have strong objections to a poll? I tend to think it is unlikely to solve very much, but you never know.

The proposition could be: In the "Position on the Polical Spectrum" section of the Wikipedia page on Fascism, it would be approporiate to start by making some sort of statement that fascism is generally considered a right-wing ideology, and then, after that, to mention views that dissent from this and factors which may make the picture more complicated.

Is that too long?

Thoughts? --FormerIP (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Aside from the fact that I shall be off-line a while, I would also note WP:VOTE applies. If there is a "vote" I maintain my !vote in favor of the older version which was, in fact, proposed by one who now wants the change -- that is to emphasize the "left, right or center" controversy/disagreement.  Collect (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See also Voting is not evil. It might be helpful to see where everyone stands.  You might ask the administrators who have commented here, because they want us to resolve the dispute.  The Four Deuces (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * FormerIP, how about proposing a paragraph for the lead? Then wait a bit to allow some comments to fine-tune the paragraph before you open it to voting. If others have their own paragraph to offer, let them submit alternatives. You could vote on all of them at one time; let the best paragraph win. EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Ed Johnson's earlier comment that it is not necessary for us to determine or state what the "prevailing view" is. Rather we should state that there is disagreement and what the different positions are. I think that those who are pushing for a statement that the normal, consensus or prevailing view is that fascism is right wing are engaging in POV pushing. And despite the efforts at quote mining, a couple of off the cuff remarks supporting their position is amply refuted by other sources. One of the quotes used to support the idea that the "prevailing view" is that fascism is right wing actually says that it had been right wing (Marxist analysis dominated the field in the 50s and 60s) but went on to speak of the "new consensus". Anyone who has read much about fascism should know this phrase mentioned much in recent literature. That consensus consists of scholars who take an approach to generic fascism which does not employ the political spectrum and certainly does not peg it as right wing. So if we were going to talk about prevailing view, the "new consensus" would be it (however, I am arguing that we should not state what the prevailing, dominent or consensus view is). Now an exception to the "new consensus" is the Marxist scholars such as Renton who insist upon describing fascism as reactionary and right wing, but their view has been waning since its high tide mark in the 1960s. Mamalujo (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Accusing people of POV-pushing is extremely unhelpful, especially when the obvious retort is that declaring only "there are a variety of positions" is certainly not WP:NPOV if in fact there is a core position that should be mentioned as well as the variety of disagreements. Anyway, rather more helpful is the idea of separating out a "new consensus" of recent academic work - if that phrase is reasonably widely used and such a new consensus exists. A lot of the disagreement here is about the emphasis to placed on the fact that a lot of recent academic work pokes holes in the idea of a simplistic association of fascism with "right-wing". But it's ludicrous to report the hole-poking without reporting what the holes are being poked into. If we could clearly distinguish (within academia - the general view outside is still fascism=right-wing, something which we should also report) between an "old consensus" and a "new consensus" that might be a way forward. Disembrangler (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically, in the spirit of verifiability, we should focus a bit less on what's true (what fascism actually is), and a bit more on summarising who has said what when (about what fascism actually is). And also not forget that views outside academia (as captured eg by OED) are also relevant - not for establishing the truth, but because they should be reported as well. Disembrangler (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to know where everyone stands. This discussion has really spread out. I for one, liked the by john k way up earlier in the RfC section. It would mention the borrowing from Marxism, fusing of left-wing dissension with right-wing nationalism, and the ultimate destination of a right-wing authortarian system. Would that be acceptable? Soxwon (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A key problem is that I prefer dealing with current vews of current fascism as well as the historical -- while some prefer to focus only on the first examples of fascism, and others seem to think that anything "authoritarian" is "right wing" viewing American usage as less relevant for some reason. The pejorative usage also seems to enter in all of this -- frankly I suspect the desire to categorize "fascism" as though it formed a single entity is ill-suited to this article.  If we are to deal with all the views of Fascism, we are pretty much stuck with the "left, right or centre" trichotomy. Collect (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't remember where, but I remember Mussolini made fascism intentionally ambiguous so as to be adapted to any situation. However, I think the ideal version incorporated the things I mentioned above. Soxwon (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that the view that the "new consensus" states that fascism was not right-wing is incorrect. The Marxist view was that fascism was a bourgeois reaction to prevent socialism and therefore there was no real distinction between fascism and the reactionary Right.  Eatwell and others wanted to show that although fascists came to power with right-wing support and pursued a right-wing agenda that they were different from both the "reactionary Right" and the "conservative Right".  Other than in Germany and Italy however, all other European so-called "fascist" states (like Vichy France) were actually reactionary Right.  But why should we argue about what Eatwell meant instead of using what he said, which is that fascism is normally considered to be right-wing?  The Four Deuces (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, please don't miss my main point, though: The Marxists, Communists, Leftists, Progressives (etc.) all view this small heresy (fascism) within their own ranks as extreme right wing — but only for propaganda purposes. We don't have to accept a pejorative term from one of the members of a feud. Their castigation of members of their own family does not make them right wing objectively. This is a family feud for power and the ugliest thing someone could call a (former) brother in the cause was right wing. Don't you see that that's what happened when Stalin branded Bukharin and Trotsky (and many others) as rightists? This is the Soviet Communist/Marxist approach — and very effective it was, too. 24.17.12.29 (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You say that fascism was "a bourgeois reaction to prevent socialism". Surely what you are missing is "to prevent international socialism". Fascists and communists agreed on many, many things. A slight heretical stand is enough for communists to label anyone right-wing -- as if they were clear over on the opposite side of the world. I don't think you can support this line of reasoning. Lkoler (talk) 06:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Lkoler, I did not say that fascism was "a bourgeois reaction to prevent socialism". I wrote The Marxist view was that fascism was a bourgeois reaction to prevent socialism.  This is all in the context of explaining the "consensus" view and could you please not misstate what I have said.  The Four Deuces (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Four Dueces, sorry I thought you were speaking up for the "Marxist view" and so mistakenly thought you were stating your own views, as well. Please don't use this to miss my point about International socialism. You do understand my criticism, don't you?
 * Stalin was using the terms left and right (in Left Opposition and Right Opposiion) in relative terms and he used them accurately. The idea that fascists were right-wing was not invented by the Left but was commonly held both by fascists themselves and by all other parties at the time.  The Communists did have a slur term for the Nazis however:  they called them "National Fascists".  The Four Deuces (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Stalin was not using them in a relative way at all. Trotsky was actually no more nor less right wing than Stalin. Yet Stalin used "rightist" as a club to beat him with. This is what is going on now. We should spend some time here trying to give a less confusing story on fascism. It seems that you are just giving me the party line on these issues rather than discussing the history the way that it actually happened. Stalin helped Hitler get elected (in 1932) because he wanted to undermine the socialists in Germany who were not under his control. Because Mussolini and Hitler allowed corporations to continue AND Stalin could not control them he labeled their fascism as right-wing. Here you are right in use of these terms in a relativistic fashion, but don't forget that Stalin, too, threw out his own dogma and starting motivating Russians for the war effort with the term "Great Patriotic War". This should be seen as Stalin's adoption of fascism.Lkoler (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know does it help but communists during the early 1930s used the term "social fascism" to describe social democrats. -- Vision Thing -- 20:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(out)Lkoler - Actually Trotsky led the Left Opposition and Bukharin led the Right Opposition. Trotskyism is considered to be more left-wing than Stalinism, and of course the Right Opposition outside the Soviet Union generally returned to socialist parties, which again are considered less left-wing than Stalinism. The use of the terms was consistent with general usage, were accepted by the opposition groups and not meant to be pejorative. Hitler was not elected chancellor in 1932 but was appointed by President Paul von Hindenburg, and obtained complete power under the Enabling Act of 1933 which was supported by all parties except the Social Democrats and Communists. BTW what is your source for Stalin supporting Hitler in 1932/33?

VT - I don't know if that is helpful. This subdiscussion began when Lkoler mistakenly thought I was defending a Marxist views of fascism. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I am following EdJohnston's suggestion of proposing the new lead (see below). However, its the third or forth time I have tried to do this, and I don't feel it has been getting enough comments (hence the poll suggestion). Could I implore people to please comment. Thanks.--FormerIP (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead section discussion
We've got to get this discussion centralized. I couldn't find all the right links for the different views and I've been around Wikipedia for a while - no way a new/beginning editor could get it straight. So let's get the current lead section in here. The references themselves aren't here but their numbers are:

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology[1][2][3][4] and a corporatist[5][6][7] or a "Third Way" economic ideology that opposes both the rampant individualism of laissez-faire capitalism and the severe control of state communism.[8][9] Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state.[10] Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in conflict against the weak.[11] Fascists often promote irredentist claims upon territories claimed to have been been controlled by their nation in the past.[12][13] Fascist governments forbid and suppress criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.[14] Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalist liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept.[15] Fascism is much defined by what it opposes, what scholars call the fascist negations - its opposition to individualism[16], rationalism, liberalism, conservatism, capitalism, and communism. [17][18] No common and concise definition exists for fascism and historians and political scientists disagree on what should be in any concise definition.[19]

Following the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II and the publicity surrounding the atrocities committed during the period of fascist governments, the term fascist has been used as a pejorative word.[20]

Now, in clear terms, propose a new lead paragraph. If you don't have a new version of your own, propose one or two specific changes to this one. I'm pretty sure the last line/graf about perjorative use is not in dispute. - Krakatoa  Katie  01:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Katie. The bone of centention isn't actually to do with the lead para, it is to do with the first paragraph of "Position on the Political Spectrum. There are two competing versions.


 * This version:


 * Most academics describe fascism as extreme right, radical right, far right or ultra right; some calling it a mixture of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism. However, there exists a dissenting view that fascism represents radical centrism. Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.


 * was replaced with this version:


 * Most scholars do not find the terms right and left very useful with regard to fascism, which incorporated elements of both left and right, rejected the main currents of leftist and rightist politics, and attracted adherents from both ends of the political spectrum. Hence, fascism can be called sui generis. Some scholars do place fascism squarely on the right or left.


 * That's what kicked off the recent edit war.


 * Supporters of the first version claim the second version is not supported by any sources. Supporters of the second version claim there is no consensus behind the first version. I think that's a fair sumamry, at least. --89.240.145.202 (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * PS Ooops. Have now logged in. --FormerIP (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That said, I notice that the lead was edited yesterday by R-41 so as to promote "Third Way" into the first sentence, and to remove the clarification that this is a fascist defintion of fascism. This is a POV edit, so I have reverted it. --FormerIP (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It is also generally common that intense fighting for power occupies people who are on the same side of the political spectrum. Driving wedges into small differences is called "divide and conquer". The point is that the slight difference between national socialism and international socialism cannot be represented as covering the whole political spectrum from left to right wing.Lkoler (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely, H.G. Wells is enough of an authority to quote on the subject of fascism being right wing or not. He coined the term "Liberal Fascism" -- meaning to give credit for its progressive, liberal pedigree. Thanks to Jonah Goldberg (in his book, Liberal Fascism) we have a lot of eye-witness testimony and evidence to show that fascism was originally designed as a left-wing term. Just because Hitler and Mussolini used the word, sullied it, and fell to fighting with communists does not instantly make it a right-wing term, though the communists wanted every one to take up this fight in this way. It was common for people who differed with Stalin to be labeled "rightists" -- e.g., Trotsky and Bukharin. Trotsky and Bukharin were left-wing butchers who, when they were at odds with Stalin became rightists in his mind. We have no reason whatsover to support one side in these internecine wars. We need to clarify this topic.


 * Are you serious? Quoting a sci-fi writer as a singular authority on a statement of fact about political analysis? Hmm.. wait.. it seems we don't have a direct source for that? So are you saying we should quote Jonah Goldberg, or some other third party, asserting that H.G. Wells coined the term Liberal Fascism – which is actually just the title of Goldberg's book – and that somehow this is acceptable substantiation for a factual claim that Fascism is regarded as left-wing? The mind boggles (at least, mine does) at how someone could see this as a legitimate way of substantiating a mainstream academic consensus. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Goldberg does give a reference, by the way. Interested? Lkoler (talk) 06:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So, are you worried? What if there is such a quote and one that would meet your incredibly high standards? What to do then? Try the ad hominem attack that always works. Let's see, you can't (yet) call me homophobic (or Goldberg, either), you could try racist just to divert attention. Anything but find out if it's true, eh?


 * Worried? Where are you running off to with this? (1) I'm waiting on any explanation whatsoever of why the views of a sci-fi writer should be given any reading at all in the article, let alone be presented on par with claims made by academics on the subject. (2) They're Wikipedia's standards, not mine, but even if you had a direct quote from Wells it still remains to be seen why it would be mentioned here with any sense of authority, or, even, mentioned at all; (3) There were no ad hominems in my comments, but your suggestion that I would accuse anyone of racism or homophobia to distract from some point is an ad hominem. Essentially, your entire comment is a personal attack. Instead, you should try to establish some sensible claim reliably substantiating what Wells' actual view was, and then attempt to make any sort of case whatsoever indicating why it's pertinent to the article. (HINT: "Surely H.G. Wells is enough of an authority..." is not a promising start to making such a case.) And ultimately I suspect he's not enough of an authority, anyway. If you feel otherwise: make a case for your position – don't just ask that your conclusion be uncritically accepted. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Factchecker, you should check your facts (no pun intended). If a particular sci-fi author wrote a pertinent and popular book on political science, it should certainly represent some authority in Wikipedia, regardless of how authoritative it may be compared to other experienced and professional political scientists. Jerry Pournelle, I recall, created the Pournelle chart, which is more or less an important alternative to the left-right axis, and I also recall he wrote some very politically-relevant works which the political scientist community recognize as having a certain degree of authority. And he's a sci-fi writer. Just saying. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I check facts inserted into articles; I don't do people's sourcing research and make their content-inclusion arguments for them. IF H.G. Wells has any authority on the subject, it would make sense to explain that here. Indeed, I invited Lkoler to make any case whatsoever why Wells should be given a reading in the Fascism article. Still, I wonder if he has a significant academic pedigree on the subject of politics, especially if his credentials in this area were to rest on the publication of a popular book on politics. I mean, tons of authors write about politics in their autumn years, but the product is not necessarily anything special. Regardless, as I said, I think the initiative clearly lies with Lkoler at this point to make any case at all explaining what Wells' views were, to substantiate those views, and to suggest whether, in what context, and with what authority, they should be reflected in this article. Oh, and also to do so without suggesting that I would lash out at anyone with ad hominem comments like "racist" and "homophobe". Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's silly to make ad hominem arguments against Goldberg. For example, take Eric Hoffer, a longshoreman by profession, his views would still have merit based on his work in the field of philosophy in which he is also an expert. Stick to the facts and please don't try to demean people because of their other pursuits — it makes people think you have a personal interest and thereby shouldn't be trusted as a "fact-checker". The correct response to my second entry above is: "Yes, please let's see this information." Only after examining the source could you then proceed to submarine it if you think it's not relevant or doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirement to have unambiguous sources in support of Wikipedia-published facts. Instead you make sport of Goldberg, who in this narrow point only of giving support to the etymology of the title of his book, can be seen as a conduit of valuable information — yes, even if he has done other things in his life.Lkoler (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Factchecker, the reference for H.G. Wells use of "Liberal Fascism" is from Note 21 of the Introduction in Jonah Goldberg's book, Liberal Fascism. It is: Philip Coupland, "H.G. Wells's 'Liberal Fascism,'" Journal of Contemporary History 35, no. 4 (Oct. 2000), p.459.

(out) Here's a link to the abstract of the article that Goldberg used as a source. The author Philip Coupland has helpfully stated that Goldberg misrepresented what his article said. And of course Goldberg never read Wells' original speech. Anyway Lkoler said He coined the term "Liberal Fascism" -- meaning to give credit for its progressive, liberal pedigree but that is completely false. So we have a fringe writer who misrepresents what an academic said about what a science fiction writer said about fascism in 1932. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Wells used the term. Goldberg brings this valuable information forward and this upsets some people. It's a fact, nonetheless. Do you only object to my statement that Wells "coined" the term? I will gladly cede you this point. Please be clear what the criticism is on the fact(s) before any other digressions, which, after all, may be interesting, perhaps even pertinent. But one step at at time.Lkoler (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Four Deuces, Thanks for the info in ref 6. Quite a bit of tangled digression there which is not pertinent, but it is clear that H.G. Wells used the term, and this narrow point supports Goldberg. Agreed? Now please just stay on this one simple point first. It's important to go one step at a time here, evidently.
 * If you want to talk about Wells' theory of "liberal fascism" then you should refer to someone who actually understands the theory for example Philip Coupland who was the source for Goldberg's theory. Goldberg, who has no academic qualifications, misunderstood an academic's discussion of Wells and in fact never read the speech.  You may wish to add something to Goldberg's article, but it does not belong here.  The Four Deuces (talk) 04:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you've changed the topic from a simple fact to a theory now. Very interesting diversion.24.17.12.29 (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

distinctions worth making
The following are all different arguments, which have no connection to one another:


 * 1) Fascism and Communism, despite the former being seen as "far right" and the latter as "far left", have a great deal in common with each other in practice.
 * 2) Fascism is not actually on the right at all.
 * They have nothing in common.
 * They have nothing in common.


 * That is like saying: Theocracy and Democracy are mortal enemies that in practice are similar.  Look at Iran, a theocracy or "Islamic Republic", and look at a Democracy, Zimbabwe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apconig (talk • contribs) 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Pointing to people who have argued for the first point does not support the second point.

Similarly, the following are two different arguments, which have no connection to each other:


 * 1) Most scholars believe that the idea of a left/right political spectrum is problematic and overly simplistic
 * 2) Few scholars believe that fascism can be seen as more connected to the right than to the left

I think there's a lot of eliding of distinctions like this going on in Collect's arguments, at least. john k (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added the proposed intro paragraph which is consistent with mainstream views. Whether or not this paragraph remains depends on the personal views of editors.  The Four Deuces (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I significantly modified it. Issues with that version: it is infelicitously written.  Two successive sentence start with "However" and then "Moreover."  There is a lengthy list of nearly identical terms ("far right" "extreme right" "very far right" "as far right as you can go") for no apparent reason.  The text seems to imply that a mixture of "right wing nationalism" and "authoritarian conservatism" would not be considered to be right wing.  Thoughts on my changes? john k (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My own view, and I have sources that support it, is that fascism was a middle class reaction against both the upper class and the working class, very similar to the American "far right", like the "Ku Klux Klan", the "John Birch Society", or "Pat Buchanan" and "Sarah Palin", but once in power it allied itself with the establishment. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a reaction against the socialist left, but not necessarily against the working class - pretty much every fascist movement has had considerable working class support - and the same is true of neo-fascism. john k (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is if fascism is not "extreme right" what is it? I think "radical right" is better. I also think that the term "radical centrism" is confusing. However it is a great improvement on having the section begin with Mussolini's view of fascism. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Four Deuces, that was an extremely disruptive edit. Discussion was going in a completely different way and your version is not even close to a one that can be a consensus version. -- Vision Thing -- 20:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The proposal has a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level ranking of 23 or so ... making it unreadable to more than 98% of Americans.  The main lede is at an F-K value under 16 by comparison.  Collect (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I call bullshit on any use of Fleisch-Kincaid grade level rankings. john k (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The new uncited lede is far inferior to what we started with. I am asking that we discuss the facts which I earlier presented in the hope that we can reach a reasonable result, rather than a lede with assertions not borne out by cited reliable sources.Collect (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Fact: Fascism is not a single unitary item
Is this fact disputed? Collect (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not by me. john k (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean. If it means "fascism is a phenomenon which is not defined by a single characteristic", then I agree. --FormerIP (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarify please. Unitary in wiktionary has no definition as regards politics. Anarchangel (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What exactly do you mean, where are you going with this, and is it not possible to give an executive summary of your position in, say, 50-100 words, instead of plastering the entire talk page with a rambling, directionless thesis outline? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Fascism is not a "single movement" but a bunch of movements and groups led by disparate leaders with disparate beliefs, actions and positions. This, indeed, is a substantial reason why treating it as a single movement results in disagreement. Collect (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Fact: Not all "Fascists" can be typified as being on a simple left-right line
Is this disputed? Collect (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would partially dispute this, because I think it's misleading. Pretty much no political movement can be fully accounted for by a simple left-right line.  Fascism presents particular problems, but it is a difference in degree, not a difference in kind. john k (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * All fascists adhere to a set of beliefs which touch matters such as national economics, personal property and the distribution of power within society. This means that all fascists can be placed on the l-r spectrum. Anyone who can't be so placed cannot possibly be a fascist. I agree with John that placing someone on the spectrum does not take full account of all of their political attitudes, but I think this answers a question which was not asked. --FormerIP (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is disputed. You really didn't have to ask. Fascist is typified as such every day. Most if not all the people who've been disagreeing with you in the discussion you've been having for a month typify it as such. Anarchangel (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely positions on questions of national economics would be one of the areas where fascism had the least ideological content. Hjalmar Schacht was able to manage economic policy for Weimar and the Third Reich alike, for instance.  For the Nazis (about whom I have the most knowledge), economic policy was pretty much always a tool in service of other goals, and not an end in itself. john k (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, but assuming you are right, this doesn't lead us to the conclusion that there are fascists who fall outside the political spectrum for some reason, surely. Don't know much about Schacht, but he tried to kill Hitler, which may throw some doubt on his fascist credentials anyway. --FormerIP (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Assume that this would be disputed... and provide a source.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Fact: That many concepts in fascism are generally regarded as "left wing" and that some left wing groups have been typified as "fascist" by experts in the field
Is this disputed? Collect (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would certainly dispute the first part, unless you can present some examples. What do you mean by "concepts in fascism"?  The second part is probabl true, but also seems misleading.  For instance, the Russian Communist Party is characterized as fascist in one of the links you provided.  But it is also characterized as right wing. john k (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yet I submnit that fact falls under the problem that having different definitions of "left" and "right" from country to country and person to person is part and parcel of the entire issue at hand.  The Russain Communists are clearly deemed fascist by some reluiable sources, and we can not sweep that under the rug.  Mussolini's socialist bases for part of the manifesto, and his background were clearly "left wing" by standards of the day.  Collect (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think John is right that those who analyse Soviet Communism as "fascist" also, as part of that same analysis, place it on the right of the political spectrum. The theses, to grossly oversimplify, is usually: "Soviet Communism posed as a movement of the left, but it wasn't really".
 * Mussolini did indeed come from a left-wing background, but this does not answer the question of whether fascism is right-wing. David Horowitz, for example, also came from a left-wing background. --FormerIP (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The only example I know of is the conflation of socialism with Nazism because they called themselves national socialists. The scholars who might believe so is most certainly in the tiny minority. 'Many' is meaningless. That would have to be removed, and replaced with specific examples, it matters. The whole concept is completely flawed. Anarchangel (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about Soviet Communism, but about the post-Soviet Russian Communist Party, which Collect posted a link to arguing that they were in fact fascists and right wingers (which somehow proves that fascism isn't right wing?) john k (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're going to have to (a) explain exactly what you mean by this, and (b) provide a synthesizing source stating that many concepts in fascism are generally regarded as left-wing... NOT JUST this or that author claiming that this or that concept in fascism is left-wing. And, Collect, I sincerely hope that this is not just another wild expedition in Original Research. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Try WP:NPA someday.  Address what is written and not try making the White Queen your role model in posts.   We have over a dozen sources which refer to one or more aspects of fascism or its members as "left wing" in one or more ways.  Is that insufficient for an article reflist to say "some"?  Collect (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Try responding instead of dishing irrelevant ad-hominem rhetoric. You need to (a) explain exactly what you mean by this, and (b) provide a synthesizing source stating that many concepts in fascism are generally regarded as left-wing... NOT JUST this or that author claiming that this or that concept in fascism is left-wing. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) Any cites? Goldberg, Liberal Fascism (reviewed by NYT). Griffin (Fascism: The Nature of Fascism) page 283 "concepts pertaining to socialism or capitalism should be excluded from the definition of fascism." Griffiths (Fascism) page 1 states ".... given the left-wing characteristics found in most varieties of fascism." Gregor (The Faces of Janus) discusses the dichotomy of "left" and "right" and how Communism could be called "right wing" . "Totalitarianism, as a political regime, had apparently been as much an invention of the Left as of the Right." And so on (read it). 'By the 1930s, even Trotsky was prepared to recognize the 'fateful similarities' between Italian Fascism and Stalinism."  Routledge Encyclopedia states that there were minor differences between Nazism and Stalinism (page 443 - "Ideological domination."  Golsan (Fascism's Return) page 135  states that the French "Neo-socialist" and "Common Front" fascist parties were "left-wing."  And a bunch more - but the point is clearly made.  And I suggest the DPRK is profoundly fascist in nature.  Collect (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Collect, can you please not refer to people like Jonah Goldberg. This discussion is about experts not fringe theorists.  Also avoid presenting OR arguments about the DPRK (N. Korea Communists).  All of this is merely detracting from the issues.  The Four Deuces (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Four Deuces, please give references for your contention that Jonah Goldberg is a fringe theorist. Your disagreement with him does not make him fringe. Remember that even Simon Sebag Montefiore in his book on Stalin, Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar, cites Stalin's appreciation of Hitler and the effective way that he dealt with his internal enemies in "The Night of the Long Knives". Goldberg has started a major revision of the history of this internecine dispute by showing that fascism is related to the word union (as in trade union) and that all the 20th Century Totalitarians drank from the same revolutionary cup and then fought among themselves. His central point which I think is undeniable is that fascism was really simply a heresy (as viewed by Stalin and the Russian Communists) of Socialism. My God, Hitler proudly called his party National Socialism. How can history get so completely turned upside down as to believe that there is much difference between International Socialism and National Socialism. During World War II, Stalin started his own National Socialism, calling the war the Great Patriotic War -- as fascist a term as you can get. These issues simply must be resolved better. Wiki people, you must stop letting intolerant lefties rule. Finally, let me end with a little pedagogic illustration from India: An effective way to remove a thorn from one's foot is to look around for a second thorn to use as a tool to dislodge the first. This is exactly what Churchill and the West did with Hitler: he used fire (Stalin) to fight fire (Hitler). Just as Stalin had always complained about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkoler (talk • contribs) 17:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:Fringe for an explanation. We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.  Conjectures that have not received critical review from the scientific community or that have been rejected should be excluded from articles about scientific subjects.  I did not say I disagreed with Jonah Goldberg, but he has no academic qualifications and has never subjected his theories to academic scrutiny and should not be used as a representative of mainstream thinking.  Whether he is right or wrong is beside the point. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Finally, Goldberg is not presenting theories, scientific or otherwise. He is presenting historical facts with references (and plenty of opinion, of course). If you are saying that authors such as Mr. Goldberg cannot be cited because he is not in the academic world, then surely this severely limits Wikipedia. But, I take your broader point that Mr. Goldberg is not in the tune with the academic mainstream. Indeed, he has them in his cross-hairs. Dissension is allowed by Wikipedia isn't it? I realize that this is part polemic, but it is also part sincere request for understanding Wikipedia's culture and policies. The historical connection between Fascism and Communism must be better fleshed out. I want to register my serious criticism of this page's articles, that it steadfastly denies that these two isms are closely related. If you don't allow a more sophisticated understanding of this complex and interrelated history, you cannot explain even simple things like how Trotsky became a "rightist".Lkoler (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the education on Wiki's policy towards "fringe" theories, etc. I certainly concur with it and I think it is nuanced enough to handle most things. Your explanation is confusing when you use the word scientific when discussing the subject of this page, however. Surely, you don't have the notion that the definition of fascism has some sort of scientific pedigree! Why do you use the term scientific? Please explain. Also, how do you come to conflate "academic" with "mainstream"? I think you meant "mainstream academic". This is a different thing altogether.

You should read WP:NPOV and WP:POV and WP:RS. Essentially articles like this one should state what mainstream academic opinion is, followed by dissenting views. Dissenting views should be presented, but should not be given undue prominence. Goldberg is a poor source because his writings were in a popular book and therefore received very little academic criticism. If people want to know what he wrote in his book however there is the article Liberal Fascism. The definition of fascism does have a pedigree in political science. Although the quote from WP:Fringe uses the term "scientific" the policy refers to "fields of study" in general. The section we are discussing is "Fascism in the political spectrum", so we need sources that state Fascism is left-wing. We cannot infer from any comparison with communism that it is left-wing, unless the writer makes the conclusion (See WP:SYN). May I suggest that you look for any academic sources that Goldberg uses to support his theories if you think any viewpoint is underrepresented. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Political Science is not a science. Just because it has the word "science" in it does not make it science. Please confirm for me that Wikipedia standards allow Political Science to be considered a science. That's quite a reach. Just for clarity, it's not important to me to define Fascism as left-wing or right-wing — instead, I think that that is the problem with this topic. (Though I perfectly understand your point.) What is clear is that Fascism, Communism, Socialism, Nihilism, etc. all spring from the same tree — that of revolutionary militarism. On the ground, there's not a dime's worth of difference between them. Sometimes International and sometimes National groupings are alleged. But, really the ideas and definitions are at service to the ruling cabal and they are played with as needed. These isms are really just used by a dictator with a dictionary to further his own ends. I will take up your suggestion to see if I can come up with improvements to this topic by examining Goldberg's sources.Lkoler (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the references to Wikipedia's standards. These standards and policies are very high-minded and well thought out (and well written, too).


 * Although the WP policies use the term "science" my reading is the policies apply to all fields of study including social sciences, but also humanities. Is it your position that these policies only apply to natural sciences?  The Four Deuces (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In a word, yes. It is a source of confusion and even further afield to normal usage if you include the humanities. 24.17.12.29 (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Debating that wording still will not change the underlying substance of WP policy, which is to primarily reflect mainstream views and only provide a limited reading of dissenting/minority/fringe views. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there a confusion here about views and facts? What if all the "mainstream views" are in contradistinction to a fact or facts? Which will win? Here's what I mean: Mainstream view is that fascism is right-wing or extreme right-wing. Fact: Fascism has become to be associated with the term right-wing through the evolution of history from the 1920s to present. At least acknowledge that the term has left-wing or socialist roots, especially via Mussolini and his use of union (fascisti) thugs. Mussolini always considered himself a socialist, even though he was kicked out of the socialist party. He shared almost every value of the Socialists but fell out of favor with them. Now my question is why let this small heresy influence the representation of fascism by Wikipedia. This is at the root of the confusion with this term. When people dogmatically support only the left-wing's view (which may very well be the "mainstream view") of history they do readers of Wikipedia a disservice and create confusion. 24.17.12.29 (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.  (See:  Verifiability).  The Four Deuces (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Fact: That the validity of a simple "spectrum" was derided by Schlesinger in 1948, five decades before 1999, and that he is considered a substantial expert in the field
Is this disputed? Collect (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly dispute this. Firstly, Schlesinger did not dispute the validity of a simple spectrum, he simply proposed the idea that the spectrum was in fact a circle, with far left and far right more similar to each other than either was to the center.  The very idea of a "vital center" implies communism and fascism as extremes on either side of it.  He is also not an expert on the field.  The Vital Center is a polemic (see numerous citations above) on a subject about which he had no particular expertise.  Schlesinger's area of expertise is nineteenth century American history, where his Age of Jackson thesis is now generally considered tendentious.  His work on twentieth century American history is interesting more from the perspective of what it says about post-war liberals like Schlesinger than what it says about American history. john k (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, completely disputed, this is your own distorted analysis of what Schlesinger was saying. The distortion has already been pointed out to you. It is quite intellectually dishonest to go on presenting this as a "fact".  Nor would it be especially instructive if it were true. A historian "derided" the conception of a political spectrum? Wow. And "five decades before 1999"? What OR-infested expedition are you setting out on now? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest that referring to the linear spectrum as a "fallacy" does comprise comment on it .  As for deriding a reliable source as a "polemic" carry weight.  It definitely can be used as a source for Schlesinger's views as an expert historian, which is all any of the sources can be used as. Collect (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * He does not refer to the linear spectrum as a fallacy. This has already been pointed out to you. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To put it more accurately, Schlesinger suggests that there are fallacies associated with the one-dimensional version of the political spectrum, not that the spectrum itself is fallacious. It is abundantly clear that he continues to see the terms "left" and "right" as perfectly meaningful, and employs them in their traditonal senses. --FormerIP (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Would that simplistic bilateral distinctions were not the established norm. Thank goodness that, given a norm of bilateral distinction, Fascism is properly given a place on the right, with many other authoritarian regimes. Anarchangel (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Anarchangel, please advise which left wing countries and political systems are NOT authoritarian. When Castro has someone shot in the back because that person wants to escape Cuba's internment camp (the whole country) is he not being BOTH left-wing and authoritarian. You can't win these type of arguments with words. Facts will out. 24.17.12.29 (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Fact: That multi-dimensional and non-linear sytems have been widely proposed as an alternative to the single line
Is this disputed? Collect (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Multi-dimensional systems have been proposed by libertarians as a way of showing that libertarianism is the best political system, and/or by silly people who don't have any understanding of the history of the terms (multi-dimensional systems almost always end up leaving the actual traditional European right as not right wing).  The idea of the spectrum as a circle that bends back on itself is a common one, but this very idea assumes the notion of fascism as on the "extreme right" - if fascism is not on the extreme right, then the whole idea doesn't work, because it's premised on the idea that communism ("extreme left") is similar to fascism ("extreme right").  Such a notion, at any rate, belongs in the discussion of the political spectrum, not here. john k (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't dispute this "FACT!", but also agree with John. It's true but not highly relevant. The majority of "alternative" models incorporate the l-r spectrum and add an additional dimension. --FormerIP (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't dispute it, but then, you haven't really established it either. Evidence please. Anarchangel (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if this is granted to you, you will need a synthesizing source to make any kind of claim as to the prevalence or significance of such views. You can't, as you have seemed eager to do, just find a bunch of sources which talk about such models, and then piece those together to make an original claim about such views


 * That aside, do you have any sources? And what relevance are you hoping to demonstrate to fascism? This isn't an article about the traditional political spectrum as an analytical tool. It's about fascism. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Schlesinger. 1948. And stated specifically that the linear spectrum was knwn to be problematic. "'The rise of fascism and communism illustrated vividly the fallacies of the linear conception of Right and Left.' In certain basic respects-a totalitarian state structure, a single party, a leader, a secret police, a hatred of political, cultural and intellectual freedom-fascism and communism are clearly more like each other than they are like anything in between. This dilemma drove Prof. DeWitt C. Poole to an inspired suggestion. Right and Left, he said, should be conceived, not in terms of a line, but in terms of a circle, with the extremes of Right and Left-fascism and communism-meeting at the bottom. You can then look at the circle in two ways: with respect to property, fascism and the moderate Right are side by side against communism and the moderate Left; with respect to liberty, the moderate Right and moderate Left are side by side against fascism and communism. "    Seems pretty clear, and I doubt that he was a Libertarian. Collect (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) So, how does a single historian "widely propose" anything? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Look at all the sources you (referr8ing to those in general who did so -- the use of outdents and indents can make structure confusing( Collect (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC) deleted which referred to the problems of locating Fascism qua Fascism on a line, and the number of different proposals for multi-dimensional spectra (not just Nolan) which, IIRC, you dismissed as being "Libertarian." Surely Schlesinger disproves that claim . Collect (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't delete your sources. That was another editor. Regardless, you haven't presented a source substantiating the claim that multi-dimensional alternatives have been "widely proposed". One bajillion sources proposing multi-dimensional alternatives also will not substantiate the claim. What you need is a synthesizing source which directly substantiates that the alternatives have been widely proposed. Individual sources proposing alternatives only substantiate the claim that such alternatives have been proposed... not "widely proposed". Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That multiple sources state that the position of fascism in the political spectrum is contentious within the community of historians and political scientists
Is this disputed? Collect (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but again, this is only a half truth. john k (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Eh? I had a half dozen cites previously stating this directly -- why do you regard this as a "half truth"?

While some 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, and Linehan states "The dispute amongst historians...overlaps with another contentious area of scholarship, the question of whether fascism was an ideology of the right, left or centre''." The entire aptness of a left-right Political spectrum has also been challenged by many current historians. '' remains valid and fully sourced.

Note particularly " Linehan states "The dispute amongst historians...overlaps with another contentious area of scholarship, the question of whether fascism was an ideology of the right, left or centre" which rather implies that he finds the issue "contentious" (in fact, that is the exact word used, of all things!)  Sternhell,  Kuper, Harnon et al all seem to take the same position as well. And you dismiss "Andrew Brooke writing for the Toromto Society for Technical Communication "This "left/right" paradigm is more outdated than your father's Oldsmobile. A two-hundred year old model that originated during the French Revolution, it referred to the seating arrangements in the French Legislative Assembly. Conservative Royalists sat on the right; liberal Montagnards sat on the left - literally. With all the bickering that must have ensued, it makes you wonder how they had time to invent French toast and French fries. Much has changed in 200 years. To call this spectrum a gross-over simplification would be a gross-over simplification. It may have been appropriate to describe the political forces in emerging democracies, but in today's world, it has about as much use as the Theme function in Microsoft Word. "


 * Thus I factually established "multiple sources" as given in the statement. And furnished a specific use of "contentious" to boot . Collect (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This FACT! is technically true, but relatively unimportant, compared to the lower-case (and sourced) fact that fascism being on the right is the "normal" view. --FormerIP (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Suppose we accept that this is true. (I'm reserving judgment for now. Brooke's language makes him sound more like a columnist for Rolling Stone than a serious academic.) Will you acknowledge that it does not constitute a denial that fascism is traditionally conceived as right-wing? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It means that my compromise offer is correct then -- as it includes your "right wing."  Collect (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not even sure what you mean by this. Please answer my question. Do you admit that none of what you have said or cited constitutes a denial that fascism is typically regarded as right-wing? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

===Fact: That it is not up to WP editors to somehow determine "majority" and "minority" views when multiple sources point out that the meaning of "left" and "right" is historically variable, is variable by political position of the society, is variable by the political position of the person making the judgement and so on===

Is this disputed? Collect (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * All of those "facts" could apply to discussion of any ideology. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd dispute this one as wlel. In spite of the difficulty in placing fascism ideologically, it remains a basic fact that it's most frequently considered as a phenomenon of the "extreme right".  This is the point of departure for scholars who wish to dispute it.  At any rate, I don't find this to be a useful exercise. john k (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest that this is part nd parcel of the entire discussion.  Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not up to WP editors to draw conclusions from multiple sources, because this is WP:SYN. That "right wing" is the normal view of fascism is sourced. If you disagree, you need to find contradicting sources, or information which undermines Eatwell's value as an RS. As I said before, anything else, including your seven "killer facts", which I have courteously responded to, you will note, is hot air. --FormerIP (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that Vision Thing reversed john k's edit with no discussion at all and therefore I have restored it. All editors should be vigilant about this. Also, as I pointed out earlier, Collect's comments about fascism could apply to any ideology, and discussing them is a great waste of time. I would ask Collect rather than taking us into a fascinating but ultimately useless discussion to stick with secondary sources. The issue is not what fascism was but what the sources say it was. People in Orange County CA or Cheers Bar Boston may have legitimate grievances against what the "mainstream media" and "pointy-headed intellectuals" think but we cannot decide the issue here. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Think I'm sympathetic to what you say, but I am a UK editor - perhaps you could briefly explain the significance of the two places you mention, just so I can understand. I think I already know what the Cheers bar is. Does Ted Danson have a view on this? I don't get the reference. --FormerIP (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Orange County is one of the most reactionary parts of the US, where the John Birch Society is respectable and the airport is named after John Wayne. Cheers featured a Walter Mitty character, Cliff Claven, a postman, who made outrageous claims to knowledge.  BTW read about Cleon Skousen who was a conspiracy theorist and major influence on American "right-wing" thought.  The Four Deuces (talk) 02:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Just a note: it is probably not a mainstream view, but according to some (eg Umberto Eco) fear of "pointy-headed intellectuals" may already be enough to designate members of said Californian community and patrons of said fictional bar as "fascists". Not that I know anything about it, to be clear. --FormerIP (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Utterly wrong. WP editors are not only allowed but required to make such judgements in order to determine whether, for example, categorizing fascists as socialist or left is a Flat Earth theory (WP:FRINGE). Anarchangel (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Four Deuces, I had made three comments on talk before my edit. That can be easily verified by checking either my contributions or talk page history. What you did and what you are currently doing is a clear example of a POV pushing of the worst kind. -- Vision Thing -- 11:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Vision Thing: I am not POV pushing, I merely think 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" (WP:Undue Weight).  The Four Deuces (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * john k: Although fascists had working class support they also played on middle class fear of labor.  They also played on resentment of the rich, whose support they also had.  It is typical fascist (and right-wing populist) resentment that they are squeezed between big business and big labor.  The Four Deuces (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Utterly wrong, as Anarchangel puts it. It is absolutely the obligation of WP editors to determine the prevalence of views and whether they are majority or minority views. And, Collect, this is yet another thing which I have already pointed out to you, in very recent discussion on this very talk page, which you have chosen to ignore. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And still the earth moves. WP requires a reliable source for any such judgements. Note my compromise makes no value statements at all and reflects the content of the section. Editors do not qualify as reliable sources.  Collect (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)