Talk:Fascism/Archive 7

Protection
Can anything be introduced between protection and non-protection like moderation where edits have to be approved by an administrator (or designee) before they're implemented ? 130.15.162.88 01:11, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Administrators aren't here to approve or disapprove of edits (aside from simple vandalism or clear violations of policy, e.g. copyright violations). Pages are protected to forcibly persuade those who would otherwise be unwilling to discuss the disputed changes. While I see lots of discussion happening (not all of it entirely civil, but that's another matter), it seems as if an agreement is a long way off.


 * Where consensus is hard to reach (e.g. as things were at DNA), sometimes a vote is held to establish which version is most strongly preferred. As the debate hasn't gone on exceptionally long yet, a better option would be to list the dispute at Requests for comment. That way, others from the community may chime in with their opinion, and help to sway the debate one way or the other.


 * As I'm the one who stepped in to protect this particular article, I cannot comment on the issue at hand. I only hope an agreement is reached soon, so constructive editing may resume. -- Hadal 03:25, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

While requests for comment might theoretically be good, I think a vote would be the best way to deal with the very specific issue of the page protection. So...

Poll: Should the Soviet Union and other communist states be listed as fascist regimes in this article?
Can someone summarise why anyone would believe that the SU should be thought of as fascist? Marnanel 04:56, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * The Soviet Union, as does China, meets the criteria for the definition of Fascism given in the article

'''The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that exalts nation and often race above the individual, and uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition, engages in severe economic and social regimentation, and espouses nationalism and sometimes racism (ethnic nationalism). '''

The article goes into further depth pertaining to German and Italian Fascism, but does not define fascism exclusive as either of these, so it would be a logical conclusion that the Soviet Union could still qualify as a fascist state because the do meet the criteria listed in the definition.

This should not put up to a vote. Historical fact should not be an area where a consensus decides what is and is not true.

I have made a logical case, and if people dont want me playing in what they deem to be tier own exclusive sandbox, then so be it.

I will go along with whatever the results of the vote are. TDC 05:09, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's not that people don't want you playing in their sandbox, it's just that we have a minor disagreement over editing. No biggie. The reason for my opposition is that I recall something about different structures and ideologies from my European History class. Meelar 05:12, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Meelar, this is about more than a minor editing disagrement. I think that if you gothrough the history of the article, if you have the time and are so inclined, you will find a small but dedicated group of people who want a standard argument presented and engage in editing wars with hose who stray from it. I have tried to interject some widely held views and thoughts into this, and I think I have struck a nerve. - I truly do not want to turn this article into another Arab Israeli conflict type of edit war. TDC 05:18, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * For more discussion of this see further up in the talk page, or perhaps in archives, I'm not sure. (I outlined there, for instance, several aspects of this article's own definition of fascism - such as that it was anti-communist - which doesn't fit with, well, communism) BTW, this absolutely is not a question of "historical fact" but of judgment.  "Fascism" is not a word with a particularly clear meaning, so determining if the Soviet Union was fascist is not like the question of determining what day Stalin died, or who won the Battle of Hastings.  john 05:14, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to be cooperative, TDC.AndyL 05:15, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) TDC 05:09, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Lirath Q. Pynnor It should be mentioned in an NPOV fashion that some people do feel that these "Communist" governments were more fascist than communist. However, since they didn't declare themselves to be fascist -- they should not be presented in the list of fascist nations.

No

 * 1) john 04:50, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) &rarr;Raul654 04:55, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) &mdash;Eloquence 04:55, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Meelar 04:56, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) AndyL 05:13, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Danny 05:24, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) (in protest--I think voting on this is ridiculous)
 * 7) Infrogmation 05:26, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Mackensen 05:44, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) The Anome 05:57, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Methylsoy 06:54, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Jamesday 07:27, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Vardion 08:51, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) 172 12:39, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) (Ugh. The crap being pushed on this page grows more asinine by the day. Here's a better proposition to vote on: "Poll: Should TDC and other extreme POV pushers with strong opinions but little to no knowledge on the subject be banned from trolling this article." 172 12:39, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Skatehorn 16:49, 1 Apr 2004 (CEST)
 * 15) Dpbsmith 17:13, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) Jmabel 07:30, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) till we *) 17:48, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) (and agrees withh Danny)
 * 18) G-Man 19:27, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) Slrubenstein 21:11, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) Hauser 22:10, 3 Apr 2004 (NZEST) (Bloody pathetic, then again it's kinda ironic the fact that I am complaining about a democratic insitution in a discussion about Fascism :P)
 * 21) The Soviet Union, like Nazi Germany was a totalitarian government, but a different type, a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship. Good articles can be written about both types and the general characteristics of both using the existing articles. Fred Bauder 11:39, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * 22) As Kim says, "encyclopedic content cannot be determined by vote", but describing the Soviet Union as fascist is such an incredibly stupid idea that I'm going to vote anyway. Tannin 11:51, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 23) * Gee Thanks! I think... Kim Bruning 11:57, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 24) Lirath Q. Pynnor It should be mentioned in an NPOV fashion that some people do feel that these "Communist" governments were more fascist than communist. However, since they didn't declare themselves to be fascist -- they should not be presented in the list of fascist nations.
 * 25) Kwertii 16:17, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) (half inclined to agree with 172, though I'd say "trolls" rather than "POV pushers".)

Oppose or decline the vote

 * 1) Encyclopedic content cannot be determined by vote. Kim Bruning 13:04, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) * Note that I'm only opposed to the polling procedure as was used here. What's done is done though. Suggest we proceed constructively and try to find a compromise which will happen to be (rather much) closer to no than to yes. Kim Bruning 09:47, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree w above  Sam Spade 23:02, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Lirath Q. Pynnor Indeed.

Polling Guidelines
Um that, and please please check: Polling guidelines. Thanks Kim Bruning 13:41, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, didn't really follow the guidelines, did I? At any rate, my purpose in doing this was to try to quickly resolve the edit conflict one war or another (Hopefully by showing TDC that a vast consensus of users disagrees with his version of how things are), so that we can unprotect the page and work on it. john 17:20, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Um I'm kind of waiting to see when you'll at least make a pass at following those you can still follow. :-) Kim Bruning 11:44, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Long talk page
Re: WARNING: This page is 56 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32 kB. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections
 * Talk:Fascism/ archive7 has been created. See here for a directory of talk from 18:35, 30 Mar 2004 to 13:10.

--

Structure, organization, and content of Wikipedia's ENCYCLOPEDIC ENTRY on Fascism
Once again, I'm moving down toward the bottom of the page the "various thoughts on the article in general" (starting w/ the John Kenney posting). Hopefully, this will make rekindle the serious, scholarly discussion about overhauling the Fascism article on Talk:Fascism (what a novel idea!). BTW, how about creating Talk:Fascism/ Chat room? In this page, e.g., "User X" could argue that Eisenhower republicanism, feudalism, and mercantilism were all forms of socialism. "User Y" could call die Führer a social democrat, Mussolini a Marxist, and Stalin a fascist. "User Z" could argue that that fascism came from the works of Jews. This would keep the asinine distractions on their own page.

--

Various thoughts on the article in general
Unrelated to the current argument, but doesn't the article give rather too much credit to Franco and Salazar as "fascists"? It seems to suggest that there is a general consensus that these regimes are fascist. This is extremely dubious with respect to Salazar, and, I think, questionable with respect to Franco. Furthermore, to treat Franco's relationship to the Falange as equivalent to Mussolini's and Hitler's with their parties is very questionable. I'd also note that this page focuses far too much on fascist regimes (of which there have been few genuine cases - only Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy can, I think, be called fascist without qualification, plus maybe some of the German puppet regimes in occupied Europe - although even here we should be careful about, say, calling Vichy fascist, given the very strong conservative traditionalist trends within the Vichy government, represented not least by PÃ©tain himself) as opposed to fascist movements, of which there were a large number (British Union of Fascists, the Falange, Doriot and DÃ©at's organizations in France in the 30s and under Vichy, Arrow Cross in Hungary, Iron Guard in Romania, and so forth...).

More broadly regarding this argument, I'd argue (as usual, perhaps) for a more historical perspective on fascism, discussing its origins with Mussolini, and then the spread of various fascist and quasi-fascist movements to other parts of Europe, and so forth. Avoid the poli-sci/theoretical stuff as much as possible, especially given the extent to which fascism is, in fact, rather difficult to fit into any coherent theoretical framework. And BTW, surely it only escalates the conflict to make what you know will be highly controversial edits and then put "NPOV" as the subject summary. john 06:00, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

--

Very good points by John. I'd go even further, though. This article needs a fundamental overhaul. IMHO, we need to work on structure first, then content. This is the best means of realizing our possibly contradictory goals. First, let me explain what I mean by this.

Here are the conflicting stylistic goals. On one hand, readers of encyclopedic entries are seeking parsimony and clarity. On the other hand, Slrubenstein and John Kenney have thoroughly demonstrated the problem of sweeping generalizations, e.g. "Fascism is ..." To reiterate Slrubenstein's point, encyclopedias do need sentences like this. While we want the writing to be clear and relatable to the vast majority of potential readers, we cannot do so at the expense of not incorporating enough factors or contextualization.

The other conflicts are content-related. Fascism as a global historical phenomenon warrants attention. The Sonderweg thesis, e.g., relates Nazism to processes rooted in socio-economic structures; other scholars (e.g., Barrington Moore) have gone further, examining the relationship of German, Japanese, and Italian "fascism" in the interwar era to "modernization." Yet we ought to consider the astute words of caution regarding "the poli-sci/theoretical stuff" (see above) raised by John Kenney. Since this is an encyclopedic entry, we need to stay focused on regimes considered fascist by a general consensus and stay on topic.

IMHO, reorganization will make things far easier for us when we're doing the rewrites. While I'm not worried about the serious users going off topic, we cannot expect to be the sole authors. Good, well-defined organization will tell writers/editors where to include what. Writers would know where to include, e.g., "the poli-sci/theoretical stuff," and where to avoid it.

My idea is a New Imperialism-style series. A parent article (i.e. Fascism) would consist of executive summaries of its component daughter articles and a series box. The first daughter article could be Fascism as a political movement (both prewar and postwar). This article could start with Mussolini's Fascist (capital "F") movement, and then address the spread of fascist-like and Nazi movements to other parts of Europe. The second article could be Fascism as a system of government, focusing on Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and the German puppet regimes in occupied Europe. It could trace these following subtopics (listed in no particular order): social bases of support for fascist regimes, totalitarianism and control, regime ideology, mass mobilization, the seizures of power, the relationships with traditional elites, party and state structures, and the political economy. Fascism as an international phenomenon could be a third and final article in the series. In this article we could deal with Japan, Franco, Salazar, Vichy France, Arrow Cross in Hungary, possibly fascist-like regimes in Latin America, etc., while never loosing focus on the ambiguities and the lack of consensus.

Notice that Fascism as an ideology is conspicuously absent. This was very intentional on my part. For lack of a better way of describing it, such an article would leave a breeding ground for trolling. Instead, the three articles in my proposal above would address ideology from time to time, but in a proper context, with no room for, say, loopy John Birch Society-style rants (Hum, I wonder why that crossed my mind?). A good structure requires writers to stay on focus, stay concrete, and stay properly contextualized. IMO, the lack of structure in the existing article (not the "Marxist POV") has engendered the antics of the three 'fascism is social democracy' stooges more than any other single factor. With an organization that allows for such open-endedness, we should expect abuse. It's possible to dig up handful of out-of-context quotes, and write a bunch of reductionisms (e.g., "Socialists think" and "Germans think") and create a work of fiction that reaches comedic levels.

My ideas for a major overhaul are very tentative. I'd like to hear others. For now, the most important point that I'm stressing is imposing safeguards against sweeping generalizations, and the misconception, e.g., that Fascism and Nazism were complete or consistent theories. 172 14:19, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Name the 3 stooges? :-) Kim Bruning 17:29, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Wheeler, TDC, Sam Spade Opps - I should avoid sweeping generalizations! That combination changes. Moe, Larry, Curly from '34- '37. Then there's Moe, Larry, and Shemp. Less remembered are Moe, Larry, and Joe; and Moe, Larry, and Curly Joe are in '50s episodes. Even that answer depends on the context! Here are some pics: http://www.lunkhead.net/stoogepics/mls/stoogepics2.html 172 17:47, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

172's proposal sounds pretty good to me. I agree that organization is definitely part of the problem with the article at present. And I agree that Fascism as an ideology would be serious problematic, just because it's very hard to actually come up with any kind of consistent ideology of fascism. john 18:05, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think it sounds good also. The current first section (definition) is a mess and could probably be chopped up into 172's proposed sections. The paragraph about the sloppy usage of the word "fascist" should either be trimmed or eliminated. Words are often used in a sloppy manner, and I don't think it is necessary for us to point that out. I added a non-partisan statement about prejorative use because there is a ton of emphasis on the use of "fascist" to characterize right-wing groups, but no-one had mentioned the common usage of "femi-nazi"! Anyway, I don't think that we should get into all the examples of how the term is used in divisive rhetoric. AdamRetchless 18:44, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Adam, Kim, and John,

Thanks for the feedback. I'll put up a template of a series box here. Don't worry - I'm not getting way ahead of myself. We can just play around with it here for now. 172 20:04, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here's an example of a potential template for the main page. We can play around with this, choosing and organizing content for the article series. 172 20:15, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How about the Geneology of Fascism? After the General Description, the next phase is the geneology!!! Can we add this to the topic 172?WHEELER 15:01, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sure. It could show a direct line from the Catholic Church to Fascism perhaps with a link to the 1891 Papal Encylical. Your diagram is useless though. It suggests that fascism comes from democracy. 130.15.162.83 21:37, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fascism as a political movement
For details see the main article Fascism as a political movement.


 * Mussolini's fascist movement, spread of fascist-like and Nazi movements to other parts of Europe

Fascism as a system of government
For details see the main article Fascism as a system of government.


 * Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and the German puppet regimes in occupied Europe
 * Social bases of support for fascist regimes, totalitarianism and control, regime ideology, mass mobilization, the seizures of power, the relationships with traditional elites, party and state structures, and the political economy

Fascism as an international phenomenon
For details see the main article Fascism as an international phenomenon.


 * Fascist-like, quasi-fascist regimes, movements in the interwar era (e.g., Japan, Franco, Salazar, Vichy France, Arrow Cross in Hungary, possibly fascist-like regimes in Latin America)

I copied and pasted below a portion of User:Slrubenstein's comments (the full text can be found above in this talk page) not pertaining to the talk that I'd moved down. 172 08:27, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) Here they are:


 * 1) some people seem to post unserious comments. This ought to stop as it is distracting from what ought to be a serious discussion.  I can't make anyone stop, but I think people who respond to unserious comments with more unserious comments are only making matters worse.


 * 2) I think 172's idea of a series of articles is a good one; I don't know whether we are ready to start several linked articles, but the point is to organize some of the different elements.
 * I agree. Just to for the sake of clarity, I'll say again that we're not ready to start work on linked articles. You're right about the need for feedback on organizing the different elements of a potential series. 172 08:34, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks 172 -- I hope other people (e.g.WHEELER and TDC will read and respond to my comments above. I want to stress the importance of some discussion of Hegel as a way of approaching the ideological similarities and differences between Fascism and Marxism; and some discussion of corporatism as a way of putting Fascism in a broader perspective of comparative political systems. Slrubenstein

Whell, 172, what can I say? Judging from their recent comments, either WHEELER and TDC won't read my comments, or they don't understand them. I wondewr if they even understand what "history" is! Slrubenstein

Well how about a page called the geneology of Fascism????WHEELER 01:34, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sure. It could show a direct line from the Catholic Church to Fascism perhaps with a link to the 1891 Papal Encylical. 130.15.162.83 21:37, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Reorganization of the article
Re Sl's posting above:
 * Look, the problem is there are three issues here and the article can address eachone, but must keep them separate.
 * 1) analyzing the classic Fascist regimes (Italy, Germany, Spain) in a critical, scholarly way.
 * 2) a discussion of the use of "fascism" as an ideal type for an ideology, social movement, or political system, and the way political scientists who study comparative political systems compare fascism to similar regimes
 * 3) popular, politically motivate uses of "fascism" and "fascist," which includes non-scholarly claims about Italy and Germany, and about other countries/regimes. Slrubenstein

I have a quibble with your proposed division of the article, in that it leaves no room for discussion of fascism as a concrete political movement, which I think is, generally, more productive than looking at Fascism as a government in power, since there are many examples of the former, and very few of the latter (Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany being the only undisputed ones, I'd say, plus some puppet regimes - as I noted before, I think it's too simple to say that Franco was a fascist, although his rule certainly had elements of fascism in it.) As to arguing with TDC, until we can come to some way to make him not keep inserting the Soviet Union in the list of fascist states, the article stays protected, so that has to be resolved one way or another. john 23:07, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A very fair point, I am sure we can have a structure that accomodates my point as well as yours. Slrubenstein
 * I find Sl's proposed division of the article intriguing. My background is comparative history, so of course I'm partial to Sl's stress on a comparative political systems approach.


 * But I have to side with John. We need to stay as concrete as possible, looking at political movements in a specific place and time, and governments in power in the interwar era. Barrington Moore and the Sonderweg thesis, e.g., would be very helpful to an article series, but this could give people who believe that the UN, CFR, and the TC were were formed as conspiracies to move the United States toward Communism an excuse to bother the serious writers and editors. Open-ended topics invite trolling. Trolls will see the word "fascism," know that they have an opinion, and assume that they know what they're talking about. We must be very careful to avoid opening the door to this kind of behavior. 172 16:43, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you, 172. Do you think there is a way to accomodate your points (and John's) with mine? The fact is, people do use "fascist" politically in non-scholarly contexts and there should be some room to discuss and analyze this. As to my other two points they were not meant to be exclusive. For example, my point 1 could be changed to Fascism as a political movement -- and a study of specific regimes could go in part one or two. I'm just saying, this isn't something worth quibbling over; I didn't mean my three points to be conclusive, but to throw them into the discussion on organization and scope. Slrubenstein
 * Thanks for the comments. These are very good points to consider. Perhaps this idea could fit into this section of my sketch of a possible summary page template above. What are your ideas? IMHO, if we make use of social theory, we ought to relate it to the empirical narrative history. Examining the fascist character of a series of regimes of the same time period, noting their similarities with better-known European fascist regimes, is often illuminating. But we may have to forfeit this idea. We have to be very, very careful about not opening up a Pandora's Box, if you catch my drift. On another note, perhaps we could add an article on the origins of Italian Fascism and German Nazism to the sketch of the template summary page. This could address, e.g., the classic argument that modernization without democratization, imposed by above from an authoritarian state, set Germany on a course toward fascism. The theoretical works on comparative fascist systems could be side notes, so long as we'd primarily be engaged with relevant historical scholarship, such as the works of Wehler, Blackbourn, and Eley. Finally, keep in mind that my ideas are very tentative. My mind's not set on much anything now. So thanks to you both for all the helpful feedback. 172 18:35, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

-

Directory

 * See Talk:Fascism/ archive7 for talk posted from 18:35, 30 Mar 2004 to 1 Apr 2004.


 * See Talk:Fascism for talk posted from 1 Apr 2004 to 13:10, 1 Apr 2004.


 * See the postings above (Click here to go to the beginning.) for ongoing discussions pertaining to structure, organization, and content of an encyclopedic entry on Fascism. These discussions were moved downward before talk archiving due to relevance concerns and recent comments.

- Cc: John, Slrubenstein, AndyL, Danny, etc.

Now that we've established that this is not an article about Communism, are there still too many distractions left precluding serious discussions about the structure, organization, and content of an encyclopedic entry? 172 14:03, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This article on Fascism says that Fascism is ethnicism. Nowhere does ethnicism appear in the Doctrine of Fascism. This whole article stinks to high heaven. It is terrible from the get-go. No quotations of the Doctrine of Fascism, no reference to it at all. The article is seriously flawed.WHEELER 14:33, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * WHEELER,


 * Other users want to start discussing structure and organization first. You seem to be getting in our way, and we seem to be getting in your way. If you want a more open-ended discussion, then create Talk:Fascism/ Chat room. Better yet, if you want a separate page where users can respond to your concerns, and you can determine the topics that are being discussed, then create User talk:WHEELER/ Fascism discussion page. 172 15:05, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Can we unprotect the page now?AndyL 15:37, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you ask TDC if the current display is sufficient for him to agree to abandon his edit war? john 17:12, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

mediation
I suspect we need mediation or arbitration -- otherwise, all I can imagine is concerned parties agreeing automatically to revert any change made by WHEELER and TDC along these lines (ultimately a bad policy here, and one that would lead to the wrong people being banned). I wonder whether we need mediation or arbitration. 172, John, and AndyL, and Danny -- what do you think? If we agree mediation is necessary, we ought to have WHEELER and TDC's agreement. Slrubenstein


 * It is 172 that needs the mediation, and I already have that process going. Sam Spade 19:25, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you and 172 agreed to that (as is recommended by the mediation committee) that's your business. But I am talking about mediation between the people I mentioned first, and WHEELER/TDC, so this is a different matter. Slrubenstein
 * Slrubenstein, I know that your intentions are good, but Sam's request for mediation is a stinking Red Herring. This is nothing more than a juvenile ploy meant to obscure the real issues at stake. He wants to deflect attention onto a personal attack fest, or a witch hunt primarily targeting me. Mediation would simply be a venue for trolling, the real source of the tensions. One side's concerned with encyclopedic and scholarly standards, while the other side's concerned with pushing extreme, loopy POV rants. The differences are irreconcilable unless the trolling stops. But Sam's trying to get away with this nonsense by making me into the boogie man. What a waste of time. 172 00:28, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

On an unrelated matter, in honour of April 1 I've created a Gay Hitler artilce. Unfortunately my insertion of the picture of Gay Hitler in the Adolf Hitler article has suffered an rv. AndyL 21:17, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Can we unprotect the article now? The polling was overwhelming, and TDC seems to have been banned for 24 hours? Any thoughts? john 03:36, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

yes, let's do itAndyL 03:56, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The page is unprotected, so there's no pressing need to vote, at the moment - although if TDC decides he wants to continue the war when he comes back, the more overwhelming the opposition to his view, the more likely he is to bow to consensus, I suppose. john 07:37, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Note the browser screen warning. WARNING: This page is 30 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32 kB. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections. Comments pertaining to Henri Bergson moved to Talk:Henri Bergson.
 * This is a good suggestion. The whole point of WIkipedia is the hypertext and links -- there is no need to have everything on one page; that is the whole point of links.  Also as you say we must guard against a page getting too long, as many browsers cannot handle it.  This is good citizenship! Slrubenstein

I want this to stop. Everything I do on this website is obscurred reverted editied constantly by a single group of people. I WANT MY COMMENTS ON HENRE BERGSON PUT BACK HERE. YOU HAD NO RIGHT TO EDIT THIS OUT. RETURN THE EDITED MATERIAL.WHEELER 17:51, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Slrubenstein I WANT MY SECTION TITLE TO REMAIN. SOREL IS CALLED A PHILOSPHER. BERSON IS A PHILOSOPHER. Those aren't influences they are philosophies. I am tired of these reverts. Why don't you show some respect? WHEELER 18:07, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

1) Sorel and Bergson were not Fascists, they were influences on fascism as well as many non-fascist thinkers. 2) it is not your section title. It is the article's section title. No one owns a part of an article. Slrubenstein


 * I concur. Henri Bergson was no fascist, and the idea of the elan vital is not a specifically fascist concept.  Bergson and Peguy may have influenced Mussolini, but that doesn't make them or their philosophies fascist and the article should be written in a manner that makes that distinction clear. Mackensen 18:17, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorel and Bergson were not Fascists. They were philosophers.  Their *thought* is philosophy.  These *philosophies* affected Mussolini.  Philosophy is the raison d etre of what Mussolini did.  It is an *Ideology*.  And where does *ideology* come from?  Philosophy?  And I still don't see my comments put back yet either.WHEELER 19:06, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I think Mussolini's raison d'etre wasnt philosophy but power. Fascism wasn't an intellectual exercise but a means to an end.AndyL 19:19, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would like to know what "trolling" is. I would like to know what "trolls" are. I see that we have a secret code book among secret talkers here. TDC and Wheeler are to be sidelined as and idiots I suppose. WHEELER 14:59, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would like all to note and read Henri Bergson on THIS WIKIPEDIA SITE. In it Henri Bergson greatly influenced Syndicalism. PLEASE READ.and I am a troll.WHEELER 15:23, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See internet troll. DJ Clayworth 15:33, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am definitely not a troll. Whenever I speak or write it is with honesty and straightforwardness that is the hallmark of Doric Character. I as a Doric Greek do not play games. Gravitas is a virute and it is beneath the nature of a gentleman to do so.WHEELER 16:16, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) The total previous POV of this Article on Fascism is seen in the nonsense of going to WIKIPEDIA's own sites on Henri Bergson, and syndicalism. Please do so and one finds out that it is Socialist, Socialist Socialist. Putting in the philosophical origens of Fascism means that this article now has to be totally rewritten because what follows is pure nonsense.WHEELER 16:23, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Someone reverted the title of the section from "Philosophical Origins" to Mussolini's definition. NO. Fascism is coined by Mussolini by the philosophy that he held to be true. Fascism is defined by the philosophy that molds it. If someone else uses it like Hitler. Then Hitler created a species of fascism. Mussolini influenced Hitler. Not Hitler influenced Mussolini. Logic here fellows. Fascism then becomes the genus.WHEELER 17:12, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have replaced edited text. WHEELER 14:22, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Boy the hypocrisy of this place is annoying. I am told that wikipedia is not the place for original research. I am quashed on the Repulic site. Yet, Andy is free to to original research on this site. I notice that in the fascist articles in the Catholic Encyclopaedia and the Encyclopaedia Britannica none of this appears. Oh-well. Revisionism continues unabated here. Can Andy prove in the works of George Sorel, Peguy, Bergson, that they referenced at all Novum Reverum? One rule for the authorities and another rule for us trolls.198.108.150.2 14:51, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * What "original research" has Andy included? I haven't noticed any.  Among other things, a troll is someone who stirs up trouble with little or no constructive consequences.  There have been far, far worse trolls here than you.  I, like everyone else, gave you the benefit of the doubt when you first started working on this.  But you can go back several days and you will see that Jwrosenzweig and other tried, very calmy and reasonably, to explain to you what you were doing wrong, especially in your communicative style.  I suspect this is true for others, although I cannot speak for them, but the personally I find your way of arguing a point so ineffective that it ends up wasting my time.  I like many others have tried to show you how to communicate more effectively, yet you ignore our advice or get defensive and argumentative.  It is this wilful antagonism that follows people's attempts to reachout to you that, I think, has led some to see you as a troll.  Another example is your inability to compromise or accept a majority view.  Wikipedia is by nature a collaborative effort.  No one has a right to demand anythingk and no one has "ownership" over an article, section of an article, or even sentence.  Clearly, most people here reject your arguments about the philosophical basis of fascism.  Okay, there is a clear majority view, let's accept that and move on -- this is the constructive attitude.  But instead, you simply argue more and more, consuming our time on this talk page when we actually should be working on the article.  You have aired your views, and given your reasons.  People who disagree with you have given their reasons.  Most of the people who have been working on this page disagree with you.  But you simply cannot accept that, can you?  You want to argue more.  Thiss is what makes you a troll: you would rather argue and argue, even when it is clear that people have thought about what you have to say and don't agree.  And God forbid they try to explain to you why they disagree, because you take that as an invitation to argue even more.  No, we just cannot spend days arguing; we have work to do.  This is the nature of collaborative work: we discuss, if we disagree we discuss a little, and as soon as it is clear that a manority of people feel a certain way, it is the responsibility of the monority position to drop it.  Drop it and move on.  One day you will be in the majority position and ready to move on, when you will encounter someone else who is more interested in arguing in the talk pages than writing an encyclopedia.  WHEELER, believe it or not I am trying to help you.  But I am fearful that this whole thing will backfire -- instead of understanding and learning from what I just wrote, you will respond with arguments for why I am wrong -- in other words, just repeat your trollich behavior that ties of space on the talk pages with zero positive effect on the article.  I hope you don't react this way, but this is how you reacted to John, AndyL, and others.  When they did you the courtesy of explaining why the majority view is what it is, you ignored their points and reasoning and simply argued even more.  This is just not, not how people work toghether in groups. Slrubenstein


 * I read Novum Revarum. I see nothing in it that is Fascist or inspires Fascism.  People are supposed to cooperate.  That is what is to happen.  Doesn't mean that the Pope introduced "corporatism" into politics.  Is there any collaboration from Catholic scholars anywhere?  Where is the citing of sources?  Wikipedia requires sources.  I have put mine in there.  Where is the connection?  Where's the references?  I see none. WHEELER 17:54, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Original Research" on Catholicism and fascism
Actually, WHEELER, the "original research" (and much of the writing) is taken wholease  from another wikipedia article Roman Catholicism's links with democracy and dictatorships (and no, I did not write it there either). But I was reading Hobsbawm's "The Age of Extremes" yesterday and it makes the same points. "Andy prove in the works of George Sorel, Peguy, Bergson, that they referenced at all Novum Reverum?" I doubt they do WHEELER but that's beside the point. You're assuming that Mussolini's influences are just the ones that he listed. The fact is that Rerum Novarum (that's the name, not Novum Reverum) had a tremendous influence on the Italian right and put out the ideas of corparatism and it is this idea that influenced Mussolini. It's irrelevent whether a) he's aware of the geneology or b) he mentions it. Others have observed it and its pretty common sensical to deduce, due to the church's influence in Italy, particularly on the Italian right that it's not purely coincidental that the ideas of Rerum Novarum happen to pop up in Mussolini's fascist doctrines. Why don' t you read Rerum Novarum and see for yourself it's here

As for the links between Reurm Novarum and fascism see these notes on the Origins of Fascism :

"III. Clerical Conservatism

1. Clerical conservatism was a direct heir of the aristocratic conservatism over which the bourgeoisie triumphed in 19th century. The Rerum Novarum of Pope Leo XIII (1891) gave clerical conservatism its charter.

2. In 1920 the Church everywhere sought to resist socialism and offered the alternative of an ordered, hierarchical, undemocratic, corporative state. This notion of a state found realization in Spain, Portugal, Austria, and Hungary.

3. These countries established clerical conservative states largely because their social structure had not changed very much since the 1890s.

4. In the highly industrialized countries the middle class was not only the effective ruling class but had also absorbed large sections of the other classes. In these countries the landed classes were turned into tributaries of the middle class. The middle class in industrialized countries also drew to itself, largely out oft he working class, a large "lower middle class" (artisans, shopkeepers, petty civil servants, skilled workers)." --

also see Religion and Fascism by Roger Eatwell]

AndyL 16:53, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

you should also check out the book "Clerical fascism in Italy" By J. J. Murphy AndyL 17:00, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC).


 * In that case, Andy, I wouldn't call this "original research" at all! You are not working with primary sources in order to make your own claims about Fascism and the Church; you are researching other scholars who have made various claims.  I think this is what researching an encyclopedia is all about -- thanks!  Maybe WHEELER was referring to something else?  Otherwise, perhaps he just misunderstands the difference between the kind of research we are supposed to do for Wikipedia, and primary research.  So far, it seems to me that WHEELER has just paraphrased a few essays about fascism on the web (this is not "original research," although I do think it is a particularly bad idea to do research for a web article by looking at other web articles; the best scholarship is still in books and academic journals); restated the argument in much stroger or even radically different terms -- this is where I see him doing something more like writing a personal essay; and then providing a bunch of direct quotes, with no contextualization and analysis and just a very superficial interpretation.  TDC seems to operate the same way.  Perhaps we (or you and John an 172) ought to put together a new "article" on how to do research for a wikipedia article?  In any event, I and several others have very patiently tried to explain to WHEELER what was wrong with his method, and why context is important, and instead of learning from us he just got defensive and sarcastic.  That doesn't bode well!  In any event, thanks both for the work you have done and for explaining to all of us how one might go about doing constructive research. Slrubenstein

Look, Mussolini says it is Sorel, Peguy and the L-guy and Renan. Look up these individuals and there are references to Henre Bergson. There is a knowledge trail. Where does Mussolini refer to Rerum Novum at all? Please quote. I followed the knowledge trail provided by Mussolini himself in the Doctrine of Fascism. Where is this Rerum Novum in the Doctrine of Fascism? Please give me the knowledge trail of this information where Mussolini refers to it or the people he says influenced him.WHEELER 17:16, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And Slrubenstein, it looks to me that you are trying to *create* a situation, I just asked a simple question about double standards. I have done nothing but quote from original sources. WHEELER 17:19, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But WHEELER, as I and others have tried to explain from the beginning, doing "nothing but quote from original sources" is itself the problem! You cannot just plop long quotes into the text, that is awful style. SO you have to paraphrase them, or frame them. Doing either of these two activities is an act of interpretation. If you are doing it on the basis of original quotes, you are trying to do original research. If that is the case, write your article and submit it to an important journal, for example Comparative Studies in Society and History or Critical Inquiry. If it gets published there, then we can mention it in an article here. But you cannot use this space to do primary research. I don't think anyone here has disputed some connection between Mussolini on the one hand and marxism or socialism, Sorel or Bergson,on the other. The question is, what kind of connection? What is the nature of this connection, and what is its significance. You seem to think that the answers to these questions are simple and obvious. The vast majority of the people here do NOT believe they are simple and obvious. They call more more careful framing than you provide every time you want to put them in the article. And it is not for us to decide how exactly it should be framed -- Wikipedia is not for primary research! To contribute to an encyclopedia article it is not enough to paste in quotes out of context. Research means more than reading a speech by Moussolini. It means reading books and articles by professional historians and political scientists who have studied these texts far far more carefully than you and I, and presenting accounts of debates among scholars over the reltaionship between Fascism etc. But not only do you not seem to have done this -- whenever I try to explain this to you (I think with the exception of your most recent contribution) you have gotten hostile and sarcastic. And when people Like 172, AndyL, and John, who have actually read much of the scholarly research and debate on how to make sense of these connections, you ignore them and just respond with more quotes. This is NOT the way for collaborators to work together in writing an encyclopedia article. Based on your behavior yesterday, the day before, the day before, etc. I am still expecting you to respond with a barage of long out of context quotes, sarcasm, and insults -- but I am trying NOT to lump you and TDC (who placed an unforgivably offensive statement on my talk page; thankfully SV deleted it for me) and I am hoping that I am being clear enough, and reasonable enough, that this time you will understand what I am trying to explaim. Slrubenstein