Talk:Liberal Fascism

"Balance"?
Wow. Zero commentary from any of the favorable reviewers. Just their names! But except after excerpt, and almost three times as many negative reviews are duly listed. This wouldn't have anything to do with a perspective bias on the part of the authors of this page, now, would it? Certainly not! How ridiculously transparent the bias on Wikipedia has become! 125.174.206.108 (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SoFixIt. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted User:Winged Blades of Godric's edit. It introduced an obvious bias in terms of the weights assigned to the negative reviews. I agree that there is overquoting in that section, but a partial change like that is worse than none at all. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would argue that conservative publications, which from what I can see are the only ones who gave positive reviews, do not hold as much weight as academic and scholarly reviews; so that we must have an equal number of positive and negative reviews is a prominent example of false balance. This version by was better because it reduced overquoting, but a similar summary of negative and mixed reviews would solve the overquoting issue as a whole. Davide King (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, I would argue that your comment alone would and should bar you from being able to edit Wikipedia ever again. 137.103.110.94 (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, so calling for giving more space to scholarly reviews and actual experts "should bar [me ... sic!] from being able to edit Wikipedia ever again." I see the problem is still not being not solved, which is why I actually wish Wikipedia would add a "Other versions" button (which would include a few, decent revisions, rather than going through all past edits to find it) to have more than one version of the same article, while there would still be a single one, which would be the official and featured one. This way you can have your version of false balance in giving the same number of positive and negative reviews with quotes, while the official version, which would strictly adhere to our policies and guidelines, would summarize the positive version as done by Winged Blades of Godric, and give more weight to scholars and actual experts, again using summaries rather than quotes, which can be fine and helpful, but if we are to strictly follow our policies and guidelines to make it academic but worded in a way that everyone can understand, all reviews should be summarized and we should not give the same weight of conservative publications, or any not-top notch publication for that matter, as scholarly reviews. Davide King (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand the perspective of the OP, but I don't really see any reason for the reviews in general, at least not the extent that is offered. Mostly you're just seeing prise with no substance in agreeable reviews, and insults and pop shots being taken at the author by the unfavorable reviews. Why not a small piece that just says "The book was met with mixed reviews with some saying "bla bla" and others saying "bla bla" removing the unwarranted praise and blatant ad hominem attacks. 137.103.110.94 (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Cover and "When facism comes to America..." quote
The origin of the "When facism comes to America..." saying is somewhat murky (see here), but certainly predates the "comedian George Carlin on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher" appearance mentioned in the article. JezGrove (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Why is this article under the scope of WikiProject Conservatism
This article is about liberal fascism, not conservatism. 139.138.6.30 (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Because this article is about a book by an outspoken conservative, making unsubstantiated claims which have been rejected by all reputable scholars and supported only by fringe conservatives and reactionaries. - Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  19:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think a link to "Definitions of Fascism" and Dinesh D'Souza's "Death of a nation" could be put in "see also" as the former is more subjective and the latter is from a conservative who labels fascism as leftist,similarly to Goldberg 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:E6A4:78FF:DA8A:79F0 (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE in the Reception section
The Reception section has a relative parity between "positive," "negative," and "mixed" reviews. However the scholarly reception of this book was overwhelmingly negative, which makes sense given the WP:PROFRINGE nature of its claims. The section is also a WP:QUOTEFARM. I'll be doing a clean up when I am able to find the time. I urge others who have taken an interest in this article to get a jump on things if they are inclined. Generalrelative (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree. Not remotely compliant with WP:NPOV policy. Why are we even quoting a "colleague of Goldberg at National Review" in the reception section? Would anyone seriously expect anything but a positive review in such a context? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed this one as a clear issue of being non-neutral through affiliation. Any reason not to simply nuke the entire section pending a rewrite? Bakkster Man (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool, I WP:BOLDly went with this suggestion, except that I left in place the bit about the reaction essays published in History News Network. What remains seems to me to be appropriately brief, to-the-point, and WP:DUE. Generalrelative (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)