Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fascism/Archive 3

The British National Party
It states on there article that they are a facist party when they are not. facism is a government of extreme dicatorship. the BNP wants to restore local democracy. it is likley that a person of a left wing biass wrote thay have a facist ideolodgy because the BNP does not agree with mass immigration to the United Kingdom. that does not mean that they are a facist party. there for the part that says they have a facist ideolodgy MUST be removed!
 * Why not complain on the talk page of "there" article then? 86.159.20.246 (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Definition questioned
Fascism: This whole definition needs to be simplified to eliminate the attributes the word has picked up via post WWII politics. Here is my thought:

Fascism, as it was defined in Italy in it's first modern usage, is a symbolic reference to ancient Italian (Roman) unity. It comes from the bundle of sticks, surrounding the ax at the center. This Italian word was meant to ressurrect the idea of Roman power and supremacy, with singular leadership at the center surrounded by indentical and unified people.

All the aruments about corporatism and alike are really beyond the word's pure meaning. Enemies of the politics of fascism seek to over-complicate the debate. The word has been misused since WWII to describe any totalitarian repressive regime that did not embrace a Communist or other Marxist based economic philosophy. Good motives lead to bad outcomes sometimes.

The word "Fascism" stesses unity through strength. In practice this strength is derived at the cost of the individual's liberty and choices. Nationalism and racism are related terms but not the same, because they miss the economic connotation of fascism. National control of industry is accomplished in the fascist state, but not through nationalization or state ownership. Industry and business are privately owned and operated, but they are coopted and cooerced into aligning with the national interest, as defined by the dictator leading the state. This is done with money and power in the fascist state, not seizure. Thus they are controlled, but this is not corporate necessarily. In a fascist state, propaganda and physical force eliminate the enemies communism and racial / national impurity at all levels, in the small shops and in the large factories. To apply a Marxist analysis, coercion and force are the means and racism and nationalism are the justification for whatever acts are necessary to bring about economic control of the means of production, not the capital. The capital (and the judiciary) are bought off and coopted into the power structure. They are only repressed or killed as a last resort.

The reason for all of these things is the impowerment of the central dictator, the ax, who defines the national identity by relating back to historical symbols and wielding power against enemies of the rising nation. These historical symbols are misused and taken out of context to create a simplified and powerful identity to which the dictator can refer to justify his acts of repression, corruption, coercion and violence.

National socialism, the nazis, were different but modeled on the fascists. They were less political in their means, and more nationalistic in their economic methods of control. National socialism, like communism, was more imperialist and pragmatically military than the original fascist ideology, which was simpler and para-military on the national social level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.138.91 (talk • contribs) 31 Jan 2006

I believe that the project main page has a simple definition. Correct me if im wrong but isnt the whole point of this project to clear up what it is, and help eliminate untrue assumptions of the project. One thing we could add to help with clarifacation is a popular example of Fascim is the British Government in V for Vendetta(flim). It used violence in the prison V was kept in, censorship through having all T.V.'s show one channel that is run by the government. It has a strong leader, and I believe uses all of the ideas of Fascism. Marxism is not a Fascist idea. It is a seperate Philosophy independent from Fascism. To inlude Marx in the discussion of Fascism is both unfactual and completely off basis. There is an example of both a good example, and a bad one.False Prophet 02:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project
Hi, I'm a member of the Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles on fascism? We are also looking for FAs. Please post your suggestions here. Cheers!--Shanel 22:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Honorary Aryan
Honorary Aryan: not a topic I know much about, but I noticed that we were completely without an article, so I started one. Can someone help me out? -- Jmabel | Talk 10:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hitler's Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military (paperback ISBN 0700613587, cloth ISBN 0700611789) by Bryan Mark Rigg is a good source on this topic. The term was also used, by Hitler, to describe the Japanese. —Morning star 15:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have a citation for the use by Hitler with reference to the Japanese? I'd really like to get that into the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I first encountered the description in Revilo P. Oliver's The Yellow Peril, but he doesn't provide a citation. I don't have copies of Hitler's Japanese Confidant: General Oshima Hiroshi and Magic Intelligence, 1941-1945 (hardcover ISBN 070060569X, paperback ISBN 0700611894) or India in Axis Strategy: Germany, Japan, and Indian Nationalists in the Second World War (ISBN 3129153403) handy, but they might cover it. —Morning star 16:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion
Hi all. I'm not a project member, but I was leafing through some articles (including the list of fascist movements) and it raised some concerns for me. Particularly, in the neo-fascism article, an enormous amount is dedicated to trashing the Clinton and Bush regimes. I don't know whether any of this is related to people in this project, and frankly, I'm not going to bother looking through edit histories. I realize that this is a problem inherent to Wikipedia, and that by posting here I will certainly not reach the entire Wikiverse, but I'm hoping maybe you guys can help me out here anyway.

I've read through the fascism article and the "definition of fascism" here, and frankly, I think the inclusion criteria are far too broad. As someone who is at the moment studying fascism -- in Germany, no less -- I feel qualified to say a little bit about this.

According to The Blackwell Dictionary of Social Thought, fascism is:


 * a singularly protean genus of modern politics inspired the conviction that a process of national rebirth (palingenesis) has become essential to bring to an end a protracted period of social and cultural decadence, and expressing itself ideologically in a revolutionary form of integral nationalism (ultra-nationalism).

Michael Mann (a leading scholar in the field) echoes this in his book, Fascists, by saying that fascism is "the pursuit of a transcendent and cleansing nation-statism through paramilitarism."

Paramilitarism and revolutionary rebirth are the keys to the ideology of fascism. Because of these key concepts, most contemporary scholars see fascism as a dynamic movement rather than an actual political system. True fascist regimes are constantly seeking to 'shed' the 'worst' elements of society from the system. (In pre-war Germany, this was an anti-Marxist movement; during the war, the enemy changed from Marxists to Jews. But the goal remained the same: purification through violence.)

Many things are 'like' fascism in that they incorporate a) exultation of the state, b) a near-religious glorification of the cult of violence, or c) politics of the extreme right. However, a movement is not actually a fascist movement unless it express the social rebirth through paramilitaristic violence.

Furthermore, just because someone calls something a fascist movement, that doesn't make it one. Just because someone said "Clinton invaded Kosovo: he's a fascist", that doesn't mean that his politics are in line with the ideology of paramiliartistic palingenesis. Likewise, just because the Republican Party expresses some very radical views and policies these days does not mean that they conform to Juan Linz's definition of fascism (in Walter Laquer's Fascism) as


 * hypernationalist, often pan-nationalist, anti-parliamentary, anti-liberal, anti-communist, populist and therefore anti-proletarian, partly anti-capitalist and anti-bourgeois, [and] anti-clerical, or at least, non-clerical.

(Traditionally, fascism was all of these things, especially anti-capatilist, as business and capitalism was associated (in the 1920's, when fascism really evolved) with the left, not the right. Fascism was, at its inception, an anti-liberal movement against the new parliamentary systems that emerged out of WWI.)

I welcome any discussion on this topic, but I respectfully ask you to take my comments into consideration; this will help us do as much as possible to avoid users from turning the fascism-related articles into mudslinging playgrounds.

Thanks. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 18:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

National Socialism Vs Fascism?
I've only seen this issue mentioned once on the entire discussion page. Though national socialism and fascism share a great number of similiarities, there are some important fundamental differences between them. Economically, the internal workings of fascism and national socialism are extremely different. The country that most resembles Mussolini's italy in terms of economics is North Korea, with Juche being roughly equivilent to Mussolini's failed attempts at autarky. What then are the rammifications of "left fascism" on the project?

One of the earliest leaders of the national socialist movement was Roehm, who seemed to support a thuggish, anti-semitic (homosexuality permitting?) proletarian dictatorship before his death. Before he was murdered, Roehm gave a speech to the SA that said something along the lines of: Though we are nationalists, don't forget that we are also socialists. Can Hitler then, considering his deals with the army and the capitalist class, be a perversion of National Socialism, much in the same way that it is claimed Stalin was a perversion of Marxism-Leninism, or is Hitler to be considered the supreme arbiter of what National Socialism is and is not?

Sorry, sort of got off topic there. I realize the best place to grapple with some of these issues are in the relevant talk pages, but I'm just sort of wondering what the consensus of the place of left fascism and national socialism (if any) in the larger project. Feel free to leave questions, comments, and flaming bags of feces on my talk page if you find it neccessary.

--Irongaard 02:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * National Socialism and fascism "share a great number of similarities" because National Socialism is fascism. Or at least, a specific type of it.  The philosophy of fascism includes clerical fascism, fascio, National Socialism, and many others.


 * It is important to note that National Socialism is not socialism. While it has many qualities that one might consider socialistic, it is a nationalist movement.  The birth of National Socialism was indeed not in Germany, but in France, when Charles Maurras "reinterpreted" Sorel's "conservative socialism" in a nationalist context.


 * And no, Hitler was not so far off from French NSism. Although the French NSists were primarily monarchists, the goal was to build masculine, hero-worshipping, 'puritanically' cleansed society.  Maurras is quoted as saying, "Were we not anti-Semites for patriotic reasons, we would become them out of simple usefulness."  Hitler simply put a non-royal face on an old philosophy. -  Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 12:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I'm more concerned about the economic variations. My general understanding is that the Nazis nationalized some industries 'vital for war production' and had a roughly planned economy, with some industries heavily controlled while others were left virtually untouched. Meanwhile, the italians had a corporatization in which the capitalist class and the workers were supposed to work together, but I don't know of any major italian industries that were nationalized. Other concerns: How integral is the idea of an 'anti' racial or ethnic group for the society to strugle against for fascism? The germans had the jews and the gypsies, and the italians had... the Abyssinans? Mussolini, shortly before his overthrow glummly admitted to hitler that there was very litle anti-semitism in italy, despite his best efforts. Additionally, I don't see how national socialism varies greatly from 'socialism in one country.' Or is that also not socialism? --Irongaard 04:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hitler had a partially planned economy because he was a better Commander-in-Chief than Mussolini. It was not because of ideological reasons, but rather because of practical ones.  The reason NS is considered "socialistic" is that it was strongly anti-capitalist.  It is an industrialist movement based on mobilization of the sub-bourgeois classes, and therefore can be compared to Socialism.  But it is also socially conservative and in no way a redistribution movement.  It consolidates.


 * It is also a strictly party movement. Socialist movements generally seek to integrate classes, movements, societal segments, etc.  NSism seeks to divide the society into Party members and Party opposers.  In fact, it needs these oppositions to continue its ad inifinitum mobilization.  That is why war car so quickly after the rise of fascism.


 * In response to your 'anti' question, it is very important. But allow me to clear up a common misconception:  the Nazi Party did not rise to power on a platform of anti-semitism.  They were an anti-Marxist party.  More than 80% of the SA beatings before 1933 were of SPD and KPD (Social Democratic Party and Communist Party in Germany) members.  Almost none were Jews.  After the Nazi Party was in power, Marxism was no longer a credible threat, so they turned to Jews.


 * In Italy, anti-Marxism was also very important. The Jewish population in Italy was not a significant segment at the time, but remember who Italy went to war with: an African territory.  While there was no mass-murder campaign, anti-African racism in Italy was rampant at the time.  Then again, the Italians did not feel the pressures of "the enemy" in the same way Germany did, and his government was therefore far less successful. -  Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 17:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The term fascism (with a lowercase 'f') is a general category of ideology which includes Fascism (with a capital 'F', as practiced in Italy) and National Socialism. Some reject the categorization of National Socialism as a variety of Fascism and see the two as completely distinct; both scholars such as John Lukacs (see his The Universality of National Socialism (The Mistaken Category of 'Fascism'), PDF), and self-proclaimed National Socialists such as Savitri Devi.


 * In Pilgrimage, Savitri Devi related a discussion with a German comrade. Her friend stated (in 1953):

"'...I am now working for an American-sponsored newspaper, the only work I could find after having lived two years on the State-loan of 20 marks a week. Well, I had to swear—to swear, mind you !—that I am 'not a Fascist', so that I might be accepted. I swore it.  In fact, I swore the truth.  I am not 'a Fascist' but a National Socialist.  It is not at all the same thing, save in 'these people's' stupid heads.'"

"I could not help smiling. 'During the war,' said I, 'when my husband (Asit Krishna Mukherji) wished to get rid of some boring fool come to make him waste his time, he used to put him the question: 'Can you tell me the difference between National Socialism and Fascism?' Nine times out of ten the fool would declare that the two were 'the same thing'.  Upon which my husband would tell him: 'In that case—since you can see no difference between a way of life based upon eternal principles, and a politico-economic system,—you'd better talk of something else.  Tell me, for instance, what price your wife paid for a pound of fish, this morning at the market.  That, I suppose, you know.'  ...And nine times out of ten, the fool would invent an excuse to go away—to my husband's relief! (p. 243) —Morning star 19:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)"


 * For what it's worth, I didn't say they were the same thing. Similar, but not the same.  I was just pointing out that, in the ways that Irongaard mentioned, they are not very different.  The discussion, in fact, was not about Fascism vs. NSism, but rather Socialism vs. NSism. - 134.76.62.176 12:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Portal?
Is there a possibility of creating a WikiPortal on Fascism at this time? Here's an example of a portal about a political ideology to give you an idea of what it would look like: Portal:Anarchism

I've never created a portal before, but if people are willing to help I'll give it a go.

Anyone have any thoughts? Anyone willing to help out? Anyone think its a bad idea? Lurker 14:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A portal could be useful however the anarchist portal seems to be designed primarily for anarchists whereas most of the people who edit fascism articles aren't necessarily fascists. However, a fascism portal would provide a way to collect all the fascism articles together for easy reference and would provide a better way to organize support for the fixing of fascism related articles. If there's additional interest in such a project I'd help. - DNewhall


 * In the long run it's a good idea, but I'm worried that it would be a lightning rod for vandals from both sides. --Stlemur 17:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Generally, I think articles on this subject already attract their share of vandals, and don't see a portal making it any worse.

I will have a go at creating a first draft of the portal sometime in the first couple of days in next week, unless people involved with this project say "wait" Lurker 10:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks to DNewhall, a Facism portal is now up at Portal:Fascism Lurker 13:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ratlines, Odessa
Hi - I've been trying to improve WP's coverage of post-war fascist escape routes at the page Ratlines_%28history%29. I think this is a very important area - it also feeds into later development of neofascist movements in Europe as well as the role of ex-Nazis in South American regimes - but it's one that has very scanty treatment at the moment. There is also a more established page on ODESSA, and some duplication between the two articles. My view is that 'ratlines' should be the main general discussion with the Odessa article focusing on that particular network. I have tried to open discussion at the relevant talkpages but there just doesn't seem to be anyone else active there at the moment. So it'd be great if anyone here is interested and has time to have a look, maybe give some feedback on what I've done.Bengalski 13:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

No surprise here
It comes as no surprise to find this 'project' on Wikipedia. Just answer this question: will you be doing an identical project on Bolshevism/Marxism/Leninism/Trotskyism etc? I mean, lets not just gloss over the 100 million people murdered under the disciples of Marx in the 20th century. When will you be identifying all these organisations and individuals? 81.131.140.91 08:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to found such a project. Wikipedia's always looking for new contributors. See WikiProject. --Stlemur 13:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Fascism in America?
Please consider adding information about the following to the interesting articles that are already present here:  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.226.197.69 (talk • contribs) 11 April 2006.

Much of the information on Rex Curry's site isn't true (and can be shown to be so by simple research) or he doesn't reference his sources so that someone can verify his claims. I wouldn't take what he says seriously or use it as a source.

1. Incorrect. First, the "Fascist salute" is different from the Bellamy salute (which is closer to the Nazi salute). Second, the salute was used in many instances before that. Bellamy probably got it since it was used as a salute of allegiance in the mid to late 1800s and the Nazi's/Fascists got it from their glorification of the past (they believed that it was the salute the Romans used).

2. Incorrect. First, Mussolini had disassociated himself from the socialists before founding the Fascist Party and the whole point of the Fascist Party was anti-socialism. Hitler wasn't involved in any socialist parties prior to the NSDAP which only added "Socialist" to their name because their Austrian affiliate did (and he didn't make the choice). The NSDAP also target socialists specifically in their reign of terror which doesn't lend much crecedence to their being legitimately socialist. Second, while the Roman salute is generally believed to not have been used by the Romans I haven't seen anyone actually proving without a doubt that they didn't (there are well known pictures of what seem to be it on Trajan's Collumn).

3. Don't know. After looking through the links given I can't find any reference on the site about the swastika being made up of 'S's. Yes, he says they are but he gives no evidence or references for why. The same is for what the 'S' in Hitler's signiture symbolized. No evidence is given for why it measn "socialist". Also, the Volkswagon thing is kind of ridiculous.

4. Probably incorrect. This one almost holds up however. Yes, Francis and Edward were involved in "nationalist"/patriotic activities and they were socialists. But where the National Socialists of the Hitlerian sort? Again, no references or proof given and I think that this would have been something that would have been commented on in scholarly literature. Granted, I know the least about this point but I have read Looking Backward and didn't find anything Nazi-ish in the least.

- DNewhall
 * I've removed this to avoid Curry getting any Google ranking. He's spammed hundreds of Wikipedia pages with this sort of stuff (and spends his time slandering Wikipedians elsewhere on the net). &mdash; Matt Crypto 08:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a bit of misinformation going around. I can't site a source from this, as the book i found it in I do not remember. The hindu peace symbol has the final legs pointing right, while the Nazi symbol has them pointing left. I dont see anything in wikipedia's policy about this, but I am going to assume that the legal system's rule on this is used. Common knowledge is something that is accepted my an overwhelming majority and has been accepted by society. Common law in the legal system is accepted without an actual citation to the law. The idea that the Nazi salute originated from the times of Julius Caesear (excuse me if my spelling isnt correct, its a bit late, but I have a bad memory so I am posting this while I remember it) is generaly accepted, and therefore I think is acceptable to be in wikipedia without a citation. False Prophet 02:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your post is copyright violation. Its from . ---Redattore 19:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Largely concur on Looking Backward, although it is the blandest socialist vision I've ever encountered, and does have a bit in common with fascist aesthetics that way. - Jmabel | Talk 04:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Grey Wolves
I have just reverted a large deletion of content in Grey Wolves. If anyone here would take a look at this, I would appreciate it. --Moby 11:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Grey Wolf movement is not a fascist movement. İt is a nationalist and patriotic youth organization. Labeling a person or a group which you don't like his/her/their political ideas as fascist is very easy but morally flawed. By the way Grey Wolf is just a nickname. Ülkücü Hareket or İdealist Movement is the real name. Isatay 06:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Collaborators
Hello, I have made an article on some Irish collaborators with nazi germany. My question is does working for a fascist organisation automatically get you label of being a fascist? I worry someone will come and try to include these people at Friesack Camp as fascists in the future when in fact they just were mostly opportunists without ideological thoughts. Thanks. Fluffy999 03:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Accusation of fascism
Is the act of accusing someone or something of being fascist for rhetorical purposes worthy of an article? We can talk about how (I think it was) George Orwell said the word "fascism" had been stripped of meaning, Godwin's law, Soviet propaganda, the use of the word "fascist" as an epithet... --Stlemur 01:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You raise a great point Stlemur. The use of the word fascism has been rather indiscriminate at times and is a source of confusion. It appears that a behavior or action (perhaps a single such one) that is consistent with the methods and tools of the ideaology of fascism is often the cause for someone or something being labelled a fascist. It may seem to some that such a view is splitting hairs but I don't see it as such. For example, The recent ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States allowing the grabbing of private property for the express purpose of allowing that property to be used in a manner that will garner greater tax profit for the government is a fascist ruling (IMO), but it does not make the government en toto of the US fascist.


 * I would support a heading or stub exploring the etymology of the use and abuse of the word(s) fascist/fascism and it/its exploitation for political purposes. Thanks for raising this worthy point. How do you suggest proceeding with this? Anyone else care to voice in on this matter? --Ma&#39;ath&#39;a&#39;yü (aka: Proofing) 06:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Talk

Should the article reflect how scolars view Fascism only or should it also include how a contemporary use of the word (with or without capital F)?

In 'normal' usage (on blogs, on-line/off-line discussions etc.) by 'normal' people (not historians, but from all walks of life) it seems like a more contemporary use of the word is that fascism covers ethnocentric nationalism; from ideologies promoting ethnical superiority to ideologies that already has led to or are likely to lead to radical behavior like ethnic cleansing, mass expulstion, genocide etc. In that sense, the word covers ethnocentric nationalism like the Rhwanda genocide, the Croat genocide against Serbs (during WWII), the Serb genocide against Croats, but also White Supremacists, radical Islamists, Zionist extremists etc.

In the lack of a similar word as racist for somebody promoting e.g. cultural, religious, or national/country (ethnic) superiority the word fascist seems to be commonly used to describe that form of ethnocentric nationalism. I have never encountered anybody using the word 'ethnicist' about 'racism' based on ethnicity in general.

I hope the above make sense and that it will contribute to the discussion! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.56.180.88 (talk • contribs) 24 July 2006.


 * I don't think "ethnicist" exists as a word, but "ethnic nationalist" and "ultra-nationalist" certainly do. - Jmabel | Talk 03:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel
An anonymous IP recently added a WikiProject Fascism template to the top of the talk page for Israel. It was apparently perceived as an interesting method of vandalism, and reverted. However, if this was a good-faith attempt to include the Israel article, please let me know and I will work in the future to ensure the template is not removed. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 10:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Fascism selected picture
I'm trying to keep a schedule of updating the Portal every two months and in a couple weeks I'll be updating the Portal again. I need a good picture to use for the next featured picture though. I'd like something with some color ideally because black and white photographs leave it looking kind of drab. Also, if anyone has any suggestions for the Selected article or Did you know? sections I'd love to hear those too. Thanks. - DNewhall

How about the Battle of Cable Street? Lurker 11:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

O.K., a bot removed the previous image because of lack of source information, so I have substituted the Cable Street image. Lurker 13:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Nazism and Romanticism
I think the connection is tenuous. Hitler was the first head of state to use the airplane extensivly and I think this warrents the same type of attention. "Strength, passion, frank declarations of feelings, and deep devotion to family and community" are not commodites to be owned by the Nazis. Bronte and Austin were 'romantics" as well. I don't think we would find Nazis reading "Pride and Predudice". Please review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justindr660@hotmail.com (talk • contribs)

But here is a question: I believe that we can see an underlining desire to return to a more perfect society of the past in Nazism, in truth a fascination by the party with ancient Volk and Aryan myths. We see this in their architecture (strictly Greek?!?), in their propaganda (Triumph of the Will - the early scenes and Olympia - the montage that links Athens to Nuremberg!), and for their quest for purety. Is that not romanticism? Is it not a nostalgic, romantic even, fascination with the past? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.210.116.2 (talk • contribs) 21 November 2006.


 * Slightly flippant remark: See Kitsch, Cultural appropriation. - Jmabel | Talk 23:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Something about a death list=
As a person who wa personally approachd by Mathews and laster put on the "death list" which he maintains. I think that it is important that people be privy to the details of this evil mans life. He claimed to be a good christian and "as american as apple pie" but was a brutal murdering revolutionalry who would list some of us to die simply because we were gay or would not join his ideaology. Several of my friends and their family who ended up on this list are dead, and I have come close to death twice under suspicious circumstances. And nothing is done about it, I believe that the chance meeting with the evil man in cheney washington in 1983 was a defining moment for my life, it showed me true evil up front and personal, face to face i nthe most literal way and I stood there telling him that he is wrong. he was wrong then, his ideology is wrong now and forever more. These people are dangerous and should be incarcerated permanently or executed for their murders and their hate of everyone who is not white enough for their taste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.102.208 (talk • contribs)
 * Huh? - DNewhall
 * What is the policy on potentially libellous comments on Wikipedia talk pages? Lurker talk 11:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

fascism and socialism
I understand marxist socialist states, for example Stalin's Russia, are also a form of fascism, a totalitarian dictatorship, state controlled industry. Stroll 09:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * For something to be fascist it needs to be more than just a totalitarian dictatorship with state controlled industry (in fact depending on how the industry is controlled it could make a regime not definable as fascist). Stalinist Russia was certainly not fascist because they claimed to be communist. One of the most important defining characteristics of fascism is extreme anti-communism so if a state is communist (or claims to be one) it explicitly defines itself as being in opposition to fascism. - DNewhall 12:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Only one country proclaimed itself Fascist (Italy) so if you your definition of fascism relies on a proclamation of a fascist state, you better define fascism as Mussolini-era Italy. Mussolini proclaimed fascism to be against communism not because of an ideological issue, but rather because he needed such propaganda to be at war with USSR, which land was conveted by Hitler. Socialism leads to communism which leads to fascism. It's just the end result at the bottom of the road. Just watch Venezuela in 20 years from now. --Childhood&#39;s End 15:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, your statements are incorrect because other countries and movements described themselves as fascist and fascism, both in Italy and abroad, had a deep ideological antagonism towards communism that predates Hitler's rise to power and was not related to the USSR in any way. Franco after taking Spain described him and his movement as fascist. (pg. 103, "Fascism", Richard Griffiths, quoting a French interview with Franco) Also, many of the British and French movements actively described themselves as fascist. (pg. 42-48, "Fascism", Richard Griffiths). The ideological base of fascism is from late 1800s-early 1900s French "radical right" politics that explicitly rejected the standard communism of the day. (pg. 19-20, "Fascism", Richard Griffiths) Also, the original Fascists under Mussolini were explicitly anti-communist well before the Nazi's had a real presence in Germany and Mussolini met Hitler. - DNewhall 17:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * DNewhall, not much point debating with Childhoodsend, so far as I can tell. He's grinding his axe, not making substantive contributions. john k 19:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont know what this john k is talking about, but anyway... thanks for the notes, as they are material clarifications to this debate. I may have ignored a few qualifications in my comment, which you provided. But I think that the point remains : there is not a real ideological gap between fascism and communism. Although the first allows private property, the State essentially dictates what to do with it, which can hardly be described as private property in a capitalist sense.  In the end, both come to uniformity, elimination of dissent, State-controlled economy and property, one-party rule, and so on. The fascists who called themselves anti-communists were playing propaganda games more than they were telling us an important aspect of fascism. --Childhood&#39;s End 15:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

New Portal
Hi, I saw on Talk:Nazism that this WikiProject covers it and am wondering if anyone would be interested in a portal about Nazism and whether it should be expanded to Fascism in general (in other words abandoned due to cannibalizing the target audience) or further refined. Basically, I want to find the right scope to make it a viable portal rather than one that sits on the shelf unused; in other words, eventually it won't need me to survive because I won't be the only person who visits it. Thanks! Romperomperompe 04:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I realy don't see the point in having a separate portal for Nazism and Fascism. I suggest you abandon the Nazism one and instead contribute to the Fascism one Lurker  haver 09:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I question whether a Nazism portal is necessary mostly because it's such a limited topic. For example communism, anarchism, and fascism all were multi-national movements over many years but Nazism is specific to early 20th century Germany. Everyting after that is Neo-Nazism which, while interesting and relevent, is based on stuff that has had little direct influence on history. Also, Nazism is very related to fascism and there is no Nazism wikipeoject to manage such a portal. - DNewhall 22:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Fascism
Considering the Bush administration's decision to use the term, and the ensuing debate, there should be treatment of the idea of Islamic Fascism somewhere. 75.3.193.243 19:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is. See Islamofascism. - DNewhall 22:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have seen that article. But, it is not incorporated into the fascism knowledge tree and is not discussed in articles about fascism. Even to say that it is an epithet. 75.2.219.247 06:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hrisi Avgi
Hello everyone, please comment on the article about Hrisi Avgi, a former greek neo-nazi party. The article has gone through substantial changes (imho improvements) and expansion, and the wikiProject's opinion would be a good feedback as to what remains to be done about it. Thanks beforehand for your interest. --Michalis Famelis (talk)  15:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Grigory Semyonov
The Grigory Semyonov article has a {WikiProject Fascism} tag on it and was on the List of fascists page. Why is this guy a fascist? There are no sources mentioned in the article. -- DNewhall 23:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Nazi Breeding Camps
Excuse me if I've come to the wrong place. This article has just appeared in the last couple of weeks. I know very little about the subject of Nazi Germany but cannot help but think that it's a candidate for merging somewhere. -- I@n 08:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a candidate for deletion, as such camps are bogus, a misinterpretation of the Lebensborn institutions. Str1977 (smile back) 07:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If I were to AFD it, I'd have nothing to say beyond quoting you. Would you please start the process? - Jmabel | Talk 19:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Roberto Farinacci
I have moved the following from the article over here, as it seems unclear to me:

"(he voted his own order of the day through)"

I also removed the bit that stated that he was forced to flee to Germany. He feld because he was afraid to be arrested, but he wasn't forced to do that. Str1977 (smile back) 07:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That is more or less what "forced to flee" normally means. One isn't sentenced to run away. One runs away because one is endangered. - Jmabel | Talk 19:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Syrian/Lebanese party, wrongly included in the project
Syrian Social Nationalist Party, despite its name has nothing to do with fascism, and actually his main leader, Antun Saadeh, used to accuse the rival Lebanese Phalangist Party of being fascist.

According to the template, "WikiProject Fascism wants to know if the person or group ... can be reasonably described as fascist. WikiProject Fascism defines an entity which has not come to power as "fascist" if it fulfills six of the following criteria:


 * 1. exalting the nation, (and in some cases the race, culture, or religion) above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.

-Answer: No. The party only wanted independence from France and then unity with Syria and other countries. It never said the state was supreme, or the race, or the culture.


 * 2. stressing loyalty to a single leader.

-No. The party did have initially a very popular leader, but didn't have a doctrine about single leadership, a duce or a führer.


 * 3. advocating violence or using modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition.

-No. It was involved in a civil war which involved all the Lebanese political parties, but has never advocated suppression of political opposition or violence.


 * 4. advocating severe economic and social regimentation.

-I don't think so.


 * 5. advocating syndicalist corporatism.

-I've never read such a thing in their sources.


 * 6. advocating totalitarian systems.

-Id.


 * 7. declaring itself or holding itself out to be to be a fascist, national socialist, falangist, etc. movement.

-Au contraire, the founder used the term fascist as an accusation against, you guessed, the falangists.

--Filius Rosadis 23:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have any sources about the ideology of the party? I'm curious myself because beyond Saadeh's writings, which of course are widely available, there seems to be a dearth of secondary sources on the party, and at the moment anyway I'm in a foreign country where the Ten Lectures aren't to be found (unless they're available on the internet somewhere, in which case I might reconsider). I thought that the party was pretty keen on the concept of a single leader? After all, they still refer to Saadeh as al-za3eem nearly sixty years after his death. Palmiro | Talk 00:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I know what you mean. The 'awmyeen sooriyeen mention al-za3eem with an almost religious tone. But it's mainly the beloved founder and martyr, and I don't see this reflected in the party's dogma. Some Saade's writings can be found here (in Arabic), but I couldn't find an English or French version of the Ten Lessons.


 * It's important to mention that in English "Social Nationalist Party" almost equals the Nazi party's name. But in Arabic the question is different. The National Socialist German Workers' Party is حزب العمال الألمان الإشتراكي الوطني, where الإشتراكي (i.e. al-ishtiraki) stands for "socialist", and الوطني (i.e. al-watani) stands for "national" . Whilst The Syrian Social Nationalist Party is الحزب السوري القومي الاجتماعي , where الاجتماعي (i.e. al ijtima3i) stands for "social" and القومي (i.e. al-qawmi) stands for "nationalist". So the association doesn't exist en the original language, where the names sound completely different. The German party is isthiraki and watani, whilst the Lebanese one is ijtima3i and qawmi. --Filius Rosadis 12:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I might have a look at the SSNP website you cite. If you have information on the historic development of the SSNP or any other aspect of the party, please do consider adding it to the article. I've been wanting to get it up to a better standard for a long time but the only sources I've had were a number of general works on either nationalism in the Arab world or Lebanese history, so while the basic ideological outlines of the party are set out and reasonably well-sourced that could be developed further and the history of the party is only fairly sketchily covered. Your comments on the name are of course absolutely right which is why the recent attempt to link to National socialism in the first line of the Saadeh article was outrageous. Palmiro | Talk 13:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The SSNP was listed here as Nazi and based in Syria, and I think it was there just because the tricky name. I've removed it from the list. --Filius Rosadis 14:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The SSNP is properly included in the project. See the following scholarly references describing the SSNP's Fascist and Nazi influences. Histopher Critchens (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Stablepedia
Beginning cross-post.
 * See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★ MESSED  ROCKER ★  03:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

''End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.''

Answer to HSP
The answer to the question asked here is yes; it applies to 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 (across different periods - but mostly to 1, 3 and 7 throughout all the time of its existence). --PaxEquilibrium 14:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ...what's the next step? --PaxEquilibrium 19:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK... the talk pages says to discuss here - but here I am, talking to myself. --PaxEquilibrium 22:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 23:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Fascism artcile
Someone from this project may want to take a turn at dealing with the WP:TIGERS loose at Fascism. Jkelly 22:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Aryan Brotherhood
I am presently involved in a debate about sources and other things over at Talk:Aryan Brotherhood. The article is apparently under the scope of this WikiProject, and presently only myself and this IP are doing anything with the article. I think it would benefit the discussion to get some other eyes in there, as a two person debate is really not consensus. Natalie 00:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Julius Evola
Someone clueful might want to look in on Julius Evola. Some of it, as I've remarked on its talk page, reads like the writing of a breathless fan. - Jmabel | Talk 19:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Goebbels FAC
Joseph Goebbels is up for nomination, but no one seems to be doing much about it. There's been a few comments and an objection to the nomination, but I don't feel it's entirely justified. In any rate, it's very general. Just really "more footnotes", and as I'm concerned the article is well-cited already. I tried my best to conjure up a lead, but I'm no Goebbels expert, so someone needs to look it over.

My personal opinion is that the article is of surprisingly high standard and contains no noticeable controversies. The only thing keeping me from giving outright it support is the length (around 50k should not be a problem) and the fact that no one with any in-depth knowledge about Goebbels has provided it with a blessing.

This is a really worthwhile nomination. Your assistance would be invaluable!

Peter Isotalo 07:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Couple of missing topics
Since there seems to be no Nazism project, I wonder if anyone of you could have a look at the my missing topics list about Nazi Germany. Thank you - Skysmith 11:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahem
Noticed the link to Wikispiecies in the Related pages in sister projects section. Isn't it... well... kinda... you know...? --Ouro (blah blah) 19:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Integralism could use clearer definition
Integralism -- and other Wikipedia articles that mention Integralism -- say that Integralism is not Fascism, but IMHO are somewhat vague on exactly what the differences are. Could somebody please clarify this on Integralism? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand 22:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Taliban ?
On 14 August 2007 Beh-nam placed the Taliban and Abdur Rahman Khan articles within the scope of the Fascism project, including adding them to articles needing work. Question: Can a religious-based authoritarian state be classified as fascist? Normally they are classified as theocracies, but that doesn't prevent them from also being fascist does it? I note that until the edits by Beh-nam the Taliban had not been mentioned on this page. The essence, some would say, of a fascist state is that not only are individual liberties restrained for the good of the state, but that industry and business are co-opted and cooerced to align themselves with the good of the state, or, more briefly, that the "state" is the ultimate good. When the ultimate good is a religion, and not the state, can it still be called fascist? --Bejnar 18:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's a case for it at all. No state corporatism, hardly any use of fascist-style propaganda unless you REALLY twist the definition, no exaltation of youth or even a clear idea of the "state" in the modern sense...Fascist movements are post-industrial anyway. --18:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Max Mosley


I need someone to review this diff. I reverted this as vandalism because it's a new account, but the author asked me to reconsider. I think "Facists Activities" could be changed to "Political views" or something like that, and his other political activities joined to the section, for a start. But most of all, references and NPOV need to be checked carefully. Thanks -- Kl4m  Talk Contrib 23:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

These serious, well-researched, well-sourced and significant edits have now been left in a state of limbo for nearly six weeks. I have been quite patient, I think, in refraining from commenting upon the lack of activity until now, and feel it is now legitimate to ask if the removal of my edits were a genuine effort to "review" or just an attempt to censor. I will not roll over and die, if that is the hope. I reiterate that every one of my edits was well-sourced with citations. Given that fact, they were hardly difficult to "research" - I had done most of the work for you already. Please tell me when we may expect some movement on this matter, or is it Wikipedia's intention to obstruct important details about the historical activities of one of today's leading sports administrators? Duncan Berger Talk 12:22, 29 October 2007


 * This has (I hope) been resolved now. Duncan included material referenced to an article called 'Getting it straight in Notting Hill Gate' by a Tom Vague, which made some strong accusations about Mosley's involvement in his father's 1959 General Election campaign. Because there were sharp protests about this material, I checked Vague's claimed source for his information (Trevor Grundy's book, Memoir of a fascist childhood). I found that Vague had largely misrepresented what was in that source, so have edited the Max Mosley article to reflect what is actually in the book. See here for details). Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Japanese Fascists
As "the use of the term fascism in relation to Japan is contentious and disputed" (quoted from Japanese fascism), I don't think it's necessarily appropriate to label any and every Japanese involved in the government or military at the time - even the most high-up officials - a "fascist".

I think this is an important thing for us to get a handle on, and to establish standards or guidelines about. Please offer your thoughts on the matter at Category talk:Japanese fascists. LordAmeth 03:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As a post graduate scholar of Japan, and an undergraduate scholar of Germany, I would say the use of fascism in the case of Japan is very much on dubious grounds. The political situation in Japan was many things, yet not fascist - but Japan was an ally of Germany and Italy during WWII, so it tends to get lumped in with them. But Japan did not really 'share the cultural or political makeup that existed in Europe.  It was still a monarchical state.  The Emperor was royalty, and got power from birth.  It's tradition of obedience, loyalty, and military strength grew more out of the medieval and feudal traditions of the Samurai.  Like fascism, is subordinated the rights of the individual to the overall good of the State (which was embodied in the emperor) and it retained a fondness for militarism.  But these same similarities could be applied to almost any country outside of the western culture'. I once used the word fascist in connection to Showa era Japan in a seminar hosted by noted Japan academic Professor Ian Neary and was quickly - and sharply - corrected. Kunchan 19:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Puyi article in the Fascism project
I believe this article ought to be removed from the scope of the Fascism project - although Pu Yi is a figure in the 2nd World War, it is contentious in the least, to include him as a Fascistic figure. Indeed it can be argued that his role was to regain the monarchy of China. Hios connections with Japan and the puppet state of Manchukuo should not automatically connect him with Fascism. I'd be intersted in any arguments in support of the removal of the connnection or in favour of keeping it Kunchan 19:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this WikiProject's talk page template speaks for itself The presence of this Talk page-only template only implies that the subject is of interest to the associated WikiProject. Lurker  (said · done) 09:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

PROTEST
I do protest on the the mentioning of and the inclusion of the article of Ion Antonescu under the headings and within the project on Fascism. His regime, dictatorial no doubt, was not modelled afer the german nazi nor italian fascism. The specifically ethnic-targeted abuses were also absent; isolated cases could be blamed on the action of extremists against he and his government fought.

In fact he crushed the Iron Guard, the pro-nazi political movement, in open military confrontation. He is also known for remarcable pro-Jewish measures within the Romanian borders, measures uniques in a Europe dominated by nazism, that resulted in saving over 340000 Jewish lives. Reliable proof exist on the fact that for the whole duration of his being in power, the Jewish community in Romania was permitted to have its own organization, and cultural settings, like Jewish schools and a Jewish theater. He even offered sanctuary in Romania for Jews that were caught by the events outside the borders, he offered pensions to any Jew who ever worked in Romania, even if that person would have neglected to have processed the proper paperwork before leaving Romania, and this resulted in a massive flow of Jewish refugees for the only place in Europe, except neutral countries, where they could find sanctuary.

To be sure, he is guilty of war crimes, since he specifically ordered retaliatory killings in Odessa and Ukraine, and there was a clear anti-jewish orientation in his orders. Still, there is a non-disproved interpretation of thoses events that by doing this he was pursuing a deliberate policy of choosing the lesser of two evils, that his actions in Ukraine were an ostentious proof of bona fide vis a vis his overpowerfull german ally, and that by ordering himself retaliation against foreign Jews who with or without him were doomed, he remained in power and capable of opposing Jewish killings and outside deportation in the territory still under his control.

Historical analysis and objectivity will prove that although allied with Germany until August 1944, at no moment during Antonescu's government were present the characteristics of a nazi or fascist regime.

Therefore, I ask for the necessary corrections, in this article, in the biographical article on Ion Antonescu and his exclusion from the Fascist project of Wikipedia. This has less to do with Antonescu rehabilitation than it has to do with demonizing Romania and with the concept of respect for historical accuracy.

To avoid any misintepretations, I announce that my position is that of an enthusiastic PRO-JEWISH. There are very few nations or ethnic groups under the sun that I hold in equal admiration. HMycroft 14:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I like to judge people and countiry's governments on their specific actions, rather than any false notion of race, but we all have our little quirks.

Absurd (band)
Hello,

I would like to have your opinion on the article Absurd (band), which I found while working on the backlog of the Notability wikiproject. (Actually I found one of their album article with its notability questioned.) This is, as you can easily read from the article, a Neo-Nazi band.

I have some concerns about the article(s), but do not quite know how to act, so I would like your opinion.

The band's article seems at first - and that's what has upset me - to be a regular Wikipedia article about a band like any other. Albums are covered on separate pages, the discography is mentioned, etc. My first impression was that the article was created by their "fans" and would be a clear candidate for deletion.

Speaking in terms of notability, the band doesn't meet the usual criteria in WP:MUSIC. Their albums are all self-released or on very small labels. (Of course, since sale of their music is even illegal e.g. in Germany.) There is some notable content, and that comes much further down the article: The band members are convicted murderers (see the article), and in particular Hendrik Möbius has in fact generated a lot of press coverage connected with that crime. The band's notability is precisely tied to that, in my opinion - they're notable in the context of that crime, where the band plays some role.

However, it seems to me that the article gives undue weight to this. As said, it comes along as a normal band article, with album track listings, link to the band's homepage etc. This seems unbalanced (it's not their music that is notable, it's the crime). It might even be seen as a kind of advert.

But before starting any deletion/edit wars here against a possible "fanbase", I would like to hear your opinion; maybe you have experience with similar topics. --B. Wolterding 18:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Povilas Plechavičius
There is a dispute on the talk page whether this article on the WWII Lithuanian general who led the 1926 coup in Lithuania, supported Antanas Smetona government and later supporting the Nazis for a certain period should or shouldn't belong to the scope of the wikiproject and carry its tag on the talk page. Comments appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism an ideology?
There's an ongoing discussion on the talk page of Neo-Nazism: Talk:Neo-Nazism. The article has been locked over this content dispute, and I would appreciate some knowledgable Wikipedians giving their position on it. &mdash; Superman (talk · contribs) 01:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Famous quote on Corporatism
Edit to Corporatism by 71.58.74.31 on 29 January 2008 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corporatism&oldid=187628588 "Some critics equate too much corporate power and influence with fascism. Often they cite a quote claimed to be from Mussolini:  "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."  This quote actually is from Giovanni Gentile, the philosopher of fascism, in the first edition of the Italian Encyclopedia (Enciclopedia Treccani)." -- Can anyone confirm that this famous quote is from Giovanni Gentile? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Spotlight
...... Dendodge  .. Talk Help 00:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 510 articles are assigned to this project, of which 192, or 37.6%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-07-14.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Article assessment request
I noticed that Economics of fascism did not have any WikiProject banners on its talk page, so I added the WP Fascism banner, although I didn't feel comfortable trying to assess it. Thanks,  momoricks   make my day  03:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Fasces lictoriae.svg
Hi, this is the Italian military aviation flank rounder as used as the insignia of this project. Is it possible that we could click this picture and from its page, easily find a link or read why this in particular is the (or one of the) most signifigant symbol of fascism in the world? I found nothing for Italian military aviation flank rounder ~ R . T . G  13:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Fascism and Creativity
Creativity is close to Third Position, but I would say that the religious teachings of Creativity don't fall into Third Position. Creativity does have an anglo feel to it, plus it does not allow for debate, unlike Fascism. The 13 Holy Books cannot be argued against nor re-written! Whereas Fascism encourages debate. Also, Third Position has a multi-racial following, whereas Creativity is only for Whites! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy (talk • contribs) 23:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Fascism - Political spectrum
I wonder if anyone could look at this section: Fascism. The section seems to be incorrect and confusing. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Duck Club?
Not sure if this falls under your criterion, but though its existence is attested in numerous places I'm having trouble digging up info about the U.S. right-wing "Duck Club". If anyone wants to take a squint at this article and see if they can improve it, that'd be great. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The question has been asked. But confused Facism not Nazism? How about Salazaras New Sate in Portugal? Or Perons Agrentina or even Paraguays Strosser rewgime? Are they considered FACIST too?Andreisme (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Fascism portal revamped!
I've made some major updates to Portal:Fascism over the last few weeks and I'd like everyone at this WikiProject to check them out. Also I'm looking for some editors to help in maintaining the portal. There's a few nomination for the selected article section that you can vote on at the new Portal:Fascism/Maintenance page. I hope the portal serves to show off the accomplishments of this project. Ecto (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

About Oradour-sur-Glane and about an ambiguous website.
Hello everybody, I find the Oradour-sur-Glane article mixes various versions that I've read on the subject. Some lines (eg "Early on the morning of June 10, 1944, Sturmbannführer Adolf Diekmann, commanding the I battalion of the 4th Waffen-SS ("Der Führer") Panzer-Grenadier Regiment, informed Sturmbannführer Otto Weidinger at regimental headquarters that he had been approached by two French civilians who claimed that a German officer was being held by the Resistance in Oradour-sur-Vayres, a nearby town." at the beginning, or the paragraph called "Diekmann's conduct") can, in my opinion, be seen as revisionist, in the sense that they contradict the official version, that is, the mainstream version(regardless of knowing if this official version is the whole truth, and just the whole truth, or also contains errors... "Historical revisionism (negationism) = a particular form of historical revisionism concerned with the denial of facts accepted by mainstream historians"), that I've read on the French speaking wikipedia. If the French speaking wikipedia is right, these lines seem to be based on the version of Otto Weidinger, who of course inclines to minimise the committed crimes... (in this particular case, saying that "Diekmann informed Weidinger that a German officer was being held by the Resistance in Oradour-sur-Vayres" for instance, inclines to justify the reaction, the motivation, of the German officers ; the mainstream version says that the decision of this massacre for this example had been taken on June 9th, that is, before the kidnapping of the "German officer" ). Well, in view of what you can read in the French language wikipedia about the revisionist versions, some of the lines in the English speaking wikipedia seem to come directly from Otto Weidinger's version, while most lines, mixed with the latter ones, seem to come from the mainstream version. Please refer to the article of the French speaking wikipedia, that is quite complete, and to the paragraph of this article about the revisionist versions (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_d%27Oradour-sur-Glane#Le_r.C3.A9cit_de_Weidinger_:_une_th.C3.A8se_r.C3.A9visionniste)

By the way, speaking of revisionism, parts of the English speaking article seem to be influenced by this site http://www.scrapbookpages.com/, that contains quite a lot of revisionist pages (according to a man who's specialised in the WWII on the French speaking wikipedia, many of the pages of this site, that contains more than 1 300 of them, are revisionist ; see for instance http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Oradour-sur-Glane/OldPhotos/SSofficers.html). A source of the article links to this website, without any warning about the content of this website. Well, when you consider that this site may have been a source of the article, you understand better some mix-ups... In the last 3 days, I've been corresponding very much per email with the webmaster of this website. He knows very well his subject, is very nice and polite, but is also very revisionist (not only to speak of what he told me about the WWII, but also what he told me of the implication of the Jews in September 11th...). Once again I don't say that this guy and his thesis are necessarily wrong, but he and his website tell a version very, hmm.. let's say, different (euphemism). If you are interested I may forward you our mails, so that you see what he exactly thinks about the WWII and September 11th. That's very interesting and makes much clearer what you can read about his website. Well, I think that when you put a link in an article toward such a website, the least that you must do is to put beside a warning against some of the things that you can read on the website. On the French speaking wikipedia, all the links toward this website have been suppressed (not by me ; I had just put a warning, other wikipedians went to see more carefully the website in question and decided to suppress all the links). On the English speaking wikipedia, 68 articles link to this website...

For the discussion that we're having on the subject, see maybe also http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Projet:Nazisme#Site_douteux (in French), where you'll also find some extracts, in English, of the mails that I received from the webmaster of this website. I've also left a message on the Nationalsozialismus portal of the german wikipedia. I've also left a message to User:Brian_Crawford but haven't received any reply yet...

If you want to speak more about this, or about the website scrapbookpages that I mentioned above, you should maybe get in touch with, for instance, Couthon or Lebob, on the French speaking wikipedia. I've been a bit in touch with them, they seem to know much better the subject than me :-). I think that they can speak English.

We'd be glad to have your opinion on this subject.

Thank you for your comments :-) Matthieu, 62.178.30.180 (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Is someone alive? ;-) Matthieu, 62.178.30.180 (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC).

Volksfront: Fascist?
There's a question if Volksfront is a fascist or neo-Nazi group. Mainstream sources call them "neo-Nazi", but they deny it. The immediate issue is whether to include template:Neo-fascism on the page. The discussion is at Talk:Volksfront. More views would be appreciated.  Will Beback   talk    22:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Is fascism right-wing?
Hi.

Following a recent RfC, there is currently a proposal regarding the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to characterise fascism as "right-wing".

Even if you don't have much to say, it would be useful if you could let your view be known in order to help guide the discussion towards some sort of conclusion.

Please take a look: here.


 * Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Which is rather a misstatement of the issue. Ought fascism's place on the politial spectrum be described a "extreme right wing" and relate all dissents about the applicability of the ;inear scale to the body of the szection, rather than referring to those positions (currently now held widely) which dispute such an assigning of position.


 * In fact, the compromise offered is "Fascism has been popularly assigned as right-wing, though the use of a linear political spectrum for Fascism has been disputed, with multi-dimensional or non-linear spectrums being proposed as early as 1948. Some aspects of fascism are viewed as "left, right or centre." Fascists such as Mosley have described fascism as "extreme centre." " Which, I trust, shows that the issue of usin g "right wing" is not at issue, just the weight it is given.   Another version proposed is "Specialists on the subject have often found the issue of where to place fascism on a left-right spectrum to be complex, but it is normally described as extreme right. However, there exists a dissenting view that sees fascism as "a doctrine of the revolutionary centre", and number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left."     Which rather unfortunately elides any discussion of why the linear spectrum is a problem here. Collect (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The assignment of "right wing" as an attribute inherent to "fascism" is debatable at least, is downright inaccurate to other political scientists. In fact, during the late 1960's Marshall Fritz developed a two-dimensional chart that places Right-wing versus Left-wing along the X-Axis, Statist authoritarianism versus Laissez-faire Libertarianism along the Y-Axis, leaving centrism in the middle. This view has utility, since right and left political wings can both assert forms of authoritarianism over the populace. Further, the claim that fascist statism is either Right or Left can be utilized to unfairly degrade one side or the other.


 * In reality, during the mid-Twentieth Century Right-Wing Conservatives and Left-Wing Liberals conjoined into fascist regimes. Rather, fascism follows the authority, rather than the left, or right, wings. In summary, Fascism is independent of Right/Left.--Caremerger (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

New articles
I added the Roman salute and Nazi salute articles. I hope that's ok--Work permit (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Core Tenets
Neither Social Darwinism nor Eugenics are core tenets of Fascism. Social interventionism and Economic interventionism is nothing more than the separation of the core elements of Fascism, which is Socialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.47.16 (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Core Concepts - Fasces and Fascia
I just created a section in Talk:Fasces, presenting how, to my way of thinking, "banding together" or "what binds" is more elemental than "bundle" or anything like that.

My notion is simple enough: that Hitler et al picked up on Mussolini's organizational principle, which operationalized in-group/out-group dynamics ... hatred works just fine as fascia.

--BenTremblay (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Metaxas dictatorship was not fascist
Metaxas was certainty authoritarian and a dictator. However, Greece, under Metaxas, fought Nazis right from the beginning of WW2. Listing his government on this page as "fascist" is not only highly inaccurate it is highly offensive to the the thousands of Greek soldiers under Metaxas leadership that lost their lives at the beginning of WW2 fighting fascists alongside the allies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.128.157 (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a discussion going on between me and the above IP user in the article's Talk page on the issue of its tagging with the WPFascism tag. As I see that other authoritarian but not-quite-fascist dictators and/or their regimes, such as Franco or Salazar, have been tagged, any input from the project's more involved participants would be welcome... Constantine  ✍  16:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Automate archiving?
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅--Oneiros (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Questionable Parameter Premises
When determining if the term "fascism" can be used to describe a political regime, I am not convinced that "stressing loyalty to a single leader" is a valid premise as a parameter, especially if "a single leader" refers to an individual human being. Individual human beings are often the figureheads for fascist regimes; however, these individuals themselves are not the fascist regimes in their entireties. If fascism was dependent solely on stressed loyalty to an individual human being—and all agreed on that fact—then The Nuremberg Trials would have never been held; all would have merely assumed that everyone was merely following orders, and let bygones be bygones.

Furthermore, if fascism was dependent solely on stressed loyalty to an individual human being, then wars against fascist regimes would consist solely of efforts to eradicate these individual leaders, instead of eradicating the regime that supports the leadership.

For example, Benito Mussolini may have been a fascist figurehead of the Fascismo, yet he could have been replaced by any number of other figureheads, including Alfredo Rocco, or other National Corporatist leaders. Therefore, stressing loyalty to a single leader is not really the point—the true point is that fascism stresses loyalty to the authorities to which the figureheads also belong.

In fact, these figureheads need not even be human beings at all—they can even be inanimate objects to which humans devote their loyalties. The most obvious example of this phenomenon is corporatism.

Under a corporatist regime humans devote their loyalties to corporations—"juristic persons" under the corporate structure that is licensed and entitled under sovereign immunity. Similarly, although CEOs may figurehead corporations, CEOs are not they themselves the corporations.

Therefore, unless additional information is provided to successfully validate the stance that the term "fascism" is dependent upon whether or not loyalty to a single human leader is clear and present, I must object to the premise.--Caremerger (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot
Okip  01:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Fascism and Syndicalism
The reference to Syndicalism as one of the principles of Fascism seems very odd to me, given the total opposition of fascism to (working) class-based forms of organization. Cs32en  Talk to me  19:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's more a euphemism in fascist ideology rather than a direct relation with syndicalism as we know it. What fascists in Italy and Spain advocated was national syndicalism, a nationalist alternative to syndicalism, in which labor unions weren't independent from the government. Rather, they were brought under the corporatist system and should be more accurately referred to as corporations, not labor unions. Furthermore, these "labor unions" weren't guaranteed the right to self-determination, and were forced to work as part of a greater corporation where they sat next to the employers, the latter wielding much more authority with the government and undermining the working echelon of the syndicates considerably. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

POV wording: Reinhard_Heydrich
Opinions needed here. Thanks, --Piero Montesacro (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Mussolini
There is a discussion on the inclusion of article about Benito Mussolini in the List of articles every Wikipedia should have. Please express your opinion.--GlaDooo (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

National Democratic Party of Germany
Some sections of National Democratic Party of Germany are not properly sourced. In particular, the structure of the presentation does not follow (or at least is not based) on proper third-party sources, some of the content uses language that is in part in universe, i.e. starting with the way NPD politicians present the party rather that with how independent sources describe it. Cs32en  Talk to me  21:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)