Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Fascism

Proposing a new scope
I have proposed a new scope for fascism task force. Please express your opinion. Thank you!

Sapere aude22 (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Opinions of general people, politicians and writers are not reliable. 'Fascist' is sometimes used as a provocative, pejorative and insulting term, meaning “violent”, “brutal”, “repressive”, “dictatorial”, “authoritarian”, “racist”, "conservative" or "clerical"[2][3][4]. In order to insure that the terms fascism and fascist will be used correctly, only researches by scholars of fascism should be considered reliable
 * I agree with this proposal 100% as I am sick of having some hack who has never read an academic text in his life labelling somebody as fascist and their journalese being used by POV editors as evidence. Fascism as an insult really needs to be separated from fascism as an ideology and I would definitely be in favour of that being a task force policy. Keresaspa (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I also agree. -- Wusten  fuchs  19:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree too, about a year ago I edited the pages on Mussolini and "Mediterranean fascism" based on a scholarly work that had a lot of original source material including analysis of key fascist statements revealing that the fascists practiced an esotericism/exotericism sort of method where-in there were layers of deception and/or inclusion, so what they said in speeches or in public wasn't always what they were really up to or what the "real ideology" was behind their movement User:Chris_holte I haven't signed in in a while or had time to do other updates, but it seems that this is why it is so easy for modern ideologues to come in and "correct" pages with what was propaganda when it was sadi. 3/29/2014
 * Thanks for both of you! I'm glad to see that there are wikipedians who are interested in fascism and have academic background in this topic.
 * Sapere aude22 (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree mostly with this proposal. However if there are fascist policies that are acknowledged by scholars that include quotes by fascist figures, I believe that quotes by fascist figures are acceptable provided that the content of such quotes is recognized as important by scholars. Also, I would expand the content of what is considered pejorative use to include using the term "fascism" to describe: "capitalism", "communism", "corporatism" in general and outside fascist use (there are many non-fascist corporatists), "liberalism", "nationalism" in general (even including aggressive nationalism that does not have clearly fascist policies), "plutocracy" (i.e. that business corporation-led "corporate fascism" nonsense), "progressivism", "reactionaries", "socialism" in general, "police actions" in general, "military juntas" in general, "militarism", and single-party states that are not recognized as fascist (there have been many single-party states in the world, only a few in history have been explicitly fascist). --R-41 (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree:
 * Important quotes, speeches and writings by fascist figures are acceptable, as long as editors follow Wikipedia's policy about primary sources.
 * The term fascism is indeed used the way you described. If you want to add this to the scope, find a reliable source which supports that. Try: (any edition).
 * Sapere aude22 (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I posted a message about the new scope at The Signpost's WikiProject Report page. Interested editors may comment here. Sapere aude22 (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have seen, in several different places, Conservative "scholars" writing articles and posts trying to justify the current policies of the Republican Party as "non-Fascist". If you're willing to admit to the truth of the matter and after reading Laurence Britt's article, "Fascism anyone? The fourteen defining characteristics of Fascism", you have no choice but to admit that the Republicans are Fascists and have been since the 9/11 attacks. Britt wrote the article in the spring of 2003 for Free Inquiry magazine and studied seven Fascist regimes to come up with the 14 defining characteristics. The problem the "Conservative scholars" and GOP apologists is that, while the GOP's adherence to some of the defining characteristics have lessened and are more "subtle" and "nuanced" these days, their adherence to the others is even more pronounced. Some of these "scholars" and apologists claim that the defining characteristics are "too simplistic" and that all governments adhere to them. This is ignorance and cognitive dissonance. The facts can be boiled down to this one truthful statement: the current Republican Party adheres to ALL 14 of the defining characteristics of Fascism. Every policy they have or law they've passed since 2001 adheres to at least one of the defining characteristics and many to more than one.

I'll give one of many examples: abortion restrictions or bans. The defining characteristics involved: rampant sexism and religion and government intertwined. Even though the famous "Roe v. Wade" Supreme Court case from four decades ago legally settled the question of the legality of abortion, that has not stopped the GOP from passing laws in the states where they have control of the Legislature and the Governor's mansion from passing and signing into law restrictions or "backdoor" bans of abortion. By the way, this is known as "nullification"; it is a federal crime known as "Insurrection/Rebellion", where the authority of the federal government is challenged. Outside of that, all you have to do is read the analysis of the two defining characteristics to realize that the GOP adhere to them.

Perhaps the worst of the 14 "DCs" (defining characteristics) of Fascism is government and religion intertwined. As Britt wrote in his article: " Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion."

The most damning passage in Britt's analysis is quite clearly, "The fact that the ruling elite's behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug". How we know this is true with the GOP are the religious leaders' (at least some of them) objections to the Paul Ryan budget, which makes deep cuts to "social welfare" programs while giving more tax breaks to the wealthy and big corporations (Cronyism and Corruption) and funneling more money into the defense/military budget (Avid Militarism/Supremacy of the Military). Even these religious leaders admit that the Ryan Budget doesn't adhere to Christian principles. However, these same religious leaders support the GOP's positions on abortion and contraception, even though two those subjects are not directly dealt with in the Holy Bible. No passage from the Bible directly or specifically outlaws the practice of abortion nor the practice/use of contraception.

That is just one example of many. There are many more and I could spend hours outlining and detailing each and every one. But, I won't do that.

Another claim made by the Conservative scholars and apologists is that Laurence Britt does not exist. This is propaganda. The man actually does exist. He is, in fact, a political scientist and ex-corporate executive. He did study those seven Fascist regimes and his research and conclusions are sound. But, again, ignorance and cognitive dissonance allows the GOP to deny these sad truths about their party. The GOP do realize that people are beginning to "wake up" to their adherence to Fascism and are leaving the party in droves. As the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, once said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time". I find it ironically hilarious, btw, when the current GOP quote Lincoln and completely forget that the Republican Party started as anti-slavery activists and Liberals while the Conservatives were a part of the Democratic Party back then.

Now, the situation is reversed. When you remind Republicans of this clear fact, they get very quiet all of the sudden. That's what facts and the truth will do to today's truth-averse and fact-challenged GOP. BTW: before Conservatives and Republicans activate their ignorance and cognitive dissonance and accuse me of being a "stoopud librul", I am, officially, a Non-Affiliated voter, as my state began recognizing the Independent Party in 2007. Before that recognition, I was an Independent voter. The last time I belonged to a political party was 1990. I don't give a rat's ass about party dogma. And, no, the Democratic Party is not perfect, but, they're not nearly as bad as the Republicans these days. Republicans and the media love to use the "false equivalency" meme to cover for their Fascism and idiocy. And, in case you're wondering: yes, the Democrats do adhere to two, possibly three, of the DCs of Fascism, but not to all of them, as the GOP do. 2601:7:1C80:28:69FF:3A10:19B4:DF8C (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:1C80:28:69FF:3A10:19B4:DF8C (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:LGBT neo-Nazis
Category:LGBT neo-Nazis and its sub-category Category:LGBT German neo-Nazis, which are within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

AfD
Please see: Articles for deletion/Neo-fascism and religion (2nd nomination) -Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Categories for parties and movements
I suggest that a category level of Category:Fascist movements be created as a parent to Category:Fascist parties, as the latter currently holds various members that were not parties. Please reply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Political parties. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Fascist manifesto pagename change...
Y'all's input would be awesome at Talk:Fascist manifesto. Red Slash 02:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

:Category:Unassessed fascism articles
Over the last few weeks, I've managed to assess the articles at Category:Unassessed fascism articles to almost all assessed. Currently, there are 8 or 9 left and I'll knock them over in the next hour. Adamdaley (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Reichs Ministry or Reich Ministry?
Xx234 (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:FASCIST
This redirect to Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals was deleted by consensus at this RfD. There was some interest in retargeting it to this task force. I'll leave it up to you if you would find that useful; feel free to create it anew if so. --BDD (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

New book relevant to Category:Neo-Nazi music
New book relevant to Category:Neo-Nazi music: Reichsrock: The International Web of White-Power and Neo-Nazi Hate Music, by Kirsten Dyck, Rutgers University Press, 2016 Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

How could we assess this source?
It speaks of a text of Umberto Eco. 201.17.136.240 (talk) 03:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Fasces
I know it's been used on here for the longest time already but, should we really be using the fasces as the symbol of the Fascism wiki project? It's a symbol that has been used and still used outside of Fascism, without any distinction in design. You can find the symbol being used on ancient and modern buildings & monuments all over in Europe & the America's that are in no way in shape or form that has anything to do with fascism. There is no distinct fasces symbol associated with fascism, unlike a distinct NSDAP swastika for example. It would be like using a random Germanic symbol to represent a white nationalism wiki project if there were one. Did the Italian Fascist party use the fasces as a symbol? Surely, it's what gave fascism its name, it's on their flag. But that shouldn't warrant a generic fasces being the de facto symbol of fascism here on Wikipedia. I do get that there really isn't any exclusive universal symbol for fascism, but maybe we could use the National Fascism Party symbol instead? Thoughts or maybe a justification that I am not thinking of? JanderVK (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Move request for related article
See Talk:Antifa movements Doug Weller  talk 12:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Additional input needed...
...here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC
There is an RfC on the talk page of the article Neo-Nazism which may interest members of this project. It can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC at Richard B. Spencer
There is an RfC at the Richard B. Spencer talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 02:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Split proposal: "German opposition to Nazism" and "German resistance to Hitler"
See Talk:German resistance to Nazism for a discussion of the proposal to split German resistance to Nazism. HopsonRoad (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC of interest
this RfC may be of interet to the members of this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of interest
A discussion which may be of interest to members of this project can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

All-Polish Youth
Hello, I would be grateful for any input into Talk:All-Polish Youth discussion as to seek a fair and balanced consensus. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of interest
A discussion which may be of interest to the members of this group can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)