Talk:Fascism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fascism article.
	This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions.

This is not a forum for general discussion of Fascism. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to post your thoughts at the Reference desk, the Village pump, or the Help desk.

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.

FascismWikipedia:WikiProject FascismTemplate:WikiProject FascismFascism articles WikiProject Fascism v • d • e This article is part of WikiProject Fascism, an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to the fascist ideology, its impact on history and present-day organizations closely linked to both of these (ideology and history). See project page, and discussion. This article may be listed on an index of fascist movements or people. Such listing may be controversial; feel free to contribute to discussions there. The presence of this Talk page-only template only implies that the subject is of interest to the associated WikiProject. ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles WikiProject Italy (Rated B-Class, Top-importance) v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy on Wikipedia.  B  Quality: B-Class  Top  Importance: Top This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and how best to improve it. PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:PhilosophyPhilosophy articles WikiProject Philosophy (Rated High-importance) Philosophy portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Social and political philosophy SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles WikiProject Sociology (Rated B-Class) Sociology portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Version 1.0 Editorial Team     (Rated B-Class)
	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. This article is a vital article.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on March 23, 2004 and March 23, 2005.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived.

Contents 1 Left-wing, Right-wing Political spectrum issue: Addressing inconsistencies and assumptions 2 Political spectrum 3 How many cites do you want? 4 Political Spectrum New Lead Sentence 5 First sentence of "Fascism in the political spectrum" 5.1 OED 5.2 Opinions given by academics are primary sources in this case (?) 5.3 Proposal 6 Position in the political spectrum 7 Try for another four years, perhaps? 8 Position in the political spectrum - cont. 9 Why is "Jewish fascism" listed fourth -- anti-Semitic bias? 10 Vision Thing 11 This article is too long 12 Political Spectrum (still) and Fascist Negations 13 Fascism RfC 14 Opposed to Rationalism? 15 Third Position and rejection of left-right spectrum 15.1 Edits 16 stop the reverting madness - ONE REVERT per editor effective immediately 16.1 Poll? 17 Lead section discussion 18 Political Spectrum Proposal 19 Political Spectrum proposal mark 2 20 Japanese "para-Fascism" 21 Straw Poll 22 What do we need to say? 23 Non-Libertarian view of obsolescence of "Left-Right" line - from 1948 24 Comments on whether it is a MINORITY or MAJORITY view that Fascism is not right wing? 25 Robin Hood's Barn 26 Fascism vs Fascist Ideology 27 distinctions worth making 27.1 Fact: Fascism is not a single unitary item 27.2 Fact: Not all "Fascists" can be typified as being on a simple left-right line 27.3 Fact: That many concepts in fascism are generally regarded as "left wing" and that some left wing groups have been typified as "fascist" by experts in the field 27.4 Fact: That the validity of a simple "spectrum" was derided by Schlesinger in 1948, five decades before 1999, and that he is considered a substantial expert in the field 27.5 Fact: That multi-dimensional and non-linear sytems have been widely proposed as an alternative to the single line 27.6 That multiple sources state that the position of fascism in the political spectrum is contentious within the community of histoprians and political scientists 27.7 Fact: That it is not up to WP editors to somehow determine "majority" and "minority" views when multiple sources point out that the meaning of "left" and "right" is historically variable, is variable by political position of the society, is variable by the political position of the person making the judgement and so on 28 Mark 3 political spectrum proposal

[edit] Left-wing, Right-wing Political spectrum issue: Addressing inconsistencies and assumptions

One of the worst forms of interpretations of fascism is the left-wing versus right-wing political spectrum analysis. First of all, as a left-wing social democrat I will admit that the political left all too easily lumps fascism on the political right, just as the political right all too easily lumps fascism on the political left. The problem is that the position where people stand on the political spectrum will affect their views, i.e. fascism is accepted as being to the right of communism but to the left of laissez-faire capitalism. But what does left-wing and right-wing really mean? My assumption is that the judgement of left-wing versus right-wing that results in fascism being branded right-wing is if left-wing equals egalitarianism and cooperation (both social and economic) and right-wing equals competition (not just economic competition, but social competition) and a socially hierarchical based society. If left-wing stands for egalitarianism, and right-wing stands for competition as well as economic and/or social hierarchy, then fascism is right-wing. However this view of putting social and economic views together may overemphasize the social side, as economically right-wing people who are in favour of competition and social hierarchy usually want minimal government intervention, while economically left-wing people who favour economic egalitarianism and economic cooperation want significant government regulation, in this case generic fascism on economical issues is anti-egalitarian, supports the preservation of social hierarchy (i.e. class hierarchy) but wants economic cooperation and class collaboration for the sake of national unity as part of nationalism and uses large government intervention when the government deems that a private enterprise is failing to fulfill society's needs, this could place fascism as economically centrist, centre-left or centre-right. So if my assertions about social and economic left-wing and right-wing views are correct, it appears that the economic Third Position or Third Way centrism is what fascism is economically, but socially, it is much more right-wing, in the definition of social right-wing that I described above. If fascism is socially right-wing, that would explain its ability to gain support from socially right-wing groups and individuals which is what many authors focus on pointing out when the say fascism is right-wing. I say this to urge people to look into indepth reviews of fascism, especially by scholars who focus on the subject of fascism like Roger Griffen and Stanley Payne, rather than poor sources like the average dictionary or a book which mentions fascism briefly, which is written by someone who wants a concise definition and does not have significant knowledge on the subject.--R-41 (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Contrariwise, the problem is that what we settle on "radical authoritarian nationalism" is not really a spectrum issue, as RS cites here point out. Many "right wingers" are opposed to governmant interventionism in the economy, and may "left wing" egalitatians favor government interventionism, for example. And most "social right wingers" in the US are highly opposed to any sort of rigid government authority - hence the percentage of gun toters, and number of religious sects. Fascists want everything neat and orderly, which means no guns wandering around, and government controls over religion (found in Germany, Italy and ther fascist areas). Socially, I submit Putin is quite "fascist" even though his background is "communist." And, of course, many of Mussolini's first supporters were socialists. I rather suggest, moreover, that fascism appeals primarily on a pragmatic v. idealist axis and not a right-left axis, and not really just on an anarchist-dictatorship axis. In WW II "fascist supporters" were basically congruent with Germans and Italians in the US as far as any documentation is concerned, and most of them had a social democrat sort of background. The postwar pejorative usage is not really part of what we should consider "fascism." But heck, there are still hundreds of words not actually related to "fascism" at all in the article still <g>. And societies which have everyone agreeing will stagnate (hence the reason why Egypt developed precisely to that point, then stopped, China went to that stage a few times, then was overrun, Rome got to that state, and the Vandals arrived, etc.) Collect (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem may be what spectrum you use. The one used by academics is right/center/left = upper/middle/working class (aristocrat/capitalist/labor) = conservative/liberal/social democrat. [In this spectrum, both major American parties are liberal, although they call themselves conservatives and liberals (roughly similar to conservative liberals and social liberals)].

Economic and social policies do not determine where a group fits on the spectrum, rather they are developed to advance class interests, and change over time.

Traditionally the fascists were seen as protecting the upper class and hence on the right. But fascists put themselves outside the political spectrum, and Griffin and Payne agree. They meant that they did not represent a class. Lipset interprets that as a middle class position which places them in the centre.

The Four Deuces (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha! The problem is the spectrum you say "academics" use is not used by all academics at all. In fact, I can not find any current academic article making the claim you made as to what the spectrum is. Perhaos you can give a cite for your claim precisely? Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You are probably much more up to date with modern scholarly journals than I am. But Lipset explained it in his article "Fascism -- Left, Right and Center" a version of which can be found here, published as "Fascism as 'Extremism of the Middle Class'": http://books.google.ca/books?id=tP2wXl5nzboC&pg=PA112&lpg=PA112&dq=fascism+left+right+center+lipset&source=bl&ots=lpGbtoOW6x&sig=tA17CmwRAY8Dj1wRND3nycgJNFg&hl=en&ei=hX7KSf6uDsbrnQf897WNAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

By the way, please do not use terms like "Aha!", "(sigh)" and "your claim", put academic in quotes, overuse italics and bold type, end your comments with "Thanks" and generally take a confrontational and condescending attitude. It's immature and impolite and does nothing to encourage discussion.

The Four Deuces (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your editorial guidance -- I have only been online for 27 years now which means I probably have made more posts than you. (I have read read over 4 billion words online which I suspect is more than you have read ever and had to virus check about a terabyte of files). Show me your precise cite for "The one used by academics is right/center/left = upper/middle/working class (aristocrat/capitalist/labor) = conservative/liberal/social democrat. " Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the article? The Four Deuces (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I read the article, and it does not support your claim as quoted. Gosh -- ya think it might not be supported by that article as you cited it? Collect (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you think it says then? (BTW, looking at the article, it is an abridged version of the original, 46 pages reduced to 8, but still shows how the spectrum is used. You can find the full article in Political Man, which is on Questia. I noticed this because I wondered how Collect could read the whole article so fast.) The Four Deuces (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Lipset states that the origins of "left-right" went back to the late 18th century, and were expanded in the nineteenth century. The left were egalitarisn, the right was aristocratic. Further that class lines are not the only marker of political behaviour (he cites religion and regions as example for this). He specifically does not claim that a "left right" spectrum is particularly valid (indeed he says it is not); he does not assert that class differences are the sole marker on the spectrum (in fact he says the opposite). So you are using a cite which claims, in fact, the opposite of your assertion. And this is in common with his other works, so you can not claim you just chose the wrong one. Collect (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I note you later added a comment about "8 pages" -- when this first came up months ago I read well over fifty pages on the topic, so the eight pages was nothing. I already knew what the rest said. Collect (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"class lines are not the only marker of political behaviour, ... does not assert that class differences are the sole marker on the spectrum...the right was aristocratic". So in what way does he say that class is a marker in the political spectrum? The Four Deuces (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Lipset quotes Robert M. MacIver, The Web of Government (1947), pp. 216, 315 on p. 222 of Political Man: "The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the center that of the middle classes". The Four Deuces (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the Lipset cite you gave where he makes it clear that class is NOT the only determinant on the political spectrum? I do not see how he could have made it any more clear than he did. Collect (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I searched for the word "not" in the article and could not find it. Could you please provide the quote and page number. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Since Lipset named other factors, it would seem that it is an odd cavil indeed to say that he must use the word "not" when he gives the specific counter examples. Did the counter-examples (such as religion and region) escape your notice in the article you cited? Collect (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just trying to find your quote. I could not find where Lipset "named other factors", or "when he gives the specific counter examples". And yes, "the counter-examples (such as religion and region)" escaped my notice. Could you please provide the quote and page number. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Quickly, your cite page 113 "other dimensions, like religious differences or regional conflicts, account for political behavior which does not follow class lines." Page 117 "Data from a number of countries demonstrate that classic fascism is a movement of the propertied middle classes, who for the most part normally support liberalism, and that it is opposed by the conservative strata ..." Lipset goes into much more detail in his books, however. Collect (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You just proved my point. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop the viscious arguing. Let's think this through rationally and discuss not argue, as this is a discussion not an arguing page. On the social side, fascism is commonly seen as right-wing - i.e. it is anti-egalitarian, it favours social hierarchy and social competition over social equality. Economically it is commonly seen as centrist, centre-right, or centre-left (i.e. supports the preservation of classes, supports private property, supports private enterprise but is willing to use social welfare and government intervention to solve economic problems). From a social perspective, the argument that fascism is "far-right" or "radical-right" may be very accurate, but economically, they are not located on the extreme right as that would mean total economic competition, total economic hierarchy, and total rejection of government intervention into the economy based on the concept of total economic competition. Fascists allow a significant degree of economic competition and economic hierarchy but not that would come at the expense of national unity. Fascists would intervene in the economy when private enterprise failed or was insufficient, or to promote national unity. The Dopolavoro system in Fascist Italy and KdF in Nazi Germany were two examples of major social welfare and government assistance programs that provided goverment subsidized recreation and entertainment facilities, government construction projects for the unemployed, and government-subsidized vacations for workers that were very economically left-wing in nature.--R-41 (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I may be totally wrong here, but isnt the political spectrum political, not economic? Of course certain political bents generally enforce certain economic standpoints on the behaviour of government, but that's only one small aspect of economics. Surely if there is an economic spectrum it exists on multiple planes both macro and microeconomic, and doesnt closely correspond with any political one. There are plenty of left-wing groups who are anti-government, especially the Anarchists, and plenty of conservatives who support government intervention such as protectionism. The link between a political and economic spectrum, if either of those things coherently exist, is tenuous to say the least. I think the assumption of certain economic preferences to left or right wingers is heavily influenced by today's mid-range social democrats, liberals and conservatives, who may be large, influential groups today, but in the range of political viewpoints only occupy limited space in the centre of the political landscape, and whose policies are very similar, but whose minor differences are highlighted in the media. Mdw0 (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Classical Liberalism when comparing economic fascism , see: The concise encyclopedia of economics -Fascism . I don't see how one can avoid clarifying classical liberalism with it's laissez-faire economics for some points in this article. There's a difference to the liberal social arguments with when one is basing them on an economic model of laissez-faire capitalism vs. the socialism/fascism/communism - IMO. Keyword, property rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.9.79 (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Political spectrum

I removed the following because it is ambiguous, unsupported by the citations and in fact contradicts most reliable sources: Historians do not place all fascists in the same position on the political spectrum - groups have been placed "left, right and center," or not even in the spectrum at all. However another editor has re-inserted it. The sentence should not be re-inserted until it has been properly written and properly sourced. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The same editor has reversed my deletion with the notation "three cites is enough for spectrum". The Four Deuces (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

First -- you were the one who suggested the wording which you now delete. Second - the sources fully support the sentence. I shall add more, or course, now that three is insufficient. Collect (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No matter how many sources one cites saying that 2+2=4 it still does not support the statement that 2+2=5. Having said that may I request that you read the citations for this sentence. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

With seven sources now for the wording in the sentence, and since you were the one who suggested the sentence, and per WP:V == the sources are verifiable which is what WP requires, and considering I am willing to give another seven sources, might you decide to accept the fact that the sentence is sourced enough? Collect (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, the references do not back up the sentence's assertion. The first one added (Woolf), for example. says that British Fascism "made some historians uncertain where to place fascism in the political spectrum" (my italics). but the word some is omitted from the lead sentence. It is incorrect to give undue weight to minority views. But the lede sentence does not even say that individual historians have uncertainty, so the reference is irrelevant. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(out)If SOME historians disagree, then it is clear that historians disagree. It is the opposite of saying that all historians agree. And with seven cites now, of which several specifically refer to left, right and center, it is clearly fully cited. And agaoin, I am willing to add another seven here. Collect (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The lead sentence does not say that historians disagree, rather that they do not place all fascists in the same position on the political spectrum. Conceivably they are in agreement over which fascists are leftists, rightists, centrists, or outside the political spectrum. The sentence is ambiguous. As for historians disagreeing, historians disagree on many things, but articles should describe significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence (See: WP:Fringe theories. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Since it says no such thing, I wonder what you are worried about. And I submit that Schlesinger is a prominent historian ... see [11] "the moderate right and the moderate left are side by side against fascism and Communism " from The Vital Center: The Politics of Freedom

By Arthur Meier Schlesinger, "Arthur M. , Jr." Schlesinger Published by Westview Press, 1988 ISBN 0306803232, 9780306803239 274 pages Collect (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you referring to when you say since it says no such thing? I did not say that it said anything. I said it was ambiguous. Also, you have provided a link to a source that presents the mainstream view of fascism as right-wing, and shows this in a diagram. May I suggest that you read the references you provide and re-write the lead sentence to reflect what the sources actually say. Let me summarize. The lead sentence you are defending is ambiguous and the citations do not support any possible interpretation of it. Therefore I will delete it because it is confusing and misleading to readers. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How many cites do you want?

Historians do not place all fascists in the same position on the political spectrum - groups have been placed "left, right and center," or not even in the spectrum at all.^{[1][2][3][4][5] [6] [7][8][9] [10][11][12]}

Appears quite fully cited at this point. If you disagree, please post an RfC. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. Before we discuss this extensive list, I would be appreciative if you could clear up the ambiguity in the statement: Historians do not place all fascists in the same position on the political spectrum - groups have been placed "left, right and center," or not even in the spectrum at all. Could you please explain what this means. I read it to mean: All historians are agreed in placing various fascists or fascist groups across the political spectrum from left to right and other groups outside the spectrum. But that theory fell apart in earlier discussions. Perhaps you could elucidate. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It was your wording -- recall. There is no specific opinion about facists groups and their position in the olitical spectrum. Some historiams have placed some in the left, soe place some in the right, some place some in the center, and there is no single "one size fits all" which historians en bloc plaace fascists in. And some (in fact many) feel the entire left-right dichotomy does not work for fascism in the first place. You were upset at "do not agree" and so we went with your choice of words. Currently it should have enough cites to show that not all hstorians agree, that, in fact, the issue of "left right or center" is not only not regarded with anywhere unanimity, that many feel it is not an aswerable question at all. It defi itely does not ' mean "historians are agreed in placing various fascists or fascist groups across the political spectrum from left to right" or anythiong remotely close to that claim. If historians feel the "spectrum" bit is impossible to use for fascists as a single group, then that is pretty clear. And while you opined at length, the sources (and WP is about csources, and not about individual opinions) support the sentence quite well. I have another 20 or more ready to add, but if you wish to continue, please use an RfC on the topic. At this point, you are the only one here who disputes the validity of the statement. Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Your statement: There is no specific opinion about facist groups and their position in the political spectrum. Some historians have placed some in the left, some place some in the right, some place some in the center, and there is no single "one size fits all" in which historians en bloc place fascists. And some many feel the entire left-right dichotomy does not work for fascism in the first place. (edited for typos)

This statement at least is unambiguous even though it is unsupported by the references. You should replace the ambiguous sentence with this passage so that at least we can agree on what it is we are disagreeing upon. Even if there is an RfC, at least it will be clear what is in dispute. Please do not take these comments to mean that I agree with you. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Then I am willing to go the la nguage which you gave the current wording as your improved version. Collect (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Political Spectrum New Lead Sentence

The sentence now reads:

Historians do not agree on the place of all fascists on the political spectrum, whether fascism is left, right or center, or even whether the political spectrum is properly applied to various fascist groups at all.

However, please refer to WP:Undue: Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each....Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view. Most of the basis for the sentence comes from Lipset's 1960 essay in Political Man. Lipset was the only author to state that fascists could belong to either the left, right or center. Salazar in Portugal was an example of a right-wing fascist, while Peron in Argentina was an example of a left-wing fascist. But the editors of the article do not accept Salazar and Peron as fascists, and this theory is is not defended today. So the claim Historians do not agree on the place of all fascists on the political spectrum is false.

Lipset's article is also the main source of fascism as centrism, which is where he placed Italian and German fascism. But again this is a minority view. so the dispute "whether fascism is left, right or center" is providing equal weight to mainstream and fringe views.

Incidentally of the 11 references that Collect provided, 3 refer to pages directly quoting Lipset. The majority of the other sources are quoted out of context or do not support the sentence. For example Collect quotes Illusions of Grandeur as stating "Fascism can be described as a sort of authoritarian centrism". But several lines later it says "It is more usual for fascism to be defined as a movement of the right...."

So please re-write the sentence to reflect neutrality. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

And EIGHT do not. I shall gladly add more -- now that you refuted your own wording, refuted the compromise wording -- where to next? I am willing to put this up for RfC if you like. Collect (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] First sentence of "Fascism in the political spectrum"

Currently, the first sentence has only 11 refs. Is the sentence properly cited? Is the sentence not neutral? —Collect (via posting script) 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the current first sentence:

Historians do not agree on the place of all fascists on the political spectrum, whether fascism is left, right or center, or even whether the political spectrum is properly applied to various fascist groups at all.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6] [7][8][9] [10][11][12]}

Is the sentence worded in any non-neutral manner? Does it violate WP:UNDUE? Is it adequately sourced? Collect (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Why has this been placed on a biography RfC? Would not politics be a better place? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

RFCbot was specified for politics -- will try a fix. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, you list twenty footnotes, when there are only twelve references. The first eight do not relate to the sentence and should be omitted. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I used reflist -- it does not have the option to so finely tune as you might wish. The list is automatically generated by the template. OK? Collect (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The statement gives undue weight to the assertion that Historians do not agree on the place of all fascists on the political spectrum. The only basis for the assertion that different fascists can occupy different places in the political spectrum is a 1960 article by Lipset[12], which is indirectly cited four times in the footnotes. Whatever the validity of Lipset's theories, they should not be given undue weight.

Also, the sources do not support the assertion Historians do not agree...whether fascism is left, right or center, or even whether the political spectrum is properly applied to various fascist groups at all which gives equal weight to the four possible positions.

Below are comments on each of the twelve footnotes.

1. Social Science and Political Theory - refers to S. M. Lipset, Political Man ( 1960), ch. V

2. The Fascism Reader - refers to S. M. Lipset, Political Man ( 1960), ch. V

3. British Fascism - refers to S. M. Lipset, Political Man ( 1960), ch. V, provides no other example of fascism as of the center or left

4. Fascism in Europe - the quote in the footnote "historians uncertain about where to locate fascism in the political spectrum" leaves out the beginning of the phrase. It reads "have sometimes made historians uncertain about where to locate fascism in the political spectrum". It does not state that they placed fascism in different parts of the spectrum and uses the term right-wing throughout to describe fascism.

5. Fascism: Post-war fascisms - this reference goes to an article in the book by Bill White (neo-Nazi) about neofascism. I don't want to read his article but it is a primary source.

6. Illusions of grandeur - says "It is more usual for fascism to be defined as a movement ot the right...." (same page)

7. Sociology Responds to Fascism - says nothing about where historians place fascism

8. Latin fascist elites - refers to S. M. Lipset, Political Man ( 1960), ch. V

9. Terrorism today - does not question fascism's position in the political spectrum and says: "The terrorists on the two political extremes of left and right are in truth apposites, more than opposites."

10. The birth of fascist ideology - the writer Zeev Sternhell has a minority opinion that Italian fascism began as a left-wing movement but by 1920 had begun to shift to the right (same page) and became right-wing when the Italian Fascist Party was finally formed in 1921.

11. The Vital Center - this book unequivocably considers fascism to be right-wing and the page that the link goes to actually has a chart where Fascism is listed under "Right".

12. The Social science encyclopedia - on the page preceding it states: "there has developed since the 1930s a broad tendency to refer to any form of right-wing authoritarian system that is not specifically socialist as fascist." Clearly this article groups fascism on the right, even if they struggle with other rightists.

The Four Deuces (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of an RfC is to get new input -- not extended old input. Collect (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Question for The Four Deuces, doesn't the fact that Lipset's article was cited several times give it some weight? Academics don't usually cite crap four times.

Lipset's scholarship alone makes it worthwhile to quote him. Also, his unique interpretation makes it interesting. But it does not make his point of view the mainstream view. Central to his thesis was the fact that support for liberals collapsed as the Nazis increased in strength and concluded that the middle class had switched from liberalism to fascism. But more recent research shows that liberals did not switch to fascism. Another problem with his theory is that he gives Salazar as an example of a right-wing fascist and Peron as a left-wing fascist, but more recent scholarship excludes them as fascists (something that Collect among others has argued in the discussion pages). So his opinions should be reflected as minority. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Question for Collect, it seems Four Deuces does have a point, most refer to fascism as right-wing, are there any other sources? Soxwon (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And many say it is not properly shoved into a left-right dichotomy, and many "fascist" groups are, indeed, labelled as other than right wing by the historians writing about them. With as many cites as are given from RS, it appears that the sentence as worded is quite proper. The sentence specificaly says that there is disagreement -- what more can we do? By the way, the current concept is that "left-right" is a poor way to label groups. Collect (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Modern text [13] "In recent years the political 'spectrum' has been largely replaced as a conceptual tool by a political 'horseshoe' ... It is relatively easy for some voters to shift their support from communist to fascist parties and vice versa." Collect (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of scholarly writing places fascism squarely on the right. This is a no-brainer; dissenting views shouldn't have anywhere near their current prominence in the article. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I've read, from what I remember, and from the books I have on the topic, fascism is typically described as rightist, as a counter-Enlightenment reactionary political movement, etc. I would not be surprised at all, however, to find out that some historians might disagree with that interpretation. I think the best solution here is to just mention that the sources disagree without giving undue weight to those in the minority. How about the following....

Historians generally regard fascism as a right-wing political movement,[citations here] although many disagree about whether the traditional political spectrum applies to fascism, or about where to place fascism in that spectrum.[other citations here]UberCryxic (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sentence that The Four Deuces wants to delete has been a long standing consensus version. Among others, the most prominent scholars of fascism Stanley Payne, Roger Griffin, Zeev Sternhell and A. James Gregor don't agree with the placement of fascism on the right side of the political spectrum. -- Vision Thing -- 21:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I had thought a dozen footnotes would have been sufficient (the precis offered of some of them is inaccurate in many places). Current texts make the use of a "spectrum" seem quite antiquated at best. Collect (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the best way to determine what weight to give different points of view is how they are presented in textbooks. If we draw up a list of the top scholars and compare what they say it is original research/synthesis. The four scholars are not the most prominent scholars of fascism, there are many others. Sternhell's theories have been widely criticized and Gregor has little credibility. I don't think that Payne and Griffin deny that fascism is part of the right. Griffin's point was that they differed from the traditional authoritarian and conservative right. Certainly non-mainstream views should be presented but they should not be given equal weight to the mainstream. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you asserting specialist knowledge here? Collect (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I am basing my conclusions on my reading of the materials presented in this section, including following the links. BTW when you write Current texts make the use of a "spectrum" seem quite antiquated at best, I think that these writers are referring to the use of the spectrum to describe contemporary politics not European politics c. 1918-1945. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should give the dictionary definition first:

"fascism /fashiz’m/ noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice. " [14] Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Which historian wrote that? Collect (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the overall article, I'm surprised that "righ-wing" isnt mentioned until "Fascist as epithet" section. So I retract my suggestion.'OED defines fascism as "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government"' should be added into the overall lead. Prolly after the first sentence. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I sugess such would be demonstrably against consensus. Collect (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix is absolutely correct and I note that the Oxford English Dictionary is highly regarded and here is a list of their consultants who are considered experts in their field.[15]. While consensus is a good thing, it is also important to change our views as new and better evidence is presented to us. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

All right, its been more than a day and noone but Collect objected. So I dont see the consensus he was talking about. Btw the quote I had was from Compact OED, I'm gonna add the description from full OED:

“

The principles and organization of Fascists. Also, loosely, any form of right-wing authoritarianism. 1921 19th Cent. July 148 The Fascismo was born in the provinces, where the extremistic menace was stronger. 1922 Q. Rev. Jan. 148 A section of the Press..now veered completely round to the cause of Fascism. The Fascist terror increased in intensity. 1923 Contemp. Rev. Jan. 44 We do not want Fascismo in this country. Ibid. Nov. 557 Fascism in Germany will never be more than one of several factors. 1925 Weekly Westm. Gaz. 10 Jan. 320/2 The outrages which have been associated with Fascism have gradually alienated much of the support which it won two years ago. 1934 tr. K. Heiden's National Socialism xvii. 354 The electoral victories all over Europe with which the Labour Parties have replied to German Fascism. 1936 Discovery Dec. 378/1, I have strongly criticised modern education and the methods of handling youth generally as inculcating excessive respect for authority and thereby conducing to the growth of Fascism. 1939 A. COBBAN Dictatorship v. 124 In March 1919..Fascism was still..a revolutionary and socialist movement, hostile to the monarchy, to finance, and to parliamentary government, demanding social reform and workers' control, but separated from the other branches of the socialist movement by its intense nationalism. 1965 L. VENNEWITZ tr. Nolte's Three Faces Fascism II. ii. 87 Maurras was the first man in Europe who as a thinker and a politician drove conservatism beyond the limits dividing it from incipient fascism. 1971 Tablet 26 June 616/2 (title) The ghost of Fascism. DRAFT ADDITIONS MARCH 2006 Fascism, n. depreciative (chiefly Brit.). In extended use (usu. with preceding modifying word): the advocacy of a particular viewpoint or practice in a manner perceived as intolerant or authoritarian. Cf. body fascism n. at BODY n. Additions, health fascism n. at HEALTH n. Additions. [1939 D. THOMAS Let. July (1987) 389, I think that to fight, for instance, the fascism of bad ideas by uniforming & regimenting good ones will be found, eventually, to be bad tactics.] 1973 Times 13 Oct. 14 There is a fundamental fascism of the left which is the real problem in the universities: they are theologically right, as they believe, and you are so wrong that you should even be denied the freedom to speak. 1974 B. HODDESON Porn People vii. 121/1 You get a sort of monosexual fascism that takes place, that says, ‘this is how you'll ball.’ 1994 Daily Tel. 20 Dec. 17/3 The new health 'n' safety fascism..has demanded measures on track and trains which could not have been envisaged at the time when the cost was first projected. 2003 Independent 4 Mar. 19/2 This hysterical response to the interbreeding of the ruddy duck with the protected white-headed duck reflects a rather puerile, ‘anoracky’ fascism, and is misguided on several counts.

”

Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] OED

WP:RS is fairly explicit -- dictionaries are not "reliable sources" for articles. "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." Collect (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

LEAD is not the place for detailed discussions. So using tertiary sources there make sense. Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And WP:RS seems to indicate that your wholesale removal of twenty secondary sources which disagree with you is wrong. Collect (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest Phoenix of9 not wikistalk? Soxwon (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect, which sources did I remove? Do not make false accusations.

Soxwon, I responded to a RFC. I am interested in political articles connected to Germany such as Germany (duh), West Germany, etc. The sad truth is that Fascism has such a connection. AGF and comment on content. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me -- I regarded your statement above about the "left right and center" sentence to indicate that you did not support using those sources. Do you support placing the sentence back in the article? Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You said here and in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that I removed many sources. As I said, please retract false accusations. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Enough, Phoenix of9, surely you could find other German articles to edit w/o going to one where there's an editor with whom you've had repeated problems in the past to the point you filed an RfC? This seems like flamebaiting if it's not wikihounding. Soxwon (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You dont make sense so dont expect a response from me to you, in future. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors opinion

• Based on WP:RS, the use of the OED in this case is inappropriate. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• The OED is a fine source, some would say the finest, if you're using it to define a word or learn about its history. It's better to use multiple dictionaries though. It seems like that bit and its reference should go in the etymology section, and not the lead. Neither the whole article, nor any substantial portion would be based on the one source, so it would be compatible with WP:RS.Synchronism (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Omission of "right wing" in the LEAD seems highly non-neutral tho. Maybe we can say OED defines fascism like this and XYZ disagrees? Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. If there are reliable secondary sources, then we should use them instead. Soxwon (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion."

LEAD is where you give "overviews or summaries" so use of tertiary sources in the LEAD is FINE. Also since I havent deleted any sources, I'm NOT using any tertiary sources IN PLACE OF secondary sources. Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Well I'm not totally up to speed on what is going on here, so without addressing neutrality directly: the purpose of the lead is to summarize an article's content; new information shouldn't be presented there. If the article makes numerous mentions of the political right in the body, then an adequate summary would represent that.Synchronism (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Read above, there was this suggestion: "Historians generally regard fascism as a right-wing political movement,[citations here] although many disagree about whether the traditional political spectrum applies to fascism, or about where to place fascism in that spectrum.[other citations here]". Maybe we can add that in "Fascism in the political spectrum" section, add dictionary definitions (including OED) in etymology section and mention something like "it is sometimes considered a form of right-wing authoritarianism" or something like that in the LEAD? Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The WP:RS policy does not classify dictionaries as tertiary sources. They are not in fact compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing source. They are secondary sources because they are the results of scholars who research primary sources in order to determine the meanings of words. In fact the Oxford English Dictionary is the most reliable secondary source for the meanings of words in the English language. It is common sense that if one wants to know the meaning of a word that one consults a dictionary. Ironically, the twelve sources presented in the footnotes do not support the interpretation that User:Collect has provided.

Also could we all please assume good faith. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries are compendia and summarizing souurces, but they are also (especially OED) the result of the scholarly research of primary sources.Synchronism (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trying to parse individual sentences of our policies and guidelines... look at intent behind the policies and guidelines instead. You are all dancing around the core issue... the OED is the single most reliable source for the meanings of English words. It does not matter whether we classify it as a Primary, a Secondary or a Tertiary source. Blueboar (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

1) Are you aware of criticisms by Oxford linguist Roy Harris? 2) Our own guideline on reliable sources says that Items that are signed are preferable to unsigned articles. In my opinion that means that signed academic and peer-reviewed publications take preference over unsigned entries in dictionaries. 3) How can OED be the single most reliable source for defining something as ambiguous fascism when the most prominent scholars of fascism can not come up with definition that is shorter than one very long paragraph? -- Vision Thing -- 18:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that the issue is also being discussed in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and at Village pump [16] Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

OED is a reliable source for the common meaning of a word, which is what this kind of article should be opening with. Next question. Rd232 ^talk 17:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, except putting a basic definition on Fascism is next to impossible considering the ambiguity as to what constitutes basic characteristics. Soxwon (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats why we need multiple definitions in the article. However OED definition is appropriate for the LEAD. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(editconflict)But if there is that much arguing then I'm not sure how you can justify boiling it down to one particular POV. If there is so many varied views, then the lead should reflect that. Soxwon (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Phoenix. And Harris's criticisms of OED relate to its reliance on printed academic sources, while sometimes ignoring spoken language and non-academic sources. That does not apply here. And if scholars cannot agree on a definition, is not the OED the best source? Otherwise we would have to decide which one academic to use as a source. The OED has done that for us and they are better qualified than any one of us to do this. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, isn't that ignoring other POVs rather presenting the competing and rather disjointed views presented by scholars? Mussolini himself stated the system was made vague on purpose to be adapted to each unique situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs)

We need to start the article somewhere. OED provides accepted common usage, we should start with that. Specific scholars' understandings (which may contradict that) should be presented after that. Rd232 ^talk 20:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I agree with including multiple definitions including OED. So I agree. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. We should present the subject as it is commonly understood and present alternative views according to their weight. We should also remember that the views of Mussolini, Bill White (neo-nazi) and other fascists should be considered primary sources and therefore only have weight to the extent that they have been commented upon in secondary sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) Books citing Mussolini are clearly secondary sources, and should well outrank unsigned tertiary sources in any article. As for Bill White -- he has exceedingly little to do with this article, and I do not know why it is important to mention him so often. Might you tell me where he is cited in this article? Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned Bill White (neo-nazi) because you took his article, which originally was published in Pravda as a reliable secondary source which you argue should be given more credibility than the OED. It is the most egregious example of what I find wrong with your comment: "Currently, the first sentence has only 11 refs. Is the sentence properly cited? Is the sentence not neutral? —Collect (via posting script) 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)"

Here is where you cited him:

^ [3] Fascism: Post-war fascisms, Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman, Taylor & Francis, 2004 ISBN 0415290201, 9780415290203 528 pages page 385|quote=...a new synthesis of doctrine -- 'beyond left and right' -- that is, coalescing around a number of tendencies[17]

And no, the fact that Mussolini's comments are quoted somewhere does not mean that they somehow become a secondary source, and we should now treat him as another expert on the subject.

The Four Deuces (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I never used the WP Bill White article ANYWHERE as a "reliable source." WP articles, in fact, are specifically disallowed in WP as sources. The "Bill White" section cited was in a book vetted by actual historians, which is what is required per WP:RS. Just like books which contain the words of Mao are usable -- it is the book which is being cited, not the background of the person being quoted. I strongly suspect, in fact, that Mussolini was a Fascist, but that does not make his words irrelevant when discussing fascism, does it? Books by noted historians are secondary sources, and quotes in them are properly used as coming from a secondary source. Else no quotes could ever be used in any article. Collect (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The book cited is a collection of articles on fascism by different writers, some of which are re-printed from peer-reviewed journals and books. But the article by Bill White (neo-nazi) is published in its entirety without comment, and was originally published in Pravda, which is not a peer-reviewed journal. The quote you gave was a direct quote from Bill White which you used as a reliable secondary source, in preference to the OED in order to support non-mainstream opinions. It appears that rather than reading the literature and summarizing what it says, you have formed an opinion then searched for sources that appear to support it. That is why four of your 12 sources are actually references to the same 1960 article from Political Man. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A book edited and assembled by historians is a valid secondary source. Ask at RSN if you like. I found, by the way, that virtually every source on Apollo XIII refers to the same material -- I suppose therefore that it is not RS to use any quotes about Apollo XIII because they all had the same source? If you delete 3 sources because they quote the same person, that leaves only 9 sources.<g> Collect (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a notice on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.[18]. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) Apparent consensus there is that OED is fine for stating historical common usage of a word in English, but not for a definition of a word as far as being acceptable to specialists in the field, or for detailed discussion in an article on WP, and not for handling any meanings outside English of a word. Collect (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not my understanding of the discussion. One writer disagreed with the definition of archeology in Collins concise dictionary but the OED is authoritative. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) Not just "one writer." The OED shows how the word was used, but does not claim to provide any specialized defiitions of the words. In the case at hand, we have cites that no single definition is used. Collect (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions given by academics are primary sources in this case (?)

I'm not sure whether I'm missing the point here (please tell me if you think that I am), but if the question is "what do academics think about whether fascism is right wing?", then wouldn't articles by academics (eg Lipsat) where they set out an opionion be primary sources with regard to the question at hand? The probem then being that no single primary source can answer the general question "what do acadmics think..?"., only the more specific question "what does this academic think..?". This is one of the reasons that primary sources should be treated with caution on WP. The problem could be resolved by using secondary sources, such as literature reviews, standard textbooks etc. Thanks. --78.148.14.222 (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WP practice is that published material by academics is automatically considered a "secondary source" and not a "primary source." In the case at hand, the question is what the opinions of historians as a group are, and thus any individual opinion can be used to indiacte that different historians have different opinions. See ]]WP:RS]] etc. Collect (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 78.148.14.222 that it is original research to review different scholars opinions and formulate a view about how prevalent various opinions are. Lipset's article was a primary source for what he thought but is also a secondary source because he discusses what other scholars thought. Of course it is better to use a more current writer. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect: are you able to explain what makes you think that it is WP practice for the words of academics to be automatically given the status of being "secondary sources"? Because I'm really not sure about that. WP:RS doesn't seem to address the issue and, although I appreciate it won't settle the matter, the WP article on Primary sources says: "In the history of ideas or intellectual history, the main primary sources are books, essays and letters written by intellectuals". Furthermore, if academic work in this case is always a secondary source, then that must mean that nothing is a primary source, which surely can't be right.

Different historians do have different opinions. Obviously true with regard to a range of topics. But it seems to me that the issue is how the difference of opinion should be portrayed in the case in hand. Lipsat's essay appears to be a note of dissent which pretty much proves the existence of a consensus against him. It may be worth a quick mention. But instead, it seems to have been used to give the impression that this is a question on which the academic community is totally divided.

Whilst I don't think dictionaries and encylopaedias are useful as sources on this question, it does seem to me that they have a use to benchmark our work here. There's a simple test, I think, that if the contents of a WP article are significantly at odds with what all the world's reference works say, then there is a good chance that something has gone wrong.

BTW, I'm the same anon as posted just above. --78.150.144.169 (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We are not saying anything about ratios of opinions, only that they differ. If you wish to rewrite WP:RS go there and propose your change, but all we can do here is follow the policies and guidelines already set. And WP:RS sets forth that a scholarly opinion published by a third party (the publisher) is a "Secondary source" whether one likes it or not. Dictionaries and encyclopedias are "tertiary sources" again per WP:RS. Collect (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The article does appear to say something about the ratio of opinion, just not directly. It reads as if there is considerable debate on the issue. It creates a lack of clarity and errs by the omission of giving making no reference to any consensus (which very clearly does exist). I'm not proposing to rewrite anything. But I can't see where WP:RS says what you claim it does. Give me the quote and I'll concede the point. It is clear from WP:NOR that at least some scholarly opinion counts as "primary source" (eg "original philosophical works", which is close to what we are dealing with here). --78.150.144.169 (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Wikipedia itself, although a tertiary source, should not be used as a source within articles." Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#History has "Historical research involves the collection of original or “primary” documents (the job of libraries and archives), the close reading of the documents, and their interpretation in terms of larger historical issues." Thus stating that the work of a scholar published in the field is not "primary". Then we also have Wikipedia:SECONDARY#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources which specifies "Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.[3][4][5] Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims only if they have been published by a reliable secondary source. " Thus also including published work in a field as a "secondary source." In point of fact, several sources explicitly state that there is disagreement about where Fascism is on the "political spectrum" and whether the "spectrum" is valid at all. Thus no OR or SYN issues. As requested. Collect (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

On the first point, I am not questioning the credibility of any of the sources. On the second, I'm not making any particular case for using dictionaries or encyclopadias as sources.

On the third point, I think you are just mistaken. You have produced a non sequitur. What is suggested by the policy is that "hitorical research" constitutes a secondary source. But the question is not primarily one about historical research. Defining a concept such as "fascism" is a question of political science or philosophy, and there are no documents from which direct information about the question can be drawn other than the writings of academics and intellectuals. These are out primary sources.

The writings of academics on a particular matter of opinion (as opposed to fact) and not "at least one step removed" when the issue to be addressed is of the form "what are the atttitudes of academics to the matter of opinion x", so they do not fall under the definition of "secondary sources".

The section is effectively a literature review undetaken by wikipedians, and I think it is OR, because, in simple terms, a user or users have effectively sought to answer a question implied by the section heading by researching the question themselves, rather than by relying on research conducted by others. The preferable way to approach the section would be to base it on secondary sources (published literature reviews, academic textbooks) and then introduce primary sources in a way that doesn't change the basic tenor of the section. As far as I can see, this would serve the purpose and reduce the possibility of bias. I can't think of a downside, so why would there be any objection? --89.242.191.100 (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The current texts are fairly uniform in denying the applicability of "political spectrum" entirely. Collect (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Surely you can't be suggesting that currently published politics textbooks are "fairly uniform in denying the applicability of "political spectrum" entirely"??? --82.69.202.14 (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Current texts which deal with Fascism are now fairly uniform that "political spectrum" (left-right) is not applicable to that topic. Indeed, the use of "political spectrum" is now seen as dated, with many sites online shoing an economic axis and an authoritarian-libertarian axis as distinct. Fascism is authoritarian, but that is orthogonal to the economic policy axis, and there are other axes as well. Collect (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect, the first point you make is, I think, very clearly untrue. I would agree that some writers on the subject will make the (quite sensible) point that the l-r spectrum is not unproblematic, but that's a slightly different matter. Plus, i'm guessing that you're still proposing to prefer primary sources. Acamdeic opinion that boils down to the statment "fascism is a right wing ideology" being viewed as either false or not properly meaningful, whilst probably not unsustainable, is very much a fringe view. Do you think you'd be able to provide evidence of it being something other than a fringe view (eg something like a textbook, as discussed above)? --78.144.216.191 (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

WP definitions of "primary" wrt sourcing are clear. Writings by authorities which get published are considered "secondary" by those definitions. If you wish to change it, then go to those policy and guideline pages. And with a dozen sources being cited, it would appear to be beyond a "fringe view" that a "political spectrum" is not a valid measure here. Thanks -- but if you wish to debate "primary" this is not the place to do it. Collect (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It is WP:OR and WP:SYN to determine the prevalence of experts' views by reading how experts regard their own views. Instead, we must follow WP:RS and get an expert's view of what the prevalence of experts' views are. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying that historians disagree when sources specifically make that very statement is precisely what we should do. As sources say "historians disagree" it is neither OR nor SYN to quote those sources. Collect (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) Any statement which synthesizes multiple points of view must be attributed to a published source. In other words, before a Wikipedia article can say "historians disagree on where to place Fascism in the political spectrum", we need a published source which says exactly that – not a Wikipedia editor who has conducted his own analysis of several sources and who has concluded that the sources indicate that historians disagree. It really doesn't matter whether the analysis is correct; if it's made by a Wikipedia editor rather than a reliable source, it can't be used. WP:Verifiability and the subsection WP:SYN are very clear on this. It's even stated outright in the very first sentence of WP:Syn: "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources."

End of story. Any synthesizing statement must be attributed to an actual source in which that specific, explicit synthesis has already been published. And once you have such a source, you only need one. A dozen references, none of which actually make the direct claim they are being cited to support, are not acceptable. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Factchecker atyourservice's clear explanation of WP policy. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This appears to me to make things clear: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Consensus --89.241.135.133 (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC

[edit] Proposal

Here is a source I would propose to use in the opening of the section: http://books.google.com/books?id=tP2wXl5nzboC&pg=PA79#PPA79,M1 I would propose sticking closely to the wording of the source, so something like:

Most academics describe fascism as "extreme right", "radical right", "far right" or "ultra right". However, there exist dissenting views that fascism represents "radical centrism" or a mixture of "authoritarian conservatism" and "right-wing nationalism". Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may more typically be associated with the left (for example, welfarism).

Please note that the last sentence is perhaps not strongly supported by the source cited. However, I think it is true and further support for it could easily be found if need be.

Overall, I think that these three sentences would make a good first paragraph for the Political Spectrum section. Cheers. --89.241.135.133 (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I demur. And use of "most" is OR at best -- far more so than saying "historians disagree." The fact is that most current work specifies the authoritarian axis as orthogonal to any economic axis. Your cite in fact says that "ideologies are better seen as multi-dimensional." Page 7 of your cite specifies that it drew "from a broad spectrum of political persuasions. " Page 112 of your cite has Lipset placing fascism in the centre. Thus using your cite for the claims you wish to make is quite problematic indeed. Collect (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"Most" is not OR because it is directly supported by the source given: It is normally seen as "extreme right".... Unless you want to argue that "is normally seen" denotes something radically different from "most describe as". You could try, I suppose.

The important thing is the statement in the source regarding the consensus on the issue. The fact that other views are acknowedged within the same book is not really relevant, because none of these are directly about the consensus, and they don't therefore negate the statement at the beginning of the conclusion on page 79. --89.241.135.133 (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If your source gives substantial weight (as it does) to the other opinions, it is a misuse of the source to use it for only the opinion you like. Collect (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

But this isn't a question of weighing one thing against the other and deciding which wins. We are dealing with two citable facts which are not mutually exclusive: 1) that there is a consensus on this issue; 2) that there are views which dissent from that consenus. The appropriate thing to do is to say both of those things in the section. Logically, stating the consensus should come first. But after that, I'm certainly not opposed to you or other editors citing other sources. --89.241.135.133 (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The current wording gives proper weight to almost all opinions. Collect (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It makes no mention of there being a consensus, and gives the impression that the academic community is confused. --89.241.135.133 (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the wording, but would leave out the example of welfarism, which was not inconsistent with right-wing thinking at that time. (Note that the Conservatives introduced the welfare state into Germany over Liberal protests.) The Four Deuces (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Among academics, there is no consensus. Nor does your cite claim that there is, as it clearly cites the disagreements about even the applicability of a "political spectrum" here. Collect (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Four Deuces: Do you have an alternative example, then? It seems to me that last sentence needs some example, or it is slightly weaselly.

Collect: Consensus does not mean the same thing as unanimity. In any event, my proposed opening paragraph does not use either word, it uses the word "most", which is supported by the source cited. --89.241.135.133 (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet you said "Historians differ" was OR. Your source does not use the word most, while several of the prior sources did say "historians differ" or "disagree" ... which way do you like it? Collect (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Which sources are you talking about? --89.241.135.133 (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Try [19] (read about pp 130 on). [20] but you need a hard copy for this one. And so on. Journal articles are numerous on this. Collect (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The Google source says "the contributors (to book x) disagree about what kinds of groups are to be labelled right". But it doesn't say anything about whether any of these groups are fascist, so I don't see how it is relevant. It also isn't about academics generally, just about a particular book. And so on, I imagine. With the offline source, it would be helpful if you were to type out the sentence, along with the sentences either side, to ensure that context can be taken account of --89.241.135.133 (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

IP: the claim that there was anything left-wing about fascism is problematic. The claims made were that they did not restore monarchy, established church and aristocracy, that they used left-wing rhetoric and that a minority of their leaders were former leftists. The same arguments could be used to argue that the Reagan administration was left-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The new start is not only a gross misstatement of the cite (not even) given, it is a gross misstatement of what current academics say about using a "political spectrum." Collect (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to accurately represent the quote, but perhaps you could suggest a better phrasing. Also, current academics who use the Nolan Chart apply it to current politics. Otherwise we would have a paradox that the French revolutionaries were right-wingers who overthrew a left-wing king. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Last I checked, the article is intended to apply as well to "current politics" -- ought we have a separate "Historical Fascism" article? Collect (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The majority of this article is about parties/governments that pre-date the 1971 Nolan Chart. In no way do I object to showing this interpretation, just insisting that it be given its proper weight. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I note you deleted 7K of fully cited information which included your own desideratum of "right wing" in it. Might you explain which of the sources was not reliable? Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not that the sources were unreliable, just that they did not support the text. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Position in the political spectrum

Following discussion about the lede sentence, a very broad consensus was reached, despite one contrarian position and therefore I have inserted the proposed sentences. However it is now important that we improve the section. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I now have added a reference for this. Also I removed another lede section which appeared to be redundant. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually you removed 7K of material which was fully cited and which contained your "sine qua non" of "right wing" in it as well. KL<Leaving, mirover, a completely inaccurate claim for a cite which does not support the claim. Care to explain how a person who asked for "reliable sources" can so casually delete so many all in one swoop? Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it is not necessary to provide numerous sources for a statement. But the sources did not support the text anyway. Also we had already formed a consensus on what the lede sentence/paragraph for this section should be. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus by assertion? The lede had been stable for four years until some decided that Fascism had to be "right wing" only. I saw no consensus for ythe wholesale change, and no consensus on the RfC above for your wholesale change, I reqorded it to assuage your concerns after all. And each source specifically suupports the text. I have asked, moreover, for a third opinion here. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The new lede does not say that fascism is "'right-wing' only". The Four Deuces (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to ask for a third opinion here. "Third opinion is a means to request an outside opinion in a dispute between two editors." There is an on-going discussion here involving more than two people. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• → from WP:3O: While the above two editors have dominated discussion in recent weeks, this really does seem to be a larger dispute than is appropriate for offering a third opinion. For what my minimally-researched opinion is worth, it might be worth stating in the lead that fascism is commonly described as ultra right wing, but note that there are problems with trying to sort complex political ideas on a linear spectrum and briefly state two or three major points of divergence from usual right wing thought. In the body, the position can be fully nuanced. I suggest opening a Request for comment using something along the lines of the following text:

{{rfctag|pol}} In the lead, is it appropriate to describe fascism solely as a right-wing ideology, or should its relationship to the political spectrum be more nuanced? The issue is treated in more detail at Fascism#Position in the political spectrum.
Please reserve this section for outside comments. Discussion from previously engaged editors may be found in the preceding sections.

- 2/0 (cont.) 17:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

... Except that there is currently an RfC active at #First sentence of "Fascism in the political spectrum". Given that there have been comments to that section today, opening another one might not be constructive. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Oxford English Dictionary and Fascism seems beside the point. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard might help if this is phrased as a WP:WEIGHT issue. It might also help to distinguish between academic and lay uses of the term. The former is likely to be significantly more precise, but the latter usage more common. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The lead paragraph for the "Political Spectrum" section now reads:

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

That is different from "desrib(ing) fascism solely as a right-wing ideology".

The Four Deuces (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, you are distorting what the source says. Eatwell says that "right-wing terminology is often used erratically" and "left-right terminology fails to bring out that ideologies are better seen as multidimensional, and that at some levels there can be significant overlaps between ideologies", finishing with "the fascist state was 'the synthesis and unity of all values". -- Vision Thing -- 18:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between Eatwell's description of mainstream opinions and his own views. He said that fascism "is normally seen as 'extreme right'", then outlined his personal views.[21] Lipset and all the other historians who dispute the place in the spectrum acknowledge the mainstream view. If you can find a source that says that most academics do not describe fascism as "extreme right", "radical right", "far right" or "ultra right", then I will re-consider. In the meantime I am reinserting the text. Please note also that this is not a discussion about where fascism fits in the political spectrum, or Eatwell's opinions but about how it is commonly seen.

Also, please do not use terms like "you are distorting". The Four Deuces (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

1) Eatwell doesn't mention academics;

2) "normally" is not "most";

3) You are free to place the sentence "According to Roger Eatwell, fascism is normally seen..." somewhere in the second paragraph with a rest of such views. -- Vision Thing -- 20:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you not think that the "normal view" should be presented in the first paragraph? As it is the first paragraph presents the views of Mussolini. I see no reason why Mussolini's views should take priority over the normal view in this article.

What do you think of the following as an opening paragraph, citing Eatwell?

[Fascism] is normally seen as 'extreme right', though right-wing terminology is often used erratically, and fascism is sometimes also conceived as 'radical right', 'far right' and 'ultra right'. However Eatwell criticises left-right terminology as failing to bring out that ideologies are better seen as multidimensional, and that at some levels there can be significant overlaps between ideologies.

The Four Deuces (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps the one removed as being a "duplicate lead" which gives TFD his "right wing" and also includes a full eighteen sources, covering the full gamut of opinions. Including ones which were present for four years until being removed. Collect (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC).

To Vision Thing's objections:

1) I don't think it can reasonably be doubted that Eatwell's essay is dealing with academic sources. To take the quote out of context and just say "most" would give the impression that "most people" are of the view described, which is something that we cannot say for sure.

2) Think that to make a distinction between "normally" and "most" in this case is splitting hairs to quite an extreme degree. Are you able to give a rationale for the distinction? Perhaps the sentence could start "Fasicsm is normally viewed by academics as...", but I really don't think that's necessary or particuarly useful to either side of this discussion. It would just be saying the same thing in slightly more words.

3) Giving Eatwell's name within the quote would be appropriate in the context of him being the originator or an idea or in the context of what he says being controversial. Neither of these things appears to tbe the case, so to give his name would give a misleading impression - Eatwell has only really been chosen as a source because the text is online, not because the statement is particularly owned by him. --82.69.202.14 (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

To Four Deuces' rewrite:

though right-wing terminology is often used erratically, and fascism is sometimes also conceived as - don't think this adds anything. From the variants there, the reader can already see that the termninology is used erratically (although I also think this word is a bit loaded). Also, I don't think it is clear whether "right-wing terminology" is supposed to denote terminology used when referring to the right-wing or terminology used by adherents to the right wing.

However Eatwell criticises left-right terminology ... - is Eatwell a notable enough figure for his personal opinion to form part of the lead when no-one else's does? I'm not saying that I know for a fact that he isn't, but there is no Wikipedia article on him, for example. Might it be slightly better to say "Some writers, such as Roger Eatwell..." and then say something more general, rather than quoting him more-or-less word for word? --82.69.202.14 (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree and have restored your suggested phrasing. However please not that one editor has removed it twice already. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The new version is pretty good, but describing fascism as a combination of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism does not dissent from describing fascism as far right. Also, there was no need for the excess of quotation marks.Spylab (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually we were discussing the first paragraph of the "Political spectrum" section. No one has yet come up not the new lead for the article. Perhaps you could look at that and comment. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the current version:

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

However, by way of comment rather than objection, I would point out a consequence of not designating authoritarian+consevative+right-wing+nationalist as a dissenting definition of fascism. It is hard to object to the suggestion that, for example, the US Patriot Act fits these four criteria. Does this make it a fascist piece of legislation? I'm not too uncomfortable with this idea, but would note the potential for controversy. --78.144.216.40 (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect: Overall, this discussion has gone on a long time. Many users have commented, but you have only found support from one other. I'll admit to not being a disinterested party. However, I would suggest that, whilst you should continue to invite discussion about the matter if you wish to, it is no longer reasonable for you to just delete content which is agreed by other users. --78.144.216.40 (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, Collect, just noticed that you only performed one revert, so TFD must have been refering to another user.--78.148.160.141 (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If there is a consensus among academics, it is that Fascism is an anti-conservative ideology. -- Vision Thing -- 10:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that's more than doubtful, but it might be worth dicsussing if you can find an RS that makes that claim.--78.144.92.135 (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the opening para which had been deleted with the notation "not supported by source". Vision Thing, can you provide a better phrasing for this paragraph? The Four Deuces (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"Most academics" should be removed. My impression is that Eatwell talks about general public, and it is much better to use his wording ("normally"). Also, because "right-wing" is today usually associated with conservatism it should be stressed that fascism is anti-conservative. Roger Griffin says: "The broad area of scholarly consensus which now exists, admittedly one with highly fuzzy boundaries, is that: fascism is best approached as a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn on a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right..." [22] So scholarly consensus is that fascism is a form of revolutionary, trans-class, anti-liberal and anti-conservative nationalism that was heavily influenced by both left and right. -- Vision Thing -- 20:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and also feel the deleted material with eighteen sources should be re-added to the section as well. Collect (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Vision Thing: I would agree to including something about fascism and conservatism, including views that dissociate the two (although it should also be noted that there are views which do the opposite). However, it isn't clear to me where this should go - I'm not sure if the "political spectrum" section is the appropriate place, although maybe it is. The wording you cite is already heavily quoted in the preceding section.

What should be noted is that the quote from Griffin isn't a challenge to what Eatwell says. I'm going to restore the section lead. If you have concerns about the specific wording, then that is not grounds for deleting the whole paragraph.

I don't think that the argument that Eatwell is talking about "the general public" can be easily sustained. His essay does not include any non-academic views. He is dealing with "attempts to produce a generic definition of fascist ideology". It is clear that this means he is dealing with academic work, not bar-room discussions or people's private thoughts. If you think otherwise, you should say why.

In terms of "normally" vs "most", my only reason for preferring "most" is economy of style. If there's a consensus, then I would agree to go with "normally". --89.241.143.113 (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And in terms of SPA, you are undoubtedly one. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect, would you mind striking through this completely irrelevant and, apparently, completely unprovoked ad hominem comment? And sticking to topical discussion? Thank you most kindly. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I note your comment, Collect. --89.241.143.113 (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Try for another four years, perhaps?

" Consensus by assertion? The lede had been stable for four years until some decided that Fascism had to be "right wing" only. I saw no consensus for ythe wholesale change, and no consensus on the RfC above for your wholesale change, I reqorded it to assuage your concerns after all. And each source specifically suupports the text. I have asked, moreover, for a third opinion here. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC) "

"Or perhaps the one removed as being a "duplicate lead" which gives TFD his "right wing" and also includes a full eighteen sources, covering the full gamut of opinions. Including ones which were present for four years until being removed. Collect (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC) . "

Picking dates at random, starting roughly in the center of the years in question, far enough apart that I felt sure that they would be different, I find eight versions, although I am quite sure there are many more, and it would be scores of edits, if one counts the tentative edits during Talk page discussions, on the way to the longer-running versions.

As it was random, the below are not diffs, and thus do not reflect who made the changes or exactly what changes were made, but are just the state of the page at intervals.

• 21 Oct 07 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&oldid=166130801
• 01 Mar 07 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&oldid=111876635
• 31 Jul 06 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&oldid=66782122
• 30 Dec 05 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&oldid=33288247
• 30 Nov 05 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&oldid=29726099
• 12 Nov 05 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&oldid=28146801
• 31 Jul 05 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&oldid=19972021
• 30 May 05 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&oldid=14455891

Anarchangel (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(Just to clarify we are discussing the lede for the "Political Spectrum" section.) None of the versions cited above has a "Political Spectrum" section, so the claim that the lead sentence/paragraph for this section has been stable for four years is factually incorrect and I would ask that the editor making the claim redact it. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

When the "Political spectrum" section was created 14 July 2008 by User:Gennarous the lead sentence read "The place of fascism on the political spectrum remains a particularly debated subject."[23]. The actual sentence had been inserted into the article by the same editor earlier in the day.[24] On 17 January 2009 User:Collect changed this to "Fascism has been described as left, right, and center."[25] So User:Collect's statement that this "had been stable for four years" is incorrect. I would also point out that glancing at this discussion page shows that there had been no consensus for that change and that the new wording misrepresented the sources cited. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Try looking at the article history going back four years -- not just at its position for one day or so. And not just for a specific "Political Spectrum" section. F'rinstance in 2005: "Many scholars hold that fascism as a social movement employs elements from the political left, but eventually allies with the political right, especially after attaining state power. See: Fascism and ideology"" Etymologically, the use of the word Fascism in modern Italian political history stretches back to the 1890s in the form of fasci, which were radical left-wing political factions that proliferated in the decades before World War I. " (December 2005) And so on. The facts remain -- and your generous removal of eighteen reliable sources seems to indicate more than you might desire. As for your limited claim that I was the one who used the current phrasing, you elide the fact that it was arrived at by consensus -- and the one used was the one which you proposed IIRC <g>. That you now dislike your own wording is interesting. The term "left, right and center" derives from Lipset -- who was cited here well before I made any edits IIRC. October 08 "The place of fascism in the political spectrum remains highly debated. Fascist leaders themselves produced different definitions of what part of the political spectrum their movement stood, in 1932, Mussolini professed about the twentieth century saying "This is a century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century".[34] However many Italian Fascists like Benito Mussolini were ex-socialists and ex-syndicalists, and upon the Fascists being ousted and then reinstalled in the German puppet Italian Social Republic, Mussolini and the Fascists professed to be a left-wing movement.[35]" June 08 "According to most scholars of fascism, there are both left and right influences on fascism as a social movement." and so on ad nauseam. The dichotomies were recognized very early on in the article, and seem to be what you would like to erase -- even your own compromise which no longer suits you <g>. Collect (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

March 2004: "Is Fascism a doctrine of the Left or Right? Fascism is generally regarded as somehow the opposite to socialism or communism. Mussolini himself characterized it as such in a 1932 paper entitled What Is Fascism?: "...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of ... Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production...." Fascism is the synthesis of the Hegelian dialectic. If the thesis is capitalism and the antithesis is communism, then the synthesis is Fascism. Capitalism says the individual owns property and controls property. Communism says the state owns property and controls property. Fascism, being the synthesis of the two, is that the individual owns property but the state controls it."

May 2005: The origin and ideology of Fascism Etymologically, the use of the word Fascism in modern Italian political history stretches back to the 1890s in the form of fasci, which were radical left-wing political factions that proliferated in the decades before World War I. The adoption of this term by the Fascist Party reflected the previous involvement of a number of them in radical left politics. (See Fascio for more on this movement and its evolution.)

June 2005 " This inconsistency makes it difficult to strictly categorize fascism on the traditional political spectrum, and the definitional debates and arguments by academics over the nature of fascism fill entire bookshelves."

November 2005 (note the section title which you aver dates only back less than a year in the article) Fascism and the political spectrum Early fascists demonstrated a willingness to do whatever was necessary to achieve their ends, and easily shifted from left-wing to right-wing positions as suited their purposes. This inconsistency makes it difficult to strictly categorize fascism on the traditional political spectrum. Some scholars argue that Italian Fascism, unlike some other contemporary movements, did not grow out of a strict theoretical basis. Layton describes Fascism as "not even a rational system of thought", and as "unique but not original". Fascism tends to be associated with the political right, but the appropriateness of this association is often contested. In one sense, fascism can be considered to be a new ideological development that transcends the right/left framework.

Some historians and theorists regard fascism and "Soviet Communism" (or more specifically, Stalinism) as being similar, lumping them together under the term "totalitarianism". Friedrich Hayek argues that the differences between fascism and totalitarian forms of socialism (see Stalinism) are rhetorical rather than actual. Hayek would note that the economic preferences of the fascists mirrored those of the socialists and communists. For example all three put in place capital controls, wage and price controls as means of controlling the economy (and subsequently the people as Hayek’s Road To Serfdom claimed). The rhetorical differences he saw are only found in why these economic preferences are put in place; to protect the lower class in class warfare, or to protect the interest of the state. Such rhetorical differences are negligible compared to the real outcomes of the very similar state economic control used by the three supposedly dissimilar ideologies. Likewise, claims that classic liberals, neoliberals, or even neoconservatives, are fascists is equally ridiculous given that their economic preferences are those of openness, free trade, and limited government interference; the exact opposite economic preferences fascists.

March 2007: Fascists have regarded themselves as representing a "third way" between left and right, between Marxian socialism and capitalism.[4]

And so on. Note particularly that the article had a "political spectrum" section long before last year. Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

My disagreement is not with presenting different views but with the wording of the lede sentence/paragraph of "Fascism in the political spectrum". Your wording violates WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Make your case for each anagram in the puzzle -- but I aver that it is a proper lede, as the purpose of the lede sentence is to summarize the succeeding content. Each source is inline for the material to which it relates, and quotes are used as needed. Thus no violatin of RS (they are each and every one reliable sources), V (each and every one is verifiable), SYN (I make no conclusions from the various direct statements cited), OR (as it is all V and RS and not SYN, it is not OR), and as for "undue" -- it is undue to elide material which contradicts your own favoured position. Undue does not apply to seeking NPOV which, I note, is the only acronym missing in the laundry list. Care to try telling us why eighteen reliable sources do not belong in an article? Collect (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I and numerous other editors have made this case many times. Your lead misrepresents facts and is not supported by the sources and therefore violates all these policies. If you are unclear on the meaning of WP policies may I suggest that you discuss this matter with someone else. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that what was said in the past was said in the past. It is not as if changes have been proposed without discussion. In fact, it was you who most recently brought up the idea of changing the section, Collect. --78.144.216.40 (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Use the History tab to see where and when the changes occurred. Also note the RfC on the lede which was removed, which had been in place for some time. As for casting aspersions, this is not the place at all. Collect (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope? I don't understand you. In any event, the History tab refers to the past. Legwarmers, eating weavils and Hitler all used to be popular, but it doesn't mean that they were right. The history of this artcile is ignorable. The RFC is still there, and BTW it is what brought me here, in case you think you are still waiting on a response--78.144.216.40 (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

See the earlier posts in this section where it was claimed that I had lied about what had been in the article. Santayana still applies. Collect (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect, no-one has accused you of lying. You made a claim about the past stability of material in the article which doesn't seem to have stood up to examination. I'm sure this will have been just an honest mistake on your part. Let's forget about it. --78.148.160.141 (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Try "None of the versions cited above has a "Political Spectrum" section, so the claim that the lead sentence/paragraph for this section has been stable for four years is factually incorrect and I would ask that the editor making the claim redact it." Which certainly does make the accusation. Are you defending that statement? I gave examples dating back over four years -- so my "claim" was formally proven, contrary to those who insist that it was never there. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide one example of this article more than one year old that has a "Political Spectrum" section. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I already did --- did you miss the post above which cited a section named "Fascism and the political spectrum" from November 2005? Seems that 2005 is actually more than one year ago, no matter what calendar you are using. Collect (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect, Four Deuces did not say that you had lied, he said you were wrong, which you were. Honestly, I don't think this is worthy of further discussion. --78.148.160.141 (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

He also managed to think November 2005 was less than a year ago. Thank you most kindly. BTW, a slew of SPA IP accounts with two or three edits who act like they know everything about the history of the article becomes suspicious. Collect (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to insinuate. If you suspect me of something, say what it is. I would rather concentrate on talking about the article.--89.241.143.113 (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Your very first edit ever according to your contributuon history was at 22:57 on 13 June. In less than one half hour, you have made seven edits to the article and talk page. You had been here 4 minutes when your edit summary was "Restore lead para - Vision Thing: if you have objections should should explain them (not just state them) in talk.) " which rather implies you are not a new user at all. This is all fact. No need to "insinuate" anything at all. Do you have any questions? Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a dynamic IP address. I thought that was obvious. Nothing sinister. --89.241.143.113 (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Most such stay in a fairly narrow range -- which other ones have you edited under here? Collect (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I *think* I am every IP since 'Opinions given by academics are primary sources in this case'. Genuine apologies if you didn't realise this, but I have consistently indicated it by refering to my earlier posts. I have nothing to hide, but I don't want to get an account, which I'd say is up to me.--89.241.143.113 (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect, can you please provide a link to the "Political spectrum" section which you say existed in November 2005. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now done my own research and such a section did exist in 2005 and said "Fascism tends to be associated with the political right". However it was later deleted, so Collect's understanding that the section has consistently represented his views over a four year period would appear to be an honest mistake. in fact the section only represented Collect's views after he added them in January of this year. BTW I think that there are only 12 quotes that Collect uses to support his view, not 18, as Collect states. Collect used "reflist" and therefore obtained sources that were footnotes to other sections. However it really is not very helpful to have numerous references if none of them support your premises. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect has now made claims against the IP editor. Please direct any such claims to the administrators, they have no place here. The editors will review and block editors who edit in bad faith, but it is not relevant to our discussion. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I ask that you redact your PAs here. I have neither made nor insinuated anything improperly here about anyone. As for the material which appeared in 2005, I am glad you found it -- the material existed at many times prior to my ever edititng here at all, and your claim that it was I who added the cites to that section or that it only referred to a disagreement after I started editing was wrong. And since "reflist" added cites when used for the RfC -- and there was absolutely no way to avoid that on the Talk page, and my statement as to the number of refs in the RfC was correct (I counted the superscripts, and used that for the count -- it does seem that it was correct) the issue of "reflist" is joyfully irrelevant. And since quotes from each cite are given which appear strongly to support the use of each cite for the claims being made, your "proof by assertion" fails. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect, please strike through your above comment. Unfounded accusations of personal attacks are, themselves, personal attacks – fully irrelevant to the article and out of place on its talk page. Thanks so much. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Position in the political spectrum - cont.

I have started a new section because the old section is now too long.

The Vision Thing has mentioned Eatwell's definition of fascism which is actually already in the article under the section "Definitions". However we are discussing another section called "Fascism in the political spectrum" which is different. The consensus view, which Eatwell mentions, is that fascists were right-wing. If Vision Thing disagrees, please provide something that supports your opinion. BTW I think that Vision Thing may not understand what the terms "conservative" and "right-wing" mean. Academics were not trying to place fascism on any contemporary American ideological scale. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This looks OK now (?). Collect, I notice you added to the end of the section, which looks fine (are all those cites really needed, though?). I think the "defintions" section in general could do with a modest tidy, which I'd propose to have a go at in the near future (retaining NPOV, of course!). For example, think that some material in "Spectrum" really belongs in the previous sub-section. Just a heads up so that people can comment if I make changes they don't think are appropriate. Thanks. --89.240.189.28 (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Why is "Jewish fascism" listed fourth -- anti-Semitic bias?

It seems odd to me that "Jewish fascism" appears fourth after Italian, German, and Romanian. "Jewish fascism" to the extent it existed, never held state power, and likely never comprised more than a few thousand people. Why then discuss it right after the European Axis powers while listing Spanish fascism last? Why no discussion of Arab fascism reflected in the movements of Nasser and other Arab dictators?

I suggest the editors review the listing and description of various fascist movement for anti-Semitic bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.125.144.16 (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this section has far too much weight. It does not even say what type of support this group had or whether it influenced any future political thinking. Also there were fascist governments in numerous countries that are not mentioned here and many countries had fascist groups that had some influence in the 20s and 30s. Nasser and other Arab leaders do not qualify as fascists in the article because it is only about parties closely related to fascism which excludes most political figures after the Second World War. I think however there should be a section on Arab fascism in Palestine. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting -- where have you seen a discussion of "Arab fascism" (not Lebanese) other than a general pejorative one? Collect (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should only stick to what sources say are the main variants of fascism? For example, Payne in A history of fascism as major variants (beside Italian and German) discusses cases from Austria, Hungary, Romania and Spain. -- Vision Thing -- 11:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Else we could end up getting back the melange of sections on every world dictator or "bad group" this article once had. Collect (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There should be some mention of fascist groups that existed in other countries, e.g., the Silvershirts in the US although no reason to give them their own sections. They already have their own articles. Maybe there could be a list. Mohammad Amin al-Husayni was a Palestinian collaborator of the Axis, and is frequently mentioned by hardcore supporters of Israel today.[26] I don' think that he established any specifically fascist organization though. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the principle that the article should reflect the sources, but the sources may differ and disagree themselves, so there will still be a question. The book Fascism: Critical Concepts in Political Science has chapters devoted to at least ten movements which are not featured in the artcle at present, as far as I can see. So it may be that the net should be cast wider, not more narrowly.

Agree also, though, that the Revisionist Maximalist section appears in the article in a way that gives it probably undue prominence (although the material in it is good). Perhaps trying to sort out which movements had what degree of political influence and/or historical importance(from virtual irrelevance at one end of the scale to marching-across-Europe on the other) might be the way forward.

I don't think trying to identify an Arab for inclusion in the name of "balance" is the best solution. --82.69.202.14 (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you here. But almost all fascist movements in Europe had some impact on the Second World War - the Falange was involved with Franco in the Spanish Civil War, the Romanian fascists helped the Germans occupy part of Russia, etc. I think I'll propose a tentative listing of major fascist movements here:

• Italian Fascism
• National Socialism (Nazism)
• Japanese fascism (the fascist branches of the Statist movement in Japan)
• Iron Guard
• Falange
• Serbian fascism
• British Union of Fascists

How does it sound? --UNSC Trooper (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd add the Arrow Cross and the leading French movements - especially the Parti Populaire Français and the National Popular Rally; not sure if the Action Française or the Croix de Feu/RPF would qualify as fascist. Also the Ustashe was more explicitly fascist than any movement in Serbia. john k (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't claim to be able to give the most authoratative view, but I would agree that thise you list should be in the article. However, I think a discussion about drawing up a definitive list could well go on until the world explodes.

I would prefer to see categorisation around something concrete. The following is just for example:

• Movements that gained complete political control in a particular place;
• Movements that gained significant poltical power in a particular place (eg as part of a coalition);
• Movements that enjoyed a respectable level of public support (I use "respectable" advisedly);
• Fringe movements.

From there, there can be discussions on a case-by-case basis about what should go where.

BTW, I am the same IP as above. --89.242.184.16 (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine. I don't think the fringe parties need much mention though. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Vision Thing

Please can you discuss changes you would like to make in talk. The material you are inserting is not at all supported by the sources cited, whereas the material you are deleting is properly sourced and other editors appear to agree that it is. As I indicated a couple of days ago, the minor objection you raised can be sorted, I think, through discussion, but they are no reason for deleting properly sourced material in favour of the opposite.

In summary, please discuss changes you would like to make here. Thank you. --89.242.184.16 (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] This article is too long

A lot of this article contains detail that is already contained in other articles. I suggest that much of the article can be reduced and readers who are interested can click the piped links to get further information. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you failed to see how long the article once was. I still consider most of the "not core tenet" stuff to be useless in the article. Saying some fascists work with a church, some don't, seems not to prove much. Ditto positions on sexuality which, to all intents and purposes, are indistinguishable from contemporary governments of all stripes. Ditto the conflicting positions on "welfare." If it is not a genuine core tenet, it does not belong, IMHO. Collect (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, in that case, perhaps a new article on fascism's relations to church, sexuality, welfare economy should be written in order to relieve this article of idle information? --UNSC Trooper (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can show some unique qualifying claims, sure. Right now the sections are "some do and some don't" which makes for a rather wishy-washy set of sections. The aspect you cite which is specific to fascism is apparently control of the economy through the government. The other non-core stuff is pretty much as valid as "Brown eyes in fascism" would be while noting the preponderance of brown-eyed fascist leaders. Collect (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wherever possible, think we should be guided by sources, rather than by our own logic, even if that logic might be sound. "Some do some don't" doesn't necessarily mean the material is superfluous or irrelevant. For example, fascists differed in their attitudes to race. That does not mean, though, that racial politics are irrelevant to an article on fascism (and most, if not all, of the sources will support this). Collect, I think what you say would be good for an article entitled "Core tenets of fascism".

I think it would be good to cut down some of the sections, but this should be done carefully with tweasers rather than with a sythe. --82.69.202.14 (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is "some fascists are racists" and "some fascists are not racists" adds up to "fascists are part of the universal set" which is, logically, a worthless statement. The title of this particular article is "Fascism" and including attributes which are meaningless to the basic topic is futile. There is enough solid material for the article that we do not need to add useless stuff to it. Collect (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

But the statement could take various forms, assuming it is a fair statement in the first place. "Fascists show a greater tendency towards racism than the population at large", for example, or "fascists are equally racist compared to the general population, but are distinguished by the basis of their racism in arguments about bilology" would say something worthwhile about fascism (I'm not necessarily making wither of those claims here). That's the problem with applying our own logic rather than relying on sources. Not everyone might agree. Which is why it would be better to rely on sources as a guide to what is relevant and what isn't. --82.69.202.14 (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually no source has ever been proposed for any claim about fascists having a greater propensity for racism than the general population. The requirement that a reliable source be found where it is clear from the current section that no general statement is true seems conclusive. Collect (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Good starting point in reducing article's length would be to remove following sub-sections: Integralism, Revisionist Maximalism, Rexism and 4th of August Regime. They are not main variants of (para)fascism and article won't lose anything on its quality if we remove them. -- Vision Thing -- 07:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree but think they should be put in a list with links to their main articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the sections. You insert a list with links as you see fit. -- Vision Thing -- 14:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Political Spectrum (still) and Fascist Negations

The assertion that "most" scholars put fascism on the extreme right is unsourced and contrary to most of the sources in the section. In fact, most of the authorities cited in the section say that fascist ideology incorporates elements of both right and left and that trying to peg it at one spot on a political spectrum is not very useful. Lacquer supports this synthesis, syncretist or sui generis view: "did not belong to the extreme Left, yet defining it as part of the extreme Right is not very illuminating either" in fact he says calling it right wing is "simplistic". Stanley Payne supports the same approach: “fascists “were unique (sui generis) in their hostility to all the main established currents, left right and center." (parenthetical added) Payne's Fascism: Comparison and Definition p. 8. He goes on to say that this was complicated by the need to find political allies. He notes that they more often allied with the right but also allied with the left. The “[m]any scholars [who] accept fascism as a search for a third way between capitalism and communism” as the section says (nine sources are cited) also support the idea that it is neither firmly left nor right. Roger Griffin notes, "Not only does the location of fascism within the right pose taxonomic problems, there are good grounds for cutting this particular Gordian knot altogether by placing it in a category of its own (sui generis) ‘beyond left and right’." (parenthetical added) As the article says, Lipset sees fascism as "extremism of the center". As noted in the section, von Mises and Sternhell see fascism as a type of socialism. As you can see, most of the sources in the section plainly DO NOT put fascism on the far right but say that it is problematic to do so. The intro should say just that.

On another but related point, after the 1980s almost all works on fascism include the fascist negations, this article has a fatal flaw if it fails to do so. The article should simply state them, as it had stably in the past for a long period, in the classic form as formulated by Payne: anti-liberalism, anti-conservatism and anti-communism. I am going to edit the article accordingly. Mamalujo (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed above. The sources say that fascism is normally considered part of the right, even in writings that challenge its position on the right. Curiously even the writers who challenge whether fascism is right-wing consistently refer to it as right-wing. Also, I think that the Austrian economists do not equate socialism with left-wing. There can be socialism on the right as well, e.g., Bismarck's State Socialism. If you want to challenge the intro paragraph then please provide a reliable source that states most academics do not consider fascism to be right-wing.

Negations are mentioned under "Definitions", but I have no objection to adding more detail about this to the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, what you call the "agreed version" is not an agreed version. Seems at this point, indeed, that you do not have consensus behind it. A number of different editors now have removed it, and only you and an IP insist on it (I count four editors opposed to the "agreed version" and only you and the same 200(?) IPs in favor. Last I checked, that makes it the "disagreed version." Collect (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You set up an RfC on the matter and numerous editors commented and I suppose they assumed that the matter was closed. If you like I can call them all back. Perhaps it is now time to request mediation. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Numerous"?? Nope. Mainly you. And there was no RfC on your "agreed version" which has quite clearly been shown as a "disagreed version" IPOF. Mediation is not need when 4 registered editors disagree with a single one. And the single editor does not even claim to have an RS for the claims. Collect (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Four Deuces you say, "The sources say that fascism is normally considered part of the right", but you can see from my post that almost all the sources in the section specifically do not say that. Which sources say it is part of the right? The only one in the section who appears to say so (and I have not yet verified the assertion) is Eugen Weber. All of the others cast doubt on the ability of political scientists and historians to place fascism firmly in one place on a right left spectrum.Mamalujo (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:SYN: Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. We cannot take a poll of academics to determine what they believe and must rely on reliable sources (WP:RS) to inform us what the normal view is. The fact that this section is devoted primarily to dissenting views is irrelevant. However as I stated the dissenting views accept that fascism is normally considered right-wing and even use the term themselves:

Zeev Sternhell, Neither right nor left, p. 29, calls fascists the revolutionary right "...the revolutionary right won a resounding victory in Germany and Italy..."[27]

If you look at most books about fascism they are described as right-wing with no explanation needed, e.g., The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right[28], The Fascist tradition: radical right-wing extremism in modern Europe[29], The color of fascism: Lawrence Dennis, racial passing, and the rise of right-wing extremism in the United States[30]

You may not agree with they are right-wing, and you may be right, but Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. (WP:UNDUE)

The Four Deuces (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You need to read your sources more carefully. The Routledge Companion at page 2 specifically says that fascism inhereted its anticaptialist stance from socialism and anarchism and that the "question of whether fascism was essentially right wing is not so open and shut" and that such "ambiguities and paradoxes are not 'merely academic' preocupations". You are quite wrong that most books about fascism say it is right wing with no explanation needed. Obviously, The Routledge Companian raises the ambiguity at the very beginning of the book. The other books you mention have the contradiction or ambiguity right in the title: "radical right-wing" or "revolutionary right". Why do you think Sternhells book is called "Neither Right nor Left"? Most scholars point out that it is the radicalism/revolutionary natue and socialism of fascism which are two of its major left wing elements. Paxton, Payne, Griffin, Laquer and Eatwell, just to name a few of the most prominent scholars in fascism studies, all hold that fascism cannot be placed firmly on the right wing.Mamalujo (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fascism RfC

Due to new disputes over the intro for Fascism#Position in the political spectrum I will now write to all persons who partipated in the RfC. If I have left anyone out, please tell me. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you write to all substantial editors since January 2009 -- a number may not have written in the RfC but may well be interested in this. Collect (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now written to all editors except IPs who appear on this page. If I have omitted anyone please inform me. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the RFC is a little premature. As it is almost every source in the section contradicts the intro which Four Deuces proposes. I think the first step for someone advocating that intro would be to cite some reliable sources (And I think for reliable sources we need historians and political scientists who deal with fascism, because there is a tendency for non-specialists to peg fascism as right wing). As it is, without any sources which support the intro, how can any commenter support the position. That would come down to a simple vote (I like, I don't like) which disregards the sources. Such would be contrary to Wikipedia policy.Mamalujo (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please click here: Talk:Fascism#First sentence of "Fascism in the political spectrum" and read the on-going discussion of the RfC, which is about to expire. All of your points have been discussed at length and I would ask that you read the discussion. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I would also note the option of using the close of the section which has eighteen sources provided. Collect (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments: (a) standard dictionary definitions link fascism with rightwing authoritarianism. End of story - there's your headline for the morning paper. (b) historians argue endlessly about the definition of fascism/rightwing/authoritarianism/etc. They get paid to argue (i.e. come up with interesting ideas) and not to repeat what everybody knows, which is - insofar as those words are used in the generally accepted way - fascism is right-wing. However the generally accepted use of those words carries much legitimate argument. So of course there will be a wide variety of views by historians, and those can be reported, ideally based on some easily accessible academic survey work. However a wide variety of views should not confuse anybody into missing the core idea. Disembrangler (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Paxton's The Anatomy of Fascism is useful:

'has been hailed as authoritative, from many sundry quarters. The New York Times described the book as “so thorough and in the end, so convincing that it may well become the most authoritative,” while Terry Eagleton called it a “lucid, engagingly readable study.” Foreign Affairs said the book will be authoritative “for a long time to come.”'(Douglas W. Greene (2008), The Bourgeois Origins of Fascist Repression: On Robert Paxton's The Anatomy of Fascism, Socialism and Democracy, Volume 22, Issue 2 July 2008 , pages 109 - 120)

Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. Paxton, p218

Greene summarises Paxton as saying 'fascism is a rejection of the Western European Enlightenment. As Mussolini himself put it, “Fascism denies that the majority, through the mere fact of being a majority, can rule human societies … [Fascism] affirms the irremediable, fruitful and beneficent inequality of men, who can not be leveled by … universal suffrage.” The first fascists rejected the Enlightenment principles of rationality and equality, in particular its democratic theory in support of universal suffrage, and singled out for attack the Enlightenment tradition's self-avowed successors: all the secular democratic and revolutionary socialist political parties, from Latin Europe to Russia. ... Socialists, from reformists to revolutionaries, have always emphasized that, despite their vehement rhetoric, fascists were never anti-capitalist - a crucial point underscored in Paxton's research.' All of that places fascism very firmly on the side of right-wing authoritarianism. Disembrangler (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The facts are simple here... 1) academics debate where to place Facism on the political spectrum, 2) the vast majority of the non-accademic world places it firmly on the right. We must account for both of these veiwpoints, and should do so in the Lede if we do not want constant debate on this issue. Please stop trying to prove that one viewpoint is more correct than the other... Accept that BOTH are correct. Blueboar (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you've missed out fact (3), that most academics take fascism's link with the right either for granted or as a starting point for debate. Disembrangler (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Currently there are two versions of the lead of the section Position in the political spectrum in play (1, 2). I think we should take a step back and leave that section alone until we can reach some kind of consensus.

My objections to the first version is mention of "most academics", wording not present in the source, and attempt to link fascism with conservatism (according to the scholarly consensus fascism is ant-conservative [31]). -- Vision Thing -- 07:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph that you removed does not attempt to "link fascism with conservatism", it merely said "Most academics describe fascism as extreme right, radical right, far right or ultra right; some calling it a mixture of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism." Conservatism and the extreme right are not synonymous. The quote from Griffin does not say that "fascism is anti-conservative", rather that fascism is best approached as a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anticonservative nationalism. However we cannot "put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." (See: WP:SYN.) Please provide a source that explicitly states that most academics do not consider fascism to be right-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have intention to introduce claim that "most academics do not consider fascism to be right-wing" in the article. However, you want to say that most academics do consider fascism to be right-wing and you don't have a source which explicitly states that. Also, it is true that some academics call fascism a mixture of conservatism and nationalism, but some also call it a mixture of socialism and nationalism, and that somehow didn't make it in the first version of the lead. -- Vision Thing -- 14:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What the Four Deuces and Disembrangler have been saying. In particular, I agree with Disembrangler that Paxton's definition is a) very useful; and b) pretty firmly places fascism on the right. Another source which pretty clearly puts fascism on the right is Ernst Nolte's Three Faces of Fascism - the first face of fascism is the Action Française, which was a French monarchist movement. As Disembrangler says - the point of departure for most academics is that fascism is on the right. Obviously, at that point it's necessary to complicate the picture, because fascism isn't simply on the right - Hitler was not Franz von Papen. In terms of linking fascism with conservatism - well, if the shoe fits. Conservatism is a term that has had many meanings over the past two centuries. What we in the anglosphere call "conservatism" today is what might be described as "liberal-conservatism" - a form of conservatism which accepts liberalism as the basis for government. Authoritarian conservatism is an entirely different beast, and does indeed have connections to fascism. While it would be wrong to say that fascism is authoritarian conservatism, it would be completely correct to state that fascists came to power usually through the machinations of authoritarian conservatives, that when in power they almost always acted in cooperation with authoritarian conservatives in their countries (e.g. Vittorio Emanuele, Hindenburg, Papen, Pétain, Antonescu, Franco), and that authoritarian conservatives typically saw a lot to like in fascism. john k (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It would also be true to say that fascists, especially early, on drew largely from socialists and communists, competed with them for the same supporters, and that many of the early leaders, includidng specifically Mussolini, were socialists. It is also true to say that fascism incorporated socialism/syndicalism or corporatism. With regard to Paxton, see my comments below. He explicitly does not place fascism on the right.Mamalujo (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Any claim that “most academics” or “most scholars” do X needs to identify the sort of academic or scholar, and needs to provide citation to support the claim that most of them do X.
  The article needs to identify the sort of academics or scholars because they tend to do different things based upon discipline. (For example, most historians make some claims that most economists would regard as actively ridiculous.) So, with respect to claims placing fascists somewhere or nowhere on a left-right spectrum, is it historians doing this? sociologists? political scientists? philosophers? economists? English teachers? all of the above? —SlamDiego_←T 16:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• The editors above who are saying that the Paxton excerpt places fascism firmly on the right are sorely mistaken and are puting their own gloss or interpretation on the passage. Indeed, Paxton plainly holds with the scholarly consensus that placing fascism on a simple left right political spectrum is a taxonomical problem. "It becomes hard to locate fascism on the familiar Right-Left political map. Did the fascist leaders themselves know, at the beginning. When Mussolini called his friends together at the Piazza San Sepolcro in March 1919, it was not entirely clear whether he was trying to compete with his former colleagues in the Italian Socialist Party on the Left or to attack them frontally from the right. Where on the Italian political spectrum would what he still sometimes called "national sydicalism" find its place? Indeed, fascism always retained that ambiguity." p. 11. He goes on to say that fascists themselves considered fascism "neither Right nor Left" and also rejected what they saw as the soft, complacent middle. On the same page, he says that the radicalism and revolutionary nature of fascism "often set fascists into conflict with conservatives rooted in families, churches, social rank, and property". Just another fascism scholar who says fascism has elements of both right and left and doesn't fit well on the spectrum. The more we go through this the more sources we will find that say just that. Almost all the sources on fascism say fascism had "right" elements - it was authoritarian and did maintain some status quo, but it also had left elements - it was socialist/syndicalist expanded government and was revolutionary and sought totally remake society. Mamalujo (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, it's a taxonomical problem. Fascist movements often (or even usually) arose out of left-wing or quasi-left-wing movements, and maintained much of the style of the left. Fascists were not simply reactionary right-wingers in the Hindenburg/Papen mode. Fascists were anti-conservative, anti-liberal, and anti-socialist, all at once. But their political alliances were inevitably with the right, and, as Paxton says, facist regimes worked in "uneasy but effective cooperation with traditional elites." Fascism may have been a weird amalgam of left and right wing elements, but that amalgam was largely put into service of the goals of the right. It's not even about maintaining the status quo - it's that Fascists and the traditional right agreed that various parts of the "status quo" needed to be gotten rid of - particularly parliamentary democracy, but frequently also all kinds of other things. Looked at in isolation, sure, fascism has elements of both left and right and arguably defies categorization. But when you look at the way fascist regimes actually operated, it is difficult to say that they were not ultimately on the right, and that, whatever disagreements they might have had with traditional conservatives, ultimately their goals were in many ways complementary, which cannot be said of their relationships with liberals and with socialists. It's been a long time since I've read either Paxton or Payne, but my memory is that Payne's basic issue, at least, was that the distinction between fascism and the traditional right had nothing to do with fascism being further to the right than the traditional right. Fascism was not further to the right than the reactionary non-fascist right. And this was because what distinguished fascism from other political ideologies didn't really fit into the normal left/right dichotomy. I suppose I've rambled on enough, but I think it's wrong to say that people like Paxton and Payne are arguing that fascism is not on the right. They're arguing that fascism is not simply on the right, that calling it a right wing phenomenon is an over-simplification that misses importance nuance. Maybe this is just hair-splitting on my part, but I think that's a significant distinction. Their whole argument rests, more or less, on saying that the left/right dichotomy, as a whole, is oversimplistic. I find it irritating to see them drawn out on behalf of what is effectively the tired old "But don't you see, it's national socialism!" argument. john k (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What I think needs to be done, is to mention the left-wing ideas syntesized into the right-wing end product. For instance, the ideas of revolution, over-throwing the Bourgeoisie, and the national-syndicalist roots of the movement are all important to its development, but that these ultimately led to a authortarian society. It might even be considered a revision of Marxism that "incorpates the anti-conformist left-wing extremists" with the "nationalist right-wingers." So yes, it was ultimately right-wing. But to simply label it right-wing misses too much, and so I think we should back track and cover the left-wing parts of it as well. Soxwon (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mamalujo that editors should not add their own gloss to sources. For that reason, even though I I agree with John K's interpretation of it, the Paxton quote cannot be used directly in support of the statement "Most academics define fascism as (right-wing)", because it dosn't explictly say that.

However, Mamalujo, I think you are also missing the point a bit. Finding sources that question where fascism should be placed on the poltical spectrum does not contradict the statement "Most academics define fascism as (right-wing)", even if you were to find a hundred. All you will have done is prove that there are excpetions to the rule, which nobody denies.

The stamement "Most academics define fascism as (right-wing)" can only be supported by a source that specifically says that, and one has been proposed:

'Most attempts to produce a generic definition of fascist ideology have been linked to a particular conception of where fascism stands on the left-right spectrum. It is normally seen as "extreme-right", though right-wing terminology is often used erratically, and fascism is also conceived as "radical right", "far-right" and "ultra-right".' - [32]

It seems to me that the main question is whether this source is usable or not. For example, is it unreliable or does it fail to support the statement it is cited for? --78.149.108.242 (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, it looks like there are three objections:

• 1) It source not include the word "academic" (I don't think it needs to, since the essay clearly only considers academic work. Sources don't need to use all the words they are cited in support of, as long as they are not misrepresented).
• 2) A contradicting objection that "academic" is not specific enough (I tend to think we should only be as specific as the source is - looking at the endnotes, Eatwell appears to be drawing on the work of historians, political scientists and, perhaps, sociologists. Would "specialists on the subject" be an acceptable alternative to "academics"?).
• 3) That word "conservative" should not be used because it is misleading (I don't think it is misleading and it is in the source, but I think i can live without it).

As a holding position then, would there be any objections (and if so what would they be?) to:

It is normal to position fascism as extreme right, although the terms "radical right", "far right" and "ultra right" are also used. However, there exists a dissenting view that fascism represents "radical centrism".[fn]

The only thing I would see as missing from this is the reference to "acadmics" or something similar. --78.149.108.242 (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You're ignoring the sizeable body that are pushing for the inclusion of the left-wing portions of the ideology, as has been demonstrated in several sources such as the one I posted. Soxwon (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think I am, and I agree with what you say (subject to considerations of due weight). The proposed lead originally added:

Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.

There is no source for this, but I don't get the impression that it is contentious, and I would support its inclusion. More specific information could also be added in the following paragraphs (eg certain modes of rhetoric, policies and influences which are cited by sources as being rooted in the left). --78.149.108.242 (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah good, good. The source I gave has an entire section detailing Marxist influences that can be seen and would be good for that purpose. Soxwon (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, as long as due weight is not forgotten. If we go into detail on left-wing influences, it is appropriate to do the same with right wing ones. Furthermore, I notice that there isn't an "influences" section, which perhaps there should be, rather than overcrowding the "political spectrum" section. --78.149.108.242 (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Opposed to Rationalism?

Although many Fascist movements were Anti-Intellectual, I think that it is not safe to say they were against Rationalism. All you have to do is look at anything related to Giovanni Gentile to find Fascism was rooted in Logic. Although this didn't transfer to many Fascist movements beyond Italian Fascism, I don't believe that this is something that is a core tenet of Fascism, as they make it seem by putting it at the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.48.190 (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is supposed to present mainstream opinion first, followed by opposing views and supported by secondary sources. If you want to present Giovanni Gentile's views then please provide a reliable secondary source (i.e., a book by an expert that discusses his views) that explains what credence is given to them. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do not have many books, but I can show you in Wikipedia's own article that he used an immense amount of thinking that went into Giovanni Gentile's thought(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Gentile). Now, if you want to represent all forms of Fascism, I would say that Anti-Rationalism is a trend and not a requirement, and if you want to represent Fascism as it was in Italy, or originally, then you would say it is quite the opposite. To quote the article on Giovanni Gentile: "Gentile had believed so firmly in the philosophical concreteness of Fascism as having a dialectical intelligence surpassing intellectual scrutiny, that he presumed intellectual opposition could only reinforce and give credence to help the truth of his conception of Fascism as a superior and liberally thinking polity."

Also, notice that it also states the following: "Gentile sought to make his philosophy become the basis of Fascism in much the same manner Marx had developed his philosophy as the basis of Communism. However, with Gentile & with Fascism, the 'problem of the party' existed, and existed by the fact that the Fascist party came to be organically rather than from a tract or pre-made doctrine of thought."

To support this again, an example from his life: In 1944 he was killed by a group of anti-fascist partisans led by Bruno Fanciullacci,[3] while returning from the Prefecture in Florence, where, ironically or perhaps poignantly, he had argued for the release of anti-fascist intellectuals." Is we may agree that the article on Giovanni Gentile is at least somewhat correct and trust the sources it sites, then when can not just assume but know that Fascism is not a Necessary(note that I say necessary not common) Trait of Fascism. In this article, you say "Fascism is much defined by what it opposes, what scholars call the fascist negations - its opposition to individualism[10], rationalism, liberalism, conservatism, capitalism, and communism."

By saying this, you are implying that every single form of Fascism must be opposed to Rationalism, or it is by default not Fascism. This is obviously not true if we take one examination at Giovanni Gentile's Thought and Fascist Italy. As already stated, it allowed different views to come together in the Dialectic.--24.101.48.190 (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Third Position and rejection of left-right spectrum

I've been through and removed some of the footnotes from the "political spectrum" section. They were too many in number and so I've removed ones that were duplicative or not related to the wording for which they were cited. For example, the quote from Linehan as the end of the section was backed by ten footnotes. All that is really needed is to provide a footnote for the source of Linehan's statement. Citing everyone who has cited or agreed with him is not necessary.

Whilst I was at it, I changed two sentences:

• I took out "Many scholars accept fascism as a search for a Third position between capitalism in parliamentary democracies and communism." This was backed by nine citations of books, but none of the references included page numbers (which they should according to WP:CITE). Third Position refers to a specific post-war form of nationalism which many writers are likely to view as fascist or neofascist. However, it would seem very unlikely that any of the nine sources would back the statement that "fascism (is) a search for a Third position".

• I changed "The entire aptness of a left-right Political spectrum has also been challenged by many current historians" to "Many political scientists have posited multi-dimensional alternatives to the traditional linear left-right spectrum". A couple of the six sources given did appear to reject the left-right model, but were personal opinions given by individual non-specialists (an economics journalist and a technology journalist). Other sources noted the popularity of various models, but not a rejection of a conceptual "right-left" continuum. The "horseshoe" model, for example, still has a left and a right, it is just a particular non-linear shape.

I also added a reference for the statement "A number of fascist movements described themselves as a "third force" that was outside the traditional political spectrum altogether", since I felt it needed one. --78.144.100.103 (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Please restore the footnotes -- that sentence had been challenged repeatedly until the added cites wee given. Also note that some of the cites definitely did reject any "spectrum" at all, so I would appreciate the reversion to the priot state. Thanks. Collect (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think I've made a mistake in removing any particular footnotes, then please say which and why.

Please note, though, that stacking an assertion with superflous cites simply to discourage editors from challenging or removing it is probably WP:PUFFERY and WP:Bombardment.

If you are concerned about the last sentence of the section, I think it is less likely to be challenged now, since it has been rephrased to make it (IMO) true and verifiable. It may still be open to challenge on the grounds that it is tangential, I reckon, however.--78.149.108.242 (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be helpful in the section to briefly explain the political spectrum used by social and political scientists because a lot of people understand it in non-standard ways. Lipset provided a discription in Political Man with the reasons why fascism is generally considered to be right-wing.[33] The Four Deuces (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

Why on earth have you reverted this, Soxwon? Your edit summary says: "return to last stable version until RfC's conclusion". However, the RfC has expired. In any event, there is no rule that the fact that an RfC is happening is grounds for reverting or trying to hold a page in stasis. The RfC was about the lead, not the footnotes, in any case.--78.149.108.242 (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: perhaps you are concerned about edits by 72.219.171.189 (this user is not me, by the way). If that's the case, please consider only reverting material that you think you have good reason to (eg because it is too radical a change without discussion). That might, for example, mean reverting to this version: [34], although I am not making a specific recommendation, and note there was a legit image removal in-between. Thanks. --78.149.108.242 (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I reverted to the version by Four Deuces, as the debate is still ongoing. By making extensive changes the way you did, we no longer are commenting on the same version, and a lot of the discussion is rendered meaningless. I think we should keep it in stasis until concensus has been firmly reached, so we're not debating the changes we want to make and then adding in the changes you have made. Soxwon (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No way Soxwon. If you really think the page should be kept in stasis, then there is a process for achieving that, and you should request a full indefinite block. For good reason, though, that is considered a radical measure. What I don't think you should do is try to issue a fiat against futher revisions. Particularly since it is not clear when a consensus will be acheived. Which means you appear to be arbitrarily deciding that the article should stay put...possibly forever. I don't agree with this, but I'll do you a barnstar if you can achieve it. (You'll have to wait until the end of forever, of course ;) ).

The revisions I made were to remove clearly excessive footnotes. The version you have reverted to have one footnote for approximately every eleven words of text. There are approximately three times as many words in the footnotes to the section as there are in the section itself (!). I didn't remove any useful footnotes, just duplicates and footnotes in serious non-compliance with WP:CITE (ie they had no page numbers and were highly dubious).

No-one is debating the contents of the footnotes, just the lead paragraph, which isn't actually in the article at present, so the argument that says "we won't know what we're talking about" makes no sense to me.

Please do not revert again unless you have specific reasons why the edits you are reverting deserve it. Many thanks. --78.149.108.242 (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No, what I was saying was that we are still discussing the political spectrum issues and making such large changes over those affected areas leaves a lot of the commentary useless as they have nothing to refer to. I think that more changes should wait until we have some sort of consensus (I'll wait for others to comment however, though I know Collect also agreed with me). I also do not like the way you have organized the paragraphs in the repetitive "Some scholars" believe at the beginning of every paragraph. Soxwon (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't re-organise any paragraphs. All I did was remove footnotes and make the two alterations mentioned above. As I said, there are edits since I made mine and it may be these you have a problem with. I think you are reverting further than is justified. Please don't throw the baby out. --78.149.108.242 (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I notice that you self-reverted, Soxwon. Thanks, I appreciate it. --FormerIP (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] stop the reverting madness - ONE REVERT per editor effective immediately

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

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

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

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

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

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

Play nice, guys. Work it out like the sane people I know all of you must be. Thanks. - KrakatoaKatie 03:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That RFC/U was made using User:Ikip/guests and User:Ikip/Disclaimer. I suggest you remove it from your list of important things about the editors here. Note also the editor overlap with the current ArbCom on AMIB. Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

OK.

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

PS: for everyone's info: I've decided to get an account in order to continue on the article, since I think not having one has caused confusion here and there and probably not helped. Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

An article RfC was set up here by Collect on May 17, at Talk:Fascism#First sentence of "Fascism in the political spectrum". Though the RfC listing may have technically expired, since 30 days have gone by, I don't know if it produced a talk page consensus of how Fascism should be placed in the political spectrum. Maybe one of the participants would like to summarize how it stands. Even though voting is evil, if further discussion seems unlikely to change any minds then somebody could assess how many people support each of the various positions. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not my view, Collect. It's the prevailing view. I think you can confirm this for yourself with relative ease. If not, I'll make an attempt to do it for you. Best! Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not, moreover, the view of all the deleted sources <g>. Which makes it hard to asset that it is "prevailing" at all. Collect (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No – this does not in any way make it hard to (correctly) assert that it is the prevailing view, even if you are right in your analysis of these sources (QNED). Your claim is logically defective, i.e. it does not make sense. Please strikethrough. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Strikethrough your claims -- it is those which are not supported. I furnished eighteen cites -- and was willing to give about 250 more if that is what it takes to convince you that "prevailing" is a gross misstatement <g>. Instead -- all you and friends can do is delete every source you do not like -- no matter how eminent the authors. And again, WP uses RS as sources, not personal opinions. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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

PS If you have an additional confirming source, that would of course be helpful, Factchecker. --FormerIP (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

That quote was from Roger Eatwell's article. The following source, which was presented above as part of the 16 sources of evidence of dissenting views is also helpful, and I recommend that everyone read its discussion of fascism on the political spectrum. It explains dissenting views before explaining the usual view (no idea how the page numbering works): Illusions of grandeur: Mosley, fascism, and British society, 1931-81, David Stephen Lewis, Manchester University Press ND, 1987 ISBN 0719023548, 9780719023545 291 pages page 1993 It is more usual for fascism to be defined as a movement ot the right....[35] The Four Deuces (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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

That is extremely easy to source [36]. -- Vision Thing -- 15:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the above source (Eatwell's article in Kallis' book) is an argument settling source at all. For one thing the article advocates a spectral-syncretic approach to fascism, not one pegging it as right wing. It is absolutely not endorsing the view that it is right wing. As far as it being a statement of what the scholarly consensus is, it is not useful for that either since it is almost two decades old. Also it pointedly says "left right terminology fails to bring out that ideologies are better seen as multidimensional" and that one definition which describes fascism as right wing “completely fails to see fascism's radical side." I would propose that the intro merely state that scholars disagree about whether fascism simply fits on a right left spectrum at all and that those who do feel it does disagree about where it belongs. Then set forth those who feel it is ambiguous, syncretic or sui generis. Then those who view it as right, left and center. Trying to say what the preponderant view is is a difficult task which will only lead to argument and no conclusion, especially since the view of fascism appears to have been in flux over the last quarter century. Moreover, from what I've read of those who study fascism, the preponderant view among contemporary scholars seems to be that fascism synthesized left and right and does not fit well on the spectrum. Almost all the major scholars of the subject say that. Mamalujo (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

To quote Kallis: "Most attempts to produce a generic definition of fascist ideology have been linked to a particular conception of where fascism stands on the left-right spectrum. It is normally seen as 'extreme right', though right-wing terminology is often used erratically, and fascism is sometimes also conceived as 'radical right', 'far right' and 'ultra right'. Moreover, left-right terminology fails to bring out that ideologies are better seen as multi-dimensional..."[37] I called the source 'argument-settlingly helpful' because this quote seems to precisely capture everyone's views here, as far as I can see. I don't think anyone here is seriously arguing that "right-wing" isn't clearly the baseline position; the issue is that many historians criticise (in different ways) the oversimplification involved in that baseline. The issue is whether that should lead us to throwing up our hands and ignoring the baseline (captured also - I do think we shouldn't ignore this - in the OED definition). By all means let's summarise the criticisms, but it would make those criticisms meaningless if we didn't acknowledge the baseline position they're criticising. Disembrangler (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I support (A), which is also supported by two sources: [38] and [39]. So far, no sources have been presented which support (B) or (C), but a number of editors have presented sources which they think can be combined to back their conclusions. This is WP:SYN, however.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Poll?

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

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

Is that too long?

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

Aside from the fact that I shall be off-line a while, I would also note WP:VOTE applies. If there is a "vote" I maintain my !vote in favor of the older version which was, in fact, proposed by one who now wants the change -- that is to emphasize the "left, right or center" controversy/disagreement. Collect (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Voting is not evil. It might be helpful to see where everyone stands. You might ask the administrators who have commented here, because they want us to resolve the dispute. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

FormerIP, how about proposing a paragraph for the lead? Then wait a bit to allow some comments to fine-tune the paragraph before you open it to voting. If others have their own paragraph to offer, let them submit alternatives. You could vote on all of them at one time; let the best paragraph win. EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Ed Johnson's earlier comment that it is not necessary for us to determine or state what the "prevailing view" is. Rather we should state that there is disagreement and what the different positions are. I think that those who are pushing for a statement that the normal, consensus or prevailing view is that fascism is right wing are engaging in POV pushing. And despite the efforts at quote mining, a couple of off the cuff remarks supporting their position is amply refuted by other sources. One of the quotes used to support the idea that the "prevailing view" is that fascism is right wing actually says that it had been right wing (Marxist analysis dominated the field in the 50s and 60s) but went on to speak of the "new consensus". Anyone who has read much about fascism should know this phrase mentioned much in recent literature. That consensus consists of scholars who take an approach to generic fascism which does not employ the political spectrum and certainly does not peg it as right wing. So if we were going to talk about prevailing view, the "new consensus" would be it (however, I am arguing that we should not state what the prevailing, dominent or consensus view is). Now an exception to the "new consensus" is the Marxist scholars such as Renton who insist upon describing fascism as reactionary and right wing, but their view has been waning since its high tide mark in the 1960s. Mamalujo (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Accusing people of POV-pushing is extremely unhelpful, especially when the obvious retort is that declaring only "there are a variety of positions" is certainly not WP:NPOV if in fact there is a core position that should be mentioned as well as the variety of disagreements. Anyway, rather more helpful is the idea of separating out a "new consensus" of recent academic work - if that phrase is reasonably widely used and such a new consensus exists. A lot of the disagreement here is about the emphasis to placed on the fact that a lot of recent academic work pokes holes in the idea of a simplistic association of fascism with "right-wing". But it's ludicrous to report the hole-poking without reporting what the holes are being poked into. If we could clearly distinguish (within academia - the general view outside is still fascism=right-wing, something which we should also report) between an "old consensus" and a "new consensus" that might be a way forward. Disembrangler (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically, in the spirit of verifiability, we should focus a bit less on what's true (what fascism actually is), and a bit more on summarising who has said what when (about what fascism actually is). And also not forget that views outside academia (as captured eg by OED) are also relevant - not for establishing the truth, but because they should be reported as well. Disembrangler (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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

A key problem is that I prefer dealing with current vews of current fascism as well as the historical -- while some prefer to focus only on the first examples of fascism, and others seem to think that anything "authoritarian" is "right wing" viewing American usage as less relevant for some reason. The pejorative usage also seems to enter in all of this -- frankly I suspect the desire to categorize "fascism" as though it formed a single entity is ill-suited to this article. If we are to deal with all the views of Fascism, we are pretty much stuck with the "left, right or centre" trichotomy. Collect (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't remember where, but I remember Mussolini made fascism intentionally ambiguous so as to be adapted to any situation. However, I think the ideal version incorporated the things I mentioned above. Soxwon (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Lead section discussion

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

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

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

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

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

This version:

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

was replaced with this version:

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

That's what kicked off the recent edit war.

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

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

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

[edit] Political Spectrum Proposal

Hi everybody. Here is a slightly refined version of the proposed lead I put forward a couple of weeks ago. It would be good if people could comment, even if you don't have much to say. If you have objections, please explain them as best you can and propose alternative wording if that is what you think is needed.

I have an idea that it would be good to notify people who have expressed a view in past discussions on this subject. It would be about 30 people. What do people think of this?

NOTE: I've contacted editors who have previously expressed an opionion on this, going back over 2 years. I make a polite request that no-one jump the gun by inserting the proposed paragraph, even if a consensus appears to be emerging. I would like the opportunity to respond to comments made first.--FormerIP (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed lead paragraph for the "Political Spectrum" sub-section:

Fascism is normally described as extreme right, although writers also use the terms "radical right", "far-right" and "ultra-right". However, there exists a dissenting view that sees fascism as "a doctrine of the revolutionary centre".[fn] Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.

The source which it is claimed supports this reads as follows.

Most attempts to produce a generic definition of fascist ideology have been linked to a particular conception of where fascism stands on the left-right spectrum. It is normally seen as "extreme-right", though right-wing terminology is often used erratically, and fascism is also conceived as "radical right", "far-right" and "ultra-right"...others have seen fascism as "neither left nor right", as a doctrine of the revolutionary centre. - [40]

Note that the third sentence of the proposed paragraph is not supported by this source. However, I get the impression that there are no strong objectors to it.

Please please comment. --FormerIP (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. And getting more input on this proposal may be helpful. Disembrangler (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence is fine. I think the other two sentences could be rephrased. I think it places too much emphasis on the centrist analysis. You might also phrase the paragraph in such a way as to allow for other opinions not specifically mentioned. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's alright, though I think that there should be a mention of why it's classified as extreme right in a very brief manner (ultra-nationalism and totalitarianism). Soxwon (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I got a message on my user talk page asking for my comments, so here they are for what they may be worth.

1. The distinction between "extreme right", "radical right", "far-right" and "ultra-right" is a distinction without a difference. There is no need for an "although". Once could simply write, "Fascism is normally described as 'extreme right', 'radical right', 'far-right' or 'ultra-right'."
2. Per Soxwon, I would follow with a summary sentence of why it is classified there. I'd be inclined to say "This characterization derives from fascist support for ultra-nationalism and militarism, and rejection of liberal democracy, parliamentary government, and independent labor unions."
3. Past that, I'm not sure how best to word things, except that whatever we say we should make it clear that those who call fascism "centrist" or "left" are in a small minority, especially among non-fascists.
4. Also, it seems to me that it should be made clear that many of the "left" aspects of fascism are found more in the rhetoric of fascists when out of power than their behavior in power. For two obvious examples, consider Gregor Strasser's faction in the Nazi Party, or the left Peronists who found themselves cruelly betrayed each time Peron regained control of Argentina. No doubt that Hitler and Peron both found it useful to have people who could convincingly (and presumably sincerely) reach out to the workers, but had far less use for them once in power. - Jmabel | Talk 00:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• The proposed passage does not indicate by whom Fascism is “normally described” as right-wing. Is this the normal description from lay-people? from historians? from social theorists? —SlamDiego_←T 00:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks pretty good overall, and I agree with Jmabel's suggestions.Spylab (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Jmabel's comments here - except that it was Otto, rather than Gregor, Strasser who was the leftist. john k (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

My 2c regarding the spectrum is that fascism needs to be characterised as ultra right because that is how its viewed by the rest of the groups in the spectrum and by a good proportion of the fascist groups themselves. That aspect needs to be the leading point. The idea of a radical centre is interesting and should be mentioned but as an aside. Since the definition of fascism is itself so broad, picking out a few aspects of some groups and saying fascism exhibits facets of left-wing ideology is drawing too long a bow. My impression of those trying to characterise fascism as left comes from those who want to distance fascism from modern right-wing politics and to sully radical left-wingers with the stain of fascism. The argument that certain communist dictatorships are fascist doesn't really hold, as that situation is less a case of fascism being left-wing than that those dictatorships were actually ultra-right parading as communist. Look at it this way - how many proud fascists would be happy to be characterised as left wing? Not many, as there are certain fascist groups whose only commonality is that they were anti-communist. Mdw0 (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

“that is how its viewed by the rest of the groups in the spectrum”

A logical implication of this assertion is that those here who object to classifying fascism as right-wing are themselves either fascist or not on “the spectrum”.

I'm quite sure that most of those objecting are not fascist, and that some of them do fit fairly well on a left-right spectrum (though some will not). —SlamDiego_←T 02:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The logical implication is that those who try to say fascism is somehow left-wing are really right-wingers who dont like to see that fsacism is the radical extension of their views, the same way that communism is the radical extension of left-wing views.Mdw0 (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that wasn't a logical implication, though the thought seemed to be lurking there. As to the claim itself, a rather isomorphic thought is running around here: that those who try to say fascism is somehow right-wing are really left-wingers who don't like to see that fascism is another radical extension of their views, along with communism. Certainly non-fascists of almost any sort don't like to find the fascists lumped-in with them. We cannot argue that fascists are right-wing because the rest of the right-wing doesn't want to admit kinship any more than we can argue that fascism is left-wing because the left-wing doesn't want to admit kinship. We certainly should not claim that fascism is right-wing because the left-wing says that it is and the right-wing objections are to be rejected as self-interested; any more than we should claim that it is left-wing because the right-wing says that it is and the left-wing objections are to be rejected as self-interested. —SlamDiego_←T 18:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is a logical inference from the statement, which shows the statement has a bias. The biased view is that people with certain viewpoints dont like to see the radical extension of their views, left OR right. It would take a fantastic blindness to try to associate the extremes of both biases and try to associate those extremes with their centrist opponents' views. It is true that just because left-wingers say fascism is right-wing just because they say it is. If you want to compare fascism with extreme right-wing views, with an aim tio verifying fascisms place on the spectrum, something that needs to be asked is - what would an extreme right-wing viewpoint be? Mdw0 (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A logical implication follows necessarily from the premises, and your subsequent assertion did not follow necessarily. As to your claim about bias, you ae grossly begging the question in insisting that fascism is right wing because it is the extreme of the right wing.

And you are further failing to understand that those who insist that fascism represents centrism place it in the center of a one-dimensional, right-left spectrum, but place that right-left spectrum into a continuum of two or more dimensions. Look at the Nolan Chart, an example of a two-dimensional model with an embedded left-right spectrum; everything from “populism” to libertarianism is along the center of its left-right spectrum. Presumably, those who insist that fascism represents the extreme center locate it somewhere in the “populist” square. Now, the Nolan Chart shown at Wikipedia places the left-right spectrum running from one corner to another, but Nolan's original article in fact drew the left-right line differently. The difference is an artefact of people having various ideas about just where the whole left-right spectrum lies, including the extremes. But the extreme right in any case would represent a call (perhaps incoherent) for free markets but strict regulation of things such as religious and sexual conduct. Someone rejecting the Nolan Chart but still seeing the left-right spectrum as inadequate might answer that question differently, while still not imputing to the “extreme right” some of the essential features of fascism.

I strongly suggest that you give a lot more thought to your pronouncements before presenting them. —SlamDiego_←T 03:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually you first mentioned the logical implication but not a full one - you'd omitted a possibility that I suggested might be included as well. I didnt actually say that fascism was extreme right wing here - I posited that rather than trying to define a broad range of fascists that have some similar tenets to the radical left, it might also be helpful to think about what the radical right is and what that viewpoint is. Is it fascist or not?

Using more dimensions is something of an intellectual cheat. You could have a spectrum where red joins purple and have a 'ring' effect where fascism and communism's similarities have them joining up. If this 'political spectrum' thing is to be mentioned at all there must be a certain consensus. Why is it that fascists are placed on the right wing? It cant be just that they are generally anti-communist, because the conservatives and capitalists are anti-communist too. It is much more than just economics, but more because fascists have a clear deliniation between who is of the elite group and who is excluded, and the way the excluded are treated. Fascism cant allow free markets because of the strict control over who has money and power. I didnt mention radical centrism except to say that there should be a mention of it because the idea is interesting, so what I'm failing to understand about it is why you think I'm not understanding it when I never mentioned it. Maybe you should stop thinking about your pronouncements when they go beyond fantasy in italics. Mdw0 (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Why should anyone care at all what the Nolan Chart says? It's a piece of Libertarian propaganda that has little relationship to either how political groups have perceived themselves or much of anything else. john k (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Evidently the Nolan Chart illustrates how some members of at least one political group perceive themselves, and perceive the fascists. We are discussing the claim of whether one could coherently see the fascists as radical centrists, and the Nolan Chart illustrates the essential structure of such perception — seeing the one-dimensional spectrum as embedded in more dimensions. —SlamDiego_←T 19:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

First, stop inserting comments into mine (or those of anyone else). You make the discussion difficult for anyone else to follow by orphaning paragraphs.

I didn't claim to present every logical implication of your earlier comment. It remains the fact, as I wrote, “A logical implication of this assertion is that those here who object to classifying fascism as right-wing are themselves either fascist or not on ‘the spectrum’.” And that implication is simply false. The views of some person might fall on the spectrum, and be plainly non-fascistic, yet not believe that the views of fascists did. While it was not surprising that you would want to make a different, in some ways weaker claim about bias, what you actually wrote did not allow for the possibility of opponents who were non-fascist and on the left-right spectrum; and what you actually wrote didn't have that other claim about bias as a logical implication.

It is using fewer dimensions which is the cheat, as it forces-together at a single point ideologies that are markedly different one from another. (At some level, using two dimensions is likewise inadequate.) And, yes, various authors have proposed a circle, which again embeds the one-dimensional spectrum into a two-dimensional framework. The point, again, is that there isn't “fantastic blindness” in associating the views of fascists with the center. The fact that the fascists are plainly very different from others who fall in the center (in the case of the Nolan Chart, this would include both moderates and Libertarians) doesn't mean that one gets to dump them either on the far left or on the far right.

Indeed one “certain consensus” places the fascists upon the far right. Other consensuses have not. You want to reject one group as self-interested but, as I have already noted, the other group is as well. As to your claim that fascists are placed at the far right “more because fascists have a clear deliniation between who is of the elite group and who is excluded, and the way the excluded are treated”, it insists on projecting policies of exclusion on the political right when such are quite alien to most of those in the West who would classify themselves as “conservative”. (Egalitarianism and elitism are not jointly exhaustive.) The fantasy here is yours. —SlamDiego_←T 19:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism of my comment above by Mdw0 has been reverted, and Mdw0 has been warned against further vandalism. —SlamDiego_←T 02:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

“how many proud fascists would be happy to be characterised as left wing?”

I don't know, but Goebbels openly considered himself to be part of the Nazi Party left-wing. —SlamDiego_←T 02:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

At one time he did. By 1933, he wasn't on speaking terms with the Strassers, who were to have no influence whatever on the government of the Third Reich. john k (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

He was saying, right up to the end, that he considered himself part of the party's left wing. Certainly people can have shared or similar ultimate objectives without being on speaking terms. But the point is that fascists can be happy to be characterized as left wing (contra Mdw0); whether Goebbels was accurate in this self-characterization is irrelevant. —SlamDiego_←T 19:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about this issue, but surely "the left-wing of the Nazi party" does not mean the same as "the left". Edward Heath was on the left of the British Consevative Party, but that does not make him left wing per se. --FormerIP (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it would not mean the same thing, but I was dealing with Mdw0's question, which concerns fascists being comfortable being identified as left-wing. The point here is not to attempt to “prove” from self-identification that any fascists are left-wing; that would be about as worthless an ostensible proof as that which was tucked into his rhetorical question. (Exactly because “left” and “right” have very different meanings across place and time, mere self-application of one of these labels is by itself meaningless.) —SlamDiego_←T 23:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the "Proposed lead paragraph for the "Political Spectrum" sub-section" is fine. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a positive step forward. I agree with Jmabel's comments. I think that in the body it is important to state who identifies Fascism as right wing, and who identifies it as left wing, and who reject either identification - and JUST as important, provide enough context so we know why people hold these different positions - does it reflect their own political loyalties or agendas, or is it politicians versus hstorians, or what? Slrubenstein | Talk 02:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The user The Four Deuces asked me to throw in my views on this matter of whether fascism is left=wing, right-wing or centre, etc. I think people have to understand what left-wing and right-wing means before applying such terms. Once that is done three questions need to be addressed here. One: Can fascism be defined as a whole to be left-wing or right-wing? Two: Are parts of fascism left-wing and other parts right-wing? Three: Is the left-wing versus right-wing spectrum analysis sufficient to describe fascism's ideological position? Fascism is a radical nationalist movement above all and I doubt that nationalism can be universally defined as politically left-wing or right-wing. Secondly, even specific policies of fascism, such as the economic policy of corporatism are politically ambiguous as absolutists, conservatives, progressives, reactionaries and socialists have all supported corporatism in some form. Fascism's anti-liberalism is not neccessarily only a right-wing conservative view, as fascism claimed to have affinity to the left-wing radical anarcho-syndicalist Georges Sorel who completely rejected liberalism. As can be seen, picking a position for fascism on the political spectrum is difficult, as it appeared to try to tap into support from both the left and the right.--R-41 (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism's aim to overthrow the status quo may have attracted some radical left wingers, but wanting dramatic revolution is a feature of radicals in general, both left and right. Just because the radical left supported some of the same things that the fascists supported, that doesnt make fascism left wing. Mdw0 (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm trying to say, I don't know if it's left-wing or right-wing. Fascism's main appeal was to militant and radical nationalism. Clear definitions of what constitutes left-wing and right-wing need to be understood.--R-41 (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but then how do you account for the many ties to syndicalism such as Robert Michels? Such close associations with a "right-wing" system doesn't seem logical. In addition, you have many ties to marxism with Zeev Sternhell claiming that Marxism was a key part to fascism. For instance, Marxism had bene unable to bring about the violent changes predicted due to the free market system. As such, Fascism's radical change was a way to artificially facilitate the crisis and make the changes while keeping the capitalist system in tact. You see a lot of other Marxist characteristics as well, such as anti-materialism and the class warefare aspects. Finally, one of the natural stepping stones to Fascism (at least according to the Sorelian school) was national syndicalism. These incorporations of left and Marxist ideology do indeed make fascism left-wing. All this can be gleaned from the Fascist Reader Soxwon (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Writers who disagree point out that most fascists were not former Socialists and those who were, like Michels, had become disillusioned with Socialism. I cannot think of any who were actually former Communists. Hayek had also been a Socialist and many American conservatives were also once left-wing, but American conservatism is generally not considered left-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no Marxist aspect in fascism. That's absurd. Marxism and fascism did, indeed, seek to bring change to society, but with different tools and with a different aim in mind. While Marxism wanted to completely change the way society works and implement a utopian economic system, fascism aimed to revolutionize the nation and, in some cases, the human spirit, preserving social Darwinistic class differences but tying them together within the state, something Marxism wasn't too fond of.

Like R41 said, we need to understand the definitions of right and left in order to categorize fascism. Therefore, I'm going to try to list what, as I see them, the left and right characterstics of fascism are:

Left-wing aspects: Anti-capitalist propaganda (emphasis on propaganda); the radical revolutionary nature of most fascist movements; desire to combine leftist syndicalism and socialism with nationalism (National syndicalism and National socialism, respectively); a fairly leftist position in the early days in power before drifting towards the right, particularly the Italian Fascist Party

Far right aspects: Ultra-nationalism invoked through terrorist means, in most cases; outright hatred towards Marxism and pacifism; imperialistic aims to expand a nation's territory; extreme militarism; aggressive racism (white nationalist movements); extreme religious affinity, in some cases (Iron Guard and Rexism); violence directed towards the working class left-wing while in power (Night of the Long Knives, the poverty-stricken agricultural class during Mussolini's reign, disbandment of labor unions, etc.); merging of corporations within the state, giving corporations a large amount of authority (that'd hardly be present in left-wing regimes, right?); conservative stance on moral issues such as abortion; affinity towards the right-wing upper class, in most cases.

That said, I agree with the current summary.--UNSC Trooper (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Source that R-41 provided, and which says that fascist position in the political spectrum is a contentious issue for scholars/historians, should be incorporated into the lead. -- Vision Thing -- 16:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I just add that we should certainly indicate that when Fascists themselves have defined their place on the political spectrum, they have normally considered themselves as being on the right. Here's Mussolini, for instance: It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the "Right," a Fascist century. Most non-fascist contemporaries also tended to see the Nazis as a phenomenon of the right - thus their alliances with traditional right-wingers. Fascism may have been the bastard child of socialism (and in most cases it was - although much less so in the Nazi case than pretty much any other), but it was firmly and almost universally considered to belong in some sense to the right during the interwar period. You know who someone is by who they associate with, and fascists everywhere tended to ally with the traditional right. Modern scholars may complicate this picture, but it is necessary to paint the basic picture of fascism as being on the right in order to even understand what those scholars are talking about. john k (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Think that's great nutshell job. --FormerIP (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism is generally considered a right-wing or far-right ideology. Although I agree that 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' are so general to be almost meaningless, it is worth noting that 'centrist' is just as meaningless. As these terms are understood, fascists are seen, and self identify as right, or far-right. Intentional obfuscation by maverick scholars notwithstanding.FelixFelix ^talk 09:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"Generally considered" is now incorrect in current works, hence would be a gross misuse of the lede to make such a claim. If this is to be a current article, it should reflect current opinions. Collect (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Political Spectrum proposal mark 2

Okay, here's my summary of what has come out of the discussion so far:

• No need to separate off "extreme right" from the other similar expressions used (per Jmabel, with others appearing to agree)

a I think that's easily incorporated.

• Who is that does the "normally describing"? (raised by SlamDiego)

It appears to be a mixture of historians, sociologists and political theorists, looking at Eatwell's endnotes. However, I don't think "historians, sociologists and poltical theorists normally describe" would be quite right, on the grounds that egyptologists, for example, may understandably have no particular way of describing fascism. What Eatwell's sources have in common is that they are "specialists on the subject", aleit that they come from different fields. This is the wording I would propose.

• We should say why it is "extreme right" (per Soxwon, R-41 and UNSC Trooper)

There seem to be two parts to this. Firstly, that some working defintion of "extreme right" is needed. I'd say this is easily acheived by wikilinking the phrase "extreme right". Secondly, that that right-wing characteristics of fascism should be given mention. I broadly agree with UNSC Trooper's list, but would note that we need an RS for everything that goes in such a list. We will also need to be sensible about how long such a list would be. I would propose to everyone who cares about this issue: begin bringing your sources to the talk page, starting from now.

• We should give details of what aspects of fascism might be considered "left-wing" (per Soxwon and Jmabel - with Jmabel and others taking a more conservative - in the other sense - view as to what these will be)

Again, I think this is a question of "bring forth the sources".

For sources regarding both right-wing and left-wing aspects, I think that it is important that sources are totally explicit in saying "fascism is left/right wing because...". Phrases like "fascists were conservative" or "fascists believed in redistribution" will probably be no help to us, because neither phrase directly tells us anything about the position of fascism on the spectrum, without the need for us to add our own OR.

A further note: I agree with The Four Deuces that Marxist influences on fascism are in no way eveidence with regard to it position on the spectrum. As has been said, all kinds of right-wing movements have Marxist influences and adherents who are former Marxists. This tells us nothing. I think there is a place for that information on the page, but not in this section.

For both right and left aspects, I think this is detail for the body of the section. I would hope that the lead para can be agreed without having to have agreed comprehensive right and left lists.

• How significant are the dissenting views on this matter? (more significant that the current proposal implies, per Vision Thing and, possibly, R-41 - less significant per Jmabel, The Four Deuces and Mdw0)

Difficult to know what to propose here. It seems to me like we need a source characterising the significance of minority views (eg sources that say "large minority", "fringe view" or something similar). Absent that, we just seem to have a difference of opinion amongst editors.

• Lastly - thanks for commenting, but please note the following is not proposed as an endpoint, just a staging post - please keep commenting.

Mark 2 proposal (not actually that much different so far, but please keep commenting):

'Specialists on the subject normally describe fascism as extreme right, radical right, far-right or ultra-right. However, there exists a dissenting view that sees fascism as "a doctrine of the revolutionary centre".[fn] Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.'

--FormerIP (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly take exception (and I haven't been the only one objecting - there is no consensus of editors here) to any statement that it is the normal, prevailing or consensus view that fascism is right wing. Just as some editors have come up with a cite or two that says fascism is normally viewed as right wing, there are those that say the current consensus holds it is a hybrid of socialism: The consensus view is that “fascist ideology represents a synthesis of nationalism and socialism.” here at pp. 22, 19 and The consensus is that there is a “symmetry of fascist and socialist thought”. p. 27. Also here.: “Consensus historians have bolstered their positions by defining fascism a priori as socially and economically radical, thus excluding from consideration some of the most significant right wing authoritarian movements in France during the 1920s and 1930s.” And here: “The consensus school has interpreted fascism as a radical, left-leaning, anti-capitalist phenomenon with significant proletarian support…” [emphasis added] While some editors advocate stating that there is a consensus that fascism is right-wing, the literature actually indicates that that purported consensus (promoted mostly in the 60s by Marxist scholars) has waned and no longer prevails. It is not the consensus. Moreover, if we are going to be reporting on former prevailing views we should include the view of just after the war and into the fifies that lumped fascism and communism together and of the interwar period that fascism was a synthesis which was neither left nor right.Mamalujo (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mamlujo. To briefly deal with the sources you present...

The first one doesn't refer to a consensus, but the the view of Sternhell, who himself doesn't actually claim that fascism is left-wing as such, but that it is partly socialist. He's already acknowledged as a noteworthy dissenter from the standard view.

The second one (p27 of the same book) also doesn't claim fascism to be left wing, it says that the "an alleged symmetry of fascist and socialist thought rarely amounts to anything more than a recognition that both groups have sought to change society..."

The third and forth are a bit more interesting, but there are a couple of things to note. Firstly, these are both specifically about the attitudes of French historians to French Fascism of the 1930s. Secondly "consensus historian" is a term of art. It doesn't mean a historian who is part of a consensus, it means a historian who believes in the existence of an ongoing consensus within a society [41]. I would concede the use of the word "dominated" in your source though. This appears to mean that in France there has been a dominant school of thought regarding fascism as "left-leaning". I think that is significant, at least. I wonder what other editors make of this. The endnoted text may be worth looking into as well. It is in French, but it is online here: [42]

Your last cite makes the point that, in the post-war years, Nazism and Communism were "lumped together" by some as "totalitarian". I don't doubt the truth in that, but I also don't think it says anything about the position of either on the political spectrum.

Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest you read the source again. It is referring to a consensus. It is under the heading "The new consensus" (p. 19) and it is referring to a consensus definition of generic fascism. On p. 22: "The belief that fascist ideology represents a synthesis of nationalism and socialism, (sic) is the second element of the historians' definition." With regard to the second cite p. 27 you have misread. I am not saying the book claims fascism to be left wing; the author is a Marxist and claims fascism is right wing, but he is attacking the liberal historians of the consensus. Renton, the author of the book, a Marxist and not a part of the consensus, is critiquing the consensus view that there is a symmetry between fascism and socialism. He does not agree with the new consensus, but he is not saying there is no consensus or that the consensus does not allege the symmetry between fascism and socialism. He is specifically saying the consensus alleges that symmetry but that he disagrees with them. With regard to the third and fourth sources, consensus historian may or may not be a term of art but that is beside the point. The sources are plainly using “consensus” in its colloquial sense - just two examples: speaking of a “consensus view” and “A number of non-French historians have challenged this consensus.” p. 266. The fact that they are speaking about fascism in France is absolutely beside the point. We are speaking about the nature of generic fascism – some editors claim the normal view is that it is right wing. How then can the consensus view be that it is left wing in France? Is communism right wing in France? All of this makes it plain that an assertion in the article that fascism is “normally” viewed as right wing is untenable. There is more, and if I must I will further demonstrate the folly of insisting the article give a scholarly consensus regarding fascism's location on a political spectrum, whether it be "right wing" or otherwise.Mamalujo (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, Mamalujo. The text referred to is called The Right in France. That it is including an in-depth look at socialism at all is indicative of a general sense that Fascism would be covered by a book called The Right in France. I would add that furthermore, other than that one sentence describing historians viewing fascism as "left-leaning," the whole tenor of the page available from Google Books shows an assumption of Fascism as a phenomenon of the right, suggesting that perhaps it is being discussed as left leaning only within the context of being a right wing movement. Finally, note that the argument here is not about whether fascism is right wing or left wing. It's about what "French fascism" consists of. Did French fascism only consist of tiny movements like Jacques Doriot's PPF or Marcel Déat's RNP? If so, it might be fair to describe it as "left-leaning" in the sense that Doriot was an ex-communist and Déat an ex-Socialist and that both maintained many of the ideas of their original political ideology within their fascist movements. Or did French fascism also include (as Nolte and others suggest) homegrown right wing authoritarian movements like the Action Française and the other extra-parliamentary ligues of the 1930s? If so, that description is inaccurate. You seem to be cherry-picking a single sentence here from a larger work which does not at all support your argument. Which, I suppose, is would doing a keyword search of Google Books is supposed to do, but that doesn't mean we should condone such things. john k (talk)

As well as asumptions made as to what extreme right views may be, there are certain aspects of the radical left that fascism embodies that may not be 'left' at all, but merely an assumption regarding a modern viewpoint of radical behaviour. Is revolutionary drive an aspect of the radical left, or merely of radicalism, left AND right? In any case its a sideshow of a sideshow and that paragraph looks fine to me. Mdw0 (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

When discussing the "new consensus" view I think it is best that we stick with the article by Eatwell. Mamalujo has found a few quotes that may appear to contradict Eatwell's understanding of the his own consensus view but I do not think they are appropriate here. One of them is a quote from an article in the French Right about the post-war National Front. The article provides as a refererence a journal article in French that discusses Eatwell's theory. The discussion of what Eatwell actually meant as opposed to what he actually said is interesting but not helpful. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

<sotto voce>I think you prolly mean Sternhell rather than Eatwell, FD. It's actually even more complicated than that, I think, but let's not go into it.</sotto voce>

I agree that it would not be helpful to get bogged down in side-issues. However, I think I should express my bottom line with regard to Mamalujo's sources.

1) Renton. Whatever this source does say, it doesn't say anything about the position of fascism on the political spectrum, so I don't think it needs discussing here. What it does say is well covered elsewhere in the article anyway, particularly in the quote from Roger Griffin in the "Definitions" section.

2) The Right in France. I grant that this is a valid source for a reference in the body of the section to "a dominant interpretation amongst French historians that fascism was left-leaning". I think I'm being very generous with this concession. The introduction to this book: [43] gives a good overview of the issues involved, if anyone finds this an interesting topic. Part of Dobry's essay (the one previously linked in French) can be read in the same book. Note his introductory comment, starting: "...the immunity thesis has been increasingly reluctant to manifest itself...". ie: it is no longer dominant in any event.

Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How can you say Renton's book doesn't say anything about the political spectrum. It makes me think you are being willfully ignorant or disengenuous, but I will put that aside and assume good faith. His commentary on the consensus in fascism studies is explicitly arguing that the consensus is wrong and that fascism is right wing. The consensus says there is a symmetry between fascism and socialism and that there was a continuity from socialism through proto-fascism into fascism. He disagrees. Read the first paragraph on p. 27. He is unequivocally arguing against the consensus which rejected the simplistic characterizing of fascism as right wing.Mamalujo (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that these sources say anything except about a dominant school of analysis of French fascism - and this seems, in particular, to be a view which has come under attack more recently. Furthermore, the whole point of this school of analysis would appear to be that French fascism was unsuccessful because it remained "left-leaning." Fascists in Italy and Germany took power by allying with the traditional right. This course, say the "consensus historians" of France, was unavailable to French fascists, thus leaving them as tiny fringe groups. But it is very problematic to generalize from France (a country where Fascism never came to power) to fascism as a whole. john k (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Mamalujo: The section you cited in Renton talks about the views of four historians; Payne, Eatwell, Sternhell and Griffin; who each posit - not unreasonably - that there are elements in fascism which can be traced to or associated with socialism. My impression is that no-one who has been been involved in these discussions would dismiss this general idea. What Renton's book (or, at least, the passages you have cited) does not do is tell us what conclusions can be drawn from this, if any, as to where fascism lies on the political spectrum. We might draw conclusions for ourselves, but these belong in our own heads and on the talk page, otherwise it is WP:OR.

For a comparison, many have argued similarities, influences etc between Marxism and neoliberalism. For example, the theories of Karl Popper, basically Marxist, were enormously infuential on Hayek, Milton Friedman and even Margaret Thatcher. The Chicago School based much of its theorising around the Marxist/Comptian analysis of competition formulated by Durkheim. Does this make neoliberalism Marxist? Well, don't think about it too long, because it would be OR in any case.

You draw particular attention to the bit about a "symmetry between fascism and socialism". You appear to think this means fascism might be left wing. But I would draw a contrary interpetation. "Symmetry", to my mind, involves the idea that they behave similarly but are on opposite sides. You don't have to agree. As to which of our views belongs in the article: neither, they both belong in our heads until one of us finds an RS that agrees with us.

Cheers.--FormerIP (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The notion that Popper was “basically Marxist” would have disturbed, amused, or outraged Popper, whose epistemology was largely a reaction to the way in which Marxists of his day refused to see falsification of their predictions as proof of anything but their own mistaken application of Marxist theory, and whose political prescriptions were quite liberal. —SlamDiego_←T 23:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, but we're about to go wildly off topic. You get the basic point. "Socialist" or "left-wing" can be substituted for "Marxist", if you like. --FormerIP (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The basic point, as I interpretted it, was sound. This specific claims about historical influences were at best quite problematic. —SlamDiego_←T 00:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the issues I think we should clarify is whether fascism was an ideology or a type of government. The "consensus" historians (and I question just how much consensus there is about their views) define fascism as an ideology developed by the Fascists (1919-1921) and later copied (maybe) by the Nazis but not adopted by any other party that later came to power. Although the consensus historians say nothing about the place of fascist ideology policitical spectrum they state that it is generally considered extemely right-wing and that fascist government was right-wing. This entire article seems to follow the consensus historians' definition. There is no discussion of Ethiopia, the Spanish Civil War, the Second World War or the Holocaust in this article. We already have separate articles for Fascism and ideology and Definitions of fascism. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone here has presented in this discussion any scholarly definitions of what left-wing and right-wing mean. If we had a clear picture of what they meant by the views of multiple scholars, then a more enlightened discussion can take place. But now all that is going on is a discussion based on semantics, please find multiple scholarly sources on what left-wing and right-wing mean and present them on the discussion board. Then an informed discussion can take place.--R-41 (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could present your view. I presented mine long ago, which was the definition Lipset gave in Political Man and which I assumed was the standard definition. However you challenged that definition and I would be appreciative if you could state what you consider it to be. Here is what I said: User_talk:R-41#Deuces. Here is what you replied: User_talk:The_Four_Deuces#The_Reform_Party_of_Canada_was_not_a_fascist_movement and User_talk:The_Four_Deuces#Claim_that_arguments_with_.22viscious_attacks.22_are_normal_in_the_real_world_of_debate. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

One definition that tries to summarize views of political scientist on political spectrum says that: "The right of the spectrum is usually associated with tradition, individualism, liberty and free enterprise with the left asserts change, equality, collectivism and the common ownership of the resources." -- Vision Thing -- 08:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Individualism is a liberal ideal, though. So that makes the aforementioned definition somewhat erroneous. Following that definition, fascism would fit the left's characteristics: change (social progressivism), equality and collectivism (nationalism), and common ownership of resources (corporatism, more or less). --UNSC Trooper (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

R-41, I'm unlear as to why you think brigning forward defintions of "right-wing" will help. If you are saying this because it appears to you that some people have a poor understanding of the term, then maybe those people should be encouraged to better inform themselves. Perhaps they could start by looking at Right-wing politics.

If, on the other hand, you are proposing that we should proceed by first deciding on an agreed defintion of "right-wing" and then holding a debate to decide whether or not fascism fits the bill, then this would be an excercise in collective WP:OR, and so I do not think it would be useful in terms of the current discussion.

For what it is worth though, I don't think a working defintion for our purposes needs to be at all complicated. My own version would be: "Right-wing politics opposes egalitarianism and supports instead the maintenance of social hierarchy". --FormerIP (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well then if it's original research to find a definition of left-wing and right-wing to apply to the information on the political spectrum in this article, then it is pointless to even debate the position on the political spectrum because according to sources the vast majority of scholars say that fascism is right-wing, other conclusions are lesser arguments. We must then say the following "Most scholars define fascism as right-wing though some define it as left-wing and others define it as centrist." That is the only conclusion that can then be drawn from the vast array of sources available.--R-41 (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

n Political Man (1960), p. 222, Lipset wrote "The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the center that of the middle classes." User:Vision Thing's reference to the positions right and left are "usually associated with" today is consistent with this definition. Lipset coined the term "radical right" in "The Sources of the 'Radical Right'" (1955): "This group is characterized as radical because it desires to make far-reaching changes in [national] institutions, and because it seeks to eliminate from [national] political life those persons and institutions which threaten either its values, or its economic interests." There is also the literal definition of the Right, the parties that sit on the right side of European parliamentary bodies. The Nazis for example sat on the far right of the Reichstag, and European parliaments continue to seat neo-fascists on the far right.

Incidentally fascists did not support "equality" or "common ownership of resources".

The Four Deuces (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Lipset's definition of “right” is the sort popular with many, but rather obviously not the sort that most self-styled “conservatives” would use — unless they were willing to deny that conservatism were right-wing.

Is the “political spectrum” section is going to be prefaced with explicit definitions of “left” and “right”? Or is this all just a struggle to see who gets to spin the associations?

As to your assertion that fascists did not support common ownership of resources, that's at best misleading. Ownership is not a façade of title; it is actual right of control. While fascists rejected equal representation of members within what they regarded as the community; they imputed to that community the actual right of control. It would be plainly false to deny that fascists did not support communal ownership of resources. —SlamDiego_←T 22:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a violation of WP:OR to decide on a definition of “left” and of “right” unless the definition were a sort of invention by the editors. Essentially, the proper formula would be to select a preëstablished definition, associated with some set of authorities, and make it very plain in the section that the definition of those authorities were being used.

As defined by such thinkers as Alfred E. Neumann, the political “left” are those who X, the political “right” are those who Y, and the “center” are those who Z. Under these defintions, fascism may be characterized as A.

Possibly, more than one “notable” set of definitions could be presented, with fascism's resulting categorization noted for each. —SlamDiego_←T 22:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That definition happens to summarize what right-wing meant during the period in question, and it as it would be understood in the academic community studying fascism. The Nolan Chart and Cleon Skousen's theories had yet to be published and modern American conservatism did not yet exist. The idea that fascists abolished private property de facto is a valid but minority opinion that should not be given undue emphasis. (I think the Austrian view was that under fascism private property would disappear, not that it did.) The Four Deuces (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If a definition that prevailed in the interwar period and no longer prevails in common political discourse is to be used, then it is especially important that the definition be explicitly provided and attributed.

Your earlier claim was baldly that fascists did not support “common ownership of resources”; you did not make a claim about what some alleged mainstream did or did not acknowledge. It's neither a fringe theory that actual ownership is right of control, nor that fascists sought to take control of resources by a combination of nationalization and regulation. (The Austrian School is hardly unique in acknowledging that fascists supported communal ownership of resouces.) If you want to claim that a mainstream looks away when it comes to the logical combination of these two points, well, that may be; a survey of the literature would be required to determine that point. But it's simple ad hominem to wave-away the explosion of your original claim as “fringe”. —SlamDiego_←T 23:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the proposed paragraph. It is simple, concise and it gives what seems to me to be correct weight to the three viewpoints. Obviously there is a lot it doesn't say but it gives the reader a good general idea of what the situation is and subsequent paragraphs can elaborate on each viewpoint and explain how they are predicated on significantly different understandings of left and right. I think it is very important that complicated matters like this are presented in a way that general readers can follow, not just as a confusing stream of conflicting ideas and terminology. I am not really knowledgeable enough to pronounce on the more subtle arguments above but I would like to make the unsubtle point that not everything labelled as a "consensus" actually is one (see my forthcoming book, Broccoli: The World's Favourite Vegetable) and that the consensus that really matters is that of international mainstream academics, although the popular consensus is also of interest. I will admit that my understanding comes through the school system and the media rather than serious study of this, so I can only really pronounce on popular perceptions, but maybe this is worth throwing into the pot anyway: In the UK, it is taught in schools, and pretty much universally accepted by the mainstream media, that Fascism is basically a right wing ideology when placed within the conventional left-right continuum. This has been the case for a long time. Few right wing people (politicians, commentators, columnists, etc) in the UK seem to feel the need to try to offload Fascism onto the Left in order to repudiate it. Those that do are taken about as seriously as those Socialists that occasionally claimed that Stalin was right wing as a way to repudiate him. Of course, the more you read about he subject the more you realise that there is more to it that the simple classification of "right wing", but that still forms the starting point of most people's thinking here. It would be interesting to know what the equivalent perceptions are elsewhere, particularly in continental Europe. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If people want to know what "right-wing" means they can click on the piped links. I appreciate that John Birchers consider themselves right-wing and argue that the French monarchy and fascists were left-wing and the French Revolution was led by right-wingers. But that remains a minority opinion. (BTW I changed "fringe" to "valid but minority" out of politeness.) But Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. (please see WP:Weight). Incidentally, if one clicks extreme right, far right, radical right, or ultra-right, one finds an article that clearly includes fascism. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As to your last point, I remind you that Wikipedia itself is not a “reliable source”.

As to changing “fringe” to “valid but minority”: First note that making that change in that manner after I replied to it represents a falsification whose effect is to make my comment seem delusional. The proper way to effect a change is with at strike-through. Second, you've simply replaced a harsh ad hominem argument with a mild ad hominem. The point remains that any claim that the fascists did not support communal ownership of resources is easily falsified. Invocation of WP:OR or of WP:UNDUE is utterly irrelevant to the refutation of bald claims made here. Again, if you instead want to claim something such as “Mainstream scholarship does not note that fascists supported communal ownership of property”, then you may have a case. But any bald claim that the fascists did not support communal ownership of property holds no water. —SlamDiego_←T 05:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually changed "fringe" to "valid but minority" before you replied to it, as is apparent in the edit history.[44] (You must have had an edit conflict.) I appreciate that there are different ways of looking at issues relating to how right-wing fascism really was, and agree that the article should mention all of these. The only question is what weight should be given to the different views. While Wikipedia may not be a reliable source, it contains internal links that enable to readers to easily find additional information on terms used in articles (which is why the links exist). The Four Deuces (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Slam, it does not really look like Four Deuces was attempting to make you look delusional. Nor is "fringe theory" normally an ad hominem epithet, but merely a way of designating a minority or tiny-minority view which opposes a clear mainstream. It can be incorrect, but I fail to see how it's an attack. Either way, it's best (here on the article Talk page, anyway) to focus on topical discussion rather than dwell on perceived slights from another editor. At this point, I'm not sure what you are arguing: are you saying that Fascism is not normally viewed as a right-wing ideology? Or are you merely concerned about how the wording in the article will reflect opinions that this classification is incorrect/simplistic/whatever or that it should be classified as something else? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't speaking to motive; I was speaking to behavior. Editing a comment after a reply should be done in a way that does not distort interpretation of the reply.

Whether “fringe” or “minority” are normally ad hominem argument isn't particularly relevant. Again, the Four Deuces made a bald claim of fact; the claim was exploded; the refutation was then waved it away based upon a claim that it is a fringe or minority view-point — the factuality of which subsequent claim has not been established but is in any case irrelevant. (I have repeatedly noted the distinction between his bald claim, and a claim that the mainstream has not acknowledged fascistic support for communal ownership.)

The principal issue isn't one of perceived slights per se; it is of rejecting fallacious modes of discourse.

And that gets to what I've mostly been arguing so far: that fallacious argument about classification should be rejected.

I've already presented an honest formula for how to write the section: Report the definitions of “left”, “right”, and “center” from “notable” sources, with in-text attribution to those sources, and report how those sources classify fascism. Plainly, I'm not arguing that the article should assert that fascism is left-wing nor that it should deny that it is either left-wing or right-wing.

As to where I think that fascism ought to be classified, that's not particularly important to how the article is written; I would follow scientific protocols, and the article is not an exercise in science. However, the protocols of Wikipedia don't require me to smile and nod at nonsense on the Talk page. —SlamDiego_←T 22:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a more complicated version but it is a best compromise between two sides that I have managed to compose:

Question of whether fascism was an ideology of the right, left or centre is a contentious issue for specialist on the subject. [45] While it is normally described as "extreme right" such terminology is often used erratically [46] and scholarly consensus is that fascism was influenced by both left and right. [47] A good number of historians see fascism as "a doctrine of the revolutionary centre" or as a mixture of left and right [48]. Moreover, a number of scholars highlight aspects of fascist ideology which are typically associated with the left. -- Vision Thing -- 17:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is acceptable. For one, I think it formerly was normally characterized as right wing and I think the new consensus has changed that. The current view is that it is synthesis, syncretic, sui generis. Also, the former normative view that it was right wing was among anglophone scholars. Plainly the consensus among francophone scholars is that it was left wing. There is also the problem that the normative view was different in the interwar period, during the war, and after the war. The once prevailing view that fascism was right wing was the fourth of five prevailing views in the historiography of fascism studies.Mamalujo (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Mamlujo: You need a source to back up your contention. You can't validy object on the basis that you think it is wrong, only on the basis that there is a source that says it is wrong.

Vision thing: I don't think there's anything factually inaccurate, but its a question of what is the right emphasis. The fact that there is a hegonomic view on the question should not be demoted in order to give greater prominence to the fact that there is contention. The first sentence should give the most basic and important facts. The lead in an article on evolution would not begin: "Question of whether Charles Darwin's theories have any validity is a contentious issue for specialist on the subject". Also the left-right influence refence is appropriate for the body but not for the lead para, since it is not a determiner as to where fascism lies on the spectrum, as discussed above(your para gives the misleading impression that it might be). Also the word "erratically" would need explaining (ie in what way erratically).--FormerIP (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

To elaborate slightly, the first sentence would reflect what an impartial commentator would say if they were allowed only one short response to the question: "what's the academic view as to where fascism lies on the political spectrum". They would say: "most think it is right wing". They would not say: "it is a contentious matter", because that would not be a fair representation.--FormerIP (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the first sentence instead reflect what an impartial commentator would say if allowed only one short answer to the question “Where does fascism lie on the political spectrum?”?

Your analogy with biological evolution is problematic because very different protocols drive consensus in biology, and far more in the way of a common taxonomy. (It's not as if one biologist might nearly reverse the meanings of “parent” and “offspring”.) —SlamDiego_←T 00:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your first question, for WP purposes that is saying the same thing, because POV is irrelevant, we need to refer to sources. (I think the answer is the same in any case). The paragraph should be constructed in such a way that if you take the first sentence you get the essential info. If you take the second, you get more detail. And so on. If the first sentence does not, in iteself, give an accurate sumamry, then the thing has been constructed wrongly.

I'm not sure I understand the second point you make. --FormerIP (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the proposition that the point-of-view should be neutral isn't the same claim as that it is somehow irrelevant, and Vision Thing appears to be providing a source for the point that the classificaion is contentious. He appears to begin by answering the question “Where does fascism lie on the political spectrum?” much as I would answer some question where there was no controversy and I had not formed an opinion. As far as the logic is concerned, the fact that the matter is contentious is more significant than a claim that presently most scholars have at least used the label “right” for fascism.

When biologist talk about the theory of evolution, they basically have a shared taxonomy — the labels mean pretty much the same thing to everyone. That simply doesn't obtain here. And if biologists used terms in ways that conflicted with lay usage, then the Wikipedia article would either explain the technical jargon, or avoid it. Here, we have scholars who don't all use the same labels for the same things, and what some here are insisting is the standard usage amongst scholars certainly isn't the same as that amonst lay-people yet there's an insistence that these labels not be explained here. Further, biologists arrive at conceptual and theoretical consensus differently than do social thinkers. The analogy between how biologic theory should be treated and how labels and taxonomies of social thought should be treated is weak. —SlamDiego_←T 03:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"...much as I would answer some question where there was no controversy and I had not formed an opinion" - would you really answer a question where there was "no controversy" by saying "this is a contentious issue"?

VT isn't so much providing a source as promoting a source so that it occupies the first sentence. Amongst editors generally, though, there seems to be an overwhelming view that "academics see fascism as right wing" is the correct place to put the main focus, and a number feel that the version of the paragraph proposed already gave too much attention to minority views. Whilst this isn't necessarily decisive (event though it is overwhelming), to ignore the consensus and propose an alternative para which gives more attention to minority views, to the point of giving them the main billing, looks like a case of WP:IDHT.

I still don't undertstand your point about taxonomy. None of the sources propose any alternative understanding of the standard left-right spectrum. Is it your contention that they are inconsistent in this respect? --FormerIP (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I miswrote. The “no” was an artefact of recomposing and not fully removing the replaced expression.

No one made the claim that the reason for Vision Thing was primarily to provide a source; the point is that the assertion with which he begins is one for which he has provided a source.

I do not agree with your assertion about there being some overwhelming consensus here. My perception is that there are two groups of editors, each relatively few in number, who actually give a d_mn.

Moreover, Vision Thing proposes to accept the proposition that a majority of specialists classify fascism as right-wing; he simply proposes to begin by noting that the issue is contentious.

Rather than editing disruptively, Vision Thing appears to me to have been trying to get this thrashed-out on the Talk page. I don't fully agree with his proposal (as anyone ought to infer), but it strikes me as an act of good faith.

I don't know how more simply I can spell this out:

• The theory of evolution is not a taxonomy, whereäs it is taxonomy and the presentation of taxonomic classification that is being argued here. One could explain the theory of evolution without the taxonomy of biologists; alternately, one could grossly mislead readers about the theory of evolution by expressing truths with poorly or malevolently selected jargon.
• The difference amongst specialists about the classification of fascism is in part a difference in the underlying definitions of “left” and “right” being used. Part of the reason for the dispute is a failure of some to be explicit about their definitions.
• There isn't a standard left-right spectrum. And certainly the notion cited from Lipset doesn't fit the lay-taxonomies which most readers will bring to the article with them. It would be actively abusive to classify fascism as left-wing or as right-wing or as center if the reader isn't told in this article what those terms should be taken to mean here. —SlamDiego_←T 01:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Current works do not support the claim, hence would be a disservice to readers. Collect (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese "para-Fascism"

The article says that Japan is "para-fascist" because it lacked a revolutionary goal. However, I am sure I have read Alexandre Kojeve writing that Japan has, in fact, been considerably more succesful in overcoming the difficulty of the nihilism deriving from the modernist "end of history" conundrum, than either Europe or America have been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.106.25 (talk) 24 June, 2009

The article is discussing the militarist government during WWII not contemporary politics. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Straw Poll

Not going anywhere
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
A straw poll as I think we've pretty much argued all that can be argued and we need to reach some sort of conclusion. I propose we form a paragraph that says that it was right-wing for the most part, but that mentions it's left-wing characteristics and adaptability. Fascism is defined as ultimately being a right-wing, authoritarian system that combined the dissident views of socialists with the nationalism of early 19th century Europe.<citation> However, it's placement on the left-right political spectrum has been described as problematic due to the conflicting and competing left-wing and right-wing characteristics. Some of its left-wing characteristics include the movement's initation residing in labour and syndicalist organizations and the self-denial of marxism. Scholars speculate as to the reason for the ambiguous nature and some claim that Fascism is not truly right-wing. Is this acceptable? Soxwon (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC) That it was first considered "right" is proper, but that it is in current terms not uniformly placed anywhere specific is also true. Thus "Early fascism was generally considered part of the right, but later groups were self-odentified as centre, or even left-wing in outlook. There is also debate as to whenter fascism, per se, is "left, right, or centre." is probably defendable. Collect (talk) 00:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Oppose. The proposed conclusion asserts a classification as bald fact, instead of associating it with a school or schools of thought, and provides no explanation of what is meant by “right-wing” and by “left-wing”. It basically presents a hopelessly unclear proposition as unquestioned truth. —SlamDiego←T 02:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Comment So you want us to provide definitions for words that have their own articles? Should we just eliminate the practice of Wikilink? And really your argument is based on one or two scholars whilst a majority, both contemporary and historic, agree that fascism, while having marxist characteristics, is indeed right-wing. Soxwon (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Reply: Articles on the various meanings of the terms “right-wing” and “left-wing” don't explain what they mean here, or coming from the pen of this-or-that specific scholar. You might as well link to a disambiguation page, and hope for the reader to guess the correct path. And, no, I'm not basing my argument on one or two scholars. —SlamDiego←T 05:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Reply ...There is one "right-wing" and one "left-wing" article. They are working to cover all the major viewpoints on these subjects, we can't and shouldn't try to do that here. You're creating a problem that doesn't exist. As for the scholars, alright, so there may be a third, it's still in the minority. Soxwon (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Reply: While there is only one article for each, these articles do not have just one definition, nor should they, which is why I advisedly said “You might as well link to a disambiguation page”. No one has suggested that we try to provide every definition of “right-wing” and “left-wing”; I have said that we need to make it plain which definitions are actually used here. I'm not creating a problem; rather, various parties, for varying reasons, are refusing to acknowledge a problem that is plainly present. (And, if you wanted to debate this, then you should have joined the active threads, instead of starting a new section that you've made wholly redundant. Your supposed straw poll operationalizes as just another forking of the proposals.) —SlamDiego←T 08:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC) (out) Wikilinks to articles on iffily-defined concepts are like linking to Jell-o -- one big issue is that the current articles, however admirable they are or were, are not going to be static, and next week might be entirely different from the meanings sought to be given here. Hence I feel that giving emphasis to the "political spectrum" will never be an accurate depiction of Fascism as a total political system. It tool a long time to agree than using a dozen or more things Fascism opposes made no sense -- it makes no sense to discuss a political spectrum which is not considered irrelevsnt by a slew of historians and political scientists. Collect (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Straw poll -> straw man -> fascist-like. Also the intro with quotes from Mussolini is very bad, we should stick with the scholars.--Sum (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Support, obviously, but I would also make the point that the straw poll sort of duplicates what we have been doing over the past week or so. We have been discussing a proposed lead paragraph which does exactly what Soxwon proposes. 13 editors supported this proposal. Some had other comments, but none agreed with the grounds for oppositon presented. 4 opposed the proposal (on the respective grounds that fascism is sui generis, "right and left" have no clear commonly-agreed meaning, primary emphasis should be given to the existence of minority views and the scholarly view has shifted significantly since 1992). 1 was equivocal (R-41 - please say if you think this is misrepresenting you). 1 participated but expressed no opinion. My view is that we already have enough of a consensus. --FormerIP (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC) No one suggested a "minority view be given primary emphasis" etc. Misstating positions is not going to get anywhere. And the shift in usage of "political spectrum" dates back to Nolan's work -- well before 1992. Making such claims as to the views of others does not promote consensus, and certainly does not affect the fact that current professional views are that "political spectrum" is ill-applied to the conceptes of Fascism. And consensus can not rationally override verifiability per WP:V. Collect (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Vision Thing proposed an alternative wording which gave primary emphasis not to a particular minority view, but to the existence of minority views in general ("...contentious issue..."). The reference to 1992 is germane to your own recent comment, where you seem to be suggesting that the depiction given as an authority (Eatwell) is now out of date. It was published in 1992, so you appeared to me to be saying that the view has changed since then. Apologies if I am misunderstanding - perhaps you can clarify what you meant. --FormerIP (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Reading what I write is better than using your own inferences. Really. The death of the "political spectrum" occurred before 1992. There arem in fact, two isses -- what part of the political sxpectrum, if it is applicable, did Mussolini belong in? And, more importantly, since this is an article about all Fascism, what part of the political spectrum, if applicable, does fascism qua fascism belong in? For the former, "right" was generally accepted at the time. For the latter, the issue is far more complex, and "right" is clearly the "wrong" answer -- since most recent political scientists now dispute the use of a "political spectrum" as being generally applicable to "Fascism." Collect (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Collect: he clearly stated that he was unsure of what you meant. He clearly stated what it was that he thought you meant. He clearly apologized if he was mistaken. He clearly asked you to please clarify what you meant, in order to correct him, if he was mistaken. Despite all that, your immediate response was to criticize him for trying to figure out what you meant. How could this possibly be seen as constructive or even sensible? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC) I clearly made no personal attack, and I would think that interjecting yourself into a colloquy without furnishing any real input is not a wise use of talkpage space. My posts had been quite succinct and clear, as you should well note. Thank you most kindly. The multi-dimensional models used to supercede the single line "spectrum" date back to 1970 or ealier, which I think is before 1992. Collect (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC) He attempted to state your position, and asked you to correct him if he had misunderstood. You responded with a fairly scathing rebuke in which you appeared to nonsensically complain that it was inappropriate for him to have attempted to state your position. This did not make sense and it was inappropriate for you to respond by complaining about his comment, when there had been nothing wrong with his comment. It was a simple question to which you responded with unprovoked snark and sarcasm. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC) It's okay, no offence taken. Please understand, though, Collect, that I need to be able to understand your position in order to be able to respond to it. Is it fair to say that your position is that you place low value on the Eatwell source on the grounds that "most recent political scientists now dispute the use of a political spectrum as being generally applicable to fascism"? If so, then what you need to do next is produce an RS that states this. Until you do that, you'll understand, surely, the reasons why Eatwell's view has to be taken more seriously than yours. A couple of notes of caution, which have been mentioned previously: Beware of WP:SYN. You need to provide one or more sources that explicitly make the same claim you are making. Eight sources none of which actually make the claim won't cut it. Note that the existence of multi-dimensional models of viewing political positions in relation to one another in no way invalidates the concepts of left and right. Indeed, most popular multi-dimensional models, far from rejecting the standard l-r spectrum, actually adopt and incorporate it. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Um -- the way WP works is by looking at reliable sources, not by assertion of expertise in the field by the editors. As a result, the 18 cites I gave before would seem to carry significant weight, and we have neither the expertise nor ability to aver that Eatwell is in any way superior to the others. As no one has furnished more than 18 sources for their position, I would aver that 18 counts as significant. Unless, of course, you wish to state special expertise in the field? Collect (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC) No. Drawing a conclusion of your own from 18 cites, none of which in themeselves support your conclusion is WP:SYN. The number of sources you are able to provide doesn't prove anything more than how much time you have spent googling. Please give it some thought. --FormerIP (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Comment To Former IP, instead of counting those for against, etc., as you've done above, why don't we let the editors themselves state their support or opposition in this straw poll. Mamalujo (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC) I'm not stopping them. I'm just pointing out that we've basically already done this once. And I don't mind saying once again, it was 13-4 in favour of the proposal with two abstaining/undecided.--FormerIP (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Oppose. There is no current consensus that fascism is right wing. The source which purports to say so is merely an off the cuff statement about one author’s view of the scholarly landscape prior to the currently dominant approach. Almost all commentators state that placing it on a left right "political spectrum" is problematic. Almost all admit that fascism incorporates elements of right and left. Many scholars, particularly a consensus among French scholars, characterize fascism as leftist. And the current (anglophone) consensus does not employ an approach which emphasizes left or right but does speak of fascism's symmetry with socialism. Characterizing the predominant view of scholars re fascism being left or right is a slippery task, especially in a field with such flux and disagreement. Such a task obviously is a POV magnet, will result in unending reverts by editors who did not participate in this discussion, and is arguably not NPOV but a product of editor bias. The article should just summarize what the various approaches are. Mamalujo (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Oppose as noted above by a number of editors. The lede sentence should only state that there is no absolute position agreed upon. Collect (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Comment. If you are going to have a straw pole, you need to propose specific language to use. The specific language used in the straw poll is imprecise and I would oppose using anything like it in the article, even though I largely agree with the basic premise. I'd also like to note that Mamalujo, above, is taking material completely out of context and citing it in a deeply misleading way. There is absolutely no consensus among French scholars that fascism is leftist. That's simply absurd. Scholars of French fascism (not the same thing, by the way, as French scholars) have generally seen French fascism as having left wing elements as compared with other French right-wing movements. This view does not really say that, in the larger context of the political spectrum as a whole, fascism is left wing, and it has no bearing on interpretations of fascism in other countries, because it is specifically focused on French fascism. (Moreover, it is based on a very narrow definition of fascism which excludes the more traditionally right-wing movements from its definition - a definition which has been disputed). So, anyway, terrible poll question, general support of some statement of fascism as being generally seen as a right wing phenomenon, and Mamalujo still making misleading arguments. john k (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC) I think calling the poll question "terrible" is a bit strong. It seems to me like a good faith attempt to capture what the issue is. That said, I don't think the discussion it has encouraged so far is going to get us anywhere. We seem to be just retreading old ground. I personally find the French "consensus school" thing quite interesting and probably worthy of a mention in the article. Perhaps you disagree and perhaps it is me being a nerd. In any event, I would suggest it should be parked for now because, whatever anyone's view is on the issue in general, the French consensus school view is clearly not the main feature. It can be added in later. It is a particularly tricky thing to get one's head around, I think, and, with all the arguments going on at present, it would be better put to one side and dealt with later. To do it proper justice is probably going to require referring to sources in French, and that would alienate most people involved in the current discussion, I imagine. --FormerIP (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Certainly it was a good faith attempt, I just don't think it was a very successful attempt, nor do I think Soxwon's current version is much better. As to the French "consensus school," I think the key point is that Mamalujo's use of it is misleading, as are most of his other "citations." Mamalujo apparently believes that articles can be sourced by searching particular phrases on Google Books and then grabbing any out of context quote that seems to justify views that he already holds. Beyond that, I don't know that sources in French would necessarily be required - as I said before, the argument is not that historians who come from France think that Fascism is left wing, it's that historians who study France have dealt with fascism in France in this way. I would add my sense, without being completely certain, that the "consensus school" is not exactly calling French fascism left-wing, just noting its roots on the left. Further, it seems pretty clear that this "consensus school" is not actually a consensus - the citations provided make it clear that this was a consensus several decades ago, but that it has come under some challenge. john k (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I have changed the proposal to something more definite. I've tried to incorporate all views, but any suggestions are welcomed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs) So, is this a straw poll where that upon which people are voting changes in the middle of the vote? (In any event, you don't seem to have tried very hard to address the problem that “left-wing” and “right-wing” are undefined here.) —SlamDiego←T 02:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Uh, no, I have turned my vague proposal into something more definite at the request of several editors. And that "problem" appears to be your own conjecture. Soxwon (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC) You've modified the proposal during the ostensible poll, before there was a clear close to the poll on the original proposal; you're simply fostering confusion. My objection isn't a conjecture, and I'm not the only editor making it.[49] (And, even if I were, your pretense to have “tried to incorporate all views” is exploded.) You were ostensibly trying to bring debate to an end, but what you've done is just to fork it. —SlamDiego←T 04:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Soxwon - this seems to be worse than the proposed language we were discussing earlier - Former IP's language of 20:34 22 June 2009 above seems much better to me than this, and as such I oppose the proposal. john k (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] What do we need to say?

I think the big question here is what points the discussion of fascism's place on the political spectrum needs to get across. Roughly in order of importance, I'd suggest the following:

1. That fascism has conventionally been seen as a right-wing phenomenon
2. That specialists are frequently uncomfortable with seeing fascism as simply on the right, and that some, at least, have rejected its placement on the right at all
3. That fascist movements were frequently, but not always, founded by figures whose political background was on the left (e.g. Mussolini in Italy, Doriot and Déat in France, Mosley in Britain), and that all fascist movements incorporated at least some elements of left-wing thought and practice into their ideologies and organizations
4. That, to the extent that fascism has self-identified its place on the political spectrum, this has typically been as being on the right.
5. That the issue is complicated by the question of what types of regime, precisely, are to be considered fascist, and that a variety of undisputedly right-wing regimes (e.g. Vichy, Franco's Spain, the various authoritarian right wing regimes in eastern Europe in the interwar period, Salazar's Portugal, and so forth) have sometimes been classified as fascist, although most specialists would tend to reject that label.
6. That explicit fascists in power have always had to do so in some sort of formal or informal coalition with the non-fascist right, but that non-fascist right wing regimes have also frequently suppressed or ignored fascist movements.
7. That a relatively small number of commenters, frequently non-fascist liberal-conservative right-wing types, have tried to identify fascism as being a phenomenon of the left

I think that we should be very clear not to conflate Point 2 - that many specialists are uncomfortable putting fascism on the political spectrum as a right wing movement - with Point 8 - that some conservatives like to point out that the Nazi Party was called the "National Socialist Party" - and I fear that distinction has been being elided by a lot of the people who are opposed to saying that fascism has typically been seen to be on the right.

I'm not sure how to get all this across, or what the best way of doing so is, but I think it would make sense to try to get a sense of where we all agree and disagree. john k (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, one point that I can think and have mentioned, it was given an ambiguous nature so that it could be adapted to the situation at hand. Soxwon (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, from the straw poll we had three votes opposing and one vote supporting (two if you count the proposal). Doesn't look like we yet have any consensus for stating that fascism is normally seen as right wing. Mamalujo (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

We also had several ppl complain about the wording and what the straw poll was, so you can't say there isn't either. Especially from the number of ppl in the other discussions who said there was. Soxwon (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There are probably some editors who have not commented because they are in disbelief that anyone would dispute the claim that fascism is ordinarily seen as right-wing. No offense to Slam, Mama, et al, but you're pushing a fringe view, and it may be difficult for some people to take the discussion seriously. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is in disbelief that is probably because he didn't read any books on Fascism. I think it would be better if we would focus less on personal opinions of editors about place of fascism on political spectrum, and more on opinions of scholars. -- Vision Thing -- 19:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really. A contrary opinion by even 100% of all the reputable scholars would not change the fact that laypeople ordinarily see fascism as right-wing. That's why, for instance, that's what it says in the dictionary.

If there truly is a demonstrable scholarly consensus that fascism cannot or should not be classified as right-wing (and, I think we've yet to see any synthesizing source which directly supports this claim), then by all means that should be represented, but not to the point of omitting the traditional lay view entirely. If it's something less than a consensus, or even a minority view, then that really should only be discussed in the body of the article. And, again, individual citations of individual authors who are themselves asserting a proper placement of fascism into or outside of a spectrum are not helpful. Again, what we need is a reputable synthesizing source, and for a claim this broad I would think it would be preferable to take sourcing from something along the scope of a mainstream "survey" view of the subject. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Factchecker atyourservice, please try to identify where I have denied that fascism is ordinarily seen by lay-people or by scholars as “right-wing”. I take major offense at your actively misrepresenting what I've been saying, and I strongly encourage you to stop editing with the name “Factchecker”, as you plainly don't check the facts. —SlamDiego_←T 23:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(out)Again -- the "common perception" of Mussolini was that his Fascism was on the right. That "fascism" as a movement is now viewed by many political scientists as not being readily placed on any left-right spectrum, and that many now reject such a linear spectrum for fascism at all. That some aspects of fascism are found "left, right and centre" and that there is significant debate about any placement of fascism as a whole on any political spectrum. Also that multi-dimensional political models are now in wide use. We should also be aware that the simple definition of "left" and "right" differs widely from nation to nation, and that which is "right" in one nation may be considered "left" in others. Lastly we should be aware that Fascism has as its greatest for Libertarianism, which is generally considered in the US to be "right." Collect (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please help me understand what you are saying.

• Are you saying that currently the popular understanding of fascism is not that it refers to right-wing, authoritarian ideology or government?
• Are you saying that currently the prevailing academic opinion of fascism is that it cannot or should not be classified as right-wing?
• Are you saying that currently the prevailing academic opinion of fascism is that it defies placement within a traditional left-right spectrum?

I think the best way to proceed is for us to reach some kind of agreement on whether this view, that fascism is not right-wing, is a minority view. My current belief, susceptible to persuasion, is that it is a minority view. Although I admit that this is in accord with everything I have ever learned about fascism – which, admittedly, is not much – I feel that the OED adequately substantiates this view by defining fascism, in various versions, as "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government", "extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice", and "loosely, any form of right-wing authoritarianism".

So, do you feel that these view(s) that you advocate are minority or majority views, and of what, or whom? And whatever the prevalence you claim, is there some source which directly claims how prevalent the view is? Or are there only many sources supporting the particular view but saying nothing about its prevalence among political scientists/historians/whomever? Moreover, is there any reason why the lead of this article should not state that fascism (lower-case, i.e. not Mussolini, but the general concept) is generally understood as right-wing? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Also that multi-dimensional political models are now in wide use. Seriously? Can we disregard the views of anybody who mentions multi-dimensional political models? So far as I can tell, multi-dimensional political models are used by libertarians, and pretty much nobody else. Certainly they are utterly useless for historical analysis - I can't think of a historian who would use such a thing. The basic problem with these models is that they do ridiculous things like imagine that the economic right is defined by its commitment to the free market, which is a nonsensical view that would basically exclude all nineteenth century right wing groups from being considered right wing. Obviously a left right spectrum that goes back to the French Revolution can't really be seen to have much uniformity in policy views, and it's absurd to try to define it in that way. It's always a relative spectrum. And in what possible sense is Fascism's greatest foe libertarianism? Putting aside the fact that there was no such thing as libertarianism in the interwar period when fascism is actually a significant political movement, I'd think that the socialists who fought fascist thugs in the streets while the capitalists invited Hitler and Mussolini to take over would disagree with this. Collect's whole post strikes me as libertarian nonsense. john k (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(Going slightly off topic) Collect, much of what you have just said is reasonable, subject to the use of the word "many", which I would characterise as POV in any context where its use is anything other than indisputable. "A number" or "some" would be preferable. 18 sources does not necessarily equal "many".

I take exception to your last sentence though. You say "Fascism has as its greatest for Libertarianism". There's an obvious typo there. I think the correct spelling is "ally". I can assure you that contemporary European neo-fascism does not see American Libertarianism as a "foe". That's not relevant here, but please try to avoid proseletising. --FormerIP (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Evidently, your framework lumps libertarians together with fascists. I daresay that some of the allegedly disruptive editors here have been trying to prevent such lumping being accomplished by stealth. —SlamDiego_←T 00:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I don't think anyone has suggested mentioning Libertarianism in the article. Let's not be drawn into an irrelevant area of discussion. I think Factchecker's comments above are the ones that should be addressed.--FormerIP (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I consider Fascism (authoritarianism) as being Authoritarian in nature. I fail to see how Libertarianism can be construed as anything other than Anti-Authoritarianism. As for "many" I offered before to give about two hundred cites if required to reach the status of "many" -- would that many meet your requirements for "many"? Collect (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No. "Many" is a subjective judgement. It would be OR, unless you have a source for it or unless it is so obvious that no-one could reasonably object. "Fascism" gets about 6.6 million Google results, so I think "many" would need to at least register on that sort of scale. --FormerIP (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You are the first editor I have found ever to suggest that one needs on the order of 6 million cites to make a claim of "many" holding a view. I, personally, would suggest that when I post two hundred cites that this would meet the requirement for "many" for most editors. In fact, I find that eighteen cites counts as "many" in most areas on WP. But thanks for pointing out that your requirement is six million cites <g>. Collect (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh plz, be rational and stop making nonsensical arguments. IP's simply pointing out that if you are trying to justify "many" by the number of sources, then you're going to need an awful lot of them. I think we should go for quality rather than quantity. Soxwon (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The point that you make is not on the contrary. I doubt that anyone has expected Libertarianism would be mentioned in this article, but pushing for a classification here of fascism as “right-wing” while libertarianism is elseswhere classified as “right-wing” insinuates an association between the two, especially if both are further classified as “extreme”. Again, I suspect that it is just this structure of insinuation that some of the editors here are attempting to block. And ejaculations here that libertarianism is fascism's greatest ally certainly aren't going to allay their concerns. —SlamDiego_←T 01:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is as silly as it is inane. Saying that fascism isn't right-wing b/c libertarianism happens to be on the right side of the scale is probably one of the best examples of a red herring and guilt by association. So what it they're both on the right-wing side of things? If it's left-wing does that make liberalism fascist? Your argument doesn't take into account degree on the political scale and is completely illogical. Soxwon (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, find where I have said that libertarianism is right-wing, or apologize. The silliness here is entirely yours. —SlamDiego_←T 03:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then there is nothing to argue about so why are you bringing Libertarianism into this discussion? Soxwon (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't bring it into the discussion, and you still haven't apologized. Do we need am RfC? —SlamDiego_←T 03:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then why are you arguing it if there's nothing to argue about? And I think another RfC is going to be absurd as this will be what, the third one? Soxwon (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

When you say “it” (in “why are you arguing it”), to what are you referring? I was making the point, as I stated, that FormerIP's claim that libertarianism is the greatest ally of fascism would confirm the concerns of some editors that classifying fascism as “right-wing” was part of a programme to effect such conflation. Your apology is quite over-due. The RfC would concern your mode of argument — personal attack founded on misrepresentation — which is extremely objectionable. —SlamDiego_←T 04:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

SlamDiego, I could accuse you of the same thing. You are putting words in other ppl's mouths, and then taking each and every comment the wrong way. IP said that contemporary neo-fascism doesn't see American Libertarianism as a foe. You then responded by accusing him of having a POV agenda (lumping together fascists and libertarians) which was not the intent of IP's comment at all. You and Collect then continued to hammer away at a meaningless point that has no value to the discussion. I refuse to apologize and ask that you both drop the irrelevant and useless "libertarian" point. Soxwon (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Even if you could legitimately accuse me if the same thing, that wouldn't legitimize your engaging in it. And I didn't misrepresent FormerIP. In th e same comment, prior to what you quote, he wrote

I take exception to your last sentence though. You say ‘Fascism has as its greatest for Libertarianism’. There's an obvious typo there. I think the correct spelling is ‘ally’.”

Since you refuse to cease personal attacks founded upon misrepresentation, I am raising a complaint at WP:ANI. I'll provide a link on your user talk page. —SlamDiego_←T 04:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This has gotten very very silly. What on earth does libertarianism have to do with anything? As far as libertarianism and fascism, I think you can say that obviously libertarianism's hatred of the state does not mesh well with traditional fascism's glorification of it. On the other hand, in the United States, at least, actual neo-fascist groups tend to hate the currently existing state, which can, on the fringes, lead to some overlap with radical libertarian groups - especially when the 2nd amendment comes into it. You can start to see this with the kind of racist loons who populated the far fringes of the Ron Paul movement. That isn't to say that mainstream libertarianism is tainted with fascism - that's obviously nonsense - but it's just as ridiculous to say that libertarianism is fascism's greatest foe. Even ignoring this, this is particularly silly. Libertarianism didn't even exist during fascism's hey-day, and there's really no reason to talk about it. The whole argument here seems to be based around the fact that libertarians think they ought to be the center of the universe, when in fact they are a tiny fringe movement that happens to be overwhelmingly overrepresented on the internet.

A further point: the basic libertarian arguments against "Fascism" being considered right wing frequently also seem to work against, well, the whole of traditional conservatism. Nineteenth century continental conservatives don't look very much like libertarians, either. Neither, for that matter, do nineteenth century British Tories, who were usually more in favor of government involvement in the economy than Liberals, who held to doctrinaire laissez faire policies until quite late. The libertarian attack seems to focus on fascism, because it is seen as the most odious movement associated with the right, but the same arguments apply elsewhere. Must the right now be divested of Charles X and Clemens von Metternich and Tsar Nicholas I and Otto von Bismarck, as well? I think everyone can recognize that these figures were a) indisputably on the right; and b) indisputably very, very, different from libertarians. This might mean that libertarians shouldn't be considered to be on the right (certainly, like fascists, libertarians should not be considered to be simply on the right - although obviously largely for different reasons), but it might also mean that "left" and "right" are very broad concepts, and that each one can incorporate very different types of political movement that have very little in common with each other. Those on the left seem to understand this, mostly - most people have little trouble agreeing that both Stalin and Cobden, who basically would have agreed on absolutely nothing, should both be seen as being on the left in the context of their own political milieu. Allowing this does not tar Cobden (or, for that matter, Barack Obama and Gordon Brown) with the sins of Stalinism. Similarly, admitting the idea that fascism is largely seen as being on the right does not tar John McCain and Angela Merkel with the sins of Hitler. Is this really so difficult a concept? john k (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Libertarianism strikes me as being more like social Darwinism combined with Anarchy, combined with the pie-in-the-sky view that intelligent adults should be left alone to work things out (hey, it's always worked before). When I was in school, the extremes of politics used to be characterized as Communism on the left and Fascism on the right, with Democracy sitting square in the middle. Except it wasn't a line, it was a circle - with Democracy at the top and Fascism and Communism coming together at the bottom, because from a practical standpoint they were the same thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that one can properly refer to “the basic libertarian arguments against ‘Fascism’ being considered right wing”. While there is defining agreement amongst libertarians about the desired political order, and even about acceptable and unacceptable means of achieving that order, there isn't agreement about the conceptual framework within which to classify political ideologies more generally. Compare Tuccille's circle to Nolan's Chart. Some libertarians happily embrace the label “right”; many are actively offended by it.

Again, what is needed is to explicitly identify to the reader what definitions are being used by whom (for whichever “notable” labellings are reported). —SlamDiego_←T 05:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think defining what the term right-wing means to different groups would be best left on the right-wing page. Soxwon (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Some readers would be confused, and many others would be actively misled by leaving the relevant meaning unidentified. (I've made this point repeatedly, and have previously made it directly to you.) Again, the definition of “right” presented as the ostensible standard amongst scholars of fascism is completely alien to the typical lay-person. —SlamDiego_←T 05:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course you're right that I am over-generalizing. At any rate, any effort to come up with hard and fast definition of "left" and "right" in the political context is doomed to failure, at least if you're trying to go by policy positions. In its original meaning in the French Revolution, the right supported the monarchy and the left wanted a republic. For quite a while, the basic distinction between left and right, in continental Europe at least, had to do with this basic issue - how much power should be held by a hereditary monarch? The left thought that there should be none, and favored a republic; the right thought that all political power rightfully belonged to the monarch (actually, it sometimes got a bit more complicated than that, in terms of right wing aristocratic types who felt that the king's power should be limited in traditional ways by traditional corporate bodies, but that over-complicates things, probably); the center felt that the monarch's powers should be limited in a constitutional monarchy. However, as economic issues began to gain importance over the course of the century, other issues came to be overlaid over the basic dispute about monarchy. In particular, the left split, with some advocating socialism, and others free market capitalism. Often times those on the left who supported capitalism would ally with centrists and even right wingers to defeat the socialist threat (as during the June Days and the Commune in France, most notably). But the monarchy issue did not die until well into the twentieth century, even in France, so that these two kinds of left/right dispute coexisted uncomfortably for at least a century. After the overthrow of monarchies (which happened first in France, but had, by 1918, occurred in many countries), the political right also had to adapt. Frequently, the advocacy of the traditional monarchies began to be supplanted by a general advocacy of the state, of the military, and of the nation - but still in the context of an opposition to liberal, parliamentary institutions and to socialism, and still generally supportive of the traditional social order, of the established Church (whatever that might be in the given country), and other traditional conservative concerns. It was this kind of right winger who generally found fascism to be attractive. At around the same time, we start to see splintering in the socialist left, first over the question of revolution vs. reform, then over support or opposition to World War I, and finally over opinions on the Russian Revolution. These came to be fairly complicated, and Leninist Communism's place as the furthest "left" position on the political spectrum largely arose because communism was furthest from the reformist social democracy which was gradually starting to seem hardly distinguishable from left-liberalism (also largely a new development of the early twentieth century, which saw liberals beginning to see the necessity of a social welfare state).

So, in short, "left" and "right" need to be viewed as historical markers whose exact meanings fluctuated over time. For pretty much the whole period since they were first devised in 1791, they have remained very important ways by which people have sought to understand and categorize political movements, but they simply cannot be seen as static terms with any kind of universal meaning. At the most basic level, a movement is "left-wing" or "right-wing" because of its historical origins and its self-conception, not because of any particular policies it advocates. john k (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In the classical view, so to speak, Hitler = right and Stalin = left. Both were equally charming characters. If Libertarianism is more associated with the right (which I would say is true) then it's because the right has kind of usurped it, albeit by championing only a subset of its tenets. Those who call themselves libertarians talk about limited government, which neither Democrats nor Republicans have done a very good job of achieving once they got in power. But there are other things. A true libertarian would oppose all drug laws, on the grounds that the government does not have the right to tell you what to ingest into your body. But you won't find many rightists supporting that notion. I would also say true libertarians take a very liberal view of religion. Most rightists (though not all) tend to embrace traditional religion. Both of those points would be leftist views. True libertarians believe in minimal government control. Left and right both believe in government control, just on different topics. The fact is, a true libertarian tends to be ignored by the electorate, because very few voters agree with the full Libertarian "platform". Jesse Ventura, who was elected "by accident", might be the closest thing we've had to a true libertarian in office in recent times, and those who followed that situation saw how well that worked out: by the time his term was up, he had nearly everyone, left and right, annoyed with him. The ones who liked him and stuck with him were - TAH DAH - true libertarians. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

John, I have no dog in the fight of whether the label “left” or “right” or “center” is to be used. My position is

1. that the parties applying the labels should be explicitly identified;
2. that the label(s) used should be explicitly defined (whether they are to defined by policy or by objective or in some other manner should be determined by which labellers are cited);
3. that the matter should be acknowledged ab initio as contentious.

—SlamDiego_←T 05:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(Off topic) Just for the sake of clarity, I did not mean, in my comments above, to conflate right Libertatianism with fascism. I was responding to the comment "Fascism has as its greatest foe Libertarianism", which I felt was inaccurate and an attempt to proseletise. People might be able to guess that I don't really hold with Libertarianism, but its more to the point that I don't think it is relevant to the discussion here. IMO fascists and libertarians do share a hardline "Social Darwinist" view that success is always virtuous and that those who are not successful deserve what they get. This does not make them the same thing, of course. I think there is a serious OT point that neo-fasicst movements at the present time are happy to take pages from the Libertarian playbook where they think this can win them recruits. This isn't necessarily the fault of Libertarians and it doesn't make Libertarians fascist. However, I think it is something that Libertarians should be aware of and monitoring. If the Libertarian agenda gets hi-jacked by fascists, then that is not good for Libertarianism and it is not good for people. End of sermon. --FormerIP (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Every major political movement has taken pages from the Libertarian playbook. Your caricature of Libertarians as all “Social Darwinist” is simply false, even if we allow the perverse conflation of Spencer and Sumner with Haeckel that Hofstadter effected. —SlamDiego_←T 02:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Libertarian view of obsolescence of "Left-Right" line - from 1948

The rise of fascism and communism illustrated vividly the fallacies of the linear conception of Right and Left. In certain basic respects-a totalitarian state structure, a single party, a leader, a secret police, a hatred of political, cultural and intellectual freedom-fascism and communism are clearly more like each other than they are like anything in between. This dilemma drove Prof. DeWitt C. Poole to an inspired suggestion. Right and Left, he said, should be conceived, not in terms of a line, but in terms of a circle, with the extremes of Right and Left-fascism and communism-meeting at the bottom. You can then look at the circle in two ways: with respect to property, fascism and the moderate Right are side by side against communism and the moderate Left; with respect to liberty, the moderate Right and moderate Left are side by side against fascism and communism.

If we will understand further that the non-Communist Left and the non-Fascist Right share a common faith in free political society-a faith that the differences between them over economic issues can be best worked out by discussion and debate under law-we might even stop talking of Left and Right as if nothing lay in between.

[50] 1948 by the noted Libertarian(?) A. M. Schlesinger.

We have a specific well-known historian more than 50 years ago making the case that "Left-Right" lines do not work anf that Communism and Fascism abut each other. Collect (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And proposed as part of any lede on Fascism and the politiccal spectrum. I suggest it is fairly balanced in its statements. Collect (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Collect. That's a great source, but it doesn't really say what you're saying it says.

It says that one historian has made a compelling proposition that left and right should be conceived along a circle rather than a line so that some note can be taken of similarities between moderate leftist and moderate rightist views of liberty, and between extreme leftist and extreme rightist views of property. It does not suggest the the concepts of "left" and "right" are themselves flawed. Furthermore, we are given no clue as to the prevalence of this "circular" view, presenting problems on how we would weight such a view without some additional source. Finally, this is far too detailed a discussion for the lede. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It says that Arthur Schlesinger back in 1948 agreed that a left-right "spectrum" failed. This means the "line" was found invalid more than fifty years before 1991, the line you averred, that this was written by one of the preeminent historians in the US, and that this view was held by other historians, and that this was not a "libertarian" view. Which seems quite a significant fact. As it substanyially addresses all the issues raised here, it is not too "complex" for a lede on an admittedly complex topic. Collect (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Collect. It does not say that at all. It says that Schlesinger agreed that analysis of fascism illustrated the problems of conceiving of left and right along a line, and noted an interesting alternative proposal – that the left-right spectrum be placed along a circle rather than along a line.

It does not say generally that the left-right spectrum failed. It does not say that the left-right spectrum is obsolete. It does not particularly say that a "linear spectrum" is "invalid", merely that some historians agree that it is problematic for at least one category of analysis.

It also does not say that this view was held by other historians other than the singular historian who was cited. It certainly makes no pretense of ranking the promininence of this view.

Again, the source does not say what you are saying it says. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Collect, your source does not say that the left-right spectrum "failed", as Factchecker has already pointed out. It talks about an example where someone has proposed a diagramatic form which carries additional information as well as information about where ideologies lie in terms of left and right. This is not exactly a dramatic revelation. The source itself describes fascism and communism as "the extremes of Right and Left", which runs rather counter to the point you are trying to make. --FormerIP (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) How else can you interpret The rise of fascism and communism illustrated vividly the fallacies of the linear conception of Right and Left. ?

In certain basic respects-a totalitarian state structure, a single party, a leader, a secret police, a hatred of political, cultural and intellectual freedom-fascism and communism are clearly more like each other than they are like anyth