Jump to content

Talk:Fascism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Not far-right nor far-left

Fascism couldn't be considered far left or far right, as it's actually very close to the centre of economical spectre. Some sources indeed deem F. as a far-right ideology, but lacks of any valid argumentation. We just better avoid highlighting it's economical stance in the lede. Chronophobos (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read FAQ. Also this is not a forum. YBSOne (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree whole heartedly. I actually once edited it to remove the line about right wing. This is a clearly inaccurate, biased line that should be removed. CAVincent readded it when I removed it. His user page is one sentence, "I live in Seattle, Washington." I think that says all you need to know about CAVincent & where his politics are.Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"his politics" nor his user page have nothing to do about it. Neither does your opinion not based in sources. You should also read FAQ before editing such contentious topic. YBSOne (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a source for the line 'far right'. As an American with far right beliefs, I take exception with that description. Given the Biden administrations attempt to form the "Disinformation Governance Board" & the suppression of news on social media, I would argue that it is the far left in America that displays more fascist values than the far right.Johnny Spasm (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is bias based on your personal, disinformed opinion rather than reliable sources. YBSOne (talk) 10:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion of far-right in the lead sentence has strong consensus behind it. This is discussed in the FAQ and in the talk page archives; for example, this RfC resulted in clear consensus for inclusion. It's possible for consensus to change, but that is not at all evident in this discussion. Editing against consensus is disruptive, and I hope users who are doing so, including Johnny Spasm, will stop edit warring and start the important work of
  • gathering sources that dispute "far-right"
  • compiling counterarguments against the sources that do
  • and reading the prior discussions to avoid reusing arguments that have been countered in the past.
I continue to support inclusion of "far-right", and the sources cited at the end of the first paragraph make it clear that this is a widely discussed fact in many of the best available sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time to add more contemporary examples?

I believe it would be quite imprudent to only update this page with examples of people who are only considered fascist in retrospect. Modern populist right-wing surges, spearheaded by the American MAGA movement, meet almost every commonly cited and authoritative definition of fascism.

I honestly believe anything short of adding fascist as a political ideology to the pages of Donald Trump and under the “factions” section of the Republican Party info box’s “ideology” section constitutes neutrality bias. At the very least, there should be discussion about Trump’s role within fascism in the article. Sitbear (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As always, we go by what reliable sources have already reported, not our own opinions. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 03:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As with the above, we go by RS, and we need to take into account wp:notnews and wp:primary, this is an election year.So we need to rely on proper analysis, and not political rhetoric. Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion happens a lot but in short the label of fascist where Trump is concerned is disputed. We should only add examples where it's more unambiguous. — Czello (music) 11:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly disputed, but it is not at all ambiguous. I’ll try to find some reliable sources.Sitbear (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a credible source that has ever called Donald Trump a fascist.Johnny Spasm (talk) 04:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is his former chief of staff not "credible"? - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 09:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of the article calls Fascism right wing. This isn't sourced. I merely posted that I would like to see that sourced, and someone who admits on his own user page that he is a socialist removed it. Simply put, everything on Wikipedia should be sourced, and an accusation like that definitely should be.Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought someone with 6,000 edits would be able to read citations by now. The phrase "fascism is placed on the far right-wing within the traditional left–right spectrum" (also in the first paragraph) is cited by references #5-7, the last of which has thirteen reliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First seven sources, including multiple books are a source. They just contradict your biased opinion. YBSOne (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, notwithstanding the off-topic aside, I'd be curious to see what specific sources are being proposed to call the MAGA lot fascist. I know what my personal opinion is on the matter but WP will require (probably multiple) high quality and unambiguous sourcing to make such a statement. Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, [1] This source refers to the MAGA movement as a "a particularly resentful form of majoritarian nationalism" which operates as a big tent including "bitter majoritarian nationalism, then populism, then traditional conservatism, next a Trumpian personality cult, and ending with the alt-right’s extreme white supremacism and fascism." But, while this source says MAGA includes fascists it doesn't say all MAGA adherents are fascist. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The author of this article, published in the Sage journal Leadership, asserts [2] "Trumpism is a form of fascism" quite explicitly. Simonm223 (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article posits something of a fascist-populist rhetorcal nexus that contains Trump. [3] Simonm223 (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't get the full text of this article but what I can read suggests it would also support some association of MAGA with fascism. [4] I guess the question is whether sources like these (and you'll note I exclusively stuck to academic sources) are sufficient to meet WP:DUE and to refer to the emerging academic consensus that MAGA is at least permeable to fascism. Simonm223 (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article under 1RR

There's an edit notice for this article saying that the one-revert rule applies. This was enacted in 2009 after this discussion. Current administrative practice is that 1RR can be applied by the community via discussion at a place like WP:AN or by admins who are empowered by community-imposed general sanctions or ArbCom-imposed contentious topics. I don't think any of those apply here, and both EdJohnston and Daniel Case have suggested this current restriction is not enforceable. Should we remove the edit notice? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point in the world, and especially given the specific nature of the recent disruption (not just from one user), AMPOL could apply. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, it might be worth not messing with it for a couple of weeks. Black Kite (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of not messing with it, could we get an uninvolved admin to take over the restriction explicitly under AP CT? We'd use the standard edit notice template, add a talk page notice, and log it at AELOG. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meant to ping KrakatoaKatie, the admin who initially imposed 1RR. Care to make this an AE action? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with lifting it or with someone else taking it over under CT. It probably needs the latter, imo. Katietalk 02:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, re-issuing the edit notice under CTOP seems wise if someone can check that the topic falls in the correct area. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism is NOT Far Right

The editor has been pblocked from the article for persistent disruption.

The intro to this article says that it is right wing. I removed that, it was put back. I put a request for citation[citation needed], that was removed. Then I got blocked. The irony is amazing. People are acting like fascists on fascism's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Spasm (talk • contribs)

It is well documented and discussed here in great depth as noted in the red box at the top of this page. Your statement that people here act like fascists is a WP:PA which is unwise, particularly when blocked. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is extremely tiresome and I suggest we simply come up with a boilerplate response and speedy close all future threads of this nature. "I don't think it is" is not an argument that needs to be repsonded to over and over and over again. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 02:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and yet, you have still failed to provide a single evidence to back up your claim. YBSOne (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Instant removal of posts arguing that Fascism is either not right wing/far right/or is left wing

As Just Step Sideways commented above:

This is extremely tiresome and I suggest we simply come up with a boilerplate response and speedy close all future threads of this nature.

And as Objective3000 notes, we already have a massive page notice which is only "missable" if one chooses not to see, or read, it.

As such I propose that we enact an indefinite WP:Moratorium on such posts to this page, and that in future any more such posts be simply removed without comment by any editor (perhaps "in good standing" is necessary, I don't know). It would be at the discretion of admins to block the editor for disruption, but the important thing, editorially, is that they will no no longer consume (read: waste) editors' time or energy refuting them, since it has already been refuted in the page notice. (The notice itself can be amended as necessary.) SerialNumber54129 18:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have this problem in a few articles since Nazism stands for Nationalsozialismus. But as a certain mustachioed wallpaper hanger said in the 20s: "Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists." I’m good with most anything that can reduce this time sink. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If editors are incompetent enough to miss the bloody great red message when they post, there's a CIR problem anyway, regardless of what nonsense they've read and believed (a second CIR problem) on social media. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously agree we should do something, but removing the posts might not be clear enough. If we shut it down with something like

please see the notice at the top of this page
the same comment over and over

seems more likely to be effective. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really like this idea of collapsing these tedious comments with a ref to the FAQ. Wikipedia's inner workings can be opaque even to many extended confirmed editors, and even in non-controversial areas where it may be easier to assume good faith with regard to WP's mysteries. Simply removing posts without comment is likely to feel like censorship at worst, and unexpected rudeness at best, to editors who are new to this talk page. Ceasing discussion while pointing to the FAQ would hopefully give a reasonable explanation to many editors who are willing to assume good faith. I'm also uncomfortable simply deleting comments for this reason: As we know, consensus on WP can theoretically change and result in changes to the article. While I don't think the "far right (wing)" consensus is likely to change in the foreseeable future, something as drastic as deletion of dissenting comments would preclude even the theoretical possibility of a new consensus forming.
A couple more things: Would it be possible to move the big red message to the very tippy top of the page? There are a lot of headers here, and on my laptop I do indeed have to scroll a ways to see it. Also, I happened to notice today that when checking this talk page on my phone, I have to click a button to see the page headers at all, and again scroll quite a ways through the many headers to find that big red message. All of which is to say that a newcomer to this talk page, acting in good faith and even with general knowledge of WP's ways, may well enter talk page discussion understandably unaware of the big red message's existence. CAVincent (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely re: collapsing rather than deleting comments. Also I've moved the red warning per your suggestion. — Czello (music) 08:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a minor distraction whether we collapse or delete comments; the important thing is that their authors find them starved of oxygen from the get-go. SerialNumber54129 13:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is absolutely the point, agreed. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why have discussions been deleted?

Why have most of the discussions on the discussion page of Fascism been removed? MicholIsUsed (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older discussions are archived. There are links to the archives in the header at the top of the page. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 09:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that, but why was that done? MicholIsUsed (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To de-clutter the talk page, otherwise they become too big. — Czello (music) 09:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it done on other pages too? MicholIsUsed (talk) 09:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, i's common procedure to shift conversations that haven't seen activity in a while (between 1-3 months generally, depending on the article) to an archive page. Sirocco745 (talk) 09:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's done in this article automatically by a bot. TFD (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we did not we would have 10,000's of threads for you to wade through, imagine trying to navigate (let alone have your screen scroll) that? Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or download it. This page was created 23 years ago. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poor record in war

I recently added a description of arguments for the failures of fascist governments to achieve success in wartime. It was reverted, but no policy-based objection was presented, so I've restored the content but I'm also starting a section here for further evaluation.

The content is sourced to Philip Morgan, Umberto Eco, etc, so I think it's fairly clear that there's enough weight for inclusion. Also, while I decided to put it in the Criticism section, the sourcing is clearly sufficient to frame it as a factual description instead: something like Fascism failed when evaluated on its own terms(ref Morgan2004a), etc. So that's a valid alternative, but one that would give the topic more weight rather than less.

Perhaps I missed some dissenting sources when I was researching this topic, or perhaps I could have put a greater emphasis on the attribution, etc; please feel free to edit the content accordingly (of course, I will not be reverting again today due to 1RR). However, the reasoning given for the objection - basically, that the fascists achieved initial success and then only lost due to how strong their enemies were - appears to be entirely OR that isn't supported by the sources. (In fact, it's directly contradicted by one of them, an expert SPS from a historian: Starting a war in which you will be outnumbered, ganged up on, outproduced and then smashed flat: that is being bad at war.) Sunrise (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have also reverted this content as WP:EDITORIALIZING. I don't agree with Trakking's rationale in their edit summary, because the content you're seeking to add is broadly correct, but that is beside the point. This content is not encyclopedic in WP:TONE. I'm sure there is a way to summarize these sources that is encyclopedic, but we need to make sure that the article doesn't come across as persuasive writing. Generalrelative (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's as simple as saying: historians A, B, and C argue that fascism failed on its own terms. Note that while Eco's essay is a classic, he's speaking from personal experience rather than as a subject-matter expert in the strict sense –– so I think we should handle that source differently. Generalrelative (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thank you for the clarification, although I have three objections. Firstly, pointing out the fact that the Axis powers lost World War II does not constitute a "criticism" against fascism. Secondly, the phrase "poor record in war" is weird since the statistic is simply 0-1. Thirdly, the Axis powers did seem indomitable up until 1943 when the tide was turning.
That being said, Eco's comment is still quite interesting. How about you incorporate it into some more adequate section of the article—and, as Generalrelative advised you, express it in a more scholarly manner? Trakking (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to workshop copy at article talk too. From the discussion I'm seeing it looks like a good addition to the article could be hammered out that could achieve consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, everyone.

@Generalrelative: Personally, I strongly disagree that the tone is non-encyclopedic, rather than simply reflecting a factual record that is inherently unflattering to fascism. The parts that can be interpreted as persuasive, in my view, are just following the arguments presented in the sources. That said, I've rewritten it in a purely attributed form, while removing the direct factual statements for which attribution would imply false balance or otherwise undermine their validity. Please let me know what you think:

Poor record in war

Historians Philip Morgan and Bret Devereaux wrote that by losing in World War Two, fascism failed to meet its own standards for success.(Morgan, Devereaux) Devereaux described a general trend for fascist regimes to do poorly in war, despite military effectiveness being a central principle that fascism uses to justify itself.(Devereaux) He wrote that of the two unambiguously fascist historical regimes, both were destroyed in wars they started, with Nazi Germany losing its war "as thoroughly and completely as it is possible to lose".(Devereaux) Similarly, he described Fascist Italy as only achieving military successes in colonial wars that were won at great cost and with severe repercussions for Italy’s international standing.(Devereaux) Morgan wrote that when fascism "failed the test that it had set for itself" by being unable to win in WWII, this was a major factor in the collapse in support for the Italian regime.(Morgan a,b) Umberto Eco wrote that fascist rhetoric undermines its own war effort because enemies are described as both "too strong and too weak", leading to governments which are "condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy."(Eco)

This version removes pretty much everything that's not directly included in attributed arguments. The subheading remains as "Poor record in war" since it's a summary of what the criticism is. I'm not really clear on how you think Eco should be handled differently, but I tried a different summary.

Subsequently, I would also prefer to include the statement comparing non-democracies to democracies, which would probably be a separate paragraph. However, I would consider it to require being presented as factual (only two sources are included here, but they also refer to multiple others). Arguably, this part should be excluded since it doesn't refer to fascism specifically (except by implication, being included in non-democracies). I would argue that it's clearly relevant to the topic, but it can also be left out if necessary:

In general, non-democracies are less likely to win wars than democracies.(Choi, Reiter) This has been attributed to factors such as poor use of resources when compared to democracies, less effective cooperation with allies, and reduced initiative and inferior leadership in the military.(Choi, Reiter)

@Trakking: Those objections are about the merits of the criticism itself, rather than about how to reflect the sources. Since they aren't included in the sources, they aren't relevant to the article. That said, the sources do answer those arguments either explicitly or implicitly. For example: per the sources, the fact that they lost the war is relevant because they defined their ideology around their ability to succeed in war. Similarly, Devereaux goes into detail about the history of many different governments (a much deeper analysis than 0-1). The third point is addressed more obliquely, but I think the response would be that the final outcome is what matters, especially given that the advanced democracies were largely unprepared for the war when it began.
--Sunrise (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise: I think this text does a great job of addressing my concerns. Thanks for taking the time to work this out on Talk.
One more source you may want to look at for this would be Mark Mazower, Dark Continent: Europe's Twentieth Century, chapter 5: "Hitler's New Order, 1938-45". From the conclusion:

National Socialism started out claiming to be creating a New Order in Europe, but as racial ideology prevailed over economic rationality, the extreme violence implicit in this project became clearer. 'Ginger-bread and whippings' was how Goebbels summed up their policy, but there was not enough of the former and too much of the latter. The 'Great Living Space (Grosslebensraum) of the European family of nations' promised life to the Germans, an uncertain and precarious existence to most Europeans and extermination to the Jews. 'If Europe can't exist without us,' wrote Goebbels in his pro-European phase, 'neither can we survive without Europe.' This turned out to be true. The Germans threw away their chance to dominate the continent after 1940 and their defeat led to their own catastrophe.

Generalrelative (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per weight, articles should not provide opinions that have not received recognition in the literature. Without commentary by experts, readers cannot evaluate how plausible these arguments are.
Certainy a population of one (lost war) doesn't allow for statistical analysis. And fascists did not come to power by promising war.
Best to leave it out. TFD (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalrelative: thanks for the comments! I looked through the source you suggested. From my brief review, I didn't see anything in Chapter 5 that directly addressed effectiveness in war, but I found a section of Chapter 4 that works well for this (last paragraph of the "Fascist Capitalism" section). Following the same approach as above, it could perhaps be summarized as: Historian Mark Mazower wrote that while the Nazis focused extensively on military production, and fascist rhetoric emphasized efficiency and coordination in the economy, they were unable to succeed on these factors and the German war economy was ultimately outperformed by both the capitalists and the communists. I think this is particularly valuable since the other sources didn't focus on economics; I would probably insert it either before or after the second mention of Morgan in the main paragraph.
@TFD: those are true statements, but I'm not sure how they're relevant to the content, which is sourced to multiple experts. Eco might be an exception, but at minimum he is still a well-known commentator on fascism. In addition, the weight is already minimal given that it's only included in the Criticism section and is presented as attributed statements (if a "Criticism of Fascism" sub-article existed, that could perhaps be an argument to move it there, but summary style suggests the content should be built up here first, through additions like this one). I have also noted above that there is considerably more detail involved than simply analyzing a population of one, so perhaps the description of Devereaux could be expanded to make this clearer. I'm thinking of starting with Devereaux evaluated a series of fascist and near-fascist historical regimes... and/or adding When analyzing other regimes that have been considered fascist under certain definitions, such as the Ba'athist regimes of Syria and Iraq, he found that their effectiveness in war was also very poor.
Updated version including the changes described above
Poor record in war

Historians Philip Morgan and Bret Devereaux wrote that by losing in World War Two, fascism failed to meet its own standards for success.(Morgan, Devereaux) Devereaux evaluated a series of fascist and near-fascist historical regimes, and described a general trend for them to do poorly in war, despite military effectiveness being a central principle that fascism uses to justify itself.(Devereaux) He wrote that of the two unambiguously fascist historical regimes, both were destroyed in wars they started, with Nazi Germany losing its war "as thoroughly and completely as it is possible to lose".(Devereaux) Similarly, he described Fascist Italy as only achieving military successes in colonial wars that were won at great cost and with severe repercussions for Italy’s international standing. When analyzing other regimes that have been considered fascist under various definitions, such as the Ba'athist regimes of Syria and Iraq, he found that their records in war were also very poor.(Devereaux) Morgan wrote that when fascism "failed the test that it had set for itself" by being unable to win in WWII, this was a major factor in the collapse in support for the Italian regime.(Morgan a,b) Historian Mark Mazower wrote that while the Nazis focused extensively on military production, and fascist rhetoric emphasized efficiency and coordination in the economy, they were unable to succeed on these factors and the German war economy was ultimately outperformed by both the capitalists and the communists.(Mazower) Umberto Eco wrote that fascist rhetoric undermines its own war effort because enemies are described as both "too strong and too weak", leading to governments which are "condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy."(Eco)
In general, non-democracies are less likely to win wars than democracies.(Choi, Reiter) This has been attributed to factors such as poor use of resources when compared to democracies, less effective cooperation with allies, and reduced initiative and inferior leadership in the military.(Choi, Reiter)

--Sunrise (talk) 04:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So it lost WW2, were they the only fascist nations? Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does Devereaux use examples from outside WWII in their work? Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The governments being analyzed are divided based on how broadly accepted the fascist classification is. He says that the governments which most everyone agrees on are Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany; while they were both destroyed in WWII, he discusses the failures and fall of each of them separately (as do most scholars, I think). He describes the next most ‘clearly fascist’ government as Spain under Franco, and describes the rest as being much more subject to debate, but summarizes them as e.g. the candidates for fascist or near-fascist regimes that have been militarily successful are few. A full list of the governments that he explicitly mentions are Portugal under Salazar, Argentina under Peron, Imperial Japan, Syria under Assad, Iraq under Hussein, and Russia under Putin. Sunrise (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was kind of wondering if he would include Argentina either under Peron or under the Junta on that list. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weight says that articles should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." Given that hundreds of thousands of books and articles have been written about fascism, that limits us to major views that are routinely mentioned in overviews of fascism.
Eco was not a fascism scholar and his "Ur-Fascism" has not gained any acceptance among fascism scholars. Bret Devereaux is also not a fascism expert and his not submitted his views to academic scrutiny.
Every major writer alive during fascism's zenith had something to say about it. We cannot mention them all, but can only pick what is significant according to reliable sources.
Incidentally, what is the evidence that "military effectiveness being a central principle that fascism uses to justify itself." Hitler ran on a campaign of "work, freedom and bread." Starting a world war wasn't one of his campaign promises. TFD (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of how WP:WEIGHT works. :-) As I agreed above, one can make a weight argument that this should be spun off into a criticism article. If you insist (and others don't weigh in), that's the approach I'll take; the large subsections have a lot of specific details that could be spun off as well. That said, in this case I would put more emphasis on weight within the Criticism section, which is poorly developed (e.g. until my recent edits, the genocides were barely mentioned at all) and I would consider this to be an appropriate amount of weight relative to the total amount of criticism that should be but isn't (yet) included in our article.
Eco is at minimum a significant viewpoint; he is already cited in this article, and comprehensively so at Definitions of fascism. I would consider Devereaux to have expertise in the public communication of history, but the content would still stand if he was removed, and some of the information could also be sourced to others. Morgan, of course, is the author of a Routledge textbook on fascism. Certainly "every major writer alive during fascism's zenith" isn't the right comparison, since while WWII was still in progress they didn't have much of an established military record that could be discussed.
The centrality of military effectiveness (or at least the appearance of effectiveness) is currently only being presented as part of the attributed argument. On reflection, it will probably always be possible to choose a definition of fascism such that the statement doesn't apply. That said, Morgan discusses this extensively. As an example, from the conclusion: The Fascist regime, self-evidently, ‘failed’ against its own chosen measurement of ‘success’, which was war. Fascism’s immediate legacy was, then, military defeat and the foreign occupation of Italy, which was bound to discredit both the system of rule and the aggressive nationalism which Fascism embodied. Likewise there is the description from the above content that support for the Italian government had an important dependence on their ability to win the war. Another example is from Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism: Fascist regimes could not survive without the active acquisition of new territory...and they deliberately chose aggressive war to achieve it (which logically includes victory as a requirement).
While Hitler didn't promise to start a world war, he certainly planned for Germany to expand dramatically. His ideology is well-studied and encompasses a lot more than his specific campaign promises. Sunrise (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have not provided an WEIGHT based arguments. People do not have weight, opinions do, henve the reference to "all significant viewpoints" not "all significant commentators.
Eco's "Ur Fascism" article for exampled has received great attention in popular writing, although AFAIK, none in academic writing. But the opinions expresssed in that article do not mention fascism and war.
Also, while Morgan wrote a chapter about Fascism's failure in war, you need to establishe the prominence of his observation in reliable sources. Do brief articles about fascism routinely mention it?
Also, Morgan was writing about Fascism in Italy. It's OR to apply it to anything else. And if his opinions are mentioned, you need to mention him.
Anyway, the best approach to ensuring weight is to identify the main literature and summarize what they say. We should not include things just because we find them interesting. It would leave an incorrect impression on readers on how fascism is perceived by experts. TFD (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided a weight-based argument in the last sentence of the first paragraph of my previous response. I have also observed that the argument is discussed in multiple sources, which is inherently a weight-based argument that the cumulative weight of these sources is sufficient for inclusion in the article. (Also, people have weight in the sense that weight originates from sources, and if the author is an expert that will greatly increase the weight of the source.) Furthermore, I will also restate that a lot of the content could be rewritten to a form that presents facts rather than opinions, in which case arguments about opinions wouldn't apply even though the content would technically have even more weight rather than less.
With regards to Eco, Ur-Fascism is cited 627 times in Google Scholar. Looking within the citing articles provides multiple cases where other scholars use him as an authoritative source on fascism: [5] [6] [7] [8] etc. Your additional claim that his article do[es] not mention fascism and war is incorrect, and the relevant section is quoted in the above content.
In response to your other new objection: part of the content describing Morgan already makes it clear that it refers to Italy. The other part cited to Morgan is cited to another source as well, but his position in that sentence could be replaced by a different source; alternatively, please feel free to propose a version that you think improves the attribution. I have also just provided another source (one that has its own WP article) on a very similar point that clearly discusses fascism in general.
As I said, I will acknowledge that your weight argument can be supported as well, so I will plan to spin this off into a subarticle instead as I mentioned above. Sunrise (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A potential gallery for the FAQ: Nazis sitting on the far right of the German parliament circa 1930

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Donald Trump and fascism#Fascism?

This is a very important discussion; if you want you can contribute. JacktheBrown (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fascism&oldid=1259301846"