![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | → | Archive 55 |
![]() | This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please, could you change the last sentence in the introduction's first paragraph from: "Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum."[6][7][8][9][10][11]" to the more nuanced: "Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, anarchism and favoring collective identity and State supremacy upon individual rights and freedom, fascism has been classified as far-right,[6][7][8][9][10][11] as far-left, [1] [2] [3] [4] and also as an alternative "third" position outside of the left-right spectrum. [5] [6] [7]" Thank you. Ajñavidya ( talk) 07:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Since you've asked, I'll go through the sources you've provided and tell you why they are unacceptable. They are, 1: an opinion column on a newsblog. 2: A video essay from Dinesh D'Souza. 3: An essay with no listed author and of unknown provenance ("a document that was circulated within the Red Eureka Movement in late 1980"). 4: A document written by a marketing consultant on behalf of the advocacy group he runs. 5: An interview with a philosopher about his recent book. (This one is actually funny, since the author says in the interview, I think it’s clearly right-wing. Part of the problem is that “right” and “left” are tricky to talk about, and it’s true that there are dangerous forms of extremism on both sides, but fascism tilts pretty heavily to the right in my view.
Did you read the article before trying to use it as a source?) 6: An essay on medium by someone who uses a false name. 7: The Amazon page for a book. The book itself is already discussed in some detail in the article
Fascism#Fin de siècle era and the fusion of Maurrasism with Sorelianism (1880–1914)
The reliability of a source for a particular claim is based on several factors. Does the publisher have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Is the author a recognized authority in the field? It also depends on the claim being made. None of these sources are reliable for the claim "fascism is left-wing" or "fascism is neither right nor left". The Daily Journalist does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and even if it did, opinion pieces are only considered reliable sources for claims about the views of the author. Richard Larsen is not a recognized authority on the subject of fascism. Likewise, Dinesh D'Souza is not a recognized expert on fascism, so his video is not a good source for this article. The mysterious document on the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism isn't a reliable source for anything at all, since even the publisher doesn't know where it came from. The piece on the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform website is only reliable for claims about the views of that organization. The Vox interview would be reliable for quoting the author interviewed, and the book itself might be a reliable source for the article, since the author appears to be an expert of political philosophy. The Medium essay is again not reliable, since it's unclear who the author is, and Medium as a publisher just hosts essays from basically anybody. An Amazon page is not a reliable source for anything other than the fact that the book exists.
"Neutral point of view" means fairly and proportionately reporting all significant viewpoints published in reliable sources. Adding claims sourced to a bunch of random web pages will not improve the article. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 08:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
CHANGE: "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical, right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism," TO: "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical, authoritarian ultranationalism,"
Facism has nothing to do with Right-Wing politics. 174.26.84.176 ( talk) 05:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
The wikipedia article says:
The anarchist Mikhail Bakunin's concept of propaganda of the deed, which stressed the importance of direct action as the primary means of politics, including revolutionary violence, became popular among fascists who admired the concept and adopted it as a part of fascism.[93] That's news to me--very interesting news. So I went to the library and grabbed the text cited, European Fascism by S.J. Wood. The page cited does mention anarchists, Bakunin, propaganda of the deed, and fascists, but it DOES NOT attribute propaganda of the deed to Bakunin or cite POTD or Bakunin as influences on the fascists. It's just a paragraph discussing anarchists in an essay about fascists in Spain.
Here's the passage in question:
"By 1920 or so this movement [he means an anarchist-federalist movement that in the previous paragraph he says kept fascism from becoming a strong movement] was far the strongest movement in Spain, perhaps over a million strong, dedicated to the overthrow of existing society, relying on violence (the propaganda of the deed), though owing as much to Proudhon the federalist as to Bakunin, and something also to George Sorel, the propagandist of violence, a skeleton to be found in the genealogy of most fascist movements."
This passage is completely misrepresented in the article as it is now. Please remove this reference. Or if there is a better citation, I would really like to know.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.108.210 ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fascism is not right or left oriented but more about suppressing people in a authoritarian manner. 63.140.24.169 ( talk) 02:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Not done: please provide
reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
Sumanuil (
talk)
04:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fascism is NOT a right wing phenomenon. Fascism is left wing. Hilter was a socialist and the Nazis were socialist. Remove "right-wing" from the description. Wikipedia definition is "A right-wing, authoritarian, nationalist ideology characterized by centralized, totalitarian governance, strong regimentation by business and government of the economy/marketplace and of society, and repression of criticism or opposition." This is contradictory, Left wing ideologies are authoritarian and centralized. Socialism and Communism for example are centralized and authoritarian. 2600:1700:1430:EB40:24E1:A107:D5F6:E4BD ( talk) 19:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism[1][2] characterized..." Should be changed to "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical political philosophy, movement, or regime, authoritarian ultranationalism[1][2] characterized..." 72.93.83.170 ( talk) 19:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum, so it's not necessary to have in the first sentence, and maybe that would stop this endless bullshit on the talk page. However, that's not why I oppose this edit request. The suggested additions are just bad. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 01:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
It's really worrying that users feel free to simply archive ongoing discussions just because of their personal opinion. Anyway, I think these users actually do not care about ending the right-wing discussion once and for all: the number of IP users "bullshitting" about fascism being left-wing actually increased exponentially since when the term "right-wing" is in the lede. If you actually wanted to end this craziness you would support removing right-wing from the first sentence and keeping the description as "far-right" (or modifying that description to make it clearer) in the following sentences but still in the lede. -- Ritchie92 ( talk) 23:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | → | Archive 55 |
![]() | This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please, could you change the last sentence in the introduction's first paragraph from: "Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum."[6][7][8][9][10][11]" to the more nuanced: "Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, anarchism and favoring collective identity and State supremacy upon individual rights and freedom, fascism has been classified as far-right,[6][7][8][9][10][11] as far-left, [1] [2] [3] [4] and also as an alternative "third" position outside of the left-right spectrum. [5] [6] [7]" Thank you. Ajñavidya ( talk) 07:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Since you've asked, I'll go through the sources you've provided and tell you why they are unacceptable. They are, 1: an opinion column on a newsblog. 2: A video essay from Dinesh D'Souza. 3: An essay with no listed author and of unknown provenance ("a document that was circulated within the Red Eureka Movement in late 1980"). 4: A document written by a marketing consultant on behalf of the advocacy group he runs. 5: An interview with a philosopher about his recent book. (This one is actually funny, since the author says in the interview, I think it’s clearly right-wing. Part of the problem is that “right” and “left” are tricky to talk about, and it’s true that there are dangerous forms of extremism on both sides, but fascism tilts pretty heavily to the right in my view.
Did you read the article before trying to use it as a source?) 6: An essay on medium by someone who uses a false name. 7: The Amazon page for a book. The book itself is already discussed in some detail in the article
Fascism#Fin de siècle era and the fusion of Maurrasism with Sorelianism (1880–1914)
The reliability of a source for a particular claim is based on several factors. Does the publisher have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Is the author a recognized authority in the field? It also depends on the claim being made. None of these sources are reliable for the claim "fascism is left-wing" or "fascism is neither right nor left". The Daily Journalist does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and even if it did, opinion pieces are only considered reliable sources for claims about the views of the author. Richard Larsen is not a recognized authority on the subject of fascism. Likewise, Dinesh D'Souza is not a recognized expert on fascism, so his video is not a good source for this article. The mysterious document on the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism isn't a reliable source for anything at all, since even the publisher doesn't know where it came from. The piece on the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform website is only reliable for claims about the views of that organization. The Vox interview would be reliable for quoting the author interviewed, and the book itself might be a reliable source for the article, since the author appears to be an expert of political philosophy. The Medium essay is again not reliable, since it's unclear who the author is, and Medium as a publisher just hosts essays from basically anybody. An Amazon page is not a reliable source for anything other than the fact that the book exists.
"Neutral point of view" means fairly and proportionately reporting all significant viewpoints published in reliable sources. Adding claims sourced to a bunch of random web pages will not improve the article. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 08:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
CHANGE: "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical, right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism," TO: "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical, authoritarian ultranationalism,"
Facism has nothing to do with Right-Wing politics. 174.26.84.176 ( talk) 05:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
The wikipedia article says:
The anarchist Mikhail Bakunin's concept of propaganda of the deed, which stressed the importance of direct action as the primary means of politics, including revolutionary violence, became popular among fascists who admired the concept and adopted it as a part of fascism.[93] That's news to me--very interesting news. So I went to the library and grabbed the text cited, European Fascism by S.J. Wood. The page cited does mention anarchists, Bakunin, propaganda of the deed, and fascists, but it DOES NOT attribute propaganda of the deed to Bakunin or cite POTD or Bakunin as influences on the fascists. It's just a paragraph discussing anarchists in an essay about fascists in Spain.
Here's the passage in question:
"By 1920 or so this movement [he means an anarchist-federalist movement that in the previous paragraph he says kept fascism from becoming a strong movement] was far the strongest movement in Spain, perhaps over a million strong, dedicated to the overthrow of existing society, relying on violence (the propaganda of the deed), though owing as much to Proudhon the federalist as to Bakunin, and something also to George Sorel, the propagandist of violence, a skeleton to be found in the genealogy of most fascist movements."
This passage is completely misrepresented in the article as it is now. Please remove this reference. Or if there is a better citation, I would really like to know.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.108.210 ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fascism is not right or left oriented but more about suppressing people in a authoritarian manner. 63.140.24.169 ( talk) 02:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Not done: please provide
reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
Sumanuil (
talk)
04:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fascism is NOT a right wing phenomenon. Fascism is left wing. Hilter was a socialist and the Nazis were socialist. Remove "right-wing" from the description. Wikipedia definition is "A right-wing, authoritarian, nationalist ideology characterized by centralized, totalitarian governance, strong regimentation by business and government of the economy/marketplace and of society, and repression of criticism or opposition." This is contradictory, Left wing ideologies are authoritarian and centralized. Socialism and Communism for example are centralized and authoritarian. 2600:1700:1430:EB40:24E1:A107:D5F6:E4BD ( talk) 19:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism[1][2] characterized..." Should be changed to "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical political philosophy, movement, or regime, authoritarian ultranationalism[1][2] characterized..." 72.93.83.170 ( talk) 19:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum, so it's not necessary to have in the first sentence, and maybe that would stop this endless bullshit on the talk page. However, that's not why I oppose this edit request. The suggested additions are just bad. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 01:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
It's really worrying that users feel free to simply archive ongoing discussions just because of their personal opinion. Anyway, I think these users actually do not care about ending the right-wing discussion once and for all: the number of IP users "bullshitting" about fascism being left-wing actually increased exponentially since when the term "right-wing" is in the lede. If you actually wanted to end this craziness you would support removing right-wing from the first sentence and keeping the description as "far-right" (or modifying that description to make it clearer) in the following sentences but still in the lede. -- Ritchie92 ( talk) 23:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)