This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
IMO the fascism template should only have major, undoubtedly fascist movements in it; otherwise it's just going to get too big and too controversial. I have modified it thusly. - Stlemur 13:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC) C mon ( talk) 19:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Noting the recent string of modifications: as the template affects a large number of articles, significant changes to it should be discussed in this talk page before implementation. - Stlemur 22:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Anyone mind if I trim down items redundant with the Nazism template? - Stlemur 20:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Draft:
This article is part of the Fascism series. This series is linked to the Politics and elections series |
Varieties and derivatives of fascism Fascism in history Relevant lists Related subjects |
edit this box |
I'm not entirely crazy about it still...I think the template has a lot of trivia in it (Italian Social Republic?). - Stlemur 14:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Discussions of the relationship between Fascism and socialism and Nazism and socialism keep appearing on multiple pages. On what page does the section on Nazism and socialism belong?
Fascism and ideology--- Nazism in relation to other concepts--- Fascism and socialism--- Nazism and socialism
Please discuss and vote on this dispute at this talk page]. Thanks. -- Cberlet 15:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Looking at Fascism and Freedom Movement (a particularly bad example), I'm wondering if the template should maybe be made horizontal and put at the bottom of pages it appears on. -- Stlemur 13:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we can do away with the "Fascist political parties and movements" section and just move "List of fascist movements by country" to the "Relevent lists" section and "Fascism as an international phenomenon" can go in "Related subjects". - DNewhall
I'm inclined to agree with Cberlet. National bolshevism has a history entangled with pre-WWII fascism, it uses fascist imagery, it often embraces fascistic methods and goals (racism, violence as a political tool, Fuehrerprinzip...) -- Stlemur 15:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Removing National Bolshevism was a mistake, however removing National Anarchism was not. The third sentence of the National Anarchism article states "National Anarchists completely reject Fascism as being Statist". - DNewhall
Iron Guard is the second name of the Legionary Movement a.k.a. Legion of Saint Michael the Archangel, therefore it cannot be considered the name of the doctrine. In "Tara si Exilul" newspaper (official paper of the Iron Guard in exile), Horia Sima wrote the article "Sase decade de legionarism" ("Six decades of legionarism"). The article can be found here. Other referrences to "legionarism" can be found in this important political magazine, in this article and on the official page of the Romanian Chamber of Deputies, here ("legionarism" is used here by a well-known Romanian historian). But I think that next time you should check for yourself before reverting the edits. Nobody should waste time collecting things that you can easily find searching the web.-- Eres 03:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Then Falangism should be modified to The Falange. Legionarism is the doctrine of The Ledoinary Movement and I have clearly supported my point of view with the informations presented. The article shod be named Iron Guard, but the doctrine should be called "Legionarism". Just like falangism and la falange...-- Eres 13:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
What scholars? Romanian political science scholars use "legionarism" in their works. But, anyway, wikipedists don't care about science, they only care about their own opinion.-- Eres 20:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course I am.-- Eres 23:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Ecofascism
Islamofascism
Left-wing fascism
These are highly contested issues, do they belong on a tmeplate at all?--
Cberlet 14:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Estado Novo in Portugal or Brazil are not generally characterized by scholars as fascist. They share some common elements and certainly were inspired in part by aspects of fascism but even parts of the New Deal had inspiration from fascist policies. There is a "taxonomical” difficulty in characterizing it as fascism; it is not fascism but at most a “para-fascism”. It is true of both Brazil and Portugal. They are not quite fascist, hence I am removing them from the template. Mamalujo 18:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The template is long and narrow, so I propose that we move multiple links into the same line. Yahel Guhan 23:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with the last edits of C mon on the template and I, as I oppose them, I observe that there is no consensus on them. I think it is fairly more practical to have templates without "show" buttons. They are more easily manageable. -- Checco ( talk) 09:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I created a centralized place for discussion about the show/hide-issue here. I invite every one to participate. C mon ( talk) 18:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Vision Thing recently revert user:Gennarous's edits here. I agree that such a major and controversial change should be discussed. While there are parts of the edit I did not like, namely that a lot of links were lost, I really liked the lay out with the fasces and the pictures of the fascist leader. So I think we should work on a version with the "new" lay out and the "old" links. C mon ( talk) 19:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The eariler one had plenty of group content. If it didn't have enought why not have more? I think the current one needs change. It's terribly dull. Bobisbob ( talk) 01:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Does consensus exists about varieties and prominent figures in fascism? -- Vision Thing -- 13:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The socialism template looks nice. It has white main header text over a red background with red header text below. I think we should do a similar theme for the fascism template but with a different colour. The current colour blue as a political colour is associated with conservatism and not fascism. The two colours most associated with fascism are black and brown. Should we redecorate the fascism template with that in mind? Ecto ( talk) 23:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I find it quite hard to read, and the sidebar jumped out as not looking particularly good. I don't know how to change it, but I think the colour scheme is too extreme. Snorgle ( talk) 11:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The people section needs portraits for the following fascists:
If a portrait becomes available on Wikipedia or the Commons please put it into the template. The name, link, and format code is ready to go. All you have to do is put in the image code (formatting it like the others) and delete the extra comment tags that are hiding the unfinished entry. Ecto ( talk) 21:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems we've got a lot of people on the sidebar, but not all of them are entirely notable - as in, the most significant figures in Fascism. These are the people I'd suggest we keep on the persons list; each figure is supposed to represent its nation:
Hope to hear suggestions! -- UNSC Trooper ( talk) 17:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
1. We should give Template:Fascism (the footer) collapsible groups. There's already a prototype template we could use as a basis for doing so on Template talk:Fascism but it needs some work.
2. We should pare down the content of Template:Fascism and Template:Fascism sidebar to only the most important articles (for example, the People/Persons sections should be changed to what UNSC Trooper suggested above). Also we should correlate the content of Template:Fascism and Template:Fascism sidebar so they have identical, streamlined content.
3. We should make a new set of more focused templates by splitting off each section from Template:Fascism and Template:Fascism sidebar into separate templates. These new templates should retain all less important articles removed from the main templates. There's already a set of prototype templates we could use as a basis for this set on Template talk:Fascism but they need some work.
4. We should make something like Template:Italian Fascism to parallel Template:Nazism, since Italian Fascism was pretty important and really requires its own template distinct from generic fascism. This template should only include articles directly related to Italian Fascism.
The end result of this plan would be a set of templates that looks something like this:
Generic fascism:
Variants of fascism:
Neo-Fascism/Neo-Nazism:
Other:
Does this sound like a good plan? Ecto ( talk) 23:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I wonder why Abba Ahimeir is placed in the first place here? Is it done intentionally to make impression that fascism is a Jewish invention or Zionism is a variant of Fascism? I deeply convinced that at the first place here should be placed Mussolini. And Ahimeir is worth placement here nothing more than the leaders of so-called "Russian fascist movement" etc.-- MathFacts ( talk) 22:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a note on my recent revert to the template: I'm not actually against the inclusion of Rivera in the people section, I just couldn't figure a way to remove the non-free image and leave the link to his article without it looking out of place. As mentioned further up this talk page, a free image would be useful here. -- Ibn ( talk) 08:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I removed the recently added Portugese Intergralists and National Syndicalists from the "movements" section of the template because they weren't fascist. The Portugese Integratlists were per that article traditionalists, decentralist, monarchist - plainly not fascist. The article on the National Syndicalists even says they opposed fascism. Mamalujo ( talk) 19:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Is Baathism really a form of fascism or para-fascism? Is there consensus for it to be included in this sidebar? I can see why it might have been added, but there doesn't seem to have been discussion about it, nor does the page it links to either use this sidebar or discuss Baathism in relation tofascism. CarefulCounting ( talk) 23:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
since there is disagreement concerning the recent changes, please discuss here rather than edit warring. thank you. Frietjes ( talk) 17:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Note: the discussion is mostly taking place on Template talk:Nazism sidebar. -- Director ( talk) 08:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I see this has been switched again. Can people please propose and explain any changes before making them unilaterally, not least because any such changes affect the visual appearance of a huge number of individual pages? It's now been flipped about three times in a month. Repeatedly simply justifying it with the edit summary "more aesthetic" slightly misses the point that aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder – I actually prefer, solely on aesthetic grounds, the B&W image. Relevance, accuracy and ultimately stability are what matters here, not one editor's personal preference and willingness to edit war that preferred image in. N-HH talk/ edits 08:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
we should use the standard width, since this sidebar is frequently stacked above or below other sidebars. if the widths don't match, you can get a jagged text border, which can cause text to overlap the sidebar in some browsers. if there is a problem with other sidebars not being as wide as this one, then we should change those to use the default as well. Frietjes ( talk) 15:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Can people stop adding him to this. Feelings are not Fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyno50 ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Clerical fascism should use a lowercase f. Thanks, 142.160.131.202 ( talk) 07:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 142.160.131.202 ( talk) 07:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Could you please add Julius Evola in "people"? Gnóstico07 ( talk) 13:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
These 3 people were not fascists. They are not mentioned to be fascist in their respective articles. Tojo did previously have 2 mentions of him being one, but a quick examination of the source ( Herbert P. Bix) which both these claims cited revealed that the entire book contained only one (1) mention of fascism, which was not in relation to either Hirohito nor Tojo. Compare the "generic militarism" of Tojo with actual Japanese fascists like Seigō Nakano or Ikki Kita.
On Francos page it is described by James S. Corum how the German Nazis were disappointed with Franco's resistance to installing fascism during the Civil War. The article also mentions how he marginalized fascist ideologues of the Falange in favor of the Opus Dei technocrats after the civil war and finally that that scholarly consensus is that while his rule adopted some trappings of fascism, he, and Spain under his rule, are generally not considered to be fascist, with Stanley G. Payne additionally noting that very few scholars consider him to be a "core fascist". Unlike Tojo and Hirohito, however, there is also a mentioned of how the Oxford Living Dictionary mentions him as an example of Fascism.
But such a small mention compared to the wave of scholarly consensus prior is obviously more a "controversial case" and not a "core fascist" (compare again here his authoritarian, conservative rule with actual Spanish fascists like José Antonio Primo de Rivera). These 3 people should therefore NOT be listed (and in Hirohito's and Franco's cases, as the top 3rd and 4th names mentioned!!) in the sidebar for the ideological core of people connected to the ideology of Fascism. -- Havsjö ( talk) 06:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
i suggest to include Francisco Franco down of adolf hitler — Preceding unsigned comment added by KFU1423 ( talk • contribs) 08:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
While I agree that including Hirohito and Hideki Tojo may not be accurate, the removal of Francisco Franco is one I would contest. In fact, Franco defined the Spanish nationalist movement as a part of the wider trend of fascism at the time, during his 1938 interview with Henri Massis.(Griffiths 2005) Furthermore the Francoist dictatorship, especially the initial period of 1939-1959, has been described in a variety of sources as fascistic. (Saz Campos 2004; Moradiellos 2000; Tussell 1999)-- Grnrchst ( talk) 14:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Someone can add Wang Jingwei too, below Benito Mussolini, in the "People" section. Thank You. 117.242.204.17 ( talk) 13:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Anti-intellectualism" and "Irrationalism" should be removed from core tenets, neither of these were core tenets of fascism, and this is a pretty POV description. Fascists persecuted intellectuals opposed to them, but there were also plenty of intellectuals which supported fascism, like Giovanni Gentile and Tommasso Marinetti. -- 2804:248:FBC7:D600:F472:D882:91C3:5FC0 ( talk) 04:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Trakking is encouraged to engage here rather than edit warring over their preferred change. I agree with what
Vipz said in their edit summary: Don't change "Nazism" to "National socialism" again until you manage to have the article about it moved. This is a very clear, POV and disruptive behavior.
Trakking's argument in their edit summary that National Socialism is the scientific term
appears to betray a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's core policy of
WP:VERIFIABILITY (leaving aside the fact that that's not how the word "scientific" is used in English). Nazism is very clearly the
WP:COMMONNAME, and whether or not it emerged as a slur by political opponents
is immaterial. In any case
we are all political opponents of Nazism here.
Generalrelative (
talk) 17:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
this is a disputed concept, per wp:undue this is not a major concept in nazism and fascism Gooduserdude ( talk) 19:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
IMO the fascism template should only have major, undoubtedly fascist movements in it; otherwise it's just going to get too big and too controversial. I have modified it thusly. - Stlemur 13:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC) C mon ( talk) 19:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Noting the recent string of modifications: as the template affects a large number of articles, significant changes to it should be discussed in this talk page before implementation. - Stlemur 22:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Anyone mind if I trim down items redundant with the Nazism template? - Stlemur 20:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Draft:
This article is part of the Fascism series. This series is linked to the Politics and elections series |
Varieties and derivatives of fascism Fascism in history Relevant lists Related subjects |
edit this box |
I'm not entirely crazy about it still...I think the template has a lot of trivia in it (Italian Social Republic?). - Stlemur 14:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Discussions of the relationship between Fascism and socialism and Nazism and socialism keep appearing on multiple pages. On what page does the section on Nazism and socialism belong?
Fascism and ideology--- Nazism in relation to other concepts--- Fascism and socialism--- Nazism and socialism
Please discuss and vote on this dispute at this talk page]. Thanks. -- Cberlet 15:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Looking at Fascism and Freedom Movement (a particularly bad example), I'm wondering if the template should maybe be made horizontal and put at the bottom of pages it appears on. -- Stlemur 13:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we can do away with the "Fascist political parties and movements" section and just move "List of fascist movements by country" to the "Relevent lists" section and "Fascism as an international phenomenon" can go in "Related subjects". - DNewhall
I'm inclined to agree with Cberlet. National bolshevism has a history entangled with pre-WWII fascism, it uses fascist imagery, it often embraces fascistic methods and goals (racism, violence as a political tool, Fuehrerprinzip...) -- Stlemur 15:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Removing National Bolshevism was a mistake, however removing National Anarchism was not. The third sentence of the National Anarchism article states "National Anarchists completely reject Fascism as being Statist". - DNewhall
Iron Guard is the second name of the Legionary Movement a.k.a. Legion of Saint Michael the Archangel, therefore it cannot be considered the name of the doctrine. In "Tara si Exilul" newspaper (official paper of the Iron Guard in exile), Horia Sima wrote the article "Sase decade de legionarism" ("Six decades of legionarism"). The article can be found here. Other referrences to "legionarism" can be found in this important political magazine, in this article and on the official page of the Romanian Chamber of Deputies, here ("legionarism" is used here by a well-known Romanian historian). But I think that next time you should check for yourself before reverting the edits. Nobody should waste time collecting things that you can easily find searching the web.-- Eres 03:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Then Falangism should be modified to The Falange. Legionarism is the doctrine of The Ledoinary Movement and I have clearly supported my point of view with the informations presented. The article shod be named Iron Guard, but the doctrine should be called "Legionarism". Just like falangism and la falange...-- Eres 13:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
What scholars? Romanian political science scholars use "legionarism" in their works. But, anyway, wikipedists don't care about science, they only care about their own opinion.-- Eres 20:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course I am.-- Eres 23:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Ecofascism
Islamofascism
Left-wing fascism
These are highly contested issues, do they belong on a tmeplate at all?--
Cberlet 14:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Estado Novo in Portugal or Brazil are not generally characterized by scholars as fascist. They share some common elements and certainly were inspired in part by aspects of fascism but even parts of the New Deal had inspiration from fascist policies. There is a "taxonomical” difficulty in characterizing it as fascism; it is not fascism but at most a “para-fascism”. It is true of both Brazil and Portugal. They are not quite fascist, hence I am removing them from the template. Mamalujo 18:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The template is long and narrow, so I propose that we move multiple links into the same line. Yahel Guhan 23:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with the last edits of C mon on the template and I, as I oppose them, I observe that there is no consensus on them. I think it is fairly more practical to have templates without "show" buttons. They are more easily manageable. -- Checco ( talk) 09:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I created a centralized place for discussion about the show/hide-issue here. I invite every one to participate. C mon ( talk) 18:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Vision Thing recently revert user:Gennarous's edits here. I agree that such a major and controversial change should be discussed. While there are parts of the edit I did not like, namely that a lot of links were lost, I really liked the lay out with the fasces and the pictures of the fascist leader. So I think we should work on a version with the "new" lay out and the "old" links. C mon ( talk) 19:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The eariler one had plenty of group content. If it didn't have enought why not have more? I think the current one needs change. It's terribly dull. Bobisbob ( talk) 01:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Does consensus exists about varieties and prominent figures in fascism? -- Vision Thing -- 13:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The socialism template looks nice. It has white main header text over a red background with red header text below. I think we should do a similar theme for the fascism template but with a different colour. The current colour blue as a political colour is associated with conservatism and not fascism. The two colours most associated with fascism are black and brown. Should we redecorate the fascism template with that in mind? Ecto ( talk) 23:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I find it quite hard to read, and the sidebar jumped out as not looking particularly good. I don't know how to change it, but I think the colour scheme is too extreme. Snorgle ( talk) 11:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The people section needs portraits for the following fascists:
If a portrait becomes available on Wikipedia or the Commons please put it into the template. The name, link, and format code is ready to go. All you have to do is put in the image code (formatting it like the others) and delete the extra comment tags that are hiding the unfinished entry. Ecto ( talk) 21:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems we've got a lot of people on the sidebar, but not all of them are entirely notable - as in, the most significant figures in Fascism. These are the people I'd suggest we keep on the persons list; each figure is supposed to represent its nation:
Hope to hear suggestions! -- UNSC Trooper ( talk) 17:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
1. We should give Template:Fascism (the footer) collapsible groups. There's already a prototype template we could use as a basis for doing so on Template talk:Fascism but it needs some work.
2. We should pare down the content of Template:Fascism and Template:Fascism sidebar to only the most important articles (for example, the People/Persons sections should be changed to what UNSC Trooper suggested above). Also we should correlate the content of Template:Fascism and Template:Fascism sidebar so they have identical, streamlined content.
3. We should make a new set of more focused templates by splitting off each section from Template:Fascism and Template:Fascism sidebar into separate templates. These new templates should retain all less important articles removed from the main templates. There's already a set of prototype templates we could use as a basis for this set on Template talk:Fascism but they need some work.
4. We should make something like Template:Italian Fascism to parallel Template:Nazism, since Italian Fascism was pretty important and really requires its own template distinct from generic fascism. This template should only include articles directly related to Italian Fascism.
The end result of this plan would be a set of templates that looks something like this:
Generic fascism:
Variants of fascism:
Neo-Fascism/Neo-Nazism:
Other:
Does this sound like a good plan? Ecto ( talk) 23:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I wonder why Abba Ahimeir is placed in the first place here? Is it done intentionally to make impression that fascism is a Jewish invention or Zionism is a variant of Fascism? I deeply convinced that at the first place here should be placed Mussolini. And Ahimeir is worth placement here nothing more than the leaders of so-called "Russian fascist movement" etc.-- MathFacts ( talk) 22:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a note on my recent revert to the template: I'm not actually against the inclusion of Rivera in the people section, I just couldn't figure a way to remove the non-free image and leave the link to his article without it looking out of place. As mentioned further up this talk page, a free image would be useful here. -- Ibn ( talk) 08:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I removed the recently added Portugese Intergralists and National Syndicalists from the "movements" section of the template because they weren't fascist. The Portugese Integratlists were per that article traditionalists, decentralist, monarchist - plainly not fascist. The article on the National Syndicalists even says they opposed fascism. Mamalujo ( talk) 19:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Is Baathism really a form of fascism or para-fascism? Is there consensus for it to be included in this sidebar? I can see why it might have been added, but there doesn't seem to have been discussion about it, nor does the page it links to either use this sidebar or discuss Baathism in relation tofascism. CarefulCounting ( talk) 23:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
since there is disagreement concerning the recent changes, please discuss here rather than edit warring. thank you. Frietjes ( talk) 17:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Note: the discussion is mostly taking place on Template talk:Nazism sidebar. -- Director ( talk) 08:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I see this has been switched again. Can people please propose and explain any changes before making them unilaterally, not least because any such changes affect the visual appearance of a huge number of individual pages? It's now been flipped about three times in a month. Repeatedly simply justifying it with the edit summary "more aesthetic" slightly misses the point that aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder – I actually prefer, solely on aesthetic grounds, the B&W image. Relevance, accuracy and ultimately stability are what matters here, not one editor's personal preference and willingness to edit war that preferred image in. N-HH talk/ edits 08:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
we should use the standard width, since this sidebar is frequently stacked above or below other sidebars. if the widths don't match, you can get a jagged text border, which can cause text to overlap the sidebar in some browsers. if there is a problem with other sidebars not being as wide as this one, then we should change those to use the default as well. Frietjes ( talk) 15:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Can people stop adding him to this. Feelings are not Fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyno50 ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Clerical fascism should use a lowercase f. Thanks, 142.160.131.202 ( talk) 07:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 142.160.131.202 ( talk) 07:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Could you please add Julius Evola in "people"? Gnóstico07 ( talk) 13:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
These 3 people were not fascists. They are not mentioned to be fascist in their respective articles. Tojo did previously have 2 mentions of him being one, but a quick examination of the source ( Herbert P. Bix) which both these claims cited revealed that the entire book contained only one (1) mention of fascism, which was not in relation to either Hirohito nor Tojo. Compare the "generic militarism" of Tojo with actual Japanese fascists like Seigō Nakano or Ikki Kita.
On Francos page it is described by James S. Corum how the German Nazis were disappointed with Franco's resistance to installing fascism during the Civil War. The article also mentions how he marginalized fascist ideologues of the Falange in favor of the Opus Dei technocrats after the civil war and finally that that scholarly consensus is that while his rule adopted some trappings of fascism, he, and Spain under his rule, are generally not considered to be fascist, with Stanley G. Payne additionally noting that very few scholars consider him to be a "core fascist". Unlike Tojo and Hirohito, however, there is also a mentioned of how the Oxford Living Dictionary mentions him as an example of Fascism.
But such a small mention compared to the wave of scholarly consensus prior is obviously more a "controversial case" and not a "core fascist" (compare again here his authoritarian, conservative rule with actual Spanish fascists like José Antonio Primo de Rivera). These 3 people should therefore NOT be listed (and in Hirohito's and Franco's cases, as the top 3rd and 4th names mentioned!!) in the sidebar for the ideological core of people connected to the ideology of Fascism. -- Havsjö ( talk) 06:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
i suggest to include Francisco Franco down of adolf hitler — Preceding unsigned comment added by KFU1423 ( talk • contribs) 08:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
While I agree that including Hirohito and Hideki Tojo may not be accurate, the removal of Francisco Franco is one I would contest. In fact, Franco defined the Spanish nationalist movement as a part of the wider trend of fascism at the time, during his 1938 interview with Henri Massis.(Griffiths 2005) Furthermore the Francoist dictatorship, especially the initial period of 1939-1959, has been described in a variety of sources as fascistic. (Saz Campos 2004; Moradiellos 2000; Tussell 1999)-- Grnrchst ( talk) 14:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Someone can add Wang Jingwei too, below Benito Mussolini, in the "People" section. Thank You. 117.242.204.17 ( talk) 13:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Anti-intellectualism" and "Irrationalism" should be removed from core tenets, neither of these were core tenets of fascism, and this is a pretty POV description. Fascists persecuted intellectuals opposed to them, but there were also plenty of intellectuals which supported fascism, like Giovanni Gentile and Tommasso Marinetti. -- 2804:248:FBC7:D600:F472:D882:91C3:5FC0 ( talk) 04:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Trakking is encouraged to engage here rather than edit warring over their preferred change. I agree with what
Vipz said in their edit summary: Don't change "Nazism" to "National socialism" again until you manage to have the article about it moved. This is a very clear, POV and disruptive behavior.
Trakking's argument in their edit summary that National Socialism is the scientific term
appears to betray a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's core policy of
WP:VERIFIABILITY (leaving aside the fact that that's not how the word "scientific" is used in English). Nazism is very clearly the
WP:COMMONNAME, and whether or not it emerged as a slur by political opponents
is immaterial. In any case
we are all political opponents of Nazism here.
Generalrelative (
talk) 17:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
this is a disputed concept, per wp:undue this is not a major concept in nazism and fascism Gooduserdude ( talk) 19:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)