Talk:Fascism/Archive 33

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 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

ANI

I have set up a discussion thread at ANI concerning the proposed new section which editors may reply to here. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is the ANI ?? --81.165.167.7 (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Closed and archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive577#Editor adding unusual section to Fascism. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That 's Fast. Well, anyway. Thanx for the Great Discussion Daniel!! TTYS -- [gebruiker:franklinbe|franklinbe]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.165.167.7 (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

|}

Perpetual race conflict

I removed the following sentence, which I thought was too prominent in the lead. It needs better sourcing, IMO (the source provided showed that it reflected the opinion of at least one notable fascist - I'm sure he is not alone, but "fascists believe..." needs supporting with a source that says that).

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.

Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Fascism also Nationalism?

Id Facism a part of Nationalism or are both different?AMMOI (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

These issues are discussed in the Nationalism and Fascism articles. Please note talk pagea are for the discussion of the improvement of articles rather than for general discussion. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As a short answer, Nationalism is found in Fascist nations, but it is also found in non-Fascist nations. In point of fact, most nations are Nationalist in one sense or another. Collect (talk) 12:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Euro-centrism

The problem with speaking in terms of "Fascism", "authoritarianism", "left wing" etc, is that these terms are exclusively in the european "imagination". Do you think a person in a tribe on a remote tropical island sits there defining themself as a "fascist" or "right wing"? You cannot define anyone or anything as "fascist", because no two people are identical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.69.86 (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Should have section on Hungarian Arrow Cross

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_Cross_Party

I will try to do myself when I have some time, but anyone else please feel free to do so in the meantime.

Historian932 (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting topic, though it appears to have been quite as much socialist as fascist in its origins. Its existence from 1944 on when it was a Quisling party for Hungary appears more dictated by the Germans than by Hungarians under German occupation. The advent of the Communist dictatorship after WWII was a matter of some import as well, especially with the deliberate destabilization of the Hungarian currency. Probably better suited in an article on "Nazi collaborationist parties" than here, as it differs in a great many particulars from the other forms listed (vide it was not particularly nationalist, did not promote any wars of expansion, did not seek a return of former glory, was both stridently anti-capitalist and anti-communist at the same time, was strongly religious, was not authoritarian as Hungary was under German control etc.) Collect (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There was previously a section about them, but it was taken out, along with some others. Not because it wasn't felt to be appropriate, but because it was felt that the article was too long. I'd favour re-arranging the variations and subforms with much less information about a greater number of political movements, and "see main article" links. --FormerIP (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Since there were dozens of fascist parties throughout the world during the period, there is insufficient room to devote mention to all of them. It might be helpful to have a list in the article for readers who want to know more about fascism in specific countries. Collect, where are you getting your information? The Four Deuces (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Upon seeing the post above, I started reading -- hit about a dozen books, and read mayber 20K words on the topic. Only took an hour or so. Why do you ask? Maintaining a List of fascist parties is likely to be a POV problem, but might be feasible. Collect (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Another problem was that movements not even remotely connected to Fascism were listed as well. I suggest, instead, that an article on "WW II Collaborationist Parties" would be more accurate for readers. The current article is one of the longest in all of WP already, though shorter than it was fairly recently at 158K placing it well up the list. A year back or so it was well under 100K. WP recommendations are to try keeping articles under 100K to be sure. Collect (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but if the material that's there now were removed and a shorter version or list were put in instead, that would be fewer KB. I don't recall any movements not even remotely connected to fascism being in there. --FormerIP (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The POV problem could be whether the Falange and French collaborationists were really fascist, but a section title could be written that is NPOV. Collect, I was asking because you said "it appears to have been quite as much socialist as fascist in its origins", The Four Deuces (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely, we already know by now that fascism was influenced by the left as well as the right. --FormerIP (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That is the "consensus" theory, but they categorize only Germany and Italy as having true fascist parties. Far right groups in the rest of Europe usually had no left-wing influence, which is why they were not true fascists. This Hungarian group appears to have no socialist origins at all, which is why I asked Collect where he found this information. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No, what I meant by that is that if fascism was influenced by the left as well as the right, then a party being alleged to be "as much socialist as fascist in its origins" is perfectly consisent with it being a fascist party. It would be as fascist as, say, the Partito Nazionale Fascista. In any event, what we would go off would be sources, rather than arguments.--FormerIP (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Try Mann [1] page 256 for the Arrow Cross sitting on the left and organizing worker's strikes. Frucht [2] page 376 states the populists wanted a "third road" "a peculiar Hungarian version of socialism that was national but not fascist." Deak et al [3] states "it was impossible clearly to separate Right from Left" at that time, and that the Arrow Cross party was popular with miners and heavy industrial workers for its role in promoting strikes. From a number of sources, the primary characteristic of the Arrow Cross Party appears to be similar to the Norwegian "National Government". Collect (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so like the Italian Fascist Party and the German National Socialist Party, they appear to have some of their origins on the left. --FormerIP (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. A substantial part, in fact. Collect (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

...which is no more reason to exclude them from the article than it is a reason to exclude the Nazis or the Italian Fascists..? --FormerIP (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If and only if all parties viewed as collaborationist also get lumped in with fascists. There is a real concern that the primary basis for linking it specifically as fascist lies with the Soviet rule of Hungary after the war. No basic tenets of fascism as defined in the current article seem to apply to it -- including nationalism (it was under the thumb of foreigners), expansionism (Hungary did not have such in its history), irredentism (not applicable really), racial unity (the main anti-Semitism was either pre-existing, or imposed by foreigners. the Magyar are not [articularly "Aryan"), economics (which were more socialist in Hungary than any other "fascist" nation by quite a bit), religion (no difference really between it and other groups in Catholic Hungary), and so forth. A remarkable sort of fascism to have precisely one and only one thing in common with fascism - it was dominated by the Germans. Collect (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The only relevant question, though, is whether it is considered fascist by reputable RSs. I wonder if anyone has ever been here before trying to compile encyclopedic information about them? I wonder what the second word they would use to describe them might be? ([4]) --FormerIP (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan

What about creating a section on the Ku Klux Klan, as they were American Fascists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually the KKK was not fascist -- as it antedated Mussolini by a half century or so, never was a political party, had no economic positions of any note, had no particular connection with an enforced unity of the populace (indeed, they promoted disunity), nothing to do with expansionism of a nation, etc. In short -- putting it in here is not too likely. Nor is the BNP here. Nor a few thousand other groups where "fascist" is used more as a pejorative than anything else. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 03:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it would be strange if KKK would have been considered fascist, as KKK was an hate group against every non WASP and, for example, Mussolini, the founder of fascism, wasn't surely a WASP. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would be usefull to insert a passage on the Ustase movement and on Mosley. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

We should, moreover, be careful lest this article return to its rather chaotic former state. Some of the other fascist groups are, indeed, mentioned in passing under, for example, "Culture and gender roles" etc. Collect (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No, fascism IS right-wing

It's absolutely absurd that this conversation is still happening. Fascism is an extreme right-wing political philosophy and the evidence for that statement is overwhelming, from Mussolini claiming he wanted to undo the democratic world that emerged from the French Revolution in 1789 to Hitler claiming that he wanted to destroy the liberal concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity. The dominant historical interpretation should prevail, and that asserts the right-wing nature of fascist politics. The current version is fine.UberCryxic (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Mussolini claimed that Fascism was a third way, meaning neither left nor right. Many historians also consider it to be a third way, i.e. centrist, or neither left nor right, or mix of left and right. This is a very significant view. Immoral moralist (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the "third way" concept in this context does not usually refer to being between left and right (eg on issues such as equality, nationalism, traditionalism, hierarchy etc), it usually refers to an economic system that is neither capitalist nor communist, as noted here. This point was addressed in previous talk page discussions. --Nickhh (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

When you talk about the Fascist "third way," you're talking about the Third Position, not the more generic Third Way (centrism). The Third Position was decidedly coined and established as a political orientation by right-wing nationalists and became a propaganda tool against communism, and has since been intertwined with Fascism. Regards, UNSC Trooper (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that even experienced editors like IM find these distinctions confusing is good reason to leave the lead as it is and explain the various alternative views in the "Political spectrum" section. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The lede should reflect the entirety of the section, not its most simplistic sentence. And the primary problem is that the ideology does not really fit onto a left-right spectrum, as Schlesinger noted in 1948. Collect (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Or, as Schlesinger actually noted, "fascism to the right, communism to the left". This was also pointed out in the endless previous discussions. Look, yes the spectrum is simplistic, and yes there is some dispute - some serious and academic, some not serious and polemical - as to where to place fascism on it. But none of us can escape from the fact that the left-right axis is the overwhelmingly common shorthand applied to political groups and ideologies in the media, day-to-day political discourse, other encyclopedias and more serious academic works. And fascism and Nazism etc are usually placed on the far right of it in most of those same sources. The lead is meant to be a succinct summary of what, in this case, is a very long article - so let's just summarise the issue as most sources do, and do it simply and efficiently. It used, I think to say something along the lines of "fascism is a far right political ideology ..". The current "usually described as .." is already a shift and a compromise, and probably better anyway in my view. Anyway, I'm taking this page of my watchlist as I'm just repeating myself for the most part, as are we all. There are other parts of the page that need work. --Nickhh (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Or as Schlesinger actually wrote:

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.

Which seems pretty clear, indeed. Note Schlesinger's strong endorsement of Poole. Collect (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 100% clear - he describes, on several occasions, fascism as being of the (extreme) right. Albeit he then agreed that there is a significant difference between moderate and extreme right, and equally that the the axis could be reconsidered as a circle, to illustrate the elements extremes of both left and right - as commonly understood - both shared. I suppose I should stop looking at the page, as well as taking it off my watchlist .... --Nickhh (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

To IM: No one should care the slightest iota where Mussolini would place himself on the ideological spectrum. I consider it laughable that you would even bring this up. We should care about his statements and his actions, and it's obvious when you look at both that he wanted to destroy the modern world as established by the French Revolution. Fascism was an anti-Enlightenment movement. In other words, it was stringently reactionary, and it seems unfathomable that it would be considered anything but right-wing extremism at its worst. I again cannot emphasize enough the theme of how fascists wanted to undo the liberal democratic world started by the French Revolution. Their rhetoric at the time was filled with vitriol about 1789 and how it was a calamitous tragedy in human history. But you know what, the consensus among historians is what it is, and I'm glad that factor (and only that factor) is determinative on the information that should go in the lead.UberCryxic (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Fascism was an extreme right-wing ideology. Third position does not mean between. 99.231.248.190 (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

First, sorry I'm posting this here but there's about five pages discussing this topic and most people seem to be following all of them. I decided to post it here since it's the most heated thread. This, IMO, is the root of the problem. In the Far_right article it states:

"Generally speaking, the extreme right can refer to either the economic right (laissez-faire capitalism) or social right (authoritarianism), or both."

The left-right measurement can't be both at the same without producing confusion. With the articles wikipedia has on this "left-right measurement" would simply state things as being left-right [economic] or left-right [authoritarianism] it might settle down the debate. Any reasonable person would understand that libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism has no similarity at all with fascism but they would be right next to it if one is talking about left-right [economic and authoritarianism]. I don't think this approach left-right [economic] or left-right [authoritarianism] would be or encourage original research. The "sources", by inference would be showing if they are speaking on economic or authoritarianism. I would propose something like this for an economic left-right distinction:

Left Ranges [Left to Center-Left]

Center Ranges [Left-Center to Right-Center] :

Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States

Conservatism_in_the_United_States#Modern_conservatism

Corporatism

Crony_capitalism

Right Ranges [Center-Left to Right]

Couple things to note. I'm sure I exposed some of my own biases above, so I'm open to others criticizing some of the placements. The only "exception" needed above is the "anarchist" qualifier. They would be at each extreme based upon their economic theory. Anarcho-capitalist to the right and Anarcho-socialism to the left. I also have an inferences that the economic model also has a correlation of the size of the State to implement the economic policies.

1. The size requirement of the State, with none-capitalism [right] and complete-socialism [left]. Anarcho-socialism usually holds the State is needed to redistribute private property prior to being able to dismantling the State - before it can become anarcho-socialism.

2. A view of "private property" being completely sovereign [right] to the absence of it [left].

Of course their could be other measurements of the left-right distinction. It would be nice to first tackle the Left-right_politics page where subsections would deal with those and then we could reference that page in other topics that demand it, like this one on fascism. Sorry so long. Theosis4u (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, this is very interesting and perhaps could be placed on some discussion forum about how we should classify various political ideas and concepts, or about how the concept of a right wing can be "confusing" if it includes both libertarianism strains (laissez-faire capitalism) and authoritarian strains (fascism), but this is missing a far more fundamental point - this is all going down the road of original research. The question here is much more simple - what are things called, and how are they currently described in serious, mainstream sources in the real world? Out there, both Ronald Reagan and Mussolini are usually viewed, and commonly referred to, as being on the right, just as Bakunin, Marx and Tony Blair (just about) are usually viewed as being of the left. That's just the way that it is, whatever the flaws and problems with what is inevitably a subjective and imperfect classification. We're not here to rewrite all that. --Nickhh (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This categorization does not represent mainstream thinking on the issue. Of all the groups you listed ironically only the fascists would have been considered right-wing in Europe in the 1920s, 30s and 40s. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Theosis, I thank you for the valiant attempt to provide some clarity to this discussion, but your categorization is fundamentally flawed. I generally despise the sham distinction between "personal freedom" and "economic freedom" because it has no basis on historical fact. It's a right-wing invention of the late twentieth century. The terms "left" and "right" can only be properly understood in the context of the French Revolution because....that's when and where they were born. To that end, a leftist is (very broadly) someone who seeks to fundamentally change the basic social structures of human civilization. Over the last two and a half centuries, that would include liberals (both classical and modern, but only modern after 20th century), feminists, communists, socialists, and anarchists, among others. A rightist, or right-winger, would be someone who seeks to preserve the basic structures of society, or at least someone who refuses ideological change, to echo Chateaubriand. Another essentially equivalent definition of a right-winger is anyone who fundamentally opposes the values of the French Revolution (liberty, equality, democracy, etc). In fact, that was the most famous distinction between a liberal and a conservative for over a century after 1789 (liberals generally liked the Revolution, conservatives did not). Over the last two and a half centuries, right-wing groups would include conservatives, monarchists, racists, and fascists, among others.

Basic model of human civilization since French Revolution: leftists try and change the world, rightists try and stop them. Fascism was an attempt to stop and reverse the rising tide of liberal democracy, which is closely connected to developments during the French Revolution.UberCryxic (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately I'm with Nick. Our personal ideological affinities and disagreements aside, we have to examine if there is a consensus among reliable sources. I believe that we have such a consensus on this topic, and that consensus is accurately reflected in the present version of the lead.UberCryxic (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, if we follow Theosis4u's model, then we would have exclude the German and Italian conservatives (e.g., German Conservative Party) from the Right. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey. What we are left with is that everyone cites someone. It is not for us to "knopw" what answers are - a;; we do is say what the cites actually say. Period. Article Talk pages are not debating societies. Collect (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll respond to all the replies above as they all left ignored my premise, which was - taken from above:

This, IMO, is the root of the problem. In the Far_right article it states:

"Generally speaking, the extreme right can refer to either the economic right (laissez-faire capitalism) or social right (authoritarianism), or both."

Those that mention that left-right is about the French context also failed to address the above because that statement is also later justified in the Left-right_politics#19th_century_and_later article. This refusal to clearly mark a distinction of left-right when speaking of economic or social weighting and the difference of use prior to the context of Left-right_politics#19th_century_and_later and descriptions listed in Far_right only seems to serve one purpose. To promote the logical fallacy of "guilt by association" of rightest economic theories with what is commonly called rightest social [authoritarian] ideologies like Fascism. Why? Who knows; maybe some people felt the right side needed mass murders in history as well to go with the socialist economic side. Also, again sourcing what is also in wikipedia articles, this distinction isn't original research. It is simply trying to make clear and consistent of uses of left-right when used historically - the French Revolution to 19th century and then prior to the 19th century use when capitalism theories get moved "right" rather than being "left". Also, again, the distinction of when used economically versus socially (authoritarianism). The Far_right article says they can be referred to as "both". This is the the times when it is confusing. Where classical liberalism, capitalism, libertarianism, and so forth are some how associated with fascism on a scale of left-right. There is no logical reason for this, ever. A straight line scale is a measurement of one thing, it can't be a measurement of two things at the same time unless those two things are causations or have a very high degree of correlations. The social right attributes DO NOT have any such association with rightest economic models. What does racism, religious belief, nationalism, of the many others "social" attributes have to do with economic models as causations? All economic theories when implement in governmental policies can reflect these "social" attributes. Theosis4u (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Right now I fear that we are about to head into personal and ideological confrontations that won't really help improve the article, but I've never been one to shy away from helping a confused soul. First of all, forget what other articles say. Stick to this one and argue on merit alone, not on popularity. Second, your historical assumptions are incorrect, even if we do adopt your ideological divisions. The Nazi regime instituted a corporate plutocracy and unleashed street thugs intent on ransacking the offices of labor unions and left-wing parties. Despite the delusions inherent in the party's name, which Hitler himself did not like, there was little socialism in their policies, no matter how you understand that term (socially or economically or politically or all of them). If you want to see full-blown dictatorial communism, look at the Soviet Union, where Stalin pretty much wiped out the private sector. Hitler did the opposite, using the private sector as a means to further solidify his dictatorship. Third, a distinction between social policies and economic policies is absolutely silly, and classical liberals recognized as much way back in the 19th century. A world with more social liberty is a world with more economic liberty. A good example now is same-sex marriage. The right-wing conservative bible-thumping Christian fascists that oppose these kinds of social innovations while simultaneously harping about getting government out of our lives refuse to notice the glaring contradictions in their positions. Same-sex marriage would add billions of dollars to the economy and keep government 'out of our lives' so to speak. But the reason why the conservative right opposes it is because they don't want government to get involved in changing a fundamental component of society (in this case, marriage). In other words, their ultimate reason to oppose same-sex marriage is to prevent the world from changing. Likewise, their ultimate reason for opposing the stimulus package last year here in the United States was also to prevent the world from changing, not because those nutjobs actually understand anything about economics. They didn't like the stimulus because it was changing too many aspects of the American economy and of the health care system. Again, the right opposes ideological change. Fourth, the left-right spectrum still follows, more or less, the divisions laid down during the French Revolution, and one way to easily glean that fact is to see that the left worldwide is by far more supportive of the ideals of the Revolution than the right (although exceptions exist, obviously, in many countries...like France itself, for one, where both the right and the left support revolutionary ideals). As I've just shown, the distinctions you have in your head are mere fantasies.UberCryxic (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

All four of your points are refuted by this wiki page as well as the others mentioned so far. The fact you ignore the data on the pages while you try to engage me on the topic doesn't give me much hope in your ability to be objective. You are, IMO, doing exactly what I mentioned above -- attempting to use guilt by association for all things right that you personal reject on ideological grounds. This is also mentioned in the articles, when they refer to the use of the right/fascism terms as pejorative. So, I'm not biting. Your welcome to debate the issue in the style you have above on my talk page if you like. I would enjoy discussing your notion about economic models and their relationship to civil/social rights. [FYI - I lean anarcho-capitalist. IMO, the government shouldn't be involved in our sex lives or personal relationships nor should the relationships have any governmental regulations, benefits, or costs.] Theosis4u (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you are claiming to refute me by refusing to refute anything (in other words, ignoring my arguments), I can only thank you for your concession in this debate. I very much enjoyed this experience, but I have no wish to overload your talk page with silly arguments.UberCryxic (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I am a radical social liberal who emphasizes positive liberty, and economically I follow the tradition of Keynes (obviously). Nice to meet you.UberCryxic (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And I'm a paying member to mises.org, fee.org, cato.org and reason mag. :) I wasn't given concession, I was sparing this talk page of cut-n-pastes from data that already exists in the various wiki pages. You'll also note I've already made the claim that others were ignoring the premise I made based upon those wiki pages. I interrupted that lack of response as ignoring the contradictions in how left-right is being applied when one over generalizes and doesn't state specifically a form of measurement [economic, social, size of government, etc.] that it causes undue confusion. A confusion I believe that is intentional on the part of some. This behavior in regards to fascism is outlined in one of the sources referenced in the article. You will also later notice on page 4 that he's making the left-right distinction on social lines. I've avoided trying to outline a left-right measurement on 'social' issues because I'm not sure if the way it has been used makes sense in a way I find agreeable. It seems to leave out those that view social issues liberally but that they should be based upon the absence of government involvement rather than by government involvement. Which cuts out allot of ideologies that hold social liberal positions but do so at the absence of government. Nice to meet you to by the way. Theosis4u (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:OtherStuff, I'm telling you to ignore other articles when discussing this one....largely based on principle, but also based on the fact that this article has a ton of scholarly sources that it allows us to keep the debate 'local,' so to speak. Did you ever bother to consider that those other articles were fundamentally flawed, and not this one? Based on the overwhelming number of reputable sources in this article, fascism should be classified as an ideology of the right. Based on historical developments since the French Revolution, it should be classified on the right. Based on global popular perceptions, it should be classified on the right. I could go on and on. There is every good reason to classify fascism as right-wing, and no good reason not to.UberCryxic (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Theosis4u, since you are a Mises follower you may wish to understand how the political spectrum was described by Hayek. See: "Why I am not a conservative".[5] Free market theories are centrist, not right-wing. However writers like Lipset began to describe groups like the John Birch Society as right-wing, despite their libertarianism, because of their obvious similarity to fascists. Ironically these groups took the label "right-wing" and then tried to redefine it. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

TFD's, thanks for the link. It was an appropriate time to reread that by Hayek [last year I actually tried to design my own political visual aid by using a triangle where it's position would change]. But again, as Hayek's article demonstrates, we must remember that any mention of a single line [left-right] is a measurement of one primary attribute to give it context. Hayek is using a measurement of an ideologies willingness to use force to either "progress" [left] or to "conserve" [right] and then describes the middle as progressive/conservative BUT WITHOUT the force of government. If we were to place numbers upon our line we might use +50 - 0 - -50 and describe it Left-Right measurement of ideologies willingness to use force to either Promote Progress or maintain Conservatism and the absence of force in the center. In this case, it would probably work. Since the absence of force allows people to do as they choose - they can freely, at a personal level, push progress or maintain conservatism. My discussions above was speaking about an economic measurement in regards to left-right and we have examples in the various wiki pages that describe this use as capitalism on the right with socialism on the left. This measurement seems more like a 100 - 50 - 0 weighted line. With governmental involvement in free-markets on the far right, control economy on the left [note my anarcho-socialism exception] and mixed economies in the middle. I'm not trying to argue these points from ideological grounds but rather trying to argue that we can give greater clarity in how left-right is being used by sources by stating what it is measuring and if the line is something like 100 > 0 or +50-0--50 . I think this information can be shown either directly or inferred from the source and its trends in the use avoid "original research". I don't understand that is very debatable though. Regards. Theosis4u (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Left-wing promotes egalitarian society, right-wing promotes or accepts hierarchical society.

To resolve this issue of the question of fascism being left-wing or right-wing, I am providing two sources for a definition of right-wing: Norberto Bobbio and Allan Cameron Left and right: the significance of a political distinction. University of Chicago Press, 1997 and T. Alexander Smith, Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at war: moral conflicts in western democracies. Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd, 2003. page 30. Both sources are on Google Books. Both books describe the left vs. right distinction as being one on the issue of egalitarianism versus social hierarchy. The left has supported the notion that social hierarchy is the result of inequality - a lack of balance of resources - the left believes that equality is possible to achieve and must be achieved to attain social justice. The right rejects egalitarianism in varying degrees, claiming that achieving equality is impossible and that social hierarchy is natural or normal in society. The moderate right supports social hierarchy (especially in capital) but accepts that some means to allow equality of opportunity prevents the hierarchy from being tyrannical such as by emphasizing meritocracy and that deserving poor have the right to seek welfare assistance, while undeserving poor do not. The extreme right completely supports social hierarchy, it rejects the concept of equality completely and believes that superior people have the right to rule over inferior people. Fascism in this sense appears to be extreme right - the basis of fascism was that a minority elite led by a strong leader would control society because they were superior in knowledge and skill to the masses, and that the masses needed paternal leadership. Fascism consistently spoke of superiority and inferiority in society - this a right-wing trait, such as on the issue of the need for strong nations and races to be superior to other nations and races to survive in a world defined by conflict. Now one may ask what evidence there is to show that fascism opposed egalitarianism, well here it is:

"In rejecting democracy Fascism rejects the absurd conventional lie of political equalitarianism, the habit of collective irresponsibility, the myth of felicity and indefinite progress." Doctrine of Fascism, [6]

"Fascism denies that numbers, as such, can be the determining factor in human society; it denies the right of numbers to govern by means of periodical consultations; it asserts the irremediable and fertile and beneficent inequality of men who cannot be leveled by any such mechanical and extrinsic device as universal suffrage." Doctrine of Fascism, [7].

--R-41 (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting claim - considering how hierarchal the Soviet society was (dictatorship of the Proletariat), and how egalitarian the American West was (Turner) <g>. Mussolini was officially egalitarian, by the way. Collect (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Mussolini was officially egalitarian". What?! I just provided you two quotations from the horse's mouth that completely invalidate that claim! It directly says that Fascism called egalitarianism an "absurd conventional lie" The Soviet Union was highly corrupt resulting in hierarchy, but unlike fascism, it never officially endorsed hierarchy. Now here is the final proof that fascism was right-wing, fascism declared itself to be right-wing:

"Granted that the 20th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 19th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State." Doctrine of Fascism.

Now there should be no confusion as to fascism's position on the political spectrum.--R-41 (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Try citing the rest of the "Doctrine" <g>. "Collectivism" is explicitly "egalitarian." See where the problem lies? And the Soviet hierarchy was not there because of corruption, but corruption did flourish under it. And besides, it is not up to us to "know" things - it is up to us to responsibly cite what others have written, and the fact is that there is a lot of dispute about what the fascist ideology actually is, and most definitely where that ideology lies on any spectrum of any sort. WP:Josh Billings Collect (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Collect, the article says "Fascism... is a political ideology... which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum. (My emphasis.) Obviously political parties in power often deviate from their declared ideology. Wherever fascist ideology is placed in the political spectrum there is no dispute that fascism in power was right-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Collectivism is not explicitly egalitarian, Josh - see Collectivism#Typology. --FormerIP (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Again -- can you define the ideology? Collect (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Collect, what's the purpose of asking that question? You know by now that there are numerous areas of acadmic disagreement in forming a definition. It seems to me that the only thing answering such a question would achieve is the prospect of a long, tedious debate. The answer is already covered in the article, as best as editors have been able to manage.--FormerIP (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Without a definition, how can anyone make any blanket statements about the ideology being anywhere on any specific "spectrum"? All we can do is use what RSs say - and it is clear that there are a lot of disparate opinions out there. Debating in the talk section does not help - we can only use what others write. Collect (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see your point Collect. The disparate opinions are, AFAIK, all covered in the article, probably in unneccesary detail, the RSs have been discussed to death, and the dominance in them of one particular POV is established. --FormerIP (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

To the users Collect and FormerIP, I stress again that the Doctrine of Fascism declared fascism to be right-wing. As in the following that I will present again: "Granted that the 20th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 19th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State." Doctrine of Fascism. Thus the fact that fascism officially identified itself as a right-wing ideology combined with multiple scholarly works supporting this, and definitions of right-wing showing that fascism's positions would fall in line all make it clear. I am putting this quote of the Doctrine of Fascism into the article. Issues that do remain contendable is how far is fascism right-wing, and the issue of evidence of left-wing influences in fascism. But beyond these points, the left-wing versus right-wing discussion is now resolved as there is an official document declaring fascism to be right-wing.--R-41 (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You have to take into account changes in meaning over time. "Right" and "left" meant different things back then, than they do today. Back then, liberalism (the philosophy of free markets and individual rights) was the left. Liberalism was a challenge to conservatism, which was on the right, and which was not a free market doctrine. Then later, in the United States, the meaning of liberalism changed to mean those who are aligned with the New Deal type policies. But the new "liberalism" was still considered to be on the left. The term liberalism changed and with it the meaning of "left" changed. Immoral moralist (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Read the rest of what Mussolini wrote. He used parallel grammatical construction to declare Fascism to be collectivist. Sorry 'bout that. The summation is that Fascism is "pragmatic" which seems to belie any claim that it is specifically anywhere at all. Collect (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've re-arranged the additions for style ("...as well as...as well as..." was not a great formulation) and to place the Doctrine of Fascism in some sort of context for the reader. Also, the mistake should not be made of thinking of the Doctrine as being quite in parallel to the Communist Manifesto (for example). It is not seen by most academics (or fascists, I think) as offering a defintive outline of the ideology - thus its status is less important than the views of modern scholars. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It does not use the term "ideology" and the reasoning is primarily that Mussolini above all calls Fascism "pragmatic" and states that it takes a little bit from everywhere. Mussolini also appears to have roundly ignored most of his own precepts once in power. Collect (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, what is being measured by this line of left-right? Is it trying to measure a single value or multiple ones? If multiple, are they causations or highly correlated? If multiple values and they aren't correlated, what can we expect of it then? Is it a line or is it like the horse shoe description? If sources don't state it specifically, one is left with two options as a reader - use inference or discard it as a meaningless category since it fails to measure anything accurately. Theosis4u (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

...or just say what the sources say and worry about it as much as the sources appear to.

Just a note, given a recent edit asserting collectivism to be left wing - try "Right wing collectivism" in Google books, and you will find quite a good range of sources. --FormerIP (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Currently reading "Right and Left" by Marcel_Gauchet in Realms of Memory: Symbols By Pierre Nora, Lawrence D. Kritzman. IMO - it tears down any notion that left-right has been used consistently in historical manner. That it was used in two basic ways, parliamentary rules and than as a political positioning for power [sometimes for propaganda] outside of the parliament body. I'll leave it at that for now; still reading it. Theosis4u (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That is one interpretation, another one, which I find very convincing is in Left and right: the significance of a political distinction by Norberto Bobbio and Allan Cameron that I mentioned earlier, that can be found on Google Books at page. 37 that says "equality, which is a traditional element in the ideology of the left, is considered levelling down by someone on the right. Inequality, which for someone on the laft is a statement of fact without ideological connotations, becomes hierarchical order for someone on the right." T. Alexander Smith, Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at war: moral conflicts in western democracies by T. Alexander Smith and Raymond Tatalovich on Google Books as well on page 30 also states the egalitarian vs. hierarchical dimension of the left-wing vs. right-wing spectrum, saying that sociologists' view is that "'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality of political participation' In other words, the sociological perspective sees preservationist politics as a right-wing attempt to defend privilege within the social hierarchy." (I did not add the Italics emphasis, it is in the text). Also another book Peace and prosperity in an age of incivility by William Eric Davis that can be found on Google Books, on page 25 mentions the distinction between left-wing collectivism and right-wing collectivism as the left-wing being egalitarian and the right-wing being hierarchical as said here: "Radical egalitarianism is a left-wing brand of collectivism and distinct from the hierarchical (right-wing) form of collectivism. One should immediately see that the two cultures, hierarchist and egalitarian, are competing over contradictory values. More of one means less of the other".--R-41 (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Theosis4u, try reading the actual article. The terms left and right originally referred to individual deputies and later came to refer to the political parties supporting them. It is not tearing down anything. In Germany for example Nazi deputies were seated on the far right of the chamber because they had a far right ideology. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

TFD's , what the heck are you talking about? To say, "try reading article" after I took two hours combing through it and making notes along the way I see nothing in my statement above that is false. My statement is true and was about the fact that left-right wasn't static through history in the French example. This is very clear in the article. It also very clear, that's there allot of evidence in the same article that disagrees with assertions made by you in various talking pages and in the articles themselves. Why no correction on those? Theosis4u (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The "inconsistency" you mention is misleading. Originally the terms right and left referred to the parliamentary caucus and later referred to their associated parties. It is irrelevant to the discussion. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to understand your insistence without ascribing some motive on your part when you keep making this a black and white issue when the article in question shows it is not on various points. So, I'll leave it to others to read the full article for themselves and be the judge. Right And Left by Marcel Gauchet Theosis4u (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

1RR restriction is still in effect on this article

Editors who have recently joined the discussion should please take a look at Talk:Fascism/Archive 30#stop the reverting madness - ONE_REVERT_per_editor_effective_immediately. It seems that we will spend the rest of the century debating exactly where Fascism should be placed on the political spectrum, left or right. Is it too much to hope for something new? Maybe the editors should impose a rule that the lead of the article may not be changed without an explicit consensus here on the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

collectivism does not produce truth, it espouses mindset

Language is so powerful that political strategies employ it. When you desire to attack an ideology, choose something clearly emotionally detested by your target audience, and associate the ideology with it. Push this association again and again; declare it, repeat it, broadcast it, until you are blue in the face, and eventually you will make an impact. (Amazing the culmination of the evolution of debate: brainlessness.)

This is exactly what has happened with the term fascism. In a fascist state, government maintains control. Greater centralized control is not a characteristic of freedom.

Many whose world views are damaged by this fact will utilize whatever tactics they can to segment, complicate, or distort, in attempt to obscure or distract. Blah blah blah. "Oh there is economic and social structure, these controls are different. Oh, such and such were fascist and also shared this other characteristic of these other people who were on the right. You all who disagree are stupid and we are intellectuals." And so on, and so on. These are the distractions; none of it is relevant.

The truth is almost always very simple, and that is certainly the case here. The political spectrum exists along the axis of government control. To the right there is less. To the left there is more. In a fascist state, the government maintains control. Therefore, fascism appears toward the left, along with the rest of the government-controlled political systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.183.226.110 (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As you show no respect to the efforts of Wikipedia users which is a violation of Wikipedia's policy, have contempt for rational discussion, and are using this as a soapbox to shout out anger-filled passion, I do not think you are in any position to criticize the users on this encyclopedia, who in spite of their differences, are willing to discuss and resolve them, which you are unwilling to.--R-41 (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

R-41 , I'm not sure if they were talking about those involved in the discussion personally. I think they were ranting about how they interpret the topic in general and how people use it insincerely. But yes, doesn't seem to really promote a rational discussion on this page though. Theosis4u (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The anonymous user seems to be assuming that other users are promoting collectivism. That is not the intention at all, nor is it the intention to denounce collectivism or the right-wing. The fact remains that a source by Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, declares in the Doctrine of Fascism that fascism is right-wing. That multiple scholarly sources back up this statement by Mussolini consolidates it. The question of how far fascism was to the right is another issue, as Mussolini acknowledged influence by the left-wing into fascism.--R-41 (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying intro: info from the Doctrine of Fascism acknowledges that fascism is ultimately right-wing but it also acknowledges that it has left-wing and other influences

The Doctrine of Fascism is a good source for a summary of fascism and the fact that it is an official document of the National Fascist Party of Italy makes it a valuable source to determine the left vs. right perspective. It declares that fascism is ultimately right-wing, but also states that it is sympathetic to the concerns underlying the rise of left-wing movements, but disagrees with the egalitarianism present in the political left. I am going to reorganize the intro with adding a summary of this information.--R-41 (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen many people comment about rejecting primary sources for wikipedia use when people attempt to use Hilter's writings about Nazism being socialism and so forth. Wonder why they are absent on this example of primary source use? Wikipedia:Reliable_sources . You state he disagrees with egalitarianism but how much did he agree with Laissez-faire_capitalism ? Was that consider "right" in his specific usage? Was he referring to the right-left based upon "social" positions, nationalism, or other forms of commonality with the "right" that weren't present in the "left"? Theosis4u (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Theosis4u, you have to stop reading fringe sources that say laissez-faire is inherently right-wing. Laissez-faire was developed by liberals who occupied the centre (or even left) of the political spectrum. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Where did I say it is inherently anything? That has been my own premise - left-right - isn't inherently anything and is useless until it is given context in history, locality, and the specific manner the describer is using it. Your welcome to push your agenda on others, but it's not welcome by me. I've read enough of your talk page comments and seen your edits to see your process. Cherry pick with someone else. Theosis4u (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Theosis4u, you said, "You state he disagrees with egalitarianism but how much did he agree with Laissez-faire_capitalism ?" Opposition to egalitarianism is a defining characteristic of the right, support for laissez-faire is not. Laissez-faire opponents of fascism did not support laissez-faire because they though it would lead to greater inequality. It's a red herring. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Opposition to egalitarianism is a defining characteristic of the LEFT pushing the ideology to the right.

p. 256 "Revolution itself became "red" for its proponents, while "reds" were the very embodiment of bourgeois fears."

p. 260 "There is a phrase from the 1890's that can be credited with a definite role in helping the new system to establish itself: "no enemy on the left". This was the slogan of young reformers from the Radical group who group who joined forces in 1894-95 to push for an alliance with the Socialist.

p. 261 "After the Congress of Amsterdam condemned the policy of class collaboration in 1904, the Socialists, rebaptized the Section Francaise de Internationale Ouvriere (S.F.I.O.), adopted a new line, rejecting any alliance "with any portion whatsoever of the capitalist class."

p. 267 "On the extreme left it was attacked in the name of the proletarian revolution and on the extreme right in the name of national restoration."

p. 267 ""The Communists, who had originally attacked it from the left on the grounds of rigorous class analysis, helped to consecrate it by joining the Popular Front. Meanwhile, pro-fascist ideologues and movements insisted on their symmetric proscription, "neither right nor left", which only helped to consolidate the position of the two terms as definitive markers." [] "In fact, what happened with the Communists was the same thing that happened with the Socialists before 1914: protest led to integration. The vehement insistence on separation ultimately reinforced the need for unity."

p. 267 "...the P.C.F. ran a Bloc Ouvrier et Paysan, whose propaganda focused on denouncing the false political alternative being offered to the voters, an alternative that masked the only real division, that between capital and labor. "Right-wing capitalists and left-wing capitalists are the same.""

And then p.270 shows the Communist tactics on the left-right issue in play

Of course, since you read the "Right and Left" article yourself, you know there's much more I could use as evidence on how the left-right issue is much more complex than your willingly to accept. Like for instance, that in most cases [at least specific to the French situation in the article] it is the Left that uses this left-right division for their own means and forcibly push it upon the "right" - who often times either reject it outright [like fascism did with the "neither left or right"] or are reactionary to its use. You'll also notice your conception that "Laissez-faire was developed by liberals who occupied the centre (or even left) of the political spectrum." is outright false or is specific only to a certain time period in the development of the left-right usage in France. Theosis4u (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Theosis, you may have to rewind a step, since I for one am having difficulty in working out what your point is. What, specifically, do you see as being wrong with the article and why? --FormerIP (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have so much a problem of what is listed on this page and the other associated left-right topical pages but rather the absence of what isn't described. It seems all complexity is erased that doesn't conform to certain editors ideological positions on wanting to keep the left-right issues into simple generic usage that continues confusion. In short, we are seeing the same thing as the references from the article; it's from being played out here on wikipedia - using left-right as an ideological tool. "no enemy on the left" Theosis4u (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Things like this don't help either to think we have objectively on this situation. Talk:Liberal_Fascism#HNN_Authors_Should_Be_Identified_As_Being_Liberal_Reviews Theosis4u (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I find it hard to follow too. Is it your position that the 1830 revolution was fought by right-wing laissez-faire liberals against the left-wing ultraroyalist legitimists? The Four Deuces (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. That statement either requires me to be the fool for asserting that or for me to declare your the fool in thinking I did. Like I said, I've analyzed your play here. And you had the gull to mention red herrings? Theosis4u (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that your argument is that conservatism is left-wing and liberalism is right-wing, therefore fascism was left-wing. My criticism of that argument is that the underlying assumptions are false. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, at this point I really do have to doubt my assumptions about you TFD's. Which were you were very intelligent, very well read, knew topics very well, but did tend to push certain point of view on topics and were very ...hmm.. talented about getting what you wanted. Maybe I'm just throwing off your game, who knows. At this point, with what you wrote above I can only assume your attempt is to antagonize me so you can pull some authoritarian trick with the wikpedia rules. Theosis4u (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Theosis, I'm sure it hasn't been intentional on your part, but I can well understand how TFD may be genuinely confused about what you are trying to get across. Like I say, I am also finding it difficult. Is your main point that "left-right" has its origins as a terminology employed by the left? If so, that may be interesting, but it doesn't seem likely to me that it impacts on the article very much. Am I right in thinking that you don't actually have a problem with the article per se, just with comments made on the talkpage by TFD and/or other editors? --FormerIP (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with Gauchet's article is that it clearly identifies fascism as right-wing: "Right and left epitomize the era in which French politics thought of itself as universal politics precisely because of the clarity of the alternatives for which it provided the theater: 1815, a choice, yet again, between Ancien Regime and Revolution; 1900, a choice between faith and enlightenment, between human rights and the nation; 1935, a confrontation between fascism and socialism" (p. 297-298).[8] The Four Deuces (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, cherry picking and ignoring the other points he made that showed the complexity of the situation. He first mentions the struggle of fascist to not be identified with the left or the right. He also mentions, for one reason, their placement coming from the socialist/communist political positioning on the situation with fascisms defeat after WWII. Like I said, it isn't a black/white situation. I can also appreciate that complexity at the same time embracing your generalization and the articles that fascism became to be know as on the "right". Theosis4u (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP, not sure if you read my comments above this current thread. I believe my initial intent is described there. I'm simply recommending that we embrace the complexity of the left-right usage that is out in the field so to speak rather than ignore or minimize it. This does not mean we remove the common generalities - for instance, that fascism is normally referred to as right wing. I think reasonable people know that this is true, the problem is understanding when it isn't referred to as right-wing [or some other example, I outlined an economic situation above]. Theosis4u (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit too general-sounding to do anything about it, I think. Do you have an example of where it is a problem in the article at present? --FormerIP (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll get back to you on that in awhile; I'm watching how my current suggestions and the references in the various wikipedia pages that support my premise are now being purged from those pages in edit wars with various parties. Note, I don't do edits - talk pages are big enough headache for me. Theosis4u (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the opening paragraph in the lead

I notice that the opening paragraph has undergone some revisions. I don't think it's perfect, but I, for one, am willing to live with it. It gets the main point across: fascism is generally regarded as a right-wing ideology. On the other hand, it also mentions some notable voices who disagree with that view. Given how polemical this subject can be, I say we leave it here and call it a day.UberCryxic (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way thank you to R-41 for that brilliant addition from Mussolini. It basically confirms what most of us already knew (that fascism is right-wing and considered itself so), but it's always nice to have the criminals confessing to their crimes!UberCryxic (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please restrain yourself. Being right-wing is not a crime. The document says that fascism was right-wing, it does not say that right-wing is fascism. Many libertarian right and moderate right political figures were arrested and persecuted by fascists.--R-41 (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are we arguing about NOW?

The opening is sober and restrained, presenting the dominant views on the subject rather coherently and intelligently. We all realize one obvious thing: this article will never satisfy everyone. At the very least, all reasonable parties should agree that the current version is sustainable and was achieved in a very consensus-driven atmosphere. We have now included some of the criticisms made from those who do not regard fascism as far right, and that's about the best we can do under these sociological circumstances. I put forward a 'motion', if you will, to call this fight off temporarily and remove the neutrality tag.UberCryxic (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one that put the POV tag there. My complaint was that a significant view was being left out, the view that fascism is viewed by a good number of historians to be neither left nor right, i.e. a mixture of left and right, or centrist. The NPOV policy says that in order to be NPOV, all significant views need to be mentioned. When the lead only said that fascism is usually considered far-right, which is probably correct, then it in order to be NPOV it also had to note all significant conflicting views. The statement's there now, at the time of writing, is "However, some historians regard fascism to be a mixture of left and right, or neither left nor right." So, unless it is a significant view that Fascism is left-wing, then the lead is much more NPOV. I don't know if the view that it is left wing is a significant view. However, to be fully NPOV I think it should probably be corrected to say a "good number" of historians, which is what the source says. "Some" could mean it may be a fringe view, which it is not. Immoral moralist (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The tag should be removed. All significant views are explained in the article and the lead mentions that in addition to the mainstream view, other views exist. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I just changed "some" to "a significant number of." I think this makes it NPOV, and in accordance with the sources. More information is better than less. Just saying "some" does not give enough information. "Some" could include a minute number of historians. Immoral moralist (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the sentence entirely, because the details are provided in the body of the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And the details that explain this "exception" of the generalized statement [not founded on polling or research] has more references/sources than the number of people that claim this majority of opinion. That's been true for the last two weeks and no one seems to mind. No one seems to mind that a number of the sources that infer this "majority" were also identified as being "liberal" in the HNN articles. Again though, I'm not objecting to this sloppy evidence, but rather that BOTH sides should be detailed in the description of why they say it's right, left, or neither. The dissenting group has so far been given that burden, but the "majority" hasn't. the "majority" is assumed to be true simply because they said it to be so. How does a reader understand where the conflict or difference of opinion is formed between the two disagreeing parties? We have specifics for the dissent but the affirmation is generalized - "Scholars generally consider it to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum." How does that answer why? Without this precision, the article seems nothing but than a list of contradictions that provide no way to understand them. I also notice the continued acceptance of the primary source - Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism - still being allowed though. Do we all now comb all of Mussolini's writings and dump in the contradictions? Theosis4u (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Even these footnotes - [6][7][8][9][10] - that were initially used to support fascism as being "right" are then later used as sources to why it might not be consider "right". Theosis4u (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Theosis4u, your argument all along has been that fascism cannot be right-wing because they were not libertarians. This provides an ahistoric view of the political spectrum and is fringe. The idea that the statements of widely respected academics who you call "liberals" should be balanced with the views of pseudo-conservatives who have no academic credentials is wrong. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you stop with the ad hominems with your references to ahistoric, pseudo-conservatives, fringe and so forth. Your statement fails to address anything that I just wrote or the data that is actually in these articles. The references to the different economic models and how that often pointed out as an "exception" to the right ruling. People don't mention the third way and the rejection of capitalism AS THE REASON of fascism being right wing, but rather mention it because it is an exception to one way of seeing the right wing. Again, I don't agree with the premise that one could argue that fascism is right wing but one needs to define fascism, give historic context [stop - start], the attributes that one is declaring "right", note the exceptions of attributes that aren't a part of that understanding of "right wing", and then justify the conclusion with how it fits against the other ideologies along a right-left scale. This should be the same rule for those that state fascism isn't right-wing. I mean really, this is basic stuff here to professional technical writing let alone academics. Theosis4u (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, on your "respected academics" for the HNN authors. Chip_Berlet and David_Neiwert are partisan journalist [not even sure if they are degreed or not]. Chip is also a "blogger". Matthew Feldman appears to be a historian by degree, but it isn't listed on his work page. The HNN site does list him as Dr Feldman. Roger_Griffin, I don't see his academic credentials listed anywhere that describe what he completed and its focus. Robert_Paxton clearly has his details laid out on his academic expertise. The one author out of the bunch I enjoyed reading. Jonah_Goldberg is a degreed journalist and Michael_Ledeen has a career history that shows a background for the topic but I fail to see it being confirmed academically. He probably earned his degree for the military and could of been any number of areas. So, how do we measure "respectful" again? Theosis4u (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Theosis4u, what you are asking for is already in the article. The section "Position in the political spectrum" explains why a number of scholars consider fascism to be right wing, including what these authors consider to be the relevant features of "right wing." I do agree with you, though that the discussion of a primary source, The Doctrine of Fascism is out of place in the lede. VoluntarySlave (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph in that section basically gives weight basically to the minority theory. The arguments for the majority opinion are expressed in the second paragraph and each one leaves something to be desired, especially in light of the fact the rest of the section gives details to the minority opinion.

The historians Eugen Weber,[35] David Renton,[36] and Robert Soucy[37] view fascism as on the ideological right.

No details at all. No way to understand the "measurement" they are using to determine this. If they all use the same method, we should include it. Again, details that allows one to know exactly how this person comes to this conclusion and then can rectify it against those disagreements.

Rod Stackelberg argues that fascism opposes egalitarianism (particularly racial) and democracy, which according to him are characteristics that make it an extreme right-wing movement.[38]

Ok, this is the difficult example because their use of extreme right-wing isn't defined and it doesn't let us understand how the extreme-right is different and what it might hold in common with the right in general. Egalitarianism would be polar opposite of a free-market capitalism, not a fascist economy. As TFD's points out though, it doesn't have to be when one is talking about left-right as long as that left-right characterization isn't inferring polarization of opposites. Is the extreme-right the only position that opposes democracy? Was communist russia a democratic supporter in this example? Is there a distinction here between democracy and a representative republic? A democracy that limits the tyranny of the majority?

Stanley Payne states that pre-war fascism found a coherent identity through alliances with right-wing movements[39]

Ok, but does that mean Payne considers it right wing and why? Was this a statement more about alliances with the right rather than the left? We've seen already from the French example, that the communist/socialist rejected all those to the "right" if they weren't in agreement with their egalitarian view.

Roger Griffin argues that since the end of World War II, fascist movements have become intertwined with the radical right, describing certain groups as part of a "fascist radical right".

Radical, extreme, or far right? Does Griffin make a distinction? They became intertwined, but what does that really mean? They became friends because no one else would have them? Was it because of common ideological principles? What were those principles? What were they intertwined with prior to the end of WWII?

Again, these are suggestions that I think would be helpful. It would give everyone a clear understanding of how a person is measuring and defining this left-right situation and hopefully clear up the circular arguments on the topic. Ideally, the expansion of this would reach out to the other pages on the political spectrum. So usage is consistent and clear throughout. Theosis4u (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then I guess no reason to take the NPOV tag off now. The lead is POV. The fact that the conflicting view is in the body doesn't make the lead NPOV. Immoral moralist (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It boggles my mind that there STILL is a discussion about whether fascism EVEN IS right-wing. The Doctrine of Fascism says it is, that is the official position that Benito Mussolini and the National Fascist Party took. I took the liberty to take the concerns of others into account, by mentioning that the Doctrine of Fascism declared that fascism did indeed take concerns of the political left into account, but NOT their solutions. But even this is not good enough. I can only conclude that some users are deliberately intending to challenge this, because it disturbs their political views, as if saying that fascism is right-wing somehow is saying that right-wing is fascism. That is NOT the case - members of the moderate right - especially libertarian right religious figures were arrested and persecuted by fascists. I am personally tired of these vendetta games being played by political partisans trying to say "the left-wing is fascism!" or "the right-wing is fascism!", both are flawed. I have political views that may influence my judgements, but I have restrained them, I considered seriously that fascism has been influenced by both the left and the right, but I found a primary document that declared that fascism sees itself on the right. Remember, this is is an encyclopedia, not some partisan blog slugfest, so some users should start showing some respect and restraint. Now, as to resolve the problem here, I believe that the claims of fascism being "far-right" - that are debatable, should be moved further down in the article. With that out of the way, I would agree that the dispute would be resolved.--R-41 (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It belongs in the lead. Simnilarly there are dozens of articles about neo-fascism in WP where the term "far right" is used in the lead. this article should be no exception. No reason to remove it because of personal objections. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

R-41, speaking for myself, I'm not wanting the article to conclude fascism is or isn't left, right, center for the reader. I'm advocating that the article should give us clear reasoning and details on WHY the source mentioned concluded with the position. I feel like I've been rehashing this position over and over again and its just not coming across right. As far as the primary source, it's not my "rule" - Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. I think primary sources are informational and sometimes authoritative but I also can see them leading to a war of quotes from the primary sources or the the reasons stated from the Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources position. Do you really think your one quote is definitive and there aren't others by Mussolini or other fascists that contradict it? They surely will come in time on this talk page. My only suggestion is to try and see if Mussolini gives more detail on the reasoning behind his statement, this way the reader has a good context in how to interrupt it. I think this issue about primary sources has come up before with Hitler's writings in regards to his "socialism". Theosis4u (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with R-41 that many libertarians were persecuted by the Nazis, I think it is wrong to call them "libertarian right". In fact they called themselves "left-liberals" and they called the Nazis right-wing. In fact their leaders worked with Mises and Hayek in the Colloque Walter Lippmann. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And they were also trying to "was to reconstruct the liberal ideas after the 1920s and 1930's that saw a decline in the interest for classical liberalism." Colloque_Walter_Lippmann and Neoliberalism and Classical_liberalism clearly are at odds with some usage of "left-right" when "left" is being defined as communist/socialist ideology. Again, context appears to always be necessary as the statements "left" or "right" don't stand by themselves. Theosis4u (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

They were on the left of liberalism and stood between the Center Party (who identified themselves as centrists) and the Social Democrats (who identified themselves as left). While some of them advocated neoclassical liberalism, others advocated ordoliberalism. In no sense were they "right-wing" and the term would have insulted them. See e.g., Hayek's "Why I am not a conservative".[9] The Four Deuces (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, your arguing for a left-right understanding as how TFD's sees fit and decides how to apply it in time or universally. That's not the purpose of the articles on wikipedia, which is to describe how the sources are using and defining it. The source is the authority on their meaning of left and right, what characteristics are needed and what are rejected for the use, if it's relative to a point in time or location [country, region, etc.] and so forth. For a neoclassical liberal to say they consider themselves "left" in modern US politics they would need to make a bunch of disclaimers on what they don't consider left in the general and show in the specific what is common [if they can find them]. That is the only way we could reconcile their meaning for others usage. Left-Right doesn't have some ISO standard tape measure to use in determining what something is or isn't. Theosis4u (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The political spectrum was invented in Europe and while Americans may apply it to their own modern political environment, it makes no sense for them to then re-apply it to Europe. Part of the problem is that the US has a narrow political spectrum which would would fall within the centrist range. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

IOW, the "right" in the US, and the "left" in the US are very close to the center as far as Europeans are concerned - right? And where an American calls something "far left" it is misleading to a European who would not, on its face, call that very far left at all. Collect (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with that. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What I described is acknowledged even by Hayek in the first two paragraphs of your source:

"In this they find themselves much of the time on the same side as those who habitually resist change. In matters of current politics today they generally have little choice but to support the conservative parties. But, though the position I have tried to define is also often described as "conservative," it is very different from that to which this name has been traditionally attached."

"Conservatism proper is a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly widespread attitude of opposition to drastic change. It has, since the French Revolution, for a century and a half played an important role in European politics. Until the rise of socialism its opposite was liberalism. There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of the United States, because what in Europe was called "liberalism" was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American tradition was a liberal in the European sense."

And I could continue to provide countless examples of this attention to detail, definitions, and being specific rather than generalized in his paper. Theosis4u (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then it also makes no sense to apply European standards on anything related to the US. Your mention of it being narrower doesn't change that. Why would the absence of an ideology not being common in the US mean its left-right scale couldn't also understand this absent ideologies relativism to US common ideologies. To state that "liberalism" means on thing in the US and another in Europe is easily rectified by defining what liberalism is between the two and then having a left-right measurement that is about those specifics rather than a lef-right model that is hollow and simply lists political parties along a line. If you feel that the American left-right is so incompatible with the rest of the worlds view of it then we should have separate wiki pages or subsections declaring such and state that on every single point of left/right and other political terms this difference of usage. Like I said before, I advocate specific usage of the phrases rather than sloppy generalizations. Theosis4u (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The comments above about the US left/right seem more about a bell-curve statement in how ones nationality interrupts it as understood by the number or mass of people behind a specific ideology, not necessarily that the left-right understanding is completely different - if at all on the specifics. Theosis4u (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Liberalism article for UK schools seem to find the need to distinguish between classical, political, cultural, and economic liberals to name a few. Whole bunch of good stuff there. The Fascism article is interesting as well. Theosis4u (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Very well

As I said in my last post, I think the current circumstances make it very difficult to satisfy everyone. However, what I have noticed in this debate is that those on the side of classifying fascism as right-wing have all the evidence while simultaneously making all the concessions. The people opposed to that position have viewed this talk page as a soap box and have pushed further and further, with the unambiguous intention of removing any reference from the introduction to fascism as a right-wing ideology (which...it clearly is). First we reworked the sentence about how fascism was generally regarded as far right. Then we said that scholars generally regard it as far right. Now we've removed that too and we have only Mussolini's comments, which at this rate will no doubt be removed by tomorrow or the next day! I reiterate my support for the following opening paragraph, which is obviously not my first choice, but still very sensible:

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system. Scholars generally consider it to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum. Benito Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism regards fascism as right-wing and collectivist, but it also declares that fascism is sympathetic to ameliorating the conditions that brought about the rise of left-wing political movements, such as class conflict socialism and liberal democracy, while simultaneously opposing the egalitarianism associated with the left. However, some historians regard fascism to be a mixture of left and right, or neither left nor right.

If those who have taken it as their duty to be in a permanent state of war and agitation until they can make fascism seem like some cute little puppy, who everyone just loves to hug and pet without any bias (from leftists to rightists), then I suggest we restore the opening paragraph the lead had before this latest "scuffle" (that would be my first choice). I am willing to give this issue a few more days (let's say two), but then I think it needs some finality. Whether that's arbitration or all out wiki-warfare I leave it to you all to decide. Good day.UberCryxic (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A healthy reminder to everyone (including myself!)

Another mistake that I think we have all made (I include myself here too) is that we've become mired in this silly, tangential debate about what left and right mean. This is not the place to talk about what's left and what's right, and this should be a great reminder to Theosis specifically, who's made it a life's goal, apparently, to determine the context of left and right once and for all in this article (as if that's not an issue that can be settled elsewhere, at another time). The only relevant thing for us to determine is what the sources say about left and right in relation to fascism. Whether those sources agree, whether they're inconsistent, whether Wikipedia articles are inconsistent, etc....all of that is a headache. Don't worry about that. It doesn't matter. What do the sources say on fascism? That's all that matters.UberCryxic (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the point, what do the sources specifically state. When someone cherry picks just the reference that it's "right wing" or some degree of right, then it becomes original research because the reader is naturally left to the wikipedia article on those vague and general terms. Hence, why we've seen some on this thread goto the other pages and have things that didn't "fit" the generalization they wanted the reader to concluded on [IMO]. The absence of data and specifics from a source can be as much as a fraud as incorrectly summarizing the source. So, the specifics on this have to be addressed both in the particular articles like nazism and fascism as well as the political generalized ones dealing with left-right politics. One shouldn't read the description about what is "far right" under fascism and then got the [[Far_right] page and go, "Huh? That contradicts what I just read on the fascism page". And times it will though because of specifics, those exceptions should be addressed in one of the two pages. Theosis4u (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, you're analyzing Wikipedia's internal (and very real) problems with standardization, which should not be the focus of the debate. Instead, we should focus on prominent and reputable sources that identify fascism somewhere on the political spectrum, or mention if they don't, as yesterday's version did! My standard is not complex: if it goes something like "fascism is right-wing," "fascism is regarded as right-wing," "fascism has elements of right-wing ideology," or "fascism is aligned with the right"....then those sources should be enough to qualify fascism as right-wing, or mainly as right-wing, if you don't want the commentary to be that absolute.UberCryxic (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And I've been saying that the standard that your using is the problem that leads to these type of talk page discussions. That the absence of details on the why and how of the source making the general claim is what leads to raising everyones feathers. Because as left as a generalized term, it's easily abused as a generalize term. Yes, this is a logical fallacy that the reader should be aware of, but so should the writers here on wikipedia. Theosis4u (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The specific details over how the sources arrived at a particular conclusion are best left to the body of the article. In the lead, we just need a quick summary (ie. "fascism falls on the right", and then we explain what the sources mean by that, including any disagreements, in the body).UberCryxic (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As you might of noticed, I've never advocated any change specific to the lead nor did I even say I thought the Mussolini line should or shouldn't be in the article or the lead, I simply said that it seemed to violate the primary source position that wikipedia has. What I did point out though, is that in the body of the article details about the generalized belief that fascism is right-wing weren't being given especially with equal weight as the dissent. Theosis4u (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well one reason why I've had difficulty understanding you is because you've been arguing for general principles without offering any specifics on what the article should look like. It wouldn't be a bad idea, now that I think about it, if you proposed a version of the opening paragraph (or of the lead, if you'd like). That would let us know what you want in the article....and, by implication, what you don't.UberCryxic (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried using the example of the economic model situation earlier but either people didn't understand my intent or didn't like the idea of expressing more details on the topic. I fully understand that this is NOT an easy issue I bring up here because even the terms we might use for the specifics could lead to conflict and disagreement. One reasons why I advocate a joint effort of also updating the other topical pages - Left–right_politics , Political spectrum , etc.. This way we don't have to be overly cumbersome in the ideological specific pages [fascism] on what what things like capitalism, nationalism, egalitarianism, democracy, classical liberalism, social liberalism, Statist, and so forth fit within the context of left-right and all their possible uses throughout history. Let me think of an example, that might demonstrate what I envision it to be -- hopefully avoiding arguments on the details of the example. I'll post it when I have it done. Theosis4u (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)One significant problem is that usage of terms is inconsistent from author to author. This is not like a science where a meter is a well defined unit of length - it is highly subjective, and the nature of it varies from person to person, and from country to country. We can agree that Mussolini appealed primarily to the "right" of Italian political sentiment at the time he started (albeit with some appeal to the "left" as well). It is much harder to correlate that "right" with the American "right" or the British "right" or the Soviet "right" as each is remarkably different. It is too much like the blind men and the elephant at times, and for us to adopt one particular definition without recognizing that fact is problematic to say the least. Collect (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, even that (inconsistency from author to author) shouldn't matter. In fact, you could easily argue that obsessing over those variations essentially constitutes original research. Make it very simple: just report what the author says. Don't qualify, don't analyze, don't presume, or pretend! If we've got something this controversial, let's just go from the horse's mouth.UberCryxic (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, with that argument why don't we just say the sources all agree that fascist are fascist , nazi's are nazi's, and so forth. Theosis4u (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the sources all agree. Clearly they don't. I'm saying that the article should reflect the dominant interpretation, which is that fascism falls on the right, while still mentioning minority viewpoints.UberCryxic (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the conclusion, in its most simple form. Usually, an interpretation would also include details and context. Sort of like a "truthfulness in advertisement" situation. I could say, everyone loves theosis4u. You would say, "What?!?!" I reply, "Well, 10 out of 10 people do that were asked." Again you cry, "What?!?! Who were these 10 people?". I say, "Well 5 of them are my friends and the other five I don't know that well." You ask, "Why did the 5 say they love you?" I respond, "Well, I did ask everyone on their birthday after I gave them a $1000 gift." :) Theosis4u (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The context and the details can both go in the body. The succinct descriptions belong in the introduction. No one here wants censorship!UberCryxic (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems like we are back where we started in addressing what are the details we should include, the context and description of them, if their use matches their usage in other parts of wikipedia, and also how do we handle the absence of certain qualifiers - do we note their absence or not? I had a post in the thread above, "What exactly are we arguing about NOW?" that went through the majority opinion lines and the questions that they left begging for myself. Theosis4u (talk) 04:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)