Talk:Fascism/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

RfC: Two possible ledes poll

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

.... here is the entire RfC discussion...

Please comment on which of two versions of the lead should be used Version 1 or Version 2. A comparison of the two versions can be found by clicking here. The second version adds, among other things, that fascism "came to prominence in mid-20th century Europe", it is "[h]ostile to liberal democracy, socialism, and communism", it was lead by Mussolini and Hitler, and that after the Second World War, few parties described themselves as fascist.

Original wording of RfC:

Two quite distinct ledes are offered in [1] and in [2]. Which is preferable?

Discussion

I tend to favor the least convoluted lede possible in any article, and suggest the shorter lede is reasonable to that end, with the longer lede reaching far into editorial argumentation. The added material rationally may belong in the article as part of a fully NPOV article, but do not aid readers of the encyclopedia at all, which is the primary goal. Collect (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I support Collect's decision for an RfC. I will state that I support the February 26th lead that I made as Collect has supported - not because I made it, but because I don't support some of the wording used N-HH's edit of February 26th, but beyond this I have no right to contribute here further beyond stating my support as I have intentionally used uncivil language towards N-HH. Old habits are hard to break - I am quitting Wikipedia like a smoker quitting smoking.--R-41 (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• It looks like the main difference between the two is related to length. WP:LEAD suggests 3-4 paragraphs for an article that is more than 30,000 characters, but this article is more than 60,000 characters, so I would say from a guideline perspective, it seems to suggest a larger (4 paragraph) lead rather than 3 paragraphs. Also, information like the movement "came to prominence in the mid-20th century Europe," I think is pretty important information for the lead. CorporateM (Talk) 15:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Per the above threads, I prefer the longer lead in principle. It carries some pretty basic information that surely belongs in the lead of any general-use encyclopedia about fascism, eg about it coming to prominence in 20th century Europe, its focus on the state and the leader (and citing the examples of Hitler and Mussolini), its militarism and focus on parades and monumental architecture etc. It also has a better flow and comes across as less listy than the shorter one (which runs "Fascism is ... Fascism thinks ... Fascism views" etc). It could probably do with some trimming of the wording – and that is the way to deal with any genuine length issues rather than by simply unilaterally removing great swathes of substantive information. N-HH talk/edits 16:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • A lede is supposed to be a summary and refect a precis of the article sections - it is not supposed to contain every salient fact one can find on a topic. Collect (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree entirely, other than that a lead is of course very much meant to convey the most salient overall points about a topic. Or, for another formulation of that point, how about "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points". On what basis, then, are you suggesting the specific pieces of information that have been highlighted should be excluded? Are they not in the article? Are they not among the most important features of the topic? N-HH talk/edits 16:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

ps: I'll make that my last comment in this RFC as they are of course intended to be about outside comment and view. I've said more than enough overall, and have set out my view again quickly here too now. We certainly don't want this RFC to descend into the kind of crap and bickering that can be seen above. N-HH talk/edits

• Reccomended resolution to CorporateM's request, utilize the February 26th version as of my edit to it that Collect is supporting, add a sentence that it rose to prominence in the "early to mid twentieth century" (i.e. 1922-1945). Resolution to N-HH's notes: after the term "fascism" is mentioned initially in the intro, remove continued use of the term in the intro, replacing the term with "it" or "the ideology", such as "the ideology promoted" or "it promoted".--R-41 (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Makes sense. I think this should address one of the main apparent concerns of TFD and N-HH with any luck. Collect (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a poorly worded RfC. I agree with N-HH's version and dismiss Collect's argument that it should not be used because it is slightly longer. It is more important that a lead provide an accurate overview of the topic. TFD (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The RfC is fine in my view. I've proposed a above compromise involving including CorporateM's request to include a statement on the time period of its major influence from the early- to mid-twentieth century and N-HH's request to reduce repetitive use the word "fascism". Collect has agreed to that compromise. I disagree with some of the wording used in N-HH's version.--R-41 (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It is poorly worded because it does not explain the differences between the two versions, or the arguments for either. It does not even describe the alternatives, e.g., "version 1" and "version 2", making it harder for editors to reply. Therefore it is unlikely to attract much attention or focused discussion. TFD (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Then how should it be re-worded?--R-41 (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

@TFD: A good RFC does NOT explain differences or make any arguments. It should be neutral as the original was. Please see WP:RFC: "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template. Sign the statement with ~~~~<nowiki> (name and date) or <nowiki>~~~~~ (just the date)." The arguments and discussion should be left for the survey and discussion sections. I would like to see the RFC restored to its neutral state and also ask that the editor who posted it add their signature or at least date it. Thanks. Jojalozzo 23:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That is "a brief, neutral statement of the issue". Collect, who set up the RfC, failed to do that. If you think you can do better, go right ahead. Otherwise, please stop wasting my time with disingenuous comments. Are you planning to comment on the dispute or just criticise other editors? BTW, R-41 changed the question after I explained how Collect failed to word it properly. Notice the lack of response. TFD (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That claim is asinine - there is no way in hell that the wording I gave could be a scintilla more neutral! Period. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You did not "state the issue". It is not clear from your precis what is the difference between the two versions or why it is in dispute. What is it about my summary of the difference that you find incorrect? Feel free to write your own summary of the differences. TFD (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on which of two versions of the lead should be used Version 1 or Version 2. A comparison of the two versions can be found by clickinghere. The second version adds, among other things, that fascism "came to prominence in mid-20th century Europe", it is "[h]ostile to liberal democracy, socialism, and communism", it was lead by Mussolini and Hitler, and that after the Second World War, few parties described themselves as fascist. But it would have been better to discuss these changes amongst ourselves and only setting up an RfC if we failed to agree. I do not know with which of the changes you disagree or your reasons. TFD (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Re-worded RfC's introduction as per TFD's request.--R-41 (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd also add that there's a problem with the final para in version 1 as to the fairly weaselly way in which it deals with the far-right and left vs right issues (discussed in some detail in the threads above). Also there's a more fundamental problem with this sort of binary, all or nothing, choice RFC that nonetheless covers and subsumes multiple sub-issues. Even if a clear overall preference emerges from between the two options that happen to have been presented – neither of which btw are the current version – does that mean that any subsequent changes or additions to the lead, however minor, can be nixed by reference back to this RFC: "that wasn't in the approved lead" or especially "that sentence/implication was in the rejected lead"? I'm not sure that's the way WP editing needs to go. N-HH talk/edits 10:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• RFCBot selected me randomly to comment here. Given the lack of neutrality in the request, and the lack of civility in the discussion, this RFC is unlikely to achieve a valid consensus, so I will pass. Jojalozzo 03:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• It appears that R-41 and TFD have edited Collect's talk page posts in violation of policy (WP:TPO). I recommend they restore the original version and ask Collect to edit it if they think it needs improvement. Jojalozzo 15:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed what I perceived to be a personal attack.[3] However, since Collect supported R-41's version of the lead, I do not see how there is "lack of neutrality in the request." Do you think that R-41 chose a wording that was prejudicial to his version and if so, how is it not neutral? Do you think that Collect's original posting is more helpful in explaining the dispute? What do you not try to write your own explanation of the dispute? TFD (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No. You said, "Remove passive-agressive wording" which is not justified under talk page policy. As far as I can tell, R-41 removed Collect's post without Collect's permission. It doesn't matter if they agree on the subject or not. This is basic talk page policy, civility, and courtesy. The way things are going here, administrative involvement would be an unsurprising result. Jojalozzo 18:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I remove a personal attack, which was phrased in passive-aggressive language, which is allowed. Please read the words removed. Do you have any comments about which version you prefer, which is the subject of this discussion? TFD (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment here via the Feedback Request Service. While I don't find any of the suggestions ideal (not to be expected), I prefer number 2 which gives more historical context, which I think is appropriate for the theme. I notice that that lede (nb 2) is written in a mix of past and present tense which probably is a reflection of the fact that "classic" fascism as described in the lede is mostly a historical phenomena, but one might want to consider a bit more what tense should be used (and how consistent it should be). I would have left out the sentence "and asserts that "superior" nations and races should attain living space by displacing weak and inferior ones" which I think for the nation part is covered by imperalism and militarism, and focus on race varied quite a lot between different fascist movements. A sentence about emphasis on youth and masculinity could be added (it is included in the definitons by Gentile and Payne in the article body) With regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• I too was asked to comment here via the Feedback Request Service. Of the choices offered, I prefer the longer lede, which establishes context and is not unreasonable in an article of this length and depth. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment (I was also summoned to this page.) Considering the page length, the longer one makes more sense in this situation. I prefer the post-WWII context that it adds as well. Dreambeaver(talk) 21:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support the longer lead I'm here, invited by the RfC bot. After looking at both versions of the article, I would prefer the longer lead. WP:LEAD states that the lead should summarise the entire body of the article. It appears to me that the shorter lead is leaving out some important topics, and so doesn't adequately represent the entire article as it stands. As for length, the longer lead appears to be the appropriate length according to the guideline at WP:LEADLENGTH. LK (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion?

OK the above has been open for nearly two weeks now, and no one has commented for about five days. Excluding the four who were already involved in discussions prior to the RfC, we only have one substantive outside comment, from CorporateM, who suggested that they preferred the longer lead. Of active users, that sees 3 (me, TFD and CorporateM) to 1 (Collect) in favour of that more recent and expanded lead. In addition, no one has explained in any detail, in this RfC or in the prior discussions above, on what basis the main individual elements of the additions and copyediting that created the longer lead last month should be reverted to any older, truncated version.
In the absence of any such explanation or specific arguments, and in the absence of agreement here to use the shorter and older version (or indeed the actual current version, which is different again, although basically a close variation of the earlier, shorter one proposed here), the longer February 26 version should be restored. It obviously would remain open for editing and trimming if that was thought necessary; but what we do not appear to have agreement for is outright stripping of the additional material or reversion to reinsert elements of the older phrasing that were copyedited or amended for accuracy. N-HH talk/edits 09:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

And you elide the very existence of Jojo here -- why? The RfC was mangled by improper editing of the issue, has not run the normal time cource for an RfC and you remove one of the participants who made clear his opinions. Cheers - but your "conclusion" == ain't. Collect (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Because I said "substantive outside comment" and also because they had explicitly said they would "pass" on commenting on the issue itself. You may also have missed the question mark in the header I used for the section. Thank you, nonetheless, for your answer to it. N-HH talk/edits 12:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to note that we've had a few recent arrivals in the last few days, taking the "score" to 7 to 1 in favour of the longer lead. There was also at least one other person broadly in favour of it in the prior discussion, who has not commented at the RFC. We've now been in limbo, with an inadequate and inaccurate lead, for around three weeks, basically through one editor's veto. RFCs are meant to resolve disputes, not to put all editing of a lead on hold indefinitely due to a single objector, especially one who has failed to actually articulate their objections in any detail. Surely it's time to wrap this up: as noted, the legitimate specific points raised in comments (eg re tense etc)can be addressed where necessary by copyediting once the longer lead is restored. N-HH talk/edits 12:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You should change it to the longer lead. It Collect agrees, I would close the RfC. Otherwise it will close itself after it has run 30 days. TFD (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

No need for any more time - use the longer lede, but it is surely emendable as far as I can tell. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fascism in the press of the period

I'm curious to know how 1920s and 1930s newspapers around the world would refer to fascist governments of Germany and Italy at that time. Did they really call them (extremist/far/ultra) right-wing or did scholars and consequently the media simply agree to call them that after their demise in WWII? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.71.175.47 (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting point - a lot of viewpoints were based not on "right" v. "left" but mainly on "national pride" issues - with many German-Americans who were have been aghast at the Holocaust, liked Hitler in the very early 30s, and many Italian-Americans had pictutes of "Il Duce" in their living rooms. Many Romanians like "Vlad the Impaler" as a national hero, but his rep is not all that great here <g>. So going back to the archives (yuck - too many paywalled cites): they do not seem to characterise Hitler and Nazis as "right wing" except for their views on rearmament of Germany, but not especially otherwise. Hitler is associated with "anti-Semitism" by September 1930 in the NYT. (all of this is by looking in NYT archives and seeing first articles in which the salient terms both appear). Sforza's book on "European Dictatorships" appeared in 1930 ... how does he label various groups as of 1930? I know he was dsliked by Mussolinei <g>. TFD - do you have Sforza's book? Collect (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, this seems a slightly academic point but since it's been raised, here's a sample that a quick Google search has come up with (I don't have original source material to hand, plus links can be provided for these of course). Not definitive of course, but it slightly scuppers the suggestion that the use of the term is some kind of recent post-facto reimagining:

• Here you can see the lead paragraph of an NYT piece from 1938, which talks about "the extreme right wing fascist leader"
• p33 of this edition of Life – from 1948, so only just post-war – talks about "the assorted extreme right and the neo-Fascist parties"
• Again, just post-war, but on p11 of Triumph and Tragedy, Winston Churchill refers to "the extreme right-wing or fascist elements"
• Or, Upton Sinclair, writing in the introduction of a book published in 1935 – "the far right was active too, as the Silver Shirts and other fascist groups .."
• And, from the Spectator archive, in 1939, here's a description of British fascist leader Oswald Mosely as being "on the right wing". The same terminology/classification here, in a US paper in 1931.

N-HH talk/edits 23:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreeing with what I found - the term "right wing" (other than about German militarism) was not really dominant until not all that long before the war started - and was not generally applied to their economics in US newspapers until afterward. Collect (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"Right wing" was a European term picked up by Western writers to descibe the more conservative parties that literally sat on the right in legislatures, with the fascists seated on the far right. The term was rarely used to describe politics in English-speaking countries until much later. The term "left-wing" however became popular in English much earlier. TFD (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

@Collect. In what possible way does what I posted even come close to agreeing with or proving what you asserted first time round (which btw never referred to the term being "dominant" or to economics or only to use just before the war and afterwards) or even to what you are asserting now? No wonder these talk pages become ground down in the mire. As noted, especially with the paucity and randomness of the material available in open Google searches, no, we can't make a scientific judgment based on them, but the samples I linked to at the very least torpedo the suggestion that the terms right-wing and far/extreme right were not applied to fascism as a whole, in both the press and elsewhere, and from a pretty early stage. Certainly no evidence has been presented that suggests that it was ever seriously described as leftist or as some kind of "radical centre", or not rightist. Here are five more looked up very quickly, three from the early not later thirties:

• A wire-based report in a local US paper from 1930 – "the fascists of the extreme right"
• Another, from 1933 - which describes the Nazis as one of the "three great movements of the right", in both the sub-headline and the text
• The Glasgow Herald from 1932 – "the Nazis .. in combination with the other parties of the Right"
• Another US paper, this time from 1937 – "the extreme right ... the Belgian fascists"
• Another, from 1936 – "the Rightists .. represented by the rebelling Fascist generals"

I could go on, but it takes time and better resources than Google can offer, which I don't have to hand right now. Plus arguing with evidence seems to be a little futile. N-HH talk/edits 10:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Again - I found no use by the NYT indicating use of "right wing" until shortly before the war, other than with regard to German militarism. Your 1930 example is an editorial page column from the Toledo News-Bee. It is not a "wire-based report." In fact, the editorial contrasts the "extreme right" in a literary manner with the "extreme left" also in that editorial, and seeks arms reduction to ensure peace in our time, and call Hitler "exttreme right" specifically for seeking to "restore German's old military power." Exactly what I said, and what the NYT said. The editorial is also a reliable source <g> for calling Hitler "insane" and blames Mussolini for Hitler's beliefs! Sorry - it is not the source that you aver it is. Try finding a source which does not seek to compare "extreme right" to "extreme left" and sticks to factual material if you wish to date the general view of fascism as "extreme right" (outside of German militarism) prior to about 1936. And specifically any source at all linking fascism to the economic extreme right. I searched Questia, Highbeam, the NYT and Google and came up empty for such. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The NYT is not the whole of the media. Google and other archives do not have everything accessible. As for the 1930 Toledo-Bee piece, on a quick scan, I took the fluff at the top about the various news wires they use as referring to the factual sources for the specific piece immediately below, as a modern paper would. Instead, it's a masthead-style listing of the sources they use and reproduce in the paper more widely; fine, I stand corrected on that minor point of description in a talkpage post. The fact that it is an editorial/feature piece, which I happily grasped, is neither here nor there to the question at hand, which was: "were fascists described in the media as [extreme] right-wing in the 1920s and 1930s or is it a post-war reformulation?". The piece, along with the six others I cited from the 30s, is indeed evidence of the former and a plausible rebuttal of the latter. The fact that it describes them as right in distinction to the left (no shit!), or purportedly says they are only "right" because of/in respect of their militarism (which is not what the piece says anyway), is also neither here nor there. And, finally, who said, in this discussion or elsewhere, anything about the "economic extreme right", whatever that is anyway, or having to prove that fascism is so described? I know obfuscatory discussion and diversion is easier if you keep moving the goalposts, but can we please avoid that?

The evidence in respect of 1920s coverage appears to be thinner, but that could be for a variety of reasons, including the lack of open-source material, the relatively lower profile of fascism then, the fact that the left-right labels were less commonly applied to politics as a whole then; or, yes, the fact that fascism was, possibly, not commonly identified or described as right-wing in its early stages. That's entirely possible and I have never disputed it. But currently, the answer to the original question is simply "we don't know when it comes to the 1920s" – not "it was not so described" – and even if the latter were the case, the answer to a more pertinent question for WP purposes, as to what this means for our article content, is "not that much". N-HH talk/edits 12:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The question was whether 1920s and 1930s newspapers described Nazis and Fascists as Right-Wing. N-HH proved that they did...spectacularly. Collect can keep trying to pull the football away from Charlie Brown, but he already kicked the winning goal beforehand. Nobody said anything about dividing things into "economic" and "militarism", or "pre-war" and "post-war", and what-not. If we go that way, then President Obama is a "Right Winger" because of his military policies. LOL. You just look sad trying to defend your point, Collect...when you've already been proved wrong. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

He proved no such thing -- the newspaper use of "right wing" before the mid-30s about fascists per the NYT and the Toledo paper was specifically with regard to militarism and not to economics. As my post stated. As the NYT, Google, Questia and Highbeam searches showed. So far, that is where it stands - unless you manage to find a source saying specifically that the fascists were called "right wing" for economic beliefs before the mid-1930s. Meanwhile, try avoiding personal attacks. They only make the person making them look sad. Collect (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

As noted at least twice now, who ever said anything about "the mid-30s" or "right-wing economics"? The opening question certainly didn't, and I never claimed to have addressed either of those points or proved anything in respect of them. I'm still not sure what the significance of them even is as more general discussion points (and the Toledo piece, again, simply does not make the specific distinction between right-wing militarism and right-wing economics which you persist in claiming it does; like the multiple other pieces it simply places the broad descriptive label on fascism as a whole while noting some of its tendencies). Why is this so complicated? N-HH talk/edits 13:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Read the initial post in this section and note that I explicitly answered the question posed. That the IP above is the one who posed the question seems to elide your notice. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I have, several times, which is why I keep referring to it, including in my last answer – and why I keep pointing out what they did or did not ask, as well as pointing out that you did not answer the actual question posed and that the evidence does not appear to support the conclusions that you came to. And where on earth did I suggest, or did anything that I say imply, that the IP was not the person who asked the question? I think it's clear, as usual, who needs to brush up on their reading here. Cheers. N-HH talk/edits 09:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

personal attack removed --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC) as I noted - read and abide by WP:NPA. Collect (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead post-RFC

Per the RFC above, we had pretty convincing consensus for the longer lead, of the two presented. Almost immediately after that RFC was concluded and the longer lead restored, an IP editor appeared and has begun undermining it and whittling away at it. Obviously the lead is open for copyediting, and some of the changes are arguably the removal of repetition, but this seems a little too much too soon; not least because the editor in question is almost certainly the "retired" R-41, whose WP:OWN tendencies and rigid insistence on keeping the lead as they wrote it, and mis-citing of sources in the lead, helped cause endless pointless argument and edit-warring on this page as well as ultimately prompting the RFC. At least they are not engaging, as previously, in en-masse reversion of anyone else's changes to the lead, but a slow-burn restoration of their lead does not seem appropriate in the light of the RFC – especially when done anonymously and quietly via what borders on sockpuppetry and without any engagement on this talk page. N-HH talk/edits 09:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protect? ----Snowded ^TALK 09:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

We can only get semi-protection if dynamic IPs edit-war, but this is a static IP. It appears to be the same editor - located in Ontario, interested in fascism, Yugoslavia and social democracy, making numerous consecutive edits. However editors are allowed to retire an account and return. per Clean start, although this does not appear to be a good way to do it. TFD (talk) 10:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Plus with an occasional matching interest in Emperor Palpatine and that character's relationship to real political figures. I agree about clean starts (hence my use of "borders on ..") but, even if it is not R-41, they're butting against the RFC and threatening to bring us all back to the same old problems, which had at least partially been sorted by the retirement and the RFC. Also of course, CLEANSTART explicitly says:

• "the new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account. It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas and avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior".

We seem to have fallen short on that already. Anyway, let's see. I won't be looking in much over the rest of the long weekend. N-HH talk/edits 10:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

All of the above seems a gross violation of AGF, folks. If you wish to make an accusation of some sort, go to SPI, otherwise this is simply denigration of an editor which is contrary to policy and guidelines. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no violation, gross or otherwise, of AGF, we're just observing that there are problems with the edits and the editor's failure to use the talk page to discuss them. Those problems are compounded, by definition, if it is indeed the same person as was involved in similar actions before, which seems pretty likely on the evidence. And let's quote AGF -

• "Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice"; oh, and
• "Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed; exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others"

No one's accusing the IP editor of malice or anything else relating to their motives for what they are doing, or – yet – accusing them of any outright breach of the prohibitions on sockpuppeting. N-HH talk/edits 13:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You are making accusations about an editor not related to improving the article but simply to snark about an editor who was chased away by two editors -- who shall be nameless. That is an abuse of the article talk page. If you wish to snarkinly call an IP a "sock" try doing it at SPI and nt here -- doing it here is asinine at best. Collect (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You have not explained your position on content and instead attack other editors. You set up an RfC on two versions of the lead without explaining why you preferred one over the other. Your behavior is not constructive. As we discussed with Gwen Gale, you identify disputes in which I am involved and oppose me without any consideration about the merits of the discussion, or even any knowledge about the dispute. If you have any opinions on this topic then please explain them rather than presenting personal attacks against other editors. TFD (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

You have made scurrilous and repeated charges about another editor - repeatedly and in a bald-faced manner. Yet you accuse me of somehow attacking you? I consider this exchange to be a wonderful example of Monty Pythonesquery for sure -- and you need not reply with yet another attack on me for deigning to think that article talk pages are intended for discussing improvments to the article. Collect (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on Collect, its pretty self-evident why not just own up to it? ----Snowded ^TALK 15:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

R-41 has now been blocked for sockpuppetry as the (whittling) IP. "Scurrilous charges"? Did someone say Pythonesque? Writegeist (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

So the issue is resolved for now. TFD (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. And, @Collect, I was consistently and very much focused on the actual edits and (non)-improvement of the article, from my first words onwards. The point that the person making them was rather obviously R-41 – as now confirmed – was a secondary point, but one I was perfectly entitled to mention without having to put R-41 through a formal SPI. I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that you simply do not read what other people have written before sounding off or taking the moral high ground. As for "personal attacks against other editors" and "abuse of the article talk page", you are of course the one describing another user's perfectly reasonable observations – mine – as "asinine" and accusing others of lacking good faith. Maybe you do not even read what you have written yourself. Anyway, perhaps now this latest distraction is done with, people might be able to focus on reasonable changes and tweaks to the lead. For example, it does contain arguable repetition and flips between tenses, as noted by third parties at the RFC, some of which may be worth looking at and/or fixing (although I think there is some justification in principle for mixed use of past and present). N-HH talk/edits 13:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

And your post above is designed to aid this article in what manner, pray tell? It looks to me more like ad hom than anything else. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

QED. N-HH talk/edits 15:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"Opposed to socialism" in lead

The "opposed to socialism" was in the lead approved in the recent RFC. It is not controversial to suggest that fascism opposes socialism, as that concept is usually understood and as it is set out in the WP article that the phrase links to (notwithstanding "National Socialism" or the radio talkshow gag that says "fascists are all socialists really"). It is in the body of the article, eg with the Mussolini quote "We declare war against socialism". Now perhaps you can argue the toss about this point, but the person who removed it earlier today did not do that. When the removal was challenged, ie when I restored it, that put the onus on them to do so if they wanted it out again. Knee-jerk reverting that restoration of the consensus lead, whether by the original removing editor or a third party, isn't the way forward here. The lead should be restored and the case made for removing the word. N-HH talk/edits 15:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Even the most basic understanding of Facist regimes would support the inclusion. I have restored it ----Snowded ^TALK 15:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. TFD (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the claim requires further exposition - as some forms of "fascism" clearly have not "opposed socialism" vide Peronism etc. As to the claim that this is "intuitively obvious" that fascism "opposes socialism" - the counter-examples belie what some people "know" here. In short - the topic is more complex than a single word answer. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The Socialist Party of Argentina was persecuted by Peron, while Hitler went into coalition with the Conservative Party, while Mussolini went into coalition with the liberals. Odd that you would single out socialists for exclusion. BTW, sources dispute whether Peron was a fascist. TFD (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting claim that Peronism is not fascism that you "know" to be the "truth". See Argentina, 1943-1976: The National Revolution and Resistance Donald C. Hodges; University of New Mexico Press 1976. Or [4] The Crisis of Argentine Capitalism by Paul Lewis, UNC Press 1990 :

Although there are some resemblances to Bismarckian Germany and imperial Japan, Peronism's development model was closer to that of fascism. The significant difference is the adoption of an inward-oriented, as opposed to an export-oriented, strategy. Germany and Japan were essentially aggressively commercial states, whereas fascist economics aim at autarky--at least in all aspects of production relevant to military needs. Those who may object at this point that Perón was a populist, not a fascist, because he was supported by labor do not sufficiently understand just how populist Italian Fascism or German Nazism was. In terms of social welfare benefits, job security, and psychological gratification there was little difference between Fascist, Nazi, and Peronist labor legislation. The same may be said with respect to official control over the unions, or with the personal popularity of Hitler, Mussolini, or Perón among their respective proletariats. Fascism, as an expression of extreme nationalism, may be aggressive toward foreigners or certain minorities, but within the national group--as defined by the fascists--the emphasis is upon solidarity, cooperation, and the elimination of artificial social barriers. In terms of class relationships, both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were more democratic than the regimes they replaced. The idea that fascism is organized upper- or middle-class oppression of the workers is a gross oversimplification, at best. The development model that Perón followed, therefore, may be considered fascist in its general outline. He had conceived of it while still only an obscure instructor at the War College: the nation in arms. His belief in it was confirmed by his experiences in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy before the war, and he began applying it as labor secretary even before he achieved full power. Indeed, Perón's career reveals that he was not the cynical opportunist so often depicted by his enemies. He made many tactical switches in his life, but the ideas he believed in remained remarkably consistent: the inevitably of conflict between nations; the need for every nation to prepare itself militarily to the utmost of its capacity; preparedness for modern total war requiring the total mobilization of national resources--political, cultural, and moral, as well as economic; and the necessity of a strong state to direct the process.

And, of course, Lipset [5]

The third type of social movement which has often been described as fascist is Peronism, the movement and ideology which formed around Juan Peron, President of the Argentine from 1946 to 1955. Unlike right-wing antidemocratic tendencies based on the more well-to-do and traditionalist strata and those tendencies I prefer to call "true" fascism -- centrist authoritarianism, based on. the liberal middle classes, primarily the self-employed -- Peronism, much like Marxist parties, has been oriented toward the poorer classes, primarily urban workers but also the more impoverished rural population. Peronism has a strong-state ideology quite similar to that advocated by Mussolini.68 It also has a strong anti- parliamentary populist content, stressing that the power of the party and the leader is derived directly from the people, and that parliamentarianism results in government by incompetent and corrupt politicians. It shares with right-wing and centrist authoritarianism a strong nationalist bent, blaming many of the difficulties faced by the country on outsiders-international financiers and so forth. And like the other two forms of extremism, it glorifies the position of the armed forces.

Need more? Collect (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Modern scholarship differs. You have long defended the new "consensus theory" for example which says only Italy and Germany were fascist. And you are avoiding the issue. Why do you want to say that fascists opposed liberalism and conservatism, but not socialism, when clearly they (Peron too) were far more opposed to socialism that to liberalism or conservatism. Your position would promote a POV. TFD (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

These are, indeed, "modern scholarship" and that excuse to ignore them is silly and inane here. 2008 [6] is pretty clear The Argentine scholar and jurist Carlos S. Fayt was one of the first to offer a systematic presentation of the argument that Peronism was simply the Argentine version of Italian fascism. He gave six reasons for this view: the fact that Peronism, like fascism, prioritized action over doctrine; that it extolled the virtues of order, hierarchy, and discipline; that it rejected both liberalism and Marxism; that it identified the movement and the doctrine with the nation and with the ruler and his wishes; that it rejected class war and sought the gradual institution of a corporative regime; and, finally, that it promoted an expanding conception of state goals and the subordination of the individual to such objectives as the greatness and unity of the nation.4

and 44. Perón himself never denied this eclecticism: “In the first place, we are not sectarian … We obey facts … If there is something in communism we can take, we take it, names don't frighten us. If fascism, anarchism, or communism has something good, we take it.” Quoted in Cristián Buchrucker, Nacionalismo y peronismo: La Argentina en la crisis ideológica mundial (1927–1955)(Buenos Aires: Sudamericana, 1987), 325. It should be recalled that the Peronist doctrine was developed at a relatively late stage, after Perón was already president, and even then it was never really put into any kind of systematic order. One of the first efforts to systematize the doctrine can be found in Raúl A. Mende, El justicialismo—doctrina y realidad peronista (Buenos Aires: Doctrinarias, 1950). Peron direct quote.

And sad to say - I find no modern scholarly articles disputing the relationship of Peronism to fascism. If you wish to claim otherwise, kindly provide the relaiable sources, which I doubt exist as you assert. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Peron said he was "eclectic", taking elements of anarchism, communism, fascism (although no mention of socialism). If you decide to use this source, then you cannot say he was fascist. Anyway to say someone takes elements of another ideology does not mean one does not oppose that ideology. TFD (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

What part of If fascism, anarchism, or communism has something good, we take it is difficult to comprehend? Collect (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Which part don't you comprehend and what part do you comprehend as meaning Peronism is a form of fascism? Anyway a quick search of my own in Google Books reveals considerable doubt among serious writers and sources about whether Peronism can be classified as a form of fascism or representative of it. Your quietly switching from referring to it being a "form of" fascism to talking about a "relationship" between the two actually seems to be you tacitly accepting that without being willing to openly acknowledge as much. I'm not going to take up more time and space providing links or excerpts, since the entire discussion is not germane to improving the article, let alone to the specific point at hand, which is about whether, in the broad context of a lead, we can fairly safely say that fascism is/was [generally] opposed to socialism [as commonly understood, and described in the page being linked to]. N-HH talk/edits 22:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I presented multiple "modern scholarly books" connecting Peronism to Fascism. And calling it "fascism" im fact. Alas -- how many sources do you require before what you WP:KNOW is negated? Twenty? Thirty? Forty? The Seizure of Power: Fascism in Italy, 1919-1929 Adrian Lyttelton; Routledge 2004 in Argentina, Peron was to show that a dictator who came to power with a 'Fascist' programme could construct a successful government formula on an alliance with labour.

Latin Fascist Elites: The Mussolini, Franco, and Salazar Regimes Paul H. Lewis; Praefer 2002 Right-wing fascists are violent reactionaries who use extremist tactics and modern mobilization techniques to defend traditional cultural values and economic privileges. They would include Salazar's Portugal, Franco's Spain, Dolfuss' Austria, and Horthy's Hungary. Left-wing fascists are antidemocratic, antimarxist movements that compete with communists for working class support. Often they are the creation of reform- minded army officers, among whom Argentina's Juan Peron and—to a lesser extent—the “Estado Novo” of Getulio Vargas in Brazil offer the best examples

New Business Opportunities in Latin America: Trade and Investment after the Mexican Meltdown Louis E. V. Nevaer Argentine Eva Peron displays European psychosis. The crusading zealousness, the overpowering fascism--of the Left and of the Right--the intolerance born of competing claims are all hallmarks of the tragic histories of the Europeans

And so on. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You need a source that contradicts the source that says fascism opposes socialism, not just some fringe synthesis of sources. TFD (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I had already addressed that -- what I addressed here was the erroneous claim that Peronism was not fascist. Which I did with numerous "modern" sources. In spades. That you find these major sources (published by university presses, Routledge, Praeger etc.) to be "fringe" verges on idiotic auto-rejection of anything which contradicts what you personally know to be the truth. Amazingly enough, Wikipedia is not TFD-pedia using what TFD asserts to be the WP:TRUTH. We use the sources, and I provided damn well enough sources to back my position whick all you have offered is what you "know." Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The fringe view you are presenting is that fascism is not anti-socialist which you synthesize by presenting sources saying Peronism was fascist and that it drew from socialism. See the World Fascism. A Historical Encyclopedia, p. 511, entry for Peron: "Right-wing populist military dictator in Argentina.... His political philosphy has been compared by many to fascism."[7] Do you think that right-wing populism (Fox News Channel, Tea Party, etc.) is not opposed to socialism? TFD (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

World Fascism. A Historical Encyclopedia, edited by Cyprian P. Blamires, Paul Jackson, page 610 on the face of it, fascism should seemingly be regarded as a variety of socialism. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

On the face of it, the whale should seemingly be regarded as a variety of fish. What is your point? TFD (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

if you read source, or at least the page listed it will help you understand the context of this quote, if you do not have access, i can copy it and email it to you. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article, not to explain to you why you have misrepresented sources. You appear not to understand what the terms "on the face of it" and "seemingly" mean. TFD (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

accusing me of misrepresenting a source you have not read is bizarre. accusing me of the same for posting a quote without my own comment is absurd. please make your case or retract your accusation. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt you. :-) I advise all contributors (if they already did not do it) to read the book of Renzo de Felice, "The interpretations of Fascism". This work is outdated (de Felice shortly before his death refused to allow a reprint in Italy) but explains very clearly the different interpretations of Fascism from its onset until 1975. What is interesting is the method that de Felice adopted: of course he had his own interpretation, but here he does not take part for any of them, just explaining them. I think that in this article we should adopt the same method, covering the different views, although contradictory (for some scholars for example, peronism belongs to fascism, while other historians reject this vehemently) instead of discussing which is the best (discussion which apparently brings nowhere). Regards from Rome Alex2006 (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

And, to bring this back on track a little to the original point, rather than discussing Peronism and what might be the case in respect of fascism and socialism "seemingly" or "on the face of it", perhaps we could look to what the Blamires encyclopedia cited above actually says in conclusion about fascism and socialism and the relationship between them: "Fascists considered socialists and communists as their main political opponents. They rejected socialism in particular because of its stress on the idea of equality and international solidarity ... In Germany, conservatives and Nazis accused the socialists of having deliberately caused the German defeat in World War 1 ... Nazis and other right-wing extremists normally used the term 'November criminals' [to refer to the SPD]". N-HH talk/edits 09:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This is fully correct. However, considering Nazi as "fascist" is again a matter of interpretation. De Felice, Sternhell, Mosse, only to cite a few, would not agree at all. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is debate around that, but mainstream discourse and scholarship tends to treat Nazism as a subset, or at least a variant, of fascism. This WP page certainly includes Nazism (there is of course a separate page here for Italian Fascism specifically, for example). Plus the quote I selected above does of course start by talking about fascism as a whole, before going into more specifics on the situation in Germany (the wider text there in the actual book includes wider comments about Mussolini and Italy). N-HH talk/edits 10:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This depends again on the definition of mainstream. De Felice is considered the greatest italian historian about fascism, and the greatest historian of Mussolini worldwide, so in Italy he is still "the mainstream". But we fall back into what I wrote above... :-) Alex2006 (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

See The Fascism Reader, pp. 15 ff., While De Felice is considered a great historian, his interpretations of fascism are controversial. That btw is true of a number of fascism scholars.[8] I understand that Italians would want to distance fascism from nazism, and similarly the French try to distance the French far right from fascism. TFD (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This is right. For the same reason was born the myth of the Italians as good people ("Italiani, brava gente") in opposition to the Germans (always bad) which was not always true. De Felice to me has been a giant as pure historian, being able to dig in the documents buried in the archives, newspaper, and so on. In his interpretation what can be considered valid also today is the dichotomy between Fascism as movement and Fascism as regime (of course in Italy). On the contrary, his idea about Italian fascism as a left revolutionary movement is not accepted, although this was apparently an "Ausgangspunkt" for Sternhell's analysis.Anyway, my POV :-) is that Fascism and Nazism in many points are light years away: conception of racism, relationship between state and party, "weltanschauung" are totally different. Alex2006 (talk) 07:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

transition from socialism to fascism

To many who have watched the transition from socialism to fascism at close quarters the connection between the two systems has become increasingly obvious, but in the democracies the majority of people still believe that socialism and freedom can be combined., Road to Serfdom, page 31, Hayek, Routledge, 2001 Darkstar1st (talk) 10:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

What is the point here in relation to content of the article? The talk page is not a forum for vague discussions about the relationship between socialism, fascism and democracy, let alone one kicked off by a Hayek quote. N-HH talk/edits 10:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

since the quote is about the subject of this article, the point should be obvious, are you making a joke? i do not understand your comment about Hayek, as if he would not considered a rs on the subject? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

What change are you proposing to the content based on this one quote from one source? More generally, Hayek is a reliable source for his own views and his views on fascism generally may be worth noting, attributed to him as his own opinions. The Road to Serfdom tends to focus on interpretation as much as on the exposition of clear-cut "facts" that were not otherwise known. It is a highly opinionated and polemical piece of work, and was intended to be so. N-HH talk/edits 11:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A quote from Hayek?? Seriously??? If we use Hayek, maybe we should quote Stalin or Mao on the matter too. No?? That would be biased and stupid?? Of course it would, and it is just as stupid using a quote from Hayek! Secondly, it doesn't help either that Hitler opposed all forms of real socialism. He supported his own distinct form of socialism which had nothing to do with real socialism, something he made clear in some of his speeches. --TIAYN (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Quoting Hayek as "RS" on a page like this would be like quoting Michael Moore as "RS"... His views were BEYOND "fringe" in relation to stuff like this. -- Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 11:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

i am surprised none of you realized Hayek has been a prominent source addressing the very Nazi/Fascism/Socialism debate for years. Criticisms_of_socialism#Social_and_political_effects Hayek argued that the road to socialism leads society to totalitarianism, and argued that fascism and Nazism were the inevitable outcome of socialist trends in Italy and Germany during the preceding period. and Milton Friedman argued that the absence of voluntary economic activity makes it too easy for repressive political leaders to grant themselves coercive powers. Friedman's view was also shared by Friedrich Hayek and John Maynard Keynes, both of whom believed that capitalism is vital for freedom to survive and thrive. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

We all know who Hayek was...but it's only people who heard about him on The Glenn Beck Show that think he has any relevance to the modern discussion of Nazism/Fascism. Again, I'm sure Michael Moore could be considered a "prominent critic" of gun ownership in the USA, but that doesn't mean that his books are "RS" on the subject. You seem incapable of discerning the difference, which is kinda sad. (Note: I just checked over Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Michael Moore isn't even mentioned...which is as it should be...) -- Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 12:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hayek's Road to Serfdom and Constitution of Liberty are polemical works which are popular with Birchers and other American "conservatives" but have no place here. Darkstar1st, did you ever read these books, not just excerpts? Hard to believe that anyone would take them seriously. TFD (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

100 best non-fiction books of the twentieth century compiled by National Review magazine yes i read it. are there any books critical of socialism you could recommend instead? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

To learn about socialism you should read a neutral book, it would be strange to read a critical book about socialism since then you wouldn't learn anything. You wouldn't read one of Lenin's work on fascism, and you wouldn't read a pro-North Korea book published in North Korea.. What happened to neutrality? --TIAYN (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• If I might opine in recollecting some past study of Italian syndicalism and fascism, fascism is only related to socialism in that the syndicalist movement grew out of a reaction to foreign international capitalism. I believe that Gregor basically describes it a movement to insulate and protect local economic configurations and culture from encroachment and subversion by international capital.

WWI exacerbated the problems, and whereas there may have been some in favor of nationalizing industries, the movement was not international in outlook like socialism and communism. Fascism was opposed to socialism, communism and laissez faire capitalism.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Everyone knows it's far-left, the bleeding Nazis have Socialistic in their name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Remove the anti-socialism, socialism stuff from the intro

Yes, I am the user R-41, no I do not intend to stay. I have used this anon account because I saw pointless trifling at the Fascism article over the tiresome ranting back and forth "It is socialist!" followed by "No, it is not socialist!", that doesn't help in describing what it is - "what specifically did it promote?" is what should be addressed. But that is my take, back to getting out of Wikipedia before being sucked back into the full swing of it, I expect a potentially aggressive reaction to this pragmatic resolution to this back-and-forth argument repeatedly played out on the Fascism article, so you can choose yo take the proposal I recommended or leave it, it is a way to end this back-and-forth nonsense on that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.67.28 (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There isn't a whole lot of "ranting" or "back and forth" over the lead on the page itself, about socialism or anything else, so I'm not quite clear in what respect that is a problem. As for defining by opposition, that is not only often quite a useful tool, generally speaking, but in the case of fascism is especially apposite since fascism defines itself to a considerable extent by what it is opposed to and the wide range of things that it does not like. Arguably the lead has a bit too much repetition in places but it shouldn't be hacked out altogether – especially not by an edit that also removed elements of the lead that were pointing out what fascism was in favour of, which I thought was precisely what you were asking for. Finally, I don't think coming back to simply start cutting out things you've been trying to remove for a while, despite the RFC mostly backing them being there, is a "pragmatic resolution". N-HH talk/edits 14:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

One final point worth considering: Is it really clear from all the sourced information in the article that fascism as a whole was "anti-socialist" or was it really "non-socialist" - as in socialism as the definition of social ownership of the means of production which no fascist regime achieved. Yes they did persecute socialist organizations, but so did Stalin in practice. Italian Fascism wavered, first from 1914 to 1919 it claimed it was a nationalist socialist movement - there are quotes from the 1914 to 1919 period that can be found in this article and the Fasci d'Azione Rivoluzionaria article that show the early Italian Fascist movement declaring support for socialism, then in 1919 it declared its opposition to socialism by claiming that it opposed it because of socialism's opposition to nationalism, then in the 1930s it shifted to anti-Marxist themes and started returning to anti-capitalist themes, and by the Italian Social Republic regime, it presented itself as radically anti-capitalist, promoting work councils, etc. Italian Fascism shifted all over the place. Of course, Italian Fascism always presented itself as its own beast, a new ideology altogether that could get away with attacking all other ideologies. However not all generic fascists presented themselves that way - and of course as we all know Nazism or National Socialism in theory claimed it espoused some type of socialism and clearly sought to appeal to socialistic people through its revolutionary socialist rhetoric, so would Nazism really be "anti-socialist" in the theory of its ideology rather than effectively "non-socialist" in the conventional definition of socialism involving social ownership of the means of production? Plus with the rise of Nazi Germany as an ally to Fascist Italy, if you look at Italian Fascist propaganda, Italian Fascism in the 1930s dropped directly anti-socialist rhetoric and replaced it with anti-Marxist rhetoric and restored directly anti-capitalist rhetoric, by 1937 and 1938 Fascist Italy was having contests for anti-bourgeois cartoons due to accusations that the Italian bourgeoisie were not doing enough to help Italy's development. I've noted that DIREKTOR on the Nazism article has said that Nazism did use substantial socialistic ideas in its theory. As DIREKTOR has said there, we need to divorce theory from practice. Theory-wise fascism definately does not meet the conventional definition of socialism as meaning social ownership of the means of production, but as noted in the intro it definately does adopt socialistic themes.

Alternative proposal

The above considered, perhaps the a good way to clarify what is being meant in the intro this is to address the following: - what is it within socialism that fascism in theory opposes (wholescale social ownership of the means of production, revolutionary socialism's commitment to international class conflict as opposed to national unity, and egalitarianism perhaps?), just as what is it within capitalism that fascism in theory opposes (tendencies towards laissez-faire, materialism, plutocracy being the cause of class division that created national disunity perhaps?).--184.145.67.28 (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Latest upsurge re "socialism"

OK, so this one is undergoing one of its occasional exhumations, with people removing mention of fascism being opposed to socialism while saying in edit summaries that Hitler and Mussolini were "fascist socialist" and that fascism is "largely socialist" and then a couple of others diving in to support those edits. Can those doing that do the following things -

• Put Jonah Goldberg and Rush Limbaugh out of your minds, as well as the rather irrelevant points that "Mussolini used to be a socialist, you know" and "the Nazi party is called the National Socialist party, after all"
• Realise that WP is not the place to rewrite the standard, mainstream terminology for and classification of political groups and ideas. Over 95% of serious writers place fascism, including Nazism, for convenience if nothing else, on the far right and describe it primarily as a form of extremist nationalism not as a form of socialism
• Have a look at some of the things actually cited in the article and on this talk page, including World Fascism. A Historical Encyclopedia, which explicitly says: "Fascists considered socialists and communists as their main political opponents. They rejected socialism in particular because of its stress on the idea of equality and international solidarity"
• For specifics, please do Google Book searches for the likes of Mussolini + "break with socialism" or Mussolini + "against socialism". Look up "Hitler +SPD" and "Franco +PSOE" to see what those two dictators did to their country's mainstream socialist parties when they got the chance. I could spend hours digging up quotes and wheeling them out for you, but I don't see why I should have to

And, finally, please try to first justify any changes to the agreed and relatively stable lead on this talk page, if you really think you can do that based on anything other than vague original research and personal opinion? Thanks. N-HH talk/edits 09:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

And as usual, the same POV warriors always show their support for the ignorant newbie editors who make these edits. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Follow WP:AGF and WP:NPA please. There is good reason not to state the opposition to "socialism" as fundamental to "fascism" as has been acknowledged in many sources. The wording ought to be "Many fascist groups oppose socialism" at most. I specifically refer to the clearly fascist Juan Peron, among others. The opposition to "communism" and to "capitalism" is far better documented, indeed. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 13:14, 19 May 2013

But not everyone agrees with the view that Peron was fascist... In Argentine he is not considered fascist by the vast majority of people. calling Peron fascist is therefore controversial.... --TIAYN (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Peron is of marginal significance, at best. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

See "Interpretations of Peronism" in Peronism and Argentina, pp. 3. ff.[9] The view of peronism as a form of socialism is not taken seriously today and in any case it argued that peronism was not fascist. Peron came to power by defeating a coalition of conservatives, liberals, socialists and communists, and persecuted the Socialist Party. TFD (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

See multitude of cites below, and note that Lipset and a slew of major authorities use the term "fascist" about JP. And since we use reliable sources, the fact that he is "still popular in Argentina" has no effect on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Neither is it "clear" of course that Peron was a fascist (or a socialist; indeed much of the literature, despite the cherry-picked cites below, focuses precisely on how exceptionally difficult it is to define Peronism) nor is fascism's opposition to capitalism "better documented" than its opposition to socialism; nor does it follow from the fact that some sources might describe Peron as a fascist, as having fascist tendencies or as a dictator that therefore the statement about opposition to socialism can suddenly be struck, based on the deduction of one WP editor. I know no one has to listen to me when I suggest avoiding "vague original research and personal opinion", but that is the way WP should work and yet it is what we seem to have with those two claims. Since we've exhumed this argument, we could always also disinter leaders of the SPD and leading capitalist industrialists from the 1930s (and the equivalents from Italy, Spain etc) and ask each of them who felt more "opposed" by the Nazis and fascists. N-HH talk/edits 14:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"Cherry-picked cites"? Sorry fella - these are the mainstream and pretty unanimous views in the field, and you really don;t want me to list a few hundred here for you to read through, really! As to fascism's opposition to capitalism:

The thesis that fascism is basically a middle-class movement representing a protest against both capitalism and socialism, big business and big unions, is far from original. Many analysts have suggested it ever since fascism and Nazism first appeared on the scene. Nearly twenty-five years ago, the economist David Saposs stated it well:

Fascism...[is] the extreme expression of middle-classism, or populism.... The basic ideology of the middle class is populism.... Their ideal was an independent small property- owning class consisting of merchants, mechanics, and farmers. This element...now designated as middle class, sponsored a system of private property, profit, and competition on an entirely different basis from that conceived by capitalism.... From its very inception it opposed "big business" or what has now become known as capitalism. (Lipset) Political Man:The Social Bases of Politics

Unless you wish to say Lipset does not meet WP:RS, or course. Post this at RS/N and see the results. Collect (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite apart from your evident and continuing inability to understand that one writer's view, however distinguished, does not necessarily define a topic, the above post surely qualifies as the moment you finally fell arse over tit for everyone to see. I mean, let's remember the actual point we are discussing here and read that quote again: "fascism is basically a middle-class movement representing a protest against both capitalism and socialism". N-HH talk/edits 15:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow -- when in doubt strew aspersions around like rose petals! Sorry N-HH - I do not play that game here -- I suggest you not do so either. You had asserted two things: first that it is not well-established that fascism opposes capitalism, and second that Peron is not generally considered fascist. I have provided a plenitude of sources on both. What you would have to argue is that Peron specifically was anti-socialist to make any sense. Is this clear now? And note that I said we could say fascism is generally "anti-socialist", but that asserting in any way that it always "anti-socialist" is not borne out by clear mainstream consensus of scholars. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I was merely highlighting the fact that the very quote you selected undermined your own case, which I found rather amusing given all the lengthy and tedious alleyways you drag talk pages into. And, as a matter of fact, I have not made either of the assertions you attribute to me. Do you actually read anything properly before blowing off? And, most importantly, you still have not provided any source or analysis that supports the specific claims or assumptions you seem to be making. N-HH talk/edits 16:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

As it did nothing of the sort at all, I think you are whistling in the wind - as for your ad homs -- they do not work. I do not give a damn what you write here -- but when you are uncivil, you will at some point be noticed by others as having naught of value in your posts. And those 'thingies' after quotes with numbers in them -- they represent "cites" in Wikipedia jargon. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Just as your total non-sequiturs and studious avoidance and deflection of any substantive point put to you will be noticed by those same others, I'd imagine. N-HH talk/edits 16:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Peron

It would be no exaggeration to say that Mussolini was the first modern dictator, on whom many other would-be dictators, including Oswald Mosley in Britain, Peron in Argentina, the Croatian Fascist Pavelić and even Adolf Hitler sought to model themselves. The nature of Mussolini's leadership, and above all the quality of his political judgement, has been hotly debated among historians. Though Mussolini had undoubted charisma and political intelligence with which to maintain his power over Fascism and the Italian people, Denis Mack Smith has tended to see his talents as lying chiefly in the areas of acting and propaganda (Mack Smith, 1981, pp. 111-14). The press, radio and the cinema played an increasingly important role in projecting his image as the omniscient, omnipotent and indispensable ruler of Italy. Pollard [10]

Left-wing fascists are antidemocratic, antimarxist movements that compete with communists for working class support. Often they are the creation of reform- minded army officers, among whom Argentina's Juan Peron and—to a lesser extent—the “Estado Novo” of Getulio Vargas in Brazil offer the best examples. Lewis [11]

In Argentina, the same social problems that earlier this century gave rise to Juan Peron, an opportunist fascist who appealed to populism and became a ruthless dictator Nevaer [12]

the government of President Juan Domingo Peron ( 1946-1955), had fascist tendencies--seen in its tight controls over the press and the Axis sympathizers within its ranks. Pollard [13]

In Argentina, the Fascist Juan Peron took power in 1943. McCraw [14]

In the 1940s, Argentina’s Juan Domingo Perón used government agencies for political gain and created a popular form of fascism called Perónism Forbes [15]

A few hundred more cites would seem to confirm that it is not fringe at all to call Peron a Fascist.

A. F. K. Organski includes Perón's regime among his “syncratic,” or fascist, systems, along with Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain. Seymour Martin Lipset also classifies Peronism as fascist, but because of its working class appeal he treats it as a unique kind of “fascism of the left.” Other noted writers on fascism, such as Alan Cassels and Eugen Weber, also place Perón in the fascist camp. As for specialists on Argentine politics, José Luís Romero, George Blanksten, Arthur P. Whitaker, and Peter Smith all trace Perón's ideological inspiration back to Mussolini's Italy. names some of the foremost experts in the field with this opinion [16]

Let's see -- hundreds of cites, including scholarly books and journals, major authorities in the field (Lipset et al) and so on ... yep -- we are on solid ground using "fascism" in regard to Juan Peron. Collect (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Some of the above may be relevant pieces for any discussion about whether Peron was a fascist and, of course, show that the description is often deployed polemically by interested, partisan sources (eg the author of the Forbes article) and that, yes, it is a genuinely contested point among academics as well. These points are well known. However, the nature of Peronism is not the main point of the discussion above, in respect of which you seem to be citing them, nor is this the article about Peron or Peronism. N-HH talk/edits 14:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Um -- Lipset is about as major as you can get -- yet you say it only "may" be relevant? Or possibly that Lipset is a "polemic"? Or a "partisan" source? Note the reason why I mentioned Peron in the first place was to assert that Wikipedia should not imply all fascists hold a particular belief where there is clear evidence that it may be generally true at best. And since the article is about fascism in general, it is absurd to say that one type is "not covered". Now do you really wish to see if Lipset is considered a "reliable source" at RS/N or will you concede that much here? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Where did I dispute Lipset as a source? What part of my acknowledgement that some serious academic sources, as well as polemical ones, will describe Peron as a fascist (while others will not) passed you by exactly? The issue of relevance arises because the point at dispute is whether fascism is correctly described as being opposed to socialism. What you need for that is a source that directly addresses that question and asserts something along the lines of "fascism was well disposed to socialism" or "fascists teamed up with socialists" – not esoteric tangents about the nature of Peronism, followed by your own personal assertions about what conclusions we might be able to draw from that. N-HH talk/edits 15:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It sounds like you are trying to base a definition of fascism as not anti-socialism based on a narrow definition of Peronism. As has been said above, the article is not about Peronism, and Peron is of marginal significance to the study of fascism per se, even if there are aspects of what he did that some scholars characterize as resembling fascism, etc.

Maybe this would relate to WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

In your cherry-picking you have come up with passing references to peronism as fascism in books that are not even about fascism. Your first excerpt (Pollard) does not even call Peron a fascist. Your second misrepresents the author, he is quoting Lipset. Indeed in the 1950s, Lipset and other followers of the Communist view that called all anti-Communist dictators "fascist" considered Peron to be fascist, and one finds the occasional reference to him and his ilk as fascist. And of course the authors who considered him to be fascist considered him to be opposed to socialism, which btw is why they called him fascist. TFD (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Um -- I cited books well into the 21st century. 22nd century books are not yet on the Internet. Last I checked, the 1950s were not in the 21st century, but clearly your mileage may vary. Collect (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

What on earth is the above comment responding to or meant to mean? N-HH talk/edits 16:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you please read your sources before providing them because they do not say what you think they do. Don't throw as much mud as you can against into wall of text, hoping some of it will stick. TFD (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Repetition in the intro

There is sourced material in the intro that says: "Fascism views political violence, war, and imperialism as a means to achieve national rejuvenation[3][6][7][8] and asserts that nations and races deemed superior should attain living space by displacing ones deemed weak or inferior.[9]" It is preceded by material that was added saying that it has "emphasis on ultranationalism, ethnocentrism, and militarism", then later on it says "Fascist movements emphasized a belligerent, virulent form of nationalism (chauvinism) and a fear of foreign people (xenophobia), which they frequently linked to an exaggerated ethnocentrism."; and then another sentence emphasizing militarism again: "The typical fascist state also embraced militarism, a belief in the rigors and virtues of military life as an individual and national ideal, meaning much of public life was organized along military lines and an emphasis put on uniforms, parades, and monumental architecture." These essentially repeat what is already described in the sourced sentence that was there before those additions. Also the sourced version describes much of this content in the most neutral manner that describes what fascism's views are.--R-41 (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

As someone who just came to this article for the first time, I don't see this as repetitious so much as explaining nuances of a difficult topic. If these statements aren't supported by sourced body text, that is of course a different matter. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree there is a problem with repetition in the lead (it was my main caveat in the previous long discussion about it). However, with the examples cited above I'd argue the sentence that could probably go, if any, or which at least needs some work, is the first one cited above, mainly because I'm not sure we can be so definitive about displacement and living space. The others, as suggested, do kind of build on each other to some extent. I don't see anything non-neutral in those other sentences though. If I was being cynical, I'd suggest that you are still trying to find reasons to chip away at the lead so that it only includes sentences and phrases that you wrote.

Also, I'd note here that the latest edit to the lead is actually, as well as slightly disrupting the logical flow of the middle para, is adding repetition both within the lead and between the lead and the body. The lead is meant to summarise the body, not repeat near-verbatim random sentences from the body. And in what way, for example, does "It supports strong state control over the economy that accepts a mix of private and public ownership over the means of production" add anything to, "It advocated a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky to secure national self-sufficiency and independence through protectionist and interventionist economic policies"? N-HH talk/edits 10:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel it to be repetition... It explains thoroughly a topic which is very difficult to new readers who don't know much about the topic. --TIAYN (talk) 10:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The "mixed economy" part is not that surprising, pretty much every economy of a country has been a mixed economy to some degree. The definition of mixed economy on the article of its name is inaccurate, it is described in economics books as a mix of a planned economy and a market economy, not public and private propety - as there are other forms of property such as co-operatives that are neither state enterprise nor private enterprise. But since all economies are a mixed economy in some manner, I agree with N-HH that mention of the words "mixed economy" could be taken out of the intro, but the material on its goal of autarky, etc, should stay. The infro is supposed to reflect the article. I would prefer to have one strong sentence that describes that it supports xenophobia and the overall reasons why it does, rather than several sentences that just say it was xenophobic. There is material in the article that describes why fascists supported political violence, war, and militarism, they viewed violence as a fact of life that was a utility in politics.--R-41 (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not agree that "'mixed economy' could be taken out of the intro", something which you have now done; my point was that your addition to the lead was pointless – and in fact exacerbated any problems of repetition – given that the phrase mixed economy was already there. As I also said, you seem determined to ensure that the lead gradually ends up being solely written by you. N-HH talk/edits 10:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Do whatever you want N-HH, it's apparent that you do not want to listen to anything I have to contribute, because you automatically assume bad faith of me in violation of WP:AGF. It seems that all you have to do to make an excuse to ignore everything I have said is to accuse me of being "determined to ensure that the lead gradually ends up being solely written by you".--R-41 (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, it's sometimes hard to assume good faith when you totally misrepresent what I say on a talk page and claim my words as support for your changes, when you complain about repetition in the lead only to simultaneously add more of it and when you add pointless citation tags to perfectly reasonable content (just to remind you, content in the lead that is explained in the body and/or hardly controversial does not need a reference; in addition, despite your claim otherwise, the text cited here very clearly does support the content about "Third Alternative/Position" and opposition to both capitalism and Marxism). Especially when the effect of all this behaviour is, as I say, to chip away at a consensus lead, not to improve it, but to drag it back to the one, mostly written by you, was that rejected at a recent RFC. I'll concede it may not be that calculated or deliberate on your part, but that's the effect. N-HH talk/edits 09:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No, what you added is WP:SYNTHESIS, you are mixing things together from different sources and putting it in the intro, and you did so for a sourced statement, you misrepresented what that source said. I am filing a report to the AN/I on your immediate conduct here: that you have no intention to work co-operatively or constructively with me here based on an automatic assumption of bad faith on my part, that is a clear violation of WP:AGF.--R-41 (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

What did I "add" to the lead? What am I "mixing .. together"? As far as I can recall, the sentence you added the tag to, or something close to it, has been there for ages and was not put there by me. That said, and notwithstanding that content in the lead does not technically or necessarily need sourcing anyway, I did check the source cited after you added the tag. The book, on the page cited, quotes from a speech by Mussolini where he talks about "the hope of a Third Alternative held out by Fascism to mankind fettered between the pillar of capitalist slavery and the post of Marxist chaos". The tag was hence doubly inappropriate and I was entirely right to remove it. N-HH talk/edits 14:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The sentence that you added to the intro: "Fascism opposed socialist and communist ideology but was also critical of some aspects of capitalism" is not the same in meaning as what is in the source: "the hope of a Third Alternative held out by Fascism to mankind fettered between the pillar of capitalist slavery and the post of Marxist chaos", you have added "socialist" and "communist" into the sentence in the place of "Marxist". You have attached proportionality to the stance towards socialism and communism on one side and capitalism on another, with the word "opposed" to "socialist" and "communist" while using "critical of some aspects" for "capitalism". When I read the sentence I do not see the proportionality that you have attached, "capitalist slavery" and "Marxist chaos" as used in the sentence in the source appear to have been utilized as equally strong condemnations of both.--R-41 (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

First, I didn't add that sentence or part of it. Secondly, the source more directly and primarily supports the second phrase in the sentence, which is the part that it is actually attached to: "arguing for what is sometimes called a Third Position between capitalism and Marxist socialism" (so nothing has been added "in the place of" Marxism, by me or anyone else). But yes, it also provides some support, along with other parts of the article itself, for the previous part of the sentence, which you have highlighted, even if not quite as directly. What, exactly, is the problem here? N-HH talk/edits 17:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I described the problem with that part very clearly in my post above yours. What you have said indicates that the first phrase in the sentence is WP:SYNTHESIS, mixing other parts of the article into that sentence, whose second phrase as you described is attributable to one source. The first phrase in the sentence does not support what is included in the reference provided. Furthermore even if we look aside from the synthesis aspect, I do not see anything in the article that directly or clearly says in such a minimal way that fascism was only "critical of some aspects" of capitalism, material from renowned historian on fascism Stanley Payne in A History of Fascism, 1914-1945 uses much stronger wording that it was "anticapitalist in tendency".--R-41 (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Having a source referenced at the end of a sentence does not mean that everything in that sentence comes, or has to come, directly from that source, nor do we write by repeating verbatim what referenced texts say. Editing consists of summarising information and attempting to write reasonably well, from a position of a decent broad, prior understanding of the topic, referencing specific points and phrases where necessary – and doing that at its most basic is not synthesis or original research. It does, however, make for a better encyclopedia entry than just stringing together a succession of random and self-contained sentences, sourced from arbitrary Google Book searches, without any regard for how the whole text ends up sitting together.

As for the point at issue, I wouldn't mind losing the "of some aspects" qualification. The overall point is no more or less accurate, and the meaning hardly different, with or without it. And the fact that fascists criticised capitalism, albeit not necessarily in its entirety, is in the main body, if written up slightly oddly. And as for Stanley Payne – aside from the usual point that one writer's views do not determine final content – in the book you cite, he clearly also notes the widely held view, at least on the left, that fascism is intimately connected with capitalism (even if he disputes it). He also records Hitler's and Mussolini's bids to ally and accommodate with industrialists. He also explicitly states that the Nazi party, from early on "made it clear that they were not opposed to private property or capitalism as such, but only to its excesses and 'foreign' capitalist domination". Are we done now? N-HH talk/edits 09:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"Having a source referenced at the end of a sentence does not mean that everything in that sentence comes, or has to come, directly from that source" - N-HH. That is not accurate, all sourced material has to reflect what the sources say. That material in the first part of that sentence by your admission is from different parts of the article, that has been combined with that sourced material, that is WP:SYNTHESIS. Also again please stop invoking hyperbole and please stop making combative accusations such as that I am making "arbitrary" searches that are "without any regard" for the text. I have read material on Mussolini's speeches before, including in a university course where I read that exact quote amongst others. I have a print version Stanley Payne's A History of Fascism, 1914-1945 at my house along with multiple other books on fascism that I studied in university and have continued to study since. I use Google Books because it is easily verifiable to check the content being used for sources. I will not tolerate further combative accusations against the nature of my behaviour here on an article talk page about content, if you believe I am damaging the Wikipedia Project by my behaviour, such should be addressed in a non-combative and professional manner on an RfC/U; I will accept their conclusion and if changes are requested in my editing behaviour I will accept those requests. I have reported your recent combative accusations here above to the AN/I, I am saying this here to urge you to stop posting such material on article talk pages. Please engage in constructive behaviour here, if you have constructive criticism on what I am proposing that could involve co-operative effort on working out how to improve content, that would be the best course of action.--R-41 (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I see you've just removed the phrase you don't like, claiming the right to do so in the edit summary because I have not responded to you. Well, of course, I have responded to you over and over. You don't just get to bore everyone off the talk page, thereby claim the last word and "victory" in the discussion, and then assume right to edit as you wish. As explained, you are plain wrong about synthesis and about footnoting: the former rule does not mean a lead cannot make two similar and related points in the same sentence, or that a lead should not summarise information found elsewhere (indeed, that would defeat the entire point of a lead section); as for the latter, citations and references are not required for material in the lead that is included in the body, nor does a having a citation mean that the cited source directly backs up everything in that sentence – and that sentence alone – or that the sentence can only include material directly attributed in that source. A citation can back up a single word, a phrase or a whole paragraph in different cases.
I could just revert you, and add a citation pointing to the Payne material discussed above as a source for the first part of the full, original sentence, and your whole argument about synthesis and referencing, for what it's worth to start with, would just fall away entirely. But, in fact, I accept there's an element of repetition involved in that first phrase and I can't be bothered to clutter the lead with yet more repetitious citations just for the sake of drawing a line under an interminable debate over six or so words that you seem to have become obsessed by. Meanwhile, I stand by all my criticism of your editing practice and your attitude to parts of the lead that were not directly written by you. I'd recommend that you drop the constant passive-aggressive refrain telling me to "do an RfC/U if you want" in case you finally get what you wish for. N-HH talk/edits 21:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop the combative accusations like saying that I "removed the phrase you don't like" or uncivil conversation like this: "I can't be bothered to clutter the lead with yet more repetitious citations just for the sake of drawing a line under an interminable debate over six or so words that you seem to have become obsessed by" or this threat "I'd recommend that you drop the constant passive-aggressive refrain telling me to "do an RfC/U if you want" in case you finally get what you wish for.". First of all it was the user Collect who recommended that you could open up an RfC/U on my conduct, I support that because that is where such issues of long-term user conduct can be discussed. you are interpreting my endorsement of his recommendation as passive-aggressive which I believe is a projection of your passive-aggressive behaviour towards me that is showing up with multiple combative accusations and expressions of contempt towards what I am doing. Again please be constructive. I clearly described that it is WP:SYNTHESIS and you said that the material in the first part of the sentence is a collection from other parts in the article that has been fused into that sentence whose source does not say that statement. Aside from WP:SYNTHESIS, the first part of that sentence does not represent what the source says.--R-41 (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

And I keep pointing out that it is not synthesis and that footnotes and citations do not work in the way you keep declaring that they do. It is not and they do not. You have not justified or explained either of your assertions. Simply asserting such points does not make them true, And how about your combative, and doubly untrue accusations, which run through this whole discussion, that I am "adding" what you unilaterally have declared "synthesis"? As for genuine problems with your editing, and genuine problems with synthesis, please see other pages where I have documented it in detail. N-HH talk/edits 12:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Please calm down, I thought you added that material, it did occur around the same time that you made substantial changes to the lead. The content in the first part of that sentence is not in the source provided, it does not represent the source. The first part of the sentence as you have said represents different material in the article, and WP:SYNTHESIS says " "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. ". A statement showing Mussolini declaring opposition to "capitalist slavery" and "Marxist chaos" is not the same as saying that fascism was "opposed to socialism and communism" while being "critical of some aspects of capitalism". It does not represent what the source is saying.--R-41 (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I am perfectly calm, just telling you what you are getting wrong about editing and about the specific content in issue here (although the debate on that is moot since it's not in the lead anymore). You're still getting things wrong by saying I "made substantial changes to the lead", even if you've finally explicitly acknowledged I did not add the clause in question. You're also still getting things wrong by going on about how "the content in the first part of that sentence is not in the source provided" or that the two statements are not exactly the same. So what? Which part of the point that citations can cover varying amounts of material, from one word within a sentence, to entire sentences and beyond, do you not understand? What part of the other point – that running related material together, or moving from the general to the specific, is not synthesis but basic decent writing and summarising – do you not understand? What unsourced conclusion, exactly, was in that sentence as was? N-HH talk/edits 13:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop with the hyperbole like "finally, explicitly", if you look through what I said, I did not say that you did do that edit after you told me that you didn't. You are not calm, you are aggravated because the manner of your speech is aggressive and sounds exasperated like saying "what part of ... don't you understand?". You need to take a break to cool down and then come back to look at what I have said. I have explained my point about WP:SYNTHESIS several times but I will do so again: it is not acceptable to use a piece of material from a completely different source in a sentence and then put it in a sentence while claiming that a different source contains that material. I have not yet seen such a source in the article that says anything along the lines of fascism being "critical of some aspects of capitalism", in fact there is substantial material from sources in the article that show that it was opposed to many outcomes of capitalism, such as the materialism of capitalism and there are plenty of sources abound about fascists denouncing plutocracy caused by capitalism, especially with accusations by fascists that a cabal of plutocratic foreigners and traitors pulled the strings in the world economy to exploit their nation. The first part of the sentence that says that fascism was "critical of some aspects of capitalism" is completely different in proportionality of discontent by fascism to capitalism than from a declaration of opposition to "capitalist slavery", the first part is not compatible with what the source says, it misrepresents the source.--R-41 (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we could create a sentence to replace that one that would involve removing that source that uses the quote on "capitalist slavery", and instead says something along the lines that fascism was opposed (not merely critical) to parts of capitalism as well as mentioning that it accepted widespread private ownership of the means of production as in capitalism.--R-41 (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you stop telling me I am angry or aggravated? How can you tell that from written words? Yes, I am mildly exasperated, but perhaps you could stop to think for two seconds about why that might be the case. Is it possibly, for example, because you do not answer questions but simply repeat the assertions that led to them in the first place? And, for the record, you very much continued to claim I had added the sentence in question after I had pointed out I did not (see exchange from 1336 to 1711 UTC on 27 May); yet my pointing the error and misrepresentation out suddenly becomes some kind of personal attack on you? Anyway, on point, although as noted it has been moot for a while now, I have said that I would happily have seen the "some aspects of" qualifier removed, so that the first clause in the sentence would have read "opposed to socialism .. and critical of capitalism".

Now, are you saying that such a description is not contained in and sourced in the main body of the article (see footnotes 176 to 178 and the slightly confusingly rendered text supported by them)? Or seriously saying that "critical of [some aspects] of capitalism" has a fundamentally different meaning to "opposed to some outcomes of capitalism"? And, again therefore, what conclusion is being synthesised, ie is not contained in any of the sources? And, again, can you clarify whether you understand that it is OK to summarise and connect genuinely related information, especially in a lead? And that citations can be used to support just one word, phrase or clause, and do not have to claim direct and absolute ownership, as it were, of the entire sentence? N-HH talk/edits 08:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You cannot just use a source because it uses "just one word" and then alter the content that is beyond what the source says, if that is what you are suggesting, I'm sorry but you are dead wrong, it needs to be a paraphrase of what the source says, otherwise it misrepresents a source. The source currently used does not show merely being "critical of some aspects" but rather would more correctly be saying that it "denounced the nature of contemporary capitalism". To attempt to address your concerns, I had proposed a new sentence that would address what you appear to want in the intro, an acknowledgement that fascism accepted key parts of capitalism such as widespread private ownership of the means of production while also showing that fascism opposed parts of capitalism. However to me, even that proposed compromise sentence that I made in my view does not go far enough. I would like a sentence that acknowledges that fascism accepted widespread private ownership of the means of production while also mentioning that it denounced major attributes of contemporary capitalism, such as its bourgeois culture, dominance of financiers, and plutocracy that it typically linked to accusations that foreign people were manipulating their country through world trade. In summary, the sentence I proposed was a WP:COMPROMISE, that in my view does not go far enough but is somewhat improved over the previous one, but I do not believe that you would accept a sentence that went into any detail on the major components of capitalism that fascism denounced.--R-41 (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

No one is altering the content of a source. And you are not answering any of the questions I put to you, hence this thread – which, after all, is about content that is no longer there anyway and which I am not, in fact, insisting needs to be there (again, you are missing the point and misreading what I say) – has come to an end. One thing I will say in response to the above is that in one sense you are right about what I would or would not accept: the lead does probably not need the level of detail that you appear to be proposing. If we try to explain every single broad statement currently in the lead in detail, and do so on the basis of a fair balance of every reported theory and analysis of fascist politics and rhetoric, it would be 40 paragraphs long. N-HH talk/edits 12:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

ps: I am also utterly bemused that you've spent much of the above text arguing, without any real foundation, that the sentence about fascism and capitalism was synthesis and then – without agreement – removed the half of it that explicitly said fascism was critical of capitalism. Yet now you are insisting that the real problem is that the lead doesn't have enough detail about this and that you want far more about the criticism of capitalism. Why didn't you start from that point rather than fighting for your right to remove the broad appraisal that was there? N-HH talk/edits 12:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

"utterly" - more hyperbole. I initially didn't propose anything new because I presumed you would oppose any new proposal by me would imply that I was trying to "own" the article. I tried to maintain the intro with the existing sources there while upholding what the sources said. I don't think you or I should be bemused with anything here, the only thing that I have realized his that there is one statement with the word "utterly" that is not hyperbole, we have both utterly failed to co-operate as users to improve the article. You just view me in disgust as a two-dimensional character who is a grossly incompetent, and corrupt person - sometimes I have been incompetent but I am not corrupt. I tried to do better, I failed, I resign out of acceptance of that failure.--R-41 (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)