Talk:Fascism

Lede paragraph

Amending post for clarity:

• Add sentence on the debate surrounding definitions of fascism to the end of the first paragraph.
• Remove one of the two repeated instances of "far-right" in the same paragraph.

Nowhere in the lede is it communicated that scholars have provided competing definitions-- in my view this is a highly significant fact and should be presented at the end of the first paragraph. What's there presents a vague consensus with no nod to how murky the scholarship is on this-- adding this would alleviate concerns like those raised in the post above this one. It seems redundant to me that fascism is classified as far-right twice in the opening paragraph though I appreciate this is done because of the pervasive myths/ misunderstandings on the topic. I assume this has been discussed ad nauseum but the talk page archives are far too voluminous for me to realistically check (please point me to the discussion if you're aware of it). In my view just having it be the subject of the third sentence would suffice: Communism and neoliberalism don't even mention the political spectrum (though progressivism and social democracy do and conservatism mentions it lower down). Proposed change:

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right [changed to removing second instance due to WP:SYNTH concern], authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement that rose to prominence in early-20th-century Europe. Fascism is characterized by support for a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived interest of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. Opposed to communism, democracy, liberalism, pluralism, and socialism, fascism is at the far-right of the traditional left–right spectrum. What constitutes a precise definition of fascism has been a longrunning and complex debate among scholars. Joko2468 (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

One reason they do not, is that they are also economic philosophies, nor am I sure there is much debate that fascism is far right. Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

That's not what I'm suggesting-- I agree with presenting the consensus but do we have to present it twice in the same paragraph? Joko2468 (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I think we can remove the second instance. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense, I just thought it'd be a shame to lose the more detailed instance though as presented it's perhaps WP:SYNTH? The main body and the first two citations don't use what fascism opposes to justify its position on the spectrum though this could potentially be present in ref 7. Joko2468 (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting there's legitimate academic dispute over whether fascism is far-right? Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I've explicitly said that I'm not... I'm saying: do we have to present it twice in the same paragraph? Joko2468 (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

What I said about other articles is exploring which repeated instance should be removed, to be fair that wasn't clear at all. The two proposed changes are not connected. Joko2468 (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

There is no serious debate over whether or not fascism is far right. Not among the experts, though many lay people with right-wing political leanings dispute it vociferously. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

This isn't the purpose of my post, it's about whether we need to state this consensus twice. I'm almost done with checking the citations for the third sentence and it appears to be WP:SYNTH as it's currently phrased. Joko2468 (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say it was, but given that you have repeatedly insisted that this isn't what you're on about in the face of literally nobody accusing you of doing that, we're heading straight into the lady doth protest too much territory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:15, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

• The lead is the result of an enormous amount of discussion over the years. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  Okay no worries, it just didn't make much sense to me. What about adding the debate surrounding definitions of fascism? Joko2468 (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  That's explored in the body. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  But the lede is a summary of the body, I don't understand your point. Joko2468 (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  The last sentence of the lead indicates that is discussed in the body. I think you will have to be clearer about the edit you intend beyond removing one of the two instances of far-right from the lead (which I do oppose per O3000). Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  Okay to be clear:

  • Remove one of the repeated instances of far-right in the opening paragraph. I originally suggested removing the first instance since the second one seemed more informative but the second instance, as that sentence is phrased, may be WP:SYNTH-- I'm currently going through the sources in ref 7. Can you explain why it's useful to the reader to have this information repeated in the space of one paragraph?
  • Add a sentence to this paragraph noting the debate among scholars as to a precise definition and linking to that page. I argue this is an important omission.

  I am not trying to undermine or meaningfully amend the meaning of this paragraph. Joko2468 (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  Oh, I see, What constitutes a precise definition of fascism has been a longrunning and complex debate among scholars. is your inclusion. I am not as opposed to that as I am to removing one of the two instances of far-right from the lead. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  Okay I'll put it in green (my original post is terrible)-- if ref 7 doesn't support fascism being far-right because of what it opposes, then I think this is WP:SYNTH and becomes a straightforward repitition. Joko2468 (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  Opposed to communism, democracy, liberalism, pluralism, and socialism, fascism is at the far-right of the traditional left–right spectrum. is to my reading WP:SYNTH, the cited sources do not support the implied conclusion that fascism is far-right because of what ideologies it opposes. If editors decide to keep both instances of "far-right", then this should be split into two or phrased as Fascism is opposed to communism, democracy, liberalism, pluralism, and socialism, and is situated at the far-right of the traditional left–right spectrum.

  There are also some problems with the cited sources in ref 7 that ought to be corrected:

  • Griffin (1995): supports both points, though far-right is in a chapter written by Eatwell (and not in his voice)
  • Kallis (2003): this is actually a foreword to Eatwell and fails verification: The novelty of the following excerpt lies in its assertion that fascism should be studied not in the conventional ‘left-right’ model, but with what Eatwell calls a ‘spectral-syncretic’ approach.
  • Reich (1970) failed verification, p. 73 supports this instead

  Joko2468 (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  ...is to my reading WP:SYNTH

  Would you explain to me how you managed to read the 'Fascism' entry of the Holocaust Encyclopedia which opens with the sentence "Fascism is a far-right political philosophy, or theory of government, that emerged in the early twentieth century." and conclude that this source does not support the claim that fascism is a far-right political philosophy? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  I didn't? I haven't said that, please reread my comment. I'm saying the implied conclusion of that sentence that fascism is far-right because of the ideologies it opposes is unsupported by the sources. I have never stated that I have a problem with fascism being far-right (again, this is not the purpose of my post) and have recommended that this sentence be split in two or rephrased to avoid implying this unsupported reasoning. Both parts of the sentence are accurate in isolation.

  I get editors are used to people trying to change the meaning of this paragraph but I'm just trying to improve its accuracy to the sources and its readability. Joko2468 (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  Its cited in th3e body. Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  Ah right I assume you mean its opposition to egalitarianism? Okay my bad, I didn't connect those dots. The WP:V errors should still be fixed. I haven't seen any pushback on the definitions sentence, so I'll add that and correct those two citations. Please revert if you disagree. Joko2468 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  No the use of the Holocaust Encyclopedia, and many others for far-right. Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yes I did-- please look at the change. Two of the 15 sources failed verification, I just corrected that (only one of them needed to be removed, the other I just amended the page number). Joko2468 (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  I'm glad you struck out the factually inaccurate claim of yours, even though you denied making it right here where we can all clearly see that you did, in fact, make it, and we can also see that you struck it out, even though you denied making it.

  If you have a problem with the implication in that sentence, try not reading that implication into that sentence. You could read the sentence as claiming that it opposes those things because it is far-right, not the other way around.

  And, to be fair, the other way around is still fine, and wouldn't be synth except in a very tortured read of the policy, because any political philosophy which is opposed to communism, democracy, liberalism, pluralism, and socialism is right-wing by definition. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why you took the time to write this. I'd ask you to point to where I objected to fascism being far-right (I explicitly said otherwise at 13:01, 13:57, and 17:03 that my issue was with the repitition of this statement) but this has become very petty. Joko2468 (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  I have never yet accused you of objecting to fascism being far-right, so you can stop tilting at that particular straw man, as it won't accomplish anything but making you look foolish to others reading this thread. What I have done is point out that you complained that one sentence in the lead "is to [your] reading WP:SYNTH" without bothering to to take the less than 5 minutes it took me to confirm that it is not, and your continued assertions that there's something wrong with the sentence come across more as a problem with your reading and line of thinking than with the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:58, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  If you want to ragebait people, there's social media networks for this. I responded to Slater pointing out that this was summarising the opposition to egalitarianism, rather than being based on the cited sources, by saying my bad and crossed out my comment so I'm not sure where you got "continued assertion" from. I consider this closed-- the consensus appears to be to keep the repitition of far-right and I added the sentence on definitions to the lede. Please revert if you disagree or amend it as you see fit but I'd ask you to stop replying with these petty ad hominem slights. Joko2468 (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  What an oddly hysterical response. You may want to actually read that article before you use it in jabs such as this, because you're not using the term correctly (that applies to rage bait, as well).

  If my comments have upset you, then perhaps you should take a step back instead of continuing this discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  This comment is completely rude and uncalled for. Before you comment please read the entire context of the discussion and do not jump to conclusions.

  Please try to be kind. Emac07 (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

  Please read irony and WP:ASPERSIONS and avoid making rude comments calling perfectly polite comments rude, else you might not even make it to your 50th edit. And stop assuming that I don't recognize what you're doing with your little alt accounts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:10, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

  This sort of petty argumentation has no place in building an encyclopedia. How you construed Emac's comment as rude is beyond me. Joko2468 (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that numerous elements of this exchange are petty and have no place in an encyclopedia.

  If you had bothered to actually engage with that I was saying instead of replying to a rhetorical question with a knee-jerk and transparently false denial, replying to an expression of confusion with belittling dismissal, replying to a clarification of my meaning by hurling bad faith accusations (which is a blatant policy violation, by the way), and refrained from engaging in off-topic condescension (entirely unjustified condescension, I might add, as I have been here more than ten times as long as you and have about ten times as many edits between this account and my former alt) this would likely have been a much more encyclopedic discussion.

  Yet here we are.

  You may wish to read WP:BATTLEGROUND and understand that if you cannot make any effort to stop personalizing criticisms of your arguments and hurling false accusations in response to them, an admin can be found to show you the door. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:26, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  From my perspective I made a mistake, recognised it, and made my edits and then you gratuitously started chewing me out. I still don't understand this comment and your interpretation thereafter (I tried to get to the bottom of this here). I perceived this comment to have been made in bad faith, which is why I responded as I did-- I can see how this might have escalated things. I spent two hours verifying these sources (under the impression that there was potentially a WP:SYNTH issue) and amended two errors I found. It seems there's been a communication gap from the start, beginning with me misinterpreting you describing the consensus as implying that I objected to it. Joko2468 (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  From my perspective I made a mistake, recognised it, and made my edits and then you gratuitously started chewing me out.

  Your perspective is yours alone to dictate, however, I will point out that absolutely nobody will read I didn't? I haven't said that, please reread my comment. as an admission of a mistake. I surely did not. I took you at your word: you were denying making the claim I was responding to.

  You later mentioned correcting it with a "my bad", but you said that phrase to Slater in response to a more specific issue, not directly addressing my critique. I have no psychic powers, nor any particularly accomplished skill at reading people.

  Indeed, I am on the autism spectrum and have devoted a great deal of effort to achieving a merely normal degree of skill in recognizing social cues. In fact, a higher proportion of Wikipedians are on the spectrum than in the general population, so it would behoove you to always make an effort to be very clear about your meaning and intent.

  I perceived this comment to have been made in bad faith

  WP:AGF applies to you the same as it applies to anyone here, and if you read something that you perceive as antagonistic, you are required by our policies to assume it was not meant that way.

  I explained above that my comment reflected confusion, a very appropriate confusion given the circumstances. That confusion was expressed in a sarcastic manner, but it was nonetheless expressed.

  Indeed, whenever you read a comment that comes across as antagonistic, it would be best for you to assume it was meant sarcastically, often to introduce levity into the discussion. Many editors write the way they speak, and speech is usually accompanied by tone, body language and other cues that are lacking in text communications.

  For example, as an Iraq war veteran with adult and teenage children who has moved in counter-culture circles my entire life (and who is not always the best at reading social cues as I mentioned above), I am known to sometimes say some truly disgusting and demeaning things to the people I love the most in this world, as a manner of expressing my affection sarcastically. And I am far from alone in this, it is quite common in fact.

  It seems there's been a communication gap from the start, beginning with me misinterpreting you describing the consensus as implying that I objected to it. Indenting is important on talk pages. See User:MjolnirPants/Indenting for a guide to how it works. I say this because you should know that my comment was a reply to Slater, who said they were unsure of whether or not there is much debate over it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:45, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  That's because the admission I'm talking about was Ah right I assume you mean its opposition to egalitarianism? Okay my bad, I didn't connect those dots. To be absolutely clear, I do not understand how you thought I contravened the Holocaust Encyclopedia source. I accept that I should have assumed good faith but in fairness, you assumed bad faith prior to this in accusing me of telling a barefaced lie. I didn't and I still don't understand why you thought this. I don't mean this as a personal attack, I genuinely do not understand how you read this comment. If you could quote/ cite it to explain what you were responding to here then I think we'd have a meeting of minds. Perhaps you had an accurate understanding of that comment and it's me who failed to understand yours but I just don't know. Thanks. Joko2468 (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  That's because the admission I'm talking about was ...

  Yes, which you said to Slater, as I explained above. And it was about a closely related, but not identical question to mine. Therefore, I did not take it as being addressed either to me nor my question.

  I accept that I should have assumed good faith but in fairness, you assumed bad faith prior to this in accusing me of telling a barefaced lie. To be frank (I'd have to change my name), it's not an assumption when there is no other explanation.

  I don't see any way in which it could be anything but a lie. If you could explain how you interpreted my response and that explanation differs from my intention, that would provide me with some evidence to interpret it as a misunderstanding, instead.

  Note that even if it was just defensive and untrue denial in the face of a perceived attack, that's completely understandable, and simply acknowledging such would be enough that I wouldn't bring it up again.

  I genuinely do not understand how you read this comment. If you could quote/ cite it to explain what you were responding to here.

  I can. In that comment, you wrote [the sentence] is to my reading WP:SYNTH, the cited sources do not support the implied conclusion that fascism is far-right because of what ideologies it opposes.

  I then looked through the sources and found one (indeed, the most accessible one) which both mentioned what Fascism opposes and which defined it as far-right. As WP:SYNTH is the combination of two or more sources to reach a conclusion not stated in either, and there was a source stating that fascism is far-right while also defining what it is opposed to, it was transparently obvious to me that the sentence was not synth.

  I also later pointed out that the sentence does not state that fascism is far right because it opposes those things, and even if that is your reading, that sentence would still not be synth. This is because being opposed to leftist political ideals is literally a functional definition of right-wing politics (as being opposed to right-wing political ideals is a functional definition of left-wing politics).

  Additionally, I mentioned that one could read that sentence as saying that fascism opposes those things because it is far-right.

  However, it is worth noting that the sentence is not actually worded in such a way as to present an argument (if X then Y), but rather makes two related statements of fact about the topic, and should generally not be read as an argument.

  I'm sorry this is so wordy. I get the feeling that we're approaching a better understanding, and I'm trying to be clear to facilitate that.

  And for the record, I may be very harsh in criticizing arguments, but I would like you to understand that this is not personal. I am just as capable of being an absolute moron as anyone I've ever met, and I do not consider even the most atrocious and irrational arguments to be a condemnation of a person.

  E.G. I once argued that flying squirrels disproved evolution, to the point of ending my argument with "so put that in your pipe and smoke it, atheists." The degree of cringe that comes with remembering that is almost debilitating. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  Oh right I see, I was mistaken it literally says what's in that sentence. I didn't realise that there was text past the black header and thought it was merely a fact file [actually the mistake I made was not to recognise the nearly identical phrasing in the header fact, I think I did read the whole thing], how embarrassing. I do wish you'd quoted this part and not the sentence [the full fact] in the header but this was entirely on me. My sincerest apologies for the distress caused. Joko2468 (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  We all make mistakes and I'm not about to hold this one against you.

  For whatever it's worth, I'm sorry that I phrased things in such a way as to appear to be so confrontational. That was not my intent, but rather to appear more conversational and relaxed.

  Many newer editors have much the opposite reaction: very formally-worded responses come across as condescending and belittling. I should have taken my cues from the way you composed your own messages, instead of making the usual assumption. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:28, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  No worries at all, all the best. Joko2468 (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  From your comment below, I think I see what happened here. In quoting Eatwell on syncretism, I was demonstrating how that source had failed verification-- nothing else. I did not intend to propose any amendments on syncretism or undermine the consensus on far-right. I clarified that Eatwell stated far-right in the voice of others in Griffin (1995) only because editors might think he contradicted himself in Kallis (2003)-- this was a superfluous aside. Joko2468 (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  Just a quick note: Generally speaking, if an author compiles the work of other authors, we generally take that as a full-throated endorsement. So while it's not accurate to say that Eatwell said it in that work, it's generally not seen as a major problem. We just attribute it if necessary, or specify the page number, or change the author name in the ref template. That sort of stuff is really uncontroversial, and is best done following the WP:BRD model. It rarely gets reverted, and when it does, there's usually an explanation from the person reverting.

  The edits you made to the references are 100% good by my measure, and had you simply made them even without so much as an edit summary, I'd have endorsed them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:05, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree the second sentence about fascism as far-right of the lede feels repetitive and does not better summarize or help the reader understand the content of the article. I think it would be helpful to include a sentence about the fuzzy definition of fascism.

It might even be good to include a sentence on how fascism is politically syncretic taking elements from both the "left" and "right" of the political spectrum while still being broadly far-right in the lede. Emac07 (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

A brief attempt at de-escalation

I think what we've seen here is an attempt at a good-faith effort to improve the lead made by someone who is new to this article space and not fully aware of the history of contention here. The repetition in the lead is somewhat intentional and is intended to reflect the body of the article. This has come about because many prior editors tried to claim that fascism was left wing or that it was unclear whether fascism was left or right wing. These are, of course, incorrect but ideologically convenient things for right-wing people. After discussion previously I don't think this was the editor's intent in this case. They just didn't know the background. I would recommend two courses of action here:

1. for new editors to this page, don't come in too hot, instead of proposing significant changes to the lead start by asking the question of why it's structured the way it is.
2. for long-term page watchers, I know we're all a bit stressed right now as there are many people on this page who have studied fascism enough both to understand its danger and to recognize its global resurgence. But not every new editor who comes here and starts proposing changes is doing it in bad faith and I think we all need to remember that.

Now with all that being said, I'd suggest the best thing to do would be to step back a bit from the mutual PAs and look at the content of the proposal. Personally I Oppose the removal of the second reference to fascism as far-right but I support the addition of the sentence suggesting there is scholastic debate as to the exact structure of fascism within the context of it being a far-right political ideology. This helps to summarize, for instance, the way that Payne's description of fascism differs from those of Eco and his ilk. It also helps to summarize the dispute over edge cases such as Pinochet's regime in Chile or the Peronist regime or the Junta regime in Argentina. These are examples where there has been and still is legitimate academic debate which this article (at least the last time I checked) does address and that addition to the lead is beneficial for that reason. Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

As I repeated several times above, I never really considered that to be their purpose. My issue was with the argument they presented about the one sentence.

Regarding your proposals:

1. I agree with this, and it's actually advice I've frequently offered. I really think it should be a CTOP restriction that editors who want to make major changes to the article must first request explanation of why the current state exists. I would extend that restriction even to long-time editors, albeit with the caveat that they already know.

So, for example, if I wanted to reframe this entire lead into a Marxist view of fascism as being the extremism of the middle class, per one of my favorite authors on the topic (Seymour Lipset, whose work resounds far more loudly in light of current events than in light of the historical context he wrote it in), I would have to acknowledge the reason why the current state exists by describing it in my proposal, and then explicitly making a case why my proposal is better. (For what it's worth, I don't think this article should be altered in that way, I just really wish more people talking about America's current slide into fascism would read Lipset's work.)

1. As I mentioned, I never considered that to be the case here. I'm always happy to AGF, but when someone has a highly negative reaction to experiencing pushback and insists upon personalizing the argument, it is definitely going to end up looking similar to how I respond to those who are pushing nonsense. To whit, I will be stating my critiques of their comments plainly and bluntly, without making the effort to put it in as flowery and friendly a tone as possible, while seeking out all the little nuances which I do agree with and laying them out as well. Sometimes, people say wrong things, and it's easier for readers of a discussion (and them) to understand that if the wrongness is laid out plainly, and not hidden behind a hedge of platitudes.

I'd suggest the best thing to do would be to step back a bit from the mutual PAs I want to state clearly that there are no PAs in my comments here. I don't think the other editors engaged in any, either, except through casting aspersions by calling my responses rage-baiting or ad hominems. It is, perhaps, too easy to read someone saying "stop insulting me" and then concluding they were insulted, as opposed to analyzing what was actually said to see if it contained any insults.

I'm ambivalent about the inclusion of the proposed sentence at the end. Is fascism currently subject to debate over the exact makeup and definition? Yes, it is. Does fascism draw some elements from leftist politics? Yes it does. So there's no issue with the accuracy or verifiability of it.

The reason I remain ambivalent and not supportive is because I think there's an open question of WP:DUE, with implications for WP:NPOV. To whit, here's my breakdown:

1. . Fascism is currently subject to debate over the exact makeup and definition.

Indeed it is, but like many other topics, having fuzzy edges does not imply that it does not exist, nor that certain characteristics (such as it being right-wing) don't apply. Expounding upon that in the lead risks raising doubt, if it is not worded just so.

1. Fascism draws elements from leftist politics.

Yes it does, but all political philosophies borrow from their allies and enemies. In the US right now, the (at best) proto-fascist Maga movement speaks out against inequality, messaging directly to the working class, a tactic stolen from the left. They also rely heavily on social media, another tactic taken from modern progressivism. Meanwhile, the Dark Woke movement on the left borrows the lack of political correctness, heavy reliance on social media and confrontational attitude of Trumpism. It seems strange to point out that fascism borrows from other political philosophies as a part of summarizing the article when that feature of fascism is an element which is common to all political philosophies. It raises questions about shifting the POV of the article in a direction that would lend more credence to arguments that it's not far-right.

So while I don't think there was any push towards removing the far-right descriptor here, I have some mild concerns about whether or not that part of this proposal will have the effect of softening our description of it being far-right, and lend credence (to the reader) to unreliable sources which insist that it is not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

References

idea: a spectrum image of (allegedly?) fascist dictators/national leaders

so, wiki has a lot of collages and charts to illustrate the articles: the last ones i can remember are File:Historical dictators.jpg, File:Historical totalitarian leaders.jpg (not used in the eng wiki) and File:Spanish general elections of 1931, 1933 and 1936.jpg. it's impossible to make a pic like Historical dictators.jpg, since, as said by preston, Mussolini is the only undeniable fascist leader; many dictatorships of the interwar period and world war ii borrowed some elements of fascism, so it's hard to make a clear disctinction. however, they had fascist traits to different extent, and thus each regime has varied amount of scholars describing it as fascist. i think it's possible to make a spectrum picture based on how much the most famous regimes called fascist were close to fascism. in my idea, it starts with hitler, who is described as a "radical fascist", and who was dominating over the conservatives the most; hitler is followed by mussolini, whose regime was less fascist and more a partnership with the conservatives, but who was still an undeniable fascist; then it is followed by franco, described as "least fascist" among the fascist dictators and the "most fascist" among the non-fascist dictators, whose government in its first 10-20 years was arguably totalitarian, and whose ideology then was arguably fascist, [featuring things like national purification through war and cleansing and the ideal of the fascist "new man" - though not occurring, at least on wiki, that often, it's important, you can see an elaborate description of the fascist aspects of franco's ideology in this book], but who had also considerable differences with italy (due to which he was arguably not a fascist); then he is followed by metaxas, who lacked the single party system, but who was able to introduce the totalitarian dynamics through institutions like his youth organization, and whose ideology was arguably based on palingenesis (the myth of the "third hellenic civilization") and ultranationalism; finally, the image ends with carol ii, an undeniable authoritarian conservative never described as a fascist, but who borrowed fascist organization methods nontheless. what do you think? Opostylov (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Recommendation on how to reduce word count of article

As a tag has been in place since April advising to reduce the word count of the article, I have suggestions for how to do this effectively. The sections on culture and criticism of fascism do not provide that much about understanding fascism in terms of why and how it was created, what it did in world history, and what political stances it supports. I recommend that separate articles be made for these that could be titled "Fascism and culture" and "Criticism of fascism".

The history and tenet sections are very important but there could be some trimming of it and placing more detailed content in the "Fascism and ideology" article that is effectively an enlarged and more detailed version of the history section in this article. That article includes history of fascism in Asia that is not addressed in this article's history section. I think that this article could remove detailed explanation of the examples of fascism in the Americas because it is less significant to the world history of fascism than fascism in Europe. The "Fascism and ideology" article's history section can include the details on fascist movements in the Americas.

Perhaps the section on the history of ancient influences can be significantly reduced back in this article as the article appears to indicate that the key time period that advanced the ideas that came to be part of fascism was from the 1880s to 1914 with the fin de siecle thought and the lead up to World War I.

What do others think about this? BlueberryA96 (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we should split off "criticism of fascism" but the "fascism and culture" suggestion sounds solid. Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Also limiting the predecessor section to the 1880s onward sounds reasonable. Fascism is thoroughly a modern political formation even when it LARPs some sort of grand lineage. Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

The section which "Background and 19th-century roots" seems to all match to information already present in the article "Fascism and ideology", though it turns out that that article is almost 18,000 words in length. So over 4,000 words longer than this article. "Fascism and ideology" may have a rather simple solution, as it seems to be two separately scoped articles smashed together, see its "Ideological origins" which is more a history of fascist ideology and fascist movements, and its "Fascism's relationship with other philosophies, ideologies, and systems" section which is more a comparative analysis of fascism to other ideologies. So, splitting these two large sections into separate articles would be my suggestion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree with Cdjp1 proposal. In general article titles with “and” in them (“X and Y”) make for bad articles BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the content in the "criticism of fascism" section should be scaled back to the absolute basics if it remains and that a larger article titled "Criticism and opposition to fascism" could be made. The criticism on fascism section could go on forever and be huge as it is one of the most condemned ideologies in the world, if it stays I believe it needs to be very simple. The part on it being criticized for being tyrannical and anti-democratic is good, I think another subsection could be put in as a common criticism titled "Violent and genocidal". The part about Mussolini being an unprincipled opportunist is a significant criticism of Italian fascism but I think it needs to be shrunk down to just a few key points. The "dishonesty" section is not good, I think it is actually involving content that is related to the claims of him being opportunistic (whether unprincipled or principled - as claimed by Richard Washburn Child in that section of the article) in seeking advance his regime's ambitions. The Anti-fascism section in the article could be merged into the criticism section and retitle that section "Criticism and opposition to fascism". BlueberryA96 (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I think maintaining the "dishonesty" section and improving it would be better. I mean I think you know how much I like the Sartre book but his argument is that dishonesty (or more specifically bad faith) is a fundamental characteristic of the fascist world-view. Simonm223 (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

The "Dishonesty" section needs to be very well-sourced in showing a pathological dishonesty core to fascism itself. Many politicians from all kinds of ideologies have been caught being dishonest and lying, the issue is whether it is seen as being in the core of fascism. BlueberryA96 (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

That's why I brought up Sartre. He was not saying "politicians be liars" - he was saying "the Anti-Semitic world-view of fascism, specifically, is built upon a bad-faith method of approaching discourse" Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

That statement by Sartre seems to be generalizing fascism as antisemitic, Italian fascism prior to the late 1930s when it sought to appease the Nazis, did not have staunch antisemitic views although Mussolini briefly experimented with making antisemitic statements in 1919 about the Russian Civil War but this was criticized by other Fascists and he renounced the views. There were a number of Jews who were members of the National Fascist Party up until the late 1930s when they were purged as part of antisemitic laws enacted then to curry favour with Nazi Germany. BlueberryA96 (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I have to admit though that I'm not familiar with Sartre either on his views on fascism or his philosophy. His points on fascism may hold for fascism from the late 1930s onward when Fascist Italy adopted antisemitic racial policies.BlueberryA96 (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

A common claim of fascism being pathologically dishonest is made by Marxists who say that fascism's claim to offer the working class inclusion with class collaboration is dishonest as they see fascism as serving the interests of the bourgeoisie who exploit the proletariat. BlueberryA96 (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Sartre was a Marxist, yes. But that doesn't discount his point which was informed both by his academic body of work and his lived experience of being in France in the lead up to (and during) WWII. Frankly I think the tendency of non-Marxist academics to ignore Marxist discussions of Fascism is often a weakness in the field. I will say that Deleuze and Guattari made some strong responses to Sartre in the late 1970s but Deleuze, especially, held Sartre in high regard. Also those books, while the metatext surrounding them treat as being largely about fascism, are so highly theoretical that they are difficult to directly cite on Wikipedia articles. For an example of what I mean I'd suggest reading "November 28, 1947: How Do You. Make Yourself a Body without Organs?" It's not an easy-going piece of work and yet is kind of the shallow-end of ATP. Simonm223 (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that with regards to Sartre, I was just mentioning that one common claim of fascism being dishonest is by Marxists who say that in practice it has served the bourgeoisie in exploiting the proletariat. That could be included in the criticism section or the Criticism of fascism article that Dimadick mentions below.BlueberryA96 (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

"separate articles be made for these that could be titled "Fascism and culture" and "Criticism of fascism"." We can't really do both of these. We already have an article called Criticism of fascism. We can't duplicate it. Dimadick (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

The Criticism of fascism article looks like a longer version of the section on criticism of fascism in this article. Personally I don't think the Fascism article is going to be able to do justice to the many criticisms and condemnations of fascism. I'd rather see that article linked to in the "See also" section. Simonm223 and I agree that the history section could have the pre-1880s content removed, it's true that some ancient history did influence fascists, the emergence of nationalism as a political force in the French Revolution is significant, but the 1880s to 1914 is where ideas coalesced into proto-fascism especially national syndicalism in France and Italy. BlueberryA96 (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

While there is no policy against criticism sections, Wikipedia:Criticism explains why it’s a bad idea. It reads better to put criticism into the main text. For example, the text says that fascism is opposed to democracy. The criticism section then repeats that fascism opposes democracy. I would cut the section entirely. TFD (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I’ve put a Main article hat link in the criticism section to the criticism article. The section should briefly summarise that, possibly by simply excerpting its lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

We should remove the first three paragraphs of the history section. Consider what it says: "Plato supported many similar political positions to fascism....He...rejected the idea of social equality." But so did everyone else for the next 2,000 years.

The most you can say is that Mussolini copied Roman symbols, while the Germans turned to Germanic symbols. That doesn't mean those were their intellectual forerunners. TFD (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The Plato paragraph is entirely cited to two pages in a single book, Sharma, R.N. (1991). Plato: An Inter-disciplinary Perspective. New Delhi, India: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors. pp. 131–132., as it makes no links to Plato as viewed within fascism or by fascists, I would argue it is undue here regardless of keeping the section or not. As to its inclusion in the "Fascism and ideology" article, it expands to two more citations, one stating that in The Republic Plato supported a philosopher king, while not linking it to fascism, and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for saying the Plato considered eugenic ideas, while not linking Plato to fascism. So I would also argue it is undue there as well. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree, it should go. BlueberryA96 (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I broadly support these proposals: trim the earlier history considerably, spin off culture article, heavily shorten criticism section ensuring deleted content is in the main Criticism of fascism article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I see a number of people here agree with removing the ancient history material from this article, unless there are any objections I think that could be cut from the article now. Several users appear to agree with the idea of making "Fascism and culture" article to move the content from the section on culture into while deleting the section in this article. TFD brings up very good points about why there should not be a criticism section based on what is said here: Wikipedia:Criticism, I agree with TFD and believe it would be best to remove the section, but as TFD says there is no policy specifically against criticism sections and I have noticed others here mentioning a possible limited size criticism section. I'd like to hear what they think regarding what TFD has mentioned with regards to this that he referred to: Wikipedia:Criticism.BlueberryA96 (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

We now have History of fascism, which split out the origins section of Fascism and ideology to reduce that size. I will remove the pre-1880s text from this article now, and transfer any missing info to "History of fascism". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Seeing that there appears to be support to the idea I proposed above I have created an article titled Fascist culture where I have moved content from the "Culture" section of this article. The "Fascist culture" article is a work in progress at this point, I'm struggling a lot with moving over sections of the bibliography from this article, I would appreciate any help in moving the bibliography over. Until the bibliography is moved over I am not deleting the content in the "Culture" section of this article.BlueberryA96 (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorted the bibliography, and added a small paragraph that is the lede I added to the "Fascist culture" article. Additionally as a note, if you do trim anything from the History sections, can you add it to the "History of fascism" article. I know that that article is already too long, but once we have got it matched up with the material in this article (including moving anything across), I plan to split that "History of fascism" article into two articles, most likely pre- and post-1945. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I will look at the part I trimmed from the article about the fascist movements in the Americas, I removed it because we had nothing in the article of fascism in Asia but the "History of fascism" article does. I think that article has content on fascist movements in the Americas, but if there was other content on this article that is not on it, I will add it to that article. Also, why did you leave a small "Culture" section in this article? I thought that it was going to be completely removed, maybe it was agreed above to have a small section on it, I don't remember, I've been distracted by several things recently. BlueberryA96 (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, it was more so we could link out to it, feel free to remove it completely, and move the fascist culture link to see also. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the "Culture" section from the article including removing the citations of sources in the bibliography. BlueberryA96 (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Cdjp1 I don’t know how far you’ve gotten with this but just to say that if you split at 1945, with the second article, have a look at neo-fascism to avoid too much duplication. (It may be that a large part of that article is better placed in a history of fascism post-1945.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:48, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley so far I've only done pre-1939 transferring. I will need to brush up with a reminder on how scholars view neo-fascism, but from how it's framed here the "neo-" seems to just be an indicator of temporal position, so only having a couple of paragraphs highlighting major points from the neofascism article would seem to be the correct way to go. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

There appear to be several of the users here in removing the "Criticism" section from this article and several users who want a reduced sized version of the section. There has been a statement by TFD above about the argument in not having criticism sections or articles on Wikipedia based on the Wikipedia:Criticism essay, however there is another user, BobFromBrockley, who supports a heavily reduced version of this section and wants content that is from that section to be added to the Criticism of fascism article. The merits of having the "Criticism of fascism" article can be discussed on that article, but for the meantime I think it would be acceptable compromise to move content from this article to that on the "Criticism of fascism" article that is not currently in that article and reduce down the section in this article. Then we can talk about the merits of keeping the reduced down section in the article or removing it. BlueberryA96 (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I think that’s sensible BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)