Talk:Fascism

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.^[1][2][3] 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.^[3][4] Opposed to communism, democracy, liberalism, pluralism, and socialism,^[5][6] fascism is at the far-right of the traditional left–right spectrum.^[1][6][7] 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)