 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | Fascism is a right-wing ideology. The lede of the article says that "Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement". This statement is the result of a very long process of discussion and debate and has strong consensus acceptance within the Wikipedia community, based on the consensus of political scientists, historians, and other reliable sources that Fascism is a (far) "right-wing" ideology and not a "left-wing" one. This has been discussed numerous times. Please see this FAQ and read the talk page archives.Please do not request that "right-wing" be changed to "left-wing"; your request will be denied, and you may be blocked from editing if you persist in doing so. |
Lebanon
editSomething is missing here:"Within Lebanon two pre-war groups emerged that took their inspiration from the fascist groups active in Europe at the time. In 1936 the Kataeb Party was founded by Pierre Gemayel and this group also took its inspiration from the European fascists, also using the Hitler salute and a brown shirted uniform.[11] This group also espoused a strong sense of nationalism and a leadership cult but it did not support totalitarianism and as a result it could not be characterised as fully fascist.[12][13] Both groups are still active although neither of them demonstrates the characteristics of fascism now. "
The article talks about 2 groups, but only names one (the Kataeb).--MiguelMadeira (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
@Luizpuodzius and Raimundo57br:
editQuerendo traduzir eu gostaria. 2804:14C:5BB1:9AC7:37D2:E5B7:2169:2243 (talk) 07:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Nothing about Singapore?
editwhy hasn't Singapore been included in the list of SEA nations? It has been variously described as fascist or soft-fascists by political scientists. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42703930 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/089692059101800204 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00472338185390171 Bugfingers (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Shambaugh book
editI am concerned about WP:CHERRY issues with the Shambaugh book. I haven't been able to review the actual text but based on reviews it's a key conclusion of Shambaugh that China will not become fascist. Using it to cite that the contemporary Chinese system is "fascistic", as such, is suspect. Furthermore the Shambaugh book was published prior to Xi's tenure and, as such, may be out of date as a text regardless. Simonm223 (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- OK I was able to access the text and, as I suspected, there's some serious WP:CHERRY going on here. In context Shambaugh is saying "Some intellectuals flirt wit hso-called neoconservatism (xinbaoshouzhuyi), which embodies fascistic-like characteristic, but it has not gained wide appeal." He uses this to support that "Devolution into a fascist-type system is also highly unlikely". So, actually no, this text says the opposite of what it's being used to say here in Wikipedia. I will edit accordingly. Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- I actually deleted it because neoauthoritarianism can't be conflated with neoconservativism as it is here. This entry is, as such, WP:SYNTH because it is about neoconservativism, not neoauthoritarianism. My edit summary was a bit unclear - so I'm clarifying here. Simonm223 (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Hageback book isn't reliable
editHe's an advertising psychologist - this is not the resume of a reputable political scholar. Simonm223 (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- However, Hageback mentioned the definition of Fascism by Robert Paxton, an authoritative fascist researcher. Chiang was an anti-imperialist, Xi has an imperialist and expansionist policy. ProKMT (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's immaterial. I could write a book that quotes Einstein a thousand times and I still wouldn't be a reliable source for information about General Relativity. If Paxton has said something about China in his work include that citation. Hageback doesn't get to piggy-back reliability on the basis of who he quotes. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Also your claim that "Chiang was anti-imperialist" is undemonstrated by any current research. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's immaterial. I could write a book that quotes Einstein a thousand times and I still wouldn't be a reliable source for information about General Relativity. If Paxton has said something about China in his work include that citation. Hageback doesn't get to piggy-back reliability on the basis of who he quotes. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
The Atlantic
edit@Amigao I don't think we need to use the Atlantic for that statement - the other, academic, source you inserted should be sufficient and I'd prefer not to open the door to news media in an article like this. Thoughts? Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Even though The Atlantic is a WP:GREL source, in this case I'm okay with sticking with academic WP:BESTSOURCES for this statement. Change made. - Amigao (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you kindly. Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)