Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:36, 3 November 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fascism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55Auto-archiving period: 10 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Italy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Social and political Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 23, 2004 and March 23, 2005.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fascism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55Auto-archiving period: 10 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:Pbneutral

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Fascism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Fascism at the Reference desk.

The view not being allowed

I see plenty of talk of fascism being right wing, and plenty that says it's a radical centrist approach, but there is almost no mention of the FACT that many scholars believe that fascism is left wing. I've always thought that what wing you belong to depends on where you believe power should be placed. The left always believes in centralizing power (more regulation, more programs, more spending, less state power, more federal power .... etc), and the right always goes for more individual power (less regulation, fewer programs, less spending, more state sovereignty, less federal power ... etc) It just seems common sense to me that fascism can't be radical right wing since radical right wing would be radical individualism, which is anarchy not fascism. I just don't see how a group that is always trying for less government could arrive at fascism(an authoritarian dictatorship) I can understand if someone wanted to say "but the politicians on the right aren't going for less government." That's understandable, and I definitely agree when it comes to the right wing politicians we have had lately, but that still doesn't make fascism right wing, it just makes right wing politicians liars, which all politicians are guilty of. Although the right wing voters DO believe in less government and more individual power. Just because a politician claims to want less government to get into power doesn't mean everything he does from that point on is right wing. I'm not saying that all government is bad, or that all leftists are fascists. I'm just addressing the absurdity that I see in calling people who want less government fascists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InquistiorV (talk • contribs) 18:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It is only in the US that more government = left. In other political traditions huge governments and their proponents can very well be right wing. Anyway this is an issue that is being discussed very thoroughly above and in order to contribute to that discussion it would be best if you could back up your claims with references to reliable sources.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"Left" vs. "Right" originally came from the French Revolution and referred to a person's alignment with the Church. Because the church was allied with the government, the "Right Wing" became aligned with the monarchy. However this spectrum is reasonably disputed by the fact that, while the church advocates respect for the existing authorities it also indicated in Samuel that the choice of the Jewish people to choose a monarchy rather than a system of semi-democratic small government theocracy was due to their abandonment of God. In other words, monarchy is not the most 'right wing' form of government. To phrase things differently, Hitler admitted that his views ripped off Marx (who I hope we can agree was 'left wing?') and that he was only opposed to Communism because it was internationalist and "Jewish." Just because Hitler fought with Communists doesn't mean he was ideologically opposed to much of what they did. He emulated them in many ways. In any case, presenting fascism as "Far Right Wing" as a statement of fact is extremely NPOV. It is, at the very least, a taxonomy that's heavily disputed and cannot be fairly presented as fact. Misplaced Pages seems to lean rather severely to the left on matters of politics, and radically different standards are applied based on the figure in question's political outlook. This violates Misplaced Pages's own expressed standards. Ryan W. --70.190.167.1 (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that current political comparisons dont relate to the original use of left vs right. Congratulations, but that doesnt relate to the point above, where someone is confused regarding what right-wig politics is, which is not about individualism. You're also noting that what Hitler said and what he did were different. Only 60 years behind everyone else. Presenting fascism as right wing is not POV - check right-wing politics. Right wingers priortise social hierarchy, social order, nationalism, religion and anti-communism. Moderate right wingers promote individual freedoms when moderate left wing governments impose laws and policies they disagree with, just as left wingers do when right wing governments impose their policies. You cant extend the gripes and glories of modern moderate left-right advocates with genuine radicals like communists and fascists. Radical right-wing means virulent social hierarchy, order imposed by terror, death to communists or anyone who disagrees with the imposition of the fascist state and justified by twisted religion and or nationalism. Fascism is desribed as radical right wing because those aspects are aspects of fascism. Just because some parts of far right-wing politics are the same as far left-wing politics doesnt mean fascism isnt right wing. It just means that right wing and left wing radicals have more in common with each other than say right wing radicals compared to left wing moderates and left wing radicals to right wing moderates. The taxonomy is only disputed by people of right-wing persuasions who dont like to be reminded that their viewpoint has an extremist faction which is just as vicious and destructive as the left-wing does. The viewpoint that fascism isnt far right wing deserves its place but the idea of fascism being right-wing in general cant be removed from the article since this viewpoint is pervasive. Misplaced Pages is quite representative, and if the tendency is to be left or right of where you are says more about you than your fellow editors. Funny how left-wingers say they are left, wheras right-wingers say everybody else is too left-wing. NPOV cannot be maintained in every sentence, every edit, especially in matters about politics. Overall NPOV is maintained by ensuring both the prevailing viewpoint and also appropriate description of minority or opposing viewpoints are included in articles. Mdw0 (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

But aren't those countries parties "less" right than the parties in the US. They are usually self described as "center-right". That means closer to the left, which would support my interpritation even with the expanding government. It's the same with "Moderate Republicans" in the US like John McCain, who is usually attacked by the farther right political figures. He was talked badly about at many conservative/libertarian rallies this year. Another example is the large amount of libertarians that spoke out against George Bush's push for the Patriot Act. It seems to me that there is no difference between us in other countries, just maybe the labels. I'm willing to look at examples though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InquistiorV (talk • contribs) 19:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You cannot define European right parties as "less right" than american ones since it is the very definition of "right" that is in question. If "right" means pro-small-government and pro-personal freedom as in the US, then European right parties are less right than AMerican ones. But in Europe right means more something like pro-tradition, pro-religion, pro-centralised government, pro-law and order, pro-nationalism. In fact in Europe personal freedom is more often thought of as a tenet of the left, and often left parties are in favour of decentralisation of power.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ohhhhhh, ok, now I think I understand your point. So would that mean that policy is actually quite interchangeable throughout the world when it comes to left-right placement? and would that also mean that fascism can never be right or left as Americans see right or left? I mean, I still like my view on power placement, but I see how this can be so difficult now. Maybe there should be a separate section on WP:Fascism that separates the distinction of European view as opposed to American view. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by InquistiorV (talk • contribs) 19:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It means that one cannot simply say "right" and expect everyone to understand what one means. It is necessary to define what one means by the word when using it to define someone's political standpoint. This is why modern political scientists have developed different types of spectra with more axes for describing political views with a greater degree of detail. As can be seen from the discussion above, most scientists see certain likenesses between Fascism and the left (focusing on the group rather than the individual, focus on progress through popular revolution) and others with fascism and the right (focus on tradition, religion and authority). Others have suggested that both the most extreme right and left views are characterised by the use of force and authority to bend others to their will. I think that all of the editors working here are extremely knowledgeable and i am sure they will eventually agree on a good way to present the fact that there are many complex views on the description of the Fascist ideology. feel free to chip in to the discussion. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your graciousness and understanding. I still think it's odd that only two of the major three views on this issue are being adequately presented, but thanks to you, I now fully understand how this is such a controversial topic and why it's so hard to come to a consensus.(InquistiorV (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC))

"Conservative" parties in Europe, like the Christian Democrats are called center-right because they derived from liberal and Catholic Centrist parties and not from the traditional European Right, such as the German Conservative Party. (If you follow the link you will find a representative description of a right-wing party.) Both "left" and "right" in the United States would have been considered centrist in Italy and Germany between the wars. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi V. Here's another way of presenting the issue. I don't think the essential definitions of "left" and "right" differ at all depending on which side of the Atlantic you are on, although there is a difference of emphasis in terms of the associations that are made when we use those words.

Always, and in every case, both where I am and where you are, the basic rule is that the more egalistarian someone is, the more left wing they are. So, a left wing person tends to emphasise the importance of reducing inequality in society above all else. A right wing person may either not care about reducing inequality, they may be actively hostile to the idea, they may believe that it is less important than other things or they may believe that it is not a directly achievable aim.

There is a strong perception that left wing people tend to also believe in statism. This is true on both sides of the pond, although I think the association is strongest in the US (perhaps because "left" and "socialist" tend to make Americans think of the Cold War and the USSR). But the important thing to note is that it is an association and not a defining characteristic.

For example, Noam Chomsky is an American and is normally considered left-wing. However, he is also markedly anti-statist. Equally, anti-capitalist demonstrators in the US are normally considered left-wing, but, at least in the way they are stereotyped, they are mostly interested in sticking it to the man, rather than in creating social institutions for him to manage.

European fascism is, at bottom, both statist and anti-egalitarian. This is a particular combination that Americans may have trouble understanding, because it falls outside the normal rhetoric of mainstream politics in the US. However, its anti-egalitarianism makes it right wing, wihtout room for doubt. Its statism, though often associated with the left in the US, is neither here nor there, because that is not the defining thing. --FormerIP (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The welfare state was actually invented by conservatives in the 19th century, developed by liberals in the early twentieth century and opposed by socialists until after the Second World War. One of the main driving forces for the welfare state was that governments were finding it hard to find people healthy enough to fight their wars. Socialists opposed the welfare state because it gave too much power to the government. Of course there has always been a hardcore group of classical liberals who totally opposed welfare. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This statement is inaccurate at least concerning the development of the welfare state in Denmark. In Denmark the welfare state was developed by the socialist Social-Democratic party, rooted in the strong workers movement from ca. 1920 to 1940. From the beginning they were opposed by conservatives who were anti-egalitarian and espoused traditional values such as nationalism and royalism and a free labour market. I agree with FortmerIp who basically restates my argument that Fascism is called right wing because of its authoritarianism and anti-egalitarianism and sometimes associated with the left because of its focus on the community and a strong centralised state.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect The Four Deuces may be talking specifically about the history of American poltics. I agree with you though - what he says also does not sound familiar from a UK point-of-view. --FormerIP (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(out)Specifically Otto von Bismarck introduced State Socialism to Germany in the 19th Century. The British Liberal Party introduced the Liberal reforms in 1906-1912. The British Labour Party opposed this and the Socialist Party of America opposed the New Deal. Socialists supported the delivery of social services through workers' co-operatives. Here's an example of this thinking from the New International (1938).

Complete State Medicine.... From a working-class point of view, this would be dangerous because it would remove all possibility of workers’ control of their own doctors and leave their health needs at the mercy of the capitalist state....a state-controlled medical service might prove a powerful weapon against militant workers....compulsory insurance method might well become as dangerous a weapon of the state as complete State Medicine itself.

The Four Deuces (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

One could also take note of measures effected under the premiership of Disraeli. Further, the intellectual and philosophical roots of such measures can be traced back to the programmes of the illiberal mercantilists. For the 19th-Century right-wing to return to such programmes was a playing-out of its long-standing and continued rejection of laissez faire. —SlamDiego_←T 11:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Disraeli's measures were called Tory Socialism. However, Herbert Spencer in the "New Toryism" wrote that the Liberal Party was not only copying the Tory trend but moving faster and urger classical liberals to abandon them for the Conservatives. While he did not agree with Conservative ideology, he thought that their resistance to change would slow the move toward a welfare state. It is also worth noting that the post-WW2 welfare state in Europe was part of ordoliberalism, a theory developed by liberals (originally including Hayek and Mises who left because they had different views of liberalism) and implimented by Christian Democrats. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

But the relevant point is that in Great Britain, again, the welfare state was begun as a creature of the political right-wing. —SlamDiego_←T 15:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input, but from what I've been hearing from you, and based on what I've researched about the different points you've brought up, I can only come to the conclusion that there is no left or right wing. All of you have outstandng points and great examples that I've looked up, but they all seem to contradict each other. I very much appreciate the enlightenment I've gained from you, but if all these examples are true, and most of the ones that I've looked up have been true, then it seem to me that left wing policy can be on the right, and right wing policy can be on the left. I mean I still know what I believe in; competition improves quality, the individual should not be sacrificed for the "collective", freedom to speak out against the government, Cicero's natural law, proper seperation of power based on the idea's of Baron de Montesque ........etc, but knowing this, how can I ever find the group that supports my beliefs? I mean, based on what you've told me, I certainly can't just classify things as left or right wing anymore. I don't mind addmitting that it's a little frustrating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InquistiorV (talk • contribs) 15:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit off-topic for this talk page. But why in the world do you feel the need to choose for yourself a philosophy that can be unequivocally labelled “right-wing” or “left-wing” or “center”? —SlamDiego_←T 15:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's only off topic because I forgot to tie it in with the topic. I first got interested in political philosophy when I started learning about fascism. I grabbed up any books I could find and then I wondered around not knowing what I believed, until I came across Cicero and his theory of Natural Law. I loved it and then came across Baron de Montesquieu's "Spirt of Laws", and it became my foundation stone, and from it I branched out into so many books I've lost count. I now believe that ALL major proplems in government result in the improper disproportionate placement of power, and that fascism is the ultimate consequence of that improper placement. More than anything else I fear fascism, and yet I'm fascinated by it, and I'm just trying to find the group that can be the stronghold against that improper placement.(InquistiorV (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC))

The meaning of left, right and center was explained by Lipset and Hayek. Bobbio tried to update the concept of left and right in modern politics. What defines the political spectrum is not specific policies but underlying beliefs and attitudes. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this talk page isn't here for general discussion of fascism. The purpose of the talk page is to discuss how the article is and ought to be written. You really need to find a different forum. —SlamDiego_←T 16:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This does effect how the article is written. You asked me why and I told you. The point that I'm trying to make is that, how can you decide if fascism is left or right wing when none of you can even come to the conclusion of what left and right wing is. The placement of fascism on left or right wing greatly effects some people. Like myself, I absolutely want to distance myself from fascism, and the easiest way to do that is to alli with the opposition, but based on all of your examples, thats impossible to determine. I'm just making the point that the task of labeling fascism as left or right wing can't be done, and therefore I guess I'm trying to get across that, if you can't figure out how to input ALL position in an equal proportion, you shouldn't cover any. In relation to the political spectrum anyway.(InquistiorV (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC))

The substance of your objections is already dealt with by multiple points of the WP policy apparatus, but the most succinct answer is offered by WP:NPOV which states, in part, that the "Neutral point of view" does not mean "NO point of view". More broadly, our goal is to neutrally represent significant published viewpoints, and do so in proportion to the prominence of each... WP:Fringe actually is a policy, or rather, a major sub-component of a core policy, and you can't really challenge it directly. The appropriate avenue for you, I believe, is simply to argue that the "Fascism = left-wing" view is not a fringe view, though of course there is no guarantee that your position is well-held or that your arguments will be persuasive. So, in a nutshell, I think you are just looking at this debate in the wrong way due to not having enough familiarity with WP policy, although I also happen to think that the position you are taking on fascism is wrong. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2009 (UT)

Thank you for your advice. I think that "the belief that fascism = left-wing is not a fringe view" is really my main point, and I do get sidetracked easily. I also admit to not having a good knowledge of WP policy. So I guess I'll do what I love to do ....... read, and I'll come back with a better way of showing my argument.(InquistiorV (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

Position in the political spectrum – Neutrality tag

This subject has been hotly debated for some time.

Personally, I think that what Four Deuces has added, which is a relatively minor (but not inconsequential) modification of FormerIP's compromise proposal, is fair and even-handed. However, I think it would be best to spur some commentary on the revision as it now stands, before proceeding further.. especially because some active editors appear to be on hiatus, although I do get the impression that numerous other editors may have walked away from the debate over the course of many weeks or even months.

What are people's thoughts on whether the current revision satisfies NPOV? Are we past the point where the neutrality tag is needed? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi FAYS. I think it doesn't pose serious enoguh NPOV issues anymore to merit the neutrality tag, but think it should stay for a short while in any case so as to encourage editors to talk rather than revert if they disagree. Reckon it can go after a few days or a week if no controversies over it arise.

Also think the section as a whole could still do with some tidying. --FormerIP (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right, although I'm finding myself quite busy of late and don't have as much time for WP. At the same time, I don't have as much background knowledge on the subject as some other editors here, so it's probably no great loss. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not fair and even-handed. What I find particularly troubling is even though he is well aware of all the trouble we went trough he didn't felt the need to post it on the talk first. -- Vision Thing -- 19:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Good thing I encouraged you to rejoin the discussion, then, since the total silence at this talk page might have been misconstrued as a lack of significant opposition.

I guess we are back to square one, though. I'd be interested to hear a succinct summary of your objections, since you reverted. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Vision Thing has now edited the "Position in the political spectrum" so that it now begins:

Benito Mussolini promoted ambiguity about fascism's positions in order to rally as many people to it as possible, saying fascists can be "aristocrats or democrats, revolutionaries and reactionaries, proletarians and anti-proletarians, pacifists and anti-pacifists". Mussolini claimed that Italian Fascism's economic system of corporatism could be identified as either state capitalism or state socialism, which in either case involved "the bureaucratisation of the economic activities of the nation." Mussolini described fascism in any language he found useful.

Although I believe that the article should point out what Mussolini believed, I would point out that he was a fascist and had no academic credentials. Therefore this makes the opening extremely biased, and I am therefore reversing it. If Vision Thing believes that the section should begin with Mussolini's views or if he believes that Mussolini should be seen as authoritative and NPOV, then I would appreciate his opinion. (Sorry, I misstated your handle on my edit summary.)

The Four Deuces (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted to a previous version that was relatively stable for months. It is you who is introducing changes, not me. I especial find it duplicitous that you are asking me to discuss changes when you are trying to bully through your changes without any discussion or proposal here at talk. -- Vision Thing -- 09:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's very fair, VT. The content TFD inserted had been proposed, discussions seem to have come down to a few minor points and no-one had said anything for a few days. Suck-it-and-see seems to me to be a reasonable way forward. You previously appeared to support most of what is in TFD's edit - in fact, some of it was originally your wording. So, I'm guessing that any objections you might have are quite specific. Why not just say what they are?

Also, you might want to call the previous version "stable", but you're well aware that no-one has been happy with it, we've all just been observing an editing cease-fire. --FormerIP (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Suck-it-and-see" might have been a reasonable step forward but The Four Deuces didn't stop on that. He decided to edit war over it while calling me out for not discussing. That is not acceptable behavior. As for objections: 1) The Four Deuces changed all important first sentence. 2) There is no mention of Gregor's observation how view of scholars about place of fascism in the political spectrum have changed over the years. 3) Not only are Stackelberg's views present as representative for view that fascism is the right wing, they are also distorted. -- Vision Thing -- 14:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but I don't see why your three objections need to take us immediately back to the drawing-board. Why not: (1) propose ways in which the Gregor citation might be incorportated and (2) explain what you think is wrong with the way in which Stackleberg is presented and/or propose an alternative? On the ordering in the first sentence, I think it's deadlock at the moment, but let's not just give into it. Perhaps there's a third way, or maybe we should sort the other issues then take a straw poll. --FormerIP (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

1) Stackelberg's views properly presented: "Rod Stackelberg argues that fascism opposes egalitarianism (particularly racial) and democracy, which according to him are characteristics that make it an extreme right-wing movement." 2) Gregor citation and first sentence are one problem. My proposal: "Writers on the subject have often found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum complex, and while it was normally described as "extreme right" over the years scholars increasingly began to view fascism as a movement that is neither the "right" nor the "left."" -- Vision Thing -- 19:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, VT, I have re-inserted the Four Deuces version, using your wording for Stackleberg, which I see no problem with. However, I haven't used your wording regarding Gregor, since I'm not confident that it is a fair use of the source. Your wording gives the impression that the view has continually shifted away from fascism being seen as right-wing over time, which Gregor does not appear to say. He does talk about the emergence of a number of historians taking a different view, but this appears to happen as an event, not as a continual process. I'm not necessarily averse to including soemthing about gregor if more appropriate wording can be found.

I really think it would be good to work on what is now there. I don't think it is right to revert the whole section just because you have a problem with one detail. The contents are still open for discussion and amendment, and there is a neutrality tag on the section. If we allow the idea that there should be no progress until everyone agrees about every detail, then we will quite simply never make progress. It seems to me that it would be much better to simply continue to argue over the diminishing proportion about which there is reason to argue. What I am noting is that this proportion is reducing, so we must be on the right track, however slow it might be. If you feel the need to obliterate text, please don't do so wholesale - preserve the parts you don't disagree with.

Incidentally, I have also edited to reflect John K's objection that the views of fascists were not consistent with regard to where they sat on the pol spec. This seems fair enough to me. --FormerIP (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What would be your proposed wording regarding Gregor? -- Vision Thing -- 12:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I personally think that there is already enough information in the section now, and I don't think I can identify any useful additional information from the Gregor quote. That deosn't mean that nothing can be included, I'm just saying that I personally don't support anything being included.

I'd also note that there is a recent discussion of this source in the archive, which ended in bickering and no consensus to include the cite. So, before it gets included, it would only be fair for editors involved in that discussion to have a chance to comment again if they want to. There was also a description of Gregor as a "scientific racist". I don't know if this is an accurate decription but, if it is, then I would say that the issue of whether this compromises him as a source will also need airing.

All that aside, there seems to have been a difference of opinion as to how to interpet the opening sentences of the preface. The question boils down to whether "the judgments of scholars" refers to some, all or most scholars. I don't think your view, VT (that he means "most" or "all") stands up. Firstly, because we surely know from all the other sources we have looked at that there is no point where there has ceased to be controversy over the question. Secondly, because Gregor spends much of the rest of his book bemoaning the dominance of the idea that fascism is on the right. This would make little sense if your interpretation were correct.

So, I think there are a number of hurdles to cross before Gregor can be used as a source. At the moment, I don't think he is a source for anything more than something like: "According to James Gregor, a number of scholars viewing fascism as "neither left nore right" emerged between the mid 1960s and the 2000s". However, I don't think this adds much by way of useful information to what we already have.

There could be a potential compromise, because the Gregor quote could be used as part-support for a statement about support for this view varying over time and being in the ascendency at some points (with Gregor and one or two others being cited).

Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to include something like "fascism is normally described as extreme right or neither the left or the right", only solution is to attribute claims like you suggested that we do with Gregor. That would give us: "According to Roger Eatwell fascism is normally described as extreme right. According to James Gregor scholars abandoned that view and now see fascism as neither the left nor the right." -- Vision Thing -- 14:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) One would only use the expression "According to Roger Eatwell..." if he were expressing an opinion. When a fact is sourced there is no reason to say "according to". It would be like saying "According to Roger Eatwell, Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933". Is it your suggestion that we go through this article and mention names in the text of the source for every fact? The Four Deuces (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Facts are not disputed by renowned scholars. WP:NPOV describes fact as "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." And while at the time Eatwell wrote his piece (in the early 1990s) that view probably wasn't under dispute, now it is. -- Vision Thing -- 14:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow, VT. If you got the impression I'm saying we should add names of sources to the current opening statement then, well, I wasn't.

My issue with Gregor isn't primarily whether to attribute inline or not, but exactly what claim the source can be used to support and whether there are reasons to treat Gregor with caution as a source (there may not be, but it has been raised). There was already a long discussion about Gregor, which I wan't part of, but it looks to me like "no consensus". Re-opening that discussion is fine by me, but it looks like it contains a few issues.

If you want to claim that the Eatwell quote is out of date then that's a claim that needs support. Even giving Gregor the loosest scrutiny, he doesn't support that, simply because he is talking about a period beginning in the 60s, whereas Eatwell is writing in the 90s. --FormerIP (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Although I disagree with VT in most discussions, I feel I wouldn't be living up to my name if I didn't point out that he's correct in asserting that the above statement doesn't qualify as a "fact"; few statements do, even ones which can be determined to be accurate in a relatively objective way. This particular statement doesn't even seem to count as a "fact about an opinion" since it is more of a value judgment (a correct one, I believe) about opinions in general on this particular subject.

That said, the troublesome question is: will we attribute every statement to its source just because it is disputed? NPOV policy is not silent on this subject, but neither does it seem to address the logical conclusion that every significant dispute will potentially add some cumbersome verbiage to the article to which it relates. Meanwhile, saying "According to Roger Eatwell Fascism is normally described as extreme right" seems to dramatically understate the claim, suggesting it would be appropriate to add various "me too" claims from other authors, which would inevitably lead to the counting up of competing sources, which is exactly what we try to avoid by citing synthesizing sources. Ugh – this sucks. More and more, I think we should cut the knot by citing the OED to establish, once and for all, the general usage of the term. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Although, on second thought, are there any sources that say Fascism is normally described as anything other than right or extreme right? I sort of doubt it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine with quoting the OED. In terms of the logic of what you are sating, FAYS, I'd say there are opinions (which always should be attributed) and claims (which should be attributed if there is a staright conflict between sources). In the case of Eatwell, we have a claim, but we do not have any conflicting sources, IMO. We have sources which point out further layers of complexity, but they don't undermine the basic point. --FormerIP (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess that this issue could be partially settled by adding "historically". -- Vision Thing -- 20:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really, VT. This would seem to imply "not any more". I think the whole point is that that is not the case. It isn't warranted to put it in the past tense.--FormerIP (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You argue that "In the case of Eatwell, we have a claim, but we do not have any conflicting sources" but Gregor is competing source. He says: "Over those years, students of "fascism," as a subject of inquiry, have seen its "essence" change, in the judgments of scholars, from a movement of the "extreme right" into one that was neither of the "right" nor the "left."" So according to him, Eatwell's claim should be in put in a past tense, and fascism should be described as a " neither of the "right" nor the "left."" -- Vision Thing -- 16:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The reasons I think this is not the case have been gone over. But, to recap, (1) who the "scholars" in Gregor's quote are is not clear (I tend to think they are a minority, and, in context, anything else would be contradictory to what Gregor himself is saying), (2) Gregor specifies the timescale that he is talking about as beginning in the 1960s - since Eatwell is writing in the 1990s, I don't see how Gregor can be used as evidence that Eatwell is out-of-date, (3) you had a discussion with a number of other users where the result was no consensus, for a number of reasons including doubts over Gregor's sincerity - I'm not saying these are founded, but I think you should seek to re-open that discussion rather than taking advantage of the fact that it has gone cold. --FormerIP (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

1) I think it is irrelevant who scholars in Gregor's quote are, but there is more than enough prominent scholars who belong in that camp (Laquer, Sternhell, Griffin, Lipset, Gregor and Eatwell himself). 2) Gregor talks about period during which change in views happened, not a specific year. -- Vision Thing -- 12:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) I reverted the edit that placed the qualifier before the fact. It made it appear that there was any doubt that fascism is normally considered right-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There is little doubt that fascism is conventionally viewed as right-wing, but this discussion gets to the idea that left and right have little modern scholarly meaning. It's wishful thinking to assume that political parties self-organize along a convenient spectrum, as if waiting to be catalogued by us; rather, political parties are inherently self-interested. In particular, fascism promotes the cult of leadership, with promise that the rank-and-file can advance through superior obedience. Now, if "left" and "right" have any relationship to "obedience," then fascism can be placed on the spectrum. --173.68.190.122 (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there was any confusion about the political spectrum before 1921, when the Fascist Party formed. Conservatives sat on the right, liberals and centrists sat in the center, and social democrats and communists sat on the left, and were associated with the upper, middle and working classes respectively. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What should propelty mean "be of right"? Be of right means, firstly, to recognize the subverting character of the movements resulting from the french revolution, whether liberalism or democracy or socialism. Be of right means, secondly, to see the decadent nature of rationalistic, progressistic, materialistic myth preparing the advent of plebeian civilization, the kingdom of the quantity, the tyranny of the anonymous and monstrous masses. Be of right, moreover, means to conceive the State as an organic totality where the political values predominate over economic structures and where the saying "to each his own", does not means equality, but fair qualitative inequality. Finally, be of right means to accept as your own that aristocratic, religious and warrior spirituality who has marked by itself the european civilization, and - in the name of this spirituality and its values - accepting the fight against the decadence of Europe.

Adriano Romualdi - italian historian, essayist, politician, journalist, influenced by the thought of Julius Evola --151.23.12.218 (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Movements with similar ideology but dating earlier

Should not Russian Black Hundreeds and Union of Russian People be included? In fact Nazi party much more borrowed from this movement than from Italian fascists.--MathFacts (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely...provided a source can be found to back your contention. --FormerIP (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, but what about, Charles Maurras, fascism took alot from him and his movement. We may mention lots of movements with similar characteristics, than the ones we got with fascism. In fact, fascism is said to be inspired in lots of Plato ideals specially those we see in "The Republic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erick91 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the French consensus theory there were no French fascists, they only thought they were fascists. And the Anglo-Saxon consensus theory excludes them also. We need a source to mention them. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

But it may not be contentious to mention AF as an influence, provided the claim can be sourced. --FormerIP (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You need a source that connects them with fascism, preferably a book about fascism. The Black Hundreds and the Union of the Russian People already have articles, but could be mentioned here also. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

They could be mentioned under Para-fascism, as they seem to have a counter-revolutionary character, though this may only be apparent in their attitude towards the rise of Leninism. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Extreme Right

I have reverted the lead to describe fascism as "extreme right", which is sourced. Note that fascist and related groups are invariably described as "far right" in other articles. I do not however consider it POV to label fascism "extreme right" rather than "far right". The Four Deuces (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As you are well aware of, problem is that different sources say different thing about position of fascism on political spectrum. Also, you have not explained this edit. Introduction to that section was much discussed on this talk page, and in that edit you were not "simplify language" but making significant changes to the meaning of the first sentence. -- Vision Thing -- 21:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The majority view is that it is "extreme right" and there is no reason why fascist topics are called far right but an exception is made for fascism itself. My edit to the "Political spectrum" section was to correct stilted language, but the meaning has not been changed. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't use other Misplaced Pages articles as arguments. They are not reliable sources under any interpretation. Also, can you explain how "but writers on the subject have often found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum difficult." has the same meaning as "some writers have found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum difficult." -- Vision Thing -- 21:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The word "some" means: "Being an unspecified number or quantity". (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000) Since no quantity of writers was specified, this is an accurate adjective. Also the Fascism article is part of Category:Fascism which is part of Category:Far right politics. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No quantity of writers was specified but that doesn't mean that "some" is appropriate, especially because none of the sources uses that wording. -- Vision Thing -- 13:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Slightly bemused to look back here and find that this debate is still going on, and that edits like this one are still being made, albeit that they have since correctly been reverted. Whatever the complexities of political categorisation and the inadequacies of the left-right spectrum, nothing much has changed in the real world for the last god-knows-how-many-months-and-even-years -

• The left-right distinction remains the most common, standard shorthand system of categorisation for political groups and parties
• Fascism is usually placed on the far or extreme right of that spectrum by the vast majority of both everyday and academic sources

While it is technically probably true that elements of fascist ideology can be seen as having origins in what might otherwise sometimes be interpreted as left-wing ideas - and I'm sure this can be reliably sourced, above and beyond the ruminations of Jonah Goldberg - to say as the very first words on the topic that Fascism has definitively taken from both left and right, implicitly in equal measure, makes for an utterly misleading opening statement. Sure, cover the complexity and nuance of the arguments later on, but please let's not make content here follow the tune of minority and borderline fringe viewpoints any more than much of it already does. --Nickhh (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that right/left issue shouldn't be mentioned in the first sentence at all, because of the complexity of the issue. However, The Four Deuces seems to insist on it. -- Vision Thing -- 13:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Then why are you constantly edit warring this "part left, part right" opening sentence back in, which you first inserted here? A total of three other editors (myself, the Four Deuces and XGustaX) have now come out against the specific wording you keep reinserting, while you yourself say you don't even want the broader issue addressed anyway in that sentence. This is beginning to look a little WP:POINTy. And btw you have missed the point of what I said, which was that while the issue of political categorisation is indeed complex, there is nonetheless a pretty standard broad-brush description available, which can be used - with more detailed nuance and caveats added later. --Nickhh (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at definitions by most scholars of fascism you will see that they try to avoid left/right terminology. My opinion is that we should follow that practice in defining fascism. -- Vision Thing -- 15:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

All of this is addressed in "Position in the political spectrum". The lead should reflect the majority opinion of fascism as extreme right. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with that.--Saddhiyama (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please just stop it VT. This has gone on for way too long, seemingly justified by utterly bizarre - and unsupported - beliefs and claims such as this latest "If you look at definitions by most scholars of fascism you will see that they try to avoid left/right terminology". In fact of course a review of most sources - including one limited to those you yourself cite in favour of your idiosynchratic interpretations - finds no such thing. Even those that raise questions about its efficacy start from the explicitly stated assumption that it is the standard terminology, and that fascism is usually read as sitting on the far right of it. Plus beyond that of course, they usually simply raise questions about precision, rather than necessarily rejecting outright that standard position. The latest version goes more than far enough towards accomodating any legitimate concerns on this issue. --Nickhh (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Vision Thing entirely. As do just about all of the reliable scholars in this field, try reading Roger Griffin, Zeev Sternhell, Robert Paxton, Stanley G. Payne and Renzo De Felice instead of comedians like Jonah Goldberg. Misplaced Pages is verifiability and academia is not a democracy. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I also concur. And since Schelsinger also held this position, the claim that it is in any way uniform that Fascism is "extreme right" fails. Collect (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Quoting names and simply asserting that they back up your contentions is all very interesting, but of course one needs to actually have read and understood what these people are actually saying. You may be right about one or two of the above, as I acknowledged above, but that still doesn't undo the mainstream view (in ordinary usage, as well as in academic discourse). Anyway, some of these claims of support from particular authors and scholars have been made and debunked before in the voluminous correspondence above, so it's a little odd to see them exhumed here. I really can't be bothered to spend hours digging around for evidence in respect of all of them, but here's one or two that I can present links to, so that others can at least get some idea of how accurate these claims are -

• Roger Griffin seems quite happy here to discuss these issues under the topic "extreme right", and to classify even modern parties as such, regardless of any new thinking or analysis that he has brought to the topic of fascism
• Arthur Schlesinger quite explicitly talks here of fascism as being "on the right" (full quote here - "When I named the book I wrote in 1949 The Vital Center, the "center" I referred to was liberal democracy, as against its mortal international enemies--fascism to the right, communism to the left").

What seems to be happening here is that one or two WP editors have a political viewpoint (presumably that they consider themselves right wing and don't wish to be associated with fascists, or that to be right wing means to be anti-statist or "anarchocapitalist" or whatever so how can fascism be right wing?), and they then scrabble around cherry-picking or even misrepresenting material in a bid to back that position up. You might not like the way things are categorised but please don't pretend that they are not categorised that way. That's just denialism --Nickhh (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Was fascism extreme right?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law History and geography Economy, trade, and companies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There is a dispute whether it is POV to describe Fascism as extreme right in the lead section. Comments from outside users would be appreciated. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem with it. This is by far the most common view of Fascism worldwide. I just looked it up in my old Collins Gem pocket dictionary (1992 edition) and it says "Right wing political system characterized by state control and extreme nationalism". Note the lack of any equivocation there. Other views should be included but not in the lead section. The use of "extreme right" makes it clear that Fascism is apart from the normal or legitimate right, which is important both for clarity and fairness. I think "extreme right" is better than "far right" at making this distinction. "Far right" can encompass some sorts of ultra-conservative and ultra-free-market views which don't deserve to be mixed up with Fascism. If we do have to have any equivocation here I would accept a wording like "generally placed on the extreme right", "most commonly ascribed to the extreme right", or something like that, but not a list of dissenting viewpoints. We have to at least make the lead section readable to a general audience and that won't be the case if it is full of equivocations covering minority viewpoints. Extreme right redirects to far right which makes it clear that Fascism is included there. It also includes the phrase "These categories are not universally accepted, and other uses exist, making comparative use of the term complicated." which is a nice simple way of putting it, without getting bogged down in specifics, and maybe we could reuse that here. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You might note that where there is no generally accepted definition of Fascism, that placing it in a specific place may appear problematic. You also might wish to read the protracted prior discussions thereon. WP does not accept dictionaries as reliable sources, by the way. Collect (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that my crappy old pocket dictionary was the font of all knowledge. All I wanted to show was a nice simple example of how little impact the dissenting views have on mainstream perception, which is what a pocket dictionary will tend to reflect. I have read some of the prior discussions of this and have been dismayed at the inability to reach a consensus as to the mainstream view given how well documented it is. This is not to diminish the legitimacy of the dissenting views, but simply to oppose their being given undue prominence, which, I think, would include being listed in the lead section. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal disclosure: I think fascism is the most extreme right wing ideology of the 20th century. My point: so what? I do not think it should matter what any dictionary says, simply because i think Misplaced Pages should aspir to be better than a dictionary (exception: dictionaries are authoritative sources for correct pronunciation, spelling, and good ones for etymologies). Long previous conversation notwithstanding, I think that the thing to do is to have a good section on Mussolini's fascism, then other fascist or quasi-fascist movements of the time, and then how the term is used more generally today (the meanings of words changeover time). I think at all times we should emphasize mainstream views among professional historians and political scientists. Is any of what I just wrote controversial? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I hear you, but what we need to decide here is what to put in the lead section before the article gets into this more detailed stuff. Lets focus on the specific question we are being asked here. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's not POV, in my opinion. Right-wing means traditionalism, conservatism, nationalism. Extreme right-wing means that those tenets are taken to limits they themselves may not withstand, thus creating a revolutionary, aggressive form of right-wing that may be confused with practices more characteristic of the left: Fascism. That's how I personally view it, at least. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• I do not see it as POV. There are classification problems with all ideologies, but fascism is the only one where editors seem upset about stating the mainstream view in the lead. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Also don't think it is POV, for reasons discussed rather a lot already. Think it would be a strong sign of POV being at play if the article went contrary to standard dictionaries within its first sentence. --FormerIP (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Far or extreme right wing in the lead, the alternate view further down. Just because a coupe of political writers ('scholars') have found a couple of tendencies of radical fascism and radical communism to be similar, that doesnt mean fascism is leftwing, and it certainly doesnt mean the prevailing viewpoint is that facism is anything other than extreme right wing. If fascism isnt extreme right, what is? With regards to POV, you cant avoid political POV, but you can limit how it is expressed, critically assess minority and majority viewpoints and ensure that balance is maintained in the article. Criticisms of the prevailing viewpoint are fine in moderation, but if you're against it and you have a great pile of dissenting references, why not create a separate article about Left-wing Fascism? Mdw0 (talk) 07:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have commented a few times already in the endless debate above, but will briefly reiterate my support for far/extreme right in the lead, with discussion and qualification from any serious sources about the complexities of the issue further down. I'm not sure it's even a POV issue - it's simply about what the standard mainstream terminology/classification for something is. The current wording even bends so far as to say "usually described as extreme/far right" rather than stating explicitly that it is. Several editors it would seem would prefer that fascism was not so described, but that's kind of irrelevant - it is described that way, by everything from your dictionary to the driest academic analysis. --Nickhh (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Agree that far/extreme right should be first in the lead, with some discussion after. We should go with what the majority of dictionaries, encyclopedias, text books, and other reference sources say. LK (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Claiming that the United States is but a small step away from fascism is a POV. Here is the thing, right, left, or center, you have to have a point of reference. What is fascism supposed to be to the right of? If you are going to define fascism as extreme right, then you must find an unbiased reference for what is right, middle, left, and extreme left in order to have a an unbiased POV. I think describing fascism as left or right, is in contract putting it into the same boat as republican|democracy|democrat. I think that is just not needed in order to get a good article. Neuromancer (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• B-Class politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• B-Class Italy articles
• High-importance Italy articles
• All WikiProject Italy pages
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• Selected anniversaries (March 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2005)
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment