Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Criticism of fascism - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TitCrisse (talk | contribs) at 02:18, 23 December 2024 (→Criticism of fascism: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:18, 23 December 2024 by TitCrisse (talk | contribs) (→Criticism of fascism: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Criticism of fascism

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Criticism of fascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

POV fork, mainly based on one part of this article, its faliure in WW2. Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, what? It's a full article with seven different content sections. Only one of those sections is "Poor record in war". Also, why didn't you object to the spinoff when we were discussing this on the talk page before? Sunrise (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Err, that is because there was no consenus to fork this off, what there is a discussion about one paragraph (loss on war), which is you Vs many (so did not have any consensus). Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I originally proposed one paragraph, and edited it to address feedback over several rounds of discussion. In my reading of the discussion, I addressed all the concerns presented, after which most editors were neutral or generally supportive, except for one editor who believed it had too much weight. As a result, I declared my intention to create a spinoff where the paragraph could be included, and there were no objections.
As a result, over the past month I have been researching this topic in order to write a full spinoff article, in accordance with WP:Summary style and the established precedent on "Criticism" articles for ideologies (WP:CRITSP). The resulting article has three subsections derived from the main article, the one section we discussed before, and three entirely new sections written from imported content and my own research. But I suppose we can do an AfD? Sunrise (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
TFD seems to generally object to it. And they never changed that stance. Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, hence my reference to "one editor" in my previous comment (out of 7, by my count?). Regardless, I undertook to address their concerns by offering an alternative solution, and they didn't reply (nor did anyone else) so I assumed it was acceptable. Sunrise (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Kowal2701 (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
There is also WP:CRITSP: For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Sunrise (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • True, but as pointed out above there was no consensus to create this, which came out of a decision about the war paragraph which was (explicitly) rejected for inclusion in the main article. Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    As above - that is not my reading of the discussion (and you didn't make any objection yourself, even though you commented). Perhaps we can get an outside view on that? Regardless, there's no such thing as "no consensus to create" for an action that has been mentioned on talk with no subsequent objection. If your issue is about that single paragraph, then AFDing the entire subarticle would seem to be the wrong venue. Sunrise (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep as article creator, I suppose. I don't spend much time at AfD, so I don't really know what arguments will be accepted on this point. But there is a long precedent for "Criticism" articles about ideologies (WP:CRITSP, as mentioned above), with a full list at Category:Criticisms by ideology.
Normally, I would follow the organization of WP:Summary style, making a new article when a subsection gets too large for the main article, with a summary being left behind. That is what I was doing, and it's the opposite of a POV fork. (The main article is currently desynced due to a revert, but that's a matter for talk.) Certainly there should no question over whether there's enough content for a dedicated article; for one, there's quite a few things that I haven't currently added. The fact that an editor previously raised weight concerns about some of this content being in the main article (which is reasonable, and indeed this article was created in response to that) is a further indication that a dedicated article is appropriate.
AFAICT, I think the nomination may have been based on an error? The claim that it's mainly based on one part of this article, its faliure in WW2 doesn't make sense, as I noted above. The nominator has acknowledged an error (diff) but I'm not really sure what it is. Sunrise (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep OKFORK, as well as important to not conflate the movements of anti-fascism and with a critique of the political ideology. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 17:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    The shiny new xfd tool I installed failed to work, so I will retype my argument; while I do believe the article needs work, particularly on its tone, I do feel like the topic has strong grounds for an article, and there is a decent foundation here Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 17:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. This seems to be distinct from Anti-fascism. Definitely a notable subject. My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article is largely redundant and lacks justification for its existence as a standalone page. The main Misplaced Pages entry on Fascism already provides a comprehensive, nuanced overview of its defining characteristics, failures, and global condemnation. Rather than offering new insights or advancing scholarly understanding, this article merely reiterates well-documented criticisms in a less coherent and poorly organized manner. Moreover, the presentation is overly verbose and fragmented, making it challenging for readers to navigate or derive meaningful value. Much of the content feels like a disjointed rehash of established ideas without a compelling reason for separation from the main article. If the intent was to provide a focused critique, the execution falls short; the article lacks a clear thesis, suffers from repetition, and fails to deliver fresh perspectives. Consolidating the most relevant points into the main Fascism article would serve readers better, eliminating unnecessary duplication while enhancing the overall quality and cohesion of Misplaced Pages’s content on this topic.TitCrisse (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't see how the Fascism article can be considered comprehensive when it doesn't even mention the glorification of war, or anything about the economy or governance under fascism.
Rather than offering new insights or advancing scholarly understanding, this article merely reiterates well-documented criticisms
This feels like you asked ChatGPT to criticize the article, and this is what is came up with. Misplaced Pages articles aren't supposed to offer new insights. "Merely" reiterating well-documented criticisms is exactly what we're supposed to do. The rest of your post similarly sounds like ChatGPT criticizing a student essay, but this isn't trying to be an essay with "a clear thesis" that delivers "fresh perspectives", it's an encyclopedic article that summarizes well-known and common criticisms of fascism. Photos of Japan (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point. I actually agree with the original requester who said this article serves as a 'WP:POV fork' mainly focused on its failures in WWII. Your criticism feels overly prescriptive, as though you're evaluating this as an academic essay rather than an encyclopedic entry.
Yes, Misplaced Pages articles shouldn't offer 'new insights'—they summarize established information—but this article doesn't do so effectively. It lacks a coherent structure and simply rehashes points already well-covered in the main Fascism article. If the goal is to provide focused criticism, then it fails in its execution, precisely because it doesn’t bring anything new or valuable to the table. Reiteration isn't the problem; redundancy is.
As for your claim that the main article on Fascism isn’t comprehensive because it doesn’t mention the glorification of war or economic governance—those points could absolutely be added to the existing article, enriching it, rather than justifying a separate, poorly executed fork. Consolidating this content into the main article would better serve the encyclopedia’s mission of clarity and comprehensiveness. Let’s focus on enhancing the main entry rather than defending a fragmented, subpar offshoot.TitCrisse (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Even if you add in your own words, it's still obvious when your post is primarily written for you by AI. If you don't have anything worth writing yourself then you don't have anything worth responding to.Photos of Japan (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
TitCrisse, it does sound like your arguments are generated by AI, not by a human editor. I've reviewed thousands of AFD discussions at this point and I doubt any human editor would talk about the encyclopedia’s mission of clarity and comprehensiveness. I'm not even sure where you got the idea that these two qualities are Misplaced Pages's "mission". Liz 00:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA. Yes, some of it might be. Because I don't have time to argue with, in my humble opinion, stupid PHOQUING people. Please do go ahead and report my previous sentence to admins on this great encyclopedia. A quick CU search will confirm you are a CRAZY MEAT PUPPET THAT LOVES JIMMY REX. Again, in my humble opinion, I am getting CRAZY THIRD REICH vibes off of this whole crazy harassement. I am going to give EVERY GODDAMENED PERSON on this thread 48 hours to cool off. YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU are assuming bath faith in me. Please realize I am no dummy. You cannot ARM CHAIR WARRIOR your way out of this. TitCrisse (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: