Talk:Fascism (United States)

See proposed Merger notice on article page

POV

This page is 100% one-sided POV. There is already a more balanced discussion of this topic at Neo-Fascism. --Cberlet 20:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a brief discussion of the topic at Neo-Fascism, however it is part of a larger article, and the pertinent discussion is buried at the very bottom. An article on the specific topic of Fascism in the United States seems to be a more appropriate place for this topic to be presented - simply redirecting to Neo-Fascism seems an inadequate way to present the topic of Fascism in the United States. If you feel that this article is lacking NPOV, please be more specific than identifying the entire page as POV - constructive criticism would be appreciated. --Dschor 23:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason the discussion is at Neo-Fascism is that it allows people with different points of view to edit collectively. This page is what is called a POV fork on Wikipedia. It represents one idiosyncratic POV. Also, there are no substantive cites on the entire page. It appears to be original research. As such it is subject to deletion. You show great energy, and that is to be commended, but you need to start a bit slower and learn some of the traditions and guidelines of editing here. Fascism is a complicated and highly contentious subject. Read some of the other pages on fascism and check out the discussion pages.--Cberlet 00:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This page was created in good faith, and follows the guidelines for wikipedia:content forking ("if one aspect of the article subject is more controversial than the others, it is perfectly legitimate to isolate that aspect as much as possible to its own article, in order to keep editing of the main article fairly harmonious"). The Fascism and Neo-Fascism articles certainly are relevant to the topic, but this example of Fascism deserves a distinct page. This article has the potential to be a very strong entry in the wikipedia, providing that it is not deleted. Deprecating this article in favor of the Neo-Fascism article may cause more problems than it solves, considering the controversial nature of the subject (as noted in the opening paragraph). The article can be improved, and the controversy addressed more fully than in the Neo-Fascism article itself. There is no restriction on editing this page - feel free to make constructive edits, but please do not request deletion of this article. Doing so is an example of m:deletionism (see Wikipedia:POV fork): "a misapplication of deletion process, often to enforce a POV rather than to enforce NPOV, and often to outright negate the work of new contributors. This is a misapplication of deletion powers." --Dschor 14:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt that this page was created in good faith, but nonetheless it is highly editorial and one-sided. I have added the POV tag. Also, for future reference, when putting in a template just put {{template}} instead of the code. - Stlemur 14:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! --Dschor 14:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I syuspect this page will begome a magnet for disputes. The section of the Neo-Fascism article on the U.S. was created to move just such a dispute of the main Fascism page. I actually think this concpet would mature faster being edited on the Neo-Fascism where there are actual cites and several sides presented. As it stands, this entry just doesn't meet the minimal standards for being an entry. If folks want to move over the entire section on the United States from the Neo-Fascism page, that might at least elevate this page from being 100% POV and 100% original research. I think legitimate criticism should be taken seriously. How does Dschor explain how this page can be 100% POV and 100% original research and meet Wiki standards and guidelines? Wiki is not a POV text slam.--Cberlet 15:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This page was intended to remove the disputes off of the main page for Neo-Fascism. Considering that the dispute was seen as too controversial for the Fascism page, it is probably also too contentious for the Neo-Fascism page to be an appropriate forum. If the entire section on the United States were to be moved here, a summary would still be needed at the Neo-Fascism page. That does seem like a potential solution, and a good way to jump-start this entry. I do not believe that this page is 100% POV, as has been asserted. There is some content here that has been adopted from the Neo-Fascism entry, and other links that point to original research elsewhere in wikipedia to support the text. Unless all of wikipedia fails the NPOV test, then at least parts of this article are NPOV. If you would kindly identify the parts that you object to, then we can commence some productive editing. This page is isolated from the more general Fascism and Neo-Fascism articles in order to make it more complete and less contentious. Please be specific in your objections, or m:deletionism must be assumed. --Dschor 20:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The whole paragraph onward, from the line "Just as in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy...", is pure POV. Also, depending on how you count it, the oldest still-extant Republic on the planet is IIRC either San Marino or Switzerland. - Stlemur 20:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

If the comparison of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy to the United States is pure POV, please indicate a more appropriate comparison. In attempting to describe the rise of Fascism in the United States, it seems fair to use a direct comparison with other Fascist regimes. Feel free to edit the reference on the oldest still-extant Republic to something more accurate. I realize that the last half of the article can be seen as inflammatory, and is not cited adequately - I do have a life, and can only do so much research in a day. However, none of the statements made can be assaulted on factual grounds, save perhaps the 'liberty and justice for none', which is admittedly a rhetorical flourish that should be altered, and replaced by a reference to the ongoing fight over religion in the United States government. I believe the remainder of the article is accurate, and welcome the input of experienced editors. --Dschor 21:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

All right...let's go line-by-line, then:

• Just as in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, in the United States a movement has come to power that seeks to create national unity through the repression of national enemies and the incorporation of all classes and both genders into a permanently mobilized nation. This movement is known as the GOP.

Deliberately inflammatory, unsupported by sources, rhetorical.

• The Republican Party, after seizing power in the controversial 2000 election through the questionable actions of a right-wing Supreme Court, acted with haste to enact the agenda of the Project for the New American Century.

assertion, intrinsically POV language ("seizing", for example -- I was in Washington at the time and I don't remember any tanks)

• Following the events of September 11th, 2001, conditions in the United States were ideal for such a project, and radical reforms of the American goverment have followed, including the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, the complete reversal of progress on a balanced budget, massive military expenditures, and withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol.

Intrinsically POV in a few ways: the implicit assumption that a balanced budget and membership in Kyoto are necessarily good things, and the word "radical". The Nazis passing the Enabling Act was radical. These people can't even get a flag burning amendment passed.

• The primary means of mobilizing nascent fascist forces has been a focus on "terrorists". The War on Terrorism has provided the political conditions needed to abandon the constitution, and revoke even the most basic human rights guaranteed by United States law and international treaties.

Assertion, assertion, assertion. If you're going to make a claim like this you must not just cite a few sources that support you but present evidence that a very large number of respected scholars support you; your own deductions, as common-sense as they might be, are not acceptable.

• At the same time, corporate influence and collusion with the government at the highest levels has expanded to include no-bid contracts for billions of dollars, and has allowed corporations to write the legislation that is intended to regulate them.

Being pro-corporate is not the same as corporatism.

• The GOP has combined corporatism, totalitarianism, nationalism, and anti-Terrorism (nee anti-Communism) in a state designed to bind all classes together under a capitalist system.

You're inferring the intent of the GOP without offering sources, and adding the original-research assertion that anti-Terrorism is the new anti-Communism. You're also using a very loose definition of "totalitarianism".

• This is commonly known as Fascism.

At the beginning of this article, you picked a dictionary definition of fascism -- watch out for big-F versus little-f -- that fit your thesis. Under other circumstances that might be OK, but Wikipedia has developed a consensus definition of fascism through lots and lots of discussion. The AHD definition wouldn't pass muster here or, I think, with any serious scholar of the subject. You're also again using a very loose definition of "dictatorship"; the AHD itself gives "Absolute or despotic control or power."

• Although this system was instituted under ideal political circumstances, those circumstances are no longer in place, and popular support for the regime is crumbling.

It's tough to pick an NPOV word for a government; "regime" is decent but the tone is clearly one that assumes the current government is, indeed, a totalitarian state.

• The controversial 2004 election was a victory for the GOP, that even the GAO was unable to defend from accusations of rampant vote fraud and illegal activity.

An accusation is not proof; and "unable to defend" implies that your argument is inherently irrefutable, unless we're talking about court cases here.

• A right-wing conspiracy has infiltrated the GOP and seized power, overturning the oldest Republic on the planet, and replacing it with a puppet fascist state, run by and for the wealthiest corporations and individuals, with liberty and justice for none.

Wikipedia is not the place for rhetorical flourishes of any sort that obscure facts. If indeed you are asserting that there is no liberty and no justice in the US, then you are going to have to cite that out the wazoo. Plus, frankly, citing a conspiracy without overwhelming historical evidence doesn't make you sound credible.

• Current projects include the permanent disfigurement of the Supreme Court, endless war, and the suppression of dissent.

For examples of how to write NPOV about a repressive state, see Myanmar or North Korea. Your word choice, especially "disfigurement", is highly biased (assertion that some previous Supreme Court was objectively more perfect).

Another way this article is NPOV is in what it lacks: for example, a treatment of the assertion that the Franklin Roosevelt administration had fascistic (in the form of national-corporatistic) elements; reference to established fascist and Nazi movements in the US, past and present (e.g. the Silver Shirts); and -- here's a good way to learn to develop an argument -- ways in which the GOP might not meet the criteria for being a fascist movement. But overall, what I think you need to work on most is your tone; if you can't write an article without any anger (or indeed ecstatic delight), then you aren't qualified to write it.

I made some revisions based on the advice given above. Hopefully the tone has been moderated somewhat. I look forward to adding much more content to this article, including some salvaged from the Fascism in the United States article that seems to have been deprecated in favor of the Neo-Fascism treatment of the subject. The history of Fascism in the United States is certainly important, and ought to be incorporated into the article in subsequent edits. This is only a beginning, and a fairly rough one, but it is better than failing to address the issue beyond the minor mention at the bottom of the Neo-Fascism article. --Dschor 22:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree even with the edits this page is still 100% POV, and is mostly original research and theories. PPGMD 18:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I am still trying to add more info to the article, but it will be difficult if vandalism continues. I have reverted to my previous edit (for obvious reasons). --Dschor 00:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Academic Research

It's been about a week since this article has been started, since then you have no cited any academic evidence asserting that the Republican Party under President Bush is a Fascist Party. I have sought assistance on this issue and a long time Wikipedian suggested that we simply revert your edits, that is what I am going to be doing on other pages related to this topic, until you can cite references that support your view points. I will also give this page 7 days for you to cite evidence before I put it up for a VFD.

All this is in line with the policies to Wikipedia as I read them. This isn't an attempt to silence you, it's just that original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. PPGMD 16:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia was not written in a week. I understand that there are folks here who are impatient with me. (Those who are impatient with you are generally fascists) This page is a perfect place to combine information on the topic that is currently spread out over multiple pages of the wikipedia. There are many treatments of the topic as part of other articles, but nowhere is a comprehensive summary provided. This is the ideal place for these sources to be combined into a cohesive article. You are certainly free to revert edits that violate wikipedia policy, but reverting any and all edits is not in keeping with the spirit of wikipedia. I started this article to avoid edit wars on the Neo-fascism and Fascism pages, and in the hope that it could be a NPOV entry on the topic. I certainly will have trouble providing evidence if all my edits are simply reverted. Rather than being destructive, why not add some more information to the article yourself? VfD can be taken as a threat or a promise - and I see nothing wrong with an open debate. It might be more productive to focus on improving articles rather than erasing them. I am doing my part to make the wikipedia more complete, and I trust that we all have the same goal in this regard. --Dschor 21:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not a threat, without citations and academic level references, this article does not live up to the standards of Wikipedia, that combined with the obvious POV slant, a tone that is nearly flamebait, and it's a fork of an article that already covers the subject quite well and is NPOV. Editors of the other pages expect you to provide evidence up front before you post controversial claims like the ones made on this page. The same is expected of new articles, a week should be enough to at the very least to find academic level references, if any exist. PPGMD 22:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Also this is inline with the "spirit" of Wikipedia because the goal is the create a free, open information resource, without citations Wikipedia is useless as a information resource because there can be no peer review of the work. I am giving you a chance to improve your work, and to bring it in line at least with refences, there is more then enough reasons to list it for a VFD right now.PPGMD 22:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

A number of citations have been added. This article serves (hopefully) the purpose of collecting the various sources on Fascism in the United States that have been distributed on different pages, and creating a single page on the topic. I appreciate the opportunity to improve my work, and hopefully others will have the opportunity to contribute as well. This is a broad and contentious topic, but there is no need to jump to deletion as the best solution. Improvement is better than deletion. --Dschor 22:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush Administration

The last paragraph was extremely one sided and POV oriented, some of the statements just being plane wrong. As a result I have made edits to fix this. Also, regardless of the factual basis and citation for the last couple sentence, both of which I am willing to contend that there is none of, it reads like a political statement, and is extremely unincyclopedic.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 01:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Your edits did make the entry more encyclopedic. Glad to see another editor helping out. BTW, page was blanked five minutes after your edit - I have reverted to your last edit. --Dschor 01:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed, thanks. I should note that careful care must be taken to keep one point consistent throughout the article. Any statement referring to the republican party as fascist must be removed or changed. Reason being, it is unconfirmed wether or not it is fascist, and it is a heated debate. As such, evidence for and against the arguement by various parties and multiple examples may and should be provided in the article to clarify example of the debate.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 01:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

29 December additions

I understand you're trying to make the article more balanced, but you must include scholarly sources for these kinds of assertions. Before you add anything else, please, go out and find some reputable printed source somewhere -- webpages won't cut it -- that back up your declarations of fascist ideology in McCarthyism, in the Reagan administration, and in the Clinton administration. Some important points to reiterate:

• Totalitarianism on its own, no matter to what extent, is not fascism
• Anti-communism on its own, again no matter to what extent, is not fascism
• Nationalism on its own -- you get the idea by now -- is not fascism.

We have a strict, scholarly, highly argued-over consensus definition. For every one of your assertions, it is simply unacceptable not to provide evidence in the form of scholarly work supporting each element of the definition. - Stlemur 12:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

As you say - none of these things alone would constitute fascism. This article is an attempt to show how in combination, they do. These are aspects of fascism, and if the article cannot include the elements that are part of the definition, there is little hope for wikipedia. --Dschor 22:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Incredible

This article truly represents the worst Wikipedia can get. I cannot believe that this pathetic POV is allowed to pass in a supposedly NPOV encyclopedia.(there is no such thing as POV--not by the author) If we can call Bush and the Republicans Fascist in Wikipedia, then why not make a page on how Bill Clinton killed Vince Foster? Or why don't we make a page on how Kennedy won the 1960 elections thanks to the Mafia? (for the humor impaired, this is sarcasm) 200.74.174.42 19:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. - Stlemur 19:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Tried and failed on my part. Being that I refuse to edit war, it will be impossible to 'fix it'. Arkon 20:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You did not fail, you were simply boldly reverted, because your edit removed factual content from the article. You are welcome to improve the article, but if you remove useful information, you can expect it to be restored. Hopefully with attention from multiple editors, this article can be improved - at this time, too much attention has been taken simply protecting it from vandalism. --Dschor 20:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Factual content requires sources, which in this case were absent. Arkon 21:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It is generally better to incorporate the work of the previous editor than to simply revert. - Stlemur 21:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, but it is not generally better to incorporate unsourced POV bordering on OR. Arkon 21:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

A link to PNAC is hardly POV or OR. It is simply a fact that PNAC includes many prominent members of the Bush administration, and that the goals of the PNAC include some of the traits of fascism. It is perfectly legitimate to include that information in this article. --Dschor 22:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but what the article actually said was "The Republican Party, winning control of the Executive branch in the controversial 2000 election by a very close margin of votes in Florida, acted with haste to enact the agenda of the Project for the New American Century. " Arkon 22:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Note to Dschor. Reverting other editor's edits in the middle of a discussion is not proper conduct. Most of this page is uncited POV. Under Wiki guielines removing uncited POV material is appropriate. --Cberlet 22:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I can accept that the Kyoto Protocol non-ratification is not overt enough to be included here, but I am at a loss to understand why the link to PNAC is being repeatedly removed. It is particularly relevant and important to a discussion of fascism in the United States under the Bush administration, and no rationale has been offered for the removal of the reference. Please enlighten me as to why this particular piece of the article is POV and not relevant. It seems like there is plenty of evidence on the PNAC page that ties in directly with the purpose of this article. --Dschor 23:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Declare your source that the PNAC is Fascist, or fascist leaning. PPGMD 23:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Not only that, but that they "acted with haste to enact the agenda of the Project for the New American Century.". Arkon 23:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The PNAC may or may not be fascist, but the policies that it supports are part of the larger movement towards fascism in the United States. It supports an imperial agenda, militarization, and its members are major players in the administration. Moreover, the PNAC explicitly made clear the need for 9/11 as a pretext for the project's immediate implementation. --Dschor 00:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

That is just nonresponsive. Arkon 00:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I am still waiting for the rationale for removing the link. The PNAC is clearly engaged in organizing the U.S. government to be the world's military power, with the goal of promoting "American global leadership". This includes enhanced police powers for the federal government, and is a critical component of establishing a fascist state at home. The PNAC is part of a larger picture, and does not represent the entire breadth of the movement toward fascism in the United States, but it is a critical component of establishing a militaristic, nationalistic, imperialist regime in the U.S. --Dschor 00:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not up to us to establish our criticism, it is up to you to provide reputable published scholarly sources for your claims. It is that simple. POV and original research is not sufficient.--Cberlet 00:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Amazing. A link to another article in the Wikipedia is not even acceptable as a source. I guess we may as well delete the entire Wikipedia. --Dschor 01:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think in this case the consensus is clear that the assertion of PNAC as a pro-fascist organization is going to require outside scholarly evidence. - Stlemur 01:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly without indenpendent scholar sources, Wikipedia is worthless. Present sources, it's upto the people making the statement to back them up. PPGMD 01:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The assertion was not made that PNAC is a pro-fascist organization. The assertion was made that their agenda has been acted upon by the Bush administration, and is part of a larger pattern that indicates increasing fascism in the United States. What kind of source would you need to understand this? --Dschor 10:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Then find a source that elaborates on that agenda, and fingers PNAC by name. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. PPGMD 15:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I do think this is the single worst page on the Wikipedia. I propose we take it out behind the barn and kill it. Paul, in Saudi 10:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with PaulinSaudi. Logophile 01:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This page will probably never be made NPOV. People are just too intent of accusing Republicans of being fascists, something which is simply not true. Good reasons have been given on this and other pages as to why Republicans aren't fascists, but they have been ignored. The Republicans espouse numerous libertarian principles, but fascists are authoritarians. I am not going to waste my time explaining what should be obvious and has already been explained. It is extremely sad that any anti-Republican can use Wikipedia to attack the present administration. Dschor has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to try to balance this page out. And, if Wikipedia is going to have pages as POV as this, why don't we make some anti-Democrat POV pages?

I agree with Paul, in Saudi. This page is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Not that I did not vote for Bush on either 2000 and 2004 and I oppose many of his policies. But I also oppose people who simply use Wikipedia to post their opinions. 200.119.236.216 20:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Paul, in Saudi and others that as written, this page is a waste of space and largely duplicative of the other articles already mentioned. The topic itself is a rich one. Lawrence Dennis, Henry Ford, Henry Luce, WR Hearst, Charles Lindbergh, the Communist Party, labor unions, and the Smith Act have all been associated with this subject in some way or another, just to pick a few items off the top of my head. This is one heck of an American story. My suggestion is just to start over and approach the subject with the respect it deserves. Mornington Crescent 02:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am impressed that so many editors have noted the poor quality of this page, and yet none has deigned to add to the article. I would appreciate some help, rather than being accused of bias for trying to start working on a subject that deserves to be treated as a full fledged article. I am not an expert in this area, but I feel that there is enough knowledge in the wikipedia community to improve this article to a higher standard than I am personally capable of. I must also apologize for being distracted by other issues on wikipedia. Nonetheless, I think this article is valuable, even though it deserves massive improvement. --Dschor 12:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not worth editing. It should just be junked. Morton devonshire 03:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think partly it's the magnitude of the task. It seems to me that everything since 1942 should be merged into Neo-Fascism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone has time to research a topic completely, since original research is prohibited you need sources, particularly with touchy topics such as Fascism, you better have at least a fairly complete and NPOV section to start out with. Thats why I suggested that this be merged with Neo-Fascism, there are many more editors of that article, and they are pretty good about NPOVing. Also you shouldn't start an article with a POV entry that would be seen as flame bait, like claiming that the Republican's are fascist right off the bat, there are plenty more examples of fascist attempts in this country during the 20th Century. In the AFD entry one poster gave a short list, you could start with those in the Neo-Fascism article, once the section gets too long, then you can move it into it's own article. PPGMD 14:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

FDR

While I don't particularly have a position on whether it should be included in this article or not, it at least took pains to follow the such and such says this formulation. The GWB portion would do well to do the same --unsigned comment by Arkon 03:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Doh, don't know how I forgot to sign Arkon 16:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 01:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a tag on the talk page to that effect? If I knew what it was called, I'd put it up, but alas, I don't.BYT 12:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

We should just list it for deletion again, because the whole thing is just a political rant. Morton devonshire 03:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It looked much better before editors unhappy with the AfD vote decided to hack it to pieces. --Dschor 04:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because no delete consensus was reached doesn't mean that the article was fine, editors are dealing with the problems that resulted in the article to be nominated as a AfD in the first place. A large number of the editors agreed with a merge, or basing the article on history not on current post-WWII administrations. PPGMD 04:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm one of the folks who "hacked to pieces" the article, but I'm trying to salvage what we can from this article. And if there isn't much left after removing OR and POV, perhaps there was some merit in the AFD, no? --Mmx1 04:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I recommend that this article stop around 1942, and everything after World War II be merged into Neo-fascism. Rather than try to edit it in place and then move it, how about if we move intact the sections George W Bush administration and Defense of Republican Party? It's fair to say that the second world war was a pivotal event for fascism; its post-war incarnation is distinctly different from that of the depression. There is plenty of history from the twenties and thirties, and maybe even earlier, to make Fascism (United States) an good solid page. Thoughts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I already moved the GWB sections right before I put the redirect, only the first 2-3 paragraphs of the section are unique to this article. And the final paragraph was uncited so I didn't move it. I put the redirect in, because whats left is an introduction and a two sentence section. PPGMD 18:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree substantially. I'd like to work on an expansion of the Origins section into a broad overview, including business leaders reaction to Communism and the depression, anti-Fascist reaction (which includes the Sinclair Lewis cite), and then the "demise" of American Fascism at World War II. I'd have to go through a number of sources, but I could put up a less sourced outline in a shorter time. I also think we should just boot the two sections after Origins. What do you think? Mornington Crescent 21:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

So the content is now in both places. I do not see any reason for that. At least we should drastically pare back those sections and refer the reader to Neo-fascism. But there is no point in doing that until there is a consensus, otherwise someone will undo it, and we risk having a POV fork revert war. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That section is already a POV fork, but I agree remove, redundant now that its in the other article. PPGMD 23:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind anything after 1945 going into Neo-fascism, but there's plenty of pre-1945 material to cover that simply isn't addressed yet:

• Charles Lindbergh and the German-American Bund
• Marcus Garvey
• The Silver Shirts
• The fascist influences on Technocracy (that page could use a few more rounds of POV cleanup)
• Father Coughlin

These are all just off the top of my head. I'll grant that, unlike in Italy or indeed most of Europe, there was no single mass nationwide fascistic movement in the US in the run-up to WWII; all the organizations I'm naming had memberships of thousands in a population of millions. Consequently, any article we write probably can't make a cogent thesis statement covering all of them. There's plenty there, though, for an overview and something to guide people on the way to further research. I'll see if I can get something together tomorrow. - Stlemur 03:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like an good approach. I had never even heard of the Silver Legion of America; I look forward to reading what you can assemble. It might be a good idea if everyone slowed down a little until we see what we can put together here. The controversial parts of the article are all over at Neo-fascism now, and I'm sure those paragraphs need some work. Tom Harrison ^Talk 05:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to your overview. Mornington Crescent 06:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Name Change

Since there seems to be a new focus on this article perhaps a name change is in order? Perhaps "History of Fascism in the United States"? PPGMD 23:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Could we wait while the ongoing merger discussion has a few days?--Cberlet 23:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to hear from anyone with an opinion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, my opinion is that the content in this article is so sub-standard that you ought to merge it into Articles for Deletion. Morton devonshire 03:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

A name change seems a little premature - this article has suddenly gained quite a few editors, and ought to be allowed to mature for a moment or two. I think we've already had enough fun at AfD for now, and can focus on improving this article. --Dschor 04:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete this article

Please consider deleting this article. It's just a tirade. Morton devonshire 03:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It was just through AfD; It closed with no consensus. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm close to losing all confidence in Wikipedia if crap like this can withstand a vote for deletion. Morton devonshire 03:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there are more compelling reasons to lose confidence in Wikipedia than this article. If you think it could stand some improvement, jump right in. --Dschor 04:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, folks certainly have taken you up on your offer to jump right in. I do believe that last edit was overzealous, I'll see what I can do about citing those deleted quotes. --Mmx1 05:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Edited for Brevity?

It appears that the merge discussion has been made moot by some zealous editing. I think it would be wise to avoid gutting this article, as it will probably be needed once the Neo-Fascism article exceeds ideal length. Hopefully we can get this all sorted out without a whole lot more trouble. --Dschor 05:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The entire section on the GWB administration was moved completly into the Neo-Fascism article, I did that myself. The FDR section was moved to one the Nazism articles, don't remember the name, but it's linked on the Talk:Neo-Fascism page. If the section in Neo-Fascism gets too big we can start in under the proper name suggested in the AfD Fascism in the United States. Most likely based on the movements of the editors this is going to be renamed to a history based article. PPGMD 05:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with the editing. Mornington Crescent 06:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I certainly see a lot of information that was not merged with any existing article, and has simply disappeared. That seems like a step backwards. --Dschor 07:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It disappeared, because it's POV. Stick with the historical perspective pitched. Otherwise, it gets deleted. Morton devonshire 09:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a bit heavy-handed. This article was a much broader one than you see before you now, and has been chopped to bits by folks who would prefer it had been completely deleted. There is no reason that this article should be deprecated in favor of the main articles on Neo-fascism and Fascism, as there is plenty of content for a distinct page on Fascism in the United States. NPOV does not mean delete all the content and remove all the references. --Dschor 09:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

See below. Morton devonshire 09:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Check the edit history on Neo-Fascism, the entire GWB section was moved, that what you worked on for the most part, other editors went through and moved uncited and POV sections of it, since it was a merge, I simply moved it as a whole, no edits to the content. PPGMD 15:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

What is our goal?

Since we are attempting to bring this article up, what is our goal with it? Do we want to simply cover Fascism in the United States from start to finish or do we want to make it a historically based article with only Pre-WWII content?

Personally I am against an article based on start to finish history because in the end editors would concentrate on current administrations exclusively, and too much POV enters the discussion. Also most of the content has already been created and balanced by editors in the Neo-Fascism article.

Make it a historically based article we can cover something that isn't well covered in a single article currently on wikipedia, and could bring something new. A number of the voters that voted to keep in the AfD mentioned this, if we are to move forward with this that would be the best way without too many arguments over POV and such since the content is so old. Also if we move forward in this direction, it would be best to rename the article, based on the new focus.

I think the time is now, I guess we can discuss this, or we can simply put it up for a vote, it's up to you guys. PPGMD 05:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You make a reasonable argument. Morton devonshire 05:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should focus solely on pre-WWII content, and that we should add a section for post-WWII that consists solely of a link to See Neo-Fascism. That might make the current title adequate. I feel that PPGMD's point that pre-WWII American fascism is a lacuna here is an insightful one. As noted above, Stlemur may be providing an outline shortly. If so, I intend to jump in and expand on it. Mornington Crescent 06:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This article was really meant as a central location to compile all the history of Fascism in the United States, from origin to the present day. That is a function that no other page currently serves. I think it would be fine to have two pages, one for Fascism, and one for Neo-Fascism, but somewhere on the wiki there should be an article that contains the whole story. Just a thought. --Dschor 09:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand what it is that you are trying to accomplish, but the problem is that when you proclaim that "Republicans are Fascists" you think it's a fact. It reminds me of the over-the-top people that went on and on about Clinton. That sort of talk is just opinion, and won't ever be left alone here -- it's just too inflammatory. Please consider just doing a historical piece up to WWII, as has been suggested by numerous others, including Mornington Crescent, Stlemur and Tom Harrison. That way, we can all agree on what was or wasn't Fascism. Thanks. Morton devonshire 03:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There are serious published critiques concerning post-WWII fascism available, from both the political left and political right, but most of this page consisted of original research, opinion, speculation, and unsourced claims. Dschor, you were given weeks to shape up this page to Wiki standards, and yet you failed to do so. The whole story will now be rebuilt on two other pages as this one is merged. This is your own fault. Don't blame us. --Cberlet 04:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this is the best result that could have occurred. Arkon 22:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand that I could have done better to create the entire article on my own. My understanding of wikipedia is that it is designed to facilitate collaborative editing. Unfortunately, even after making an attempt to work with others, very few editors took any time to improve the article, and much time was wasted trying to undo the destructive work of editors who did not think such an article should exist at all. I do not think that all Republicans are fascists, but I think there is strong evidence that there is a fascist tendency in the United States, and that the current administration has done more to make the US fascist than any other administration in recent memory. The distinction between fascism and neo-fascism is simply a matter of the calendar, and has no real significance. Dividing the article in such an artificial way makes understanding the entire process much more difficult. I did make an effort to create a NPOV, well researched article, but even citations from reputable sources were being removed faster than I could keep up with. Bottom line, I think there needs to be an article where fascism from origin to the present day in the United States can be addressed as one continuous movement, without regard for which party is enacting the legislation and setting the precedent, and without the artificial distinction that division into Fascism and Neo-Fascism entails. Please, though, do not blame me. I made a good faith effort to create a well-researched and complete article, despite constant frustration and little help from other editors. I appreciate those who took the time to help out, but I cannot accept all the blame as my own. If this article is to be altered into an entry on pre-war fascism, there will simply need to be a new article developed to chart the complete arc of fascism in the United States. --Dschor 00:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The "complete arc of fascism in the United States" exists primarily in your head as OR, and was disgorged on Wiki on this page in a fashion that conflicted with standard Wiki guidelines. If you can find actual cites and follow basic Wiki guidelines, please join us on the other pages.--Cberlet 02:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You were the loudest voice claiming that the article had merit, the onus falls on you to to demonstrate that merit. This article could have been VFD'd in early December but you had a month to clean it up. Other than blanking (which is easy to revert) I don't see much interference here.

This article started out as POV OR, and once the AFD passed and POV OR was stripped out, there were nothing but scraps left. There is still no indication of a "continuous movement" of fascism through American history, and the only thing holding together the various examples you cite is tenuous OR.--Mmx1 02:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

<-----I have heard the POV OR claim plenty of times here. The content was well cited, and I would have been happy to add more, but it is fairly difficult for one person to keep up with the pace of developments in this area. I think you overstate matters when you state that the "complete arc of fascism in the United States" exists primarily in my head. I think any reasonable observer who would take a step back and look at the United States from an outside perspective could see the steady progress toward fascism that has been made over the last seventy years. Almost all of the citations have been edited out, along with the content. With such a hostile group of editors collected here, I saw little chance of success for gradual improvement. The only thing holding the examples together is the common movement toward fascism in the United States, which has been accelerated greatly by the current administration. I simply do not have the energy to fight with multiple editors who continually blank, revert and remove anything that I try to add. I will be happy to try again, but I can see that collaborative editing is a joke here. --Dschor 10:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You had nearly 3 weeks since a warned you that this article was going to be put up for AfD, and nearly a month since you started it, this article survived by the skin of it's teeth because a number of us believe in merge and redirect over delete. Now a set of editors wants to move forward, but wants to cover a much less contriversal subject, the History of Fascism in the United States because it's not well covered. Some of use don't have the time to research subjects like this, but we do have the time to review your work, question your sources, and remove POV statements. PPGMD 14:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You really seem unable to grasp the idea of what constitutes a reputable published source, a cite, and original research. You took bits and pieces from other pages that had cites, and then wrapped them into a page that was held together by your original research. That's not acceptable. The prerequisite to collaborative editing is understanding these matters and the road rules of Wikipedia. You have shown absolutely no learning curve throughout this process. That will continue to be a problem. If you come to the two other pages and work with a group of editors, there may come a point when you can make a case for a page on History of fascism in the United States, but bear in mind that you would need to find reputable published cites claiming such a thing existed, rather than unrelated, controversial, and contradictory material for a page on Allegations of fascism in the United States. First let's sort out the pre WWII and post WWII sections.--Cberlet 14:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I will assume good faith, but I have to question your assertion about unrelated, controversial, and contradictory material. I took material from a number of sources and made a modest attempt to begin a centralized article on Fascism within the United States. The material all related to the topic at hand, was edited to minimize controversy, and was completely free of contradiction. You are free to create articles that split the material at an arbitrary point in time, but it still seems reasonable to me to make an attempt at a continuous narrative, rather than dividing the material into bits and pieces to be spread around other, less specific, pages. I would accept a merge and redirect if it was to a single article that covered the topic adequately, but I cannot see the reasoning behind cutting apart an article that so clearly needs to be unified. You don't have the time to do any research, but you have plenty of time to revert and remove all of the contents of the article. It is hard for me to see any rationale for splitting this article up, other than to obscure the clarity that this article was attempting to provide a place for. Please try to help improve the article, rather than spending all your effort attacking me and ripping it to shreds based on your own POV. Thanks. --Dschor 23:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Surely you will admit that it is reasonable to think the second world war was a watershed event for fascism, as for many other things. It looks to me like the artificial approach is to try to say there is a continuous arc from Mussolini to William Dudley Pelley to George Bush. It is clear to me that fascism, other than as an epithet, ended with WWII. In the post war period, various neo-fascist movements have adopted elements of the old ideology, but they are all distinctly different. Of course that is just my opinion; reasonable men may disagree, as you do. What both of us need are cited references; academic work that substantiates your idea of the continuous arc of fascism in America, or mine of a distinct difference between fascism and neo-fascism. If there is scholarship on both sides, both sides should be presented. If there is enough scholarship on your side to support an article, we should have such an article. So far, that scholarship does not seem to exist. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be a great start to explain what makes fascism so different after the war compared to before and during the war. If you think that fascism ended with the war, then I think you are making an artificial distinction between fascism and neo-fascism. Fascism is distinctly different in every instance, because it is adapted to the circumstances of the time and place, but this does not mean that there is a fundamental dichotomy between fascism and neo-fascism. They are defined by the same characteristics, and these are the same characteristics that I was trying to trace through seventy years of United States history. I understand there may be room to disagree, but I feel strongly that tearing this article apart ignores the importance of looking at the larger context of fascism in the United States. --Dschor 11:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Try actually reading some books or journal articles. Try actually providing some cites to reputable published sources that support your claims. There are hundreds of scholarly books on fascism and almost all that touch on the subject discuss the break between pre-war and post-war fascism. Do some homework! This page is being redirected.--Cberlet 13:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge this page discussions

These discussions are at Fascism and ideology for the United States through WWII including the FDR administration; and Neo-Fascism for claims after WWII including recent Presidencies. Removing the merger tags in the middle of an active discussion is not appropriate.--Cberlet 04:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of being bold, I think there is substantial sentiment that this page be redirected. I propose we actually redirect it to Fascism and ideology, with a top notice on that page that discussions about the United States post WWII can be found at Neo-Fascism. Or we could reverse that. Any thoughts?--Cberlet 14:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This page is not about neo-fascism in general. It is about fascism of all sorts in the United States. Redirecting the page was bold, and I have removed the redirect. The simple fact that you can't decide where to redirect this page reinforces my point that this article is needed as a central location for information on fascism in the united states. Just stop editing the article if you don't feel like contributing, but please refrain from further redirects and removal of well-cited content. Your POV is not the last word. --Dschor 22:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Clearly most editors who took part in this discussion disagree. This page has been redirected. Please edit on the other pages.--Cberlet 22:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No person would search for this topic and expect to be redirected to a general discussion of neo-fascism. Redirecting this page is one step short of deletion. Please reconsider your position, and take a fresh look at the idea of a page about Fascism in the United States. This redirect is not appropriate, and will be reversed. --Dschor 23:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the votes in the AfD, one third were for keep, another third was for merge and redirect, and the final third was for delete. Two thirds thought this page wasn't good enough to stand on it's own, thats not including keep voters that are agreeing with the merge now. I agree with the redirect. PPGMD 23:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge and redirect is one thing, but this has been a purge and divide. Much of the content was discarded by zealous editing, and what remained was divided into multiple other pages - there is no means to redirect the page to all of the content that has been removed. I still have yet to see any cogent argument for why this content should be removed from this page, and the redirect is just plain wrong. --Dschor 00:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Democracy can be annoying, but it allows for a group process. Please abide by the democratic group process.--Cberlet 00:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

<---------Where is the group process when the page is gone? --Dschor 12:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Does the neofascism page really now include all the information that was contained in this page? The redirect caught a lot of us by surprise. Babajobu 14:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE join the discussion and editing at Neo-Fascism or Fascism and ideology.--Cberlet 15:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

NO, the neofascism page does not include all the information that was contained in this page. The redirect may be a surprise attempt at unilateral deletion, and certainly, as you say, caught a lot of us by surprise. --Dschor 21:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE join the discussion and editing at Neo-Fascism or Fascism and ideology.--Cberlet 21:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the redirect. Unfortunately I haven't had a chance to write up the summary yet. --Stlemur 21:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

We should be able to undo the redirect as soon as you have the pre-war material to put up. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to undo the redirect, since the overwhelming sentiment was to delete or redirect this page. There is aleady a lengthy discussion of claims about FDR and fascism and other pre-war issues at Fascism and ideology. The discussion on that page includes materal brought in from several other pages. A lot of editing work has gone into it. If folks want to carve out that pre-WWII discussion from Fascism and ideology and create a new page with a new title, that would be appropriate. However this refusal to abide by what was the clear desire of a majority of editors is just plan tiresome, and it clearly violates the spirit of collective editing and the culture of Wikipedia. If folks recreate this page, it will just be nominated again for deletion, or have the material merged and redirected. It would be a total waste of time.--Cberlet 22:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree that a "redirect" vote should be regarded as a "delete" vote rather than as a "keep" vote. That's one of the ways that the AfD process is currently broken. "Redirect" is regarded as a variant of "keep", which seems pretty silly. If one third voted for redirect and one third voted for delete, that sounds like redirect to me. Babajobu 22:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It's possible there is a better name; maybe he should add his material to Fascism and ideology. My point is that there is a place for Stlemur's work on pre-WWII fascism in America. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

<-----I recall that the result of the AfD discussion was no consensus. This has been misinterpreted as merge and redirect, and in the process has turned a page in need of some improvement into a page in need of complete reconstitution. The tiresome part of this is having to track down all the bits and pieces that have been cut from this article, and try to put them back together while the page is being blanked and redirected despite a lack of consensus to do so. The page would not have to be recreated if editors would adhere to the result of the AfD discussion. The total waste of time is happening right here, while the article languishes as a poorly reasoned redirect. --Dschor 22:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No you have the results wrong, they are at the top of the page, the results of the vote was no consensus to delete, note the to delete part thats the only vote that counts in the AfD process. A number of the editors here have moved forward (including one that I would describe as a libral according to his bio), once Stlemur completes his outline of the history based article, we can move forward with that, until then the content has been merged and redirected. PPGMD 23:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the content has not been merged and redirected according to the guidelines. It has been split into more than one article, which is not the proper means to conduct a merge and redirect. There is little difference between a deletion and a blank, other than administrator action. This page has been blanked, and the content has been removed and divided. I can only support a merge and redirect if it follows the proper form of a merge - and this does not. Despite the fact that a number of editors have performed this action, the article is not well served by a redirect to an article that covers only part of the material that was here. This is not a proper use of merger. If you wish to merge the page, post it on Proposed mergers. Until then, leave the content so that others may edit productively. --Dschor 23:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The only content that you spent any time editing was the GWB/Republican section, that was copy and pasted right into the section in Neo-Fascism nothing was removed when I put it there, the some of the content that FDR was put in the other article. Stlemur is working on a Pre-WWII article, but that would be best in a new article, History of Fascism in the United States with a possible disambiguation on the Fascism in the United States page. PPGMD 23:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this page has been split, and the redirect only points to some of the content that was taken from this article. There is no provision for merging an article into two other articles, and then redirecting to one of them and not the other. This article should discuss Fascism in the United States from origin to the present day, not redirect to a general discussion of Neo-Fascism. The edits over the past few days have directly contradicted the purpose of the article, which is to provide an overview of fascism in the United States. Even when StLemur has completed the pre-war portion, there will still be no place to go for an overview of fascism in the United States. This should be that place. --Dschor 00:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You have stated the same argument over and over, you have been over ruled, and we move forward. I am sick of argueing you you. PPGMD 01:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You have provided no argument, have asserted a right to remove the contributions of others, and have reverted without justification. I am sick of arguing with you, but I will not be told that I have been over ruled. You have no right to do so. --Dschor 01:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

We have provided our arguments, and we voted, and moved forward. You were overruled in the vote. PPGMD 01:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

<---You have not addressed my specific concern, you have not had a public vote (e.g. Proposed mergers), and you have moved forward in making this page unusable. I was not overruled in the vote - the vote was no consensus to delete. And the redirect you have insisted upon is tantamount to deletion. --Dschor 01:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

These claims by Dschor are simply outlandish. And please learn about the little colons before the text to format properly.--Cberlet 03:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on it now. In the meantime, I think it might help if everyone about this debate backs down a bit and leaves things be for, say, 24 hours. --Stlemur 08:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There is ongoing text editing and discussions going on over at Neo-Fascism and Fascism and ideology, where this page was redirected. Please note that any page titled History of fascism in the United States will conflict with several pages on neofascist and neonazi groups in the United States, as well as various pre-WWII pro-fascist movements and groups in the United States. Please take this discussion to Neo-Fascism and Fascism and ideology where it belongs. This page has been redirected by popular sentiment established through long discussion and a vote.--Cberlet 13:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)