Jump to content

Talk:Fascism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


On the "popular culture" section

Recently I removed the "In popular culture" section of the article, calling it "hardly relevant to [the] topic" in my edit summary (which I'll concede is fairly vague). This was promptly reverted. I didn't really feel like arguing about it, but on further reflection, I really don't think it's appropriate for this article based on the references used. The section doesn't comply with the MOS's guideline for trivia sections, which states that articles may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources. A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth. This article doesn't do that; it's just trivial mentions of a song and a quote from a musician, neither of which are sourced to reliable sources.

The first source is a YouTube upload of an interview with a musician, which is primary, and therefore not reliable; I've removed it due to it being a probable copyright violation, per WP:COPYLINK. The second is a source that summarises Woody Guthrie's career, but mentions nothing about fascism aside from his record label being antifascist. It failed verification, but if you ignore that, it still doesn't comply with the sourcing requirement of the MOS, because the source is a reference work that includes information about class in America, which is only tangentially related to fascism. The second bulletpointed entry about Heaven 17's song doesn't even have any citations, which doesn't demonstrate why it should be included in the article.

Overall, the section needs much better references to warrant inclusion. I think it should be removed from the article entirely, because its relevance to facsism isn't supported by any secondary reliable sources. I'd like to hear some other thoughts on this. ArcticSeeress (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no community consensus on Wikipedia for the wholesale removal of "In popular culture" sections from Wikipedia articles, despite the number of activists who really hate them. Our popular culture is an extremely important -- if sometimes ephemeral or embarassing -- part of our society's culture, and Wikipedia should not shut its doors to it simply because it's not "serious" enough to be in an encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't adressed any of my concerns here. I'm not advocating for a blanket ban on such material, nor am I saying that the section should be removed "just because". What I am saying is that the section's sources don't justify its inclusion. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I want to "shut [Wikipedia's] doors" to nonserious material. ArcticSeeress (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with removal, "in popular culture" sections don't belong on articles about ideologies (in my opinion), as they wouldn't on other serious topics such as Genocide. Regarding content of this particular "in popular culture" section, its contents do seem like MOS:TRIVIA and hardly tangential to the topic; Anti-fascism#United States, World War II contains Woody Guthrie since he is more relevant there. There are way too many notable things that could be listed if this section was kept (which again I think it shouldn't be). –Vipz (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with ArcticSeeress and Vipz on this one, at least insofar as we're discussing the appropriateness of the currently extant material. This material does not appear to merit inclusion here. I'm agnostic as to where and when such sections may be warranted as a general rule. Agree that details like Guthrie's guitar are more appropriate for ancillary articles like Anti-fascism per WP:SUMMARY. Generalrelative (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree this content is not DUE in the article. Creating a complete section based on this material is hard to justify. It's not clear that Guthrie's opinion is significant in context the primary topic. Do sources on fascism cite Guthrie. This also is, in effect, an entire section which cites just one source. Springee (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do get the feeling that "fascism in popular culture" is a topic that could balloon to be as massive as the rest of the article itself, and I'm not sure what it contributes. I think it's best to do away with it. — Czello (music) 07:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like we're mostly in agreement here. Rjensen has recently contributed some undoubtedly encyclopedic material, but it seems to me to fit better under the heading "popular culture under fascism" than "fascism in popular culture". I'd be curious to hear his perspective on this question. Generalrelative (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: the popular culture section should have two subsections: "popular culture under fascism" and "fascism in popular culture"--the first subtopic has a substantial scholarly literature especially on Italy--the second does not and. Rjensen (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be an strong consensus that this material (that is, Fascism in popular culture) isn't warranted in the article. I'll go ahead and remove it seeing as there hasn't been any attempt to justify its inclusion beyond "popular culture sections can be good in general". I'll also remove the bullet points, as it's not really a list section anymore.
On a related note: I think it might be better to provide a summary of broad characteristics that popular culture under fascist governments share before introducing specific examples. I'm not familiar with literature regarding this at the moment, so I'll let that lie (or maybe come back to it later). ArcticSeeress (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the word?

Hello, I read the etymology section but can't work out a timeline for when the actual word came into being. This article says 1922 for first usage, but I don't know how trustworthy it is. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Online Etymological Dictionary says:

1921, from Italian partito nazionale fascista, the anti-communist political movement organized 1919 under Benito Mussolini (1883-1945); from Italian fascio "group, association," literally "bundle," from Latin fasces (see fasces).

Fasci "groups of men organized for political purposes" had been a feature of Sicily since c. 1895, and the 20c. totalitarian sense probably came directly from this but was influenced by the historical Roman fasces, which became the party symbol. As a noun from 1922 in English, earlier in Italian plural fascisti (1921), and until 1923 in English it often appeared in its Italian form, as an Italian word.

— https://www.etymonline.com/word/fascist
I you can get hold of an OED in a librry, that's the best source for etymological info. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the two dictionaries cited in the "Etymology" section -- Merriam-Websters, and Webster's New College -- are pretty standard and trustworthy reference works. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important to keep in mind that Etymonline is edited by a single person, one who isn't a trained historical linguist. The website is in essence a hobby project, and whether any particular article on the website holds water or not is entirely dependent on how long the editor spends with it. It's impossible to meaningfully verify any of the information on the page without sifting through their massive sources list posted elsewhere on the site, so I'd err on the side of caution with including this. ArcticSeeress (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious if it's worth including the historical significance of the Roman fasces, since it pretty closely correlates to the authoritarian roots of fascism (given that "holding fasces" signified the power of the state). Delukiel (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An inherent contradiction?

The lead of the article sets out an extremely detailed and very broad definition of fascism, selecting references that support the authors' arguments. Then the next section admits that there is no agreed definition of fascism, and that authoritative (at least, referenced) views of what it is differ to the extent that no broadly agreed definition is possible.

I shall make the radical suggestion that there is no generic or accepted definition of fascism, nor can there be in terms of how the word has entered general usage. The possible exception is the Italian regime of 1922-1943 led by Benito Mussolini which (as I understand it) styled itself Fascism. Other than that, I suggest that all definitions of fascism are essentially descriptions of political and economic systems to which the authors of those definitions are opposed, i.e. expressions of authorial opinion. This is not the purpose of WP.

I do not suggest that all is lost. Authoritarian political systems, for example, can be defined in ways that meet broad agreement, even if individuals disagree whether particular systems are or are not authoritarian. Democracy, Autarky and other politico-economic manifestations can be defined similarly. Fascism can't.

This can be regarded as a plea for humility from WP, i.e. an acceptance that it cannot be the arbiter of a definition that can never achieve more than partisan acceptance. A true definition, I suggest, would be 'a term of abuse for a variety of politico-economic systems, used by parties opposed to them.' You could then go on to include examples. Italian (1922-1943) Fascism would be a separate topic, since there is no causal or other connection. Chrismorey (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would take this more seriously if the next section had not been Etomolgy, which does not discuss anything about no agreed definition. Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven deleted my edit. I don't know why.

I was being bold. It probably wasn't a constructive edit. I didn't understand Slatersteven's question and why he reverted.Nashhinton (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a question, your wording implies it was once something, but no longer is. I made the point that it has not changed, it is still right-wing popularism. Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Nashhinton (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"right-wing popularism" Right-wing populism, not popularism. Dimadick (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point still stands. Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Göring has an RfC

Hermann Göring has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fascism&oldid=1242002588"