Template talk:Fascism sidebar

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2025

[edit]

In the "Variants" section I believe there is a slight formatting error with the brackets. Specifically "Romanian (Legionarism (National Legionary State - Neo-) - Romanianism/Stelism)" where a closing bracket seems to be missing at the end. 2001:9E8:F60E:7E00:3472:60DF:1B7:6734 (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't the brackets balanced in this case (2 in front of Legionarism and National, 2 behind Neo and Stelism)? — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 17:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

returning Franco

[edit]

earlier, this template included Francisco Franco and Tojo and Hirohito; the user Grnrchst agreed that Tojo and Hirohoto shouldn't be there, but objected on the removal of Franco. I also believe that Tojo, Hirohoto and Salazar are different from Franco, who I think should be in the template: although his personal political views may not had been strictly Fascist, as said by Stanley Payne (Paul Preston reluctantly accepts that while adding that Mussolini is the only undisputable Fascist leader; Griffiths here argues that Franco wouldn't understand a strict distinguishing of his own views from fascist), he was a fascist politician in the way that he presented himself as such: unlike Salazar and Tojo, he headed an actually existing fascist party (after doing some manipulations, but still); he actively portrayed himself as a Falangist and as a direct successor to Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera (I added that to the article), there's even a portrait painting of Franco depicting him in Falangist uniform. Ernst Nolte writes that Francoism was different from Salazarism, that the problem was that the Falange, a fascist party, was weaker than its less fascist allies, but it was still a fascist party (at least at first). It had been already in the article prior to my edits, that the FET-JONS weren't the only fascists in the war, since their ideology influenced the others, I expanded this theme by addind more scholars to his article saying that Francoism was either a fascism or had a totalitarian fascist phase, and that in the war, the whole Nationalist faction, including the army (and thus Franco) shared a sort of fascistic or proto-fascist ideological culture (that's on his personal beliefs) Opostylov (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It sharing "a sort of fascistic or proto-fascist ideological culture" does not align with WP:SIDEBAR, which suggests only articles that are clearly and strictly related to the sidebar topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that's not my main argument Opostylov (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(the main one is that he presented himself as a fascist politician, unlike the other leaders who are said to had emulated fascism, like Tojo) Opostylov (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many things in this sidebar and it is wildly out of compliance with all of the relevant guidelines: do we need more people and make it more out of compliance? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to argue against sarcasm, but I don't agree that there are too many entries in the "Politicians" section of this sidebar, tho indeed, there are too many entries in the "Variants" section, and I would exclude Kokkashugi, Vichy-ism and Peronism, for example, but this is a topic for a different discussion; secondly, I don't think one more entry will destroy the sidebar; thirdly, adding Franco goes in line with the following guidelines:
"1.All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject. - [Franco does relate to fascism]
2.The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article. - [Fascism is mentioned in Franco's article, I added scholarly sources describing Franco as a fascist or at least a personality related to fascist politics]
3.The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. - [present, I think]
4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. - [present]
If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." Opostylov (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not being sarcastic. This template as it stands now is violative of most policies we have on navigational templates. Most of the people included in this don't include the sidebar in their articles, which violates WP:BIDIRECTIONAL (Franco's article does not), and per WP:SIDEBAR: [Sidebars] should be treated with special attention, because they are so prominently displayed to readers. The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related, and the template should meet most or all of the preceding guidelines. If the articles are not tightly related, a footer template or navbox, located at the bottom of the article, may be more appropriate. which this is in violation of... he is not connected to most of the other people listed. There are so many fascists that people simply adhering to fascism is not "tightly related", or this sidebar will have hundreds, perhaps thousands of people in it. I'm not really making this case against Franco specifically, he's a better fit than 90% of the people there, as much as I am against adding literally anyone when the sidebar is in this state. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you should start a new discussion topic then, cuz it's not directly related to this one, and the conclusion of this topic prob won't concern your matter; for now, we will note that you are not against adding Franco, if you make the new topic, I'll write there that the "Variants" needs to be cleaned Opostylov (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Opostylov, Franco is generally considered by scholarly sources a fascist and contrasted with other fascists, so it's reasonable to include him. Andre🚐 20:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Include Donald Trump to list of fascist politicians

[edit]

Considering how thorough the list of politicians is in this sidebar (with many being contested and not universally agreed upon), I believe we should either include Donald Trump in this list, or cut out all of those who aren't universally accepted as fascist (Saadeh, Türkeş, Engdahl, Blythe, Flores, Hoornaert, etc.) for sake of continuity. Rangooner (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I shall cut out the non-universally accepted ones. Thank you for the reminder. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly would you argue makes something "universally accepted?" Is anything really universally accepted? There are people who think the Earth is flat. Should we then delete any information on Wikipedia stating the Earth is flat because it isn't universally agreed upon either? Rangooner (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that no particular politician is "universally accepted" as fascist unless they claim themselves to be fascist, shouldn't we at least include all significant figures who are widely regarded as such? Rangooner (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:RFCBEFORE, there are two editors in this discussion, so this is an improper usage of an RfC and I would suggest it be closed. Universally accepted for our purposes means, at the bare minimum, someone being described in the lead sentence or first paragraph as a fascist, which Trump is not. Otherwise it is not defining and in violation of WP:SIDEBAR. Sidebars are extremely prominently displayed to the reader and so should only be used on clearly, tightly related topics per our guidelines. We have thousands of articles on notable fascists, and we should not and can not include all of them in a sidebar. That is not what sidebars are for. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, looks like this sidebar will have to be overhauled to meet those standards. Rangooner (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for sure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will close the RFC for now but will be requesting a third opinion in the future if need be and will create another RFC if necessary. One person should not be the authority on what content is deemed "universally accepted," especially given the polarizing subject material and lack of verifiability around what is deemed "universally accepted" as fascist. Rangooner (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Universally accepted was probably not the right turn of phrase. I moreso mean that we should only include articles where we have already come to describe them as fascist prominently in their main article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removed all organizations that did not include the word "fascist" in the opening paragraph of their article, which was half (24/50) of the them, for continuity. Will be cutting down other parts of the template later. Rangooner (talk) 07:09, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]