== WP:NPA == 

 I am not quite sure what we're arguing about, and I wonder if it's gotten more quarrelsome than necessary because I was confused at some point.  So let me make two completely separate comments on the general idea of calling someone a fascist: 
 * Case 1: referring to a user.  This is what I said don't about, and I mean it.  Calling a user a fascist is never productive and it is a duragatory term (to almost everyone in society).  It will only make things more heated, and it will not solve any disagreement that I can think of.  This is why WP:NPA exists.  
 * Case 2: in an article.  WP:NPA doesn't apply here.  If a historical figure is a fascist, someone must have written that in a reputable source somewhere.  If they haven't, I don't see how it makes our encyclopedia more credible to include that you think so.  Even were you a full professor with expertise in fascism, others might still disagree with you, so citing a source (and any disagreeing sources) would still be appropriate.  My point is, I agree with WP:NOR, even when it's a pain for me to deal with (I've had to cite things that I knew were facts too).  You don't have to cite every little thing, unless it's disputed, and then you do.  Whether you like it or not, No original research is part of the Wikipedia:Five pillars, and it will not change. 
 If you'd like to discuss this further, please let me know definitively which case we're arguing about.