Talk:List of fascist movements

message: This is a section from the Fascism article. I've taken see also, references and external links along, some of the entries can probably be removed. I've made all country entries into subsections, but now we have titles containing links. Please fix unless I have done so already. Also consider whether cleanup tag is still needed and introduction can probably better.
:Huh, forgot the c in Fascism but someone conveniently created a redirect for it. Piet 20:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To do

message: I've though about a shorter name but didn't find anything better. If you do, go ahead. The ones I didn't like included "International fascism" as that seems like one movement, "Fascism internationally", "Worldwide fascism", ... Piet 19:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Belgium was a democracy so I would move the Belgian section to "democratic nations". OTOH There was probably a puppet government under the occupation, but the movements described played a role when Belgium was still a democracy. I'm hesitating, comments? Piet 19:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be an improvement, but I'm not going to do it myself since my task list is already too long. But please go ahead. Piet 12:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belgium 

message: Section on U.S. from Fascism and ideology. I oppose the proposed section merger. There is already a short section on this page. The entire contention that the US was or is fascist has almost no serious scholalrly support. The public debate on this matter is miniscule. Fascism and ideology was created in part to allow marginal right-wing, libertarian, and other views about fascism in the US to have a home here on Wikipedia. If we are talking about serious mainstream scholarship, the one paragraph on this page is sufficient.--Cberlet 13:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that any one article should be set aside for any POV; but, if we are to do such a thing, we should at the very least make the POV absolutely clear in the article name itself. We could move the section to Libertarian perspectives on the New Deal, for example. Otherwise, we should eliminate the libertarian POV and integrate any meaningful content in this present article. -- Nikodemos 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, after reviewing the section in question, I do not believe it is POV. Granted, it discusses a marginal viewpoint at length - so it may be giving it undue weight - but it is certainly not biased in favor of that viewpoint. I have reorganized it slightly and integrated it into this article. -- Nikodemos 02:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, that's a relief. For a moment I was worried that you might actually discuss my comments.--Cberlet 03:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but wasn't my first comment a reply to yours? You made the following points: (1) public debate on the matter of the New Deal being fascist is minuscule; (2) Fascism and ideology was meant in part to appease the crowd of libertarian POV-pushers who kept trying to impose their POV on other fascism articles. My replies were: (1) true, but we have to discuss that marginal POV somewhere, and this article seems like the most logical choice; (2) POV-pushers should never be appeased if we can help it. You are an extremely valuable contributor on far-right issues and I wish we could work together. -- Nikodemos 05:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have added  to the section under discussion, as it over-represents fringe views on the subject.  Jkelly 19:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ronald Reagan is not marginal: "Reagan says many New Dealers wanted fascism." New York Times. December 22, 1981. Cberlet's viewpoints are marginal. --Timeshifter 19:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That quote might belong at fascist (epithet).  I hope that you are not seriously offering it as a thoughtful expert perspective on international fascism.  Jkelly 20:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed my point. I don't agree with that viewpoint of Ronald Reagan. But I don't delete viewpoints I disagree with. That would be against NPOV. By the way, that viewpoint is pretty common in the Republican Party. --Timeshifter 20:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?  I've never heard Bertie Ahern say anything remotely like that.  Seriously, the ideology of United States politicians is certainly a valid matter of encyclopedic summary, but belongs at Fascism and ideology, not as a serious consideration of historical international fascism.  Jkelly 20:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Nikodemos gets what I am saying. He just created this page: The New Deal and corporatism. People discussed this issue back then, and they continue to discuss these issues today. The Republicans have frequently railed against the New Deal. The comparisons of economic corporatism or corporativism (or similar words) between Italy and the USA have long roots. Some people take it as far as fascism. Usually it is people on the left though who make the fascism comparison today. See War Corporatism. But some people on the right have made that comparison too. And there actually was a coup attempt in the works at one point during Roosevelt's time. From the right. So all of it is relevant. And this is actual history, not just ideology. It makes much less sense when the history is separated from the ideology. Corporatism is a word with multiple meanings. It is a word that is getting much more use by both the right and the left. The job of an encyclopedia is to show those verifiable definitions and viewpoints, not to judge them, nor to pigeonhole them for use exclusively by the right or the left. --Timeshifter 01:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds like projection on your part, Cberlet. Note your smug, underhanded-insult on the talk page today for War Corporatism. Note my reply, too. And stop playing the gamesmanship in trying to set people against each other. Jkelly can speak for himself. You have been the one doing the aggressive editing, blanking, moving parts of stuff around, and deleting other parts. I moved stuff at Nikodemos request from the Corporatism page to this page. You also wanted that stuff moved off the Corporatism page. I then rewrote the remaining short section on the Corporatism page to meet the needs of Nikodemos concerning relevance to the page. You then just deleted the rewrite and put back the old problematic stuff. Yeah, you really know how to collaborate. Next time I suggest you edit rather than delete. That is what I did. I further edited that section. At one point you wanted that whole section deleted, so I was really surprised when you put back the problematic stuff. Maybe because you had originally written the problematic stuff? Anyway, I further rewrote the problematic stuff, too, and incorporated it in the section. --Timeshifter 21:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not make edits just to make a point. We disagree on what is a useful and constructive edit. We disagree on what is, and is not, problematic text. We disagree on when quoted text is needed or overly detailed. We all could have tried to coordinate better. There was much duplication of text, and text that now is better integrated on other pages. Nikodemos did most of this work, and should be thanked for it. I did not intentionally post a "smug, underhanded-insult" on the War Corporatism page. I asked for a reputable published cite, since after an extensive search the term appears to be from one homemade internet animation video. Hardly a notable source for a term in an encyclopedia. Your personal attacks are getting more detailed and nasty. Please consider cooling off.--Cberlet 21:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22war+corporatism%22 - The Google search pulls up 17,300 web pages using the term "war corporatism." 17,300 web pages do not point back to a video. I made no personal attack. And I was not rude. I only pointed out your rudeness. Pointing out someone else's rudeness is not rudeness. People can decide for themselves by going to the talk page: Talk:War Corporatism --Timeshifter 23:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: p.s., Jkelly is a Wikipedia administrator, who deserves a bit more respect than this subject line: "revert blanking by Jkelly who has no previous edits on this page. Roosevelt is not accused of fascism. Fascism and corporatism are not the same thing. If you had more edits here you would understand."--Cberlet 21:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand by that edit comment. It is not rude. I have discussions with admins on various wikipedia pages. We get along fine. I speak my mind. I do not insult. --Timeshifter 23:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I was going to respond to this by noting that we really expect everyone to be treated with respect, administrator or not. It is probably worth pointing out, however, that administrators, and especially members of the m:OTRS team, might be making unusual edits for reasons which have nothing to do with their personal editorial discretion, but due to concerns over, for instance, copyright infringement, removing the contributions of banned user, or as a response to any number of other problems. Ideally, such editing should be clearly indicated at such, and that definitely wasn't the case here. Nevertheless, there are real, practical reasons why one should adopt a practice of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and discussing instead of repeatedly reverting, and edit summaries such as the one Cberlet quotes above are inappropriate under any circumstance. Jkelly 23:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am quite capable of apologizing. But what exactly am I apologizing for? Do Wikipedia admins get to delete large parts of a section without being questioned on it? As you said "such editing should be clearly indicated at such, and that definitely wasn't the case here." All I saw was deletion. Nikodemos and I had done multiple editing on this page. Cberlet had one previous edit. You had none. I am quite willing to listen to other admins on this issue also. But what wikipedia guideline have I broken? Wikipedia:Assume good faith also says "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Only now do I learn you are an admin. So now I have more trust in your edits. In any case the issue has been resolved because people took it to the talk page. I have been taking it to the talk page a lot more than Cberlet. Look at the Corporatism talk page where all this started. My edit comment "If you had more edits here you would understand" may have been short, but edit comment space is limited. For that shortness I apologize. I should have added the 2 words, "See talk." --Timeshifter 23:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Timeshifter, I regret having set you off with my ponderous and sometimes snippy style, but you have now turned this into an unrelenting series of personal attacks. I apologize if I have insulted you, please stop insulting me.--Cberlet 23:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apology accepted. I still do not honestly know how I have insulted you, though. By questioning you? Tell me how I have insulted you, please. This is a serious request. --Timeshifter 00:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section merger proposal

message: I apologize for my abruptness at times. And for any abrupt editing. 
I have a proposal. I propose that we all try to take things to talk before major changes, or abrupt changes. For example; deletions of material. Or mergers. Or reversions of good-faith rewrites. I suggest editing first, before deletions or reversions. If deletions, reversions, or mergers are still felt necessary, then I suggest first going to talk for a day or two. --Timeshifter 00:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My general apology, and a proposal.

message: Fringe theories abound for fascism. Reliable sources will be required for all statements. Rjensen 12:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Published material cannot be deleted simply because an editor detests the percieved political POV...as you well know.--Cberlet 13:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there is no reliable source--no historian or reference book accepts the oddball claim of Smedley Butler--a man of the far left--that big business decided on him to lead a march on washington and become America's dictator. (Butler said he was told that by a salesman). Let's get real. But in any case Wiki insists on reliable sources. Rjensen 13:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Rjensen, if you wish to exclude Butler's claims because he was "far left", shouldn't we also exclude the claims of extreme libertarians and conservatives regarding the alleged ties between the New Deal and fascism? -- Nikodemos 08:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes that's a good point--I think those claims are false and are made out of ignorance or spite (not research). As for Butler he is a joke--does anyone believe big business would choose a far left anti-biz anti-bank character like Butler as dictator? Hundreds of scholars have looked at his tatements and I think no reliable source believes that nonsense. Rjensen 08:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to retain at least mentions of both. Butler was hardly "far left" when he was approached. This is a rewriting of history. Please name the hundreds of scholars who have dismissed Butler's claims (at least a few). Some scholars find the evidence weak, but there are others who say at least part of the story seems to bear up under scrutiny. Just because you do not like the authors who support the claim, there are several published books that discuss it it seriously. Your aggressive POV on this matter is not constructive, Rjensen.--Cberlet 16:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Butler had been violently denouncing bankers for over a year when he was "approached" by big business to become their leader and dictator. Imaagine that! There is no evidence anyone except a lowly salesman approached him. The point is that all historians and ref works dismiss this as a hoax --what scholars believe it???? Let's be critical and not believe the stuff you see on the web. Wiki REQUIRES reliable sources. Rjensen 17:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your personal biased opinions have no weight here.  The material is properly cited. Please stop deleting material based on your bias.--Cberlet 04:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the text after Rjensen's latest revert.  It isn't obvious to me that this doesn't deserve a mention, and Rjensen's comments above don't seem to match up well against the well-sourced discussion of different viewpoints in the Business Plot article being linked to.  Is there any reason, beyond the personal experience of editors, to think that this material is more fringe than the "Roosevelt was a crypto-fascist" argument?  Jkelly 09:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the issue is reliable sources. No reference book or history book or textbook or biography accepts this fringe theory. The fact that it was published by a fringe publisher 50 years ago and NOT accepted by any experts weighs against it. One ex general claimed that he planned to overthrow FDR  He implicated a salesman as the key thinker. This does not exactly compare with Mussolini Rjensen 09:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Several published works discuss the claims by Butler, and it is not appropriate to simply delete them. Rjensen is welcome to dispute the claims by citing other published works that question Butler's claims. I agree that the Butler material falls into the same category as "Roosevelt was a crypto-fascist" claims from the libertarians, but I defend including mentions of both. That is what encyclopedias do with well-known marginal theories--mention them.--Cberlet 14:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Preposterous misrepresentation of Wiki guidelines is most amusing.--Cberlet 19:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe theories 

message: This article is highly unverified if it is listing O Estado Novo as bieng "quasi-fascist". Being a Portuguese, and fascist myself and having members of my family who were members of the party/military and even close to Salazar I have to say nothing is further from the truth. Salazar adapted many of Mussolini's ideas into his system and also based it moderately on Franco's Falangist regime. I am fed up of seeing Nazism always thrown in just because the Nazis were allied to the Italian, Spanish and Portuguese. Do you see us constantly brandishing the Soviets as Capitalists? no, because even though they were allied with the U.S. they didn't adhere to the systematic doctrine that the U.S. was preaching. So in short the information regarding O Estado Novo is incorrect, it was, and will always be considered a Fascist regime by Portuguese nationalists and loyalists, get your facts straight. And the overall poor attempt of an apologetic tone for this article is pathetic, "not as restrictive as the Italian, Spanish and Nazi regimes", who the Hell is writing this? I can only imagine a pro-democracy anti-Fascist. Piecraft 12:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to assume that you are confused and not just looking to start arguments on the internet.  Wikipedia articles are written according to WP:NPOV, which instructs us to present mainstream positions on our subjects, mention significant minority viewpoints, and leave out fringe ones.  Being a fascist, you are very unlikely to see your point of view represented at all in Wikipedia articles, as it is definitely a fringe position.  Because just about every reliable source we could use to write our encyclopedic synthesis from is written by pro-democracy anti-fascists, our articles are certainly going to present that as a position one takes for granted.  If you have reliable sources to point us to in order to expand or clarify our coverage of modern or historical fascist movements in Portugal, please do provide them.  That would be helpful.  Jkelly 18:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portugal "conservative authoritarianism"  bollocks! 

message: Following the defeat of Fascism in 1945, few serious politicians identify themselves with Fascism.  However, the Peronistas in Argentina and the Falange in Lebanon both could be considered continuations of Fascism, and acknowledged a connection to earlier Fascist parties.  Also, there are similarities between many right-wing dictatorships and Fascism.  --The Four Deuces (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post World War Two Fascists 

message: I deleted everything regarding Nederlandsche Unie, it does not belong in here. The Unie is not regarded as a fascist organisation, it had liberal-conservative origins and positioned itself against the national socialist NSB. It was forbidden because it did not support the invasion of the USSR by Germany. While it did some compromises, Wichert ten Have, for example, author of the book "De Nederlandse Unie – Aanpassing, vernieuwing en confrontatie in bezettingstijd 1940–1941", does not see the Nederlandsche Unie as fascist. Others like Gerhard Hirschfeld, who wrote about the German occupation of the Netherlands, do not see them as fascist, too. There is simply no consensus for that, quite the contrary. --Marcus Schätzle (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nederlandsche Unie 

message: Would it make sense to name this article "List of Fascist movements?" That seems to be what it is. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible page move 

message: Greetings,
I wrote an article about this in 2004, with citations, which I'd like to add to Wikipedia.  I'm thinking it's a bit too long for a section in here, and could be a separate article?  I've added a link to "external links" here; you can also go directly to http://radicalreference.info/node/460
I'd appreciate input.  Thanks!  Joel J. Rane (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article for Fascism in the United States? 

message: There was a Russian Fascist Party in the 1930 years, which was supported by Japan.--95.113.50.254 (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascism in Russia? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on List of fascist movements. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080610175131/http://newdeal.feri.org/wallace/haw23.htm to http://newdeal.feri.org/wallace/haw23.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051222175741/http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/research/polecon.htm to http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/research/polecon.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130930081524/http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html to http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050915163028/http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=585 to http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=585
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050830130336/http://www.fascismoeliberta.net/ to http://www.fascismoeliberta.net/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040825075040/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/51/pauwels.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/51/pauwels.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the subsection "Australia (1931 – late 1930s/early 1940s)" please correct "was lead by Great War veteran Eric Campbell" to "was led by Great War veteran Eric Campbell". The past participle of "lead" is "led". Thank you. 82.39.96.55 (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , but just FYI, while the past participle of "lead" is indeed "led", this was just the simple past, not the past perfect, so the participle isn't being used. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks and yes, sorry, lazy thinking on my part. Cheers 82.39.96.55 (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

text: Although, , to waste both our times yet further ... whilst I agree I've been lazy about the labelling, is that really a simple past? I can see that it would be if it said "Eric led it" but what we've got here is "It was led by Eric" in the passive voice - don't you construct the passive voice with the past participle? I kind of thought that you did but maybe I got that wrong, it being rather a long time since I studied grammar ... cheers 82.39.96.55 (talk) 10:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, you got me...I guess I read too fast or something. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I am so relieved - I tend to just assume that I am usually wrong as it saves time! :) Cheers 82.39.96.55 (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2019 

message: I would like to see 2016-2020 added to United States of America, Trump and his handling of national issues resembles that of fascism. 2600:100B:B11F:57A9:25B0:FF7F:2017:896D (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We follow WP:RS. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this conversation should be reopened in light of what appears to be emerging scholarly consensus that Trumpism shares important features with historical fascism. See for instance the recent article "The Debate Over the Word Fascism Takes a New Turn" by Jennifer Szalai in The New York Times. This article does a good job of succinctly addressing opposing views, notably that of prominent intellectual historian Sam Moyn, who argued in another recent article ("The Trouble with Comparisons" in The New York Review of Books) against labeling Trumpism as fascist. Moyn was responding, in part, to a previous article published in The New York Review of Books by another prominent historian, Peter Gordon, ("Why Historical Analogy Matters") which argued, in my view convincingly, for the relevance of the term "fascism" in serious analysis of the contemporary American context. These recent arguments by Szalai and Gordon add weight to the side of other prominent historians such as Timothy Snyder, as well as philosophers like Jason Stanley, who have identified Trumpism with fascism for some time. That being said, I would like to hear what other members of the community think before suggesting verbatim copy to be added. Generalrelative (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole issue is ridiculous, even to mention, no connection to fascism, the epithet anyway thrown mostly and vaguely to any right-wing party/leader person that the left-wing do not like. Boring.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: To the contrary, these are quite mainstream voices grounding their arguments in research, and publishing in sources WP considers reliable. There is always going to be some degree of subjective judgment in deciding who is and isn't to be considered fascist, but all of the sources I've cited make the utmost effort to do so judiciously. It seems rather that those who would dismiss the connection out of hand are the ones relying on opinion alone. Generalrelative (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainstream voices which are run or symptahizes with the opposition, or they narrow allies, organizations, lobby groups, regardless in the framework of WP they considered reliable, Wikipedia should not became the powerhouse of controlled POV issues or insane trumpet of political lobbies. I am telling you, also regarding Hungary so many overexaggerated, fake news and charges took place, three-quarter of them were not even eligible to seriously discuss in the past decade, but I just told you an example. Seriously, fascism is a term that is too many times used by ignorant people or by non-ignorant ones deliberately to undermine or label with a purpose, even if it has not any connection to the subject, just throwing epithets similary to racism, nazism, extremism, ultranatioalism, far-right and their brothers, which is fashionable crying for wolf to attract attention. So just twice as careful, neutral point of view, and sane evaluation, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You're certainly entitled to your opinion. However, as pointed out above, WP follows WP:RS. My point in joining this discussion has been to highlight the possibility of an emerging consensus where previously there had been more reluctance among fascism experts to use the term to describe Trumpism. Further, I find it difficult to imagine how someone could knowingly describe Gordon and Snyder, two of the world's most eminent historians of the interwar period (not to mention Stanley), as ignoramuses or as acting in bad faith. But again, you're entitled to your opinion. Generalrelative (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read back "by ignorant people or by non-ignorant...", the cutting edge is the intention and goal of the person or a group...Cui Prodest? Cui Bono?, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Cui Prodest? Cui Bono? That's easy: we all do. Because an open, honest, just and diverse society has always been worth the struggle. But let's let other members of the community weigh in here, and if no one does I'll wait for more solid evidence of scholarly consensus before proceeding with suggested verbatim text. Generalrelative (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I just wanted to point out we always have to look behind of the background of such accusations.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

text: So what? The phrase fascism has been the most easy epithet to label on anyone on the right conservative side, shall almost anything happen the left side did not like/support. It is not taken serious since a long while, like in the fairy tale, when it is screamed the wolves are coming every consecutive day...Btw. such opinions will always exist, shall it be about Trump or others. I'd really curious when someone in the left would be labeled as fascist, because it seems there such labels/concerns are not really put if similar or worse statements occur (which were practically abundant in Europe, U.S. and Hungary in the past months).(KIENGIR (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that Calabresi is a prominent conservative. Further he had been highly skeptical about applying the term to Trump until recently. This is in no way a systematic study showing a shift in opinion among experts, but it is one more anecdote pointing to the idea that, over time, prominent skeptics about using the term "fascist" with regard to Trump have come around. Generalrelative (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but apart from that recently two left-side politicians in Hungary (one having a - leading mayor position - praised Hitler, the other wrote an essay about the elder people possibly should not vote, etc.), I did not heard an international scandal, or a long headline and analysis from the washington Post or New York Times about fascist danger, e.g.. So this reaffirms what I say, and I just told two recent exemples only from Hungary.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: KIENGIR, you might want to review the talk page policies at WP:TALK. In particular, "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Let's focus on the topic at hand and discuss WP:RS rather than personal opinions. Generalrelative (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, a neutral approach to a subject and/or a discussion does not necessarily have anything to do with my personal opinion, I have been focusing on the topic all the time.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Also: this one is huge:  The author, Robert Paxton, is one of the world's preeminent experts on fascism. His book The Anatomy of Fascism is a core text for college courses on the subject around the English-speaking world. When he publishes a piece that says "I've Hesitated to Call Donald Trump a Fascist. Until Now", that is definitely notable. Generalrelative (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, political shoapboxing and hysteria starts to be really awesome in the United States, including advices that any Trump voters should be deprived by their diploma or their families children should be internated from them having proper reeducation. Now became a fashion to treat anything connected to Trump as a leprosy. In Europe, in the past 30 years mostly that silly fashion have overcomed that anyone who does not agree anything promoted regarding one particular political side, became Fascist, Nazi, Racist and Anti-Semitic, etc., but if even really such would happen of the side of the accuser, then there is a big silence and whitewashing. This is politics. Boring.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: KIENGIR, I will note once again that article talk pages are not a forum for your personal views. If you have sources written by recognized experts who have commented on Trumpism which you would like to discuss here, I would welcome that. Otherwise the proper response to what you have posted above is simply to ignore it. Generalrelative (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is your opinion, mine about this has been said on 20:49, 3 August 2020. If you are talking to me, you should expect an answer.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2020 

message: Should all organizations that collaborated with Nazi but are generally not describes as fascist organizations themselves be included to this page? I would say "no". For example, Russian Liberation Army is currently not included, and probably should not be included. My very best wishes (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaborators

message: Bulgaria  in WW2, 77.28.54.197 (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgaria  in WW2