This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics Low‑importance This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This template has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Discrimination This template is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles

For anyone coming here from my edit summary or elsewhere, there is an ongoing discussion about whether Trumpism should be classified as fascism at Talk:Trumpism#RFC: Should the fascism template be included in the article?. Please discuss this subject there instead of going back and forth in the edit logs. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No! That is absurd. It is an extremely one-sided viewpoint and is espoused by an extremely small group of extremists. I will say no more here, and thank you for linking to the appropriate place to comment. By the way, Arctic Circle System, you've done a good job with this template. You are vigilant and impartial from what I can tell so far!--FeralOink (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FeralOink: I wouldn't say that viewpoint is limited to an extremely small group of extremists and would personally argue that the movement is at least heavily linked with modern fascist movements in the United States via the alt-right, but I am not qualified to say much more on the subject. I do appreciate the compliment though. Arctic Circle System (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed a bit more prominent than just being espoused by an extremely small group of extremists from what I remember, though I'll admit my memory isn't great, and I think I might be thinking of discussion of his links with the alt-right in general rather than neo-fascism specifically. Arctic Circle System (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome for the compliment, Arctic Circle System! This is a very contentious topic, and I see from the page history that you've been responsible and diligent. Also, you're right, about a lot of prominent people describing Trumpism as fascist (although I don't think many of the 60 or 70 million Americans who voted for him in the 2020 election consider him to be). Regardless, I made my opinion known on the linked discussion page, which hadn't seen a new entry since April 2023. I just don't want Donald Trump himself to show up in the fascism template by name lol! At least, not without consensus but I'd rather not even think about it for now. Also, I think you're correct about associating some figures on the alt-right with fascism, although Trump has no allegiance to them. We won't list Kanye as an American fascist either for now (double lol!)--FeralOink (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to add

• Hideki Tojo 223.25.74.34 (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please establish a consensus for inclusion of this material. Rotary Engine ^talk 12:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where the line should be here. Arctic Circle System (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good question; I'd say at least five but preferably six or seven, because a plethora of short lists would give the template an awkward look.

Just make sure the people added are fairly notable. Some people are extremely obscure judging by factors such as meagre articles with no sources, articles that exist in a very low number of languages (1-5), very low pageviews etc. They simply do not qualify for representation, if the list is supposed to remain concise and relevant.

Then there's the question of inclusion. Were Carl Schmitt and Francisco Franco true fascists? Scholars usually identify them as exponents of authoritarian conservatism, which is a separate ideology—more elitist, more pre-modern. Trakking (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trakking:I can't say I'm too confident one way or another, honestly. Arctic Circle System (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Schmitt was a member of the Nazi party, so if he's not a fascist nobody is. Death Editor 2 (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IF you use membership in the Nazi party as a criteria for fascists to be added to the template, all sorts of people will need to be added, including lots of people from the Ukraine (which reminds me that I need to check if Stepan Bandera is included). I'm not sure about Schmitt. Schmitt should be included. Francisco Franco is known as a fascist, although I concur with what Trakking said. We should probably be consistent with what is in their WP biographies, too.--FeralOink (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three were pre-existing in the Other group, and I added one. I will look to see if I can find any additions. Four seems to be sufficient for a country entry. Also, with the visibility of Ukraine and fascistic ideologues in western Ukraine recently (e.g. Yaroslav_Hunka scandal in Canadian Parliament) it seems remiss not to break out separately. FeralOink (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think Augusto Pinochet (Chile) and Alberto Fujimori (Peru) should be in the People section of fascists? Pinochet's article has a whole section on how he was fascistic but the conclusion seems to be he is a "neoliberal". I am spending too much time on fascism so I'm just going to leave this thought for the consideration of those who follow. FeralOink (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term fascism gets thrown around a lot, but neither Pinochet nor Fujimori was a fascist according to the standard criteria set by Stanley G. Payne and other experts on fascism. The populist, revolutionary, utopian nationalism, which is at the core of fascism, did not manifest itself in Pinochetism and Fujimorism. Both leaders espoused neoliberalism—an ideology diametrically opposed to the totalitarian fascist state. Trakking (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rotary Engine: Kuniaki Koiso, as supported by the text of his article, was part of the Imperial Rule Assistance Association and Sakurakai, both of which were Japanese fascist organizations. Fumimaro Konoe was the founder of the IRAA. Shigetarō Shimada's connection to fascism does seem tenuous taking a cursory read through his article, so his removal is warranted. Heisuke Yanagawa was a member of Kōdōha and a follower of Sadao Araki, as supported by the body of the article and this book. Arctic Circle System (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, sources, sources?!

Do the preponderance of reliable sources describe these persons as "fascist"? If so, those sources should be used to reference content at the biographical articles, which would then support categorising those persons as "fascist"; which would, in turn, support inclusion in this Navbox. Absent reliable sources describing these persons as such, and the intermediate step of referenced supporting content in the biographies, they should not be included.

The reasoning above is not only unsourced (as regards "fascist"), but also impacts poorly with WP:SYNTH. The IRAA is not broadly regarded as fascist; it is commonly considered to have been a "damp squib". But it doesn't matter if someone was a member if reliable sources do not broadly refer to them (the member) in a way that directly supports inclusion here. And it doesn't matter who someone was a follower of if reliable sources do not broadly refer to them (the follower) as "fascist". Rotary Engine ^talk 01:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rotary Engine: How would someone who follows the ideology of a fascist not be a fascist? And what does "damp squib" mean? Arctic Circle System (talk) 08:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH@WP:NOR prevents us from basing content on combined sources: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. ... If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. "A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article. We cannot take "Yanagawa was a follower of Araki" (ref A) and "Araki was a fascist" (ref B) and combine them to produce "Yanagawa was a fascist". We need a source which directly supports "Yanagawa was a fascist"

A squib is a small firework. A wikt:damp squib is a firework which fails to fire (because it is wet); idiomatically it means Anything that doesn’t work properly, or fails to come up to expectations; a dud.

The IRAA was failed to do what it was intended to do. See: [1] Still, the Taisei Yokusankai (Imperial Rule Assistance Association) that was formed that October never developed into more than a top level promotion organization, leaving the dream of a "single powerful political party" unfulfilled., [2] Thus, the Taisei Yokusankai was reorganized into an administrative assistance organization led by the Home Ministry, dashing the hopes of the KONOE Shintaisei (New Political Order) Movement to create a "single powerful political party." Rotary Engine ^talk 04:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]