Talk:List of fascist movements

US

I have removed the part about modern US which was added yesterday. It is important that reliable sources explicitly support the claims. The fact that some of the sources provided don't exist also made me think it was AI generated. Dajasj (talk) 06:09, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Here we go again. I will remove the parts with non-existent sources and the parts where sources don't specifically make the connection with fascism (because that would be original research). I'm ofcourse open to discussion here. Dajasj (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

The remaining claim has been sourced somewhat, although "many" is original research and two sources are pre-2024, so can't really function as a source for the mentioned timeframe. I also think these sources can be used to be more specific (instead of using the Kimmel source without explicit sources) Dajasj (talk) 08:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Rangooner, it would be helpful to engage in a discussion. If a source does not mention fascism or links it in a direct way, it violates WP:Synth and we should remove it. Dajasj (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Dajasj. Explicit mentions of fascism (or a subgroup of it, like Nazism) are non-negotiable. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:39, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

A link to the definition of fascism is provided in the page. I've included sources that directly mention fascism. If you find a particular claim that does not have a source containing the word "fascism," I can find a source if necessary. Rangooner (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Updated to now include sources that directly mention fascism. If you'd like me to find other sources for a specific line, please let me know, and I can provide one. Rangooner (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Rangooner, thanks for engaging in a discussion. Could you tell me which sources in your first Trump paragraph mention fascism other than the three in the first sentence? I can't find it. Dajasj (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Of course. I'll add some additional sources to those sentences shortly. Those sentences help demonstrate the definition of fascism that was provided at the beginning of this page, i.e. intimidation and suppression of dissent demonstrated by FCC's threats against ABC. Rangooner (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll make sure the additional sources directly mention fascism. Rangooner (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

It's not up to us to decide what is and isn't a good example of fascism. The source should specifically confirm this. The fact that the definition of fascism is mentioned (or simply exists), doesn't justify it under WP:Synth.

Regarding the second paragraph, there are two sources that somewhat link it to fascism, and they are both by Democracy Now and Jason Stanley. Please have a look at WP:DEMOCRACYNOW for guidance. That's not enough in my opinion to have these bold claims. For example, you write that Trump is reshaping the judiciary, but doesn't every President do that?

It's very important to be very precise when writing about such topics. One possible solution is to keep it brief on this page. Just say that "a number of prominent scholars, former officials and critics have drawn comparisons between him and fascist leaders over authoritarian actions and rhetoric" as mentioned in the lead of Donald Trump and fascism, and then just link to that page. Then we can focus our efforts on improving that page. I am also going to propose a merger with another list, as I have indicated below. Dajasj (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the wording regarding the judicial appointments is not inherently an example of fascism and will revise as needed. I can try to make this more succinct when I have an opportunity to sit down and edit this in a few hours. Please delete/revise as needed in the meantime if you feel it's immediately necessary. Rangooner (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Dajasj. Let’s keep it concise (it would be undue if this borderline case had more words than Hitler) and limit sourcing to reliable sources that use the f word. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

This article focuses entirely on the 1920s-40s. If we include Trump, we also need to include all the other post-war formations some consider fascist, such as the Latin American dictatorships, Putin, the Israeli far right, the Assad regime, etc. that seems an enormous job. Is keep the scope tight, remove Trump and perhaps edit lead (and title?) to be clear on topic. Otherwise we need to expand massively… BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps we should do that then. The article title is Fascist movements by country, not Fascist movements pre-WWII by country. Rangooner (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Merge

I think it would be best to merge this content with List of fascist movements by country and its subpages. Although it has a different format, this page also discusses them mostly by country. Much of the text of this page is already discussed on other pages, and the other list is far more exhaustive. But more importantly, by having so many pages about a similar topic, we run the risk of duplicate discussions and inconsistencies between the pages. How do other people feel about this? Dajasj (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, there is a lot of redundancy here that should be condensed down. Rangooner (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

With its present title, it seems insane not to merge.

But this article seems to have a much more specific role: to describe the main international fascist movements of the 1920s-40s age of dictators. It seems to me renaming would be a better option. Something like “Classical fascist movements”? BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

If so, we would also need to create a page for contemporary fascist movements such as MAGA unless one already exists. Rangooner (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the main article that focuses on post-war fascism in general is Neo-fascism. (There are obviously more specific articles focused on the US, such as Fascism in the United States and Donald Trump and fascism so brief summaries elsewhere can link to those articles.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

On Talk:Neo-fascism, editors seem to disagree with this and consider neo-fascism to be its own variant of contemporary fascism. Not sure I agree, as it seems the distinguishing factor between the two is that neo-fascism has a particular emphasis on revival of classic fascism, which seems irrelevant to me, as the goals of all fascist movements seem to align regardless of inspiration. Rangooner (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree “fascism” and “neo-fascism” is a meaningless split. “Pre-1945” and “post-1945” is the only division that makes sense to me, but keeping them together works better. BobFromBrockley (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Contemporary fascist movements

I don't believe this page is up to date with most contemporary fascist movements, despite the fact that the title of this article implies the page should include all fascist movements, past and present. I'm curious if anyone had any input on whether it'd be preferable to try to update this page with more contemporary fascist movements (particularly those who hold or have held power), or if the page should be split into a page for "classical" fascist movements and contemporary ones. Personally, I prefer the former. Regardless, I think it's important for continuity and clarity that we consider this. Rangooner (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree former is better, see previous topic BobFromBrockley (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Trumpism

This is a continuation of the discussion from US topic above that resulted in the addition of content regarding Trumpism, and the scholars who study fascism characterizing Trumpism as a fascist ideology.

Given that content (particularly the mention of scholars who study fascism characterizing Trumpism as fascist) is continually removed from this page due to its contentious nature, and users are engaging in edit wars here, I encourage anyone to weigh in on this, especially before deleting content without just reason. Personally, I think it's fair to say that we should exclusively make use of recent academic research from scholars who study fascism, and unless there is recent research (as recent or more recent than the research provided in the page, particularly in 2025 and especially late 2025) from such scholars, there is no strong basis for removing such mentions of the recent consensus amongst scholars on Trump and fascism. While this topic is highly debated amongst the public, with objections coming only from Trump and his loyalists/allies/supporters at this point, there does not appear to be a debate amongst scholars who study fascism anymore on whether Trump/Trumpism is fascist, and it appears they are coming to a consensus quite recently that Trumpism is a fascist (or proto/neo-fascist) movement and ideology. Once again, please do not engage in an edit war by reverting additions or removing content, and leave your thoughts here instead. Rangooner (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I oppose having an article that makes it appear that fascism exists post-1945 only in the US. We have to either open up the article past 1945 globally or exclude the US. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Your basic suggestion is to include neo-fascist movements in the page? Than can be arranged. Dimadick (talk) 10:59, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I think there’s no reason not to, unless it creates too big a page, in which case a break at 1945 makes sense. But we can’t have a page that covers up to 1945 plus Trump; that makes no sense. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:02, 25 December 2025 (UTC)