Template talk:Fascism sidebar

WikiProject Politics / Fascism (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by Fascism task force.

Major movements[edit]

IMO the fascism template should only have major, undoubtedly fascist movements in it; otherwise it's just going to get too big and too controversial. I have modified it thusly. - Stlemur 13:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)C mon (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Noting the recent string of modifications: as the template affects a large number of articles, significant changes to it should be discussed in this talk page before implementation. - Stlemur 22:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyone mind if I trim down items redundant with the Nazism template? - Stlemur 20:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Go right ahead. I was thinking of doing that myself. - DNewhall


This article is part of the
Fascism series.
Fasces lictoriae.svg

This series is linked to the Politics and elections series

Varieties and derivatives of fascism
Clerical fascism
Japanese fascism

Fascism in history
March on Rome
Italian Social Republic
4th of August Regime

Relevant lists
List of fascists
List of fascist movements by country

Related subjects
Fascist symbolism
Roman salute
National syndicalism
Black Brigades
Actual Idealism
Fascist unification rhetoric
Conservative Revolutionary movement
Benito Mussolini
National anarchism
National Bolshevism
International Third Position
Neofascism and religion

edit this box

I'm not entirely crazy about it still...I think the template has a lot of trivia in it (Italian Social Republic?). - Stlemur 14:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I made some mostly superficial changes. I think we should leave the Italian Social Republic in since I can't really think of any big reasons to take it out. However, I know there's a debate about the Greek fascism page but shouldn't we still leave that in until some concensus occurs reagarding it? - DNewhall
It definitely shouldn't be on the list twice, though. - Stlemur 17:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Some of the links were getting a bit obscure, and one was on the template twice. Can we keep to the core topics?--Cberlet 04:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Nazism and socialism - discuss and vote on which page text should appear[edit]

Discussions of the relationship between Fascism and socialism and Nazism and socialism keep appearing on multiple pages. On what page does the section on Nazism and socialism belong?

Fascism and ideology---Nazism in relation to other concepts---Fascism and socialism---Nazism and socialism

Please discuss and vote on this dispute at this talk page]. Thanks. --Cberlet 15:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Horizontal template[edit]

Looking at Fascism and Freedom Movement (a particularly bad example), I'm wondering if the template should maybe be made horizontal and put at the bottom of pages it appears on. --Stlemur 13:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Might work better. Are their other similar horizontal templates?--Cberlet 13:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring template[edit]

I think we can do away with the "Fascist political parties and movements" section and just move "List of fascist movements by country" to the "Relevent lists" section and "Fascism as an international phenomenon" can go in "Related subjects". - DNewhall

National Bolsehvism and National Anarchism are called fascistic by a number of published scholars. Why the deletion? I know they claim they oppose fascism--but that does not sweep aside the work of scholars.--Cberlet 14:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Cberlet. National bolshevism has a history entangled with pre-WWII fascism, it uses fascist imagery, it often embraces fascistic methods and goals (racism, violence as a political tool, Fuehrerprinzip...) --Stlemur 15:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing National Bolshevism was a mistake, however removing National Anarchism was not. The third sentence of the National Anarchism article states "National Anarchists completely reject Fascism as being Statist". - DNewhall

The self-claim should be noted on the page. That some scholars call National Anarchists fascistic cannot simply be dismissed. I can be persuaded, but many fascist groups claim to not be fascist or even claim to be anti-fascist. Hardly persuasive.--Cberlet 17:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, who're these scholars that call National Anarchists fascist? - DNewhall


Iron Guard is the second name of the Legionary Movement a.k.a. Legion of Saint Michael the Archangel, therefore it cannot be considered the name of the doctrine. In "Tara si Exilul" newspaper (official paper of the Iron Guard in exile), Horia Sima wrote the article "Sase decade de legionarism" ("Six decades of legionarism"). The article can be found here. Other referrences to "legionarism" can be found in this important political magazine, in this article and on the official page of the Romanian Chamber of Deputies, here ("legionarism" is used here by a well-known Romanian historian). But I think that next time you should check for yourself before reverting the edits. Nobody should waste time collecting things that you can easily find searching the web.--Eres 03:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Legion of the Archangel Michael later changed its name to the Iron Guard. When scholars refer to them they either use one name or the other (For example, Griffiths and Griffin use the Iron Guard, Paxton and Passmore use the Legion of the Archangel Michael). In English literature on fascism there is none, or very little, scholarly work that uses the term "Legionarism"; it's always one name or the other. Wikipedia takes the same approach. We have an article Iron Guard and Legion of the Archangel Michael and Legionarism both redirect to it since that is the term Wikipedia editors have chosen to prefer as the name (since scholars almost arbitrarily prefer one name or the other). If the Wikipedia consensus it to use Iron Guard than that should be the name in the template. - DNewhall 17:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Then Falangism should be modified to The Falange. Legionarism is the doctrine of The Ledoinary Movement and I have clearly supported my point of view with the informations presented. The article shod be named Iron Guard, but the doctrine should be called "Legionarism". Just like falangism and la falange...--Eres 13:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. However, Falangism is commonly used as a descriptive term for a few movements whereas Legionarism is only used in regards to the Iron Guard and seems to be used very, very rarely if at all. It would make sense to make it Legionarism except that, unlike Falangism, the term is almost never used (if at all) by scholars. - DNewhall 18:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What scholars? Romanian political science scholars use "legionarism" in their works. But, anyway, wikipedists don't care about science, they only care about their own opinion.--Eres 20:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You might be right about Romanian political scientists using the term, however, this is the English Wikipedia so we stick with the terms used in English literature. About what Wikipedia editors care about we have a policy on assuming good faith which we all try to abide by because if "wikipedists don't care about science, they only care about their own opinion" as you say then you, as a Wikipedist are simply editing this page to explicitly insert your point of view. - DNewhall 05:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course I am.--Eres 23:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Contested references[edit]

Left-wing fascism
These are highly contested issues, do they belong on a tmeplate at all?--Cberlet 14:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd drop them as WP:FRINGE. --Stlemur 16:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, I think we have to keep "Islamofascism", due to its currency with the New Right. <eleland/talkedits> 21:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The term and concept are not well-established in scholarship. Hot button political issue. The ideas are covered on Neofascism and religion and Clerical fascism, not on Islamofascism.--Cberlet (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Estado Novo not true fascism[edit]

Estado Novo in Portugal or Brazil are not generally characterized by scholars as fascist. They share some common elements and certainly were inspired in part by aspects of fascism but even parts of the New Deal had inspiration from fascist policies. There is a "taxonomical” difficulty in characterizing it as fascism; it is not fascism but at most a “para-fascism”. It is true of both Brazil and Portugal. They are not quite fascist, hence I am removing them from the template. Mamalujo 18:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

style change[edit]

The template is long and narrow, so I propose that we move multiple links into the same line. Yahel Guhan 23:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Small or large[edit]

I don't agree with the last edits of C mon on the template and I, as I oppose them, I observe that there is no consensus on them. I think it is fairly more practical to have templates without "show" buttons. They are more easily manageable. --Checco (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think the template was too big and it is not always obvious what will be under the various categories. I think the previous organization was better.Mamalujo (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
What is sure is that there is no consensus on the current version. I will make a rollback here and I hope that it will be possible in all the similar templates. --Checco (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I created a centralized place for discussion about the show/hide-issue here. I invite every one to participate. C mon (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

New Template lay out[edit]

Vision Thing recently revert user:Gennarous's edits here. I agree that such a major and controversial change should be discussed. While there are parts of the edit I did not like, namely that a lot of links were lost, I really liked the lay out with the fasces and the pictures of the fascist leader. So I think we should work on a version with the "new" lay out and the "old" links. C mon (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Pictures are nice, but content is more important. These templates need to be edited through constructive discussion. The version Vision Thing restored was the consensus version based on many months of discussion.--Cberlet (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I will apply new layout during next week in nobody beats me to it. -- Vision Thing -- 17:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The eariler one had plenty of group content. If it didn't have enought why not have more? I think the current one needs change. It's terribly dull. Bobisbob (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Varieties and prominent figures[edit]

Does consensus exists about varieties and prominent figures in fascism? -- Vision Thing -- 13:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think there is consensus on this matter as yet. We need more discussion. The changes on the Fascism page have been substantial, and there has been no time for actual substantive editorial discussions. We need to agree on that page first before agreeing on varieties and prominent figures in fascism for the template.--Cberlet (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Colour of the template[edit]

The socialism template looks nice. It has white main header text over a red background with red header text below. I think we should do a similar theme for the fascism template but with a different colour. The current colour blue as a political colour is associated with conservatism and not fascism. The two colours most associated with fascism are black and brown. Should we redecorate the fascism template with that in mind? Ecto (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed the colour of Template:Fascism and Template:Fascism sidebar to black. I think it looks good and it fits in with the look of Portal:Fascism. Template: Anarchism sidebar and Template:Anarchism don't use anarchism's political colour (black) because it doesn't use any colour. If the anarchism templates undergo a redesign and we decide to go with black for those we can change the fascism templates to brown (saddle brown would look best), but black is fascism's main political colour, and I think both anarchism and fascism have just as much claim to it, so it wouldn't be that terrible for them to look the same. At any rate I think we should standardize the look of all the political ideology templates so each is colour-coded by its political colour, so Template:Socialism and Template:Communism would share a colour as well. Ecto (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Black unfortunately makes the links rather hard to read, I'm afraid. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean the white headers against the black background are hard to read? I wouldn't think so because white and black are the highest contrast possible, and I've read a few web design books which say that white text on a black background is supposed to be easier to read on a computer screen than the other way around. The design might not work with such small header background areas if the edges of the letters come too close to the white spaces around the headers, though. I run my monitor at a low resolution so I wouldn't normally see that problem but I'll check the template in higher resolutions. Do you think brown would look better? Ecto (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes I think I see what you mean now. In higher resolutions you kind of get a dizzy effect, especially with all the sections collapsed. Do you think it's a big enough deal to change the colour? Ecto (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I was specifically referring to the show/hide links, which are nearly invisible. If their color could be changed that would be excellent. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh okay. I should have guessed that. I already stumbled on a way to make the show/hide links white using the "subnavbox" feature that I'll implement in the next version of the template. Unfortunately I'm not sure how to make them change colour once visited (a light grey would be nice) but I don't think that's such a big deal. Ecto (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I've just stumbled upon this, and I have to say that the black-banner effect doesn't look at all sensible; it's ugly, distracting and makes the links hard to read (as people have already identified above). Can we change it so that just the header "Fascism" is black, and not all the section headers? Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 18:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't look that good... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed all the black on the template is a nightmare. Its hard to see there is a "show" button with such a colour. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Oil Filth, wasn't fascism ugly to begin with? The color of the template depicts its nature perfectly. :P Anyway, the links can become more readable by coloring the template completely black, but that wouldn't satisfy your other complaints. What I would suggest is lightening the gray to the point where the blue "show-hide" buttons can become readable, but I'm not sure it would look that good. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
That ugly, and much uglier, UNSC. :) I agree, though, the eeevil color should be lightened. We should think of a way to make the nazi and fascist templates similar yet different. Different shades of gray? Any ideas? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Shades of gray would be better than all black. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it quite hard to read, and the sidebar jumped out as not looking particularly good. I don't know how to change it, but I think the colour scheme is too extreme. Snorgle (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Portraits needed[edit]

The people section needs portraits for the following fascists:

If a portrait becomes available on Wikipedia or the Commons please put it into the template. The name, link, and format code is ready to go. All you have to do is put in the image code (formatting it like the others) and delete the extra comment tags that are hiding the unfinished entry. Ecto (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Notable Persons[edit]

It seems we've got a lot of people on the sidebar, but not all of them are entirely notable - as in, the most significant figures in Fascism. These are the people I'd suggest we keep on the persons list; each figure is supposed to represent its nation:

Hope to hear suggestions! --UNSC Trooper (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this change should happen, but I think it should be part of a larger overhaul described below. Ecto (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A plan for the development of the fascism templates[edit]

1. We should give Template:Fascism (the footer) collapsible groups. There's already a prototype template we could use as a basis for doing so on Template talk:Fascism but it needs some work.

2. We should pare down the content of Template:Fascism and Template:Fascism sidebar to only the most important articles (for example, the People/Persons sections should be changed to what UNSC Trooper suggested above). Also we should correlate the content of Template:Fascism and Template:Fascism sidebar so they have identical, streamlined content.

3. We should make a new set of more focused templates by splitting off each section from Template:Fascism and Template:Fascism sidebar into separate templates. These new templates should retain all less important articles removed from the main templates. There's already a set of prototype templates we could use as a basis for this set on Template talk:Fascism but they need some work.

4. We should make something like Template:Italian Fascism to parallel Template:Nazism, since Italian Fascism was pretty important and really requires its own template distinct from generic fascism. This template should only include articles directly related to Italian Fascism.

The end result of this plan would be a set of templates that looks something like this:

Generic fascism:

Variants of fascism:



Does this sound like a good plan? Ecto (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of carrying out step 1, but I'd like some others' opinions before starting on steps 2 and 3 (these two need to be carried out together). Ecto (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


I wonder why Abba Ahimeir is placed in the first place here? Is it done intentionally to make impression that fascism is a Jewish invention or Zionism is a variant of Fascism? I deeply convinced that at the first place here should be placed Mussolini. And Ahimeir is worth placement here nothing more than the leaders of so-called "Russian fascist movement" etc.--MathFacts (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well the article on him has two sources on the sentence that says his movement was self-described as fascist. Unless there are some problems with the sources or experts disagree with the movement's self assessment, I can't see why he shouldn't be in the template. Mamalujo (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Because he was not so notable. Anyway, why he should be on the first place?--MathFacts (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

José Antonio Primo de Rivera[edit]

Just a note on my recent revert to the template: I'm not actually against the inclusion of Rivera in the people section, I just couldn't figure a way to remove the non-free image and leave the link to his article without it looking out of place. As mentioned further up this talk page, a free image would be useful here. --Ibn (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Portugese Intergralists and National Syndicalists weren't fascist[edit]

I removed the recently added Portugese Intergralists and National Syndicalists from the "movements" section of the template because they weren't fascist. The Portugese Integratlists were per that article traditionalists, decentralist, monarchist - plainly not fascist. The article on the National Syndicalists even says they opposed fascism. Mamalujo (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


Is Baathism really a form of fascism or para-fascism? Is there consensus for it to be included in this sidebar? I can see why it might have been added, but there doesn't seem to have been discussion about it, nor does the page it links to either use this sidebar or discuss Baathism in relation tofascism. CarefulCounting (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

recent changes[edit]

since there is disagreement concerning the recent changes, please discuss here rather than edit warring. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

An appropriate and neutral request for comment needs to be opened. This comment by you is not helpful, it is uncivil and it will only agitate DIREKTOR to continue to be uncivil to you. Let's break the vicious cycle here by opening up a neutral RfC that is open to all proposals by any user. We need to negotiate on the wording of the RfC, and place the proposed templates and have it be open for new proposed templates to be added.--R-41 (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I must observe you have mentioned an RfC for the 9th time now, and have restored the unsourced flag of your own make - yet again. Thankfully I am the one that's being "uncivil" and "combative" :). As I have said, I find such characterizations very offensive and will report them on next occurrence. -- Director (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
As I have said on my talk page, I did not intend for what I said to be offensive, if you took offense to what I said, I am sorry. I meant it for advice, and to gear the discussion towards cooperation and resolution. Plus I think that threatening to report me because of my perception of your editing behaviour is not conductive to productive or cooperative discussion, it is more common for that to become grounds for that discussion to break apart. However I am patient and I hope that you will withdraw your proposal to report me if I even so much as insinuate that you are behaving in a manner ineffectual to consensus-seeking. As I said I do not want to write the RfC on my own because I believe that all three of us should work on the wording. As you have requested the changes, I am opening up for you to write your proposal down with your version of the template shown.--R-41 (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: the discussion is mostly taking place on Template talk:Nazism sidebar. -- Director (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


I see this has been switched again. Can people please propose and explain any changes before making them unilaterally, not least because any such changes affect the visual appearance of a huge number of individual pages? It's now been flipped about three times in a month. Repeatedly simply justifying it with the edit summary "more aesthetic" slightly misses the point that aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder – I actually prefer, solely on aesthetic grounds, the B&W image. Relevance, accuracy and ultimately stability are what matters here, not one editor's personal preference and willingness to edit war that preferred image in. N-HH talk/edits 08:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

For those curious about what that is an image of maybe there could be a link to Fasces incorporated?-- (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


we should use the standard width, since this sidebar is frequently stacked above or below other sidebars. if the widths don't match, you can get a jagged text border, which can cause text to overlap the sidebar in some browsers. if there is a problem with other sidebars not being as wide as this one, then we should change those to use the default as well. Frietjes (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

why no discussion here? (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


Can people stop adding him to this. Feelings are not Fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyno50 (talkcontribs) 22:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2017[edit]

Clerical fascism should use a lowercase f. Thanks, (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC) (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Done Gulumeemee (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Julius Evola[edit]

Could you please add Julius Evola in "people"? Gnóstico07 (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Persistent addition of Hirohito, Hideki Tojo and Francisco Franco[edit]

These 3 people were not fascists. They are not mentioned to be fascist in their respective articles. Tojo did previously have 2 mentions of him being one, but a quick examination of the source (Herbert P. Bix) which both these claims cited revealed that the entire book contained only one (1) mention of fascism, which was not in relation to either Hirohito nor Tojo. Compare the "generic militarism" of Tojo with actual Japanese fascists like Seigō Nakano or Ikki Kita.

On Francos page it is described by James S. Corum how the German Nazis were disappointed with Franco's resistance to installing fascism during the Civil War. The article also mentions how he marginalized fascist ideologues of the Falange in favor of the Opus Dei technocrats after the civil war and finally that that scholarly consensus is that while his rule adopted some trappings of fascism, he, and Spain under his rule, are generally not considered to be fascist, with Stanley G. Payne additionally noting that very few scholars consider him to be a "core fascist". Unlike Tojo and Hirohito, however, there is also a mentioned of how the Oxford Living Dictionary mentions him as an example of Fascism.

But such a small mention compared to the wave of scholarly consensus prior is obviously more a "controversial case" and not a "core fascist" (compare again here his authoritarian, conservative rule with actual Spanish fascists like José Antonio Primo de Rivera). These 3 people should therefore NOT be listed (and in Hirohito's and Franco's cases, as the top 3rd and 4th names mentioned!!) in the sidebar for the ideological core of people connected to the ideology of Fascism. --Havsjö (talk) 06:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I can also note that "accusations" in the uninformed edit that war that "National Catholicism also influenced the Ustaše BTW" seems to be a strenuous connection to label Franco as a fascist because of the fact that in Stanley G. Paynes book "A History of Fascism, 1914-1945" he mentions how the "overtly fascist ideology that the Ustaše increasingly aligned with" during the 1930's was also "mixed with romantic peasant-ism and a Croatian brand of "National Catholicism"". Hardly a counterpoint to the aforementioned scholarly consensus. --Havsjö (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Nothing Corum wrote suggests that Franco wasn't Fascist, also, while there are controversies about whether Franco's regime was Fascist, there are controversies about many other regimes (including Imperial Japan OFC), even Nazi Germany sometimes isn't considered Fascist, there are people who argue that only Italy was Fascist, this doesn't justify removing those regimes, and there isn't any proof that "very few scholars consider him to be a core fascist", just because Payne said so doesn't make it true (and one can only wonder what Payne's definition of a "serious historian" is), not to mention that your rationale is weird, no offense, but for example, Hitler's article doesn't mention him being a Fascist either, does this mean Hitler should be removed from those categories? -- Pedro8790 (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Nothing in the main articles for the 3 persons in the section header indicates that they are considered by a consensus of scholars to be objectively "fascist". Indeed, the two Japanese articles do not mention "fascist" or "fascism" when describing those persons; the Spanish article clears states that Franco is not considered to be a fascist. - Ryk72 talk 19:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Francisco Franco[edit]

i suggest to include Francisco Franco down of adolf hitler — Preceding unsigned comment added by KFU1423 (talkcontribs) 08:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)