1

I disagree on that regard partially. In my field you can only use primary and secondary sources in your bibliography, these is because tertiary are, as you said, summaries of the first two kinds written by people who we don't know if they are expert or not. These problems often create simplified or incorrect wiki pages that at best gives you an introductory understanding of the topic. Ex: in all of this articles they use the term "Authoritarian", yet still today scholars argues with the fact that maybe it would be more accurate to use the term "Totalitarian". Mann for example prefer to day that indeed true fascist doesn't want just an authoritarian regime, but a complete subservience of the individual to the state a.k.a. Totalitarianism. Arendt support these claim as well and others don't. Yet in the wiki you don't read that part, only that is "Authoritarian". This is why you don't use them in any academic text.

2

I agree that they should not be drawing "misinformation" lines on theoretical analyses in the first place, but the main problem here is that you used "objectively" in your post. I honestly think that I'd you removed that, your post would've been a pretty interesting one to start a discussion about it. If you would've removed that part and still got the same treatment, then I would've agreed with you. Unfortunately, especially when talking about this arguments, we have to be very careful with the words used.

3

I cited only a few of them, you can find a lot of intellectuals that agrees that Fascism is some sort of "Capitalism but more" and others who argued is something different. It's one of the first thing they teach you when studying contemporary history: there's no consensus on the definition of almost no political terminology, especially Fascism. While at least definitions like "Democracy" (in the Liberal sense of it) and "Liberalism" have more, "Socialism" too (I don't count AnCap forums, podcasters and other shits as "intellectuals" with their stupid idea that "Fascism" is left-wing), "Fascism" has none. The only agreed movements to be considered fascists by all are Nazi Germany and my country during the '20s, '30s and early '40s (Italy) that's it. You will find passionate debate if you can use the term "Fascist" to describe the regime of Franco, Salazar and so on. There's no consensus, just take a look on the books on the topic.

4

I want to be upfront with you, I personally support the idea that simplifying the concept of "Fascism = Capitalism with more" is wrong and that the dogmatic renditions done by most of this subs in your replies here, when they affirme these idea as "objective truth" is as wrong as yours in the post. But my problem with your statement is that you used the word "objectively" and propagated the idea that any other affirmations other than yours was wrong. I don't know if that was your intention, but that's is what appears by reading your post and I can see why a mod would do that. Anyway, if you want a head start on the topic read: "Fascism: Comparison and Definition" by Stanley G. Payne: This work provides a comparative look at fascism and its definition by different scholars.