Talk:Right-wing politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Typically biased article[edit]

The fact that the only link available under the "External Links" section is "right-wing watch" is enough for anyone with critical thought to not take this particular seriously. The definition of right-wing here doesn't even pretend to be unbiased. For such an abstract definition, one could easily construe it mean anything negative or positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.12.124 (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Because the article was written by left wingers, it describes the right-wing :) doctrine pejoratively, using a negative definition: 'they are against social equality'.

First of all, only a left winger would talk about 'social equality'. The concept itself is vague, it lacks substance and is not used by common people.

Furthermore, a right winger would not describe himself with the terms of the Left. For example, a libertarian would say that he supports freeing the individual from state meddling and state theft.

Or if he is a nationalist, he may say that he supports a strong national military and a carefully restricted immigration.

But to say that all right wingers accept or support 'social inequality' is silly. Even the Wiki entry about Social Equality recognises that this vague concept should include the equality before the law, which right wingers do support.

If social equality is defined as equality before the law and equality of opportunity, and if (as I think) most right wingers believe in these, then it makes no sense to define 'right wing' as an outlook that supports social inequality.

Finally, it does not seem to me that the main attribute of the left-wing doctrine is support for 'social equality'. For example, on the whole left wingers support an extreme level of inequality between leaders and members of the proletariat.

Support for wealth redistribution and state intervention in the lives of citizens are probably better defining attributes, as well as being clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWorld88 (talkcontribs) 12:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If you have any sources that define the Right, then it would be helpful if you would provide them.
No I don't have sources but I don't think it matters. The thing is, if you take a left-wing book you will find a pejorative definition of the Right. And if you take a right-wing book you will find a pejorative definition of the Left. If I had to write the entries about Left and Right I would just use a bullet list of their main ideas. I wouldn't try to summarize them in a way that suggests that people from the Right love to oppress their fellow men. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWorld88 (talkcontribs) 16:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
No I don't have sources but I don't think it matters.
See WP:V. If you don't have sources, you don't have an argument. — goethean 16:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course he has, he is pointing to the fact that only left-wing books and articles are used as sources here. Equality is an stupid, ethereal concept that will never be solid in any society. There are thousands and thousands of academic sources pointing to that that will never be accepted here because of the cynical partisan bias that reigns here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.99.56.96 (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

That is circular reasoning. You think the article is left-wing therefore the sources must be left-wing. If you have any reliable sources that contradict what is in the article, please provide them. TFD (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
let's not mix us "social equality" and legal equality" as Goethean does. The statement by Goethean that "on the whole left wingers support an extreme level of inequality between leaders and members of the proletariat." is false. On the whole they do not approve of that. Rjensen (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line here is someone who can be unbiased and has either unbiased sources or can properly use opposing sources needs to reword this article. As it is, the article is written more to accuse and demonize the right wing than to write an unbiased article. It doesn't have to be positive, but it needs to not be aggressive. SteveTheSteeeve (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

One often hears supporters of the Right say that those who disagree with them are "biased". Here are the references to just the lead of this article. Are all of these references biased?

1.Jump up ^ Bobbio, Norberto and Allan Cameron,Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction. University of Chicago Press, 1997, p. 51, 62. ISBN 978-0-226-06246-4 2.^ Jump up to: a b J. E. Goldthorpe. An Introduction to Sociology. Cambridge, England, UK; Oakleigh, Melbourne, Australia; New York, New York, USA p. 156. ISBN 0-521-24545-1. 3.Jump up ^ Rodney P. Carlisle. Encyclopedia of politics: the left and the right, Volume 2. University of Michigan; Sage Reference, 2005. p.693, 721. ISBN 1-4129-0409-9 4.^ Jump up to: a b c T. Alexander Smith, Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at war: moral conflicts in western democracies. Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd, 2003. p. 30. "That viewpoint is held by contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality or political participation.' In other words, the sociological perspective sees preservationist politics as a right-wing attempt to defend privilege within the social hierarchy." 5.^ Jump up to: a b Left and right: the significance of a political distinction, Norberto Bobbio and Allan Cameron, p. 37, University of Chicago Press, 1997. 6.^ Jump up to: a b Seymour Martin Lipset, cited in Fuchs, D., and Klingemann, H. 1990. The left-right schema. pp. 203–34 in Continuities in Political Action: A Longitudinal Study of Political Orientations in Three Western Democracies, ed.M.Jennings et al. Berlin:de Gruyter 7.^ Jump up to: a b c Lukes, Steven. 'Epilogue: The Grand Dichotomy of the Twentieth Century': concluding chapter to T. Ball and R. Bellamy (eds.), The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Political Thought. pp.610–612 8.^ Jump up to: a b Clark, William. Capitalism, not Globalism. University of Michigan Press, 2003. ISBN 0-472-11293-7, ISBN 978-0-472-11293-7 9.Jump up ^ Smith, T. Alexander and Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at War: Moral Conflicts in Western Democracies (Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd., 2003) p. 30. "That viewpoint is held by contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality or political participation.' ' 10.Jump up ^ Scruton, Roger “A Dictionary of Political Thought” "Defined by contrast to (or perhaps more accurately conflict with) the left the term right does not even have the respectability of a history. As now used it denotes several connected and also conflicting ideas (including) 1)conservative, and perhaps authoritarian, doctrines concerning the nature of civil society, with emphasis on custom, tradition, and allegiance as social bonds ... 8) belief in free enterprise free markets and a capitalist economy as the only mode of production compatible with human freedom and suited to the temporary nature of human aspirations ..." pp. 281-2, Macmillian, 1996 11.Jump up ^ J. E. Goldthorpe. An Introduction to Sociology. "There are ... those who accept inequality as natural, normal, and even desirable. Two main lines of thought converge on the Right or conservative side...the truly Conservative view is that there is a natural hierarchy of skills and talents in which some people are born leaders, whether by heredity or family tradition. ... now ... the more usual right-wing view, which may be called 'liberal-conservative', is that unequal rewards are right and desirable so long as the competition for wealth and power is a fair one." p. 156. Cambridge, England, UK; Oakleigh, Melbourne, Australia; New York, New York, USA p. 156. ISBN 0-521-24545-1. 12.Jump up ^ Ferrie Pot. Employment Relations and National Culture: Continuity and Change in the Age of Globalization. P135-136. 13.Jump up ^ Modern Catholic Social Teaching: The Popes Confront the Industrial Age, 1740-1958. Paulist Press, 2003. P132 14.^ Jump up to: a b Goodsell, Charles T., "The Architecture of Parliaments: Legislative Houses and Political Culture", British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 18, No. 3 (July , 1988) pp. 287–302 15.Jump up ^ Linski, Gerhard, Current Issues and Research In Macrosociology (Brill Archive, 1984) p. 59 16.Jump up ^ Clark, Barry Political Economy: A Comparative Approach (Praeger Paperback, 1998) pp. 33–34 17.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Andrew Knapp and Vincent Wright (2006). The Government and Politics of France. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-35732-6. 18.Jump up ^ Rodney P. Carlisle. Encyclopedia of politics: the left and the right, Volume 2. University of Michigan; Sage Reference, 2005, p. 693. ISBN 1-4129-0409-9 19.Jump up ^ Gauchet, Marcel, "Right and Left" in Nora, Pierre, ed., Realms of Memory: Conflicts and Divisions (1996) pp. 247-8 20.Jump up ^ "The English Ideology: Studies in the Language of Victorian Politics" George Watson Allen Lane: London 1973 p.94 21.Jump up ^ Alan S. Kahan. Mind Vs. Money: The War Between Intellectuals and Capitalism. New Brunsiwck, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2010. p. 88. 22.Jump up ^ Ian Adams. Political Ideology Today. Manchester, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Manchester University Press, 2001. p. 57.

I think many people who honestly support the Right do not know the history of the Right, and think that "right-wing" means only what one subgroup of the Right have decided it should mean, starting with the Tea Party movement in 1999. But the original right-wing supported absolute monarchy. Wikipedia must not only report on current events, but also answer the questions of students who read things written before the twenty-first century. It might be easier to change the name of the movement than to rewrite two hundred years of history. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The article itself reflects the sources. If Wikipedia policy said that each individual was free to accept any source he or she agreed with, and dismiss any source he or she disagreed with, Wikipedia would be a useless hodge-podge. "lol" is not a logical argument. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The first source "Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction" is from a socialist not surprisingly. [1] The second seemingly comes from a person with similar views since he praises liberal/socialist thinkers such as Hobbes and Marx. [2] (see endorsements section). So can someone remind me how the first statement in the article isn't from a biased source again? Like the OP said: the article was written by liberals. Incidentally, the left-ring article seems bursting with positive statements whilst the right and center ones are negative. --86.21.101.169 (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Because an author does not share your views, that does not mean the author is biased. If a mathematician states that two plus two is four, and refuses to consider the possibility that two plus two is five, that does not prove bias. Bias is a deliberate or unreasoning distortion of the facts to uphold one viewpoint over against another. Bobbio, Cameron, and Goldthorpe have certainly studied the subject of political science in far greater depth than I have, and as best I can tell they have good reputations. If you want to impeach them, it is not enough to say they disagree with you. You need an academic source that says their views fail the standards of scholarly research. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The opinions of an author and his/her statements of fact are separate. No reliable sources question Einstein's special theory of relativity on the basis of his socialism or his religion. Textbooks give credence to the theory because most scientists do. Scientists give credence because the theory is consistent with evidence. Both the right-wing Conservapedia and the far right Metapedia reject the theory because of Einstein's belief system. That is an argumentum ad hominem - the claim that a statement must be incorrect because the author is supposedly wrong about other, unrelated statements. TFD (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, if were' going into epistemological questions, it's not that simple. There are differences between sociology and hard sciences like physics. Social sciences have different schools. For instance, Austrian economists and Keynesians will have radically different thesis and yet they're both academics. The same way there are Marxist sociologists and conservative political scientists (like Samuel P. Huntington). Often there is no "objective, single truth" in social sciences. Instead, different academics have different arguments and theories that we can use from references. Sometimes those theories are very commonly accepted and closer to not being so subjective. To my understanding, Norberto Bobbio's definition of the left and right is very notable indeed, but that it's just one viewpoint which stresses their relationship on equality as the most defining factor. Some political scientists have different definitions. Maybe I'll borrow some basic political science textbooks next, apparently these kind of basic definitions aren't easily found from scholar databases. --Pudeo' 03:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
And by the way, thanks to whoever put the references quotations in the notes, it's really useful. I think I've now pin-pointed the problem in the lead. It says that right-wing movements view social inequality as "inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable." Social inequality, implying it is meant universally, is too broad to make a statement like this. For instance the 11th note: " the more usual right-wing view, which may be called 'liberal-conservative', is that unequal rewards are right and desirable so long as the competition for wealth and power is a fair one." So rarely right-wing movements reject all social equality, and usually in the case of moderate right-wingers it's mostly wealth distribution (as in rewards). The lead should be slightly modified, for example to clarify that they see some forms of social inequality as inevitable or preferable - not all. --Pudeo' 03:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Your source says the Right "accept[s] inequality as natural, normal, and even desirable." If you think its conclusions are wrong then find a source that supports your opinion. TFD (talk) 05:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It's more of a technical linguistic Wikipedia issue. But yes, what inequality? Did the source mean universal social inequality? Let's do a little deductive reasoning:

  1. Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that view social hierarchy or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable.
  2. Racial discrimination is a form of social inequality
  3. The British Conservatives is a right-wing party

Thus, the British Conservatives support racial discrimination? Simply, the definition sentence needs the "some forms of" because the sources speak broadly of equality, not necessarily even of social inequality - or did they mean economical equality - atleast the 11th note did bring two main lines - the other being liberal-conservatives who simply think unequal rewards are acceptable within fair competition - a limited section of equal income within social justice. --Pudeo' 05:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You are missing my point so I will explain it again. We should not analyze subjects and report our findings but should report what reliable sources say about them. You have failed to do that, presumably because no reliable sources come to the same conclusions you do. TFD (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
But my point is that the sources have been formulated to text in a too broad and thus wrong way by an editor, that is based on existing sources. Of course, the other option is to have a direct quote from one of the sources for the definition. none of the current sources in the article say that right-wing politics think all social inequality is normal or justified. They do not mention the word pair "social injustice"; an editor has formulated that. My formulation would be "-- that view some forms of social hierarchy or social inequality..." --Pudeo' 05:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
It is wrong to put in direct quotes when describing something that all reliable sources agree on. We do not say for example, "Professor so and so says that Finland is in Europe." The problem is that you disagree with what mainstream sources say and think the article should reflect your view. But that is contrary to policies of WP:RS and WP:NOR. Unless you can find some source that presents what you think should be in the article, this discussion is pointless. TFD (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't disagree with those sources, I just disagree how it has been formulated into the sentences. The wording of the article is not permanently locked because it has citations; the wording matters. Have a look at the 29 September, 2012 version of this article. The wording and formulation is different altough it uses the same sources. That's the point. "Get sources" is not a response to how to compress existing sources into two verses in the best possible way. Altering facts and slightly modifying verses are two different things. The first chapter of the lead uses 12 sources, is there only one way to form them into the lead? Anyway, did you not see my edit on the article? Are you not happy with it - it's just a minor clarification? Perhaps you wish to revert it and we can have a revert war and get third-party opinions, heh. --Pudeo' 06:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
To conflate social hierarchy with social injustice is to misrepresent the right-wing view, which is that justice requires that the "best" people deserve to be treated best. No doubt "some forms" is correct, but it is also an example of weasel words, and begs the question "which forms". Rick Norwood (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
As to your example of logic, it is fallacious. From A implies B (if British Conservative then accepts inequality), and C implies B (if racist then accepts inequality), you conclude A implies C. But the second arrow points the other way. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Francis Bond Head provided a good summary of the ideology of his party, which today calls itself the "Conservative Party": "The family compact of Upper Canada is composed of those members of its society who, either by their abilities and character have been honoured by the confidence of the executive government, or who by their industry and intelligence have amassed wealth. The party I admit is comparatively a small one but to put the multitude at the top and the few at the bottom is a radical reversion of that pyramid of society which every reflecting man must foresee can only end by its downfall." TFD (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I think some readers confuse position with ideology. I can understand an American conservative being very upset at hearing an academic use a phrase such as this. "The Nazi party emerged as a right wing party during the Weimar Republic." After all, do we not call American conservative movements such as the Tea Party "right wing?" So the implication seems to be that Nazis have some ideological affinity to American conservatives. Conservatives may challenge this and state, correctly, that the Nazis advocated a form of "socialism" and statism that bears no resemblance to American "right wing" politics. However, in the context of the Weimar Republic, the Nazis were in the right of the political spectrum and ultimately came to power in coalition with the German right (Zentrum) rather than the Social Democrats and Communists. Furthermore, the early Nazi Party had an internal divide between "left" Nazis and "right" Nazis. Likewise, even in a far left, communist context, scholars sometimes - perhaps confusingly - describe factions as "left" and "right." These are terms of positionally, not ideology.24.167.52.195 (talk)

24.167.52.195 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

They are both relative and absolute terms. Socialists and Communists in the U.S. are left-wing, while Tea Party types in the Weimar Republic voted for the Enabling Act that gave Hitler dictatorial powers. No doubt a Tea Party America would be more benign than Nazism, but then the Weimar Republic's socialist government had been more benign than Stalinism. TFD (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, let me take a crack at this. The source is "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," by Mark Twain. The statement, "The character of 'Jim' is referred to in a perjorative, vulgar manner," is a true statement, directly sourced. The statement, "The character of 'Jim" is referred to in a manner that was acceptable at the time the book was published," is also a true statement, directly sourced. This is a difference in phrasing, both from the same source. Each form, written by editors and sourced exactly the same shows a form of bias. How far that bias can lead is shown by the comparison of the TEA party with those who, as phrased above, "gave Hitler dictatorial powers." The softening statement that follows really does nothing to repair the obvious bias of the author. The Nazi comparison actually makes the point of the previous commentor. A more neutral sentence would have read, "Socialists and Communists in the U.S. are left-wing, while Tea Party types are right-wing." I think this provides a perfect example of the original point of this section. The terms "left" and "right" are by NO means "absolute;" they can only be understood relative to each other. (BTW, I understand comments here don't need to be NPOV, I merely use them as convenient examples.) Cheers. Jororo05 (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
No, the Right is defined as the opposition to the Left,. If you have sources please provide them. Incidentally, Huck Finn does not say Jim is referred to pejoratively, nor that the character was acceptable at the time. Those are analyses that must be sourced to secondary sources, viz., books written about Twain. TFD (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

PoV[edit]

I think this is as clear a case of disputed neutrality as any. This Talk page is in its entirety a neutrality dispute. The

tag is therefore appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.28.8 (talkcontribs) 29 December 2014

Saying, "its obvious" is not a good enough reason to keep the tag. 184.157.93.40 (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Thanks for removing the tag. TFD (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I was shocked that the "The neutrality of this article is disputed" tag is not at the top of this article. Seriously folks, it's one thing to have a biased article (even if it's unintentional) but please do apply the tag. 2602:304:CE64:9770:7996:F233:4611:EB16 (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Edward Leo Brown, Kokomo, Indiana

A person who considers themself right-wing will find a neutral article about the Right shocking biased toward the Left, and a person who considers themself left-wing will find a neutral article about the Right shockingly biased toward the Right. What is Left and what is Right depend on where you stand. It may be that true neutrality is impossible, but Wikipedians often try very hard to find a balance. When we do, it makes everybody angry.

If you (and others who have made similar comments) would cite specifics, instead of just saying over and over that its "obvious", it would help us strike the right balance. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Rick Norwood is exactly correct. if anyone sees a specific sentence that is biased, then please report it here and we can fix it. if the critic could not find a singles the sentence, then I think we have reached Norwood's criteria for balance. Rjensen (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

IP edits[edit]

An IP continues to add "In left-wing politics" to the lead. The most recent time he said, "what? its common sense! right-wing is part of left-right politics!"[3] I do not know what that means but is not consistent with content policy. TFD (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

In left/right politics[edit]

Too much time and energy is going into this teapot tempest. Yes, of course right-wing politics is in left/right politics. Where else would it be? But there is no need to clutter up the lead with a statement of the obvious. Would you want the article Jupiter to begin, "In a list of the planets, Jupiter is a planet." Please stop wasting our time making a pointless point. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)