|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|Right-wing politics has been selected to be featured on the Conservatism Portal.|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Right-wing politics article.|
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21|
|The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.|
|Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions.|
|This is not a forum for general discussion about Right-wing politics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Right-wing politics at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
|Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.|
|WikiProject Politics||(Rated B-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Conservatism||(Rated B-class, Top-importance)|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 1 month may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
My request is that the this line be added after the first line on the article: "Right-Wing people believe that this helps grow the economy, instead of giving the poor free money, they believe that instead, giving them a job to work for their money helps the economy.." or something like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billybob2002 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- You need a source for that. Some right-wing people by the way have no concern about economic growth and most support giving money to the (deserving) poor. TFD (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
right-wing (copied from User talk:FormerIP)
I am sure your removal of the paragraph on the use of "right-wing" in Europe and the U.S. was well-intentioned, but the use was supported by direct quotes from the sources. I've removed the wedge-brackets so the quotations are more easily available:
The use of the phrase right-wing differs from region to region. In Europe, the phrase is usually used to describe racist and anti-immigration policies.(ref)http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/139345/Fighting%20Poverty%20in%20the%20U.S.%20and%20Europe%20A%20World%20of%20Difference%20EdGlaeser.pdf "Modern right-wing European politicians play up their opposition to immigrants or other ethnic minorities."(/ref) In the United States, right-wing is used to describe libertarians, anti-communists, and religious conservatives.(ref)Sara Diamond, Roads to Domination: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States, p. 7, "Libertarianism, anticommunist militarism, and traditionalism have been the three pillars of the US Right.", The Guilford Press, 1995, ISBN: 978-0898628647(/ref)
Is your objection that, while each source gives a different definition, neither says the usage is different in the two areas? If so, I'll add a source that says that explicitly. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's part of my objection, but also neither of the sources support the statements "the phrase is usually used..." or "right-wing is used...". They are just examples of usage. Modern right-wing European politicians may well play up their opposition to immigrants or other ethnic minorities, but there's no indication in the sources that this is what defines them (and clearly it isn't). Libertarianism, anticommunist militarism, and traditionalism may well have been the three pillars of the US Right, but this doesn't meant hat it has had no other ingredients.
- Compare: "Wikipedia editors argue about sources" - this statement would not support a definition of a Wikipedia editor as "someone who argues about sources". Formerip (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- The first source says, "Modern right-wing European politicians play up their opposition to immigrants or other ethnic groups." It does not say that these policies are right-wing per se and it is not clear which politicians are deemed right-wing. Sara Diamond says that she uses the term "right-wing" because she dislikes the more commonly used terms radical right and right-wing extremism. TFD (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
My first inclination was to let the topic drop. I began with 22.214.171.124's claim that Libertarians were not right-wing. He's probably right, strictly speaking, but in the US the phrase right-wing is commonly used to describe libertarians. I looked for a solid academic sourse suporting that claim, and Sara Dimond's book is a well-reviewed academic sourse that says Libertarianism is one of the pillars of the US Right. Nobody said that her three pillars were the only ingredients. I was trying, after all, to write a sentence, not a book. To list all of the ingredients of the US Right would take a book -- and Sara Diamond's book seems like a good place to start. But, she was only discussing the American Right, so I looked for a source on the uses of right-wing outside the US, a subject I know less about. Several sources stressed the racism and nationalism on the Right in Europe. Again, I don't think I quoted the source out of context. If ethnic nationalism, broadly speaking, is not the defining characteristic of the Right in modern Europe, I would be interested in learning what is. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Rick, I don't think there is a single defining characteristic of the political right either side of the pond. The Diamond source looks fine in supporting the placement of libertarianism on the right (although caution is needed, because the author could mean more than one thing by this) and the World Bank source is sort of OK for placing anti-immigration politics on the right (although I don't think a presentation handout makes for a great source). But neither of them are any good for suggesting a radical difference between Europe and the US, because neither of them say that there is one. Making the assumption that you're an American editor, I would ask you to consider whether you really think that anti-immigration or race-related politics are not associated with the right in America. My guess is that those guys who patrol the Mexican border in their spare time are not sat quietly reading Chomsky while they wait for someone to shoot at, and that the Communist Party USA were not at the forefront of opposing the American civil rights movement. I can also tell you quite confidently that libertarianism (although, over here, we would say "economic liberalism"), anticommunist militarism and traditionalism were also pillars of the British right during the same period I presume Diamond is talking about. Formerip (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I am an American. And, yes, I agree that there is plenty of racism and anti-immigrant feeling on the American Right. But I do think there is a difference between the European Right and the American Right, even if my post did not express it well. In any case, I'm content with the lead as it stands now. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- The point that Eatwell and O'Sullivan made and seems to be accepted, is that there is no unifying doctrine of the right, that it is just a series of reactions. Each of the five types have unifying doctrines and have existed in the U.S. Certainly each of the new right of Thatcher and Reagan, the extreme right of European populist parties and the Tea Party, and the far right of Nick Griffin and David Duke had unifying doctrines. TFD (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Dictionary definition of "conservative".
Like many words, "conservative" has several meanings. "I wear a conservative suit", for example, would never be expressed as "I wear a right-wing suit". Right-wing is political. The use of "conservative" to mean "moderate" is not political.
The link you gave redirects to a definition of the word "conservatism". Here is what your source says:
"con·ser·va·tism (kn-sûrv-tzm) n. 1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order. 2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order. 3. Conservatism The principles and policies of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or of the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada. 4. Caution or moderation, as in behavior or outlook.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights
Note that because of the redirect this is a definition of "conservative", not of "politics + conservative". Also note that while the first three meanings mention politics, the fourth definition, which you cite, does not. Finally, note that the definition is itself a quote from The American Heritage Dictionary.
If this is still not clear, please refer to the sources cited in the article.
- Agree. Only the first three definitions are relevant. Also, this article is about "right-wing politics", not conservatism, even in politics they are not synonyms. TFD (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Rick Norwood (8 reverts)
13:43, 22 November 2013
20:56, 5 October 2013
11:52, 30 September 2013
12:23, 1 September 2013
12:41, 19 August 2013
11:34, 19 July 2013
23:43, 15 July 2013
12:57, 14 July 2013
The Four Deuces (7 reverts)
03:58, 30 September 2013
03:28, 30 September 2013
19:04, 23 September 2013
01:32, 23 July 2013
03:21, 20 June 2013
21:47, 28 May 2013
18:57, 16 May 2013
There have (so far) been a total of 15 reverts by these two editors back to the (partisan and disputed) racism claim.
- You should not remove sourced content just because it conflicts with your personal opinion. Please provide a source that contradicts the information you removed before deleting it again. TFD (talk) 03:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Incidentally, no claim was made in the article that "racism is part of the definition of the Right" any more than the article on left-wing politics claims that Stalinism is part of the definition of the Left. TFD (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- What is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. You should not add sourced content just because it accords with your personal opinion.
- You say "Please provide a source that contradicts the information you removed". What does this even mean? Provide a source which details the racism of the Left? Easy. Provide a source which claims that the Left (from Marx onwards) has historically been more racist than the Right? Again, easy. Ever heard of Jack London? H.G.Wells? George Bernard Shaw? Just look at the history of American politics. I presume you know about the history of the Democratic Party? To any fair minded person it is obvious that Wikipedia should not be a forum for partisan politics. Claiming that (some people) associate the Right with racism is no more fair and accurate than claiming that some people associate the Left with racist views. It would not be hard (indeed it would be very easy) to find examples of anti-white (and anti-black) racism on the Left, but no fair minded person would seek to include racism as part of the definition of the Left. Why? Because it would be to engage in silly partisan politics.
- I notice that you have repeatedly reverted changes (not made by me) which sensibly deleted the racism claim. I thought you were not supposed to revert more than 3 times? At the last count in the last few months you have reverted it 7 times. Rick Norwood has reverted it a total of 8 times. Are you and Rick Norwood going for some sort of record? Maybe you ought to ask yourself why various editors keep deleting this claim.
- By the way nobody disputes that the Far Left is part of the definition of the Left, it is you who is assuming that this amounts to the claim that all Leftists are Stalinists. This would be like saying that all cookery is about the preparation of meat.
The distinction, which I believe has been pointed out to you before, is that the term right-wing is commonly applied because people are racist. Thus the Democratic party in the American South between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the civil rights movement was called right-wing because it was racist, just as during the civil rights movement it was called left-wing because it advocated equal rights. Of course, there are racists in all camps. But if someone is racist, they are often described as right-wing, never described as left-wing, because of their racism. The Right is defined by favoring the Establishment (or the Old Guard wing of the Establishment) which seeks to preserve the traditions of the majority religion, the male sex, the upper class, and the majority race. This information can be found in multiple sources. You have not provided any sources for your claim that "right-wing" is not commonly used in that way. Your only evidence is that lots of people are racist. This is a specious argument, especially when you pretend that there was not a time (the early years of this century) when the Republicans were the progressive party and the Southern Democrats were right-wing.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is governed by what references say, not by the persistance of editors who want to deny what references say. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- My most recent change was not a revert, it was an edit. I added an additional reference. I'll try to add additional references as necessary, since essentially all major references agree (as anyone who reads a lot of books knows) that "right-wing" and "far Right" are commonly used to describe racists and fascists.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Typically biased article
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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 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 126.96.36.199 (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)
A perfect example of why no one uses Wikipedia as a reference, and it struggles to meet funding
Article is a complete, farcical leftist hack job.
"The right wing opposes social Justice"... Yes, of course, the Right Wing Republicans, (e.g. Abraham Lincoln) INVENTED social justice, the Left Wing Demo(Dixie)crats, (e.g. the KKK) are the ones who opposed it; violently, and lynched nearly 3000 Republicans. (almost as many as they did blacks)
- It would be helpful if you could provide us with a reliable source that describes Southern Democrats as left-wing or says that Lincoln "INVENTED" social justice. TFD (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
You have to forgive 188.8.131.52, TFD. Americans are so poorly educated that many don't know that right-wing means anything except "Republican", or that left-wing means anything except "Democrat". Rick Norwood (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)