Talk:Terza Posizione

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Far Right"[edit]

Someone is reverting my edits about Terza Posizione being "far-right," as it is not far-right, it is Third Position. I will now give my arguments as to why Terza Posizione should not be referred to as right-wing in this article.

1. Third Position is by definition not right-wing or left-wing, it is Third Position. Third Position is defined by taking aspects of the both extremes but is not in itself either side. This can be read about on the Wikipedia article dedicated to Third Position (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position)

2. Terza Posizione is Third Position. It's name literally means "Third Position" in Italian. It's motto is "Neither red front, nor reaction, armed struggle for the Third Position!" with the "red front" being an obvious reference to leftists and "reaction" to rightists. It is a Third Position philisophically.

3. As Terza Posizione is Third Position, it is thus not far-right.

4. Calling a group that's name is literally Third Position far-right is incoherent and oxymoronic. Calling it such is analogous to labeling an organization called Centrism, which advocates Centrist policies, "far-left."

5. Third Position is mutually exclusive with the right-wing, and Terza Posizione is about as Third Position as it gets, therefor it's not right-wing.

6. Thus, references in this article to Terza Posizione being right-wing should be removed. Doing so makes the article consistent, both internally consistent and consistent with the aforementioned article on the Third Position.

--73.222.125.50 (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of this matters. Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations or euphemistic word-games. Fascism and neo-fascism are overwhelmingly categorized as far-right by reliable sources. That is all that matters. Grayfell (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with public relations? Also, this isn't word games, it's important dilineations. The nature of what fascism ought to be labelled as is debated by scholars, but to label a group literally called "Third Position" far-right is oxymoronic and I think you need a better argument to label them as such other than "doesn't matter." Besides, also according to Wikipedia sources Third Position is distinct from left and right, as is mentioned in the Third Position article. 73.222.125.50 (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:OR, and "dilineations" only matter to the extent that they are supported by reliable sources. It is not "debated by scholars" unless those "scholars" are WP:FRINGE. Grayfell (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're not fringe, in fact many of them are cited on the Third Position article. How is it that a Third Position group is far-right exactly? The way the article is as this moment makes this article inconsistent with the Third Position article 73.222.125.50 (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a citation to boot from a source that's definitely not fringe: https://www.politicalresearch.org/2016/12/19/what-third-position . This article also supports my argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Third_Position 73.222.125.50 (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not cited in the third position article. The article says that Advocates of Third Position politics typically present themselves as "beyond left and right". This is public relations, and Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations, and I see no indication that you have actually read your linked source. Fascism is far-right, per extensive sources and tedious discussion at Talk:far-right Talk:far-right politics. Your personal opinion that there is an inconsistency is irrelevant, and other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well now there's a consistency issue. Your argument implies that Third Position either doesn't actually exist or is an aspect of the far-right (which would be oxymoronic). Keeping it like this would also confuse any researcher hopping between articles to research the topic. Also, upon reading Talk:far-right there's no "tedious discussion," in fact it seems very brief and mostly consists of one person citing only 3 people who argue that fascism is far-right. This isn't anything about my opinion, these articles literally contradict each other and this article contradicts itself.

If you really like I can compile a list of citations that present that fascism is not merely a far-right phenomenon and would be considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. Honestly, this seems to be more an issue of your opinion that trying to honestly present the reality of this group. 73.222.125.50 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The link should've been to Talk:Far-right politics. See Talk:Far-right politics/FAQ also. This is not merely my opinion, this is the consensus of reputable academics. Researchers who are incapable of sniffing out a poorly-constructed euphemism are beyond Wikipedia's help. Grayfell (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and also the bright red box at the top of Talk:Fascism. We've heard all of this before, and it is a fringe position defended by very few serious scholars. Grayfell (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, whatever, I have more important things to do with my time than argue about this. Another article I can show to my friends as an example of Wikipedia's flaws. My only last message is I recommend you be less agressive with people trying to edit articles by threatening them with bans on their talk pages and accusations of honest attempts to correct articles as "disruptive." Also, you ought to give arguments in reverting others edits other than simply saying "Whitewashing."

And to give something that is acutally just my opinion: Third Positionism and Fascism are metaphorically the occult of political science, and many of those scholars are simply too boxed into the dichotomies of left/right to see that it's neither, and I don't care if they've got a Ph.D, after actually exploring Third Position text and communities I can confirm they're wrong and will probably write a book about it when I get my own Ph.D, but hey, that's original research.

Good day 73.222.125.50 (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terza_Posizione&oldid=1216369141"