Talk:Left–right political spectrum

Neutrality?

Most of the article is fair but it seems to be a left-leaning article. No one on the right states that plutocracy is on the right, only the left states that so that should be revised. As well fascists is disputed, historically only compared to communism has it been called right wing and it has been common to refer to fascism as the radical center. Right anarchism is not mentioned, also referred to as anarcho capitalism or individualist anarchy. Left wing nationalism is not mentioned, only right wing nationaiism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.216 (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles must reflect sources. If you have sources that describe the topic differently then please provide them. TFD (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Rebalancing

A major edit, this.

First, I have replaced a lot of 'X observed Y' with 'X claimed Y' or similar.

Second, 'Reactionary', by definition, is neither left nor right - it depends on what is being reacted against. - deleted as a type of 'right'

Third, on 'differences' The idea that "The main factor dividing left and right in Western Europe is class" is a piece of Marxist dogma and should be self-evidently absurd. Marxisms is not electorally significant in Western Europe, and yet, somehow, a left-right division remains.

I have written a brief para outlining the high-level disagreement between left and right. The key issue is that saying nationalism or capitalism are left or right misses the point - they have been both depending on the circumstances. A proper explanation has to start by talking about how these sorts of issues are symptoms of the deeper difference in approach. Otherwise you get an article claiming that free trade is a right wing project, when for most of European history it was a progressive project

I have deleted the whole section "Parties in the political spectrum'. I know this is harsh, but read my reasoning:

First, it appears to be almost entirely a summary of the argument made by one book. Far too much of this is simple taken as fact rather than as argument.

The second paragraph is a truism.

The third is almost entirely nonsense. The first 'parties' in the UK formed in the 18th century (and arguably earlier), not the 19th. The idea that conservative parties 'have only been able to achieve power in cooperation with other parties" is self-evidently untrue. The first communist parties formed FAR before the first world war. Many Green parties are explicitly socialist. And so on. I have no problem with an accurate discussion of this issue, but this is simple rubbish.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bge20 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 8 August 2011

Articles are based on what sources say rather than our judgment on those opinions. While the section on poltical parties is largely sourced to Ware's book, it is not his opinion, but academic consensus. Political parties are normally seated from left to right as explained in his book. If you disagree with what is in the article then please find sources that explain it differently. TFD (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

So... First of all, much of what I deleted was itself unsourced.

To repeat: I zapped a bunch of unsourced, factually incorrect nonsense. I'm happy to go in and add some sources to what I added, but I'm not going to dig out a source that 'Nazi' is short for 'National Socialist'. This isn't original research - it's a statement of banal fact.

Second, Ware's book is not consensus. It is a set of assertions. Can you show me a source that conservative parties have 'generally have only been able to achieve power through cooperation with other parties"? In the last decade the UK, France, Spain and Germany have all had conservative governments that were not coalitions. So Ware's assertion (as cited here) is self-evidently untrue.

How would you propose I source that? A newspaper article stating that Margaret Thatcher won the 1979 election? Seriously?

Third, try reading my comment, and make an argument that what I wrote is inferior to the unsourced gibberish that was present before.

Bge20 (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, you need to provide sources. Note that the German Conservative Party ceased to exist after 1933 and was not allowed to reform after 1945. The current government is Christian Democratic, ironically like the UK Tories governing in coalition with liberals. TFD (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A party doesn't need to have 'conservative' in the name to be conservative.

Adding sources is fine. but bulk deleting a substantial edit because it is unsourced is simply perverse. The result is an article that continues to make purely ignorant statements.

Bge20 (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Bge20, you need to provide sources for your edits. You can challenge old material (the talk page is the place to start) but not add new material without saying where it came from. Also, it is best not to attempt a major edit without discussing it first on talk. It is usually best to edit a little at a time, to avoid doing a lot of work that is only going to be reverted. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

RickNorwood, you've rather undermined your point by bulk reverting a sequence of totally wiki-compliant edits. I removed a serves of unsourced POV material, and added some carefully sourced NPOV material, And you reverted, clearly without even reading it. Go ahead and edit. But zapping stuff out of petulance is pretty silly.

I didn't use the talk page because the last activity there was in 2009.

Bge20 (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

An edit/ wrap-up of comment on talk (made there because that's were I was criticised, by two different editors).

I arrived and made a careful edit with a long note , and it was deleted with 'appears to be OR'. Charming.

Hmm. so even though there's almost no talk since 2009, there is some activity. Sorry.

So, I replace the (unsourced) statement that the first liberal political parties were formed in the 19th century with the sourced, linked statement that the Whigs were formed in the 18th. Reverted.

I replace an unsourced, PoV assertion that 'all' green parties have rejected socialism with a more qualified phrasing - and this is reverted.

Conservative parties were generally unsuccessful? Really? How's that for some bizarre unsourced POV - which is reverted back in. What would be a source to disprove that - a photo of Reagan, Thatcher or de Gaulle?

I replace an unsourced, PoV assertion that 'all' green parties have rejected socialism with a more qualified phrasing - and this is reverted.

I suggest you set your ego aside and have a look at the article. It's junk, full of unsourced factually untrue POV assertions. Is that how you like it?

I am all in favour of sources. However, that is not a reason to leave in unsourced, POV material, especially if it is highly tendentious.

Meanwhile, some of my reverted edits were not about sourcing. An academic theory is inherently POV and should ne referred to as such, with words like 'argued' or 'suggested', not 'showed' or 'demonstrated'. Equally, replacing words like 'all' with 'some' where there's no source that 'all counties were X or Y is an inherently unsourcable edit. Bge20 (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ware's Political Parties and Party Systems is used as a univerity textbook and is not "inherently POV". You can read a precis of the information used for the article here at the University of Dayton website. TFD (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: your comments elsewhere. The lead is sourced to The government and politics of France by Andrew Knapp, Vincent Wright (Routledge, 2001).[1] It says, "The politics of class is the single most common factor dividing Left from Right in Western European systems". Note that this is repeated elsewhere in the Wikipedia article in the quote from Robert M. MacIver's 1947 book, which was reproduced in Seymour Martin Lipset's 1960 book Political Man. ("The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the center that of the middle classes.") If you believe that all these writers are wrong then you need to provide sources that present a different viewpoint. TFD (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Whigs. I suggest using the adjective "modern" for liberal parties, which is what the authors meant. The English Liberal Party dates from the 19th century, and it is questionable whether Whigs could be considered liberal or a party in any modern sense. In any case, political parties were rare before the 19th century. TFD (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Christian Democracy. Christian Democrats belong to a family separate from conservatism as this book explains: "...these parties do not fit into the conservative slot. Their mass organization, their ties to trade unions and their concern with welfare and social policies clearly set them apart from traditional conservative parties". TFD (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Bge20: Your recent edits still did not provide any sources, and so I reverted them. I hate to see you waste your time and ours. Unsourced edits, however brilliant, are going to be reverted every time. I suggest you find a source and cite it. Since TFD has provided several major sources for the origin of the left/right division in class conflict, your source is going to have to be at least as authoritative as Knapp and Wright. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm enchanted by the idea that a quote from a 1947 book is a good source for European politics today. I'll be charitable and assume carelessness.

Lets try this once more, focussing first on just one point:

"The first political parties were liberals, organized by the middle class in the 19th century"

Actually, the first, and very important political party was the Whigs, founded by aristocrats in the 18th century.

I've made that edit three times, sourced and commented several times, and been reverted without comment or engagement. Now The Four Deuces reverts it again, to the 'known bad' version, and finally gives a reason: "the whigs weren't liberal and the liberal party was founded in the 19th century". This is unsourced, naturally, and if you bother to read the Wiki article on whigs you'll see (with sources) it isn't true, but more to the point, this has nothing to do with the edit. TFD doesn't address whether the whigs were a party, were founded in the 18th century, or were founded by aristocrats. Just... revert.

Rick Norwood, chanting 'you don't have sources' isn't really very compelling if it isn't true - or pertinent: as I've repeatedly pointed out, some edits are effectively 'unsourcable'. Clarifying wording or changing definitive statements to qualified ones isn't susceptible to footnotes.

Ware is the source for the whole section, and the whole section has a pattern of making absolute assertions that are sort of true, sometimes, but presented in wildly inaccurate ways (which is why I removed it in the first place). Conservatives did not only win in coalition, greens have not always rejected socialism, the first proto-communist parties emerged in the 19th century, not post WWI, and so on. Either Ware is wrong, or the editor who used him really didn't understand the issues. I suspect the latter.

I was sent a link to this article as a joke, to show me how worthless wiki is. I've tried, repeatedly, to make good wikipedian edits, and been zapped without any cogent reasoning. So, you can keep it as it is, deliberately misinforming anyone who comes here and doesn't know better, or you can accept input. I'm off.

Bge20 (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

MacIver's writing in 1947 was validated by Lipset's research in the 1960s, Lipset's observations were validated by later writers. If you think they are all wrong, then please provide a book or article that will enlighten us. Also see WP:RS which explains why we are required to reflect the opinions of experts rather than those of individual editors, no matter how informed they may be. TFD (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

which part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_(British_political_party) is so hard to understand?

Bge20 (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Bias

Browsing the revision history, it is pretty clear that a couple of editors systematically maintain a left-wing bias to the article. The description of right wing ideas is fundamentally from a left perspective and frequently perjorative. By and large, it fails to understand what the right believes, preferring superficial and rather childish assertions about support for property and the rich, which is as meaningful as saying the left supports the mob and anarchy. "Support of the Right for rule by the rich is well documented" is a pretty typical quote from one frequently reverting editor- it's something that someone from the left might genuinely believe, but which is no more true than, say 'the left's support for family breakup is well-documented".

Hence, much the same material keeps being deleted by new arrivals and restored jealously by the same clique, almost always on technical or entirely spurious grounds. A removal of unsourced POV is 'unsourced' (a nonsensical statement), sourced material is unsourced, editing wording is 'OR', or the removed nonsense is 'long standing'.

I'm going to assume good faith, so try this test, guys. Have a look at your revisions. Can you see a single one in which you didn't remove an edit that made the article less favourable to the left?

I'e never looked into Wiki governance before, but I'm bored this summer, so I'll do a little digging, out of curiosity, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bge20 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)