Talk:Right-wing politics

Do Leftists comprehend the Right?

I cannot help noticing that the article uses Leftists (such as Seymour Martin Lipset) as authorities. I am guessing that the Wikipedia article about the Left does not rely upon Right Wing critics of the Left to supply its definition.

It is pretty evident that most of the people on the political Left who are editing this article have very little conception of what it is to be on the Right politically.

They notice people who oppose them, and go in search of an explanation. Some Leftists believe that people on the Right fail to comprehend that things can be made better, others says that they resist change because they do not like change. Some say that the Right opposes progress on the grounds that it is in their self-interest to keep things the same, others conclude that people on the Right are bad people, and bad people do bad things.

When the Right talk about the Left they also often assume they are either idiots or bad people. They assume for example (to focus on the egalitarian argument for a moment) that when people say that everybody is equal they do this because they are stupid or because it helps them get political power.

The Right-Left dichotomy is too persistent for it not to mean something, but what? I wrote the original Wikipedia definitions for the Right and Left on Wikipedia, suggesting egalitarianism of the Left, and anti-egalitarianism of the Right. I notice that despite numerous changes these definitions have survived more or less intact, but I now think that they fail to go to the heart of the issue. When Bobbio (for some reason this Italian Leftist is viewed as an authority giving an "international" perspective) defines the Right as anti-egalitarian, he is framing what the Right believe in Leftist terms.

So what do the Right believe? Crudely, the Right believe that the universe not only has an order, but that this order has a moral dimension. Inequality is just ONE aspect of this order. In other words it is not the case that the world can be anything we want it to be, we are constrained by what is the case, and this constraint includes right and wrong. The Left on the other hand claim that we impose values (and for post-modernists this includes truth) upon the world. If values are created, why not re-form human societies so that everybody is equal, in accordance with principle that nobody is better than anybody else, because what everybody believes, achieves, or believes to be the case, is of equal value.

The point here is not equality v inequality it is (for the Right) accepting the world or trying to remake the world.

To put it like this implies that modernity is inherently Leftist, and to some extent this is true. It is possible to make a division on the Right between those who view Modernity as one a big (hubristic) mistake, and those who accept many of the criticisms which Moderns have made about the way in which previous societies were organised. To be on the Right in this second sense is to accept that it is possible to change the world for the better, but it is combined with opposition to the antinomian utopianism of the Left; whose false utopian assumptions generate bad societies. The politics of the Right in other words can be described as the politics of imperfection; if perfection can be achieved it exists in another reality.

If we view "modernity" as the rejection of tradition on the basis of an appeal to new knowledge, this explains why, as our assumptions have become more and more "modern", more and more views that were once on the Left are pushed to the Right. Some people therefore have objected to seeking to define the Right as believers in hierarchy. They say that because I am on the Right I believe in a society that rewards excellence, and this is best achieved in a free society. They oppose the Left because they see it as attempting to use the power of the State to impose utopian ideals that destroy a free society. For example, they claim that when Communists abolished free markets this led to the starvation of millions i.e. utopianism did not improve the world it made it worse.

Some on the Right believe in free markets others seeks to constrain markets, but what the Right have in common is the belief that while humans can know the difference between good and bad, to be human is to be finite, fallible, and "fallen". The more Right you are the more pessimistic you are about our capacity to change things for the better, but to claim that being on the Right (in it contemporary meaning) designates complete pessimism about social change is false. In the West we are (nearly) all moderns now, and so the Right-Left dispute is about where to draw the line between what we can change for the better, and what we should accept e.g. Is a society which accepts private property a better or worse society?

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)).

Seymour Martin Lipset was a leftist when he was a college student. This article does not reference work he wrote as an undergraduate, it references work he wrote as a professional scholar.

To explain the motives of those who edit articles is mind-reading. In particular, most of the people I love are on the Right, and I certainly do not think they are bad people. You have been called on this before. Stick to facts, avoid personalities.

Most sources agree with you that the essential difference between left and right is between egalitarianism and hierarchy. Your explanation of the difference between Left and Right today is well-written, and I agree with almost all of it.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It is one thing to state that there is a left-right axis, but another to determine where the dividing line between left and right lies. While there is no serious dispute that traditional European conservatism was right-wing, the extension of the concept to U.K. and U.S. conservatism is recent and controversial and was ironically pioneered by the Left. What I find bizarre is that rather than objecting to the description, some conservatives embrace it, redefine it, and even claim that the traditional right was really left-wing. TFD (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Right wing in the Anglophone world means conservative. They are one and the same. "William F. Buckley Jr. was an immodest man with much to be immodest about. Not only was he the high priest of the modern American conservative movement and the founding editor in chief of its leading intellectual publication, National Review; he was also a gifted polemicist, best-selling novelist, sesquipedalian speaker, television star, political candidate, yachtsman, harpsichordist, wit and bon vivant. Small wonder that I once saw him nod approvingly when a tongue-tied freshman referred to his 1951 autobiographical best seller as “God as Man at Yale.” He performed his many roles with such panache, and such obvious enjoyment of being William F. Buckley Jr., that he captivated people who otherwise would have despised someone who did much to move the United States politically to the right from the early 1950s until his death in 2008. But even liberals had to laugh when Buckley, asked whether he slouched in his chair as host of the TV program “Firing Line” because he couldn’t think on his feet, drawled, “It is hard . . . to stand up . . . under the weight . . . of all that I know.”

Of course the focus on equality vs. inequality is a leftist perspective. Rightists don't see it that way. Largely, they see it as government coercion vs. individual freedom, including economic freedom. Inequality isn't the issue for us. They don't advocate inequality. They advocate limited government when it comes to economics. The article, as written, might be appropriate for 18th century France, but not for the 21st century English Wikipedia.

I agree that the fact that an Italian leftist says something gives him an "international perspective" is hilarious. I also think calling these left wing academic hacks "scholars" is absurd as well, when they can't even talk about the Right in the terms that the Right uses.

If I had to pick one defining difference between the Left and the Right, it would be that the Left prioritizes economic equality, whereas the Right prioritizes economic freedom. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 08:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

‎ You need a secondary source that supports your view, particularly that Buckley was talking about the Right. Ironically, it was "left wing academic hacks" who decided that people such as Buckley were right-wing. Only extremists call themselves right-wing. Also, scholarly writing, whatever the political beliefs of the writer, is more reliable than magazine mixsion statements. TFD (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/books/review/buckley-william-f-buckley-jr-and-the-rise-of-american-conservatism-by-carl-t-bogus-book-review.html?pagewanted=all Buckley's National Review column was called "On the Right." Many scholars thought that the Soviet Union's massacres, mass murders, and starvations were overstated and that it was a fine place, until Gulag Archipelago came out. If Wikipedia published an article based on their scholarly work, Stalin would seem better than Roosevelt. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Also http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1717900,00.html Falconclaw5000 (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

None of those sources address the text you wish to insert. Ironically, your first source is from a book review in the New York Times (!) by a left-wing academic about a book written by a self-described (U.S.) liberal. We have already established that the Left calls Buckley "right-wing". Your second source is a tweet, not rs. TFD (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is on the term "right-wing" not American conservatism. Please stop imposing your Anglo-Americentric view. LittleJerry (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Many people use "right-wing" and "conservative" and even "right-wing" and "Republican" as synonyms. More generally, many people use words badly. But if they were in fact synonyms, how are we to understand such common observations as contrasts between the right-wing and more moderate conservatives, or statements than in recent years the Republicans have swung far to the Right. If there words were synonyms, these phrases would be meaningless.

Libertarians think that the main difference between conservatives and liberals is economic, but the small percentage of votes Ron Paul has gotten in the Republican primaries is ample evidence that, at least in the US, that is not the main issue separating conservatives and liberals. The number one issue in the presidential race at the moment is birth-control.

Rick Norwood (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this section? To deny that left-wing people can comprehend the right and that right-wing people cannot comprehend the left? One user has dismissed Norbeto Bobbio as just "some Italian leftist" - he is also a respected philosopher - and what exactly in what he says that has been included in the intro is so intolerable? If it is merely because someone discovered that he is "left-wing" and thus unreliable then this is idiotic Dark Ages black and white thinking prejudice of "oh he believes in such-and-such, thus he cannot be trusted". Christopher Hitchens was an athiest, but he was invited to lectures on religion to discuss his critique of religion side by side with religious proponents. Is this section proposing the censorship of people because of personal political beliefs? Should we only listen to fascists about fascism and communists about communism? People have differences of opinion and views - to say "ah this person is a stated left-winger and therefore they are completely unreliable for material on right-wing politics" is completely and idiotically prejudiced because it does not base its opposition upon the content of their work at all! Bobbio says that the right has a legitimate basis for its beliefs - in that the right believes that achieving complete social equality in society is impossible and that there will always be social hierarchy that is inevitable and natural - and this point is a very strong point for the right - because the left has been unable to concisely prove that social equality is natural - bear in mind that I am a centre-left social democrat saying this. I as a leftist believe that the right over its history has had many convincing views of society which is why people like Thomas Hobbes' view of society without law and order as leading to a natural state of all-out anarchic war, and Edmund Burke on the dangers of too much egalitarianism - especially revolutionary egalitarism; they are still discussed today and I agree with some right-wing ideas and I agree with a number of left-wing ideas. I do not want myself or anyone including scholars or philosophers like Bobbio or even ones I disagree with like Ayn Rand or Thomas Hobbes to be censored, ignored, or disregarded by idiotic Dark Ages prejudice involving suspicion of beliefs being of one group always being toxic to another and thus segregating them.--R-41 (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Falconclaw5000, what you fail to understand is that nobody considers American conservatives or libertarians right-wing simply because they support individaul liberty, but for how they view liberty. They both believe that society should be stratified and that if one group wants to be on equal par with other, they should work their way up the social ladder. They believe that such a society allows for more freedom, and the imposition of equality threatens freedom. More left–leaning individuals believe that society should be levelled to where it is more inherently equal. LittleJerry (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't bother wasting your time conversing with the person who posted this "Do Leftists comprehend the Right?", it is so offensively discriminatory and prejudiced on a Dark Ages level of intolerance - it's just like those in the Dark Ages who would say "Do heathens comprehend Christians?". This section only reveals the original poster's unfortunately open black and white thinking prejudice against left-wing people that claims that left-wing people are incompetent to understand their own biases and account for them in their work. By the standard of the poster that no outside views on right-wing politics are valid, then by that standard should we thus take Stalin's word on Stalinism - that he advocated a peace-loving, proletarian brotherhood of all people of the world united in a caring, compassionate state by a democracy of workers - and should other views arise, ask "Do capitalists and Trotskyists comprehend Stalinism?" - such questions like this pigeonholes people into stereotype groupings defined by strawman fallacy - who can stand for all the left for instance? The user who posted this says "we rightests" stand against state intervention, for democracy, for individual liberty, laissez-faire capitalism, etc., etc. - that is the modern libertarian centre-right that is linked to the ideals of classical liberalism with a tinge of conservatism, as in upholding the tradition of the capitalist economy - what about the Catholic right that supports government intervention in the economy and supports people limiting their actions to those ordained by the Bible and refusing to do those opposed by the Bible, or what about absolute monarchists like Thomas Hobbes who advocated a strong state? Or reactionaries who advocated aristocracy and mercantilism and strongly opposed individualistic liberty and parliamentary democracy like Joseph de Maistre or the more recent Charles Maurras of Action Francaise? Or British conservatives who opposed free trade and laissez-faire economics for many years - deep into the 20th century? The user's description of "we rightests" do not represent these examples of right-wing politics, they do not universally uphold individual liberty, opposition to state intervention, democracy, and laissez-faire capitalism in common. Just as the far-left is not all statists - anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin wanted to destroy the state and have small voluntarily-united communities replace them - by the way from the late 19th century until the 1920s (and into the 1930s in Spain during the Spanish Civil War), just somewhat later than the Bolshevik Revolution, it was the anarchists, NOT the communists, who were the primary popular troublemakers of the far left: anarchists bombed Wall Street, assassinated major public figures - including the assasinations of: US President William McKinley, Tsar Alexander II of Russia, and the King Umberto I of Italy all to gain attention to their cause of a stateless society--R-41 (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As for alleged unrepenting bias of the left: I know an ex-Marxist history professor who is very open to right-wing people having their voices heard in academia, just as I have known a conservative politics professor who is open to hear out voices on the left - in academia you need to listen to your critics before publishing or your work will be a flop and torn to pieces by critics, it is different then the cheap partisan grandstanding of politicians in elections. As I said before and will repeat exactly again so it is clear especially to the user who posted this blatantly discrimatory, prejudiced, and offensive section: I do not want myself or anyone including scholars or philosophers like Bobbio or even ones I disagree with like Ayn Rand or Thomas Hobbes to be censored, ignored, or disregarded by idiotic Dark Ages prejudice involving suspicion of beliefs being of one group always being toxic to another and thus segregating people into "us" versus "them" categories of "we rightests" versus "you leftists". I would appreciate it if someone would just close this section down with the Wikipedia "hat" template, because it is so obviously intended as a soapbox - and these are opposed by Wikipedia.--R-41 (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable to draw attention to the political affiliation of an author if they are being used as authoritative source in an article seeking to define what it is to be Right-Wing. R-41, you are either being naïve or disingenuous to claim otherwise. To answer your question, I would not use Christopher Hitchens as an as an authority on the Christian religion, and if reference was made to him in a Wikipedia article on Christianity, I think it is entirely reasonable to identify him as an atheist.

Advocating hierarchy is an odd way to define Right Wing politics, and only makes sense as a contrast to egalitarianism. I don't see much evidence that the Leftists who are contributing to this article have much understanding of the political Right, and I put forward the suggestion that this probably has something to do with their political assumptions.

The Right is (generally) not ideological, whereas the Left (generally) is ideological. A five year old could understand the ideology of The Communist Manifesto in about 5 minutes, but I very much doubt a five year old world be able to understand the political views being defended by Edmund Burke.

Neither Thomas Hobbes nor Ayn Rand are Right-Wing philosophers by the way. That fact that you believe them to be Right-Wing R-41 tells me more about your confusion than it tells me about Right Wing thought.

I think that Little Jerry makes a good point about how liberals and conservatives have a different undersanding of liberty. Freedom is not an end in itself for conservatives, it is a means to an end, the end of realising various ideals such as truth and justice. It is because our access to these ideals is fallible that some conservatives value liberty, not because they reject the objective validity of those ideals.

P.S. I appreciate you have have poor reading skills R-41, but I was seeking to articulate what somebody with Falconclaw's political assumptions might say. Given that you fail to quote what I said correctly, I am not sure why you feel the need to put quotation marks.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You are still associating the right with the classical liberal conservative centre-right, there are other right-wing movements from the centre-right to far-right that do not agree with laissez-faire capitalism, or do not agree with parliamentary or legislative democracy, or are very statist. It makes far more sense from a number of scholars accounts that the right is associated with a predisposition to accept social hierarchy as natural or inevitable along with a predisposition of social order as basis of society, in opposition to left-wing politics with a predisposition to advocate social equality and a predisposition of social justice as the basis of society - whose most radical proponents sought to abolish all traditional stratified institutions - including the aristocracy, the monarchy, and the Catholic Church. Opposition to the egalitarian social levelling particularly of the radical left, rallied the aristocracy, monarchists, and the Catholic Church together to defend their positions against social levelling schemes of the radical left through claims of them providing social order and stability of society through traditions. Your definition of the right as inevitably supportive of the classical liberal originated concept of individual liberties, of being against state intervention only describes the British and American developments of Burkean conservatism, libertarian conservatism, and neoliberalism. It does not account at all for continental conservatism known on Wikipedia as "Latin conservatism", or the Catholic religious right that supports the Catholic Church's advocacy Christian corporatism while opposing laissez-faire capitalism (by 1931 the Catholic Church openly condemned both "capitalist individualism" and "socialist totalitarianism"). Therefore none of these right-wing groups fit anywhere close to being united on what you describe as "we rightests". Your accusation of left-wing being incompetent of understanding the right is blatant black and white thinking of stereotyping whom you regard as your "opponent" as automatically "wrong", "devious", "weak", or "corrupt" - that kind of thinking would be acceptable in the Dark Ages - today, it is known that anyone who has led a military in war who has assumed their military opponent to be automatically "wrong", "devious", "weak", or "corrupt" - has been severely in danger of losing a war due to assumptions of what their opponent will do based on strawman fallacy. Right-wing people at the time when there was first a left-wing and right-wing of the French parliament, at that time said that violent anarchy was the inevitable result of egalitarianism pursued to its end: that under egalitarianism, everyone would believe that they are equal authorities of themselves, reject any hierarchical authority, and will refuse to be forced to make contributions (like taxes) to society as demanded by the state - resulting in violence, and the French Revolution is an excellent example of egalitarianism in practice becoming a tyranny of anarchic violence as they claimed. I am left-wing, and I acknowledge that there have been very strong arguments by the right for their positions, so don't stereotype people with left-wing views as automatically and deliberately trying to make the right be seen as disreputable.--R-41 (talk) 05:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't define the Right as “inevitably supportive” of Classical Liberalism. I presume you are talking about Falconclaw, but he can answer for himself; unlike the person quoted as saying “we Rightists” - which of course is a quote you made up. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I saw something along the lines of "we rightests" - I could have been mistaken, and again you are accusing me of lying - once again demonstrating your inherent tendency to assume bad faith of people you disagree with. How does that justify assuming that someone is "wrong" because of the views they hold? What I saw was FalconClaw's statement I suppose, when he says "If I had to pick one defining difference between the Left and the Right, it would be that the Left prioritizes economic equality, whereas the Right prioritizes economic freedom." - that is what is naive, the original right had aristocrats who refused to give up their feudal lands or enfranchise their peasants by allowing them to own significant portions of the land that they worked on for the aristocrats - capitalist classical liberals in France at this time were on the centre-left in comparison to the dominance of aristocrats on the right - because the classical liberals believed in equality of opportunity and the Adam Smith notion that people deserve the "fruits of their labour".--R-41 (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you even read the article I posted? I'm sorry to say this, but only someone with the reading comprehension of a three year old can say that it is about the Right, not American Conservatism. American conservatives ARE right wing. They are one and the same. You cannot be a right wing liberal. You cannot be a left wing conservative. Liberals are on the Left. Conservaties are on the Right. These are some of the most basic concepts in existence. Again, this focus on inequality is inappropriate. Inequality does not feature much in right wing thought and ideology. The preservation of inequality is not a goal of the Right in it of itself. All major Communist regimes participated in widespread murder. By your logic, communism is all about murdering people. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"You cannot be a right-wing liberal" - Have you ever heard of neoliberalism - British Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher advocated that, and present Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron regularly defines Britain in a positive way as a "liberal democracy". And if the issue of advocacy of social equality vs. acceptance of social hierarchy, social order vs. social justice are not the dichotomies, then what could possibly unite: conservatives, reactionaries, aristocrats, monarchists, mercantilists, capitalists, secular classical liberals, liberal conservatives, libertarian conservatives, conservative nationalists, conservative religious people, neoliberals, etc. into the definition "right-wing"?--R-41 (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a different use of the word "liberal." Let's not pretend that the word "liberal" is universally used the same everywhere. Liberal used to mean, roughly, pro-laissez faire capitalism (see classical liberal.) It then switched to mean "progressive," in other words, a position in between socialism and capitalism. Neo-liberal does NOT mean politically liberal. Nothing unites all the various ideologies listed. Fascism is considered by many to be a right wing ideology; it has nothing in common with right wing libertarianism, and indeed has much more in common with communism, and, to an extent, leftism, which is almost always in favor of centralization of power in the hands of those who run the government. In other words, it may indeed be more accurate to say that leftists are more elitist - after all, who's the one always fetishizing about "experts?" Democrats or Republicans? Who's the one who believes in central planning? Rightists or leftists? The reality is, fascism is not really right wing - it's national socialism; it's left wing. Monarchists and liberal conservatives are not part of the same ideology, either. The historical Right is completely separate from the modern, especially American and British, Right. You say my definition ignores European Continental conservatism. Well, yours ignores American and British conservatism! Falconclaw5000 (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"Well, yours ignores American and British conservatism!" - oh really - you mention that there can be no such thing as "left-wing conservatism" - you are partially correct - conservatives identify as being right but British Conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli created progressive conservatism that supports a social welfare state. Also this progressive conservatism pursued under Stanley Baldwin and particularly Conservative foreign secretary Austen Chamberlain turned strongly against free trade and openly promoted the British Conservative Party in elections as protectionist and a supporter of social welfare - attacking liberals for allegedly being against the poor for their then-laissez-faire and free trade policies. "This is a different use of the word "liberal"" - nope, social liberalism developed out of classical liberalism in Britain and elsewhere in response to the rise of labour unrest to laissez-faire capitalist policies, even social liberals maintain a commitment to capitalism - in a regulated form and advocate equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome. You say the modern right is completely separate from the historical right - that doesn't make sense because why would we still call it right-wing if it is completely separate? You say the left is all about the state having control - increasing as one moves leftward - then what the hell were Mikhail Bakunin and the anarchists calling for anarchist revolution to establish a local voluntary community-based socialism and calling for destruction of the state?--R-41 (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if you focused on Falconclaws's key point:

"The preservation of inequality is not a goal of the Right in and of itself."

The Right oppose radical egalitarianism, but it is misleading to DEFINE the Right as those who seek to preserve inequality. This is to frame the Right in terms derived from the Left.

Acceptance of some inequality is a consequence of its other beliefs. It is these other beliefs that define the political Right.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me make it clear: The right does not always seek preservation of inequality as a goal, rather it typically claims that inequality is inevitable because social hierarchy is ever-present in natural law. The right distrusts egalitarian schemes of societies attempting to forge social equality where it has not normally existed in nature. There are some - particularly on the far right that do seek preservation of inequality as a goal. It is not that most right-wing people desire inequity and inequality for people, it is that they believe that the concept of achieving complete social equality is either not possible or extremely dangerous to society and its people.--R-41 (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Where are these sources from right-wingers calling themselves right-wing and defining the Right? The only sources i can find are by extremists. TFD (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I do free market type not believe that there should be a social ladder in which people must move up? LittleJerry (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I refuse to let this article be written like a Marxist hit piece. What exactly about Nobbio qualifies him as writing from an "international" perspective? Why isn't Buckley, the most prominent Rightist of the 20th century, even mentioned?

Responding to Falconclaw, whose comment is quoted above.

1) It is not helpful to characterize everyone who disagrees with you as a Marxist. As far as I know, there are no Marxists editing this article. If they are, they do not let their Marxist beliefs color their edits.

2) The name you are groping for is Bobbio. Here is what one review says about the cited book: "Are contemporary political issues best understood in left-right terms? With his customary lucidity and wisdom, Professor Bobbio, Italy's most distinguished political thinker explains the persistence and defends the relevance of the distinction in the face of "the great problem of inequality between people and between the peoples of this world" in a short work that is far-reaching, simple and deep." Steven Lukes, European University Institute That seems to support Professor Bobbio's qualifications as a major writer, writing from an international perspective.

3) The most prominent Rightist of the 20th century by far is Adolph Hitler, which is one of many reasons I do not understand your efforts to identify Libertarianism with the usually perjorative phrase "right-wing".

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed Bobbio - not because I agree with Falconclaw, but because the controversy of it just keeps coming up. I find it ashame that censorship of Bobbio has been pressed upon this article because he is left-wing, and that Falconclaw is suggesting that only right-wingers can speak for the right-wing - that is again censorship and is equivelent to saying that only communists can speak for communism accurately and only fascists can speak for fascists accurately. There still is the source in the intro that states the right-wing's association with the acceptance of social hierarchy as based upon natural law and tradition - a user attempted to change the meaning of what it said by claiming that it only mean "historically" for the right - when it never said that it meant historically - but this edit has been reverted. --R-41 (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Falconclaw: I just used Google scholar to search for the phrase "right-wing". The top three hits were: Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism B Altemeyer, 1988; The politics of unreason: Right-wing extremism in America, 1790-1977, SM Lipset, 1978; and Radical right-wing populism in Western Europe, HG Betz, 1994. The pharse "right-wing", outside modern US politics, does not mean what you think it means! Rick Norwood (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You have certainly told us all what you WP:KNOW, but that is not exactly the best way to proceed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Collect, your comments do not appear to make any sense, and clicking WP:KNOW I get a quote saying, "It ain't ignorance causes so much trouble; it's folks knowing so much that ain't so." Are you claiming that what Rick Norwood says "ain't so". If you are then how do you WP:KNOW it ain't so? TFD (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Rick Norwood: Finding books written by Leftists with "Right-Wing" in the title which assert that it is wicked to be Right-Wing is hardly the find of the century. I have news for you. I can find three books with the word "Left-Wing" in the title, in which opponents of the Left claim that it is wicked to be Left-Wing.

Quite why you think a positive endorsement by the Leftist Steven Lukes of Bobbio's political claims changes anything is unclear.

The Four Deuces: You seem to think that if you repeat the claim that only "extremists" call themselves "Right-Wing" enough times, that will make it correct. Good luck with that one.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Just remove Bobbio's statement if it is so egregious. But explain why is it egregious - what does Bobbio say that is so biased?--R-41 (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING, if you think that non-extremists call themselves "right-wing", then please provide an example. Even most extremists have stopped calling themselves right-wing. TFD (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Buckley's column was "On the Right." Quod erat demonstrandum. Collect (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I was not expressing an opinion, I was citing a fact. The search of google scholar did, in fact, return the three titles I cited. These three titles used "right-wing" in the way it has been used for a very long time, and the way it is still used in academia, and still used internationally. Some editors want to purge this article of international or scholarly uses of the phrase, on the assertion that anyone who uses words correctly must be "Leftists", and that only the modern usage in the popular media is the correct usage. But they go beyond that, and want this article to assert that the "real" meaning of "right-wing" is not even the popular media usage, but the Libertarian media usage. As I've pointed out, this article is here to report how the phrase is used, not to change how the phrase is used. Why not call libertarian views "libertarian"? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate Rick Norwood that only you know how the phrase "right-wing" should be used, but a few seconds Google search supplies this usage from Australia

http://www.actnow.com.au/Opinion/Whats_the_difference_between_left_and_right_wing.aspx

"Whats the difference between left and right wing?..To explain this I’ll compare and contrast the positions taken by the far left and the far right. Be aware that many people’s political beliefs are on a continuum between left and right.

1. Role of the individual and government

My friend used to have this analogy = left wingers believe that the state is more important than the individual, right wingers believe that the individual is more important than the state. That analogy is semi-true. Left wingers believe that governments are a force for social justice and change, and so should intervene in individual’s lives to ensure social justice is achieved. Right wingers believe that governments are big and unwieldy and so should not interfere with people’s lives at all. They believe that government interference contravenes an individual’s right to liberty. For this reason left wingers have traditionally favoured ‘big’ government while right wingers favoured ‘small’ government.

2. Formal versus substantial equality

Right wingers believe in formal equality. They believe that everyone should be treated equally under the law and should be treated equally by government. Examples of right wing formal equality include equal pay for equal work and civil and political rights. Left wingers believe in substantial equality. They argue that not every individual is the same and so government policy should be aimed to create substantial rather than just formal equality. Examples of left wing substantial equality include affirmative action and social and cultural rights.

3. Markets and the economy

Right wingers favour laissez-faire, free market economic policies. This is in line with individuals controlling their own lives, deciding their own version of the good life, and emphasises the role of individual initiative. Examples of right wing economic policy is Voluntary Student Unionism, emphasising a pay as you go approach so that students who want services should pay for them, and Work Choices legislation, which removes regulation and promotes the use of Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs). AWAs are designed to allow employers and employees to bargain with each other as individuals.

Left wingers favour interventionist, regulated market economic policies. In the past they have favoured publicisation of industries, of which extreme example is the command economy of the former USSR. Left wingers emphasise the importance of regulation, initiatives that allow employers and employees to bargain equally, and the dangers of free market exploitation. Examples of left wing economic policy would be supporting the role of unions in collective and enterprise bargaining, as this recognises the power employers have over employees in the bargaining process, and consumer protection legislation such as the Trade Practices Act.

Summary

Right wingers are libertarians. They believe in liberty for the individual as the most important fundamental principle society should be based on. This libertarianism has morphed into neo-liberalism, which emphasises individual initiative for all interactions with government. For example, Work for the Dole is neo-libertarian as it is trying to get people off the dole (which is funded by government acquisition of individual’s wealth (taxes)) and into work where they can work for themselves.

Left wingers are socialists. They believe that government should be doing things to help the entire society. This focus has lead them to focus on the disadvantaged peoples in our society as these peoples are often treated the worst. Socialists emphasise the ability of collective action in achieving outcomes in relation to equality and social justice. For example, universal education is a socialist objective because it would provide all people, irregardless of how much money they have, the opportunity to get an education and thus improve their lives.

And finally: As you can see, left and right wing doesn't encompass progressive or conservative. You can have conservative left wingers and progressive right wingers. Both major political parties in Australia, the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party of Australia, have progressive and conservative elements within them.

Examples of parties

Left / Environmental: Australian Greens http://www.greens.org.au/

Centre-left: Australian Labor Party http://www.alp.org.au/

Centre: Australian Democrats http://www.democrats.org.au/

Right: Liberal Party of Australia http://www.liberal.org.au/

Right: The Nationals http://www.nationals.org.au/

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)).

Insults do not advance your argument. I have never claimed to "know" what the phrases mean, only to have the ability to look things up and cite sources.

The article you quote seems to be a fairly accurate explanation of what libertarians mean by "right-wing". It doesn't explain why, during his lifetime, Francisco Franco was so often described as right-wing. In other words, the article you cite claims that the change in meaning over time is now complete. But that article is by its own description an opinion. I don't see that reflected in the books and articles I read.

Let me give you an example. The word "girl" used to mean "boy". Over the centuries, its meaning changed, to include all children of both sexes, and over more centuries, its meaning changed further to mean only female children. That change is now complete, and there is no reason in a modern article on the subject to even mention the old meaning except possibly as a historical footnote.

On the other hand, the word "literally" used to mean "in fact". In the past few decades, there has been some shift in meaning toward meaning "emphatically", as in "I'm literally drowning in paperwork." That shift is not complete, and so to define "literal" as meaning "emphatically" would not be correct in a modern article.

The subject under discussion here is whether the shift in meaning of "right-wing" is now so complete that the older meaning is obsolete. I can cite many examples to show that it is not. Here is one, picked more or less at random from the 2012 World Almanac, "...a July 1936 extreme right rebellion led by Gen. Francisco Franco and aided by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy succeeded..." I don't think you can made a case that the World Almanac is Marxist, or that they mean to say that Franco was an extreme supporter of small government and free enterprise.

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Care to see how the World Almanac fares at RS/N? I suggest that it is a simplified tertiary source at best, and not WP:RS for anything much at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

A blog is not a reliable source. For your information, the Liberal Party of Australia, together with the Torys and Republicans, is a member of the International Democrat Union, an organization of "political parties of the centre and centre right".[1] TFD (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Why censor Buckley?

I saw a comment about the tragedy of "censoring" Bobbio from this article. Well, I put him back in, and Bobbio is about the 20th leftist who's perspective given in this article. His perspective isn't international, it is Marxist. But there is not ONE perspective from the Right. So why censor Buckley? You don't think Buckley is a serious thinker? He is one of the most serious thinkers of the 20th century, admired from both the Left and the Right, and his stature certainly exceeds Mr. Bobbio. Just because something is an academic work, doesn't mean it isn't political propaganda, as Rick Norwood showed when he displayed the Google results for Right Wing (clearly, Norwood thinks Right Wing means "evil," while left wing means "good," (good like Stalin?)). Falconclaw5000 (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that Bobbio was a Marxist. But you have failed to provide a single source from a right-wing person who calls himself right-wing. As I said before, only extremists call themselves right-wing in sources. TFD (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

How soon they forget -- Buckley had a long-time syndicated column "On the Right." I rather think this is self-evidently an identification with the "Right." Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Big leap Collect. While I suspect your judgment is impeccable, policy requires a published writer to make the connection. TFD (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Buckley, indeed, was a "published writer" and note that WP specifies that people can make statements about themselves, and be considered a "reliable source" for such. I also suspect he is RS for making "political statements". Next? Collect (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Falconclaw5000: You are mind reading again. I have never said that "Right-wing" means evil nor that "left-wing" means good. Why is it so hard for you to deal with what I say, instead of putting words in my mouth. Bobbio is not a Marxist. He is an anti-Marxist, deploring the use by Marxists of violence to achieve thier ends. It does not advance your point of view to lable everyone you disagree with "Marxist". As for your assertion that 20 leftists have their views included in this article, please provide a list.

Collect: I agree, William F. Buckley, Jr. considered himself "On the Right". If this article was titled "The American Right in the second half of the 20th Century", it would be appropriate to use the Buckley quote as what "the Right" meant in that context. But note that TFD is not saying that Buckley did not self-describe himself as "On the Right", but is asking for a commentator who described his views as being "right-wing". It shouldn't be hard to find one.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Normally a person is a reliable source for his self-identification - but since you want yet another source other than the person himself making the statement try [2] Time magazine, and the rather clearly named book [3] Strictly Right: William F. Buckley, Jr. and the American conservative movement among a huge number of reliable sources. You're welcome. Collect (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Why censor De Maistre?

A rhetorical response to the statement above on Buckley. The intro already mentions the indivualist and libertarian right along with the collectivist right. Falconclaw, you should post that statement by Buckley on an article about American right-wing politics where it would be particularly useful. Here it is going against the worldview of right-wing politics, that is already described in the intro without that statement. If you emphasize one right-wing proponent like Buckley, then later someone will bring up Joseph De Maistre because his views are not accounted by Buckley, then someone will say that it is Eurocentric and want Asian political outlook, etc. etc. It is better without the statement and by focusing on the right-wing as a whole while mentioning internal differences and divisions on the right. The statement by Buckley in the lead intro emphasizes the Anglophone world's classical liberal-based right-wing politics of the recent past and present while deemphasizing others - thus it does not represent a world view.--R-41 (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

But preservation of inequality is not a goal of the Right in America or Britain. Rightists like Ronald Reagan sought to curb dependence on government programs by poor people, which actually increased wealth inequality. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I never SAID preservation of inequality was pursued by the centre-right as in the case of centre-right neoliberal conservative Ronald Reagan. The moderate right accepts the inevitability of significant degrees of social hierarchy to exist, no matter what attempts are made by society to change it. The far right believes that social hierarchy is not only inevitable but desirable. Please stop your edit warring of removing very neutral scholarly sources that explain the differences and divisions in the right between the centre right and far right and the individualist right and the collectivist right. You did not offer any explanation whatsoever for removing that neutral material.--R-41 (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You do not understand who De Maistre is, what he represented, or even what the history of right-wing politics has been in Europe. You only understand the American centre-right classical liberal libertarian and neoliberal politics of American conservatism. Your view of left-wing = statist totalitarians versus right-wing = freedom-loving libertarians is a stereotypical claim made by American conservative pundits that does not account for statist right-wingers like De Maistre who advocated absolute monarchy and extreme libertarian left-wingers like the anarchist Bakunin who advocated the complete destruction of the state and the creation of an anarchist socialist system of decentralized voluntary communities. If you want to add material on Buckley in an intro add it to an intro on American conservatism, because Buckley does not represent a world view of right-wing politics.--R-41 (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If you meet a person affiliated with the Catholic political right - that is a major political force in Europe and Latin America today, you will find that they would completely disagree with Buckley. Why? Because they view society in a collective communitarian manner and oppose laissez-faire capitalism because of Catholic emphasis on charity to the poor and the Catholic Church's long-held endorsement of Christian corporatism involving cooperation between employers and employees as being the proper economy based on Christian values. The Catholic Church has denounced what it deems "capitalist individualism" and what it deems "socialist totalitarianism".--R-41 (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere in the articles on Buckley you referenced does it state anything about "inequality" or "unequal" social circumstances, I pushed "CTRL-F" and searched "inequality", "unequal" etc. it appeared nowhere there. So it appears that you just made that up out of thin air. Plus the intro already says that the centre-right accepts society providing equality of opportunity but does not accept society providing equality of outcome. You still have failed to address why the sources in the intro's second sentence are wrong? And why have you failed to even acknowledge any other right-wing movements that I have informed you of, that are outside your ideal right-wing movement being a libertarian conservative movement based upon classical liberal conceptions of liberty (including individualism), politics, and the economy (laissez-faire)? In answer to one of your comments earlier, as a centre-left social democrat, I can personally attest on behalf of myself and others to assure you that most reasonable centre-leftists that I have known accept that there were evil left-wing people like Maximilien Robespierre, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, and others, in the case of Robbespierre he massacred thousands of people, the other three massacred and millions of people, out of psychopathy, narcissism, and ideological zeal. I am disgusted by Slobodan Milosevic - who as head of the left-wing Socialist Party of Serbia exploited ethnic nationalism to gain power, resulting in the Yugoslav civil wars. I admire George Bush Senior a man who is much underappreciated by both the right and left - Bush Senior pressed hard for the dismantlement of apartheid in South Africa and Africans who remember what he did tremendously respect him.--R-41 (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Falconclaw5000, could you please provide a source that Ronald Reagan ever called himself right-wing. TFD (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Reagan 1964 speech:

There is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order -- or down to the ant-heap of totalitarianism.

Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Good quote, Collect. Or should I say "Pip, pip, and cherrio"? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Gauchet's Realms of Memory

A new paragraph has been added to the lead. I don't dispute it, but I would like it to be supported, like the other citations in the lead, with a quote. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

William F. Buckley

In the hope of avoiding more edit wars, I've left the Buckley quote in, but changed the text to reflect that source, which says that Buckley was the "intellectual godfather" of the conservative movement, not of "the Right". On the one hand, certainly Buckley was an important figure among American Right-wing intellectuals. On the other, I would prefer a quote that actually uses the phrase "Right-wing" rather than the word "conservative". The important question here is the meaning of "right-wing", not whether the "right-wing" view is or is not the correct view, and the widely different ways the phrase is used make intelligent discourse difficult. Buckley is famous for nothing if not for proper use of words. I remember when he issued a ukase to the staff of National Review requiring the Oxford comma (I've corrected a comma error in the lead -- poets are people fascinated with death and commas). His reasoning was that a conjunction cannot replace a separator. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Add "long-time writer of the column On the Right " and I think it would work. I rather think the title of his column is a teensy bit self-explanatory? Collect (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said, there is no doubt that Buckley considered himself "On the Right", though I'm not sure he would have embraced the epithet "right-wing". I just said it should be easy to find a quote that used that phrase. Buckley valued words and would, I believe, have been disgusted by the misuse of words by the anti-intellectual Right of the twenty-first century. I'm certain he never called anyone a "Marxist" unless they were, in fact, a Marxist -- he would not use that as a general term of dislike or dismissal. I remember once when he debated a Marxist on Firing Line, and admitted on the air that it was the first time he had been totally defeated in a debate. The Marxist won by paying no attention to anything Buckley said, and simply reciting the Marxist Party line.

I suspect that one reason Buckley's son resigned from National Review is that the modern American Right has no respect for words, or for facts, but is only interested in winning votes for Republican candidates. I would love to read a column by Buckley on the distinction between "conservative" and "right-wing". I'm sure he would have had insights that this article could profit from. Is there a searchable database of National Review on-line? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't find any sources that Buckley called himself right-wing. Hayek called himself a "liberal" and said that liberalism was in the center, not on the right. The editor in charge of ideology at the NR was Frank S. Meyer - he might have written something on this. TFD (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

so On the Right means what, precisely? That he is right-handed? The "laugh test" is hereby invoked. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Why, if you admire Buckley (as I do) do you laugh at attempts to use words carefully, as he did. I agree, Buckley considered himself "on the Right". Do some research. Find a quote where he stated what the right-wing believed. He wrote a lot. Surely that is in there somewhere. Nobody is saying that there is not an overlap between right-wing beliefs and conservative beliefs. That does not imply that the two are identical, or even that William F. Buckley considered the two to be identical. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Buckley wrote a column called "On the Right", therefore Buckley was right-wing, therefore any opinion he expresses is about the Right, even if he does not explicitly say so. Whether or not that would be a reasonable approach in a research paper, it is original research and therefore of little use to us. If you want to include Buckely, find a source where he explains what right-wing means. TFD (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You are errant in the extreme. Mentioning his column name is not "original research" in any universe ever created. Cheers - but this is about as far off an arguemnt as ever made on Wikipedia! Collect (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

While mentioning the name of the column, forming a conclusion about it is. BTW the U.S. president says he is a Christian. Does that mean that every statement he makes is a pronouncement on Christianity? TFD (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, and where did Buckley actually try to analyse the term "right-wing" from a historical and global prespective and try to come up with a defintion based on that? LittleJerry (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, while mainstream source do use the term "Right" to refer to U.S. politics, it is normally used to refer to mainstream Republicans, e.g., Eisenhower. When people such as Buckley, Joe McCarthy or Barry Goldwater were mentioned the term "right" was normally qualified as far right, extreme right, radical right, etc. See for example Daniel Bell's The Radical Right. TFD (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow! So a person on the right wing of the "political spectrum" is not on the right wing of the "political spectrum." You have made the argument so absolutely and wondrously clear~ Collect (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit like saying that if one is wealthier than average, then one is rich, but if one is poorer then average, then one is poor. So the U.S. could be described as 50% rich and 50% poor. A rich American vacationing in Bermuda would suddenly become poor, while a poor American vacationing in Mexico would suddenly become rich. How far to the right does one have to be before one is a right-winger? TFD (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that these are terms which can be used in both relative and absolute senses. We still speak of left and right in countries where there is no actual left wing party left in mainstream politics, using it solely as a relative term. The perceived centre point shifts with the parties and ignores the absolute definitions of left and right. Similarly we often talk of rich and poor in relative terms although absolute definitions are available. For the terms to be meaningful they require context. Take the example of somebody on the right of the Democrats in the USA. To the Democrats that person is right wing, to the US as whole that person is still a Democrat and hence left wing, while to the world as a whole, which has not entirely forgotten what the real left is (or was), that person is a member of a centre-right party and hence fairly right wing. None of those descriptions is wrong but each is easily misunderstood without context. Furthermore it is that final, worldwide view, which accords with the absolute definitions of left and right, that we should use by default in Wikipedia as we need to be understood by readers around the world. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) IOW, by "world standards" it is silly to say that Buckley was not right wing at all. BTW, you again point out that there is no absolute "political spectrum" applicable to all eras and all places, or even to all issues. Collect (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

But the term left is more often used as an absolute. The parties called "the Left" have historic roots in socialism. TFD (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

In most of the world, yes, but not in the US. Here the Democratic Party is called the party of the Left, and its roots are not in socialism, but in liberalism. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

IOW, no matter who slices the cake, Buckley is "on the right". And there are still no meaningful and universal descriptions of the "political spectrum." Which is what the sources actually do agree on. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

the lede has become an information dump, most of the information here should be spread thoughout the body of the article.

I don't see why people are obsessed with the lede when it is the body of the article that needs improving. It seems this consent editting is being done to please one editor. LittleJerry (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The lede is meant to summarise the subject as a whole. Anything in the lede should already be reflected in the body somewhere, covered in more detail and with references. If not, then something has gone badly wrong. Ledes can become bloated when there is disagreement about what are the key points of the subject that require inclusion and so too much stuff gets included. This is common with contentious subjects. It can happen as a result of deliberate POV pushing but more often it comes from good faith differences in understanding over which points are key.

I think that the reason people become obsessed with the lede is that they know that it sets the tone for an article and also that many readers will only read the lede of an article if they just want a basic overview of a subject. I suspect there is also a feeling, probably justified, that if the lede goes to hell the whole article follows.

In this case, I don't think the lede is egregiously long, although it would benefit from tightening. I think the second paragraph is material not covered in the body. I would like to see that slimmed down in the lede and expanded upon in the Varieties section. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DanielRigal. The lead does not seem particularly long, for such a difficult and important topic. It is shorter than the lead for Conservatism in the United States, for example. But the second paragraph should be dealt with as DanielRigal suggests. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't being done to please one editor - Collect, Eridu Dreaming, Boris, and I all believe that the article is biased towards a left wing worldview. That makes four editors. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

And your definition of left wing - having roots in socialism - is not even the definition provided in the left wing article. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Falconclaw, you really need to learn about the basis of the left-right spectrum. The left-wing originally founded in the French Parliment in the 1790s DID NOT have roots in socialism, socialism DIDN'T EVEN EXIST THEN, until it was first developed in the 1810s and 1820s! Even in the 1810s and 1820s, socialism was a very small and isolated movement on the left at that time. I still cannot believe that you are ignoring everything that has been told to you, you still believe the left-right spectrum is between statism on the left to libertarianism on the right even though I told you about right-wing Joseph de Maistre and his reactionary supporters advocating the extreme statist absolute monarchy where the monarch and his government had unlimited power to rule through a very strong and centralized state; and the left-wing Mikhail Bakunin and his anarchist supporters advocating the extreme libertarian agenda of destroying the state and replacing it with decentralized socialist communities of voluntarily-adhering members. Please acknowledge that you are not familiar with the history of the left-right spectrum, these people or these examples, and please learn about examples of the statist right (such as absolutists) and the libertarian left (such as anarchists), then you can return and make more informed contributions.--R-41 (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that this article be re-written, at least the "positions" section. The subsections in that sections should be replaced with subsections dedicated to the different taxa of rightist movements; the reactionary right, the moderate Burkean right, the nationalist right, the neoliberal right, etc. LittleJerry (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The positions statement is small enough for the intro and necessary to discern the different common variations of right-wing politics. It is small and it increses awareness to readers that right-wing politics is not one monolithic entity with a a single, clear set of positions.--R-41 (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I said YOUR definition - the definition one of you left-leaning editors gave. I think it was TFD. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

R-41 did misunderstand Falconclaw's comment. But, Falconclaw, when you accuse everyone who does not agree with you of being "left-leaning" you lose ground. Do you seriously think that calling people "left-leaning" because they know a little history is advances rational debate? Rick Norwood (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

What Falconclaw is doing is WP:DISRUPT - he is doing the following disruptive behaviour it describes: "Does not engage in consensus building" - he is not cooperating with users who are, or whom he deems left-wing and "Failure or refusal to 'get the point'" - the 'point' being that the left vs. right is not statism on the left and libertarianism on the right, the examples of the absolutist Joseph De Maistre - for right-wing statism and the anarchist Mikhail Bakunin for left-wing libertarianism disprove this entirely - which he refuses to acknowledge so that he can continue to repeat ad nauseum that the left-right spectrum is just statist liberalism and socialism on the left versus libertarian conservatism on the right.--R-41 (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the lead.

The second paragraph of the lead has become a real mess, making statements about "conservatism" and assuming they automatically apply to the Right, and inserting before references ideas not included in the referenced work. Some people seem to think that right-wing always means conservative and conservative always means libertarian, while left-wing always means socialist, and socialist always means communist. This is siimplistic thinking unworthy of Wikipedia. Maybe the whole second paragraph should go. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

again tghe real and abiding problem is simple: There is no universal definition of a "political spectrum" which applies to all times and all places, and any article which tries to assert one is going to be horridly flawed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you think is the way forward? My view is that we should say the term "Right" has been defined as x, y and z. What do you think? TFD (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

We should be honest and say that "right" means different things in different places and at different times, and that there is no universal definition for any "political spectrum." Collect (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

We do say that. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

False Definition

"Right-Wing" does not "generally" refer to "acceptance or support of a hierarchical society" that is like defining a Muslim as generally meaning somebody who does not believe in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. You will not find a single Right-Wing thinker who DEFINES Right-Wing as "acceptance or support of a hierarchical society" not a single one. Right-Wing thinkers reject radical egalitarianism (and consequently accept or support a "hierarchical" society) but to define the political Right in terms of that opposition is to frame the definition of what it is to be on the Right in terms derived from the political Left. It is as accurate as defining the Left as "Nihilists" or "Utopians" because that is how the "Right" comprehends the Left. You could just as accurately define the Right as anti-Nihilist or anti-Utopian, or to put it more positively, you could just as well define the Right as those who believe in the existence of objective values (truth - morality - excellence) but who combine that belief with a belief in human imperfection (error - evil - failure).

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Not one? How about Francisco Franco, to name just one, and who is far-Right as cited in The World Almanac above? But I agree with you, and disagree with those cited sources who would primarily define Right-wing in a negative way as opposition to the Left. We should define Right-wing using standard sources in terms of its positive beliefs. As far as I can see, in every case the Right supports government that increases the wealth and power of those who have the most wealth and power, and most, but not all, standard reference works agree. The Right, like all other major political groups in the modern West, pay lip service to freedom and equality of oportunity, but since everyone does that, that does not distinguish the Right from any other group.

I gave you the example you challenged us to give. Now I challenge you to give any example of any group described as right-wing whose policies do not have the effect of supporting those who already have wealth and power.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

And again - The World Almanac is not a WP:RS. Your assertions about "every" right-woing government are. alas, not true. There are no definitions of the "right" which are universally true, thus your assertions fail. Franco was certainly backed by the right of Spain, as defined at that time, but his acts were not those of the right wings of other nations at all -- the US "right" of the twenties was non-militaristic, in fact - isolationist, non-authoritarian, and pretty much opposite to Franco. So which definitions do you assert are universal? Militaristic or non-militaristic? Interventionist, or isolationist? Irredentist or non-irredentist? Heavily church-oriented or anti-religious? In favour of existing aristocracy, or anti-aristocratic? Driven by a cult of personalty, or led by self-effacing leaders? I fear your stated dislike for those "who already have wealth and power" makes you fail to see that such an attitude is found in all parts of the political spectrum, and opposition to such groups is found in all parts of the political spectrum. In the US, moreover, the "right" seems to assert that anyone should have the legal right to seek wealth and "happiness". Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

My claim that you will not find a single Right-Wing thinker who DEFINES Right-Wing as "acceptance or support of a hierarchical society" still stands. Being relaxed about INEQUALITY is a CONSEQUENCE of the above mentioned beliefs 1) Objective Values 2) Human Imperfection.

For example, mathematics is about objective truths (not subjective preferences) and some people are (measurably) better at mathematics than others.

As part of their desire to improve their own lives some of those with superior mathematical skills may seek to use them to obtain better paid jobs. Attempting to improve your opportunities in life encourages people to do jobs that require abilities that are in short supply. A successful economy generates wealth.

What matters (in this account) is not inequalities, but seeking to improve the opportunity (for everybody) to create wealth (however unequally) i.e. a rich rather than a poor society. Only an egalitarian would focus on equality of outcome to the exclusion of everything else. Nobody else is excited by the prospect of being equal but poor, and, unless you are seeking to improve your living standards by redistributing wealth generated by others to yourself, in the name of "social justice", few people are excited by the prospect of giving politicians absolute control over their lives. You would also be hard pressed to find anybody who believes that none of the wealth which you generate through your own efforts should be given to help the deserving poor i.e. those who are poor through no fault of their own.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING - Both the church and social standing were arranged in a hierarchical order, from Pope to layman, King to peasant. Are you saying that the Right opposed this structure or that people who supported it were not right-wing? TFD (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It depends which "Right" you are talking about. I would say trying to understand (for example) the American Right in terms of medieval feudalism is a very odd approach.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm baffled. Collect says "your stated dislike for those 'who already have wealth and power'". I have never stated any such thing in my life.

I said "I challenge you to give any example of any group described as right-wing whose policies do not have the effect of supporting those who already have wealth and power." ERIDU-REAMING seems to have skipped the important word "not". I'll restate my challenge in the affirmative. Groups described as Right-wing support those with wealth and power. Can you provide a counterexample?

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, in every case the Right supports government that increases the wealth and power of those who have the most wealth and power, and most, but not all, standard reference works agree. The Right, like all other major political groups in the modern West, pay lip service to freedom and equality of oportunity, but since everyone does that, that does not distinguish the Right from any other group. (emphasis added)

rather strongly implies that you do not favour such a position as you impute to the "right."

As for WP:RS, almanacs, encyclopedias etc. are considered "tertiary sources" at best, and not "reliable sources" for claims in Wikipedia.

And I noted left-wing groups also support those with wealth and power as well. To wit - the Soviet and post-Soviet governments in Russia, for one example. When left wing and right wing groups can have the same result, it is kind of obvious that ascribing that attribute to the right alone does not work. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Like the Soviet nomenklature? Show me a Left-Wing government that does not redistribute wealth and power to itself? Some on the Right however seek to redistribute wealth and power BACK to the people away from Left-Wing governments.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING: I owe you an apology. I thought the sentence added by TFD above was yours.

The idea that people who object to the extreme concentration of wealth want an equal distribution of wealth is black and white thinking. Most reasonable people are happy for the rich to have everything they want, as long as the 99% have a safe and comfortable life. The rich can have mansions and banquets as long as the rest have a roof over their head and food to eat.

A left-wing movement that does not redistribute wealth and power to itself? How about the New Deal. Now it's your turn. You say "some on the Right". Name one. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"Groups described as Right-wing support those with wealth and power." - statement by Rick Norwood. That is a generalization, the Catholic Church and the Catholic religious right has and continues to supporting giving charity to the poor. The right was founded to justify existing hierarchical institutions and hierarchical social status as a necessary means to ensure social order. At that time the right, including the centre-right Edmund Burke, claimed that the pursuit of egalitarianism for its own end would result in disorder - as people would would reject authority figures and institutions for being hierarchical - leading to everyone believing that they were equal authorities over themselves, resulting in the breakdown of society into violent anarchy, as no one would accept any overarching authority to maintain order. This prediction of people like Burke and others proved accurate in the French Revolution - it devolved into violent anarchy. Second of all, in response to ERIDU-DREAMING, in the case of the Soviet government that was officially committed to radical egalitarianism, a valid scientific claim by political scientist Robert Michels has stated in his famous theory of the iron law of oligarchy that any means of organizing society - even in the pursuit of egalitarianism - inevitably results in hierarchy and oligarchy because organization implies control and leadership. Thus it is quite possible according to Michels' theory that complete egalitarianism - at least when pursued through organized means - is impossible. The Soviet Union claimed that a highly centralized state with strong policing powers was a necessary to prevent a counterrevolution promoted by anti-communist powers. Of course, like any ideology in practice, when it becomes an institution, pragmatic and non-idealist people will enter it, and the institution will become pragmatic and non-idealist. The iron law of oligarchy if accurate, strongly applies to the Soviet Union.--R-41 (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Catholic Church closes churches in poor neighborhoods that do not make a profit. Yes, the Catholic Church and many other organizations that might be described as "On the Right" gave money to charity, but not so much money that their wealth and power were put at risk. When various saints have recommended holy poverty, the Church honored them with sainthood but did not follow their advice. In any case, the Catholic Church has a long history of supporting its own wealth and power. I understand that Burke and others gave what seemed to them good and sufficient reasons for supporting a hierarchy. I'm not saying that the Right is wrong, I'm saying that the phrase "right-wing" is used to describe those who, rightly or wrongly, support established wealth and power. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Right no more define themselves as seeking to support wealth and power than the Left define themselves as seeking to create poverty and destroy freedom. These may (or may not) be the consequences of their assumptions, but it is the assumptions which define what it is to be on the Right (or the Left) politically. The notion that wealth and power is ipso facto supported by the Right is incorrect. In fact it is an absurd claim.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with ERIDU DREAMING that support of "established wealth and power" are not the ideological goals of the right. Of course there are wealthy people who support the right but there have also been wealthy people like George Soros who have supported the left (at least the centre-left). Though I disagree with ERIDU DREAMING's complaint that acceptance of hierarchy is not a component of the right. Acceptance of some form of hierarchy is justified by the right as the means to insure social order. To the right, the egalitarianism of the left pursued to its natural end of the abolition of all hierarchy results in no authority figures to maintain physical and moral order over society, which according to the right results in chaos and violence as happened in the French Revolution.--R-41 (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not deny R-41 that ACCEPTANCE of inequality is a COMPONENT of what it is to be on the Right. I simply point out that acceptance of inequality is not the DEFINING quality of the Right. Inequality is a CONSEQUENCE of its assumptions. These assumptions include a commitment to value objectivity.

Value objectivity means that rightness and wrongness are not reducible to matters of preference. You are correct R-41 to draw attention to the importance of authority to the Right, but for the Right authority is not justified by power, on the contrary, power is justified by authority.

The term "hierarchy" has feudal implications that few on the Right these days would accept. So what grounds authority for the Right? It is belief in the RIGHTNESS of that authority.

What grounds rightness? It is that which accords with OBJECTIVE rightness. This is not to say that what is deemed to be morally justified is beyond dispute. All claims to justification can be questioned - and in a free society are questioned - but the recognition that authority is justified by something other than a de facto exercise of power is foundational to the Right.

In other words, there are mechanisms for determining what is right and what is wrong, but what is right and wrong is not settled by who has the power to decide.

To use the example of truth. What is true and what is false is determined by objective realities, but the reality of being human is such that we cannot jump out of the context from which we make our judgements, and so all of our judgements (including our moral judgements) are fallible.

In making these judgements (including moral judgements) some have more authority than others. All judgements are not equal. It is acceptance of value objectivity (and the situated and thus fallible nature of our judgements) that leads to an acceptance of inequality by the Right, not acceptance of inequality that leads to the assumption that values are objective. This is to put the cart before the horse. Acceptance of inequality is a CONSEQUENCE of more fundamental commitments.

It is these more fundamental commitments that define the Right. Not an acceptance of inequality.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU DREAMING, instead of posting long expositions of your belief system, could you please provide a source written by someone who calls themselves right-wing and explain what it means. TFD (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I wish I understood why this is such a hard point for some people to understand. This article is not about how "right-wing" should be used in some ideal world. It is about how "right-wing" is used in this world. Until very recently, almost nobody would ever describe themselves as "right-wing" or "left-wing". Those words were insults. People called somebody "right-wing" because they supported the existing power structure. People called somebody left-wing to tar them with the communist brush. Neither was not a complement. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are quotations of the centre-right classical-liberal-leaning traditionalist conservative Edmund Burke from his work Reflections on the Revolution in France, he was more moderate than de Maistre:

• • "You would have had a flourishing commerce to feed it. You would have had a free constitution; a potent monarchy; a disciplined army; a reformed and venerated clergy; a mitigated but spirited nobility, to lead your virtue, not to overlay it; you would have had a liberal order of commons, to emulate and to recruit that nobility; you would have had a protected, satisfied, laborious, and obedient people, taught to seek and to recognise the happiness that is to be found by virtue in all conditions; in which consists the true moral equality of mankind, and not in that monstrous fiction, which, by inspiring false ideas and vain expectations into men destined to travel in the obscure walk of laborious life, serves only to aggravate and embitter that real inequality, which it never can remove; and which the order of civil life establishes as much for the benefit of those whom it must leave in an humble state, as those whom it is able to exalt to a condition more splendid, but not more happy."
  • "Believe me, Sir, those who attempt to level, never equalise. In all societies, consisting of various descriptions of citizens, some description must be uppermost. The levellers therefore only change and pervert the natural order of things; they load the edifice of society, by setting up in the air what the solidity of the structure requires to be on the ground. The association of tailors and carpenters, of which the republic (of Paris, for instance) is composed, cannot be equal to the situation, into which, by the worst of usurpations, an usurpation on the prerogatives of nature, you attempt to force them."
  • "The chancellor of France at the opening of the states, said[…] that all occupations were honourable. If he meant only, that no honest employment was disgraceful, he would have gone beyond the truth. But in asserting, that any thing is honourable, we imply some distinction in its favour. The occupation of a hair-dresser, or of a working tallow-chandler, cannot be a matter of honour to any person—to say nothing of a number of more servile employments. Such descriptions of men ought not to suffer oppression from the state; but the state suffers oppression, if such as they, either individually or collectively, are permitted to rule. In this you think you are combating prejudice, but you are at war with nature."

Edmund Burke was saying that people be treated equally in a moral sense, but that outside of that, inequality is inevitable and that those seeking to create social equality in society on the left that he and others called "levellers" are pursuing an impossible and unnatural goal. He is saying that in all societies there must be an "uppermost" class of citizens to rule. And the last quote implies that treating all people as equally honourable and able to serve office is dangerous because he claims that equal honour is nonsense and that people of "servile employments" should not govern a state. In all these cases, Burke - the founder of moderate, classical liberal-oriented conservatism, is saying that beyond treating everyone equally on a moral ground, natural hierarchy exists and society cannot be equalized by social levelling.--R-41 (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• • • I do not see how presenting primary sources is helpful. TFD (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
      • People think that left-wing editors on this page are lying about the hierarchy component of the right. So I, a left-wing editor, provided words right from the horse's mouth, Edmund Burke, the founder of conservatism. But you are right, we need a secondary source to verify this, and here it is - the intro sentence from the traditionalist conservatism article describing traditionalist conservatism a.k.a. Burkean conservatism - it is sourced: "Traditionalist conservatism, also known as "traditional conservatism," "traditionalism," "Burkean conservatism", "classical conservatism" and (in the United Kingdom and Canada), "Toryism", describes a political philosophy emphasizing the need for the principles of natural law and transcendent moral order, tradition, hierarchy and organic unity, agrarianism, classicism and high culture, and the intersecting spheres of loyalty." (Source: Frohnen, Bruce, Jeremy Beer, and Jeffrey O. Nelson, ed. (2006) American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, pp. 870-875.) I bolded the hierarchy part as that is relevant to this discussion. This is what the major conservative figure Edmund Burke supported.--R-41 (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

At no point did I say that the Right advocates egalitarianism. Do I need to put that in bold letters? I said that its opposition to egalitarianism derives from its assumptions. I get the impression that some on the Left are having real trouble grasping these assumptions. As a result they seek to define the Right in terms which are derived from the Left - which relies upon assumptions which they do understand. It is not opposition to the Left that DEFINES the Right. Other than repeating this 64,000 times how can I make this any clearer?

The Right grounds social practices in traditions. These traditions are orientated by ideals which the Right believe to be objective. The rejection by the Right of egalitarianism is a CONSEQUENCE of their belief in realism - a realism (and this is important) which carries with it the implication that our claims about the world are fallible i.e. the Right is both Anti-Nihilist (which is to say that the Right believe that right and wrong, better and worse, just and unjust, beautiful and ugly, good and bad, are facts about what is the case, and it is Anti-Utopian (in its epistemological as well as it political sense) because we are human not divine.

The definition from "American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia" is a better definition than simply asserting that to be on the Right is to oppose egalitarianism. It is only the Left that believes that the Right is DEFINED by their opposition to egalitarianism. You will not find a single Right-Wing thinker who defines Right-Wing as "acceptance or support of a hierarchical society". Burke derives his opposition to egalitarianism from his beliefs about what is the case, he does not derive his assumptions about what is the case from his opposition to egalitarianism. His assumptions about what is the case are NOT simply reducible to the claim that he is opposed to egalitarianism. That is like defining a vegetarian as somebody who does not eat pork. A vegetarian does not eat pork, but not eating pork is not what defines what it is to be a vegetarian.

It is more subtle than saying you are lying, it is saying that you do not know what you are talking about, which I am sure you agree is not quite the same.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)).

"It is only the Left that believes that the Right is DEFINED by their opposition to egalitarianism." - statement by ERIDU DREAMING - Prove it - prove that the authors of the two sources in the intro (aside from left-wing Bobbio) that describe the right as being principally based on its acceptance or support of hierarchy, are clearly left-wing people with a clear agenda or bias that portrays the right in an inaccurate manner.

I showed you Burke but you are ignoring key components of what Burke is saying. For instance, why Burke emphasize the naturalness of social hierarchy and that social hierarchy is necessary for social order - that there always must be an "uppermost" class of people? Remember he emphasizes that an "uppermost" must rule society and that people of "servile employments" are not deserving of being termed "honourable" as suggested by the French chancellor. You can't compare this to a vegetarian not wanting to eat pork - that is a negation - acceptance or support of hierarchy is not a negation, it is a positive affirmation of social hierarchy as either a reality to be accepted or a goal.

I suggest that social hierarchy is a key component of the right because as one drifts further right and into the far right, the corresponding increase is stronger and stronger emphasis on hierarchy and a more radical desire to ensure hierarchy. The centre right accepts hierarchy as a natural fact but generally accepts equal opportunity, but when you move to the far right, hierarchy is not only accepted but demanded. The far right is about supremacy of individuals or groups deemed to be innately "superior" over others deemed to be innately "inferior". Are we supposed to believe that the far right advocates supremacism of people based on their social class, their religion, or their race out of "realism"? Also how would the Catholic religious right, that was a component of the original right in France, be able to fit into realism when Christianity is the pursuit of ideals and rules of God?--R-41 (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

R-41 try to focus on what people say (obviously you find listening/reading quite hard) rather than simply offering your own crass version. I did not say "left-wing people with a clear agenda or bias" [this may or may not be true] I said that some Leftists are drawing upon their left-wing assumptions in order to make sense of the assumptions being made by the Right, and the result is a failure to provide an adequate account of what is is to be on the Right.

The first source [Cultures at War: Moral Conflicts in Western Democracies} assert that "contemporary sociologists" conceptualize Right-Wing 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.' I have no problem with this as a sociological description (what is missing of course is any philosophical explanation of why there is difference and why it is possible to be on the Right and believe in social change) but the gloss that follows it - right-wing politics is the attempt to defend privilege within social hierarchy - is Leftist crap. It is unclear if that gloss is a quotation from the book. To see privilege within a social hierarchy look at any Communist State you care to mention.

The second source [Peace and prosperity in an age of incivility] asserts that Right-Wing "collectivism" is different from Left-Wing "collectivism" on the grounds that the first "collectivism" is justified via an appeal to "egalitarianism" and the second is justified by an appeal to "hierarchism". Of course this definition does not (and as far as I am aware it is not intended to) encompass any version of the Right that seeks to uphold individual rather than collective rights. I must have missed the political speech by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher or Davd Cameron or President Regan or Bush (senior or junior) that asserted that they went into politics to uphold hierarchy. Inequality as a consequence of liberty is rather different (as I am sure you will agree) from a feudal vision of society as consisting of hierarchical rights.

You do not understand the eating pork example. It is a consequence of having certain views (refusal to eat meat) that X does not eat pork. But what it is it be a vegetarian is not defined by the refusal to eat pork, rather the refusal to eat pork is a consequence of the refusal to eat meat. Of course Edmund Burke (the opponent of egalitarianism) rejects egalitarianism. He rejects egalitarianism because he views it as at odds with the nature of the universe. But it is crass to seek to reduce that vision of the universe to the single issue of equality. You keep on making the same mistake, which rather confirms my claim that Leftists such as yourself struggle to comprehend what the Right are assuming.

It is not the "Far Right" who claim that some people are superior over others (or to put it another way some people are inferior) I am pretty sure that you (who see yourself as on the Left) also view some people as superior/inferior to others, because only somebody deranged by egalitarianism could claim otherwise. You find it incredible that there could be some "realist" grounds which justifies somebody being richer than somebody else, or having a better religion, or being part of a superior race. Well it depends on the reasons why you are richer, on what you believe to be the truth about different religious claims, and if you think there is such a thing as race, and if there is such a thing whether or not there are relevant racial differences.

To be on the Right is to assert that the universe is a certain way, that it has a certain order, that we are not "unconstrained", and as a consequence there are better and worse ways of doing things. Opposition to radical equality is just one consequence of this realist assumption, but to assert that opposition to egalitarianism is what DEFINES the Right is to comprehend the Right in terms derived from the Left.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, this is all OR discussing primary sources. Although Burke became a hero to Conservatives in the 20th century and Cold Warriors in the late 20th century, he did not call himself right-wing or even conservative and did not publish articles in modern academic and peer-reviewed literature. TFD (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING, could you please provide a source that Sowell calls himself right-wing, or strike it out as a BLP violation. TFD (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The far right is not simply evaluating people as "superior in a quality" to another person. I may be superior in knowledge at an academic level of left-right politics to someone who does not have such knowledge, but a car mechanic is superior to me in knowledge of mechanics. But the far right is not evaluating qualities of people it is evaluating people as a whole as being superior or inferior. The far right advocates supremacy of people deemed being innately superior people (be it on social class or race, etc). The reactionaries believed that you were born of noble birth - you were automatically superior to someone of non-noble birth. The racist far-right believes that if you are of an ideal racial group - you are automatically superior to someone of a non-ideal racial group.

In response to your (Eridu's) statement on the Soviet Union, Marxist-Leninist communism and hierarchy: Communism in the Soviet Union and elsewhere faced the problems of all revolutionaries: how to put ideals into practice given the people in charge of the revolution, in a given society with given traits and issues. People like Lenin and Trotsky truly believed that they were going to eventually establish a communist society - they devoted much time to writing their theories and were very committed to their goals, but they were ruthless in their ambition to achieve it. People like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are another case altogether - they were completely Machiavellian, and Stalin was a sociopath. The main problem with communism in practice is the paranoia of counter-revolution, in the beginning of the Bolshevik rule this was a very real issue because Russia was in civil war between the Red Army versus the White Army. Plus if political theorist Robert Michels' famous theory of the iron law of oligarchy is correct, where he claims that even egalitarian-aiming organizations become inevitably hierarchical out of tactical necessities, then this best describes the Soviet case in the early years. In the latter years the Soviet Union and other communist governments had devolved into institutions with hollow ideology - almost no one took Marxism-Leninism as an ideology seriously by the 1970s and 1980s in Eastern Europe, and claims that today's People's Republic of China is still communist only deserve a response of laughter at such naivety.--R-41 (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Continued on Next Rock

New Section, just because the old section got too long to edit easily.

Collect: You quote me: "As far as I can see, in every case the Right supports government that increases the wealth and power of those who have the most wealth and power, and most, but not all, standard reference works agree. The Right, like all other major political groups in the modern West, pay lip service to freedom and equality of oportunity, but since everyone does that, that does not distinguish the Right from any other group." and then go on to say "rather strongly implies that you do not favour such a position as you impute to the 'right'."

There is a difference between disliking the people who have wealth and power, which you accused me of saying, and which is not the case, and not wanting the government to act to increase their wealth and power. In any case, I base my edits on cited sources, so my opinion on the subject is beside the point.

ERIDU-DREAMING complains that he is tired of repeating himself. In that case, I suggest he stop. We understand perfectly well what he means by "the Right" and we understand perfectly well the various justifications that people of similar beliefs offer for those beliefs. Whether those justifications are correct is not a subject to be debated here. The subject under discussion here is whether his usage of the phrase "the Right" has any currency outside of very recent American politics and popular media. Please, provide citations to that effect, or move on to another topic.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please emend how your post is worded -- new editors here might not recognize the entire first part of what I said was a direct quote of your own post. Also note that all governments end up "increasing wealth and power" of someone - the Soviets were, in fact, quite notorious for it. That did not, AFAICT, make Stalin a "right winger." My point has been, and remains, that there is no "one size fits all for all places and all times" definition of "right wing" at all. And no one has provided any sources to contradict that position at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Collect: Not all governments increase wealth and power. For example, Castro's Cuban government greatly decreased wealth and power of all the Cuban people. Other examples abound. In any case, the point here is not what a government does, but rather why writers use the phrase "right-wing" to describe some governments and not others. Historically they applied the phrase "right-wing" to political groups that served entrenched power structures. The word has, over time, had many meanings. I think the article does a fairly good job of listing some of those meanings. But because the meaning changes with context (as the article properly points out) does not mean that "right-wing" has no meaning at all. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Except for those in power! Yes Castro destroyed the Cuban economy utterly - but the ones who were in power suffered much less than the average Cubans did. Special groups can purchase at "luxury stores" of various types. Egalitarianism which is non-egalitarian is not "right wing" at all. And I suggest "serving entrenched power structures" has absolutely no meaning as to "left" or "right" whatever. By such a claim, Stalin was one of the most "right wing" people ever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I am pleased Rick Norwood that "We" (is that a Royal "We"?) "understand perfectly well what he [Eridu Dreaming] means by 'the Right'...The subject under discussion here is whether his usage...has any currency outside of very recent American politics and popular media" so it should be no problem therefore for you supply the definition of "Right-Wing" to which you object. This will enable me (assuming I recognise and support the definition you supply) to give you evidence which supports its validity.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC))

How is it possible to misunderstand a simple statement that this article is about how the phrase "right-wing" is used? The phrase is not used to describe Stalin. It is used to describe Franco. You have yet to answer my question: why is it used to describe Franco?

ERIDU-DREAMING: By "we" I mean myself, TFD, and all the other editors who are trying to get you to cite sources that describe your beliefs as a primary meaning of the phrase "right-wing", instead of endless arguing in favor of those beliefs.

You ask what I think your beliefs are. I think you're a Libertarian, but if I'm wrong, please correct me. You've said right-wing was used (by her enemies) to describe Maggie Thatcher. I think by that they meant that Maggie Thatcher was a friend to the upper-class and an enemy of the people. Whether they were right or wrong is moot -- that is how I understand their use of the word. Why do you think they called her right-wing? You said that right-wing is used to describe people who have beliefs based on fact. Please cite some source, someone who has actually used the phrase right-wing with that meaning.

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of "right wing"

William F. Buckley in Rumbles left and right: a book about troublesome people and ideas and also in his Collected Speeches specifically self-identifies with the "right wing" and states to Norman Mailer: "The true meaning of the American right wing, Mr. Mailer, is commitment, a commitment on the basis of which it becomes possible to take measurements. That is true whether in respect of domestic policy or foreign policy."

Lots of other indications that the definition of "right wing" is fully dependent on place and time, and is not a "fixed star" by any means at all. Collect (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I keep saying that I agree that the meaning of right-wing depends on context. As far as I can tell, nobody disagrees. The article says so. Why keep bringing it up?

Nice Buckley quote.

Rick Norwood (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to restate in response to a rebuke by ERIDU DREAMING, which I want her/him to be aware of. The far right is not simply evaluating people as "superior in a quality" to another person. I may be superior in knowledge at an academic level of left-right politics to someone who does not have such knowledge, but a car mechanic is superior to me in knowledge of mechanics. But the far right is not evaluating qualities of people it is evaluating people as a whole as being superior or inferior. The far right advocates supremacy of people deemed being innately superior people (be it on social class or race, etc). The reactionaries believed that you were born of noble birth - you were automatically superior to someone of non-noble birth. The racist far-right believes that if you are of an ideal racial group - you are automatically superior to someone of a non-ideal racial group.

In response to your ERIDU DREAMING's statement on the Soviet Union, Marxist-Leninist communism and hierarchy: Communism in the Soviet Union and elsewhere faced the problems of all revolutionaries: how to put ideals into practice given the people in charge of the revolution, in a given society with given traits and issues. People like Lenin and Trotsky truly believed that they were going to eventually establish a communist society - they devoted much time to writing their theories and were very committed to their goals, but they were ruthless in their ambition to achieve it. People like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are another case altogether - they were completely Machiavellian, and Stalin and Pol Pot were sociopaths. The main problem with communism in practice is the paranoia of counter-revolution that leads to a police state being created, in the beginning of the Bolshevik rule this was a very real issue because Russia was in civil war between the Red Army versus the White Army. Plus if political theorist Robert Michels' famous theory of the iron law of oligarchy is correct, where he claims that even egalitarian-aiming organizations become inevitably hierarchical out of tactical necessities, then this best describes the Soviet case in the early years. In the latter years the Soviet Union and other communist governments had devolved into institutions with hollow ideology - almost no one took Marxism-Leninism as an ideology seriously by the 1970s and 1980s in Eastern Europe, and claims that today's People's Republic of China is still committed to communism only deserve a response of laughter at such naivety.--R-41 (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a wonderful passage in Barry Lyndon in which a character says something like, "We are the best people. We are not the richest people, or the smartest people, or the nobelest people, or the nicest people -- we are simply the best people." Rick Norwood (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a good find, Collect. Here is a link to Buckley's opening speech where he says he speaks for the American Right. We need a secondary source that analyses the speech because it raises several questions. Was Buckley claiming that he was right-wing or only on the right in the United States? The Communist Party of the Soviet Union for example also had a "right-wing", the Right Opposition. Also, Buckley appears to exclude mainstream Republican leaders from the Right. TFD (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a very good point you have addressed here TFD. I didn't think of it, but it's true - there was in fact a Right Opposition in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Perhaps this gives more merit to the argument that while the left and right may have general principles, they vary based on political culture of different societies. In the Soviet Union a person could be deemed right-wing or a reactionary if they did not support radical agendas and were more conservative in their approach to their agenda - it was considered the right-leaning element within the Communist society that is far left by global perspective of various left-right movements. In Prussia and Germany until the First World War, the right was predominantly dominated by reactionary militarist aristocracy that were very hesitant on the very idea of democracy. In the United States, the Constitution is based upon classical liberalism, thus the right in the United States is culturally bound to the notions that "all men are created equal" (equal opportunity, equality before the law), democracy, and liberty, though opposing equality of outcome and being socially conservative in its support of traditions such as the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman - this is centre-right by global perspective of various left-right movements.--R-41 (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The main thing wrong with communism is the fear of counter revolution? What about the total erosion of economic freedom, making economic coordination through markets impossible and leading to an inefficient use of resources and underproduction of goods and services? Or, in other words: communism results in widespread poverty and starvation. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Calm down. I never said that Marxism-Leninism works. It was an abject failure and a tyranny in practice. You have misquoted what I said, what I said was that communism becomes a police state in power because of its paranoia of counter-revolution. The Soviet police state was the WORST thing developed from Lenin - the Cheka, NKVD, and KGB were the leading executioners of people the Soviet state opposed - and I would add to your list that the Machiavellians and sociopaths Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot killed millions of people because of their paranoid anti-social behaviour - and how did they do it, through a police state.--R-41 (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I am calm. My point was that it's not just communism's abuses of civil rights and its police state aspect that make it unworkable. It is economically unworkable. Economics is an actual science, and the conclusion that markets are the best way to coordinate productive activity is nearly undisputed within the field of economics. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

As best I remember, everyone here agrees that commies are bad, bad, bad. Stop flogging a dead horse. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Communism is a side issue. No serious sources divide the world into communists and right-wingers. There is a wide range of opinion that stands between these two extremes. TFD (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Does [redacted] Think "Right Wing" means Evil?

WP:CIVIL
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To quote the aforementioned editor: Falconclaw: I just used Google scholar to search for the phrase "right-wing". The top three hits were: Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism B Altemeyer, 1988; The politics of unreason: Right-wing extremism in America, 1790-1977, SM Lipset, 1978; and Radical right-wing populism in Western Europe, HG Betz, 1994. The phrase "right-wing", outside modern US politics, does not mean what you think it means! Rick Norwood (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC) I rest my case. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC) This title is very aggressive against another user that is violating Wikipedia civility protocol. I am closing this down for violating WP:CIVIL. It's not "very aggressive." Rick Norwood denied that he thought that right wing means evil, and there has since been many comments posted in that section, so I just wanted to dispute his claim, and bring attention to that quote of his, which shows where he's coming from. Obviously if he associates right wing with authoritarianism, unreason, and radical populism, he's going to edit the article to make the right wing ideology look morally bankrupt. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC) I "associate" right-wing with what the sources say "right-wing" is associated with. It is not "morally bankrupt" to cite sources. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "dispute his claim". Dispute my claim that I don't think right-wing means evil? If so you're mind reading again. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Yes this is uncivil and aggressive, it is against Wikipedia protocol to post a heading directed towards a user, TFD removed the name, I shut down the section. Directly naming out a user in a headline and putting them on the spot by putting words in their mouth is not constructive, is uncivil, and will lead to a confrontation. Even if what you said is correct, it is none of your business to put a user on the spot to humiliate them, if they are clearly wrong, they are clearly wrong - let it be, because everyone will know that they are clearly wrong. But don't open the outhouse door to show to everyone what they are doing and how horrible it is, because we really are not interested. Move on.--R-41 (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Right versus Left

I notice this definition on Answers.Com

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Left_wing_vs_right_wing

The difference between the Right and Left is:

The right believes in greater personal responsibility with the belief that this freedom will lead to individual success that will open up opportunities for those who are less fortunate. This means that a citizen is responsible for his own life. He must work to earn money. With this money, he can buy food, healthcare, education and consumer items, etc. The government will take a comparatively smaller proportion of this money and with this tax, will use it to pay for key services - law and order, defence, infrastructure etc. The government will interfere as little as possible in the economy, as only the economy can run the economy, and business knows better than politicians.

The left believes in greater State responsibility for the benefit of all citizens, with the goal of a more "equal" society. This means that a citizen will work to earn money, and the government will take a comparatively larger proportion of this. With this tax, the government will pay for more services - law and order, defence, health, education etc. The government takes on a greater responsibility in controlling the economy and in governing people's lives, as the politicians do not allow businesses free reign, and the government sets certain basic standards for all of society.

DOWNSIDES FOR A SOCIETY THAT IS TOO FAR TO THE RIGHT-

- A grass-roots right wing policy is often known as free-market capitalism. This is effectively unhindered capitalism. This has many fatal flaws. The idea of this system is that the rich create jobs and this helps the poor to better themselves. However, this is impractical, as poverty is very hard to break out of, due to all the health provisions that would be required. What you would get is the poor earning money, but in a free market society, they would have to spend all the money on food, healthcare and education. This would mean only the lucky few would break out of poverty.

- With less money to spend, only the government only provides the basic need for society. Things such as health care and education become accessible only to those who have money. Ultimately, this creates a situation in which only the people with adequate financial security can lead healthy lives and meet their full potential.

- Allowing a purely free economy to guide a society means a lot of faith is placed on the people who have the most money, influence and power. With human nature, greed can play a huge role in people's motivations and decisions are often made by the rich that will only benefit themselves at the expense of the poor. This type of greed had, for example, led to the corruption by powerful executives on Wall Street which ultimately played a huge part in the failure of the global economy in late 2008-2009.

- Social equality is diminished in favour of individual rights and freedoms. In a society where everyone is equal with equal power, this would not pose a problem. However, no society has successfully achieved such equality. As a result, survival of the fittest plays a big part and a selfish attitude can begin to thrive.

DOWNSIDES FOR A SOCIETY THAT IS TOO FAR TO THE LEFT-

- Personal responsibility is diminished in favour of social equality. This essentially means taxing the rich and giving to the poor. This can be detrimental as some poorer segments of society may start to feel that society owes them something rather than taking charge of their own lives to improve their situations.

- The left-wing philosophy gives the government more money to spend and, with more money, there's more opportunities to spend irresponsibly. An extreme example currently happening in some European countries is that governments spend larger amounts on social benefits and citizens take advantage or start to develop a sense of entitlement.

- More government control of the private sector means more bureaucracies and more "hoops to jump through", which can increase costs for doing business and thus negatively impact growth.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)).

This is pointless, Wikipedia cannot self-reference another part of Wikipedia - it is against Wikipedia protocol - that being said if there are references there that can be used, then that is useful. I have moved the issue of the relation between realism and right-wing politics to the bottom, so that users don't forget this topic is still open. Please find referenced, reliable sources, and return to the serious topic of discussion in the topic on whether right-wing means realism.--R-41 (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Answers.Com is not Wikipedia. It is an anonymous attempt (better than your effort I would say) to describe the contemporary usage of "Right-Wing" in the sort of language a 10 year old could understand. It uses Right-Wing in the sense in which most people in the Anglosphere encounter it i.e. the belief that there should be lower taxes, less government inteference in our everyday lives, and that people should be encouraged to take greater responsibility for their actions. Note that the entry makes no mention of "hierarchy" only a reference to people who have more money - called "the rich" - and people with less money - called "the poor".

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You could have written that for all we know. LittleJerry (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If I had written it I would have said so. Reptile. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

No need for personal attacks. Also, some anonymous person is not reliable. LittleJerry (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Does right-wing mean realism?

The strongest point thus far that ERIDU-DREAMING has posted is that right-wing means realism and that it is opposed to the left-wing that is based upon idealism and utopianism. So this is where discussion should focus now. Does right-wing mean realism? And what sources are available that say that right-wing means realism?--R-41 (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with ERIDU-DREAMING that right-wing means realism. Realism assumes rationalism, not all right-wing movements were based on rationalist principles. For instance, how does realism apply to the Catholic and Protestant religious right that promote Christian ideals and claims there is a utopia in the afterlife? How does realism apply to the original right's defense of aristocracy that believed that people of noble birth were automatically superior to people of non-noble birth? These two major examples present on the original right-wing do not appear to to be based on realism at all. If they are please explain how they are based on realism.--R-41 (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

We need to see sources, preferrably ones that explain what is meant by reality. TFD (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong R-41 to assume that realism implies rationalism. On the Right rationalism is generally viewed a form of utopianism. See Michael Oakeshott "Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays". To cite the example of Edmund Burke (who, contrary to the claims of The Four Deuces, is a - indeed some argue that he is the greatest - thinker on the Right) his lexicon of abuse includes "metaphysics" "theory" "abstract" to which he opposes "habit" "tradition" and "prejudice". He asserts that there are limits to the extent to which abstractions can relevantly be brought to bear on politics. This is why the Right are generally sceptical of ideology - on the grounds that it oversimplifies (or is a substitute for) reality.

A typical Right-Wing approach is not "ideological", it seeks to return us back to common experience i.e. to our shared experience of what is the case. The Right of course makes use of theories - such as economic theories - but they are wary of extending them beyond a very specific domain of application. The Right accept that things do not stay the same, but they oppose the assumption that humans are a blank sheet. They assume that politics (for example) is and ought to be a practical business of seeking the good while paying attention to the realities of human nature.

One of these realities is our fallibility. Many of the Right defend a free society (as opposed to a society in which the State seeks to direct everything) on the grounds that (for example) freedom of speech helps us to discover truths. But those on the Right who advocate freedom do not view it as an end in itself. They support freedom because they believe that it contributes to the pursuit of human excellences. Their realism about what it is to be a human being carries with it the implication that not all choices are good. Freedom has therefore has to be accompanied by personal (and institutional) responsibility.

With regard to religion. R -41 you are making assumptions about the non-reality of religious claims. The claim that rewards for making the right choices may not come in this life is a claim about life after death. Some on the Right ground that which is (morally) right and wrong in religious beliefs. These beliefs are claims about the universe. It is sometimes claimed (for example by Eric Vogelin) that religious beliefs which are denied any reality by "scientism" do not disappear, but reappear in a secular guise. For example he claims that Marxism is a gnostic heresy, but this is going off topic.

As for the concept of an aristocracy. You would struggle to find anybody on the Right these days who would seek to defend the concept of an aristocracy (in the strict feudal meaning of the word) and so I am not going to waste my time examining the issue. All I would say is that if you are on the Left you may find the very concept of anybody being superior to you offensive. As a solution to this Leftists have created some of the most unequal societies on Earth, but again, that is another topic.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 10:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)).

This discussion is quite pointless. It would be difficult to find an ideology that didn't claim it was the realist one, and that all other ideologies are utopian or unrealisable. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you will find plenty of "ideologies" in the modern period which reject "moral realism" and indeed realism itself in the case of the extreme Left. As for "utopianism" you will find many in the modern period who believe that humans can (and should) strive to create a utopia on Earth. One of the features which defines the Right politically is their scepticism about such adventures. It is the conclusions we come to when seeking to balance our conservatism/radicalism which determine our politics. Such judgements only make sense however within a specific context.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That is indeed not what defines "the right" at all. You will find ideologies that strives to "to create a utopia on Earth" on both sides of the political spectrum, and besides your personal opinion which is obviously quite biased is quite worthless in connection to improving the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This is fun, but totally off topic. I doubt that anyone ever listed to a speaker, decided he was a realist, and as a result called him "right-wing". Let's stick to sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING, your essay is original research and therefore has no value to the conversation. You need to provide a source for your claims. You appear to be confusing conservatism with the Right. If can provide a source that they are the same thing then your approach should be to merge the article with conservatism. See what it says at the top of the page, "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." I suggest all editors follow that advice. TFD (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

TFD is correct ERIDU DREAMING. You need sources. As for your claim that rationalism is not connected with realism, here is a book called Realism, Rationalism, and Scientific Method that puts all three together, see here: [4]. Here is another source that places realism (in the context of international relations) as being inbetween constructivism and rationalism, it rejects what it deems as liberalism's narrow rationalist views. [5]. Then there is such a thing as "realist-rationalism". [6]. Then there is this book that speaks of a realist/rationalist divide.[7]. Then there is another book called Realistic Rationalism that acknowledges a divide, but fuses them. [8]. There is appears to be no clear division between realism and rationalism, only that there appear to be realists who reject rationalism in favour of constructivism, and other realists who accept rationalism. Nevertheless, realism seems very scientific and rationally-based (maybe not "rationalist" by itself), and that does not relate to the spiritual appeals of the Catholic and Protestant religious right. Plus in criminology there is a political analysis from the left of crime that is called left realism.--R-41 (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Edmund Burke "Reflections on the Revolution in France". A Critical Edition Edited by J.C.D. Clarke (Stanford University Press, 2001).

(It is not my edition but mine is out of print)

Michael Oakeshott "Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays". Methuen (Expanded edition - 1991, by Liberty Fund) .

(I believe I mentioned these references already)

By the way I was talking about the anti-theoretic bias of the Right.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)).

Clarke's edition says nothing about right-wing politics. I do not have a copy of Oakshott's book, but I do not believe he wrote about the Right either, although some of his opponents accused him of being right-wing. Can you provide any page references? TFD (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate THE FOUR DEUCES that you believe that Edmund Burke is not a Right-Wing political philosopher, but back in the real world the later writings of Edmund Burke (at least in the English speaking world) are generally viewed as THE paradigm example of a Right-Wing political philosophy. You seem to think that because he died before the epithet "Right-Wing" gained generally currency in England he cannot be Right-Wing. By the same logic he cannot be a conservative political philosopher either, because that description also post-dates Edmund Burke. Michael Oakeshott is slightly more complex. His defence of practice/tradition accords with the anti-theoretical views defended by Burke, and for that reason he is generally regarded as a right-wing political philosopher. But his defence of liberty also means that he is also included in the Classical Liberal tradition. But insofar as the political Right in the English speaking world (notwithstanding the fact that you believe that only a few people in the mountains of Montana call themselves Right-Wing) generally includes a defence of free markets as one of its key components, he is generally described as a Right-Wing political philosopher. As for page references, the anti-theoretic position is one of the central themes themes of both books, which is why I mentioned them, and so it would be as absurd to seek to provide a single page reference for this argument as it would be to ask for the page number in the King James Bible where God says if you do what I say and I shall reward ye!

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Michael Oakeshott on religion, aesthetics, and politics says, "Readers who see him [Oakeshott] as merely a polemicist or right-wing apologist missed something essential in his work." (p. 216) "The New York times labled him a 'right-wing guru". Still others went so far as to imply that Oakeshott was a crypto-fascist." (p. 2)[9] The political philosophy of Michael Oakeshott says, "Careful study of this work serves as a necessary corrective to the view of Oakeshott - based primarily on an exclusive reading of the essays in Rationalism in Politics - as a "Burkean conservative" or a right-wing ideologue". (p. 3)[10] It may be that in your imagination there is an ideology called right-wing and you have assembled various writers that you believe support your belief system. But that is all original research and you are wasting everyone's time. If you want to present your reality, choose another forum. TFD (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In other words my above summary is correct. Michael Oakeshott on the basis of his "Rationalism in Politics" collection of essays is viewed as a "Burkean conservative", but, with reference to his other writings, some argue that despite his claim that theories are simply abridgements of practices and traditions, he is more accurately situated within the Classical Liberal tradition. As for the declaration that lack of knowledge of the topic under consideration means that "you are wasting everyone's time. If you want to present your reality, choose another forum." You took the words out of my mouth.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC))

Your essays are unhelpful to improving the article. Articles are not based on original theories presented by editors but on reliable sources. Nothing you have presented is of any relevance to the article and could you please stop this talk page disruption. TFD (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think "realism" is a dangerous term to use without extreme caution. Even if it is supported in a very specific sense of the term (and I am not saying that it is) the average reader could easily read it in its more general sense and get the impression that if right wing is endorsed as "realism" then left-wing means "away with the faeries". Furthermore, I worry that one could just as easily make the same argument in reverse. I think that all political cliques like to think that they alone have their fingers on the pulse of raw, untainted reality while their opponents are hopelessly deluded blind men stuck in the proverbial ditch. Rhetoric of that type, even if referenced, does nothing to explain actual differences in ideology and I can't see any value in that. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I was skeptical that realism is only a phenomenon of the right, so I just looked up different possible examples of left-wing realism on Google Books, among them, "Marxist realism" brings up a total of 49 pages of results of books and articles on Google Books search. So realism is not clearly a phenomenon exclusive to the right.--R-41 (talk) 05:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The claim that Marx is a REALIST is very controversial [Lukacs, Kolakowski, and numerous "Critical Marxist" interpretors take him to be an IDEALIST] and to describe him as a MORAL REALIST (my claim if you remember about the Right) is even more controversial (I think than Norman Geras defends this view) but putting this issue to one side, you declare that some on the Left (regardless of whether or not they are correct) describe themselves as "Realists" and so this undermines the value of using ANTI-UTOPIANISM as some sort of identifier of what it is to be on the Right.

Of course I am identifying what the Right claims about itself, I am not making a claim about the truth or falsity of that claim. People on the Left say they are concerned with EQUALITY and so this is fine for a Wikipedia definition, but their opponents would argue that the Left seek to increase their wealth (and of course their power) by confiscating and controlling wealth generated by others (whom they envy) even if this has the consequence of decreasing the chances that poor people will escape from poverty. Now it may be accurate, but it would be absurd to offer this as a Wikipedia definition of the Left.

To anybody who understands the RIGHT its moral realism and anti-utopianism are far more important than its anti-egalitarianism (indeed the latter is a consequence of the former) but of course only Rick Norwood knows what words mean.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: "I am identifying what the Right claims about itself." Would it be possible to provide any sources for this. TFD (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I will try if I get time (Wikipedia has to be a low priority) to read some "Right Wing" philosophers (Burke and De Maistre for example) who will supply some examples of the moral realism plus anti-utopianism approach, plus I will try to look at some of the more recent philosophers of the Right. Of course there is a paradoxical element in attempting to locate articulations of the assumption that what is real transcends articulation. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)).

You would spend your time better reading reliable secondary sources that possibly support this generalisation of yours. Primary sources are not exactly the best way to support such an outlandish claim as "right-wing means realism and that it is opposed to the left-wing that is based upon idealism and utopianism". You will need secondary sources for this. Providing only primary sources would obviously be WP:SYNTH. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I will read the primary sources. How do you know what is "reliable" until you know what is being talked about - no wonder the Right-Wing politics entry is such a poor effort. It is like discussing a work of literature with somebody and gradually realising that all they have seen the movie. I guess if people are egalitarians they feel excused from the requirement to know about the topic before they contribute to it. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC))

I am quite aware of what is being talked about. And I do still insist that you resort to reliable secondary sources for such a claim in Wikipedia. Synthesis or original research is kindly referred to peer reviewed publications. If you succeed with your theories there we may just consider adding the information to the Wikipedia article. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, only Rick Norwood owns a dictionary. As for whether or not the Right claims that realism is its defining characteristic, that doesn't matter, because that doesn't distinguish the Right from all the other groups who claim realism is their defining characteristic. I would imagine that scientologists claim realism is their defining characteristic. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It is value realism (plus the situated thus fallible nature of the knower) that is the key, and although I know nothing about Scientology, I am guessing that they are not going to be anti-utopian. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)).

As Gauchet's article explains, the terms "left" and "right" did not exist in the 18th century. Find a modern source that backs up your views. Even the website that formed your opinion would be helpful becaue we could trace where it found its views. (For example, Glenn Beck has professors on his show who write books sourcing their views.) TFD (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the Right "to some extent" a response to the Left?

I reverted Spylab's edit. Here's why. The lead says that the Right is to some extent a response to the Left. Therefore the body of the article should expand on that. Either the both the statement in the lead and the subsection should be removed, nor both should be retained. Discussion? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

What we are left with is that Big-Endiand do not exist without Little-Endians. As noted before, since there is no universally applicable definition for what the "political spectrum" represents, we are engaging in counting angels on the heads of pins at best. The best we can hope for is some groups of definitions applicable to specific countries at specific times. Collect (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

When Swift wrote that, he was comparing the 18th centrury Whigs and Tories. While there may have been no differences between their policies, historically they were different and radicalism, socialism, and communism would provide major challenges to them. Incidentally in America, the revolutionary "Whigs" presented a challenge to the the "Tories". Do you think that the dispute was over trivial issues? TFD (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The "revolutionaries" (not "Whigs") in the US sought to continue the existing self-government here - while the "loyalists" sought to have the locals pay for their own defense against the French, and when the locals demurred, sought to remove their self-government so that the big government could rule them. In a way, the Tories were the "left" and the patriots were the "right" at the time. And you make no sense whatsover in asserting that "right" and "left" have any continuing meaning acrosss erras and nations at all. The American Revolution was, in many ways, a profoundly conservative revolution based on over a century of substantial self-rule. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The "patriots" called themselves Whigs. The U.K. Whigs later became called the Liberal Party while the Tories became the Conservatives. The loyalists organized a political party in Canada called the "Family Compact" which is now called the Conservative Party. Canadian supporters of the American Revolution organized parties which would later be called the Liberal Party. Royalism is not considered to be a left-wing ideology. TFD (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The patriots became Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The use of "Whig" by some patriots was due to the Whigs in the UK favouring different colonial policies from those of the King. It did not make them "Whigs" except in that sense, and decidedly had no relation to other UK-Whig policies of the time, only sympathy to the "opposition party" at the time of the revolution. The UK-Whigs were, in fact, known as "anti-Catholic" - something not noted in the Patriot groups, including in Maryland. Gross over-simplification of American history does not help define "right" v. "left" in any way whatsoever, but it is nice to note that those who believe in gross over-siimplification exist. Cheers. See The politics of liberty in England and revolutionary America Collect (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

When one reverses the meanings of words, whether liberal and conservative or left and right, then one may conclude that they are meaningless. TFD (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Quod Erat Demonstrandum - the words do not have fixed meanings. Cheers - glad to see you recognize the inherent problems in making any universal statements about the flawed "political spectrum." Collect (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If one redefines war as peace, freedom as slavery, black as white, etc., then words lose meaning. The same applies to all articles. TFD (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Alas - it is not I who misdefines any words here, so I fail to see the POINT of your post. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the section again because it solely consisted of one economist's opinion and a title "Problems with the term" slapped on top of it. That is undue weight. The section is also misleading because it includes the phrase "Stanford University economist Thomas Sowell and others say", but does not offer any proof that "others" say anything at all. Previously, I merged Sowell's ideas and refererence into an appropriate paragraph in the lead section. At some point, someone reverted that reasonable solution without explanation, and the section that is only about one quote keeps getting re-added without explananation. Regardless of all the discussion above, the bottom line is that one economist's quote does not deserve its own section. Either move the content somewhere else or expand the section with other people's ideas.Spylab (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Spylab. We do not know how notable Sowell's view is. Also it is preferrable to use academic sources rather than popular writing. TFD (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

We do not know how notable Sowell's view is? Do we know how notable Bobbio's view is? I put the section back in. I don't care about your preference for Marxist academics. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Bobbio is not a Marxist, but he is a European Leftist; which is pretty far Left by American standards. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)).

"Bobbio" + "left and right" has 1,160 hits on Google scholar.[11] He was the most respected political scientist in Italy, and his book is specifically about the Left and the Right. sowell +"Intellectuals and Society" gets 32 hits.[12] Add "right-wing" and it gets 0 hits.[13] Sowell's writing on the meaning of the Right has attracted no attention which is unsurprising because his book is not scholarly and not about the political spectrum. Incidentally, unlike Sowell, Bobbio was never a Marxist. TFD (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

AFAICT, Bobbio is described as a "liberal socialist", "a thinker of the left" (his autobiography), was influenced by "cultura militante", a writer for the "Action Party", and wrote an essay "Neither With Nor Against Marx." As to your unique assertion that Sowell's work is not academic or "scholarly" (added word "work"), that is the stuff of which loud laughs are caused. Cheers - now can we use this talk page to improve this rather horrid article? Collect (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Collect it is disruptive to misrepresent what other editors say. I did not say "Sowell is not an academic or "scholarly"", but "his book is not scholarly". Do you understand the distinction? TFD (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

When you attack an editor in this manner, it might be a good idea to state exactly what I "misrepresented" in your opinion. Near as I can figure, my position has been absolutely consistent, and in accord with what the sources state - that there is no universally true definition of "right wing" and that, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, my posts have been supportive of my sposition quite consistently. And that my succinct and consistent posts are disruptive of nothing whatsoever. Now can we use this talk page in a proper manner? Collect (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I just explained that I did not say "Sowell is not an academic or "scholarly"", but "his book is not scholarly". I have explained the distinction to you before. "Public intellectuals" (e.g., Noam Chomsky, Michael Ignatieff, Paul Krugman) typically write books for both scholarly and popular markets, and their popular works are often polemical and often outside their area of expertise. While their scholarly works enter scholarly discourse, their popular works do not. Scholars may even write works of fiction - Alice in Wonderland, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and Lord of the Rings were all written by academics. It does not make them "scholarly" works, even though they were impressive books. TFD (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Google Scholar shows a slew of "scholarly" uses of Sowell's works. Including this work. So what exactly do you mean other than "IDONTLIKEIT"? Seems to me that is the only possible conclusion at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This particular book, unlike his scholarly writings, receives 32 hits on Google scholar, compared with Bobbio's book, which receives 1,160. When one adds the word "right-wing" to the query it receives 0 hits. (See links above.) In other words, Sowell's views on the meaning of the Right have been totally ignored. See also WP:WEIGHT which explains what weight we should provide to views that are totally ignored. TFD (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

And when one adds more words to any search, the number of hits increases? Um -- I have heard of "google hits" arguments, but this takes the cake! Did you possibly realize a book issued in 2010 is likely to have fewer people cite it than a book issued in 1996? That escaped your notice? Ah well then - I expect you to recognize that recent books are unlikely to have been referred to 15 years ago as a general rule. And your argument would be that a book issued last year which has only been referred to a few dozen times is thus to be absolutely ignored. Like Messer-Kruse's book on the Haymarket Affair -- by your "standards", his edits should absolutely be disallowed because the book is not old enough <g>. Congratulations! But that does not seem to be the general course of opinion on UT:Jimbo Wales. Collect (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It is certainly true that current books have fewer references than older books. That is because it may take some time to determine whether something published yesterday will become accepted, while something published 15 years ago has either been accepted or rejected. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, until something becomes accepted we cannot guess about how important we personally believe it to be. Your source has attracted zero attention, which is what it should be assigned by us. If Sowell's theory on the Right is so widely accepted, one would expect that it would have been described somewhere in the quarter millenium since the term was first used. Or do you believe that it was only in the past two years that anyone has properly explained it? TFD (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The number of times it has been cited is sufficient to say that it is not being a "crystal ball" to assert that it is accepted by others - now. And your "IDONTLIKEIT" is too apparent here - now that it is shown to have a reasonable amount of use in a short time, saying we need to wait another decade is silly. BTW, WP:CRYSTAL does not refer to acceptance of new scholarly literature at all, and so that argument fails mightily. See also the discussion on UT:Jimbo about the Haymarket Affair. Would you have us wait a decade or more to correct a problematic article? I trust not. Collect (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sowell's views on the political spectrum have been cited zero times. Even Fox News Channel, the National Review, Michael Savage, the Libertarian Party have all ignored it. There is a difference btw between facts and opinions. We do not have to wait years to see if facts are true. TFD (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

But you had implied that Sowell's book was cited essentially zero times -- that a specific word in a book is not cited does not have anything at all to do with the price of eggs, and you are now chasing around Robin Hood's Barn for the umpteenth time. The book you so cavalierly dismiss has over thirty hits on GScholar. The author is one who is cited in the field of economics and politics, and your protestations to the contrary do not affect anything at all. Using your favourite tool, Google, finds "Thomas Sowell" and "politics" has over 100K hits. GScholar has over 5K hits on "Thomas Sowell" and "politics". "Bobbio" and "political spectrum" gets all of 426 total GScholar hits. So what? You have markedly failed to show that a 2010 book is not scholarly, that it is not cited by others, and it is clear that you grossly misconstrued the WP:CRYSTAL precept entirely. Cheers - but IDONTLIKEIT is up to 120 decibels already here. Collect (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not "impl[y] that Sowell's book was cited essentially zero times", I said it "receives 32 hits on Google scholar". Sowell's book is about intellectuals and society, hence the name. Whether or not it provides a contribution to that subject is of no relevance here, it has had no influence on the study of the political spectrum. I leave open the possibility that other writings by Sowell have been influential to the study, but one would have to find them. TFD (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) IOW you reject a quote from a "scholarly" book because no one else has made an issue of the quotation, therefore it is not a "scholarly" quotation, even though you recognize it is a "scholarly" work. Which is absolutely "IDONTLIKEIT" as a reason. Thanks for making this clear. Collect (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not scholarly, but the reason for excluding the quote is that no one has found any reason to mention it. TFD (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I added a tightened-up version of the Sowell paragraph to the "History and usage of the term" section because it fits under that topic. His quote has relevance, but it didn't deserve its own separate paragraph.Spylab (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

A Leftist Definition

The claim that Right-Wing politics is GENERALLY defined and accepted by everybody as meaning support of a HIERARCHICAL society justified by an appeal to NATURAL LAW or TRADITION is incorrect. This is to frame the political definition in Leftist terms (i.e. its opposition to egalitarianism) not in its own terms.

Right-Wing politicians in the USA or Right-Wing politicians in the UK (to pick two examples) do not generally define themselves as people who are seeking to support "a hierarchical society based upon social order justified by an appeal to natural law or tradition" as is obvious to anybody with ears and eyes.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The unrevised lede repeats Bobbio's (controversial) claim twice. Once is quite sufficient. I have retained the version where his claim is identified as an opinion and is not simply presented as a generally accepted truth. The deleted sources (which simply repeat his claim) are hardly respected authorities.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the talk page is to discuss changes to the article not the subject in general. Your comments are soapboxing and I request that you stop. TFD (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Right-wing politicans may not define themselves by those exact words but yes, they do generally support the statement. They believe in a society where people must work up a social ladder and are opposed to attempts by the left to redistribute wealth and privilege. I don't see why that is so hard to understand. LittleJerry (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Assuming good faith you do not seem to understand that you are defining the Right in Leftist terms. An unequal society may be the CONSEQUENCE of policies on the Right (the Right would argue it is the consequence of policies on the Left as well but that is another matter) but to be on the Right is not necessarily to DEFINE yourself as being opposed to equality. Opposition to egalitarianism is a CONSEQUENCE of its assumptions - for example if you believe in a free society it is a consequence of THIS belief that if people (for example) are not equally virtuous, if some people are too lazy to work for example, there will be different outcomes i.e. inequality of income. Defending a free society will have this outcome, but this is not the same as defining your position (in this case your defence of a free society) as the pursuit of inequality.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes opposition to egalitarianism is a consequence of supporting a hierarchically ordered society where people have to move their way up. This is the heart of what conservatives and libertarians support. LittleJerry (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It still has not gone in has it. Suppose you believe in a free society. Your belief in a free society causes some people to call you Right-Wing. They do this because they assume that you believe in lower taxes, a reduced State, and free markets, with people taking responsibility for their own actions. Suppose that one of the consequences of this free society is that some people (x) make good decisions about their lives whereas other people (y) make bad decisions about their lives. This may have the consequence that in a free society x people live happier and more flourishing lives than y people - who as a result become bitter and unhappy. If some people live happier lives than others this is contrary to the aims of egalitarianism.

If you are an egalitarian you may argue that it is desirable that freedom be taken away from X and Y, in order that politicians (in their benevolence and wisdom) may enforce a more equal society. Because you believe in a free society you may resist this expansion in the role of the State. To say however that you resist it because you believe in a society where some people are happier than others is absurd. That may be a consequence of your belief in a free society, but it is not the reason why you believe in a free society. To frame it in this way is to attempt to define the Right in terms derived from the Left. You got it yet?

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Little Jerry: But conservatives and libertarians pretend that liberals do not also support a society in which people have to work to move up in the world. The overwhelming majority of liberals agree with conservatives and libertarians on that point. It's like saying conservatives and libertarians support truth, justice, and the American way. No doubt they do, but it does not distinguish them from other groups.

ERIDU-DREAMING: Please cite even one instance when a person has been called "right-wing" for belief in a free society. I've never seen it, not once, and I read a lot! It is, of course, much easier to argue your case when you don't listen to what the other side says, and pretend they are saying things no sensible people actually say.Rick Norwood 15:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING, movements of both the right and left have their own views of "freedom". It is not Wiki's job to determine who's right. You are only giving your personal opinion on what it means to have a free society. You have given no secondary sources that define right-wing as support for freedom. Primary sources are not good enough. Socialist leaders claim to support human rights and a humanitarian society. That doesn't mean that we should define left-wing as such. All you and Falconclaw have done is fill this board with your personal political beliefs and reject any source that disagrees with you as "leftist".

And Rick Norwood, American liberals would agree with them on that point. However they do support some limited redistribution and are not considered all that far to the left. LittleJerry (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Simon Heffer is regarded as one of the most Right-Wing journalists in the UK today (he thinks the current Conservative led coalition is far too Left Wing) here is his definition of Right-Wing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/7737948/Only-a-Tory-without-principles-would-demonise-the-Right.html comment added by ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Simon Heffer says that the term "Right wing" is used as an insult by David Cameron and others, then points out that what Cameron calls the right has historical roots in Gladstonian liberalism, while Cameron's ideology has its roots in 19th century conservatism, which was to the right of liberalism. Heffer does not embrace the term "Right wing" for himself and uses scare quotes. Right-wing has a clear meaning, and progressives use it ahistorically to tie libertarians, nationalists, "social conservatives", etc., to European authoritarian, hierarchical conservatism. Why do you want to take on the mantle of being a right-winger and redefine the term, which Heffer does not do? TFD (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Read the title again. Notice that Heffer says that what is called the "Right" in the UK is a coalition of Hayekian liberals, Powellite souverainistes and social conservatives. This is pretty much the definition (suitably translated into a British context) that Falconclaw gave in his account of what Right-Wing means in the USA; before that is his quotations got deleted. Sorry to labour the point, but The Four Deuces you really do not know what you are talking about what it comes to defining Right-Wing politics. Why do you contribute to this article? (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)).

He says that "Right wing" (which he puts in quotes) is a "label" used by the "centre-Left" to "defin[e]" the "coalition of Hayekian liberals, Powellite souverainistes and social conservatives" as "unpleasant, wrong, or in some cases much worse" and "to seek to have them ridiculed, marginalised, soiled and, eventually, rendered pointless". He does not object to the meaning of the term right-wing, but to its application to people such as himself. He also says "a shadow administration [Disraeli's Conservatives] to the "Right" of the coalition [Gladstone Liberals] talked about increasing spending by "sharing the proceeds of growth"", implying that Cameron is the real right-winger. Incidentally you should read Hayek's "Why I am not a conservative" which explains why he did not consider himself right-wing. TFD (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The Four Deuces. As usual you completely fail to comprehend the material. Heffer is not objecting to being called "Right-Wing". If you do not even understand that it is pointless discussing the article any further with you. Maybe you ought to just stick to trying to get people banned. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)).

ERIDU-DREAMING: "you completely fail to comprehend" is not an argument. It is a refusal to respond to reasonable statements, a way of saying, "I'm right, you're wrong, and I refuse to explain why." That's a stance you are entitled to take, but it will not impress other people. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I am saying that The Four Deuces has failed to comprehend the article. Given that it is a fairly simple article, I think it renders any discussion of it with him rather pointless. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

All this Jeremy Beadle stuff is getting pretty boring. TFD (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The Four Deuces. Clearly I have to explain the article to you. A well known journalist in the UK called Simon Heffer (no relation to Jeremy Beadle) asks what RIGHT-WING means?

He claims that many in the "Centre-Left" seek to demonize the "RIGHT" (which Heffer takes to mean the socially conservative and economically liberal) and he gives the Tea Party in the USA as an example.

The desire to reduce government borrowing and spending, and oppose wealth redistribution and Statism, is liked with racism i.e. it is asserted that the Tea Party Movement is not REALLY concerned about liberty or prosperity what REALLY concerns them is that President Obama had a black father.

In the UK Heffer claims that the "RIGHT" (which Heffer describes as a coalition of FREE MARKET LIBERAL (Hayek) who want, for example, to reduce taxes, NATIONALIST (Powell) who seek, for example, to limit mass immigration, and SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES, who religious objections, for example, to gay marriage) should not be demonized simply to please the [Centre-Left] Liberal Democrat members of the coalition - there is currently a coalition government in the UK. After all, Gladstone was a liberal and he believed in a small State, reduced borrowing and spending, and lower taxes. Nor (Heffer argues) is it racist to believe in the (in this case British) values of your country, or be an advocate of self-governance.

Simeon Heffer claims that people should have the freedom to have Christian beliefs, support the death penalty, and advocate traditional family values. He claims that the leader of the Conservative Party

"which includes many who endorse all or most of what I have defined the 'Right' as believing in today"

ought to respect the convictions of such people. I think this article gives a pretty clear idea of what Simon Heffer believes "RIGHT_WING" means in contemporary UK politics. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You have a very imaginative view of Heffer's op-ed. Take what Crick wrote in 1955 and substitute British for American and right-wing for conservative: "It is more than a mere matter of the different American usage of the word 'conservative': the American democratic-liberal in not having a conservative tradition to attack, so as to explain the contradictions in his own world, is forced to invent one. What is not interesting is that this tactic has been pursued so successfully that those who were attacked as conservatives are now wearing the false appellation openly and proudly." Heffer of course has not gone that far, he puts "right-wing" in scare quotes, and ties his belief system to Gladstone and - elsewhere - to Cromwell, i.e., the liberal tradition. TFD (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You are changing the subject but (the Leftist) Bernard Crick is wrong if he is claiming that Americans had no tradition to conserve, because the first few generations of American settlers brought with them (and sought to build upon) an English tradition of liberties. Of course there were cultural differences (the USA has had a different history) but American politics was not a blank sheet. In the UK Simeon Heffer is viewed as (quintessentially) Right-Wing

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_westminster_hour/3018799.stm

and in the above mentioned article he articulates some of his "Right-Wing" beliefs; explaining why he believes David Cameron should respect them. He puts "Right-Wing" in scare quotes because (as he explains) the Left (in accordance with their usual practice) have sought to demonize the "Right". The example he gives is the Tea Party Movement being smeared as racists. He praises the Tea Party Movement. This is all clearly explained in the article. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I got the quote from F.A. Hayek's "Why I am not a conservative". (Heffer's use of the term Hayekian liberal is a reference to F.A. Hayek.) The former leftist Heffer and his colleagues have been called a number of things, but they do not come out with articles trying to re-define "bastards", which is what John Major called them. Notice that "left-wing" writers never use quotes, even when villianized. Now please find me a source written by someone who calls themself right-wing and explains what it means. And please do not direct me to a blog. We have already established that lots of people call themselves right-wing, just not people in the mainstream. TFD (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

An editor has recently changed the lead to add material which appears not to be supported by the sources and removed some material.[14] Norberto Bobbio is now described as "The Leftist Italian political philospher", the Right is said to be "usually associated with conservatism", and reference to hierarchy is removed. I will therefore reverse these changes and ask other editors to discuss whether these changes are acceptable. TFD (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Why was the bias tag removed?

It's overwhelmingly clear that all editors who do not have leftist/liberal political views (there are at least four of us) still view the page as being extraordinarily biased. The version that I have restored is less biased, and includes Thomas Sowell's objection to the term right wing. It is ridiculous for academics who I have never even heard of to be given credence in this article, but for Sowell, who is a more prominent academic than any of these, to be deleted. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

He hasn't been deleted and just because you haven't heard of someone doesn't mean they aren't important. The article talks plently about the libertarian right and even keeps the Buckley qoute. What more do you want? LittleJerry (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles must be weighted towards mainstream thinking. The fact that you believe you are right-wing (although you are unable to find sources for your preferred definitions) and therefore are an expert is not valid. It is very offensive btw to describe people according to what you believe their views are. Neutral editors pay no attention to whether they believe the mainstream view is slanted to the left or right. We are supposed to report it. TFD (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Your definition is NOT mainstream. That's my objection, and that's Eridu Dreaming's objection, and other editors' objections. It is biased towards the Left. Social inequality and hierarchy are NOT the main aspects of Rightist though - not even close. The only reason you would think they were is if you had Left political views. Whether this is offensive or not, it's the truth. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

After all, do you think it's a coincidence that everyone who thinks the article, as written, is flawed and biased, does not have left-liberal political views, while everyone who thinks that the article is fine, or, as suggested by Little Jerry, is TOO objective, and ought to be more biased, DOES have left-liberal political views? To answer your question: What do I want? To take away the emphasis on inequality and social hierarchy. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That is circular thinking. Because mainstream definitions are in your opinion "left-wing", therefore the people who support using them must be left-wing, therefore the definitions must be left-wing. Please read WP:NPOV to understand how we choose to present sources. It has nothing to do with your perceptions. BTW you and ERIDU-DREAMING do not speak for the Right, merely your own opinions of what you think right-wing means. TFD (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"The Four Deuces" it would help if you were to you pay close attention to the remarks directed at you by "Collect". Your judgement about which sources are reliable and mainstream seems to be entirely determined by your Leftist political beliefs, which is also Falconclaw's observation. I would add that it is pretty evident that your knowledge of the "Right" is approximately zero. I suggest therefore that you limit your contributions to Left-Wing politics. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)).

My son the computer science grad student pointed out to me a logical falacy called "No true Scotsman". It goes something like this. "No true Scotsman puts sugar in his tea." "But I'm a Scotsman, and I put sugar in my tea." "You, sir, are no true Scotsman." This type of argument is too often used on this talk page. True right-wingers are always in favor of individual liberty. But the phrase right-wing is commonly used to describe Franco. Well, Franco is not a true right-winger."

Words mean what they mean. Attempting to change the meaning of words only confuses the issue. The headline on the current issue of "The Week" magazine is "Too Far to the Right". Everyone who reads that understands what it means, and it does not mean too much individual liberty, rather the opposite.

Also, I note that Falconclaw is mindreading again. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Rick Norwood. What people mean by the phrase "Right-Wing politics" varies according to time and context. Language evolves. The meaning of words is not determined by Rick Norwood. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you believe what you are saying, which makes me wonder why you say things like "The meaning of words is not determined by Rick Norwood". No, the meaning of words is determined by standard reference works, as I have repeatedly said. So, instead of making personal remarks, why not respond to what I say? Obviously meaning varies according to time and context. That does not mean that meaning is infinitely maleable. Can you cite one single case where someone has been called "right-wing" meaning they were in favor of freedom? Rick Norwood (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Rick Norwood said: "This type of argument is too often used on this talk page. True right-wingers are always in favor of individual liberty. But the phrase right-wing is commonly used to describe Franco. Well, Franco is not a true right-winger."

Let's take your Franco example, and apply it instead to left wing politics. According to the Wikipedia, left wing means supporting egalitarianism. "Stalin killed people due to their ethnicity, which was not very egalitarian on his part. Communists world wide supported Stalin. Therefore, communists are not left wing." Oh, waiiiitttt....

You want to use standard reference works? According to the Oxford English Dictionary: noun (the right wing) 1the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system: a candidate from the right wing of the party http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/right%2Bwing?q=right+wing

In the United States, conservatives do not believe in social hierarchy, but rather believe in economic opportunity, and rail against those who use government, like Solyndra executives, to preserve privilege. So your hierarchy definition desperately needs reworking. Oh, and TFD was always saying how right wing doesn't mean conservative, and then he was saying about how we should use mainstream sources, and now a mainstream source is saying right wing means conservative. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

First, your source says "conservative or reactionary", and that the term can be applied to any party, even left-wing parties. Hence we may talk about the right-wing of the Communist Party (the Right Opposition). Does not mean they are right-wing. Some people have indeed used the same arguments you use to claim that Stalin was right-wing. Indeed some aspects of his policies were drawn from the Right, just as some policies of right-wing regimes may be drawn from the Left. But normally a group's position on the political spectrum is determined by how they are perceived by others. Hence, the Nazis were assigned seats on the far right of the Reichstag, Communists are seated on the left of the European parliament. BTW race and nationality were not originally associated with the Right And there is doubt that the American conservatives are real "conservatives", or just a form of liberals, which is what they called themselves before the 1950s. TFD (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Falconclaw5000, you clearly have a narrow defintion of social hierarchy. It does have to be an aristocracy or caste. It can be a meritocracy. US conservatives believe in a society where people have to work there way up. Even if people are somehow able to keep themselves on the some level, there is still a potential for some to fall under. LittleJerry (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"According to the Wikipedia, left wing means supporting egalitarianism. "Stalin killed people due to their ethnicity, which was not very egalitarian on his part. Communists world wide supported Stalin. Therefore, communists are not left wing." Oh, waiiiitttt....". Falconclaw5000, no one is saying that egalitarianism means "good" and hierarchy means "evil", take a look at Somalia - there is no functioning government authority - the people there all have greater equal opportunity in Somalia than any country with has a functioning government, to gain equal access to arms, resources, etc. because there is no state to maintain order, it is everyone for themselves with equal opportunity - but it is equality of violent anarchy, it is a living hell. As for Stalin as used to say that communism does not stand for equality - (1) Stalin was a certifiable psychopath by most historians' accounts, and (2) all revolutionary governments conceived from violent revolution have persecuted people, American history courses often neglects to mention what Canadian history mentions and discusses: that American Revolutionaries persecuted American Loyalists (to Britain) such as by confiscating their property and through deliberate persecutory "anti-Loyalist laws" [15][16] So Falconclaw does that mean that the American Revolutionaries' classical liberalism that promoted "individual freedom" is false as an ideology as demonstrated by the Revolutionaries' persecution of Loyalists through stealing Loyalists' property and persecuting Loyalists through the "anti-Loyalist laws"? Just as you claim that communism that promotes "equality" is false as an ideology because of Stalin?--R-41 (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Falconclaw5000: You duck my question about Franco. I will not duck your question about Stalin. Stalin, Hitler, and Ashsurbanipal were all mass murderers. Only Stalin is called a left-wing mass murderer. He is not called left-wing because he was a mass murderer, he was called left-wing because he was a communist. The stated goal of communists was egalitarian. The outcome was not egalitarian, but the stated goal was egalitarian. Communism was a failed attempt to achieve egalitarian goals. It arose in response to the extreme concentration of wealth and power in a hierarchal society. All communists are called left-wing, but not all left-wingers are communist. Back to Franco. Franco was called right-wing because he was a dictator. He favored a hierarchy, with himself at the top. Why do you think he was called right-wing?

Your quote from the OED just says that "right-wing" means conservative or reactionary, or the right-wing of a party. That doesn't help unless you follow up by checking the meaning of conservative and the meaning of reactionary. Instead, you once again assert that everyone should use words the way you use them, without any references. As for your comment to TFD, you omit the part about "reactionary". There is a great deal of overlap between conservatives and right-wingers, but if the two words were synonyms, then the frequent mention of the right-wing of the conservative movement, or even the right-wing of the communist movement, which the OED allows, would have no meaning. That's the problem with looking at the world along a one-dimensional axis. It makes it hard to understand how someone can be a reactionary communist. But in real life, that sort of thing happens all the time. The world is not one-dimensional. Even communists can long for a return to the good old days.

When commentators talk about the right-wing of the Republican party, they are talking about people like Rick Santorum, who want their religious views enacted into law. They never describe Ron Paul as being on the right-wing of the party. But if "right-wing" really meant what you think it means, all the right-wingers would be voting for Dr. Paul.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no, Rick, don't go on the path that appears to be saying that all right-wing politics = dictatorship like Francisco Franco, it's wrong and will give fuel to the fire of those saying that this is POV. If you think that the entire right-wing leans towards dictatorship, I urge you to re-evaluate your opinion. The problem here with Falconclaw on left-wing dictators and apparently you Rick on right-wing dictators is that you two are associating politics caused by mental illness with ideology, many powerful tyrants and dictators have had serious mental illnesses that influenced their political behaviour - Julius Caesar was a megalomaniac pathological liar (his personal military accounts are filled with lies, exaggerations, and falsifications all to make him a hero), Attila the Hun was a psychopath, Louis XIV was a megalomaniac (e.g. "I am the state"), Hitler was psychotic, Mussolini had bipolar disorder, and Stalin was a psychopath. Psychopathy that Attila and Stalin had is different from psychosis that Hitler had - psychopaths feel little to no genuine emotion, while psychotics typically have extreme irrational emotions. Tyrants and dictators are the way they are because they are insecure narcissistic people who need the feeling of control, order, and monopoly of power to offset their paranoia of someone backstabbing them (for Caesar, his ironically became literally true), it has nothing to do with someone being left-wing, right-wing, or centrist - it is the result of psychology and not ideology. Everyone to a degree desires some degree of control and power over themselves, but insecure narcissistic people desire strong or total power - especially over others.--R-41 (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You are completely wrong on Somalia, Rick Norwood. The place is run by warlords - it's practically a feudalist system. The children of these warlords obviously have much greater opportunity to gain access to resources than the starving peasants. This IS POV. You guys can remove the bias tag all you want, but I'm only gonna put it back in until we've actually addressed the relevant issues. 149.125.189.91 (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This is getting off topic. Could the dynamic IP please explain what issue they have with the neutrality of the article and please provide external sources. TFD (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

149.125.189.91: Since I have never written anything about Somalia, it is hard to see how I can be completely wrong.

R-41: I did not say that right-wing = dictatorship like Francisco Franco, only provided sources which use right-wing to describe Franco. It would be really, really nice if people could actually respond to what I say, instead of putting words in my mouth and then responding to that. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The same way I can find plenty of sources to describe Stalin as being left wing. 149.125.178.158 (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is it so hard for you to focus on the question at hand. Nobody denies that Stalin is left-wing, but rather than deal with the subject of this article, you make up positions, pretend that somebody on the other side has taken that position. Then -- since it is a position you made up yourself -- it is an easy one for you to answer. Why not try the harder task of answering what other people say, instead of only answering questions you make up yourself? Rick Norwood (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, what exactly is your question? And you're right about Somalia, I meant to address that to R41. 128.226.161.139 (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Libertarian elements in right wing philosophy

Nobody would define libertarianism as preserving privilege, but the Old Right in the United States was essentially libertarian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Right_(United_States) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.125.178.158 (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No one is interested in your original research. Take it to a blog. TFD (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

How is it original research? I'm linking to another Wikipedia article. Nobody is interested in your leftist circular logic. Take it to some Marxist site. 128.226.161.139 (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles... are not reliable sources for any purpose."[17] Your interpretation of the term "Old Right" is by the way wrong - I don' know if that is because you have misread the article or it is incorrectly written. TFD (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that your question deserves a response, 128.226.161.139. A major leader of the Right, in the days before the current hypocrisy took over the movement, was Clinton Rossiter, who explains very well the beliefs of the American Right, in an article for American Heritage magazine. He wrote, "The Right of these freewheeling decades was a genuine Right: it was led by the rich and well-placed; it was skeptical of popular government; it was opposed to all parties, unions, leagues, or other movements that sought to invade its positions of power and profit..." Support of the social hierarchy, in those days, was not something you had to hide, but something to be proud of. But it was hardly libertarian. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Social scientists at the time distinguished between a "responsible right" and a "radical right". See Plotke's introduction to The Radical Right, p. xxvi.[18] The term New Right was coined to contrast them with the New Left and the term Old Right was used retrospectively to refer to the immediate antecedents of the New Right. It does not mean necessarily that they were right-wing as Norman Barry explains in the preface to the New Right.[19] TFD (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

What happened to your question about Franco, Rick Norwood? I'll tell you what happened to it. You were trying to argue that Right Wing isn't really about individual freedom and small government, since Franco is considered right wing and didn't believe in these things. Well, I made the rather excellent (if I don't say so myself) retort that Stalin is even more widely considered left wing, and he didn't believe in egalitarianism, so by that metric, left wing politics isn't about egalitarianism. So, I would either like you to reply, and ask what you wanted to ask about Franco, or admit that you were wrong to emphasize Franco, and you were just trying to tarnish the Right with a negative association. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I've never even heard of this Rossiter character, and I know a great deal about the history of the Right in the United States, so he was hardly a major leader. I think you're just calling him a major leader because his view fits yours. Major leaders of the Right in the USA were people like Senator Robert Taft, William F. Buckley, Frank Meyer, and Bill Rusher. I'm sure these leaders - who were much more famous, much more important, and much more influential - had very different views of the Right. I'd quote them if you guys would accept that as a relevant sources, but apparently you have a prohibition on primary sources, and only want "academic" sources. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"This Rossiter character" (Clinton Rossiter) was, along with Kirk and Viereck, one of the foremost historians of U.S. conservatism, known for his book Conservatism in America. Check out Conservatism in the United States#Rossiter's giants. By your reasoning one could argue that since some judges are corrupt that judges do not believe in justice. Stalin's writings and statements do in fact support egalitarianism, while Franco's oppose it. TFD (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait, are we talking about statements or policies? Republican rhetoric - giving every an opportunity to become wealthy - is also quite egalitarian. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed the Republicans do not call themselves right-wing. TFD (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous

The lede keeps being overloaded with information that belongs in the body, for no reason. I plan on getting this pages locked. LittleJerry (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to edit war though, this is a topic which is highly sensitive as may people have diverse opinions about the subject. You need to discuss the changes you feel should be made here and gain consensus. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 20:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The burden is on the editor who keeps overloading the lede to give reasons. LittleJerry (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It is false (how many times does this have to be pointed out to you?) that the Right "GENERALLY" means "acceptance or support of a hierarchical society based upon a social order justified by an appeal to natural law or tradition." This is true of SOME on the Right, but it is not true of others. It is therefore false to say that Right is "GENERALLY" used in this way - that this is its GENERALLY accepted meaning. Yet you keep on returning this claim to the lede; to the summary of the article. Why? On the basis of a couple of quotes from some sociologists who use Right in this sense? No doubt you would like it to be true, but this claim should be discussed in the main body of the article - if accuracy rather than ideological masturbation is your intention. It is not as straightforward as you seem to think.

It ignores the Classical Liberal sense of Right-Wing. You seem to be obsessed with the world HIERARCHY. Asserting that hierarchy is just another name for inequality is disingenuous. Pretty much every society is hierarchical in that sense. How could a teacher teach? How could an army fight? How could a politician rule? To DEFINE the Right as those who seek to uphold social hierarchy is only accurate if you ignore the way in which "Right-Wing" is also used (indeed is very commonly used) to mean those who want to limit the power of government. Such people argue against the Left PRECISELY BECAUSE they view the Left (excluding the Anarchists) as SUPPORTERS of hierarchical societies i.e. arrangements in which some people (a ruling political elite) are given too much power over the lives of everyday citizens. To be on the Right in this sense is to say **** *** telling me how to live my life!

Claiming that "Right" is "GENERALLY" used in the (now archaic) sense of "support for hierarchy" - the sense in which it was used during the French Revolution - is at best misleading, and at worst it borders on a deliberate lie. This is putting aside the question of whether or not defining the Right in Leftist terms (i.e. as reducible to a pro or anti egalitarianism issue) is a helpful way of defining what it means to be on the Right politically. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is ridiculous, but not because editors are trying to fix the definition to remove the emphasis on hierarchy, but rather because you keep reverting these changes on the false basis of not "overloading" the lede. Would you accept a lede that was as short as the current one, but removed the emphasis on inequality, and instead emphasized the differing nature of the Right in different countries, including the extremely significant fact that the Right in the Anglosphere is defined by a support for economic freedom? I can write that in five sentences. 128.226.161.139 (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Again this is not a blog and you need sources to support your views. TFD (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly this is going nowhere. As I keep saying, over and over again, the hierarchy defintion can apply to US conservatives and libertarians. They do support a society where people have to work there way up a social ladder. It is not merely a consequence of their policies. Objectivist Gary Hull stated that Talent and ability create inequality... To rectify this supposed injustice, we are told to sacrifice the able to the unable. Egalitarianism demands the punishment and envy of anyone who is better than someone else at anything. We must tear down the competent and the strong -- raze them to the level of the incompetent and the weak... Does this sound like someone who is anti-hierarchy? And despite what Falconclaw and ERIDU-DREAMING state, support for freedom and liberty is not considered a inherently "right-wing" position. Movements of the right and left have their own ideas of what constitutes freedom. LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, defining the Right as anti-egalitarian is not merely a leftist thing. The Right acknowledges it too. This Objectivist post explains that what unites conservatives, libertarians and Objectivists is anti-egalitarianism. LittleJerry (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think some of these editors have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Instead of arguing about the meaning of term "right-wing", they should question whether it is correctly applied to groups commonly described as extreme right or new right. TFD (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing "conservative or reactionary" about Objectivists. Objectivists are NOT right wing. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen - Ayn Rand is considered right-wing, but William F. Buckley Jr. isn't! The two of them would have been amazed! 149.125.176.118 (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Enough of cheap emotional sophistry, present sources to back up your claims or that clearly describe what right-wing means or get off the talk page

I provided two scholarly sources for the intro that have been removed from the intro that describe right-wing politics as accepting social hierarchy on the basis of natural law and tradition. There was no real problem identified with those two sources. Those sources were removed based on violation of Wikipedia's policies on Wikipedia:I just don't like it and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. For people complaining here, stop the cheap angry sophistry - no one cares about listening to a sophist like Thrasymachus here, either present sources that clearly define what right-wing politics means that can account for the variations in the right, or stop wasting your time and others on this talk page. Get sources, discuss, and DON'T use emotional Thrasymachist sophistry.--R-41 (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Just so that it is not forgotten here, I am re-adding the quote originally added by the user LittleJerry, in response to those who claim that claims that the contemporary libertarian right being labelled as hierarchical is misleading. LittleJerry added this pertinent quote by the scholar Gary Hull who supports Ayn Rand's Objectivism - that is described as a right-wing libertarian movement: "Talent and ability create inequality... To rectify this supposed injustice, we are told to sacrifice the able to the unable. Egalitarianism demands the punishment and envy of anyone who is better than someone else at anything. We must tear down the competent and the strong -- raze them to the level of the incompetent and the weak.." - Gary Hull, PhD., "Egalitarianism: The New Torture Rack", Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, 23 April 2000 [20].--R-41 (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example from Ayn Rand herself: "Since nature does not endow all men with equal beauty or equal intelligence, and the faculty of volition leads men to different choices, the egalitarians propose to abolish the "unfairness" of nature and of volition, and to establish universal equality in fact—in defiance of facts." - Ayn Rand, from The Ayn Rand reader (Plume Book, 1999) [21]. She goes on to say that egalitarians’ goal really requires inequality and "the establishment of an inverted social pyramid, with a new aristocracy on top". To be clear, Ayn Rand like most libertarians believes in equality of opportunity as an individual right - but she does not believe in equality as a "fact", that egalitarians' goal does not achieve equality, and that natural hierarchies exist and cannot be levelled.--R-41 (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is American conservative Russell Kirk: "In short, I have been arguing that it is profoundly unjust to endeavor to transform society into a table land of equality. It would be unjust to the energetic, reduced to equality with the clack and indolent; it would be unjust to the thrift, compelled to make up losses of the profligate; it would be unjust to those take the long view, forced to submit to the domination of a majority interested chiefly in short-run results" - Russel Kirk, Redeeming the Time (1996), page 217.. The quote is available from the Objectivist website that LittleJerry posted earlier, this is the link [22].--R-41 (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are three sources, in addition to the Buckley quote: ^ Allitt, Patrick. The Conservatives: Ideas and Personalities Throughout American History (2009), chapter 6 ^ James T. Patterson, "A Conservative Coalition Forms in Congress, 1933–1939," The Journal of American History, Vol. 52, No. 4. (Mar., 1966), pp. 757–772. in JSTOR ^ Rothbard, Murray. Swan Song of the Old Right, Mises Institute — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.125.176.118 (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

We are not getting anywhere with this. We need sources that discuss the right, not just quotes from people we think are right-wing. TFD (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

And why the focus on US conservatives? LittleJerry (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see whats wrong with the Smith and Tatalovich source. They seem to be pretty knowledgeable of the literature on political movements. Moreso then any of us. Can we at least argee to put in something like "contemporary sociologists define right-wing movements as movements that seek to preserve a heirarchally structured society." LittleJerry (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, as long as we say that political scientists and economists do not share this view of the Right in the Anglosphere, and instead link the right to economic freedom, as the three sources BESIDES the Buckley quote I have cited above illustrate. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Saying something over and over is not evidence. If what you say were true, Ron Paul would be called the right-wing candidate in the Republican primary. Instead, Rick Santorum is called the right-wing candidate. Your Humpty-Dumpty attitude toward words neither advances your own cause nor helps improve this article. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The heirarchy defintion does apply to the Anglosphere, read the qoutes by Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbord and others. Rightists and Leftists have different ideas on "economic freedom". Right-libertarians believe that a free society requires heirarchy while left-libertarians believe the opposite. LittleJerry (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Can everyone please follow my advice, this is a controversial topic - so provide sources for all of your claims made in all of your posts and quote the specific material you are referring to - we don't know what you are talking about unless you quote it. Do not engage in sophistry here.--R-41 (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, R-41. LittleJerry: So, you would claim that Rick Santorum is called far-right becuase he is more in favor of economic freedom than, say, Ron Paul, and that his support for laws enforcing Roman Catholic beliefs on non-Catholics has nothing at all to do with him being called far-right by the press. "Too Far to the Right" The Week, March 2, 2012, cover story about Rick Santorum. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, let's just come to a consensus on whether the line citing Smith should or should not be included. If the minority keeps going against the consensus when the page is unlocked, then they can reported for edit warring. LittleJerry (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's get back on the topic - sources. The definition that held up for a long time until a dispute started, said on the basis of two reliable sources, that right-wing politics involves the acceptance of social hierarchy on the basis of natural law or tradition. Now there have been people who disagree with this definition - so what is an alternative definition? And what are the sources? Secondly, beware of falling into the cultural relativist trap of "oh this meant something completely different in 18?? and now it means this since 19??" - because the obvious question in response is why then do we call it the same thing? There must be some consistency. And that's where I want the discussion to centre on - if you disagree that right-wing is based on acceptance of hierarchy, then what is the basis of right-wing that encapsulates the wide variations on the right from the absolutists like Joseph De Maistre to the right-wing libertarians like Ayn Rand? Just present sources and summarize an alternative definition based on them. DO NOT use emotional sophistry, there's been enough of that worthless crap on this talk page.--R-41 (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, use scholarly secondary sources that actually attempt to define "right-wing". Don't just say "politican/philospher X says this therefore right-wing means this." Thats original research. Right and Left are not ideologies but labels to describe tendencies in ideologies. They are verbs not nouns. LittleJerry (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that scholarly secondary sources are what should be used for the article. However for the discussion, if you have a primary source that clearly and completely challenges what a user has claimed, you may briefly quote it - but we cannot use it - but we may be able to triangulate finding secondary sources from its material, but that's about it from primary sources. If you are reading from here, please take note what I said just above LittleJerry's comment.--R-41 (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

People like Santorum and Rand were called "right-wing" because observers, beginning with the Frankfurt School, saw similarities in their ideologies to fascism. They have no historical connection to the historic Right. Whether or not they are truly right-wing is contentious. A lot of political terms that had specific meanings, and still do in serious writing, are used today in a very sloppy fashion. I would put in the article that Rand etc. have been called right-wing and explain why. But it would be POV to describe them as right-wing without academic consensus. Metternich, the French "ultraroyalists", Bismarck, Petain and Franco were all right-wing, as are their successors. Rand etc. do not derive from that tradition, but from democratic left-liberalism. TFD (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

At some point this article will reopen for editing. It would be nice to make some progress in preparation for that. The chief bone of contention seems to be, in Falconclaw5000's words, the claim that "political scientists and economists do not share this view of the Right in the Anglosphere, and instead link the right to economic freedom". The opposing claim is that some writers use "right-wing" to mean laissez-faire capitalism but others use it to mean support for the upper-class and the church, and some (even in the "Anglosphere") use it to mean support for dictatorship, racism, and extereme nationalism. Falconclaw5000, you have been repeatedly challenged to provide even one reliable source that supports your claim that "in the Anglosphere" the only meaning of right-wing is support for economic freedom, and that no serious political scientists nor economists in the Anglosphere "share this view" that right-wing is commonly used to describe support of social hierarchy. Also, the editors who want to remove the two major deleted paragraphs should address the fact that this article is about right-wing worldwide, and also the fact that Toronto, Oxford, NPR, the BBC and the Department of Homeland Security are all in the "Anglosphere".

Deleted quote number one: Generally, they refer to acceptance or support of a hierarchical society based upon social order that is justified by an appeal to natural law or tradition.(ref)Smith, T. Alexander and Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at War: Moral Conflicts in Western Democracies (Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd., 2003) pp. 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.(endref)

Deleted quote number two: The far right supports supremacy of individuals or groups deemed to be innately superior over those deemed to be innately inferior.(ref)Oliver H. Woshinsky. Explaining Politics: Culture, Institutions, and Political Behavior. Oxon, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Routledge, 2008.Pp. 154.(endref) The BBC has called politician Pim Fortuyn's politics (Fortuynism) far right because of his policies on immigration and Muslims.(ref)Pim Fortuyn: The far-right Dutch maverick, BBC</ref> The term far right has been used by some, such as National Public Radio, to describe the rule of Augusto Pinochet in Chile.(ref)"A Dictator's Legacy of Economic Growth". 2006-09-14. Retrieved 2007-10-15.</ref> The US Department of Homeland Security defines right-wing extremism as hate groups who target racial, ethnic or religious minorities and may be dedicated to a single issue, such as eradicating homosexuals or barring the immigration of Hispanics.(ref)Rightwing Extremism: current economic and political climate fueling resurgence in radicalization and recruitment(endref)

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion to the bottom, so that users are aware that it is still open and . Two users - me and TFD opposed the long post by ERIDU DREAMING - it was a long soapbox of his own opinion with little to no sources and quotes of them and no intention for open discussion. ERIDU DREAMING is welcome to briefly post scholarly sources for a concise and brief definition of right-wing politics. Now then, back to the sources issue. Present sources here - not long-winded unsourced personal arguments, nor emotional sophistry - for the definition of right-wing politics. I presented two scholarly sources from the intro that stated that right-wing politics involves the acceptance of social hierarchy based on natural law or tradition, these were removed because some users opposed them, those users who oppose this definition need to present an alternative definition based upon scholarly sources that can account for the diverse variation of right-wing politics from the absolutists of Joseph de Maistre to the right-wing libertarianism of Ayn Rand.--R-41 (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

SPOT THE SOPHISTRY

Claim 1)

SOME people define Right-Wing as an ideology that seeks to preserve privilege within a traditional social hierarchy, As evidence for this SOME sociologists are quoted who defend this view. Right-Wing therefore GENERALLY means acceptance or support of a hierarchical society based upon social order justified by an appeal to natural law or tradition

VERDICT – The claim is false. Right-Wing is ALSO used to mean Classical Liberalism i.e. opposition to the notion that a political elite (on the grounds of an appeal to some grounds of authority - political or traditional) should be given the power (via the agency of the State) to tell people how they should live their lives.

Claim 2)

Thrasymachus argued that the strong should rule, indeed rightness and wrongness is nothing more than the views of whoever happens to be the strongest. This is false. A (Right supporting?) minority that keeps going against the consensus on a Wikipedia page when it is unlocked should be reported for edit warring. Whoever the stronger (in this case a numerical majority of Leftists - such as the Far Left The Four Deuces, the manifestly Left of centre Rick Norwood, plus moderate Leftists such as R-41 and Little Jerry) should decide what Right-Wing means. It may be the case that this majority are all Leftists, and it may be the case that many of the sources they rely upon (such as Bobbio, Eatwell, and Seymour Martin Lipset) are Leftist, but this is irrelevant, because they are in the majority and therefore correct.

VERDICT – It is claimed that those who are objecting to the definition which is accepted by the majority are behaving like Thrasymachus, and yet, if anything, the opposite is the case. Any evidence which supports the claim that some on the Right are Classical Liberals is ignored.

Claim 3)

Defining Right-Wing as an ideology dedicated to preserving privilege within a traditional social hierarchy is supported by sources, and nobody has provided sources which support the claim that Right-Wing also means Classical Liberal. If they cannot be "re-educated" they should therefore be ignored, deleted, and if they revert the text, banned.

VERDICT – False. Sources have been provided. For example the Oxford sociologist Stephen Fisher is cited. In The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics he points out that Right-Wing also has the meaning Classical Liberal.

Claim 4)

An ideology dedicated to preserving privilege within a traditional social hierarchy justified by an appeal to tradition or natural law means the same as being opposed to egalitarianism. Classical Liberals are also opposed to egalitarian. Therefore saying that you are a Classical Liberalism is the same as saying that you are dedicated to preserving privilege within a traditional social hierarchy justified by an appeal to tradition or natural law.

VERDICT – This claim is false. Classical liberalism is a philosophy whose advocates are committed to limited government, rule of law, and individual and collective liberty, including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets. It does not follow that because somebody does not advocate egalitarianism (enforcing equality) that they are therefore advocating preserving privilege within a traditional social hierarchy justified by an appeal to tradition or natural law. A free society may dissolve traditional hierarchies, and it does not follow that if you are a classical liberal you must believe that natural law justifies a hierarchy, you may believe that it justifies the freedom to fail if you make the wrong decisions.

Claim 5)

The meaning of Right-Wing may have changed since the French Revolution (it is only relatively recently – say that last 100 years) that Right-Wing has been also been associated with those who seek defend liberty against traditional hierarchies, but we should retain the earlier meaning otherwise we fall into the cultural relativist trap of arguing that words can mean anything we want them to mean.

VERDICT – Words can change their meaning. The term Right-Wing is widely associated (particularly [but not exclusively] in the Anglosphere - whose conservatives [since at least Burke] are advocates of a tradition of liberty) with the belief that people have the freedom to take personal responsibility for their actions; with a free market offering incentives (especially for those who are not members of the [tax farming] political elite) to improve their standard of living by attempting to supply what people want rather than what the elite believes they should have.

For the Classical Liberals government should take a smaller proportion of what people earn, and politicians should focus on a few tasks, such as upholding the rule of law, and national security. They oppose socialism because it concentrates power and privilege in a political elite, which seek (on the grounds of an appeal to their superior virtue) to impose their views on everybody else. In a free society however people can opt to ignore the self-serving craving for power by politicians, who seek power by rewarding a client base with money taken from other taxpayers.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You have provided no sources for your opinions, and therefore your posting is a waste of time. TFD (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING, stop ranting and making universal "verdicts", provide scholarly sources for what you are saying and be open to debate. Since this section is only designed for promoting your personal opinion, this is a soapbox, I am shutting it down, and moving the pertinent discussion that I began on sources to the bottom, quote your sources there.--R-41 (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Since some of the points are a response to some of your arguments it is illogical to reverse the order! ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

"Whoever the stronger (in this case a numerical majority of Leftists - such as the Far Left The Four Deuces, the Republican hating Democrat Rick Norwood, plus moderate Leftists such as R-41 and Little Jerry) should decide what Right-Wing means" - statement by ERIDU-DREAMING - this is very uncivil and is supposing that we are all conspiring against the right. - I have right-wing friends, on the issue of capital punishment I actually agree more with my right-wing friends then I do with my left-wing friends - I support the judicial execution of serial murderers and serial rapists, they are incurable and a constant threat to society. This section is only for promoting your personal opinion, it is uncivilly denouncing other users, this is in violation of WP:SOAP and WP:UNCIVIL, I am shutting it down. ERIDU, bring your pertinent sources to the section on the discussion of sources and be civil.--R-41 (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Rick Norwood if you read your own postings on this talk site you have made your political opinions VERY clear. If you say you do not hate Republicans fine. I take that back. I have changed the description to "Left of Centre". That you are on the Left politically is beyond dispute. I mean you are not disputing it are you.

Notice that you are being emotional with the explanation point, that is exactly what I advised users not to do - if you keep being emotional and posting nasty comments about other users like you did in the soapbox, I strongly suggest that you should take a break from Wikipedia before you seriously offend someone.--R-41 (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not being "emotional" I am merely pointing out the flaws in your argument. You can be emotional if you want to, but try to address the substance rather than making silly claims about me being "nasty" about you. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You can be emotional - I have been guilty of that at times in heated debate, it just wastes everyone's time and quickly leads to sophistry with people shouting each other down - an explanation point doesn't prove anything - all it demonstrates is passion - and passion proves nothing. Scholarly sources do. Also, don't edit my edits like you just did to cover up the uncivil comment you made about Rick Norwood when your removed from my comment about you calling him a "Republican hating Democrat", and very deceitfully impersonating me by replacing by editing my comment, and I will not accept an apology from you on that - that was extremely deceitful, manipulative, and a deliberate violation of my account by impersonating my user identity, I am considering reporting you for this.--R-41 (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

If I modified YOUR edit (?) that was an error. I said I was deleting my "Rick Norwood hates Republicans" comment and replacing it with he is Left of Centre. I have done this. For your information if you look above you will notice I explicitly say I take back my "Rick Norwood hates Republicans" comment. Now, how about addressing the substantive points? It seems to me that it is you (by hiding this section, moving it, accusing me of being emotional, and now accusing me of trying to deceitfully impersonate you!) who is failing to address the substantive points. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Never edit another user's comments, never. You originally said that Rick Norwood was a "Republican hating Democrat" at the time I posted it, you changed it after I criticized you for this uncivil post. That was a deliberate violation of my user identity, it has nothing in comparison to this soapbox here - users have the right to mark and minimize clear soapboxes - the content remains - this section is designed as a soapbox, it is uncivil towards left-wing users. You were using my user identity when you edited my comment - that is a serious violation bordering on manipulative deceitful behaviour. I don't have a problem with your views - you can provide sources and present them, but I am very frustrated with your violation of my user identity by impersonating me by editing my comment - no user has the right to edit another user's comment - what you did was unacceptable, how can I trust you if you edit my comments - how am I supposed to believe that you accidently edited my comment, you should be able to look for your own comment that was way above my comment - that's why I am considering taking action on this.--R-41 (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

How about addressing the substantive points? Just a suggestion. As for using your user identity I do not know what you are talking about, but if it happened it was clearly an accident since it does achieve anything does it? Again, why not get back to the contents of the article? ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable with a discussion about whether or not I am insulted. If I am insulted, I'll say so. I'm glad ERIDU-DREAMING realized his post was inappropriate and changed it. On the other hand, I strongly agree with R-41 that posts here should stick to cited sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU DREAMING, your comment was at the top of a long section - you edited it and my comment was near the bottom and very clearly being quoted by me. By changing both your comment and my comment on yours, it makes it look that I was complaining about nothing - I believe that was your intention - when in fact I was addressing your very uncivil original remark that you changed after I posted my comment on it. I strongly suggest you just admit that you violated my account by editing my comment, I am probably going to report this, it is a violation of my account - but you acknowledging it, either by saying that you were previously unaware that editing and changing other people's comments is unacceptable, or that you apologize for the rash behaviour, will certainly reduce the reprimand to a slap on the wrist. I am waiting for TFD's response for what should be done, in regards to your editing of my comment, now will you please accept shutting down this soapbox section that dismisses other users on the claim of them being left-wing, this section has caused nothing but trouble here. Reorganize your comments in a civil form and a brief form and present them on the section above with sources.--R-41 (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way I just noticed now that you also slandered TFD as "far-left", from my experience that is not true at all, I know TFD for years, me and him agree on some things and strongly disagree on others, but I can tell you he has been a regular contributor to the WikiProject Conservatism, and is very dedicated to Wikipedia's principles on neutrality and reliable sources - you made a very naive and stupid remark on your part to slander TFD, you is a respected administrator, but I won't hold that against you when I talk with TFD and I will ask him if he is in anyway frustrated with you - if so I will bring this up to another administrator to ask for advice.--R-41 (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU DREAMING, even if we can call classical liberalism "right-wing" how does that disprove the "heirarchy" defintion? Your explaination that classical liberals are for limited goverment and "opposed to an elite telling people what to" and therefore anti-hierarchy is such a superficial and hair-splitting analysis. US conservatives and libertarians are opposed to using goverment to mess with the hierarchical capitalist system to promote redistribution of wealth and economic egalitarianism. They are NOT opposed to heirarchy per say. There's more to a stratified society than just goverment. LittleJerry (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

And many conservatives and classical liberals support freedom of the press and such. So what. What does that have to do with heirarchy vs egalitarianism? Where does Fisher say that classical liberals are right-wing because they support such freedoms. Perhaps they are considered right-wing or centre-right because they are more accepting of a stratified society than social liberals (who also support the things you listed)?

LITTLE JERRY, thanks for addressing some specific points. You claim that advocacy of a hierarchical society, and hostility towards an egalitarian society, are SYNONYMOUS, but that is not the case.

It does not follow that IF you oppose egalitarianism (enforced equality) you MUST favour hierarchy justified by tradition or natural law. Adam Smith for example, who is generally viewed as a Classical Liberal, argued that human beings start off as a blank sheet i.e. that natural differences are not very significant.

You claim that if somebody is egalitarian in this sense, they cannot be Classical Liberals, they are Social Liberals. Now this is a view, but Adam Smith is generally viewed as a Classical Liberal. I mentioned Fisher because he includes Classical Liberalism in his definition of the Right. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

But in a society where some people can gain more wealth and power or achieve a higher social class than others, surely that means that society should have a hierarchical order. I'm not saying that all rightists believe that there should be some people above others, but at the very least believe that this should be allowed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There are some on the Right who were (and are) believers in natural hierarchy (De Maistre is an obvious example) who claim that the universe has a moral order, created by God. You may have free will but you also have a nature which is your destiny. People like Adam Smith were (correctly) viewed as radicals because he thought that order (in a free society) was the spontaneous product of various individual choices. You note that a free society may have the consequence (and almost certainly does have the consequence) that different choices have unequal outcomes. These outcomes may be entirely random, somebody discovers a gold mine, or they may be a product of hard work, you study geology for years before discovering a gold mine, or financial inequality, your father got rich because he discovered a gold mine and he enables you to pay other people to look for another gold mine, but that is not the same as asserting that inequality is justified by natural law. A Classical Liberal will defend it as a consequence of liberty. All I am saying is that Classical Liberalism (although it is inconsistent with a Throne and Altar conservatism which justifies inequality by appealing to a natural order) is also included as being part of the Right these days. Indeed when people use "Right-Wing" they are generally (although of course not always) taking about Classical Liberalism not De Maistre. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING, could you provide a source that supports your view. TFD (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Then I suggest that article state right generally means "support for social hierarchy (source Smith) or an acceptance of inequality among people (source Bobbio"). LittleJerry (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that is a definite improvement, although it is still misleading because people on the Right do not usually (although of course they do sometimes) say they are on the Right BECAUSE they believe in inequality (i.e. for people on the Right this is usually an odd way of putting it because although they ACCEPT (some degree of) inequality (or rather they OPPOSE attempts to IMPOSE egalitarianism) this is as a CONSEQUENCE of their other beliefs (i.e. moral realism [in its philosophical/religious sense] in the case of the conservative Right and freedom in the case of the liberal Right). To define the Right as anti-Left (anti-egalitarian) is to define them in terms of what they reject rather than what they believe. Of course you can (as Bobbio does) say that the Right believe in inequality, but that is not (usually) how the Right understand themselves. A Right Wing politician for example will say they believe in freedom (e.g. lower taxes) or moral standards (family values) but they will not usually say they are fighting for inequality. A Marxist of course will say that whatever they say this is what they are doing, that this is the real reason they went into politics, that their morality (for example) is just a justification for their power seeking, and a Socialist will say that if people are going to have freedom the State should redistribute wealth via taxes to poor people because poor people are less free than rich people. But we then go off into political arguments about which approach is best. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll try again: "They generally refer to support for social order (Smith), often including preserving social hierarchy or accepting inequality among people (BobbioLittleJerry (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes that is even better. How about "The Right generally support social order, be it inherited social hierarchy (Smith) or the inequality that results from free markets (Bobbio), and they justify it by invoking values grounded in local tradition and/or general divine/natural laws"? (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)).

Please do not add in things that are not mentioned in the sources. Smith does not mention "inherited hierarchies" and Bobbio does not use "free markets". LittleJerry (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. Added Roger Scruton as a source for the claim that Right-Wing can mean advocacy of free markets. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

introduction

"The political terms Right and Left were coined during the French Revolution, and were a reference to where people sat in the French parliament. Those who sat to the right of the president's chair were broadly supportive of the institutions of Ancien Régime: the monarchy, the aristocracy and the established church.[8][9][10][11] Use of the expression le droit (the right) became more prominent in France after the restoration of its monarchy in 1815, when it was applied to the Ultra-royalists.[12] Since then, the term has undergone a realignment. Although the term originally designated traditional conservatives and reactionaries, its usage has been extended to apply to liberal conservatives, classical liberals, libertarian conservatives, Christian democrats and certain types of nationalists."

wouldn't it be more logical for this paragraph to come first? or at least a similar paragraph explaining the origins. and why are there two narrow views given prominence in the first paragraph? given the depth of the subject, shouldn't these be detailed in the main body of the text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.167.179 (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that defining right-wing as hierarchical is not a narrow defintion at all. LittleJerry (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

As Marcel Gauchet pointed out in his article, "Right and Left", the terminology was not adopted until the beginning of the 20th century.[23] There is never a POV issue in calling groups that were right-wing in 1900 as right-wing today. The problem is with groups that were in the center, e.g., liberals.TFD (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Focus for resolution of dispute: only provide scholarly sources here - only for the definition of right-wing politics, no personal arguments, no emotional sophistry

Getting back on track here. In conclusion of observing other users comments and complaints about how these discussions have gone off the rails into uncivil behaviour - including personal attacks, and emotional sophistry of users shouting down each other, I am asking that users only provide here the following: scholarly sources on the definition of right-wing politics, provide a quotation from the text - if you don't we have no idea what the source is saying; and a very brief comment - one or two sentences explaining why the source should be used. With how badly these discussions have gone, there should be zero tolerance here for uncivil behaviour - no aggressive or condescending behaviour to other users, no personal attacks, and no emotional sophistry. If any user cannot simply control themselves from angry outbursts or condescending behaviour - then leave the talk page, such behaviour will not be appreciated and will likely result in administrative action.--R-41 (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, the term "right-wing" entered the language (both French and English) c. 1900 to describe the faction that sat on the right in the French assembly. Following the Second World War it was used by (left-wing) social scientists to describe groups they saw as fascist. These groups denied they were right-wing and no sane politicians today call themselves right-wing. TFD (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I object to the inclusion of only academic sources. This excludes many important sources, and it is quite well known that academia - especially the social sciences - are quite biased towards the Left. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Not just academics, but reporters, people who live in big cities, in short all well-informed people are "biased" toward the Left. That is because well-informed people can see that the right-wing media are a bunch of nut jobs -- I'm talking about Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and the like. The spokespeople for the Right, under the guidance of Carl Rove and Rupurt Murcoch, have as a matter of political strategy abandoned the principled conservatism of William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater, and adopted the idea that the voters they really want are the most extreme, and therefore the least well-informed: people who believe that Barack Obama is a Moslem born in Kenya, that a woman who gets brith-control paid for by medical insurance is a prostitute, and that all liberals are motivated by envy and hate.

This puts the Libertarians in a bind, because Libertarians are, generally, intellectuals. I suspect they are as disgusted by Limbaugh and company as the academics are. But, for better or worse, they have hitched their wagon to the far-Right star, and are desparately trying to remake the Right in their own image. It isn't working, witness the poor showing of Ron Paul in the primaries. He is clearly the best candidate in the race, the only intellectually honest candidate, and he gets less than 20% of the vote.

So, the idea that academics are "biased" against the Right won't fly. Academics disagree with the Right, because the Right (libertarians excepted) are so disagreeable. In any case, Wikipedia favors academic sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I fear your post indicates an appreciable bias here which may well be quite out of place in a talk page aimed at improving the article. Calling the person covered by the topic "nut jobs" seems quite improper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

If Fox News were so disagreeable, they wouldn't have the ratings they have. The same with Carl Rove and George W. Bush. GWB wouldn't be elected President twice if his main campagn architect were so out of touch with the general public. And regardless, the article must be neutral about the subject. - BorisG (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The following academic article documents strong left-wing media bias compared to the compostion of the US congress: Groseclose, Tim, and Jeffrey Milyo. 2005. "A Measure of Media Bias." Quarterly Journal of Economics 120(4): 1191-1237· - BorisG (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Falconclaw5000, then provide non-academic sources. But you need sources that explain how the term is defined. TFD (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Falconclaw5000 and Rick Norwood, both of your posts here are pure sophistry with no sources. It's nonsense that the academia is run by leftists, there are many conservative historians and neoliberal economists, why else would we have such prominent people like Milton Friedman. I suggest to Falconclaw5000 and Rick Norwood to put your partisan affiliations aside and provide sources, if you cannot to this and continue with moronic sophist statements as you have "duh left-wing is bad because of Stalin", "duh right-wing is bad because of Franco" - well duh Stalin and Franco were tyrants by anyone's definition - then leave the talk page and form a blog online where you can debate with each other, because you have nothing to contribute here.--R-41 (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

BorisG, could you read the article first before bringing it to our attention. The survey compared how often liberal and conservative thinktanks were mentioned as the measure of bias. Joe Liebermann was selected as a liberal and Arlen Specter as a conservative. The most left-wing medium was the Wall Street Journal, PBS Newshour the most neutral. "Bias" was defined as the types of stories covered, rather than any accuracy or bias in the stories covered. So Fox News would provide fewer stories about poverty in America, but when they did cover it, their reporting would be the same. And Fox News and Fox News Channel are not the same thing. FN is a reliable source, while some of their shows (just like their competitors) are hosted by people who are openly biased. TFD (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

TFD, thanks for the advice. I had read every word of that article before referring to it. I found it extremely interesting and thus referred to it now for the second time. Your description is not precise. They measure left-right position by counting how many times the news media outlets refer to findings of various think tanks. Think tanks are not supposed to be neutral, they are partisan and biased, and thus citation of their findings is a good proxy for political position of a news outlet. BTW in the preliminaries, the authors refer to previous studies of media and note that the New York Times reported that only 8 percent of Washington correspondents thought George W. Bush would be a better president than John Kerry. This compares with 51 percent of all American voters. I am sure the same is true for academics. I understand that left and right in America agree that there is a strong left-wing (or liberal) bias in US media compared to American public, though they interpret and explain this phenomenon differently. - BorisG (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant because neutrality demands that we accept the weight of opinion in mainstream sources. BTW if you look at the list of think tanks, the only way to obtain a conservative score is by heavily reporting the Christian Coalition and the Family Research Council. TFD (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

To those who want to exclude scholarly sources, here is Wikipedia's policy on scholarly sources: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Scholarship. It says the following: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable."--R-41 (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

R-41, if you want a civilised discussion, then please refrain from using bold face fonts. It is not polite. BTW no one suggests to exclude scholarly sources. We know the rules. The suggestion is to broaden the pool of sources. BTW I have provided a scholarly source. - BorisG (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I bold to underline a point, but I have removed bolding from the comments here. Falconclaw5000 is suggesting that we overlook scholarly sources based on his/her allegation of left-wing bias of academia - that is an opinion and it is not supported by Wikipedia Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Scholarship says the following: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable." Unless that source itself is unmistakably or intentionally biased, it should be regarded as reliable. As for your source, Boris G, please present it with a quote of the specific material you are referring to. But one final thing, is it a source about right-wing politics, or about alleged media and academia biases? If it is about media bias the answer is simple - we should not use newspapers nor news channels - many newspapers and news channels sensationalize stories for ratings, this is called yellow journalism, so news media should be ignored entirely, it is often not a reliable source for politics. If it is about alleged academia bias in particular, the only thing we can do is evaluate each specific source case by case - if clearly has a bias, it can be removed.--R-41 (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I will try not to lose my temper in the future. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Please explain to me why Thomas Sowell's book, Intellectuals and Society, is being ruled inadmissable

I'd genuinely like to know. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It isn't. Its at the end of the "History of the term" section. It was ruled that it doesn't need to have its own section. LittleJerry (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Since his definition of the right has attracted absolutely no attention anywhere it is hard to justify its inclusion. TFD (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't it you who said, "take your original research to a blog?" Falconclaw5000 (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It is widely accepted that Right-Wing can have contradictory meanings (see for example Roger Scruton's definition of Right Wing in his "Dictionary of Political Thought") and the Sowell quote articulates this rather neatly. I think that Little Jerry was not objecting to the quote, just how it is integrated into the entry. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Falconclaw5000, it is not original research to determine the degree of attention that a source has attracted because [[WP:WEIGHT|weight requires us to "fairly represent[] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." How else would we determine the prominence of a source than to see whether anyone has mentioned it? ERIDU-DREAMING, could you provide us with Scruton's definition. TFD (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

In my 1996 edition of his "Dictionary of Political Thought" Roger Scruton defines the "right" as follows:

"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. To be "on the right" is to believe (or for the political realist to affect to believe) some bundle of the following

1) conservative, and perhaps authoritarian, doctrines concerning the nature of civil society, with emphasis on custom, tradition, and allegiance as social bonds

2) theories of political obligation framed in terms of obedience, legitimacy and piety rather than contract, consent and justice

3) reluctance to countenance too great a divorce between law and morality i.e. between the enactments of the state and the sentiments of society, hence a resistance to liberalizing reforms in the law

4) cultural conservatism

5) respect for the hereditary principle and prescriptive rights

6) belief in private property, not as a natural right but as an indispensable part of the condition of society

7) belief in elementary freedoms and the irreplaceable value of the individual as against the collective

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

9) varying degrees of belief in human imperfectability and original sin

Other items might be added to the list, and the above is suggested only as a cross-section of current significance. It should already be clear that not everything attributable to the "right" is compatible with everything else, a fault that may lie either with the right itself or with those who so describe it. Thus the emphasis on freedom and the market may not be compatible with the belief in tradition and obedience, free market relations being the great solvent of social allegiance based on custom and authority, rather than the "legal-rational" principles which Weber attributes to a world structured by contract. Nor is the belief in human rights underlying 7 with its individualistic emphasis, obviously compatible with respect for prescriptive right and hereditary principle. These ideological conflicts are to some extent internal to the conservative position, which, if founded in "intimations" of social order (as Oakeshott suggests) is bound to suffer conflicts in an age of social flux. To some extent they stem from the fact that the right is defined by opposition to the Left, which while it discerns contradictions in history, is adamant that it contains none within itself. Since the left sometimes opposes economic liberalism, sometimes individualism, and sometimes social conservatism, the term "right" is applied indifferently to all of those outlooks"

pp.481-82.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC))

Seems reasonable. Also it severely restricts what can be written in the article. If we start to write in detail about the various groups that have been called right-wing, it becomes a coatrack. TFD (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

TFD, prove to me that Thomas Sowell's view on right wing politics has attracted less attention than, say, Tatalovich's view of right wing politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconclaw5000 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Smith and Tatalovich are not expressing their own views but, as the footnote says, the "viewpoint held by contemporary sociologists". TFD (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

How do we know that these really are the views of contemporary sociologists? Again, how do we know that Thomas Sowell's work has received less attention that the other sources? Falconclaw5000 (talk) 06:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether a book is a reliable source has nothing to do with the popular attention it has received, but rather depends on the scholarly critical reception. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Which is not part of Wikipedia policy, by the way. We have had a multitude of excuses for excluding the book -- including claims that it is "too new" etc. The claim that opinions are only usable when prior opinions agree with them is a new one here <g> and fully invalid. Wikipedia best practice is to let the reader decide on such matters - we are not gate-keepers about opinions. Sowell's book has very high ranking in Amazon sales (#7 of all books on politics), it has been reviewed in major publications, and even attracted the atention of David Mamet [24]. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the book has not been excluded, it is difficult to understand your point. But in any case, you should understand that what I said above is precisely Wikipedia policy. "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable." You can read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Rick Norwood (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

And you seem to elide all the other "reliable sources" covered by WP:RS --

The following specific examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive.

Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications.

In the case of Sowell, however, he is regarded as an academic source. His book has been cited in other scholarly works, and the claim that the number is low is quite likely associated with his work being a recent work. I find nothing in WP:RS that says "new books which have only been cited by a score of other sources are not reliable." [25], etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Collect, "sources" refer to books and publications, not people - people are not oracles. Sowell's book is polemical rather than academic, written for people who want their viewpoints confirmed rather than providing any new insights into the subject. Accordingly it is rarely cited in academic works.[26] And its views on the political spectrum are not even mentioned by the National Review reading, Fox News watching writers that make reference to it. TFD (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It begins again

I think all of us here want this to be a good article, but hasty edits are not thoughtful edits, and thoughtful edits require a lot of time and research, which is not something most people are willing to do if they know it will be changed minutes after it is posted. I would like to offer a suggestion: that we work here on the lead, which seems to be the main bone of contention, and then work together to revert hasty edits that undo hours of hard work.

ERIDU-DREAMING is working very hard on the article, I would hate to see that hard work go to waste.

One suggestion: replace the citation with the "page needed" flag with the citation you quote in the previous talk section. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

On the subject of "individual freedom" vs. "individual choice", I would like to suggest that "rugged individualism" captures the idea. Conservatives believe that individuals should fight thier way up in society without help from government or unions. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that each word in the lead is the result of compromise and careful thought (somebody seeing the article for the first time may not appreciate this!) but in my opinion it is the sections further down in the article that need the most work. But I also agree with you that there is little point in going to the trouble of writing and sourcing a new sub-section (for example an obvious omission is the Right as the "politics of imperfection") if you think somebody is going to delete it after a few minutes. With regard to the individual choice point; individual choice is a non-trivial part of the justification for free markets, and yet it is because people decide to go and see Lady Gaga in concert rather than The King Prawn Band which creates the inequality that Lady Gaga can own a private jet whereas The King Prawn Band can barely afford to hire a tour bus. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

As I feared, hasty edits are yielding a choppy, repetative, unbalanced lead. I'll request once again that major changes be discussed here, first, and that claims that to be Right-wing means to be in favor of truth, justice, and the American way be backed up, not just with citations, but also with quotations and page numbers. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Republicans and Democrats

I would like to draw attention to a point made by TFD:

"Indeed the Republicans do not call themselves right-wing."

The trouble is, Democrats don't call themselves left-wing. Does that mean that neither Republicans nor Democrats are left wing? Even if the former is center-right, and the latter is center-left, that means that they are both to some degree right wing and left wing, respectively. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Both "right-wing" and "left-wing" are usually used as insults. The article should probably say that, if we can find a reliable source. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Some groups call themselves left or right, for example the European United Left–Nordic Green Left and the former Technical Group of the European Right - but they would not be within the mainstream of U.S. politics. TFD (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of "right wing" as being fully non-fixed

[27] "oppositional terms do not form stable anchoring points within language."

[28] "it is not easy to determine the meaning of 'right-wing'"

[29] "Right-wing thought refuses to recognize and/or seeks to mask the socio-historical character of power relationships between groups. It denies the use of violence by one group and the fact that the other group has very limited possibilities for resistance."

[30] "The meaning of 'right-wing' and 'left-wing' varies across societies, historical epochs and political systems and ideologies." And so on. Note particularly the last one ... Social cognition: an integrated introduction by Martha Augoustinos, Iain Walker, Ngaire Donaghue; SAGE, Jun 15, 2006 364 pages. Major work described as:

This Second Edition of the critically acclaimed textbook Social Cognition: An Integrated Introduction represents a much more integrated and pedagogically developed account of its predecessor. At its heart, the authors examine the different theoretical and methodological accomplishments of the field by focusing on the four major and influential perspectives which have currency in social psychology today - social cognition, social identity, social representations, and discursive psychology. A foundational chapter presenting an account of these perspectives is followed by topic-based chapters from the point of view of each perspective in turn, discussing commonalities and divergences across each of them. The result is a truly holistic approach that will stretch student's understanding of this exciting field and enrich their learning experience.

And, I submit, is a WP:RS source. Cited in 559 articles according to GoogleScholar. Which I trust is quite sufficient to place that claim in the article. Collect (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

As best I can tell, nobody disagrees on any of these points, though there seem to be a few typos. "demoes"? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Typos occur in this imperfect world - and are generally best ignored. I added the last quote to the article, and I am glad you have no problem with it. Collect (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems to repeat what is already in the second sentence of the lead. Do we need it in the lead twice, or would it be better in the body of the article? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It is substantially different from saying the meaning is determined by "context" -- in fact it is closer to "there is no single meaning" which is a long step from that weaselly second sentence. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be Google-mining rather than looking for relevant sources. The first source is an article "Postmodernism and Film", which is far removed from the subject matter. As has been noted, the U.S. has adopted the terms left and right, but they bear no resemblance to the words as normally used. (A major media conglomerate could hardly be described as "left-wing".) The source mentioning Robert Altemeyer's right-wing authoritarian personality does say that the meaning of "right-wing" varies across societies and says that Stalinists are often called right-wing in Russia. In fact usually they are called left-wing. TFD (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Um -- the source used ("Social cognition") is well-known and outrageously academic. Is there a reason for your jumping in with an attack? This article is not Right-wing politics in the US as others have noted - and your jumping in with irrelevant arguemnts does not help anyone at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue is whether it is relevant. My approach to an article about right-wing politics would be to use sources about right-wing politics, not sources about other subjects that make tangential references to right-wing politics. If a reasonable person wanted to understand right-wing politics, they would pick up a book on right-wing poltics, not books about social cognition, postmodernism, Israeli politics, or feminism. One concludes that one has a preconceived view of the subject and then mines for sources that appear to support it. TFD (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Bleah - the "Social Cognition" book is an ideal source - even if you feel it being cited by only 559 others is insufficient to show it has been widely accepted LOL! And using a clear case of foeign countries where the differences in definition of "right-wing" are made exceedingly apparent is, I suspect, pretty convincing evidence that the Social Cognition folks are correct. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The mean of the terms "left" and "right" are mentioned briefly in a section about Bobert Altemeyer's "right-wing authoritarian" personality which is part of a broader section on prejudice. You are finding sources as far removed from the subject matter as possible. Do any of your 559 cites actually use the source the way you do? I can only guess that you are looking for sources to support a viewpoint, rather than trying to idenfity what sources say and reflect them in the article. TFD (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You are not even getting a straw here! Social cognition is directly apropos and everyone else can see it LOL! I fear that you are more concerned with refusing to allow absolutely on-point sources than anything else here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The book mentions RWA because it is an alleged mental condition that causes a form of social cognition. It does claim that "left" and "right" are forms of social cognition. TFD (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The quote is very clear. As to your use of "claim" -- the "claim" is made in a widely used textbook. About as "academic" as one could ever wish for. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

IOW when you contribute to an article about panda bears, you use books about architecture; for articles about astronomy, books about history; for articles about linguistics, books on flower-arranging. So long as the sources are peer-reviewed. TFD (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Deep End! I would use books on "ruminants" and not insist that only books on "black and white bamboo eaters" are relevant. Cheers - now can you accept a well-known textbook which meets any conceivable "academic" and "scholarly" roadblock you wish to place? Collect (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Why would you use a book on human psychology as a source for the meaning of right-wing? I can only guess that it is because it supports your personal beliefs. A more reasonable approach would be to use a book on right-wing politics or the political spectrum. Developing articles is very simple. Identify good, relevant sources and summarize what they say. Don't come to the article with pre-conceived notions and Google mine for sources that support your views. TFD (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(od) For the silly reason that it is RELEVANT to the topic. Amazing, n'est-ce pas? By the way your repeated personal attacks are getting a teensy bit tiresome. Collect (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Why would you use a book on human psychology as a source for the meaning of right-wing? TFD (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

See Tendentious. The topic of "social cognition" is directly and specifically applicable here, no matter how many different ways you try to avoid it <g>. You try "not academic" but it is clearly academic. You try "not scholarly" but it is a work which is a standard textbook for gosh sake! Then you try to say "but you used Google" when I know dam well that you use Google, and frequently cite "Ghits" in your discussions. I think your "'Sell By' date" on the arguments is past <g>. Collect (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

My only objection to this source was relevance. Why do you think that a book on human psychology should be used as a source for the meaning of right-wing? TFD (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Gentlebeings: may I point out that the two of you agree that the phrase right-wing has many different meanings? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I thunk I had said that a number of times now, Rick. I do find amusing the insistence that a book which is a standard text on Social Cognition is now just "a book on human psychology"! And that finding a standard text is "Google mining." That a standard text is not "relevant." And that a standard text is somehow not "peer-reviewed" and thus dismissible. And then accuses me of somehow being biassed on the subject of "panda bears" (which are not "bears"), and so on. Collect (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

We are not amused. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of "left-wing" sources.

R-41 removed the Bobbio source, even though he is a respected academic and one of the few non-English speaking sources in this supposedly international article, on the grounds that he is "left-wing". This seems to me insufficient grounds for his removal. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have changed "individual choice" to "consumer choice" (even though individual choice is better because Classical Liberalism is not simply an economic doctrine) and (now I have remembered to log in again!) I point out once again that arguments within the Left about freedom is a topic for the Left-Wing page.

As for Bobbio, he is an example of how the Left define the Right in terms of the defence of inequality, which as I explained before is not how the Right generally defines itself (it is a bit like defining Japanese people as Non-European it is true but an odd way of putting it) - the Right generally defines itself in terms of an appeal to tradition or value realism [religious or naturalistic] or freedom, which have the CONSEQUENCE of inequality - even though it is no doubt possible to find people who DEFINE themselves as right-wing (Did the American author Ayn Rand call herself right-wing? I have no idea but I doubt it) BECAUSE they believe in inequality. I am neutral on the issue of whether Bobbio should or should not be included. Does a reference to his book help the article? I simply ask the question. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC))

Again, you have failed to provide any examples of people who call themselves right-wing and define themselves. The only people who call themselves right-wing are extremists. TFD (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Buckley's columns (On the Right) never existed in your world? Cheers - but such grossly errant claims which are so easily disproven are getting to be a habit from you. Collect (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING: I don't think "consumer choice" is a good description. Not sure what your comment about "arguments within the Left about freedom" refers to. Bobbio is an example of how thoughtful, well-informed people say the phrase right-wing is used, and as a non-English-speaking source I think is of value. The Right do not get to say how the phrase right-wing is used, because they aren't the only people who use the phrase. It is in general use, not jargon only used within the right-wing. If it were jargon, then they would get to define it any way they wanted to.

TFD: Collect is right, he did provide Buckley as an example of a person who clearly viewed himself as "On the Right", though it is not clear he would have called the Right a "wing".

Rick Norwood (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

That is original research. How do you know that Buckley did not mean that he was speaking for the right side of the American spectrum rather than for the right-wing? (Cf., Right Opposition.) Please provide a source. Not only that but provide a source where he explains what the right stands for. To provide an analogy, a Christian clergyman may explain what Christianity means, but we could not accept his description of his own religious beliefs as synonymous with Christianity. TFD (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It is argued (on the Left) that if you do not have much money you are not free to live at the Savoy (Hotel); in a truly free society people would be more equal. That is what I meant about "arguments on the Left about freedom". In other words there are arguments about what is true freedom. A Classical Liberal responds that freedom and equality are two different things. Having more of one means less of the other. But this is not the place to go into that argument.

Consumer choice is about people having the freedom to decide which products and services they want to buy. Again, the Left say this freedom only comes with money, and so in a free market only those with money are truly free. This leads to another argument. But this is not an article about the Left.

Bobbio is on the Left, and he defines the Right as those who are opposed to egalitarianism. As I say I am neutral about his inclusion. Include him if you think he has something to contribute. But saying he is a thoughtful European academic who has written about politics hardly counts for much. I do not think he is any more thoughtful and well informed about politics than any number of other European academics I could mention.

When I say that the Right do not generally define themselves as advocating inequality, I mean the RIGHT do not generally DEFINE themselves as advocating inequality, and not some other claim, such as ONLY the Right are allowed to define their beliefs, or NOBODY on the Right has ever defined the Right as the defence of inequality, or it is FALSE to claim that the Right oppose the egalitarianism advocated by the Left. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If you could mention other academics, then why don't you? And could you please STOP USING UPPER CASE? TFD (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

"it is FALSE to claim that the Right oppose the egalitarianism advocated by the Left" - statement by ERIDU DREAMING. That's not true, and here is why:

• Here is the key founder of conservatism, Edmund Burke, on his view of the French Revolutionary position of equal honours and his opposition to lower-class manual labourers having the ability to govern: "The chancellor of France at the opening of the states, said[…] that all occupations were honourable. If he meant only, that no honest employment was disgraceful, he would have gone beyond the truth. But in asserting, that any thing is honourable, we imply some distinction in its favour. The occupation of a hair-dresser, or of a working tallow-chandler, cannot be a matter of honour to any person—to say nothing of a number of more servile employments. Such descriptions of men ought not to suffer oppression from the state; but the state suffers oppression, if such as they, either individually or collectively, are permitted to rule. In this you think you are combating prejudice, but you are at war with nature." Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France.
• The founder of continental conservatism Joseph de Maistre supported what he called the "hierarchy of honour" - a justification for aristocracy based on the moral values of aristocrats. (Cara Camcastle. The more moderate side of Joseph de Maistre: views on political liberty and political economy. McGill-Queen's Press, 2005. Pp. 13.)
• British conservative scholar R. J. White rejects egalitarianism, stating: "Men are equal before God and the laws, but unequal in all else; hierarchy is the order of nature, and privilege is the reward of honourable service". (Moyra Grant. Key Ideas in Politics. Cheltenham, England, UK: Nelson Thornes, Ltd., 2003. Pp. 52.)
• American conservative Russell Kirk rejects egalitarianism as imposing sameness, staying: "Men are created different; and a government that ignores this law becomes an unjust government for it sacrifices nobility to mediocrity". (Moyra Grant. Key Ideas in Politics. Cheltenham, England, UK: Nelson Thornes, Ltd., 2003. Pp. 52.). Russell Kirk in his book Redeeming the Time says: "In short, I have been arguing that it is profoundly unjust to endeavor to transform society into a table land of equality. It would be unjust to the energetic, reduced to equality with the clack and indolent; it would be unjust to the thrift, compelled to make up losses of the profligate; it would be unjust to those take the long view, forced to submit to the domination of a majority interested chiefly in short-run results." - Russel Kirk, Redeeming the Time (1996), page 217..
• Right-wing libertarian Ayn Rand: "Since nature does not endow all men with equal beauty or equal intelligence, and the faculty of volition leads men to different choices, the egalitarians propose to abolish the "unfairness" of nature and of volition, and to establish universal equality in fact—in defiance of facts." - Ayn Rand, from The Ayn Rand reader (Plume Book, 1999).
• Ayn Rand supporter Gary Hull: "Talent and ability create inequality... To rectify this supposed injustice, we are told to sacrifice the able to the unable. Egalitarianism demands the punishment and envy of anyone who is better than someone else at anything. We must tear down the competent and the strong -- raze them to the level of the incompetent and the weak.." - Gary Hull, PhD., "Egalitarianism: The New Torture Rack", Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, 23 April 2000 [31].
• So it is not false to claim that that the right has opposed egalitarianism. The secondary sources of White and Kirk are included in the article, the others are from primary sources so they can't be used in the article - but they completely disprove ERIDU DREAMING's claim that "nobody" on the right has opposed egalitarianism.--R-41 (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Ayn Rand opposed czarism and conservatism. Burke and Kirk did not call themselves right-wing. You call them right-wing because they fit your definition and then use them as evidence of what right-wing means. TFD (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The quotes that I added here to this section were to disprove a point made by ERIDU-DREAMING who said "it is FALSE to claim that the Right oppose the egalitarianism advocated by the Left".--R-41 (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

TFD, I tend to view your judgement on political issues as typically very sharp and astute, but your view that right-wing implies only the post-French Revolution issues or that right-wing is extremist as you seem to indicate is very revisionist, the term right-wing is widely used to describe these figures of conservatism and the term right-wing is widely acknowledged as a conventional term used to describe mainstream conservative parties. Burke and De Maistre are considered the pioneers who constructed the ideological principles of the original right-wing movement - that was conservatism. Rand may not be a conservative and not a czarist - but of course no one needs to be a monarchist to be right-wing - the American Republican Party by its name is not monarchist but it is right-wing, Rand is widely supported by the libertarian right. What is the alternative definition of right-wing other than acceptance of hierarchy as inevitable or normal? I have presented multiple scholarly sources that support this, and yet not one of the alternative definitions presented so far proposed can account for the variations on the right - from absolute monarchists to right-wing libertarians, so far all the alternate proposals been geared to defining the libertarian right while ignoring the right's other forms. If there is an alternate definition that can encompass the whole right, then by all means present it TFD.--R-41 (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The sociologist Robert M. MacIver wrote in The Web of Government (1947), "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." Seymour Martin Lipset used this quote in explaining the spectrum in his 1960 Political Man. While the media do use the terminology in a sloppy fashion, parties retain this terminology. Hence the only political parties today that call themselves right-wing are authoritarian, like the French National Front. Only socialist parties call themselves left-wing. Any other usage is controversial. The Republicans are calling the Democrats socialists, the Democrats are calling them authoritarian. Republicans and Democrats do not call themselves right and left. And then you have the problem that all the parties you call right-wing evolved not out of the Right but out of the center. The CDU was called the Centre Party, Hayek's party called themselves "left-liberals". Hayek and Rand do not consider themselves to be in the tradition of De Maistre. REmember too that articles are about topics, not how words are used - that type of article belongs in a dictionary not an encyclopedia. TFD (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

R-14. Try to read what I wrote more carefully.

"When I say that the Right do not generally define themselves as advocating inequality, I mean the RIGHT do not generally DEFINE themselves as advocating inequality, and not......"

pause here

"not"

pause again so it sinks in

"not"

"some other claims, such as ONLY the Right are allowed to define their beliefs, or NOBODY on the Right has ever defined the Right as the defence of inequality, or it is FALSE to claim that the Right oppose the egalitarianism advocated by the Left."

You got it now?

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING: Nobody is "arguing" that the Right favors stratification and the Left egalitarianism. Rather, we are citing sources that the phrase "the Right" is used to describe people who favor stratification and "the Left" is used to describe people who favor egalitarianism. Wikipedia is not about Truth but about verifiability. These statements have been verified, repeatedly, with respected academic sources. Your ideas about what "the Left" believes are not supported by citations. No doubt some people on "the Left" think that poor people should live in the Savoy, but that is not the argument that the modern Left offers against the Right's idea that laizzes-faire economics leads to more freedom. Rather, it is the extreme concentration of wealth, where the 1% have more than half of all the wealth, and many of the 99% have no homes and no jobs. But, as you say, this is not the place to go into what the Left thinks, but rather to cite sources that people really call someone "right-wing" because they believe in private property and consumer choice. That is a usage I've never heard, but if you want to make that claim, you need to cite quotations to that effect the represent a preponderance of the evidence.

TFD: You are going too far in pretending that Buckley was not on the Right in the sense this aricle uses the word; he clearly was. And ERIDU-DREAMING has cited sources that say what Buckley meant by that.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

My Savoy hotel example was to illustrate a point about different conceptions of liberty. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING, stop with the nasty attitude. I have provided multiple sources verifying that the right-wing accepts social hierarchy as inevitable or normal. But you keep saying "oh the right has never said this". First of all there is no single and unified "right-wing movement" just as there is no single and unified "left-wing movement" - the left-right spectrum is a dichotomy. The right arose in France in response to the left that was demanding social leveling such as dismantling aristocracy and monarchy that the right opposed - and the original right in France was diverse - absolute monarchists, moderate conservatives, aristocrats, Catholic Church figures - they were united in their opposition to the social leveling schemes of the left-wing revolutionary republicans including the far left Jacobins who wanted to literally purge society of aristocrats, royalty, and supporters of the ancien regime. The right appealed to natural law and tradition to state that social hierarchy was a reality and was a tradition that held society together - as a rebuke of the left's appeal to progress and justice to state that aristocracy and monarchy should be eliminated. Again I have provided sources that demonstrate this and modern examples of the right, but you reject all of the sources - no matter who wrote them, and no matter what their credentials.--R-41 (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Relax. Since I have explained the point about three times now, and you have still not got it, I am not going to waste any more of your time explaining it to you again. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I submit that more than fifty changes in one day do not lead to a stable article.

Here is the lead as it stands, now. I could just rewrite it, but I'm going to refrain, because hasty edits discourage more thoughtful edits. Following up on my earlier suggestion, let us find a version we can agree on, or that most of us can agree on, and then defend it from edits that do not cite sources.

In politics, the Right, right-wing and rightist has been defined as the acceptance of social hierarchy.(ref)J. E. Goldthorpe. An Introduction to Sociology. Cambridge, England, UK; Oakleigh, Melbourne, Australia; New York, New York, USA Pp. 156. ISBN: 0521245451.(/ref)(ref)Rodney P. Carlisle. Encyclopedia of politics: the left and the right, Volume 2. University of Michigan; Sage Reference, 2005. Pp. 721. ISBN: 1412904099(/ref) Inequality is viewed by the Right as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,(ref)J. E. Goldthorpe. An Introduction to Sociology. Cambridge, England, UK; Oakleigh, Melbourne, Australia; New York, New York, USA Pp. 156. ISBN: 0521245451.(/ref) whether it arises within social structures that uphold order, status, honor, and traditional social differences and values,(ref)Smith, T. Alexander and Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at War: Moral Conflicts in Western Democracies (Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd., 2003) pp. 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.' '(/ref) or within a market economy that respects private property and consumer choice.(ref) Scruton, Roger “A Dictionary of Political Thought” Macmillian 1996 pp.481-2.(/ref)

The political terms Right and Left were coined during the French Revolution, and were a reference to where people sat in the French parliament. Those who sat to the right of the president's chair were broadly supportive of the institutions of Ancien Régime: the monarchy, the aristocracy and the established church.(ref name="Parliaments 1988 pp. 287–302")Goodsell, Charles T., "The Architecture of Parliaments: Legislative Houses and Political Culture", British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Jul., 1988) pp. 287–302(/ref)(ref>Linski, Gerhard, Current Issues and Research In Macrosociology (Brill Archive, 1984) p. 59(/ref)(ref)Clark, Barry Political Economy: A Comparative Approach (Praeger Paperback, 1998) pp. 33–34(/ref)(ref name="Knapp"/> The Right invoked natural law and divine law to justify social inequalities.(ref)J. E. Goldthorpe. An Introduction to Sociology. Cambridge, England, UK; Oakleigh, Melbourne, Australia; New York, New York, USA Pp. 156. ISBN: 0521245451.(/ref) In the modern day, right-wing libertarians reject collective or state-imposed imposed equality as undermining reward for personal merit, initiative and enterprise, which they view as unjust — because it undermines personal freedom; and creates social uniformity and mediocrity.(ref)Moyra Grant. Key Ideas in Politics. Cheltenham, England, UK: Nelson Thornes, Ltd., 2003. Pp. 52.(/ref) The meaning of right-wing thus "varies across societies, historical epochs, and political systems and ideologies."(ref) The meaning of 'right-wing' and 'left-wing' varies across societies, historical epochs and political systems and ideologies. Social cognition: an integrated introduction Martha Augoustinos, Iain Walker, Ngaire Donaghue; SAGE, Jun 15, 2006 - 364 pages, page 30(/ref)

Roger Eatwell and Noël O'Sullivan claim that right-wing politics is more loosely defined than left-wing politics because it is a response to its leftist counterpart.(ref)Eatwell, Roger and Noël O'Sullivan The Nature of the Right: American and European Politics and Political Thought Since 1789 (Twayne Publishers, 1990)(/ref) Use of the expression le droit (the right) became more prominent in France after the restoration of its monarchy in 1815, when it was applied to the Ultra-royalists.(ref)Gauchet, Marcel, "Right and Left" in Nora, Pierre, ed., Realms of Memory: Conflicts and Divisions (1996) pp. 247-8(/ref) Although the term originally designated traditional conservatives and reactionaries, its usage has been extended to apply to liberal conservatives, classical liberals, libertarian conservatives, Christian democrats and certain types of nationalists.(ref name="Knapp"/)

The first thing we need to discuss is the overall structure. I suggest three paragraphs, the first stating how the words are used, the second giving the history of the words, and the third giving a few of the problems with the way the words are used. Any objection or alternate suggestions?

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to the work put in by R-41 the first two sections are now in pretty good shape. He has tried to be politically balanced rather than agenda pushing. The article has come a long way since the Right = Extremists = Fascists days. In my opinion the problems now start at the section entitled "Varieties". (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC))

Rick - I have worked with R-41 and affirm his desire to make this a good article (and that he is quite specifically not a "right wing nut job" or the like as some would try to label some editors). I further note that each individual change is fully reasonable in my opinion, and that if you have specific parts you feel are not an improvement, that WP:CONSENSUS applies - that is, discuss the specific changes and not the editor or the number of edits. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I tried. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Try a single change you think there is a problem with first, Rick. The eternal talk page (aka "discussing structure") discussions do not work. If you feel strongly about "structure", try MEDCAB but I rather think they would steer clear of this one (especially with editors who deny Buckley self-identified as being On the Right). Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Very well, to being at the beginning, let's look at the claim that people use the phrase "right-wing" to describe those who favor "private property and consumer choice". As I've said, I've never heard that usage. Scruton, Roger “A Dictionary of Political Thought” Macmillian 1996 pp.481-2 is the reference. Please proved the quote on page 481-2 where Scruton says that. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Scruton lists these claims as associated with the Right

6) belief in private property..indispensable part of the condition of society

7) belief in elementary freedoms and the irreplaceable value of the individual as against the collective

8) belief in free enterprise free markets and a capitalist economy as the only mode of production compatible with human freedom

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Good. Let's have the article say that, with an appropriate quote in the reference. Note that the list does not say anything about "consumer choice" and does stress free markets and a capitalist economy as the only acceptable mode of production. I suggest the following "...or within a capitalist economy that considers property rights as indispensable for human freedom." with the Scruton reference citing the entire quote from Scruton. I'd rather you made the change but I will if you would rather not. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If you recall I originally put "individual choice" but you deleted this (on the grounds that the Left like choice as well!) and so I replaced it with consumer choice to emphasize the connection with free markets. I can return it back to "individual choice" if you wish.

I am not sure why you think your replacement sentence is an obvious improvement on [some view inequality as inevitable] "within a market economy that respects private property and consumer choice."

You prefer "capitalist" to "market economy" and "property rights" to respect for "private property". Well market economy is a politically neutral description, and Scruton disputes the claim that the Right start from the notion of "Rights" when defending the concept of property. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC))

I think it is better to say what the source says. The source does not say "individual choice" nor does it say "consumer choice". Those are very different concepts. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

We seem to be leapfrogging our comments here. Yes, of course "market economy" is politically neutral. That is why nobody calls someone "right-wing" when they favor a market economy, and why Scruton inserts that all important word "only" in his definition. People are (sometimes) called "right-wing" when they say free market capitalism is the only mode of production compatable with freedom. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Denying that free markets rely upon consumer (or individual) choice, or rejecting the claim that Classical Liberalism advocates consumer (individual) choice), or seeking to ignore the connection between support for a market economy and support for individual choice, would be perverse. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course it would. Which is why I have never said any of those things. What I have said is that people don't call anyone "right-wing" for any of those beliefs, and you have yet to cite anyone who does. What they (sometimes) call people right-wing for is what the source says they call people right-wing for. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The Scruton quote is taken from his DEFINITION of RIGHT-WING. I must log off the computer now however. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I agree that the Scruton quote is a good reference. I also have to log off shortly. My point is that the statement "A person who only eats vegetables is called a vegetarian." is a true statement. It is not the same as "A person who eats vegetables is called a vegetarian." You can't leave out the word "only" without changing the meaning. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

We are confusing a term which is used as both a relative and an absolute, and with different meanings to different people. One approach would be to have this article as a dictionary definition. But if we want the article to be about a topic, then we need to choose the most common definition of the term. The major anomaly is that some ideologies are defined as both support for and opposition to equality, depending on where the line is drawn between left and right. For example the Radical and Socialist Party that was the main party of the Left in 1800s France and is now part of the Sarkozy coalition. They did not change their ideology, but aligned with the Right after the emergence of socialists and communists as leading parties on the Left. TFD (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Politics makes strange bedfellows. Fortunately, we base this article on what sociologists say, not on what politicians say. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Scruton says the term "denotes several connected and also conflicting ideas". The only criteria, other than opposition to the Left, that the Socialists and Radicals meet is support of rights, including the right to a minimal standard of living. Otherwise, they oppose cultural conservatism, monarchy, clericalism and unrestrained capitalism. What makes them part of the right is not that their ideology is right-wing, but that the center between left and right in France has moved. In other words, if left-right are relative terms, then they are on the right. But if they are absolute terms then they are not. TFD (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Who keeps removing the bias tag?

There has been no consensus or even discussion about removing the tag - and yet editors are sneakily doing it over and over again. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

What is your alternative definition for right-wing politics? Please present sources with quotations so that users can see what the sources say.--R-41 (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

From the Oxford English Dictionary: right wing

noun (the right wing) 1the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system: a candidate from the right wing of the party [with reference to the National Assembly in France (1789–91), where the nobles sat to the president's right and the commons to the left] 2the right side of a team on the field in soccer, rugby, and field hockey: he reverted to his normal position on the right wing the right side of an army: at Austerlitz in 1805 he commanded the right wing of the Allied army adjective conservative or reactionary: a right-wing Republican senator

Falconclaw5000 (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40465460?seq=9&Search=yes&searchText=history&searchText=journal&searchText=wing&searchText=southern&searchText=right&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Djournal%2Bof%2Bsouthern%2Bhistory%2Bright%2Bwing%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don&prevSearch=&item=1&ttl=18612&returnArticleService=showFullText&resultsServiceName=null Also, the above scholarly work claims that Right means wanting to preserve the current order, while Left means wanting to tear it down. So in the case of the USA, Right can mean preserving the current capitalist system which allows for equality of opportunity and for prosperity for all, while Left can mean tearing down this system to put control of the economy in the hands of a few government officials and limited prosperity to those the government deems worth of it. In the Soviet Union, Right could mean preserving Communism, and Left could mean supporting capitalist reform. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 07:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If you oppose the intro's definition, provide sources for an alternate definition

I have revised the intro, found stronger sources, removed the source by Bobbio - a left-wing scholar - that was criticized by users I presume to be on the right, and I found material addressing valid issues addressed by users of wanting to show how the definition I found can relate to the right-wing of today - particularly the libertarian right. I found a scholarly source that describes that libertarians have opposed social or state imposed equality as being against personal freedom and that they oppose the idea of enforcing social equality because they deem that such enforcement will result in diminishment of personal merit in favour of social uniformity and mediocrity.--R-41 (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Now there are two options. (1) we can go around and around in a vicious cycle of pathetic emotional sophistry of users basically accusing each other of deceit, lying, idiocy, or stupidity, that will achieve nothing. Or (2), users who oppose the definition that I have provided several sources for, can find and present sources for an alternate definition of right-wing politics. Don't respond to this post with rhetoric, I would like to see sources for an alternate definition if you oppose the one that I have included.--R-41 (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

As for ERIDU-DREAMING's source by Scruton, there are fundamental problems with these two assertions about the right-wing:

• "7) belief in elementary freedoms and the irreplaceable value of the individual as against the collective"
  • The problem with this is that it assumes that the whole right is individualist, this is not accurate. The Catholic religious right in Europe is strongly collectivist and one might argue authoritarian - as papal infallibility and papal edicts determine the positions of the Catholic Church and its affiliated organizations. The Catholic religious right is a large movement
• 8) belief in free enterprise free markets and a capitalist economy as the only mode of production compatible with human freedom

• • This assumes the right-wing is naturally capitalist. Again a contemporary example is the Catholic religious right, the papacy has issued many statements against capitalism, in Quadragesimo Anno (1931), the Catholic Church condemned "capitalist individualism" and "socialist totalitarianism". The Catholic right supports the Catholic Church's economic policy of Christian corporatism that is in practice very centrist, but the Catholic right has placed strong emphasis on upholding traditional Christian moral conceptions that brings it into opposition with the left on issues of the role of women in society, abortion, gay marriage, and divorce.--R-41 (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
    • All of which boils down to Some of the 'right' is staunchly capitalist, some is not. Some is pro-avarice, some is not. Some is religious, some is not. Some is authoritarian, some is anti-authoritarian. and so on. In short, any attribute associated with the 'right' in one place and time may well be totally not associated with the 'right' in another place and time. I know this sounds like "there are no absolutes" but, in this case, it is true. Right now, the most solidly 'capitalist' society in some respects is the PRC! Collect (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Please, no rhetoric as I suggested, what is your proposed alternative definition of right-wing politics? Please provide sources for the alternative definition.--R-41 (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Def:

There is no single consistent definition for 'right-wing politics' which applies to all time periods and nations. Some of the attribute which may be found in some cases include pro- and anti-monarchy positions, pro-capitalism and pro-planned economy positions, pro-religion and anti-religion positions, militaristic and anti-militaristic positions, isolationism and internationalism, and so on depending on the nation and era.

Then follow with examples of each wonderfully contratidictory time of 'right wing' found from place to place and time to time. (I believe the bits I stated all have such examples available) Collect (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

R-14, if you read the complete definition of Right-Wing which Scruton offers (scroll up) you will notice that he claims that Right-Wing denotes several connected and also conflicting ideas. In particular he believes that traditional conservatism and market liberalism are inconsistent. I think the first two sections of the article (thanks in part to your efforts) now does a pretty good job of acknowledging this inconsistency. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

What about: "Right, a noun, meaning opposite of the political Left, from the French droit, c. 1906". TFD (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"The Victorians scarcely knew left and right as political terms with reference to their own affairs. These were continental, mainly French terms, arising out of the semicircular seating arrangements of the National Assembly in the 1790's...Mill, writing home to his father from Paris about the events of the July Revolution of 1830, which he witnessed, uses 'left' only in French: Acton in his 1861 essay on Cavour, uses 'left' and right to describe Italian politics in the Risorgimento, but not to describe the English. Most Englishmen knew of such words to the extent that they knew about recent French history. They could have read of that in Carlyle's French Revolution (1837), where he spoke of the 'Left side' of the National Assembly or the d'Orleans side (I. vi.ii.308). The New English Dictionary, for which editing began in 1879, specifies for the political sense of 'right' only a foreign application: 'In Continental legislative chambers, the party or parties of conservative principle' (sense 17d), and it quotes an English example no earlier than 1887. Macaulay in 1835 writes as if he had never heard of the spectrum except in the context of French politics...But the terms were slowly being acclimatized, though it is doubtful of they became part of the ordinary currency of British political language before the First World War." "The English Ideology" George Watson pp.94-5 Allen Lane: London (1973).

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The terms "left" and "right" to describe political ideology did not arise until the 20th century. Prior to that they merely referred to where one sat in the legislature. They entered the English language with their current meaning during the 1906 general election with the emergence of a left-wing wing party, the Labour Party, as a major force. See Marcel Gauchet's article "Right and Left" in Realms of memory: conflicts and divisions, Columbia University Press, 1997. TFD (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I am responding here to a proposed definition by Collect that essentially says there is no definition at all. It is one of those postmodern cultural relativist positions that are typically flawed that says "the subject is culturally relative, therefore there is no common definition for it" which logically should go on to say: "because it is culturally relative and there is no common definition, therefore there is no proof that it even exists." I am bolding to make a point, I'm not shouting: so according to Collect's statement that "There is no single consistent definition for 'right-wing politics' which applies to all time periods and nations" - I could say an absurd statement that "right-wing means the politics involving people who have dancing monkeys" and according to the Collect's statement my absurd proposal is just as possible in my own cultural perspective and time period as other definitions. If there is no possible definition of it then why do people ascribe certain groups to it and not to others. The fact of the matter remains is that a schism has to exist to explain the animosity between the left versus the right and that schism requires some criteria.--R-41 (talk) 06:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

As I made no such inane suggestion that 'right wing' "does not even exist", I ask you redact your attempt to make fun of the fact given by the reliable sources that there is no absolute definition, which does not mean that there is no definition at each individual time and place. The source states there is no absolute criterion, but does not say there are no relative criteria depending on time and place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not making fun of anything, it is a severely flawed description by a cultural relativist source. As you have described it, it does indicate what the critera are the source does not even say what is the consistent line of thought that links right-wing together - so it is saying nothing other than that no definition exists and the author of that source has not even bothered to take the effort to consider the similarities of different right-wing movements - it appears to be a very poor-quality source. When a source says something exists but that it cannot even be bothered to describe the basic elements of it, that means that the source has presented no evidence of it being a common phenomenon.--R-41 (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Another vote for re-structuring the lead, not just putting in more footnotes

I think I agree with Rick Norwood. I would like to propose a restructuring of the lead. Please note I am deliberately not focusing on sourcing etc, because I think the messiness of the lead is actually making such discusions more difficult than they should be anyway.

In politics, the Right, right-wing and rightist has been defined by some sociologists as the acceptance of social hierarchy.[1][2] Inequality is viewed by the Right as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[3] whether it arises within social structures that uphold order, status, honor, and traditional social differences and values,[4] or within a market economy that respects private property and consumer choice.[5] The political terms Right and Left were coined during the French Revolution, and were a reference to where people sat in the French parliament. Those who sat to the right of the president's chair were broadly supportive of the institutions of Ancien Régime: the monarchy, the aristocracy and the established church.[6][7][8][9] The Right invoked natural law and divine law to justify social inequalities.[10] In the modern day, right-wing libertarians reject collective or state-imposed imposed equality as undermining reward for personal merit, initiative and enterprise, which they view as unjust — because it undermines personal freedom; and creates social uniformity and mediocrity.[11] The meaning of right-wing thus "varies across societies, historical epochs, and political systems and ideologies."[12] Roger Eatwell and Noël O'Sullivan claim that right-wing politics is more loosely defined than left-wing politics because it is a response to its leftist counterpart.[13][page needed] Use of the expression le droit (the right) became more prominent in France after the restoration of its monarchy in 1815, when it was applied to the Ultra-royalists.[14] Although the term originally designated traditional conservatives and reactionaries, its usage has been extended to apply to liberal conservatives, classical liberals, libertarian conservatives, Christian democrats and certain types of nationalists.[9]

In politics, the Right, right-wing and rightist are terms used in various ways to name political factions sharing certain beliefs and principles, and who are contrasted with opposed political factions who are left-wing. The exact principles which distinguish the left and right are not always the same, but in general the right is associated with convervatism, and defending the best elements of the status quo from change. This contrast between a political Right and Left was a terminology first used during the French Revolution, and were a reference to where people sat in the French parliament. Those who sat to the right of the president's chair were broadly supportive of the institutions of Ancien Régime: the monarchy, the aristocracy and the established church.[6][7][8][9] Being right-wing has been defined as the acceptance of social hierarchy.[1][2] Inequality is viewed by the Right as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[3] whether it arises within social structures that uphold order, status, honor, and traditional social differences and values,[4] or within a market economy that respects private property and consumer choice.[5] Modern right-wing libertarians, for example, reject many aspects of the status quo such as collective or state-imposed imposed equality because these undermine personal freedom, reward the wrong types of behavior, and creates social uniformity and mediocrity.[11] The meaning of right-wing thus "varies across societies, historical epochs, and political systems and ideologies."[12] Roger Eatwell and Noël O'Sullivan claim that right-wing politics is more loosely defined than left-wing politics because it is a response to its leftist counterpart.[13][page needed] Use of the expression le droit (the right) became more prominent in France after the restoration of its monarchy in 1815, when it was applied to the Ultra-royalists.[14] Although the term originally designated traditional conservatives and reactionaries, its usage has been extended to apply to liberal conservatives, classical liberals, libertarian conservatives, Christian democrats and certain types of nationalists.[9]

Comments?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think your version is an improvement, at least a starting place for discussion, but still includes the unsupported statement that the Right supports consumer choice, with the implication that the Left does not. This statement cannot be included without a reference, and the given reference makes no mention of consumer choice. Also, this version still supports the view, held by some Libertarians, that the modern Right is strongly Libertarian, which the recent Presidential primaries have shown is not even true in the US, where Libertarianism is strongest. It is even less true in Europe. There is still a lot of work to be done, but several editors have expressed their unwillingness for that to be done here, so I guess it has to be done in the article itself. I've removed two places where, without references, the lead has been used as a forum to argue in favor of Libertarianism. Even if one meaning of Right-wing is Libertarian, this is not the place to argue that Libertarianism leads to greater freedom and prosperity. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

RICK NORWOOD. The Right can and does include classical liberalism as part of its definition. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is saying it doesn't. The Right also includes support for school prayer, but that doesn't mean the lead to this article should be a forum to argue in favor of school prayer. Instead of just inserting your views, you need to provide sources. In particular, to say that "right-wing" is used to describe support for consumer choice, you need to show that a preponderance of the evidence says that a major use of "right-wing" is support for consumer choice. How often to you hear someone say, "He supports consumer choice, he must be right-wing"? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the problem of unsourced material, hasty edits have turned the lead into a jumble, jumping back and forth between topics. I'm going to try to group sentences on the same subject, so there is some flow to the material. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I will pause here, but two major problems I still see in the current lead: "is used by some sociologists" is weasel words. Either right-wing means support for hierarchy or it doesn't. And that hanging chad asking for a page number should be satisfied, or the reference should be removed. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

RICK NORWOOD. Read the Scruton definition again. Just because you are unaware (or unwilling) to acknowledge the connection between some on the Right and a defence of free markets means nothing. All it does is reveal your own ignorance (or your bigotry). Whoever added "sociologist" was correctly identifying the hierarchy point as a sociological description. The Right does not generally define itself as supporting inequality, it defines itself as supporting tradition, or particular religious beliefs, or metaphysical claims about what is right and wrong, and this includes claims about freedom. The inequality claim is a by-product of those assumptions, but I am not expecting you to understand that point. Stop deleting what you are either unable or unwilling to understand. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING, could you please avoid personal attacks on other editors. Note also that Rick Norwood does not speall his name in upper case. TFD (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING, you baffle me. At times, you can be a constructive editor. And at other times, you seem unable to understand a simple declarative sentence. Since I have said, several times, that there is a connection between some on the right and a defence of free markets, what earthly purpose is served by pretending I have not.

As for my point about "is used by some sociologists", that is more a matter of good style than anything else. The lead should say how the phrase "right-wing" is used. It is awkward to say that this is how some sociologists say it is used. If the sociologists are a reliable source, what they say should be in the lead. If they are unreliable for some reason, what they say should not be in the lead. Also note that the sociologists, political scientists, and other standard sources say that this is how the phrase is used in fact, not how they personally use the phrase.

If you want me to stop deleting your point of view, you have only to supply reputable sources that support it. And don't come back with this business about "the connection between some on the Right and a defence of free markets". I agree. Some on the Right defend free markets. The lead says that, more than once. But it is not the primary way right-wing is used. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Not all right-wing people are conservatives, there are right-wing classical liberals and libertarians such as Ayn Rand who are considered right-wing but not connected with conservatism. Furthermore right-wing classical liberals and libertarians are not traditionalists, they have challenged and sought to dismantle traditions that are against their values - they historically challenged the traditional European established religious institution a - and classical liberals are known for having dismantled aristocracy - a long-held tradition in Europe and replaced it with meritocracy, and for secularizing education and political culture. Libertarian Ayn Rand opposed traditional religion entirely - she was an athiest, and in the 1960s she challenged the social welfare state that at that time had become an accepted traditional institution in Western society since its growth from the 1880s to the 1940s - even supported by most mainstream conservative parties (before they criticized it from the 1970s onward) - so Rand was challenging a tradition. Plus not all traditionalist politicians are right-wing nor are all religious politicians right-wing, there is Christian socialism based on traditional Christian values.--R-41 (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

And most conservatives would be offended to be called right-wing, think of Ted Heath, Chris Patten, Anthony Meyer, Kenneth Clarke, Ian Gilmour. TFD (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The Canadian conservative Hugh Segal is not offended to be called right-wing [32]. Neither does American conservative commentator Sean Hannity who describes America as "a center-right nation".[33]. In recent history in my country of Canada, there was the movement to unite two center-right parties - the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party, the movement's slogan was "Unite the Right". Tom Flanagan, a policymaker of the center-right Canadian Alliance had a book titled "The uneasy case for uniting the Right" [34].--R-41 (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That is original research, the sort of argument one expects in articles from 9/11 truthers and Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists wher one looks for evidence, no matter how flimsy to support an existing viewpoint. Search "right-wing" in the book and we find, "the fragmentation that the U.S. right wing has generated since the Goldwater days". Think that Segal considers himself a <Tea Bagger? Siegal definitely does not consider himself to be in that category. Then he says, "Canadian conservatives have united from across the spectrum" - think he means that the spectrum begins and ends with the Right? (p. 195) Write to Segal (Hon. Hugh Segal, House of Senate, Ottawa ON Canada) and ask him if he considers himself to be a right-winger. BTW, the Reformers/CCRAP, who were after all right-wing populists, dropped the description right-wing when they began to reach out to moderate voters. TFD (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

TFD: You are a valuable editor here, but I am concerned that your responses are becoming more and more non-responsive. R-41 is providing valuable information. He didn't say all conservatives, he said one Canadian conservative, and gave a few other examples of how the phrase is used in Canada. Nowhere did he make a claim about even all Canadian conservatives. And he certainly never said anything about "Tea Bagger"s. You rightly chide other editors for rudeness, but your first sentence above is beyond the pale. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Presenting the fact that Hugh Segal called his book about Canada's conservative tradition, The Right Balance evidence that he is not offended to be called right-wing is original research. Segal does not call himself right-wing in the book and uses the term to describe the Goldwater campaign, which he considered extremist. If one wanted to argue that Segal was a conservative, one could find sources where he defines conservative and declares his support for the cause. But there is no similar literature for right-wing. TFD (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I also find current main definition inappropriate. Current definition as one of it's main sources uses An Introduction to Sociology by Goldthorpe to define it as "acceptance of social hierarchy". But according to Goldthorpe that definition is "now less often expressed" and "the more usual right-wing view, which may be called 'liberal-conservative', is that unequal rewards are right and desirable so long long as the competition for wealth and power is a fair one. There have to be genuine prizes to strive to if everyone is to to give their best." which seems to be more in line with changes that some editors here are proposing. -- Vision Thing -- 14:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternate definition for Right Wing

Two sources: rom the Oxford English Dictionary: right wing

noun (the right wing) 1the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system: a candidate from the right wing of the party [with reference to the National Assembly in France (1789–91), where the nobles sat to the president's right and the commons to the left] 2the right side of a team on the field in soccer, rugby, and field hockey: he reverted to his normal position on the right wing the right side of an army: at Austerlitz in 1805 he commanded the right wing of the Allied army adjective conservative or reactionary: a right-wing Republican senator

AND:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40465460?seq=9&Search=yes&searchText=history&searchText=journal&searchText=wing&searchText=southern&searchText=right&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Djournal%2Bof%2Bsouthern%2Bhistory%2Bright%2Bwing%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don&prevSearch=&item=1&ttl=18612&returnArticleService=showFullText&resultsServiceName=null Also, the above scholarly work claims that Right means wanting to preserve the current order, while Left means wanting to tear it down. So in the case of the USA, Right can mean preserving the current capitalist system which allows for equality of opportunity and for prosperity for all, while Left can mean tearing down this system to put control of the economy in the hands of a few government officials and limited prosperity to those the government deems worth of it. In the Soviet Union, Right could mean preserving Communism, and Left could mean supporting capitalist reform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconclaw5000 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I brought this up before. This article is about the Right, not the left-right political spectrum. Find articles about the Right that do not mention the Left. The articles Left-wing politics and Left-wing politics in the United States for example are about the Left, not about the left-right divide, and provide little or no discussion of the Right. The U.S. article for example does not even claim that a U.S. Right exists. TFD (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If articles that also mention the Left are to be excluded, then most of the sources in this article are to be excluded. Here are just the first four, which would all be disqualified: J. E. Goldthorpe. An Introduction to Sociology. Cambridge, England, UK; Oakleigh, Melbourne, Australia; New York, New York, USA Pp. 156. ISBN: 0521245451. ^ Rodney P. Carlisle. Encyclopedia of politics: the left and the right, Volume 2. University of Michigan; Sage Reference, 2005. Pp. 721. ISBN: 1412904099 ^ J. E. Goldthorpe. An Introduction to Sociology. Cambridge, England, UK; Oakleigh, Melbourne, Australia; New York, New York, USA Pp. 156. ISBN: 0521245451. ^ Smith, T. Alexander and Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures

I've always felt these sources were biased anyhow (even though they are academic) and so I wouldn't actually mind removing them. And by your standard, TFD, they should be removed. I can let you do the honors. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Falconclaw5000 on this, TFD. Most articles about the use of right-wing also mention left-wing. While this article should not go into detail about what the Left believes, it is only reasonable to contrast the Right and the Left if sources do. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If the Right were a coherent concept, e.g., like conservatism, then one would expect books and articles about it that did not necessarily contrast it with the Left, just as there are books about the Left that do not even mention the Right. The problem with using sources about the left-right spectrum is that they are defining right as a relative not an absolute term. In that case we should be writing about the left-right spectrum. How can we write about "right-wing" when none of our sources do? How far to the right must one be before one is right-wing? Cf tall and short. How tall must one be before one is a tall person? Could we have a neutral article about tall people? Notice that tall redirects to "Human height". TFD (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Weasel words have been put in the intro that are not attributable to the sources

The following recently added sections to the intro are weasel words in violation of Wikipedia:No weasel words: the following has been added to the intro that now says that the definiton of the acceptance of hierarchy is only supported by "some sociologists" "although significantly not by political scientists". These are weasel words that are not attributable to the sources - nowhere in the source does it say that "only some sociologists" support the definition, nor does it say that the definition is "significantly not supported by political scientists", so the assertions both misrepresent the source and because they do not represent the source, and those statements are original research in violation of Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No original research. Thus should be removed immediately without dispute.--R-41 (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll revert my edit. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The words "some sociologists" are also weasel words, because nowhere in the source does it say "we a faction withing sociologists describe right-wing politics as...", it does not indicate how popular the definition is, thus again that is original research to make a claim about the level of popularity of the definition or the proportion of people supporting it, because the source does not say this. If you disagree with the definition currently in the intro, present sources that support an alternative definition.--R-41 (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Roger Eatwell and Noël O'Sullivan

Doesn't somebody have a copy of this book? My library does not have a copy, I don't own a copy. I hate to remove it, but will have to if nobody can supply the requested page number. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that "page number needed" is annoying me as well! ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Is an article on Right-wing politics the place to expand on what Libertarians believe?

The article states that some Libertarians are sometimes called (or call themselves) right-wing. Some Southern Baptists call themselves right-wing. But clearly the lead of this article would not be the place to expand on what Southern Baptists believe. Neither is it the place to expand on what Libertarians believe. The lead should (and does) say that right-wing is sometimes used to describe Libertarians. If the reader of the article wants to know more about Libertarian beliefs, they will go to the article on that subject. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

What you keep missing is that the "freedom" (or classical liberal) sense of Right-Wing is widespread in the Anglosphere, and beyond. In the U.K. for example when people talk about "Right-Wing" politics it may mean the desire for a smaller State, lower taxes, a market economy, together with freedom of expression and movement, or it may mean respect for traditional sources of authority, order, and morality, and limitations upon freedom of expression and movement. Scruton notes that the two senses are in conflict, but in the Anglosphere some fusion of the two is very much in evidence. See for example see the article by the British journalist Simon Heffer about what "Right-Wing" means in the UK that I mentioned a while back. The TRADITION which is being preserved in the UK and USA is one which gives a high value to LIBERTY - to the liberties that render a Civil Society possible. Of course the traditions in China or Russia may be different, so I very much doubt that "Right-Wing" has a Classical Liberal sense in these countries. This is why COLLECT put in the quote about "Right-Wing" having different meanings in different times and places. But the Classical Liberal meaning IS central to the meaning of Right-Wing in English speaking countries. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)).

ERIDU-DREAMING: If what you describe is a major use of right-wing, you should be able to find a source that says it is major use, rather than one of many. The article already says it is sometimes a use of "right-wing". Rick Norwood (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

R-41: The article aleady says that one use of right-wing is to describe some Libertarians. The reference gives nine uses. Should each of the nine have a sentence in the article explaining its beliefs? If not, why should Libertarainism be given more space than the other eight?

Rick Norwood (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The "smaller State, lower taxes, market economy" sense of Right-Wing is not peripheral, it is mainstream in the Anglosphere. When people talk in the UK for example about Thatcherism, it is the above meaning that is generally being referred to as Scruton makes clear in his "Thatcherism" entry in the same dictionary:

"her unpopularity amongst the intellectual and media elite was due both to her right-wing philosophy and to her confrontational approach to those who disagree with her" p.546

He lists this philosophy as 1) Conviction (rather than managerial) politics 2) Monetarism 3) Privatization 4) Curtailing the power of Trade Unions 5) Hostility towards restrictive practices and monopolies 6) Seeking to decrease the hold of government bureaucracies over education and health 7) Upholding national sovereignty 8) Emphasis upon defence and law and order 9) General attempt to reduce the power of the state in domestic matters 10) Lower taxation pp.546-7 Roger Scruton "A Dictionary of Political Thought" Macmillan: London 1996.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)).

So to ERIDU-DREAMING, the bench-market of the Right is the Liberal Party, and you quote a columnist who identifies Cromwell and Gladstone as his heroes. Where does that leave the Royalists, Tories, the high chuch and the imperial system? Are they part of Britain's left-wing tradition? TFD (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Heffer is generally viewed in the UK as a paradigm example of a "Right-Wing" journalist (which is why he wrote the article) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/7737948/Only-a-Tory-without-principles-would-demonise-the-Right.html and he defines the "Right" in the UK is a "coalition of Hayekian liberals, Powellite souverainistes and social conservatives". Translating, this means that he is claiming that the Right in the UK are people who combine a belief in free markets, upholding national sovereignty, and traditional values. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The libertarian right is an important part of right-wing politics in the Western world. The source for that sentence is a scholarly one. The intro without the statement on libertarianism, only mentions the original right of France that was dominated by the authoritarian absolutists led by De Maistre; without including right libertarianism in the intro, it makes it appear that absolutism is naturally what the whole right-wing is based upon - and it is not the basis of the moderate right today.--R-41 (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING. instead of telling us that, provide sources. In the English Civil War, Cromwell was not considered to be on the Right. In the 19th century U.K., Liberals were not considered to be on the Right. If you want to reverse the normal meaning of words, then please provide sources. There are a lot of people like you out there who invent their own concepts and you are wasting my time. If I want to read non-standard views then I can go to a blog. We are trying to improve the article, not discussing our own ideosyncratic views. What per centage of people in the U.K. btw see the world the way you do? I suspect the per centage is far less than 1% and probably not much higher among right-wing organizations. TFD (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

1) The fact that one use of right-wing applies to Maggie Thatcher does not imply that it is the principle use of right-wing, even in the UK, less so world wide. 2) R-41, you say your source is a scholarly one, please provide a quotation to that effect. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The term "New Right" was coined to describe Thatcherism et. al. But as the book New Right points out it was just a term (in fact a reversal of the term New Left) and people who used it did not imply it meant right-wing. Notably, Ian Gilmour coined the term "neo-liberal" to describe Thatchersim. Liberalism is normally considered to be to the left of conservatism. TFD (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

R-41: If you want to include in an article titled "Right-wing politics" this statement: "In the modern day, right-wing libertarians reject social or state-imposed imposed equality as undermining reward for personal merit, initiative and enterprise — they claim it undermines personal freedom and creates social uniformity and mediocrity" please provide at least one example of someone saying that people who favor reward for personal merit, initiative and enterprise are right-wing, that people who favor personal freedom are right-wing, that people who are non-conformist are right-wing, or that people who oppose mediocrity are right-wing. Yes, Libertarians favor these things, but so do conservatives, liberals, and just about everybody else. And I have never heard anybody call any of these ideas right-wing. If it has happened, please provide examples. If not, please stop putting into this article. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying that all right-wing people support that, but that the libertarian right does. I don't think you could find a dense universal set of positions that can represent the whole right. The left-right spectrum from the scholarly sources I've found, says that it is a dichotomy between those who accept social hierarchy as a reality and those who promote egalitarianism and believe that social hierarchy of society is constructed. What the source does say is that libertarians reject social or state-imposed equality and explains there reasons. Contrary to your assertion, not everybody agrees with this - socialism and social liberalism believe that there is such thing as responsibility of society is important and have advocated compulsory-taxed social welfare - the state uses progressive taxation to redirect profits from wealthier members of society to poorer members of society who are in need though either direct payment or social assistance programs - it is compulsory because not all wealthy people would voluntarily give a significant proportion of their wealth to poorer people out of philanthropy, however some do. Right libertarians oppose compulsory social welfare based upon social responsibility because they are typically staunchly individualist and do not accept ideas of social responsibilities.--R-41 (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You say it is a dichotomy, but all the sources say it is a continuum. Please provide a source that supports your views. TFD (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING, as Ian Gilmour explained in Dancing with Dogma, the state actually increased under Thatcher, as did taxes. While the level of services declined, it actually cost more to have millions of people out of work, especially during 11 years of 0% economic growth. TFD (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

What I meant is that there the left and the right are polar opposites based on at least a theme or themes, that are generally irreconcilable to each other. If I used the wrong term, then I should have said continuum. I have presented the sources that I found for the definition of right-wing that are currently in the intro as I write now, if others oppose this definition they are welcome to present sources for an alternative definition to be discussed here.--R-41 (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

TFD, as for the issue of how much a government spends - well regardless of what political parties promise in elections - whether honest or not, typically governments end up spending more than what they promised simply because of the various crises, bureaucratic complications, and established interests that prevent reductions in spending. Political party economic programmes always assume favourable circumstances to their goals, when in reality the economy is unstable and quite honestly a policy platform designed usually six months to a year before a predicted or set election date, may be completely useless by the time they enter office due to the change of economic situations during that time frame.--R-41 (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. As Gilmour pointed out, the costs associated with Thatcherism were predictable. TFD (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

TFD, you are getting more and more uncivil and I wish you would apologize for your grossly uncivil comment you made that compared me to a JFK or 9-11 conspiracy theorist. Plus are we here to talk about Thatcherism or right-wing politics? Let's stop wasting time.--R-41 (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Then stop making unsubstantiated, incorrect claims. If you do not think it is important that whether the results of Thatcherism were known (as claimed by Ian Gilmour, who was in charge of the "Conservative Research Council"), then don't bring it up. TFD (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

R-41: You are usually such a rational editor that it is hard for me to understand why you consistantly refuse to address the points I raise, and instead keep saying that some on the right are Libertarian, and this is what Libertarians believe. Both are statements I agree with. But you have not provided a source that says that Libertarianism is more often called right-wing that other beliefs, or a source that says that Libertarianism is called right-wing because of those ideals it shares with Liberalism, which you list. Let me try a couple of anaologies. Certainly you agree that fundamentalist Christians are sometimes called right-wing. Suppose I inserted in the lead of this article the following sentence. "In the modern day, fundamentalist Christians reject social or state-imposed imposed equality as undermining rewards for faith, lovingkindness, and charity -- they claim it undermines family values and supports an unhealthy interest in sexuality and disrespect for religion." I'm sure you see how inappropriate such a statement would be in this article. The sentence you keep inserting is inappropriate for the same reason -- it is an argument in favor of the Libertarian belief system. I could replace it with a sentence that says, "In the modern day, right-wing libertarians reject social or state-imposed imposed equality as slowing the rapid accumulation of wealth by the richest one percent -- they claim it undermines the natural superiority of the rich and creates a situation where investors are forced to pay workers more than a minimum wage." I would never put such a negative description of Libertarianism into a Wikipedia article, because it is as biased against Libertarianism as you statement is biased in favor of Libertarianism. What we should do is not argue either way. Just state what the sources state, and leave it at that. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that it claims that the rich are superior you are putting words in my mouth. What the sentence that I included does say is that libertarians oppose society imposing equality upon them - they do not agree with empirical claims that human equality is a given thing that just exists - they do not believe that the state has the right to confiscate their wealth and redistribute it without their consent. Right libertarians commonly point out that redistribution of wealth involves the state controlling the capital of individuals without the consent of those who have that wealth, they view this as authoritarian. The statement that I included is almost a word-for-word paraphrase from a scholarly work by Moyra Grant called Key Ideas in Politics, it describes why it is right-wing. You changed what it said to something completely different that is not supported by the text, so I reverted it.--R-41 (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are links to the edit[35] and links to the source (p. 52)[36] As we discussed before, high school textbooks are not reliable sources for articles. TFD (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Well TFD, it is one of the rare sources on Google Books that is not talking about "right-wing extremism" or a biased lambasting of the right. Furthermore you have been told that there are instances were textbooks are acceptable, such as in response to your NPOV noticeboard post on Far-left politics, this is what a user said in response:

"I see nothing at all in any policy that says a textbook aimed at university students, rather than scholars, is unusable. In fact, WP:RS directly says "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." Even when the textbook is a tertiary source (and RS indicates that not all textbooks are), it says "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries..." I'd say that providing a basic definition in the introduction would count as "giving overviews or summaries"." by User:WhatamIdoing at 23:09, 1 March 2012, see here [37].

Now TFD, I imagine that the first point you will address is "this book is not aimed at university students like the user WhatamIdoing was referring to", true - but look at the second bolded quote in the section above that is taken from WP:RS, it says that textbooks may be used to give overviews and summaries. So TFD, this point that you bring up about the use of textbooks has been addressed on another issue and has been resolved.--R-41 (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

That discussion does not resolve anything. Policy says that introductory university textbooks may be helpful for "overviews or summaries", but scholarly works are preferable. The problem with introductory textbooks is that concepts may be simplified, no sources are provided and the claims do not enter academic discourse. Therefore there is no way of knowing the validity or acceptance of claims presented. In my experience, editors resort to these sources when they cannot find secondary sources that support what they want to put into the article. But if you cannot source a claim to a secondary rs, then it cannot be notable. TFD (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

R-41: You persist in failing to understand what I say, no matter how carefully I say it. Since I never said that you said that the rich are superior, I'm hardly putting words in your mouth by not saying what you say I said. In fact, I have not disagreed with anything that you said, as far as I recall, and in several cases stated explicitly that I agreed with you. What I said, and I don't know how I can put it more clearly than this, is that that the lead of this article on right-wing politics is not the place to present the case in favor of Libertarianism. And please tell me you have not really been trying to use a high school textbook to make your case! Rick Norwood (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

RICK NORWOOD. The article is already biased to the Left because it seeks to define the Right in terms of an issue that is a preoccupation of the Left, namely EQUALITY, but excising the classical liberal "justification" of inequality from the lead would make it EVEN MORE biased, because the traditionalist authoritarian "justification" of inequality would be retained, while the classical liberal "justification" of inequality would be excluded, falsely implying that the meaning of "Right-Wing" has not changed since the time of De Maistre, which of course, as you know full well, is absolute bunk. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)).

Unsure of my ground here, and I'm certainly not proposing to dig out sources, but might it be that you've hit upon the nub of the argument there, ERIDU. There is a difference between classical liberalism, which typically favours state intervention to alleviate poverty (Smith), and right-wing liberalism, which typically favours laissez-faire (Hayek). So the left-right divide in this particular area is not about free markets per se, but about interventionism. I haven't read all of the above, but could that way of looking at it help to square the circle? FormerIP (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I see if differently. Right-wing means support for inequality and the Left accuse liberals of supporting inequality and therefore call them right-wing. But liberals claim to support equality and call themselves centrists. They may even say that the Left support inequality and reverse the meaning of the terms. FormerIP, Hayek is only identified with the Right today, because neoliberalism has become the favored set of policies of the Right. But in his early career he saw himself as defending liberalism against conservatives. TFD (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to get into researching Hayek's biography, so I'll assume we can agree that laissez faire, at least, is pretty much always considered a right-wing philosophy.

My point is that, yes, you are correct that the key issue is inequality. And you also sound like you would agree that economic liberalism per se isn't really the property of either right or left. However, liberals can be on the right or the left accordingly as they oppose or support measures intended to reduce social inequalities created by markets. That's the proper way of sorting left-liberals from right-liberals. What any given liberal calls herself isn't really the point (plus I don't think you are correct, because there are many people who identify as liberal and not centrist - here I raise my hand).

The lead could, therefore, properly include reference to a difference between right and left in terms of attitudes to market intervention. This would partly satisfy ERIDU. But it could also be done without making it a claim of "right-wing libertarians", which I agree is not appropriate to the lead.

A key point, I think, is that the lead doesn't need to cover what liberals, libertarians, fascists or anyone else says about themselves. It can just give an overview from the perspective of social science. --FormerIP (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

FORMERIP: I think your "reduce social inequalities" point is a fair one (although remember that Hayek believed that there should always be a "safety net", and traditional conservatism includes a tradition of moral obligation to "consider the less fortunate") it is just that advocates of a "free society" believe that too much economic interventionism by the State, increases poverty, decreases freedom, increases the power of politicians, and decreases self-reliance. In practice nearly everybody agrees about the need to "consider the less fortunate", they just disagree about the policies which do this best. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC))

Yes, but where I agree with TFD is that it is not for the lead to present the various arguments of various factions or individuals, just to give a description in conceptual terms. What reasons someone gives for opposing a particular egalitarian proposition is secondary. It is the fact that they oppose it that puts them on the right. At least in relation to the specific proposition.

The lead could, subject to sourcing, say something like: It is a tendency of the right to be inclined against policies designed to alleviate social inequalities produced by markets because, variously, it is denied that such inequalities are present, because it is denied that such policies can succeed or because inequality is seen as the legitimate price of civil freedom.

That may be a little over-wordy, but maybe it could be a start. FormerIP (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU DREAMING you need to present sources for an alternative definition of the right-wing if you oppose the one in the intro. The current intro is supported by multiple sources. You claim that the intro is left-wing biased, but the only author in the intro sentence who is known as left-wing is Norberto Bobbio that I had removed out of concerns by right-leaning users here, but Rick Norwood restored. If you have a problem with the introduction, present sources for an alternative definition of right-wing and provide quotes from those sources, and then we can discuss an alternative definition.--R-41 (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that the definition is a compromise. Seeking to defend inequality is not how the Right define themselves (see the full Scruton definition already quoted) but it is how the Left define the Right, and since it is not wrong to define the Right as opposed to the egalitarianism of the Left, I have left it (so to speak!). My point is that deleting the classical liberal meaning of Right-Wing is a much more serious bias. Classical Liberalism was once on the Left, but is now on the Right, because there has been a general move to the Left since the French Revolution. There is also a different political tradition in the Anglosphere, which means that conservatives such as Edmund Burke see themselves as defending a tradition of freedom. What it means to be Right-Wing in the Anglosphere in the C21st is very different from the position that De Maistre was articulating. There seem to be a determined effort to ignore the fact, even though you would be hard pressed to find ANYBODY on the Right in the USA who wants to defend medieval feudalism! (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC))

ERIDU-DREAMING: It is not bias to insist on standard academic sources. Also, nobody, as far as I can tell, has suggested that the meaning of right-wing has not changed, so why keep bring that up? The question is to what extent Libertarians are called, or call themselves, right-wing. We have sources that say it happens, no reputable sources that say it is a major use of the phrase. Therefore, overloading the lead with Libertarianism, which many Libertarians strenuously object is not right-wing at all, is inappropriate. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

RICK NORWOOD: I am glad you agree that the meaning of Right-Wing has changed since the French Revolution. All you need to do now is agree that classical liberalism is now viewed as Right-Wing. Just re-read the sources that have already been quoted. You seem to have an obsession with deleting classical liberalism from the definition. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)).

As I have repeatedly pointed out, the term did not exist before the 20th century. TFD (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy does a reasonable job of explaining that there is a left-right spectrum with classical liberalism. As stated above, liberalism is not the property of either the left or the right. Perhaps all that needs to be considered is that it is hard to view Jeremy Bentham, for example, as belonging to the right. FormerIP (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING: What the hell (excuse my French) are you reading. Please show me where I have ever suggested deleting classical liberalism from the definition! How can I be "obsessed" with doing something I have never done? Please note that it is one thing to say some people describe some libertarians as right-wing, and an entirely different thing to use the lead in this article to argue the entirely unsupported claim that the reason some Libertarians are called right-wing is because they favor merit, choice, freedom, and non-conformity.

Also please note that a book that is essentially an A-levels crib is not an acceptable reference for anything.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with defintion "In politics, the Right, right-wing and rightist has been usually defined as acceptance of unequal rewards as desirable so long as the competition for them is a fair one." (An Introduction to Sociology by Goldthorpe) -- Vision Thing -- 12:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Goldthorpe is a fine source. Thanks for suggesting it, Vision_Thing. I've done a rewrite using Goldthorpe that I hope will be acceptable to everyone. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

R-41 and ERIDU-DREAMING: Please explain why you find Goldthorpe's formulation unacceptable. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying that Goldthrope is an unacceptable source, I was the one who added the Goldthrope source to the intro.--R-41 (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that we remove the source by Norberto Bobbio - the Italian left-wing liberal socialist scholar, and the source by Tom Flanagan - the Canadian right-wing libertarian conservative policymaker for the right-wing populist Reform Party of Canada and a senior fellow and the right libertarian Fraser Institute. Let's get scholars who do not have a clear political reputation and who cannot be criticized for having clear biases.--R-41 (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The claim by Norberto Bobbio (who was a Professor of Political Science at Turin University) that the Right is defined by its opposition to equality is pretty standard on the Left, deleting it would be absurd. It may be highly unusual to use somebody (Tom Flanagan) who is a Professor of Political Science in Canada, and on the Right, as a source for a Wikipedia article on the Right, but deleting the source on those grounds would be equally feeble. Mark Dickerson is the Professor of Political Science at the University of Calgary and Neil Nevitte is the Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC))

So you are accepting two users who have strong political opinions on the left and right to be used as sources. That's violation of WP:NPOV no matter whether both a person on the left and a person on the right are shown. We need neutral sources, Tom Flanagan is a staunchly libertarian conservative political theorist - not too mention extremely controversial, Flanagan said that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange should be assassinated using a military drone aircraft. If the article was about libertarian conservatism a quote by him would be acceptable.--R-41 (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Both the books mentioned are standard academic works. The fact that you dislike the politics of one or more of the authors is, of course, irrelevant. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No the issue is WP:NPOV. Why should we present sources by people with strong political motivations on a controversial topic such as this? We need sources by analysts, not present-day politicians. The politicians can be quoted for articles on what they specifically believe in - liberal socialism for Bobbio and libertarian conservatism for Flanagan.--R-41 (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Your assertion that because Tom Flanagan is on the Right politically, this excludes him from being used as a source on Wikipedia entry on Right-Wing politics, is of course absurd. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC))

The reliability of sources has nothing to do with the political views of the writers. Flanagan's book btw is an introductory college textbook and therefore not a good source. Otherwise it is not a biased book. Neutrality is a requirement of Wikipedia editors, not the sources they use. TFD (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Everyone who thinks forms opinions. If those opinions are reasoned opinions, it is not bias to hold them. It is only bias when the opinions go beyond what reason and evidence dictate, and while politicians often do that, and academics sometimes do that, in academia at least you lose respect if you show obvious bias. I know many academics who bend over backwards to present all of the arguments against their own point of view, in their effort to be fair. Will Durant was one example. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING: Once again I ask you, if you want this article to state that people use "right-wing" to mean people who favor freedom, provide evidence.Rick Norwood (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING, You say that rightists do not define themselves as supporting inequality, that is something the Left defines then as. By that same token, how many classical liberals define themselves as right-wing? Even so-called "right-libertarians" largely reject the term and see themselves as different from both the left and right. Also, politicans and philosophers define themselves by their ideology, not which wing they are on. While they may accept being placed on "the Right", I don't think you'd hear them say "as a right-winger I, believe.." but rather "as a conservative, I believe..." or "as a libertarian, I believe..." LittleJerry (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

LITTLE JERRY, There is a long answer and a short answer to that one. The short answer is that Classical Liberals define themselves as defending liberty, and because the political tradition which conservatives in the Anglosphere seek to defend includes a tradition of defending liberty, Classical Liberalism is now included as part of the Right. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)).

Are they included as part of the right by their own admission? If we can't define right-wing as acceptance of inequailty because rightists don't define themselves as such then perhaps we shouldn't define certain groups as right-wing if they themselves don't consider themselves such. I don't think you can have it both ways. LittleJerry (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The article has the Left-Wing definition of the Right (that the Right want to defend inequality) which I point out is a bit like defining the Japanese as non-European. It is a correct but odd way of putting it. I have made no effort to change it to a more accurate definition. If you are on the Left what is significant about the Right is that they oppose egalitarianism. If you are a hammer everything is a nail. How they define themselves is irrelevant to you. That is why I have let the definition stand. It is not incorrect to say that the Right oppose egalitarianism, just as it is not incorrect to say that Japan is not part of Europe. Changing the definition would therefore be pointless. You say, let us imagine for a moment that Wikipedia defines the Right in its own terms. Now, we have just established that Wikipedia does not define the Right in its own terms, but for the sake of your argument you want us to pretend that the Wikipedia entry defines the Right in its own terms. OK. How does the Right define itself?

Well let us pick up a book at random by somebody who is viewed as being on the Right politically. Take "Letters to a Young Conservative" by Dinesh D'Souza. He argues that Classical Liberals seek to limit the power of the government, increasing the scope for individual and private action. D'Souza claims that a Statist revolution of the 1930's introduced a new understanding of freedom that included a vastly greater role for government. He claims that a Liberation revolution in the 1960's was based on the claim that values should not be based on external authority but on the sovereignty of the self. Both of these changes were flagged up as increases in liberty. D'Souza responds that he is a conservative because he wants to conserve the principles of the "American Revolution". He views himself as a Classical Liberal. He opposes Statism. But he also claims that there are objective moral standards, and that a good life is lived in accordance with virtues.

"Since modern conservatism is dedicated both to classical liberalism and to virtue, it is open to the charge of contradiction."

D'Souza notes that conservatives are willing to endure inequalities of outcome, whereas Statists attribute inequality of outcome to unequal opportunities, which should be corrected by the State. D'Souza claims that at the heart of the dispute is two different conceptions of human nature. Some [let us call them the Left] believe that humans are intrinsically good, and so if people fail it is societies fault, and so we should create a new society; whereas others [let us call them the Right] claim that humans are not mere animals, but nor are we angels, and therefore utopian societies are not possible. A free market economic system (for example) uses self-interest to improve the general standard of living.

Now you point out that some of those who define themselves as defending liberty argue that there is no right and wrong way of living, and therefore they object to being lumped together with conservatives. They point out that some on the Right defend Classical Liberalism not because they think freedom is the right to do what you please, but because they view a free society as a precondition for virtue.

Fine. It nevertheless remains true that some on the Right, such as Dinesh D'Souza, do seek to defend Classical Liberalism, and because they are seen as being on the "Right", being on the "Right" includes people who defend Classical Liberalism, even if some of those who define themselves as being Classical Liberals are unhappy about being described as being "conservative" or on the "Right". (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC))

Noam Chomsky also claims to support classical liberalism and believes that his libertarian socialism is the rightful extension of it. LittleJerry (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

So what. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC))

Well, so what if D'Souza claims to support classical liberlism. Can you name any non-conservative classical liberals who define themselves as right-wing? LittleJerry (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU DREAMING is alluding to the argument made by Kirk and Meyer about American conservatism not the Anglospheric Right, and has little acceptance. See for example F.A. Hayek's "Why I am not a conservative". But if the U.K. has a right-wing tradition, it is conservatism, not liberalism. TFD (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

While self-definitions should be included, other definitions ("as others see us") are just as, or even more, important. Others are often more objective because they actually see our actions, which may stand in stark contrast to our professed beliefs. (ALL humans fight for freedom! ALL believe that their version of freedom is the best!) It may well hurt, but we learn much from hearing how others see us and then amending our ways. It's very human to see oneself as somewhere near the middle of the political spectrum. This is especially true of those who aren't activists, and are somewhat naive about the full political spectrum. Those who live in Europe, where every conceivable political party exists and is legal (unlike in the USA), are often much more savvy about such matters, and are more accurate in their understandings of their own place on the political continuum. It took several decades of this American living in Europe to really understand the things that define various political POV, and it's been quite a journey! So, include all types of definitions and attribute them. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Most of the cleavages between parties date back to 19th century revolutions and conflicts that are no longer important but are still divisive. TFD (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply to ERIDU-DREAMING (17:21, 21 March 2012 Posting:

• We do not balance what left and right say about the right, we use academic/reliable sources.
• Other than extremists, few people self-identify as right-wing since the end of the Second World War. Most right-parties went out of existence at that time.
• People on the right tend to identify with specific ideologies, rather than a generic right. So if a right-winger for example extols the welfare state, he is not saying that that is the typical right-wing position, but that it is his party's position.
• One cannot assume that conservatism is right-wing.
• The argument that one can be a conservative in a society where there are no traditional institutions to conserve is not generally accepted. Roosevelt could just have easily called himself a conservative and his opponents would have continued calling themselves liberals. (Many writers in fact call Roosevelt and the New Deal conservative.)

TFD (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice claim - might you show us the "many writers" who call FDR and the New Deal "conservative"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

See for example John Spiller's "To what extent was the New Deal conservative", The United States, 1763-2001, Routledge, 2004, (p. 180: "...there remains a consensus that the essence of the New Deal was conservative".[38] While FDR himself is generally considered to be liberal, some writers have called him conservative, most notably Copnrad Black in his recent biography. Notably the Conservative Party of Canada adopted New Deal Policies, but they were reversed by the Liberals when they took power in 1935. If that is difficult for you to understand it is because you define "conservative" as the trend that developed out opposition the New Deal. TFD (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Alas - your Google-farming for individual snippets does not support your bropad claim above - that "Many writers in fact call Roosevelt and the New Deal conservative." Not "FDR's essence and the New Deal's essence" whatever that means. You made a specific unsupported claim. And note that I do not "define 'conservative'" in any post on Wikipedia - I rely on the silly idea that we use reliable sources on Wikipedia instead of asserting over and over what I know. Try using reliable sources, really, instead of scrounging for people talking about "essences." Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Instead of pushing your views, you should try to ensure that articles represent published views weighted to the degree of their acceptance. You have made your views clear, but we are not here to argue our personal views but to explain how subjects are viewed in mainstream sources. I really wonder at your tenacity to continue to argue points long after clear evidence has been presented to you. TFD (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Overloading the lede again

I recently trimmed down the lead section and simplifed some things. I don't see why the Roger Scruton quotes needs to be in the lede. Why not put in the the "History and Use" and have the lede simply state that some see rightism as a loose term. Again, we need to focus on the body of the aricle and have the lede summarize it. LittleJerry (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, it refers to Scruton as a "conservative philospher". But he is not actually writing as such in the Palgrave-McMillan Dictionary of Political Thought. Normally when that type of source is used there is no need to quote the writer. It's a bit like saying "E=mc2, according to the left-wing scientist Albert Einstein". TFD (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

ED keeps reverting back the bloated version without discussion. LittleJerry (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Origins of usage of the term

An editor replaced "It was not until the early 20th century that the terms "left" and "right" came to be associated with political ideology" with "It was not until the early twentieth century that English speaking countries began to apply the terms "right" and "left" to their own political affairs." The second phrase is only partly true. The terms entered British discourse in the 1906 general election, but only the term "left" was normally used, because the Labour Party could be identified with the French Left, while Liberals and Conservatives were far too moderate to be identitied with the French Right. In any case, the source refers to the United Kingdom, not to "English-speaking countries". TFD (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)