Talk:Radical right (United States)

/Archive 1

Tea Party Movement

The recent additions for the Tea Party Movement are not sourced to literature describing them as radical right and I will therefore remove them. TFD (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The section regarding the Tea Party Movement is poorly sourced at best. I have therefore removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.245.87 (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of section

An editor has removed an entire section with the notation, "but where does the source state "radical right"?" In fact the source, which is a brief paper, uses the term 12 times, as well as synonyms. Even the quote from Chip Berlet refers to "right-wing populism", which is as is clear in the article the term that he and others use for radical right. TFD (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

See below --- "right wing populism" is not a synonym for "radical right" and absolutely does not allow us to categorize any person or group as "radical right." Opinions may be cited as opinions - in the case at hand, however, that is insufficient for your edit war to insert this material. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

categorizations of people or groups

Sources which directly call a group or person' "radical right" may, at most be used as an expression of opinion. Sources which do not directly make a stetemnt can not be used here to categorize any person or group. Use of "synonyms" is an absurd position, as anyone can see. The claim that if a source calls a person or group "extreme right" or "far right" that we can then assert in Wikipedia's voice that the person or group is "radical right" fails utterly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Courser (used as the source to categorize the Tea Party as "radical right"):

However tempting it may be to lump the Tea Party together with characterizations of earlier social movements of the “radical right,” a careful and objective comparison evinces few similarities.

Hardly seems to categorize the Tea Party as "radical right" when he says it is not even similar! In fact, it is an abuse of Wikipedia to so grossly misuse a source utterly. Collect (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Although Courser objects to the categorization of the Tea Party as "radical right", he says that other writers have. That is all that the section you removed says, it does not say that the Tea Partyis radical right. Why else who he devote a substantial section of his paper to the book Radical Right? As noted in this article, scholars differ in the use of terminology, but clearly Berlet and others are talking about the same phenomenon. I posted the discussion to WP:NORN#Tea Party Movement. TFD (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You present it as fact. With NO PAGE NUMBERS even. This is an abuse of how cites are supposed to work. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not presented as a fact, but as an opinion. Notice the use of terms such as "tends to place", "is seen as", "has described it as". I used the HTML source which did not use page nos., but have now found them in the PDF source. TFD (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

First --it ain't even the source's opinion. Second placing it in this article is indeed categorizing the Tea Party as Radical Right. That is what placing it in this article means! Cheers - but next time I see such a gross abuse of a source, I suspect it will not go to NOR/N <g>. Collect (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The section should be included, but the author's opinion that the categorization is illegitimate should also be included. — goethean ॐ 14:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You mean a book saying "The John Doe association is not homophobic" could be used to justify labelling the "John Doe association" as homophobic by including that negative source in an article? Um -- ever read "Alice in Wonderland"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The source says that although the Tea Party has been described as part of the radical right, it should not be. My proposal is to have the article report exactly what the source says. I'm not sure how I can be more clear. — goethean ॐ 15:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought of including his opinion, but at present he appears to be a lone voice, and therefore WP:WEIGHT would exclude it. He writes, "This makes the Tea Party movement distinctive from earlier movements: its unwillingness to mobilize voters and its lack of organization." Yet some of the movements described as "radical right" did not mobilize voters or have unified organizations. We cannot make this point ourselves, but would need sources, which would be available if his views had received any recognition. Collect, a source that says, "Recent scholarship tends to label John Doe as homophobic" is a good source for the statement, "Recent scholarship tends to label John Doe as homophobic". It is not a good source to state that John Doe is not homophobic, regardless of the author's opinion. TFD (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the on-topic and intelligible response. — goethean ॐ 15:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

In the case at hand, the source clearly does NOT claim the Tea Party movement is "radical right" and the perversion of the source is improper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The source says explicitly, repeatedly and at great length, that the Tea Party has been described as being part of the radical right. The article can and should echo the source on this topic. I can quote the offending passage in question if you would like. — goethean ॐ 00:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

slomo edit war

TDF keeps inserting material without discussion, i suggest we ask the page to be locked until we can have time to discuss. TDF, plz self-revert before the page lock. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

In fact I opened a discussion thread above, you have not commented but instead have removed sourced material, saying, "2 hours wasn't long enough for me to d". TFD (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article mention the Tea Party?

Should the article say that "Recent scholarship tends to place the Tea Party Movement within the tradition of the radical right"? TFD (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source says that recent scholarship tends to place the Tea Party Movement within the tradition of the radical right. Some editors have pointed out that the scholar who makes this observation disagrees with what the scholarly community states. However I see no reason why the fact that a scholar disagrees with what the academic community believes is reason not to report what they believe. The edit is here and the source is here. See also the discussion at WP:NORN#Tea Party and above. TFD (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The reliable source states specifically:

However tempting it may be to lump the Tea Party together with characterizations of earlier social movements of the “radical right,” a careful and objective comparison evinces few similarities.

It is a perversion of WP:V and WP:RS top so grossly misuse a source. Cheers.Collect (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Include the material. It is difficult to understand, and even more difficult to sympathize with those who would exclude the material. Presumably, they would even oppose quoting from the source extensively. How does one "pervert" a source by quoting from it extensively? Such are the mysteries of Wikipedia. — goethean ॐ 23:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Collect, When a reliable source explains how recent scholarship views something it is reporting a fact. It is a fact that recent scholarship views it that way. However when the author expresses his opinion, he is expressing an opinion. Facts and opinions are different things - we report facts, including facts about the preponderance of various opinions, but we only report opinions "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". However Collect is shifting his position - he claimed that the source (which clearly refers to Daniel Bell'a book The Radical Right) was not referring to the radical right. Now he accepts that it was but thinks that weight should be given to the opinion expressed in the source. Instead of coming to this article with a pre-conceived view ("Tea Party good, liberal pointy-headed professors bad") Collect should commit to reflecting sources accurately. TFD (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)