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)

When a reliable source says that a group is NOT readical right, for us to cheat our readers by labelling it ourselves as "radical right" is a violation of core Wikipedia principles. You have asserted that "synonyms" are what you rely upon - and I state here that "synonyms" are not a valid rason to categorize a group as being "radical right" at all. Cheers - this is a violation of CORE principles at this point. Collect (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, when making egregiously errant claims as to what I claim or do not claim -- the further you depart form anything you could remotely back up from my posts, the motre concerned I am that Wikipedia values are being ignored. You will not find any post of mine saying anything remotely like what you claim I said - and that is not a great example for any editor. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Collect, if we have a reliable source that says most Americans believe in God, we are allowed to use it - it does not mean we are saying "in Wikipedia's voice" that God exists. The fact that the pollster or the reporter who wrote the story believes in/does not believe in God is irrelevant. You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between facts, where the relevant policy is WP:VERIFIABILITY, and opinions, where the relevant policy is WP:NPOV. Do you understand the difference between saying most scholars believe "x" and "x" is true? BTW could you please refrain from using UPPER-CASE LETTERS, and bold text to emphasize your opinions, as well as esoteric, erudite-sounding words - we don't all sit at our desks with a dictionary! In any case, readers would be interested to know how modern scholarship relates the Tea Party to the radical right. You should not see this as an attack on your belief system. TFD (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

When another editor seems not to read what is in black and white, the use of capittal letters is called for. Meanwhile, I would note the precept that one should discuss the edits and not the editors, and specifically not to misstate what the other editor has written. Complaining that another editor uses English words which one finds "erudite" is a comment about the editor. Courser's direct quote making it clear that he does not consider the Tea Party to be "radical right" is clearly thus acceptable to you, of course. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Courser rejects mainstream opinion. However, his writing is a reliable source so we can mention facts stated in his report. If you can show that his opinions have received any attention then we can report them as well, provided we assign them the proper weight. So far his opinions appear to have received zero attention.[1] If you demonstrate that your personal view has received attention in the literature, then please provide a source. TFD (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I notice you included Ronald Formisano's book, but not his comment, "The contemporary right-wing grassroots rebellion, however, differs strikingly from earlier mobilizations by enjoying a sometimes uneasy alliance with powerful astroturf groups and with Tea Party caucuses in Congress and state legislatures."[2] It is interesting that he puts the Tea Party in this tradition and that he remarks on how it differs from past manifestations yet, unlike Courser, does not claim it does not belong. TFD (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

As usual you insist on misusing sources -- you use Courser, yet now you say his stated opinion is wrong. I use Formisano, and now to you he is wrong. Neither Courser nor Formisano asserts "radical right" as a description for the TPM. Nor does the NYT use it as a description. I use the NYT, and I suppose to you, who KNOWS the TRUTNH, the NYT must be wrong. In fact, every source is wrong except for what you know is the [[WP:TRUTH}truth]]. Has it occurred to you that what you know to be the truth, just might be wrong? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not claim Formisano was wrong, I merely pointed out that you omitted part of what he wrote, and I think the article would be improved by adding the passage I quoted. It is a good xource. TFD (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Exclude The TP are not radical right. If they are why is a source which says they are not being used? Were are the sources which state they are radical right? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • There are "opinion pieces" which assert thay are fanatic, violent, racist, gynephobic, religious zealot, pro-ritualistic-cannibalism idiots who plan on overthrowing the government. I suggest that such opinion pieces do not belong in any Wikipedia article at all. Meanwhile, I hope readers will see that the mainstream sources do not make the claims TFD here asserts he knows are true. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • We are not saying that the TPM is "radical right" but that "Recent scholarship tends to place the Tea Party Movement within the tradition of the radical right", which is what the source says. Whether or not the TPM is radical right is not something on which I am expressing an opinion - personal opinions of editors have no place in discussions. TFD (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You have written above that Courser's opinions have received no attention and that he rejects mainstream opinion, hence he is fringe. Why is he being used at all? If Courser is correct in his opinion then you will have no trouble finding academic sources which discuss how the TPM are radical right. You should not cherry pick a sentence from a source to push a POV. Courser says they are not RR as such the source should not be used to say that they are. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter if the writer agrees with or disagrees with mainstream opinion, it is a reliable source for what mainstream opinion is. Often the best sources for explaining mainstream opinion are sources that challenge it. We can find numerous writers putting the TPM in the tradition of the radical right, for example Chip Berlet, Robert Altemeyer, Sean Wilentz. Over at the Tea Party Movement an editor listed sources.[3][4] Incidentally, what reason do you have to believe that Courser's statement was false? Do you think that because an academic forms an opinion contrary to mainstream orthodoxy that he must have his facts wrong? Could you please show what policy supports your view. TFD (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no sources in those archives which say the TP are RR. I also did not say that Courser had his facts wrong, as he presents no facts only his opinion. I fail to see how one persons opinion can be used for what is obviously a contentious edit. If he is correct in his assessment that mainstream scholarship views the TP as RR then you will have no problems in finding these sources and using those. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

That "Recent scholarship tends to place the Tea Party Movement within the tradition of the radical right"" is a fact not an opinion. (Compare with "most Americans believe in God". That is a fact independent of whether or not God exists or the opinin of the writer on God's existence.) All the sources in the link place the Tea Party within the tradition of right-wing movements, whether they call it "radical right", "right-wing populism" or whatever. As the article explains, "There is disagreement over how right-wing movements should be described, and no consensus in terminology, although the terminology developed in the 1950s, using the words "radical" or "extremist" is the most commonly used. Other scholars prefer calling them simply "The Right" or "conservatives", which is what they call themselves. The terminology is used to describe a broad range of movements." Fraser and Freeman for example place the Tea Party in the tradition of Know-Nothings, Huey Long, Father Coughlin, Francis Townsend, William Lemke, George Wallace, the John Birch Society - all of which are mentioned in this article.[5] As Courser explains, "Recent scholarship tends to place the Tea Party Movement within the tradition of the radical right". Is your objection that you do not believe the Tea Party be considered a right-wing movement or that you object to the term "radical right"? TFD (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No, my objection is As Courser explains, "Recent scholarship tends to place the Tea Party Movement within the tradition of the radical right". Were exactly is this scholarship? Why do you not use this scholarship instead of a source which says they are not actually RR? One persons opinion, who you yourself have said rejects mainstream opinion which would make him fringe. You are giving undue weight to the opinion of a fringe author. Just use all the recent scholarship of which Courser speaks. And I think my comment on this RFC has gone on for long enough. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have emended the faulty claims attributed to Courser with his actual words. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The actual and real statementts are:

What little recent academic analyses the Tea Party has received thus far has attempted to place it within the context of past scholarly work on conservative social movements. The comparison is not flattering, as social movements that originate from the right have almost invariably been portrayed as intolerant, resentful, ignorant, and paranoid.

beyond the fact the movement is concentrated within the Republican Party and consists primarily of onservatives, it is not as Berlet attests “the type of right-wing populist movement seen previously throughout US history.”

This characterization does not bear up under scrutiny and falsely places the Tea Party in the context of an academic tradition of marginalizing populist and conservative social movements as illiberal, intolerant, and radical. On the whole, Tea Party movement is neither racist nor radical, and its political demands fit within the mainstream of American politics.

Which are quite at odds with the claims heretofore asserted for the Courser work. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that long extracts are good style, when we could easily summarize them. The resulting section sounds a bit strange. We begin by stating that "recent academic analyses...has attempted to place [the Tea Party] with the context of past work on scholarly work", then we spend most of the section explaining why Zachary Courser believes this approach to be wrong. We do not even explain why mainstream opinion has reached this conclusion. Cf WP:FLAT - we acknowledge that scholars believe the earth is round, then provide arguments why it is not. TFD (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The "strangeness" is likely due to the fact that the original claim in this article is laid on its head by the accurate quoting of the source. Sorry TFD -- when one totally misquotes a source ofr misleadingly uses a source to imply what it actually does not only not imply, but contradicts, is always going to be "strange" to someone. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Collect, do you understand the difference between someone saying "most scholars believe x, but I believe y" and saying "y is true"? Our role is to accurately represent opinions on the basis of which they are held in mainstream sources, not to shill for the Tea Party. If you do not like how the Tea Party is viewed, here is not the place to correct general perceptions. TFD (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

What I did was read the entire source. As the claims made for it were not in the source and in some cases were 180 degrees away from the source, using quotations from the source seemed wise. I fear you are too sure of the WP:TRUTH that the Tea Party movement is "radical right" that when your chosen source states the opposite that you blame the messengers of that fact. And if you wish to claim I shill for anyone, then I assure you that you are egregiously mistaken in that attack. Courser does not say what you asserted he said -- as the exact quotes make clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

He said exactly what I put in, but said that he disagreed with what other scholars said and explained why. However, WP:WEIGHT requires us to provide more emphasis on the main body of thinking, not on minority views. The result of your edit is to inject bias, and place the Tea Party in a more favorable light than it is normally seen. That is POV-pushing. TFD (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

(od) What an amazing claim -- when I use the source you presented and used it honestly, you now think Courser is a minority viewpoint! LOL! Collect (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Courser writes, "recent academic analyses [of] the Tea Party has...attempted to place it within the context of past scholarly work.... This characterization does not bear up." A reasonable interpretation of what he writes is recent academic analyses of the Tea Party places it within the context of past scholarly work and Courser disagrees with recent academic anaylses. You appear to have difficulty understanding what Courser is saying, but I have explained it pretty clearly. TFD (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)