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)

I'm confused.

1) A source (Courser?) says recent scholars classify the TPM as a continuation of the radical right.

2) Editors here point out that a scholar (a different scholar or Courser again?) is at odds with the scholarly community.

So the scholarly community disagrees that "recent scholars place the TPM within the tradition of the radical right"? What does the scholarly community say about where recent scholars place the TPM? Jojalozzo 02:25, 2 April 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)

You are interpreting Courser, finding opinions he does not state. I quote Courser, per WP:V. There is a big difference in the two types of editing. And mine is what Wikipedia policies require. Collect (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT (a policy btw): "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." See Courser: "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." Policy requires us to give greater prominence to the viewpoint placing the Tea Party within the radical right. Whether or not Courser's own contrary views deserve any attention is something you failed to establish. If you don't like what academics are saying, just say so. Do not represent that somehow you are following policy. TFD (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

And again you ELIDE what Courser says! He says "attempted" which in Englsih means that the attempt was not successful in his opinion at all. And when a reliable source is used, it is simply weird to then say the reliable source's own statements do not count. And I would note that it was, indeed, you who insisted on using this source, so for you to then say it can not be used for what it clearly states is weird to the nth power! Collect (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• RFC Comment: This seems to be a good case for using more sources than just one. However, going just by the one, wouldn't it make sense to say something like "While the Tea Party is broadly/often/(whatever word the source uses) placed within the radical right, some commentators say there exist significant differences between the two." --Dailycare (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • But the page currently uses the source's precise language - which is substantially different from your proposal. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to use precisely the same words that sources use, it's often better to capture the gist of what sources say and weave it into a text of our own. --Dailycare (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Even if the "rewording" is 180 degrees from what the source itself says? Not. Collect (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comments

  In my experience, an RFC is less effective when it's dominated by insiders. IMO, the role of insiders is to clarify their positions but not to counter every statement that does not agree with their opinions.

  Courser's paper is a complex analysis that will not support simple bald statements. By my quick reading (but not an in-depth study) he is saying that the Tea Party is radical and very conservative. My interpretation of the quoted sentence above (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.) is that the TP is different than the earlier movement identified as the "radical right" (i.e. Bell et al.) in the 1950's. Since the 1950's, the term has broadened to include other movements that are conservative and radical andI do not see where Courser says the TP is not part of today's notion of "radical right" nor do I see where he says that contemporary scholars place it in the radical right as TFD suggests. I do not find Courser's paper very helpful in addressing the question.Jojalozzo 02:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

  • He writes, "...recent academic analys[i]s...has attempted to place it within the context of past scholarly work on conservative social movements". He then says the comparison is not flattering and refers to Bell's 1963 book, The Radical Right, and 1955 articles by Lipset ("The sources of the radical right") and Hofstadter ("The pseudo-conservative revolt") that appear in it. He uses the term when he says he rejects the comparison and uses it several times more when he explains past scholarly work. TFD (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    • IOW you use the title of a work to imply that anyone mentioned in the work is part of the group in the title, even if the author makes no such claims in the work at all. Sorry -- titles are not "verifiable sources for claims". Collect (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

TFD: The statement at the heart of this appears to require your synthesis and is not directly supported by the source. Why are you relying on a source that does not think the TPM is part of the radical right to make the claim that other scholars do so???? Please find one or more sources that make the association directly rather than depending on tenuous inferences from a critic of that position. Jojalozzo 02:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not synthesis to say that he is talking about the same topic, although he alternatives the terminology, refering to them as "radical right" (in quotes) and also "past conservative movements". Read the the following sourced extract from the article and tell me that he is not talking about the same thing:

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.[3] The term "radical right" was coined by Seymour Martin Lipset in his article included in The new American Right, published in 1955.[6]... The study of the radical right began in the 1950s.... A framework for description was developed primarily in Richard Hofstadter's "The pseudo-conservative revolt" and Seymour Martin Lipset's "The sources of the radical right". These essays, along with others by Daniel Bell, Talcott Parsons, Peter Viereck and Herbert Hyman were included in The new American Right (1955). In 1963, following the rise of the John Birch Society, the authors were asked to re-examine their earlier essays and the revised essays were published in the book The Radical Right....[13]

TFD (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Certainly Courser is talking about the radical right and the TPM but none of what you quote directly supports the statement that concerns this RfC. Where does he say other scholars are placing the TPM in the radical right tradition? Unless I am misunderstanding, these quotes refer to pre-TPM movements and do not concern TPM. If these quotes are as close as Courser comes to the statement in question, then I don't see how we can get the rest of the way without synthesis. Jojalozzo 05:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As explained in Courser's article, recent scholarship tends to place the Tea Party in the radical right. Rather than conduct our own original research, it is better to accept that. But here are some examples:

This article['s] aim is to show that the Tea Party is a genuine right-wing movement... which revives particular American traditions of conservatism and the radical right.[6]

In the past two decades, European politics have witnessed the transformation of populist radical right parties from the margins to the mainstream.... not a political party, the rise of the Tea Party movement in the United States has created a surge of right-wing populism and has taken on many commonalities with European right-wing populist party agendas.[7]

Now, after the rise of the radical right Tea Party movement...[8]

...radical politics is often being practised most successfully by radical Right movements and parties. This is the case if one considers... the Tea Party in the US....[9]

TFD (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't see where Courser explains that specific point but I admit I have not read the article so carefully. I apologize for that but I am just a random drop in invited to comment here by RfcBot. Please show me. Jojalozzo 05:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

He writes, "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 (Bell 1963; Lipset 1955; Hofstadter 1955, 1965).... 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.... Hofstadter, along with Daniel Bell, Seymour Martin Lipset, and others in the edited volume The Radical Right (1955, 1963), expanded the thesis regarding paranoid populists to include groups on the political right that were associated with anti-communism and McCarthyism.... The lack of a stable social hierarchy and the mutability of social status in American life produced resentment and irrational fear in the radical right.... Bell draws a direct comparison between the Populists of the 1890s and the radical right of the 1950s and 60s as being “dispossessed” social groups that sought “targets on whom they can vent their resentments, targets whose power can serve to explain their dispossession.... [Bell] goes further to claim that the radical right is bewildered by the complexities of contemporary politics and is unable to cope. The “politics of frustration” is at the core of radical right.... So for Bell it is not only status anxiety that inspires the radical right, but the fact that society and politics advanced beyond their understanding or perhaps even their capacity.... Bell’s questioning of the capacity of the members of the radical right to conceive of their political world is indicative of a growing skepticism by academics in the 1950s and early 60s of democracy.... Despite the focus on conservatism being a pathology of social movements, the above depiction of the “radical right” offers little evidence that conservatism is inherently illiberal or dangerous." By "past scholarly work on conservative social movements", he is referring Bell, Lipset and Hofstadter's writing in The Radical Right about "earlier social movements of the “radical right”", and does not mention any other American scholars of the past. TFD (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

And so you consider then =m to be paranoid polulists? Sorry -- your posts are way off on this. Nor do I think comments made about groups specifically in the 1960s applies to groups in the 2010s. Cheers - but you weaken your case with every post <g>. Collect (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

@Collect: You've had plenty of say here and piling on like this is unseemly. I suggest you step back and let this process complete without further intrusion. I'm finished here also. Jojalozzo 16:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

@TFD: Ok. This is what I was reading also. I don't see anywhere in that content that Courser claims recent scholars are placing the TPM in the radical right tradition. I cannot find any support for your position in that source. Jojalozzo 16:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you think he means by "the context of past scholarly work on conservative social movements", if not Bell, Lipset and Hofstadter? I posted the question at WP:NORN#Radical Right. TFD (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

He is explicitly general in his statement, identifying "conservative social movements". I do not see any basis for making a specific statement that narrows this down to the Radical Right. If he'd meant the Radical Right I must assume he'd have said that. He doesn't say that, so I don't see how we can use his paper as support for our doing so. You may get a positive answer the question you ask at NORN but that is not the question we are addressing here. It would be more useful to ask if we can assume the author is using the phrase, "conservative social movements", to mean the Radical Right. Jojalozzo 17:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What about, "says that recent scholarship tends to place the Tea Party Movement within the tradition of "conservative social movements" as described in The Radical Right? (I put in in quotes because The Radical Right does not use that term.) TFD (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps start a new subsection with such a proposal. IMO, it's still synthesis because it would have been so easy for Courser to say something like that but, because he didn't, perhaps it's purposeful. '..."conservative social movements" such as those described in the The Radical Right' might be less presumptive but lacks the teeth of the RfC's original statement. Such a weak statement might not be worth including here. (BTW, I'd ditch "tends" as weaseling.) Jojalozzo 01:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Exclude. This is ridiculous; in the lead, WP tries to define the term as a collection of extremist groups. If you KEEP the definition, a libertarian non-violent grass-roots movement, which has considerable variation, can only be described as "Populist". Radical Right is being used not as an actual political classification, but as an epithet. If you want to include in the lead that the term is also used as an insult and without actual meaning by irresponsible Politicians, then and ONLY THEN include the Tea Party. The Tea Party itself isn't really a "right-wing" group at all, but libertarian, and initially formed in opposition to excessive REPUBLICAN/Bipartisan spending, namely bank bailouts.209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Exclude - The statement in question is only indirectly supported by the source and requires editorial synthesis. Find a source that either makes the statement directly or locate some scholarly works that actually place the TPM with the radical right. Jojalozzo 02:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Exclude - While I personally would identify the TP as "Radical Right," (and certainly not "Libertarian" as mentioned by someone earlier; They're far too Socially Conservative to be even close to Libertarian...) the source being used is not exactly a "smoking gun," and the lack of other RS being introduced is, to me, somewhat telling. Though, for the record, I think the term "Radical Right" is fairly absurd...like "Reactionary Left" or something... --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 02:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Exclude: per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Exclude: The information from the source does not meet the definition from the lede, to wit "conspiracist, attuned to anti-American or anti-Christian agents of foreign powers, and 'radical'"(citation omitted). In fact, it expresses the exact opposite, that the Tea Party is within the American mainstream. Eastshire (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the name of this topic a proper name?

I think "radical right" is a common noun phrase like "right-wing" or "far left". It should be written in lower case and the title should be "Radical right". Jojalozzo 01:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

To the extent that it is an attempt to attach "certain attributes" as a general rule to a part of the 'political spectrum", I again point out that there are zero definitions of the "political spectrum" which apply to all periods in all countries. The current Russian "radical right" has nought to do with the US "radical right" which has nought to do with the Chinese "radical right" and the "radical right" in each of these countries has nought to do with the "radical right" of, say, 50 years ago, as a matter of definition. The term is a Humpty-Dumptyism exercise at best, and a fount of POV-pushing at worst. Collect (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand how that applies to the question here. Jojalozzo 03:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It calls into sharp focus the question as to whether the topic itself as "interpreted" here by some editors even exists as something of more than ephemeral significance, especially with the straining to place the "tea party" in it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It is actually a proper noun phrase that refers to right-wing movements in the United States. I do not think it matters whether or not it is capitalized. Although the Left and the Right are normally capitalized, far left and far right are not. TFD (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is an organized "Radical Right" along the lines of the "Tea Party" then I could see it as a proper name but I don't know of such an organization. The "radical right" is a concept or classification that does not rise to proper noun-hood any more than does "right-wing movement". See here for a graph of capitalized usage in books. "Radical Right" and "radical right" peak together in the sixties and tail off in the seventies after which only "radical right" resurges into the 21st century. Jojalozzo 16:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move. (non-admin close) --Born2cycle (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Radical Right → Radical right – This article is about right-wing movements. The term "radical right" is a common noun phrase like "far-left" not a proper name like the "Tea Party". See the following lead sentence from Far-right politics: "Far-right, extreme right, hard right, radical right, and ultra-right are terms used to discuss the qualitative or quantitative position a group or person occupies within right-wing politics." (my emphasis) Jojalozzo 16:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support. Agree with the nom, looks like a common noun to me, which means it should be decapitalised per WP:CAPS. Jenks24 (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support as a clear case of WP:CAPS. Compare to global justice movement, which was recently moved due in part to a formal group calling itself the Global Justice Movement. The current capitalization suggests an entity, whereas the article simply describes radical right-wing groups. Some countries have parties with "left" or "right" in their names, but the US is not one of them. --BDD (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Determine a simple matter of style according to WP guidelines. Noetica^Tea? 06:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support per all, and WP:TITLEFORMAT: not a proper noun. ENeville (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• support - for all the reasons given above. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Comment The article is about American groups that are most often described as "radical right", not about the term itself. TFD (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Then why does the article begin "Radical Right is a term" and then go on to use "term" twice more in the lead? Jenks24 (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Also the article says it is used for various groups and not a single entity called Radical Right.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • In which case the lede is silly and misleading to readers. Sorry - this article needs to be about the "term" and the idea that it is to be a COATRACK for "bad Anerican groups" is errant. Collect (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • How do you think it should be phrased? TFD (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Often the lead will explain and define the term used as the article title. That does not mean the article is about the term. This article is not about the term. It is about the radical right, i.e. conservative political movements. The lead is could be better phrased if it said something like "The radical right refers to right-wing, conservative political movements." but this is standard lead structure even as written now. Jojalozzo 21:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Your formulation (like the current first sentence of the article) fails to respect the use-mention distinction. I think what you're looking for is "Radical right refers to right-wing, conservative political movements" or "The term radical right refers to right-wing, conservative political movements". Deor (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

And in what way does "radical" then figure in? The formulation you present would apply to the Boy Scouts even <g>. Collect (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

How could we end the following introductory sentence: "The radical right is ..."? Jojalozzo 01:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"The radical right are American political movements that are more conservative than the main political parties." Then continue lead with main attributes, why Bell, Lipset and others called them TRR, mention alternative names, identify major groups and literature. TFD (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice! I was stuck. I prefer "The radical right areis composed of American political movements that are more conservative than the main political parties." since the radical right is a collective noun that is considered singular. Jojalozzo 03:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Or "consists of". TFD (talk) 03:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, again. Jojalozzo 04:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

All conservatives are "radical" per new lede

A lede which asserts that anyone who is more conservative than a major political party is "radical" is nuts. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The lead does not assert that they are radical or right-wing but uses the terminology developed by Daniel Bell, Seymour Martin Lipset and others, who defined the Republican Party as the Right and groups to their right the "radical right". TFD (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

An unabated misuse of Lipset. Cheers -- but would you please show a source which says that anyone to the "right" of a "major political party" is "radical right"? I doubt such exists. In fact, I doubt that any definition exists of "right" which is applicable to more than one place at more than one time. Collect (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The new sentence added to the lead in this diff was completely WP:OR. I also do not see any discussion on the talk page and the edit summary suggests, only two editors discussing it briefly at the end of a move discussion. That is a wholly inappropriate place to discuss the lead. Such a micro-discussion, only discussed by two editors, should've been transparent and visible with it's own section header. The material was challenged. Per WP:V, I removed it until a source is found.--v/r - TP 20:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your removal because it resulted in a literally incoherent lede. I had this page watchlisted for some time, and just reverted it to make the lede coherent, not because I have any opinion on the content dispute. Feel free to remove whatever you wanted if it leaves the lede grammatically coherent. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought I had reverted to what was there before the new lede was written earlier today. As long as the WP:OR added in the above diff isn't there I've no concerns; or if a source is found.--v/r - TP 20:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Looks like I've stepped in "it" here. My apologies for acting without more notice. I misunderstood the level of participation in the page move discussion and took silence for consent. I also understood Bell to support my edit. I've no objection to backing out my changes though I think what was there previously was inadequate. Jojalozzo 20:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Plotzke writes on p. xxx of TRR: "In relational terms, a radical right normally includes the most conservative parts of the Republican Party and more conservative positions outside it." TFD (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What if we said: "The radical right consists of political movements that are significantly more conservative than the main political parties." Jojalozzo 20:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

And what is wrong with "radically"? I do not know of any quantitative measurements of "conservativeness" around in any sources. As for the silly suggestion that "radical right" be specifically linked to the Republican Party - that will not fly. Collect (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, the current first sentence implies that no member of the Republican Party can be part of the "radical right," a proposition that some would dispute, and there is no source for it. The real problem is that these labels are all matters of opinion and perspective, and therefore very troublesome as subjects of encyclopedia articles. It's one thing if it is a label to which people self-identify, i.e. "Tea Party" or "conservative." I doubt there are many people, if anyone, who call themselves part of the "radical right." Neutron (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The current wording would seem to include Amish as "radical right" <g> as well as libertarians, most Mennonites, uzw. Collect (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The proposed lead talks about "political movements", not religious ones, and it is possible to be to the right of the main political parties yet be a member of one. (U.S. parties do not expel members for factinalism or deviations from the party line.) It would be POV to say that they are significantly or radically more conservative than the Republicans, and not supported by sources. And if they are that far removed from the Republicans, then what does one call the groups that occupy the ideological space between Republcans and the radical right? TFD (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Again you assert that anyone to the right of the Republican Party is "radical" which is absurd. Would you say anyone to the left of the Democratic Party is "Radical left"? Cheers - this whole inane exercise of political spectrum name calling is worthless to an encyclopedia. Collect (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)