Talk:Right-wing politics

Grossly Polemical

Social Darwinism as a part of the right wing? Is the right getting blamed now for Social Darwinist like Sanger, Guttmacher, Wilson et al?

Fascism as a movement of the right? How is national socialism a right wing movement? Did they not nationalize enough industry to be left wing? Mandated employment and price and wage controls not enough government interference in the economy to be left wing?

Nearly all of the authors cited are political opponents of right wing politics. That is not true of the left wing politics page. There is some serious bias here, and look forward to debating any of these points. This page is grossly polemical. When do I get to start editing out this nonsense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8200:6CB0:3840:EBAD:9E05:8FFB (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Anon needs to explain what RS he is using. Rjensen (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

PoV

I think this is as clear a case of disputed neutrality as any. This Talk page is in its entirety a neutrality dispute. The

tag is therefore appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.28.8 (talk • contribs) 29 December 2014

Saying, "its obvious" is not a good enough reason to keep the tag. 184.157.93.40 (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Thanks for removing the tag. TFD (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I was shocked that the "The neutrality of this article is disputed" tag is not at the top of this article. Seriously folks, it's one thing to have a biased article (even if it's unintentional) but please do apply the tag. 2602:304:CE64:9770:7996:F233:4611:EB16 (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Edward Leo Brown, Kokomo, Indiana

A person who considers themself right-wing will find a neutral article about the Right shocking biased toward the Left, and a person who considers themself left-wing will find a neutral article about the Right shockingly biased toward the Right. What is Left and what is Right depend on where you stand. It may be that true neutrality is impossible, but Wikipedians often try very hard to find a balance. When we do, it makes everybody angry.

If you (and others who have made similar comments) would cite specifics, instead of just saying over and over that its "obvious", it would help us strike the right balance. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Rick Norwood is exactly correct. if anyone sees a specific sentence that is biased, then please report it here and we can fix it. if the critic could not find a singles the sentence, then I think we have reached Norwood's criteria for balance. Rjensen (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

In left/right politics

Too much time and energy is going into this teapot tempest. Yes, of course right-wing politics is in left/right politics. Where else would it be? But there is no need to clutter up the lead with a statement of the obvious. Would you want the article Jupiter to begin, "In a list of the planets, Jupiter is a planet." Please stop wasting our time making a pointless point. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The only external link being "Right Wing Watch"

My edit to remove that link got reverted by Rick Norwood, saying "Restore link to web page that quotes the actual words of people who self-identify as right-wing." But the aim of that site is clearly to portray the "right wing" only in a negative light.

I disagree with extreme social conservatives too, but that being the only external link just shows bias. 50.185.169.126 (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Politics makes strange bedfellows. Rather than remove a sample of one version of right-wing, add a link to a major site that portrays a better version of right-wing.Rick Norwood (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It is about the extreme right in the U.S. It could seem prejudicial since it omits for example the moderate right, which would include mainstream Republicans and arguably mainstream Democrats as well. But the way to balance it is to add other links. TFD (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

There are certain rules about what can be in External Links, WP:EL says we should link to "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." Breitbart.com is not an appropriate EL. LK (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I read over the External Links section. The quote you give is one comment of many on the subject. Here is another: "On articles with multiple points of view, avoid providing links too great in number or weight to one point of view, or that give undue weight to minority views." Based on that, we should have either both of the two current links or neither. I would favor both, since actual examples of the range of conservative thought tell the reader more about right-wing politics than commentary can.Rick Norwood (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the external links section entirely. The focus of the article is on a global and historical description of right wing politics. All three external links in that section were americentric; limited to coverage of the activities and opinions of the extreme right in modern U.S. politics; they contribute nothing to the topic of the current article, which notes that, "In the United States "right-wing" has quite a different history and meaning," and otherwise gives little coverage to the United States. They were not appropriate links for this article. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

"social inequality"

Right-wing politics of course neither support nor accept social inequality! Please delete the phrase. My edits were reverted by left-wing liberal agitators. The whole paragraph needs to be changed. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Not only do they support inequality, they say they do. TFD (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Who says that? Tell me a right-wing person, who says something. (and if you mean far-right ones, then it should be clearly explained in the introduction)

P.S., the claim that right-wing politics would support or accept "social inequality" is not confirmed by any neutral source. But for a neutral person, it's obvious, that
right-wing politics aren't accepting or supporting social inequality (except for far-right politics, but this has to be better explained). --TheHeroWolf (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher for one ("We are all unequal.") And sources do not need to be neutral they need to be reliable. TFD (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

So you admit, that Wikipedia isn't neutral and that you edit against WP:NPOV? Margaret Thatcher said a fact, which does not mean "social inequality" in that sense, but e.g. in case of race etc. (and she didn't say, she would support that or so). All sources in the introduction are ones of left-wing activists who call themselves "neutral" or don't deny it. WP has to have neutral sources, if it's a neutral encyclopedia. But most of you seem to be and edit
left-wing. As a result, there stand many lies in Wikipedia's articles. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The difference between neutral and reliable is this. A neutral source will not preference the germ theory of disease over the evil spirits theory of disease. A reliable source will. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

TheHeroWolf, you linked to NPOV, but you appear not to have read it. It says, "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." And it refers to views, not facts. Facts are the same regardless of writers' opinions. Do you have any reliable sources that describe the Right differently from those used in this article? TFD (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Rick Norwood, but that means, you admit, that you wanna have the germ theory of disease and not the evil spirits theory, which means, you aren't neutral. And you even admit it.

TFD, you're right, but then it has to stand "according to...they support social inequality" and not standing that they do it, and only the numbers with the references. And if you want a right-wing source of pro-equality, e.g. the right-wing Constitution Party stands for it (you can read their party programme a.o.). Many members of Republican Party are for real equality, e.g. Ron Paul. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course I'm not "neutral". And neither is Wikipedia. Wikipedia preferences reliable sources, specifically academic sources, over fringe sources. There are plenty of places on the web where you can post nonsense, but this isn't one of them.

People who are not right-wing at all, like Ron Paul, have chosen to ally with the Right. And one tactic these people use is to try to change the meaning of words, often so that a word to them means exactly the opposite of the dictionary definition. But if we don't stick to standard definitions, communication is impossible. Instead of trying to change the meaning of right-wing, which is used in many books written before the alliance between Libertarians and the Christian Right, why not stop identifying Libertarianism with the Right. You can still vote Republican. Not all Republicans are right-wing, though most people on the Right vote Republican.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

For me it seems, that Ron Paul is right-wing, but doesn't matter, because I am an Austrian, and here in Austria my favourite party is the BNFÖ. In the U.S. I would vote for the center-right pacifist Constitution Party, but there is anyway suppressed opposition in America, while Democrats and Republicans have very similar aims (with exceptions like e.g. Ron Paul, Randall Terry or Rick Santorum). Wikipedia should rely on facts and not propaganda of left-wing activists. One fact is, that
right-wing politics don't accept or support social inequality, except for some far-right people. So please delete or change the phrase. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The Constitution Party website is not a reliable source for this article. You need books or articles published by reputable publishers. It could be that all those sources are wrong, but policy requires that we use them. If you disagree with those policies then you need to get them changed. TFD (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

If the policy requires it, why don't make use of political party programmes? What are "reliable" sources according to your "policies"? --TheHeroWolf (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

See WP:RS for an explanation of reliable sources. We cannot just use the Constitution Party platform because it is not rs. We do not know if what they are saying is true. Furthermore, even if it is, we need another source to say they are right-wing and "no original research", yet another policy says we cannot combine those statements to draw any conclusions. You need a reliable source that says the Right (or part of the Right) supports equality. TFD (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

In its article, the Constitution Party is even regarded as "far-right", which is nonsense. I think, you prefer only left-wing sources, don't you? --TheHeroWolf (talk) 06:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that "far right" is correct, but it is another article and you can discuss it on its own talk page. TFD (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Preferably not. This section can be closed. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Ron Paul is clearly on the right, and quite close to Milton Friedman in his way of thinking.::::::: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8200:6CB0:3840:EBAD:9E05:8FFB (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The lead of right-wing and left-wing is pretty biased in my opinion. While I agree that left would be a platform of progressivism and equality, does that make the right the exact opposite? Libelous much? I can cite many reliable sources that say the Right favors traditional values, free markets and personal liberties. How does the whole lead paragraph not say that? 100.14.57.197 (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Fascism and Nazism

An IP has removed reference to Nazism without explanation.[1] Unless some reason can be provided for removal please do not continue to remove. Also, another IP previously removed Nazism and fascism from the categories section. After reflection, I agree with that - they are part of the category of right-wing politics, not vice versa. TFD (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Nazis were socialists, left wing politics. As were all fascists. They nationalized industry, mandated employment, introduced tenure for a variety of positions, set wages, set prices and directed the output of production. See Hayek's book. We can do this another way, how about I list ten very obvious moves to the left that fascists and the Nazis specifically have moved their countries for every 1 that can be posted as moves to the right, and we will see how runs out of material first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8200:6cb0:3840:ebad:9e05:8ffb (talk • contribs) 14:20, 11 December 2015

Words mean what they mean. The use of "right-wing" to include Nazis and fascists is well-documented. The second poster above, who did not sign his post, apparently wants "right-wing" to have a new meaning, but Wikipedia provides information, based on references. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

We do not determine which groups are right wing by going through a checklist of policies because that would be synthesis. Instead we allow experts to do that and report their conclusions. Hayek for example did accuse nazis of rejecting free market principles but never said that made them left-wing. See the chapter in Hayek's book, "Why I am not a conservative." TFD (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)