Talk:Right-wing politics

Request for semi-protection

I have requested semi-protection for this article here. TFD (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The IPs are now blocked.[1] TFD (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Right wing

The term "Right Wing" tends to have more than one definition. While the definition of 'resistance to change' is often used, it is not the sole definition employed. In the west, "Right Wing" often refers to those things that are in line with Church doctrine. This definition of right wing is also in line with the origin of the term in the French Revolution, when the church was allied with the monarchy.

For example, many people considered "right wing" are opposed to certain socialistic government programs, even though those programs have been around for nearly a century or more. While the notion of "Right Wing" as resistance to change is confounded by this apparent attempt at change, the notion that western conservatives conserve particular religious values is amenable to it. Obviously this notion would need to be sourced. But it's worth considering digging up sources which establish this definition. I will when I have more time. --Ryan W (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you are trying to completely redefine the term contrary to established academic usage. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

By way of illustration, a quote from the book I happen to be reading at the moment, "A History of the Twentieth Century" by Martin Gilbert. "It was the right, not the left, that was gaining the initiative in the streets of Germany. ... They were, Hitler explained in the first issue of their own newspaper, the SA Gazette, not only an instrument for the protection of the Nazi movement, but were 'primarily the training school for the coming struggle for freedom'..."

Anyone who lived through World War II knows that Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were commonly described as being on "the right" while Stalin and Mao were commonly described as being on "the left", with America staunchly liberal, meaning neither on the right nor on the left. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Saddhiyama and Rick Norwood. TFD (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

We are going around in circles here. As was discussed previously here, we don't source Wikipedia articles from personal anecdotal evidence, but from reliable published sources such as Zeev Sternhell, an expert on Fascism, who states "Fascism is 'ni droite ni gauche', neither right nor left." No consensus developed for adding "fascism" to lede in that previous discussion. --Martin (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Martintg, give us a break. Sternhell, while a scholar has extreme views that no other scholars accept. It makes me sick to my stomach to hear these fringe views brought up over and over again. If I want to read them then I will stop reading Wikipedia and get all my info from Glenn Beck's website. TFD (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Not helpful. Arkon (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Let's stick with mainstream opinions. TFD (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Your stomach reactions are original research. Sticking to one-sided sources and calling them mainstream does not make them so. - BorisG (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

My point is when we approach a topic we should look at what mainstream opinion is rather than look for sources that support our own point of view. Sternhell's views are not widely held, and I do not see why editors are continually using sources like that. TFD (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking for sources that support our POV, then calling them mainstream, does not make them so. Mainstream is in the eye of the beholder. - BorisG (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If mainstream were in the eye of the beholder, then Wikipedia would not exist. In spite of extreme views from the Right and the Left, there is a mainstream consensus, ideas accepted by a majority of informed sources. This mainstream is represented in print encyclopedias, such as the Britannica, in The World Almanac, in the Oxford English Dictionary, and in other standard reference books. When books and articles are referenced, they should show an awareness of this mainstream opinion, show caution where they depart from it, and offer overwhelming evidence for any such departures. Wikipedia should cite such departures only with a note that they are departures from the mainstream, and in all such cases give more than one source, unless the subject of the article is the book or its author. Wikipedia should avoid referencing books that show no knowledge of the mainstream, make a large number of non-mainstream claims, and assert opinions without evidence. Such books are notable for disagreeing with each other, and growing more and more divergent. Books of substantial value build toward a consensus. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most of this. But the process of defining mainstream sources should be decided by the consensus of the editors, not just declared by one or two editors. Mainstream encyclopedias such as Brittanica are very careful about labelling movements, people etc. And they are also careful of presenting opinions, however mainstream, as facts. And also in declaring what is mainstream. Also all significant minority opinions have to be mentioned. This probably includes all scholarly opinions. The best thing we can do when discussing controversial issues is attribute every major opnion like many scholars consider etc, rather than present them as facts. The problem is when a handful of editors decide for the whole of wikipedia what mainstream is. Anyway, enough of these meta discussions. I'd better try to contribute content. Time for me to put up or shut up. - BorisG (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing populists

I'm removing the sentence which lists people considered right-wing populists as it adds nothing. The section should describe what right-wing populism is and what right-wing populists believe. It should not simply list some. LittleJerry (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The sentence in question gives examples of right-wing populists in several countries, and the people listed are those right-wing populists most commonly in the news in their respective countries. I do not understand your objection. You say examples add nothing, but examples are commonly used to make clear otherwise abstract concepts. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand the objection either. Examples are provided in many articles, and these are sourced. TFD (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you can't give examples but you can't just list some random populists and think you're describing what right-wing populism is. As I said the section should describe what right-wing populism is and what right-wing populists believe. It should not simply list some. LittleJerry (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The selection, as I said, is not random, but consists of major examples. If you think the description insufficient, I'll work on that. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is against our BLP policy to label living people in this sweeping manner. Wikipedia is better than that: it describes facts without labeling people and lets readers decide. WP is much more nuanced in its descriptions of people. Just look at the article on Silvio Berlusconi. Nowhere it says that he is a populist (or not a populist). The fact that a newspaper article (or a book) identifies these people as right-wing populists does not make them so. At most you can say that such and such author suggests that Berlusconi is a right-wing populist. And why are we giving modern examples but not older examples? Do wer have examples of other types of right wing people? And how can you have in one line a long serving and elected national leader and a talk show host? It is bizarre. There is a difference between an opinion piece and an encyclopedia. - BorisG (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

My comment about US -centric nature of this was an mixup. - BorisG (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Right wing populists can be either politicians or pundits or both. If you want to add a few historical examples, please do so. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that Burlesconi could be described as a right-wing populist. The source refers to his "cunning conservative populism", but it seems to be a reference to his style, not ideology.[2] BTW since right-wing populism is a fairly recent phenomenon in Europe the historical examples do not go back far but could include Poujadism. TFD (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Lablelling people is against Wikipedia BLP policies. - BorisG (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Describing people's political ideology is not. TFD (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Is populism an ideology? - BorisG (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing populism is an ideology. TFD (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The selection, as I said, is not random, but consists of major examples. They are not "major". They are simply popular writers and commentators who are not historically important. How about mentioning people who've actually made an impact on right-wing/conservative populism like the Southern Agrarians. LittleJerry (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The southern agrarians were not right-wing populists. Beck on other hand has received considerable coverage as a leading proponent of right-wing populism, especially with his work in popularizing the books of Cleon Skousen. TFD (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Populism is not an ideology, it is an appeal to the common people, usually anti-intellectual in nature. Mao Zedong practiced left-wing populism. William Jennings Bryan practiced right-wing populism. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand that. However, right wing populism has been identified as an ideology - see all the references in this Google book search. Also called radical right, extreme right, etc. In the U.S. they call themselves conservatives, but in the rest of the world, where the term "conservative" has a clear meaning, they use different terms. TFD (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

When some editors (and the sources they quote) say that the tea-party, which favors small government, financial prudence and low taxes, and Neo-Nazis (which favor big authoritarian government), share the same ideology, they cannot be taken seriously. They are entitled to their views, but trying to say they are mainstream is a POV, and a fringe one at that. I don't have time to take on this one, but it is sad that some areas of Wikipedia are becoming a mirror image of Conservapedia. - BorisG (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Who has provided sources that the Tea Party and the Nazis were/are right-wing populists? What makes you think that people who wrote about the subject - Peter Viereck, Daniel Bell, Seymour Martin Lipset, Sara Diamond, Pippa Norris, Chip Berlet, Klaus von Beyme and many others - are all fringe? Even if you dislike the expression "right-wing populism", you still need to find a term to describe right-wing parties such as UKIP. TFD (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This paper, which is about UKIP, argues that the extreme right and right-wing populism are two separate families, mentioning among other things that right-wing extremism supports a "strong state" (p. 8). It still accepts the term right-wing populism. TFD (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't even know (yet) whether I dislike the term, but the article you mentioned, right wing populism, does include both groups. I assume that it is based on some sources. Yet these movements have almost nothing in common, and certainly not a common ideology. - BorisG (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The party you support belongs to a group - it has similarities with parties elsewhere. You may not like the name, but it is the one most commonly used. TFD (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

These arguments embody a classical logical fallacy, which takes the form, "Joe is a vegetarian. Hitler was a vegetarian. Hitler was a Nazi. Therefore Joe is a Nazi." Or its contrapositive, "Joe is not a Nazi, therefore Joe is not a vegetarian." The Tea Party is a right-wing populist movement, but does not necessarily have anything in common with other right-wing populist movements except its right-wing populism. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

@TFD I take exception to the phrase The party you support. I am not sure which party I am meant be supportive of, but this isn't the place to discuss my or your political sympathies. I am pointing out that a number of parties you are trying to postray as sharing a common ideology have very little in common. I have not expressed support for either of them, so please refrain in the future from discussing my political sympathies. - BorisG (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

@RN: Maybe you have a point. But: if two parties have almost nothing in common and hence presumably don't share common ideology then even if they do share one attrtibute (right-wing populism), this attribute is not an ideology. Another point is that trying to find a common attribute between radically different movements and write them alongside one another is tendentious. I will try to see if they appear together in reliable sources. If not, they should not be in the same list. - BorisG (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As an aside I would ask if you would classify Billy Hughes as a right-wing populist? A worker and prominent union leader turned Prime Minister, he achieved huge popular support due to his most vocal promotion and defense of the White Australia Policy and opposition to racial equality (demanded by Japan at Paris Peace Talks). Yet he was also the most vocal opponent of the British policy of appeasement of Nazi Germany against cross-party support for this policy in Australia. ----

By "the party you support", I am referring to your user page, where you write, "I broadly support a small Liberal Democratic Party", "[3] which was "started and run by ordinary citizens", which would appear to be a right-wing populist party. It is however fairly small, and there is much more literature on One Nation.

Hughes belonged to a socialist party and then a liberal party. See for example this chart that groups Australian parties according to political familes. Outside the U.S., right-wing populism did not emerge until much later.

You may dislike the categorizations that are accepted by the academic community, but it is not up to us to question their reasoning. Surely you would object to someone who claimed that both diamonds and talc cannot both be metamorphic rocks, because they are total opposites. I suggest you read the sources for right-wing populism and accept that we must accurately reflect them.

TFD (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing populism goes back to, at least, Gaius Marius, Roman consul in the first century BC. I'm sure I could find earlier examples if I tried. So the idea that right-wing populism "emerged" in modern times ignores common themes in history and in human nature. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No doubt one can find foreshadowing of modern ideologies in the classical period, but it is ahistorical. It would be more usual to see the two parties of Rome as liberals and conservatives, although it would be a loose comparison. As S.D. Clark explained, only in the U.S. did the weak political and social control structure allow these movements to develop. [4] That has only changed recently. TFD (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

@TFD, I still insist that your reference to my support of a political party is totally inappropriate, especially since this party was not discussed in my comments or in any of the articles under discussion here. You really do not need to go to my user page to answer the questions raised here. Please refrain from this tactic in the future. BTW diamond and talc are minerals, not rocks. Diamond occurs in igneous rocks, not in metamorphic rocks. Talc occurs in metamorphic rocks. They have indeed nothing in common (except that they are end members on the hardness scale). Bad example. - BorisG (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I will have a look at the sources when I have time. I still believe singling out certain persons as right-wing populists is a BLP violation and I will raise it at RFC when i have time. - BorisG (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Why do you post your allegiance on your user page and then complain when other editors mention it? TFD (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Because it is an Ad hominem argument. Also please see this. - BorisG (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If you remember, I wrote, "The party you support belongs to a group - it has similarities with parties elsewhere. You may not like the name, but it is the one most commonly used." (The party I referred to was the one you state supporting on your user page.) In what sense is that ad hominem? Why do you post your allegiance on your user page and then complain when other editors mention it? TFD (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

What does it have to do with the parties we discussed (The Tea Party and the Neo-Nazis)? - BorisG (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

We were not discussing neo-nazis and the Tea Party, you were. And the Liberal Democrats are an example of a right-wing populist party. I would have thought with your knowledge that you would see a similarity between them and the French National Front, the German Republicans, the Dutch Centre Democrats,the Belgian Front national, the Freedom Party of Austria, the Danish Progress Party, the Norwegian Progress Party, and the Swedish New Democracy, the UK Independence Party, the former Reform Party of Canada, Australia's One Nation, and New Zealand First. TFD (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

And the Liberal Democrats are an example of a right-wing populist party. Are they? Any sources? - BorisG (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I do agree with you that some of the parties you mention have a lot in common (I know some but never heard of others). I know them as far right. The common policies are strong central government, strong nationalism, opposition to immigration. National Front and One Nation are fairly typical examples. Parties that advocate small government and individual freedoms do not belong here. I am surprised that you have included UK Independence Party but not British National Party. I thought it would be a more clear-cut example. - BorisG (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to reject what mainstream scholarship says about these parties you are free to do so. I do not see how continuing this conversation can be helpful because we are supposed to reflect what sources say rather than form our own opinions. TFD (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not want to reject any mainstream opinions. I question what opinions are mainstream, and also how these opinions are presented. But I agree with you that this discussion is not going anywhere. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The concepts are explained in the articles right-wing populism and the radical right, both of which are sourced. You can also read about the subject in Google books by typing in "Right-wing populism".[5] TFD (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia depends on references.

Please, when editing Wikipedia, especially when making controversial edits, supply references, and do not replace referenced material with unreferenced material. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Jprw (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)== Modern Usage ==

There have been a number of rewrites of the description of how "right-wing" is used today. It is not clear to me if the changes reflect the book referenced: A Dictionary of Political Thought Roger Scruton Macmillan Pp.481-2." Also, should a 1982 book be used to reference modern usage? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to The concise Oxford dictionary of politics (2009) definition. TFD (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Jprw has placed the following comment on my talk page:

Fascism, an old chestnut, but still...I have reverted your including a reference to the term "fascism" in the lead to the article on right-wing politcs, as I believe it to be inaccurate and misleading and pandering to the old canard that there is an inextricable or latent link between conservatism and fascism. It's as unfortunate and damaging as making a natural connection between those on the left, and say, Stalin. Best wishes Jprw (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

He has removed the reference to fascism.[6].

In reply, I would state that not all conservatism and rightg-wing are not synonyms, otherwise this article would be a re-direct to conservatism, not all conservatism is right-wing, Churchill certainly did not consider himself to be right-wing, and not all people described as conservative are real conservatives, some are classical liberals, etc. Also, we do not exclude information because we do not like it.

TFD (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a case of not liking it, it's a case of removing something that is inaccurate and misleading. Jprw (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of Politics is not a "reliable secondary source." Considering Schlesinger's writings on fascism, and Lipset's (among others), I consider the linkage in the lede to be extraordinarily weak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 14:28, 26 January 2011

I notice that the dynamic IP has resurfaced and edited the article. Since the IP is blocked for sock-puppetry and edit-warring (see above Talk:Right-wing politics#Request for semi-protection), I will roll back any edits made by him, and request other editors to do the same. TFD (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Given your most recent extraordinary and utterly bogus claims that I am a Sockpuppet I suggest to other editors that we take your latest accusation above with a pinch of salt. Jprw (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

[Remove comments by banned editor.] TFD (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the above; it was removed by THE FOUR DEUCES, whose style seems to be "If another editor knows more about a subject than I do, or is able to outargue me, shut him up". A perfect example of the Bolshevik mindset in action.Jprw (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You would do well to discuss the subject at hand, instead of name-calling. While your right to free speech allows you to call people names, that will not win you respect here on Wikipedia. Your edits are deleted for the simple reason that they are not supported by standard reference works. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Last sentence of lead

A weird kind of atrophy seems to be taking place to the last sentence of the lead. I've tried to rectify matters with the following wording:

"Today, the term right-wing is primarily used to refer to conservatives, liberals (in the European sense of the word), advocates of the free market and nationalists".

There are three imortant points:

• the free market should be mentioned
• libertarianism should NOT be mentioned – this is the domain of both the left and right
• fascism/the far right also should not be mentioned, as it is completely out of place here.

Two and three above are the most important points: if they are allowed to stand the lead will be deeply misleading to readers. Jprw (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand that this is what you believe, but Wikipedia is not based on what the editors believe but on what references say. Clearly, you think that the Oxford encyclopedia is wrong, but they are an authority and you do not cite any authority. Every book I have ever read on the history of modern times calls fascism and racism right-wing. You seem to wish that were not so, but it is a fact, and trying to hide it will not make it go away. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it not the case that liberarianism is the domain of both the left and right? What are these sources that you mention? (by the way, "Every book I have ever read on the history of modern times" sounds like hyperbole, to say the least. [7] This might be a good place to understand the complexities of the term fascism, but in any case we are getting away from the main basic point of the problems with the lead: it is deeply misleading to any reader trying to find out about the subject. Anyway, my dealings on these talk pages have given me a first-hand insight into how the WP politics pages are hopelessly biased and compromised (and, of course, inaccurate). Jprw (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Rick Norwood. BTW "liberals (in the European sense of the word)" are considered to be centrist in Europe and in fact sit in the center of the legislatures, including the European parliament, together with the other liberals. The dictionary is a good source because "right-wing" is a political term, rather than an ideology. In any case, a study showed that extreme right parties (including neofascists) were more opposed to public ownership than other parties, as well as scoring highest on the social policy scale. (Ware, Alan. Political Parties and Party Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 22, pp. 27-29)) The results of the study may be seen on this page, taken from the University of Dayton. TFD (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The article does not mention where fascism fits on the political spectrum and in fact elsewhere Orwell refers to fascists as "right-wing", e.g., here. Furthermore, Orwell was a writer not a political scientist and his observations, while interesting, are not relevant to this article. TFD (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the very interesting link to the Orwell article. What he says about the word "fascist" is today true of the word "socialist". But, no, I'm not exagerating when I say that just about every book I've read on modern history uses "Right-wing" to describe fascists. When serious historians use the word "Fascist" they usually mean explicitly and avowedly Fasicst governments, notably the governments of Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco, and commonly describe these governments as rigth-wing -- as commonly as they describe avowedly communist governments as left-wing. In any case, the reference cited uses the word "fascist". Rick Norwood (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Rick Norwood, it may be the case that every book that you have ever read calls fascism and racism right-wing, but all this tells me is that you ought to go and have a look at the politics/history section of the library at your university, where you will discover (assuming that it is a reasonably good library) that your assertion that fascism is right-wing is far from uncontroversial (indeed it is generally disputed) amongst scholars who have researched the subject in recent decades. To give you a single example, the book "The Faces of Janus" by A.James Gregor published in 2000 by Yale University Press draws attention to the numerous similarities between the theory and practice of marxism and fascism. Simply asserting that fascism is right-wing, as if this is undisputed, is (putting it generously) being economical with the truth.

With regard to the racism claim. THE FOUR DEUCES drew your attention to a book by George Watson called "The Lost Literature of Socialism" which notes that racism (by which I do not simply mean anti-Jewish sentiments but the active promotion of the genocide of "inferior races") was strongly associated with the political left (for example Marx) in the C19th and early C20th. Nor has this association disappeared. You seem unaware for example of the link in contemporary European politics between the left and racist nationalism - think for example of Slobodan Milošević.

I appreciate that a great deal of air brushing has taken place (the racist policies of the early South African Communist Party or for that matter the Democratic Party in the USA come to mind) but this cannot erase the historical evidence of an association between "racism" and "nationalism" and the political Left, nor can it erase the fact that many (most) scholars now dispute your simple identification of fascism with the political right. This may make you uncomfortable, and you would prefer that it was not the case, but if the aim is truth rather than deception, ignorance is no defence.

(85.211.70.152 (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

The point, which I have made many times before, is that word usage is decided by reference books, not by arguments. There are racists in every group and in every movement. You mention South African Communists. Stalin also introudced many racist policies. You mention the Southern Democrats. At the time, the Southern Democrats were described as right-wing. As for fascist, serious scholars avoid using "fascist" to mean "bad", and confine their use of "fascist" to mean governments that call themself fascist. There are three major examples, Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco. All three were avowedly racist, strongly anti-communist, and all are commonly called right-wing. That is how, in fact, the word is used. You argue that people shouldn't use the word that way, and cite authors who think the word shouldn't be used that way, but this article is not the place to try to change the way a word is used, only to report the way it is in fact used. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rick Norwood on this. This is standard usage, right or wrong. Historically, fascists and communists were always considered (by themselves and others) to be at the opposite ends of the political spectrum, their many similarities notwithstanding. In my view, arguments as to where they really belong are not very productive, because the very idea of mapping all the multidimensional manifold of political ideologies and movements onto a one-dimensional left/right spectrum is bound to be schematic, simplistic and not very meaningful. - BorisG (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC on lead of Right-wing politics

There has been a dispute for several months about whether the lead should contain that extreme-right-wing parties have included aspects of racism and fascism. The sentence being removed is:

Stephen Fisher writes in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics that in liberal democracies the term [right-wing] has been defined in opposition to socialism or social democracy, and that right-wing parties have included the philosophies of conservatism, Christian democracy, liberalism (in the European sense of the word), libertarianism, and nationalism, while extreme-right parties have included racism and fascism.

Should the lead contain this sentence in full, or should it leave out the reference to racism and fascism and place those issues lower in the article, as with this edit? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

(no threaded replies here, please)

• Support inclusion in the lead. The source is a neutral academic at Oxford working in this field, and writing for Oxford University Press. The entry he has written is on the meaning of "right-wing." We have stuck very closely to what he says, and have used full in-text attribution. In my view, if this is what a neutral, modern, specialist academic source says, we should use it as an introduction to the concept, but we should not use some of it and leave out the rest. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support inclusion The article is supposed to explain how a term is used. The term "right-wing has been used to describe several ideologies, and the article should explain that, TFD (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose full inclusion in lede: The lead should be about the mainstream right. The line about racism and facism belongs to the section on the extreme right. LittleJerry (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose full inclusion in lede: ...unless more sources support the two trailing words, per my comment below. The source is good but the 'racism and fascism' parts should be in an appropriate lower section unless it's shown to be a more widely observed part of the concept. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support inclusion - I'm no political scientist, but I think it's pretty commonly accepted that fascism is a member of extreme right wing politics. The statement doesn't seem controversial, and it equally seems notable. I'm guessing opponents to the wording simply don't like seeing "right wing" and "fascism" in the same sentence. As a side note, do we have to attribute this paragraph? Attribution in the lead is inelegant. NickCT (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion - this article ought to be about the mainsteam right. We have an article Far-right politics, it should go into that article yet oddly enough it is not even discussed there in any detail. Note this article is about "Right-wing politics", thus it would be legitimate to mention the politics of the Labor Right as opposed to the Labor Left, for example. Including fascism would squeeze out that kind of distinction. --Martin (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I found an interesting quote that provides a succinct description of the differing positions on where fascism actually is positioned in the left-right spectrum: "Several different points of view exist among the writers examined concerning where fascism fits on the conventional left-right continuum. Forman and Neocleous defend the standard left-wing interpretation of fascism as a right-wing movement in disguise, implementing a preemptive 'revolution against the revolution' to save capitalism from the socialist threat. Other writers take the anticapitalist pretensions of fascism seriously: Sternhell, for instance, regards fascism as an anti-Marxist form of socialism. Orwell, his own left-wing views notwithstanding, also recognises fascism as a form of collectivism. For yet others, the corporate states of fascism represents a 'third way' between capitalism and socialism (Mosse, O'Sullivan), while Lipset sees fascism as an 'extremism of the center'." Given there appears to be no scholarly concensus on where to place fascism, I am more inclined to oppose inclusion. --Martin (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

[I haved replied in the discussion thread below. TFD (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)]

• Undecided. - There are two schools of thoughts on leads. The first school says that lead should sumarise most mainstream views. The second says that it should only contain views/facts that are undisputed (except by tiny minority). If I take the first view, then citing dictionary is proper. If the second, then we should avoid the latter part of the sentence. In any case, I can live with it, if it is directly attributed. I know it may be ackward but this is the only way to convey the message that this is but one (though mainstream) definition. - BorisG (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The lead merely describes how the term is used, and does not pronounce an opinion. Nothing about the term right-wing is undisputed - Collect for example says that it is meaningless. TFD (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Kindly accept the fact that your statement about me personally is wrong. Entirely. Claiming another editor says something which is not accurate as to what that editor says is inane at best. Collect (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for two reasons. First, it is not generally a good idea to rely on a quote from a single tertiary source in the Introduction. Second, although the connection between right-wing and racism/fascism can be justified by numerous sources, same can be said about left-wing parties [8]. Biophys (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as not even being a true rendition of the actual wording made in the tertiary source. Collect (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Comment [in response to The Four Deuces above]: It does, the question is where where certain pieces of information should go. LittleJerry (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the term "right-wing" is normally used to describe legitimist, ultramontane, fascist or nationalist parties, while moderate conservative, Christian Democratic and conservative liberal parties are called "center" or "center-right", and liberal parties in Europe are generally called the "center". TFD (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, deciding what is "right" or "left" is frequently contradictory and arbitrary at best. Many sources now state that a linear spectrum is invalid and misleading. Collect (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Collect on this. As an aside, I think TFD's two comments above contradict each other. He supports inclusion of the statement that the term right-wing includes conservative and Christian Democratic but a few lines below says that these are not called right-wing, but center or center-right. If he supports an inclusion of a sourced statement despite disagreeing with it, that is commendable. - BorisG (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it is also a good place to question the inclusion of libertanianism. Libertarianism includes Left-Libertarianism and Right-Libertarianism. Presumably Fischer means Right-Libertarianism because anarchists and libertanian socialists are not usually called right-wing. I know that Wikipedia is about verifyability and not truth, but shouldn't we also exercise some common sense in addition to verifyability? - BorisG (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a good source and certainly worth including. I imagine most sources would agree with the first part of the definition, but how many agree with the inclusion of racism and fascism? If they don't, while it's certainly worth having in the article, wouldn't it be undue weight to include it in the lede? If there's a good number of reliable sources that concur with the definition then it certainly qualifies for inclusion in the lede, but otherwise I think it would be more appropriate to move that portion of the quote to the appropriate section. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Outside America, libertarians say they are neither right nor left. On the other hand, they usually receive less than 1/100th of 1% of the vote. TFD (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

How is this last point (percentage of support) relevant? - BorisG (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

When people talk about "The Right", they are probably referring to parties they have heard about. Same thing when Americans talk about "The Left" - they are probably not referring to the fringe party that backs Kim Jong Il. TFD (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand this at all. Left-libertarianism has been significant enough to have a sizeable wikipedia article about it, with a number of streams etc. And BTW, this is not just about political parties (which are miniscule across the world, including in the US), but also schools of thought, which are significant. But I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Please clarify. - BorisG (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The terms "left" and "right" have their origins in European legislatures, where political parties are seated from left to right, depending on their ideologies and based on the agreement of the parties themselves. From left to right, and depending on what parties exist, the seating arrangement is communist, socialist, green, liberal (including free market and social liberals), Christian democrats, conservatives, right-wing nationalists and populists, and fascists. We may not like this, but that is how the basis for what the terms mean. TFD (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Another comment unrelated to any previous question or discussion. I give up. - BorisG (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually related to the immediately preceding comment. If you have difficulty understanding the connection, then please post a note on my talk page. TFD (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Please elaborate. Who in the "mainstream" calls thenmselves "right-wing" or is called "right-wing"? TFD (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The Labor Right identifies themselves as right wing of a centre-left (constitutionally a democratic socialist) party. The problem with including fascism is that it squeezes out the discussion of more mainstream "right-wing politics". Fascism properly belongs in Far-right politics. --Martin (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The right side of the Labor Party is no more the Right than the right side of your left nostril is you part of your right nostril. Are you aware of the difference between relative and absolute descriptions? Do you find it confusing that South Dakota is a northern state, while North Carolina is a southern state? So what are these "more mainstream "right-wing politics"", and please don't tell me that they are members of the Australian Labor Party.

There are minority views that do not consider fascist ideology to be right-wing, but there are even more mainstream views that would exclude, Anglo-Scandinavian and American conservatism, conservative liberalism, and Christian democracy from the Right. Lipset for example, placed fascism in the center, because he saw it as similar to Robert Taft Republicanism. But Lipset normally refers to fascism as far right. By the way, you wrote at the NOR noticeboard, "Lipset isn't a historian, he is a sociologist, and his historical writing has been criticised according to one review I have read".[9] Is there any reason why you present his views now? TFD (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

?? My comment about Lipset was related to Lipset's writings about 1790's American republicanism. --Martin (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

So Lipset can be trusted for European history but not American history. Incidentally, the argument Lipset presented in his essay was based on a misunderstanding that laissez-faire liberals had supported the Nazis, which was based on the fact that Nazi support grew as liberal support declined. TFD (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Presumably. I have only seen published criticism on his work related to 1790's history. Fascism is a more recent issue which is amenable to sociological study, apparently. --Martin (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Who is the mainstream right you keep mentioning? TFD (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Nationalist parties are frequently "left-wing". This all started from the National Bolshevism traditions. The German Nazi party was called "national-socialist" (hence left-wing) party, and they are indeed described as such in many sources, including books by Richard Pipes and Robert Conquest, even though Nazi were officially anti-communist.Biophys (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you name any mainstream writers who support your views? Can you even point to where these writers support your views? TFD (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What is fascism? It is socialism emancipated from democracy (Charles Maurras)

Sure, please see book "Russia under the Bolshevik regime" by Richard Pipes, for example. Whole chapter 5 is about this ("Communism, Fascism and National Socialism"). See page 260, for example. "The party grew from a union of German workers in Bohemia. ...", and so on, and so on. This is huge subject. But I can not really go further to these debates because of my topic ban. Sorry.Biophys (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This is all very interesting, but not to the point. A discussion of the definition of fascism belongs in the fascism article. The mention here is due to the historical fact that anyone who reads a history of World War II will find the term "right-wing" applied to the governments that self-identified as fascist. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

IOW, the lede should specify that "right wing was applied to governments which self-identified as 'fascist'" if that is what the facts are. It also keeps any definition of "fascist" from needing to be added. Collect (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Was also applied to fascists who never came to power. BTW, right-wing parties may self-identify in many ways. The Radical and Socialist Party of France, and the the Social Democratic Party are both right-wing. TFD (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

And your assertion that all such parties are "fascist" is based on what? "'Right wing' was applied to movements which self-identified as 'fascist'" is about as far as one can stretch this. Unless, of course, you feel we can have a fully accurate and concise definition of "fascist" specifying that it is always "right wing"? Collect (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

We face the same problem with conservative, Christian democratic and liberal parties. They are not always right-wing either and in fact do not call themselves right-wing. TFD (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

IOW, the sentence I suggested is correct, lest we mislead any readers. Collect (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the description already used is correct. TFD (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The second paragraph of introduction is based on a single tertiary source and should be modified or removed per discussion above.Biophys (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Political dictionaries are good sources for articles that are about the use of political terminolgy. For articles about political ideologies, however, I would agree with you. If can provide any secondary sources that define the term "right-wing", then it would be helpful. TFD (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

We face the same problem with conservative, Christian democratic and liberal parties. They are not always right-wing either . Why then include a sentence that says they are? - BorisG (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

We don't. TFD (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Didn't you support this: right-wing parties have included the philosophies of conservatism, Christian democracy, liberalism (in the European sense of the word)... - BorisG (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No, because it normally refers to reactionary conservative parties, i.e., parties that support absolute monarchy and rule by the Catholic church and aristocatic landowners. Liberals and Christian democrats are historically centrist. The liberals who were considered right-wing were the parties of monopolists who opposed laissez-faire economics. No mainstream political party today self-identifies as "right-wing". In France, the last party to call itself right-wing was the National Front, and they abandoned the label because of its identification with authoritarian conservatism and fascism. TFD (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No???? But you support inclusion! - BorisG (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I support explaining how the term is used. TFD (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

this suggests that you support inclusion of Fisher's statement. Is this correct? - BorisG (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

In that link I say, "The article is supposed to explain how a term is used" which is consistent with my statement above, "I support explaining how the term is used". TFD (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

So you do NOT support inclusion of Fisher's statement? - BorisG (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop writing in that manner. It is cross-examination and not appropriate for discussions. TFD (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Extreme right

An editor changed the text to read, "He says the extreme-right includes some parties that are avowedly racist or fascist". Does not appear to accurately reflect the text.[10] TFD (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The source (and most academic sources) just says that the extreme right includes fascists. Somebody objected that "fascist" was just a form of name-calling, and so I added the word "avowedly" to rule out any hint of name calling. Clearly the source is talking about real fascists, not people called fascist -- which might include almost anybody. Now it has been replaced by an almost quote (with two weasel words added in parentheses). I can live with that. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

ALL racists and fascists are "right wing"

Is the implication where TFD specifically removed the word "some" which I felt would otherwise give a fully wrong implication to readers. Are, indeed, all racists and fascists "right wing"? Collect (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

We are supposed to reflect what sources say, not what we WP:KNOW. Also, notice that the source uses the term "awovedly". If you think the source is wrong, then find one that you think is right. TFD (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the word "avowedly" is where precisely in the dictionary cite [11] you give above? I have read it six times and that word is just not there. When you insist something is there which ain't there, editors worry. Might you have erred in your insistence? Collect (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I am using direct quotes now from the source to prevent any misconceptions being presented to the readers of the article. Collect (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

to be fair, What the source says is how it should be worded in the article Johnsy88 (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I ended up using exact quotes to prevent any of this becoming any sort of battleground at all. Collect (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

(re to the original question by Collect). The answer is obviously "no". Mussolini started as a leader of Italian socialist movement; some members of his government were also Comintern members. Many communist governments officially conducted massive ethnic cleansing campaigns, for example Khmer Rouge and Milosevich. This is not a matter of anyone's views, but a matter of fact, and the facts are very easy to source. But of course all partisan (left-wing) sources claim fascism to be "right wing". This is mostly a public propaganda stance unsupported by facts. Actually, this is interesting subject. For example, some well known researchers, such as Nikolai Berdyaev and Benedikt Sarnov, argued that Soviet internationalism was in fact a variety of Russian nationalism, but unfortunately I can not work with this subject. Biophys (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. So, once a socialist, always a socialist, and anyone who associates with communists is a communist. And communists are bad and fascists are bad so communists are fascists. And fact means anything you think is true, partisan means left-wing, and standard reference works are all probaganda. I would think the errors in logic would stick in your craw. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No, fact or event is something that actually happened, something that was experimentally observed, unlike an opinion. For example, the official cleansing of ethnic minorities by Khmer Rouge was a series of actual events and therefore a fact, just like sun eclipse. In contrast, defining a political party as "right-wing" or "left-wing" is a matter of opinion. However, no reliable source claims Khmer Rouge to be a right-wing party. Keep in mind that I am not an expert here. The examples with Mussolini and Khmer Rouge (as a proof of left-wing nationalism/racism) are taken from books by Pipes and Robert Conquest. P.S. No, I am not telling nonsense like "communists are bad" or "once a socialist, always a socialist". Many communists joined Nazi Party. Biophys (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That is original research. Please not that this page is not here for general discussion and if you dislike the source provided you must present another one. TFD (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

What OR? The title of book by Pipes was provided above and the book by Conquest is "Reflections on a Ravaged Century (1999)". I only came to provide 3rd opinion to RfC request on this page [12] and responded to question by Collect and comment by Rick Norwood.Biophys (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Where in their books do these two writers explain how the term right-wing is used? TFD (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I only said that certain socialist and communist parties (traditional "left-wing") can be highly nationalistic. Yes, supported by the sources (see book by Conquest, chapter 4). Also keep in mind that German Nazi and Italian fascists were not "conservatives" (as "right-wing" parties suppose to be according to this articles), but revolutionaries: they strongly changed the existing social order in Germany, for example. This is also per the same and other RS.Biophys (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverting

The point of the RfC is to decide the issue and hopefully put an end to the reverting, so it's best to leave this part of the lead as it is until an uninvolved editor closes the RfC. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)