Talk:Horseshoe theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticism[edit]

"He dissents from the theory, objecting that it fails to take into account the unbroken continuum of political thought."

How does it differ from classical theory? It also breaks continuum in its far ends, unless we assume its stretches into infinity, thus for every right/left political thought we can always find more rightish/leftish one. Can we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.67.45 (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed that sentence. The reference link if broken, it doesn't make any sense to say first that he supports it and then that he dissents. And the last commenter is correct. A horseshoe is an unbroken continuum just the same as a straight line is an unbroken continuum. It makes no sense to say that, and without a reference I don't believe he did say that. Primium mobile (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While you're at it, remove this one too. "Critics of the theory have suggested that many sociologists consider the Horseshoe theory to have been discredited". In fact, remove the whole section. 72.208.211.248 (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the passage is that Horseshoe Theory was never credited, such that it could be subsequently discredited. The editors of this page cannot find a source establishing it as an academic topic. Removing the entire criticism section is unwarranted. The entry on Climate Change Denial establishes it up front as pseudoscience. And that's exactly what Horseshoe Theory is. Social pseudoscience.

How come the article lists 'religious rhetoric' as "far-right", maybe it's just me but I don't remember Jesus ever hanging any Jews from trees... So next time I read the bible I guess I'm just going to have to face it that we're all just a bunch of angry, hedonistic fascist national socialist thugs cause Wikipedia says so. - Eli

In regards to the credit of the horseshoe theory being a social pseudoscience you can literally make the same argument with the left and right spectrum as well but I don't see anyone going that way. Lmagoutas (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think that it is incorrect to make the statement that it is widely discredited in academic circles particularly since the reference is only one book written in 2000 and by authors who aren't even academics. 73.48.251.0 (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Surely we can come up with a few more decent refs for this? Perhaps somebody who speaks French can find out about its coinage by Jean-Pierre Faye and maybe, if we knew the French term he used we could use that to dig up some other references. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going by fer à cheval for "horseshoe", it looks like Faye coined the term in Langages totalitaires (1972) although I suspect the idea predates that (i.e., it seems obvious that the far left and far right share being viewed as extremist). I wonder if there isn't a more popular name for this in English. —Mrwojo (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My father used to tell me this was true (the idea that as you move to far left or far right you arrive at the same place in practical terms) back in the 1980s. The way he talked about it, it was clearly not his idea but something that was known to some intellectuals. At that time he was in his 40s, and my guess is that he learned it when he was in his 20s or 30s, which would have been in the 1960s or 1970s. So for me it is impossible that credit goes to a work published in 2002. Neoprote (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC) 11:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]

I have more or less replaced the "See also" links as most of them seemed to be irrelevant (or only very tangentially relevant). I put the competing systems of political classification in instead as that is what people are most likely to want to compare and contrast. It is possible that I missed the relevance of some of the old links. If so, please add them back but use a comment saying what makes them relevant. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

citing a ridiculously biased source.[edit]

"Critics of the theory have suggested that many sociologists consider the Horseshoe theory to have been discredited." is justified solely by a reference to a site whose slogan is "Researching the Right for Progressive Changemakers".

Seriously.

Of course a far left group whose agenda is openly anti-conservative is going to disagree with this, the assertion that they are similar to the far right. This is hardly notable. 64.24.209.204 (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that source has a clear left bias. --72.208.211.248 (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One might as well argue that a centrist advocate of the horseshoe theory is biased by their centrist agenda. I mean, who else would advocate it but a centrist? 64.85.226.50 (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

property rights[edit]

i removed the two phrases regarding the far left and far right violating people's property rights. that is a biased description of their policies that depends on readers sharing a particular view of what constitutes property rights and what would violate them. --dan (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove this paragraph?[edit]

"Other scholars such as Ludwig Von Mises and more recently, Jonah Goldberg [author of "Liberal Fascism"] reject the Horseshoe theory and place Communism, Socialism and Fascism all on the left end of the political spectrum. Prior to WW2, there was a distinction between International Socialism, with its center being in Moscow and Russia and National Socialism also known as Nazism with its center being in Berlin and Germany. Both had similar social policies but one focused on a world wide movement and the other was focused as a national movement. Similarly Italian Fascism had its roots in Socialism and Mussolini considered himself a Socialist. National Socialism and International Socialism cooperated closely with each other culminating in the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in which Hitler and Stalin agreed to cooperate and carve up Eastern Europe. When Hitler broke this treaty and attacked Russia, this created a schism between National Socialism and International Socialism. From that point on Russia and its leftist sympathizers distanced from National Socialism placing it on the other end of the spectrum. At the same time, Russia became an ally of the US and UK in WW2 which led Western academics to also place International and National Socialism on opposite ends of the political spectrum."

  • 1)Jonah Goldberg is not an actual scholar. An ameuteur or hobbyist perhaps, but not a qualified scholar, and his book is not a very good source based on the opinion of actual scholars.
  • 2)This presents a shaky, temporary alliance as being a result of similar ideology rather than real politik. Stalin wanted land, Hitler wanted land, neither was in a position to go to war wih each other, so they made an agreement that quickly broke down when there was no more land and one (thought) they could handle a war. There could be a point here that totalitarian states whether far-right or far-left are imperialist in their actions but not that they were part of the same movement.
  • 3)There was already a schism between the two. Communists and Fascists were already killing each other, just not on the eastern front. Again this paragraph makes is seem like they were BFF's when Stalin was using "Social Fascism" as an excuse to kill anyone to the right of the Communist party (such as the social democrats) and both Hitler and Mussolini were paranoid anti-communists. Hence why they were placed on opposite sides of the spectrum even before the war (even in the US nazism was considered far-right such as when Henry Ford's magazine was accused of pushing "extreme right" views.)
  • 4)Mussolini murdered the socialists and even said his official policy was to bash their heads in. I'm doubtful he considered himself a socialist after becoming a fascist but if he did it was not in the left-wing egalitarian sense.

The horseshoe theory is a respectable one, so can we revise this page to be more, er, respectable? This seems like we're putting too much weight in the words of a few, how do I say this politely... crackpots. (PS sorry I'm a BON right now I couldn't sign in I'm "clothcoat" if you're curious) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.192.212 (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Horseshoe theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a "citation needed" for it being in political science?[edit]

The fact that Horseshoe theory involves political science hardly seems like a claim warranting a "citation needed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:EC49:600:6DF8:9149:B603:5B56 (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and am removing it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.100.124 (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the evidence that horseshoe theory is a topic of "political science"? As far as i can tell, it's a pop theory put forward by political commentators, not academics. The citation of Jean-Pierre Faye doesn't even contain the quoted reference. I'm skeptical that Horseshoe Theory is deserving of a wikipedia page, but if there's going to be one it should properly contextualize it as a kind of epithet or aphorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhess126 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Going back over the talk page has been informative for my own complaint below. Yeah, that citation needed was 1000% warranted. i kan reed (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Horseshoe theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual Dark Web[edit]

You are invited to participate in this AfD discussion about whether to delete Intellectual Dark Web. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fish hook theory[edit]

"Choat also argues that although proponents of the horseshoe theory may cite examples of alleged history of collusion between Fascists and Communists, those on the far left usually oppose the rise of far-right or fascist regimes in their countries. Instead, he argues that it has been centrists who have supported far-right and fascist regimes that they prefer in power over socialist ones.[7]"

This is actually the basis some of the far left (and probably also the far right) uses for a similar theory, sometimes used ironically but sometimes not: the fish hook theory. It supposes that it is actually centrists that conform more to one extreme end of the spectrum than the other. The far left side of this argument would advocate that centrists are closer to the far right than the far left by showing that centrists are the hook's bend while the far right are the hook's point, with the far left being the eye of the fish hook. Vice versa for the far right's perspective of course. Does this fact deserve a spot in this article? KarstenO (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold! – Kaihsu (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But make sure it's properly sourced. I can't find a single reference to fish-hook theory on google scholar (except in biblical studies). Usually a sign that it's not ready for inclusion. OsFish (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the addition of a diagram about this. We have no article for Fish hook theory and the reference given was to a blog, albeit one with multiple authors. There is nothing in the article body about this either. The theory seems not to be notable under this name. It also seems completely bonkers, but that it not the reason I removed it. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a theory, it is objectively correct. But as you say, whether we think something is true is not how its inclusion is decided ;) 128.114.255.141 (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in an awful state[edit]

Why is almost every single citation in this article a op-ed about "our divided politics" or something similar? Literally the only academic source is at the bottom labeled "criticism".

I was going hunting for academic sources about it, and the only recent papers about it I found from someone with credentials in political science, both only mention it in passing as "discredited". That kind of introduction doesn't at all align with the content of the article that seems to treat it from the lede up until criticism, as a valid framework for analyzing politics. I think this article needs help, preferably from someone with some more experience in poly-sci. Either way, editorials with a heavy tilt towards conservatism in particular should not form the backbone of analysis for this kind of subject. Right? Right??? i kan reed (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is not in a great state. I think the status of the horseshoe theory as not being much supported might be mentioned in the lede if there is a solid enough reference (ie a metaanalytical source). But I removed the fact tag as it is definitely talked about. OsFish (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Do you really buy that? I cannot find a single legitimate political scientist in our sources or my own research that supports that notion. Op eds are not "political theory". Literally the only academic source is a debunking of it. Unless you can be more specific than suggesting "it's definitely talked about" I really think the whole lede should be changed. Problem being, I'm not actually an expert, I just came to wikipedia trying to find academic sources discussing it, wasted multiple hours of my life trying to find them myself, coming to the conclusion that wikipedia's current article is grossly misleading, and I'm not thrilled to have that handwaved away with "definetly talked about". It's a very common assumption that this is a true thing backed by real theory, and if it's not, we're doing every reader a gigantic disservice by saying it is so bluntly and leaving the criticism section to do clean-up detail. The only places I find googling "political science" "horseshoetheory" are the wikipedia article and people discussing the wikipedia article. Hell, now that I look there's even a political science subreddit complaining about how it's not political science.
To put it another way, can you think of literally any other subject where you'd be comfortable for the primary citations in the lede to be newspaper editorials? Letting the readers know veracity of the wording is challenged seems like a bare minimum. It almost seems better, with the picture of the way things stand now, to completely cut "political theory" from the lede(maybe "politics" instead?). i kan reed (talk) 05:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that you're conflating whether an idea has support in the academic community with whether or not it is an idea that has been discussed within the academic community or among certain groups of prominent figures. The latter is what matters in terms of the article existing, and it's plainly true, even if it's mentioned disparagingly. If the idea lacks academic support, then the text should address that and make it clear - in the lede, if justifed (and it looks justified here). This would address your concerns about people thinking it might be a widely supported theory. Wikipedia is not limited to concepts that have current support in the academic community. See, for example, Phlogiston theory or Miasma theory. I changed the text from political theory to political science because it isn't entirely a political theoretical notion, but also an empirical claim about observable behaviour of the far left and right. I'm not sure why you changed that back. The cited references refer a lot to the behaviour of far left and far right, not theoretical conclusions that they are the same.
So, to show you what I mean, I've inserted a sourced comment in the lede that the idea is not supported by contemporary political science. Where I think there should be cutting back is in what appears to be random mentions of the concept in the media. I can't work out the criteria for selecting those examples.OsFish (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a reference by Mayer which I think may be fruitful in mining for criticism of horseshoe theory. I think there needs to be some material from Faye 2002 (first edition 1996?) for the origins section, but I can't track down an online copy anywhere. OsFish (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reference for the claim that Horseshoe theory is not widely accepted was challenged and removed. I've reinstated it, and here I'll provide evidence that the source is reliable. First off, the author is published in this area. Here is his researchgate page containing his publications. Second, this is the venue for the presentation, which was a by-invitation only workshop at a leading British university for mainstream academics where he was, presumably, an invited speaker. Thirdly, as other references imply, horseshoe theory simply isn't widely supported in academia. OsFish (talk) 11:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's abbreviate my concern to "not supported by citation". He mentions "horsehoe theory" exactly once and specifically refers to it as "a commonly received idea" and the conclusion explicitly refutes the polisci value of it as a theory. "Yet the political preferences analyzed in this article show that potential NPA and FN voters remain socially and politically contrasted". I think you're going hunting for support for an academically unsupported idea, and finding tacit mention, ignoring context, and concluding that it's academic when entirely contrasted by the actual source's discussion. i kan reed (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "I think you're going hunting for support for an academically unsupported idea", what was it about the way I inserted text and sourcing that explicitly made clear it was not academically supported ("does not currently enjoy support within academic circles") that prompted you to say that? OsFish (talk) 06:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's fair. i kan reed (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How well-regarded is horseshoe theory & consensus editing[edit]

An IP editor is trying to add material that gives the impression horseshoe theory is much more supported in academia than the article currently states. First off, when an editor objects to an edit, and requests discussion of changes on the talk page, that is what should happen. Discussion via the edit summary boxes is not conducive to happy editing. Edit warring is not good; the system favours the status quo in a dispute until the dispute is resolved. So please, let's talk here.

Secondly, it's important not to engage in original research. For example, one added reference was to work by Brezinski. But as far as I can see, Brezinski never wrote about horseshoe theory, nor does he seem to have been recognised in the literature as writing about it without naming it (I'm happy to be corrected if such sources exist). It's not the job of wikipedia editors to make such connections.

Third, there needs to be a distinction between commentators in the media and serious academic analysis. Horseshoe theory really doesn't seem to have acceptance in academic circles, even if columnists and political advocates talk about it. Objections have been raised that documents are invalid because they exist on the Internet or the academic researcher in question is from Greece. I hope we can get past stuff like that. OsFish (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undue criticism[edit]

Materialscientist undid a change I was responsible for, so I'd like to discuss it here. I removed what I consider undue focus on a fringe critic. We should definitely include criticism, but I don't see the justification for giving it so much space in such a small article, especially when the only citations are for someone unimportant and politically biased. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed that there are some citations for more interesting critics, such as Filipović & Đorić, Berlet, and Lyons, and Pavlopoulos. I would not oppose enlarging the criticism section to include material from them. My objection is to Choat owning the section. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest discussing here what you would like to put in place, rather than just removing content. In the mean time, please read WP:BRD - the procedure when you are reverted is to initiate this discussion, and not reinstate your changes until that discussion achieves consensus. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 20:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is to remove the undue criticism now. At that point, the article is more balanced and doesn't disproportionately contain fringe criticism. More mainstream criticism can then be added as needed. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear a lot of people find the theory repugnant. So, let's gather what criticism you think is appropriate to replace what you regard as a fringe critic. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to the point made about procedure: there is a conservative presumption in disputes that where an edit is disputed, the version prior to the edit remains until consensus is achieved. I broadly agree that Choat seems to be overrepresented, but let's hash something together here before making changes.OsFish (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, from the citation given in the reverted version, the description of Choat "a Marxist professor of politics" doesn't seem sustainable (reading between the lines, I would think his interest is more than just academic, but that's a guess). Would "a political science lecturer specializing in Marxism" be a more accurate summary? Tarl N. (discuss) 01:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, people on both ends find it repugnant because it equates them with what they consider to be their ideological opposite. That's one concern I had about the overuse of Choat, since he self-identifies as a Marxist. That's why I made that more direct. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article is really good now. But there are still some issues with it. In the article Choat is made out to be a leftist. So his perspective is presented as close to the center and maybe as a lenient perspective. While in reality it's a far-left critique. So, it's leftist critique, but from an extreme part of the left. Pointing this out will make the whole article make sense because it starts out by stating that the horseshoe theory is criticized from the far-left. But I had to read the talk page to discover that such an example was actually given in the article. JurijFedorov (talk) 11:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism deals with the reasons and aims of left and right, but horseshoe theory is how both extremes move towards authoritarianism. It deals with the execution of the delivery, not the goals and impetus behind the authoritarianism.Halbared (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fish hook theory still doesn't have serious support in sources - suggest removal.[edit]

I still can't find any academic sources discussing fish hook theory as a thing. Even the single rather not great source admits it's half satirical. Previously on this page it seemed to be agreed that sourcing should reflect scholarly understanding and interest rather than promote fringe views. OsFish (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the source, I agree that the fish hook theory is primarily a joke. I've removed it, and it shouldn't be restored until there are better sources to support it. It also doesn't make a boatload of sense to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I can imagine it being a genuine theory proposed by someone stemming in some part from historical blame games around the failure in Germany to unite against Nazism - there are arguments over whether Nazism was a form of late capitalism and thus a bulwark against communism that "centrists" preferred to communism. But academic sources simply haven't taken fish hook theory up as a "thing" to discuss.OsFish (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Modern Usage" - issues of bias, WP:DUE and original research[edit]

I'm concerned by the material in the modern usage section, but wanted to get consensus here before editing. These quotes are non-peer reviewed, non scholarly examples of people deploying the term "horseshoe" to criticise their ideological opponents. In effect, it's a survey of primary sources by editors, ie original research.OsFish (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for criticism seem rather one sided[edit]

Currently the article makes the claim that the horseshoe theory doesn't have support, but only uses three sources, all from one side of the political spectrum. And of these sources, Trotsky is a communist (A Far Left Idealogy by nature) who for a time could have become the next leading figure of the USSR, while Choats language seems to be directly attacking centrists in the statement used in the article, which does not reflect well on its neutrality. The third source, which is only used to prove "Horseshoe theory does not enjoy support within academic circles", is quite evidently critiquing the right wing of the United States. I think we would need some Right-Wing or Centrists sources also critiquing the Theory to be able to assert that it does not enjoy support from Academics. Otherwise, the language should be changed to as not offer a definitive position on the matter StopGoingBackward (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the phrase "does not enjoy support within academic circles" suffices. It may be "inside baseball", but the claim that academic circles are biased to the left wing is so pervasive that I don't think the statement, in this context, supported by only left-wing sources, is misleading. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be true for most articles, but this is specifically an article where academic neutrality is important, due to how it is inherently based off of the extremes of the political spectrum. Furthermore, Leon Trotsky aside (Due to him being on the far left himself, and thus not a neutral source), this claim is supported only by two sources. Two clearly left leaning sources on a topic where neutrality is important is flimsy enough that I believe it shouldn't be trying to make a definitive statement. More sources, preferably those outside the left wing, would be needed to make a blanket statement about the whole of academia rejecting the theory StopGoingBackward (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have not achieved consensus on this talk page. When reverted to status quo ante, you can either find some other way to achieve consensus or abandon your edit. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda have to agree with Stop suspect of "does not enjoy support within academic circles" being a bit too much. One single source just seems not enough. I must also admit that, in general, the article seems to have the aim of proving desperately that the horseshoe theory is a fraud (a leftist input I would say). I would keep aside any considerations on "academic circles are biased to the left". Lone Internaut (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree LEDominator (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the change because if one source is not enough, add sources, don't remove ones that are actually respectable. Horseshoe theory as it stands is very much a meme rather than a respectable analytical proposition. OsFish (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the work cited does not support the claim that is made. If you read the pages cited, there is zero commentary discussing academic acceptance. Since the claim isn't supported it shouldn't be there and that is supported by the consensus on the talk page. LEDominator (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve reverted the removed text and added two peer-reviewed citations from high-impact political science and psychology journals which explicitly state that the published literature does not support horseshoe theory. Until someone can present similarly weighted publications to the contrary, the statement should remain in the article. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three (at least) would be better than two, but it's one more, so better than nothing. A specific quotation is requested as of October. Choat and Trotsky should be introduced as two far-left authors and everything in that section should be written in a well-defined conditional manner (use "allegedly", "supposedly"). I may apply these last two changes myself, I'll wait sometime for others to comment on it first. Lone Internaut (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

lede, undue weight[edit]

horseshoe theory is not regarded as a legitimate analytical lens in any credible academic source and is widely refuted in the academic community, as is sourced in the criticism section

the lede and the sections of the article prior to the criticism section do not reflect this, and i believe the article should be adjusted to reflect this

as with articles such as Astrology and Myers–Briggs Type Indicator the lede should acknowledge horseshoe theory as psudeoscientific and potentially even acknowledge it's status as fallacious political propaganda if this can be sourced correctly, i also think the rest of the article should be edited to not give undue weight to the perspective that horseshoe theory reflects reality

thoughts? 86.4.5.12 (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The theory has hardly been discredited as illegitimate, not at least as far as the evidence available in the article goes. Trotsky is hardly an accredited academic, nor was he without obvious extreme personal bias, so eliminating him what you have left is a critique from one senior lecturer at a minor regional university, which hardly serves to disqualify the theory. The article already says that the theory is part of "popular discourse", but it you want the "political science" to be removed, you'll need to provide much more evidence from better sources.
As for being "pseudoscience", political "science" is not in any reasonable manner a true science, it's a social "science", in which theories, opinions and argumentation carry a great deal of weight without ever being proven in anything like a scientific manner. In such a circumstance, to call the Horseshoe theory "pseudoscience" is nothing more than one opinion calling another wrong.
In any case, it's only a theory -- in the popular sense, not the scientific sense -- meant to explain observations that behavior on the far ends of the political spectrum are sometimes very, very similar. To the person locked up in jail, or laboring under the yoke of a repressive government, it hardly matters whether the jailer or oppressor is a communist or a fascist, as, outwardly, they often act much the same. Their reasons for acting that way may be 180 degrees different, but the results look very much alike.
As far as I can tell, the article does not in any way claim that the Horsehoe theory is correct, it merely describes it, therefore I do not agree that it is biased. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove 'Theory' part?[edit]

The scientific definition of a theory, a scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. This so-called Horseshoe Theory has not been tested in a scientific environment (here, it would be a study of political science). Thus, it is fit to rename this article from 'Horseshoe Theory' to 'Horseshoe Hypothesis' since the contents in this article suit the definition of a hypothesis better.

Now, some may oppose this decision by citing WP:COMMONNAME but I do not believe it is fit to do so. Firstly, the article is titled Dissolution of the Soviet Union instead of Collapse of the Soviet Union even though the latter is more common in the West. Secondly, WP:COMMONNAME should only extend as long as scientific studies permit it. Here, the 'Theory' part does not meet scientific standards as explained above and should thus be replaced with 'Hypothesis'. Piotr Heat (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manufactured Consensus[edit]

This article has developed into a hit piece on horseshoe theory, not an encyclopedia article. The article claims consensus against horseshoe theory while citing the same three papers over and over again, and it's clear that a balanced attempt was not made to find articles in support of it. These aren't hard to find, as scholars still regularly engage with the theory and have supported it as an alterative to the traditional left-right spectrum. In about twenty minutes, I was able to find about nine papers that support the theory in certain cases, including a panel at ECPR 14 engaging with it. See below:

https://ecpr.eu/Events/Event/PanelDetails/3246

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-39691-6_9

http://eprints.rclis.org/39512/

https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/Cognition%20and%20Emotion%20in%20Extreme%20Political%20Action%20(1)_5a26afde-b706-48fc-b074-d9790cc29085.pdf

https://www.polisci.washington.edu/events/2019-11-06/csss-presentsspherical-factor-analysis-binary-data-look-conservative-revolt-us

This article claims concensus where there is none. Therefore, it violates WP:NPOV. -- 16:17, 20 February 2024 Collisteru

These articles either aren't scholarly and peer reviewed, but just advertisements (for events) or blurbs. Or they are in different fields, not political science and do not have the expert weight that the already cited sources do. Scholars may "engage" with the idea that the theory exists, but they hardly provide support for it: these papers just assume it might be true and go from there. 76.6.212.80 (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion, weasel words, and meta analysis[edit]

From an outsiders perspective, this is a very strange article that is just chock full of opinion, weasel words, and meta analysis. I'm going to do some clean-up work, feel free to join in. 136.27.14.90 (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've updated the headers in the article to better reflect their content, article flow, and to line up with wiki best practices. Let me know if there are any concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.27.14.90 (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a stab at the second paragraph of the intro, removing the majority of the meta-analysis and weasel words. I balanced the paragraph as well I could to comply with neutrality and undue weight policies, I think it's a much clearer read now. Let me know if there are any concerns or comments. 136.27.14.90 (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So I made a few more edits mostly removing weasel words but moreso meta-analysis. There are way too many"some people say" instances in this article. True or not, that is out of whack with how these articles or supposed to be written, as that would be the author of the comment being the primary source, unless it's a quote of course. 136.27.14.90 (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just chipping away at some of the language, attributing statements to the authors that wrote them so they aren't stated like established facts, true or not. 136.27.14.90 (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also moved the Trotsky section to early usage as it's from 1938, was a weird way to finish the article. 136.27.14.90 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of arguments about whether this is pseudoscience or not. It is an ordination lacking an underlying distance/dissimilarity matrix, much like a scatter plot where the x and y values are chosen arbitrarily and without referenced sources. I would contend that until an actual measurable (at the minimum the data and methods are made public) approach is used, where one can justify the clustering of political positions in space by some values, e.g. a combination of continuous and categorical policy positions used to generate a Gower distance, this "theory" be classified as pseudoscience. The same applies to the "Fishhook Theory." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.124.26.252 (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have found reliable sources that voice this view, then please use them as part of your discussion here. Otherwise, you're just voicing your opinion, and that can't be used to create or alter content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

The neutrality of this article may potentially be problematic, but from where I study (in France, if that makes any difference, seems to be popular in North America currently) Horseshoe theory is pretty discredited. There was no specific section in the talk page proposing to add the neutrality banner, so I have removed it. If you want to add it again, or do the right thing, discuss the actual problems, in this section, in order to improve this article, please do so after having left a message here. We can do this. Encyclopédisme (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Horseshoe_theory&oldid=1220608679"