Talk:Far-right politics

My problem with this wikipedia article.
Although I do think this article is good in lots of ways, I think it needs more improvement. for example, The overreliance on fascist imagery is misleading. For an example, the lead image. The lead image has has the flag of Flag of Nazi Germany. Is this necessarily bad, no. Is it misleading, yes. fascists and Nazis are far right but most people on the far right are not fascists and Nazis. For this example lets use the political party, Alternative for Germany. At the point of writing this they are polling at 19%, tying with the Social Democratic Party of Germany at second. Summed up, why are we using symbols of fringe groups to represent the majority of the far right? More examples of far right to right wing parties.Fidesz Our Homeland Movement Revival (Bulgarian political party) Freedom Party of Austria People's Party of Canada Brothers of Italy Sweden Democrats. note most of these party's are right wing to far right. If most mainstream far-right political parties are like this, shouldn't this article reflect that reality. The truth is the difference between Right-wing politics and far-right politics is vary bleary and Wikipedia should reflect that ./. an idea I have is to make an article that represents the middle ground between Right-wing politics and Far-right politics. The same can be said about the corresponding left wing articles. Zyxrq (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * A major problem with this article is that it conflates two topics: parties to the right of the mainstream and parties that are furthest to the right. (The article begins, "Far-right politics, or right-wing extremism.") In reality, academics distinguish between the two sets. Note that the second set is part of the first set. Unfortunately, they are inconsistent with terms, referring to one as "far right" and the other as "extreme right" or vice versa. Neo-fascism dominates the second set, even though some parties try to distance themselves.
 * As an example, Farage's UKIP could be considered far right because it was to the right of the Tories. But it was distinguishable from the British National Party which had fascist origins.
 * TFD (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "fascists and Nazis are far right but most people on the far right are not fascists and Nazis." My suspicion is that the unifying ideology behind every far-right variation is ultranationalism (with its eternal pursuit of supremacy). But there is no unified symbol for either ultranationalism or nationalism itself. Dimadick (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The introduction of the article misleads. A far-right party can also be reactionary without necessarily being nationalist.
 * From the way the far right is presented in the article, it seems that before the Nazis and fascists it did not exist: nothing could be more false. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It says "tends to be," which means in some cases it may not be.
 * It's probable that the far right did not exist prior to Fascism. Do you have any sources that it did? TFD (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @The Four Deuces Well, it's obvious that it existed before fascism, the historical far right are the reactionaries.
 * In the 19th century the expression "extreme right" was more popular. See for example: A history of the four Georges Volume 1 By Justin McCarthy, Justin Huntly McCarthy (1884), p. 24
 * "These men constituted what would now be called in the language of French politics the Extreme Right of the Tory party" 93.45.229.98 (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * On Google Books you can see all the uses made in the nineteenth century (all texts are in the public domain):
 * https://www.google.com/search?q=extreme+right+politics&sca_esv=565306219&biw=1536&bih=814&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1800%2Ccd_max%3A1899&tbm=bks&ei=E-sCZYXOCsKVxc8PkZafuA0&ved=0ahUKEwjFo9W7_KmBAxXCSvEDHRHLB9cQ4dUDCAk&uact=5&oq=extreme+right+politics&gs_lp=Eg1nd3Mtd2l6LWJvb2tzIhZleHRyZW1lIHJpZ2h0IHBvbGl0aWNzSKYQULMFWMYPcAB4AJABAJgBV6ABzQWqAQIxMLgBA8gBAPgBAYgGAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-books 93.45.229.98 (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this person. There were far-rightist or ultraconservative movements prior to fascism, such as the Ultra-Tories in the United Kingdom, the Ultra-royalists in France, and the ultramontanists in Italy. This is classical right-wing politics, although an extreme version of it, unlike fascism and national socialism which are identifed, by themselves and scholars alike, as syncretic ideologies, combining elements from left and right. Trakking (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In your article, Extreme Right is used to refer to the German Conservative Party. It's not using the term in the same way we would today. They are called Extreme Right to distinguish them from the more moderate Free Conservative Party, which it calls the Moderate Right.
 * While both parties are defunct, three parties still exist: the Christian Democrats, Free Democrats and Social Democrats. The first is referred to as the Center, while the others are referred to as Extreme Left. We are more likely to refer to them today as center-right, center and center-left.
 * Of course, in a multi-party system, one party has to sit on the extreme right. But the topic of the article is parties that are to the right of the mainstream parties. The German Conservative Party was the governing party. TFD (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In  A history of the four Georges? Can you tell me the page? I can't find "Extreme Right" for the German Conservative Party in the book.
 * In any case... there is a geographically and historically limited perspective in the article's incipit. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I went to the first hit of the Google search you provided: The Saturday Review, p. 252.
 * In the Georges, the author is comparing British Jacobites, who wanted to restore the Stuart monarchy, with French legitimists, who wanted to restore the Bourbon monarchy. They took their name, Extreme Right, from the position in which they sat in the National Assembly. Lots of parties in Europe, which were loose associations of elected members, took their names from where they sat. Of course there will always be members who sit on the extreme right or extreme left.
 * If you think that there should be mention of other movements from other times and places, please provide sources. Policy requires that articles reflect the balance in reliable sources. It is not our role to correct it. TFD (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @The Four Deuces: I just wanted to highlight an important aspect you mentioned. The word ”far right” is actually ambiguous and, as many dictionaries will inform you, may simply mean the most rightist faction of a party. Thus, all rightist parties have a far-right. For example, the National Right is the far-right faction of the Liberal Party of Australia, which is considered a centre-right party. Trakking (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. However, in comparative politics, social scientists used party families where they perceived relationships between parties in different countries. For example, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of the USA were considered to be in the same family, viz., the communist party family. That could be shown by similar names, symbols, ideologies, circumstances of origin, international cooperation and perception both by members and outsiders.

The main ideologies into which families fell were conservative, Christian democratic, liberal, socialist and communist. Naming them presented little problem because they self-identified with these groups and were perceived to belong to them. A problem arose with parties that were perceived to be to the right of the traditional families. They did not have similar names, symbols, ideologies, circumstances of origin, or international cooperation.

Most sources refer to them as either far right or extreme right parties. Can you think of what else we should call them? Or do you think the category does not exist?

TFD (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The example of the Ultra-Tories (sources are in the wikiarticle) is sufficient. According to Manual of Political Ethics For the Use of Colleges and Students Law Volume 2 (1875) by Francis Lieber, p. 271:
 * "The extreme right is always occupied by the party claiming to be the most royalist, or, as is the case now, super-royalist, that is, by the party who are for the old Bourbons; the extreme left, by those who claim to be the most liberal, or by republicans. Between them we have the right, the right centre, the centre, the left centre, and the left."
 * For historical reasons, the meaning of the extreme right in the past (i.e., exclusively reactionary) should be mentioned. There is a real lack of clarification on the difference between the old elitist extreme right and the new mass far-right.
 * This does not detract from the fact that the current article is also localist, in fact in Latin America the Brazilian integralists or the Pinochetistas in Chile have been important far-right factions. The last faction is the one that has most influenced the extreme Latin American right today, which is extremely anticommunist.
 * This clearly does not exclude the fact that far-right racial supremacism has pre-fascist and pre-Nazi origins, just think of the C.S.A. (1861–1865) or the First K.K.K. (1865–1872). It is also good to remember that racialism, racial slavery and segregation are reactionary politics. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As trakking mentioned, the term extreme right can be used in a relative sense. The Liberal Party of Australia has a narrow ideological range, yet we can talk about the its left an right wings. Stalin faced both a Right Opposition within the Communist Party but that did not mean they were right-wing. They were only right-wing relative to Stalin.
 * Your source was written at a time when as I mentioned parties took their names from where they sat in the National Assembly. Denmarks center-right liberal party, for example is called the Left because that's where they originally sat in parliament.
 * Also, parties that claim to be the most liberal are not far left, because there are socialist and communist parties to their left. In fact, by the end of the 19th century, most parties with left in their names were considered right-wing.
 * BTW you claim that racism is far right would mean that most if not all mainstream politics before the 1960s was far right.
 * Anyway, Wikipedia is a tertiary source that summarizes what reliable sources say in proportion to what they say about them. An article on far right politics therefore should read like a similar article in a political textbook. It's against policy to change the balance. TFD (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * BTW instead of using books from the 1800s to find out whether or not the extreme right existed, you should use modern texts. Old texts not reliable sources. As you can see, what they meant by Extreme Right is not what is meant today. They never for example used these terms to describe anything outside legislatures. And the terms were used based on the party's original position in the legislature, which could change. So for example the Extreme Left Party was part of the French right-wing. See Marcel Gauchet's article "Right and Left" for an explanation of how these terms developed. TFD (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I specified "the meaning of the extreme right in the past". I didn't really write that: "that racism is far right would mean that most if not all mainstream politics before the 1960s was far right" but that "far-right racial supremacism has pre-fascist and pre-Nazi origins, just think of the C.S.A. (1861–1865) or the First K.K.K. (1865–1872). It is also good to remember that racialism, racial slavery and segregation are reactionary politics". However, it is a fact that the former American racist politics (once more mainstream) are now far-right...
 * "what they meant by Extreme Right is not what is meant today"
 * Individuals proposing the Ancien Régime restoration, feudalism (serfdom and legal status like that of the kholops), patriarchalism (divine right of kings), violent expansionism, colonialism and slavery of natives, monarchical absolutism, etc., etc., are still extreme right-wing today. These are policies still outside the mainstream right.
 * Fascism was certainly peculiar, but it is remembered as "far right" for reactionary policies not for reformist policies. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @The Four Deuces I agree that old books are not reliable sources here. Doug Weller  talk 16:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Over time, views that were once acceptable are considered reactionary. But I wouldn't say that Louis IV was far a right-wing extremist because today absolute monarchy has no support. In fact, I don't know of any right-wing extremists who advocate it.
 * If I were to group legitimists by ideology, it would probably be as conservatives. Maistre and a number of other French defenders of the Bourbons are considered conservatives.
 * The issue was whether the extreme right existed before WWI and if so who they were. Or was the extreme right something that emerged as a result of the chaos following the WWI and increased public participation in the political process. TFD (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @The Four Deuces The German Reichsbürger movement is a far-right movement with extreme monarchist factions. Heinrich XIII Prinz Reuss literally attempted a coup. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @The Four Deuces
 * "The issue was whether the extreme right existed before WWI and if so who they were"
 * I read the comment late... Action Française, founded in 1899, is a pre-WWI far-right group still in existence. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * On reflection there were some groups that would be considered far right in the late 19th and early 20th century in France and Austria-Hungary, which some writers consider urfascism. TFD (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * TFD, we already have an article on proto-fascism and the "direct predecessor ideologies and cultural movements that influenced and formed the basis of fascism." Dimadick (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair Proto-Fascism doesn't necessarily mean far-right ideologies that came before Fascism Zyxrq (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Hard-right? PT. 2
Should there be a delineation between "hard-right" politics and "far-right" politics, or should we treat them as the same? I notice, for instance, that The New York Times conspicuously eschews the label "far-right" when discussing people like Matt Gaetz, but does not do so when referring to a presidential candidate in Argentina. I imagine other editors of this page are far more informed than I am on these two terms and their idiosyncrasies, but I figured I'd ask about it. Delukiel (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "Hard right" is one of those sources that can mean different things by publication; in my experience it's not usually synonymous with the far-right, and sits between it and just old regular "right-wing". That said, it's nebulous at best. It's likely that the NYT doesn't consider Matt Gaetz far-right (or is more careful about using that to describe American politicians). In short, I don't think it should be treated as the same. — Czello (music) 17:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The extreme right is the same as the hard-right because there are references that indicate it, there is no bibliographic support that says otherwise. AmigodeMassa (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As above, it's not ubiquitous in sourcing. — Czello (music) 13:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For example, in this reference from the week, it is indicated that both Cambio and Vox belong to the hard-right, while Javier Milei belongs to the far-right, therefore they are synonyms since I imagine that all people believe that Vox is even more right-wing than Javier Milei, however the hard-right classification is used. With this I want to affirm that they are exactly the same AmigodeMassa (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's WP:OR — Czello (music) 13:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * First we have to understand that hard-right is the same as extreme right, something that all the dictionaries in the world say. I attach examples:
 * https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hard-right
 * https://www.collinsdictionary.com/es/diccionario/ingles-espanol/the-hard-right
 * https://www.thefreedictionary.com/hard+right
 * https://educalingo.com/en/dic-en/hard-right
 * https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hard%20right Monito rapido (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, I thought I'd find you here.
 * I see you've reproduced here some content that you posted during our discussion over your assertion that the Traditional Unionist Voice party was a "far-right" party, viz. TUV Political Position.
 * Your statement "First we have to understand that hard-right is the same as extreme right " seems to me to fall into the category of what the Wikipedia Manual of Style calls "Instructional and Presumptious language".
 * For what it's worth, my own undertanding of the recent increase in the use of the term "hard right" by journalists is that they are substituting it for the term "far right", not because they want to but because their readers are questioning the use of such a term.
 * My own point of reference when it comes to European political parties and their political nature is the following website: Wolfram Nordsiek, comparative study of party systems in Europe. Here is their own description of what their website is about: "Parties and Elections in Europe provides a comprehensive database about political parties, elections and governments in all European countries. The website contains the results of parliamentary elections from more than 100 countries and autonomous regions in Europe. The parties are classified according to their political orientation. Historical data can be found in the archive.The private website was established by Wolfram Nordsieck in 1997. The editor began his comparative study of party systems, parliamentary elections and constitutional laws in the late 1980s. Thereafter he studied law and history at the Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf. Today he practices law."
 * They include such categories as "Far-right politics", "Right-wing populism", "Nationalism" and "Social Conservatism". BrownBowler (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * what is your point? Monito rapido (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , I'm not trying to make a point, I'm just trying to do my best to elucidate a subject and to provide more information for discussion. At the same time, I added an opinion in case anyone was interested in what I had to say. That's what Wikipedia is about. I was criticising your style of discussion, that's true. BrownBowler (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * All of them are the same:
 * https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/ultra-right
 * https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/far-right Monito rapido (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * See Dictionaries as sources. Doug Weller  talk 18:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to use those references for anything, I'm only using those references for saying that the far-right, hard-right, extreme-right and ultra-right are the same and have the same meaning. Monito rapido (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the various terms are used inconsistently in reliable sources. News articles, whose writers are not experts, often chose their descriptions for brevity or unconscious bias. Authoritarians we like are hard right, while those we don't are far right. TFD (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You are stating that it is the same. the term must be added equally, or as a synonym, or as a faction of the far right Monito rapido (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No I am not. I am saying that the terms are used inconsistently. Someone could call Hitler and Rand Paul far right. Or they could call HItler far right and Paul hard right. Or they could call HItler extreme right and Paul far right. So they are using these terms differently. They may for example distinguish HItler and Paul or they may group them together. They are both to the right of mainstream politics but far apart within that range. TFD (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I see that has been blocked by admin for sockpuppetry. Here is the comment from the admin clerk "Registered shortly after CulturalHuya and AmigodeMassa were blocked, exhibits precisely the same type of editing, with focus on far-right politics. Like master, seems to use Spanish language. Technical competence from first edit, continued to edit the same articles as master and socks.". No doubt to return very soon. BrownBowler (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I struck through edits of both of the socks. Doug Weller talk 12:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

"The Far Right Is Growing Stronger—and Has a Plan for 2024"
Title of this article. Note that it says the Overton window has shifted:" Although the alt right collapsed, its goal of shifting the “Overton window”—the spectrum of what is considered legitimate political discourse—succeeded. Today, white supremacist, anti-LGBTQ+, and even antisemitic conspiracy theories have become so prevalent that what was taboo even in 2018 is accepted by many as not only normal but acceptable." Doug Weller talk 15:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The alt-right article points out how even though Charlottesville caused the alt-right to shatter, it had a ripple effect of radicalizing alt-righters into terrorism (Atomwaffen experienced great growth post-Cville). And now Republicans sort of occupy the position alt-right did a few years ago: White Genocide rhetoric is mainstream in GOP, etc. RKT7789 (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus on the reliability of the Daily Beast and no reason why the opinion of the journalist who wrote the story has any significance. Notice he says that the mainstream has ignored the growing strength of extremism, which suggests he is presenting a minority view.
 * I am not saying he is wrong, but I would need a better source to determine that. TFD (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The volume, for lack of a better term, of Far-right rhetoric from the GOP in the mainstream has changed over the years, particularly since Trump's election, and has been been increasingly discussed by academics and scholars since the J6 attack. Finding sources that show some consensus on the subject of the extent to which the far-right is shaping or controlling the GOP platform in the mainstream would be most helpful. Currently we have separate sources that seemingly coalesce, but the GOP's mainstream platform hasn't changed since 2016. DN (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

First sentence
Why does the first sentence say "Far-right politics, or right-wing extremism, refers to a spectrum..." when, per WP:REFERS, it could say "Far-right politics, or right-wing extremism, is a spectrum..."

I'm asking on here rather than boldly replacing it as it seems like an obvious change and I'm confused why it hasn't happened already. TenToe (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * No objection here. DN (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality
This article to does not view far right politics the same way as it does view far-left politics. While the one on the left does mention authoritarianism, as for the right it says it was inheritly authoritarian, which is not the case. This may not belong in the article, but right-libertarians often lean further to the right, see their view when it comes to freedom of speech (as we can see they, they even wish to have the swastika to be covered by the constiution). Keep in mind this is my personal experience, not a decided fact, I however do wish a bit more neutrality to be actually apolitical. MrLW97 (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not that thrilled with right-libertarianism, but it is a modern extension of anti-statism as an ideology and laissez-faire as an economic principle. Where do you see similarities with the ultranationalism of the far-right, its "hatred of foreigners", its pursuit of "territorial expansion", and its support for political violence to achieve its goals? When was the last time you heard of a libertarian "carrying out acts of violence and hate crimes against immigrants" ... and "ethnic minorities" like some of the European ultranationalist parties? Dimadick (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The difference between far right and far left is that while far right refers to a specific group of ideologies, far left is a vague term that merely means whatever part to his or her left the speaker finds unacceptable. The ideologies that are part of the far right are in fact authoritarian, while some on the far left, such as anarchism or the Biden administration, are not. TFD (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @The Four Deuces Biden administration? That’s a joke, right? Doug Weller  talk 22:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think TFD is indicating that some people (elements of the GOP, for example) call the Biden administration far-left. TFD's point is that the term "far-left" can mean whatever it needs to depending on who is saying it.
 * (I disagree, but that's a discussion we've had elsewhere and I don't want to enter WP:FORUM territory) — Czello (music) 22:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call Biden far left, but my point is that someone on the extreme right might because they place people on the spectrum differently. They see themselves as being in the center so Biden must be on the far left. Reliable sources however have described  Biden as being on the left, which could place AOC and Sanders on the far left. OTOH, far left could refer to groups to the left of Communist parties. it's a relative term that can mean different things depending on context.
 * The reason for this is that we don't have other terms to describe their ideologies. There is no other term that groups the KKK and the Nazi Party for example, while other parties typically self-identify with an ideology that is shared across national boundaries. TFD (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It may well be true that "far left" is used by those of a right-leaning persuasion to refer to anyone significantly to the left of their ideology. But to suggest that "far right" is not used in the same way by those of a left-leaning political outlook is utterly false.  The "far right" tag is often applied by those on the political left to refer to views which only a few years ago were generally considered to be just slightly to the right or even fairly central.  Don't fall into the trap of believing that the "far" tag is not applied in a similar way by both sides of the political spectrum. 70.178.140.205 (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Certainly people misuse terms. But can you find a better term to describe political ideologies and movements that are to the right of mainstream right-wing parties such as conservatives, Christian democrats and liberals? TFD (talk) 05:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Guidelines for "Far Right" in Lede
Please help steer conversation onTalk/Joe Kent and how to determine standards for "is far right" and putting "far right" in the lede, particularly because of Nazi imagery on this page and it's syndication to Bing, Google & AI chatbots.

We have plenty of sources placing him "America First", "MAGA", "Republican" and naturally many who like "far right" because of this page.

see also BOLP/NB/JK <small style="border:2px solid;border-radius:4px;padding:0 4px">Tonymetz 💬  01:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

totalitarianism authoritarian is far left
Far right, (on left you have extreme totalitarianism authoritarianism to the far right of total self autonomy). Nazi or national socialism Is still far left even if some consider nationalism on the right. Nationalism of no extreme is moderate. Far right exceeds any need of nationalism as it is full anarchy for self autonomy (full freedom as long as it is not i fringing on others). What infringements occur it goes full left as that is authoritarianism. 2603:7080:2C01:EA7:F031:C781:F39F:4910 (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * See the at the top of this page; this is a definition of far-right/left that isn't recognised by historians and politican scientists. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 15:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

This article is a mess
Not sure how I landed here, but this article is a staggering mess. The sourcing relies far too heavily on primary sources, most of which do not have secondary sourcing to establish due weight. This has lead to a great deal of original research and synthesis to be infused into the article. I went through and tried to verify a bunch of the content, and in many cases the cited sources do not support the text attached to the cite. Just a mess. TheMissingMuse (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Can you give an example or two? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Example passage: "In United States politics, the terms 'extreme right', 'far-right', and 'ultra-right' are labels used to describe 'militant forms of insurgent revolutionary right ideology and separatist ethnocentric nationalism'"
 * The cited source appears to be a self published webpage hosted on http://www.publiceye.org. This primary source only mentions far-right only once in passing: "Ultra Right (Sometimes called Far Right or Extreme Right)"
 * TheMissingMuse (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I do think we should seek out a stronger source for the broad definition/overview statement. In the meantime, I've at least attributed the quoted material to its publisher. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "attributing quoted material to it's publisher". The sentence isn't supported by the citation. TheMissingMuse (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is. The source establishes "far right" as synonymous with those other terms (as is common) and then provides a definition. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the self published source states that Ultra Right is sometimes called Far Right. That's a very different claim than saying it's synonymous. The source doesn't support the text, and the source shouldn't be used in the first place without secondary sourcing establishing due weight of the source. TheMissingMuse (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The source, which is secondary, is saying that the terms are used synonymously, and it provides a definition for their shared synonymous meaning. Certainly, all the terms can be used differently, but it provides one common usage that aligns with the topic of this page. I agree that there are likely stronger sources, but it's not problematic enough to remove. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not a secondary source. It's the source that made the claim. And no, you're engaging in synthesis when you say that "sometimes used" is the same things as "synonymous". Like I said, the article is a mess, and it's full of this kind of bad sourcing, OR and synthesis. You might approve of this misuse of sourcing, but that doesn't change the fact that the sourcing is bad. TheMissingMuse (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In some sense, providing a definition is "making a claim", but such an odd view invalidates the primary/secondary/tertiary distinction. I'd prefer to use a more common sense understanding. I'm very happy to see the sourcing improved, but it appears your understanding of the sourcing flaws is itself quite flawed. See below for more examples. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have a very solid understanding of sourcing. Your implication that a public eye web page is a reliable secondary source not incorrect. From WP:SECONDARY: A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. The webpage cites no primary sources, and presents specific claims in it's own voice. It is neither WP:SCHOLARLY nor from a news organization. It is WP:QUESTIONABLE source from an organization with a clear WP:BIAS, and cannot be used to establish WP:DUE weight. TheMissingMuse (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Another example: "The skinhead culture gained momentum during the late 1980s and peaked during the late 1990s. Numerous hate crimes were committed against refugees, including a number of racially motivated murders." is supported by two cites:
 * [foreign language source with no content]
 * [self published paper]
 * Neither of these citations are strong enough to support content without secondary sourcing supporting the citation, and inclusion here is undue. TheMissingMuse (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Helsingin sanomat is Finnish, which makes sense, and I've updated the citation url (and archive). The Ravndal paper link is to a free version of his peer-reviewd article published in Terrorism and Political Violence. Will update the citation info later, as I'm stepping away for a bit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This article is extremely biased like most political articles on Wikipedia. Clearly a lot more opinion here than fact, but Wikipedia has become extremely left wing and unreliable. Until someone comes along in authority to set down some neutral ground rules it will continue to be that way unfortunately.Bjoh249 (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would concur that there is some significant left-wing bias on Wikipedia, due in large part to the nature of who is most likely to edit Wikipedia. However, this article, out of all article on a politically contentious topic, does an excellent job in keeping away from significant bias, I would argue, and is largely factual, though not without error. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding The Image At The Top Of The Page
About a year ago, there was a weak consensus that the image at the top of the page should be of the American "Unite the Right" rally, rather than the picture of the Austrian Identitarian protest that has also often been on the page, and was on the page for a long time prior. This was largely because of how the "Unite the Right" rally was more recognizable and relevant. However, given the significant recent rise of the European far-right, the original has frequently (accidentally against consensus) been restored, likely because the original Identitarian protest is now a better representation of the "far-right" globally, one which is now significantly more relevant, recognizable, and representative than the "Unite the Right" rally. I, personally, would agree with this stance, and I am writing here to ask whether other Wikipedia writers, on the whole, agree:

Should the original image of Austrian Identitarians be restored, or should the Unite the Right rally image remain? JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * If nobody has any objection over the next few days, I will switch the image back. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have any issue with a European image, but we don't need to change images to match current trends in far-right politics. Two reasons given in the last discussion for preferring the status quo are that it represents an event that got a lot of international media coverage and that it includes recognizable symbols of the far right. If an image from another country can be found that has those characteristics, I think many of us would be happy to consider it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is my reason exactly - I think that the Identitarian protest is probably more recognizable at a global level, while outside of the US, the Unite The Right Rally might not be very recognizable, compared with the "rise of the European far-right" being plastered over every newspaper everywhere for such a long time as of late.
 * Something like an AfD rally might be both more recognizable and more significant, though there will inevitably be some people who might change it back saying "thEy'Re nOt tHaT FaR-RiGHt." JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no need to reopen this settled matter. The reason why the current image is obviously substantially better is that it shows two of the most relevant flags/emblems of both European and American far-right politics: The swastika and the Confederate battle flag respectively, both of which are recognised internationally and have both historic and contemporary significance. It isn't about the Unite The Right rally specifically. It illustrates the far-right as a whole. An AfD rally would not be as good as a lead picture because German law prevents them from using the most recognisable symbols that they would like to use. Of course, if there is a good picture of an AfD (or similar) rally then we can add it to the Germany section. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: I've added the best picture I could find. It's good because it shows two of the specific things that the German far-right is into at the moment: complaining about Muslims and moaning about "censorship". --DanielRigal (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

neutral point of view seems bias
From Wiki: "Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information." However under Far-Right the photo is of hate groups like Nazi's. The far-left photo is a nice peaceful congress looking photo. These two do seem "Neutral" and not agenda driven at all(sarcasm intended!). 69.195.29.42 (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The word you want is "biased." Hate groups are most prominent on the Right. Do you have any suggestions for images of scary leftists? They are a lot harder to find these days than images of Nazis. We are not obligated to create false symmetry by assuming that each component of society or politics has an equal and opposite mirror.   Acroterion   (talk)   15:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)