Talk:Far-right politics/Archive 11

Dispute regarding left-right classifications of Nazism & Fascism should be mentioned
While it is currently a minority view, there conservatives (e.g. Jonah Goldberg [see "Liberal Fascism]) and libertarians (e.g. Ludwig von Mises [see an excerpt from "Omnipotent Government: The Rise of Total State and Total War," The Origins of Nazism, https://mises.org/library/origins-nazism]) who argue that the "far-right" are expressions of left-wing principles. A section should be devoted to at least acknowledging the existence of this long-running controversy of how to regard movements such as National Socialism and Fascism, at least dating back to WWII (see von Mises, above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.88.59.121 (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a chance, no. The argument that the Nazi's were somehow leftists is embarrassingly ignorant and offensive. Please see the FAQ section at the top of the page. Bacondrum (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Mises doesn't comment on the Left or the Right at all in the except you linked to. I am not interested in what Goldberg has to say since he has no expertise or acceptance beyond fringe websites. TFD (talk) 06:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Mises is absolutely not saying that "the 'far-right' are expressions of left-wing principles", read the excerpt you posted again. He's saying that fascism takes its roots in the French Revolution, which is not a controversial statement (read Zeev Sternhell, Emilio Gentile, George Mosse, etc.)
 * PS: Jonah Goldberg cannot be used as a source for the article. He doesn't have the required PhD. It's not against Goldberg per se, journalists can only be used as a source for factual events, never for a scholarly analysis of a subject. Azerty82 (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The whole argument is laughable, a pathetic and painfully ignorant fascist talking point. Sad really. Bacondrum (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Just to add another voice here; It is clear that this, and our other articles, already cover these fringe interpretations to an appropriate extent. Any further coverage would be giving grossly undue weight. There is no "70+ year dispute". There was confusion about where fascism lay in the 1920s and 1930s, much of it created and exploited by fascists seeking to hide their true position. That all pretty much evaporated in WWII. Post WWII there has been a broad consensus. Even the vast majority of right wing historians accept this. We can, and we do, note that a few people disagree. That is enough. In fact, we probably cover it a little more than is deserved. Adding more would be amplifying revisionist propaganda to no encyclopaedic end. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Indeed Daniel, any further attention given to these ridiculous claims would be too much. It's like the far right are so brain dead that they can't recognise their own ideology when they see it. I guess this is why fascists generally lack a coherent system of beliefs, because fascists have no idea - they are simply murderous thugs. Bacondrum (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it is much more accurate to place anarchism at the far-right and socialism (statism) at the far-left (roughly) since fascism contains many hallmarks of leftist economics and state power usually eschewed by the right. I see fascism as being in the authoritarian centre as it combines radical ideas from both left and right ranging from social issues to economics. It is also worth remembering the political compass was created well before fascist ideas were established or known. The original paradigm consisted of liberal republicans v conservative monarchists, with fascists taking ideas from both camps many decades later. Also, users above are socialists so they have a clear confirmation bias like most Wikipedians.Harry-Oscar 1812 (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * See the FAQ at the top of the page.
 * Lots of people think fascism is actually on the right, but we're interested in reliable sources. Sources disagree with this interpretation, for many reasons. The "political compass" is usually used to refer to the meme, and is mainly discusses on the internet, but seldom by political scientists. If you mean the left-right spectrum, that's designed to be a simplification, so expecting complexity or nuance is misguided. All we can do, therefore, is follow reliable sources.
 * Instead of trying, and failing, to cast aspersion against people you disagree with, consider that everybody has a bias, including you. It is possible for someone to be a (gasp!) socialist and still stick to reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, everyone is bias except you...blah blah blah...yawn. You'll get a lot further if you don't insult other editors by calling them bias, or leftists or whatever, focus on content not other editors. And you should provide evidence (ie quality, reliable sources) rather than your expert analysis of fascist economic policy. Bacondrum (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "the political compass was created well before fascist ideas were established or known", that expert knowledge of yours hasn't involved any study, has it? Political compasses are modern, the first versions appearing in the 1960's. No one takes them seriously anyway, they're like a fun election game for Facebook. Bacondrum (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * People don't read articles before commenting? Read the History section:
 * The counter-revolutionary and the liberal camps began to transcend the borders of Europe during the first globalization (1870–1914), and a number of the ideas that currently constitute the foundation of far-right ideology—nationalism, populism, or antisemitism—were defended at that time by parts of the revolutionary left, a confusion observable in the writings of Sorel, Michels, Woltmann, or Proudhon. The word "extremist" to designate a category of the political spectrum appeared in the French public debate following the Bolshevik revolution of 1917: "far right" was used at that time to describe the strongest opponents of the "far left"—those who supported the events occurring in Russia. A number of thinkers on the far-right nonetheless claimed an influence from an imprecisely defined idea of socialism, based on a military comradeship that rejected class analysis—sometimes called "socialist revisionism": Charles Maurras, Benito Mussolini, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, or Ernst Niekisch. They eventually split along nationalist lines from the original communist movement, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels contradicting nationalist theories with the idea that "the working men [had] no country". The main reason for that ideological confusion can be found in the consequences of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 which, according to Swiss historian Philippe Burrin, had completely redesigned the political landscape in Europe by diffusing the idea of an anti-individualistic concept of "national unity" rising above the right and left division. As the concept of the masses was introduced into the political debate through industrialisation and the universal suffrage, a new right-wing founded on national and social ideas began to emerge, what Zeev Sternhell called the "revolutionary right", and a foreshadowing of fascism. The rift between the left and nationalists was furthermore accentuated by the emergence of anti-militarist and anti-patriotic movements in anarchism and syndicalism, which shared even less similarities with the far-right. The latter began to develop a "nationalist mysticism" entirely different from that on the left, and antisemitism turned into a credo of the far-right, marking a break from traditional "anti-Judaism" in favor of a racial and scientific notion. Various leagues began to form across Europe like the Pan-German League or the Ligue des Patriotes, with the common goal of a uniting the masses beyond social divisions. Azerty82 (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice one Azerty82, good on you for having the patience...I don't. These arguments about fascism being a left-wing are just a tired, contempt worthy, fascist talking points, nothing more. Bacondrum (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * TBH, I can also understand the confusion. Fascists did use left-wing concepts, but as a means to achieve their core project and not as an end in itself. It's also explained by Camus & Lebourg + Mudde (all references in the article), based on the work of Michael Freeden (1996 - "Ideologies and Political Theories, a Conceptual Approach" (see also: "Freeden (2003) – Ideology: A Very Short Introduction" & "Freeden (2013) - The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies")
 * Another important aspect of Freeden’s approach is his claim that all ideologies contain a core of concepts, which enable a clear identification of the doctrine. Each ideology is seen to decontest these core concepts in its own idiosyncratic way, providing a set of stable meanings for its votaries. The same core themes can, of course, be ‘reassembled’ in a wholly dissimilar order, and decontested in different ways, within the core of another ideology (...) Freeden, in fact, compares political ideologies, at one point, to modular units of furniture, which can be (re)assembled in different ways or shapes. Outside of these core concepts are a range of more peripheral and adjacent concepts, which are discussed within ideologies, but are not necessarily crucial to their continuance. – Andrew Vincent Azerty82 (talk) 08:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: I don't understand the 'insistance' (mainly a (popular) American one, not supported by US scholars) to classify political ideologies based on state intervention. State intervention is just a means to achieve a core ideological project: socialists use it to achieve social equality (e.g., redistribution of income and wealth), liberals to achieve perfect market (e.g., anti-trust laws) and conservatives to achieve cultural unity (e.g., legal state language). This is really a side issue when it comes to classifying political ideologies. Azerty82 (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all very interesting stuff (you can be certain that at least one person has read your efforts here, I've enjoyed it - thanks for sharing). I agree, the American obsession with state intervention being some kind of deeply immoral and inherently socialist sin is a distinct form of American derangement. I appreciate your patience with these tedious questions about bias and fascism being left-wing, but for me the "fascists are actually left" argument is hard to bare, it's understandable only in the context of profound ignorance, being ignorant is okay (we are not all knowing), but I find the claims about fascists being left are almost exclusively made by members of the far-right in a disingenuous manner...anyways, back to more interesting things - I do agree that fascism is confusing and hard to define. Have you read Robert Paxton's work on Vichy France? He wrote lots of interesting stuff, but two of his more recent works are relevant to this debate: an article The Five Stages of Fascism, 1998 and a book The Anatomy of Fascism, 2004. In both he makes the point that having no clear ideology is actually a hallmark of fascism - as seen here in The Five Stages of Fascism (abridged):
 * ...even more redoutable difficulty stems from the ambiguous relationship between doctrine and action in fascism...It is a time-honored convention to take for granted that fascism is an “ism” like the others and so treat it as essentially a body of thought...There was no “Fascist Manifesto,” no founding fascist thinker. Although one can deduce from fascist language implicit Social Darwinist assumptions about human nature, the need for community and authority in human society, and the destiny of nations in history, fascism does not base its claims to validity on their truth...Fascists despise thought and reason, abandon intellectual positions casually, and cast aside many intellectual fellow-travelers. They subordinate thought and reason not to faith, as did the traditional Right, but to the promptings of the blood and the historic destiny of the group. Their only moral yardstick is the prowess of the race, of the nation, of the community. They claim legitimacy by no universal standard except a Darwinian triumph of the strongest community. Fascists deny any legitimacy to universal principles to such a point that they even neglect proselytism. Authentic fascism is not for export.


 * The fifth and final difficulty with defining fascism is caused by overuse: the word “fascist” has become the most banal of epithets. Everyone is someone’s fascist. Consider Rush Limbaugh’s “feminazis.” A couple of summers ago, I heard a young German call Western-sponsored birth control programs in the Third World “fascist”, forgetting that the Nazis and the Italian Fascists were, for once, agreed in encouraging large families—except, of course, among those considered either eugenically or racially inferior. Those people were condemned to sterilization, if not worse.


 * Full text available here: Bacondrum (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Harry-Oscar 1812, the theory that anarchism is far right was originally proclaimed by the American conspiracy theorist Cleon Skousen in his 1962 article "What is Left? What is Right?" and has been widely adopted by the extreme right in the U.S. Notice that he reverses the historical meanings of the terms: he sees the French monarchy as far left while the revolutionaries who organized the Terror are seen as far right. But the terms' origin is that the king's staunchest supporters sat on the far right, while his bitterest opponents sat on the far left. TFD (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess these stupid claims about bias and fascism being left are worth something after all, thanks for all the interesting stuff to read TFD and Azerty82. Bacondrum (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Leftist bias
How come the far left and far right wiki pages are so different? There are just as many negative things to say about the far left as the far right but we want this to be an unbiased article that anyone can read. I wonder if this is part of a bigger problem with wikipedia where all of the admins are inherently left wing which influences the content of the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.105.109 (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Seriously? How come people keep asking the same dumb question? This is the page on far right politics, far left politics is something completely different, feel free to improve either article if you see a problem. Yawn. Bacondrum (talk) 05:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a bit biased of you to proclaim a question dumb when there may be a valid reason why numerous people keep asking the same thing. Just compare the far-right and far-left introduction paragraphs to see why people would not say they are equivalent. If we're going to have equality then the Far-right politics introduction should be something like:
 * "Far-right politics are politics located further right on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right. The term has been used to describe ideologies such as: (far right ideologies here such as ancap, libertarianism, nazism (disputed due to socialist elements))." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.105.109 (talk) 06:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The article obviously cannot begin like that since it is not supported by scholarly and reliable sources. The lede should better reflect the /definition/ section though. Azerty82 (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So instead of crying bias, make your case for changes. Otherwise it looks like you just have a bone to pick with leftists - obvious bias. Nazi's were not socialists, if you hate socialists (you probably should recuse yourself from editing political pages) there are many legitimate critisisms to be made, for example Maoism and Stalism are two of the most murderous ideologies in history. Nazism is on the far right, it's not debatable - it's time the loonatic right fringe owned that, just like the loony left needs to own Stalinism and Maoism. Bacondrum (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Calling a dumb question dumb is not bias, it's a statement of fact. Bacondrum (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And Libertarianism is not far-right, not even in the ball park. Perhaps you should do some reading on the subject, and read reputable, quality sources. I don't know what the hell ANCAP is, the Australasian New Car Assessment Program? Bacondrum (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ancap probably means Anarcho-capitalism in this context. Azerty82 (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Azerty82. Interesting subject, I don't know much about it, but I don't think I would put Anarcho-capitalism in the far-right basket. Bacondrum (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, anarcho-capitalism is a liberal ideology (in the true meaning of the term, not as it's currently used in the US). It would be classified on the center(-right) of the political spectrum, clearly not far-right. Azerty82 (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a dumb question but maybe calling it dumb is not the best thing to do as it sounds like we are calling the person asking it dumb. We can never tell whether an anonymous editor asking this (for what seems like the 1000th damn time) is an intentional troll or just somebody who has been hoodwinked by propaganda. (Yes, I do think that is mostly trolls, but definitely not all of them.) Anybody who has ever seen a P*****U video will understand that sophisticated propaganda can seem very persuasive when fed to people lacking enough knowledge of the basic facts to spot that it is based on falsehoods and misrepresentations. Wikipedia is a very good source of those basic facts, which is why we get trolled. So how should we brush off the trolls, politely and in a way that might actually be helpful to any non-trolls mixed up? Simple. We just refer them to the FAQ at the top of the page or other pre-existing documents addressing their claimed concerns. If they really do want to learn then this might be helpful to them. If they are intentional trolls then they will recognise this as a brush off and leave disappointed. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Should I know what "P*****U" means? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably PragerU. Why is everyone coding their language? Azerty82 (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing up that one too! Yes, no need to speak in coded language. Bacondrum (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no reason why there should be symmetry between the two articles. Far right is a clearly defined set of ideologies and movements, while far left is a vague term used to describe anyone to the left of the speaker. ancap and libertarianism are not part of the far right, except when they also incorporate racism or other aspects of far right ideology or align themselves with the far right. So the World Union of Free Enterprise National Socialists while ostensibly libertarian was far right. TFD (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've heard of The World Union of National Socialists, our own Jim Saleam was part of it, but the World Union of Free Enterprise National Socialists? Was that really a thing? Crazy stuff. Bacondrum (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please try to avoid WP:OR and keep a WP:NPOV. Azerty82 (talk)
 * NOR doesn't apply on talk pages. I'm not sure what your mention o NPOV about, but as long as we are throwing letters around, don't forget AGF. Doug Weller  talk 20:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry I cannot assume good faith in this reply. Although those specific WP policies don't apply here, "far left is a vague term used to describe anyone to the left of the speaker", and "libertarianism [incorporates] (I'm not sure who the 'they' is) racism" are unscientific claims not supported by RS. This should lead to a review of this contributor's history of edits. Azerty82 (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a bit unreasonable don't you think Azerty82? It's just an opinion on the article subject, on the talk page. Not like they've been making bad faith edits to the article, just sharing some thoughts. I've always found Doug and TFD (and your good self) to be be courteous and quality contributors :) I think you can and should assume good faith. Bacondrum (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please accept my apologies . You obviously have the right to express your personal views in discussion pages, I just feared it had consequences on your contributions (which I didn't read to be honest). Azerty82 (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The World Union of Free Enterprise National Socialists was the original name of the World Union of National Socialists when it was formed by George Lincoln Rockwell. It's not my opinion or original research, just the facts. It helps to be familiar with the topic before commenting on it. TFD (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a good method to take one instance that is supposed to represent an ideology ("they" in your original comment), otherwise one could be able to say "Islam is not violent, except when they kill innocents" or "Christianity is tolerant, except when they beat up gay people" (I don't support any of those statements, I'm just following your logics). Peace, Azerty82 (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: I have never attacked your proficiency on the subject, but rather your incorporation of personal opinions in the discussion page, for which I apologized for (and I hope you accepted it). Azerty82 (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not express a personal opinion. I wrote, "ancap and libertarianism are not part of the far right, except when they also incorporate racism or other aspects of far right ideology or align themselves with the far right. So the World Union of Free Enterprise National Socialists while ostensibly libertarian was far right." I didn't say they were representative of libertarianism as you state, but rather that they were the exception. I don't know what your analogy means. Religions don't actually carry out violent actions, their adherents do. There is nothing particularly irrational in saying that some of these adherents carry out violent acts in the name of their religions. TFD (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Anti-communism
From the cited source for the disputed sentence ("Encyclopedia of Politics: The Left and Right"). I'm including anything that seems interesting (I came across some stuff unrelated to the current dispute): For reference, the question is whether this can be used to cite the fact that far-right politics includes ... and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of... anti-communism. I think it's sufficient for that; it is not saying that all anti-communism is far-right, no more than it is saying that eg. all transphobia is far-right. But if necessary it should not be difficult to find additional sources regarding the key role anti-communism played in much of the far-right during the 20th century. --Aquillion (talk) 09:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, the far right in America saw spies and communists influencing government and entertainment. Thus, despite bipartisan anticommunism in the United States, it was the right that mainly fought the great ideological battle against the communists.
 * The term far right is usually used to describe persons or groups who hold extreme nationalist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist, or other reactionary views. Typically the term is applied to fascists and neo-Nazis, although subscribers to left-wing views sometimes use the term very liberally to describe any group on the right of the political spectrum whom they disagree with.
 * As a youth, Matthews became concerned with the threat of communism to the United States, especially in 1964 when conservative icon Senator Barry Goldwater from Arizona ran for the presidency on the Republican Party ticket. Matthews fell under the influence of the John Birch Society, founded in 1958. The society was named for U.S. Captain John Birch, who was shot by the Chinese communists while on a mission in Suchow, China, in August 1945. American far-right conservatives consider Birch to be the first casualty of the new Cold War.
 * You have just demonstrated that this source doesn't directly say anticommunism is an aspect of the far-right, it explicitly states "The term far right is usually used to describe persons or groups who hold extreme nationalist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist, or other reactionary views." and that anticommunism has been bipartisan. Adding "anticommunism" is just synthesis that misrepresents what that source actually says. I'm sure we can also easily find sources regarding the key role anti-communism played in much of the centre-left during the 20th century too. --Nug (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree; I don't think there are sources saying that anti-communism played a central role in the organization and drive of the center-left (the source above even notes this disparity, despite it being bipartisan.) Whereas anti-communism was one of fascism's central organizing tenets. But even if it is central to both, that wouldn't affect whether it is listed here as long as there are sources mentioning its centrality to the far-right in particular.  Other sources:  Within the American and the general Anglo-Saxon environment, the most common term is radical right  (e.g.  Ramet  1999;  Griffin  2000;  Norris  2005).  But  here  it  has  a  much  broader  and different  meaning  than  in  the  German  environment.  It  is  influenced  by  the  older  tradition  of American  nativism  (anti-immigration  sentiment),  populism,  and  hostility  to  central  government combined  with  ultra-nationalism,  anti-communism,  Christian  Fundamentalism,  and  militaristic orientation (Mudde 2000a: 12-13). : The author of The Communist Horizonnotes the rise of far-right anti-communism in many parts of the world and interprets it as a politics of fear, which utilizes the disaffection  and  anger  generated  by  capitalism and . Partisans  of  far  right-wing  organizations,  in  turn,  use  anti-communism  to challenge  every  political  current  which  is  not  embedded  in  a  clearly  exposed  nationalist  and racist agenda. For them, both  the USSR and the European Union, leftist liberals, ecologists, and supranational corporations –all of these may be called “communist” for the sake oftheir expediency.  It certainly notes that anti-communism is not exclusive to the far right; but in the 20th and 21st century, it is one of its fundamental organizing principles in a uniquely important way worth discussing in depth (eg. the second paper notes that the co-option of anti-communism by other parties in Eastern Europe has taken the wind out of the far-right's sails, because, as noted in that quote, anti-communism is central to the far-right's drive and appeal.) --Aquillion (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Anti-communism is certainly a major aspect of the far right. What distinguishes the far right from mainstream politics is not necessarily that they hold different views especially from the rest of the Right, but that they are extreme in the view they hold. Also, saying that anti-communism is not right-wing is relies on an etymological fallacy. It doesn't just mean opposed to communism but extreme opposition, similarly as how anti-fascist doesn't mean just non-fascist. TFD (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Lubomír Kopeček summarises his survey of the definitions of the "Far-right" as follows: The best working definition of the contemporary far right may be the four-element combination of nationalism, xenophobia, law and order, and welfare chauvinism proposed for the Western European environment by Cas Mudde. There is no fifth element of “anti-communism” mentioned, so Aquillion’s claim that it is "a fundamental organising principle" is WP:UNDUE. As stated in this source: communism is also an uncomfortable relative for the Left. At best a troublesome legacy of the past – at worst, a foe actively fought against. Clearly since anti-communism existed on both the left and right, it cannot be seen as a defining characteristic regardless of how strongly that view may be held. Given that the far-right was perfectly happy to align themselves with communists further demonstrates anti-communism isn’t a defining characteristic of the far-right, just a disposable expediency. —Nug (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I do not see how a two-year alliance of convenience to take time in preparation for the war on the eastern front is relevant out of a centenary history of far-right's anti-communism. Nowhere do we state anti-communism is a fifth element; we just say it is a characteristic, just like authoritarianism and/or nativism, which are also not mentioned as four elements but are still discussed or considered part of the far right. I think "politics further on the right of the left–right political spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of extremist nationalism, anti-communism, nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies" is perfectly fine in explaining that it is not nationalism or anti-communism that is necessarely far right but that it is pronounced in a more extremist manner. By the way, Anti-communism really needs a rewrite based on scholarly literature and which I believe is the reason of your misunderstanding, namely that you see anti-communism as a movement on the whole spectrum, which is more the result of the Cold War than anything and that left-wing "anticommunists" were "anti-Communists" (i.e. in opposition to Stalinism et al.), not "anti-communists", which is what these on the right were and are, i.e. they make no difference between the two), when it is mainly a right-wing movement, the same way anti-fascism is mainly a left-wing movement (even though it does not mean every single individual is necessarily a leftist or rightist). As noted by, it does not just mean any person who is "opposed to communism but extreme opposition, similarly as how anti-fascist doesn't mean just non-fascist." Davide King (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

More sealioning. If Nug took the time to read the sources in the article this discussion would not be had. The article contains many cites to that discuss anti-communism within far-right movement. The Nonaggression pact ended with Stalin destroying the Nazi regime and Hitler commiting suicide as Stalin’s army surrounded the last remnants of Hitlers inner circle. This argument is nonsense and is about as credible as the “but the Nazis were socialists” crap. Bacondrum (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It's just trolling, not worth following it into a tangent. TFD (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Sealioning
Hi all, I see a lot of time and effort is being wasted here by WP:SEALIONING editors (and there's also the issue of excess citations that results from this disruptive behaviour). How do we best deal with regular sealioning by multiple editors? Request a WP:BLUELOCK? Bacondrum (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Some other noteworthy quotes from "Encyclopedia of Politics: The Left and Right"
While I was searching for cites for the above, I came across a lot of other stuff in there that isn't currently covered in the article regarding the role of far-right politics in modern America; I thought it was worth a separate section to discuss whether and, if so, how we should cover this: See also the above regarding the John Birch Society, which the article doesn't currently cover and which (on a quick search) a lot of other sources seem to consider a key part of the American far-right in the 20th century. --Aquillion (talk) 09:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Such was the case in the 1994 election when “angry white men,” who were apparently furious at advantages given to women and minorities, wrested control of Congress from the Democratic Party. The 1994 election led to the Republican Party’s Contract with America, which established a far-right agenda for the next two years.
 * A number of George W. Bush’s critics have maintained that the initiative for his brand of conservative unilateralism can be traced to Vice President Dick Cheney who has advocated the policy since the early 1990s and to far-right members of Congress who won their seats during the “Conservative Revolution” of 1994.
 * When Bush was forced to eat his words, many conservatives turned against him. He never found a comfortable fit with his far-right supporters. As a result of inconsistent policy decisions, Bush pleased neither wing of the Republican Party. (Note: This is from a separate section and is about George H. W. Bush, not his son, referenced in the one above.)
 * After fighting off a primary challenge from the far right wing of his party by television commentator Pat Buchanan, Bush had to face Clinton and an independent candidate, Texas billionaire Ross Perot


 * As I noted above, we need to define the topic of the article before expanding it. Far right has two distinct meanings: farther to the right than traditional parties or at the most extreme right of the spectrum. The first definition would include groups such as Farage's UKIP and the Tea Party, while the second definition would be limited to such groups as the BNP and the KKK. I get the point that the first two could be seen as modern incarnations of fascism, but i don't see the value in conflating them with more extreme groups. TFD (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I do agree with Aquillion, there's some glaring absences in the USA section. But, I also agree with TFD that we should be careful not to blur the line between hardline conservatives and the far-right. Bacondrum (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2021
The caption under Benito Mussolini reads..."a far-right ideology". I believe it should read: "a far-left ideology". KKrab (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: see the FAQ at the top of the talk page. Reliable sources describe fascism as a right wing ideology, not a left wing one. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Grammatical issue with the hyphen: "far right" or "far-right"?
I think this article should use one of either "far right" or "far-right", instead of both. I found using Ctrl+F that "far-right" is currently used 114 times in this article, while "far right" with no hyphen is used 57 times. I don't know what the Wikipedia guidelines are on which one to use, but I note that the Oxford Dictionary of English does not use a hyphen: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/far_right 80.6.233.101 (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hyphens are often used to avoid confusion: "A short-story writer wrote a short story." The hyphen makes it clear that it is not the writer who is necessarily short. So unless there are similar cases in this article, I would remove the hyphen. TFD (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the hyphenated version is preferable, even if "far right" doesn't cause confusion, because the two words are treated as a single unit. The editors must have previously decided using a hyphen was better since the title of the article uses one, although they did not make the article consistently use a hyphen, and the hyphenated version is currently used exactly twice as often in the article. If you were to remove the hyphen from the body of the article you would have to remove it from the title too, so I think it's simpler to add hyphens, which someone with editing abilities should do unless there's any reason excluding from personal preference not to. 80.6.233.101 (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2021
Change all 57 instances of "far right" to add a hyphen to become "far-right". This would make the article consistent, considering the title uses a hyphen, and "far-right" is already used twice as much (114 times). See here for discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Far-right_politics#Grammatical_issue_with_the_hyphen:_%22far_right%22_or_%22far-right%22? 80.6.233.101 (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. In that section, the other editor who participated suggested removing all hyphens, so please establish a consensus for this. Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  17:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion that may be of interest to individuals here
Two discussions have started on the talk page for Talk:Far-left politics that may be of interest to editors here: Uninvolved editors are needed, please join the discussion.  // Timothy :: talk  08:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Proposal to remove the section on Far Left Terrorism: Talk:Far-left politics
 * 2) Question on whether the lead should contain a passage about extremist violence and the Far left: Talk:Far-left politics

White supremacism lobbied as an integral part of the far-right politics worldwide
Hi, This thread will be connected to this revert: My question is - Why is the White supremacist movement lobbied as an integral part of the far-right politics? White supremacy cannot be connected with an overall and general concept of the far-right (which this article is about), as it can only be associated with far-right movements in some certain countries, most notably in the USA, Western European countries and possibly also Russia. And if you claim that this so-called White nationalism is an integral part of far-right politics worldwide, then what will you say about far-right movements among Nigerians or the Hutu Power in Rwanda??? Suppcuzz (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * White supremacy is a prominent historical feature of right-wing politics, at least in Western nations, and that the presence of the navbox doesn't imply exclusivity. If there's a better way to approach it I'm willing to hear it.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The article does not say that white supremacism is an integral part of far-right politics because the far right has no integral attributes. It's merely politics that is perceived as being as far to the right as one can go. Frequently that includes white supremacism. TFD (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion this is an Eurocentric view of the Western culture, very narrow, and from the encyclopedic point of view should not be included, while being far-right means to exalt your nation/ethnicity/race over all other people, who you generally despise in some way. Therefore, if somebody is Black and far-right he/she for sure is not a White supremacist. To me seeing White supremacism highlighted in this article is nonsense. Suppcuzz (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's the racial supremacy part that makes it far-right, Hutu power/White power assumes racial superiority of one (Hutu's/White's) over the other (Tutsi's/Black's), it's the belief in racial superiority, that there are superior and inferior races - that is what scholars consider a defining feature of far-right politics. Personal opinions are irrelevant. This article contains citations to expert academic analysis, we follow the sources rather than being led by our feelings or opinions. This discussion is bordering on WP:NOTFORUM. Bacondrum 20:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It's not Eurocentric to assume that the ideological categories used to describe European political parties would have greater application to Europe and developed nations than to developing nations where ethnic/nationalist issues are more important. Why should we assume that the roots of the Rwanda massacre lay in the adoption of European right-wing ideology, rather than ethnic conflict? TFD (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * @User:BacondrumAs I said before, far-right politics is based on exalting someone's culture/nationality/ethnicity/race, with an additional contempt for other cultures/nations/ethnicities/races. The belief of the racial superiority is not reserved to Whites/Caucasians, is it? Far-right view might be for instance in the form of Black supremacism in Africa, right? And so how come White supremacism is highlighted in this encyclopedic article as one of the far-right politics' crucial aspects?
 * @User:The Four Deuces - Is the article titled: "Far-right politics" or "Far-right politics in Europe"? Where in the definition is something about Europe specifically? Suppcuzz (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to say that. But note that the great majority of groups it mentions are in Europe or European settled countries. Incidentally, this is a poorly written article, since it mostly a cut and paste. Why for example should the section on Finland be several times longer than the one on France? TFD (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ive never come across a Black supremacist movement of any note. What’s your point? Have you got specific changes and sources to discuss? Otherwise this is just a forum discussion and should be wound up now, nothing actionable appears to be coming out of it. Bacondrum 02:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ths SPLC lists "Black Separatist" groups. The New Black Panthers is a notable black supremacist group and there have been Black Muslim extremists. Sorry, I was just replying to the question why white supremacism is listed as an integral part of the far right. The article does not say that white supremacism is an integral part of far-right politics because the far right has no integral attributes. It's merely politics that is perceived as being as far to the right as one can go. Frequently that includes white supremacism. TFD (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand that White supremacy sometimes goes along with far-right worldview in some European countries or in countries where Whites live and consider their culture superior (USA, Canada, Australia, RSA etc.) and I understand that it must be mentioned in the article. However, don't forget there is to also Africa, Latin America, Asia etc. and there can also be people with a far-right point of view. Therefore, I do not understand why the concept of White supremacy is positioned as one of the central and the most important aspects of being far-right. The aim of this discussion is show that far-right politics is not reserved for Whites. Take Uyoku dantai - the Japanese ultra-conservative far-right movement. Are they White supremacists or at least - do they support White supremacy in any way? Is the Black far-right group Hutu Power from Rwanda connected with White supremacy? Well, placing White supremacy as a major part of far-right politics suggests so. Suppcuzz (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Racial supremacism is often part of far-right politics. White supremacism is a type of racial supremacism considerable section of the far-right subscribes to. I fail to see the problem.
 * Okay, let's put it like this. I see you have been editing the Polonophobia article. Why is Polonophobia included in Discrimination, when not every person who discriminates hates poles. It's because its a certain type of discrimination. See now?RKT7789 (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Is Polonophobia positioned in the central, highlighted place in the article Discrimination itself? No it's not. I clearly said, that White supremacism should be mentioned in the article Far-right politics, it just should not be highlighted, as anyone can be far-right, regardless of race. Suppcuzz (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * White supremacy is a prominent ideology on the far-right. Yes, there are other far-right ideologies, so what? No one is arguing that the far-right is exclusively comprised of White supremacists. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Bacondrum 20:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

As I explained above, far right ideology is predominantly a European phenomenon and has little if any relevance to the politics of most non-European nations. Also, I don't know why you categorize Latin Americans as non-white. While a substantial amount of the population is of aboriginal or African ancestry, a substantial portion is of European ancestry, which formed the largest support for the far right. Furthermore, as also pointed out, white supremacy is not presented as a defining characteristic of the far right, but as a frequent element. Ultramontane Catholicism is also a frequent element, but only in Catholic countries. TFD (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

NPOV
"that has fuelled the right-wing phenomena referred to by that sanitizing word "populism", a term that neatly evades attention to the racism and white majoritarianism that energizes it."

This and the small paragraph that it forms the majority of reek of a lack of a NPOV, especially "that sanitizing word "populism", a term that neatly evades attention". I have no clue on how to fix this, but it conveys a liberal or leftist point of view, being avowedly against this term of populism. Yes populism is used as a term to market the ideas to the wider people without immediately turning them away, however it doesn't "Sanitize", and "neatly evades", while convenient, is not encyclopedic. 216.107.203.130 (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears it is a direct quote that was for some reason added without quotation marks or an in-line citation. For now I've added both as a quick fix, although we might be better off paraphrasing it. --Aquillion (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Most of the body of the article, especially the section "Modern Debates", makes a reasonable attempt at a neutral point of view. But the intro does not reflect this and needs to be fixed. It is extremely difficult to use the terms "far-right" and "far-left" in a neutral way, because no political parties describe themselves as "far-right" or "far-left". These terms are mainly or exclusively used to describe parties that the writer or speaker does not like, and at worst, are merely terms of abuse. The intro should make this clear, but instead, by attaching the label "far-right" to a ragbag of opinions, falls into that trap. Longitude2 (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Far-right is very well defined, it's not subjective. This is falling into WP:NOTFORUM territory. <b style="color: blue;">Bacon</b><b style="color: Orange;">drum</b> 04:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What is the definition of "far-right" then? Terjen (talk) 08:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The terms far right and extreme right are used because there are no other terms for the group of ideologies that are perceived to be to the right of traditional political parties. TFD (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "What is the definition of "far-right" then?" I think this articles lede sums it up fairly well: "Far-right politics, also referred to as the extreme right or right-wing extremism, are politics further on the right of the left–right political spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of being anti-communist, authoritarian, ultranationalist, and having nativist ideologies and tendencies.


 * Historically used to describe the experiences of fascism and Nazism, today far-right politics includes neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views." Otherwise feel free to read the relevant literature for yourself - when learning about the far-right, Cas Mudde is always a good start. Regardless we are now thoroughly in WP:NOTFORUM territory. <b style="color: blue;">Bacon</b><b style="color: Orange;">drum</b> 08:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you - I have copied your reply in full at the Boogaloo movement talk page. Hope that's OK. Terjen (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really, but you're entitled to be obnoxious. I personally think you are going about this in all the wrong ways. Good luck with that. <b style="color: blue;">Bacon</b><b style="color: Orange;">drum</b> 22:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2021
Let me edit please 2405:204:8502:BBBB:0:0:2222:38AD (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-shackle-no-text.svg Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2021
on the column about greece Georgios papandreou was not murdered. He died during house arrest due to medical issues 212.205.112.177 (talk) 10:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Neither source says Georgios Papandreou was murdered, nor does the Wikipedia article on him. He died at the age of 80 under house arrest by the junta. Until there are sources that he was murdered, I will remove the claim. TFD (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I note too that neither of the sources refer to the dictator, Georgios Papadopoulos, as "far right" and will remove it. His relevance to the article is that Golden Dawn draws inspiration from him. TFD (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Middle East
The description in the lead "and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views" probably apply to some extent to one or more states in the Middle East, but no such countries are listed. Is there a reason for this omission? JezGrove (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Too Euro/Amerocentric
Hi all - not a bad article but too much focus on Europe and the United States. There is Rwanda and Japan and a few other non-European descent countries but it's very few. I can't edit this article but I have a few suggestions on inclusion:

Turkey:
 * Grey Wolves (organization)
 * Felicity Party
 * Turanism

Israel:
 * Kach (political party)
 * Kahanism

India:
 * Shiv Sena
 * Hindutva

General:
 * Islamism (maybe just a brief paragraph or so and a link to the main article? as its quite large a subject. All Islamist party pages I've seen are labeled far right but maybe some exceptions)

Just off the top of my head. Hope this is an interesting idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.73.34 (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Jobbik
I deleted far-right section of Jobbik because it is center-right party these days, so doesn't exactly fit the page...it was still quite a chunk of text so if there are any opposing opinions I'd like to hear them. Thank you.RKT7789 (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Reasonable deletion, if you ask me. I have no issue with it. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 13:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I support this move too, although I would prefer to see a section about Jobbik's far-right history, and how it shifted away from that image, including the addition of modern representatives of the far-right in Hungary (Mi Hazank) and radical right (Fidesz). --Vacant0 (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Socialists are on the LEFT
This is by definition. To call them far right takes wikipedia credibility to the trash 2603:8001:6900:1C00:487:48A2:B1F7:E15E (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume you're talking about the "National Socialist" label. See the FAQ at the top of the page.  Acroterion   (talk)   21:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Far-left politics
I know the link to far-left politics is in the See Also section, but it seems like, in the interest of fairness and being comprehensive, something should be included in the opening section indicating that political violence and terrorism is not unique to the far-right, that it’s also a characteristic of the far-left, and include a link to the far-left politics page at that location in the article. Yelenabelova83 (talk) 05:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't say that it is unique to the far-right, does it? — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 07:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * There is in fact violence across the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit request for a grammar issue
Please change this sentence "it has also been used to refer to these to the right of mainstream right-wing politics.[9]"

to "it has also been used to refer to those to the right of mainstream right-wing politics.[9]"


 * ✅, thanks — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 18:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Theocracy
Why does this article link the far-right with theocracy? Whether an individual adheres to Theocracy has nothing to do with where s/he stands on the left-wing/ right-wing political continuum. YTKJ (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. In fact, I cannot think of anyone advocating theocracy other than in the Islamic world and Tibet. TFD (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources disagree with you. Trilobright (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, you might want to tell us what these sources are. TFD (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @The Four Deuces try a search on Google News for America theocracy. Some random examples.. It's being discussed more this year, but it's not a new suggestion/idea. Doug Weller  talk 13:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And a quick search turns up TheocracyWatch, Dominion theology, Christian reconstructionism and even Theoconservatism. Doug Weller  talk 13:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I realize that some people describe U.S. fundamentalists as theocrats. but it is a minority view. See The Political Economy of Theocracy, "Introduction": "In another view, the influence of religion on politics is on the rise not only in the Muslim world but also in the democratic West and especially in the United States; some critics, such as Kevin Phillips (2006) go so far as to speak of an American theocracy." The authors go on to explain how the concept is unclearly defined amd even atheist states, such as North Korea, have been described as theocratic.
 * The Queen's title in the UK says she reigns dei gratia is head of the church and "Defender of the Faith." There are even ecclesiastical courts. Does that make the UK a theocracy? Or does it mean it is not a theocracy because the church is under the control of the secular power? If we want to discuss theocracy in the article, which we don't, that would be fine, but I don't see why the lead should include something which is disputed, as fact.
 * TFD (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * America is not a theocracy. Nor, obviously, is the UK. But you said " In fact, I cannot think of anyone advocating theocracy other than in the Islamic world and Tibet." But that's not true, a lot of people are advocating it for the US. Of course it's a minority view, that's irrelevant. And it's not just about US fundamentalists either. Doug Weller  talk 14:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you name any group or person in the U.S. far right that is advocating theocracy? TFD (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @The Four Deuces So you didn’t read my links? Because one mentions Douglas Wilson (theologian) and says “Christ Church’s eventual aim is what Wilson explicitly describes in a 2016 book as “theocracy””. That needs to go in his article. But as my sources show, this is getting to be a major concern in the US even of those pushing for it avoid the label. Doug Weller  talk 10:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Christian reconstructionism advocates theocracy. It has certainly been described that way by Kevin Phillips (who did not btw claim the U.S. was a theocracy), although I think the advocates generally call it theonomy.

There is a dispute over whether the type of regime people like Reconstructionists advocate is a theocracy. See "The Question of Theocracy" for a discussion about the meaning of the term.

Reconstructionists argue that America should be governed according to God's laws. No one argues that that in itself makes them theocrats, since all Western nations have done that. The Canadian Lord's Day Act Canada 1970 for example made it an offense for stores to open on Sundays. American states have laws against abortion. U.S. coins say "In God We Trust." The issue is whether an extreme application of religious laws make a state a theocracy.

The source I provide says that theocracy means rule by priests, which I believe is the standard definition. Ergo, someone who rejects the authority of a priesthood is not a theocrat. An argument of course can be made that in rejecting the priesthood, Calvin merely replaced it with himself. My position is that we should not use terms unless their meaning is unambiguous.

For the record, I don't think that Reconstructionists advocate replacing the U.S. government with a priesthood.

TFD (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @The Four Deuces I think you need to start by rewriting Theocracy. Doug Weller  talk 15:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * No, I think that article is fine as it is. And note it says, "Historians debate the extent to which Geneva, Switzerland, in the days of John Calvin (1509–64) was a theocracy. On the one hand, Calvin's theology clearly called for separation between church and state. Other historians have stressed the enormous political power wielded on a daily basis by the clerics." TFD (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @The Four Deuces so you agree it doesn't not say a theocracy must be ruled by priests. Doug Weller  talk 16:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It says that is what the word is commonly understood to mean, although some may use the term to describe a state dominated by religion to an extreme extent. I think that when we have a word that could be defined more broadly than commonly understood, then we should avoid it. The impression conveyed is that there are extremists who want rule by the priesthood in the same way that the mullahs rule Iran, the Pope rules the Vatican or the Dalai Lama ruled Tibet. What they actually advocate is theonomy, but that's a fairly obscure term I would not want to see in the lead. The purpose of articles is to inform readers, which means not using words in a way that may mislead them. TFD (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @The Four Deuces Back to the major problem. We can't use your original research. We go by what the sources actually say. Are you saying none of my sources are any good (they were pretty random so maybe some can't be used, but I'm sure there are more. Doug Weller  talk 07:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:OR: "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." The purpose of discussion pages is to discuss article content using the criteria of policy, guidelines and common sense. Few if any definitions of the far right in reliable sources use the term theocracy and the word is not even used in the Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right. TFD (talk)

Israel
Israel has many far-right groups and parties. Can anyone help by creating a subsection for her, please.--46.60.66.204 (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Every country has far right groups. I don't see the point in having 195 sections, one for each country. Groups should only be mentioned if they are significant to the overall topic, such as the Fascist Party of Italy. TFD (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)