Talk:Paternalistic conservatism/Archive 1

Original research and POV
The topic of the article by itself is problematic, as the term "right-wing socialism" is used predominantly by conservative thinkers, especially exponents of the Austrian School (as you can already see from the list of literature this article is based on: Peter Viereck, Murray Rothbard, Jesús Huerta de Soto). Therefore it does not adher to NPOV, but represents the POV of those Austrian School thinkers who use this term. On the other hand, it lumps together very different movements and currents, where the connection is not verified by sources. Who has ever called Bismarck "right-wing socialist"? Who has called Oswald Spengler "right-wing socialist"? Who says that Fascism were "right-wing socialism"? Who says "right-wing socialism" when they mean "War socialism" (which is an established historical term)? Lumping all these different and distinct movements together, just because one could call them "right-wing socialism" (but no reliable source does) is original research/synthesis and is opposed to the principle of verifiability. --RJFF (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I commented on R-41's talk page some time ago. "The source you used was a libertarian text, and they have their own terminology which is not necessarilty shared by the broader academic community. But I cannot think of another term. There are articles on Tory socialism, red toryism, One nation conservatism, wets and State Socialism, but they are all specific to individual countries".  We need a source that unites all these concepts.  Incidentally, it is good practice to find sources for a topic before writing about it.  Otherwise it becomes a coatrack and and attracts all the regulars on Mass killings under communist regimes and Communist terrorism.  TFD (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I would propose the following approach:

What are your thoughts? --RJFF (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Intro/lead section - (1) keep here, explain the libertarians' theory of "right-wing socialism" or (2) delete as not notable (no secondary/third-party sources!)
 * 2) Conservative socialism - (1) split to a new article Conservative socialism or (2) merge into Klemens von Metternich, as it mainly refers to his ideas
 * 3) Religious socialism - already has an article, should be treated there
 * 4) War socialism - notable historic term, could deserve an own article
 * 5) Fascism - already has an article, should be treated there
 * 6) Charles Maurras and National Syndicalism - National syndicalism already has an article, should be treated there
 * 7) Bismarckian state socialism - already has an article: State Socialism
 * 8) "Kathedersozialismus" - extra article? if notable enough...
 * 9) Plenge - not sure, indeed an interesting connecting figure between Nazis, conservative revolutionaries and social democrats... treat at Johann Plenge?
 * 10) Sombart and Spengler - treat at Conservative Revolutionary movement

You don't seem to know much about this topic, haven't bothered to read many of the sources within the article, and are reacting like a typical left-wing hack who wants people to believe that the left is the only real opposition to capitalism, which is not the case.


 * 1) Peter Viereck was not affiliated with the Austrian School. He was a highly moderate conservative who supported the New Deal.
 * 2) Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, Oswald Spengler, and Werner Sombart all self-identified as socialists. The precise term they used to describe their position was German Socialism, and they made it abundantly clear this had nothing to do with Marxist socialism. But as anyone who has read the Communist Manifesto should know, Marx never had a monopoly on the word 'socialism'. All three figures were actively involved with the right-wing during the Weimar Republic. Hence right-wing socialism. This is neither revisionism nor the opinion of some Austrian economists.
 * 3) Zeev Sternhell is also not an Austrian School economist, but a respected scholar of the history of fascism. His analysis, which many scholars accept, locates fascism's roots in a merger between nationalism and non-Marxist forms of socialism in France at the turn of the century around certain Boulangists and organizations like the Cercle Proudhon.
 * 4) The Maurras quote in the article demonstrates that they did indeed use the word 'socialist' at the time.
 * 5) Self-identified fascists such as Pierre Drieu La Rochelle came to to same conclusion a half century before Sternhell did. In a book titled 'Fascist Socialism', Drieu named the Cercle Proudhon as proto-fascist.
 * 6) Since many of the right-wing socialist movements have marked similarities and, in some cases, influenced each other (see the Sombart section where he lists various 19th century figures), an article that collates these various strains is very much justified.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.167.225 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 28 February 2012


 * In order to group these different things together, we need a source that connects them. Viereck btw does not write about "right-wing socialism" but of the "conservative socialism" that in 1830 Metternich claimed to follow. I believe that in continental Europe, especially Scandinavia, this is called "social conservatism" today.  Also, I started an article some time ago about Bismarck's State Socialism.  TFD (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There might be some translation issues, but in most of the world "social conservative" refer to one's positions on issues like abortion, traditional family values, secularism, etc. It has nothing to do with one's economic views. It's not the same thing as "conservative socialism." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.167.225 (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said, this is the most common term in Scandinavian countries. In the U.K. it is more likely to be called "traditional conservatism".  Of course in the U.S. (or "most of the world" if one prefers) many political terms take on opposite meanings.  Here for example is a source describing Disraeli's "One Nation Conservatism" and Bismarck's welfare policies as "social conservatism".  TFD (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Murray Rothbard
I removed material sourced to Murray Rothbard because it does not use the term "right-wing socialism" in the same sense as how it is defined in the article. He uses the term to refer to reformist, rather than revolutionary, socialism, while the article uses it to refer to socialist policies carried out by liberals, conservatives and fascists. TFD (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I still disagree with lumping together different political terms, just because one author does. You can find a detailed rationale and discussion of this problem on this talk page. Moreover, it contradicts NPOV to present the theories of one libertarian author, as if it were universally accepted and neutral. --RJFF (talk) 06:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * When an article passes AfD and an editor removes almost the entire article, it is likely that such an extreme "edit" will get reverted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the article passed AfD is independent of whether off-topic writing should be removed. TFD (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Your position failed to prevail at AfD - trying to delete the article by edit is against Wikipedia policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The AfD was about deleting the article. It does not mean that we should keep sources that do not discuss the topic.  TFD (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I consider the material salient, and started an RfC which should run for a month in the meantime. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)  Note also that it up to you to gain WP:CONSENSUS for the "bold edit". Collect (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Topic of the article
Wikipedia is not a dictionary and articles are about topics. We are not supposed to Google mine for examples where the words "right-wing" and "socialism" appear in conjunction and cobble together an article. The lead of the article defines the topic, it is right-wing" or conservative socialism as mentioned by De Soto who refers to E.C. Riegel who says about rw socialists that they "are not known as socialists and call themselves capitalists, individualists, private enterprisers, etc. They even believe themselves to be anti-socialist and profess full faith in private enterprise." That is not the same thing as people who call themselves socialists but are really on the right of the movement or any other concept we choose to include.

Note that De Soto and Riegel are libertarians, and believe that conservatism is a form of socialism that redistributes wealth from the producing haves to the non-producing haves sometimes but not always sharing a fraction with the producing and non-producing have-nots. I do not think this concept is sufficiently established to warrant its own article, but the results of the AfD were inconclusive and we should therefore try to expand it using relevant sources. I would ask other editors, including those who vehemently argued for keeping the article to use sources related to the concept rather than adding back irrelevant material.

If anyone believes that this article should be about another topic, then please provide source that defines this alternative.

Here is my explanation for the removal of each section:
 * 1) Conservative socialism Discusses Karl Marx's rebuke of other socialists - he was not calling conservatism a form of socialism.
 * 2) Right-wing religious socialism Called socialist because it incorporated socialist ideas, not because it was conservative.
 * 3) War socialism Term used by Ludendorff, who was right-wing. It is synthesis to call it rw socialism when Ludendorff did not.
 * 4) Fascism Sources used do not call it rw socialism.
 * 5) Right-wing socialism in France/Germany Sources used do not call it rw socialism.

Please do not restore these sections without resolving these issues.

TFD (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It might be a reasonable idea to place all these materials in article Socialism, however it is already too long. In addition, placing the National Socialism in Socialism may cause objections. What I really object here is the unilateral removal of material without proper discussion and consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Um -- blind reverting for an absurd "bold edit" removing well over 95% of the content of an article is silly -- and when you also remove new reliably sourced material, it does make it possible to assert that the removal is done not to improve the article, but to deliberately make it into a stub without any sources. Cheers - now can you stop the gaming? Collect (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith. We need to include material relevant to the article and exclude irrelevant material, no matter how well-sourced.  --TFD (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment
Should the article have an edit made removing "original research"? 13:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments
I note that the specific material removed constitutes more than 95% of the article. An AfD on the article recently failed (3 May 2012). Collect (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC) The question relates to the specific edit and not to a general question as to removing actual "original research" (in response to a comment which may have moisapprehended the question). Collect (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Remove We must not ourselves determine what is right-wing socialism and add it in - that is original research.  Instead, we should use sources that are relevant to the topic.  TFD (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I have to say that this mass deletion of content is concerning. The edit summary begins, "it's still gross OR and synthesis to mingle different, distinct political terms, just because one author does."  Actually, if it's cited to a source, by definition, it's not OR.  The edit summary also states, "And it is still non-NPOV to present the theory of one libertarian author, as if it were universal and neutral" This, too, is incorrect.  If other sources disagree, then we document the dispute.  If no sources disagree, it's against NPOV to use our own personal biases to determine article content.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I might have used a wrong expression. What I meant was that Huerta de Soto uses the term "right-wing socialism" in a way that is different from most other authors. Usually "right-wing socialism" is used for the right wing of socialism, synonymous with revisionist socialism or social democracy and not for a "type of socialism in which institutional aggression is employed to maintain the social status quo and the privileges certain people or groups of people enjoy." No source labels the policies of Klemens von Metternich to right-wing socialism, therefore the association of Metternich's positions with "right-wing socialism" is OR or synthesis. No source associates Johann Plenge, Werner Sombart, and Oswald Spengler with "right-wing socialism", therefore this is OR/synthesis, too. No source associaties Charles Maurras' National Syndicalism with "right-wing socialism", therefore this is OR/synthesis, too. Only Huerta de Soto uses the term "right-wing socialism" as an umbrella term for military socialism, guild socialism, agrarian socialism, and some forms of Christian socialism. And only Rothbart labels fascism, nazism and Bismarck's policies as "right-wing socialism". But these theories are anything but mainstream, and therefore it is a breach of NPOV to dedicate a whole (long) article to this minor opinion, and present it as if it were fact or a mainstream theory. --RJFF (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And your position failed to sway consensus at the AfD, hence is not likely to sway consensus here.  And it is WP:CONSENSUS which counts, not what any editor WP:KNOW}knows about a topic.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * restore, OR, by definition, does not apply here as all the page is RS. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus can't rescind Wikipedia's basic principles like WP:V and WP:NOR in one article. --RJFF (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * However, there is no consensus that this article in fact violates WP:V and WP:NOR. --Nug (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No consensus to remove reliably sourced text. --Nug (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The statements themselves are reliably sourced. But their association with the concept of "right-wing socialism" isn't. The content is okay. It just doesn't belong in this article. In the section, I have proposed to move the - indeed well-sourced - sections in articles where they belong. The problem is that subsuming different concepts under the title "right-wing socialism" is - mostly - original research. There is no source to verify that the ideas, concepts and positions of Metternich, Plenge, Sombart, Spengler, Maurras are "right-wing socialism". --RJFF (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * given socialism is still unable to be defined in WP, and right-wing suffers the same identity crisis, i suggest we allow as much material that can be RS and let the reader decide.  Darkstar1st (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a disingenuous comment. Articles are about topics, in this case right-wing socialism, which is defined by De Soto. The fact that either word may mean different things does not mean that we can mix and match and form a glorious coatrack.  De Soto writes "The theorist who has most brilliantly explained conservative or right-wing socialism is Hans-Hermann Hoppe. See A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, chap. 5." (p. 99, footnote 45).  Hoppe wrote, "conservatism...is a form of socialism.... [It]is the anti-egalitarian, reactionary   to the dynamic changes set in motion by a liberalized society: It is anti-liberal and, rather than recognizing the achievements of liberalism,tends to idealize and glorify the old system of feudalism as orderly and stable."  It seemms that the topic of the article is explaining why libertarians think that conservatives are socialists.  TFD (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So even though De Soto cites Hans-Hermann Hoppe who has "brilliantly explained conservative or right-wing socialism", you still claim it is an invention of one single author. Then you make the OR claim "It seems that the topic of the article is explaining why libertarians think that conservatives are socialists." as if that somehow disqualifies it from inclusion from Wikipedia. --Nug (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Remove - I am here because of Rfc. There are many issues here that can (and are) being discussed. As this is more of a political issue than a legal issue, the odds are that everyone making a comment here on the topic itself will be too close to the topic to render a neutral opinion. As such, I will comment strictly on the request that was made. "Should the article have an edit made removing "original research"? - Under Original Research guidelines, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research." As this is a clear guideline and there is no evidence of it being something where you can  "ignore all rules", the content should be removed. --Morning277 (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You have not addressed the substance of the RFC. At issue is whether specific text in the article is original research, if it is it should be removed, if it isn't it should remain. As all the text is cited to reliable sources then it doesn't fit the definition of "original research". --Nug (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Substance was addressed. The Rfc is not whether the content is original. The question posed is if the article should have an edit reverting "original content" (inferred by the requester by using quotations that it is original content - their quotations, not mine). You are correct with stating that "as all the text is cited to reliable sources then it doesn't fit the definition of original research" is correct. If it is not original content and is well cited, then it should remain (if not, it should be removed). That issue can answer itself (a simple Google search can also find additional references for the term). Nothing else is posed regarding the issues that you reference in your comment. If you are familiar with Original Research (which I am sure that you are by your comments), then the questions you pose answer themselves and there should be no need for Rfc. --Morning277 (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, please keep in mind that my Rfc has nothing to do with the article content. I am simply commenting on the question posed. There does seem to be information to support the topic HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE. (While these may not be the most reliable sources, they did come from a simple search of Google which tells me that those who care enough about this article can find and source additional information to support the content if they so choose).--Morning277 (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You may have mis-interpreted this RFC, as it has everything to do with article content. The question was "Should the article have an edit made removing "original research"? ", with a link to the text in question. Therefore the question was whether that specific block of reliably sourced text should be removed as "original research", not some general "should text be removed if it is OR" for which the answer is so obvious that no RFC is necessary. --Nug (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Your first hit quotes E.C. Riegel who defined rw socialists as those "are not known as socialists and call themselves capitalists, individualists, private enterprisers, etc. They even believe themselves to be anti-socialist and profess full faith in private enterprise." The third source quotes L. Neil Smith who finds it in "more prisons, harsher penalties, sterner judges, capital punishment" as advocated by Republicans in the United States.  (The other two sources are just blogs.)  I would be happy to include this content because it is consistent with the topic as defined in the lead.  The material removed however had nothing to do with this topic, which is why it was removed.  TFD (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So now you concede that "right-wing socialism" is more than an invention of one single author De Soto as User:RJFF misleadingly claims in his preferred version of the article, but in fact is supported by E.C. Riegel, L. Neil Smith and Hans-Hermann Hoppe . Thank you. --Nug (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. De Soto's wording makes it appear as if it is his own term, but further reading of his text shows that he is relying on an existing libertarian concept.  TFD (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Frankly, there is no WP:Consensus to reduce this article to stab. This is especially inappropriate during standing RfC. Hence I restored the content. My very best wishes (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Remove - [from uninvolved editor, invited by RfC bot] - The term "right wing socialism" is very specific and somewhat rare, thus editors cannot use their own judgement to guess whether or not a source is discussing "right wing socialism".  This article can only include material that is based on sources that explicitly use the term "right wing socialism", otherwise it is a violation of WP:Original research policy.  I glanced at one source (footnote #20: Russia in the age of wars, 1914-1945 by Fetrinelli) and that source does not use the term  "right wing socialism"; so that source cannot be used.  Based on the tone of the article's prose, I suspect that most of the article's sources do not use that term.  I recommend that the article be returned to a stub, and that editors who wish to add material first provide quotes from the sources (put the quotes here on the Talk page).  Only then should the material be added to the article.   See WP:BURDEN.  --Noleander (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Source list - I picked another random source "A History of Modern Germany, 1800-2000" and it also does not use the term "right wing socialism". That is zero out of two sources; so  all the text in this article is suspect.   But Google Books does show many books using the term, such as:
 * Socialism, Economic Calculation and Entrepreneurship
 * The dynamic force of liberty in modern Europe
 * Right-wing revisionism today
 * Creative revolution: a study of community ergatocracy
 * Marxian socialism in the United States
 * Mobilizing on the Extreme Right: Germany, Italy, and the United States
 * ... and many others ...

So, there are ample sources to use to create this article; but it looks like the editor that supplied most of the text used inappropriate sources. I suggest that the article be re-worked, based on the dozens of sources that do use the term. Also, if a source only uses the term in on place, say on page 44, only the surrounding text can be used for this article: an editor cannot jump to page 200 and grab random text for this article: the source must be explicitly discussing "right wing socialism". --Noleander (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Grossly improper removal of new reliably sourced material
A blind revert removed Drake's work (Harvard University Press) and Bell's (Cornell University Press) both of which are absolutely reliable sources. Cheers - but when blindly reverting, it makes sense to read the material being blindly deleted. Collect (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I support your revert of the removal . The materiel seems well-sources, and not undue. I suggest a discussion here to gain consensus before removing such a large amount of the article again. Thanks JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I certainly did not blindly revert your edit (click here). Drake applied the term "right-wing socialism" to the right-wing of the socialist movement, i.e., social democracy and claims that Eduard Bernstein was a "major force".  Daniel Bell also uses the words to describe social democracy and refers to  August Bebel and Karl Kautsky.  Basic reading comprehension shows that he is not talking about people who "are not known as socialists and call themselves capitalists, individualists, private enterprisers, etc. They even believe themselves to be anti-socialist and profess full faith in private enterprise."  All these people called themselves socialists, were members of the Social Democratic Party and criticized capitalism.  TFD (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In which case I would note your "kelpful edit summary" of Removing off-topic material - please do not restore without explaining relevance on talk page) was about as poor an edit summary as have ever graced any edit on Wikipedia. The material is sourced to incredibly reliable sources being Cornell and Harvard University presses, and the claims are fully supported by those sources.  Cheers -- but this looks more and more like ''IDONTLIKEITTHEREFOREIWILLDELETEEVERYTHINGINSIGHT... Collect (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * TFD is right. In fact, different sources apply the term "right-wing socialism" to two very different concepts: the right wing (or revisionist wing) of the socialist movement (Bernstein, social democracy) on the one hand, and the libertarian concept to consider right-wingers (including, among others, traditional conservatives and fascists) that criticise some aspects of market economy and individualism and advocate some degree of collectivism and social harmony "right-wing socialists". While many sources can be found for the first concept, the second concept is a minority view, because traditional conservatives are usually considered conservatives and fascists are considered fascists and not socialists. Some authors associated with the Austrian school and the Mises Institute (most notably Ludwig von Mises himself), however, equal fascism with socialism (some examples: here, here and here). We must properly distinguish between the two concepts, even though both are referred to by the same term. We really should decide on what this article should be about (which of the two concepts) to avoid serious editing conflicts. --RJFF (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * And his edit summary? Sorry -- the same applies as my answer here as above.  WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a strong rationale - try improving the article instead of deleting it, please. Collect (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to have the article describe the differences noted for the "two very different concepts" (with appropriate citations, of course), and then in two sections further expand on those two concepts? In other words, we have the information for one in the article now, yes? If so, rather than deleting it, add the 2nd type with introductory words to compare & contrast? JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:D provides guidelines "when [a single term] refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles." The other definition should be provided in the lead and/or a hatnote link at the top of the page.  Social democracy is probably the most appropriate article.  But we would not have a separate section on it.  TFD (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Support revision along the lines proposed by RJFF: restore this article to discussion of the actual subject matter: the theory held by some libertarians, that conservatism is socialism in a free-market disguise; and remove the other topics which are unrelated to that theory, unless by some kind of OR/synthesis conflating the moderate wing of the socialist movement with what libertarians actually mean by "right-wing socialism". Not to do so is to create confusion and nonsense. (On a more personal note, I find this whole article and the discussions here revelatory of a grudge-match between libertarians and their conservative allies, with the added spice of the old blood libel that fascism=socialism; but that's me.) -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  23:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I admit to not being smart enough to even notice the grudge-match. Perhaps I'm like Little Orphan Annie at the Prize Fight. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I largely agree with here. I think the edit summary in this particular edit was not satisfactory, but  has a point. Indeed, each of their objections in the above section should be carefully examined, with material unrelated to the article removed.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree 100% with those querying the content and purpose of this page. A classic Wikipedia mess cobbled together with superficially impressive sourcing that technically allows it, in terms of its constituent parts, to avoid being outright WP:OR at a micro-level but nonetheless leaves it rather blatantly in breach of rules on both neutrality and synthesis of the cited sources. What the hell, for example, per this section, have Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky got to do with fascism or conservatism? As noted, the right/reformist wing of socialism is an entirely different thing from the thesis that many traditionally thought of as being on the right are actually socialists of some hitherto undiscovered sort. The page as currently written leads with that minority and contentious viewpoint - based on the work of one writer yet which it then presents as if it were a standard and mainstream description - and then drags in 101 things that might or might not be vaguely related to that concept.  N-HH   talk / edits  13:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That one does not like an article is of little import. Add RS material if you feel the article is unbalanced - that is the way Wikipedia operates.  Removal of reliably sourced material because one "knows it is wrong" is not how Wikipedia works. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. The article synthesizes two conflicting definitions, as has been explained to you many times already.  Adding more material will only turn a short incoherent article into a long incoherent article.  TFD (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm not sure how the previous comment relates to or responds to any of the points I made eg about synthesis, confused content and the overall presentation of the topic.  N-HH   talk / edits  14:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No -- I fear it is you who miss the point that once the article went through AfD and the discussions there and here did not agree with what you appear to WP:KNOW, that continuing to argue the same points over and over and over does not make your point any stronger. See User:Collect/Collect's Law.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * AfDs only determine whether there are sufficient sources to justify an article. They do not provide a license to violate Wikipedia policies.  TFD (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that editors who remove 95% of any article are not representative of "Wikipedia policies" in any case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To which policy are you referring? TFD (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Collect. The article, as currently constituted, has rather obvious problems (which in turn is nothing whatsoever to do with my claiming special "knowledge" that contradicts anything proven by any of the sources used here). Those problems have been laid out in some detail, yet the only response we get from you is a blanket "you're wrong. Because I know so". The majority of people commenting here agree there are problems. And we're only having to say the same thing "over and over" because it seems to be going totally over your head - denying the blindingly obvious over and over again does not make your rejection of it any stronger. A Wikipedia entry is not just a collection of randomly strung together sentences, paragraphs and themes, however well sourced each individual part might be. And yes, plenty of WP articles would be improved if 95% of their content disappeared.
 * You might also wish to re-read point 2 of your pithy little law - this article, as pointed out, is based around a description/thesis based primarily on a single source but presents that as if it were mainstream terminology. That's problem 1. Problem 2 comes, as also pointed out, when we add the random and unrelated other things being covered and linked - by editorial decision, not by the sources themselves - under this umbrella term. Now, what is your reasoned response to those specific criticisms? Or can anything be put into any WP article, however irrelevant to the topic and however badly it might misrepresent the source being cited or the balance of sources overall, so long as it has a footnote, which allows that content to then claim squatters' rights?  N-HH   talk / edits  16:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) In the case at hand, the material is reliably sourced. Thus WP:NPOV is what governs - not endless rehashing of the AfD arguments which did not prevail. It is not up to us to assert "truth" at all -- it is only up to us to make sure the claims made are supported by the reliable sources. WP:V, like it or not, remains clear. And I am sure plenty of articles should be deleted -- and that is why AfD exists. It is there you should argue as to existence - not here. The purpose of this page is to discuss improvements. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you miss the point and have everything back-to-front any more spectacularly? I have not denied most of the material, in its constituent parts, has sources (that's not the point - do you really not understand it?). Nor am I arguing for outright deletion of the article. Nor am I asserting what is the "truth". I am, however, seeking to improve this article from its current state and challenge its incoherence and random/confused content, as well as its lack of neutrality in so far as it represents one theory as being standard description.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable, but because other policies and guidelines also influence content, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion." TFD (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And the basis for any such decision remains WP:CONSENSUS - and there is no consensus that the article should be reduced to two or three sentences. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Speaking of consensus, your poorly-worded RfC above has expired and there is no consensus for restoring the off-topic information. I will therefore remove it.  If you want to improve the article, then please use relevant sources.  TFD (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, one does not "remove" expired RfCs. Cheers.  And please note the WP guidelines on redacting such from article talk pages. Collect (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not say I would remove the expired RfC. TFD (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then what did Speaking of consensus, your poorly-worded RfC above has expired and there is no consensus for restoring the off-topic information. I will therefore remove it. mean? Collect (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Collect, if you can't demonstrate that the material noting Bernstein and Kautsky is relevant to the topic as framed in the lead, other than by the confluence of the same adjective and noun, I will remove those specific additions (without prejudice to the contention that the content of the entry as a whole is a mish-mash of vaguely related themes, brought together under this title - which itself is the contentious and POV coinage of one writer - as a work of implicit WP:SYNTH).  N-HH   talk / edits  10:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The claim of SYNTH failed at the AfD. It fails here as well -- and the onus is not on me to "prove" anything at all.  Is the material a reliable source?  Are the claims accurately presented?   That is what editors may decide by WP:CONSENSUS.  That you dislike a topic is no reason to dismember it .  I am sure there are hundreds of articles which you can cheerfully dismember.  But removing proper claims properly sourced requires a consensus for removal - not the other way around. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The result of the AfD was "no consensus". I do not see any consensus for Collect's version of the article.  TFD (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no "version" of the article.  I would note, moreover, that massive removal of content requires WP:CONSENSUS which I siggest has not been shown up to now.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears that we have achieved a consensus. It would be helpful if you were to get on board, because articles are here to explain topics, not confuse readers.  TFD (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Alas - last I checked no such consensus backing your edit exists, and thus your post makes no sense to me. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Collect, the claim of wp:synth was not "rejected" at the AFD, which, as noted, was merely closed with "no consensus" to delete the article. As to the Bernstein and Kautsky material that I (and others) have recently highlighted as especially problematic, you added it over TWO WEEKS after the AFD was closed, so it has no bearing on that particular content anyway. Now, as you have been told 1000 times, there is a rather obvious difference between the main theme of this article as presented - ie the libertarian claim that some usually classified as being on the right wing are actually closet socialists - and discussion of professed socialists who are on the revisionist right, relatively speaking, within the left-wing, however literally you take some of the descriptions you've dug up on Google. East London is in the western hemisphere, not the eastern; Karen Carpenter is not a carpenter etc etc. This is a matter of basic English and conceptual understanding, not an RS issue. You have failed to explain why those additions are relevant here and hence I shall now remove them. As also noted, the wider problems with the rest of this article remain, with you seeming to be the only one quite so complacent about them.  N-HH   talk / edits  08:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Socialism sidebar
Since this article is not about some variety of socialism as commonly understood, but instead is set up to focus on a pejorative propaganda term employed by some on the libertarian right to critique conservatives who are less favourable to capitalism, should it have this sidebar at all? It's like having the entry on Social fascism described as beng part of the WP series on fascism (interestingly, that page appears with the Communism sidebar, which is probably more appropriate, and also is far more explicit in describing the term for what it is rather than presenting it as accepted fact or mainstream theory - and also suggests that this page might be better filed under "Libertarianism" or "Conservatism")  N-HH   talk / edits  08:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Should be the libertarianism sidebar. It is a slur against conservatism just as much as it is about socialism.  TFD (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You make assertions which indicate that you "know" the "truth" -- as the topic is not specifically "pejorative" AFAICT, your assertions fail. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good grief. Is it possible to discuss anything seriously yet with an open mind on a talk page with you? Or will you just shout "NO!", without further elaboration, at every reasoned and evidenced argument? The only unreasoned assertions about what is purportedly the "truth" are coming from your keyboard, not anyone else's; and that "truth" as you claim it to be seems to flatly contradict even the opening sentence of this page, which clearly attributes - and sources - the terminology to libertarian writers as a critique of other right-wingers (with other synthy content pummelled in subsequently, as noted). By contrast, if you do not accept that observation, where is your counter-evidence that the term "right-wing socialism", with the meaning set up in this article, is a common and/or academically accepted description of a certain sub-type of socialism? How do you square the application of the socialism sidebar here with our treatment of "Social fascism", which we take to be a derogatory term used by communists about other, more moderate socialists rather than a genuine category of fascism, and hence give it the communism sidebar rather than the fascism one?  N-HH   talk / edits  12:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What you need are reliable sources making the claims you assert are the "truth" -- this is not my position, it is the requirement of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  As a number of sources in the article clearly refer to socialists, the claim that they are somehow not socialists seems a claim which would require strong sourcing as a minimum.   And the claim that "other stuff exisits" on Wikipedia is, of course, not a proper argument - I do not read every article on Wikipedia, nor does Wikipedia say anyone should do so. Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you had to agree with how we treat Social fascism and that that would prove the point about the sidebar on this page, by WP or any other standard, I just asked for your comment, you know, in the spirit of rational inquiry. Clearly you're not willing to offer that. Equally, the child-like demand that I "prooove" what I am saying about the use of this term is absurd. No one calls most conservatives, eg Bismark, "socialists". A couple of libertarians write politically driven critiques claiming that they are and then in order to satisfy you, other WP editors have to run around presentng sources that specifically say "Bismark [et al] was not a socialist", or was "not commonly thought of as a socialist"; or you claim one or two political tracts trump everyone, scholars included, and can rewrite the entire landscape of standard political terminology. Saying sources matter - which they do - doesn't mean that editors can fling any old shit at a page as long as it has a vaguely respectable-looking source and demand it sticks, along with 101 other superficially related random soundbites, until everyone else is forced to find specifically contradictory sources, and/or finally get through to you how tenuous and coincidental the connections are. That's what WP:FRINGE, WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE are there for. Meanwhile, you refuse to answer my request to you for sources demonstrating that "the term "right-wing socialism", with the meaning set up in this article, is a common and/or academically accepted description of a certain sub-type of socialism".  N-HH   talk / edits  13:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Rational inquiry"? Huh?  What I said is simple - Wikipedia has policies and guidelines.  We follow them.   We use reliable sources for any claims. Period.   And since quite evidently the sources use the term "right-wing socialism" it is quite absurd for anyone to ask me to demonstrate that the sources use that term.  And casting aspersions on some vague "couple of libertarians" is not actually an argument aimed at improving any article.  All I see here is IDONTLIKEIT and POLICIESSCHMOLICIES etc.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well no, as noted - and apparently ignored - there is more to using reliable sources than that, both in WP policy and common sense. I'm not asking you to demonstrate that sources uses the term. We know that they do and I have never denied that they do. What I and others are asking, if you could pause for two seconds to understand the point, is how many sources use it, and what they mean by it in each case. If it's minority or polemical usage, and/or people mean different things when they use it, we can't just randomly lump all these disparate ideas together and imply they're related and that this is standard, neutral terminology. And no, I don't like it when I see that happening, you're quite right. The other problem here is that every criticism you level at others is far, far better directed at your actions and comments.  N-HH   talk / edits  13:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is - it is not up to us to "know" what a source "means." It is up to us to use what a source states in black and white - without inferring more than what the source actually says.    As for your implicit personal attack -- saying it is wrong to actually follow Wikipedia policies is inane.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. It is not up to us to employ any judgment whatsover, simply than to blindly follow the literal meaning of the words we see in front of us. Karen Carpenter is a carpenter and I will insist on the right to add details about her and her brother to the carpentry page until someone else provides a reliable source that she is not. The "Football" page should be a random, totally mixed-up jumble of names and observations about the American, Association and Aussie Rules games that treats them as if they were all the same thing, so long as the sources cited refer simply to "football". And where did I ever say it is "wrong to actually follow Wikipedia policies". Only the inane could fail to spot I am actually arguing we should be following policies and guidelines - including those I mentioned relating to due weight, fringe views, neutrality and synthesis of sourced material - and that your position lies in contradiction to them, even if you haven't quite worked that out yet. Even the main WP:RS page you keep citing as if it supports you says, inter alia, the following:
 * "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made"
 * "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process"
 * "individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources"
 * Anyway, I'm done discussing this with you. Talk page sections like this are one of the reasons why this place is such a waste of time and why much of the main article content is so unremittingly awful.  N-HH   talk / edits  07:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, going by the lead, the term is a pejorative term for things which go by other non-pejorative names. In that case, the article should be either renamed, or (if such would result in duplication) be deleted. On the grounds of both a neutral title, and wp:not a dictionary. North8000 (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC) I see no real argument that it should be under libertarianism other a claim that libertarians sometimes use the word as a pejorative. By that standard, "liberalism" should be categorized under conservatism. :-) North8000 (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, Social fascism is under communism because the phrase was used by communists. Under that theory, Right-wing socialism could be under libertarianism. I don't think anyone will think it is a form of libertarianism, given the content. If there is any possible confusion, that can be fixed in the text. (Of course, after a quick skim I wonder if there may be a lot of WP:Original research to fit the content into the theory, even if sources don't use the phrase, so that might be a relevant issue.)
 * Also, I think that most of the see alsos at Socialism_for_the_rich_and_capitalism_for_the_poor could be used here.
 * By the way, which category would you put that phrase into? Might help you decide on this one. CarolMooreDC 02:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should just lose the sidebar altogether. The Socialism one is definitely wrong for the bulk of the material here, which does not refer to socialism or socialism as commonly understood; but I accept the Libertarianism one might be confusing and not quite right either (plus, as currently drafted, the page does range more widely than simply the libertarian argument about conservatives; which of course is part of the problem with it - it leads off with that definition but then wanders off in 101 tangents to things that may or may not be substantively related).  N-HH   talk / edits  07:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Get rid of it. [[Socialism_for_the_rich_and_capitalism_for_the_poor which is a similar article also does not have one. CarolMooreDC 13:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like an even discussion so far - get WP:CONSENSUS for the removal please - that is how Wikipedia functions in cases such as this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you have TFD, Carolmooredc and me all in favour of taking it out. North8000 said it should not be replaced with the libertarian sidebar, as was at one point suggested (but which has not been attempted), but said nothing in favour of keeping it and did express broader concerns about the title and content. You are on your own in wanting the Socialism sidebar here among the opinions expressed so far. On what fucking planet is that "even"? Meanwhile, you have also knee-jerk reverted every other recent change people have made, whether an addition of content or removal of it, while again, usually, being as much as 5 against 1 on every single issue. If you want to fling policy around see WP:OWN.  N-HH   talk / edits  15:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Try WP:AGF unless you really think the edit removing more than 95% of the article was reasonable . In case you wish to note it: R-41 has seven times the number of edits on the article as I.  Now can youalso read WP:NPA as well? Collect (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am aware they wrote much of the page. Most articles have a few active editors who write most of the content - that is not what WP:OWN addresses. As it happens, FWIW, I have never commented specifically on the gutting of the page as the solution to the manifest (to everyone except you) problems with much of the content. However, neither of those are the points at issue here - which is that there appears, by your rules, to be no requirement on you to "get consensus" for the inclusion of your random off-topic material on Bernstein & Kautsky (5-6 people are opposed to it, none in favour, on the talk page) before you initially introduce it and then also revert it back in over and over again; yet when I come here to seek consensus on the sidebar before doing anything, get it bar your apparent veto, and then act on that by removing it, you are apparently entitled to put that back in too, and also remove legitimate tags, while bleating about "consensus". The attitude and behaviour on display here beggars belief - which is no more an unwarranted personal attack than my criticism of your arithmetic skills or your ownership bid here.  N-HH   talk / edits  15:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Would everyone please bear in mind that I being the one who created this article, upon review recognize that it is an idiotic article. Please understand: I recognize that this is perhaps the most stupid article that I have ever made, because it has no coherent topic. However there are topics within it, I suggested below this section to split this article into different articles. I suggested below this section to split this article into different articles. After transferring relevent material here to those articles, then delete this article.--R-41 (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge the material on Klemens von Metternich's "conservative socialism" into the article on Metternich
 * Merge the material on Charles Maurras' views into the article on Maurrassisme and/or National syndicalism
 * Merge the material on "war socialism" - a term coined by German high command official Erich Ludendorff, into an article titled War socialism
 * Merge the material on Johann Plenge's views into the article on Plenge
 * Merge the material on Werner Sombart's views into the article on Sombart
 * The info on Spengler already has its own article on his book Preussentum und Sozialismus - so no new article needs to be made for that.


 * Excellent proposal. I couldn't agree more. Please remember that I proposed a similar approach several months ago. Please go ahead. --RJFF (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Being the one who founded this article, upon reflection I believe it would be best to split the article as other users have suggested
I founded this article on the basis that it addressed an important issue. However upon review of users criticisms here, I think that the criticism that it doesn't have a coherent topic is valid. I will support breaking up this article, moving material to other articles that exist on this material, and creating new articles for material such as on self-declared conservative socialists like Metternich. Perhaps it could be briefly mentioned in the Socialism article that while mainstream socialism is left-wing, that there have been right-wing individuals and groups that have claimed to be advocating socialism.--R-41 (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you going to do anything about this? In the meantime, an incoherent article that even you as creator admit is "idiotic" is sitting here as part of the WP record ..  N-HH   talk / edits  08:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not up to any individual editor to delete an article -- the AfD process is well-established, and this article was kept on 12 April, only a few months ago. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that discussion closed as "no consensus", as many poorly debated and attended AFD discussions often do, not as "absolutely must be kept by unanimous decree". Nor are myself or R-41 talking about simply unilaterally deleting the article (they for one were talking about simply moving much of the content to more appropriate places). However, since that AFD was nearly six months ago and given the two months that have now passed since the above admission, it is clearly time for a renomination, which I shall put together when I get time, if someone else doesn't beat me to it.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How about moving the content to the respective articles before starting a new AfD? Without new arguments it will not be successful. --RJFF (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The best approach would be to userify it to R-41's namespace, so that he can decide where to put it. The article has already been re-nominated for deletion.  I don't know if additional arguments would be helpful.  TFD (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That could be one outcome of course of the new AFD discussion. As for the prospects for that AFD, I fear RJFF you underestimate the utterly random and capricious nature of the AFD process when it comes to outcomes. Yes they're meant to be about policy and rule-based arguments, but everyone knows the results are ultimately down to the "votes". They totally depend on who turns up to comment and how bold the deciding admin then is in over-riding the sillier "Keep" ones and whether they'll take a certain number of "Keeps" as offering them the cop-out of "no consensus".  N-HH   talk / edits  20:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For example, one editor created an article called Richard Tylman which had no reliable sources and was only deleted on the fourth application. Oddly, the creator of the article has created a new article about someone with the same name.  TFD (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Post-AFD surgery
Oh well, another WP discussion ends as "no consensus" by veto. Three people think, often without any stated justification, that a page or title has merit and there you are. It stays and WP invents a whole new concept and takes it to the top of the Google rankings. Anyway, something like the following probably needs to be done now .. My brief review of sources for the AFD suggests not much will remain (and my hunch tells me that User:Collect will edit war it back in).
 * Rewrite the lead, and the wider content, so it is clear that this page is about a term and its disparate uses, not a topic as defined by one such use
 * Gut this article of any content that is not specifically referred to in the cited sources as being "right-wing socialism"
 * Where the term has genuinely been applied, attribute it and if necessary note as polemical use, eg "de Soto accuses ..."

The other thing that could of course be done is to create a mirror article on "Left-wing conservatism", lumping together everyone and thing that can even plausibly be described under a combination of the terms, including: polemical criticism by radical socialists of what they see as overly moderate and cautious left-wingers; polemical criticism by the 1960s New Left and 1990s centrist socialists of what they saw as outdated, unreconsructed old-style left-wing socialism; figures and tendencies such as Ken Clarke and Tory wets in the UK and Red Toryism in Canada; National Bolsheviks and more mainstream CCCP nostalgists, including the Communist Party of the Russian Federation in Russia etc etc. The old trick of searching in Google Books for the term in question suggests to me we could pull together a synthy and incoherent essay-style article including all those things that can nonetheless be staunchly defended at AFD. Not sure it would prove anything other than the pointlessness of this article, but it seems that this needs proving.  N-HH   talk / edits  15:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest we use Jesús Huerta de Soto's concept that the mainstream right, including the Republican Party, are in fact socialists. TFD (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's where it is now - but it seems to me that's a specific, polemical and minority use, which explains more about the right-wing libertarian view of the world than it does about his intended targets. My assumption, which has only been reinforced by a basic bit of online digging around since coming to this article, has been that the most common use of the combination of terms, such as it is, is to refer to moderate socialism. I'd suggest something like:
 * "Right-wing socialism is a term applied to a variety of topics, most commonly to the moderate or right-wing of the socialist movement, usually referred to today as social democracy. However, it has also been applied with different meanings in a number of other contexts .. etc etc"
 * Obviously that's all made up, because there's no source that defines this topic coherently, and we're trying to define a term and its various uses, dictionary style, but it seems reasonable as a summary, which is what a lead is meant to be.  N-HH   talk / edits  17:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope - we do not use "that is not my view of the world" as a reason for decapitating any article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well this article as it is has been made up precisely on the basis of a couple of random people's view of the world and this phrase. Anyway, I'm not suggesting that we do rely simply on my view either - it was a proposal, inviting reasoned discussion, as to how to frame the page as a whole; as well as a prior, unremarkable, suggestion that we need to remove any material based on sources that do not refer to "Right-wing socialism". Since your comment adds nothing by way of reasoned discusion, but simply the usual "No!", and does not offer any additional justification for including material not supported by sources, I don't see what weight we should give your intervention.  N-HH   talk / edits  17:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope - it is how AfD works. When an article is not deleted, it is considered "poor form" to remove its contents whn one sought deletion.  Otherwise we would end up with "deletion by edit" as being the common result in such cases.  As such is non-collegial, it is not a recommended process.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * When an AFD closes, we are back to normal editing. That very much includes removing content that is not appropriate or incorrect, as well, possibly, as an extensive rewrite. A AFD closed as "No consensus to delete entire article" neither means nor mandates "keep article exactly as it is, in its entirety". I have not said I want to delete the entire page, piece by piece. I have said I want to remove content that is not sourced to the term or topic. Are you saying such content should stay?  N-HH   talk / edits  18:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you earnestly follow the advice in WP:CONSENSUS and discuss each section prior to taking shears to the article. I recall one case where the "loser" at AfD removed well over 95% of the entire article  which, I suggest, is unwise and contrary to the Wikipedia policy on consensus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And establishing consensus - which btw does not confer veto rights - is exactly what I was trying to do before you started coming over all Ian Paisley.  N-HH   talk / edits  18:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As I am more Lowell Weicker than Ian Paisley, I am not complimented by your inapt suggestion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy is WP:DISAMBIG. I see only two cases where sources actually use the term "right-wing socialism" and since we already have an article on social democracy, I suggest we write about the libertarian concept and provide  a link for social democracy.  I suggest we begin by removed all material says nothing about right-wing socialism in the sources used.  TFD (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As I say, I'm slightly concerned that this would give the impression that this is the main use and meaning of the phrase, which I'm not sure it is. It's merely one among several fringey/polemical uses of the term, all of which are probably overshadowed in mainstream usage by it as describing the "right wing" of what is generally accepted as socialism proper. Of course the fact that we already have an article on mainstream/moderate/reformist socialism at social democracy is one of the main arguments in favour of deleting the entire page, but we're stuck on that score now. As long as it had a hatnote directing people to the social democracy page that might be OK I guess.  N-HH   talk / edits  08:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ps: sorry, I think I've got the point now that if we start by removing the unsupported stuff, we can see what we're left with. That seems to be the right thing to do in itelf, and also a sensible procedural step as it were that will help direct the focus of the page.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Rothbard
I'm trying to set aside some time to go through the sources in a bit more detail - I did it for the AFD but didn't keep written records of the trail. Anyway, another quick look has brought up this problem - the Rothbard piece used in the lead and body follows the broad libertarian point of saying that socialism, paternalist/traditional conservatism and fascism are all cut from a similarly collectivist and statist cloth, which ties it in with the de Soto stuff and offers the chance of some coherence. However, when he uses the actual term "right-wing socialism" is he is referring to moderate "real" socialism, such as the revisionist wing of the SPD in Germany, Fabians in the UK etc. He nowhere says Bismarckism, for example, is "right-wing socialism" (nor, as far as I can tell, does AJP Taylor, who is cited in support of that claim in the body).  N-HH   talk / edits  10:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The quote appears to be
 * Historians have long recognized the affinity, and the welding together, of Right-wing socialism with Conservatism in Italy and Germany, where the fusion was embodied first in Bismarckism and then in Fascism and National Socialism ...'
 * Which, on its face, says that Bismarchism is a fusion of Right-wing socialism with conservatism so I fear you missed a pretty clear thatement about Bismarkism and "right-wing socialism" utterly.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I found that. I also know that the fusion of A and B to form C - real or merely purported - does not mean C is the same thing as A. In fact, he is explicitly defining, as I said, "right-wing socialism" to mean the more conservative elements of socialism proper - which he says, in combination with something else, becomes a third category altogether. He is not defining fascism or Bismarckism as "right-wing socialism". Do you ever stop carping as well btw? It's very wearisome as some of us actually trying to constructively think through the problem here in proper detail and with an open mind. Not least when the logic is so flawed. Even if you were right it wouldn't be necessary.  N-HH   talk / edits  11:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * An article on "Orange" thus could not include mention of lemons or the like because they are not exactly oranges?  Interesting sort of point, but one not borne out in many articles where closely related things are mentioned.  Heck Orange (fruit) even includes reference to pomegranates,  grapefruits, lemons, limes,  etc.   Sorry -- your requirement that "fusions" can not be used is absurd -- the source makes clear the connection in explicit and direct language. Collect (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But no one claims they are oranges. Anyway, I didn't say the source couldn't be used or that fusions or even simply closely related things cannot be referred to, nor did I deny that he was making a connection between what he calls right-wing socialism and other things including conservatism (I explicitly noted the latter in introducing this thread). What I said was that the material represents a problem, because he is using the term to mean something significantly different - if related in some contexts - from the direct identification with conservatism that de Soto makes. The question, then, is how to accomodate and present the material. Why is it such a struggle to get you to understand this problem, of the term being used by different writers to mean different things (and that it's not used at all by half the writers cited)? And can you please stop saying "no" or "nope" in every comment and/or edit summary? The Paisley metaphor seems ever apter.  N-HH   talk / edits  13:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem for you is that his language is quite clear, and trying to say it does not say what it does say is not going to work. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed the language is clear, as is the fact that you are not capable of understanding it; nor capable of discussing this issue, and the wider issues, in a constructive or rational fashion. Hence, I shall cease attempting to do so.  N-HH   talk / edits  13:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And if you do not choose to AGF as is required on Wikipedia, then the problem lies with you and not me. Been nice seeing you here. Collect (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I wrote the article, I admit it is TERRIBLE, delete the damn thing!
I wrote the article, I admit it is terrible, it has no coherent single topic. I already said how to resolve this, split the material into different articles. Stupidly, we are still reaching "no consensus", I mean Jesus Christ man! I've heard enough criticism about what I wrote, I get it people - it is a crappy article, now please just delete the goddamn thing already, and stop complaining on my talk page about it! Let me make this absolutely clear: I, the original author of much of the content on this article, recognize that this article was a terrible mistake, it has no coherent topic, delete the article - I hate it and I understand why others hate it. But I do insist that the material in the article on specific topics in this article be moved to articles on those specific topics. I could start the next deletion request if I have the time to organize it, I am working in the real world for long hours, and don't have much time to deal with this stuff, if I don't I permit another user to just quote what I have said here to use in another deletion request.--R-41 (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It went to AFD again, but closed again as no consensus because a couple of people turned up to say they still liked it. Anyway, per the above thread, we're trying to at least work on reformulating it so the the worst of the problems can be sorted out.  N-HH   talk / edits  08:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It is obvious that within any political group or ideology, it is possible to identify sections as left, right or center, and we have numerous examples of where authors have done that. For example, Rothbard referred to social democrats who rejected revolution and turned to the state to improve workers' conditions as "right-wing socialists".  Each author will have his own conception of what constitutes the right-wing of the socialist movement, and of course that will vary over time and between countries.  If we want an article explaining what each writer who applied the adjective right-wing to the noun socialism meant, then we would need a secondary source that wrote about this.  However, it has doubtful than any researcher would use his time in that manner.
 * However, there are sources that "right wing socialism" is a term clearly defined and used by a number of libertarian writers. My view is that since there has been no reporting of this concept outside libertarian writing that it fails WP:NOTABILITY and voted to delete the article.  However it was accepted and our challenge is to write the article.
 * I do not see any neutrality issues with describing what libertarians think, so long as we are not endorsing them. I suggest therefore that we use De Soto et al. and base the article on the concept that they developed.
 * TFD (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested in seeing what tertiary-source reference works such as The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Science etc, have to say, if anything, about the composite term. I don't have any and I can't find much accessible online. Also, I'm not sure I see the distinction noted above about clarity or precision - all descriptions and categories of this sort have fuzzy and elastic boundaries and disputed exact definitions (try "Liberalism" as an obvious example), which we just have to deal with. As we know, there's very definitely no coherence across the various uses of the term, but within each sub-use, it seems each is as broadly clear as any other. And I'd guess there's actually just as much analytical writing about what mainstream classification usually means by the term in respect of "moderate" socialism as there is explaining, from a remove, the libertarian use.
 * I agree though - given the article exists at all - that, so long as everything is attributed, we can avoid neutrality problems even if we focus on the libertarian terminology (as noted previously, it's analogous with the use of "Social fascism" by communists, although hardly as notable or as entrenched in the historical record).  N-HH   talk / edits  08:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

possibly interesting sources
''As undersecretary, then minister of armaments, Thomas blended a kind of reformist right-wing socialism with neo-Jacobin patriotism. For him, war and socialism were close kin; they shared "the spirit of sacrifice and self-abnegation, the consciousness of collective duties ... the subordination of all particular interests to the common interest, the assent to discipline and social organization, the will to give all for the good of the nation." 33 In this pure and disciplined collectivism Thomas discerned the lineaments of a new France that would emerge cleansed and purified by the flames of war, coordinated and modernized by the need to organize and increase arms production.  Manufacturing Inequality: Gender Division in the French and British Metalworking Industries, 1914-1939''  Laura Lee Downs, Cornell University Press 1995.

Democracy in the International Association of Machinists Mark Perlman, Wiley 1962" The right-wing Socialism which was so popular in America at the turn of the century and for the fifteen years prior to the First World War was of a Populist variety; generally it was felt that it did not try to undermine established trade unions. Its adherents were often unpopular in the trade unions, but they were rarely charged with being dual unionists--a charge reserved for the left-wing Socialists

And so on. The term appears to have been in fairly wide use, as a matter of fact. Not forgetting such sources as the New York Times referring to Peron as installing right wing socialism in Argentina etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Collect, in both cases the authors use the phrase to refer to the right-wing of a Socialist Party. It does not mean that we can synthesize the two sources.  You would need a source that explains there is a commonality between the two right-wings which is not covered in another article.  And of course peronism is not the same as the right wing of either party.  TFD (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Alas - we stick to what the sources say and not what you assert you "know" they really mean. In the case at hand, I suggest, in fact, that you are misreading the sources to read what they do not say, not what a reasonable person reading them would understand them to say.  It is reading things which ain't there which is SYNTH, TFD.  Collect (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is more like we find various articles that talk about a long piece of string. Then you say that a "long piece of string" deserves an article.  But how long is a long piece of string?  Well, it all depends.  I can find a source that calls Bush and also Romney "stupid Republicans".  Does that mean that there is a concept of stupid Republicans that deserves its own article or does it merely mean that some writers have called both Republicans stupid?  TFD (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We're not going to get anywhere as long as we're still having to point out the blindingly obvious that this composite term is being used to cover often wildly different things in different sources, and still having to face accusations of supposedly adding our own interpretation onto the sources, or being in breach of WP rules, for daring to exercise a bit of intelligent judgment and pointing this blindingly obvious fact out.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Horsefeathers - we have reliable sources using the term in clearly consistent manners. We have peer-reviewed sources using the term.  All I see now its "IDONTLIKEIT" which is fine - but not a reason to remove anything on Wikipedia. Really.  Russell Means uses the term in exactly the same sense as the NYT reference to Peron's corporate socialism .   also has  it in a similar manner and calls it the  logical child of "liberal capitalism."  Etc. How many dang sources do you need?  And TFD your inance comments about "stupid Republicans" is beneath you. Stick to the topic at hand instead of making inane slaps at everyone who dares to disagree with your own Weltanschauung.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How is De Soto's use the term "right-wing socialism" for conservatism, in order to contrast it with "left-wing socialism", which he says includes social democrats, and Bess's reference to social democrats as "right-wing socialists"?  My point about "stupid Republicans" is that just because people can put the two words together, giving us 216 hits on Google books is not reason to create an article.  TFD (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Deal with the cites I give and not what you "know" to be the "truth" about the cites I was not discussing right here It makes it ever so much easier to discuss with a person who does not go off at right angles to my posts.   And I note you did not redact "stupid Republicans" which I suggest means you will not enter into a real colloquy here.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

(out) Collect, anyone with basic reading comprehension skills knows that if one author calls social democrats left-wing socialists and another author calls them right-wing socialists, then they are not talking about the same thing. The Republican example is apt. I can find lots of examples:
 * The Geanakoplos-Zeldes plan would be most feasible in a world populated by stupid Republicans and smart Democrats.
 * I think this last year has just proven how stupid Republicans are.
 * The stupid Republicans actually think they can compete with us for the non White vote.

(I could add the other 213 books that talk about the subject but have a look yourself.) All those sources allow us to pretend that there is a term with a specific meaning and write a tendentious article like this one.

TFD (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I have substantially good reading skills.
 * 2) I have excellent research skills.
 * 3) I read several languages other than English.
 * 4) I am pained to see reasonably clear sentences warped out of shape by a person reading things into them which simply are not there, and eliding things which are there in plain English.
 * 5) I can recognize a clear case of "IDONTHERETHAT" when I see it.
 * 6) I suggest you reread your own posts.
 * And I've got a Masters in Tooting my Own Horn, plus a Doctorate in Unverifiable Claims. Now that we've compared credentials, let's please stick to the topic at hand instead of talking about our alleged qualifications. If you have good reading skills, don't brag about them, demonstrate them, as by reading with comprehension. Start by actually responding to TFD's argument. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear me I am so surprised you showed up here! But -- you never ever showed up here before?  How did you arrive? Collect (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And, while you're at it, the arguments of nearly everyone else who has contributed here recently. The problem here is in fact one editor who is very much alone in very much LIKING this page as it is confusingly set up and who, as the debate at RSN and elsewhere shows, simply is either not reading or not understanding either the sources or the comments of others, while simply assuming that the combination of words "Right-wing socialism" must and can only ever refer to exactly the same thing, and acts as a clear, objective categorisation, whoever uses it. Even asking questions such as how best we might deal with any problems is met with a resounding "No! There aren't any!" Thus we are left stuck, going round in circles on a talk page and with a bizarre, misleading page.  N-HH   talk / edits  08:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Try reading the AfD comments before making attacks. And please do not ascribe statements or positions to me which are inapt and false - it makes editors think that thr IDONTLIKEIT is pervasive rather than seeking to improve the article which has been kept, which is what Wikipedia expects editors to do in a collegial manner. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand half of what that is meant to mean. Maybe I'm just not as good at comprehension as I think. Anyway, nice to see you demanding editing is done in a "collegial manner", while vetoing even any substantive discussion about changes on this talk page, and at the same time cheerfully and unilaterally adding still more random content to the main text yourself, this time linking a moderate social-democratic Japanese party to Bismarck and Metternich, two of the most well known European reactionary anti-socialists, as well as to fascism, on the basis, as ever, of the random confluence of two adjectives in totally separate and disparate sources that your Google searches happened to bring up. This is now beyond a joke (and way beyond AGF).  N-HH   talk / edits  14:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It does not meet the definition in the lead as "a type of socialism in which institutional aggression is employed to maintain the social status quo and the privileges certain people or groups of people enjoy." I have therefore removed it.  TFD (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Um -- did you miss the second paragraph of the lede "it has also been used"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What, " .. also been used by right-wing movements and politicians to describe support for social solidarity and paternalism"? So why are you adding material about a centre-left Japanese party, only described as being "rightist" because it is, indeed, to the right of the radical left-wing socialists? When will this sink in?  N-HH   talk / edits  15:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * While every article should point out when the name of the topic can have different meanings, articles are about topics, not meanings. See WP:DISAMBIG.  You told me btw that "we have reliable sources using the term in clearly consistent manners".  Please explain why that comment is no longer operative.  TFD (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And now the lead is being fixed around this, by the addition of the odd suggestion that this Marxist/radical "left-wing [of] socialism" v social-democratic/moderate "right-wing [of] socialism" distinction only applies, apparently, in Japan. Despite the latter actually being probably the most common - and least polemical/pejorative use - of the term around the world (albeit one we currently deal with broadly under Social democracy).  N-HH   talk / edits  15:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The section was added which should be represented in summary style in the lede. That is the purpose of a lede.  And Oxford University Press seems to meet WP:RS.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As with the previous 104 times, no one's disputing that. People are just querying what it might actually be saying, what the phrase might actually mean in that context and to what extent we are building anything with coherence here. I'm very impressed by the way we've shifted from "the lead justifies the content" to "ok, I'll change the lead in a bizarrely specific way as soon as it's pointed out that it doesn't. See? Now the content justifies the lead". Again, no coherence but still the impressive literal reading of random sources.  N-HH   talk / edits  15:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea of a lede is to summarize the article content. See WP:Lead section if you are unsure as to what that means. Collect (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I know that already. The point was about your shifting and back-to-front justifications for including content in either part and the literalist fashion in which you read source material. I also know that what comes before the lead or the main body is the decision as to what the article is actually meant to be about and to cover at all - and that you have persistently stymied every recent bid to clarify that on this talk page, while nonetheless editing the page content to make it even more confused.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And so when clearly reliably sourced material is added, then it being noted in the lede is reasonable. As to asserting "only the first sentence sounts and nothing else belongs in an article" I commend you to WP:RS/N and to WP:NPOV/N if you wish.  All I do is write what the reliable sources state -- and I consider the Oxford University Press etc. to meet the requirements of WP:RS.  And note that I did substantial pruning of the article before adding anything at all.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * QED. I'm not going to respond to non-sequiturs, made-up quotes and circular argument. As for "pruning", all you did as far as I can tell was to remove some near-repetition and switch some language around a bit.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hatnote and social democracy
This removal of the recently added hatnote is a question in its own right but also goes to the heart of the circular debate above and the basic problem with this article. What does this term mean in the real world and what should this page cover? I've argued that actually - contrary to the edit summary - the most common and non-polemical use of the phrase "right-wing socialism" is in reference to "moderate" socialism, ie approximate to social democracy, or at least the less radical strains of it, and close on the traditional spectrum to social liberalism. If someone finds a description of a recent centre/centre-left politician as a "right-wing socialist", they'd be confused by coming here to find he's some sort of heir to the traditions of Metternich and Bismarck, or a fascist or conservative. In UK politics at least, and probably more widely, it's usually been applied to the programme of those on the right, relatively speaking, of the Labour party, per the link above. Sometimes that use shades into the more polemical and pejorative, for example when the far left deploy the term to pillory fellow socialists they do not believe are radical enough. Separately and confusingly there's the more polemical use by right-wing libertarians to castigate those on the conservative or fascist right as closet socialists. Then there's the various references to things like "war socialism", Bismarckian welfarism etc etc. We've never resolved this issue. Currently though, the page is focused on and leads with that libertarian trope as if that is the key definition (with a few random and decontextualised references to other uses subsequently); plus we have a separate article on social democracy. Given all the above, the hatnote makes sense to me for the article, especially in its current state.

That said, and as noted above, my preference in the absence of a deletion is for us to treat the term for what it is - a confusing phrase used to cover a multitude of sins and with multiple loaded meanings in the hands of those applying it - and create a glorified disambiguation page, with brief summaries for each section and then onward links to the main articles about the person/group using the term and/or the person/trend being described by it in each case. It's probably against policy, but then so is having this article at all really (nothwithstanding the tedious "no consensus" at AFD) and we have to do something with it, because it's utterly, utterly crap at the moment and misleading to anyone who chances across it without any understanding of the complexities. But that requires a full rewrite and rebalancing - including removal of sub-topics where the term is not even used or sourced at all - and a clear explanation of the fact that the term has different uses, with clear attribution and explanation of the differences as we go. Either that, or a clear and explicit focus solely on the libertarian trope, without all the rest of the unsourced or unrelated additional clutter we have currently (TFD's preference I believe). The messy and random middle ground we have now, as being occasionally unilaterally tweaked, is no good for anyone.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Short version of the above, split ......

Hatnote re social democracy
In my view it is needed with the article in its current state, or if we end up focusing even more precisely on the libertarian use of the term. The phrase "Right-wing socialism" is confusing and can refer to the right wing of socialism, hence the link to Social democracy helps.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The page itself
We have a choice - focus solely on the libertarian angle or have a broader dictionary/disambiguation-style page briefly covering all the various meanings and uses, with multiple onward links. I'd prefer the latter, precisely because I think we should not privilege one use of the term over others, especially the more fringey and polemical use. Plus we still need to prune the page of many areas where the term is not even used in the supporting sources at all.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * De Soto et al. are the only writers who use the words "right-wing socialism" as a term. The other writers merely modify one term with another, and hence we should and do have separate articles for right-wing and socialist.  We should not browse books about socialism, find every adjective that has ever been used to describe specific socialists and create articles for them.  Socialists can be rich, evil, good, successful, intelligent, hypocritical, short, tall, reactionary, color blind, deaf, etc.  A deaf socialist is a socialist who is deaf, a right-wing socialist is a socialist who is on the right of socialism.  No one needs an encyclopedia article to explain this to them.
 * An adjective and a noun together only become a term when they are used in a way that goes beyond the obvious meaning. An Islamic terrorist is not a terrorist who happens to be Islamic but someone who commits terrorist acts in order to advance his understanding of Islam.  A social democrat is not a democrat who emphasizes the social aspects of democracy but someone you adheres to a specific ideology that has come to be called social democracy.
 * TFD (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Huh? With dozens of sources you can with a straight face claim (only two) writers used the words 'right wing socialism' as a term?  Sheesh - that is beyond reason, TFD!  Perhaps you would take the New York Times to RS/N if you seriously believe this.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If I may, the point TFD is making I believe - which I am not unsympathetic to, although not entirely convinced by - is that de Soto and some others (possibly several others, not merely "two") are the only ones making use of the phrase as a composite, discrete term, that has a meaning above and beyond the mere confluence of the two words, rather than simply qualifying socialism in passing with the (relative) modifier "right wing". The difference is the same between, say a London black cab and a cab that is simply being described as being the colour black. I think the distinction is a valid one, but as I say am not convinced it is definitive, or that it has to define what we do here. In plain written words, the distinction is not necessarily or immediately clear. I have a genuinely open mind btw (hence why I keep discussing it here) but unfortunately, I also think there are probably many people who need an encyclopedia article to explain this kind of thing.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone understands what both right-wing and socialist mean then they should understand what each writer who uses the terms in conjunction means. I could find no sources, other than De Soto et al. who used the words together as a distinct term.  TFD (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As I say, I'm not sure that's the case, as evidenced, no less, by much of this talk page. Imagine coming across the description in some text, without much context, of John Smith as a "right-wing socialist". Without knowing much about the politics of who is using that description, or of John Smith himself, it's hard to say what is being said. I discovered this myself when scouting for more sources via Google. I'm pretty clued about politics generally, and the various uses and meanings of the term, but it often wasn't immediately clear for example from the initial Google excerpts which one was being applied in each case. If people don't have a clue to start with, and - god forbid - come to WP looking for clarification, they'll more or less be told that John Smith must be a statist conservative. When used to refer to moderate socialism, I do think the construction is a little more complex and worthy of note and explanation than say "rich" or "tall" socialists, where the qualifier is totally unrelated to political categorisation and does not create a genuine sub-category.  N-HH   talk / edits  13:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide an example. TFD (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Example of what? There are plenty of examples of the term "right-wing socialist/m" being used with that meaning. I'm not sure any of us could provide a source confirming, or denying, that it's a discrete categorisation or term when used with that specific sense if that's what you're after - that's a matter of semantic analysis and subjective judgment up to a point. As I said previously though, I'd be interested to see how serious political encyclopedias and dictionaries define the term, if at all, which would give us a pointer as to how to deal with it. As I say, I see your point but I'm not sure it holds. My argument is that "right-wing socialism" does have a meaning analogous to "municipal socialism", or by contrast "revolutionary socialism" etc, which is in fact, in the UK at least, far more common than fringe libertarian mumblings about conservative crypto-socialists.  N-HH   talk / edits  13:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What I meant was it should be clear to the reader what the writer means when they modify the term socialist with right-wing. I am asking for an example where it is not.  For example, if someone reads that the Japanese Socialist Party split into two factions and then calls one of them the right-wing socialists, the reader should understand what is meant.  It would not help them to come here and learn that in Rothbard's essay, he calls statist socialists in the tradition of Lasalle rw socialists, or that in the US it referred to the faction led by Hillquit.  TFD (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know how I can give an example that would be, in an objective and unimpeachable sense, "unclear" (or conversely "clear"). Whether something merely should be clear or actually is clear is very much in the eye of the reader surely - if someone doesn't know what something means or refers to, or is unfamiliar with the context as presented, it's unclear to that person; if someone knows lots about the terminology and lots about the topic, it's clear to them. The point of having entries here is to explain things or offer more details on them, for example precisely through examples of the sort you've quoted there, for those among us who might want to know more. By contrast, as I said above, what would surely not be helpful would be to exclude such details and suggest that the term only has one clear use. The wider problem here of course is that we both agree all this info would be far better not presented this way anyway, so in a sense we're left debating least-worst options rather than the genuinely best way to deal with all this ..  N-HH   talk / edits  14:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Split tag
Fine N-HH. If you want to split the article then please split it. Op47 (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see discussion above as to why, as ever, things are not quite as simple as that. Drive-by untagging can be as unconstructive and unhelpful as drive-by tagging, let alone when compared to tags that are there for good reason and after much debate. Plenty of people want to split the article, including its creator – who was the person who added the tag in the first place btw, not me – but there is disagreement as to how, plus an unreasonable watching veto on pretty much any changes to anything. And as a general rule people who add tags, or who support their retention, are under no strict obligation to do the solving. Flagging a problem and highlighting an ongoing talk page discussion is a legitimate part of the solution to any problem. The rules are not "do everything immediately as one individual editor or do nothing".  N-HH   talk / edits  00:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

George Orwell
Needs to be a discussion of the fact that George Orwell used the term "Right-wing Socialist in 'Spilling the Spanish Beans' in the New English Weekly 29 July and 2 September 1937. So he predates de Soto on the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladymisskt (talk • contribs) 06:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

As said before, I wrote this article which I now see as dumb, with no coherent topic, DELETE IT, move relevant topics into their own articles
The intro speaks for itself, I made a stupid, STUPID, mistake in creating this worthless article. Now do I have to be blamed for all eternity for creating it, when I, the author of this crap, am IMPLORING you to delete it because it was a mistake.--R-41 (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish we could. Unfortunately, as noted above, a second AFD failed due to the usual "no-consensus" cop-out, thanks to a couple of drive-by "Keep, seems interesting"-type contributions and some more spirited defence from the page's no1 fan, User:Collect. Those of us who realise it's a bit of a dog's breakfast – in conception as well as execution – can't really agree on how to disentangle and refocus it; plus, since we dislike it, we're not that keen on investing time and energy in doing that (and Collect will veto any change anyway). Fancy taking it on yourself?!  N-HH   talk / edits  12:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not perfect but it is interesting and is better than there being no article on Right-Wing Socialism. LeapUK (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As I noted over three years ago, there are plenty of "seems interesting" approvals to be had. Whether there's a coherent encyclopedic topic here – potentially, let alone in its current form – is a slightly different point of course. Every political dictionary or work of political science I've ever seen, and even this article itself given the disparate themes it covers, suggests not, but what is that set against the random passing views of anonymous WP accounts?  N-HH   talk / edits  20:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Split article and form disambiguation page
Should this article be split up and reduced to a disambiguation page? Op47 (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Survey
Please do not put discussion in this section, but rather use the Threaded discussion section below.
 * Agree Disambiguate. TFD (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree WP is not a dictionary, but an encyclopedia. Articles should not be about words, but about concepts. If one word has different meanings, there should be a disambiguation. --RJFF (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree Too many topics smashed together into one article. APerson (talk!) 20:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, see below. Robofish (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree Many of these are disparate concepts with distinct meanings and intent and trying to describe them all in a single article is just confusing. BlueSalix (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree Per endless discussion above, please put this article out of its misery. A random mash-up of occasions, contexts and concepts in respect of which a random convergence of words happens to occur in each case does not make a coherent encyclopedia entry. Instead it should disambiguate and direct people to the specific and discrete concepts involved. N-HH (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose and note that those who opined at the AfD should really have been notified of this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Some reasoning or justification would perhaps be helpful, especially when others have made the effort. Feel free to set that out below. I'm not sure btw what obligation there is to notify previous contributors on this issue across various forums, whether any of their contributions made sense at the time or otherwise. N-HH (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The reasoning is the same as given at the AfD. Noting that this article as recently as February was 29K long, and was reduced by 25K by one seeking deletion. The topic is clearly notable, and was used as a term in the New York Times [1], [2] in Socialism, Economic Calculation and Entrepreneurship by Huerta de Soto - 2010, [3] African Socialism by Rosberg and Friedland, etc. Notable topic, even if those seeking deletion removed 90% of the original content, the remaining content is proper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Re-added on-point and sourced section on conservative socialism", noting this is not related to "fascism" in any event. Collect (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)  I trust iterating stuff pleases you.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Shelley Christian, writing in the NYT in 1990, said that Peron "installed a sort of right-wing socialism in Argentina.... It combined generous Government welfare programs and a large economic role for the state with religious conservatism and respect for private property. I.I. Potekhin, writing in 1990, used the description "right-wing" to distinguish the socialism of the Socialist Party of France from Communism. (p. 108)  De Soto used the term "right-wing socialism" to describe mainstream conservatives, to distinguish them from left-wing socialists, such as the Socialist Party of France, or Peronism (p. 79).  Each writer is referring to something different.  TFD (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And what about the thousand and one+ different "definitions" for "right wing" in the first place?  Many articles refer to different concepts for related topics, and this article ought be no different.  Unless, of course, you can provide me with the elusive "one size fits all" definition of "right wing"?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I recommended deleting that article and nominated "Centre-right" for deletion and do not vote to keep this article just to make a point. However, at least those are actual terms that can be found in dictionaries.  TFD (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, this discussion should be taking place in the section below, but if you still don't understand that, for all its diffuseness as an umbrella term and for all the debate about what it might exactly mean and how it might precisely be applied, the discrete term "right wing" is nevertheless understood, for all its flaws, as a standard description in political taxonomy, as TFD suggests, whereas the randomly composite phrase we have here is not – as a matter of basic syntax and broader English language comprehension rather than of political definition – there is nothing much more that can be done to help you. N-HH (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - There's lots of disparate threads here. I was reading only today about the spread of National Bolshevism; there are lots of different right-wing movements that are socialist in name, heritage, or even function - even if we generally agree that most socialism is not right-wing, and most right-wingers not socialist. Let's point people to the specific articles rather than create a false synthesis. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose this article would fall into the category of Summary style articles. Therefore we should avoid unnecessary splits per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Also, the subject of this RFC "should this article be reduced to a disambiguation page" is tantamount to deletion and should be at an AfD, since AfDs often result in pages made into redirects to disambig pages. --Nug (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose What appears to be a runaround from the AFD. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Disambiguate. Too much of a hodgepodge of disparate concepts to be a coherent article. WP:NAD.--JayJasper (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Nug. WP:AVOIDSPLIT Capitalismojo (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the guidance of WP:CONCEPTDAB, "If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing the broad concept, and not a disambiguation page. ... A disambiguation page should not be created just because it is difficult to write an article on a topic that is broad, vague, abstract, or highly conceptual.". Warden (talk) 08:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But it isn't. That's precisely the point. N-HH (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually he is correct and you are getting tendentious in attacking everyone who happens to disagree with your position -- De gustibus non est disputandum is a good rule to follow, as your challenges to everyone else are quite unlikely to convince then that you are the only person capable of "intellectual rigour" as you so amusingly call your position. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Having originally been neutral, I am now persuaded that this article should be split per WP:DAB. This article is an incoherent bag of unrelated (except by name) concepts (connected only by a label used by politicians when they have an idea that doesn't fall into one of the more usual pots). Splitting won't be easy, but it will be worth it to de-muddle this article. Op47 (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:DAB applies to single terms:
 * "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous".
 * "Right-wing socialism" is a concept, so WP:CONCEPTDAB applies:
 * "If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing the broad concept, and not a disambiguation page".
 * --Nug (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
The article is about all the ways the term has been used. The definition in the lead is from a U.S. libertarian writer, who defines "right-wing socialism" as the "socialism" of the mainstream Republican Party in the U.S. Hence George W. Bush was a "right-wing socialist." Then it talks about Bismarck's conservative government and fascism. TFD (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Having just come across this article, I found it very interesting, and I think it's worth keeping. True, the subject is a bit vague - there are various different movements and ideas that have been characterised at times as 'right-wing socialism'/'conservative socialism'. But even so, I think there's something to be gained from considering these different ideas in one article, rather than turning it into a disambiguation page. A dab page is a very crude device, and would likely lead to arguments over what items exactly should be listed on it. An article allows for text and explanation, and considering the history of the concept of 'right-wing socialism', rather than just listing alleged examples of it. Robofish (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If that is what you think, then you should post your opinion at the talk page of WP:DISAMBIG, because this guideline says that each subject should have a separate article. TFD (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Since apparantly (contrary to WP:RFC and WP:ANRFC) I am not good enough to close this RfC, I have notified WP:ANRFC to request closure. Op47 (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Again oppose any non-admin closure contrary to AfD criteria and procedures - one does not use a backdoor to gain what was not accepted at AfD. If you wish to delete an article which had been kept at AfD, the procedure is to nominate it at AfD. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Note both prior AfDs had substantially more participation than this RfC had - and those who opined "keep" (or "delete") in the past were given no notification of this RfC - the proper venue for a third AfD is ... AfD. BTW, "4 to 2" does not qualify as a hell of a "consensus" as far as any math courses I ever had. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

All, please be advised that I have reported the repeated interference with closing this RfC to ANI. Thankyou. Op47 (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to concur with Collect that this page should not be replaced using the RfC process after failing an AfD. I think that Collect is concerned that closing now immediately following the last poll would result in a "mini-AfD" which is why there is resistance to close this. I would also like to add that I like N-HH's overall idea of a breakdown of examples of terms (and outbound links where appropriate). However, I think a blank disambiguation page would not do the topic justice. Many of the complaints I have seen here are complaints that could be applied to any brief summary of political ideas. The term means different things to different people. Definitions are sometimes contradictory (De Soto et al), while others use the term as if it were an every day turn of phrase (NYT). Because this is a political term, many prominent sources are political tracts and works of philosophy that are not NPOV (Rothbard). It is not an actual political party and few self identify using the term without further clarification. I could make these same arguments for the word "liberal" for example. None of these are sufficient arguments IMO for exclusion.
 * In the interest of moving on to bigger and better things, lets save our AfD battles for the articles that are truly Wiki-cancer; the long-winded fan fiction summaries, the D list porn actor bios and free ad space. G-d knows I see more of those then I see articles like this. I'm happy to help invest some time into this piece but want to work on a bit of a clearer consensus and see how this pans out before making any changes. Just know if you're not interested in working on this article there are others who will. Thanks Jaydubya93 (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The broad conclusion among the uninvolved commenting at ANI appears to be that this sort of "split and disambiguate" proposal is not appropriate for AFD and would indeed probably be shut down there anyway. So, can we drop the "wrong process" tangent and come back to the substantive issue in this forum rather than wasting even more time somewhere else as well? If necessary, we can notify all those who commented at the last AFD, as suggested in the ANI thread.


 * Also, of course, that slightly negates the latest "Oppose RFC proposal as it should be via AFD" comments above. If possible, actual observations focused on why this page is not a rather glaring synthesis of totally random topics that would be better off pointing people to the actual pages on those discrete topics rather than utterly misleading them that there is some acknowledged connection between them all would help. N-HH (talk) 10:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Topics related by using the same terminology, even if disparate in views of philosophers, generally end up in one reasonably sized article than in eighteen stubs. In fact, each stub would then be a candidate for "merge" or "deletion" at AfD I am sure ... if this article were unwieldy in size you would have a stronger case, but are you averring here that you would not seek to delete the future stubs? I find creation of a buncha stubs to be far more of a problem than the current article length. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this article would fall into the category of Summary style articles. Therefore we should avoid unnecessary splits per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. --Nug (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * AVOIDSPLIT is totally irrelevant here. It is about the needless creation of new sub-pages, which may well be merely stubs, on non-notable aspects of the main topic where a page exists on that main topic. Here, there is no coherent main topic and the substantive "sub-pages" already exist (eg Social Democracy, Fascism, Bismarck, Peronism, Oswald Spengler etc) – ie those very pages and topics out of which this bizarre synthesis has been constructed. N-HH (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Never the less, this article remains a Summary style article that would point to those other sub pages. --Nug (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal
Conservative or right-wing socialism[1][2] has been defined at various times and places as applying to different groups, just as the terms "right wing" and "socialism" have been treated in different ways in different times and places.

One of the current usages was set by Jesús Huerta de Soto, examining a type of socialism in which institutional aggression is employed to maintain the social status quo and the privileges certain people or groups of people enjoy.[3] (This would be first subsection)

It has also been used by right-wing movements and politicians who promote social solidarity and paternalism rather than individualism, commercialism, and laissez-faire economics.[4][5] In those examples, the basic purpose of “right-wing socialism" is to maintain the status quo by restricting entrepreneurship and creative human action from disrupting the pre-established framework of social organization.[3] It supports social hierarchy and certain people and groups to hold higher status in such a hierarchy.[4] (examples of such - including Peronism etc. would belong here)

In other cases it represents a deliberate fusion of Marxism-Leninism and a social democratic type of socialism. (Japan and other examples which clearly represent such a fusion here)

''Other movements which called themselves "socialist" but which show attributes similar to military socialism, guild socialism, agrarian socialism, and religious socialism (covering a slew of topics including the Amana one) have been called "right-wing socialism." Murray Rothbard called Bismarckism, fascism and Nazism examples of combinations of conservatism with socialism.[2]''

Note this prevents lots of "stubs" littering Wikipedia and, I trust, breaks the broader topic and usage into four fairly well-defined subsections instead of 17 or 18 stubs. It retains the current material in what I consider a rational progression, and comment on which is invited. The remaining sections would then be arranged in the order suggested by this proposal for the lead. Collect (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support, per WP:SS. --Nug (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you be kind enough to clarify, WP:SS refers the the summaries that are left when you split off a section of an article. Did you mean WP:LEAD perhaps? Op47 (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Invented narrative and random mash-up which still seeks to link these disparate concepts, while not only suggesting but explicitly claiming – utterly incorrectly – that the term is no less coherent that "right wing" or "socialism" on its own. And as noted above, there is no risk of stubs littering WP because these "sub-pages" already exist for the most part, since those are the discrete topics at hand. N-HH (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose SS does not apply, but DISAMBIG does, assuming there are any topics that warrant articles. TFD (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:DISAMBIG applies to terms, not concepts. Clearly is "Right-wing socialism" is a concept with varied application, and it is useful to summarise those applications. Therefore WP:SS applies. --Nug (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No. For example it can mean the right-wing of socialism (e.g., the British Labour Party), or right-wingers who have socialist views, e.g., the UK Conservative Party.  The source that calls Conservatives right-wing socialists calls Labour left-wing socialists.  Different topics.  TFD (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You have a reliable source that states it can mean "the right-wing of socialism" or "right-wingers who have socialist views"? --Nug (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you do not think there are sources for this article, may I ask why you are defending it? Only one source provided gives a definition, that is De Soto's book.  It is rs for what De Soto wrote.  Collect has kindly provided examples above (22:45, 12 February 2014).  In the English language, it is always possible to modify a political term with the adjective "right-wing", and the meaning is understood by context.  Hence English dictionaries do not list every possible combination of adjectives and nouns.  We understand that a "green card" is a card that is green, unless it is a distinct concept, in which case it has its own dictionary entry.  Otherwise, although different English speakers may be referring to different shades of green or types of cards, they do not create a distinct concept each time they speak but are understandable according to context. TFD (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Collect's proposal appears to be well sourced, I meant do you have any sources supporting your specific claims? . --Nug (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume you're not seriously asking for sources for simple logical argument or for explanation of basic English language construction when it comes to composite terms. I hope you're not disputing them either. If you want them for the specific points you raise, you could, er, just read the article you've suddenly taken to doggedly defending and which you assert is "well sourced". As for that claim, that's precisely why the disputes around this page are so intractable. Most things in the current page, and in any proposed superficial rewrite of it, may be sourced individually but the problem is that no source connects all the disparate concepts and different uses of the composite term set out in it. Do you or Collect – or anyone else supporting the page – have any? Can you point to any dictionary of political terms that identifies an overarching coherent concept here? To stick with the green, would you support the existence of a page called "Green fascism", which covered everything including fascists who had incorporated environmentalism into their philosophy, greens with genuine fascist tendencies, fascists in Ireland and the polemical use of the term to oppose environmentalism while pretending it was all the same, broad topic? N-HH (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Um -- would you claim that the Rightwing article refers to a single well-defined concept - where it is obvious that it is an amorphous term in the first place? Many articles on Wikipedia contain multiple sections, and that is not a problem in those articles.  For fun, tell me Philosophy does not contain a wide group of quite disparate topics.  How many examples are needed?    Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY: "Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article. If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated)."

If you think other articles should be deleted or disambiguated, please discuss on their talk pages, rather than disrupting this article to make a point.

TFD (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And I suggest that the term's uses bear enough in common to be sections within an article.   As for your failure to assume good faith, I should mark that down to your inexperience online -- as I made no "point" and simply am following normal Wikipedia policies and practices.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In answer to the question above, yes, "right-wing", like many other such terms, is a relatively fuzzy and arguably imprecise simple term, which can cover a sometimes varying range of things. Philosophy too covers a broad range of disciplines. We all know that. However, that is not the point. "Right-wing" is, despite that, and as constantly noted already, on its own a common and standard term of art in political analysis. You will find it defined in political dictionaries and encyclopedias, however broadly (just as you will find "Philosophy" defined in equivalent publications). "Right-wing socialism" by contrast is not just a broad and imprecise description but a composite term which covers wholly disparate notions by virtue of its lexical/grammatical construction alone, before we even get into the actual politics. Could you have the courtesy and intellectual rigour to now answer the questions I addressed to you above? For example, can you point us all to a source which offers a central, coherent definition of this term or connects the disparate uses of it (as opposed to sources which randomly apply it to those discrete concepts)? N-HH (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OTOH can you accept that others happen to disagree with your position and that your request is tendentious at this point and has absolutely nothing to do with intellectual rigour?  De gustibus applies. I find your mode of discussion to be more aimed at making personal attacks than at acceptance of the views of others at this point. Collect (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, asking someone to apply some rigour to their thinking presupposes – perhaps naively, it would now seem – that they are capable of doing so, so I don't quite see the personal attack involved in that request. And if asking totally reasonable questions in the first place is "tendentious", I wonder what that makes repeatedly avoiding them (while at the same time insisting that people answer yours in return, even when they've already been answered, and suggesting that basic logic and comprehension is a matter of personal "taste"). If the position you and others are maintaining is defensible, even if only as a legitimate subjective opinion, I am sure answers and references justifying those answers can be found and given. N-HH (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There you go again.   Comment on the points made, not your suggestion that anyone and everyone who disagrees has no "intellectual rigour" and their opinions are not "defensible" in your view.   Everyone's views are "defensible" in my own opinion, and I find your stated position to be quite contrary to the ideals of WP:CONSENSUS  Allow for the fact that different opinions exist, that you hold no copyright on the "truth" and that the statements here by each editor are made in good faith for the good of the encyclopedia.  Otherwise, your screeds are not doing anyone any good whatsoever -- least of all the strengths of your own arguments.  Have a gallon or two of tea, please. Collect (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Socially conservative and economically socialist
I think rightwing socialism is an idea for people who are socially conservative and economically socialist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guntaelgordo (talk • contribs) 15:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

American-centric
There are Conservative/Right-Wing parties around the world which advocate government spending (socialism) in Germany,France, Singapore, Japan etc. Any government spending is Socialism, well then Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan were socialists. Bismarck created the first welfare state.

Right-wing socialism vs Paternalistic conservatism
There is no such concept as Right-wing socialism, there are however different forms/meanings of conservatism. There's statists/authoritarians on both the right and left and anarchists on both right and left. Jesús Huerta de Soto, the author of some of the sources is writing from an Austrian/Libertarian point of view, whereby any state intervention is regarded as socialism. This is an mainly an American point of view as American conservatism has it's roots in classical liberalism, conservatism has different meanings in different countries - there many strains of conservatism that advocate support for paternalism and social solidarity rather than individualism, commercialism and laissez-faire economics which ironically called liberalism/neo-liberalism in many countries and is espoused by Libertarians/classical liberals rather than conservatives. FalconKnight88 04:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Great job
Congratulations to whoever deleted the "Right-wing socialism" article and redirected it here. You eliminated a valuable resource from Wikipedia, replaced it with a redirect to a tangentially-related idea, and have successfully helped obscure a valuable side-chapter in the history of socialism. Congratulations. The concept of conservatives and traditionalists adopting socialist economic values and models to their old needs goes back to the 19th century (potentially earlier), with a wide variety of roots from Rodbertus to Lueger to Bismarck to Naumann to Sorel to the grassroots ethnic-German trade unions of the Austrian Empire... right through to Moeller van den Bruck, Jung, Junger, Zehrer, Spengler, the pro-War Social Democrats, the early Australian Labor Party, and the variety of fascist movements. This article is a very poor alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.18.252 (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more with this. The best I could find was a 2015 Archived capture of the page, http://archive.is/BIh4G But whoever decided to just delete an article and redirect it to something that's vaguely similar (and has less content than the origin) which is on the verge of deletion, has pretty much obstructed and censored a really important realm of Socialist theory. I wouldn't call it book burning, but... J4l0rz (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. the User:FalconKnight88 seems to have unilaterally decided that "there is no such thing" as right-wing socialism, so he invented a new term that is even more crazy than "right wing socialism" could possibly be. Besides, a quick Google search in Books shows far more academic sources backing the term "Right-wing socialism" than "Paternalistic conservatism". He also unilaterally removed sourced information and left other without a clear explanation for his "selection". The article should be restored to its former state as soon as possible. NickOakley (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem is that there was not a body of literature supporting the article and as a result it was a collection of ways in which the term was used: to describe paternalistic conservatism (such as Bismarck) or the right-wing of socialist parties (such as pro-War Social Democrats), right-wing groups that used the term socialist in their names (such as Nazis), and even mainstream U.S. Republicans who are considered to be socialists by Libertarians.  In order to support an article, you need a source that ties all these seemingly unrelated topics together.  TFD (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Then the same applies to "Paternalistic conservatism". Or else why is, say, Perón under the category "paternalistic conservatism"? which sources do you have to back it? Besides, it seems like it has been discussed before, and no consensus was reached. Previous statu quo should have been maintained, or at least discussion promoted once again instead of acting unilaterally.NickOakley (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Paternalistic conservatism is a topic that exists in sources. For example, Political Ideologies: An Introduction has a section on it which you can read here (pp. 34-36.)  You would need to show that polisci texts have sections on rw socialism.  I don't know why Peronism is included, it probably was part of the article before it was moved.  I don't really think they are in the tradition of Disraeli and Churchill.  TFD (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Then let's remove it from there (I mean peronism). I can't do it because it's sourced material and I'm not an authenticated user yet (PD:wait, there I could do it.). On the other issue, it seems you are right, I could find no corpus of material other than libertarians.NickOakley (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Right-wing socialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706083051/http://bibliotecavirtual.unl.edu.ar:8180/publicaciones/bitstream/1/681/1/ES_9_17_1999_pag_91_109.pdf to http://bibliotecavirtual.unl.edu.ar:8180/publicaciones/bitstream/1/681/1/ES_9_17_1999_pag_91_109.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)