Talk:Right-wing politics/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Enough of cheap emotional sophistry, present sources to back up your claims or that clearly describe what right-wing means or get off the talk page

I provided two scholarly sources for the intro that have been removed from the intro that describe right-wing politics as accepting social hierarchy on the basis of natural law and tradition. There was no real problem identified with those two sources. Those sources were removed based on violation of Wikipedia's policies on Wikipedia:I just don't like it and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. For people complaining here, stop the cheap angry sophistry - no one cares about listening to a sophist like Thrasymachus here, either present sources that clearly define what right-wing politics means that can account for the variations in the right, or stop wasting your time and others on this talk page. Get sources, discuss, and DON'T use emotional Thrasymachist sophistry.--R-41 (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Just so that it is not forgotten here, I am re-adding the quote originally added by the user LittleJerry, in response to those who claim that claims that the contemporary libertarian right being labelled as hierarchical is misleading. LittleJerry added this pertinent quote by the scholar Gary Hull who supports Ayn Rand's Objectivism - that is described as a right-wing libertarian movement: "Talent and ability create inequality... To rectify this supposed injustice, we are told to sacrifice the able to the unable. Egalitarianism demands the punishment and envy of anyone who is better than someone else at anything. We must tear down the competent and the strong -- raze them to the level of the incompetent and the weak.." - Gary Hull, PhD., "Egalitarianism: The New Torture Rack", Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, 23 April 2000 [1].--R-41 (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example from Ayn Rand herself: "Since nature does not endow all men with equal beauty or equal intelligence, and the faculty of volition leads men to different choices, the egalitarians propose to abolish the "unfairness" of nature and of volition, and to establish universal equality in fact—in defiance of facts." - Ayn Rand, from The Ayn Rand reader (Plume Book, 1999) [2]. She goes on to say that egalitarians’ goal really requires inequality and "the establishment of an inverted social pyramid, with a new aristocracy on top". To be clear, Ayn Rand like most libertarians believes in equality of opportunity as an individual right - but she does not believe in equality as a "fact", that egalitarians' goal does not achieve equality, and that natural hierarchies exist and cannot be levelled.--R-41 (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is American conservative Russell Kirk: "In short, I have been arguing that it is profoundly unjust to endeavor to transform society into a table land of equality. It would be unjust to the energetic, reduced to equality with the clack and indolent; it would be unjust to the thrift, compelled to make up losses of the profligate; it would be unjust to those take the long view, forced to submit to the domination of a majority interested chiefly in short-run results" - Russel Kirk, Redeeming the Time (1996), page 217.. The quote is available from the Objectivist website that LittleJerry posted earlier, this is the link [3].--R-41 (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are three sources, in addition to the Buckley quote: ^ Allitt, Patrick. The Conservatives: Ideas and Personalities Throughout American History (2009), chapter 6 ^ James T. Patterson, "A Conservative Coalition Forms in Congress, 1933–1939," The Journal of American History, Vol. 52, No. 4. (Mar., 1966), pp. 757–772. in JSTOR ^ Rothbard, Murray. Swan Song of the Old Right, Mises Institute — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.125.176.118 (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

We are not getting anywhere with this. We need sources that discuss the right, not just quotes from people we think are right-wing. TFD (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

And why the focus on US conservatives? LittleJerry (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see whats wrong with the Smith and Tatalovich source. They seem to be pretty knowledgeable of the literature on political movements. Moreso then any of us. Can we at least argee to put in something like "contemporary sociologists define right-wing movements as movements that seek to preserve a heirarchally structured society." LittleJerry (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, as long as we say that political scientists and economists do not share this view of the Right in the Anglosphere, and instead link the right to economic freedom, as the three sources BESIDES the Buckley quote I have cited above illustrate. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Saying something over and over is not evidence. If what you say were true, Ron Paul would be called the right-wing candidate in the Republican primary. Instead, Rick Santorum is called the right-wing candidate. Your Humpty-Dumpty attitude toward words neither advances your own cause nor helps improve this article. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The heirarchy defintion does apply to the Anglosphere, read the qoutes by Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbord and others. Rightists and Leftists have different ideas on "economic freedom". Right-libertarians believe that a free society requires heirarchy while left-libertarians believe the opposite. LittleJerry (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Can everyone please follow my advice, this is a controversial topic - so provide sources for all of your claims made in all of your posts and quote the specific material you are referring to - we don't know what you are talking about unless you quote it. Do not engage in sophistry here.--R-41 (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, R-41. LittleJerry: So, you would claim that Rick Santorum is called far-right becuase he is more in favor of economic freedom than, say, Ron Paul, and that his support for laws enforcing Roman Catholic beliefs on non-Catholics has nothing at all to do with him being called far-right by the press. "Too Far to the Right" The Week, March 2, 2012, cover story about Rick Santorum. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, let's just come to a consensus on whether the line citing Smith should or should not be included. If the minority keeps going against the consensus when the page is unlocked, then they can reported for edit warring. LittleJerry (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's get back on the topic - sources. The definition that held up for a long time until a dispute started, said on the basis of two reliable sources, that right-wing politics involves the acceptance of social hierarchy on the basis of natural law or tradition. Now there have been people who disagree with this definition - so what is an alternative definition? And what are the sources? Secondly, beware of falling into the cultural relativist trap of "oh this meant something completely different in 18?? and now it means this since 19??" - because the obvious question in response is why then do we call it the same thing? There must be some consistency. And that's where I want the discussion to centre on - if you disagree that right-wing is based on acceptance of hierarchy, then what is the basis of right-wing that encapsulates the wide variations on the right from the absolutists like Joseph De Maistre to the right-wing libertarians like Ayn Rand? Just present sources and summarize an alternative definition based on them. DO NOT use emotional sophistry, there's been enough of that worthless crap on this talk page.--R-41 (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, use scholarly secondary sources that actually attempt to define "right-wing". Don't just say "politican/philospher X says this therefore right-wing means this." Thats original research. Right and Left are not ideologies but labels to describe tendencies in ideologies. They are verbs not nouns. LittleJerry (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that scholarly secondary sources are what should be used for the article. However for the discussion, if you have a primary source that clearly and completely challenges what a user has claimed, you may briefly quote it - but we cannot use it - but we may be able to triangulate finding secondary sources from its material, but that's about it from primary sources. If you are reading from here, please take note what I said just above LittleJerry's comment.--R-41 (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

People like Santorum and Rand were called "right-wing" because observers, beginning with the Frankfurt School, saw similarities in their ideologies to fascism. They have no historical connection to the historic Right. Whether or not they are truly right-wing is contentious. A lot of political terms that had specific meanings, and still do in serious writing, are used today in a very sloppy fashion. I would put in the article that Rand etc. have been called right-wing and explain why. But it would be POV to describe them as right-wing without academic consensus. Metternich, the French "ultraroyalists", Bismarck, Petain and Franco were all right-wing, as are their successors. Rand etc. do not derive from that tradition, but from democratic left-liberalism. TFD (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

At some point this article will reopen for editing. It would be nice to make some progress in preparation for that. The chief bone of contention seems to be, in Falconclaw5000's words, the claim that "political scientists and economists do not share this view of the Right in the Anglosphere, and instead link the right to economic freedom". The opposing claim is that some writers use "right-wing" to mean laissez-faire capitalism but others use it to mean support for the upper-class and the church, and some (even in the "Anglosphere") use it to mean support for dictatorship, racism, and extereme nationalism. Falconclaw5000, you have been repeatedly challenged to provide even one reliable source that supports your claim that "in the Anglosphere" the only meaning of right-wing is support for economic freedom, and that no serious political scientists nor economists in the Anglosphere "share this view" that right-wing is commonly used to describe support of social hierarchy. Also, the editors who want to remove the two major deleted paragraphs should address the fact that this article is about right-wing worldwide, and also the fact that Toronto, Oxford, NPR, the BBC and the Department of Homeland Security are all in the "Anglosphere".

Deleted quote number one: Generally, they refer to acceptance or support of a hierarchical society based upon social order that is justified by an appeal to natural law or tradition.(ref)Smith, T. Alexander and Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at War: Moral Conflicts in Western Democracies (Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd., 2003) pp. 30. "That viewpoint is held by contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality or political participation.' In other words, the sociological perspective sees preservationist politics as a right-wing attempt to defend privilege within the social hierarchy.(endref)

Deleted quote number two: The far right supports supremacy of individuals or groups deemed to be innately superior over those deemed to be innately inferior.(ref)Oliver H. Woshinsky. Explaining Politics: Culture, Institutions, and Political Behavior. Oxon, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Routledge, 2008.Pp. 154.(endref) The BBC has called politician Pim Fortuyn's politics (Fortuynism) far right because of his policies on immigration and Muslims.(ref)Pim Fortuyn: The far-right Dutch maverick, BBC</ref> The term far right has been used by some, such as National Public Radio, to describe the rule of Augusto Pinochet in Chile.(ref)"A Dictator's Legacy of Economic Growth". 2006-09-14. Retrieved 2007-10-15.</ref>^[1] The US Department of Homeland Security defines right-wing extremism as hate groups who target racial, ethnic or religious minorities and may be dedicated to a single issue, such as eradicating homosexuals or barring the immigration of Hispanics.(ref)[http://wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf Rightwing Extremism: current economic and political climate fueling resurgence in radicalization and recruitment](endref)

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion to the bottom, so that users are aware that it is still open and . Two users - me and TFD opposed the long post by ERIDU DREAMING - it was a long soapbox of his own opinion with little to no sources and quotes of them and no intention for open discussion. ERIDU DREAMING is welcome to briefly post scholarly sources for a concise and brief definition of right-wing politics. Now then, back to the sources issue. Present sources here - not long-winded unsourced personal arguments, nor emotional sophistry - for the definition of right-wing politics. I presented two scholarly sources from the intro that stated that right-wing politics involves the acceptance of social hierarchy based on natural law or tradition, these were removed because some users opposed them, those users who oppose this definition need to present an alternative definition based upon scholarly sources that can account for the diverse variation of right-wing politics from the absolutists of Joseph de Maistre to the right-wing libertarianism of Ayn Rand.--R-41 (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

SPOT THE SOPHISTRY

Claim 1)

SOME people define Right-Wing as an ideology that seeks to preserve privilege within a traditional social hierarchy, As evidence for this SOME sociologists are quoted who defend this view. Right-Wing therefore GENERALLY means acceptance or support of a hierarchical society based upon social order justified by an appeal to natural law or tradition

VERDICT – The claim is false. Right-Wing is ALSO used to mean Classical Liberalism i.e. opposition to the notion that a political elite (on the grounds of an appeal to some grounds of authority - political or traditional) should be given the power (via the agency of the State) to tell people how they should live their lives.

Claim 2)

Thrasymachus argued that the strong should rule, indeed rightness and wrongness is nothing more than the views of whoever happens to be the strongest. This is false. A (Right supporting?) minority that keeps going against the consensus on a Wikipedia page when it is unlocked should be reported for edit warring. Whoever the stronger (in this case a numerical majority of Leftists - such as the Far Left The Four Deuces, the manifestly Left of centre Rick Norwood, plus moderate Leftists such as R-41 and Little Jerry) should decide what Right-Wing means. It may be the case that this majority are all Leftists, and it may be the case that many of the sources they rely upon (such as Bobbio, Eatwell, and Seymour Martin Lipset) are Leftist, but this is irrelevant, because they are in the majority and therefore correct.

VERDICT – It is claimed that those who are objecting to the definition which is accepted by the majority are behaving like Thrasymachus, and yet, if anything, the opposite is the case. Any evidence which supports the claim that some on the Right are Classical Liberals is ignored.

Claim 3)

Defining Right-Wing as an ideology dedicated to preserving privilege within a traditional social hierarchy is supported by sources, and nobody has provided sources which support the claim that Right-Wing also means Classical Liberal. If they cannot be "re-educated" they should therefore be ignored, deleted, and if they revert the text, banned.

VERDICT – False. Sources have been provided. For example the Oxford sociologist Stephen Fisher is cited. In The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics he points out that Right-Wing also has the meaning Classical Liberal.

Claim 4)

An ideology dedicated to preserving privilege within a traditional social hierarchy justified by an appeal to tradition or natural law means the same as being opposed to egalitarianism. Classical Liberals are also opposed to egalitarian. Therefore saying that you are a Classical Liberalism is the same as saying that you are dedicated to preserving privilege within a traditional social hierarchy justified by an appeal to tradition or natural law.

VERDICT – This claim is false. Classical liberalism is a philosophy whose advocates are committed to limited government, rule of law, and individual and collective liberty, including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets. It does not follow that because somebody does not advocate egalitarianism (enforcing equality) that they are therefore advocating preserving privilege within a traditional social hierarchy justified by an appeal to tradition or natural law. A free society may dissolve traditional hierarchies, and it does not follow that if you are a classical liberal you must believe that natural law justifies a hierarchy, you may believe that it justifies the freedom to fail if you make the wrong decisions.

Claim 5)

The meaning of Right-Wing may have changed since the French Revolution (it is only relatively recently – say that last 100 years) that Right-Wing has been also been associated with those who seek defend liberty against traditional hierarchies, but we should retain the earlier meaning otherwise we fall into the cultural relativist trap of arguing that words can mean anything we want them to mean.

VERDICT – Words can change their meaning. The term Right-Wing is widely associated (particularly [but not exclusively] in the Anglosphere - whose conservatives [since at least Burke] are advocates of a tradition of liberty) with the belief that people have the freedom to take personal responsibility for their actions; with a free market offering incentives (especially for those who are not members of the [tax farming] political elite) to improve their standard of living by attempting to supply what people want rather than what the elite believes they should have.

For the Classical Liberals government should take a smaller proportion of what people earn, and politicians should focus on a few tasks, such as upholding the rule of law, and national security. They oppose socialism because it concentrates power and privilege in a political elite, which seek (on the grounds of an appeal to their superior virtue) to impose their views on everybody else. In a free society however people can opt to ignore the self-serving craving for power by politicians, who seek power by rewarding a client base with money taken from other taxpayers.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You have provided no sources for your opinions, and therefore your posting is a waste of time. TFD (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING, stop ranting and making universal "verdicts", provide scholarly sources for what you are saying and be open to debate. Since this section is only designed for promoting your personal opinion, this is a soapbox, I am shutting it down, and moving the pertinent discussion that I began on sources to the bottom, quote your sources there.--R-41 (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Since some of the points are a response to some of your arguments it is illogical to reverse the order! ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

"Whoever the stronger (in this case a numerical majority of Leftists - such as the Far Left The Four Deuces, the Republican hating Democrat Rick Norwood, plus moderate Leftists such as R-41 and Little Jerry) should decide what Right-Wing means" - statement by ERIDU-DREAMING - this is very uncivil and is supposing that we are all conspiring against the right. - I have right-wing friends, on the issue of capital punishment I actually agree more with my right-wing friends then I do with my left-wing friends - I support the judicial execution of serial murderers and serial rapists, they are incurable and a constant threat to society. This section is only for promoting your personal opinion, it is uncivilly denouncing other users, this is in violation of WP:SOAP and WP:UNCIVIL, I am shutting it down. ERIDU, bring your pertinent sources to the section on the discussion of sources and be civil.--R-41 (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Rick Norwood if you read your own postings on this talk site you have made your political opinions VERY clear. If you say you do not hate Republicans fine. I take that back. I have changed the description to "Left of Centre". That you are on the Left politically is beyond dispute. I mean you are not disputing it are you.

Notice that you are being emotional with the explanation point, that is exactly what I advised users not to do - if you keep being emotional and posting nasty comments about other users like you did in the soapbox, I strongly suggest that you should take a break from Wikipedia before you seriously offend someone.--R-41 (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not being "emotional" I am merely pointing out the flaws in your argument. You can be emotional if you want to, but try to address the substance rather than making silly claims about me being "nasty" about you. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You can be emotional - I have been guilty of that at times in heated debate, it just wastes everyone's time and quickly leads to sophistry with people shouting each other down - an explanation point doesn't prove anything - all it demonstrates is passion - and passion proves nothing. Scholarly sources do. Also, don't edit my edits like you just did to cover up the uncivil comment you made about Rick Norwood when your removed from my comment about you calling him a "Republican hating Democrat", and very deceitfully impersonating me by replacing by editing my comment, and I will not accept an apology from you on that - that was extremely deceitful, manipulative, and a deliberate violation of my account by impersonating my user identity, I am considering reporting you for this.--R-41 (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

If I modified YOUR edit (?) that was an error. I said I was deleting my "Rick Norwood hates Republicans" comment and replacing it with he is Left of Centre. I have done this. For your information if you look above you will notice I explicitly say I take back my "Rick Norwood hates Republicans" comment. Now, how about addressing the substantive points? It seems to me that it is you (by hiding this section, moving it, accusing me of being emotional, and now accusing me of trying to deceitfully impersonate you!) who is failing to address the substantive points. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Never edit another user's comments, never. You originally said that Rick Norwood was a "Republican hating Democrat" at the time I posted it, you changed it after I criticized you for this uncivil post. That was a deliberate violation of my user identity, it has nothing in comparison to this soapbox here - users have the right to mark and minimize clear soapboxes - the content remains - this section is designed as a soapbox, it is uncivil towards left-wing users. You were using my user identity when you edited my comment - that is a serious violation bordering on manipulative deceitful behaviour. I don't have a problem with your views - you can provide sources and present them, but I am very frustrated with your violation of my user identity by impersonating me by editing my comment - no user has the right to edit another user's comment - what you did was unacceptable, how can I trust you if you edit my comments - how am I supposed to believe that you accidently edited my comment, you should be able to look for your own comment that was way above my comment - that's why I am considering taking action on this.--R-41 (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

How about addressing the substantive points? Just a suggestion. As for using your user identity I do not know what you are talking about, but if it happened it was clearly an accident since it does achieve anything does it? Again, why not get back to the contents of the article? ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable with a discussion about whether or not I am insulted. If I am insulted, I'll say so. I'm glad ERIDU-DREAMING realized his post was inappropriate and changed it. On the other hand, I strongly agree with R-41 that posts here should stick to cited sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU DREAMING, your comment was at the top of a long section - you edited it and my comment was near the bottom and very clearly being quoted by me. By changing both your comment and my comment on yours, it makes it look that I was complaining about nothing - I believe that was your intention - when in fact I was addressing your very uncivil original remark that you changed after I posted my comment on it. I strongly suggest you just admit that you violated my account by editing my comment, I am probably going to report this, it is a violation of my account - but you acknowledging it, either by saying that you were previously unaware that editing and changing other people's comments is unacceptable, or that you apologize for the rash behaviour, will certainly reduce the reprimand to a slap on the wrist. I am waiting for TFD's response for what should be done, in regards to your editing of my comment, now will you please accept shutting down this soapbox section that dismisses other users on the claim of them being left-wing, this section has caused nothing but trouble here. Reorganize your comments in a civil form and a brief form and present them on the section above with sources.--R-41 (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way I just noticed now that you also slandered TFD as "far-left", from my experience that is not true at all, I know TFD for years, me and him agree on some things and strongly disagree on others, but I can tell you he has been a regular contributor to the WikiProject Conservatism, and is very dedicated to Wikipedia's principles on neutrality and reliable sources - you made a very naive and stupid remark on your part to slander TFD, you is a respected administrator, but I won't hold that against you when I talk with TFD and I will ask him if he is in anyway frustrated with you - if so I will bring this up to another administrator to ask for advice.--R-41 (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU DREAMING, even if we can call classical liberalism "right-wing" how does that disprove the "heirarchy" defintion? Your explaination that classical liberals are for limited goverment and "opposed to an elite telling people what to" and therefore anti-hierarchy is such a superficial and hair-splitting analysis. US conservatives and libertarians are opposed to using goverment to mess with the hierarchical capitalist system to promote redistribution of wealth and economic egalitarianism. They are NOT opposed to heirarchy per say. There's more to a stratified society than just goverment. LittleJerry (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

And many conservatives and classical liberals support freedom of the press and such. So what. What does that have to do with heirarchy vs egalitarianism? Where does Fisher say that classical liberals are right-wing because they support such freedoms. Perhaps they are considered right-wing or centre-right because they are more accepting of a stratified society than social liberals (who also support the things you listed)?

LITTLE JERRY, thanks for addressing some specific points. You claim that advocacy of a hierarchical society, and hostility towards an egalitarian society, are SYNONYMOUS, but that is not the case.

It does not follow that IF you oppose egalitarianism (enforced equality) you MUST favour hierarchy justified by tradition or natural law. Adam Smith for example, who is generally viewed as a Classical Liberal, argued that human beings start off as a blank sheet i.e. that natural differences are not very significant.

You claim that if somebody is egalitarian in this sense, they cannot be Classical Liberals, they are Social Liberals. Now this is a view, but Adam Smith is generally viewed as a Classical Liberal. I mentioned Fisher because he includes Classical Liberalism in his definition of the Right. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

But in a society where some people can gain more wealth and power or achieve a higher social class than others, surely that means that society should have a hierarchical order. I'm not saying that all rightists believe that there should be some people above others, but at the very least believe that this should be allowed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There are some on the Right who were (and are) believers in natural hierarchy (De Maistre is an obvious example) who claim that the universe has a moral order, created by God. You may have free will but you also have a nature which is your destiny. People like Adam Smith were (correctly) viewed as radicals because he thought that order (in a free society) was the spontaneous product of various individual choices. You note that a free society may have the consequence (and almost certainly does have the consequence) that different choices have unequal outcomes. These outcomes may be entirely random, somebody discovers a gold mine, or they may be a product of hard work, you study geology for years before discovering a gold mine, or financial inequality, your father got rich because he discovered a gold mine and he enables you to pay other people to look for another gold mine, but that is not the same as asserting that inequality is justified by natural law. A Classical Liberal will defend it as a consequence of liberty. All I am saying is that Classical Liberalism (although it is inconsistent with a Throne and Altar conservatism which justifies inequality by appealing to a natural order) is also included as being part of the Right these days. Indeed when people use "Right-Wing" they are generally (although of course not always) taking about Classical Liberalism not De Maistre. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING, could you provide a source that supports your view. TFD (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Then I suggest that article state right generally means "support for social hierarchy (source Smith) or an acceptance of inequality among people (source Bobbio"). LittleJerry (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that is a definite improvement, although it is still misleading because people on the Right do not usually (although of course they do sometimes) say they are on the Right BECAUSE they believe in inequality (i.e. for people on the Right this is usually an odd way of putting it because although they ACCEPT (some degree of) inequality (or rather they OPPOSE attempts to IMPOSE egalitarianism) this is as a CONSEQUENCE of their other beliefs (i.e. moral realism [in its philosophical/religious sense] in the case of the conservative Right and freedom in the case of the liberal Right). To define the Right as anti-Left (anti-egalitarian) is to define them in terms of what they reject rather than what they believe. Of course you can (as Bobbio does) say that the Right believe in inequality, but that is not (usually) how the Right understand themselves. A Right Wing politician for example will say they believe in freedom (e.g. lower taxes) or moral standards (family values) but they will not usually say they are fighting for inequality. A Marxist of course will say that whatever they say this is what they are doing, that this is the real reason they went into politics, that their morality (for example) is just a justification for their power seeking, and a Socialist will say that if people are going to have freedom the State should redistribute wealth via taxes to poor people because poor people are less free than rich people. But we then go off into political arguments about which approach is best. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll try again: "They generally refer to support for social order (Smith), often including preserving social hierarchy or accepting inequality among people (BobbioLittleJerry (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes that is even better. How about "The Right generally support social order, be it inherited social hierarchy (Smith) or the inequality that results from free markets (Bobbio), and they justify it by invoking values grounded in local tradition and/or general divine/natural laws"? (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)).

Please do not add in things that are not mentioned in the sources. Smith does not mention "inherited hierarchies" and Bobbio does not use "free markets". LittleJerry (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. Added Roger Scruton as a source for the claim that Right-Wing can mean advocacy of free markets. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

introduction

"The political terms Right and Left were coined during the French Revolution, and were a reference to where people sat in the French parliament. Those who sat to the right of the president's chair were broadly supportive of the institutions of Ancien Régime: the monarchy, the aristocracy and the established church.[8][9][10][11] Use of the expression le droit (the right) became more prominent in France after the restoration of its monarchy in 1815, when it was applied to the Ultra-royalists.[12] Since then, the term has undergone a realignment. Although the term originally designated traditional conservatives and reactionaries, its usage has been extended to apply to liberal conservatives, classical liberals, libertarian conservatives, Christian democrats and certain types of nationalists."

wouldn't it be more logical for this paragraph to come first? or at least a similar paragraph explaining the origins. and why are there two narrow views given prominence in the first paragraph? given the depth of the subject, shouldn't these be detailed in the main body of the text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.167.179 (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that defining right-wing as hierarchical is not a narrow defintion at all. LittleJerry (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

As Marcel Gauchet pointed out in his article, "Right and Left", the terminology was not adopted until the beginning of the 20th century.[4] There is never a POV issue in calling groups that were right-wing in 1900 as right-wing today. The problem is with groups that were in the center, e.g., liberals.TFD (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Focus for resolution of dispute: only provide scholarly sources here - only for the definition of right-wing politics, no personal arguments, no emotional sophistry

Getting back on track here. In conclusion of observing other users comments and complaints about how these discussions have gone off the rails into uncivil behaviour - including personal attacks, and emotional sophistry of users shouting down each other, I am asking that users only provide here the following: scholarly sources on the definition of right-wing politics, provide a quotation from the text - if you don't we have no idea what the source is saying; and a very brief comment - one or two sentences explaining why the source should be used. With how badly these discussions have gone, there should be zero tolerance here for uncivil behaviour - no aggressive or condescending behaviour to other users, no personal attacks, and no emotional sophistry. If any user cannot simply control themselves from angry outbursts or condescending behaviour - then leave the talk page, such behaviour will not be appreciated and will likely result in administrative action.--R-41 (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, the term "right-wing" entered the language (both French and English) c. 1900 to describe the faction that sat on the right in the French assembly. Following the Second World War it was used by (left-wing) social scientists to describe groups they saw as fascist. These groups denied they were right-wing and no sane politicians today call themselves right-wing. TFD (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I object to the inclusion of only academic sources. This excludes many important sources, and it is quite well known that academia - especially the social sciences - are quite biased towards the Left. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Not just academics, but reporters, people who live in big cities, in short all well-informed people are "biased" toward the Left. That is because well-informed people can see that the right-wing media are a bunch of nut jobs -- I'm talking about Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and the like. The spokespeople for the Right, under the guidance of Carl Rove and Rupurt Murcoch, have as a matter of political strategy abandoned the principled conservatism of William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater, and adopted the idea that the voters they really want are the most extreme, and therefore the least well-informed: people who believe that Barack Obama is a Moslem born in Kenya, that a woman who gets brith-control paid for by medical insurance is a prostitute, and that all liberals are motivated by envy and hate.

This puts the Libertarians in a bind, because Libertarians are, generally, intellectuals. I suspect they are as disgusted by Limbaugh and company as the academics are. But, for better or worse, they have hitched their wagon to the far-Right star, and are desparately trying to remake the Right in their own image. It isn't working, witness the poor showing of Ron Paul in the primaries. He is clearly the best candidate in the race, the only intellectually honest candidate, and he gets less than 20% of the vote.

So, the idea that academics are "biased" against the Right won't fly. Academics disagree with the Right, because the Right (libertarians excepted) are so disagreeable. In any case, Wikipedia favors academic sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I fear your post indicates an appreciable bias here which may well be quite out of place in a talk page aimed at improving the article. Calling the person covered by the topic "nut jobs" seems quite improper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

If Fox News were so disagreeable, they wouldn't have the ratings they have. The same with Carl Rove and George W. Bush. GWB wouldn't be elected President twice if his main campagn architect were so out of touch with the general public. And regardless, the article must be neutral about the subject. - BorisG (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The following academic article documents strong left-wing media bias compared to the compostion of the US congress: Groseclose, Tim, and Jeffrey Milyo. 2005. "A Measure of Media Bias." Quarterly Journal of Economics 120(4): 1191-1237· - BorisG (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Falconclaw5000, then provide non-academic sources. But you need sources that explain how the term is defined. TFD (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Falconclaw5000 and Rick Norwood, both of your posts here are pure sophistry with no sources. It's nonsense that the academia is run by leftists, there are many conservative historians and neoliberal economists, why else would we have such prominent people like Milton Friedman. I suggest to Falconclaw5000 and Rick Norwood to put your partisan affiliations aside and provide sources, if you cannot to this and continue with moronic sophist statements as you have "duh left-wing is bad because of Stalin", "duh right-wing is bad because of Franco" - well duh Stalin and Franco were tyrants by anyone's definition - then leave the talk page and form a blog online where you can debate with each other, because you have nothing to contribute here.--R-41 (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

BorisG, could you read the article first before bringing it to our attention. The survey compared how often liberal and conservative thinktanks were mentioned as the measure of bias. Joe Liebermann was selected as a liberal and Arlen Specter as a conservative. The most left-wing medium was the Wall Street Journal, PBS Newshour the most neutral. "Bias" was defined as the types of stories covered, rather than any accuracy or bias in the stories covered. So Fox News would provide fewer stories about poverty in America, but when they did cover it, their reporting would be the same. And Fox News and Fox News Channel are not the same thing. FN is a reliable source, while some of their shows (just like their competitors) are hosted by people who are openly biased. TFD (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

TFD, thanks for the advice. I had read every word of that article before referring to it. I found it extremely interesting and thus referred to it now for the second time. Your description is not precise. They measure left-right position by counting how many times the news media outlets refer to findings of various think tanks. Think tanks are not supposed to be neutral, they are partisan and biased, and thus citation of their findings is a good proxy for political position of a news outlet. BTW in the preliminaries, the authors refer to previous studies of media and note that the New York Times reported that only 8 percent of Washington correspondents thought George W. Bush would be a better president than John Kerry. This compares with 51 percent of all American voters. I am sure the same is true for academics. I understand that left and right in America agree that there is a strong left-wing (or liberal) bias in US media compared to American public, though they interpret and explain this phenomenon differently. - BorisG (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant because neutrality demands that we accept the weight of opinion in mainstream sources. BTW if you look at the list of think tanks, the only way to obtain a conservative score is by heavily reporting the Christian Coalition and the Family Research Council. TFD (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

To those who want to exclude scholarly sources, here is Wikipedia's policy on scholarly sources: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Scholarship. It says the following: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable."--R-41 (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

R-41, if you want a civilised discussion, then please refrain from using bold face fonts. It is not polite. BTW no one suggests to exclude scholarly sources. We know the rules. The suggestion is to broaden the pool of sources. BTW I have provided a scholarly source. - BorisG (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I bold to underline a point, but I have removed bolding from the comments here. Falconclaw5000 is suggesting that we overlook scholarly sources based on his/her allegation of left-wing bias of academia - that is an opinion and it is not supported by Wikipedia Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Scholarship says the following: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable." Unless that source itself is unmistakably or intentionally biased, it should be regarded as reliable. As for your source, Boris G, please present it with a quote of the specific material you are referring to. But one final thing, is it a source about right-wing politics, or about alleged media and academia biases? If it is about media bias the answer is simple - we should not use newspapers nor news channels - many newspapers and news channels sensationalize stories for ratings, this is called yellow journalism, so news media should be ignored entirely, it is often not a reliable source for politics. If it is about alleged academia bias in particular, the only thing we can do is evaluate each specific source case by case - if clearly has a bias, it can be removed.--R-41 (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I will try not to lose my temper in the future. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Please explain to me why Thomas Sowell's book, Intellectuals and Society, is being ruled inadmissable

I'd genuinely like to know. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It isn't. Its at the end of the "History of the term" section. It was ruled that it doesn't need to have its own section. LittleJerry (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Since his definition of the right has attracted absolutely no attention anywhere it is hard to justify its inclusion. TFD (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't it you who said, "take your original research to a blog?" Falconclaw5000 (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It is widely accepted that Right-Wing can have contradictory meanings (see for example Roger Scruton's definition of Right Wing in his "Dictionary of Political Thought") and the Sowell quote articulates this rather neatly. I think that Little Jerry was not objecting to the quote, just how it is integrated into the entry. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Falconclaw5000, it is not original research to determine the degree of attention that a source has attracted because [[WP:WEIGHT|weight requires us to "fairly represent[] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." How else would we determine the prominence of a source than to see whether anyone has mentioned it? ERIDU-DREAMING, could you provide us with Scruton's definition. TFD (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

In my 1996 edition of his "Dictionary of Political Thought" Roger Scruton defines the "right" as follows:

"Defined by contrast to (or perhaps more accurately conflict with) the left the term right does not even have the respectability of a history. As now used it denotes several connected and also conflicting ideas. To be "on the right" is to believe (or for the political realist to affect to believe) some bundle of the following

1) conservative, and perhaps authoritarian, doctrines concerning the nature of civil society, with emphasis on custom, tradition, and allegiance as social bonds

2) theories of political obligation framed in terms of obedience, legitimacy and piety rather than contract, consent and justice

3) reluctance to countenance too great a divorce between law and morality i.e. between the enactments of the state and the sentiments of society, hence a resistance to liberalizing reforms in the law

4) cultural conservatism

5) respect for the hereditary principle and prescriptive rights

6) belief in private property, not as a natural right but as an indispensable part of the condition of society

7) belief in elementary freedoms and the irreplaceable value of the individual as against the collective

8) belief in free enterprise free markets and a capitalist economy as the only mode of production compatible with human freedom and suited to the temporary nature of human aspirations

9) varying degrees of belief in human imperfectability and original sin

Other items might be added to the list, and the above is suggested only as a cross-section of current significance. It should already be clear that not everything attributable to the "right" is compatible with everything else, a fault that may lie either with the right itself or with those who so describe it. Thus the emphasis on freedom and the market may not be compatible with the belief in tradition and obedience, free market relations being the great solvent of social allegiance based on custom and authority, rather than the "legal-rational" principles which Weber attributes to a world structured by contract. Nor is the belief in human rights underlying 7 with its individualistic emphasis, obviously compatible with respect for prescriptive right and hereditary principle. These ideological conflicts are to some extent internal to the conservative position, which, if founded in "intimations" of social order (as Oakeshott suggests) is bound to suffer conflicts in an age of social flux. To some extent they stem from the fact that the right is defined by opposition to the Left, which while it discerns contradictions in history, is adamant that it contains none within itself. Since the left sometimes opposes economic liberalism, sometimes individualism, and sometimes social conservatism, the term "right" is applied indifferently to all of those outlooks"

pp.481-82.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC))

Seems reasonable. Also it severely restricts what can be written in the article. If we start to write in detail about the various groups that have been called right-wing, it becomes a coatrack. TFD (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

TFD, prove to me that Thomas Sowell's view on right wing politics has attracted less attention than, say, Tatalovich's view of right wing politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconclaw5000 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Smith and Tatalovich are not expressing their own views but, as the footnote says, the "viewpoint held by contemporary sociologists". TFD (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

How do we know that these really are the views of contemporary sociologists? Again, how do we know that Thomas Sowell's work has received less attention that the other sources? Falconclaw5000 (talk) 06:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether a book is a reliable source has nothing to do with the popular attention it has received, but rather depends on the scholarly critical reception. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Which is not part of Wikipedia policy, by the way. We have had a multitude of excuses for excluding the book -- including claims that it is "too new" etc. The claim that opinions are only usable when prior opinions agree with them is a new one here <g> and fully invalid. Wikipedia best practice is to let the reader decide on such matters - we are not gate-keepers about opinions. Sowell's book has very high ranking in Amazon sales (#7 of all books on politics), it has been reviewed in major publications, and even attracted the atention of David Mamet [5]. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the book has not been excluded, it is difficult to understand your point. But in any case, you should understand that what I said above is precisely Wikipedia policy. "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable." You can read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Rick Norwood (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

And you seem to elide all the other "reliable sources" covered by WP:RS --

The following specific examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive.

Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications.

In the case of Sowell, however, he is regarded as an academic source. His book has been cited in other scholarly works, and the claim that the number is low is quite likely associated with his work being a recent work. I find nothing in WP:RS that says "new books which have only been cited by a score of other sources are not reliable." [6], etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Collect, "sources" refer to books and publications, not people - people are not oracles. Sowell's book is polemical rather than academic, written for people who want their viewpoints confirmed rather than providing any new insights into the subject. Accordingly it is rarely cited in academic works.[7] And its views on the political spectrum are not even mentioned by the National Review reading, Fox News watching writers that make reference to it. TFD (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It begins again

I think all of us here want this to be a good article, but hasty edits are not thoughtful edits, and thoughtful edits require a lot of time and research, which is not something most people are willing to do if they know it will be changed minutes after it is posted. I would like to offer a suggestion: that we work here on the lead, which seems to be the main bone of contention, and then work together to revert hasty edits that undo hours of hard work.

ERIDU-DREAMING is working very hard on the article, I would hate to see that hard work go to waste.

One suggestion: replace the citation with the "page needed" flag with the citation you quote in the previous talk section. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

On the subject of "individual freedom" vs. "individual choice", I would like to suggest that "rugged individualism" captures the idea. Conservatives believe that individuals should fight thier way up in society without help from government or unions. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that each word in the lead is the result of compromise and careful thought (somebody seeing the article for the first time may not appreciate this!) but in my opinion it is the sections further down in the article that need the most work. But I also agree with you that there is little point in going to the trouble of writing and sourcing a new sub-section (for example an obvious omission is the Right as the "politics of imperfection") if you think somebody is going to delete it after a few minutes. With regard to the individual choice point; individual choice is a non-trivial part of the justification for free markets, and yet it is because people decide to go and see Lady Gaga in concert rather than The King Prawn Band which creates the inequality that Lady Gaga can own a private jet whereas The King Prawn Band can barely afford to hire a tour bus. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

As I feared, hasty edits are yielding a choppy, repetative, unbalanced lead. I'll request once again that major changes be discussed here, first, and that claims that to be Right-wing means to be in favor of truth, justice, and the American way be backed up, not just with citations, but also with quotations and page numbers. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Republicans and Democrats

I would like to draw attention to a point made by TFD:

"Indeed the Republicans do not call themselves right-wing."

The trouble is, Democrats don't call themselves left-wing. Does that mean that neither Republicans nor Democrats are left wing? Even if the former is center-right, and the latter is center-left, that means that they are both to some degree right wing and left wing, respectively. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Both "right-wing" and "left-wing" are usually used as insults. The article should probably say that, if we can find a reliable source. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Some groups call themselves left or right, for example the European United Left–Nordic Green Left and the former Technical Group of the European Right - but they would not be within the mainstream of U.S. politics. TFD (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of "right wing" as being fully non-fixed

[8] "oppositional terms do not form stable anchoring points within language."

[9] "it is not easy to determine the meaning of 'right-wing'"

[10] "Right-wing thought refuses to recognize and/or seeks to mask the socio-historical character of power relationships between groups. It denies the use of violence by one group and the fact that the other group has very limited possibilities for resistance."

[11] "The meaning of 'right-wing' and 'left-wing' varies across societies, historical epochs and political systems and ideologies." And so on. Note particularly the last one ... Social cognition: an integrated introduction by Martha Augoustinos, Iain Walker, Ngaire Donaghue; SAGE, Jun 15, 2006 364 pages. Major work described as:

This Second Edition of the critically acclaimed textbook Social Cognition: An Integrated Introduction represents a much more integrated and pedagogically developed account of its predecessor. At its heart, the authors examine the different theoretical and methodological accomplishments of the field by focusing on the four major and influential perspectives which have currency in social psychology today - social cognition, social identity, social representations, and discursive psychology. A foundational chapter presenting an account of these perspectives is followed by topic-based chapters from the point of view of each perspective in turn, discussing commonalities and divergences across each of them. The result is a truly holistic approach that will stretch student's understanding of this exciting field and enrich their learning experience.

And, I submit, is a WP:RS source. Cited in 559 articles according to GoogleScholar. Which I trust is quite sufficient to place that claim in the article. Collect (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

As best I can tell, nobody disagrees on any of these points, though there seem to be a few typos. "demoes"? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Typos occur in this imperfect world - and are generally best ignored. I added the last quote to the article, and I am glad you have no problem with it. Collect (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems to repeat what is already in the second sentence of the lead. Do we need it in the lead twice, or would it be better in the body of the article? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It is substantially different from saying the meaning is determined by "context" -- in fact it is closer to "there is no single meaning" which is a long step from that weaselly second sentence. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be Google-mining rather than looking for relevant sources. The first source is an article "Postmodernism and Film", which is far removed from the subject matter. As has been noted, the U.S. has adopted the terms left and right, but they bear no resemblance to the words as normally used. (A major media conglomerate could hardly be described as "left-wing".) The source mentioning Robert Altemeyer's right-wing authoritarian personality does say that the meaning of "right-wing" varies across societies and says that Stalinists are often called right-wing in Russia. In fact usually they are called left-wing. TFD (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Um -- the source used ("Social cognition") is well-known and outrageously academic. Is there a reason for your jumping in with an attack? This article is not Right-wing politics in the US as others have noted - and your jumping in with irrelevant arguemnts does not help anyone at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue is whether it is relevant. My approach to an article about right-wing politics would be to use sources about right-wing politics, not sources about other subjects that make tangential references to right-wing politics. If a reasonable person wanted to understand right-wing politics, they would pick up a book on right-wing poltics, not books about social cognition, postmodernism, Israeli politics, or feminism. One concludes that one has a preconceived view of the subject and then mines for sources that appear to support it. TFD (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Bleah - the "Social Cognition" book is an ideal source - even if you feel it being cited by only 559 others is insufficient to show it has been widely accepted LOL! And using a clear case of foeign countries where the differences in definition of "right-wing" are made exceedingly apparent is, I suspect, pretty convincing evidence that the Social Cognition folks are correct. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The mean of the terms "left" and "right" are mentioned briefly in a section about Bobert Altemeyer's "right-wing authoritarian" personality which is part of a broader section on prejudice. You are finding sources as far removed from the subject matter as possible. Do any of your 559 cites actually use the source the way you do? I can only guess that you are looking for sources to support a viewpoint, rather than trying to idenfity what sources say and reflect them in the article. TFD (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You are not even getting a straw here! Social cognition is directly apropos and everyone else can see it LOL! I fear that you are more concerned with refusing to allow absolutely on-point sources than anything else here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The book mentions RWA because it is an alleged mental condition that causes a form of social cognition. It does claim that "left" and "right" are forms of social cognition. TFD (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The quote is very clear. As to your use of "claim" -- the "claim" is made in a widely used textbook. About as "academic" as one could ever wish for. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

IOW when you contribute to an article about panda bears, you use books about architecture; for articles about astronomy, books about history; for articles about linguistics, books on flower-arranging. So long as the sources are peer-reviewed. TFD (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Deep End! I would use books on "ruminants" and not insist that only books on "black and white bamboo eaters" are relevant. Cheers - now can you accept a well-known textbook which meets any conceivable "academic" and "scholarly" roadblock you wish to place? Collect (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Why would you use a book on human psychology as a source for the meaning of right-wing? I can only guess that it is because it supports your personal beliefs. A more reasonable approach would be to use a book on right-wing politics or the political spectrum. Developing articles is very simple. Identify good, relevant sources and summarize what they say. Don't come to the article with pre-conceived notions and Google mine for sources that support your views. TFD (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(od) For the silly reason that it is RELEVANT to the topic. Amazing, n'est-ce pas? By the way your repeated personal attacks are getting a teensy bit tiresome. Collect (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Why would you use a book on human psychology as a source for the meaning of right-wing? TFD (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

See Tendentious. The topic of "social cognition" is directly and specifically applicable here, no matter how many different ways you try to avoid it <g>. You try "not academic" but it is clearly academic. You try "not scholarly" but it is a work which is a standard textbook for gosh sake! Then you try to say "but you used Google" when I know dam well that you use Google, and frequently cite "Ghits" in your discussions. I think your "'Sell By' date" on the arguments is past <g>. Collect (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

My only objection to this source was relevance. Why do you think that a book on human psychology should be used as a source for the meaning of right-wing? TFD (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Gentlebeings: may I point out that the two of you agree that the phrase right-wing has many different meanings? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I thunk I had said that a number of times now, Rick. I do find amusing the insistence that a book which is a standard text on Social Cognition is now just "a book on human psychology"! And that finding a standard text is "Google mining." That a standard text is not "relevant." And that a standard text is somehow not "peer-reviewed" and thus dismissible. And then accuses me of somehow being biassed on the subject of "panda bears" (which are not "bears"), and so on. Collect (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

We are not amused. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of "left-wing" sources.

R-41 removed the Bobbio source, even though he is a respected academic and one of the few non-English speaking sources in this supposedly international article, on the grounds that he is "left-wing". This seems to me insufficient grounds for his removal. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have changed "individual choice" to "consumer choice" (even though individual choice is better because Classical Liberalism is not simply an economic doctrine) and (now I have remembered to log in again!) I point out once again that arguments within the Left about freedom is a topic for the Left-Wing page.

As for Bobbio, he is an example of how the Left define the Right in terms of the defence of inequality, which as I explained before is not how the Right generally defines itself (it is a bit like defining Japanese people as Non-European it is true but an odd way of putting it) - the Right generally defines itself in terms of an appeal to tradition or value realism [religious or naturalistic] or freedom, which have the CONSEQUENCE of inequality - even though it is no doubt possible to find people who DEFINE themselves as right-wing (Did the American author Ayn Rand call herself right-wing? I have no idea but I doubt it) BECAUSE they believe in inequality. I am neutral on the issue of whether Bobbio should or should not be included. Does a reference to his book help the article? I simply ask the question. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC))

Again, you have failed to provide any examples of people who call themselves right-wing and define themselves. The only people who call themselves right-wing are extremists. TFD (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Buckley's columns (On the Right) never existed in your world? Cheers - but such grossly errant claims which are so easily disproven are getting to be a habit from you. Collect (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING: I don't think "consumer choice" is a good description. Not sure what your comment about "arguments within the Left about freedom" refers to. Bobbio is an example of how thoughtful, well-informed people say the phrase right-wing is used, and as a non-English-speaking source I think is of value. The Right do not get to say how the phrase right-wing is used, because they aren't the only people who use the phrase. It is in general use, not jargon only used within the right-wing. If it were jargon, then they would get to define it any way they wanted to.

TFD: Collect is right, he did provide Buckley as an example of a person who clearly viewed himself as "On the Right", though it is not clear he would have called the Right a "wing".

Rick Norwood (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

That is original research. How do you know that Buckley did not mean that he was speaking for the right side of the American spectrum rather than for the right-wing? (Cf., Right Opposition.) Please provide a source. Not only that but provide a source where he explains what the right stands for. To provide an analogy, a Christian clergyman may explain what Christianity means, but we could not accept his description of his own religious beliefs as synonymous with Christianity. TFD (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It is argued (on the Left) that if you do not have much money you are not free to live at the Savoy (Hotel); in a truly free society people would be more equal. That is what I meant about "arguments on the Left about freedom". In other words there are arguments about what is true freedom. A Classical Liberal responds that freedom and equality are two different things. Having more of one means less of the other. But this is not the place to go into that argument.

Consumer choice is about people having the freedom to decide which products and services they want to buy. Again, the Left say this freedom only comes with money, and so in a free market only those with money are truly free. This leads to another argument. But this is not an article about the Left.

Bobbio is on the Left, and he defines the Right as those who are opposed to egalitarianism. As I say I am neutral about his inclusion. Include him if you think he has something to contribute. But saying he is a thoughtful European academic who has written about politics hardly counts for much. I do not think he is any more thoughtful and well informed about politics than any number of other European academics I could mention.

When I say that the Right do not generally define themselves as advocating inequality, I mean the RIGHT do not generally DEFINE themselves as advocating inequality, and not some other claim, such as ONLY the Right are allowed to define their beliefs, or NOBODY on the Right has ever defined the Right as the defence of inequality, or it is FALSE to claim that the Right oppose the egalitarianism advocated by the Left. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If you could mention other academics, then why don't you? And could you please STOP USING UPPER CASE? TFD (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

"it is FALSE to claim that the Right oppose the egalitarianism advocated by the Left" - statement by ERIDU DREAMING. That's not true, and here is why:

Here is the key founder of conservatism, Edmund Burke, on his view of the French Revolutionary position of equal honours and his opposition to lower-class manual labourers having the ability to govern: "The chancellor of France at the opening of the states, said[…] that all occupations were honourable. If he meant only, that no honest employment was disgraceful, he would have gone beyond the truth. But in asserting, that any thing is honourable, we imply some distinction in its favour. The occupation of a hair-dresser, or of a working tallow-chandler, cannot be a matter of honour to any person—to say nothing of a number of more servile employments. Such descriptions of men ought not to suffer oppression from the state; but the state suffers oppression, if such as they, either individually or collectively, are permitted to rule. In this you think you are combating prejudice, but you are at war with nature." Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France.
The founder of continental conservatism Joseph de Maistre supported what he called the "hierarchy of honour" - a justification for aristocracy based on the moral values of aristocrats. (Cara Camcastle. The more moderate side of Joseph de Maistre: views on political liberty and political economy. McGill-Queen's Press, 2005. Pp. 13.)
British conservative scholar R. J. White rejects egalitarianism, stating: "Men are equal before God and the laws, but unequal in all else; hierarchy is the order of nature, and privilege is the reward of honourable service". (Moyra Grant. Key Ideas in Politics. Cheltenham, England, UK: Nelson Thornes, Ltd., 2003. Pp. 52.)
American conservative Russell Kirk rejects egalitarianism as imposing sameness, staying: "Men are created different; and a government that ignores this law becomes an unjust government for it sacrifices nobility to mediocrity". (Moyra Grant. Key Ideas in Politics. Cheltenham, England, UK: Nelson Thornes, Ltd., 2003. Pp. 52.). Russell Kirk in his book Redeeming the Time says: "In short, I have been arguing that it is profoundly unjust to endeavor to transform society into a table land of equality. It would be unjust to the energetic, reduced to equality with the clack and indolent; it would be unjust to the thrift, compelled to make up losses of the profligate; it would be unjust to those take the long view, forced to submit to the domination of a majority interested chiefly in short-run results." - Russel Kirk, Redeeming the Time (1996), page 217..
Right-wing libertarian Ayn Rand: "Since nature does not endow all men with equal beauty or equal intelligence, and the faculty of volition leads men to different choices, the egalitarians propose to abolish the "unfairness" of nature and of volition, and to establish universal equality in fact—in defiance of facts." - Ayn Rand, from The Ayn Rand reader (Plume Book, 1999).
Ayn Rand supporter Gary Hull: "Talent and ability create inequality... To rectify this supposed injustice, we are told to sacrifice the able to the unable. Egalitarianism demands the punishment and envy of anyone who is better than someone else at anything. We must tear down the competent and the strong -- raze them to the level of the incompetent and the weak.." - Gary Hull, PhD., "Egalitarianism: The New Torture Rack", Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, 23 April 2000 [12].
So it is not false to claim that that the right has opposed egalitarianism. The secondary sources of White and Kirk are included in the article, the others are from primary sources so they can't be used in the article - but they completely disprove ERIDU DREAMING's claim that "nobody" on the right has opposed egalitarianism.--R-41 (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Ayn Rand opposed czarism and conservatism. Burke and Kirk did not call themselves right-wing. You call them right-wing because they fit your definition and then use them as evidence of what right-wing means. TFD (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The quotes that I added here to this section were to disprove a point made by ERIDU-DREAMING who said "it is FALSE to claim that the Right oppose the egalitarianism advocated by the Left".--R-41 (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

TFD, I tend to view your judgement on political issues as typically very sharp and astute, but your view that right-wing implies only the post-French Revolution issues or that right-wing is extremist as you seem to indicate is very revisionist, the term right-wing is widely used to describe these figures of conservatism and the term right-wing is widely acknowledged as a conventional term used to describe mainstream conservative parties. Burke and De Maistre are considered the pioneers who constructed the ideological principles of the original right-wing movement - that was conservatism. Rand may not be a conservative and not a czarist - but of course no one needs to be a monarchist to be right-wing - the American Republican Party by its name is not monarchist but it is right-wing, Rand is widely supported by the libertarian right. What is the alternative definition of right-wing other than acceptance of hierarchy as inevitable or normal? I have presented multiple scholarly sources that support this, and yet not one of the alternative definitions presented so far proposed can account for the variations on the right - from absolute monarchists to right-wing libertarians, so far all the alternate proposals been geared to defining the libertarian right while ignoring the right's other forms. If there is an alternate definition that can encompass the whole right, then by all means present it TFD.--R-41 (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The sociologist Robert M. MacIver wrote in The Web of Government (1947), "The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the center that of the middle classes." Seymour Martin Lipset used this quote in explaining the spectrum in his 1960 Political Man. While the media do use the terminology in a sloppy fashion, parties retain this terminology. Hence the only political parties today that call themselves right-wing are authoritarian, like the French National Front. Only socialist parties call themselves left-wing. Any other usage is controversial. The Republicans are calling the Democrats socialists, the Democrats are calling them authoritarian. Republicans and Democrats do not call themselves right and left. And then you have the problem that all the parties you call right-wing evolved not out of the Right but out of the center. The CDU was called the Centre Party, Hayek's party called themselves "left-liberals". Hayek and Rand do not consider themselves to be in the tradition of De Maistre. REmember too that articles are about topics, not how words are used - that type of article belongs in a dictionary not an encyclopedia. TFD (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

R-14. Try to read what I wrote more carefully.

"When I say that the Right do not generally define themselves as advocating inequality, I mean the RIGHT do not generally DEFINE themselves as advocating inequality, and not......"

pause here

"not"

pause again so it sinks in

"not"

"some other claims, such as ONLY the Right are allowed to define their beliefs, or NOBODY on the Right has ever defined the Right as the defence of inequality, or it is FALSE to claim that the Right oppose the egalitarianism advocated by the Left."

You got it now?

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING: Nobody is "arguing" that the Right favors stratification and the Left egalitarianism. Rather, we are citing sources that the phrase "the Right" is used to describe people who favor stratification and "the Left" is used to describe people who favor egalitarianism. Wikipedia is not about Truth but about verifiability. These statements have been verified, repeatedly, with respected academic sources. Your ideas about what "the Left" believes are not supported by citations. No doubt some people on "the Left" think that poor people should live in the Savoy, but that is not the argument that the modern Left offers against the Right's idea that laizzes-faire economics leads to more freedom. Rather, it is the extreme concentration of wealth, where the 1% have more than half of all the wealth, and many of the 99% have no homes and no jobs. But, as you say, this is not the place to go into what the Left thinks, but rather to cite sources that people really call someone "right-wing" because they believe in private property and consumer choice. That is a usage I've never heard, but if you want to make that claim, you need to cite quotations to that effect the represent a preponderance of the evidence.

TFD: You are going too far in pretending that Buckley was not on the Right in the sense this aricle uses the word; he clearly was. And ERIDU-DREAMING has cited sources that say what Buckley meant by that.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

My Savoy hotel example was to illustrate a point about different conceptions of liberty. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING, stop with the nasty attitude. I have provided multiple sources verifying that the right-wing accepts social hierarchy as inevitable or normal. But you keep saying "oh the right has never said this". First of all there is no single and unified "right-wing movement" just as there is no single and unified "left-wing movement" - the left-right spectrum is a dichotomy. The right arose in France in response to the left that was demanding social leveling such as dismantling aristocracy and monarchy that the right opposed - and the original right in France was diverse - absolute monarchists, moderate conservatives, aristocrats, Catholic Church figures - they were united in their opposition to the social leveling schemes of the left-wing revolutionary republicans including the far left Jacobins who wanted to literally purge society of aristocrats, royalty, and supporters of the ancien regime. The right appealed to natural law and tradition to state that social hierarchy was a reality and was a tradition that held society together - as a rebuke of the left's appeal to progress and justice to state that aristocracy and monarchy should be eliminated. Again I have provided sources that demonstrate this and modern examples of the right, but you reject all of the sources - no matter who wrote them, and no matter what their credentials.--R-41 (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Relax. Since I have explained the point about three times now, and you have still not got it, I am not going to waste any more of your time explaining it to you again. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I submit that more than fifty changes in one day do not lead to a stable article.

Here is the lead as it stands, now. I could just rewrite it, but I'm going to refrain, because hasty edits discourage more thoughtful edits. Following up on my earlier suggestion, let us find a version we can agree on, or that most of us can agree on, and then defend it from edits that do not cite sources.

In politics, the Right, right-wing and rightist has been defined as the acceptance of social hierarchy.(ref)J. E. Goldthorpe. An Introduction to Sociology. Cambridge, England, UK; Oakleigh, Melbourne, Australia; New York, New York, USA Pp. 156. ISBN: 0521245451.(/ref)(ref)Rodney P. Carlisle. Encyclopedia of politics: the left and the right, Volume 2. University of Michigan; Sage Reference, 2005. Pp. 721. ISBN: 1412904099(/ref) Inequality is viewed by the Right as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,(ref)J. E. Goldthorpe. An Introduction to Sociology. Cambridge, England, UK; Oakleigh, Melbourne, Australia; New York, New York, USA Pp. 156. ISBN: 0521245451.(/ref) whether it arises within social structures that uphold order, status, honor, and traditional social differences and values,(ref)Smith, T. Alexander and Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at War: Moral Conflicts in Western Democracies (Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd., 2003) pp. 30. "That viewpoint is held by contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality or political participation.' '(/ref) or within a market economy that respects private property and consumer choice.(ref) Scruton, Roger “A Dictionary of Political Thought” Macmillian 1996 pp.481-2.(/ref)

The political terms Right and Left were coined during the French Revolution, and were a reference to where people sat in the French parliament. Those who sat to the right of the president's chair were broadly supportive of the institutions of Ancien Régime: the monarchy, the aristocracy and the established church.(ref name="Parliaments 1988 pp. 287–302")Goodsell, Charles T., "The Architecture of Parliaments: Legislative Houses and Political Culture", British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Jul., 1988) pp. 287–302(/ref)(ref>Linski, Gerhard, Current Issues and Research In Macrosociology (Brill Archive, 1984) p. 59(/ref)(ref)Clark, Barry Political Economy: A Comparative Approach (Praeger Paperback, 1998) pp. 33–34(/ref)(ref name="Knapp"/> The Right invoked natural law and divine law to justify social inequalities.(ref)J. E. Goldthorpe. An Introduction to Sociology. Cambridge, England, UK; Oakleigh, Melbourne, Australia; New York, New York, USA Pp. 156. ISBN: 0521245451.(/ref) In the modern day, right-wing libertarians reject collective or state-imposed imposed equality as undermining reward for personal merit, initiative and enterprise, which they view as unjust — because it undermines personal freedom; and creates social uniformity and mediocrity.(ref)Moyra Grant. Key Ideas in Politics. Cheltenham, England, UK: Nelson Thornes, Ltd., 2003. Pp. 52.(/ref) The meaning of right-wing thus "varies across societies, historical epochs, and political systems and ideologies."(ref) The meaning of 'right-wing' and 'left-wing' varies across societies, historical epochs and political systems and ideologies. Social cognition: an integrated introduction Martha Augoustinos, Iain Walker, Ngaire Donaghue; SAGE, Jun 15, 2006 - 364 pages, page 30(/ref)

Roger Eatwell and Noël O'Sullivan claim that right-wing politics is more loosely defined than left-wing politics because it is a response to its leftist counterpart.(ref)Eatwell, Roger and Noël O'Sullivan The Nature of the Right: American and European Politics and Political Thought Since 1789 (Twayne Publishers, 1990)(/ref) ^{[page needed]} Use of the expression le droit (the right) became more prominent in France after the restoration of its monarchy in 1815, when it was applied to the Ultra-royalists.(ref)Gauchet, Marcel, "Right and Left" in Nora, Pierre, ed., Realms of Memory: Conflicts and Divisions (1996) pp. 247-8(/ref) Although the term originally designated traditional conservatives and reactionaries, its usage has been extended to apply to liberal conservatives, classical liberals, libertarian conservatives, Christian democrats and certain types of nationalists.(ref name="Knapp"/)

The first thing we need to discuss is the overall structure. I suggest three paragraphs, the first stating how the words are used, the second giving the history of the words, and the third giving a few of the problems with the way the words are used. Any objection or alternate suggestions?

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to the work put in by R-41 the first two sections are now in pretty good shape. He has tried to be politically balanced rather than agenda pushing. The article has come a long way since the Right = Extremists = Fascists days. In my opinion the problems now start at the section entitled "Varieties". (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC))

Rick - I have worked with R-41 and affirm his desire to make this a good article (and that he is quite specifically not a "right wing nut job" or the like as some would try to label some editors). I further note that each individual change is fully reasonable in my opinion, and that if you have specific parts you feel are not an improvement, that WP:CONSENSUS applies - that is, discuss the specific changes and not the editor or the number of edits. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I tried. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Try a single change you think there is a problem with first, Rick. The eternal talk page (aka "discussing structure") discussions do not work. If you feel strongly about "structure", try MEDCAB but I rather think they would steer clear of this one (especially with editors who deny Buckley self-identified as being On the Right). Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Very well, to being at the beginning, let's look at the claim that people use the phrase "right-wing" to describe those who favor "private property and consumer choice". As I've said, I've never heard that usage. Scruton, Roger “A Dictionary of Political Thought” Macmillian 1996 pp.481-2 is the reference. Please proved the quote on page 481-2 where Scruton says that. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Scruton lists these claims as associated with the Right

6) belief in private property..indispensable part of the condition of society

7) belief in elementary freedoms and the irreplaceable value of the individual as against the collective

8) belief in free enterprise free markets and a capitalist economy as the only mode of production compatible with human freedom

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Good. Let's have the article say that, with an appropriate quote in the reference. Note that the list does not say anything about "consumer choice" and does stress free markets and a capitalist economy as the only acceptable mode of production. I suggest the following "...or within a capitalist economy that considers property rights as indispensable for human freedom." with the Scruton reference citing the entire quote from Scruton. I'd rather you made the change but I will if you would rather not. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If you recall I originally put "individual choice" but you deleted this (on the grounds that the Left like choice as well!) and so I replaced it with consumer choice to emphasize the connection with free markets. I can return it back to "individual choice" if you wish.

I am not sure why you think your replacement sentence is an obvious improvement on [some view inequality as inevitable] "within a market economy that respects private property and consumer choice."

You prefer "capitalist" to "market economy" and "property rights" to respect for "private property". Well market economy is a politically neutral description, and Scruton disputes the claim that the Right start from the notion of "Rights" when defending the concept of property. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC))

I think it is better to say what the source says. The source does not say "individual choice" nor does it say "consumer choice". Those are very different concepts. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

We seem to be leapfrogging our comments here. Yes, of course "market economy" is politically neutral. That is why nobody calls someone "right-wing" when they favor a market economy, and why Scruton inserts that all important word "only" in his definition. People are (sometimes) called "right-wing" when they say free market capitalism is the only mode of production compatable with freedom. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Denying that free markets rely upon consumer (or individual) choice, or rejecting the claim that Classical Liberalism advocates consumer (individual) choice), or seeking to ignore the connection between support for a market economy and support for individual choice, would be perverse. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course it would. Which is why I have never said any of those things. What I have said is that people don't call anyone "right-wing" for any of those beliefs, and you have yet to cite anyone who does. What they (sometimes) call people right-wing for is what the source says they call people right-wing for. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The Scruton quote is taken from his DEFINITION of RIGHT-WING. I must log off the computer now however. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I agree that the Scruton quote is a good reference. I also have to log off shortly. My point is that the statement "A person who only eats vegetables is called a vegetarian." is a true statement. It is not the same as "A person who eats vegetables is called a vegetarian." You can't leave out the word "only" without changing the meaning. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

We are confusing a term which is used as both a relative and an absolute, and with different meanings to different people. One approach would be to have this article as a dictionary definition. But if we want the article to be about a topic, then we need to choose the most common definition of the term. The major anomaly is that some ideologies are defined as both support for and opposition to equality, depending on where the line is drawn between left and right. For example the Radical and Socialist Party that was the main party of the Left in 1800s France and is now part of the Sarkozy coalition. They did not change their ideology, but aligned with the Right after the emergence of socialists and communists as leading parties on the Left. TFD (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Politics makes strange bedfellows. Fortunately, we base this article on what sociologists say, not on what politicians say. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Scruton says the term "denotes several connected and also conflicting ideas". The only criteria, other than opposition to the Left, that the Socialists and Radicals meet is support of rights, including the right to a minimal standard of living. Otherwise, they oppose cultural conservatism, monarchy, clericalism and unrestrained capitalism. What makes them part of the right is not that their ideology is right-wing, but that the center between left and right in France has moved. In other words, if left-right are relative terms, then they are on the right. But if they are absolute terms then they are not. TFD (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

^ Who funds and runs the Politico? - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

[1] Who funds and runs the Politico? - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

[1]