Talk:Right-wing politics/Archive 22

Disambiguation
An IP added "The Right", an Italian party and "Conservatism" as disambiguation re-directs. I do not see the point of that. If someone is looking for the Italian party, they are not likely to type in "Right-wing politics." The number of articles this could lead to is excessive. TFD (talk) 07:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I did not add conservatism  It was already present, and is still present after the revert,
 * ''"Political right" redirects here. For the rights, see Political rights. For conservative political thought, see conservatism.
 * The right redirects here. Why shouldn't informatiion about The Right be indicated in the hatnote? Political right redirects here, and the hatnote indicates the other article Political rights.
 * The hatnote even indicates why "The Right" is listed
 * The same reason why "Political rights" is indicated, because something redirects here.
 * The "conservatism" was moved to a separate line to prevent confusions about what was being disambiguated, I did not add that target, I merely severed it from the line for "political rights".
 * -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * About the compactness, the "compact" template doesn't work, it doesn't support enough alternate options, and the clarity of using the compact template is much less, as it doesn't clearly indicate which redirect each option is disambiguation for


 * Notice that the rendering completely leaves out further coverage after right wing, because the compact template doesn't support enough parameters.


 * There's no redirect hatnote template that properly supports 3 incoming redirects.
 * -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is unlikely that someone looking for "The Right" party in Italy would type in "right-wing politics and there have been numerous parties with "right" in their name. Similarly the article "Liberalism" does not begin with links to the hundreds of parties that have had "liberal" as parts of their names.  TFD (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You should already know how redirects work on Wikipedia. Click on this link the right, it will lead to this page. This is why this article carries a hatnote for political right, because the redirect at location "political right" redirects to this page, that is why it says
 * The article on the Italian party called "The Right" will not be found without a hatnote here, if you just type in "the right" into the searchbox on Chrome. That is why redirect style hatnotes exist.
 * It is not because they type in "right-wing politics", it is because they type in the right -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not because they type in "right-wing politics", it is because they type in the right -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I've put the hatnote for the Italian party back in. These are not excessive - a similar example is the hatnote on Defamation, mentioned at Disambiguation as the primary topic for several titles. Peter James (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The definition of right wing here does not address common use
I realize there is an "academic" meaning to "right wing" described here. But in popular culture, there is a completely different understanding of right wing. Someone who, for example, is a member of the Tea Party would be considered by most regular folk as "right wing". And yet a tea party member would find the ideas of an all powerful central government to be not simply wrong, but utterly incompatible with their views. Therefore, what many people in popular culture consider "right wing", including politicians and the media, according to this article, would be factually inaccurate. Barack Obama himself discusses people on the "right" in reference to people who advocate limited government. So according to this article, Barack Obama would be wrong. Anyone who advocates a limited government would fully reject, with force, the philosophical tenets as outlined in this article, and thus could not be considered 'right wing' by Wikipedia standards. I think there should be some education here, so that the average person has a clearer understanding that when Wikipedia talks about "right wing", it is using a classical academic definition that simply does not exist in 2014 popular culture. In today's culture, if you A) favor individual liberty, B) want lower taxation, C) hold conservative values, D) want to control your borders, and E) want the federal government generally out of your personal life, out of your business life, and out of your moral life then you are considered "right wing" by modern culture, however because "right wing" as defined by Wikipedia requires a vast central authoritarian government with virtually unlimited power, the compatibility between what Wikipedia says is "right wing" and what modern culture says is "right wing" is null. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.174.150 (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Tea Party is not considered right-wing because they want lower taxation etc., they are considered right-wing because post-war academics saw a similarity between them and right-wing groups in inter-war Europe. Odd that these people would choose to adopt the label, but it does not change the meaning of the term.  The Tea Party of course is more in the populist than the traditional right - they see a hierarchy of merit rather than genteel breeding.  But there is nothing in the definition that does not apply to them, particularly their opposition to the Left (i.e., socialism).  TFD (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The Tea Party is almost entirely composed of wealthy white people, and what they support in the name of "small government" is low taxes for wealthy white people. Tea Party organization is centered around local Tea Parties, who are not all alike, but they tend to be extremely authoritarian within their own ranks, and will expel members and vote against candidates who do not agree totally with their views. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC) I've gone back and read over the lead, with 24.105.174.150's comments in mind, and tend to agree that the lead, while giving an accurate definition of the historical and world-wide definition of right-wing, does not give sufficient emphasis to the uniquely American, twenty-first century definition of right-wing. I'll try to find a good source for that, and add it. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree there is a problem and tried to fix the lede, by noting the US is different from Europe, that the right wing = conservative movement and has been a major factor in since the 1980s, and that there are extremist groups on the far right.Rjensen (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am a supporter of the "tea party" and i detest authoritarianism or any attempt by the federal government to encroach on liberty or morality. I am very libertarian in my views, but many common people would consider me "right wing".  So I embrace the notion of being "right wing" in 2014 United States popular culture.  However, I have almost nothing in common with what Wikipedia defines as 'right wing'.  So I believe strongly there is a disconnect between 2014 American "pop culture" understanding of "right wing" and the wikipedia early 20th century academic definition of "right wing."  When guys like John Stewart discuss right wingers (often doing so in a condescending manner), I often find that he adequately describes my views in principle (at least 50% of the time), minus his insults.  But here at Wikipedia, the definition of "right wing" as presented here is 90% incongruent with my views.  I contend that people like John Stewart and other American media leftists have a better grasp of common knowledge of "right wing" than Wikipedia.  What Europeans considered "right wing" in 1940 is not really relevant today, in fact, to me, its meaningless since cultures change and definitions morph.  "Right Wing" will never be an absolute concept, but a subjective one that is fluid with changing times.  RIck Norwood, you are absolutely wrong my friend.  I AM one of those 'tea partiers' (i'm guessing you are not), so your broad generalization that folks in my camp embrace authoritarianism is factually and objectively false.    Authoritarianism is completely mutually exclusive with not just my views, but every "right wing" person I know.  Oh I'm sure you can find some left wing "source" like Vanity Fair, or the NYT and find edge cases of tea party groups that advocate a sort of "moral police" but if you extrapolate that to make a systemic claim against people like me, who are widely recognized in popular culture as 'right wingers', you would be factually incorrect.  The idea that today's "right wingers" in popular culture favor an authoritarian government that regulates morality is absurd.  I'm sure some do, but the vast majority do not, and in fact, completely detest the idea of a regulatory federal government.  Many people on the right today, in 2014, are fluid with libertarian philosophy, and are mutually exclusive with the Wikipedia old school definition of Right Wing, which exists in the minds of geriatric professors from generations ago spanning into WWII Europe.  That definition of "Right Wing" as defined by Wikipedia and sourced by old baby-boomer generation professors, is far more relevant for culture 75 years ago, and hardly relevant for today.  Today's popular "Right Wing" overlaps far more with libertarianism, and far less with authoritarianism than this article would have people believe.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.233.134 (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

A recent edit has added the new American definition of "right-wing". But the Tea Party is right-wing even in the old sense, because it is funded by the Koch brothers and promoted by Rupert Murdoch, and serves the interests of the 1%. Small government means weak government; weak government means that all power falls into the hands of a hereditary aristocracy of wealth. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not see how Reagan is seen as different from European definitions of right-wing. Eatwell and O'Sullivan, who are cited in the article, saw him as part of the "New Right", along with Margaret Thatcher.
 * IP, the Tea Party is in a long tradition of right-wing populism in the U.S. and has parallels in Western Europe. Probably the closest are UKIP and on the more extreme, the English Defence League, which has support from Pamela Geller and other U.S. opponents of "Islamofascism."  What makes the U.S. Right "exceptional" is the absence of traditional conservatism that supports the crown, aristocracy and established church.  But most radical right-wing parties in Western Europe do not support them anyway.  They have become irrelevant in modern politics.  A recent poll in Canada for example showed that socialist voters were more supportive of the monarchy than conservative voters.
 * TFD (talk) 04:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

God, King, and Country has been replaced by God, the Rich, and Country. Tea Party groups in the US often say that America is a Christian country. They say that the Founding Fathers were all Christians (ignoring Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Payne). They are currently rewriting history textbooks to support the idea of American exceptionalism -- slavery wasn't so bad, the native Americans benefited from the paternalism of White people. By limiting the hours that polling places are open to hours when many working-class people cannot get away from work, and reducing the number of voting machines in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, causing long lines, they reduce the working class vote. Of course, they do all this with a rhetoric of "freedom" and "small government", but "freedom" usually doesn't extend to women, Blacks, Hispanics, or Moslems, and "small government" usually means lower tax rates for the rich and higher tax rates for the working class. (Here in Tennessee, the tax rate on the upper 1% is now only one fifth the tax rate on the lower 50%.) And the anti-"foreigner" rhetoric sounds awfully similar to the anti-"foreigner" rhetoric in Europe, with the exception that anti-Semitism is stronger in Europe. I'm currently reading ''Political Economy" by Barry Clark, which is good because it presents all sides of the debate, with ample references. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * An interesting blog-type commentary, but, alas, inapt here and incorrect to boot. We are here to present what reliable sources clearly state, not to present our own opinions, especially where such opinions clearly evince specific political beliefs.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have limited myself to comments suggesting specific changes to this article. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I've spent some time thinking, and I hope you, Collect, can help me out. I want the definition of right-wing in this article to be accurate, but I also want a modern American, who doesn't know much history, to understand why his vision of what right-wing means is so different from what this article says it means. It would also be nice if, should he come across the word in a book written fifty years ago, he will understand why the word is applied to Hitler.

When I was growing up in Franklin, Louisiana in the 1950s, right-wing meant support for the White Race, the Christian Religion, and the American Way of Life. It meant opposition to Godless Communism, to labor unions, and to integration of the public schools. Later, it meant support for the Vietnam War and opposition to rock and roll music. Today, it means small government, support for prayer in the public schools, opposition to abortion, support for gun rights, and opposition to immigration. What this article needs to do is to find a reliable source that explains what common thread all these diverse beliefs share. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Typically biased article
The fact that the only link available under the "External Links" section is "right-wing watch" is enough for anyone with critical thought to not take this particular seriously. The definition of right-wing here doesn't even pretend to be unbiased. For such an abstract definition, one could easily construe it mean anything negative or positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.12.124 (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Because the article was written by left wingers, it describes the right-wing :) doctrine pejoratively, using a negative definition: 'they are against social equality'.

First of all, only a left winger would talk about 'social equality'. The concept itself is vague, it lacks substance and is not used by common people.

Furthermore, a right winger would not describe himself with the terms of the Left. For example, a libertarian would say that he supports freeing the individual from state meddling and state theft.

Or if he is a nationalist, he may say that he supports a strong national military and a carefully restricted immigration.

But to say that all right wingers accept or support 'social inequality' is silly. Even the Wiki entry about Social Equality recognises that this vague concept should include the equality before the law, which right wingers do support.

If social equality is defined as equality before the law and equality of opportunity, and if (as I think) most right wingers believe in these, then it makes no sense to define 'right wing' as an outlook that supports social inequality.

Finally, it does not seem to me that the main attribute of the left-wing doctrine is support for 'social equality'. For example, on the whole left wingers support an extreme level of inequality between leaders and members of the proletariat.

Support for wealth redistribution and state intervention in the lives of citizens are probably better defining attributes, as well as being clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWorld88 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If you have any sources that define the Right, then it would be helpful if you would provide them.


 * No I don't have sources but I don't think it matters. The thing is, if you take a left-wing book you will find a pejorative definition of the Right. And if you take a right-wing book you will find a pejorative definition of the Left. If I had to write the entries about Left and Right I would just use a bullet list of their main ideas. I wouldn't try to summarize them in a way that suggests that people from the Right love to oppress their fellow men. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWorld88 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No I don't have sources but I don't think it matters.
 * See WP:V. If you don't have sources, you don't have an argument. &mdash; goethean 16:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course he has, he is pointing to the fact that only left-wing books and articles are used as sources here. Equality is an stupid, ethereal concept that will never be solid in any society. There are thousands and thousands of academic sources pointing to that that will never be accepted here because of the cynical partisan bias that reigns here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.99.56.96 (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That is circular reasoning. You think the article is left-wing therefore the sources must be left-wing.  If you have any reliable sources that contradict what is in the article, please provide them.  TFD (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * let's not mix us "social equality" and legal equality" as Goethean does. The statement by Goethean that "on the whole left wingers support an extreme level of inequality between leaders and members of the proletariat." is false. On the whole they do not approve of that. Rjensen (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line here is someone who can be unbiased and has either unbiased sources or can properly use opposing sources needs to reword this article. As it is, the article is written more to accuse and demonize the right wing than to write an unbiased article. It doesn't have to be positive, but it needs to not be aggressive. SteveTheSteeeve (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * One often hears supporters of the Right say that those who disagree with them are "biased". Here are the references to just the lead of this article.  Are all of these references biased?

1.Jump up ^ Bobbio, Norberto and Allan Cameron,Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction. University of Chicago Press, 1997, p. 51, 62. ISBN 978-0-226-06246-4 2.^ Jump up to: a b J. E. Goldthorpe. An Introduction to Sociology. Cambridge, England, UK; Oakleigh, Melbourne, Australia; New York, New York, USA p. 156. ISBN 0-521-24545-1. 3.Jump up ^ Rodney P. Carlisle. Encyclopedia of politics: the left and the right, Volume 2. University of Michigan; Sage Reference, 2005. p.693, 721. ISBN 1-4129-0409-9 4.^ Jump up to: a b c T. Alexander Smith, Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at war: moral conflicts in western democracies. Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd, 2003. p. 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." 5.^ Jump up to: a b Left and right: the significance of a political distinction, Norberto Bobbio and Allan Cameron, p. 37, University of Chicago Press, 1997. 6.^ Jump up to: a b Seymour Martin Lipset, cited in Fuchs, D., and Klingemann, H. 1990. The left-right schema. pp. 203–34 in Continuities in Political Action: A Longitudinal Study of Political Orientations in Three Western Democracies, ed.M.Jennings et al. Berlin:de Gruyter 7.^ Jump up to: a b c Lukes, Steven. 'Epilogue: The Grand Dichotomy of the Twentieth Century': concluding chapter to T. Ball and R. Bellamy (eds.), The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Political Thought. pp.610–612 8.^ Jump up to: a b Clark, William. Capitalism, not Globalism. University of Michigan Press, 2003. ISBN 0-472-11293-7, ISBN 978-0-472-11293-7 9.Jump up ^ Smith, T. Alexander and Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at War: Moral Conflicts in Western Democracies (Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd., 2003) p. 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.' ' 10.Jump up ^ Scruton, Roger “A Dictionary of Political Thought” "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 (including) 1)conservative, and perhaps authoritarian, doctrines concerning the nature of civil society, with emphasis on custom, tradition, and allegiance as social bonds ... 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 ..." pp. 281-2, Macmillian, 1996 11.Jump up ^ J. E. Goldthorpe. An Introduction to Sociology. "There are ... those who accept inequality as natural, normal, and even desirable. Two main lines of thought converge on the Right or conservative side...the truly Conservative view is that there is a natural hierarchy of skills and talents in which some people are born leaders, whether by heredity or family tradition. ... now ... the more usual right-wing view, which may be called 'liberal-conservative', is that unequal rewards are right and desirable so long as the competition for wealth and power is a fair one." p. 156. Cambridge, England, UK; Oakleigh, Melbourne, Australia; New York, New York, USA p. 156. ISBN 0-521-24545-1. 12.Jump up ^ Ferrie Pot. Employment Relations and National Culture: Continuity and Change in the Age of Globalization. P135-136. 13.Jump up ^ Modern Catholic Social Teaching: The Popes Confront the Industrial Age, 1740-1958. Paulist Press, 2003. P132 14.^ Jump up to: a b Goodsell, Charles T., "The Architecture of Parliaments: Legislative Houses and Political Culture", British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 18, No. 3 (July, 1988) pp. 287–302 15.Jump up ^ Linski, Gerhard, Current Issues and Research In Macrosociology (Brill Archive, 1984) p. 59 16.Jump up ^ Clark, Barry Political Economy: A Comparative Approach (Praeger Paperback, 1998) pp. 33–34 17.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Andrew Knapp and Vincent Wright (2006). The Government and Politics of France. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-35732-6. 18.Jump up ^ Rodney P. Carlisle. Encyclopedia of politics: the left and the right, Volume 2. University of Michigan; Sage Reference, 2005, p. 693. ISBN 1-4129-0409-9 19.Jump up ^ Gauchet, Marcel, "Right and Left" in Nora, Pierre, ed., Realms of Memory: Conflicts and Divisions (1996) pp. 247-8 20.Jump up ^ "The English Ideology: Studies in the Language of Victorian Politics" George Watson Allen Lane: London 1973 p.94 21.Jump up ^ Alan S. Kahan. Mind Vs. Money: The War Between Intellectuals and Capitalism. New Brunsiwck, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2010. p. 88. 22.Jump up ^ Ian Adams. Political Ideology Today. Manchester, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Manchester University Press, 2001. p. 57.


 * I think many people who honestly support the Right do not know the history of the Right, and think that "right-wing" means only what one subgroup of the Right have decided it should mean, starting with the Tea Party movement in 1999. But the original right-wing supported absolute monarchy.  Wikipedia must not only report on current events, but also answer the questions of students who read things written before the twenty-first century.  It might be easier to change the name of the movement than to rewrite two hundred years of history. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The article itself reflects the sources. If Wikipedia policy said that each individual was free to accept any source he or she agreed with, and dismiss any source he or she disagreed with, Wikipedia would be a useless hodge-podge. "lol" is not a logical argument. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The first source "Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction" is from a socialist not surprisingly. The second seemingly comes from a person with similar views since he praises liberal/socialist thinkers such as Hobbes and Marx. (see endorsements section). So can someone remind me how the first statement in the article isn't from a biased source again? Like the OP said: the article was written by liberals. Incidentally, the left-ring article seems bursting with positive statements whilst the right and center ones are negative. --86.21.101.169 (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Because an author does not share your views, that does not mean the author is biased. If a mathematician states that two plus two is four, and refuses to consider the possibility that two plus two is five, that does not prove bias.  Bias is a deliberate or unreasoning distortion of the facts to uphold one viewpoint over against another.  Bobbio, Cameron, and Goldthorpe have certainly studied the subject of political science in far greater depth than I have, and as best I can tell they have good reputations.  If you want to impeach them, it is not enough to say they disagree with you.  You need an academic source that says their views fail the standards of scholarly research. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The opinions of an author and his/her statements of fact are separate. No reliable sources question Einstein's special theory of relativity on the basis of his socialism or his religion.  Textbooks give credence to the theory because most scientists do.  Scientists give credence because the theory is consistent with evidence.  Both the right-wing Conservapedia and the far right Metapedia reject the theory because of Einstein's belief system.  That is an argumentum ad hominem - the claim that a statement must be incorrect because the author is supposedly wrong about other, unrelated statements.  TFD (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if were' going into epistemological questions, it's not that simple. There are differences between sociology and hard sciences like physics. Social sciences have different schools. For instance, Austrian economists and Keynesians will have radically different thesis and yet they're both academics. The same way there are Marxist sociologists and conservative political scientists (like Samuel P. Huntington). Often there is no "objective, single truth" in social sciences. Instead, different academics have different arguments and theories that we can use from references. Sometimes those theories are very commonly accepted and closer to not being so subjective. To my understanding, Norberto Bobbio's definition of the left and right is very notable indeed, but that it's just one viewpoint which stresses their relationship on equality as the most defining factor. Some political scientists have different definitions. Maybe I'll borrow some basic political science textbooks next, apparently these kind of basic definitions aren't easily found from scholar databases. --Pudeo' 03:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And by the way, thanks to whoever put the references quotations in the notes, it's really useful. I think I've now pin-pointed the problem in the lead. It says that right-wing movements view social inequality as "inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable." Social inequality, implying it is meant universally, is too broad to make a statement like this. For instance the 11th note: " the more usual right-wing view, which may be called 'liberal-conservative', is that unequal rewards are right and desirable so long as the competition for wealth and power is a fair one." So rarely right-wing movements reject all social equality, and usually in the case of moderate right-wingers it's mostly wealth distribution (as in rewards). The lead should be slightly modified, for example to clarify that they see some forms of social inequality as inevitable or preferable - not all. --Pudeo' 03:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your source says the Right "accept[s] inequality as natural, normal, and even desirable." If you think its conclusions are wrong then find a source that supports your opinion.  TFD (talk) 05:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It's more of a technical linguistic Wikipedia issue. But yes, what inequality? Did the source mean universal social inequality? Let's do a little deductive reasoning:
 * 1) Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that view social hierarchy or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable.
 * 2) Racial discrimination is a form of social inequality
 * 3) The British Conservatives is a right-wing party

Thus, the British Conservatives support racial discrimination? Simply, the definition sentence needs the "some forms of" because the sources speak broadly of equality, not necessarily even of social inequality - or did they mean economical equality - atleast the 11th note did bring two main lines - the other being liberal-conservatives who simply think unequal rewards are acceptable within fair competition - a limited section of equal income within social justice. --Pudeo' 05:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You are missing my point so I will explain it again. We should not analyze subjects and report our findings but should report what reliable sources say about them.  You have failed to do that, presumably because no reliable sources come to the same conclusions you do.  TFD (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But my point is that the sources have been formulated to text in a too broad and thus wrong way by an editor, that is based on existing sources. Of course, the other option is to have a direct quote from one of the sources for the definition. none of the current sources in the article say that right-wing politics think all social inequality is normal or justified. They do not mention the word pair "social injustice"; an editor has formulated that. My formulation would be "-- that view some forms of social hierarchy or social inequality..." --Pudeo' 05:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is wrong to put in direct quotes when describing something that all reliable sources agree on. We do  not say for example, "Professor so and so says that Finland is in Europe."  The problem is that you disagree with what mainstream sources say and think the article should reflect your view.  But that is contrary to policies of WP:RS and WP:NOR.  Unless you can find some source that presents what you think should be in the article, this discussion is pointless.  TFD (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with those sources, I just disagree how it has been formulated into the sentences. The wording of the article is not permanently locked because it has citations; the wording matters. Have a look at the 29 September, 2012 version of this article. The wording and formulation is different altough it uses the same sources. That's the point. "Get sources" is not a response to how to compress existing sources into two verses in the best possible way. Altering facts and slightly modifying verses are two different things. The first chapter of the lead uses 12 sources, is there only one way to form them into the lead? Anyway, did you not see my edit on the article? Are you not happy with it - it's just a minor clarification? Perhaps you wish to revert it and we can have a revert war and get third-party opinions, heh.  --Pudeo' 06:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To conflate social hierarchy with social injustice is to misrepresent the right-wing view, which is that justice requires that the "best" people deserve to be treated best. No doubt "some forms" is correct, but it is also an example of weasel words, and begs the question "which forms".  Rick Norwood (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As to your example of logic, it is fallacious. From A implies B (if British Conservative then accepts inequality), and C implies B (if racist then accepts inequality), you conclude A implies C.  But the second arrow points the other way. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Francis Bond Head provided a good summary of the ideology of his party, which today calls itself the "Conservative Party": "The family compact of Upper Canada is composed of those members of its society who, either by their abilities and character have been honoured by the confidence of the executive government, or who by their industry and intelligence have amassed wealth. The party I admit is comparatively a small one but to put the multitude at the top and the few at the bottom is a radical reversion of that pyramid of society which every reflecting man must foresee can only end by its downfall."  TFD (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I think some readers confuse position with ideology. I can understand an American conservative being very upset at hearing an academic use a phrase such as this. "The Nazi party emerged as a right wing party during the Weimar Republic." After all, do we not call American conservative movements such as the Tea Party "right wing?" So the implication seems to be that Nazis have some ideological affinity to American conservatives. Conservatives may challenge this and state, correctly, that the Nazis advocated a form of "socialism" and statism that bears no resemblance to American "right wing" politics. However, in the context of the Weimar Republic, the Nazis were in the right of the political spectrum and ultimately came to power in coalition with the German right (Zentrum) rather than the Social Democrats and Communists. Furthermore, the early Nazi Party had an internal divide between "left" Nazis and "right" Nazis. Likewise, even in a far left, communist context, scholars sometimes - perhaps confusingly - describe factions as "left" and "right." These are terms of positionally, not ideology.24.167.52.195 (talk)

24.167.52.195 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * They are both relative and absolute terms. Socialists and Communists in the U.S. are left-wing, while Tea Party types in the Weimar Republic voted for the Enabling Act that gave Hitler dictatorial powers.  No doubt a Tea Party America would be more benign than Nazism, but then the Weimar Republic's socialist government had been more benign than Stalinism.  TFD (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, let me take a crack at this. The source is "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," by Mark Twain. The statement, "The character of 'Jim' is referred to in a perjorative, vulgar manner," is a true statement, directly sourced. The statement, "The character of 'Jim" is referred to in a manner that was acceptable at the time the book was published," is also a true statement, directly sourced. This is a difference in phrasing, both from the same source. Each form, written by editors and sourced exactly the same shows a form of bias. How far that bias can lead is shown by the comparison of the TEA party with those who, as phrased above, "gave Hitler dictatorial powers." The softening statement that follows really does nothing to repair the obvious bias of the author. The Nazi comparison actually makes the point of the previous commentor. A more neutral sentence would have read, "Socialists and Communists in the U.S. are left-wing, while Tea Party types are right-wing." I think this provides a perfect example of the original point of this section. The terms "left" and "right" are by NO means "absolute;" they can only be understood relative to each other. (BTW, I understand comments here don't need to be NPOV, I merely use them as convenient examples.) Cheers. Jororo05 (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the Right is defined as the opposition to the Left,. If you have sources please provide them.  Incidentally, Huck Finn does not say Jim is referred to pejoratively, nor that the character was acceptable at the time.  Those are analyses that must be sourced to secondary sources, viz., books written about Twain.  TFD (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

IP edits
An IP continues to add "In left-wing politics" to the lead. The most recent time he said, "what? its common sense! right-wing is part of left-right politics!" I do not know what that means but is not consistent with content policy. TFD (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

In left/right politics
Too much time and energy is going into this teapot tempest. Yes, of course right-wing politics is in left/right politics. Where else would it be? But there is no need to clutter up the lead with a statement of the obvious. Would you want the article Jupiter to begin, "In a list of the planets, Jupiter is a planet." Please stop wasting our time making a pointless point. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

PoV
I think this is as clear a case of disputed neutrality as any. This Talk page is in its entirety a neutrality dispute. The tag is therefore appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.28.8 (talk • contribs) 29 December 2014


 * Saying, "its obvious" is not a good enough reason to keep the tag. 184.157.93.40 (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree. Thanks for removing the tag.  TFD (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I was shocked that the "The neutrality of this article is disputed" tag is not at the top of this article. Seriously folks, it's one thing to have a biased article (even if it's unintentional) but please do apply the tag. 2602:304:CE64:9770:7996:F233:4611:EB16 (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Edward Leo Brown, Kokomo, Indiana

A person who considers themself right-wing will find a neutral article about the Right shocking biased toward the Left, and a person who considers themself left-wing will find a neutral article about the Right shockingly biased toward the Right. What is Left and what is Right depend on where you stand. It may be that true neutrality is impossible, but Wikipedians often try very hard to find a balance. When we do, it makes everybody angry.

If you (and others who have made similar comments) would cite specifics, instead of just saying over and over that its "obvious", it would help us strike the right balance. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Rick Norwood is exactly correct. if anyone sees a specific sentence that is biased,  then please report it here and we can fix it.  if the critic could not find a singles the sentence,  then I think we have reached Norwood's criteria for balance.  Rjensen (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The only external link being "Right Wing Watch"
My edit to remove that link got reverted by Rick Norwood, saying "Restore link to web page that quotes the actual words of people who self-identify as right-wing." But the aim of that site is clearly to portray the "right wing" only in a negative light.

I disagree with extreme social conservatives too, but that being the only external link just shows bias. 50.185.169.126 (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Politics makes strange bedfellows. Rather than remove a sample of one version of right-wing, add a link to a major site that portrays a better version of right-wing.Rick Norwood (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It is about the extreme right in the U.S. It could seem prejudicial since it omits for example the moderate right, which would include mainstream Republicans and arguably mainstream Democrats as well.  But the way to balance it is to add other links.  TFD (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There are certain rules about what can be in External Links, WP:EL says we should link to "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." Breitbart.com is not an appropriate EL. LK (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I read over the External Links section. The quote you give is one comment of many on the subject. Here is another: "On articles with multiple points of view, avoid providing links too great in number or weight to one point of view, or that give undue weight to minority views." Based on that, we should have either both of the two current links or neither. I would favor both, since actual examples of the range of conservative thought tell the reader more about right-wing politics than commentary can.Rick Norwood (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed the external links section entirely. The focus of the article is on a global and historical description of right wing politics.  All three external links in that section were americentric; limited to coverage of the activities and opinions of the extreme right in modern U.S. politics; they contribute nothing to the topic of the current article, which notes that, "In the United States "right-wing" has quite a different history and meaning," and otherwise gives little coverage to the United States.  They were not appropriate links for this article. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 17:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Grossly Polemical
Social Darwinism as a part of the right wing? Is the right getting blamed now for Social Darwinist like Sanger, Guttmacher, Wilson et al?

Fascism as a movement of the right? How is national socialism a right wing movement? Did they not nationalize enough industry to be left wing? Mandated employment and price and wage controls not enough government interference in the economy to be left wing?

Nearly all of the authors cited are political opponents of right wing politics. That is not true of the left wing politics page. There is some serious bias here, and look forward to debating any of these points. This page is grossly polemical. When do I get to start editing out this nonsense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8200:6CB0:3840:EBAD:9E05:8FFB (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Anon needs to explain what RS he is using. Rjensen (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Not a techie, what does RS mean?

"social inequality"
Right-wing politics of course neither support nor accept social inequality! Please delete the phrase. My edits were reverted by left-wing liberal agitators. The whole paragraph needs to be changed. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Not only do they support inequality, they say they do. TFD (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Who says that? Tell me a right-wing person, who says something. (and if you mean far-right ones, then it should be clearly explained in the introduction)
 * P.S., the claim that right-wing politics would support or accept "social inequality" is not confirmed by any neutral source. But for a neutral person, it's obvious, that right-wing politics aren't accepting or supporting social inequality (except for far-right politics, but this has to be better explained). --TheHeroWolf (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Margaret Thatcher for one ("We are all unequal.") And sources do not need to be neutral they need to be reliable.  TFD (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * So you admit, that Wikipedia isn't neutral and that you edit against WP:NPOV? Margaret Thatcher said a fact, which does not mean "social inequality" in that sense, but e.g. in case of race etc. (and she didn't say, she would support that or so). All sources in the introduction are ones of left-wing activists who call themselves "neutral" or don't deny it. WP has to have neutral sources, if it's a neutral encyclopedia. But most of you seem to be and edit left-wing. As a result, there stand many lies in Wikipedia's articles. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The difference between neutral and reliable is this. A neutral source will not preference the germ theory of disease over the evil spirits theory of disease. A reliable source will. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * TheHeroWolf, you linked to NPOV, but you appear not to have read it. It says, "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."  And it refers to views, not facts.  Facts are the same regardless of writers' opinions.  Do you have any reliable sources that describe the Right differently from those used in this article?  TFD (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Rick Norwood, but that means, you admit, that you wanna have the germ theory of disease and not the evil spirits theory, which means, you aren't neutral. And you even admit it.
 * TFD, you're right, but then it has to stand "according to...they support social inequality" and not standing that they do it, and only the numbers with the references. And if you want a right-wing source of pro-equality, e.g. the right-wing Constitution Party stands for it (you can read their party programme a.o.). Many members of Republican Party are for real equality, e.g. Ron Paul. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course I'm not "neutral". And neither is Wikipedia. Wikipedia preferences reliable sources, specifically academic sources, over fringe sources. There are plenty of places on the web where you can post nonsense, but this isn't one of them.

People who are not right-wing at all, like Ron Paul, have chosen to ally with the Right. And one tactic these people use is to try to change the meaning of words, often so that a word to them means exactly the opposite of the dictionary definition. But if we don't stick to standard definitions, communication is impossible. Instead of trying to change the meaning of right-wing, which is used in many books written before the alliance between Libertarians and the Christian Right, why not stop identifying Libertarianism with the Right. You can still vote Republican. Not all Republicans are right-wing, though most people on the Right vote Republican.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * For me it seems, that Ron Paul is right-wing, but doesn't matter, because I am an Austrian, and here in Austria my favourite party is the BNFÖ. In the U.S. I would vote for the center-right pacifist Constitution Party, but there is anyway suppressed opposition in America, while Democrats and Republicans have very similar aims (with exceptions like e.g. Ron Paul, Randall Terry or Rick Santorum). Wikipedia should rely on facts and not propaganda of left-wing activists. One fact is, that right-wing politics don't accept or support social inequality, except for some far-right people. So please delete or change the phrase. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The Constitution Party website is not a reliable source for this article. You need books or articles published by reputable publishers.  It could be that all those sources are wrong, but policy requires that we use them.  If you disagree with those policies then you need to get them changed.  TFD (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If the policy requires it, why don't make use of political party programmes? What are "reliable" sources according to your "policies"? --TheHeroWolf (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * See WP:RS for an explanation of reliable sources. We cannot just use the Constitution Party platform because it is not rs.  We do not know if what they are saying is true.  Furthermore, even if it is, we need another source to say they are right-wing and "no original research", yet another policy says we cannot combine those statements to draw any conclusions.  You need a reliable source that says the Right (or part of the Right) supports equality.  TFD (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In its article, the Constitution Party is even regarded as "far-right", which is nonsense. I think, you prefer only left-wing sources, don't you? --TheHeroWolf (talk) 06:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not think that "far right" is correct, but it is another article and you can discuss it on its own talk page. TFD (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Preferably not. This section can be closed. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Ron Paul is clearly on the right, and quite close to Milton Friedman in his way of thinking.::::::: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8200:6CB0:3840:EBAD:9E05:8FFB (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The lead of right-wing and left-wing is pretty biased in my opinion. While I agree that left would be a platform of progressivism and equality, does that make the right the exact opposite? Libelous much? I can cite many reliable sources that say the Right favors traditional values, free markets and personal liberties. How does the whole lead paragraph not say that? 100.14.57.197 (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I can cite many reliable sources that say .... maybe so, maybe not. to gain credibility you have to cite some. Rjensen (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Sfarney edit
The meaning of right-wing has changed greatly over the years, and some argue that today right-wing means, essentially, libertarian. This view is not supported by any major non-libertarian academic source that I am familiar with, and is certainly not the historical or international use of the phrase, and so it should not be the view expressed in the introduction to this article. Here is a recent edit of the lead, which I reverted:

Right-wing politics are political positions that view some forms of social stratification or social inequality as a natural or inevitable consequence of a free society, typically arguing that equality can be achieved only by limiting or denying freedom to exceptional individuals.<

The first reference is to a right-wing website -- hardly a neutral source. The other two references do not support they sentence they are referencing, but rather support the view it replaced, which I have restored.

Certainly the right-wing monarchists of France would not consider social inequality the result of a free society, they saw social inequality as the consequence of birth into an aristocratic family. Social inequality was hereditary. In most of modern Europe, social inequality is a result not of a free society, but of the country and traditions of your birth, and hostility to immigration is a major feature of the modern European right.

Even in America, where libertarians, Christian fundamentalists, and those who oppose immigration and support gun rights have formed an uneasy alliance, the libertarians are not the dominant group. Libertarians claim that social inequality is based on merit, but the Christian Right supports social inequality based on religion, and the anti-immigrant Right supports social inequality based on the country of birth.

If you disagree, please discuss the question here and provide sources for any changes. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for opening the discussion. First, let us agree with the substance of the article that the term "right wing" is applied to a wide range of sometimes mutually contradictory positions. Particularly in the US, the "right wing" is very often applied to anti-government, individualistic survivalist, while the historical "right wing" of France was pro-royalty.  In the US, we had the "old right" personified by Barry Goldwater and "states rights," and the "new right" which is identified with the pro-federal, pro-military neo-con movement and has much in common with the economic theories of the Fascists.  It is a very thorny issue.  Much of the problem is that many of the people defining and using the term are opposed to the ideas they define.  But the large body of writings from the Reagan Era shows the pro-Reaganites were also inconsistent with the term.  They used "right wing" and "Conservative" to mean pro-Constitution and pro-Revolutionary -- but if so, what was King George?  Left wing?  The BBC casually uses the phrase, "right wing communists," as though flat mountains and dry rainstorms were a familiar experience.
 * This famous quote from The Detroit News typifies this cross-dressing mixed-up stew: "Thatcher-era Britain produced its own crop of paranoid left-liberal films. ... All posited a vast right-wing conspiracy propping up a reactionary government ruthlessly crushing all efforts at opposition under the guise of parliamentary democracy."
 * As a consequence, "right wing" has become more of an epithet than a true (or reliable) category of political thought. It can be described by the many uses, as is done in the body of this article, but it cannot be reliably defined in the face of all the contradictions.  The first current lede states that "right wing" means a preference for social stratification.  Some writers may say so, and certainly that was the tradition of European royalty.  But Lyndon LaRouche is also said to be right wing.  "Left wing" Hillary Clinton recently announced that everyone should recognize "white privilege", as though it were not just an ugly injustice.
 * With all this in mind, I did my best to simplify and neutralize the language without changing the substance of the article. We cannot let the article be a page for polemics.
 * Also, please note, the word "either" cannot be used to preface more than two alternatives, as here ("either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable"). I know that TeeVee writers use it to preface a list, but TeeVee writers often butcher the language for special effect and to indicate diminished intelligence or inadequate education in the characters. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

There is an old legal adage that exceptional cases make bad law. You quote several exceptional cases, where left and right swap meanings. This article, however, cannot treat the rare exceptions in the lead, and in the body of the article can only treat them in passing. There is a meaning to left-wing and right-wing that is consistent over the centuries, and consistent from country to country, and it is that those on the left believe in equality, and those on the right believe in hierarchy. Until the age of Reagan and Thatcher, left-wing and right-wing were almost always used as insults. Almost nobody wanted to identify themselves as Left or Right. Today, in a brief 35 years, the meaning of the phrases, at least in the US, have changed so much that Left is used as a synonym for Democrat and Right as a synonym for Republican. But this brief revisionist etymology cannot be the main subject of an article with historic and international scope. I agree with you about either/or, and will edit the article accordingly. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not think that the terms were used as insults where influential left and right-wing parties existed. The Left Book Club for example published socialist and Communist writers, while Mussolini said, "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the "right", a Fascist century."  In the U.S. the terms left and right were insults because they exaggerated their opponents' positions.  Roosevelt for example labeled his opponents conservatives, they labeled him a socialist.  Ironically his opponents picked up the label, and perhaps Democrats will reciprocate.  BTW "right-wing Communists" were the Right Opposition.  They were the right-wing of the Communist Party.  We can use the terms left and right in a relative sense (which is one reason they have maintained relevance.)  The same thing with north-south directions:  North Carolina is a Southern state.  The Southern states are in the Northern hemisphere.  TFD (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the terms are relevant in some contexts, but as they are used in the broad society and the news media where these words romp with gay abandon, anything goes. Rich fat cats are "left wing" if they advocate raising taxes on the middle class, and backwoods anarchists who spit on all rulers are "right wing".  Among the poor of the South who vote Republican, where is the Right Wing?  Right in the 4x4 living room in front of the 13" TeeVee screen with a rifle over the door, employed in a low wage blue collar job.  By actual numbers, the rich fat cats are a tiny minority.  And by actual voting statistics, half the rest of the population is "right wing", supposedly in favor of its own relative poverty.  The origin of the paradox begins to show itself as some editors insist that only opposing writers should be cited here to define the "right wing". Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Certainly the Democrats are to the left of the Republicans. But to say they are part 0f the Left, along with Pol Pot, while Republicans are part of the Right, along with Adolph Hitler, is to confuse the relative with the absolute meanings of the terms.  Both parties are liberal, they believe in capitalism, that the relationship between God and the individual is personal, not mediated by an established church, that the law applies in theory to everyone, etc.  TFD (talk) 07:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Introduction: Le droit and Ultra-royalists?
This sentence isn't clear and seems grammatically incomplete.

The use of the expression la droite (the right) became prominent in France after the restoration of the monarchy in 1815, when le droit was applied [something missing here?] the Ultra-royalists.

--JamesPoulson (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this the same thing as "nativist nationalism"?
I just read an article comparing Trump with Marine Le Pen of France and other Europeans who are promoting what the author of the article refers to as "nativist nationalism". Is this the same thing as right-wing politics, and if so should the editors here add "nativist nationalism" to the list of things that right-wing politics is? The article is: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/05/atlantic-crossings/482448/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.178.24.2 (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Read into Nationalism. This ideology is sometimes positioned as right-wing.
 * Nativism would probably be something about being native to a country. --JamesPoulson (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The article discusses nationalism. "Nativist nationalist" is not a usual term to define an ideology.  Normally it is just called nationalism, although there is also a civic nationalism that seeks greater autonomy rather than exclusion of minorities.  But there are usually called independence movements.  TFD (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

== Edit by 2607:fb90:4c47:72c9:c006:4b18:6b7c:c013 ==

The revision says "The nobility and aristocracy remained but bankers and merchants began to join their ranks.".

The change was from:


 * From the 1830s to the 1880s, there was a shift in the Western world of social class structure and the economy, moving away from nobility and aristocracy towards capitalism.
 * (switch from support of a political system to an economic one)

To:


 * From the 1830s to the 1880s, there was a shift in the Western world of social class structure and the economy, moving away from feudalism towards capitalism.
 * (switch from support for one economical to another)

This most likely represents an opinion unsupported by the reference, ignores the past monarchist tradition in Europe and obscures the past meaning of European conservatism as in to "seek to preserve institutions like the Church, monarchy and the social hierarchy" and "emphasizing stability and continuity".

Furthermore, Europe would have been transitioning from mercantilism in the 1700s to 1800s rather then feudalism (Middle Ages). --JamesPoulson (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Biased article
This article is biased in favor of leftist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.29.121.98 (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * In the words of Stephen Colbert, reality shows a liberal bias.Rick Norwood (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If there is any bias it is not in the article in itself but in the references as in the [1],[2],[3], etc.. --JamesPoulson (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Concerns regarding source - Right-wing women: From Conservatism to Extremism around the world
I am very concerned about this source. Firstly concern about bias - the source outright states it hopes to further anti-right wing practice (page 1), which to my mind makes this as useful as Mein Kampf is for discussing communism. It also uses its own definition which is as follows:

""For us, if there is anything that actually distinguishes (both the center and far) right from other political tendencies, it is the right's reliance on some form of internal or external Other. Right wings differentially draw on, produce, and mobilize naturalized and/or culturalized self/Other criteria to reify or forge hierarchical differences. These are based in gender, sexuality, class, ethnicity, religion, race, caste, or at their various intersections."

What it means here is, to me, unclear. Other, in phenomenology, is simply that which is distinct from the self. If the source simply means "right-wing ideologies use distinctions between Others and the Self (or even Others and Others) and use these distinctions to form hierarchical relations then that would support Source 10 (Cultures at War: Moral Conflicts in Western Democracies) and would be acceptable aside from the possibly misleading wording. However, Othering is often done with the implication of superficiality and bigotry - colonized peoples are Othered, for example. It thus carries the implication that these hierarchies are always going to be superficial and based largely on prejudice. This fails to explain support for private property in free-market conservatism and simplifies things like nationalism (even when people want to live in their own nations)- a concern LeapUK raised. I should also note the source claims, on page 3, "Right-wing ideologies, whether forged by male or female ideologues, are always gendered and elicit gendered responses". I cannot see how this can be supported in such absolute terms (certain ideologies maybe but the source here states always). This, combined with other statements, leads me to conclude the source is too biased to be used as an accepted definition of right-wing ideologies. The source also admits it is using its own definition, rather than those of political science. I therefore would argue it should not be used for definitional purposes, anymore than a polemic declaring liberalism as fascism should be used to define liberalism. Other sources should be sought that are focused on definitions, unlike this source which has a viewpoint and wants to argue its own view (and a polemical one at that). It should be noted that the Other is also used in left-wing political groups - communists distinguish between classes. More liberal minded socialists distinguish between cultures (the Canadian policy of multiculturalism depends on Others after all) and protest against groups they regard as engaging in unfair practice (protesting against conservative sexual mores is essentially anti-Other discourse). All political ideologies have an Other (and its hard to see how they couldn't) and right-wing politics is not unique in its use - page 8 of the source argues right-wing ideologies use the Other as a source of fear and mobilization. One could equally argue that communists use their other (the bourgeois and other propertied classes) as a source of fear (exploiting labour, class warfare waged from above) and mobilization (encouraging workers to be class conscious and making efforts towards revolution). I would also note that the source refers to a lot of far-right movements (page 9 and 10 use the French National Front and the Weimar-era DNVP as examples of proof of inherent right-wing sexism, which is like using Wahhabism as proof that Muslims are inherently extremist.

All things considered, the source's polemical aims and considerable bias concern me. Much like the right-wing terrorism debacle, it could cause people to consider the page to simply be biased. If sources supporting the view of hierarchical relations as characteristically right-wing are required (which seems to be LittleJerry's intention), I would recommend alternative sources be found. I shall endeavor to find some myself.

I would appreciate if others would weigh in on this issue before it turns into an edit war.


 * All reliable sources on this topic that I have seen have a strong point of view. No book to my knowledge is "neutral."  That is ALLOWED in Wikipedia  see WP:BIASED --it's bias in the wiki editors that are problems. Rjensen (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The source is not being used to define right wing, but to support a specific aspect of it with the sentence "Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences..." LittleJerry (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The political orientation of writers is irrelevant to the reliability of the facts they present. Most high quality sources on political science express a view, which is the reason they are written.  But quality sources must report facts accurately.  TFD (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Section on right-wing terrorism is uneccessary
Political groups of many different motivations have committed terrorist actions, does anyone with the least bit of political awareness really learn anything from having a section stating that this has occurred amongst right-wing groups? Also having this as a major section in the article appears to insinuate that right-wing terrorism is a major component of right-wing politics.

What makes this material special enough to have a whole section devoted to it in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.126.143 (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The labels, "right" and "left", are completely artificial and inconsistently applied to politics, and this section is blatant NPOV and editorializing. The Soviet Union was called "left-wing" when it was nice and "right-wing" when it was evil.  The same for most other groups.  The radical mass murderer Pol Pot/Kmer Rouge could be called right wing if nationalism is the criterion, or left-wing if economics is the standard.  The writers who use those terms usually use "left-wing" to mean the things they like, and "right-wing" to mean the things they don't like, resulting in a blurry definition like multiple images superimposed.  Very few writers stand with pride and pronounce themselves aligned with "right wing" goals.  The subject has encyclopedic value on the level of Clinton's "deplorables." Grammar's Li'l Helper  Talk 21:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "When people ask me if the division between parties of the Right and parties of the Left, men of the Right and men of the Left, still makes sense, the first thing that comes to mind is that the person asking the question is certainly not a man of the Left." (Alain, 1923)  The complaint by right-wingers that only the Left thinks there is a left-right distinction goes back to the beginning of the terms.  TFD (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice. It belongs in the article. Can we get an RS? Grammar's Li'l Helper  Talk 04:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Gauchet, Marcel. "Right and Left". In Pierre Nora, Lawrence D. Kritzman (Eds.), Realms of memory: conflicts and divisions, p. 266. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997 ISBN 0-231-10634-3
 * Everyone has become distracted, let's get back to the point: what makes this material on right-wing terrorism special enough to have a whole section devoted to it in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.126.143 (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We have an article Right-wing terrorism so there is undeniably a subject here and it is relevant to right-wing politics. This stuff is real and I believe that it is worthy of a small section here as well as its own article. I write this from the UK and I can assure you that right-wing terrorism is not some flash in the pan. It has been going on for many decades at a variable but mostly low level. In the past there were areas where the synagogues needed regular police protection. Now the Mosques are at more risk in some areas but it is the same sort of far right groups presenting the threat in both cases. I can only reiterate, "right-wing terrorism" is not some rhetorical flourish favoured by the left. It is real. Not huge, but real. So it makes sense to introduce it here, without too much detail, and link to the articles about it. Nobody should be trying to taint normal right wing people with association with terrorism but, just as articles about left-wing politics shouldn't ignore left-wing terrorism, it makes sense to link to right wing terrorism here. That said, I just looked at the Left-wing politics article and was surprised to see that it doesn't link to Left-wing terrorism either, only to eco-terrorism. I'd argue that both articles should adopt the same approach (for fairness) and that each should link to the appropriate terrorism articles (for honesty and completeness) using a very similar and careful wording in each case which avoids any implication that the wider ideology is tainted by terrorism committed by these fringe groups. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * well let's take UK-- which right wing politicians sponsor terrorism there? can we have some names. this is the article abput Politics after all. Rjensen (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree to the removal. Domestic terrorism is not normally carried out by right-wingers, except for the far right, or in dictatorships and weak democracies where terrorism is a tactic used by all sides.  TFD (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You have only to look at the article on Right-wing terrorism to find many examples, including in the UK. Of course any right-wing terrorist is part of the far right. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue is weight. The far right is a small part of the Right, terrorism is a small part of the far right.  Timothy McVeigh for example did not have the same stature as Ronald Reagan.  TFD (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that anybody is suggesting otherwise. I certainly don't think that this article should do much more than note that right-wing terrorism exists as part of the far right and then link to it so that those who want to know more can find out. A sentence or two would cover it. It might not even need to be in its own section but I do think that it deserves a mention and that the same is true for left-wing terrorism in the left-wing politics article. I know that people feel concerned that any mention of terrorism can give the impression of tainting a whole wider ideology, and I understand why people are jumpy about this because there certainly are some people who would seek to do that, but with careful neutral wording I'm sure this can be avoided. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I think though that it is wrong to assume symmetry between left and right.  Searches for "the Left" and "left-wing" return lots of hits and despite the range from Maoism to New Labour, the various forms at least have some sort of historical connection with one another.  But a similar search for the Right returns hits for the far right and no one has written about the Right globally.  TFD (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

So is the section being maintained or not? I ask since there's no equivalent on the left-wing page, even though the reasons for having a right-wing terrorism section could easily be applied to the left-wing page as well. I raised the issue there, especially given each article talks about certain topics (nationalism, economics, culture) and the political wings relationship to them, so it seems odd for the left-wing not to have a segment (as DanielRigal said). So should it be kept or deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.75.38 (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Most terrorism today is by definition right-wing, because most governments are at least in theory democratic, and most terrorists want to replace the current government with a reactionary, nationalist, or religious rule. The motivation of a Christian who murders Moslems and a Moslem who murders Christians is the same: a conservative desire to have one established race, religion, and way of life.  Left-wing terrorism, which is essentially communist terrorism, was common in the past, but today is rare.  It might be possible to have sections on right-wing terrorism, but such a section would have to avoid the common assumption right-wing means good and left-wing means bad, or vice versa. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it should just be avoided then, since it's clearly stirring up so much trouble? I mean one could well introduce sections discussing all the atrocities both sides have done in their history but to my mind this would be daft and placing an over-emphasis on small sections of the ideologies (in fact you could ask why this isn't a thing). It's becoming more trouble than it's worth and dedicated pages already exist for each terrorism on each side. At most one could include a link in the "See Also" sections - I mean the alt-right and Dark Enlightenment are listed there right now, despite being largely a tiny subset of the American right and not that big in right-wing politics internationally - if you wanted a hard-right ideology I'd have put fascism there instead, due to having a larger impact than DE and being it's own thing, whereas the alt-right is a rehash of white nationalism. And even though right-wing terrorism is common today, it is still not the dominant form of right-wing politics (and a lot of it is religiously based, though the line between guerilla warfare, hate crimes and terrorism can be vague, while religion has been declining in many countries today). I mean Islamic terrorism is well known but the page on Islam doesn't discuss it for satisfactory reasons. Thus IMO the best solution would be either to ignore it completely or only have "See Also" segment, given this has turned into a tumor of a topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.75.38 (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

ROC as example
The article currently says: "The 1920s and 1930s saw the fading of traditional right-wing politics. [...] When communist groups and political parties began appearing around the world, as in the Republic of China in the 1920s, their opponents were usually colonial authorities, and the term right-wing came to be applied to colonialism."

Wouldn't it be more useful to provide an example where communist parties were actually against colonial authorities, rather than against an independent government? It's somewhat misleading since it implies a link between the Republic of China and opposing colonial authorities, even if the sentence structure isn't technically wrong. Alcherin (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Opening definition and capitalism etc
Some agreement on this talk page would be needed before repeatedly making a wholesale change to the opening sentence, and hence the definition. As noted in my original revert, the page is pretty scrappy and misleading currently from the opening sentence on, but the proposed alternative is not an improvement. Yes, you could say that in the late 20th century US, commitment to capitalism and free markets is a clear marker of the right as opposed to the left (although how complete in practice is a whole other debate, as is the distinction sometimes between the two things), but this page is about the broader historical and geographical sweep: plenty of European conservatives and fascists – not to mention the original monarchist right – are or were very much not committed to capitalism or free markets. Indeed, in the 19th century it was liberals and radicals who were pro-capitalism, while the old right stood against them. And look at Trump now: talking about trade protectionism and massive public infrastructure spending. As I said, and as all serious texts would point out, it is not as simple as is being suggested.  N-HH   talk / edits  11:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree the edit provides a misleading summary of the Right and does not distinguish it from most other sectors of the political spectrum. Hillary Clinton, who was Trump's opponent supports captialism and free trade, yet was not considered right-wing to to her Republican opponents.  TFD (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Most mainstream Democrats are pretty pro-capitalist, despite being described as the left in the US (when I said it was a clear marker in the US, I suppose I was thinking more of, say, the Tea Party when contrasted with Sanders, where it would be one – but only one – of the differences).  N-HH   talk / edits  14:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Modern American politics is a poor place to discover the meaning of ideas. It is largely a fight over money and power, and "ideas" are just memes without meaning. Almost every general statement: "I'm for capitalism.", "I'm for prosperity.", "I'm for America.", "I'm for freedom." is repeated by both parties, with the claim that the other party is against these things. People who care about ideas turn to books, not tweets, to discover their meaning. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)