Talk:Right-wing politics/Archive 23

Fascism and Nazism
An IP has removed reference to Nazism without explanation. Unless some reason can be provided for removal please do not continue to remove. Also, another IP previously removed Nazism and fascism from the categories section. After reflection, I agree with that - they are part of the category of right-wing politics, not vice versa. TFD (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Nazis were socialists, left wing politics. As were all fascists. They nationalized industry, mandated employment, introduced tenure for a variety of positions, set wages, set prices and directed the output of production. See Hayek's book. We can do this another way, how about I list ten very obvious moves to the left that fascists and the Nazis specifically have moved their countries for every 1 that can be posted as moves to the right, and we will see how runs out of material first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8200:6cb0:3840:ebad:9e05:8ffb (talk • contribs) 14:20, 11 December 2015


 * Words mean what they mean. The use of "right-wing" to include Nazis and fascists is well-documented.  The second poster above, who did not sign his post, apparently wants "right-wing" to have a new meaning, but Wikipedia provides information, based on references. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * And yet Neo-Nazism is clearly recognised as (far) right. --JamesPoulson (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's go over their policies and see where they line up. Why don't you name one movement to the right, for every 10 I name that are clearly movements towards the left. Game? Hayek was to the right of what he called conservatives, which he though were weak capitalists. He called NAZIs socialists, because they were. Just like Mussolini, who was a socialist leader his whole life. He just abandoned international socialism, in favor of national socialism. 11:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)~ John (Anonymous) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8200:6CB0:3840:EBAD:9E05:8FFB (talk)


 * We do not determine which groups are right wing by going through a checklist of policies because that would be synthesis. Instead we allow experts to do that and report their conclusions.  Hayek for example did accuse nazis of rejecting free market principles but never said that made them left-wing.  See the chapter in Hayek's book, "Why I am not a conservative."  TFD (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You ignore the policies, but cite polemical opinions from biased writers? OK. That should be included so readers get a better unbiased understanding. Something like "This position is not based on observable policies and fact, it is based on the beliefs of experts, or in this case a website definition for a introduction course to political science". Let's cite Jonah Goldberg then. He goes over what fascism is in extended detail, far more than in the current citation. It is based on policies, and not stated in a conclusory fashion. As to your other point, you are playing on the different use of the word "conservative" and "liberal" in Europe vs. America. " There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of the United States, because what in Europe was called "liberalism" was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American tradition was a liberal in the European sense." from the same chapter you cite. Hayek was European. In Europe if you are for limited government and laissez faire politics they call you a liberal, or a neo liberal these days. In America that same person is called a conservative. Both are on the right side of the political spectrum. Socialism is a product of the left everywhere. Hayek is squarely on the right in modern understanding, and especially in America. To the right of even Milton Friedman. )~ John (Anonymous) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8200:6CB0:3840:EBAD:9E05:8FFB (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You do not need to persuade other editors of your opinions, you need to provide sources to say that those opinions are generally accepted in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * TFD has it right-- Wiki works through reliable sources, not personal speculation. Rjensen (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Amen to that! For some reason (usually among Americans, and I am one, but have lived in Europe most of my adult life), people focus on the words and actually believe them. Political words are often used deceptively for PR purposes. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) is hardly "democratic".
 * While the National Socialists (Nazis) (mis)used the word "socialist", and, in the beginning had certain socialist elements, they quickly changed and became very fascist, and, along with other fascists, were right wingers. When uncertain, look at who were friends and enemies. Look who fought against each other: the communists fought the socialists (both were left wing, but bitter enemies), Social Democrats denounce socialists, the socialists and communists (left wing) fought the Nazis and Fascists (both right wing), the Americans (right wing) were (many still are) antisemitic and tended to side with the Nazis (also right wing) until their atrocities became apparent and they attacked England, etc. If Hitler had not been so barbaric (just hidden his misdeeds better) and had not attacked England, we would have been allied with him against the communists in Russia.
 * I have observed that Europeans are generally better aware of political ideologies and know their own place on the political spectrum. Their history and better educations teach them this stuff. Americans tend to be rather naive in this regard. (Fortunately there are Americans who are exceptions. ) They rate right wing as being equal to socialism, social democracy, and communism, which is utter BS.
 * For our purposes here, we follow what RS say, and they place the nazis and fascists on the right wing. The KKK side with them, and the KKK is anything but left wing. At Donald Trump's rallies, some of his supporters use the "Sieg Heil" Nazi salute; he's classified as a fascist; and right wing extremists say he is on their side and that his rhetoric helps them. Food for thought! -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

What a condescending diatribe. The KKK backed progressive Woodrow Wilson, who was also a big fan of theirs. Showing their propaganda film "Birth of a Nation" to everyone who would watch -inside the White House no less. George Wallace loved the KKK, and big government. The KKK got many of their members into seats of power, nearly all with the Democratic party, and all of them supported larger government intrusion into the economy. The Democratic party is considered to be left wing.

Mussolini, a lifelong socialist, was a leading member of the socialist movement until he supported WW1. He rote for Avanti, (socialist newspaper), was jailed for opposing the invasion of Libya that he saw as capitalist imperialism, etc... He then decided that international socialism would not work because people preferred their nation's sovereignty and distrusted outsiders. So he combined nationalism with socialism. That is all he did. The state good still came before the individual good, just like in every socialist society. Socialists like Bernard Shaw enthusiastically supported him and Hitler. Just like W E B Dubois - a racist socialist who kept blacks out of jobs in America. Or Will Rogers, an ardent leftist, or Sam McClure, another important socialist. The famous author HG Wells thought very highly of him, prior to WW2 at least. Just because the history of your team is bad, doesn't mean it is not true. In any event, I look forward to hearing of this policy that moved Germany or Italy towards economic liberalism. Keep your condescension to yourself please until you can get that straightened out.

Just because fascists fought other socialists does not mean they are not on the left. When establishing single party rule, sometimes you have to go to war with people who are on your side of the political spectrum but are opposed to your one party rule. I noticed you did not list a single policy that moved Italy or Germany towards economic liberalism. You had time for all those insults, and no time for an argument? Use that grand education you received and please list where the fascists differed from socialists economically.

If a "Trump supporter" is your argument, what was that person's name and are you sure they weren't there with the rest of the protesters? ~ John M

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8200:6cb0:317c:a84:d8a8:cd6 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 20 December 2015


 * Ladies an gentlemen. Please take a moment to understand that nobody cares about your opinions here and nobody is interested in the rights and wrongs (or rights and lefts) of your arguments. You may or may not be on the verge of a breakthrough in political thought that will change the world but this is not the place to argue for it. We only care about the established consensus (or established landscape of debate where there is no consensus). Nothing is going to go into this article just because anybody makes a plausible sounding argument on a Talk page. It will only go in if reliable sources support it as a notable aspect of this subject. Now, I love bickering about politics as much as the next blowhard but I have enough respect for Wikipedia not to do it here where it would disrupt constructive discussion about how to improve our articles.
 * Constructive suggestions, supported by reliable references are welcome here but argument from personal opinion is just wearing out your keyboard for nothing per No original research and Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Please can you all just cut it out? --DanielRigal (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, this is not the place to discuss your opinions. You need to follow policies and I have posted links on your user page that explain them.  You cannot list a number of ways in which fascism and socialism are similar and conclude fascism was left-wing.  You need a mainstream reliable source that draws that conclusion.  TFD (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Four Deuces, does Ludwig von Mises, Hayek, and Goldberg count? If so, can I go ahead and update the page? I respect wikipedia, you will notice I have not changed the main page. I was under the impression that the talk pages were available to discuss items presented as fact that are in dispute. In none of the cited research is there any supporting claims that the policies embodied right wing politics. In most citations no policies are discussed at all. Those 3 authors I have referred to published major works discussing the idea at depth, and their policies. The citations against their position are definitions from a website for a Political Science Introduction course, and a text written by a then Associate Professor. They do not discuss nor explain any policies that support the claim that fascism is on the right. They just state it as conclusion. "We are against the political bourgeoisie, and for genuine nationalism! We are against Marxism, but for true socialism! We are for the first German national state of a socialist nature! We are for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party!” - Joseph Goebbels. Why is it wrong to cite the stated positions of the people who adopted the policies, the supporters at the time before they became an embarrassment, as well as prominent scholars later, but an Internet dictionary citation trumps all of that? What would be superior citations to this dispute than the people who adopted the policies, their contemporaries, and scholars? ~John M
 * Neither Hayek nor Mises said fascism was left wing. Neither writer considered themselves right-wing, although Mises was a Fascist.  Goldberg's book is not to be taken seriously - he has no credentials and the book received no acclaim.  And both were like Mussolini former socialists.  Do you think they were left wing?  TFD (talk) 08:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Mises was most certainly NOT a fascist and saying so is completely unsubstantiated. Nice try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.28.251 (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "The Meaning of the Mises Papers," 1997: Mises was one of the closest advisore to Austrofascist dictator "Engelbert Dollfuss."  In Liberalism (1927), he praised Italian Fascism's "best intentions" and "their intervention [that has, for the moment, saved European civilzation. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history."  Of course he saw it as an emergency measure, but so did most fascist supporters.  But the point is he and most informed writers saw it as a defense against socialism rather than as socialist.  TFD (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * JohnM should realize that "national socialism" is a right-wing variety of socialism. Left wing ideologies are all = rule by the working class and that was never the case with fascism/ Nazis. What they meant by "national socialism" was the submergence of the individual into the nation especially as expressed by Hitler/Mussolini. Private ownership and capitalism continued as a major force. Rjensen (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Right wing socialism? Since when does that exist? What do you think makes it right wing, I am curious. The state before the individual is a hallmark of what it means to be on the left. Are the communists not willing to subjugate the individual for the public good? All left wing ideologies depend on taking from the individual and giving what they have to the state to further the public good. You have the Labour Party on the left on the Left Wing Politics page, the fascist nations had far more control over the economy than the Labour Party even campaigns on, let alone carries out. The nationalized more industry, they de facto nationalized even more, they mandated wages and prices, created tenure systems for employees. They make Bernie Sanders look like a capitalist.


 * "Right-wing" as in maintaining that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable and right-wing socialism as in support for social solidarity as opposed to individualism, commercialism, and laissez-faire economics. Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality.


 * Strange as it may seem, Marxist socialism was almost anarchist in it's end goal with the notion of withering away of the state and it is perhaps Marxism–Leninism that introduced central planning.


 * A left being defined as the people before the individual or collectivist is a liberal or individualist seeking to free themselves from the bounds that other people impose point of view in the European sense of the word.


 * A leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights with the state not necessarily representing the people is a part of the definition of fascism and the economics of fascism did not involve complete nationalisation as with the Soviet Union. The few big names in industry that still exist today attest to that.


 * The main point of confusion is with Nazism which did have genuine anti-capitalist faction in the form of Strasserists and a Four Year Plan. The Strasserists were eliminated as the Italian and German regimes of the time cross-seeded each other and this gave way to an oppressive dirigisme which is the contrary to the idea of workers-owning-production socialism. As such it could be considered as a revolutionary and reactionary hybrid. --JamesPoulson (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Who cares what political positions authors held at any point in their life, their work is what I am citing. The authors cited currently are on which side, and why doesn't that color their work? Goldberg's long book is not to be taken seriously, but an Internet definition with no context trumps it? OK. What are the requirements for a source in your mind if the very people who enacted the policies cannot be used, or any of the people who studied the issue at length, or any of their contemporaries before their association was considered an embarrassment? Only works from then Associate Professors and unpublished Internet Dictionary definitions. Why would those be considered superior authorities? Mussolini wrote quite a bit, can we just cite him, or the American and British left that were enamored with him? It seems to me the citation's only requirement that it be from a left wing writer after the Holocaust took place and the term fascist became a pejorative. Hjalmar Schacht, Hitler's appointed Finance Minister was a member of the German Democratic Party, you have them listed on the left according to wikipedia. All of the people in German and Italian high power were members of some other left wing group prior to the creation of their respective fascist parties. Can I cite any of their work? ~John M  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8200:6CB0:317C:A84:D8A8:CD6 (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No you can not do so on Wikipedia. Use your own Facebook page for that. Is not true that "all of the people in German and Italian high-power were members of some other left-wing group..." You have not given a reliable secondary source for that claim. Wikipedia editors are required to use reliable secondary sources --when they rely on fringe sources that discredits their efforts in the minds of other editors. Primary sources cannot be interpreted by Wikipedia editors, according to our rules. So please don't try. read WP:OR closely. Rjensen (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * We have to follow Wikipedia content policies and if you disagree with them then you should get them changed. That means that academic textbooks written by associate professors are used as sources in preference to books written National Review commentators or our interpretations of fascist writing.  In an intro to a column by Goldberg, the conservative Daily Mail says his book is "controversial" and "he believes that - contrary to conventional wisdom - fascism and left-wing philosophy are inextricably linked..."  Some of the leading fascism scholars have commented on Goldberg's book and you can find their comments here.  My argument is not that Goldberg is wrong, but that his views are outside the mainstream, which means this article cannot reflect them.  TFD (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * My edits to this page have been repeatedly removed. I have changed the page to say that Right-wing politics are about capitalism, per the political compass. Just wanted to tell you this because I am rather new to Wikipedia but fluent in politics, and would rather not get a ban. Thanks Geckovsthestate (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see this section, at the bottom of the page (where new threads are usually started, rather than comments being inserted into the end of the top thread). As noted there, you would need to get agreement before making such a sweeping change to the opening sentence of a page, however "fluent" in something you are or however right you think you are. As also noted, the question at issue is much more complex than you are making it seem. And of course in complex situations like this, you cannot rely on one – fairly marginal and obscure btw – online resource to provide a definitive answer. Political compass does not necessarily represent an agreed consensus in reliable sources, many of which will make very different assertions. Plus of course the whole purpose of their system is to move away from the linear conception of left/right that is the topic here.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As someone fluent in politics, where would you place the legitimists on the political spectrum? TFD (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I as well would like to know the opinion of Geckovsthestate on legitimists. Lefty.cat (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

POV as connotation of word "Right"
Not fair that conservatives have the word "right" associated with their ideology as "right" in English means correct, good, proper, just, according to dictionary.com. Brian Everlasting (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Ever considered that a word can mean two different things? We say "right wing" which is perfectly clear. Only the most wilfully obtuse would claim to assume its opposite was "wrong wing" as opposed to "left wing".
 * Anyway, it isn't us who invented the term so there is no point in arguing with us about it. The people who invented the term are long dead so there is no point arguing with them either.
 * There are things in the dictionary that distress me too but I have long learned that fighting it doesn't do any good. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Why revert me before letting others have a chance to comment? I'm not saying that "left wing" means "wrong wing". In the English language there are many examples of words with connotations or innuendos that can influence someone's opinion. I'm saying that conservatives being associated with the word "right" is unfair and should not be presented that way in a neutral encyclopedia. Brian Everlasting (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Immediately reverting odd edits without waiting for discussion is fine. I think it's safe to say the chances of anyone else agreeing with you on this are about zero, I'm afraid.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Neutrality means that articles reflect the views in reliable sources according to their prominence, not that the bias in reliable sources should be corrected. Ironically, conservatives (unless they are extremists) don't call themselves right-wing, while liberals often call themselves left-wing.  TFD (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

POV pushing and edit warring concerning "racists" sentence
I have reverted yet another blatant POV push that adds the following:

Right-wing parties include conservatives, Christian democrats, nationalists and, on the far Right, racists and fascists

The difference to previous versions is on the far Right, racists and fascists. Racism is not a right-wing party nor anything intrinsic nor exclusive to the far right. This is obvious, but let's forget that. The citation is "The Oxford Dictionary" with a tag from 2016. I imagine they have the dictionary in their hands and have the page number where it says it, so why not add it?

This addition has been contested by at least three editors (myself and ). I have warned editors about WP:NOCON, WP:V and WP:BURDEN but they insist on edit warring, so I bring the discussion here for them. Saturnalia0 (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I have added the page number you requested. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The article has been the target of extensive drive-by disruption by IPs and single-purpose accounts (including the two edits you cited) that have pushed the currently-fashionable notion among the alt-right that fascism is really left-wing. Since that contradicts the scholarly consensus of the last eighty years or so, this is disruptive. You are not entitled to edit-war about a missing page number.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * One of the edits I mentioned only removed the term racists, which is precisely the one that is unsourced and obviously incorrect. Let me repeat because this should be absolutely clear: Racism is not a right-wing party nor anything intrinsic nor exclusive to the far right. It's absurd to have this on an encyclopedia and editors who think that's ok. There are racists on the far left, a lot among Stalinists, and a whole lot more of homophobes. Do you suppose the "left-wing politics" article should have "and on the far-left, homophobes"? It is beyond ridiculous that I have to explain this to any adult. I don't think any editor here would argue against the inclusion of fascists, I know I haven't. I was hoping to look at the page number on Google Books but apparently they blocked any preview of the book, and I couldn't find it for download anywhere. I would bet money with you it doesn't include racists in the definition of right-wing and if by some editorial oversight combined with a politicized intern it does we should start questioning its reliability and probably email them pointing out the error, just as the current state of this article makes the already fragile reliability of this encyclopedia even worse. Saturnalia0 (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * While there are political parties on the far right (such as American Nazis), whose ideology is "white nationalism," there are no left-wing parties whose ideology centers around racism. In any case, you need a source that makes the argument you do, otherwise it is original research.  TFD (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What exactly do I need a source for? Stalinist homophobes? Check out LGBT history in Russia Saturnalia0 (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Saturnalia0, provide me the name of a Stalinist group in America whose main purpose is degradation of the LGBT community, their equivalent of the Family Research Council. TFD (talk) 05:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, so only what happens in America matters? Saturnalia0 (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Saturnalia0, provide me the name of a Stalinist group in a country of your choice whose main purpose is degradation of the LGBT community. TFD (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * While there are centrist and left-wing racists, only the right has made racism a fundamental principle across a variety of parties and organizations, extending to genocide. Equating racism to homophobia is a straw-man argument: with the exception of a few fringe organizations, homophobia has been incidental to broader bigotry - political, religious or racist - by organizations of all stripes. Homophobia seems to transcend the political spectrum on a historical basis, and hasn't been central to any particular political frame in the long run. Your views on left-wing bigotry (which certainly exists) do not mean that we must treat the subjects symmetrically and find bigotry to balance the other side. I'll pass over your rejection of sourcing doesn't favor of your own views.   Acroterion   (talk)   02:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your description of homophobes fits perfectly for the case being made here for racists. Racism is not a right-wing party nor anything intrinsic nor exclusive to the far right and unless you can find reliable and relevant sources that says so I'm reverting this unsourced and ridiculous attempt to poison the well, again. May I remind you that this is not verified and it has been contested not just by myself. Saturnalia0 (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Saturnalia0 is apparently willing to argue this point ad infinitum. Whether he is just young, and ignorant of history, or a troll with too much time on his hands, I see no point in filling up pages with this argument. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see any point in further "discussion". If the references are valid, representative of the mainstream consensus and support the content then it stays in. If people dispute the validity or representativeness of the references then we can discuss that further. If people simply disagree with the mainstream academic consensus then, while they are entitled to dissent from it, they have no grounds to insist that we misrepresent it in our articles just to appease their own views. People can believe in Time Cube if they want to but it isn't going in any Physics articles. Maybe we should just roll this up as having been asked and answered.
 * I am sympathetic to people who genuinely don't understand this subject and who get confused when they read about it for the first time and discover that mainstream political terminology does not match that which they have picked up from local sources. Nonetheless, the persistence with which this sort of nonsense is being pushed on various articles that discuss far-right politics is not consistent with a trickle of confused young people turning up with a POV without realising it. I think this is getting to the point where people who won't drop the stick over this need to be warned for disruptive editing so that productive editors don't have to waste their time protecting small pieces of (really pretty uncontroversial) content and can get on with some more useful and less tedious work. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There has been a broad pattern of activity from IPs and new or single-purpose accounts over the past year or two in which these accounts have attempted to revise or negate historical consensus concerning the right and the extreme right. Most of these base their arguments on a single National Review  commentary if they're relatively sophisticated, while others just lean on National Socialism: if it says "socialism" then it must be of the left, no? Some are more obvious than others: see this at Talk:Fascism where they couldn't help commenting on SJWs, or this  as well as discussions on this page. Saturnalia's claimed support for removal of racism arises from this group. In this specific case I see no argument that extends beyond not liking it and specious claims of support or consensus arising from drive-by edits.    Acroterion   (talk)   14:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to be attempting to associate my edits with disruptive edits of IPs that changed a completely different aspect of different articles to divert attention from the discussion the entire time. I will repeat: Racism is not a right-wing party nor anything intrinsic nor exclusive to the far right. This is obvious, but let's forget that. Where is the reference for that? I have never questioned fascism being on the far right, and I would revert any editor who tried to push otherwise. Saturnalia0 (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you keep claiming that there is support for your edits I note the apparent origin of the claimed support. A reference has been provided, which you don't like. Nobody disputes that racism is exclusive to the right, but a consensus of historians exists that racism is often a central feature of extreme rightism. Your assertion that "racism is not a right-wing party" isn't even what's being discussed.   Acroterion   (talk)   14:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And where is the source for that? The "reference" is an unverifiable one, which, being a dictionary, provides one definition; something tells me it doesn't say anything about the position of historians - which, by the way, if there's not a singular one, all relevant ones should be presented to the reader. Btw I wouldn't be surprised if it's just a random page number. Saturnalia0 (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please think very carefully before you go any further with this "random page number" business. You are accusing editors of falsifying the article and making up fake references. That is not something you should do without certainty as there is the risk of a boomerang if you are wrong. "Certainty" in this case probably means going to the library and looking at the book. It is not unverifiable just because you don't want to be bothered to do that. You wanted a page number. You got a page number. What do you want now? A free copy of the book? --DanielRigal (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I said I wouldn't be surprised. It's unverifiable. Since you added the page number I guess you wouldn't mind posting the page itself? I don't live in the US there's no such thing here. Saturnalia0 (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop with the bad-faith assertions about page numbers. You may consider this a warning: this has gone on long enough. Print sources are not only valid, but in many cases preferred. See WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:OFFLINE. You may not disparage edits simply and editors simply because you can't see the source.  Acroterion   (talk)   09:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

If editors don't see the point of discussing, only of doing personal attacks, then they're welcome to not say anything and spend their time doing something better. Saturnalia0 (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Rick I own the ebook version of the dictionary so my page numbers do not line up with what you have cited. Which definition are you pulling the referenced info from? The only place I see fascist and racist used together is in "entryism".  Gtstricky Talk or C 14:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Look up "right-wing". Rick Norwood (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you think I would have turned the page and seen the whole thing. Well here ya go everyone... the entire definition from the political dictionary:
 * Right(-wing)The opposite of left. As with the term left-wing, the label tight-wing has many connotations which vary over time and are often only understood within the particular political context. In advanced liberal democracies, perhaps more than anything else the right has been defined in opposition to socialism or social democracy. As a result, the ideologies and philosophies of right-wing political parties have included elements of conservatism, Christian democracy, liberalism, libertarianism, and nationalism and for extreme-right parties racism and fascism. As the policy platforms of partieshave varied, so has the popular conception of the left-right dimension. In surveys, self-placement on a "left-right" scale is associated with attitudes on economic policy, especially redistribution and privatization/nationalism, post-materialism, and (particularly in Catholic countries) religiosity.
 *  Gtstricky Talk or C 14:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 *  Gtstricky Talk or C 14:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I don't think that the situation was ever truly in doubt but it is nice to see the, frankly stupid, assertion of falsification finally and firmly laid to rest. That said, I'd hate for this to misunderstood as setting a precedent where people are expected to go round manually typing things up out of books just to appease people with uncorroborated fringe views. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I also thank Gtstricky. I do not think it is helpful for people on either side to characterize other Wikipedians. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Classical Liberals as Right-Wing
There is no evidence for this claim; it's a misnomer. Classical Liberals have never been Right-wing at any point in history. This misnomer started right around the time that Classical Liberals were removed from the Left Wing identity in the very early 1900's and were chastised as Right-wing conservatives for their opposition to war. I have removed them as part of the list of groups listed as Right-wing. Apologies if I got something wrong in my edit; this is my first edit. - Ky Oct-26-2017, , , 71.188.56.17 (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Ky


 * Read's history was incorrect. The terms came to describe ideological groups in the early 20th century when socialists occupied the left wing of the National Assembly and their opponents - far right, conservative, Christian Democratic and liberal - sat on the right.  And articles require reliable sources, not polemical writing from libertarian websites.
 * However it raises an interesting point, which is partly addressed in the article, that the Right generally rejects the term or argues it is meaningless, outdated, etc.
 * TFD (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Ideology of Drudge Report
You are invited to participate in the RfC at Talk:Drudge Report. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hitler and nationalism
Both Hitler and Himmler stated that they wanted the French to be French, the Italians to be Italian and the Germans to be German, and that they had better understanding with nations that were nationalistic. Hitler and the Germans had fourteen years of experience being led by self-serving people of a foreign culture. They saw nationalism as being a foundation for peace. They did not want to incorporate hostile foreign cultures into their country. Every country ought to be able to manage itself using people who are primarily loyal to that country.

In government, following an undisclosed external/foreign agenda, for example, to have one's country ruled by people outside your own country, is equivalent to corruption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.110.86 (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Right-wing politics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006083545/http://www.uvm.edu/~fgause/168read.htm to http://www.uvm.edu/~fgause/168read.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Left or Right: The Bogus Dilemma
There was a book published once on how the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" are problematic and it was called "Left or Right: The Bogus Dilemma". This could be referenced in the article. Vorbee (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's more relevant to left-right politics where the issue is already discussed. TFD (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Zionism
I raised this issue on the left page too. I'd like to add a section on perspectives on anti semitism, Zionism, Israel Palestine conflict, etc. Benjamin (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Far-politics categoires
If on the right-wing politics page it is also categorized with the far-right politics (nazism / fascism), why can not the left-wing politics page be categorized with the far-left politics (communism / anarchism)?

Would not it be easier to categorize the pages of the far-politics with their respective ideological movements?

--83.41.227.101 (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Right wingers are not racist nor did they ever promote slavery
The left wingers or democrats are and were the party of racism.... Currently with antifa and other racist groups... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D130:7770:DD1:71BD:27A9:C79B (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for that point of view, Wikipedia requires evidence. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP is correct to the extent that in American politics, the party which supported slavery before and after the Civil War was the Democratic Party, and the Republican were anti-slavery -- in fact, founded to be that. For many years afterward, Southern Democrats were strongly segregationist - but by then Southern Republicans were as well.  Things have changed since then, and neither party is "pro-slavery" or segregationalist anymore, although the modern Republican Party is  edging distressingly closer and closer to white supremacism and white nationalism in its policies.However, the larger point made by the IP, that "left-wingers" and antifa are racist is just pure booshwah, pure right-wing talking points regurgitated without thought by an apparently credulous person.  Inherently liberalism (in the US sense) moves towards more personal rights but with checks on the majority to protect the rights of minorities, which conservatism, again in the US sense, hews toward corporatism, authoritarianism, and majoritarianism.  None of this aligns with what the IP claims, which is probably based in ignorance more than anything else.In any case, as Rick Norwood points out, we don;t put just anything into our articles, we require that information be supported by reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Your theory would mean that it would mean the United States was founded by leftists and the constitution and bill of rights are therefore leftist. I would point out too that leftists, including Karl Marx, supported the Republican Party of Lincoln. TFD (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2018
This section is not true:

"the term extreme right-wing has also been applied to movements including fascists, Nazis and racial supremacists.[21] "

Fascists and nazis are national-socialist workers parties. They are left-wing. They opposed free markets and deregulation, which are right-wing proposals. Ofinancista (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You see that little "[21]"? That's a reference. If you follow that it points to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics (page 465). This is our reference that Nazis, fascists and most groups of racial supremacists are generally considered to be right wing, which is post-war the academic consensus. Your mistake is to note (correctly) that the 20th century European fascists differ from what you think defines a 21st century North American right wing party, and then to (incorrectly) assume that this means that they can't both be right wing. They can and they were but, don't worry, nobody is trying to say that normal conservative people are fascist. It is two different sorts of right wing.
 * If you would like a more detailed answer then please start by looking in the archives of this talk page. (The links are at the top of this page.) This question comes up quite a lot so you will see quite a few different people answering this in slightly different ways. If you remain unconvinced then the next step would be to go to a library and check out some history books. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Note too that the sentence does not say they are extreme right, but that they have been described that way. A quick check of Google books show that the description is used as stated.  TFD (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I see North Korea is also a Democratic Republic huh? Nazi Germany's "socialism" was derived from anti-Marxist Spenglerian Prussian CONSERVATIVE "socialism," which was essentially just nationalist capitalism. Under nazism this took an antisemitic flavor. You are yet another useful idiot brainwashed by far right propaganda into believing that "right wing" just means "whatever I like" and "left wing" means "everything I don't like." Please stop acting like you're an authority on the subject because you read Dinesh D'Souza's dumb propaganda piece. The man has a B.A. He's not a historian or a political scientist. Useful idiots like you are part of what gives rise to fascist states. Stop. Stop acting like you know anything until you've actually read some serious scholarship on the matter. Oh my god.Goldengirlsdeathsquad (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

original research
The premise of this article-- that there's a universal collection of political views that naturally belong together-- is original research. Describing political thought in this one-dimensional way limits original thought and promotes authoritarianism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.128.91 (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * If we had made it up ourselves then you would be right. Thing is, we didn't. There are 74 references on this article. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think the article says that they naturally belong together, but that they in fact are together. You might think for example that U.S. libertarianism and the Christian Right are different ideologies, but they nonetheless work together in the Republican Party. TFD (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * An authoritarian complaining that honest scholarship is "authoritarian." How interesting. Telll me, does conservatism also not exist in your weird, broken mind? Goldengirlsdeathsquad (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

definition of right vs left may be off
Historians are divided on how to classify the right and left, this is one definition when we need to talk about the many definitions and allow people to decide for themselves. Traditionally Nazis for instance were classified as being on the left because left referred to states with more government control and the right referred to less state control...so businesses had freedom. Any state could be nationalist or fascist or egalitarian or matriarchal or patriarchal etc. While some people have created matrices that have two variables fascism and level of state control or government involvement it leaves out so many other variable like level of nationalism etc. We can't put them all onto a grid, so people are still arguing to keep right and left with the original meaning of more or less government involvement. Each one of these different definitions needs to be included and discussed and the intro paragraph needs to talk about how there's different definitions not just be a generalized and biased statement favoring one over the other. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a political platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.141.63 (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "Traditionally nazis are on the left" - which is why they murdered leftists in the Holocaust, are marked by extreme anti-leftist sentiment to this day, and uphold Prussian Spenglerian conservative "socialism," which is really just nationalist capitalism. The right and left have NOTHING to do with "more or less government." NOTHING. Are you even aware of what the French Revolution was? Like, are you actually telling me that Kropotkin is to the right of Reagan? Are you actually this much of an easily-led fool? Your historical and political illiteracy is honestly terrifying. That anyone could consider themselves educated on this subject and spout such obvious falsehoods indicates that whatever propaganda you're getting your information from is only interested in turning millions of people into useful idiots. Stop consuming whatever idiotic, dangerous propaganda you've bungled into and read actual, scholarly work on the subject. Dinesh D'Souza isn't a political scientist or a historian. He's not even a serious academic. The dude has a B.A. Oh my god, how is anyone this completely gullible?! HOW?! Nazism is a right wing ideology. This is simply a fact, and facts do not care about your feelings.Goldengirlsdeathsquad (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You have made more less the same point on three different talk pages. You are incorrect on all three. To say "Traditionally Nazis for instance were classified as being on the left" is simply not true. The mainstream academic consensus since 1945 has put the Nazis on the far right. Even historians who are right wing themselves have tended to agree with this. It is only in recent years, and only really in the USA, that there has been a concerted attempt at revisionism to promote this rather fringe view for what are clearly tactical political reasons. We are not going to ignore this view completely, as it does have one or two respectable adherents who pre-date the current wave of cynical revisionism, but it can not expect parity of esteem with, never mind to override, 70 years of mainstream international scholarship. Also please read the FAQ on Talk:Far-right politics. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "mainstream academic consensus" is not the same as fact, particularly when it can be shown to be contradicted by facts. By all means report the "mainstream academic consensus". But also report that Nazis and Fascists defined themselves as socialist and left-wing. Here are some references:


 * “I am not, and never have been, a man of the right. My position was on the left and is now in the centre of politics.” - Oswald Mosley, “My Life” 1968. (NB Founder and leader of the British Union of Fascists)


 * From the wikipedia page Nazi_Party:


 * The National Socialist German Workers' Party ..., commonly referred to in English as the Nazi Party. ...
 * Members of the party referred to themselves as Nationalsozialisten (National Socialists).


 * Conversely the article does not reference any mainstream right-wing figure to support the view that "Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable...", a definition that itself reeks of left-wing jargon. Most modern right-wing thinkers would single out a belief in individualism and a small state, a definition hardly touched on in this article.


 * DanielRigel is right. A serious treatment of right-wing politics would need to discuss many shades of meaning over different countries and more than 200 years. While sections of the article appear to recognise this, to begin the article with such a limited and partial definition is misleading (even if it is supported by three left-wing academic references).


 * This article should either be fixed to comply with neutral POV or be renamed "The left-wing definition of right-wing politics" --Dgwsoft (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Key point: Nazis and other Fascists lie. Truth is not a consideration in their statements with are entirely tactical. Please, never rely on their self-descriptions.
 * Oswald Mosley lying about his political position counts for nothing. The Nazis putting the word "socialist" in their name counts for nothing. These are not "facts". They are the cynical lies of people trying to pitch themselves as something that they were not as they knew that what they really were was not at all palatable. So, we should, and we do, explain what the main lies of Fascism are, but we do not give them any credence. We explain about their "third way" BS, and other BS, but we don't fall for it.
 * Fascism is of the right and no amount of argument based on the lies that Fascists tell will change that. Fascism is an important enough ideology that we can't omit it from the overview in the lead either. Non-Fascist people on the right do not need to feel that this reflects badly on them. It doesn't and nobody is saying that it does. The right may have had Hitler and Mussolini but it also had Churchill and de Gaulle. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Mainstream academic consensus is treated as fact according to Wikipedia policy. If it wasn't the policy, then we'd have lots of discussions about whether the moon-landing was faked or sinfulness causes earthquakes. Moseley was left-wing when he was a socialist MP, but claims that fascism is middle of the road, as did many other fascists. Note he definitely does not call fascism left-wing. And there are no mainstream right-wing figures who say fascism is left-wing. In fact very few people on the Right call themselves right-wing. Incidentally, the Mosley quote is from his 26 April 1968 letter to The Times, not his autobiography. TFD (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Key point: Nazis and other Fascists lie. Truth is not a consideration in their statements with are entirely tactical. Please, never rely on their self-descriptions. Oswald Mosley lying about his political position counts for nothing. The Nazis putting the word "socialist" in their name counts for nothing. These are not "facts".


 * Oh I see. All those Nazis regularly referring to themselves as "Nationalsozialisten" were all involved in a massive fascist conspiracy to convince history that they were socialitsts, despite the fact that they all knew they really were not? Do you have an academic reference for that assertion? You must see it is absurd. This is a classic example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. They could not have been socialists because they don't meet your idea of a socialist. But when it comes to questions of affiliation, what people say they are and believe they are is what they actually are. The Spanish Inquisition were in fact Christians despite the fact that modern Christians repudiate their actions. And Islamic State really are Muslims, despite the fact that moderate Muslims repudiate their actions. And the Nazis really were socialists.


 * And there are no mainstream right-wing figures who say fascism is left-wing. Well here is one: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/09/24/history-lesson-would-smear-moderate-right-nazis-socialists (Norman Tebbit was a Cabinet Minister under Margaret Thatcher and currently sits in the House of Lords. He is considered a mainstream right-wing figure in the UK).


 * Mainstream academic consensus is treated as fact according to Wikipedia policy. Yes, I get that. If you are writing about, say, Chemistry you had better rely on text books written by academic chemists. But politics is not really like that is it? Politics is a human creation and the real experts in politics are politicians not academics. It is well documented that during the past 50 years the academy (at least in the US and UK) has become ever more dominated by the left. The academy is not a neutral observer in this game, it is a player, with sympathies overwhelmingly on one side. But during that time the public has moved if anything to the right, and has elected right-wing figures such as Reagan and Thatcher, whose views and poorly reflected, and hardly at all sympathetically, in the academic literature. If you are prepared to rely only on academic references and ignore what politicians and voters themselves say about their politics you are not taking a neutral POV, you are taking sides.


 * I would also question if there is really any "academic consensus" on political matters in the same sense as there is on factual matters. A consensus literally means everyone agrees. Literally every chemist agrees that water is H2O. But not every academic agrees the Nazis were right-wing or were not socialists, even if a majority do. In areas of thought were there is not a true consensus, merely a majority opinion, It is appropriate for an encyclopedia to report the diversity of views. And it is also appropriate to report views from outside academia on political topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgwsoft (talk • contribs) 23:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Tebbit as far as I know doesn't even have a university degree, let alone any body of academic work. Your argument seems to be that social sciences are not real sciences hence Wikipedia policies do not apply. But policy does not say that. Incidentally, the far right also challenge natural sciences, for example, relativity, evolution and climate science as Jew/Communist/Socialist/liberal/atheist/cultural Marxist frauds.
 * Anyway, you avoided what I said about Mosley. He was a socialist MP, hence he was once on the left. No one questions that Labour is on the left. But he left the left to become a fascist, which to him is an ideology of the center.
 * TFD (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It’s not right or left wing. It’s just completely authoritarian. Brooke68 (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Argument for the removal of an image from this article


Please see the centralized discussion here for the argument to not use the above image in en.wiki articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The following RfC concerns this article: . Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That RFC isn't binding here, though. See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS - that RFC only represents a consensus on that particular page, not a universal consensus to remove that image everywhere (removing it everywhere wasn't even the question being asked, but even if it had asked that question it still wouldn't be binding due to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. An RFC on one article's talk page can't set content decisions for the entire wiki.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not the case, since I posted notices at the beginning of the discussion to all the affected pages centralizing the discussion on that page. That consensus therefore holds for all of the articles so notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Incorporate into the article the tremendous growth of right-wing politics
The article fails to have material relating to the tremendous growth of right-wing which is a major failure of this article.

For example, in 2019, John Feffer wrote at the left leaning The Nation: "In the Americas, the Trump tsunami has swept across both continents and the 'pink tide' of progressivism has all but disappeared from the southern half of the hemisphere... In this planet-wide rising tide of right-wing populism, the liberal left commands only a few disconnected islands — Iceland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Spain, Uruguay... Worse, crafty operators with even more ambitious agendas stand ready to destroy the liberal status quo once and for all."

We need to incorporate into this article the tremendous growth of right-wing populism - especially post Brexit vote.Knox490 (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit war
Per WP:STATUSQUO, I have restored restoring the 00:32, 6 August 2019 version (stable version from before the recent edit war, unchallenged for nearly two months). I then re-added a minor grammar correction and short description template as being uncontroversial changes that are unlikely to be challenged.

Please discuss your preferred version here rather than through back-and-forth edits. If you cannot reach a consensus, I suggest settling the dispute through an RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * As I have said many times now, Bannon’s quote gives us no information and thus should not be included. This article is about right wing politics and his quote doesn’t tell us anything about it. All he did was tell the right not to let leftist bullies smearing them as racist and xenophobic harm them, no insight into right wing beliefs, no history, nothing. Victor Salvini (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * If you have said it many times now, there is no need to say it again here. Make your best case in the ongoing RfC and we will see what the consensus is. I see 2 include !votes and 5 exclude !votes, so your side is ahead so far, but of course that may change.


 * On a personal note, I have an equally low opinion of Team Blue and Team Red and don't care one way or the other whether this quote is included in this article. I just want to not see any further edit warring. If anyone wants to find a suitable candidate for any elected office, here are some very good choices: --Guy Macon (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That dog mayor has a hat! El_C 23:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * https://i.imgur.com/6Vl2IqE.jpg --Guy Macon (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Now there’s some candidates the whole world can support! Victor Salvini (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)