Talk:Right-wing politics/Archive 24

Removal of Bannon quotes

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

, I don't think I have ever edited this article (at least not in the last 500 edits) but it's on my watch list (again not sure why). I think was spot on in removing this rather random Bannon quotefarm short paragraph []. The paragraph was a recent addition thus onus needs to be on inclusion vs exclusion. RS'ed doesn't mean due and honestly, it has no context. It's lacks a topic sentence or any other indication why it was included in the article. It may be relevant and perhaps should be integrated in some other paragraph but if the choice is stand alone random quotes or removal I would go with removal. Springee (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fine, that combined with the removal of the ethno- from ethno-nationalism seemed a bit strange.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on that part. So long as it's reflective of sourcing I assume it's OK.  Springee (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Springee is right in my reasoning for removing the Bannon quote, I fail to see what purpose it serves in the article. As for my removing of the bit about ethno-nationalism, I removed it because I do not see it mentioned in the wiki article about right-wing populism and have never known ethnic nationalism to be a core part of right wing populism (as well as not seeing any source for the statement that the two are intertwined). Victor Salvini (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ethnic nationalism is most definitely a core part of right-wing nationalism Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The sourcing in that section makes it impossible to readily decide if ethno should be included since no page information is included. I agree that the sub-topic article doesn't support the claim either.  I would suggest improving the sourcing since, as is, this appears to fail variability.  I'm not claiming the material is wrong, only that currently the claim isn't properly supported.  Springee (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Checking and seeing we’ve moved away from the bannon quotes. Have we come to any kind of agreement regarding if they should be removed? Victor Salvini (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I support removal. Springee (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * They are absolutely relevant and should stay in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Then please explain how. Currently the material doesn’t have consensus for inclusion and is recently added. Springee (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It was part of the status quo version of the article, so it doesn't need a consensus for inclusion, it needs a consensus to be deleted., which you don't have. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It was added less than a month ago so, not "status quo". Additionally, no arguments have been put form for inclusion.  It currently exists as just a random statement that has no topic sentence nor obvious tie in with other paragraphs.  At the same time it's very likely the quote doesn't offer the context of the comments.  One of the worst forms of Wiki editing is adding a "sound bite" type quote that comes off as inflammatory but lacks any of the context in which it was made.  Springee (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I fall in with springee’s argument. Unless it can be explained why this quote is even relevant and the page be edited to make its inclusion make sense, there is no reason to keep it in the article, then it should be removed. Victor Salvini (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A man who was a close advisor to the populist right-wing President of the United States, and who has supported many, many right-wing populist movements across the world (see the list in the lede of Steve Bannon), who went to Europe to attempt to start an academy to essentially train European right-wing politicians, addresses one of the major right-wing parties in Europe, and you folks are asking why his remarks are pertinent to an article about right-wing politics?!? Come on, now, that's just plain silly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * He’s not explaining any right wing philosophy and he’s not making any statements about right wing beliefs. He’s essentially telling other right wingers not to feel disheartened or harassed by the people who throw accusations of racism and xenophobia at them. So, still, the Bannon quote provides nothing to the article as it has not been explained what it provides or how the article could be edited to accommodate the quote. Victor Salvini (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, by pointing out to right-wingers what criticism will be directed at them, he specifically and clearly lays out what right-wing populist is: racist, xenophobic, and nativist. He's telling them not to deny these things, to "wear them as a badge of honor", because these things are, according to Bannon. good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Since current consensus is against inclusion and this is a new addition I would suggest removal while the RfC plays out. If the RFC comes back as support then it can be restored. Springee (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. The article remains in the status quo ante during the discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of quote by Steve Bannon

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the quote:


 * Speaking before the National Front at the Grand Palais in Lille, France, in March 2018, Steve Bannon, former advisor to U.S. President Donald Trump, said, "Let them call you racist, let them call you xenophobes, let them call you nativists. Wear it like a badge of honor."

be included in this article or not? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Link to the diff showing the contested content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Survey

 * Yes - For the reasons given above. Bannon ran the right-wing Breitbart News, and was a very influential advisor to Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election and afterwards, until he became too controversial and was jettisoned. He is a right-wing populist and was instrumental in shaping Trump's right-wing (not "conservative" - see George Will's recent columns for why not) populist platform and policies.  He has supported very many right-wing populist movements all over the world, and intended to form an academy in Europe whose purpose was to train right-wing politicians.  He addressed the National Front, one of the largest right-wing populist parties in Europe, and in that speech he laid out the psychological position that right-wingers need to take to absorb criticism, and in doing so clearly outlined the things that right-wing populists are: racist, xenophobic and nativist.  These remarks are absolutely pertinent to the subject of "right-wing politics", and should be included in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously saying that anyone who takes a right-wing view on the world is, by definition, racist, xenophobic and nativist? You're literally lumping all conservatives in this mix and anyone who voted for Trump (practically half of the US)...likewise, Trump's wife is an immigrant, so he's not exactly sticking the the xenophobia too well... Buffs (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose: This recently added single sentence paragraph is a dangling particple lacking a clear reason for being in the article at all.  The quote is presented without context of the rest of the speech and presented without context in the wiki-article.  It appears to be a WP:QUOTEFARM violation, a quotation is used without pertinence: it is presented visually on the page, but its relevance is not explained anywhere.  It isn't clear how this informs the reader about the larger topic of right wing politics vs was added as an ugly quote that could be used to play politics with this article.  Springee (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've noticed recently a lot of calls to QUOTEFARM which have nothing to do with the purpose or original spirit of that guideline (not policy). Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I oppose the inclusion of the quote. Your reasoning presented earlier is a misinterpretation of the quote created by an apparent bias. Nowhere did he advocate those thugs, he basically told right wingers not to let leftist bullies who accuse them of it get them down. Not only this, but our article on right wing populism defines the ideology as right wing anti elitism that commonly comes with an opposition to immigration, no where does it define it in near as bad terms as you do. Furthermore, the section where the quote is placed does not talk about right wing populism, it talks about right wing politics in general, so to apply the quote as per your interpretation, that would be attempting to say that right wing politics, as a whole, is racist, xenophobic, and nativist, which would not only be untrue, but also imply an extreme anti right bias in this article. To clarify, I favor the removal of the quote for the reasons springee has given. Victor Salvini (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No. Argument for "yes": If Joe Blow had said this, it would be of no significance.  But Bannon is one of the best known and most influential conservatives, and so what he says is significant, just as what Rush Limbaugh says is significant on the conservative side and what Hillary Clinton says is significant on the liberal side.  The other qualification is that it is made in a major policy speech.  If he had said it to the local PTA, it would not be significant.  But he said it in an address to the National Front.  I do agree with Salvini that the quote should be placed in context.  Bannon is not alone in telling conservatives to embrace racism, and it should be placed beside similar quotes.  And if the quote is taken out of context, and Bannon is not telling the National Front to embrace racism, as Salvini suggests, then context should be included.


 * Argument for "no". I read the speech (posted below).  In the speech Bannon says: "But President Trumps economic nationalism does not care about your race, your religion, your ethnicity. ... It cares about one thing: Are you a citizen of the United States of America?"  This makes the out of context quote misleading.  It should not be included in this article. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * But how does it integrate into the rest of the article? BMK's RfC is a bit misleading since it doesn't show that the paragraph is floating without context or integration in the rest of the article.  Springee (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The RfC asks if it should be in the article, since the discussion above wasn't about changing its context or placement in the article, but about removing it entirely. that discussion (in which you took part) set the ground rules for the RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "In the article" can mean many things. Do you mean it should be the first sentence of the lead?  That's "in the article".  What about just randomly plopped into the middle of the history section?  Without saying how it will be integrated and what topic sentence/paragraph it supports it's impossible to tell if the material is DUE or even has context.  And all that is before we ask if the quote is taken out of context and in a way that could lead readers to imply a meaning it didn't originally have.  That is, SYNTH through withholding information rather than by adding to what the source said.  Again, you might have a stronger case if you explained what general concept this quote supports in this broad overview article. Springee (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "In the article" means that your attempt to remove it from the article should be stopped. Where it goes can be decided once that is settled. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No Bannon is a leader of the modern extreme right. It would be wrong to present his views as representative of the entire Right. He only speaks for a narrow segment. TFD (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So in your view, only the statements of the leaders of other parts of the right wing are relevant, not the statements of leaders of the far-right? Is the extreme right somehow not part of the right wing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I will reply in the discussion section. TFD (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 *  A neutral pointer to this RfC has been placed on the talk page of WikiProject Politics, the only WikiProject listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, No, Remove whichever gets the point across. Bannon's views are not sufficiently representative of "right wing politics" to be included in this article. They may be relevant to Steve Bannons article, but they are not significant here. Moreover "call us racist, xenophobes, whatever else" is not a political position or a policy, it's a taunt. It reflects poorly on Wikipedians that there's edit-warriors insistent on including such garbage. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Include. Sure, people on the right will decry Bannon as the modern far-right. That's the no true Scotsman fallacy. There is zero doubt that Bannon is one of the most influential figures in modern right wing politics, central to both the Trump presidency and the Brexit clusterfuck, and it seems unlikely that Donald Trump would be president of the US had Bannon not advised him on how to tap in to the right wing populist base. Bannon's views on right wing populism have to be taken seriously, and that's why they are reported in the press. Guy (help!) 09:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – do not include the Bannon quote. I agree that Bannon is a leader of the modern right, and there are probably one or more Bannon quotes that would be good to include, but this isn't one of them. First, it's not really explaining anything about right-wing politics. Do we have a secondary source saying that this quote from Bannon is typical of right-wing rhetoric? If so, that secondary source should be included to explain the quote. But the quote by itself is a primary source, and for us editors to say it's typical right-wing rhetoric is OR. Second, it suggests that right-wingers are racists, but it does so with OR and a primary source, rather than a secondary source saying "right wingers are racist, as can be seen in this Bannon quote...". Third, the quote isn't clear. In context, he's talking about "owning" (what he views as) epithets hurled against Trump and his supporters. He's not really saying "we're racists", he's saying something more along the lines of "sticks and stones". This makes the quote "fuzzy" in sense that it's subject to multiple interpretations, and thus it's not really a good example of anything. Without (at least) a secondary source to provide explanatory context, the primary source quote should not be included. – Levivich 20:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: First, I must thank Guy Macon for using a neutral version of the article. Best to hash this out here without getting into an edit war about it. Second: I object to the opinion that Mr. Bannon is such a leader of the entirety of the right that his words, even off-the-cuff and said in an aside, must be emblematic of all the right-wing, instead of just his own part, as Mr rnddude has noted. I also agree with Levivich about the fuzziness of the quote, and, as such, its unsuitability for Wikipedia. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 20:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes Like it or not, Bannon has become a central figure of right-wing politics through his ties to Donald Trump, Breitbart and through them the Alt-Right. As the US arm of the re-energized far-right nationalist movement, being a leading thinker of the Alt-right makes his his claims about what constitutes right-wing politics preeminently due inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , that would be fine if Bannon were saying "these are the pillars of RW theory" or "the right must do X". The problem is the text in question doesn't say that.  It isn't integrated into the article at large and when one looks at the actual context of the statement it was saying to his audience, "sticks and stones... but words will never hurt you".  Even if you support including the views of Bannon it's a stretch to pretend this paragraph should ever appear in an encyclopedia due just to it's structural/native issues.  Springee (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see how such a stringent requirement for specific language is in any way shape or form supported by Wikipedia policy. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It isn't a "stringent" requirement, it's basic composition. It's the basics of writing a paragraph, a topic sentence and all the sentences supporting that topic sentence.  Then we go out a level, it's a topic paragraph and all the sub paragraphs support that topic paragraph.  The current paragraph in question has no topic sentence.  It's relevance to the topic is not clear and left to the reader to decide.  That can be a SYNTH problem.  There is also a question of why we would use this particular quote.  Is it DUE?  If so what supports it's inclusion in such a broad topic?  The source doesn't make that clear but we do have sourcing that makes it clear what was meant.  It certainly wasn't suggesting the right is or should be thought of as XYZ.  The think The Four Duces has summed things up rather nicely.  Springee (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose This quote is without context and without a direct application to the topic at hand. All is says is "Bannon said XYZ". Why is Bannon important? Why is this statement emblematic? Is he saying that people are being maliciously accused of racism, etc and such accusations are evidence of winning the argument (implying those making such made-up accusations are losing the argument)? Or is he saying the right should be proud of being racists? Context and application is everything here. Yes, it's a sourced quote, but it doesn't have an application. I could put in "What difference does it make" -Hillary Clinton or "No new taxes" -George HW Bush. Both are easily attributable and can be sourced, but they don't apply to the subject at hand. Likewise, those who say that Bannon is the face of the right are being absurd/obtuse. He's the face of a segment but he doesn't even speak for a majority. Pushing for such inclusion is an atrocious postion to take and appears to be politically motivated by those who are supporting it. WP already has a reputation as left-leaning...we don't need this. Buffs (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The quote lacks context and there's no clear purpose for it in the article. Even if we all agree that Bannon is representative of right-wing politics (not saying he is, but just for the sake of this discussion I'll assume it), then what makes this specific quote relevant to this article? It doesn't seem to be particularly authoritative in any way. And of course, there's also the debate on Bannon being an authority figure on the subject (he hasn't been relevant in years) and issues regarding overall context (it seems to be more of an "ignore the haters" rather than a "we're all racists" kind of statement, but that's not clear from the article.) May His Shadow Fall Upon You     Talk  18:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC) Afterthought - although I still oppose inclusion, if it ultimately remains in the article, the follow-up statement should also be included for the sake of context.  May His Shadow Fall Upon You     Talk  18:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * DO NOT INCLUDE - has not shown WP:ONUS good reasons to have it. It seems just a random quote, no particularly great WP:WEIGHT, impact, or other need to include speeches by him or this particular bit.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per arguments above, the quote lacks context. User:Victor Salvini convincingly demonstrated that the quote is being misused by being positioned in the article to synthesise a biased context, thus it violates WP:NOR, specifically WP:SYN. Per WP:COMMONSENSE, it is highly likely that the quote was referring to not letting the “other side” bully you, a bit like a mother telling her daughter if the bullies call you an “ugly stupid pig” you tell them yes I am a pig (Pretty Intelligent Girl) and smile and wear it as a badge of honour. If this quote is to go anywhere on Wikipedia it should be in a motivational speaking article or our bullying article etc. So yes, I oppose inclusion as the quote appears to be being abused in very bad faith to POV push an original research synthesised political context that does not exist. WP:NOR is policy folks.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  10:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the exact quote: “Let them call you racist, let them call you xenophobes, let them call you nativists. Wear it like a badge of honour. Because every day we get stronger and they get weaker,” It is very clear, especially with the last sentence, that he is saying: don’t worry, wear their insults as a badge of honour because we are getting stronger and they (their opponents) are getting weaker. He is not saying the insults are accurate or true.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  09:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - per WP:BALASP and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. His quote is disproportionate to the overall significance to the article topic. The quote is in his bio article where it belongs. And coverage of the quote lasted for a 24 hour news cycle - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Isaidnoway (talk)  19:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose  – per very WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. This article starts off in France in 1789, ranges through Europe in various centuries, and mentions the United States in a few places, and is fairly short. However important Bannon may have been for the election of Trump or what he said where, he is not a major figure in world right-wing politics since 1789; seeing him as such, especially in this article, is also a WP:RECENTISM problem. I don't think too many would argue that he isn't more WP:DUE at Right-wing politics in the United States, but he isn't mentioned there, either.  Or at Far-right politics, at 2016 United States elections, or even at 2016 U.S. presidential election. He is mentioned twice at Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign, and at Presidency of Donald Trump twice; that seems about right. Mathglot (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Include. Most of the arguments against written above are variants of the No true Scotsman fallacy. "Bannon is far right, not right-wing" is just such an argument. Similarly, the Quoting out of context fallacies being deployed here do not pass rational review, especially as the placement of the quote directly follows a discussion of authors who make a "distinction between the centre-right and the far-right" and a definition of right-wing extremism by the United States Department of Homeland Security. Likewise the claim "he hasn't been relevant in years" is just facially ridiculous. And it's also absurd to try to equate the "what difference does it make" quotation - which truly was ripped out of context by people attempting to dishonestly remove important context, both the previous and following sentences during a hearing - and this quotation, which was an applause line built to stand on its own as can be seen in the video . 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Strike per EVADE 6YearsTillRetirement Springee (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * How is that a no true Scotsman argument? TFD (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No, do not include. Steve Bannon is but one figure in right-wing politics, who has served as adviser to one state leader for less than a year. Nothing makes his opinion any more notable than other statements from politicians, much less political scientists. I agree with Mr rnddude here. feminist (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Include Steve Bannon shaped right-wing politics as we know them today. My Wiki Alter Ego (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as I am not sure why the views of one person is important enough to be included, over the many other sources that are still available. A person being right wing doesn't make them an expert on what is right wing. We should be citing scholarly sources, particularly for more general topics such as this one. The statement itself is polemical garbage and it also feels out of place/context in that section anyway.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Qualified oppose - I find BMK's rationale exactly right. Bannon is indeed the contemporary torch-bearer of right-wing populism. But the way the content has been added to the article is out of context and sticks out like a sore thumb. If Bannon is introduced in a more systematic way, I wound't find the quote out of place. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 * To be included in this general topic that covers right-wing politics from the dawn of time and across all governments etc one would need to show how that single paragraph is relevant to the larger topic. Instead it appears to be similar to many of the "red vs blue" edits discussed in this WP:AN [], giving weight to an inflammatory quote appearing in a lesser news source. Given this is a large, overview of the topic, why should this singular quote from a non-politician feature so prominently? Springee (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd say that the objections to its inclusion are the pertinent examples of "red vs. blue" behavior -- a discussion which, by the way, was deeply flawed from the very start, and has not been endorsed by the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can suggest why it should be included in the text and how it can be better integrated so it makes sense in context. If a part of an article is bad we have two choices, we can remove it or someone who wants to keep it can address the deficiencies.  I would suggest you think of ways to integrate it so it makes sense in context.  Springee (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My statement above gives very valid reason s why it should be included in the text. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken, I am replying to your question above (17:54, 6 September 2019). The problem with how Bannon's words are included is that they imply he is speaking for the Right, rather than his particular section. As is pointed out in the article, the only defining characteristic of the Right is opposition to socialism. TFD (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hardly "Right-wing politics holds that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics, or tradition. Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences or the competition in market economies." Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It also says, "Roger Eatwell and Neal O'Sullivan divide the right into five types: reactionary, moderate, radical, extreme and new. Chip Berlet argues that each of these "styles of thought" are "responses to the left", including liberalism and socialism, which have arisen since the 1789 French Revolution." Obviously being opposed to equality means supporting inequality, but that does not mean the Right sees anything other than wealth and/or inherited social rank as what makes people unequal.
 * The other problem with the definition is that in some usages of the terms right and left fall along a continuum, while in others they refer to the two groups in the legislatures. So when liberals support conservative governments they are part of the Right and when they support social democratic governments they are part of the Left. But that does not mean their ideology has changed.
 * TFD (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not see the relevance of these remarks to the question asked in the RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The relevance is that Bannon represents a segment of the Right and his comments should not be misrepresented as a representation of the Right. TFD (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you think that racism is a defining characteristic of the right? Or is it primarily a defining characteristic of Bannon's version. Because your edit implies it is the first. My understanding is that racism is a product of capitalism, hence not part of the original conservative ideology. TFD (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Four Deuces, your entire argument seems to boil down to No true Scotsman. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting WP:RANDOMLINKS without any explanation of their relevance is unhelpful. If you have any reason why you disagree with what I said, it would be helpful if you provided them. TFD (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

BMK, given the extensive objections here, do you think the paragraph is going to be DUE in a related article here []? Springee (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Very much due, and now supported by two other sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * DUE means that if you picked up a book on right-wing politics, it would be certain to mention this quote. TFD (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a very strange defintiton of DUE, considering that the remarks were made in March of this year -- besides, this particular side discussion isn't about whether it's DUE in Right-wing politics, it's about whether it's DUE in Right-wing populism, a different, but related, subject and a different article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If this discussion has been about whether the quote should be included in an article about right wing populism, why is it being discussed here in the article about right wing politics? No one has said this until now. Victor Salvini —Preceding undated comment added 23:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with VS here. What are you talking about? Buffs (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * DUE says, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." If it isn't there, it isn't due. You have to be cautious in adding information from the news media, because what you consider important may be ignored by experts. TFD (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Call for snow close
The count is at 13 !votes for excluding, 4 !votes for including. The last two !votes were on 18 September and 20 September. Leaving the poll open longer is clearly not going to change the result. I have purposely not offered any opinion on whether the quote should be included. Unless anyone objects and would like another closer, I intend to close this RfC soon. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support snow close.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  18:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support End the OMG DRAHMAZ... Buffs (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I just got summoned by the bot today, and am still trying to figure out what is going on with this messy RfC in the midst of an edit war. I don't know how many others are in similar position. I suggest let it run the normal course. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Keeping the RfC open wastes editors' time. TFD (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Bannon Speech
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/11/592702598/steve-bannon-takes-anti-establishment-message-overseas-let-them-call-you-racists

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Norwood (talk • contribs) 10:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the URL to Bannon's speech, but ongoing tallies of the RfC are not appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I actually didn’t post the bannon speech and don’t know who did. For some reason it got merged into my message. Victor Salvini (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I've replaced your signature with that of the editor who posted the URL. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Why are "ongoing tallies of the RfC...not appropriate"? I think it's pretty clear that WP:SNOW applies here and don't see it going in your favor. Buffs (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I would very much like Beyond My Ken to quote the Wikipedia policy or guideline that supports his claim that "ongoing tallies of the RfC are not appropriate". I strongly suspect that the criticism is based upon BMK not liking me, not on any policy or guideline. Calls for a snow close with counts supporting the claim of snow are extremely common on Wikipedia, and I doubt that BMK has ever criticized any of them when they were posted by someone other than me. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Guy, I don't dislike you. We've had out conflicts in the past, but my memory is that we made up, and haven't had a conflict since then -- disagreements, perhaps, but no conflicts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I took the time to look it up and I found the place where my memory went wrong. I had vaguely remembered the title of this section but completely forgot the content. My apologies. Sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I posted the link to the event (not really a "speech", more than one person spoke). I forgot to sign the post. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I’m coming back to here after sleeping and it would seem not much has changed and the majority of people still favor removing the quote. Can we agree that this is a consensus to have the quote removed, please? Victor Salvini (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Due to no new votes or a response to my previous message and the fact a supermajority of those who have voted favor removing the quote, I will go ahead and remove it from the article. Thank you to everyone who came to discuss and voted. Victor Salvini (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have restored it. RfCs run for 30 days, at the end of which someone closes it with an evaluation of consensus.  Do not remove the quortes again until at least the 30 period is over. Beyond My Ken (talk)


 * BMK, since this is recently added material we should follow BRD which means it was boldly added, an editor removed it so now we discuss. No one is obligated to keep it in the article while we wait for the RfC to close since your restoration is a violation of BRD. Springee (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Nope, the Bannon material was added on August 11, so it's been in the article for almost a month. It's now part of the status quo of the article. Do not change the article while the RfC is running, and please stop Wikilawyering.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * One month is typically not considered "stable" and it hasn't even been a month. It was removed on the 3rd and that was just 4 edits after it was added. Springee (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You'll just have too wait like everyone else for a consensus. Please stop attempting to short-circuit things. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, this material was added then rejected just 4 edits later. It was not part of a stable version of the article and currently local consensus is against inclusion.  If the RfC results in a different outcome it can be restored then.  Springee (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove it again, and I will file a report an AN/I for editing against consensus while an RfC is running. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You are not following BRD. You are welcome to have a RFC but procedure says it was rejected and the WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus for inclusion before the material can remain in the article.  Beyond that, you are the only editor who is in favor, four are against.  You are trying to use the RfC to keep the material in the article against consensus and the normal process for accepting new edits in an article.  Springee (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I’m a newcomer. . I’m feeling it’s right and fair to let the contested content stand, in the article, while the RfC runs its allotted time.
 * There’s no reason, is there, to be in a hurry? - no WP:BLP-type or similar concerns?
 * And I can’t see tht this is a WP:SNOW case? (We’re only now starting on the potentially productive part of the discussion, exploring where / how / why that content could be included.)
 * BMK has stepped up, in defence of an addition he considers valuable. He’s initiated a definite process (and I presume the RfC process notifies potential new voices in the discussion?) ..
 * the paragraph itself, while in-place in the article, also serves to notify / advertise the issue.
 * And to keep the discussion alive. (Potential new voices may lack motivation to join if the content is already gone.)
 * And to keep it on-track: this RfC is supposed to be about whether the content is desirable . . we seem instead to be discussing whether to hold it in-place while we discuss that.
 * (Holding the content in-place for now also serves to clarify where it’s currently located in the article: very helpful, because that is and needs to be an aspect of the discussion.)
 * At present there’s a clear majority against inclusion (so the smart money is on deletion as the outcome) . . for the majority, there’s clear advantage in letting the full RfC period run before deleting: deletion will then be an established result, of a clear decision duly reached. If instead we anticipate the result - mug-rush the disputed content to the exit immediately - the result is instead a lingering doubt, tht maybe the article has been deprived of some of its content by mob rule.  (Mob rule is different from consensus.)
 * If notification and advertisement bring in new voices tht surprise everyone and change minds - we don’t fear that, do we? We welcome the possibility, right?

So. . I’m reinstating., so tht we’re not anticipating the result of this RfC. Please anybody let me know if there’s a specific policy bearing on this.

- SquisherDa (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Update (re policies maybe bearing on this):
 * "WP:ONUS" turns out to be WP:Verifiability; and says what can be included (and when inline citations are needed) but nothing about handling of contested content while under discussion.  That is, it is policy on the outcomes of discussions like this; but has no bearing on interim handling.
 * WP:CON, too, (WP:Consensus), is again silent on interim handling of article text. (See #Through discussion and the following section, #Consensus-building.)  It has been suggested tht the flow diagram in that article supports interim deletion (where proposed new text is contested): but it too is only about outcomes and says nothing about interim handling.  And this isn’t an aspect tht the policy simply ignores: on External links it says plainly tht "disputed links are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include" (#No consensus; my emphasis).
 * There’s an essay, WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus", which seems pretty on-point (though not authoritative: it’s an essay, not a policy).
 * - SquisherDa (talk) 04:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Most people don't need their hands held to understand a basic instruction. Any reasonable person can deduce that "[t]he onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content" means that material under discussion is excluded until that consensus is achieved. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see wp:onus which is part of the consensus policy. When a change is made and challenged the onus is on those wishing for inclusion to get consensus first. Springee (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I still favor removing Bannon's entire rant. I favored keeping it until I read it.  Now it is clearly a rant -- off-the-cuff remarks that don't make any sense.  However, I've added a sentence to provide the context that the bare quote out of context does not provide. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Banon's remarks being "off the cuff" is no reason to delete them. It is under those circumstances that we most often find out a person's truest feelings, since written speeches -- especially for public figures -- generally soft-pedal potentially controversial opinions.  Consider the difference between Trump sticking to the written speech and when he "goes off script", in which case his remarks are followed by denials and "clarifications".  Thats not because Trump misrepresented his views in his off-the-cuff remarks, it's because he said exactly what he believes, and then his "handlers" have to deal with the political repercussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In such a case we need a reliable secondary source that makes that exact point, otherwise it is implicit synthesis. TFD (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not synth. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See Synthesis of published material: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Your inclusion of this material is supposed to reveal Bannon's truest feelings, but that's your own conclusion based on your knowledge of Bannon, the NF, rw populism, Bannon's role in it and your understanding of human psychology. If an expert made that conclusion then we could include it. However, an expert would also say whether it was their personal minority conclusion, the conclusion of many or most experts or a consensus view. We need to state that as well in order to meet due weight. TFD (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Related edits at Right-wing Populism
The discussion above had mentioned Right-wing populism several times. The same Bannon material has been added to that article. The talk page discussion is here []. I think many of the same concerns raised above apply at the child article. It may be helpful to get a general consensus for both. Springee (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"classical liberal" listed as right wing
In the article it was a surprise to find classical liberal as listed as right wing. Can somebody check that that was actually in the 2008 concise Oxford dictionary as the citation suggests. If not delete because it may be POV. It is actually important because it would paint everybody except far leftists as right wing--which is absurd and a political tactic too. Aussiewikilady (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is slightly complex because the term has been used by multiple people over time with differing meanings; but nowadays it is generally considered to be on the right because of its focus on so-called free-market economics. The primary dividing line between left-wing and right-wing politics is hierarchy; left-wing politics broadly opposes hierarchical power, while right-wing politics broadly supports it or argues that certain hierarchies are right, justified, or natural.  'Pure' capitalism is a hierarchy based on wealth and property ownership (or, as its supporters might describe it, meritocracy), and, therefore, political movements that support it are classified as being on the right.  Obviously this simple categorization starts to get a bit complex (no right-wing movement supports all hierarchies, while all left-wing movements except the more extreme form of anarchism acknowledge at least a degree of hierarchy within the context of a democratically-controlled government), but in terms of driving goals, this is why a source like the Oxford dictionary of politics would classify it as being on the right - most self-described classical liberals today are right-libertarians who argue for a hierarchy of meritocracy (or, at least, what they consider a meritocracy.) I mean...  the modern usage of the term was mostly coined by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, who were guiding stars of the New Right.--Aquillion (talk) 10:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Liberal Party of Australia is the major right wing party in that country, and the party currently forming government there. The main way it could be described as liberal is its "focus on so-called free-market economics". The common derogatory usage of the word liberal in the USA is not the only meaning around the world. HiLo48 (talk) 10:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * If it is in the Oxford dictionary (I faced a paywall when I tried to check), it is sourced and I understand why it might be kept. I noticed nobody checked. I found at https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/right-wing that dictionaries have "synonyms and related words" that do not necessarily mean they mean the same thing (e.g., Marxism was a synonym or related word). If not in the Oxford dictionary, it should be deleted. One of the proponents of classical liberalism, Hayek, wrote an article called "Why I am Not a Conservative" https://www.press.uchicago.edu/books/excerpt/2011/hayek_constitution.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussiewikilady (talk • contribs) 06:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit war involving addition to right-wing parties in Israel.
This edit war doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I suggest all parties involved discuss this here on the Talk page. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Peter M. Brown edit
Peter M. Brown has made numerous edits to this article claiming, for example, "no support for claim as to what the religious right 'generally' believes" (examples of claims that he says have no support are referenced claims that the religious right opposes birth control, sex outside marriage, and homosexuality), "No evidence is presented that this document is right wing", I pointed out that "The first source specifically says 'The Christian Right'". He said "The Groch-Begley article? It doesn't contain the word 'Christian' anywhere." I changed that post to a direct quote from the article using the phrase "right-wing", but he still objects. He demanded a reference that in the current day, the Republican Party is considered right-wing, saying there was no proof. I provided a citation. He continues to object. And so on.

Here are some of his most recent objections: Objecting that there is no evidence that the religious right oppose extramarital sex, he says "Don Haase is reported as advocating criminalization of extramarital sex because it is harmful to children and the spouse. No religious or ideological component is reported." On homosexuality, he says "(the 2004 Republican platform) has no mention of divorce or adultery. Opposition to homosexuality is limited to the armed services."

I can continue to provide reference to the statements he objects to, but it seems he will continue to object. I would like to see some independent editor mediate this. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Calling in an independent editor at this point would be premature. According to WP:Dispute resolution, "Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution." You have initiated such a discussion, but I need to respond.
 * You say that you "pointed out" that the "first source" specifically mentions "The Christian Right". Well, something cannot be pointed out unless it is so.  I don't see that I was particularly combative to ask for clarification as to what you meant by the first source.
 * I asked for a source to the effect that the Republican Party is right-wing. You provided one. I can't and don't quarrel with that.
 * I haven't said that there is no evidence that the religious right opposes extramarital sex, only that such evidence has not been provided. Specifically, the fact that Don Haase opposes it fails to make the point unless there is some connection between him and the religious right. This has not been established.
 * Even granting your point that the Republican Party is right-wing, you surely can't use its 2004 platform to support the thesis that those on the right oppose divorce when the platform doesn't even mention it. Also, it is surely misleading to read the platform as opposed to homosexuality generally when its opposition is so severely restricted.
 * Peter Brown (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * If you don't like the sources it would be helpful if you found better ones, unless you believe the portrayal of the religious right is wrong. TFD (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Mediamatters.org citation
I am deleting the 2014 quotation from Mediamatters.org and the associated footnote, which fail to meet Wikipedia standards.
 * The quotation accuses right-wing media of "making false claims about birth control", viz. that actions resulting in the death of a human embryo shortly after conception are a form of abortion. Unless arguments to the contrary are presented, which they are not, this is inadmissible POV. In contrast, the Wikipedia article "Religion and abortion" presents a balanced exposition of contrasting views on the matter.
 * The source is unreliable. In particular, it notes that "In 2007, Time magazine called the morning-after pill 'abortion-inducing'" but ignores the fact that the magazine retracted this characterization two weeks later.
 * In any case, the quotation does not belong in the § Religion section, as it contains no reference to religious matters.

Peter Brown (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism of description
To whomever is trying to place a hard definition on Right-wing, when in fact one does not exist, and the entire concept of right-wing and left-wing is a construct in order to reduce political philosophy to an arbitrary meaningless and inaccurate linegraph, please stop. The entire concept of right-wing and left-wing was constructed solely to express an 'us versus them' concept and to have absolutely no abstract meaningful value, since right-wing and left-wing varies depending on the country and context. Please stop. Ulfilas2020 (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Pack it in. It is you who are trying to insert unreferenced, undiscussed, confusing, non-neutral and unsupported nonsense into the opening paragraph. "Vandalism" is not a magic word that you can use in edit summaries to make you in the right here. I am merely defending the long-standing and correct introduction to this article against completely inappropriate attempts to introduce your own opinions into the article. You, and your IPs, need to stop now. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * (EC) You must provide reliable sources, and should otherwise refrain from spuriously accusing other people of vandalism. Regards ⌘  hugarheimur 13:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And don't log out to continue the problematic edits and accusations.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Duplication
As the result of heavy editing, duplication of content has become quite noticeable. As an editor, I don't know how to reconcile this duplication, so I am leaving it to others. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

New definition of Fascism
In a recent article, an author uses a definition of fascism developed by the writer and retired businessman, Laurence Britt. To develop his theory, Britt compared the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, George Papadopoulos and Suharto, all of which he deemed fascist. Can we now accept this new definition and change this article to reflect its findings? Please discuss at WP:RSN. Note that while the source is used to label the Proud Boys as fascist, it could also be used as a source for other articles if it is deemed reliable. TFD (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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

How Socialism can be Far-Right?????????
The Nazism or National Socialism is a Far-Left Doctrine, inspired by Marxism and other forms of Socialism and Communism. It was a deeply anti-capitalist and anti-christian movement, faraway from all Conservative movements and doctrine. Nazism was an extremist nationalist socialist movement and doctrine. The party build on this doctrine was National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP), obviously a socialist or Far-Left party. The only difference between NSGWP (NSDAP) and the Russian Social Democratic Labour (Workers') Party (RSDLP), except the nationality, was that in Nazist Party almost all the members were nationalist and in the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party was a split between the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks, first group being more nationalist and accepting some parts of Capitalism, and the later rejecting Capitalism in integrum and being, of course, globalist. In other words, the Mensheviks had a doctrine almost identical with the Nazist one. Is obvious that all forms of Socialism, including Nazism, are Far-Left. Putting a Socialist movement or doctrine in the "Far-Right" zone is just Far-Left propaganda and not a scientific and objective position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.120.130.185 (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * This has been explained on this page many times, so I will be brief. The Nazis were strongly anti-communist. You need to read a history of the subject. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The fact that Nazis were "anti-communists" means little; two left-wing groups can indeed oppose (be "anti-") each other. It also means little because prior to Hitler's invasion of Russia, they were ostensibly allied by way of Hitler's non-aggression pact with Russia (by which in 1939 or early 1940, Germany and Russia carved up Poland for themselves).  If however, the Nazis are supposedly right-wing because they were "anti-communist," were they then left-wing before Hitler invaded Russia, and therefore they were right-wing and left-wing in the space of 6 short years? This line of argument makes no sense. One can be "anti-communist" and still be a totalitarian! In any case, political ideologies aren't defined based on who is "pro" who or who is "anti" who at any particular historical moment, but they can be and often are defined based on the size and scope of government power which they support.  In this way, both Nazism and Communism -- in which the State is all-powerful, even almighty -- have far more in common than any ostensibly conservative movement which strives for smaller government and more individual freedom. Nazi ideology aimed for complete state control and therefore was every bit as left-wing as Communist ideology, even though the two ideologies under Hitler and Stalin respectively  were at war with each other from 1942 through 1945.  Nazism and Communism are essentially two sides of the same totalitarian coin. Perhaps the only substantive difference may be that under Nazism action against the state is not tolerated; under Communism, not even thought against the state is tolerated. That there is anything "conservative" or "right-wing" about the Nazi Socialist Party of Germany is false. Tpkatsa (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles are based on reliable sources not our personal opinions. TFD (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles aren't based on tortured analysis by individual editors on talkpages based on partisan talking points, they are based on the consensus of the last 80 years of academic scholarship among political scientists.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the fact that the political science departments of Academia have been left-leaning for at least those 80 years it does not come as a surprise that they wish to portray Nazism as a right-wing ideology, thereby avoiding the need to take responsibility for yet another extremist movement having been born in part out of left-wing ideology. The political ideology of the German national socialist party - and that of current national socialist parties like the Swedish "Nordiska Motståndsrörelse" - was and is a mixture of socialism (i.e. "left-wing") and nationalism (i.e. "right-wing"), generally taking the worst aspects of both ideologies and mixing in some mysticism and realpolitik. For more information on the ideological precursors of national socialism the article under the same name in "The Western Political Quarterly (https://doi.org/10.2307/445851) offers a good starting point. Yetanwiki (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your source says that the precursors of Nazism were 19th century conservatism and nationalism and a reaction against liberalism and socialism. In any case the ideology of academics is irrelevant to this article, since policy requires us to report their views. If you don't like that, you need to change policy. Then you can get the left-wing bias out of articles on politics, evolution, global warming and the dangers of smoking. TFD (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Either you did not read the same document, or you read it selectively. It states in many ways that national socialism agrees with most of Marx' philosophy but insisted that Marx got it wrong on some specific points, e.g. the insistence that Mankind concentrates on the problem it can solve (Marx) vs. the opposite (Moeller, "Das Dritte Reich", 1931) and that, in contrast to Marx' opinion that the workers have no fatherland, the "workers of ... the exploited proletarian nation [are] discriminated against by the Versailles treaty" and "the workers have nothing but their Fatherland to call their own" - hence the distinction between international socialism (Marx) vs. national socialism (Moeller et al). Yetanwiki (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Szaz does not say socialism + nationalism = national socialism. That's Jonah Goldberg. Szaz mentions one point of agreement between socialism and Arthur Moeller van den Bruck: "He agreed with Marx's condemnation of the nineteenth-century bourgeois ideology [i.e., classical liberalism], but points out that Marx failed to recognize the meaning of the nation and to rise above class-consciousness." Moeller van den Bruck was a conservative philosopher who may have influenced Nazism. (He died in 1925 and was never a member or supporter of the Nazi Party.) So conservatives, fascists, socialists, modern liberals, Christian democrats, greens and even Boris Johnson and Donald Trump all reject 19th century liberalism. It doesn't mean they are all Marxists.

The other problem with the source is that you would have to show that the views expressed had acceptance in reliable sources. It's a forgotten 1963 paper by a fairly obscure writer.

TFD (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * You should read the sources provided in the article for an explanation. Wikipedia policy requires articles to report the conclusions in reliable sources rather than to use editors' opinions. Incidentally, a number of your assumptions are incorrect, such as claiming that Nazism was inspired by Marx. Since you are in Romania, I suggest that you go to a Noua Dreaptă rally and tell them that they are Marxists and see what they say. TFD (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This debate demonstrates challenges to creating a truly encyclopaedic article on a topic as both controversial and vaguely defined as this one. An article on Donald Trump is also extremely controversial, but at least there is a broad consensus on what the article is about. Yet the terms left and right are so poorly and inconsistently defined that creating a meaningful and coherent article on it may be futile. Most people know exactly what Nazi movement was, and it is very hard to see what encyclopaedic value can be derived from associating it with vague labels right and left. We all know it had elements of both far right and left as commonly understood, and reducing it to one label can hardly be useful. It is obvious that historically it has been mostly associated with far-right (well before the current leftist trend in academia), but, again, this is mostly semantics, and probably indeed based on Nazi opposition to communism and socialism, rather than the substance of their program. As a curiosity, see National Bolshevism, which is incidentally a much more informative article than this one, and discusses, in particular, a left wing faction within the Nazi party. - BorisG (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Right is defined as opposition to socialism. This is based on the historical accident that socialists sit on the left of legislative assemblies, while their opponents sit on the right. No serious literature questions that National Socialists, National Bolsheviks or National Anarchists are far right. TFD (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In Russia at least, National Bolsheviks warship Stalin and supported Slobodan Milosevic. Were Stalin and Milosevic far right? BorisG (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is typical of the Right and indeed of parties across the spectrum to link themselves to historical leaders of their own countries, in order to give themselves authenticity. The American Right for example lionizes the Founding Fathers as did the Communist Party of the USA. Stalin made Russia great again. Milosevic was pro-Russian. In a similar vein, Iran honored Che Guevara for his religious devotion, although he had been an atheist. TFD (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Scarcity is the cause of hierarchy (and individual differences)
The notion of classes from the left has to do with how goods are distributed in a society (politico-economic system). From their point of view all goods allocations fall under the concept of rationing. Class hierarchy has to do with who gets preferred access to limited goods. Hierarchy (classes of people that society deems to be worthy of priority access to goods) is created by scarcity (and individual differences, the existance of which can be verified by going to the OMIM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Mendelian_Inheritance_in_Man). Why is there no mention of scarcity? or individual differences in this article? 68.134.68.237 (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You would need a source that connected scarcity to right-wing politics. You can't just say scarcity is connected with hierarchy which is connected with the Right and add it. TFD (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. You should erase it only if you think it is false. If you disagree with citation then flag it for citation. 68.134.68.237 (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not clear what relevance your edits have to the topic. Malthus didn't mention hierarchy and didn't mean natural law as it is normally understood. I would like to see a source that explains this. Incidentally, it is perfectly fine to remove unsourced material. TFD (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Bias In The Editing Of This Article
Obviously, there’s bias in this article. The see also section lists a bunch of forms of extremism, yet there is no such on the Left-wing Politics article. Ideally, at this article, there would be a Far-right Politics article in the see also section, and the same in the Left-wing politics article. Those would have the listings of some extremes on the 2 sides. Instead, the see also for the Right lists extremes, while the Left doesn’t; and the Right isn’t protected from vandalism, while the Left is protected. We should be endeavoring to make sure Wikipedia is fair and free from politics. Bagofscrews (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * These are two separate articles and the merits of how each one is presented has to be considered separately. Saying that another article does something is not a good argument that this article should or vice versa. Incidentally left and right are not symmetrical. The Left for example is made of related ideologies that have divided, while the Right is made up of unrelated ideologies that have united. Do you have any specific changes to this article you would like to make? TFD (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@ The Four Deuces I don’t think it’s objective to say that the extreme groups have come together with the right, while they have done the opposite with the left. Just as an example, it’s an objective fact they Donald Trump decided the party. Some supported and some refused to ever support regardless of his party affiliation. I think the objectivity of Wikipedia would be upheld if for each party, we just put a link to list of extremes at the see also section. The way it currently is suggests that the right is more extreme than the left — something that isn’t an objective fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagofscrews (talk • contribs) 22:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you are having this conversation in two articles. Right-wing parties sit together on the right side of European legislatures, which is why they are called right-wing, as opposed to left-wing parties that sit on the left. As I explained, the left-wing parties have a common origin in 19th century socialism, while the right-wing parties have different origins. TFD (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and politics and history exist outside the borders of the United States.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there not an apparent bias in the presentation of the introduction of this article?
I'm not terribly familiar with the inner workings of Wikipedia so forgive me if this comment comes off as ignorant, but is it not clear when looking at this article and the left-wing politics article that there is a clear bias involved? I'm not disputing anything on a factual level (the article is well-sourced), but it adopts a clear and unnecessary negative tone throughout its introduction. Take for example the images chosen to represent the left-wing and right-wing politics pages. The right-wing politics page shows a political cartoon that involves the demonization of socialists, with a caption that reads "Right-wing politics involves, in varying degrees, the rejection of some egalitarian objectives of left-wing politics." Not only does this caption use wording that frames right-wing politics as categorically bad ("egalitarian" is a word universally used as a positive today), it has next to nothing to do with the image (which is demonizing socialism as an ideology but makes no mention of specific egalitarian objectives). Meanwhile the introduction to the left-wing politics page contains only positive wording throughout, and the images next to the introduction show a labor demonstration and the Estates General - much better and more informative choices.

Beyond the images, the difference in tone in the wording is very clear in its bias. Take these examples: From the Left-Wing Politics article: "Left-wing politics typically involve a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished." From the Right-Wing Politics article: "Right-wing politics supports the view that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics, or tradition. Hierarchy and inequality may be seen as natural results of traditional social differences or competition in market economies." Again, let me be clear, because I anticipate this being an easy response: yes, these statements are technically true for both sides, but the bias in the tone remains. Left-wing politics is framed with wording that paints it as moral and empathetic: "a concern for those in society." Right-wing politics is framed with wording that is cold and rationalizing, "certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable," "Hierarchy and inequality may be seen as natural," etc. Right-wing politics is framed as though it constantly needs to rationalize its own conclusions ("typically supporting this position...") whereas left-wing politics are taken as simple and logical, derived from concern for others. I'm not suggesting that the left-wing politics article is bad, only that this right-wing politics article is.

To be frank, this article reads like it was written by someone who genuinely tried to be neutral but failed because of how they view right-wing politics. May I suggest altering the wording? The same sources that describe right-wing politics as "[supporting] the view that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable" could be worded as right-wing politics "opposes the use of government authority to undo certain social orders and hierarchies" or something along those lines - something that actually defines right-wing politics beyond "the left wants equality [good, educated, empathetic] and the right doesn't [bad, ignorant, cold]" that one clearly gets when reading the two articles side-by-side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.229.243.138 (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It won't be just about matching the panegyrics that describe left-wing politics, however sensitive one is to language that indicates out-of-control bias. What sources characterize right-wing politics in a less pejorative way? Or, does the present article not properly summarize the sources currently being used? Dhtwiki (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Articles are supposed to reflect reliable sources such as political science testbooks. If they are biased, then that will be reflected in articles. Science textbooks for example are biased to evolution over creationism and that is reflected in their respective articles. Probably you don't like the concepts to begin with: they are not or never were meaningful, you prefer a multi-polar political spectrum etc. TFD (talk) 09:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your proposal to change the wording to include "opposes the use of government authority to undo certain social orders and hierarchies" to associate right-wing with does not represent fascists and a number of conservatives in world history who have supported the use of government authority to maintain certain social orders and hierarchies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.33.99 (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

nah i don't think so. Both articles are just stating truth and history. CarpetCoyote (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Article to Be rewritten top to bottom
I have no idea of whom might have possibly written this article, but it is simply poorly conceived. We start with a short intro of right-wing ideas and then the entire right-wing politics is defined in opposition to communism, rather than qualifying it per se. Of course, this is not the case with any left-wing politics. The article is mostly inaccurate, as the right-wing precede the French revolution, especially in England, where it is associated with figures such as Edmund Burke. I am willing to contribute to this article, but in its present form, it is simply not worthy of being part of an encyclopedia, however of low standards such as Wikipedia. --86.6.148.125 (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

maybe you should provide some resources tht could help this article. CarpetCoyote (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Books and Journals
Hi, I have moved those scholarly/academic books and journals in separate bibliography section. Those scholarly books and journals needs to be mentioned as some of the world's foremost research scholar and academicians including political scientists has highlighted positive and negative aspects of right-wing ideology and how it has impacted our society from west to east. Not only that they also discussed from where the right-wing ideology has grown what are its fault lines. From US to Europe to some Asian countries how these ideology has spread; not only that few of the books describes how these ideology shapes economy of various countries. These are all high class research-oriented books written by academician of high standards unless you go through these books you won't be able know about this ideology. You'll note most of authors have done PhD in political science and have decades of research on various political science subjects. Thanks--Mariam57 (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The list is still without discernable order; generates error messages (all relating to having put too many authors in the "author", or equivalent, field); and contains odd typography (e.g. all caps and such an oddity as "{R{\'e}mond", which probably should read Rémond). Although the guideline (see WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY) doesn't quite say so, in my experience it is a place for works used generally for the article or for anchors for short footnotes ('sfn'). Otherwise, such a comprehensive bibliography, after cleanup, might be better placed as a standalone article linked to from here. The interested wikiprojects listed in this page's header might be consulted for best placement of such a list of works as you have here. I haven't reverted, but I'm not happy with the list and reserve my right to remove it, especially if no one else voices support for it. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC) (edited 05:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC))


 * Just like you have a right remove them I too have the right to add those research scholarly articles. People have the right know more about this ideology. That's why I have added such high quality books and journals written by academicians from world's leading institutions. Although I have tried to fix certain errors which you mentioned. And I'll try to put those in alphabetical order too. It will take some time. Remember when put such high quality research scholar books and journals it just upgrades the quality of the article. Thanks--Mariam57 (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If the sources are cited in the article they will be in the ref section. Sometimes a link to see also can make sense.  However a list of sources with no other explanation makes no sense and is structurally not part of Wikipedia article structure and shouldn't be included here.  See MOS Lists  Springee (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

A bibliography is more useful if it is selective rather than exhaustive.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Guys I have tried to keep it concise as you are aware there are thousands of research scholar books and journals. Only the most notable ones I have added particularly from Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard & Yale. But we need to mention some in bibliography as that would significantly improve the article quality. Books and journals written by academicians or research scholar are of very high standards they've highlighted both positives and negatives aspects of an ideology, its origin and its impact over society. If you guys like to trim some of those books or journals you free do so. Thanks--Mariam57 (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , please self revert the addition of this content. Your edit has been challenged by,  and myself.   has also offered an opinion.  You are the only editor who has supported the inclusion.  Please self revert and get consensus for the addition.  Springee (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, , ,  Since most of you are not willing to add those books and journals in Bibliography section. Then its better to remove it. Thanks--Mariam57 (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a middle ground between listing all of these books and articles and removing all of them, but it would require patience and hard work to list the most important of them in either chronological or alphabetical order. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * This is just a list of books and articles that have the term right-wing in their titles. Most of them are not directly related to the topic. While Eatwell and O'Sullivan's book, The Nature of the Right would be worth reading for anyone interested in the topic, an article about how liberals and conservatives aligned in British Columbia against the socialists would not be. An article about why this has happened in most Western countries would of course be of value.
 * Unlike the Left, there is little literature about the right. Eatwell identified five versions of the Right and there is lots about them, just not about them as a whole. It's like countries whose first letter is a B. While there are lot of books about the individual countries, there's very little that treats them as a group.
 * TFD (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Another option is to create a talk page post with the list and some short blurb about why each is significant. The problem with just listing them in the article is articles aren't meant to be just lists of possible sources.  In general if a source isn't used in the article we shouldn't put it into a reference type section at the end of the article.  Another issue is, even if a book is a very good reference we have to figure out what from that book should be in this article.  Does that book challenge/enhance/change perspectives on something already in the article?  Anyway, the list removal is not because the sources aren't good (I haven't reviewed them so I can't claim either way).  Rather it's because it's a manual of style issue.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with putting them in the talk page so editors can use them as suggested resources for making this article better.  Springee (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to note here that Conservatism now has a similar list. MrOllie (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It was certainly BOLD of to add that list.  Rather than just reverting I'm going to raise the question at MOS talk.  Even if some amount of "further reading" is acceptable I think these recent edits have gone overboard. A serious concern with such a list is how do we decide if the books are actually relevant/neutral etc. Springee (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Need for stablility
In the past few days there have been several extensive rewrites and several reverts that have left the article starting out by saying nothing but that the "right" is in opposition to the "left", which is totally uninformative.

I'm going to restore the last stable version, even though there have been some useful citations since then. I'll try to restore what is of value, but the current article is such a mess that I don't see how it can be useful even as a starting point. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I think that is the definition. Even the only book we have found about the Right says that it can be perceived as a series of reactions to the Left. TFD (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

That is not a definition. It may be the origin of Right-wing politics, but there are many different reactions to the Left, just as there are many different beliefs classified as Leftist. I know a number of people who react to the left by saying that it doesn't go far enough, anarchists for example. To be Right-wing, the reaction must be in a particular direction, and I think that direction is captured in the idea of hierarchy. At least, that is what many sources say. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Rick Norwood just to be clear, would you object to me restoring this edit? Having seven citations for a single statement is unnecessary and just clutters the page - see WP:Citation overkill. GeebaKhap (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The beliefs classified as left focus on trying to increase equality. The increase in equality provokes a reaction from different groups at different times who believe that equality has gone far enough. So when French peasants were given ownership of their farms early in the Revolution, they became part of the Right. They didn't want any more equality. That doesn't necessarily mean they had anything else in common with their former enemies, the ultra-royalists. You might find yourself on the right if the U.S. had an anarchist government. It wouldn't mean that your beliefs had changed, just that you never an anarchist. TFD (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source regarding those French peasants? the assertion they joined the "right" alongside the aritocrats does not make sense to me Rjensen (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Response to GeebaKhap: A little history. The reason for the seven citations goes back to the edit war over the current definition of Conservative as supporting hierarchy. Some Wikipeida Conservatives objected to this definition, and wanted the definition of conservative to be "Someone in favor of freedom, justice, and the American way." Each time we replaced their definition with the current definition, we added another reference.


 * Response to The Four Deuces: Your observation about French peasants is astute. See, for example, the song "Les Bourgeois" by Jacques Brel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCHi5apc1lQ


 * Response to Rjensen: There is certainly a tendency for liberals who get their own freedom to suddenly become conservatives. I also recommend to you the Jacques Brel song. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The most obvious example of peasants and aristocrats working together is in the Catholic and Royal armies of 1793. But my point was not that they worked together but that they both opposed the Left. Perhaps a better example would be the bourgeoisie that led the revolution then became part of the Right when socialism emerged. The main center right party in France today (if we exclude Macron's party) is the Republicans, which contains various elements that were considered revolutionary at some point.
 * Even ostensibly left-wing parties can find themselves on the right. Juan Guaido's party in Venezuela for example is a member of the Socialist International which has supported him.
 * What I was arguing was that defining the Right as opposition to the left isn't meaningless, unless we define the Left as opposition to the Right. Members of the right can have very different opinions from one another, so there is no other commonality than their mutual opposition to the Left.
 * TFD (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)