Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War of Words (right-wing extremism)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move to user space - number of sources suggests it may be notable but lack of page numbers or other context does not allow outsiders to verify these claims. Amount of content makes merging impractable. User should be given time to flesh out the subject matter to prove it is a significant political concept and not OR. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Article can now be found here. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

War of Words (right-wing extremism)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This a nebulous and discursive essay/discussion rather than a proper article about something notable. There are lots of debates about things in the world – eg who’s the best ever FA Cup/Super bowl winner; what makes a party left- or right- wing – an encyclopedia has pages about the underlying things or concepts, not about such meta-debates, unless that debate is particularly notable in itself. The name “War of words” is also not a term generally or commonly applied to this particular "debate"; it’s simply a generic phrase, taken as the headline/title of one paper written by one academic. We don’t need articles titled after and focused on every single academic paper and journal article, whether then fleshed out with vaguely related material or not.  N-HH   talk / edits  15:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. As nominator, for reasons above.  N-HH   talk / edits  15:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * KeepWell sourced/--Deathlaser (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Having quite a few footnotes is not the same thing as being "well sourced". Do those sources relate to the topic and title as presented? Is the topic notable in the first place? Etc etc. All the sources cited might well be useful additions to the article on right-wing extremism. They do not justify this article, which is the point here. Can AFD debates ever focus on the reasons put forward for deletion, and rise above counting footnotes and leaving a pithy "keep" justification?  N-HH   talk / edits  16:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC


 * Keep In my module on the extreme right taught by Dr Matthew Goodwin at the University of Nottingham the debate is termed the war of words. I realise Wikipedia doesn't privilege expertise by its very nature.  Quickbeam44 (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we generally credit academic expertise of course; but not, I'm afraid, pseudonymous editors' accounts of what they are told on their courses. There are also issues around notability when it comes to creating entire articles about one-off phrases, whoever utters them. In any event, did your tutor simply say there is a war of words about this; or did he say this debate is formally known as "The War of Words"? The former is self-evidently true, as it is about 1001 other issues; the latter is a very different point, and there appears to be no evidence that it is so known more widely, or that it stands under that name as a significant issue above and beyond the issue of right-wing extremism per se.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Beyond Mudde's article there is Goodwin's article Beyond the War of Words? The Extreme Right Paradigm in the Twenty-First Century. The 'war of words' is also referred to in Luther, K. (2000), Austria: A Democracy Under Threat from the Freedom Party, Parliam Aff (2000) 53 (3): 426-442 a journal currently co-edited by one of the academics from my department. Once this hopefully survives AfD I shall continue to flesh out the article Quickbeam44 (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd guess Goodwin's is a response to Mudde's original article, or perhaps simply a use of the generic phrase. We just don't know. Again, I still don't see that this creates notability. Are there any thrid-party sources that specifically assert what the article asserts in its opening question - that this is "a name given to an academic debate concerning the most appropriate way of defining the ideologies of right-wing extremist parties"; and that such debate is notable above and beyond the concept of modern right-wing extremism itself? If Academic A published a paper called "The Big Question: who was to blame for the Cold War"?, and Academics B & C briefly responded to that using the same term, would that justify an article under the title "The Big Question (Cold War blame)? Or would we look to integrate that material into one of the substantive Cold War pages?  N-HH   talk / edits  17:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If I were being obstinate I might expand this article to the extent it can't be reasonably merged then :-) Quickbeam44 (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merging into the currently rather threadbare Far-right politics, which covers much the same ground but under a far more obviously notable title might well be the obvious solution. Not least because your more recent additions in particular say nothing about any supposed "War of Words" meta-debate, but simply list various suggested defining characteristics of right-wing extremism, which one would have thought more obviously belong in that main article, along with a more detailed history of extreme right-wing movements.  N-HH   talk / edits  18:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The naming of groups on the extreme right is a matter of considerable dispute and is discussed in most texts on the right. For example, Pippa Norris writes, "standard reference works use alternate typologies and diverse labels categorising parties as 'far' or 'extreme' right, 'new right', 'anti-immigrant', 'neo-Nazi' or 'neofascist', 'antiestablishment', 'national populist', 'protest', 'ethnic', 'authoritarian', 'antigovernment', 'antiparty', 'ultranationalist', or 'neoliberal', 'libertarian' and so on".  (Norris, Pippa. Radical right: voters and parties in the electoral market. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005, p. 44)  But the article needs work.  Is it referring to "far right" parties like the BNP, or does it include right-wing populist parties like UKIP?  TFD (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course there are disputes over definition and categorisation, as there are with many topics, but surely most articles define their topic, and deal with any such disputes, in the main article? Indeed, isn't that in part the point of any article? Unless we need to spin material about the debate off from the main article due to the significance of that debate itself, what we have is surely a rather blatant content fork. And, if we have a separate "naming dispute"-type article, it should certainly not be under this name, since there is no evidence this is a common or standard term for it. It's simply a generic term applied briefly to this particular debate in a couple of instances.  N-HH   talk / edits  18:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was working on the basis that this article would be a section of the far-right article eventually... the main article would presumably focus on more than definitions.   92.15.153.16 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you're Quickbeam, logged out? Anyway, if the above is the case, why didn't you just start it as a section of that article and why are you now arguing for it to be kept as standalone piece, under this name? As noted above, the main far right page is the obvious place for this information. By your own admission now, you're basically using main article space as a sandbox and/or creating a content fork before the main article is even full.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I am unable to access Mudde's 1996, article, but click here for full access to his 2004 book The Dark Side of European Politics: Unmasking the Radical Right. See pp. 6 following.  By "extreme right", he is referring to the terminology developed by Klaus von Beyme who used the term to describe parties to the right of traditional conservatism, liberalism and christian democracy.  It includes the far right, right-wing populism and, in the United States, the radical right.  The terminology is a matter of dispute because, unlike liberals for example, extreme rightists do not call themselves extreme and sometimes do not call themselves right-wing.  Unlike socialists for example they do not necessarily identify themselves with other parties in their group, a shared history or core set of beliefs.  That is why their naming or even existence as a single ideological family is a matter of discussion.  Incidentally in radical right, a number of editors are now complaining about even mentioning that most recent scholarship places the  Tea Party Movement within that tradition.  TFD (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 21:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)




 * Comment - This strikes me as an original essay. Still pondering these things. Carrite (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: This does strike me as a combination of original research and the (not particularly notable) work of one scholar, this Mr Mudde. There may be some substance to it that could be used in some articles in some form, but as an article, it falls short of our inclusion requirements.  Sandstein   07:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and rewrite as a condensed subsection of far right. Some of the information in it can also be distributed in the far right article. Mudde's original article "The War of Words" was cited 156 times according to Google, which is relatively high, and I can find numerous references to it in the literature on the extreme right. But I don't see that this merits an article of its own. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment/Rant I’ve stopped working on this article as a) it has an AfD tag on it and therefore I might be wasting my time – this only helps it attract delete votes as I’m not editing to make it less essay-ish b) Wishout wishing to sound arrogant I don’t think any of you are qualified to judge whether to keep this article given you haven't had you head in this literature for months (read that back that sounds arrogant doesn't it?!) Anway, my aim was to write two articles which would eventually branch off of the main far-right article. This one dealing with definitions and another dealing with drivers of far-right support -  Wikipedia’s coverage of the academic theories relating to the later is nil. My plan was to first write the articles then having done that I would begin working on the far-right article and build that up with these articles branching off it as sections. If this survives I shall continue my efforts on this topic. Quickbeam44 (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, on the principle that dispassionate and disinterested contributions are often the most appropriate ones, I'd argue precisely the opposite - ie that while someone who has "had their head in this literature for months" might be well-placed to contribute material on a notable and discrete topic, or even write a very good essay, they not be the best person to argue about notability and due weight for a WP article with a proper sense of perspective in the first place. And in any event, Wikipedia doesn't work on the basis of what people think they know, however well-informed or well-read they might genuinely be, but on the basis of clear, verifiable evidence. It would seem most people commenting have a fair grasp of the broad issues around right-wing politics, but dispute the need for this specific page, under this specific title. If there was indeed widespread literature and multiple sources that affirmed that such a thing known as the "War of Words (right-wing extremism)" existed as a distinct and significant theme - under that proper name - you of all people would surely be able to point the rest of us to them?  N-HH   talk / edits  13:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - it is potentially notable, as there are plenty of sources, but as is now, it's a bit weak and rambling. Incubate or userfy? Bearian (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * CommentI am willing to compromise so as to prevent this article becoming a victim of AfD deletionists

1)I wish to write an article on definitions that will be too big for the main article 2)Most textbooks in this area begins with a definitions chapter engaging with semantic quibbles relating to the nature of certain labels 3)Leading academics in this area such as Cas Mudde and Matt Goodwin call this debate the war of words but the problem with Wikipedia is expertise/credentials means nothing. I give up! - how about we rename this Right-wing extremism (definitions) Quickbeam44 (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge in some way with far right; let Quickbeam44 build Glossary of Right-wing extremism from it. Of course, since "right-wing" ideas vary from country to country, that might need some definition too. As far as notability is concerned, this article addresses some serious concerns. I agree it looks a bit on the "original research" side.  I'd agree with incubate or userfy too.Marikafragen (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * How can this be original research given I've referenced content to peer-reviewed academic articles and relevant textbooks? Some of the academic literature engages with the whole issue of how universal definitions can be given what can be considered left/right varies across nations. If this stays I'll keep working and add to the article, if it doesn't I'll give up. Either way can a decision be made as I've been prevented from working on this article for 23 days now! Quickbeam44 (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.