Loading AI tools
This is an archive of past discussions about Right-wing politics. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 |
Acroterion, 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 Victor Salvini 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
The consensus is to exclude the quote by Steve Bannon.
Cunard (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Should the quote:
be included in this article or not? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
References
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)
Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)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.
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)
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)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Norwood (talk • contribs) 10:23, 6 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’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.
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
I am deleting the 2014 quotation from Mediamatters.org and the associated footnote, which fail to meet Wikipedia standards.
Peter Brown (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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#Proud Boys. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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'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)
nah i don't think so. Both articles are just stating truth and history. CarpetCoyote (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
Hi @Dhtwiki:, 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)
A bibliography is more useful if it is selective rather than exhaustive.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:09, 18 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)
Just wanted to note here that Conservatism now has a similar list. MrOllie (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.