Talk:Far right

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Far right article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Archive

This article underwent a complicated merge December 2005. The other branch of its history is preserved at Talk:Far right/tributary; despite the talk-space designation, this was originally created in article space, and is preserved mainly to keep a record of the contribution history. - Jmabel | Talk 02:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Fascists for themselves

This is a portuguese blog[1]. It is a fascist blog (the name means “fascism at the net”). It links to Italian self-proclaimed fascist parties. Many posts of the blog are essays written several years (or decades) ago.

The post: it is a text from 1938. I know that 99% of you don’t read or speak Portuguese, but is a text saying that republic and democracy does not work and only a hereditary King can rule a country: “A Família é possível, porque o seu chefe é hereditário; uma vez que se introduza na Família o sistema electivo, a Família morre. Ora as Nações não são mais do que Famílias em ponto grande” (“The Family is possible because is chief is hereditary; if we introduce the elective system in the Family, the Family dies. Well, the Nations are nothing more than Families in big size”). The author of the text, Alfredo Pimenta, was a Monarchist, who supported Germany during WWII.

Another post of the blog[2]. The issue is a lament for the “absence of the right-wing” (“a ausencia da direita”); apparently, the author considers himself a right-winger…

Another portuguese blog[3]. It is also a pro-fascist blog – look to the pictures: Ezra Pound, Celine, Abel Bonard, Robert Brasillach, Drieu La Rochelle, Julius Evola, Arno Brecker (there is also Hemingway, but these is because the author is an aficionado of the bullfight)…

The post: an article criticizing “the empty rhetoric of the left-wing” about the riots in France. Should be noted that the author, Bruno Santos, is one of the leaders of the National Renewal Party, a party with strong conections with the Front National of Le Pen (who claims to be right-wing)

The site of the “New Rigth”[4]. Many texts are from or about Evola, Carl Schmitt and Oswald Spengler, fellow-travelers of fascism (remember, the title of the site is “New Rigth – Nouvelle Droite”!)

An article about Spengler[5]: “Prussian socialism is thus essentially «not concerned with nominal property, but rather with techniques of administration --- The Old Prussian method was to legislate the formal structure of the total productive potential while guarding carefully the right to property and inheritance, and to allow so much freedom to personal talent, energy, initiative, and intellect as one might allow a skilled chess player who had mastered all the rules of the game. This is largely how it was done with the old cartels and syndicates, and there is no reason why it could not be systematically extended to work habits, work evaluation, profit distribution, and the internal relationship between planners and executive personnel. Socialisation means the slow, decades-long transformation of the worker into an economic civil-servant, of the employer into a responsible administrative official with extensive powers of authority, and of property into a kind of old-style hereditary fief to which a certain number of rights and privileges are attached.»”

Aparently, the model of National Socialism (or “German Socialism”) is not the left-wing socialism, but the feudal order.

From these articles, seems to me that: a) it is usually fascists consider themselves “right-wing” (in reality, I don’t know of any self-proclaimed fascist calling himself “left-wing”); and b) It is a great tradition of close cooperation (and ideological juxtaposition) between fascists and the traditional conservatives, monarchists and nostalgical of the feudal Old Order. If this is not “far-rigth”, what is “far-rigth”???--81.84.81.90 02:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

First Spengler was ultimately alienated from Nazism and not a leader in it. Also I agree they're certainly willing to use traditional conservatives and monarchist. I just disagree that that makes the two things identical. Many "traditional" types in Italy and Germany considered were suspicious of fascists as radicals who would upset the existing order. Much of their support in those quarters came from fear of socialism and communism. And to think the Nazis would sincerely want feudalism is either taking a few films they did as literal ideology, or is wish fulfillment on your part or is just blatantly ahistorical. Lastly modern fascists don't necessarily represent the actual ruling kind. Still all that said I agree fascism is far-right. I just think that we've moved beyond 1848 so "far right" now means something different then it did in the revolutionary days.--T. Anthony 05:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
The question is not if Spengler was pro-Nazi, but if the Nazis was pro-Spengler (and I think they was).
I am not also saying that Fascism and Traditional Conservatism was identical, I am only saying that they are closely related.
In republican countries, like Portugal, Spain (in the 30), France and Germany, the nexus between Monarchists/Traditionalists and Fascists were very strong:
in Portugal, the National-Syndicalists were founded, in the 30s, by the former member of Integralismo Lusitano, a monarchist group; before that, in the 20s, both monarchists, fascists and Catholic activists were in the “Cruzada Don Nuno Alvares”, a group opposed to the Republic; after that, in the 60s, the fascist group “Movimento Jovem Portugal” were founded by former member of the “Junta Escolar Monárquica”. The main book of the leader of MJP, Antonio José de Brito (a self-proclaimed fascist), is “Our Masters – the Guidebook of Counter-Revolution”, a book about the De Maistre, Bonald, etc.(in these book, he says that the fascist tradition is different from reactionary tradition, but, simultaneousy, recognize the influence of these thinkers)
in Spain, the Falange was founded by José António Primo de Rivera, the son of the conservative military dictator Miguel Primo de Rivera, and many of his first members were disciples of the traditionalist group Action Española (today, Falange is for the republic, but only adopt this position when the King Juan Carlos begins to democratize the country)
in France, the Camelot du Roy, the youth wing of the monarchist Action Française, turns massively to fascism after 1934. Charles Maurras, the leader of the AF, was an admirer of Mussolini (but not of Hitler)
in Germany, the Nazis were inspired by the Conservative Revolution and by the “socialism of the chair” (a group of intellectuals who combined the defence of monarchy with economic planning)--212.113.164.104 16:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh I think they dovetail into each other and have often been willing to feed off each other, in least to some degree. I'm just not convinced they are as interconnected as you believe. Especially in the case of Nazism because as I recall many conservative aristocrats were uncomfortable with the street-violence and radical social change the Nazis wanted. I think that's part of why they purged the SA and set up things like the Protestant Reich Church. In the case of Italian Fascism it's closer, but there's their connection to the Futurist movement and generally revolutionary nature that makes me skeptical. "Iberian Fascism", Spain and Portugal, or Clerical Fascism I could see as just fitting though.--T. Anthony 03:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The truth is that "left" and "right" are leftist terms. We can't very well let them set the terms of debate, now can we? ;) Sam Spade 04:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned why facists call themselves rightwings, cause they are stupid and they believe the propaganda that the non-racist socialists, who think they are true libertarians or liberals(classic liberals) and think that Hayek and true liberals(classic liberals)and liberatarians are right wingers. Original facists, though nutcases, were intelectuals, but neo-facists are stupid on top of crazy. Neutral nobody

I don't agree w almost any of that. There are a number of reasons why people call themselves "right", and their are a variety of inteligences behind the "fascist far right". Le Pen, for example, is nobodys fool, nor is Silvio Berlusconi, who has some very interesting conections. What do you know about the international third position? Sam Spade 16:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

If Spengler was pro-Nazi, then why did he sharply criticize the Nazis in his last book, The Hour of Decision? If the Nazis were pro-Spengler, why did they ban that book and any mention of his name in the press? And why did George F. Kennan and Henry Kissinger consider Spengler such an important influence on their Cold War containment policies if he was so dangerously radical? The latter figure was Jewish. Why did Northrop Frye cite Spengler as such an important influence, not only on his work but on all writers and historians? We are to believe that this brilliant man was a Nazi because he was generally right-wing?Shield2 05:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] distinctions

I saw a nice college tele-course last night that had alot to say on useful sociological distinctions (as opposed to false left-right dichotomies). One was individualism vs. collectivism. The other was legalist vs. kinship based societies. Sam Spade 16:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lead paragraph

Current lead paragraph seems a bit weak to me, also a bit POV.

The term far-right refers to the relative position a group or person occupies within a political spectrum. Since, by definition, most people are not far from the center, the terms "far-right" and "far-left" are used to say that someone is an extremist, not in tune with the majority. "Far-right" is thus usually a pejorative term. Due to this circumstance, the division between far-left and far-right extremists can sometimes be difficult to discern. The rhetoric and positions advocated (Populism, revolution, social unrest, violence) can often appear very similar.

"…by definition, most people are not far from the center". Not necessarily: consider the Weimar Republic, or the Second Spanish Republic. Both were torn apart by polarization and the lack of a strong center.

What is going on in the fourth sentence: Due to what circumstance? That the word is usually pejorative? That makes no sense. Does "Due to this circumstance" actually carry any meaning here, or can we just drop it?

"…the division between far-left and far-right extremists can sometimes be difficult to discern." Seems POV. I happen to agree with it, but it still seems POV. Can't we cite someone on this, if we want to say this?

It seems to me that if we want to talk intelligibly about similarities between far-right and far-left politics:

  1. We need to track down citable material of scholars pointing out the similarities, and if only the theoreticians of totalitarianism are being asked to carry all this water, maybe we should just link to totalitarianism and not try to replicate the arguments here.
  2. We need to discuss similarity of tactics and ideology, above all the cocksureness and the willingness to resort to violence.
  3. We need to discuss similarity of outcomes, that both far-left and far-right once in power tend to form dictatorships or, at best, plebiscitory democracies. The project of forming an elite tends to be explicit on the right; on the left, it tends to be disguised as the need to form revolutionary cadre.

Obviously, in those last two points, I've indulged my own views. That can't go in the article without finding someone citable who says it. Right now, all we have is an uncited remark ("The rhetoric and positions advocated (Populism, revolution, social unrest, violence) can often appear very similar," that I'm not sure belongs there. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I have also had concerns, particularly w that "most people are not far from center" bit. Center of what? "Most" people? Rather than try to cite this stuff, lets just keep rewording it until we have an agreeable intro, one any reasonable, informed party can accept. Disputed claims requiring citations don't make for the best intro.
I don't see leftists as being more able to disguise their intents, but maybe thats just me? Think about the communist party oligarchs, corrupt union leaders and so forth. All that "power to the workers" stuff is bunk, both sides make such populist claims. Hitler was very big on jobs and bread. I guess maybe leftists believe it more, since even lowlevel right-wingers generally arn't looking for equality anyways...
In any case, its clear to me that there isn't much substantive difference between these general catagories of extremists, despite their rhetoric, but as I have said I'm not that enthused w the current wording either. Sam Spade 01:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I gave it a kicking, have a look. Sam Spade 02:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I have some doubts about "eugenics" being a "leftist concept".

Perhaps the sentence "The far right has often been associated with social and religious conservatism, reactionary nationalism, jingoistic chauvanism and economic libertarianism, but this varies wildly." should be "The far right has often been associated with social and religious conservatism, reactionary nationalism, jingoistic chauvanism and economic proteccionism, but this varies wildly.": in Europe, the far-right is, absolutely, anti-"economic libertarianism" (and I suppose that, even in the US, the paleo-conservatives are proteccionists)--81.84.81.121 19:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I edited accordingly. Re: Eugenics, you may want to look into its history more closely, esp. planned parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger. Sam Spade 06:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hopelessly muddled - merge

This discussion was moved to Talk:Right-wing politics. Sorry, my mistake, I didn't realize I was starting the merge discussion on the wrong page.--Cberlet 17:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

In sorting this out, note that a non-trivial article Extreme right was redirected here without merging any of its content, which included several academic citations. When someone sorts this all out, they will probably want to salvage at least some of the lost material. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thats completely inaccurate. Sam Spade 17:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
It's sure what looks to me to have happened. If not, could you elucidate? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Have a look @ [6] and [7]. I made sure all the factual info, links and book citations were merged. Chip deleted much of that. What I did not merge was this POV mess:

"The Extreme right or Ultra right is the term used by most scholars to discuss right-wing political groups that step outside the boundaries of traditional electoral politics. This generally includes the revolutionary right, militant racial supremacists and religious bigots, Fascists, neo-fascists, Nazis, and neo-Nazis."

Because it was variously POV, redundant, and factually inaccurate. As I have said all along, Cite "most scholars" saying anything, much less these generalisations. Sam Spade 02:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. I must have looked at the state where the material was deleted. I didn't realize that the material was moved and later deleted, I just followed up the redirect and didn't find the material. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Not what happened. Sam Spade rewrote the text and made it innaccurate. See:[8]. I then deleted the rewritten and now inaccurate text rather than have a text that misrepresented what the cites I added covered. The cites point out that the term is used by different authors to cover three different ranges of right-wing politics, not that some scholars use the term to cover all three different ranges mentioned in the three bulleted paragraphs. That was self-contradictory and false. I leave it up to others to make any changes. I am currently refraining from text edits, but I will step in to discuss claims that I think are false on talk pages.--Cberlet 12:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I edited his text. If he had made a counter edit (rather than a revert or deletion of a block of text) progress could have been made. This is a Collaborative editing editing project, mr. berlet. Sam Spade 22:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade, please go back and read the two edits. You edited what I wrote to say something completely different.[9]. The problem is that originally what I wrote was cited to several specific books: [10]:
  • Betz, Hans-Georg and Stefan Immerfall, eds. 1998. The New Politics of the Right: Neo-Populist Parties and Movements in Established Democracies. New York: St. Martin's Press.
  • Betz, Hans-Georg. 1994. Radical Right-wing Populism in Western Europe, New York: St. Martins Press,.
  • Durham, Martin. 2000. The Christian Right, the Far Right and the Boundaries of American Conservatism. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
You rewrote the text, rewrote the subheading, and the end result was a set of claims that were not only not accurate, but also mis-cited to the books I had cited to buttress my original paragraph. Your edit is to collaboration, what the Visigoths were to non-violent civil disobedience.
And please do not refer to me as "mr. berlet."
Also, how can I pass up this opportunity to note that the original character of Sam Spade was created by a lifelong socialist.--Cberlet 23:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why, why, why...

With a {{mergefrom}} tag sitting on this article, and a {{mergeto}} sitting on Far right—a noun, and therefore a suitable title for an article, unlike the adjective far-right—did Sam Spade turn the article with the acceptable title into a redirect to the one that violates the MoS. Sam, can you explain your action? Was this just a mistake, or did you really have a reason to do this? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you an admin, Jmabel? If so, move this page to Far right. That would be fine. They have already been merged together, and I certainly won't object to that. Sam Spade 00:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Great! -- Jmabel | Talk 01:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Prior to this rather complicated move, the only discussion at Talk:Far Right (where this is now being moved) was as follows:

"Note: a discussion involving this page and its future is taking place at Talk:Right-wing politics. Please leave this page here and do not redirect it until that discussion is completed. Thanks.--Cberlet 22:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

And this notice:

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on December 1, 2005. The result of the discussion was merge with far-right (and vice-versa).
Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 05:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

-- Jmabel | Talk 02:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

OK, now that the page has been renamed, why the dispute header? What is being disputed, why and by whom? Sam Spade 04:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, dispute header removed. Sam Spade 18:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Far Right Party?

What qualifies? Christian Heritage Party of Canada? Or maybe Nationalist Party of Canada? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.199.116.198 (talk • contribs) 1 April 2006.

Does Canada have to have a party to label far right? Feeling left out?  ;-)    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 20:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Not sure which Canadian parties would qualify, but I don't believe the Reform Party of Canada or the Conservative Party of Canada should be included. Reform and Conservative are/were indeed on the right side of centre, and not anyone that I want running the country (sigh), but they are less right than George Bush's Republicans are. Including them on a list that has Aryan Nations and Vlaams Blok is inaccurate and insulting. Now, if someone wanted to redefine the list to include the Republicans, then I'd agree that Reform should also be added. Thraesja 18:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
There did not appear to be a mention of either Reform or the Conservative Party of Canada in the reference cited, so I removed them. I'm beginning to suspect that Ignatz and Mudde are not reliable sources, but whoever added the major Canadian parties of the Right based on those citations appears to be making stuff up. Argyriou (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I removed the Canadian entires because there doesn't seem to be any appropriate examples. Perhaps this page should be semi-protected so that those who cannot prevent their political bias from influencing their edits can be prevented from doing so? --70.48.217.65 04:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of the current political parties labeled far right section?

Remove this section? Wikipedia is not a political blog... Intangible 00:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the list. Intangible 01:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Added POV tag. This list is POV as hell, and putting the Canadian Alliance and Reform Party of Canada together with those other parties entails a POV bad company fallacy. Intangible 17:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Far right = left????

Political compass On the website Political compass it is argued that parties labelled as 'far right' are actually more leftist than most modern main stream parties. 'Far right' cannot be correct as a nomer because advocating government control (far left) cannot be a polar opposite to advocating government control (far right).

Actually, communism (government control) is the polar opposite of the free market ideology. Communism is primarily an economic ideology whereas fascism is a social ideology. They are not, nor have they ever been (except in rhetoric) polar opposites. The term 'far right' therefore is incorrect and used by parties identifying themselves as 'left' to discredit the 'right'. Unfortunately for them, fascism is all about state control (if not state ownership of the means of production, then certainly state control of them).

Political compass argues that advocates of state control all belong on the left.

It introduces 2 axis: -an economic x-axis (horizontal) where communism (state control) and free market ideology (no state control) are polar opposites -a social y-axis (vertical) where authoritarianism and libertarianism are polar opposites.

--82.156.49.1 04:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this is an accpeted diversion, and that far right and far left are indeed misnomers. This article is suitable in its POV/accuracy however. Flying Hamster 04:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Advocating government control can in fact be an opposite of advocating a different type of government control. The two groups may want the government to control different things, and they may wish to achieve opposite goals. "Government control" is a method, a means to an end. Ideologies may have opposing goals, while using similar means to achieve them.

The Political Compass model is interesting, but has a number of major flaws. For example, the "left-wing", which is supposed to represent state control of the economy, includes the ideology of anarcho-communism, which wants to abolish the state along with private property. Conversely, "free market ideology" always needs a state to define and enforce property rights. -- Nikodemos 03:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get "free market ideology" always needs a state to define and enforce property rights? That just isn't true. SnowShoes talk here 03:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New List

I have started a new list, with citations. Please ensure that all new additions are cited to a reliable source. Please note that basing this list on terminology used in other entries on Wikipedia is not considered apparopriate--even when Wiki administrators do it.--Cberlet 04:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This list is inherently biased, and thus POV. The point is that labeling of these party only serves a purpose in academic discourse, beyond that, it is mostly used for its psychological effect. Creating this list entails that there should be common theme throughout those listed parties, which does not exist. Even political science scholars point out that: "it is suggested that scholarly focus on extreme-right politics has remained constraint by placing an excessive emphasis on conceptual and taxonomic debates...It was the dominance of the former taxonomic and conceptual concerns over the extreme-right paradigm that led one scholar to note that, 'the serious scientific study of right-wing extremism is still in its infancy at best' (Mudde, 1996). Mudde went on to label the extreme-right paradigm's near-obsession with taxonomy as the 'war of words'. This observation is equally applicable at the dawn of the twenty-first century as it was in the mid-1990s and to a large extent the situation remains relatively unchanged."
A scientific study in its infancy should not be used to make exaggerated claims, and certainly not to be relied on a just pointing to a (false) taxonomical nomer. Clearly if labels have different meaning for different political science scholars, one should not be tempted to claim that any such labeling is correct or factual; yes there are political parties that can be described rightly so as being xenophobe or nationalist, but this does not mean every every party on this list has those characteristics, but the list does make for a inherent guilty by association. Furthermore, almost no comparative studies exist on a large scale, making cross-country comparisons between parties (such as the current list) useless. The USA for example does not have a large social-democratic party, while France does, so a social-democrat would be quickly called "far left" in the USA, while in France one might describe a social-democrat as "centrist," who knows? As Mudde has noted, the use of the "extreme right" label does not appear in the definition of the concept. If there is no concept behind "extreme right" or "extreme left," why use the terms just for labeling? It does not serve a purpose at all, and in Wikipedia articles on political parties themselves there is enough room to describe the mischief of political parties and their ideology. Intangible 06:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
No matter how impressed any single Wikipedia editor is with their own intelligence and original research, it does not trump properly cited scholarly material. Intangible should feel feel free to start a blog or write a book on the subject, but further attempts to impose idiosyncratic POV through tendentious campaigns of loading discussion pages with pointless arguments until other editors wear out will be further evidence of the disruption for which Intangible was put on probation in the first place.--Cberlet 13:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is meant to be a general purpose encyclopedia; there is no denying that the labeling of political parties is widely done by the media, the political pundit class, voters, and even politicians themselves. To take an overly academic viewpoint is to deny reality and make wikipedia less useful to ordinary readers. Provided a party is labeled as "Far right" by an independent third party source, it should be so identified. Disputes about identification can be reported on the party's individual article (assuming of course that you are reporting the views of others). Neutral point of view means describing all significant points of view on a subject, not neutering the article. In other words, describe the fact that some pundits characterize a party as "Far-right"[citation needed] while other pundits or the party dispute it[citation needed]; don't pretend the characterization doesn't exist. Thatcher131 02:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131 writes: "Provided a party is labeled as "Far right" by an independent third party source, it should be so identified.". ya know there are "independent third party" scolarly, verifiable and reliable sources who identify the US republican party as far right. Will they be included in your list? --SoLittleTime 06:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What would those scholarly sources be? Saying you have sources without producing them does not advance matters. - Jmabel | Talk 06:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merger

Maybe this page should be merged into Right-wing politics or Left-Right politics? I know that User:Cberlet and User:Jmabel would support at least the first option. I would support both, but have a preference for the latter one. Intangible 15:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This claim about my position on this matter is simply false. Here is what I posted on Right-wing politics about the proposed merger of Right-wing politics and Left-wing politics into Left-Right politics:
[...the merger of Right-wing politics into] Left-Right politics makes some sense, but since there are large bodies of scholarly work on the "far left" and "far right" I certainly would oppose merging them.
As in I oppose merging them into any other page, as should have been clear.--Cberlet 15:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, the confusion came from your statement "Far-Right should probably be merged into this page so that the fact that there is huge disagreement where the boundaries are can be discussed." at Talk:Right-wing_politics#New_Idea Intangible 16:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that there are several possible reasonable breakdowns to fewer articles, but not all breakdowns are reasonable, and there is more material than will fit in one article. I gather that several people wish to decrease the number of articles.
Current arrangement:
  • Left-right politics: an overall survey
  • Left-wing politics
  • Far left
  • Right-wing politics
  • Far right
Breakdown 1
  • Left-right politics: an overall survey
  • Left-wing politics: a broad article with everything from early liberalism and social liberalism to hard-left Stalinism and left-anarchism
  • Right-wing politics: a broad article with everything from economic liberalism to fascism and traditionalist monarchism
Breakdown 2
  • Left-right politics: an overall survey
  • Far left: covering only leftist ideologies that reject such liberties as freedom of speech, broadly based electoral democracy, etc. Typically Leninists, some of them via Stalin or Mao. Probably a few of the more extreme left anarchists also belong here.
  • Far right: covering only rightist ideologies that reject such liberties as freedom of speech, broadly based electoral democracy, etc. A slightly more heterogeneous group than the far left: monarchist revivalists, fascists of various stripes, ultra-nationalists, theocrats.
- Jmabel | Talk 23:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This is very helpful and constructive. I prefer Breakdown 2, but both are reasonable suggestions.--Cberlet 01:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Pretty much none of the parties in your POV list would even be covered in Jmabel's Breakdown 2. Intangible 12:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What makes it tricky is that a lot of these parties talk out of both sides of their mouths. The British National Party, for example, seem to vary from year to year (if not from minute to minute) as to whether they are more akin to Margaret Thatcher or Oswald Moseley. Even the Spanish Falange occasionally talk a good game in terms of democracy, but, for that matter, so did Hitler. - Jmabel | Talk 05:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Did the Official Opposition in the Canadian parliament talk out of its mouth as well? Intangible 17:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV, again

I see that the section Parties labeled as "Far Right" or "Extreme Right" is labeled as POV. What is the problem? - Jmabel | Talk 01:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

See that above two sections. Basically the list is POV because each author has a different concept of "far right" or "extreme right". I removed the same kind of list at far left, but somehow that was not criticized. Intangible 08:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This is part of a longstanding dispute in which Intangible claims that slight variation in terminology used by social scientists allows Intangible to delete the political characterisation by social scientists of a variety of political groups from Wikipedia. The issue was taken to arbitration, and although on probation, Intangible continues to make the same claims on multiple pages. See: here, here, and here.--Cberlet 14:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
We now have two scholars from which this list is derived. Editors need to be careful to not add parties in a way that misrepresents the scholarly cites. I am removing the POV tag, since it has been demonstrated that it is without foundation.--Cberlet 22:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
And again, the tags have been removed - tendentious disruption noted.--Cberlet 22:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV tags

I'm inserting the POV tags again. My main concern is that each scholar who does make a comparative analysis of political parties between some countries uses one's own pet definition of what is being studied, and then not even as determinant of what is being studied, but as abstraction and speculation. A list of political parties in this article would imply POV original research, and is currently even without context. Intangible 17:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Far Right, Far Left, Far Whatever

It's all the same thing. I think political wings as more of a circle. Far left and Far right are right next to each other at the top of the circle. They both run on practically the same core beliefs. Just different excuses for their beliefs.--Zeph1 23:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. What was the real difference between Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot? - ClemsonTiger 14:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
easy; moustache, moustache, none, none... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.240.122.161 (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Removal of parties list

Removed list & created page for this because these parties are listed as Nationalst & Right Wing & this article is only Far Right. They are no listed under these other article heading so a separate list is viable. Please see my reasoning here. Robert C Prenic 18:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don`t think there are pressing reasons to split the article at this point. --Isolani 14:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Your reasoning is flawed. The changed title covers a much broader spectrum of parties than those on the "far right", and thus even if your list article has any useful existence, this article should retain the well-referenced list which is limited to "far right" parties, and not just those which happen to be "right wing" or "nationalist". I'm restoring the list to this article, again. Argyriou (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've listed Political Parties labeled Far Right, Extreme Right, Nationalist or Right-wing at Articles for Deletion. Argyriou (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

There are currently seven parties on the list which do not have citations for being called "far-right". I'm fairly certain that for most of them, the description is accurate enough, but Wikipedia needs reliable sources to back up such a description. Can someone please find citations for these parties?

I'm willing to wait a little while for references for these, unlike for people who add the Republican Party (United States) or Japan's Liberal Democratic Party to this list. Those I'll delete on sight, as those parties are not "far-right", and anyone who calls them such is not a reliable source. Argyriou (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

More which need citations. The Danish one escaped my earlier check, the Turkish ones I've added based on their addition to the other list and reading the articles, but they really do need citations:

Argyriou (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swiss People's Party

This is just silly. The same reference used for the Swiss People's Party, calls Francisco Franco a fascist [11] (which is a-historic), and includes List Pim Fortuyn and Livable Netherlands [12] in their guide as well, which is plain stupid. Livable Netherlands was founded by a former Labour Party board member Jan Nagel, and also Henk Westbroek, a VARA radio broadcaster. How can anyone take this article serious. Intangible2.0 12:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Although Intangible2.0 is undiplomatic he is right. The SVP and LN do not belong on this list. C mon 12:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

So, Intangible2.0, Franco wasn't a Fascist, huh?? What planet do YOU live on you revisionist pig?! ElizabethR

Franco was a reactionary, not a fascist. Franco rounded up all the real fascists in Spain and volunteered them for service with Germany along the Russian Front, so they wouldn't make trouble for him at home. In particular, Franco was not a revolutionary, while Fascism is a revolutionary ideology, just like its ideological sibling, Communism. Αργυριου (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe that you will find sources to be about 50-50 on whether Franco qualifies as fascist. It comes down to which definition of fascism you use. There is no one universally accepted definition of the term, and Franco's regime was very strong on some aspects (one-party state, corporatism, glorification of the military, Führerprinzip, anti-liberalism, anti-communism) and weak on others (especially in its later years it slowly became more economically and even intellectually open; while nationalist, it wasn't as violently so as is typical for fascist regimes; it was more deeply conservative than is typical of fascism, in that it promised—and delivered—an eventual return to hereditary monarchy, and it upheld the role of the Catholic Church). I'm sure there is more that could be said; that's more or less off the top of my head. Franco's regime was probably most fascistic during and immediately after the Spanish Civil War, and slowly became less so (not too surprising when he had to seek alliances with NATO rather than the Axis). - Jmabel | Talk 17:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Party listing

The page on far left had a party listing that was removed. There should be some consensus on this. I think the term is inherently POV, designed as a pejorative label, and shouldn't be on this page. I do not have particularly strong feelings on it, but either this list should be removed from here, or one should be added to far left. Please can you make up your minds. Nssdfdsfds 14:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As the far left is much more prone to factionalism, a list of far-left parties will be much less manageable than a list of far-right parties. I don't care whether far left has a list or maintains a separate list; the list in this article has been manageable so far, so there's no need to remove it. Αργυριου (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that this is a list of opinions posing as fact. You could add the Republican Party to the list, I'm sure you'd find a source to say that they were far-right. However, there is widespread consensus that they are not far-right, and they would be removed from the list. Therefore, it's quite clear that the list here is intended to be a listing of parties that factually *are* far-right. In other words, the listing is a list of parties that there is consensus are in fact of the far-right. So it is insufficient to simply say 'here's a source that shows some people think this party is far-right', as the list is intended to show parties that *are* far right. From the Constitution Party page I don't see evidence that they are unambiguously of the far right. Nssdfdsfds 16:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not hard to find people stating as an opinion that the Republican Party is far-right, but none of the people who've added them to the list have provided a reference, and I doubt that a reliable source could be found for that contention. There are reliable sources for calling the Constitution Party far-right, including Fox News (which due to their political inclination, would be less likely than a purely neutral source to label a party or person "far-right"). Αργυριου (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The Constitution Party has no connection to the Far Right of Europe. The US equivalent would be a 1990s version of the Populist Party, which was somehow connected to Willis Carto. I think it became something called the American Nationalist Union and ceased functioning as a political party. Yakuman (数え役満) 11:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The Constitution Party is properly listed here with a credible source. Personal opinions of editors do not count in this discussion. What matters is the fact of the use of the term (or a stronger one) in describing The Constitution Party that apppears in a credible published source. These continued deletions are clearly disruptive and will be reported if they continue. Please learn and follow basic Wiki editing guidelines.--Cberlet 13:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
"Far Right" has different meanings; comparing the CP to the BNP or NF is a stretch. They don't acknowledge one another or have any connection, as the Eurorightists do. Polemics in credible publications are still not RS (and I find it odd that Chip Berlet thinks Fox News is a "credible published source.") If you want to keep the hit list, have a consistent criteria. Please read WP:A, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF at your earliest convenience. Yakuman (数え役満) 13:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Please have the common Wiki courtesy of refering to me by my editing name. I recognize numerous conservative and right-wing media outlets and authors as "credible" and WP:RS here on Wikipedia. The debate over terminology pops up over and over. It is not a trump card. The issue here is citing credible sources. In this case, a right-wing source calling the Constitution Party far right or extreme right is certainly significant. --Cberlet 14:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
That you are Chip Berlet is certainly on point, since you do not hide your identity. You are a professional conspiracy theorist and your edits reflect that POV. There's no rule against it, but it can be noted. Don't take it personally. Yakuman (数え役満) 14:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but "professional conspiracy theorist" ??? --Cberlet 15:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, you're a veteran professional conspiracy theorist, sort of a left-wing version of those guys on shortwave radio. My point: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should contain only material that complies with its content policies. Wikipedia is not a forum for advertising, nor a vanity press. As Wikipedians and encyclopedists, our job is to put the interests of the encyclopedia first. Anyone who prioritizes outside interests over the interests of the encyclopedia may be subject to a conflict of interest. WP:COI Yakuman (数え役満) 03:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research?

I removed the {{or}} template from the article, because there was no discussion in the talk page which claimed that any significant amount of this article is original research. People keep re-inserting the template without specifying what in this article is original research. Stop it. If you're going to claim that this article has original research, tell the rest of us what part of the article is original research. If you can't do that, you're just vandalising the article. Αργυριου (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no criteria here for what counts as "far right". Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a WP:SOAPBOX. You can't just use this free encyclopedia as a base to attack your political opponents, right or left. This is an open city, WP:NPOV. We are not here to restate the conclusions of one political faction. Yakuman (数え役満) 19:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia articles are not... propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." WP:SOAPBOX.
Also, do not threaten other editors' GF efforts with bogus allegations of vandalism. See WP:HARASS, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.
"Vandalism is not... making bold edits... Stubbornness: Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else." - so even if the edits were universally opposed, which they are not, it wouldn't be vandalism as one clearly believes that what he is doing is the right thing for the article. "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.".
I have moved the tag and added another, placing them at specific sections. Do not remove a validly placed tag.
Yakuman (数え役満) 19:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It's about time someone actually supported the claim of "original research". However, sticking the {{or}} template on the list is reaslly unsupportable. Every single item in that list is sourced, usually with multiple sources. The original list was from two specific sources, which pretty much obviates the claim of original research. Mudde and Ignazi did the original research which led to the list.
As the earlier section reads like an essay, at least at the beginning, I've moved the {{or}} there, as it's possible that section may be, in part, original research. The list clearly is not OR. Αργυριου (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
There's OR in that there is no criteria for selection in the compilation as a whole. It is purely perjorative. It can't be a list of someone's least favorite political groups. If there were two or three obvious examples, they might be included as examples. But this big long list is unencyclopedic soapboxing. The rest of the article belings in a dictionary. Stop removing the tag! Yakuman (数え役満) 22:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The criterion stated is Parties labeled as "Far Right" or "Extreme Right". The requirement for reliable sources, which has been enforced on this list pretty throroughly (every single entry has sources, most, more than one), means that not every group which the far-left dislikes qualifies, as far-left sources are generally inherently unreliable, especially when it comes to labeling of others as far-right. Please show how the list does any of the following (copied from WP:OR
  • It introduces a theory or method of solution;
  • It introduces original ideas;
  • It defines new terms;
  • It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
  • It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
  • It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
  • It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.
In particular, pay attention to the "without attributing ... to a reputable source".
I've cleaned up the essay in the Usage section, and moved the {{or}} tag there, as it still needs sources to show that it is not someone's original research or synthesis. Αργυριου (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/a/r/Talk%7EFar_right_7a82.html"