Talk:Right-wing politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bold text

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Right-wing politics article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
WikiProject Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high-importance in Politics.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] New Idea

There is no reason Wikipedia has duplicative and conflicting articles on Right-wing politics, Far-Right and Left-Right politics. Not to mention the Political Spectrum and Political compass pages. I think the Jmabel version is far more accurate and less POV, but what we really need is some broader housekeeping that shifts some text around and avopids duplication. The problem here is that this is a complicated and hotly debated set of ideas, and we need to sort them out. WIth that in mind, I do not find the Leifern version to be as useful as the Jmabel version. The Leifern version guts the page and offers over-simplified text. I suggest we discuss the sections Leifern objects to one-by-one. And also start to sort out the material on the other pages. 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. --Cberlet 16:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I have put merge notices up. On the merged page we could divide the dicussion right-wing politics along several dimensions: elitist-populist, authoritarian-libertarian, conservative-extreme right, etc. How the term "Far Right" is used in several ways by different authors. A discussion of where libertarianism and fascism fit, with references to Political Spectrum and Political compass pages. All of this would be much more useful and informative for the reader.--Cberlet 18:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I certainly think it would be useful to merge Far-Right with the two other variants that were identified at Talk:Far-Right. It may or may not be useful to merge those with Right-wing politics: I could go either way on that. I could alternatively see drawing the line, at least post-1850, at whether the politics subscribes to liberal democracy; we could make the same division with the article(s) about the Left.
I think Left-right politics is justified as an article. We have articles about many individual models of the political spectrum. The Left-right spectrum is probably the most common one-dimensional model, and hence deserves an article. There may be material here that would better be moved there
Political compass might merge into Political spectrum. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What is wrong with this article

Since there seems to be a great deal of pride of authorship in the current version, and little receptivity for making a fresh start of it, let me very specifically point out what is wrong with the article this has evolved into.

  • Misleading introduction. The fundamental problem is that the very term "right wing" does not have a definitive and unambiguous meaning. You will rarely see Christian democrats, conservatives, or libertarians refer to themselves as the "right wing," though they may from time to time concede that they are to the "right" of their "left wing" adversaries. Add to that the obvious point that, for example, religious conservatives in Israel hardly are "Christian democrats." The fundamental decision we have to make (and read this carefully) is whether the article should describe the euphemistic meaning of "right wing" (in which case, we can throw in fascism, etc., as part of the continuum), or whether it should be a meaningful, neutral article that relates to all the articles about political parties that link to it. My vote is for the latter, but if we go for the euphemistic meaning, then the links from the Norwegian Conservative Party, Likud, German Christian Democrats, etc., will be absolutely meaningless.
  • Jumbled structure. Any article of this kind must move from the general to the specific, to the extent that one follows from the other. Here it doesn't. The term is introduced, defined vaguely, given a brief historical background, and then we move straight into the war on terrorism. It would be much more meaningful to introduce the term, explain the different meanings it might have, outline those characteristics that make the right wing distinct from the left wing, and then - if facts support it - discuss specific issues briefly with links to other articles.
  • False associations. If people feel justified in using the term "Christian Democrat" and " fascist" in the same context, the burden has to be on them to explain why there are key similarities between the two. The argument that "a lot of people think so" can not be presented as more than that, and if there is no further basis, then that should be clarified as well.
  • Random issues. We've got the war on terror, the Arab-Israeli conflict, fascism all messed up together, without any logical structure or thematic stream. There are lots of other issues related to "right wing" such as abortion, gun laws, protectionism, separation of church an state, etc. --Leifern 22:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
In the UK the right wing oppose the seperation of church and state. They do not support it in anyway. Only the extreme right like the BNP or NF support such measures. The slightly right through to the very moderate right wing do not support the measure. I just thought this was worth noting, and I support your section's argument generally. SKC 21:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I certainly agree that there is too much in this article about random issues, especially the war on terror and the Arab-Israeli conflict. The relation of fascism to other right-wing politics must be at least touched on here, though it may be that the main discussion should be at fascism and ideology, if people are willing to treat that seriously instead of making it a battle zone.
Abortion? In the U.S. today this is something of a left-right issue, but in Europe abortion is almost universally accepted as part of reproductive rights, the only significant dissent being on a religious basis, not a left-right basis. Gun laws? Again, something of a left-right issue in the U.S., but is there any other country where that is the case? Protectionism? I can't even say which side of that is supposed to be "left" or "right": to point to the U.S., this is an issue where Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader are on one side and Bill Clinton and both Bushes on the other. That's not left vs. right, that's both ends against the middle. Separation of church and state? I suppose that support for established religion would almost always come from the right, but opposition to it can come from anywhere. Again, to pick a U.S. example: Barry Goldwater was on the same side of this issue as Ted Kennedy. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, you're kind of making my point here. It is, indeed, hard to find specific issues that separate right from left across the board. This is why it makes more sense about the general principles that seem to characterize "right" most places around the world. This is not simple to do in an unbiased way - it's my observation that the opposite of Conservative (note the uppercase) is in fact progressive (note the lowercase). I am all for a section discussing radical movements that are considered right-wing, but this needs to be a pretty clearly articulated section. --Leifern 12:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm not "making your point". I'm saying that single issues don't illustrate the matter at hand, especially when handled as a snapshot of a moment rather than in historical perspective, and in terms of the stance ultimately arrived at rather than the nature of the arguments supporting that stance.
What I'm about to say next is my own view, and much of it may not belong in the article, certainly not without citation from someone a lot more authoritative than me.
The original meaning of the term related to defense of the ancien régime. Over time, the interests that had been concentrated in the ancien régime became less entangled, and the matter became more complex, to the extent that someone could easily hold rightist views in one matter and not in another. I would consider the key strands to include support for elite economic interests and for the rights of property (vs. egalitarianism or workerism); nationalism, especially ethnically-based nationalism (vs. internationalism); economic individualism (vs. economic collectivism and social solidarity); traditional (usually religiously based) morality (vs. an emphasis on ethics and individual choice), this last generally including traditionalist views about gender roles and family structure.
These values are sometimes in conflict with one another (as are their opposites on the left), so it would be hard to find an example of a "pure right-wing" politics. In particular, economic individualism can often come into conflict either with nationalism or with traditional morality. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hopelessly muddled - merge

(moved in from Talk:Far-right - my original mistake was starting merge discussion there)--Cberlet 17:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I have proposed a merge from Far-Right in part because: 1) The page title Far-Right (and Far-left) is not proper for an encyclopedia--it is adjectival. 2) Much of the page is aleady covered on other pages. 3) The tiny minority view that fascism is left-wing has once again been propounded, despite it being repeately rejected by a majority of editors on other pages. 4) The majority of scholarly cites are to obscure libertarians. 5) It is badly written. See: Right-wing politics where we can begin to make sense of this debate on a single page. --Cberlet 19:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

"Far-Right" is a distinct current (or several currents) within the "rigth-wing", then, should have its own page (like libertarianism,conservatism,Euronationalism,Fascism,Nouvelle Droite, etc. have their pages, instead of being all treated in the page "Right-wing politics")

Perhaps a fusion with Extreme right made some sense.

Merging Far right with Extreme right makes much more sense that merging it with Right-wing politics! - Hillel

And, yes, the shape of the article is very bad (but the content is acceptable - perhaps we should retire the NPOV warning)--81.84.81.33 00:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

And also a fusion with Far right--81.84.81.33 01:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet, when you wrote "tiny majority", may I presume you meant "tiny minority"? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Certainly, at the very least, this article, Extreme right, and Far right should be merged with one another; I presume that would be an uncontroversial first step.
I think there might be a useful distinction between (1) a broad right-wing politics article that attempts to look at everything right of center and to characterize what is meant by "right-wing" and (2) a separate far-right politics article that includes only those who reject liberal democracy. However, I am pretty certain that there would not be a consensus for a similar far-left politics article that splits off Leninists, Maoists, etc. from the rest of the left on the same basis; without such a consensus, splitting the far right off from the rest of the right amounts to a POV claim that there is a separation on the right but a continuity on the left. In other words, I'm willing to handle this either way, as long as its symmetric. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


"Far-left and Left-wing politics already have diferent articles.--212.113.164.104 15:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi, yes, "tiny minority." My mistake-fixed.
Here is one of many problems. Almost all scholarship on both the political right and political left makes exactly the distinction you raise: that there is an analytical difference when looking at groups that accept or reject liberal democracy. I tend to study the political right wholistically, but in fact that is not the majority trend among scholars. Same on the left. Political people might not like this, but it is a reality. Furthermore, there is now a growing field of studying the groups between conservatism and the extreme right. Betz has started a trend of studying "Radical right-wing populism."
What I am suggesting is that the title "Far-right" (and "Far-left") is just an unencylcopedic title. Bad grammar. That the page Far right become a disambiguation page. That the links that used to go to "Far-right" be divided into those that go to Right-wing politics (which covers the whole range) and those that go to Extreme Right, which is a short page that parses readers on to the specific pages on the various Extreme Right groups including fascists and nazis. There are literally scores of scholarly books on the Extreme Right, while the term Far Right is used in a myriad of ways that need to be parsed out on a disambiguation page.
The same problem exists with the Far-left page. And pages on the Far left and Extreme left should be created, and the silly page Ultra-left should be redirected to Extreme left. And then you need to deal with Ultra leftism, is there also Ultra rightism? There is already a lack of symmetry. (and bad grammar)--Cberlet 15:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, we should point out that with Far right and Extreme right and Far left and Extreme left, the terms are frequently used in public discourse as labels that are essentially epithets, by centrists against both sides, and be each side against the other.  :-) --Cberlet 16:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that Ultra-left or Ultra leftism, one of the two, should remain, because, in the far-left, there is indeed a tradition of calling "ultra-left" to the groups and tendencies more "left" than Leninism. However, this can be also a sub-section in a Far-left article.--212.113.164.104 18:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the term is used, although the entry at Ultra-left is not very useful. It could be its own entry or part of a larger entry. Good point.--Cberlet 19:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Right-Wing Politics and Fascism reads, "There are elements of both left and right ideology in the development of Fascism. A handful of scholars argue that fascism is a form of left wing politics while others argue that it is right wing. See: Fascism and ideology."

Two problems here - 1) Fascism is covered in the section titled 'Far Right', 2) It really doesn't say anything at all. Wisco 19:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV forks

Extreme Right, Far Right, Far right, Ultra rightism and Extreme right all need to be directed towards Far-right, not to here. Most of these are POV forks/stubs started by Cberlet. The concensus @ Talk:Right-wing_politics#Hopelessly_muddled_-_merge is to merge, so... why are you reverting to these stubs of yours? Sam Spade 23:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Get a grip, the discussion has been going on for just over 24 hours and has involved only a handful of editors. Relax.--Cberlet 00:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Back to discussion

So, Jmabel. You suggest we make the Right and Left pages symmetric. How do you propose to do that? We do need to change the names of Far-left and Far-right because they are not proper namaes for an encyclopedia. At least they should be changed to Far Left / Far right or Far-right politics /Far-left politics.

And how do we deal with the fact that the terms "Far Left" and "Far Right" are used differently by different scholars?

Other questions, do we keep Ultra-leftism and Ultra-rightism as pages that describe groups on the outer margins? Or do we direct them to Extreme left / Extreme right or to Far Left / Far right ? And do we use "Far Right" / "Far Left" or "Far right" / "Far left" (or Extreme or both)?

Or do we redirect everything to Left-wing politics and Right-wing politics and sort things out that way? Or do we create Far-right politics and Far-left politics?

One problem is that some of the existing links to Far-left and Far-right are discussing very different forms of political ideology and methodology.

For me a big issue is that there are literally scores of books on the Far Left and Far Right as well as Extreme left and Extreme right, and almost none of them are cited in any of the pages.--Cberlet 13:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I dunno, I have to question the whole premise for these articles, as I've tried to do with my bold edits. If the world of politics can be separated into what is left and what is right (a debatable proposition), it can't be assumed that ultra-left flows out of mainstream left, or ultra-right out of mainstream right. The issue has at least to be discussed properly. There are lots of conservative people to whom anything on the far right is as much of an anathema as anything on the far left. This topic requires nuance if we want to do it right.--Leifern 17:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Look, I understand your opinion, and agree with some of your points, but an actual cite to a published book would be nice. Your edit was almost entirely original research, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia.--Chip 19:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
It's not original research - you can go to any site or read any book that discusses this and it'll be consistent with what I wrote. Also, if you review all the parties that are supposed to be right-wing, you'll see these themes. This is not complicated stuff. --Leifern 20:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Chip, I don't have a specific proposal. I'm open to a lot of ways we could handle this, but given the inherent controversiality of the material, and the near-impossibility of true objectivity by the contributors (you and I are never going to see this the same way as a conservative, and vice versa), I just want to make sure that left and right are handled symmetrically. It also means (and sometimes I despair of this) that the commonly used categorization of Fascism on the Right and State Communism on the Left should both be used as starting points, with the criticisms of these views mentioned, but not with criticism swamping the prevailing usages.

It may be that certain titles won't line up one-to-one ("ultra-left" has a specific meaning within communist circles that will not be symmetric to ultra-right) but the only way this is going to be something other than a mudslinging fest or a whitewash is that we make every effort to handle left and right as similarly as possible, regardless of our individual politics. That means (for example) that if we have a near-essay on the left and the War on Terror, we have a similarly structured near-essay on the right and the War on Terror. And that left-right politics remain as an overview of the concepts, and the main place where we explain the basics of the history of this terminology.

There is also a need to keep our eye on the ball. Libertarians are over-represented among our contributors. That doesn't mean they should be overrepresented among our citations or discussed at great length as subject matter in articles that are supposed to be about something else. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Are advocates in the USA of "English Only" proposing a right wing or a left wing idea? Stettlerj 04:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

In the context of the USA today, this idea is almost entirely supported by the right. It's more an issue of monoculturalism vs. multiculturalism than of right vs. left, though, and there have been times historically when the left was more on the monoculturalist side. I don't think it is an inherently left-right issue, but that's how it lines up in the U.S. right now. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


I'm very liberal in my ideology, however, I feel that English is the national language in the USA and should be spoken by ALL citizens. In the old days to become a citizen you had to speak English is an understandable manner, write it, and use it. I'm for it being that way again. The Native Language of the USA is the various American Indian languages. So if we promote true USA Native Language then we'll have to go far before the Europeans entered the picture. User: bumpusmills1

[edit] Discussion

Sam Spade has systematically removed all the merger flags, redirected multiple pages, moved text, and and essentially short-circuited the discussion on this proposed set of changes. I have been told to negotiate. Sam Spade, let's negotiate. Where is the "consensus" you claim you are enforcing?--Cberlet 20:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You made it clear what you had in mind above. Lots of people weighed in, nobody agreed w you. I am saying that having separate articles for Far-right, Far right, and Extreme right is unwarranted. If there is a special term called Ultra-left or whatever, so be it. Political science isn't math, we can't expect a perfect symatry using these (nearly worthless) terms. Instead, we describe what experts think, and make it clear where they disagree. That way the reader (who we are writing for) can make up his own mind. The hard part is when he can't find our articles because the redirects are all mixed about on newly created stubs... Sam Spade 20:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I honestly do not see a consensus, especially in 48 hours with a tiny handful of entries. I was not proposing Far-right, Far right, and Extreme right all exist as full entries. I was proposing merging and redirecting Far-right because it is a lousy title for an entry, and sending readers to an expanded Right-wing politics. Far right would become a disambiguation page that sent readers to Right-wing politics and Extreme right. Extreme right is an appropriate page because there are scores of scholarly books that use that term in the title and the writers do not mean conservatives or even right-wing populists. --Cberlet 00:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
You said much the same thing above. I disagree. All others also have disagreed. That means consensus against your proposal, not an excuse for these POV forks to remain in existance, and the reader to remain in limbo, unable to find the content they desire.
I understand scholars use terms like "extreme right". If you can show a number of scholars showing a clear difference between "extreme right" and "far-right", that might warrant a separate article. What it would not warrant is the creation of far right, or the attempt to force a merger of all of them into right wing politics, which no one agrees with.
Food for thought:
I challenge you to show that these terms have a substantially different meaning, and justify the creation of these POV forks. Sam Spade 12:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

<-------Sam Spade, I NEVER suggested merging all the pages together. If we are to attempt a civil conversation it would help greatly if you actually criticize what I propose instead of making claims that misrepresent what I am proposing.

Here are some of the books that discuss terminology and point out that between conservatism and the extreme right there is a sector of right-wing politics:

  • 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.

Here are some books and articles that focus on the extreme right:

  • Durham, Martin. 2002. "From Imperium to Internet: the National Alliance and the American Extreme Right" Patterns of Prejudice 36(3), (July): 50-61.
  • Hainsworth, Paul, ed. 2000. The Politics of the Extreme Right: From the Margins to the Mainstream. London: Pinter.
  • Mudde, Cas. 2000. The Ideology of the Extreme Right. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.

Note that not all groups on the extreme right are neo-fascist or Neo-Nazi. Most klaverns of the Ku Klux Klan are examples]].

Here is the problem with the term "Far Right" from one of the pages you seek to delete:

Much confusion is caused by widely varying usage of the term.
Far Right can refer to:
  • The Dissident Right, Activist Right, Right-Wing Populism, or rightist factions of conservative political parties. These are all forms of Right-wing politics located between traditional conservatives and the extreme right. In this case particpants are found outside mainstream electoral politics, but they generally produce a movement of drastic reform rather than actual revolution.
  • The extreme right, which includes neo-fascists, White supremacists, and Neo-Nazis. Such groups are generally revolutionary in character rather than reformist.
  • The whole range of right-wing politics from the Dissident Right to the far reaches of the extreme right.
The page Right-wing politics helps sort this out.

So the issues are not as clear cut as you imply.--Cberlet 13:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

That is content I merged into Far-right. You gave a bunch of cites above, none of which clarify a difference between far-right, far right, extreme right, and ultra right. Citing irrelevant texts is unhelpful. Sam Spade 13:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You might consider glancing at one of the cited texts to see that this discussion of terminiology is complicated. The Durham book has a good dicussion, and you will enjoy the fact that he cites my use of the term "Far Right" as an example of how terminiology gets confused--and in fact his argument is one reason I did more research and decided that Durham was correct and that the term "Extreme Right" was more useful to describe that sector of the revolutionary right.  :-) --Cberlet 14:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have your cited texts here in germany, and from what you yourself have said, your sources do not verify "a number of scholars showing a clear difference between "extreme right" and "far-right", that might warrant a separate article." Perhaps you can cite a source in which detailed distinction between far-right, far right, and extreme right is made, and some independant party can visit his local library to verify it, but the truth is we all know these terms are imprecise, and that the reader is best served by a single, coherant article written in a NPOV manner based on a variety of verifiable expert sources.

Sam Spade 15:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please be aware

Sam Spade 21:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, let me get this straight. Sam Spade does not have time for substantive edits; does not have access to the basic texts in the field; apparently has not read them; is not willing or not able to cite any published sources for his views; but Sam Spade is willing to enforce his views on how this and eight other pages relating to right-wing politics are handled here on Wikipedia. Do I have that correct? I just like to know where I stand when trying to have a discussion.--Cberlet 16:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That was inaccurate, rude, and unhelpful. Please check yourself and come correct. Sam Spade 17:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

OK, What books or reputable published texts can you cite to defend your point of view? I cited a number of books, but you say even if I supply the page numbers where terminology is discussed, you do not have access to them, so you simply dismiss them as relevant to the discussion. How am I suppposed to defend my edits and proposals if you simply dismiss my research into the topic and ignore the texts I cite to back up my arguments. This is the same set of issues that has resulted in am impasse between us in previous editing disputes. I suggest that by comments above are a very accurate summary of the situation here.--Cberlet 18:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
No problem. The following are citations for Right-wing, right-wing, and extreme right being synonyms with a definition distinct from that of the conservative right. Some of these illustrate a relationship between far left and far right ideologies.
  • Letter from the Publisher. Spring 2002. Europe Turns Right. European Affairs
  • Fithin, Caspar. (2000). European Union — Sanctions against Austria lifted. Oxford Analytica. Retrieved December 2, 2005 from Columbia International Affairs Online
  • Ishiyama, J.; Breuning, M. (1998). Ethnopolitics in the New Europe — The Volksunie and the Vlaams Blok in Belgium. Lynne Rienner Publishers. Retrieved December 2, 2005 from Columbia International Affairs Online
  • How to stop the far right , By: Fieschi, Catherine, Fieschi, Catherine, New Statesman, 13647431, 4/5/2004, Vol. 133, Issue 4682
  • Immigration, Insecurity and the French Far Right , By: Adler, Frank, Telos, 00906514, Summer2001, Issue 120
everything i could find illustrates this same synonymous connections between the terms "far right" and "extreme right". I decided to stop at five cites, but there are tens of thousands available. Now I'm off to do some homework. Sorry for being busy, but my work on the wikipedia is entirely volunteer. Indeed if anything it harms my reputation, rather than enhancing it. Sam Spade 18:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

In English could be diferent, but, in latin languages, there is only one expression ("extrema-direita", "extreme droite", etc.).--81.84.81.184 01:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from the Durham book:
  • “In such a contentious field, it would be wise to be particularly careful in the way we describe movements. Such terms as mainstream and extreme, moderate and radical, all bring with them implications and assumptions, and we will return to some of these in the concluding chapter. For now, it will be suggested that while those on the right who are committed to white supremacism and/or anti-Semitism are best defined by the term 'extreme right', those that hold a conspiracy theory of history, without attributing an ethnic identity to the conspirators, are better described by some other term. To render the situation more difficult, there are strands of the right who seem at the same time to he attracted to a racial framing of politics and resistant to it, an indeterminate battleground between other more settled forms of rightism. Elements within both the Patriot movement and the Buchanan movement, it will be argued, are just such strands, just as the Christian Right occupies the ground that stretches from mainstream conservatism to non-racist conspiracism. Rather than stretching the term 'extreme right' beyond breaking point, non-racist conspiracists will instead be described as the radical right, while in discussing the two groupings together, along with those still unresolved between them, another category, that of the far right, will be used. We will see as the book progresses whether such definitions and distinctions prove valuable or not. This, no doubt, will be a matter of dispute, as will the account it informs.”
Durham, 2000, pp. xii-xiii.
Similar discussions over terminology problems in Kaplan & Weinberg, 1998, pp. 8-13; Diamond, 1996, 88-89; Berlet & Lyons, 2000, pp. 61-71.--Cberlet 01:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

We're surely not going to be accepting the self cite, but your above excerpt does help your case for an extreme right page somewhat. Sam Spade 14:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


"Rather than stretching the term 'extreme right' beyond breaking point, non-racist conspiracists will instead be described as the radical right, while in discussing the two groupings together, along with those still unresolved between them, another category, that of the far right, will be used. We will see as the book progresses whether such definitions and distinctions prove valuable or not. This, no doubt, will be a matter of dispute, as will the account it informs."

This certainly makes it clear Durham proposes this distinction, but he seems ambiguous as to if it is useful.. How does this conclude? Does he find this distinction a good one? He seems to me to be saying that Far right is the broader catagory, so until we have more than a stub's worth of content on "extreme right", I say it stays a redirect to Far-right (or Far right if you prefer). None of these should be redirected here, this article is busy enough as it is, and an easy argument can be made for the concepts being largely unrelated.

I would like for us to draw a clear line between those who are individualist vrs. collectivists, reactionary vrs. revolutionary, and legalist vrs. kinship based. These distinctions are more useful IMO than the Left right politics false dichotomy. Sam Spade 19:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOR

I don't see any reason Chip Berlet should not be able to cite himself. Regardless of the fact that you clearly dislike his political views, his work falls well within the standards for citable sources. If there is any standard that says that the author of a source that would normally be citable is (unlike everyone else) ineligible to cite that, I'm unaware of it. If there is such a standard, please indicate where. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Chip is not an expert witness, he is a controversial investigative journalist. But why does it even matter? Chips argument doesn't hinge on his self-cite. I disregarded the self cite, but his point remains. This discussion might be important to have elsewhere (like @ Wikipedia talk:No original research), but I don't see it as anything other than a distraction here. Sam Spade 13:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Sam Spade: I do not dispute that I am a "controversial investigative journalist" but I am also the author of a large body of published scholarly work on right-wing social and political movements. That you continue to deprecate and dismiss my work and my expertise is cheap and petty. There is a reason I have asked for mediation--and now arbitration--concerning your personal animosity toward me and my work. I cite sources, do research specifically to answer qustions posed on Wiki talk pages, and work collaboratively with many editors here across a wide range of political viewpoints. Once and a while I cite a piece of my published work, usually when I cannot readily find another authority to cite. Often I go back and add other cites as I find them. The issue here is sorting out a set of pages that need work. There is a legitimate disucssion to be held as to what pages should be retained, which should be created, which should be renamed, and what they should contain. When I tried to set up a system of pages where this discussion could take place, (following what I thought were the procedures mandated by Wikipedia), you had a childish temper tantrum and reverted all of my work, making snide comments in the process. The arbitrators have told us to work this out. I am willing to do so, but I do think that starting by assuming good faith (as hard as that might be for both of us) would be a commendable starting point. --Cberlet 15:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
We should not be discussing this here, but the reason you took me to arbitration because you claimed I was part of a nobs led conspiracy against you. Discussing that at length here is unhelpful.
If you would like to have an adult conversation, dismiss with personal attacks, abuse, and invective such as "you had a childish temper tantrum". That would be an important first step towards you fulfilling the arbiters request.
As far as what actually happened when you created POV forks, I think thats very clear. If you would like to continue to discuss a solution to the problem you created, I am willing to resume, so long as you refrain from from further outbursts. Sam Spade 17:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it best if I walk away from editing until the arbitration is concluded. Back later.--Cberlet 20:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Cberlet: Can you provide us with a list of all works you have published in the Covert Action Information Bulletin? Thanks. nobs 22:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
That would probably be a moderately inappropriate question in the arbitration process. It is a completely inappropriate question on this talk page. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Back to the article...

What do people think about the definition of left and right being based on equality? Leftists want a greater degree of equality (either of process, status, or outcome) and rightests want a greater degree of hierarchy (aristocracy, theocracy, meritocracy, etc...). I think that, and the sociological dichotomies like "Kinship vrs. legalist" and "collectivist vrs. individualist" will be helpful, particularly when discussing these extremes of far right (and far left). Sam Spade 22:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think kinship (right) vs. legalist (left) is probably relevant. I don't think collectivist vs. individualist is a left-right distinction though. Individualism tends to be a liberal notion, and by a present-day political spectrum, liberals straddle the center. I suppose it is relatively hard to find a truly anti-collectivist view on the far left (left anarchists certainly have a strong dose of individualism, but tend to advocate voluntary association, mutual aid, etc.), but on the right you have everything from "rugged individualist" conservatives to religious communitarians who don't even embrace individual rights of conscience. Thatcher differed from the "Tory Wets" precisely in being much more of an individualist, but can one really say the Tory Wet defenders of aristocratic privilege were not part of the Right?
Sam, I find it a bit odd that you seem to go back and forth between saying, on the one hand, that you completely reject the notion of left vs. right and, on the other hand, trying to define it, rather than cite sources that either reject the dichotomy or attempt to use/define it. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see those as mutually exclusive charateristics on my part. In order to dispute the utility of the concept it is best to cite examples of people variously using it, as well as disputing it's use, and of course to bring in different criteria, like kinship vrs. legalist and individualist vrs. collectivist, to help to clarify just what exactly were talking about. You brought up the wide range of thoughts on the right; how could we even discuss these with out some outside terms? Sam Spade 22:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Redistribution and wanting the state to promote social justice are characteristics of most left-wing political parties, but there are plenty of left-wingers who don't believe in either. It's an indicator, but hardly essential. (Or in other words, I agree with Jmabel) --- Charles Stewart 23:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Your not understanding. I'm not saying these terms will help you understand if a given group is left or right. I am saying that these catagories will help readers make sense of where these groups stand, regardless of how useful the terms "left" or "right" are. Sam Spade 23:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Postscript I should add that I think the essence of left vs. right lies in the existence of a parliamenetary process determing a political spectrum. If there is no such process, or it is hard to pick out which side is the left- and the right- wing, then the terms become highly problematic family resemblance terms. --- Charles Stewart 23:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

And I think their arbitrary labels invented by self described leftists to catagorise their opposition ;) Sam Spade 23:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If I were to offer my own oh-so-clever characterisation of what is the essence of the left vs. the right, then I would say that left-wingers have a tendency to believe the end justifies the means, whilst right-wingers tend to believe the means justifies the ends. I've spent time in both contexts where it is awkard not to be a left-winger and likewise not to be a right-winger (I've got good camouflage skills: I like both Trotsky and Hayek), and I don't think either label has much content-independent force. --- Charles Stewart 23:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"I don't think either label has much content-independent force."

I'd like to hear you elaborate on that, I think it might raise an important point of agreement. Sam Spade 13:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I mean "context-independent" not "content-independent". By this, I meant that, while many right-wingers often feel defensive about calling themselves right-wing in social situations (think of a true-blue conservative finding themself in a political argument in a sophisticated liberal New York bar), the same is true for many left-wingers (think of a gay marriage advocate in Kansas), and in fact challenging these social pressures is often an important experience that shapes these individuals political character. I'm guessing that's not what you were after.--- Charles Stewart 14:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

nope. I was hoping you ment that left/right was an artificial, topic specific distinction, rather than a functional general category. That was what I was hoping I could agree with ;) Sam Spade 15:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't completely agree with that, but I will agree that it is frequently ill-founded and misleading distinction. It mostly works well in the context of party politics, not well in the realm of ideology. --- Charles Stewart 15:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

That is part of why I am so quick to object to it, being that I have lots of ideology and no political party. Anyhow, I'd like to repeat myself and say:

"I think that ... the sociological dichotomies like "Kinship vrs. legalist" and "collectivist vrs. individualist" will be helpful, particularly when discussing these extremes of far right (and far left)."

Sam Spade 15:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

If what you mean is: analysing the particular points under dispute is more helpful than invoking overl;y broad labels like left and right outside of the context of party politics, then we are wholly in agreement. --- 19:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Excellent, that is what I ment. Sam Spade 01:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
May I suggest that "kinship vs. legalist" (although I would suggest "traditionalist vs. legalist", since it embraces kinship, but also includes, for example, sectarian groupings that may not be kin groups), may be a perfectly valid article in its own right—I'd certainly be all for an article on that—but is a different spectrum than right-left. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Right, but can you understand that:

  1. Left/right is a controvercial and ambiguous dichotomy not accepted by all
  2. That "kinship vrs. legalist" and "collectivist vrs. individualist", as alternate categories, can help us to define what were even talking about.

Sam Spade 16:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, I see traditionalist vs. legalist as more on the mark than kinship vs. legalist, and I think that collectivist vs. individualist is largely beside the point. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of the terms

Two points about the organisation of this section:

  • I think it would be better if the discussion of the history of the term preceded the list of issues at stake, and a very brief summary of the key issues were put in the lead section.
  • The second through the fifth point are mainly concerned in practice with free markets. Should we add some hierarchical structure to the list, grouping similar sorts of issues together? Free markets are probably the best example we have of an issue that has crossed the parliamentary divide: we should say so somewhere, but I'm not sure where is best. --- Charles Stewart 19:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Concur. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I think I meant to make my proposal for the Left-right politics page: it certainly seems to make more sense there. --- Charles Stewart 22:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ultra Right

Removed this section, it's one big POV trying to provide an "academic" foundation for what really is little more than a perjorative term. It was full of weasel words (most scholars this, most scholars that) and contained no citations. There is little to no consensus on whether Nazism is left or right, considering they are, in fact, socialists. -- Jbamb 11:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Equally one could challenge the association of Soviet communism with the left on the basis that it is better termed state capitalism (widespread in academic left-wing circles). These kinds of claim are, whatever thbeir merits, pretty far removed from convention, and our usage of labels should reflect convention, even as we document the problems with them. --- Charles Stewart 13:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Except that no one seriously considers communism right-wing. Sure you can find goofballs in ivory towers that say anything, that doesn't mean we have to note every opinion. Nazis were socialists, if you took away their whole master race thing, you'd never know them from say, Venezuela. If we are going to seriously claim the Nazis were right-wing, despite overt and clear support for left-wing policies we should rewrite the page to say that the defining characteristic of right-wing politics is oppression. That would at least be intellectually consistent. -- Jbamb 14:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Most scholars of fascism consider it right-wing or at least attracting support primarily from the right--and that includes most centrist scholars. A discussion of this has gone on for many months at Fascism and Fascism and ideology. That's where the discussion of this issue belongs. Please do not make substantative changes and mislabel them as minor edits. That is a violation of Wiki policy.--Cberlet 14:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
How about some citation, first off? Second, they are socialist, they support socialist policies, they want a socialist government. If we are going to be NPOV we should at least say that they are socialist. It wasn't a substantial edit, it was 7 or so words. -- Jbamb 14:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Changing the meaning and content of a paragraph is not a minor edit. Fixing a typo is a minor edit. Please take the time to learn Wiki rules of the road. I understand that you have a strong POV on this, but absent citation, it really is not persuasive. The pages Fascism and Fascism and ideology have long debates on this issue. While most scholars root fascism in tumultuous socialist theories of the early 20th century, only a handful of libertarian and conservative scholars argue that fascism--as it emerged in the interwar period--remained a socialist ideology. If you want to debate this, please take your arguments to Fascism and ideology which has a whole section devoted to libertarian and conservative claims about fscism being socialist or left. However, most serious scholars of fascism reject this view, and it is POV to keep rewriting a short paragraph on this page to favor a minority view.--Cberlet 14:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

<----The citations for my claims are at Fascism and Fascism and ideology where this debate belongs. Here are a few:

Laqueuer (1996): "But historical fascism was always a coalition between radical, populist ('fascist') elements and others gravitating toward the extreme Right" p. 223.

Eatwell (1996) talks about the need of fascism for "syncretic legitimation" which sometimes led it to forge alliances with "existing mainstream elites, who often sought to turn fascism to their own more conservative purposes." Eatwell also observes that "in most countries it tended to gather force in countries where the right was weak" p. 39.

Griffin (1991, 2000) also does not include right ideology in his "fascist minimum," but he has described fascism as "Revolution from the Right" (2000), pp. 185-201.

Weber: "...their most common allies lay on the right, particularly on the radical authoritarian right, and Italian Fascism as a semi-coherent entity was partly defined by its merger with one of the most radical of all right authoritarian movements in Europe, the Italian Nationalist Association (ANI)." ([1964] 1982), p. 8.

This is the majority view, as opposed to Hayek, von Mises, and Flynn, who are the primary sources of your claims. They stakeout a tiny minority viewpoint in the scholarly study of fascism, no matter what a web search turns up.--Cberlet 15:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

If you can seriously argue that socialism is right-wing, then fine, let's mod those pages too to reflect that the difference between right and left is simply that the right is evil. -- Jbamb 15:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
That's not what I am arguing. It would really help matters if you did a bit more research, especially just by reading the page at Fascism and ideology where you will see that this is not a new or simple set of issues.--Cberlet 15:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I've read it, and they manage to talk about fascism there without saying it's all a VRWC. It isn't a simply set of issues, but here it's simply dumped into the lap of the right despite the fact the support almost no policy that would find a home at the right. They are socialists, they call themselves socialist, and they support socialist constructs. Who on the right does that? No one. -- Jbamb 15:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I have cited several respected scholars. Please provide a cite to a reputable published source to support your POV. Thanks.--Cberlet 15:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I've been making no claims, you are. You're calling them right, I'm only adding the fact that this is despite they are socialists. You cry foul. -- Jbamb 15:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a Blog, it is an encyclopedia. It is meant to help readers understand a topic in a way that features the main scholarly and published ideas and concepts, while giving minority views an appropriate survey. You appear to misunderstand the concept of cites. Your assertions alone are not sufficient. I have cited several reputable scholars. Now it is your turn to provide a cite. Futhermore, I repeat, this whole debate belongs at Fascism and ideology where all of this has been debated for many months.--Cberlet 16:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
First of, take a look at WP:FAITH, then take a look at WP:NPA. They use SOCIALISM in their party names, I've cited it and you reverted anyway. The article uses weasel words (many scholars), (drawn primarily from the right) to try to throw the left's dirty laundry on the right. These guys were Marxist. That's a known fact. If you need a cite for me to prove that the National Socialist Movement is Socialist, I just point you to the name. It's self cited. The Fascism debate manages to be honest there, it is NOT honest here. -- Jbamb 20:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
You might be interested in some of these audio and video files that include discussions on socialism and nazism, from the Economics of Fascism conference at the von Mises Institute: [1] RJII 20:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

North Korea is officially called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Should we list it as a democracy then? After all, it's "self-cited". Also, East Germany (the German Democratic Republic) was a democracy too, because of the name. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

To suggest that any fascists or Nazis were "Marxists" displays a woeful ignorance of history. I strongly encourage you to read Mein Kampf and The Doctrine of Fascism. In Mein Kampf, Hitler says:

  • "The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism which without it would not be thinkable. It provides this world plague with the culture in which its germs can spread. In its most extreme forrn, parliamentarianism created a 'monstrosity of excrement and fire,' in which, however, sad to say, the 'fire' seems to me at the moment to be burned out."
  • "The second thing that angered me was the attitude which they thought fit to take toward Marxism. In my eyes, this only proved that they hadn't so much as the faintest idea concerning this pestilence. In all seriousness they seemed to believe that, by the assurance that parties were no longer recognized, they had brought Marxism to understanding and restraint. They failed to understand that here no party was involved, but a doctrine that must lead to the destruction of all humanity, especially since this cannot be learned in the Jewified universities and, besides, so many, particularly among our higher officials, due to the idiotic conceit that is cultivated in them, don't think it worth the trouble to pick up a book and learn something which was not in their university curriculum. The most gigantic upheaval passes these 'minds' by without leaving the slightest trace, which is why state institutions for the most part lag behind private ones. It is to them, by God, that the popular proverb best applies: 'What the peasant doesn't know, he won't eat.' Here, too, a few exceptions only confirm the rule."
  • "Marxism, whose goal is and remains the destruction of all non-Jewish national states, was forced to look on in horror as, in the July days of 1914, the German working class it had ensnared, awakened and from hour to hour began to enter the service of the fatherland with ever-increasing rapidity. In a few days the whole mist and swindle of this infamous betrayal of the people had scattered away, and suddenly the gang of Jewish leaders stood there lonely and forsaken, as though not a trace remained of the nonsense and madness which for sixty years they had been funneling into the masses. It was a bad moment for the betrayers of the German working class, but as soon as the leaders recognized the danger which menaced them, they rapidly pulled the tarn-cap ' of lies over their ears, and insolently mimicked the national awakening."
  • "Kaiser William II was the first German Emperor to hold out a conciliatory hand to the leaders of Marxism, without suspecting that scoundrels have no honor. While they still held the imperial hand in theirs, their other hand was reaching for the dagger. There is no making pacts with Jews; there can only be the hard: either-or."
  • "For a racially pure people which is conscious of its blood can never be enslaved by the Jew. In this world he will forever be master over bastards and bastards alone. And so he tries systematically to lower the racial level by a continuous poisoning of individuals. And in politics he begins to replace the idea of democracy by the dictatorship of the proletariat. In the organized mass of Marxism he has found the weapon which lets him dispense with democracy and in its stead allows him to subjugate and govern the peoples with a dictatorial and brutal fist. He works systematically for revolutionization in a twofold sense: economic and political. Around peoples who offer too violent a resistance to attack from within he weaves a net of enemies, thanks to his international influence, incites them to war, and finally, if necessary, plants the flag of revolution on the very battlefields."
  • "It would be absurd to appraise a man's worth by the race to which he belongs and at the same time to make war against the Marxist principle, that all men are equal, without being determined to pursue our own principle to its ultimate consequences. If we admit the significance of blood, that is to say, if we recognize the race as the fundamental element on which all life is based, we shall have to apply to the individual the logical consequences of this principle. In general I must estimate the worth of nations differently, on the basis of the different races from which they spring, and I must also differentiate in estimating the worth of the individual within his own race. The principle, that one people is not the same as another, applies also to the individual members of a national community. No one brain, for instance, is equal to another; because the constituent elements belonging to the same blood vary in a thousand subtle details, though they are fundamentally of the same quality."
  • "The best constitution and the best form of government is that which makes it quite natural for the best brains to reach a position of dominant importance and influence in the community." [what a very Rand-like thing to say...]
  • "For while the bourgeois parties, because they mostly consisted of intellectuals, were only a feckless band of undisciplined individuals, out of much less intelligent human material the Marxist leaders formed an army of party combatants who obey their Jewish masters just as blindly as they formerly obeyed their German officers."
  • "Marxism too has had its aims to pursue and it also recognizes constructive work, though by this it understands only the establishment of despotic rule in the hands of international Jewish finance."
  • "The fact that we had chosen red as the colour for our posters sufficed to attract them to our meetings. The ordinary bourgeoisie were very shocked to see that, we had also chosen the symbolic red of Bolshevism and they regarded this as something ambiguously significant. The suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists. [...] We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims. We chose red for our posters after particular and careful deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings – if only in order to break them up – so that in this way we got a chance of talking to the people."

And, of course, in The Doctrine of Fascism, Mussolini famously says:

  • "Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century."

There you go. Mussolini himself identifies fascism as right-wing. I have provided you above with links to e-copies of both Mein Kampf and The Doctrine of Fascism. You may browse them at your leisure. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 22:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Side issue

Above it says "no one seriously considers communism right-wing". Actually, it's a commonplace on much of the left, especially the anarchist left, to consider Stalinism right-wing. I see that our article social-imperialism is pretty much a stub, so I can't think where in Wikipedia to look for this.

Frankly, I find it ridiculous when people on the left try to claim that the Soviet Union had nothing to do with the Left, just as I do when people on the right try to claim that Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany had nothing to do with the Right. Were they all unprincipled, thuggish, and worse? Yes. Most of us on the left today hate what Stalin did in the name of socialism and workers' internationalism, just as most on the right hate what Hitler, Mussolini, etc. did in the name of nation, Volk, and tradition. But it doesn't magicially detach Stalin from the Left, nor Hitler and Mussolini from the Right. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a very sensible way to put things.--Cberlet 02:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarian theories about fascism

A libertarian advocacy website does not trump dozens of academic scholars. The primacy of the Nation and the State are the primary hallmarks of fascism. Collectivism is one of many other secondary aspects. The libertarian concept of fascism as ultra-collectivism is hardly given any credence in serious scholarship on fascism. The fascist idea of collectivism, as posted above, was that the State organically represented both the individual and the collective. The failure to provide any serious cites other than Hayek, von Mises, and Flynn should settle this question. This same debate is now taking place on three Wiki pages: Fascism and ideology, Fascism, Right-wing politics. Can we at least seek to have the discussion only on the Fascism and ideology page?--Cberlet 19:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
That's kind of an odd statement, given that, today, a very large proportion (if not the lion's share) of scholars are libertarians. Statists are pretty anachronistic today, if you haven't noticed. RJII 19:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
On what planet are most scholars libertarians? Come on! Most scholars are not libertarians. Especially in the Social Sciences that is not the case. Most scholars are moderate Republicans or Democrats with less ideologically narrow views than most who identify as libertarians. A significant number of economists and scholars of economics are libertarians in a vague "Free Market" sense of the term, but hardly in the camp of von Mises. Anyway, could we PLEASE move this discussion to the Fascism and ideology page?--Cberlet 19:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know where you've been but this is not the 1960's anymore. Libertarianism is mainstream among intellectuals --statism is fringe. RJII 19:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Here is one libertarian who disagrees with you: Young oped.--Cberlet 19:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The survey didn't ask if the respondent was a libertarian. What's a libertarian supposed to say when he opposes both left/liberal and right/conservative? RJII 20:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that even the Encyclopedia Britannica acknowledges that fascism is a form of collectivism when it defines collectivism as "any of several types of social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a social class." RJII 19:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Could we PLEASE move this discussion to the Fascism and ideology page?--Cberlet 19:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, you started it. RJII 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
OK. but now?--Cberlet 20:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
As long as fascism continues to be discussed here, it's relevant. -- Jbamb 20:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
For now can we temporarily have just one conversation over at the Fascism and ideology page? Then after things are sorted out somewhat, those who want to can revisit the text on this page?--Cberlet 20:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV Forks

There are several places in this article where synonymous terms meaning "far right" are treated as seperate and distinct when there is little real distinction between them and they all refer to the same thing. This is called POV forking. It is a neutrality problem because it adds tons of volume to the article repeating the same viewpoint in different terms. I added a header until this is resolved, so please clean up this article. - Antimetro 21:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No, POV forking is when people create their own version of an article. And there are definitely scholars—and I use that word advisedly, I mean academics, not political commentators—who make these distinctions, especially between those whose views are extreme but who still subscribe (at least in principle) to liberal democracy, and those who advocate putschism. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Cleanup and NPOV

This page is much cleaner, deals with several countries, and has more cites. If editors want to tag the page or a section, please do so AND actually have a discussion here.--Cberlet 15:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

A discussion was started here even though two people have now tried to remove the tags. Also, you did not clean up the problematic sections. You only changed their order in the article. I would like to see a satisfactory answer for the questions I've made. What is the substantive material distinction between radical/far/hard/extreme/ultra right? These terms are all synonyms. They are all used interchangably by many commentators. Quote a credible source making a substantive distinction between them and then show that the distinction he/she makes is widely accepted. - Antimetro
The specific scholars cited make the distinctions. You simply ignore them. What are your cites for the terms all being used the same way by scholars?--Cberlet 20:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Please quote them and show how their distinctions are accepted in general use. Anybody with a simple dictionary can see how they are synonymous and interchangable terms in regular use. - Antimetro

See:

Radical adj 1: (used of opinions and actions) far beyond the norm; "extremist political views"; "radical opinions on education"; "an ultra conservative" [syn: extremist, ultra] (Princeton Wordnet)

ultra adj : (used of opinions and actions) far beyond the norm; "extremist political views"; "radical opinions on education"; "an ultra conservative" [syn: extremist, radical]. WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

extremist adj : (used of opinions and actions) far beyond the norm; "extremist political views"; "radical opinions on education"; "an ultra conservative" [syn: radical, ultra]. WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

I say a well regarded and widely used dictionary of English is a better indicator of the most common and proper usage of these synonymous terms - not obscure distinctions made by sources that aren't quoted and don't seem notable enough to have their own wikipedia articles. - Antimetro

<----That is so anti-intellectual as to be silly. I have cited contemporary major scholars in the field of study. They are raising the problem of how the terms are used. Dictionaries and encyclopedias follow these tendencies in academia by years--sometimes decades.

Please don't engage in insults Cberlet. Collegiate dictionaries reflect established standard usage of words. Usages that differ with the established ones by obscure "contemporary" scholars aren't acceptable if they haven't been established. It appears Wikipedia also has a rule about this called Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms. It says "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been "coined" and generally do not appear in any dictionary" and it says they should be avoided. The usages of the terms you apply don't appear in any dictionary and they differ significantly with the usages that do appear in the dictionary. If you want to, why don't you write a section on how the list of people who use the neologisms of those terms do it? The article's general use should reflect the accepted dictionary use though and it should be described how your list of scholars differ from that use. - Antimetro

And if you read the recent edit, that's essentially what I did.--Cberlet 23:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Nazism and socialism - discuss and vote on which page text should appear

Discussions of the relationship between Fascism and socialism and Nazism and socialism keep appearing on multiple pages. On what page does the section on Nazism and socialism belong?

Fascism and ideology---Nazism in relation to other concepts---Fascism and socialism---Nazism and socialism

Please discuss and vote on this dispute at this talk page]. Thanks. --Cberlet 15:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bioconservatism

Why is Bioconservatism in the list? It doesn't strike me as particularly right-wing, or even necessarily right of center. Jeremy Rifkin, a prominent bioconservative, is usually counted (and presumably counts himself) on the left. - Jmabel | Talk 20:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One-dimensional or two-dimensional

Can I have a clarification of the "Many libertarians do not consider themselves to be right wing and reject the traditional two-dimensional political spectrum, preferring to think in terms of liberty vs. authority rather than socialism vs. capitalism." comment? It was fairly clear to me that "two-dimensional" is an error here - left/right, socialist/capitalist and liberty/authority are all one-dimensional, not two-dimensional. "One-dimensional" is the correct phrase here, according to the Libertarian presidential nominee for 2004 [2]. At the very least, I'd like to know what the traditional "two-dimensional" spectrum is. StuartH 04:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Using "two-dimensional" here also clashes with the Libertarian page here on Wikipedia, I've reverted it to the more correct "one-dimensional". StuartH 04:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at The Political Compass for a good analysis of two dimensional politics. Indeed on this scale libertarians would be considered economically right wing, but socially liberal, as opposed to conservative. Alun 16:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fox News?

Are we serious here? And if we are, would anyone object to the NY Time bieng on the left-wing politics page? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Fox News is regularly cited in print and video documentaries as being a biased right-wing news outlet. Yes, we are serious here.--Cberlet 19:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I concur. —Nightstallion (?) 18:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Cited by... the biased left-wing media? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 16:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be biased to cite Fox as right-wing, it is their political stance (they do not advocate collectivism or Social Democracy). Do you think it is some sort of slur to call it right wing? I read The Guardian, I don't the journalists who work there would think it would be biased to be labelled left wing, it's the political position the newspaper takes. Alun 17:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
As long as we point out the bias of the New York Times, et. al. I'm happy. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 18:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The Guardian article states Editorial articles in The Guardian are generally in sympathy with Left-wing politics. The New York Times article has a whole section entitled Accusations of liberal bias. Why don't you check these things? Alun 04:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
As I said, as long as Fox isn't singled out. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 13:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
FOX right-wing? FOX is a business that makes money selling commercial time to advertisers in a different demographic than CNN. It's pointless to talk about politics and FOX. Intangible 00:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
No, its not pointless, its an obvious right-wing leanning channel (perhaps the most known of all), different demografics or not, one could use the same flawed logic to aply it to any other type of partisan media, if well one could rightly choose not to watch Fox News, the channel will still be there giving a strongly biased opinnion on events rather than to even try an accurate one (see The Corporation to see a small episode relating to Fox News and how their priorities are set before even emitting any news). About checking other types of media to tackle any attack on Fox News, its a rather naive tit-for-tat move, but if it helps you sleep at night, be my guest.
There is a documentary titled "OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism" in which Walter Cronkite, probably the most respected television journalist from some 20 years ago, is quoted as totally dissing FOX, sometimes known as FAUX News. But I think they are assuming that it is possible for a news outlet to be actually unbiased. Ownership plays a major role. Some 100 years ago papers did not pretend to be unbiased. But I digress. They should do documentaries on other media outlets' ownership. slimey555 15:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defining right-wing values

Part of the problem with this article is defining the content of right-wing ideology. A point of contention might be this: "The dominant modern strand of right wing thought is concerned with traditional values (often associated with Christian values in nature)", in such that 'traditional values' is in fact relative. As time proceeds tradition goes with it. In an area like San Francisco in California USA, homosexuality has been openly accepted for, arguably, 40 years or more. It could be said that various traditions about romance, child rearing and so forth have been expanded to include homosexuals in San Francisco, although this is not the case in other places even within the same state. As such, it is certainly valid to contend that what is meant by 'traditional values' is not only geographical, but temporal. The association to Christian values attempts to give shape to this, but this is also overly broad, as Christianity itself is varied. One simply has to look at the recent Anglican gay bishop issue to see this. In short, I believe this level of generalization to be inappropriate to the article. It leads to the inevitable question of how maleable are right-wing values? If left-wing values prevail, do they not become traditional, or would left-wing be more aptly described as differing from the prevailing standard? I also see it as a furthering of the false dichotomy, as most politicians of any affiliation at least superficially give the impression of living a 'traditionalist' life in the relative sense. Athemeus 17:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

In other words, this is a conceptual issue. Is "the right" defined by traditional values (whatever tradition happens to be), or by pro-religious pro-capitalistic pro-military values? What do "left" and "right" mean in "traditionally leftist" places like the former Soviet Union? DanBishop 01:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
If one takes the Political Compass POV, then right wing applies to economics, especially the personal ownership of property and capital (the means of production). By it's very nature this must rely on law and some semblence of statehood to enact the law and a provide a judiciary to make legal rulings (so right-libertarians cannot advocate the complete abolision of the state, as the state provides the legal framework for ownership, conversely libertarian socialists or anarchists do advocate the abolition of the state as ownership is not an issue). The promotion and especially the coercive implementation of traditional values would constitute authoritarianism, as opposed to right-wing. I should point out that certain types of socialism are also authoritarian, such as communism. Alun 07:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 07:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WTLIRATRIW!

I like the way the fox link was snuck in! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.66.6.211 (talk • contribs) 12 June 2006.

Hardly snuck. See the section above discussing it; the first three entries were already there when you wrote this. - Jmabel | Talk 17:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TRUE POLITICS

Is anyone familiar with Dr. Frederick Schwartz? In The Three Faces of Revolution he has a graph. It is the true structure of politics.

most GOVERNMENT CONTROL least INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY


Communism, Nazism, Fascism

Democratic Socialism

Liberalism

Conservitism

Anarchy


least GOVERNMENT CONTROL most INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY

Iampublius 19:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Presumably you mean Frederick Schwarz of the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade? Haven't you posted pretty much exactly the same thing to several other talk pages, possibly under a different name? - Jmabel | Talk 20:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have used the name Iampublius. There are many of us. Those who believe the way of the Constitution. Those of us who see it as a living and breathing document. Those who oppose any kind of change that DOES NOT follow the laws set forth by it. The name was used by three great men to put forth ideals and it should be used as such. Iampublius 20:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Which constitution of which country? I hesitate to guess so as not to be offensive. Grant65 | Talk 15:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, good heavens. If this was shown with a graph, then obviously it must be true! I'm convinced; where do I sign up? KarlBunker 02:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imbalance and proposed merger

The concepts of "left-wing" and "right-wing" are supposed to be mirror images of each other. Any issue that can be discussed in relation to the right can also be discussed in relation to the left. And, indeed, it is often inevitable that a discussion of right-wing ideas will also entail a discussion of left-wing responses and objections to those ideas. You cannot talk about the right without also talking about the left, albeit briefly.

As such, I am wondering why exactly do we have separate articles about left-wing and right-wing politics instead of discussing all the issues from the perspective of both left and right in the article Left-Right politics. As it stands now, the attempt to separate the articles on the left and right has produced major imbalances - as a case in point, this present article about right-wing politics is little more than a stub. I propose to merge left-wing politics and right-wing politics into Left-Right politics. That will allow us to discuss both left- and right-wing perspectives on a whole range of issues. It will provide a more NPOV approach to politics and it will give us one article on the subject of the left-right spectrum instead of the three overlapping articles that we currently have. -- Nikodemos 08:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Include the merger of far left and far right as well? Intangible 14:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I would certainly support that, yes. But merging five articles at the same time can be messy. Let's merge these three first, then propose the merger of far right and far left. -- Nikodemos 03:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Sound okay with me, these article are already too much concerned with ideologies instead of being concerned with how these terms are used by political science scholars or historians. Intangible 14:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I won't object, but I'm unconvinced that this will be a positive. - Jmabel | Talk 07:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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. --Cberlet 14:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Apparently there is some confusion as to what I mean. I won't object to meging left-wing politics and right-wing politics into Left-Right politics; however I will vigorously oppose any plan to remove Far Right and Far Left through any merger plan or deletion. Yes, there is some overlap of text, and this should be cleaned up. However, there are hundreds of scholarly books and thousands of published studies on the ideologies, institutions, groups, and indvidual thinkers and leaders of the "Far Right" and "Far Left"; and there is no way one article discussing the concept of "Far Right" and "Far Left" can adequately address the content of these published sociological, historical, anthropological, or political science studies.--Cberlet 15:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Americanised Wikipedia

Considering how multinational wikipedia is supposed to be i do find that it is very Americanised. "Outside the United States (where capitalism is supported by a broad range of politicians and people from the left and the right)" This is bollocks, the politics of many nations have these views.84.9.115.6 14:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I assure you, it is unlikely that an American wrote that phrase. It was presumably written by someone, probably European, who rejects the view that there is such a thing as a left in the United States. - Jmabel | Talk 01:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Nationalism

Nationalism should be moved to Left-wing. This is from the Nationalism page:"Nationalism refers to both a political doctrine[3] and any collective action[4] by political and social movements on behalf of specific nations" Nationalism supports the collective not the individual, therefor it is left-wing. Peoplez1k 01:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, this canard that "right-wing" means "individualist" and "left-wing" means "collectivist". Where do people get this odd idea? "Individualist" and "collectivist" are perfectly good words; they are an entirely different dimension than left/right. This is writing history backwards from certain aspects of present-day U.S. politics.
I would say that nationalism is not inherently on the right: Puerto Rican nationalism, for example, is rather strongly identified with the socialist left. But certainly in Europe, strong nationalism has often allied with the right, the most obvious examples being virtually every fascist party in the interwar period, and the likes of Le Pen, Vadim Tudor, and Jörg Haider today. In the U.S., those with a nationalist conception of the country have nearly always been on the right: think of the Know-Nothings in the 19th century, or the English-only movement today. There have sometimes been nationalist tendencies within the U.S. labor movement that have been at least politically allied with the left (e.g. anti-Chinese activity in the last 40 years of the 19th century); even then, though, there was a large part of the left that vigorously rejected this. - Jmabel | Talk 00:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Militiant Groups

Is anyone here getting the feeling that Wikipedia is overly biased towards the right? In Left-wing politics there is a section with 25 leftist militias, but not even a mention that one existed in the right wing section. This could give some people the impression that the right wing is better because it belives in not killing people. (Which is a totally false claim proved by the Iraq War.)24.14.33.61 02:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Erik the Red 2

I would like to see the list of Right Wing militant groups....got one?

So much for maintaining an unbiased environment! It's abundantly clear from the above statement that some here haven't even been exposed to the fact that right-wing militant groups exist.

Let's start with Gedud Ha'ivri, Neo-Nazis, ...and keep adding more or less every racist militant group out there.

And don't forget to read up on domestic right-wing extremism in America. There's plenty of material, primarily collected by the FBI.

I think that a much better solution would be to remove this inevitably subjective list from Left-wing politics rather than add one here. Neutrality should not mean "equal and opposite slander". - Jmabel | Talk 16:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not a bad idea. However, I get the feeling that we might be covering up facts in the process. It should be made known that both left and right wing militant groups exist. The fact that they (militant groups) exist on both sides (i.e., left and right wing) does not negate the fact that they exist. And why concentrate on what neutrality shouldn't mean, when we can't concentrate on what it does - it means being unbiased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.131.145 (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
If someone wants to sort through List of designated terrorist organizations as a starting point to distinguish right and left wing groups then go right ahead. I personally agree with the above comment that it should be known that militant groups exist on both sides and MAYBE list a small, equal number of prominent organizations for each. No extensive lists.

[edit] Individual priorities?

Does the article propose that the right-wing politicians are out for themselves (which is obviously not an appropriate judgement to make here) or they have individualist policies? Whatever the answer I think the wording here is out of line with the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.36.202.150 (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] outside the usa

why is there so much usage of the term "outside the usa". i didnt realise this was written for an american audience.


[edit] Meanings change over time - Perhaps because of a misunderstanding?! Or maybe even because of rewritten text books?!

In Europe, Fascism is considered right-wing. Fascism is socialism combined with nationalism and dictatorship. The reason that people think that the extreme right wing in America is Fascist is because this association and because of misinformation. In reality, anything socialist is considered left wing in America. Strong traditional values combined with love of country, faith, and freedom loving individualism is what defines the right wing in America. The KKK, on the other hand, should be considered a left wing organization because they are socialist. Many grew up in the blue collar, FDR loving, union member, racist Democrat South. In Europe, before Hitler came to power, the far left was communist and the far right was national _socialist_.70.248.114.92 05:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not lead others with your misunderstanding of the subject. And take some time to read what you've written. It might help uncover the prejudiced nature of your understanding of politics.

[edit] right-wing politics in the UK

Does anyone know where to find information about right wing-politics in the UK (especially the time after 1945)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.139.225.116 (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] not a very neutral point of view

somebody keeps editing out fascism and totalitarianism in the introduction. in the introduction to left wing politics, anarchism and communism arent edited out. anarchism is pretty much the opposite of fascism. also, it doesnt matter if modern right wing politics arent fascist ones. if this is the reason it was removed, then the left wing article's connection to communism and anarchism should be removed. it seems quite unbalanced for there to be very negative stigma attatched to the left wing with most of the negative branches of the right wing censored. Fascism is quite far right, and i understand most right wing politics today are not fascist ones, but anarchism is far left and it is left alone on the left wing politics page, despite it not representing the views of a typical modern left wing politician.

why the do right wingers always insist on changing fact? this is wikipedia, too bad if it makes your political philosophy look bad, get used to it, wikipedia cannot and will not be censored, and i request this to be locked if people keep changing it around. wikipedia is not pro or anti left wing, nor is it pro or anti right wing, its free information that isnt supposed to be changed around and be biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.39.154 (talk) 07:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I would not define fascism and totalitarianism as very right-wing political ideologies. Fascism supports the control of owned properties by the government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.43.21 (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
"Big government" is perfectly compatible with "right wing". They are two rather independent variables. The original "right wing" - supporters of the French Ancien Régime - were advocates of big government. We've been many times around the "is fascism on the right" discussion, and every time we bash it out, it reaches the same conclusion: while it is an eclectic and syncretic ideology, and draws in some respects from the left, the overwhelming consensus of scholars is to consider it part of the right.
"Totalitarianism" does not belong in the list, though: it is a term that can equally be applied to left or right regimes. - Jmabel | Talk 19:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Right Wing/Left Wing

Actually, the "left wing" article is so muddied with random thought at that beginning that it gives no idea what "left wing" refers to.

The right wing article is disgustingly biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.113.92 (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laundry list

The lead paragraph has come to contain a bit of a laundry list: "…often associated with any of several strains of Conservatism, Traditionalism, Monarchism, Right-libertarianism, Corporatism, the Religious Right, Nationalism, Militarism, Producerism, Nativism, Reactionism or Far right positions such as National Socialism and Fascism." I would suggest that, mainly in the interest of brevity, we drop at least:

- Jmabel | Talk 19:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation

In general, this article is under-cited. And some of the citation that is there is pretty useless. For example, User:Yaf added a citation that is just a blind URL, and which leads to a PDF that looks offhand like a decent thing to cite for calling fascism "far right", but the linked document gives no indication of who wrote it or who published it. Without that, it is not at all clearly a reliable source for anything. (Again, it looks probably citable, but there needs to be an explanation of what it is). - Jmabel | Talk 22:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unusual POV

This article seems to be filled with idiosyncratic definitions of "right wing" and is therefore misleading. For example, "right wing views continued to be concerned with ... the preservation of individual and corporate rights through constraints on government power" and "A more obscure strand of contemporary right wing thought ... supports the preservation of wealth and power in the hands that have traditionally held them".

In common usage, right-wingers seek to preserve existing institutions (conservatives) or return to earlier social relationships (reactionaries). Putting constraints on government power is a liberal value which is often shared by members of the moderate left and right. Incidentally, Hayek's article "Why I am not a Conservative" is consistent with this view.

Also, liberals sat in the center not the left of the Estates General. --The Four Deuces (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Far right and Nazism

I am going to delete the non-sourced relation of Nazism and far right idealology. First off, there is a huge debate among political critics (many of whom are politically bias to begin with) on whether the Nazis are right-wing, left-wing or neithier. First off, the Nazis were socialists, which economically, makes them more like modern left-wing politics then modern right-wing politics. The reality is that they were probably nethier, the Nazis were a lot like fascists, which advocated strong, centralized government under military rule, and in the the modern American left-right spectrum, where the right advocates smaller government and the left advocates more equality, doesn't really fit eithier democratic or republican idealogy. Also, the trend to call the Nazis right-wing is more due to the fact that many liberal political commentators will call anything evil right-wing, rather then the actual reality of the Nazi's politics. --Jtd00123 (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, I have deleted unsourced relation of fascism and right-wing politics. Fascism is simply a form of authoritarism, and has nothing to do with right or left-wing politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtd00123 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

EDIT2: Also, I hardly consider one source confirmation that facism is generally considered a right-wing idealogy. There is far to much disagreement to consider fascism eithier right or left wing. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2VkNDI2ZjljY2ViZjM5YzBmMTI1N2VkMDEyYjRkYWQ= --Jtd00123 (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"Big Government" does not have to be left wing. The left believes the goverment should serve the people, not the other way around like Nazis and Fascist. The Nazi are NOT socialists either, and how is a government ruled by military leftist? Bobisbob (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The Nazi's called themselves socialists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_German_Workers_Party I never said government ruled by the military is left, why are you making counter arguments to arguments I didn't make? Government ruled by the military can generally be right or left, it has nothing to do with eithier ideology. Mao, Stalin and radical communism is a good example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtd00123 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


Ahem. Antisemitism

According to Nazi propaganda, the Jews thrived on fomenting division amongst Germans and amongst states. Nazi antisemitism was primarily racial: “The Jew is the enemy and destroyer of the purity of blood, the conscious destroyer of our race;” however, the Jews were also described as plutocrats exploiting the worker: “As socialists we are opponents of the Jews because we see in the Hebrews the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the nation’s goods.”[34]

Don't forget that many of the people that died in concentration camps were wealthy. --Jtd00123 (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nazism

1. Hitler was a supporter of the idea of Indo-European Araynism, and later eugenics that linked in with this, Indo-European Araynism was a movement supported mainly by radical right wing Germans who were conservative A: because they supported the idea of conservative German values and 'features', supporting an idea of 'racial purity' B: linked onto this they were extremely xenophobic/anti-immigration, and supported traditional German values something which can be considered conservative.

2. Hitler drew most of his support from the right, from people such as Von Papen and Hugenburg, the right-wing elite of Germany who obviously saw Hitler as more in favour of the right (otherwise they wouldnt have supported the NAZIS over the other parties).

3. Hitler linked up with parties on the right-wing of the spectrum to form majorities, these right-wing parties did not all support socialism

4. Hitler drew most of his popular support from the right, buisnessmen and nationalists, he used the SA (despite being left in some senses) to attack left-wing opposition such as Communists or merely democratic socialists.

5. Hitler was anti-semitic, something that was opposed mainly by the left in these days and upheld manly by the right (at least in Germany).

6. Hitler tried to relate Germany back to a 'golden age' and forged phony links between modern Germany and the previous 'Reichs' as well as the Teutonic Knights. These links with past eras and (again, a bit of a cliche) 'traditional Values', believing modern Germans should emulate the behaviour of past Germans, something which is definetly (conservative).

7. Linked in with the previous point Hitler oppossed the liberalisation that had taken place under Weimer Germany, he viewed it as immoral and corrupt, and disliked modern movements in general including Jazz which he viewed as 'negroid'.

8. He originally drew most of his support from the countryside, an area which had been traditionally right-wing conservative. In many propoganda posters NAZISM can be seen to contrast the beauty of Germanic rural life with the dingy existence of city, proletarian life. Socialists generally supported the urban working class over the agricultural life.

69.29.254.57 (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

While modern right-wing politicians in America have recently have gotten the support of nationalist, nationalism doesn't automatically mean right-wing. Again, Communist China and Russia were extemely nationalistic. Also, some modern political critics (partically libertarians) reject the the notion that traditional values automatically mean right-wing. Also, the right in Germany can be very different from the right in America. Have you ever visited communist Vietnam or China (I have, and I am vietnamese by origin), they still highly value traditional values, nationalism, and xenophobia, but are economically "left". Hey, try immigrating to those countries, if you think immigration here is bad. Also, Hitler wanted the Jewish "wealth" to be redistributed back to the Germans, and also later advocated government control of certain enterprises, something that sounds a lot like socialism. --Jtd00123 (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

So will you admit then that Communist China or Russia are more complex than being "left"? Also the article DOES in fact state that Nationalism can be left-wing. 69.29.254.57 (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I can admit that communism is not strictly a left-wing idealogy. In fact, I never bought into the whole idea that communism is strictly far-left, thus the reason I put left in quotations, and the reason why I said economically left, not socially. And I know that the article says that nationalism can also be left-wing, but you were implying that because Nazism took certain stances that are in common with the American right, such as nationalism and anti-immigration, that it "proves" it is right-wing. While the Nazis were anti-immigration and xenophobic (which can happen in ecnomically left nations), they were also for gun control, government control and interference of certain businesses (something that right-wingers in America are strongly against) and arguably economically socialist. And it also doesn't surprise me that the Nazis ally themselves with rival political parties, hell, political alliances between drastically different parties still goes on in modern Germany today. Can you buy into the idea that Nazism is more complex then simply being right-wing? --Jtd00123 (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure I'am willing to accept that Nazi and Fascism are not 100% right-wing in fact the Fascists and Nazis did not have consistant economic plans and would you abjects to Communism and Ararachy being label as left-wing, as they are in the Left-wing article? 69.29.254.57 (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added the needed cites, this is not abour POV and original research, but cites to reputable published sources.--Cberlet (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

But the relation of fascism to right-wing politics is disputable, even by scholarly sources. (you even have one here on the article) If this is the case, then why is it stated as fact on the first several paragraphs. If a fact is disputable or debatable then it should be stated as such. I don't have time to come back on wiki for several days, but I will be back to debate this furthur. --Jtd00123 (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Marginal and minority views need to be mentioned in an appropriate way, but most major scholars consider Fascism and Nazism to be allied with right-wing politics. See the page on Undue Weight. WP:UNDUE.--Cberlet (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
And what of the political affiliations of the scholars? Don't those have merit as well? I can't imagine any political anaylist or scholar as being politically objective, in my experience every single person that was interested in politics leaned one way or the other. There is no objective interpretation of politics, it is not something that can be tested in a lab or proven using the scientific method. Political scholarship is very subjective, and therefore conforms to the biases of the author. Also, who is to say that my sources reflect a vast minority view? Can you give a list of every scholar that has argued fascism is right or left? I don't think you could. What if I give you a dozen sources that paint fascism as nethier a left or right point-of-view? Is that enough to warrent a mention on the first paragraph? Lets not start a source war over this. Also, some of your sources are not scholarly, as judging from the title alone some refelct distaste towards right-wing politics. (look at the first three "scholars" for example. If you are going to use those people, then I guess I can use Thomas Sowell or Goldberg, that make a convincing argument that fascism is actually left-wing. Another source written in 1977 compares Marxist theory to fascism, and isn't marxism considered by most scholars to be left?) Actually, judging by the fascist article here on wikipedia, most scholars view fascism can eithier right or left (because a government that has authoritarian control over the people can happen in a left-wing government), but historically it has more in common with the right (due to the heavy influence of nationalism, traditionalism, distaste for socialism, and other right ideals by people that have traditionally called themselves fascists). It is mentioned on the wiki article here, and other sources http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/m_r/pound/fascism.htm http://cla.calpoly.edu/~lcall/fascism.html In fact, some scholars have argued that fascism and communism share many similarities (look at wiki communism article) --Jtd00123 (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, most of your other sources come from college professors. This alone may violate the the wikipedia rule of neutral articles, since the presence of only using these sources may violate the neutrality policy. http://www.ncpa.org/iss/gov/2002/pd090502c.html An estimated 90% of college professors are registered democrats, and I doubt the political-"science" professors are any different. If this is the case, then permission to use conservative sources, as long as they are stated as such, should also be used to balence the question of objectivity. Ironically enough, wikipedia doesn't have anything on using objective sources, only reliable ones. I don't think the disputability of right-wing politics to Nazism reflects a "tiny" minority view eithier. I want you to go out to the millions of registered Republicans and see how many will say the Nazis were right-wingers. Very few I presume. What about the views of the millions of Republicans and conservative political pundits, do they represent a tiny minority? Do they have no say on this wikipedia article? I think your willingness to relate right-wing politcs to Nazism and facism, and not add a clause saying that these "facts" are debatable, violate the wikipedia:NPOV policy. Also, I do have scholarly sources that say that fascism is both right and left.--Jtd00123 (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(from same source)Among history professors at the University of Colorado at Boulder, only one out of 29 was a registered Republican -- and among 19 political science professors only two Republicans could be found. Wow. Perhaps the objectivity of the sources should be brought up with an administrator. --Jtd00123 (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC) --75.176.82.74 (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Voting a certain way does mean they can't be objective. Matthew N. Lyons (who is one of the scholars cited) despite saying Fascism is right-wing, has made the case that the Bush Administration is not fascist. You can look at his articles here. Also, I doubt college professors will deny that Marxism and Communism are left wing and I don't think the majority of professors would paint a rosy picture of far-left groups either. Bobisbob (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, Stanley Payne (another scholar sourced) has listed anti-conservatism as a property of Fascism too. Bobisbob (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Two of the people you cited have little or no credentials in this field. Goldberg is a pundit and commentator. Sowell is an economist. I guess maybe Sowell could have some standing in identifying the economics of regimes but he hasn't studied Fascism as the above scholars have. Bobisbob (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Goldberg is a pundit and commentator. And I labeled him as such in my edit. Someone else edited him as a scholar. Voting a certain way does mean they can't be objective. Actually, I think a person's political affiliations has a huge influence on a person's objectivity, especially in regards to a "science" that deals with politics. In my experience very few people are truely objective and completely open-minded, and if my college professors are any indicator, slapping a PhD on someone doesn't change that fact. The idea that fascism is right-wing is based off the idea that left=equality and right=inequality, which is already a bias viewpoint to begin with, since many right-wing voters and pundits would disagree with that. Most conservatives view modern right-wing politics as a combination of laissez-faire economics and traditionalism, although many conservatives aren't traditionalists. Many conservatives have also advocated smaller government, (even though many conservative politicians have not followed up on this) which is the exact opposite of fascism. This contradicts a lot of historical traditionalist govnerments, since historically, traditionalism has been associated with heavy govt involvement with business (lets not forget that at one time the idea of laissez-faire was considered 'progressive')IRight-wing has nothing to do with inequality, trying to keep a status quo, or any other delusions that many poli-sci majors have painted of conservatives. Fascism on the other hand advocated strong government involvment in business, something that many conservatives would be vehemently against. So I guess right-wing is promoting laissez-faire and smaller government, but far right promotes larger government and heavy involvment in business? This makes zero sense. At one time libertarianism and fascism were both put on the far-right scale. How is libertarianism and fascism the same? They are polar opposites. Confused? This is why many people think the left-right spectrum is a very weak measure of politics. I think the Nolan chart gives a little moree depth, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_chart and even then I still think it is too one-dimensional. (and a little bias towards libertarianism)
Two of the people you cited have little or no credentials in this field. Poli-sci is not exactly physics or biology. Anyone with an ounce of reason and logic can analyze politics. How many poli-sci majors are politicians? Many are lawyers, businessmen, economists, etc. are succesful in politics. Now how many scientists or doctors don't have a degree in science or medicine? None. Poli-sci has been the target of a lot of scrutiny to begin with. http://www.indiana.edu/~iupolsci/pplace/D5%20Current%20Draft.pdf The fact that a huge majority of poli-sci majors are not moderate at all and actually admit to being registered democrats has put the objectivity of the entire field to question. Read this: http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.27106/pub_detail.asp
For example, groupthink occurs in universities when students--who might threaten the academy's ideological predispositions--are subtly discouraged from pursuing doctorates. Using a national survey of college and university seniors, Matthew Woessner of Penn State Harrisburg and April Kelly-Woessner of Elizabethtown College find that conservative students are substantially less likely to want to pursue doctorates than similarly situated liberal and progressive peers. While this disparity is partly due to unexplained differences in career motivations, evidence also suggests that conservative students lack academic role models and have more distant relationships with faculty.
Even determined conservatives who complete graduate school face unseen barriers blocking their professional academic aspirations. Smith College's Stanley Rothman and George Mason University's S. Robert Lichter find strong statistical evidence that socially conservative academics must publish substantially more books and articles to get the same jobs as liberal peers.

I propose the usage of conservative pundits, and adding a clause on the debatable relation between fascism and right-wing as soon as fascism is mentioned for 3 reasons:

1) The objectivity of these "scholars" is questionable, and some studies (look at source above) have found evidence of bias
2) Politics is not a hard science. Extensive knowledge in politics is not needed to debate the disagreements in politics. Most of us can properly debate whether fascism is left or right wing, or even the existence of the left-right spectrum. You don't need to be Einstein. However, most of us cannot analytically debate existence of string theory, where most of us cannot fully grasp the complexities and mathematics involved in theoretical physics (even with the use of pop-science books that 'dumb' it down). This is why pundits can properly be used. And therefore:
3) Why is a soft field such as politics, which is prone to subjective bias, limited to the opinions of (mostly)politically left PHDs? Neutraility compromised anyone? Sounds a lot like beaurocracy to me. I understand that wikipedia prefers us to use peer-reviewed scholarly resources, and this is extremely helpful in fields such as hard science or medicine, where it can be scientifically measured. However, in the case of poli-sci, only using these scholars can be detreminental, because it may compromise the neutrality of the article. Also, the use of pundits does not go against the rules of wikipedia, as long as they are used to give an article a neutral pov. --Jtd00123 (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC) --Jtd00123 (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
There are no wiki policies being applied, only outlandish and aggressive POV warrioring and a tendentious overload of text not related to Wiki policies. The issue is what the majority of reputable published sources say about the specific topic. Please stop this. Cite reputable published sources about this topic or let it go.--Cberlet (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I am simply giving my argument on the sources I use. No proper counter argument has been made to the possible biases of the sources mentioned, and the validity of political science as being objective. THe reason is beccause I was ask to take it to the discussion board with every edit, something that other editors have not done. This is not against wiki policy, and pundits are also not against wiki policy. I apologize if I am too wordy, and I will try and limit the length of my posts on the discussion section. --Jtd00123 (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

From the Fascism and ideology article:

However, many scholars of fascism, including Griffin, Eatwell, Laqueuer, and Weber, are reluctant to call fascism simply a right-wing ideology. Yet in their lengthy discussions they observe that generally fascism and neo-fascism ally themselves with right-wing or conservative forces on the basis of racial nationalism, hatred of the political left, or simple expediency. The early fascism of the 1900's was however not concerned with race but the pride of Italy and expansion into foreign territories.

Laqueuer (1996): "But historical fascism was always a coalition between radical, populist ('fascist') elements and others gravitating toward the extreme Right" p. 223. Eatwell (1996) talks about the need of fascism for "syncretic legitimation" which sometimes led it to forge alliances with "existing mainstream elites, who often sought to turn fascism to their own more conservative purposes." Eatwell also observes that "in most countries it tended to gather force in countries where the right was weak" p. 39. Griffin (1991, 2000) also does not include right-wing ideology in his "fascist minimum," but he has described fascism as "Revolution from the Right" (2000), pp. 185-201. Weber: "...their most common allies lay on the right, particularly on the radical authoritarian right, and Italian Fascism as a semi-coherent entity was partly defined by its merger with one of the most radical of all right authoritarian movements in Europe, the Italian Nationalist Association (ANI)." ([1964] 1982), p. 8.

According to these scholars, as well as Payne (1995), Fritzsche (1990), Laclau (1977), and Reich (1970), there are both left and right influences on fascism as a social movement, and right-wing ideology should not be considered part of the "fascist minimum", but, nonetheless, fascism, especially once in power, has historically attracted support primarily from the political right.

So your insertion that these professors simply call Fascism right-wing because of political bias is not valid as hey are objective enough to look as left wing influences on fascism. In addition, I already showed you that Matthew N. Lyons is objective enough to see that the Bush presidency is not fascist. As far as your study goes, take a look at this. Bobisbob (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because a few scholars look at left-wing influences on fascism doesn't disprove a bias eithier, it doesn't even disprove a bias from your own source. If I were to write an entire article comparing leftism to Nazism, and then write a several sentences in the article on rightist influences, does that make me objective? No. Liberal bias against conservative thought has been proven within the academic system itself, (conservatives feel disconnected to professors, have to publish more to get ahead), what makes you think that such blatent discrimination won't show up in their articles? Especially, for gods sakes, a social science for crying out loud, a group of sciences that rely on subjective interpretation rather then hard data. Also, Thomas Sowell has won the National Humanaities Award for his schalarship on political science, which proves you don't need a Phd in the field to analyze it. I am not saying that we shouldn't use these schalars at all, but pundits should be used considering the subjectivity of the field and the probable bias. In addition, these scholars are blantenly saying that fascism doesn't equal right-wing, but that historically they have allied themselves with right-wing parties. Umm, should this be mentioned in the article perhaps? I'm not talking at the bottom of the page, I'm talking about as soon as fascism is mentioned. Because the beginning of the article clearly says fascism=right-wing, when there are plenty of scholars that say it is a combination of both. I think the scholars I have provided, and the scholars you have provided, are enough evidence to show that the relation between fascism and right-wing thought is arguable at best, despite the fact that these schalars are probably bias as well. --Jtd00123 (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


As far as your study goes, take a look at this. Have you read the study yourself? The authors from your source do not deny that there is more liberal professors the conservative professors (especially in more prestigious schools), nor do they deny that Conservative students have to publish more to get ahead. Instead, they question the fact that this is due to conscious bias, or is more due to the expectations of conservative students. Their own conclusions admit that there is some exclusion of conservative thought, they just say that there is not enough evidence to support that it is a conscious effort and liberal professors purposely indoctrinate their students. Your study does not disprove mine by any stretch of the imagination. (It is also significant to point out that your source is not a proper study, just a evaluation of the study I sourced) Also, the author(s) of your paper seem to not grasp simple statistics, claiming that my study doesnt not definitely prove that most professors are liberal because it does not look at every institution, particarilly community colleges and part-time teachers. You don't have to look at every institution for a study to be statistically significant, the study looked at dozens of schools, and found that on average there are far more democrats then republican professors. For example, if you took a 200 professors at random and found that 90% or liberal, as long as n>30, statistically it means that (around) 90% of professors are likely to be liberal no matter where you go. If this principle is incorrect, then I think we seriously need to reevaluate modern medicine, modern statistics, and modern science, since most population studies in these fields have used much smaller groups then my study provided. --Jtd00123 (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But, these scholars are not merely political scientists they are historians too and some of then are not from America. Also professor will also not deny that Communists an Anarachists tend ally with the left. Again, who should we trust to define what fascism is? 69.29.254.57 (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the length of my edits has caused some people to repeat arguments that I have already covered, so here is a summary:
1) Political scientists tend to lean substantially left, around 80% in major universities 2) Political science is a subjective field, and in any subjective field you run a huge risk of bias 3) Pundits have been awarded by respectable organizations in political science, even without degrees in the area, proving that you can properly evaluate politics w/o a Phd 4) Therefore: I have not advocated not using scholars, but b/c it is a subjective field, I have advocated also using pundits as long as they are labeled as pundits in the article, is that so wrong? (see above for complete explanation) 5) Even if they are in a minority, there is a substantial amount of political science scholars that have said fascism is a mixture of right and left (I see 6 sources for mixture and 12 (2 with obvious bias even on the title) sources that say right-wing), enough to where an adjective 'arguably' should be added to fascism and nazism. 6) The authors' willingness to paint some bad apples as left-wing doesn't prove that the sources are objective. I am willing to consider many of the negative political views (militarism, hell, even monarchism in some ways) on this wiki article as right-wing, does that make me objective?--Jtd00123 (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC) --Jtd00123 (talk) 07:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Please note, Jtd00123, that this discussion page is devoted to editing specific text, not general philosophical debates nor changing Wikipedia policies. Please spend some time reviewing WP:UNDUE, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Please cite a reputable published source for specific text change suggestions. Please propose specific wording. We do not need to see the same arguments repeated over and over.--Cberlet (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The discussion page can also be used to challenge the validity of sources, as it has been done many times on other articles and even on this specific discussion page. Also, keep in mind that I am no more guilty of repeating the same arguments as others, and most of my edits are related to others and me debating what sources are appropriate and an edit to an article I like to make (which I wanted to take to the discussion page first, but no response yet.) Please do not single me out (seemingly because of opposing viewpoints) , because I'm not the only one dragging this debate longer then it should have. (anything philosophical I may have added I can easily edit out at any time, but I feel they were related to my argument) I am being more then civil, since I have taken my disagreements to the discussion page, as opposed to the article itself, like most people do. --Jtd00123 (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Please point out the Wiki policy you are applying to challenge the cited scholars who appear to be published in reputable sources, properly cited, and summarized in an NPOV way. Be specific. Complaining about liberal bias in the social sciences is not specific, nor does it appear to have any relationship whatsoever to current Wiki policies. Cite and post here the Wiki policy text that you are applying, and how it relates to specific text in this entry. Propose alternative text.--Cberlet (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed Fascism and Nazism from the introduction because their connection to right-wing ideology is complex. If they are mentioned in the introduction, some qualifications should be added. -- Vision Thing -- 21:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not constructive, and once again is promoting a narrow marginal POV that has been rejected on numerous other pages.--Cberlet (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I don't object to listing them in introduction if some qualifications are added. After all, their position within "the right" is not so uncontroversial as positions of other ideologies listed there. If you add fascism into the introduction, I won't revert you, but I will add some brief explanation. -- Vision Thing -- 21:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Please point out the wiki policy I am breaking Cberlet. I would take this to the talk page where it belongs but I'm afraid you might delete my comments again. Hey.... is that aloud? You are right that I have added personal comments to my sources, but so have two other people repeatedly and you haven't gone after them. I will delete any comments that seem personal or that add to the sources I providedsoon, don't get too bent out of shape about it. My source that there is liberal bias on political science scharlars is verifiable, and is neutral enough to defend using my sources. If there is a disagreement on an edit of an article then I can take it to the discussion page (look up revert wars), it is in the wikipedia policy, as opposed to starting a revert war. --Jtd00123 (talk) 02:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This discussion started because of a disagreement of an edit of an article, that I still have a disagreement on, here is a wikipedia policy that I am following: Dispute resolution article
Discuss the issue on a talk page. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question. (You may even post the proposed content on the talk page.)When discussing an issue, remember to stay cool. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond unkindly, and do not make personal attacks. Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary. Both at this stage and throughout the dispute resolution process, talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied before moving on to the next forum. Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it. This will make people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. In contrast, sustained discussion and serious negotiation between the parties, even if not immediately successful, shows that you are interested in finding a solution that fits within Wikipedia policies.
Here, I am saying that the evidence of liberal dominance in political science, a subjective field, validates using pundits and minority scholars as long as they are labeled as such. I am saying that Fascism should be labeled as arguably right-wing bc of the huge disagreements between certain scholars, the majority of right-wing pundits, and even non-right-wing pundits such as libertarians. Is that specific enough? Since no one has given a rebuttal to this, I will edit the article then. EDIT: Use of bias sources are aloud as long as they don't compromise the neutraility of the article. Wikipedia articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources; Since the majority of republicans don't consider fascism right-wing, this is a signicant minority. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view. So yes, me editing the article as "arguably right-wing groups such as Fasicm and Nazism" DON'T violate wikipedia policy. --Jtd00123 (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I also found out recently that your WP:Policies, which I haven't even violated anyway, have nothing to do with admin intervention. Also, you have been dishonest in your interpretion of wiki:policies, since everything you posted apply to articles, not talk pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered standards that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision is consistent with the underlying policies. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies. As you can see, if you look at the link, the Wiki:NPOV, and others you pointed out, applies to articles only. For example, I am completely within my right to type what I want in the discussion page as long as it doesn't violate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism , and I have violated none of these. I understand that WP:Policies are still revered, and will still keep in line with them, but I will not stand for your belligerent attempt to censor me. --Jtd00123 (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

--Jtd00123 (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Last edit on this page: I have decided that this discussion is going nowhere and that maybe I have been guilty of overloading text. I will not edit this discussion or the article for another month to keep the discussion page clean and not inflate this anymore then it already has. If you have any responses just send it to my talk page, I won't respond on this page. --Jtd00123 (talk) 09:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article too short

This article needs some expand and more detail like the Left wing politics article. I propose sections like: "The Right and Social Darwinism" "The Right and Classical liberalism" "The Right and Religion" and "The Right and Patriotism". We could add more on relationships with the military, class and race.

We also need a "See also" section listing right-wing ideologies, issues as well as related political topics. 69.29.254.57 (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)