Talk:Centre-right politics

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Centre-right politics article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 years

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 November 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Centre-right politics has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 20, 2025. (Reviewed version).

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Top‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wording of the lead

Johnymin, I've challenged your edit to the lead. Could you justify why this wording is a better summary of the article's body if you're going to reinstate it? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it’s obvious, centre right parties haven’t opposed immigration in comparison to social democrats, and a lot of centre left politicians opposed lgbt rights historic ally, and it’s not said in the wiki of centre left. It’s a centerleft’s bias against the others, it’s and oversimplified phrase. For example the German liberal party is centre right and it wasn’t anti lgbt, while a faction of social democrats were social conservatives. Johnymin (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historically* sorry for some mistakes, I’m argentinian Johnymin (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the “center left” peronists in the 90s like Cristina Kirchner were not more pro gay than Marci. She was homophobe but didn’t say it. Johnymin (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well Argentina is complex because you can read that until the 90s or the ne Millenium, the UCR was like the center left, and the Justicialista Party was like the center right. Johnymin (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read or notice, I’m confused. Johnymin (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The apostrophe and s for center left isn’t needed? Johnymin (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macri* Johnymin (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, UK and New Zealand there are conservatives in the Labour Party, they are still center left. Some democratic politicians in USA opposed fiercely lgbt rights, and it isn’t in the wiki of center left. Johnymin (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is all your own analysis, which shouldn't be a factor in what goes in the article. There are sources in the article confirming the things that you removed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What sources, thre is not a link in that paragraph, is only information without external links. Johnymin (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph about LGBT people is supported by Magni & Reynolds (2023). Pardos-Prado (2015), Taflaga (2023), and Bale (2008) are all cited in the paragraph about immigration and multiculturalism. These are then summarized in the lead, as required by the Manual of Style page for the lead section. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are biased, a lot of leftwinhers were or are homophobes and it is not included in thw wikis of left wing politics and center lefr politics. The causes have no ideology. Stop thinking lgbt is a left-right fight. It is a cause of all Johnymin (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the wikis* Johnymin (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I respect ypur views, understand that lgbt rights is not a cause of the left, anti rights activists are on both the left and the right Johnymin (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence that says that has no number link, hasn't a redirection or a quote, and probably are partially fake to show right wingers as all homophobes when it isn't true Johnymin (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leftwingers* Johnymin (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't opinion, you are biased and only beimg your views, acepting that those authors were probably influenced by their political views is not wrong Johnymin (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bimg* Johnymin (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing* Johnymin (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit your comments, rather than posting a further comment with a correction. CoconutOctopus talk 11:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela

The antichavista coalition is left wing to centre right, is highly big tent, and they didn't regain power, they only have won a legislative election, annulled later by Maduro regime. The coalition is mainly liberal, centrist, you can't lie with the humanitarian crisis of the country. Acción democratica and Voluntad Popular are center lfert amd part of this coalition. No way it is center right, it is antichavista. Johnymin (talk) 05:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This review is transcluded from Talk:Centre-right politics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 10:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 14:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this shortly, politics isn't my usual area of interest so forgive me for any gaps in knowledge here. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 14:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Some minor tweaks to prose have been suggested below. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Prose is clear and understandable to even a politically naive person such as myself. Kudos to the nominator for their prose skills as I envy their ability to write such well put together sentences. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Article complies with the necessary components of the MOS. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	reflist exists. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Because so many sources were used and some weren't open access I focused on the sources I could access without TWL as I was feeling too lazy to open it. I tried to take a look at the sfns from several sections. I found no issues with the sources. I spotchecked the following: [1] [2] [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Everything was put into the authors own words. I have no concerns about plagiarism here. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There are some suggestions below where I feel additional detail could be helpful. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Anywhere where I felt like there could be more information there were no sources to add such information. I feel that this article goes into an appropriate amount of detail. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No unnecessary detail. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No obvious issues here. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are properly tagged (there's even a FP in there). IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All pictures seem relevant and are appropriately captioned. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold until Thebiguglyalien addresses my feedback. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] This article meets all GA criteria as outlined above. All of my feedback has been addressed. Great work! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For criterion 1, 3, and 4 I usually read through the article carefully and provide feedback as I read. This often looks like me suggesting things be reworded, me asking for further explanation etc. Oftentimes I will ask questions about the article that comes from a place of not being educated in the topic. Sometimes these questions don't have answers or don't result in any changes needing to be made. I ask these questions so I can better understand the topic and thus better provide feedback. Throughout this process I often make small changes to grammar or punctionation. I try to make these changes by section and if you disagree with any changes I make feel free to revert them! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ideologies

As someone not familiar with politics/economics Christian democrats are more open to state intervention than conservatives is a bit unclear to me. I'm assuming you mean things like welfare or social programs? I tries to find an appropriate wikilink and found Interventionism (politics) and Market intervention but I'm not sure if those are appropriate here. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "market intervention" and wikilinked. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm unfamiliar with this subject, but could you further explain Political scientists disagree as to whether post-war Christian democracy is continuous with that of the 19th century,[12] and Christian democracy is sometimes regarded separately from the typical right-wing voter bloc as I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say here. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I reworded the first half of the sentence to be clearer. The second half is what the source says, but I don't really know what it's trying to say, so I've removed it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know countries don't need to be wikilinked but what about "Anglosphere"? (bit of a nitpick, feel free to ignore as you did explain what the term meant) IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Positions

though centre-right parties that have less appeal among working class voters have less incentive to dedicate themselves to these positions. Could you reword this a bit? It's a little unclear what you are trying to say here. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is optional and a bit more of a nitpick so feel free to ignore but Centre-right parties support environmental preservation, though they are often seen as less interested in the subject than left-wing parties. The centre-right rejects concepts of climate grief or catastrophism, arguing that they can reduce interest in solving environmental issues. is a bit short for a stand-alone paragraph. I was wondering if there is more information about how the centre-right beliefs around environmental issues intersect with their beliefs regarding economics. Oftentimes when environmental issues are brought up there are conversations about what is more cost-effective or aligns more with parties' economic beliefs as well. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- These were the only sources I was able to find specifically about the centre-right. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History

The European centre-right declined between 1931 and 1935 as the Great Depression set in. do sources suggest reasons as to why the Great Depression caused this decline? IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Checked the cited source, it only says "economic conditions". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  All of your replies look good. Thanks for explaining those things and the changes you made. I'll update my review shortly! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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