Talk:Right-wing politics/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

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)

---

Let's face it, Left Wing is what the left wants to define it as and Right Wing is what the left wants to define it as. Traditional values, liberty, and democracy when put together are considered right wing and so is Nationalist Socialist Dictatorship, go figure. Hitler considered himself a socialist before and during his Nazi rule. NAZI stands for national socialist. Mussolini was a Nietzschean pseudo-Marxist, a member of the socialist party, before he even came to power. It was the left who defined them as right wing as far as I can tell. It was Orwell who said that to control the lexicon is to control the society. It is the left who advances political correctness and defines terms such as left wing and right wing.

76.215.47.190 (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

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 (www.hitler.org/writings/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)

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)

INCLUSION OF FASCISM AS RIGHT WING This is a false distinction. Volk does not really translate as Nation. Volk would either translate as the people or the folk. Volk would be much older than nation At any rate, someone has already made the argument better than I. As Friedrich Hayek pointed out many years ago:

Long before the Nazis, too, the German and Italian socialists were using techniques of which the Nazis and Fascists later made effective use. The idea of a political party which embraces all activities of the individual from the cradle to the grave, which claims to guide his views on everything, was first put into practice by the socialists. It was not the Fascists but the socialists who began to collect children at the tenderest age into political organizations to direct their thinking. It was not the Fascists but the socialists who first thought of organizing sports and games, football and hiking, in party clubs where the members would not be infected by other views. It was the socialists who first insisted that the party member should distinguish himself from others by the modes of greeting and the forms of address. It was they who, by their organization of "cells" and devices for the permanent supervision of private life, created the prototype of the totalitarian party. By the time Hitler came to power, liberalism was dead in Germany. And it was socialism that had killed it. The Road to Serfdom background to danger (http://jim.com/hayek.htm) Spiker_22 Spiker 22 (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

There a quite a few people out there who will describe Fox news as right wing and no doubt a few documentaries singing the same song. There is SOME truth to this. it is a tribute to Rupert Murdoch that he recognized there was a significant market that was unrepresented in the news buisness and that many people who were disatisfied with news were looking for something else. Fox news represents these "voices" for lack of a better term. in this context there is a balance to a widely perceived left wing media. Of course, if Fox's purpose is to play the role of alternative media, that might explain why "...their priorities are set before even emitting any news..."

Personally I always found it laughable when American journalists use the phrase "The Americans" as if they themselves are not Americans.

This is done in the interest of being neutral or unbiased. It seems the effect here is that the individual journalist simply creates the impression-better yet the self deception- of being objective which requires him to pretend to be something other than what he really is. In this case an American. Differences over small issues of this sort are reflected in the controversies over Fox. Journalists wearing an American flag lapel pin, for, example may be considered a bad idea by some journalists. Still others may feel displaying pride in their nation does not affect their ability to be report accurately. yet this is precisely the kind of question left closed by the modern vulgarity that passes itself off as wisdom; The idea that people are incable of rising above someone elses ill conceived idea of what their interests are. Thus A guy who owns a media outlet must neccessarily be dictating his own bias. It would never occur to such connesouires of pop logic that an owners interests may lie in getting accurate information. Admittedly, he may confuse his bias with accurate news and yet this is precisley the question. Once again a question that is not even raised by such FAUX critics who confuse personal edification with insight. Indeed, such "critics" dare not raise such questions,lest like the lid of Pandora's box, they release destruction across their worlds. The idea that one media owner may confuse his bias with

accurate reporting and that another may not could never cross the consciousness of such critics without doing irreperable damage to
their overinflated self importance.

The idea that one can talk seriously about Walter Cronkite as some kind of standard bearer is laughable. Granted polls made him "The most trusted man in America" Ineed was it accidental that Cronkite wanted our troops out of vietnam and made the announcement after The Tet Offensive That the war was unwinable?. After all, Cronkite had certainly never been in a war and much less been responsible for winning one. Considering that the TeT offensive turned out to be disastorous for the North, what basis did Cronkite have for making such an assesment other than his antiwar opinion? Spiker 22 (talk) 07:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Spiker_22

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?

The perpatrators of the Iraq War are neo-cons which are former leftists like Irving Crystal formerly of the Left. They came into the anti-war right, in the tradition of Taft, to infiltrate and turn the right towards the left's propensity to war (FDR, Truman, Byrd). The left: Stalin, Hitler, FDR, Truman, Lincoln always started the war. The Republican and Democrat Parties have both evolved back and forth from left to right. The parties have not been static on the Left - Right Line. People who think the parties have been static on the left-right line get the whole left being collectivist and Right being individualist wrong and thats wher the confusion comes in. True rightwing is libertarian/anarcistic and therefore believes in no coersion of one human being on another, and therefore there are no violent millitant right wing groups. Collectivists (modern Left) believe that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, therefore the group can coerce or kill those that won't do what is good for the whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdhunt (talk • contribs) 04:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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.

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.

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.

Facism is Leftwing (by the modern meaning of Left/Right terms), not right wing. Orginally, in the French Parliment Left was individualist/anti-authorian/believers in limited government (to rid society of ills) and Right was collectivist/authoritarian/believers in strong government.

In modern times, there came to be idealists who believed collectivist/authoritarian/believers in the power of the state would rid society of ills and bring liberty to all collectively. They (collectivists) then usurped the word 'Liberal' that was tied to the classic left wing label of the individualist/anti-authorian/believers in limited government, because they believed that the collectivist/authoritarian/strong government was the best way to liberate society of all ills, as long as the state was in the right hands.

At this point, the individualist/anti-authorian/believers in limited government became the Right and the collectivist/authoritarian/believers in strong government became the Left. Well, Facism beliefs in the power of the state/collectivism to be the proper tool to run society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdhunt (talk • contribs) 05:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

But Facism, Communism are Totalitarian and are Leftwing (by the modern meaning of Left/Right terms), not right wing. And Anarchism (in modern terminolgy) is right wing.

Orginally, in the French Parliment Left was individualist/anti-authorian/believers in limited government (to rid society of ills) and Right was collectivist/authoritarian/believers in strong government.

In modern times, there came to be idealists who believed collectivist/authoritarian/believers in the power of the state would rid society of ills and bring liberty to all collectively. They (collectivists) then usurped the word 'Liberal' that was tied to the classic left wing label of the individualist/anti-authorian/believers in limited government, because they believed that the collectivist/authoritarian/strong government was the best way to liberate society of all ills, as long as the state was in the right hands.

At this point, the individualist/anti-authorian/believers in limited government became the Right and the collectivist/authoritarian/believers in strong government became the Left. Well, Facism beliefs in the power of the state/collectivism to be the proper tool to run society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdhunt (talk • contribs) 05:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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:

• Traditionalism (somewhat redundant to Traditionalism)
• Corporatism (obscure, and not necessarily right-wing)

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

The Modern Leftwing is for collectivism and the state controling everything, rather a corporateless state (Communism, Socialism, Dictatorships) or a corporate driven state (Corporatism, Facism, Dictatorships). The Modern Right is for individualist limited or no state controling anything reguardless of rather it is corporate oriented or not. Free speech, Sexual choice, intoxicant choice, Personal rights (right to life, liberty and pursuit to happiness), financial self determination, right not to have the government steal your money through income taxation, privacy freedom from the state, right to own weapons to protect yourself and the list goes on are in the modern right wing category.

A human, born or unborn, has the right to all these things. True rightwing or libertarianism stands for the rights of all humans, born or unborn, and believes that no other human or government has the right to coerce, threaten, kill, steal or take away any of these natural rights. That all human beings, born or unborn are soverign beings. And that the government's only function is to protect these natural rights belonging to all people reguardless of being born or unborn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdhunt (talk • contribs) 05:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.wiki.x.io/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)

Never has a libertarian (modernly considered rightwing) ever killed or had an army to force others to obey them. It is the anti-tithisis of Libertarian ideology. Only the leftists leaders and groups Mao, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, Hitler, and (monarchies by modern definitions of of the left as those who advocate the state as the answer) have used force or military to force others to do the will of the state to the common good of all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdhunt (talk • contribs) 05:33, 15 October 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.wiki.x.io/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.wiki.x.io/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.wiki.x.io/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.wiki.x.io/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)

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)

Perhaps but removed as there is a lot of material in other articles and some specific action rather than a lame general tag is in order. Since my personal compass would be far left, I have no interest in doing so, but suggest you propose and/or simply create a structure to accomodate your desired structure then fill it with content and/or references to other right/left, right, or conservative material. Moved the renewed tag to an added § filling which would be one way to accomplish this. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

REACTIONISM

I have removed the reference to reactionism in the first paragraph. This term is clearly used as nothing more than an insult. No one considers him or herself part of Reactionism; further, it is just as easy to have a left-wing knee-jerk reaction as a right-wing knee-jerk reaction (or even a centrist knee-jerk reaction!). Please end the reversion war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.146.119 (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree.Valois bourbon (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Serious problems in the article

The lead section completely ignores the diversity of right-wing associations. The article is also more or less U.S.-centric.

• "positions that seek to uphold or return to traditional authorities and/or the liberties" This is true only in some societies. For instance, in Sweden the right-wing is associated with modern change and the left-wing with traditional authorities.
• "Its concern is often to preserve the domestic culture usually in the face of external forces for change." This is not true. For instance, in countries like China or even France the left-wing is fighting against foreign cultural influences (notably Western) whereas the right-wing of these countries generally supports cultural openness.
• There are many other problems.

Could I make a proposal?

A proposal

In politics, right-wing, the political right, and the Right are positions that vary according to the time, location, and speaker. Originally, the term referred to seating tradition in the 18th century French parliament.

Sometimes the right-wing is associated with civil liberties and sometimes with traditional authorities. The right was generally opposed to socialism in the 20th century. Sometimes the right is associated with minimal government and sometimes with law and order. It tends to support individual-centric human rights, free markets, and property rights. It tends to emphasize equality of opportunities whereas the left tends to emphasize equality of outcomes. The right generally regards most social inequality as the result of ineradicable natural inequalities, such as hard work and education, and sees attempts to enforce social equality as utopian or authoritarian.

Throughout history, various ideologies have been associated with the right. For instance, Conservatism, Objectivism, Classical liberalism, Minarchism, Libertarian progressivism Laissez-faire Capitalism, Right-Libertarianism, Traditionalism, Monarchism, Aristocracy, Nationalism and Anti-nationalism (especially free trade). Sometimes these are highly controversial. For instance, some associate National socialism or Fascism with the right-wing, whereas others note their similarities with socialism and associate them with left-wing socialism. It should be noted that groups that associate themselves as right-wing can oppose each other's positions. For instance, the United Kingdom's Conservative Party, Denmark's Venstre, Japan's Liberal Democratic Party, and Taiwan's Kuomintang are all major right-wing parties with varying positions.

Valois bourbon (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Fascism and Nazism are pejorative terms that offend

Reasons for and against, placing these ideological terms on both the political left and right wings have been made. One point that we can agree on is simply that these terms offend and insult, and when assigned to the left or right political wings does not enlighten the reader; rather they show the bias of the author making the assignment. A more enlightened discussion would admit this fact.

Perhaps a simple link on any wiki that contains these terms and on the left and right wing wikis to a third entry that concisely describes the arguments from both sides, would best serve the reader.

—Preceding Edmund comment added by 76.196.238.86 (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The article states that facism has elements both from the left-wing and the right-wing, so the debate should not be put in the lead section.Valois bourbon (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The keywords here are "to some extant" fascism has both left and right elements but it drifts mostly to the right and this is properly sourced. Also Communism and Marxism have become pejorative but we can put then on left wing. 69.179.56.211 (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Drifts mostly to the right... according to whom? If fascism is inserted here, it should be added to the left-wing lead too, because so many authors argue it drifts to the left. It's too controversial to be inserted to either one.Valois bourbon (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

According to whom? Didn't you see the cites? And "so many authors argue it drifts to the left", maybe author but not too many scholars. Bobisbob2 (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The original founders of Fascism in Italy were made up of people who were previously socialists, syndicalists, military men and anarchists but had become angered at the international left's opposition to patriotism and decided to form a new movement; Benito Mussolini, Michele Bianchi and Dino Grandi were all previously socialists. The two biggest difference between the movements, is that fascism rejects the idea of class war in favor of class collaboration, while also rejecting socialist internationalism in favor of statist nationalism.

Bertrand Russell wrote: "Fascism is not an ordered set of beliefs....there is no philosophy of fascism, but only a psycho-analysis." George Orwell, has called "fascism" nothing more than an insult that various groups use against their political opponents.

The place of fascism in the political spectrum remains highly debated. In practice, fascism opposed communism and classic liberalism but also laissez faire capitalism and forms of socialism and conservatism. Many scholars accept fascism as a search for a Third Way among these fields. Sir Oswald Mosley leader of the British Union of Fascists for example, chose to self-describe his position as "hard centre" on the political spectrum. Scholar A. James Gregor asserts that the most "uninspired effort to understand fascism" is to simply place it on the right-wing, or the radical right as the common tendency was in the Anglosphere during the post-war period.

Valois bourbon (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That only says that the were former leftists and they drift away from them. Bobisbob2 (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

They're both consider right wing ideologies, under both definitions of the Right Left Spectrum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.171.61 (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Foreign Policy Positions- UK

"In the United Kingdom, the Conservative Party has criticized the Labour Party for waging Iraq war." This isn't true; the Conservative Party fully supported the Iraq war. The citation even links to a BBC article that says "the Tories do not believe invading Iraq was a mistake"

On a wider note, shouldn't the Conservatives' general approach to foreign policy be described in this section, rather than simply listing 3 random policies? Brokenicicle (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Economic freedom?

The fairly recent addition of the "economic freedom" section, with the opening sentence "Economic freedom is a central right-wing idea." is very problematic. Economic freedom is an important strand, certainly, of certain segments of the right, like the Rothbardians and other libertarians, but is not as central amongst other sectors. This is another aspect of the attempt by Valois bourbon to rewrite this article to represent his version of what the right-wing stands for, by removing all instances of right-wing authoritarianism, like Fascism and Nazism. This cannot stand. The article has to be balanced. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The most universal difference between the left and the right is that the right leans to economic freedom whereas the left leans to economic intervention. You seem to be American and obviously leftist. United States is exceptional in this matter: American left generally supports economic freedom, some might say that even more than American right. Outside North America, the polarization is generally very clear.Valois bourbon (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You do not know what my politics are and I would thank you not to speculate as the question is moot. There are sectors of both right and left that support economic freedom, just as there are segments of right and left which favor all manor of government intervention in the economy. The matter is not cut-and-dry. The article should represent all aspects of right-wing thought, both that of a libertarian bent and of an authoritarian bent. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The left, "by definition", seeks to intervene in economic freedom to remove perceived injustices. See references.Valois bourbon (talk) 05:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone obviously American editor pushed US-centric views. For instance, death penalty? Non-U.S. right-wing opposes it and most capital punishments are done by left-wing governments, China and Zimbabwe topping the numbers. Could we add a warning that this is not about American politics? Valois bourbon (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

POV Barely any mention of the social right, P.S. social right is NOT just an American point of view

The social right-wing is barely mentioned in this article. When I attempted to add information on it, it was completely removed on the basis that it was American-biased. The social right-wing in multiple countries advocates stricter sentences for criminals; opposes abortion and birth control; the extension of rights to homosexuals; opposes government intervention to promote cultural pluralism, multiculturalism, and affirmative action; and demand stronger guidelines for immigration. This is NOT just in the U.S. In Europe, there are many socially right-wing and far-right political parties that advocate these beliefs. For instance in Portugal, the social right has pushed for and achieved a ban on abortion, in Germany, France, Italy, and other European countries there is hostility to increasing immigration and multiculturalism from the social right, especially the social far-right. Abortion and birth control is opposed by many traditionalist and social right-wing political movements across the world, i.e. traditionalist religious and social conservative political forces in Islamic countries see abortion as a sin and oppose extending marriage rights to homosexuals. Social conservative political movements in Catholic countries across the world oppose abortion, are hostile to birth control, and oppose extending marriage rights to homosexuals. The social right-wing across the world typically criticize the social libertarian left of being lenient on criminal sentences.--R-41 (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Just insert social opinions in the correct country section. There's is no universal "social right" or "social left". They vary by country.Valois bourbon (talk) 04:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes there isn't a completely universal social right just as there isn't a completely universal social left, but there are widespread common beliefs, which include opposition to abortion and hostility to birth control amongst the social right in most of the world, especially in areas of the world with large Christian, Jewish, and Muslim religious communities. The social right opposes government intervention in regard to cultural pluralism, multiculturalism, and affirmative action, for instance, in Iran, the religious right demands assimilation of people into Islamic society, the social far-right white minority political movements in South Africa demand the complete abandonment of multiculturalism, both the moderate social right and far social right in France, Germany, the United States and other countries are hostile to abortion, birth control, and multiculturalism. Part of the controversy in solving the AIDS crisis in Africa has revolved around social conservative religious figures in Africa opposing birth control. So there IS a general worldwide phenomenon of the social right which is in multiple continents and across multiple cultures. I am certain that one could find sources for the social right advocating stricter sentences for crimes in opposition to the libertarian faction of the social left which supports rehabilitation over retributive justice. Of course there are individual differences and variations, but there IS a widespread social right phenomenon with similar beliefs.--R-41 (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Slander edits

Bobisbob2, you have repeatedly engaged in following:

• Pushing Hitler images serving only pejorative causes. Nazis self-identified as centrists or socialists; scholars debate whether they are left-wing, center, right-wing, or something else; they are certainly marginal if existing at all.
• Replacing McCain/Palin image - a reasonably good shot at the American right, George W. Bush image would be too - with an image of some obscure non-politician who serves your causes.
• Pushing "authoritarian right-wing" section. No one identifies as such. That marginal movement's details do not belong to a general article like this. Where are all those people? Insert in the correct country section.
• Pushing opinions that are completely out of touch with the global right. This has been discussed before.

I wish we can act in encyclopedic fashion and please remember that this article is not about the United States.Valois bourbon (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The picture fits in with within the context of the text that talks about fascism and the "right-wing authoritarianism" section is well cited and not "marginal". Plus the radical social right has simliar goals in both Ameica and the rest of the world as R-41 pointed out. It is you who are pushing a POV by trying to make the the right sound more liberatarian and trying to downplay any of it's less flattering side. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe it was you who put the section on personality cults and radicalism in the left wing article yet any mention of the darkside of the right is considered "slanderous". Both R-41 and RepublicanJacobite have called you out on his. Bobisbob2 (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Help improve other articles if you feel they should be improved, don't try make this article worse. It is difficult to see how inserting images of self-categorized and scholar-categorized centrist/socialist or pushing images of non-affiliated religious men "fits the context". I repeat, where are these "populists", "authoritarians", and whatever terms you have? Once you can tell where people describe themselves with X concept or support Y position, go ahead and insert it in the correct country section (remember to mention which political party).

For example, it would be a nice contribution if you inserted information about American right-wing (possibly not uniform) opinions on death penalty to the United States section, but don't replace the introduction with latest American notions and battles. Valois bourbon (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

An appropriate suggestion, Valois bourbon. --Abd (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please focus on the article text and not on editor behavior. Please be specific about alleged slant, and fix it specifically. "It was you who...." is ad hominem argument. It's irrelevant to the article who put content in originally. However, in the other direction, we find NPOV by considering and, where possible, including, the entire range of opinion, so "pushing opinions" is welcome, if it is done in Talk and civilly. Please seek consensus in actual edits to the article, and please do not make massive changes without discussion. The purpose of this article is to inform readers about "right wing politics," not to promote it or defame it, and we should move in the direction of requiring sourcing, in the place of ad hoc original research and analysis by us as editors. --Abd (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"Right-wing social policy is typically aligned either on individual issues or as a whole with social conservatism; as it rejects common left-wing social values, and opposes abortion and birth control; opposes extending rights for homosexuals such as the issue of same-sex marriage; supports the use of death penality in justice systems and stricter sentences for serious crimes; and opposes state-endorsed or imposed affirmative action, cultural pluralism and/or multiculturalism. The authoritarian and libertarian right differ on issues concerning social policies, the libertarian right advocates minimal government intervention in people's social lives by the government, while the authoritarian right advocates strong government intervention in people's social lives to promote right-wing social values."

Not a single reference, let alone literature review needed for such extreme statement. No responses to questions which parties outside United States have such a platform.

Please someone restore the version which made the correct statement that "cultural positions vary".Valois bourbon (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at that. Got a source for it? Meanwhile, the paragraph quoted above is from the introduction. As such, it should be a summary of what is in the rest of the article, which is where sources would be placed. The introduction should not, generally, give analysis not supported by the rest of the article. Got any suggestion for an introduction that is clearly based on the article text? --Abd (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

From the introduction: "In politics, right-wing, the political right, and the Right are positions that vary according the place, time and the speaker." That seems to have what Valois bourbon suggested. But perhaps this editor is referring to something in the text that discussed that. Help us out.... cite a diff or quote the exact text. --Abd (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Valois bourbon's narrow standards for what to put and were to put it makes editing this article unpleasent.

The section on Right wing populism described the movement in both America and Europe. Yet he loops it into the section on the US.

"Right-wing authoritarian" is not an American concept as can be seen here. It is a conspect accepted by pychologists in Europe too. Once again it is lumped into the US section.

A article on right-wing politics would not be complete without talk about the dictatorship side of the right. Despite being sourced the secion on dictatorships was removed. Thoses reigmes are important to be mentioned here. The Saudi monarchy is a good example of he religous conservatism that has taken hold in the Middle East.

In addition this article is in bad shape. It's mosty just a list of what certain parties in certian countries stand for. With many subsections being brief. Bobisbob2 (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't told which political party self-identifies as "authoritarian". May I conclude you are not going to reveal it?

You cite "scientific" studies based on surveying 16 American midwestern undergraduates. And you don't even cite them correctly: the Swedish study did not claim that there existed some magic right-wing authoritarian group, they just gave a survey to some psychology undergraduates and calculated whether results had a correlation with sexism.

Since when King Abdullah has been right-wing? Middle Eastern politics is uniformly left-wing (Syria, etc.) or non-affiliated, advocating government control of economic and social affairs, except in Israel.Valois bourbon (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Now everybody calm down here. I agree with elements of Bobisbob2's beliefs and Valois bourbon. Bobisbob2 is correct that the social right is an international phenomenon. Valois bourbon is correct to point out that the social right does not have universal beliefs and is correct to point out that fascism is debated whether as a whole it is a right-wing, centrist, or left-wing movement. The social right as a whole across many continents and amongst a majority of those in the social right in Christian, Jewish, and Muslim religious communities all have similar beliefs on abortion, birth control, and generally support retributive justice for serious crimes. Personally, I think that fascism on the social scale is right-wing while on the economic scale, its policies range from centrist to left-leaning.--R-41 (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"Social right" and "social left" are not meaningful even on national scale (parties' opinions vary from one extreme to another), let alone on global scale.

In Europe, "social left" is often associated with protecting traditional values. For instance, the French left defends banning English in television programs and protecting people from other such perils of capitalism and foreign cultures.

Social left in many countries has opinions such as anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality. Just look at countries which have the most restrictive abortion laws, they are left-wing countries. On the other hand, countries with the most laissez-faire laws tend to be right-wing.

In Zimbabwe, social left means shooting "homosexuals" and social right is means Western-style civil liberties. In China, social right means modernization and social left means returning back to the Maoist-style state-controlled lives.Valois bourbon (talk) 07:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You put in the part about the social right in the lede. Can you cite them? Bobisbob2 (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has dozens or hundreds of right-wing articles. You can add link to them ("see also" section), but this article simply has not space for 16 person college student surveys, every pejorative term used by the left, and lists of every dictator (King Abdullah? Did you even bother to look at the article?) imaginable by editors. Couldn't you help expanding country subsections so we can actually make this article better? Valois bourbon (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You have no right to complain, you put (or at least allowed) all the parts about totalitarian control, personality cults and radicalism on the left-wing article. Yeah you think it's pejorative to put anything about authoritarianism on the right. You can put all you want about the libertarianism of the right, fine but stop try to censor any negatives just becauses they offend you. Bobisbob2 (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If some party has an "authoritarian" agenda, insert it in the article. Don't insert surveys of 16 American midwestern psychology students and frame them as representative of six billion people when the sample group is barely enough for a campus population. And populism has nothing to do with right-wing, it's a political style not an ideology.Valois bourbon (talk) 08:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And no, the social left in Europe is not associated with traditional values. The French Socialist Party and German Social Democratic party, for example, support same-sex marriage and are progressive. Also Europe is in general more left-leaning and socialist than the US and is more tolerant of homosexaulity and depictions of sexuality in general. And in the case of Zimbabwe and China you're confusing social and economic left. Also if "social left" and "social right" vary by nation, then why haven't you organized the left wing article (which you expanded and are overseeing) like this one? Bobisbob2 (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have problems with other articles, improve them. Don't make this worse. European right-wing supports same-sex marriage as well. Otherwise there would not be same-sex marriage, because right-wing majorities rule most of Europe. Again, you are talking about American political constructions, there is no universal social left or social right, the only difference between the right and the left is economics.Valois bourbon (talk) 08:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Valois bourbon seems to assume that the description of the social right is ignoring the actions of the authoritarian left. By all means the authoritarian left has not always associated with the traditional social left, and in the case of the People's Republic of China, it does not follow traditional social left views and nor does it follow traditional communist doctrine in economics. Zimbabwe is a mystery for me, Mugabe is a despot who is homophobic and racist, which is not endorsed by the traditional social left which promotes equality of people. The same is the case for Stalin. But the social right in multiple countries and cultures endorses endorse the general view of: opposition to abortion, hostility to birth control & advocacy of abstinance, opposition to the extention of marriage rights to homosexuals, promotion of traditional cultural values, and demand for stricter sentences for crimes based on retributive justice. This is not to say that the authoritarian right does not promote any of these, but this is what the social right as a whole typically advocates. These values are present in multiple cultures across the world as I have explained earlier, so this is not American or western-oriented, but is a widespread international phenomenon in politics. Here, look at this link [2], this shows the debate on abortion in India and the social right pro-life politics on the abortion debate there , here's a social right pro-life site that shows Japan's pro-life organizations[3], here's a social right pro-life site that shows the pro-life movement in Nigeria [4], abortion is opposed in Islamic societies[5] and such opposition is extended by religious-oriented social conservative political movements in Islamic societies. Homosexual rights has been a controversial issue in Japan, the ruling party, the Liberal Democrats, support homosexual rights and Japan has had a long history of allowing rights for homosexuals, however there have been opponents, such as in the capital of Tokyo which resisted extending rights to homosexuals.[6], India has movements that oppose same-sex marriage, especially including social conservative Sikh politicians,[7] Social conservative and social right movements exist throughout Christian, Jewish,[8] and Muslim[9] areas of the world that oppose same-sex marriage and there is debate in Buddhist areas of the world about whether Buddhism permits or forbids same-sex marriage.[10]. While it may not be useful to point out all the examples in the article, this does indicate a social right phenomenon across the world.--R-41 (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Traditional left" is anti-capitalist and there is no unifying social pattern. Look at Asian right-wing countries: Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. The left has practically never won elections in these countries. Still, these countries have probably the most relaxed laws in Asia.

On the other hand, look at left-wing Asian countries: China, Laos, Turkmenistan, etc. It happens that these countries have the most repressive laws in Asia.

The only difference between the left and the right on global scale is economics.Valois bourbon (talk) 08:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this artice needs reorganizing and some rewrite. The "foreign polices" section simply contains brief statements on what a certain party supports. It doesn't add much educational value. Why not just bulkize it and outline the foreign polices common to right wing politics in different countries. Also in the "domestic polices" section the economics of the different parties are pretty simliar so why not just made one big section on free market polices of the right. I think modeling this article after it's counterpart would be best. But I can't do it if no one esle jumps aboard. You can check my suggestions in the to-do list. Bobisbob2 (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There are no common policies so country briefs are the best way to go. The left-wing article should have similar structure.Valois bourbon (talk) 08:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You keep repeating that talking point, but R-41 is showing you otherwise. Also, no one is saying that left-wingers can't be authoritarianism or repressive. Look at Saddam, he had Western-style laws allowing woman more freedom than in other Muslim countries and yet he oppressed any opposition and was extremely totalitarian. Bobisbob2 (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What is your point? What the right in Sweden, Japan and Botswana share with each other in respect to foreign policy? Nothing. On global scale, the right-left difference is right-wing free market vs. left-wing intervention.Valois bourbon (talk) 10:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No, not all right-wing movement support free markets.

I agree with Bobisbob, I am not insinuating that left-wing movements do not support these issues, but I am trying to say that there are widespread beliefs of the social right across the world in many cultures and societies. Valois bourbon seems to think that this is an attack on the right, that I am accusing it of authoritarianism while ignoring authoritarianism on the left. First of all I think that the social right's positions are not always "authoritarian" or "repressive" as laws implemented by anyone on anyside of the political spectrum could be considered authoritarian for imposing values. Furthermore I do not understand why Valois bourbon is claiming that I am insinuating that the social right is "repressive", that is not what I have been trying to say at all. Valois bourbon is absolutely correct that in the case of authoritarian leftist states have had repression, but outside of these states and authoritarian leftist ideologies, the social left is typically the reverse of the social right, thus there is a spectrum for it.--R-41 (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The left tends to be more authoritarian all over Asia, Africa, and Middle-East. Europe is a mixed bag and Latin America are mixed bags with no clear lines, the left in UK is not socially authoritarian whereas in France or Ukraine it is big on all kinds of social bans. In North America, the situation is reverse, the right is socially more authoritarian, but North America is a tiny fraction of world population.Valois bourbon (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And left-wing authoritarianism is correctly noted in the left wing article. Bobisbob2 (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The left-wing article should have a similar country structure. Left-wing has a different meaning in Angola vs. Germany.Valois bourbon (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

But to list the ideological differences of hundreds of countries is a waste of space. Common values across cultural lines must be found. Left-wing and right-wing are not just political positions, they are different psychological mindsets of politics which have unique characterisics that are prevalent across the world.--R-41 (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Just remember that the only common mindset across borders is free market vs. left-wing anti-capitalism. Occasionally, American editors seem to insert all kinds of other stuff about their country, I wonder if we could put a warning about that in the beginning?Valois bourbon (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

objectivism

is objectivism really on the right? it seems like just more extreme form of libertarianism, which is neither left nor right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.151.135 (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree. For all politically practical purposes, most of the ideals of libertarianism represent the political realization of Objectivist philosophy, though Rand herself disliked libertarians. I'm not gonna muck around with the article, since I don't care enough to check to see if this issue's been hashed out here in the past, but yeah, I just don't see a lot of Objectivism's philosophical conclusions (most particularly the hard atheism and, as a corollary, a lack of intrinsic "God given" attributes and rights) as meshing with either the classical or modern right's belief system. --Hiddekel (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Too focused on recent times, little historical context provided, list of right-wing politics in individual countries is unnecessary and makes article too long

A history should be provided. Furthermore, there is no need to mention multiple present-day examples of right-wing politicians and movements in multiple countries. Historically relevant right-wing politicians should be mentioned, and the large list of present-day right-wing leaders in different countries should be removed, it makes the article too focused on present-day while giving little attention to history.--R-41 (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

History of right could be a separate article. Giving an overview of each country is good because you can't really bundle different movements in different countries.Valois bourbon (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying. I'm glad you argee. I hope you will support the structure I have but for this aricle. Bobisbob2 (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the left-right classification started in France and spread to different countries. Therefore one history is better. Bobisbob2 (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

None is arguing that history should be separate for each country. But today's positions should be separated by country. Otherwise this article would be just about free markets because it's the only common thing across borders. The current version is fine.Valois bourbon (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As R41 and I are showing, social right movements in other countries have simaliarites to the Western ones. Bobisbob2 (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Where and what similarities? Please provide examples of similarities between Japanese LDP, Botswana Democratic Party, Dutch VVD, and Alliance for Sweden. Otherwise it seems you are not acting in good faith with your edits inserting all kinds of pejorative attributes in the article. Valois bourbon (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

They all seem to have simliar economic plans and the Japanese party is relativity moderate. Again we are talking about aspects and ideologies not a list of parties. Things like religious conservatism are pretty universal. Some of course are more extreme than others and some are anti-democratic. That section in particular is talking about the religous species of the right. It does mean that all conservative parties support those aspects. Your questions of "find similarites between party X and party Y" are red herrings. Bobisbob2 (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Are we finally reaching a consensus that the only common aspect is free market?

You keep inserting all kinds of marginal movements. For instance, religious conservatism is a small subgroup of conservatism (look at conservatism article, even there it is not a large section) in a few countries. The left is probably even more religious, considering that Islamic regimes are either non-partisan or left-wing (Pakistan, Syria, and Iran are founded have roots in socialism).

Wrong! They are not Marxist, There was an effort to apply liberation theology/Marxism to Islam in Iran through the MEK, but it had little success. Syria is ruled by the Baath party which promtes non-Marxist socialism and secular Arabism. And left-wing can be religious but it has difference with religious conservatives (liberation theology). (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

They all came to power with left-wing support, are allied with left-wing regimes, they identify as left-wing, and their politics is distinctively left-wing. Arab socialism and Islamic socialism are rooted in Marxism.Valois bourbon (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Iran is run by conservative clergy and a member of a conservative party. Also Pakistan has both socialist and conservative parties. Bobisbob2 (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If you insert, for instance, religion here, we need to put twice as large secular section because most right-wing parties are secular. We also need sections of small government and laissez-faire (right-wing parties lean to them), conservative liberalism and liberal conservativism (large subgroups), objectivism, free trade, democracy (in countries like china or vietnam, supporting democracy is "far right" movement), etc. In which order? There are dozens of things that could be here but they are not because this is a general article. It should focus on common things (free markets) and have short links to all kinds of movements considered right-wing.

Already have that and just because there are rightist democractic movements in China does not mean it is considered "far-right". And any non-religious postition can be considered secular. Bobisbob2 (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Have what? What are you writing?Valois bourbon (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Already in the free market section. Bobisbob2 (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you really want this article to be a merger of 20+ articles? How about sticking to the point, a short "contemporary use" section, and examples of some important countries? Japan and South Korea are "100%" on the right, Europe is right-wing-ruled, Botswana is one of the only right-wing countries in Africa, elsewhere right-wing parties hardly ever win elections. Valois bourbon (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2007

Wrong again, Japan has national healthcare. Europe's culture is overall liberal and left-leaning. Also there are hundreds of parties and countries should we put all of them? Bobisbob2 (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? All right-wing countries have national health care. Actually, most of the world's countries have. Somalia does not have, but then again Somalia is a strongly left-wing country with a socialist dictator until 1990s and a socialist prime minister in recent years.

"Liberal" happens to mean right-wing outside your obvious home country and leftists even use the word "liberal" as a pejorative synonym for "right-wing", so we agree on something. Almost all European countries have right-wing governments. In Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, the left has practically never won elections.

Just the most influential countries, there aren't many of them.Valois bourbon (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Cuba and China have national healthcare are they right-wing? And the LD party in Japan is morderate right and not completely rightist. Bobisbob2 (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Pejorative, America-centric edits

I'm going to ask third-party involvement in improving this article if Bobisbob2 keeps inserting American extremists, non-political people and movements with little or no common with the right-wing, and 82-student-survey pseudoscience as representative of what is generally understood as right-wing outside the U.S., while erasing everything else.

Bobisbob2 has been asked to respond to a number of questions regarding his edits and I'm going to first wait a few days in good faith, hoping he either

1. Responds to questions raised.
2. Stops using this article as a political battleground for American politics. It's so obvious to anyone outside the U.S. Valois bourbon (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I already answered them and explained. RWA is a expected model in Europe to. And the people and movements you refer two ARE political and are revelent to the section. Again two users don't what the old sturcture back. The edits and sources I oput shows it is not US-centric. It seems this conversation is going nowhere. Perhaps then we should just allow other users to take over from here and edit the article. Bobisbob2 (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If you look at their articles, they disagree with your statement. And what comes to RWA, it is a primarily American psychological construct, which has nothing to do with politics, i.e. a Chinese or Indian right-wing activist might not care about abortion because abortion is an issue only for some groups in some Christian countries. But of course, you want to dedicate half of the article to it.Valois bourbon (talk) 08:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Chinese and Indian right-wing activists "couldn't care a rice bowl" on abortion(!!!) That sounds like a very naïve and bigoted statement from Valois bourbon, I hope Valois bourbon apologizes immediately in this section for this very poor choice of words which are very offensive to Chinese and Indian people whom he referred to. Valois bourbon's assertion is inaccurate, this link [11] shows that a number of Hindu Indians perceive abortion as a sin based on Hindu religious texts, though Hinduism itself does not specifically declare opposition to abortion. Bobisbob is engaging in too much edit warring and arguing with Valois bourbon which is not improving the situation. Some of Bobisbob's edits have been very rash and contain poor grammar and spelling which should have been looked over before being presented. Bobisbob and Valois bourbon are engaging in edit warring, if they do not stop, this article will have to be protected from both of them.--R-41 (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Really. Abortion is an issue only in some countries, for some groups. It's commonly debated in American politics, but elsewhere it seems to be secondary issue, if any issue.Valois bourbon (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Valois bourbon, I am more concerned with your rash decision to say that right-wing Chinese and Indians "couldn't care a rice bowl". That appears like a derogatory and offensive remark about Chinese and Indians, I hope you apologize for this poor choice of words immediately. But instead of acknowledging and apologizing, you removed it to pretend you never said it, well here it is on the record when you deleted it [12]. Please admit your mistake and apologize for this offensive remark about Chinese and Indians. You don't have to, but I will be very dissappointed in your integrity on Wikipedia if you do not.--R-41 (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if it offends someone. I deleted it because you asked. To rephrase it, for many people, you could suppose that affording the next rice bowl is more important than some debate about a medical treatment which is often not even available on the countryside let alone affordable. Forgive my English, but I was seeking a good expression to emphasize how little people might be care about it outside the rich world which actually affords it. That's because certain editor wanted to start the article with "church" and "abortion".Valois bourbon (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, but be careful with your choice of words.--R-41 (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure, abortion is actually a very important in India and China in the context of policy making (overpopulation, male-female disparity), but not in the Christian sense.Valois bourbon (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being inaccurate, there is a moral (mostly not Christian) debate in India.

I could not find a source which would discuss whether abortion is part of right-left politics in India, but it seems that the ("left-wing") President Pratibha Patil fights against abortion.Valois bourbon (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

POV editing

In recent weeks Valois bourbon has made extensive POV edits, which are in serious need of both review and possibly restoration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.171.61 (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

History

The treatment of free-market thinking here is misleading. It presents Adam Smith & his 19th-century followers as part of the history of right-wing thought. That's true in a sense, but misleading. Smith was a Whig, not a Tory, & the 19th-century champions of the free market were Radicals like John Bright & Richard Cobden. It was only later that free-marketism became regarded as right-wing. This was just part of a genral trend: as society evolves, things that start off as radical new ideas gradually become accepted, then taken for granted, & eventually obsolete. Sir William Harcourt said in 1886, "We are all socialists now", referring to death duties. Mrs Thatcher used to carry round with her a copy of the Beveridge Report to show people it was more right-wing than she was. Peter jackson (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:SeretseKhama.jpg

The image Image:SeretseKhama.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

POV template

I added a POV template to the top of this article. Some of the material lacks citations, there are weasel words, and POVs. This article needs a lotta work to say the least. --Amwestover (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

right-libertarian pushing in this article.

I changed the lede of this article to describe what it started out as and what it came to compass. Yet certain users keep pushing back the "limited government and free markets" which is a complete generalization and POV. I hope the administrators will give a third opinion on this. Bobisbob2 (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed most of the new lede and replace some of the old wording and reworded the rest. There was a lot of original research in the new lede. Limited government and free markets are essential to the definition of the term and is supported by the article's content so I added it back in. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 23:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

"supported by the article's content" is not a good enough reason. This article needs work and that's why it is labeled. Supporting tradition and cultural identity has been just as imporant if not more imporant to the definition of the term. Again you are pushing a libertarian view of the right-wing. Bobisbob2 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"Supported by the article's content" isn't a good enough reason? That's what the lede is for! Jeez, gimme a break. You're talking about pushing point of view, well look in the mirror. "Supporting tradition and cultural identity" is point of view from the left, particularly from American Democrats, and is completely irrelevant to the definition of right wing politics. By definition, the right wing advocates limited government role and free market; various forms of right wing philosophies, such as conservativism, neoliberalism, and libertarianism ,vary on other aspects such as tradition, identity, and social issues. Your characterization gives way too much weight to conservativism. If this article where a "libertarian view" as you like to put it, then social and individual freedom would be frequently mentioned. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 17:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually right-wing groups themselves have defined themselves as such. And the "Islamic right" is not for limited governments and free market and many conservative movements supported coporatism. My characterization simply states what it originally meant and how broad it has become. Yours simply states it's for "limited goverments and free markets" which has fallen out of favor with the administrators. Please don't continue this edit war. Bobisbob2 (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, only some right-wing groups have characterized themselves as such. There is hardly anything "traditional" about libertarianism for instance. Again, you're continuing to impose an American conservativism lean. The characteristics of one right-wing philosophy do not apply to all. The commonality been them all is less government control and open markets.

In addition, the contribution for the "Islamic right" was completely inappropriate for this article. In actuality they're statist and not right wing at all, so using that as an arguing point is futile -- especially since it's only one example out of dozens to the contrary. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 06:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Historically many right-wing groups have valued tradition around the world. Liberatarianism is not all right-wing {see: Left-libertarianism and libertarian socialism). "Less government control" is a tricky phase, it applies that RW politics can't use government to control other part of people's lves whih is not true. Your statement about the Islamic right is laughable, so right-wingers can't be statist. That shows your bias right there. Bobisbob2 (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Despite not actually providing any proof that ideologies outside of conservativism value tradition, history is irrelevant in characterizing the current right except when explicitly chronicling its history. Otherwise, describing it as a group of political philosophies that seek limited government and free markets is the correct way to identify them. And that is what this article has done, despite some people trying to exert their bias on the lede to say otherwise.

Also, you should probably read more closely articles that you reference when trying to make a point. Libertarianism is right wing, it seeks limited government and free markets. Libertarian socialism is not left wing, in fact some would characterize it as anarchism. The reason it is called libertarian socialism is because it shares goals with socialism (i.e. preserving workers' rights) but not it's methods (rejecting state control and depending on other mechanism such as worker unions); i.e. it's anti-statist which is contrary to socialism's philosophies. As for left-libertarianism, it's called LEFT-libertarianism for a reason: because it's not libertarianism. It shares one of libertarianism's view of personal liberty, yet totally rejects economic liberty by enforcing community property and wealth redistribution. Not surprisingly, criticism of this convoluted philosophy has come from both the right and left.

And speaking of laughable, did you see that entry for the Islamic right -- which doesn't even exist by the way? The only reason I could think of for you believing that a non-existent entity actually exists is because of your biased belief that all things with the descriptor of "conservative" entail right win politics, even when the term is being applied to RELIGION. And yes, by definition right-wingers can't be statist since the two terms are mutually exclusive. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 16:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The links clearly describe them as right-wing as well as conservative. (It you even LOOK in them)? Also anarchists have mostly been on the left not the right and using non-statist means to archive socialism is no less socialist. But whatever your view that right = freedom and left = statist is a minority opinion and has fallen out of favor with the other users. Only VB agrees with your "limited goverment and free markets" defintion. Bobisbob2 (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the links completely fail WP:RS. But instead of checking the source's reliability, you continued to add it since it pushes your erroneous point of view. Not to mention other actual reliable sources contradict the links. Plus, anarchists are on the extreme right, seeing how as they advocate a government so limited that it's absent. And by definition, yes, Socialism is a statist political philosophy since it advocates state ownership of all property, therefore making it impossible for it to be anything other than statist. Jeez, do you actually read the other articles on Wikipedia or just push your point of view? You really need to find something better to do with your time. And I dunno where you got "right = freedom", but it helps explain your resistance to the facts of this article. Maybe it's linked to your bias and possibly bigoted belief that "conservative = right wing" rather than conservative is part of the right wing set of philosophies, and "anything described as conservative = politically conservative" again, also wrong. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 03:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is this article necessary? This subject belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopaedia. Obviously there is no general agreement on what right-wing means. The origin of the term in the Estates General is interesting but could be included in the political spectrum article. As for the rest of the information, such as the sections on various countries, it is already covered in other articles.

By the way, why didn't the Libertarians sit on the right in the Estates General? Didn't they tell the king they were the true rightists? No wonder they had a revolution! The Four Deuces (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is necessary as a summation of implementations or right-wing philosophies around the world, similarly to the left wing article that exists. Unfortunately, this article is being essentially vandalized by bigots who are pushing their point of view and adding libelous material to the article. And true to their bigotry, they've expressed an unwillingness to discuss, have expressed bad faith on each others' talk pages, and stop discussing matters when they're biased views are exposed, a la the start of this thread. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 17:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

How does the government of Botswana fit in with the right-wing paradigm of limited government and free markets? The governement owns 50% of the diamond mines, which represent nearly half the economy, and also owns a beef monopoly that has subsidiaries overseas, including an insurance company, and government revenues represent 38% of the economy? The Four Deuces (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Read the linked article, and the contribution in this article. The BDP advocates limited government in order to avoid increasing debt and Botswana has the most economic freedom of any mainland Africa country. These are textbook right-wing policies. Plus, the BDP's main opposition are socialists which seek to increase social welfare. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 13:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

How can the government of Botswana nationalize half the economy and say it believes in limited government, and establish state monopolies and say it believes in free markets? The Economic Freedom scale does not work either. Most of the countries in the top ten have or have had socialists in government and the most free country is run by Communists. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you mean Hong Kong? The special administrative region that was controlled by capitalists for 155 years before transferring power to China which maintained its capitalist economy as a special case? That's what I thought. Before flapping your chops next time, I think I should remind you that all of the countries on the Economic Freedom Scale have corresponding Wikipedia articles. You should read them next time to avoid embarrassment. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 05:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It is also hard to see how, when his every comment has been responded to, Amwestover can say people display an "unwillingness to discuss". According to dogmatic Libertarians, all communism is evil, all anti-communism is good. If the anti-communists have to assassinate elected leaders, nationalize the government, and ship half the GDP of their country to their Swiss bank account, that is still good, because it is anti-communist. It is a black and white worldview -- or maybe I should say a Red and white worldview, and allows no room for subtle distinctions or reasoned argument. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh great, the editor who posted this comment finally chimed in. You know, from reading that comment, I just knew you were going to have a balanced, neutral opinion and would be even-handed in the matter. And surprise, surprise, yet another POV pusher with no sources to back up his ramblings. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 05:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

We could keep Botswana on the list if we re-defined "right wing". It is a commitment to the interests of power elites, domestic or foreign, as opposed to the interests of ordinary citizens. Thus right-wingers support nationalization, privatization, regulation, de-regulation, protectionism, free trade, monopolies, competition, deficit spending, balanced budgets, censorship and free speech, depending on whatever is expedient, often in coalition with other elements of society, mostly exploiting lower middle class resentment of lower classes, but also appealing to ethnic, religious and gender differences between ordinary citizens, or even divisions between rural-urban, suburban-urban, young-old, farm-labor, educated-uneducated, or shopping, music or other mass entertainment preferences. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we'll keep Botswana in there simply because its ruling party ever since its independence is a right-wing party. You're welcome to post your unsourced rants on your blog that nobody but your mother reads, but we'll stick to reliably sourced material on Wikipedia, thanks. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 05:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, you should avoid reference to other peoples' mothers, as this is not very scholarly. But my parentage is not the issue - what makes Botswana "right-wing"? Also, any ideas about where we put Pakistan, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Iraq, Venezuala, and Haiti - where the the US supports the socialists? The Four Deuces (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Botswana isn't "right-wing" and nobody has claimed it is. No country is right or left wing. The Botswana Democratic Party, the ruling party since Botswana's independence, is right-wing and certainly warrants mention in this article since they've created the freest market in all of mainland Africa and they also advocate limiting government to curtail spending. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 15:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Bobisbob2 -- by this time it should be clear that we are not going convince Amwestover. All we can do is write an objective, factual account of the various ways the phrase "right-wing" is used, and revert Amwestover when he tries to replace the dictionary definition with the Libertarian definition. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Good advice. This comments about anarchism being on the extreme right and socialism being "by defintion" statist shows how misinformed he is. Coming up with the false definition that right-wing means "limited goverment" and this anarchism must be right-wing, despite it not being the case in reality. And of couse this close-minded definition of socialism. Bobisbob2 (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh look, more unsourced POVs! --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 23:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with calling Bobisbob2's edits unsourced is that they are sourced, and the trouble with calling them POV is that they are common knowledge and entirely mainstream. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with calling Bobisbob2's edits sourced is that you must have severe reading comprehension skills to think that. Whenever he does bother to cite a source, it's trash. And the problem with believing your POV is mainstream without any proof or source whatsoever is it's a clear indicator that you're a prejudiced editor and that assuming good faith is pretty much impossible. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 00:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Iran section

The section on Iran is based on very poor sources and nonsources; until reliable verifiable sources that meet Wikipedia's guidelines can be found, all of the material in this section currently citing these sources (i.e. the entire section) should be removed. The current sources are:

• http://www.s2online.org/news/country/Iraq/IRANpol.htm - This is a non-verifiable tertiary source.
• http://www.uvm.edu/~fgause/168read.htm#Iranian%20elections - This is a college syllabus. Does that even qualify as a tertiary source? I've never actually seen anyone try to do this on Wikipedia.
• http://www.akhbar-rooz.com/article.jsp?essayId=4844 - This is a non-English essay which has had no reliable translation or proof of verifiability.

In addition, contributors to this section appear to be consistently mistaking any description of conservatism in regard to Iranian politics, and theological politics in general, with political conservatism. As evident by this article: Conservatism (disambiguation), it is a broad term that has plenty of applications outside of politics. Since this article is about politics, anything other than political conservativism is inappropriate here. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 16:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

A peer-reviewed article and a BBC article are now given. And BTW, the CCA and such are POLITICAL parties not merely religious groups. So they would be politically conservative. Bobisbob2 (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary

Here is what the OED has to say on the subject;

"right-wing" means "holding conservative or reactionary views". "Conservative" in the political sense is "the maintenance of existing institutions, political and ecclesiastical."

Rick Norwood (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Do you actually follow any Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or do you just think it's your personal blog to add unsourced POV? --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 23:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to maintain the Wikipedia policy "assume good faith". When they say "Wikipedia is not a dictionary," they do not mean that we shouldn't use a dictionary when we disagree about what a word means. Words are only useful tools to the extent that they have a common meaning.

I'm a mathematician. If I want to use the word "function" in a mathematics article to mean "a set of ordered pairs", that's fine. Other mathematicians will know what I'm talking about. But when I teach Freshman calculus, I'd better say the word "function" means "something like y = 3x, which has an input called x and an output called y".

The same thing goes in Wikipedia. In talking with fellow Libertarians, you can use as much Libertarian jargon as you want. But when talking with people who are not Libertarians, and most people aren't, then you should use words the way most people use them. You seem to think you can convert people to your point of view by selling them on your specialized jargon -- and if you want to do that in the article on Libertarianism, that's fine. But in the other articles, use words to mean what dictionaries say they mean. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

A user like yourself saying that you're trying to "assume good faith", when you post comments on people's user pages saying you're unwilling to talk to a certain group of editors because of your own prejudice which you consistently express in your edits -- not to mention also attributing information to sources when they don't claim it and blatantly adding POV unsourced material, is maybe the funniest comment I've read on a Wikipedia talk page this week.

No matter how much you would like to paint right-wing politics solely as extreme conservatism, the article doesn't back it up so get over it already. I don't know why you're threatened by the inclusion of libertarianism in right-wing politics -- maybe it's because the image that the media paints of the right-wing only being a buncha bible thumpers is not only completely incorrect but also avoids the core tenets of right-wing politics: limited government and economic freedom. Or maybe you're just a loser who uses Wikipedia to smear ideologies you don't agree with. Maybe it's both. I know one thing's for certain: I don't care what your reason is. All I care about is keeping Wikipedia an encyclopedia. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 00:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

So much for assuming good faith. Ah, well, I feel better for having tried. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Botswana Democratic Party

There is no reason why the Botswana Democratic Party is included as "right wing". Although Botswana was rated high in the "economic freedom" index by the Heritage Foundation, the Socialist-ruled Mauritius scored even higher. Either the Botswana Democratic Party should be removed, or the Mauritius Socialist Party should be considered "right-wing". The Four Deuces (talk) 06:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

How about something like this: the Botswana Democratic Party is an example of a right-wing military dictatorship, while the Mauritius Socialist Party is an example of a left-wing party that under which citizens have a large measure of freedom and prosperity. Both are rated high on "economic freedom" by the Heritage Foundation. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Liberia & the Americas, etc.

There are no references for including Liberia. The reference to "neo-liberalism" comes from the Wikipedia article about the new president, which is referenced to a commentary in the socialistweb.net website. http://socialistworld.net/eng/2005/11/22liberia.html The problem with this source is that from their point of view, all governments are right-wing.

Also, any reason why there is no mention of right-wing politics in the Western hemisphere outside the US? The list of countries should be comprehensive or omitted altogether. Surely Mexico and Canada are more important than Botswana and Liberia. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

India

Could someone please take a good look at this edit? It doesn't look way off the mark, but it's anonymous and uncited, and a reference to "Hundi nationalism" does not exactly inspire confidence in the contributor. - Jmabel | Talk 01:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

ObjectivityAlways edit

Good edit, ObjectivityAlways. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)