Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:21, 27 April 2023

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 6 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Europe Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Misplaced Pages.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Discrimination High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American / Political parties Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance). Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance). view · edit Frequently asked questions Q: Why is the Nazi Party labeled a far-right party? They called themselves socialists, so should they be left-wing? A: Almost all historical and present-day academic literature places the Nazi Party on the far-right of the traditional left-right spectrum, which in turn is the most common short-form classification used in political science; however, labor parties are typically on the left in party affiliation. The Nazis themselves attacked both left-wing and traditional right-wing politicians and movements in Germany as being traitors to Germany. While the Nazi regime's economic policies are very different from those of present-day right-wing parties that adhere to classical liberal or neoliberal positions (which advocate, e.g., a highly deregulated, privatized economic environment), Nazi economic policy was typical of the early to mid twentieth century far-right, and indeed most political currents of the time, in that it embraced interventionist economics. The Nazi Party absorbed the far-right reactionary monarchist and nationalist German National People's Party into its membership in 1933. The Nazi Party also held good relations with openly right-wing political movements in Europe, such as the Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right, whose leader Gil-Robles was a guest at the 1933 Nazi Party Nuremberg rally and sought to model his movement upon the Nazi Party. Q: If socialism is mainly left-wing and they called themselves socialists in their name, why is this being ignored? A: Historically several right-wing figures used the term "socialism" to mean something very different from what would be understood by traditional left-wing socialism, referring simply to the broader concept of collectivism and anti-individualism. For instance, "conservative socialism" was promoted by Austrian political figure Metternich. The prominent French reactionary monarchist Charles Maurras famously said "a socialism liberated from the democratic and cosmopolitan element fits nationalism well as a well made glove fits a beautiful hand". Maurras's views influenced fascism. Oswald Spengler's ideal of "Prussian Socialism" directly influenced Nazism, and Spengler promoted it as a member of the far-right Conservative Revolutionary movement. However, many socialists have a dim view of what they see as cooptation of socialism by otherwise right-wing movements. For example, Nikita Khrushchev sardonically remarked, "In modern times the word Socialism has become very fashionable, and it has also been used very loosely. Even Hitler used to babble about Socialism, and he worked the word into the name of his National Socialist party. The whole world knows what sort of Socialism Hitler had in mind." Q: The article on far-left politics says X, Y, and Z. Why doesn't this article say the same to make them equal? A: This is what we call false balance: our articles are meant to reflect the sources, not each other. Two ends of the political spectrum aren't necessarily equal, equatable, or comparable, and so the articles aren't obliged to have parity. Instead, anything written in either article should be determined by what reliable sources say, regardless of how the ideological opposite is presented. This page is not a forum for general discussion about Far-right politics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Far-right politics at the Reference desk.

Updating intro section of article

I think a change is warranted to the opening paragraphs of this article to better represent the more modern day far-right. This is a continuation of a discussion on the talk page for the People's Party of Canada article, which is labelled far-right by some sources. However, the opening paragraphs of this article, which is linked to directly, do not match the ideologies or policies listed in the same info-box. This lead to a debate when other editors refused to remove the mismatched label (because media sources in Canada have used that label to describe the party), which could confuse unfamiliar browsers who follow the far-right link. Our 2 remaining solutions were to; either create a new article to link to (specifically for far-right politics in Canada), or to modify this articles opening, I think the latter is the better solution. For example: in the beginning of this article, it says "particularly in terms of being authoritarian, ultranationalist, and having nativist ideologies and tendencies." However, in the case of the People's Party of Canada, this contradicts the listed ideology of Right-Libertarianism, and Classical liberalism. I'm sure there are many other parties with the far-right label around the world that are indeed labeled as such by valid sources, but do not conform to the very specific definition on Misplaced Pages. A simple solution, I think, would be to make the far-right article's opening paragraphs, more similar to the far-left article's. For example: replacing the word "particularly" with "and has been associated with" (similar to the far-left article), and clarify that there are multiple definitions of far-right. This is not all encompassing obviously, and I am open to thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatchfulRelic91 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

"either create a new article to link to (specifically for far-right politics in Canada)" Are you volunteering for the job? Dimadick (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

It's confusing because the term far right can mean either the farthest right in the political spectrum, which includes Nazis, Fascists, Klansmen or similar groups, or it can mean to the right of mainstream conservative, Christian democratic and liberal parties. Academic sources generally reserve the term for the first group, while news media include the second, particularly in headlines, because it is concise. I think that often when people label parties such as the PPC as far right, it is an accusation of fascism. While there is a good argument that they are fascists, I prefer to explain the argument rather than state the case as settled. The trouble with the extreme right is that its groups usually lack obvious continuity. Bernier is a former Conservative and has no direct links with historical fascism. TFD (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

WatchfulRelic91, I know that it's a bit late, but just do it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

The change made by the user CactiStaccingCrane has not been consensual and neither have references, so I reinstate the lead paragraph to its before edition.

And the article is about the far-right, so it doesn't make much sense to talk about the far-left in the lead paragraph. Tedyand (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't initially see that the lead was actually a recent addition by CactiStaccingCrane. I realise that there is somewhat of a discussion above, but there doesn't appear to be actual consensus, and given that Tedyand has reverted then per WP:BRD the original lead (from Jan 1) should stand until further discussion has taken place. — Czello 08:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Czello: As far as I can tell the article body doesn't have a comparison to far-left politics, so it is unsourced in the lead. That said though, Tedyand has reverted four times in 24 hours, which is against the WP:3RR. Please do not break this again, or you may face a lengthy block (I notice you already had an edit warring block a few months ago). Thinking you are "right" isn't an excuse to edit war, always bring it here for discussion. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Delete mentioning authoritarianism and nationalism in summary. Mention laissez-faire instead

Right-wing axis has nothing to do with autoritarianism itself (it's what's auth-lib axis about). Left is about redistributionism, right is about laissez-faire and free market. Chronophobos (talk) 12:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Please read the article, and find sources before proposing radical changes to well-cited content. Personal analysis is not acceptable. Acroterion (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request to add Horseshoe theory under Far-right politics#See also. 223.25.74.34 (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Not done, it is already linked in the "Relation to right-wing politics" section. --Mvqr (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In order to be "fair" and "accurate", WIKIPEDIA is showing its LEFT WING bias, by NOT including and DEFINING "FAR-LEFT POLITICS" in addition to "Far-Right Politics"... 208.92.185.152 (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

We do. See Far-left politics. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

However (since this keeps coming up and people keep making edits on both this article and that one premised on making these two articles mirrors of each other), I think it's important to note that coverage of the two terms is extremely different. "Far-right politics" is a concretely-defined term in academia with extensive discourse and analysis supporting one fairly specific meaning, whereas far-left politics is not (and the sources continuously underline this fact.) So edits intended to make the two articles more similar to each other aren't appropriate - we have to reflect the sources, not WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Aquillion (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Lead image removal

I'm looking forward to removal of the lead image from the lead section and was asked to gather consensus for that by @Beyond My Ken. As supported by MOS:LEADIMAGE:

• Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic.

I explain in my edit that "Lead images should be fully representative of the topic and one carries an implication such as "<Far-right politics> is *this* (shows what looks like a peaceful demonstration on streets)"". Is it though? –Vipz (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

But there is an "easy representation of the topic", and the image present does "illustrate the topic specifically" and is very much "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works", so all the necessary criteria are met. There is no justification whatsoever for the removal of the current image, or for not having a lede image at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

BTW, the removal of the lede image from Far-left politics is not relevant (as is argued in edit summaries), since that image was on an ANTIFA rally, and ANTIFA is not a far-left movement and thus the image did not adequately represent the article's subject matter. Another image might do so, and would therefore be appropriate. (Also, see Aquillion's comment directly above about WP:FALSEBALANCE.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken you really love wikilawyering, huh? If I wanted to pose the comparison with Far-left politics as an argument, I would have brought it up in this talk page section. You're taking this discussion off-topic. –Vipz (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Vipz: "you really love wikilawyering, huh?" is a personal attack. Please strike it from your comment. Regarding the argument in question, please note that in your edit summary to this edit, you wrote "Removing the image from lead section altogether, like was done on Far-left politics and discussed on its talk page," so you have already used that line of argumentation, which is why I responded to it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Responded on the user talk page (just noting for others). –Vipz (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for striking, I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so, so let's wait for a third opinion. –Vipz (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

To me, the image seems to meet the criteria. What makes you say it doesn't? TFD (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree that an example of a far-right group being included is perfectly fine. — Czello 21:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces, @Czello: this one lacks key elements representative of the far-right. For one, no typical, widely recognizable far-right symbolism in it, and primarily flags of France instead; the 'Unite the Right Rally' one was better in that regard. If you saw that image standalone, would it make you think "far-right!" on first sight? We've got much better examples already contained within sections of the article. In any case, my point with removing it altogether was that there isn't a catch-all representative image of the far-right, though if one is kept, my point is that this one isn't the best pick. –Vipz (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a fair point. The Unite the Right picture is a better representative picture. I don't agree with removing images altogether because of a lack of catch-all representations, but I do think the image to be included would be better served with Vipz's suggestion. — Czello 23:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Status quo image is better than nothing; good revert. VQuakr (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@VQuakr: the current image has been there for less than two days: Special:Diff/1148403070. –Vipz (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair; struck "status quo". VQuakr (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Vipz: While there is a discussion here on the talk page about the current image, do not change the image in any way. This is a consensus discussion, and currently the consensus is to leave it as is. That can change, and if it does you can take the action that the consensus supports, but you CANNOT edit against consensus, as you just did in reverting to a previous image. Please watch your step, as you are starting to get into the area of disruptive editing, which can lead to being blocked from editing by an administrator. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: My edit was part of a normal WP:BRD procedure. I made a bold removal, you reverted, we discussed, active discussion resulted in me taking a different bold change (afaik, not dissalowed during active discussions) in line with what I perceive was general consensus at the time (as explained in the edit summary), which was in no way disruptive and was up to further reverts, refinements and discussions. You yourself said in Special:Diff/1148264591 about the 'Unite the Right Rally' image: "On the contrary, it is agood image, and appropriate". Critique is fine, but I would prefer one that is less hostile, non-accussatory, more assuming good faith and less threatening with ultimatums. Thank you. –Vipz (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Please do not make any additional changes to the image while a consensus discussion about it is proceeding. Please focus on that discussion on not on your opinions about me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

So are we discussing a different image now, or are we wikilawyering? Personally I found it refreshing to see a non US-centric image as the lead graphic. The Unite the Right image places a lot of emphasis on the Swastika which isn't wrong per se, but maybe it is an over-focus that would be better suited for a more content-specific article (it is the lead image at Unite the Right rally). The Unite the Right image is also in use already in a half-dozen or so en.wiki pages, while the French one is in use on no other pages. VQuakr (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The non-US nature of the current image was the reason for my thanking Alejandro Basombrio for their replacement of the "Unite the Right" image with it. Far-right politics are, of course, a matter of great interest in the US, but that is also true throughout the world, as the article attests, and a non-American image seemed appropriate for an article with a global outlook. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Not to belabor the obvious, the Europe had a lot more first-hand experience with the far right in the 20th century than the US did. VQuakr (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

During the second world war? nearly 80 years have passed since then. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Vipz, the nature of the far right is that it does not have shared symbols unlike for example socialism. Typically, they use national symbols, whether the St. George's cross in the UK or the Confederate battle flag in the U.S. Also, I think it is better to use a European example, particularly French, since that is where the concepts of left and right began. TFD (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

No, we need to use an image that is very clear to the average reader, and that one is IMHO not, it requires more knowledge. I understand the point about a US image, but in today's world the country where the far right has grown the fastest in the last decade is I think the US, and I'd be surprised if those who pay attention to the far right, wherever they live, don't recognise that. Doug Weller talk 07:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The US has competition but they're certainly in the running. We don't give extra weight to the last decade though. VQuakr (talk) 08:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see that as relevant. It’s the situation now which os when people are reading this, at least the lead which I’m told is all many people read. If and when that changes we change the image. Doug Weller talk 10:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It also has the swastika, an easily identifiable far right symbol which the current image lacks. Doug Weller talk 10:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. the unite the right image is contemporary, illustrates several symbols of the far-right, the UTR group is far better known, the image is more recent. Coming from neither the USA or Europe, I can recall that the UTR rallies received way more media coverage, not even comparable in that regards - I don't recall ever seeing Les Identitaires in the media here at all, the only reason I've heard of them is that I was studying rising support for the far right as part of my post grad - the UTR rallies on the other hand received rolling daily coverage here on and off for months....it's a no brainer, IMO Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Considering that a far right candidate came second in the French presidential election, Italy elected a far right premier and far right parties have moved into the mainstream throughout Europe, the U.S. has not seen the most significant growth. TFD (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It has been very well documented that the USA has had significant growth on the far right and it's definitely on a similar scale to Europe. Certainly Donald Trump seems to take a very similar political position to Le Pen...obviously Giorgia Meloni is an actual fascist, so that makes Italy and Togo the only fascist governments in the world currently (correct me if I'm wrong), but arguments about whose further right, Europe or America are irrelevant really. I think the Unite the Right movement has had far more international media coverage than the Identitaires and the image is more current (2017 rather than 2011). Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Your statement that the far right in the U.S. is on the same scale only makes sense if you classify Trump and the Republican Party as far right. The most you can say is that they have shown more tolerance for the far right than reasonable people would find acceptable, but that's nothing new. Joe McCarthy, G. Gordon Liddy, Pat Buchanan, and Pat Robertson were all tolerated in their time, while until the 1980s, the Democrats also tolerated extemists within the party. TFD (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

No one outside the USA thinks anything going on in the USA today is normal - I've certainly never seen anything like it in my lifetime. Yes, Trump and his supporters are far right. The similarities between Trump and Le Pen are impossible to ignore. But you clearly see things differently and we are not here to debate our opinions. I will say that the both the USA and a significant number of European Nations have seen a notable spike in far-right parties and ideologies. And this is reflected in academia and media coverage. Recently, the tenth and final episode of the excellent documentary series 'Abyss — Rise and Fall of the Nazis' ends with an image of the White House invoking the memory of the Weimar Republic's failed efforts to halt the rise of National Socialism...says a lot, gave me shivers. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

If you haven't seen anything like it in your lifetime, then you haven't lived very long. Did you really think that the men I mentioned were somehow less extreme than Republicans today?

If you think that the far right in the U.S. is as big as in Europe, here is what the editors wrote in their Introduction to Researching the Far Right (Routledge 2020): "Europe has seen electoral gains for Jobbik and Fidesz in Hungary, Lega in Italy, in Germany, the National Rally...in France, and the In the USA, Donald Trump's candidacy and presidency has been characterized by dog whistling to the far right through anti-Muslim and anti-Mexican racist rhetoric, and a repeated failure to condemn hate speech and the actions of white nationalists, even attracting endorsements from former Klansman David Duke and Alt-Right figurehead Richard Spencer.

While I appreciate that is alarming and unusual for a president, it doesn't mean that Republicans have transformed into neo-fascists. Instead Trump's just continued Karl Rove's winning strategy: whereas in the past, Republicans won by appealing to the center, today they win by appealing to their most fanatical supports, which is called "energizing the base." Rove learned that from when Buchanan and Robertson supporters failed to support the eventual Republican nominees.

TFD (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. I don't agree. What's going on in the USA today is anything but normal...and I'd certainly like to be a lot younger, thanks. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not my opinion, it's accepted opinion in the sources. While there is a tendency to label political opponents as fascists, the reality is that U.S. government under Trump had little comparison with Nazi Germany. Political opponents for example were not jailed or executed, opposition press was not censored, the Democratic Party was not dissolved. In fact, despite the chaotic nature of Trump's leadership, government policy continued on autopilot and very little happened that would not have happened otherwise. TFD (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Who called anyone a fascist? I never compared Trump to Nazi's...I mentioned a doco that invoked the failings of the Weimar republic. You're putting words inmy mouth. This is boring, lets stick to the article. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Poll

I've returned the status quo (no image) (Unite the right, 2017) as per WP:STATUSQUO the new 'Les Identitaires' image was rejected by multiple editors and another image has been put forward 'Unite the Right'. So the status quo is restored until the editor/editors wanting to change the article has achieved consensus. Please do not edit war follow the WP:CYCLE - someones been bold, they've been reverted, now we discuss and the status quo remains until this is sorted. "This is the way" :P Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Lets have a straw poll? - Do we use the 'Unite the right' (2017) image, or the image put forward by Alejandro Basombrio 'Les Identitaires' (2011)?

• keep status quo Unite the Right - It's a better image, the image is more recent (2017), Unite the Right is far better known than Les Identitaires who are very obscure and received very little media attention outside France. The Unite the Right rally photo exemplifies the modern far-right, their new prominence in American political discourse, contains the Swastika and more esoteric far-right symbols like volkish/norse imagery, confederate flags etc. In terms of educational value the status quo was a far better image, IMO. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tambor de Tocino: I don't blame you but you didn't read closely, I wasn't the one putting forward the 'Les Identitaires' image. I was for either complete removal or status quo previous image, Unite the Right. Please replace my username with that of Alejandro Basombrio's, thanks. –Vipz (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey, yes I got confused between all the diffs and back and forth that have been going on since. I apologise. Thanks for bringing my mistake to my attention :) Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• keep status quo Unite the Right per Tambor de Tocino. Doug Weller talk 06:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Les Identitaires and quit gamingclaiming "status quo" on an image that was up less than two days with an image that been up 10x as long, thanks. VQuakr (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Come on, you know I'm not gaming, that's bad faith. I was just using the poll's terminology. But I take your point and have struck status quo and added Unite the Right. Doug Weller talk 07:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
    • Fair, struck "gaming". It wasn't directed at you specifically. To recap my reasoning in the discussion above, the UtR image is used a bunch of times in this article family already while the LI image is used nowhere else. Repetition of the same image through the family of articles reduces its value. In addition, I found the non-US centric image refreshing. VQuakr (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Correct, the status quo would be no image until consensus is reached. The current image was disputed in less than two days since it was first put up, so "10x as long" should not count towards its favor. Arguing otherwise is the very definition of "gaming status quo" in my opinion. –Vipz (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough, I got it wrong about the status quo. I got this article and the Alt right article mixed up, which has had the Unite the Right image in the lede for years. my apologies. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• Unite the Right per Tambor. There is more overt and commonly-recognisable far-right symbols being used in the Unite the Right image, and so is probably more representative of what most people imagine when they think "far-right". — Czello 08:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Unite the Right is the best of the available options in the sense that it represents all the major strands of the contemporary far-right in a single image. I think it's best for the lead image to include a swastika or some other fascist symbol, since (as the lead says) fascism is central to the historical definition of the term, while neo-fascism and neo-Nazism are core parts of the contemporary definition. Having no image would be my second choice, if nobody can agree that that image (or another like it) encompasses all the key parts of far-right politics. --Aquillion (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - I liked the "Unite the Right" image when it was up, but was also glad to see a non-American image as well (I am an American). Doug does make some good points about the "Unite the Right" image, so I'm wondering: can we find a European-based image which has the same kind of recognizable symbols in it that the "Unite the Right" image has? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  Hi BMK, I think that's reasonable and would support using another image that illustrates the far-right as well as the UtR one does, and yes always better to try and find content from outside the USA seeing how USAcentrique Misplaced Pages is. I think the Les Identitaires doesn't serve it's intended purpose. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  I also agree, no image would be worse than either. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• BTW, IMO either of these images are better than no image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Here are some other ideas that are less overused on en.wiki. Some also don't have the US centrism issues:

• File:PropFiammaTricolore.JPG
• File:National Socialist Movement Rally US Capitol.jpg
• File:02019 1209 (2) Nationalist attack on an LGBT equality march in Rzeszów.jpg
• File:DNF demonstration 10 maj 2015.jpg

There are other candidates on commons. VQuakr (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Conservatism articles
• Low-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• B-Class Europe articles
• Mid-importance Europe articles
• WikiProject Europe articles
• B-Class Discrimination articles
• High-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• B-Class Human rights articles
• Mid-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Top-importance politics articles
• B-Class American politics articles
• Top-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• B-Class political party articles
• High-importance political party articles
• Political parties task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• High-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles