| Revision as of 06:03, 24 April 2012 editThe Four Deuces (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers50,517 edits →Extreme right← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:38, 24 April 2012 edit undoVision Thing (talk | contribs)7,574 edits →Extreme rightNext edit → | ||
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
| ::::Eatwell begins the section by saying, "In political contexts, the term 'extreme' is commonly associated with violence". I do not see my paraphrasing of Eatwell as misrepresenting what he says. Not all er groups are violent and perhaps most are not, but some are and it is notable. And Eatwell does not say that they have returned to economic statism. The description was three pages long and I don't think the entire passage can be reproduced here. If you think it can be re-phrased then go ahead. is the source. R-41, Eatwell appears to use the term "extreme right" in the sense defined in the article "far right", modern groups that have some sort of connection with historical fascism. Other writers (e.g., ]) use the term in a wider sense to include both the far right and what Eatwell calls the "radical right", which includes right-wing populism. It is important to include Eatwell in the article because his typology is generally accepted, even if the terminology is disputed. When using sources for each of his categories however it is important that the source is clear that it is referring to the same category. ] (]) 06:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC) | ::::Eatwell begins the section by saying, "In political contexts, the term 'extreme' is commonly associated with violence". I do not see my paraphrasing of Eatwell as misrepresenting what he says. Not all er groups are violent and perhaps most are not, but some are and it is notable. And Eatwell does not say that they have returned to economic statism. The description was three pages long and I don't think the entire passage can be reproduced here. If you think it can be re-phrased then go ahead. is the source. R-41, Eatwell appears to use the term "extreme right" in the sense defined in the article "far right", modern groups that have some sort of connection with historical fascism. Other writers (e.g., ]) use the term in a wider sense to include both the far right and what Eatwell calls the "radical right", which includes right-wing populism. It is important to include Eatwell in the article because his typology is generally accepted, even if the terminology is disputed. When using sources for each of his categories however it is important that the source is clear that it is referring to the same category. ] (]) 06:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Eatwell does begin section that way, and then he says that it doesn't apply to "extreme right" anymore except for the small, fringe elements of it. Your addition that "today they are more likely to support free markets" is OR. There is only one passage on p. 11 where he talks about economic beliefs of extreme right and what you wrote is not supported by anything that Eatwell says. ] ] 11:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:38, 24 April 2012
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Right-wing politics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| 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, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | 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 page is not a forum for general discussion about Right-wing 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 Right-wing politics at the Reference desk. |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | Politics B‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Conservatism B‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Right-wing politics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| 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, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Origins of usage of the term
An editor replaced "It was not until the early 20th century that the terms "left" and "right" came to be associated with political ideology" with "It was not until the early twentieth century that English speaking countries began to apply the terms "right" and "left" to their own political affairs." The second phrase is only partly true. The terms entered British discourse in the 1906 general election, but only the term "left" was normally used, because the Labour Party could be identified with the French Left, while Liberals and Conservatives were far too moderate to be identitied with the French Right. In any case, the source refers to the United Kingdom, not to "English-speaking countries". TFD (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Why turn the article into a Marxist hit piece?
| WP:SOAP, WP:CIVIL, WP:DISRUPT |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Why remove the bias tag and the Buckley quote without any discussion? Why insist on using this article for propaganda purposes, to suit a predefined world view? Why not present a fair and neutral and objective view on the topic? Why not quote from any sources that are considered right wing or conservative, the way the Left Wing Politics article quotes from liberals and socialists? Why try to frame the Right in such a negative light, when many on the Right seek to enhance equality of opportunity and lift people out of poverty and thereby decrease inequality? I don't understand the motives for this. The left wing politics article has not been similarly attacked this way by people with conservative or libertarian views. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I've finished my edit for now. I left most of the changes by Falconclaw5000 in place, but eliminated a duplicated sentence and the neologism "C20". The three main problems with Falconclaw5000's edit were: 1) use of a high school textbook as a reference. Anything in a high school text will also be found in a college level text or scholarly book, which are prefered by Misplaced Pages. 2) This article is really not the place to argue in favor of Libertarianism. 3) statements should reflect the source. Falconclaw5000, you say you say you don't understand the motives of people who do not agree that Libertarianism is the solution to all our problems and, apparently, the only reason you can see for someone not being a Libertarian is that they are doctrinaire Marxists. As best I can tell, no editors here are Marxists. If they are, they haven't said so. Most people are not Libertarians. Everybody has their own reasons, of course, but among those reasons are that they simply do not believe the Libertarian claim that Libertarianism will lift people out of poverty. They believe, instead, that Libertarianism will result in cut-throat competition in which the few will profit and the many suffer. Since I have been misunderstood before, let me say as carefully as possible that I am not arguing in favor of either view of Libertarianism, pro or anti. I am saying that this article is not the place to conduct this argument. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC) It is extremely insulting to accuse users here of promoting a "Marxist hit peace" - that is in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:DISRUPT, and yet another pathetic example of sophistry on this talk page. Especially after efforts of cooperation between users of left political persuasion and right political persuasion. Falconclaw5000, you and Rick Norwood have poured so much cheap emotional sophistry into this talk page that you have been clearly in violation of WP:DISRUPT. Plus Falconclaw, we have strong sources that show that right-wing means acceptance of hierarchy - either as being viewed as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable; we have discussed your objections and others ad nauseum, but you are either failing or refusing to get the point - again violating WP:DISRUPT. The fact is that no one who has objected to the current definition has been able to product a coherent sourced definition of right-wing politics as a whole, and editing on the intro has stabilized due to the inclusion of multiple sources into it. Falconclaw, unless you have sources for an alternative definition of right-wing politics that can describe it as a whole and not just the libertarian right, then it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Do not post anymore nonsense sophistry accusing users of promoting a "Marxist hit peace" or I will report you to administrators for gross violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:DISRUPT.--R-41 (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
|
I suggest a request for mediation as a way to solve this
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Guide I looked at the Talk page for the far left politics article, and it seems we have a few of the usual suspects using editorial tricks to block information which makes the Left look bad and the Right look good. I suggest formal mediation as a way to solve this. The other editors who found this article biased don't seem to be commenting here anymore, but I'm certain they agree with me, judging from their numerous posts above. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Insulting other editors is unhelpful. You need to provide sources, showing us what should be presented in the article but is not. TFD (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Those of us who disagree with this articles slant have provided a multitude of sources, and you have found excuses to reject all of them. I'll put this up for a formal mediation request as soon as I have the time to figure out the process. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 09:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- You need to provide sources. TFD (talk) 10:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you look at the sources provided by Collect and Eridu Dreaming. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Falconclaw has to produce sources to prove bias
First of all. It clearly appears to me that Falconclaw is failing to drop the stick. The real relevant issue addressed in the past was the lack of sources to back up the sentence on the right-wing involving acceptance of hierarchy. Now there are multiple sources that support it, including an academic encyclopedia from my university that defines acceptance of hierarchy as the first and foremost advocacy of the right while egalitarianism is the first and foremost advocacy on the left, and defines the far-left as those who believe that differences between people in social status are a product of their environment thus legitimizing complete egalitarianism, while the far-right believes that differences between people are innate and as such inferior positions of people are the result of innate inferiorityvand superior positions are the result of innate superiority. It goes on to say that regardless of ideology, that when movements gain political power they inevitably become increasingly conservative in their outlook - this is important and I would (since Falconclaw keeps bringing up that the Soviets never achieved their far-left goals in government structure) that even far-left movements like the Bolsheviks in Russia had to adapt to the political environment they inherit - in order to quickly seize and maintain power, the Bolsheviks kept much of the authoritarian structure of the absolute monarchy of Tsarist Russia intact and just replaced the heriditary absolute monarch with a non-heriditary all-powerful General Secretary position under Stalin - the Cheka which later became the KGB - was by in large a successor to the Tsarist Okhrana. Far-right Serb nationalists in the Yugoslav Wars had to initially rely on the steadily collapsing but increasingly Serb-dominated communist single-party state to attempt to deny Croatia the right to secede from Yugoslavia and used the Yugoslav army for campaigns of ethnic cleansing of non-Serbs in Croatia and later Bosnia. Both far-left and far-right tend to be violent because they are extremists - and extremists by their nature are highly hostile to anything that deviates from their point of view and agenda.--R-41 (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Second of all. Everyone but the most biased should know by now: far-left and far-right are extremists and it is not a matter of good on one side and evil on the other, or liberty on one side and tyranny on another. Both far-left and far-right movements and governments have committed atrocious crimes. And the half-effort argument that "right = less state and left = more state" is nonsense, there have been absolute monarchists on the right who advocate an all-powerful monarchy with no limits on its power, and there have been anarchists on the left who want to destroy the state. And there have been tyrants like Louis XVI on the right, and Joseph Stalin on the left (I will not get drawn into where fascism stands - all I can say is that indepth study on it shows that it is all over the place - left, right, centre positions on certain things, it is syncretic overall but with a strong far-right stance that believes that superior people have the right to dominate over inferior people). So bearing this in mind, and that there are plenty of quality sources in the intro backing up its sentences, what is it exactly that is so "biased"? Describe exactly which sentences are biased.--R-41 (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
If Far-left politics and Far-right politics are equally bad, why does the far Left article sound so much more appealing than the far Right article? My idea is because of a systematic bias in favor of left wing causes. Also, the idea that the Right doesn't generally support less government then the Left is absurd. In fact, I would argue that this is really the best distinction between center-right and center-left; the fact that the former supports less government coercion than the latter. Certainly the center-right, (think Republican Party in the US, Conservative Party in the UK) doesn't particularly support hierarchy. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- I fixed your broken links, above. I hope that is ok with you.
- Both of these article strike me as very badly written, but I don't see that one is worse than the other. Your view that the Republican Party and the Conservative Party do not support hierarchy is just that, your view. Standard sources do not share that view with you. Misplaced Pages is based on standard sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- The article "far left" was largely written by anti-leftist editors who decided that "far left" refers to parties to the left of social democrats and to the right of communists. While the intention was to make these parties look bad by calling them "far left", it is interesting that the effect has been to make the "far left" look relatively moderate. BTW, there is a distinction between center-right and right-wing. TFD (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Falconclaw, for your claim that far-left looks "better" then far-right, you being as I presume a right-libertarian should know what far-left "equality" meant in practice by far-left tyrants such as Robespierre, Stalin, and Mao: killing the upper-class people, or people suspected of reactionary counter-revolution. I am more than willing to note that the Reign of Terror of Robespierre, Stalin's mass murder of the middle-class Kulaks, and the Cultural Revolution of Mao are clear examples of far-left-motivated mass murder.--R-41 (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is covered in the article Mass killings under Communist regimes. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Extreme right
This new addition misrepresent what Eatwell says. For example, it says: "Often violence is a characteristic." However, source says: "Recent academic attempts to define the "extreme right" have tended to drop violence as a necessary characteristic (although it is a notable feature of many groups on the fringes)." Similarity, TFD edit says "While in the past they were economic statists, today they are more likely to support free markets." while Eatwell says that: "growing popularity of free market views after the 1970s had an effect on some European parites Moreover, some parties, which exhibited relatively free market views in the 1980s, , are now increasingly stressing anti-globalization views ". In general, I don't think we can rely on TDF interpretation of sources without checking them first. -- Vision Thing -- 09:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is a big help if all editors include quotations from their sources supoorting the statements in the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- This should be discussed at the Far-right politics article. I've added sources to that article, if it is an issue of mentioning the far-right here I recommend you utilizing the sources I used for the intro of that article.--R-41 (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Eatwell begins the section by saying, "In political contexts, the term 'extreme' is commonly associated with violence". I do not see my paraphrasing of Eatwell as misrepresenting what he says. Not all er groups are violent and perhaps most are not, but some are and it is notable. And Eatwell does not say that they have returned to economic statism. The description was three pages long and I don't think the entire passage can be reproduced here. If you think it can be re-phrased then go ahead. Here is the source. R-41, Eatwell appears to use the term "extreme right" in the sense defined in the article "far right", modern groups that have some sort of connection with historical fascism. Other writers (e.g., Klaus von Beyme) use the term in a wider sense to include both the far right and what Eatwell calls the "radical right", which includes right-wing populism. It is important to include Eatwell in the article because his typology is generally accepted, even if the terminology is disputed. When using sources for each of his categories however it is important that the source is clear that it is referring to the same category. TFD (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Eatwell does begin section that way, and then he says that it doesn't apply to "extreme right" anymore except for the small, fringe elements of it. Your addition that "today they are more likely to support free markets" is OR. There is only one passage on p. 11 where he talks about economic beliefs of extreme right and what you wrote is not supported by anything that Eatwell says. -- Vision Thing -- 11:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)