Talk:Far-right politics/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

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 Wikipedia. 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

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

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)

Some redundancy in the lede

I wonder if the lede—specifically the first sentence—doesn't suffer from some MOS:REDUNDANCY. I don't feel particularly strongly on this, so I'm not being bold and, instead, suggesting an alternative. I mean, to put it extra bluntly, the first half of the first sentence essentially says "The far right is, on a left-to-right scale, further right than the normal right."

What if, instead, we said something like:

"Far-right politics, also referred to as the extreme right or right-wing extremism, refer to a spectrum of political thought that tends to be radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian, often also capturing nativist ideologies and tendencies.

Just a thought.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a straightforward improvement to me. VQuakr (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay! Then I'll change course and boldly replace it. : ) --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

A tweak:

Far-right politics, or right-wing extremism, refers to a spectrum of political thought that tends to be radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian, often also including nativist tendencies.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I like that!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it is important to say that it is perceived to be to the right of mainstream right-wing politics, which is why it is called the far right. TFD (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Well I ddid keep it in the second sentence, in case anyone felt it was important! But isn't that inherently redundancy? "Far right is further right than standard right"? I mean it's even using far twice! "Far right" vs "further right".--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Far Right & Fascism?

This is pure propaganda. There have only been 2 countries identified truly as fascism. Germany & Italy, they are both all about big government and socialism ideology. These are idea that live on the left side of the political spectrum. There is nothing on the far right about being pro big government period end of subject. Fascism is a product of the left wing. 66.223.252.156 (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles report the opinions of reliable sources rather than those of editors. If you don't like what reliable sources say, there are many other places to get your information. TFD (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The right wing in US today at the STATE level is all for big government control, most famously in Florida. Rjensen (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

No offense, but the Republican Party always supported greater government control, less civil liberties, and a much expanded defence budget. This is not a new development. Dimadick (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Fascism is overwhelmingly accepted by academics and political scientists to be a far-right ideology. — Czello ^(music) 18:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Although this is the talk page for far-right politics, you should read the FAQ at Talk:Fascism. Fascism is a far-right ideology. Vacant0 (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Bringing far-left and far-right into line

These are two side of the same coin of the left-right political spectrum. There are theories about how they're actually different, but no one can seem to agree about exactly why. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

That’s one argument, but assumptions of false symmetry are commonplace in discussions about politics and society, and there is no principle that creates or demands equilibrium. Assumptions of symmetry are at the heart of many fallacious arguments on talkpages concerning politics and society. Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The articles on far-right and far-left should mirror each other only to the extent that underlying sources do (and of course in generic ways common to all politics articles). VQuakr (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The far-left article mentions that far-left can mean different things. The far-right doesn't. Different scholars use both in different ways and some even explicitly mention that there are multiple meanings.

The left-right spectrum is a construct that does not always align with reality, so in these articles it's important to emphasize the theory as stated by the construct and how it's different from complex, messy reality.

The left-right spectrum explicitly paints the two as opposites: the opposite of any tenet of "left" politics is considered "right" politics.

We all know that right is "bad" but the language seems to be too intent on talking about particular popular conceptions of "right" instead of sticking to the theory.

E.g., a user has no idea reading this article whether Edmund Burke would qualify as "far right"; he had beliefs that were considered extreme at the time and he was 'conservative', but this article gives no guide to that other than through the lens of contemporary media narratives.

There are sticky notions of what "right" means, e.g. theocratic, authoritarian, racial/identity, that are all different factors. The far-left article does a much better job of pointing out when these things overlap and when they don't. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I think proposals for improvements to this article will be more convincing if they are presented sourced and under their own merits rather than in comparison to far-left or any other page. Specific to your comment The left-right spectrum explicitly paints the two as opposites: the opposite of any tenet of "left" politics is considered "right" politics. - no, this is an example of original synthesis. VQuakr (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

They are not two sides of the same coin. The term far right is used in politics to describe groups perceived to be to the right of mainstream politics. The reason the term is used is that they don't have a shared ideology. The Ku Klux Klan and the Nazi Party for example arose independently of each other. Parties on the left OTOH developed out of the groups that attended the First International so the same problem never arose. TFD (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The KKK was born from the left wing democratic party. [blp vio removed]... The Nazi party was also born out of the left. However, the left refuse to take responsibility. The only difference between Marx and Hitler is that Nazism can be best described as Racial socialism and Marxism described as Class socialism. Both share similar polices for big authoritarian government. 84.9.136.235 (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The above really is a forum style post, but I won't remove it, just expose how wrong it is.

Yes, after the Civil War the Democratic party was racist (but not left wing) and that lasted until with LBJ and later Republicans dominated the American south and were racist. You can't compare the parties today with the parties after the Civil War, they have changed their political positions dramatically.

The Nazi party was as left wing as the Democratic Republic of North Korea is democratic. To quote our faq, " The phrase "national socialist" was a nationalist response to the rise of socialism in Europe by offering a redefinition of "socialism" to refer to the promotion of the interests of the nation, as opposed to ideas of individual self-interest. But there was no policy of social ownership of the means of production." And of course they put real socialists and Communists to death. Doug Weller talk 14:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

If they actually read something instead of watching Ben's videos they might get it some day. –Vipz (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

We cannot even consider your theories unless you provide reliable sources. And that does't include Jordan Peterson videos or wherever you got this misinformation. TFD (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Far-right politics

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Far-right politics's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "cfr":

• From National Bolshevism: "Putin's Brain Alexander Dugin and the Philosophy Behind Putin's Invasion of Crimea". Council on Foreign Relations. Foreign Affairs. 31 March 2014. Retrieved 24 August 2022.
• From Kach (political party): "Kach, Kahane Chai (Israel, extremists)". Council for Foreign Relations. 20 March 2008. Archived from the original on 4 June 2011. Retrieved 23 June 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, why is the article "Far-right politics" 5 times longer than the article "Far-Left Politics" ?

Statistically this should not be possible unless something weird is happening 85.148.213.144 (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

It's because far right is an actual topic in reliable sources whereas far left is just a term people use inconsistently to describe anything too left for their tastes. TFD (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh pray tell, what is this weird thing that is happening? :D Tambor de Tocino (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Difficult to argue that far-left isn’t also a topic in RS. — Czello ^(music) 09:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, it's a silly question. It's longer because multiple editors have made it longer, probably each for their own different reasons. Nothing is stopping the Far-left from being longer than it is.

For instance, the Far-right article has a lot about different countries which is the main reason it's so long. If you are really unhappy that the Far-left article is shorter, then please, as they say, put your money where your mouth is and edit it. Don't complain about this article, complain that Far-left politics is too short on its talk page and edit the article itself. Doug Weller talk 10:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. That's why I added the final Q to the FAQ. To the OP: the articles don't need to be equal or reflect one another. — Czello ^(music) 11:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

If you think that far left is a topic in rs, then please provide a source. A definition would also be helpful. TFD (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

There's a whole bunch on its article, including a bibliography. — Czello ^(music) 20:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you name any I should look at? It seems like all you have is a collection of sources about groups that you consider far left. BTW you haven't provided a definition. TFD (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

You honestly don't believe any reliable source discusses what far-left politics is? Or is your issue just that it can refer to a variety of differing ideologies? Because yes, Marxist-Leninist communism can be defined as far-left pretty uncontroversially even if anarcho-communism can be, too. But the first two citations of that article should do you, but honestly there's not exactly a shortage. — Czello ^(music) 14:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The first source, "The ideological morphology of left–centre–right" mentions the term ‘extreme left,’ but doesn't say how it is defined or what ideologies it refers to. The link to the second source, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644008.2018.1484906 "Towards a Measurement of Extreme Left-Wing Attitudes"] shows the abstract, which again does not define the term or say what it includes.

The Wikipedia article in fact continues, "The definition of the far left varies in the literature and there is not a general agreement on what it entails or consensus on the core characteristics that constitute the far left, other than being to the left of mainstream left-wing politics."

Essentially it is a relative term, not an actual topic like far right. It's like talking about tall people. How tall is tall?

TFD (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

But we acknowledge tall people exist even if we might debate what encompasses it. Again, there are ideologies that exist that are pretty universally and unambiguously described as far-left, such as communism. — Czello ^(music) 07:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

But tall people isn't a topic, and Tall is covered in Human height.

I disagree that there is universal agreement that Communism is far left. For example, the book Beyond Post-Socialism: Dialogues with the Far-Left (C. el-Ojeili, Palgrave Macmillam 2015, p. 7) defines far left as being to the left of social democracy and Leninism: "anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists, council communists and Bordigists, situationists and impossiblists."

Policy requires that every article have one topic. In this case, it could be how the term is used, it could use Ojeili's definition or any other of the many definitions already used in the article.

If we go by your definition that it means Communism, then FORK says that the two articles should be merged. TFD (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, let's face it - one can normally find a source that might disagree with the majority of other texts out there, and the majority of sources would overwhelmingly describe communism as far-left. Perhaps there's some that would disagree, but that doesn't change that it's normally clear-cut. It's why articles about ML or Maoist groups tend to label them as far-left - because that's what sources call them. Ultimately far-left is a notable enough term which is applied to some ideologies and groups (fairly) consistently, but less so in other cases. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that we shouldn't cover it. — Czello ^(music) 10:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Czello The Indian states with elected Communist governments are not far left. I’m not sure the Communist parties in the US and other countries are. Doug Weller talk 10:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

My point is that while there is a body of literature about the far right, there isn't about the far left. The reason for this is obvious. Left-wing ideologies from social democracy to anarchism have names, are historically related and the subgroups identify with each other whatever country they are in. On the right however, a number of groups to the right of mainstream parties with no connection to one another arose throughout the world and political scientists chose the term far right (or extreme right) to describe them. Hence an article about the BUF, NF, BNP, EDL and British Democrats, who were fascists, neo-fascists, post-fascists and quasi-fascists would use the term far right, while an article about the Communist Party of GB would use the term communist.

Similarly, the term centre right is ill-defined and there is no body of literature about it. Instead, there is literature about liberals, conservatives or social democrats, etc. TFD (talk) 11:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

As interesting as this all is, can I convince you all to stop discussing it here? No one here agrees with the OP's point, and this is not the venue for the rest of this debate. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hard-right?

Hi Fritasconpure, I'm opening up this thread to invite you to explain your suggested addition to the lead sentence. Please engage here and make an attempt to persuade others using reliable sources rather than edit warring. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The editor has been indefffed for disruption. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Cue sad trombone music. Generalrelative (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)