Talk:Nouvelle Droite

So

The article states that the arguments of this thinktank draw from fascism - how about presenting these arguments and letting the reader judge whether they are fascist or not? This is hardly NPOV, and seeing as the article contains nothing about the actual viewpoints of the group, it's quite bad. I'm not French, I don't have any resources to contribute to this article with, but it needs help. Joffeloff 15:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Like the Alain de Benoist and GRECE articles, this one needs direct quotes too. You cannot just plumb together broad anthologies in the reference or further reading section—books that have only 1 or 2 pages on the French situation. Intangible 03:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Which of the books have you read? Please cite the pages that concern you. I have them all. I work in a library.--Cberlet 03:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Note to Intangible: Please go to Talk:Front National (France) where we can have a broader discussion with other editors about your numerous deletions of criticisms on pages concerning the European New Right.--Cberlet 13:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The FN is not part of the (European) New Right. Intangible 14:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

'New Right' vs. New Right

I assume you know the difference, or not? The citation you provide are not about Buchanan, and not about the Nouvelle Droite and New Right discussed in this article. So they do not provide any reference at all! Intangible 21:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is surreal. The quotes are from books about the European far right and the European Nouvelle Droite, and specifically are saying that the Nouvelle Droite is not the same thing as the New Right in the United States. They are a rebutal to the claim made in the lead paragraph--a claim that is misleading and an oversimplification.--Cberlet 21:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

1. How can a 1996 book be a rebuttal on a 2000 journal article (maybe it is your rebuttal, but that would defy WP:NOR)?

2. How Marcus defines the New Right (namely as some form of heterogeneous movement) is not the definition used in this article. How can you say a claim is misleading and an oversimplification when your source is talking about a whole different 'New Right'? Intangible 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I work in a library that has 30 books on the European New Right and the far right in Europe, and 800 books on the New Right in the United States. I have read most of them over the past 30 years. I have no idea what you are talking about. The term "Nouvelle Droite" is used exclusively to describe the European New Right rooted in the work of GRECE and de Benoist. You have found one author who uses the term "New Right" in the broadest, most generic way, and then you argue that this one cite establishes that the page for "Nouvelle Droite" has no relationship to books about the European New Right and in which the authors specifically warn that it is a mistake to consider identical the European New Right and the New Right of the United States? I find this to be nonsensical. I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make. All I know is that every time I try to edit this (and other) pages based on reputable published material--you revert the page.--Cberlet 21:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what this article talks about, namely, the Nouvelle Droite, New Right movements in Europe and the US (Paul Weyrich and others). This page does not use the definition of the 'New Right' which your authors write about. If you want to talk about that 'New Right' I suggest you start a different article somewhere else (which I might add would be difficult to make, because that 'New Right' is not a homogeneous movement). Intangible 22:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

<------This is the English Language Wikipedia. There is already a page on the generic term New Right, which talks about the various manifestations around the world. In English, the phrase "Nouvelle Droite" refers specifically to the French movement, or at best the European New Right--generally exluding the movements in England and the United States. --Cberlet 22:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you try to change the terms of debate? The original introduction used the Minkenberg piece, which I might add was not refuted by you, since you continued the discussion based on that definition. Intangible 22:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There is already a page for the broad Minkenberg use of the term. It is New Right -- in English the proper term. You are having a language problem, which is understandable, but very frustrating.--Cberlet 23:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing to conclude from the Minkenberg article that he is using New Right here as a generic term. He is quite explicit in operationalizing the term, including the movements around Paul Weyrich. Intangible 23:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please pay attention. There is already a page on the generic term New Right. Please do some homework. Just because you have read one journal article does not mean that you can simply ignore what is already here on Wikipedia.--Cberlet 01:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and your material should be added there, not here, since your authors talk about the generic term, not the Nouvelle Droite or the New Right of Weyrich. It does not make sense to talk about the Christian Right or Pat Buchanan here in this article. Intangible 02:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Your postings are getting increasingly incoherent and bizarre. Weyrich is one of the architects of the U.S. Christian Right. You appear to have read one article and from it extrapolated a vast and false picture of the New Right. Weyrich and the Free Congress Foundation are allied with Pat Buchanan as advocates of cultural conservatism.--Cberlet 02:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Protestantism and Catholicism are ideologically compatible? That's bizarre! Allies maybe, but that does not mean a thing, I have seen strange bedfellows. Intangible 03:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you are confused between cultural conservatism and christian conservatism? Alas, I can not see any support for your inclusions. I also don't think reference should be made to the The Journal of Historical Review, even if it published an interview with Benoist, agree? Intangible 05:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Minkenberg has written more btw, for example: Die neue radikale Rechte im Vergleich: USA, Frankreich, Deutschland. (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1998), so your arguments of simply dismissing this source are futile. Intangible 09:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

<------In the United States--as opposed to the European New Right--Cultural Conservatism is overwhelmingly a project of the Christian Right. How can you continue to cling to one source--which you misunderstand--in the face of the quote from de Benoist (the intellectual founder of the European New Right) that there is no connection between the European New Right and the New Right in the United States? In the United States, many Protestants and Catholics work together through the Christian Right wing of the New Right coalition. I do not agree that we should not cite the actual source of the quote by de Benoist. Please do not mistranslate Minkenberg, who refers above to the "New Radical Right," a term that is often used to describe post-WWII movements of the radical right--an overarching generic term that is not synonymous with but includes the European New Right and the New Right in the United States. Your comments here reflect that you have studied only the tiniest sliver of this area of research, yet you aggressively defend your edits and delete new material that challenges you POV. This is neither cooperative nor constructive editing. Note that I found and added the only concrete text about the Nouvelle Droite from de Benoist. --Cberlet 14:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It is preposterous to ask for Wikipedia readers to find a copy of the The Journal of Historical Review, when good alternatives exist for citation. Do you really have this work in your possession? That sounds appalling. Intangible 15:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And please don't make this an article about the generic 'New Right' in the USA, which you currently are doing. Intangible 15:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you think this article is about? Seriously? Is it just about the French Nouvelle Droite? Is is about the entire European New Right? Or is it about all the new post-WWII radical right movements around the world?--Cberlet 15:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the Nouvelle Droite, and for its definition I used a reference to other New Right movements in Europe and the USA, as cited by a journal article written by Minkenberg. You have provided no refereed journal articles, and keep changing the original definition of this article, which is dishonest, you should have discussed the change of the original definition first on the talk page of this article instead of continuing making article changes. You cannot just start changing the terms of debate. Intangible 16:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, there is already an article on the broad international New Right here on Wikipedia. Please go there and see. In English (and this is the English Wikipedia) the term "Nouvelle Droite" does not mean the same thing as the term "New Right." I understand they translate the same, but in the English-speaking world, the term "Nouvelle Droite" only refers to the French New Right or the European New Right. It does not refer to the broad post-WWII "New Radical Right," which is one of the proper and commonly-used terms for the international set of dissident right-wing movements that appeared after World War II. Most scholars do not use the term "New Right" to refer to the "New Radical Right."--Cberlet 17:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Where have I stated that the Nouvelle Droite or New Right definition in this article equates the definition set forth in New Right? You are trying to refute something I do not claim. Intangible 17:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You are arguing in circles. I simply cannot make sense of your arguments. Please accept mediation. --Cberlet 17:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you understand perfectly. You changed the discussion by removing the Minkenberg cite and replaced it by something else without talk page discussion, or do you even refute this? Intangible 17:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

<------The Minkenberg cite is still on the entry page--as are the multiple refutations of it.--Cberlet 17:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It was the defining reference for this article before you changed and moved it around without any talk page discussion. This is simply dishonest. Intangible 17:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see the page New Right. When you have read that page, please return here and continue the discussion. The Minkenberg cite is to "New Right," not "Nouvelle Droite." Furthermore, most scholars argue that the European New Right and the Nouvelle Droite are not the same as the U.S. "New Right." Even de Benoist. Minkenberg also writes of the "New Radical Right." That is the proper term, not "New Right" to describe the collection of post-WWII right-wing dissident movements. This is an easy mistake to make. Please consider the possibilty that your confusion over these terms and the langauge problem is at the root of this disagreement, not my alleged "dishonesty."--Cberlet 18:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Minckenberg makes the distinction between "New Christian Right" (e.g. Buchanan and Moral Majority) , "new radical right" (e.g. FN, DVU, Republikaner) and "New Right" (e.g. Nouvelle Droite, Neue Rechte, Paul Weyrich). So my statements have been correct all along. It's all in his refereed article. Intangible 18:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Weyrich is a key architect of the "New Christian Right" in the United States and participated in the meeting where the Moral Majority was founded in 1979. In the United States and the rest of the English-speaking world, the term "New Right" (when used to decribe politics in the U.S.) refers to a coalition that includes the "New Christian Right", the neoconservatives, the paleoconservatives, the libertarians, business nationalists, and other conservatives such as those in corporate internationalism. The current text of the entry quotes Minckenberg using the term in the broad sense, but then cites just a few of the many authors who dispute the way Minckenberg uses the term. Why can't you accept that the Minckenberg use of the term is idiosyncratic? And even if you refuse to offer even the slightest constructive compromise on this issue, there is already a page on the "New Right."

This page should discuss the French Nouvelle Droite and the European New Right. If you want to go to the existing "New Right" page and add the Minckenberg quote, go right ahead, and I will move the refutation quotes there. This entire debate revolves around your refusal to accept that there is a language issue with using the term "Nouvelle Droite" to represent what in English is the term "New Right." Why are we spending all this time going in circles when the issue is your difficulty with language and proper translation?

Here is the original paragraph from the page creation:

• "Nouvelle Droit or 'New Right' is a school of political thought founded largely on the works of Alain de Benoist and The Centre for Research and Study on European Civilization or (Groupement de Recherche et d'Études sur la Civilisation Européene - GRECE). Although most popular and well known in France, Nouvelle Droit has been very influential in other European right-wing movements. Elements of Nouvelle Droit can be found in the programmes of many major radical right parties in northern Europe such as the National Front in France, the Freedom Party in Austria and Flemish Interest in Belgium. Nouvelle Droit is usually refered by its French name in English to differentiate from Anglo-American free market oriented New Right which is politically quite different."

You did not create this page, and you are the person who changed the focus of the page and its definition--not me.--Cberlet 19:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

<----From Minkenberg (2000, p. 178): "There are new groups of the radical right which try to influence public debate and the minds of people rather than voting behaviour. These groups—think tanks, intellectual circles, political entrepreneurs—are summarized as the New Right in the literature. In the United States, they include organizations led or founded by Paul Weyrich, such as the Free Congress Foundations and the Institute for Cultural Conservatives. In Europe the most prominent groups are the French Nouvelle Droite groups Club de l'Horloge and especially GRECE, led by philosopher Alain de Benoist, the German Neue Rechte, inspired by the the French counterpart but als by the Weimar Conservative Revolution, and the Italian Nouva Destra." This is written in English, the language the author used, and is a refereed article in a scholarly journal. Your arguments are all Original Research. I provided a direct cite for the article's definition here [1], afterwards you tried to change the introduction without using the talk page first. That is dishonest. I cannot see how you can rebut this 2000 journal article with a 1996 book, without invoking Original Research.

..."are summarized as the New Right" -- so go to the "New Right" page and edit. Not this page. This page is about the French "Nouvelle Droite" and the European New Right. The page you want already exists. Go there. Not here. Wrong page. Misunderstanding of English translation. Stop.--Cberlet 19:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No this not about the New Right, because this same article talks about the "New Christian Right" in the USA (which is the United States states bit in New Right). No misunderstanding! Intangible 19:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet is obviously right. There is already a page on the New Right, la Nouvelle Droite can only refer to Alain de Benoist and the GRECE. Why else would you want to use the term for? I must be a bit naive, I can't even see Intangible's political justification for this stupid debate, but I thought he had other things to do than just trolling around. Tazmaniacs 18:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a cfr ongoing for the renaming of Category:New Right (Europe) into Category:Nouvelle Droite. Intangible 18:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment filed

Let's both back off a few days and see what other editors have to say.--Cberlet 19:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually you misrepresent the dispute. I have only used Minkenberg's definition of the New Right, who defines it to include the Nouvelle Droite, Neue Rechte, Nieuw Rechts, etc., and Paul Weyrich / Free Congress Foundation. Maybe User:Cberlet should talk to Minkenberg instead, all I did is to cite a scholarly article published in a refereed journal, and used that to create the introduction of this article, which has since been utterly changed by User:Cberlet. Minkenberg's definition of New Right is ofcourse different than that of the New Right, but that is no problem, since the New Right article contains heterogeneous movements, while Minkenberg's definition is homogeneous. Intangible 20:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, RfA filed here. Keep it on Intangible! Do I need to point out to you that the French Wikipedia includes without any problem the Nouvelle Droite in the fr:Catégorie:Extrême droite française? Well, I do so, but not for you, who should be aware of that. Tazmaniacs 14:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Section: Neopaganism

I don't want to paste up a bunch of <citation needed> tags all over this, but can we get some legitimate references here? On whose authority are these claims being made? "Some proponents"? Who? How many? And have any scholars researched this "philosophical background" and come to these conclusions? Is Logghe on record as promoting "Integral Traditionalism"? I'm not doubting anyone's intentions, but I do think some tangible evidence needs to be provided. Aryaman (☼) 00:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: I wonder if whoever added the references to Jennerjahn read the following, excerpted from the Introduction:

"Heidentum wird hier als Ausdruck politischer Ideologie und nicht primär von Religiosität verstanden."

I think that this is a very important point that needs to be at least mentioned when making reference to Jennerjahn's work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varoon Arya (talk • contribs) 02:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I added the tags, as I'm hoping someone can verify this information. I can't personally, but I assume the original author can. In particular, I think we need to see some hard proof connecting Nouvelle Droite with paganism proper - not simply using the term as a catch-all for explicitly non-Christian orientations. Further, some educated differentiation would be a welcome addition here. I'd like to see what the author can dig up in the way of citable facts first and then work out the phrasing. Aryaman (☼) 17:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fascism

Why is this article connected to the "WikiProject Fascism" when the Nouvelle Droite rejects fascism and totalitarian governments due to their centralizing and imposing forces, which destroy organic communities and signify civilizational decadence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.181.177 (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this is highly inappropriate and hardly NPOV. 136.242.105.236 (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

they just say they're against fascism while they have all the same principles, just want to slap a new name on it, and reliable sources have pointed this out. Popish Plot (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Reference to Traditionalism

The Traditionalism article, being concerned with a philosophical/religious movement, has only a tangential relation to this one. An in-paragraph ref. would be warranted, but the redirection at the beginning of the Ideology section is misleading. I will wait a week in case there are objections, and then make a change. MT Editor (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Jeanmarielepen-profile-harounaaron (cropped 2).png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Alain De Benoist.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Similar Pages?

I noticed there are similar pages under both the French and German terminology?

Some link, and others do not link, to the different ( english, french, etc ) pages on the same topic.

For example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Rechte

and this apparently more complete page, which in turn doesn't have a link to an equivalent German page? - yet there is such a page under another equivalent german term which has its own english page, despite it being the same topic? They do seem to be the same topic? ... "oder habe ich es nicht richtig verstanden?" ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouvelle_Droite

On the french page ( https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouvelle_Droite) , it is explained that there are various splinters of the movement that each have their respective distinctive characteristics? In such case, perhaps it might require a page that enables such overview ( although there are broad categories that bring them together ), and an understanding of how movements and political parties relate to such ideas in various countries/regions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:5379:2200:20AD:1F98:87BB:2EDF (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)