Talk:Far-right politics

This article is a mess

Not sure how I landed here, but this article is a staggering mess. The sourcing relies far too heavily on primary sources, most of which do not have secondary sourcing to establish due weight. This has lead to a great deal of original research and synthesis to be infused into the article. I went through and tried to verify a bunch of the content, and in many cases the cited sources do not support the text attached to the cite. Just a mess. TheMissingMuse (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you give an example or two? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Example passage:

In United States politics, the terms "extreme right", "far-right", and "ultra-right" are labels used to describe "militant forms of insurgent revolutionary right ideology and separatist ethnocentric nationalism"

The cited source appears to be a self published webpage hosted on http://www.publiceye.org. This primary source only mentions far-right only once in passing:

Ultra Right (Sometimes called Far Right or Extreme Right)

TheMissingMuse (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I do think we should seek out a stronger source for the broad definition/overview statement. In the meantime, I've at least attributed the quoted material to its publisher. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "attributing quoted material to it's publisher". The sentence isn't supported by the citation. TheMissingMuse (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

It is. The source establishes "far right" as synonymous with those other terms (as is common) and then provides a definition. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

No, the self published source states that Ultra Right is sometimes called Far Right. That's a very different claim than saying it's synonymous. The source doesn't support the text, and the source shouldn't be used in the first place without secondary sourcing establishing due weight of the source. TheMissingMuse (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The source, which is secondary, is saying that the terms are used synonymously, and it provides a definition for their shared synonymous meaning. Certainly, all the terms can be used differently, but it provides one common usage that aligns with the topic of this page. I agree that there are likely stronger sources, but it's not problematic enough to remove. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly not a secondary source. It's the source that made the claim. And no, you're engaging in synthesis when you say that "sometimes used" is the same things as "synonymous". Like I said, the article is a mess, and it's full of this kind of bad sourcing, OR and synthesis. You might approve of this misuse of sourcing, but that doesn't change the fact that the sourcing is bad. TheMissingMuse (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

In some sense, providing a definition is "making a claim", but such an odd view invalidates the primary/secondary/tertiary distinction. I'd prefer to use a more common sense understanding. I'm very happy to see the sourcing improved, but it appears your understanding of the sourcing flaws is itself quite flawed. See below for more examples. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I have a very solid understanding of sourcing. Your implication that a public eye web page is a reliable secondary source not incorrect. From WP:SECONDARY: A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. The webpage cites no primary sources, and presents specific claims in it's own voice. It is neither WP:SCHOLARLY nor from a news organization. It is WP:QUESTIONABLE source from an organization with a clear WP:BIAS, and cannot be used to establish WP:DUE weight. TheMissingMuse (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Another example:

The skinhead culture gained momentum during the late 1980s and peaked during the late 1990s. Numerous hate crimes were committed against refugees, including a number of racially motivated murders.

is supported by two cites:

• [foreign language source with no content]
• [self published paper]

Neither of these citations are strong enough to support content without secondary sourcing supporting the citation, and inclusion here is undue. TheMissingMuse (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• • The Helsingin sanomat is Finnish, which makes sense, and I've updated the citation url (and archive). The Ravndal paper link is to a free version of his peer-reviewd article published in Terrorism and Political Violence. Will update the citation info later, as I'm stepping away for a bit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Not a forum for your perceptions of Wikipedia
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article is extremely biased like most political articles on Wikipedia. Clearly a lot more opinion here than fact, but Wikipedia has become extremely left wing and unreliable. Until someone comes along in authority to set down some neutral ground rules it will continue to be that way unfortunately.Bjoh249 (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC) I would concur that there is some significant left-wing bias on Wikipedia, due in large part to the nature of who is most likely to edit Wikipedia. However, this article, out of all article on a politically contentious topic, does an excellent job in keeping away from significant bias, I would argue, and is largely factual, though not without error. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding The Image At The Top Of The Page

About a year ago, there was a weak consensus that the image at the top of the page should be of the American "Unite the Right" rally, rather than the picture of the Austrian Identitarian protest that has also often been on the page, and was on the page for a long time prior. This was largely because of how the "Unite the Right" rally was more recognizable and relevant. However, given the significant recent rise of the European far-right, the original has frequently (accidentally against consensus) been restored, likely because the original Identitarian protest is now a better representation of the "far-right" globally, one which is now significantly more relevant, recognizable, and representative than the "Unite the Right" rally. I, personally, would agree with this stance, and I am writing here to ask whether other Wikipedia writers, on the whole, agree:

Should the original image of Austrian Identitarians be restored, or should the Unite the Right rally image remain? JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

If nobody has any objection over the next few days, I will switch the image back. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with a European image, but we don't need to change images to match current trends in far-right politics. Two reasons given in the last discussion for preferring the status quo are that it represents an event that got a lot of international media coverage and that it includes recognizable symbols of the far right. If an image from another country can be found that has those characteristics, I think many of us would be happy to consider it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

This is my reason exactly - I think that the Identitarian protest is probably more recognizable at a global level, while outside of the US, the Unite The Right Rally might not be very recognizable, compared with the "rise of the European far-right" being plastered over every newspaper everywhere for such a long time as of late.

Something like an AfD rally might be both more recognizable and more significant, though there will inevitably be some people who might change it back saying "thEy'Re nOt tHaT FaR-RiGHt." JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no need to reopen this settled matter. The reason why the current image is obviously substantially better is that it shows two of the most relevant flags/emblems of both European and American far-right politics: The swastika and the Confederate battle flag respectively, both of which are recognised internationally and have both historic and contemporary significance. It isn't about the Unite The Right rally specifically. It illustrates the far-right as a whole. An AfD rally would not be as good as a lead picture because German law prevents them from using the most recognisable symbols that they would like to use. Of course, if there is a good picture of an AfD (or similar) rally then we can add it to the Germany section. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: I've added the best picture I could find. It's good because it shows two of the specific things that the German far-right is into at the moment: complaining about Muslims and moaning about "censorship". --DanielRigal (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

neutral point of view seems bias

From Wiki: "Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information." However under Far-Right the photo is of hate groups like Nazi's. The far-left photo is a nice peaceful congress looking photo. These two do seem "Neutral" and not agenda driven at all(sarcasm intended!). 69.195.29.42 (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The word you want is "biased." Hate groups are most prominent on the Right. Do you have any suggestions for images of scary leftists? They are a lot harder to find these days than images of Nazis. We are not obligated to create false symmetry by assuming that each component of society or politics has an equal and opposite mirror. Acroterion (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Ultraconservatism

Little to no examples, what makes it "far right" 212.37.17.254 (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Please quickly add a link to "Far-left"

Could someone quickly just add a link where it says "far left" to the "Far-left politics" wikipedia artickle. Plus why is there quotation marks on it? I know the political portal is right there but please. I don't know if anyone can see but I edited the source instead of making a topic because I can't find the button. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezed2K (talk • contribs) 19:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you❤ 2601:603:4F80:1580:9131:D8BD:6BBB:AC38 (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The the

Could someone take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far-right_politics&oldid=prev&diff=1213156550 and decide whether my edit (adding "the" to make "the majority") ought to stand or not? I don't see how the sentence is grammatical without it, but Doug clearly thinks that it can be.

(Please forgive me for my lack of knowledge of the etiquette for handling such questions - I am very much an occasional editor, mostly for grammar and formatting issues, so I don't consider myself part of the "insider" community.) STeamTraen (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't see the term in the source, but the original edit was what I restored it to, no "the'.[1] Doug Weller talk 12:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Meant to add thanks for posting, don't worry about being an occasional editor. The two words need to be taken together as a singular thing, not a adjective and noun. Doug Weller talk 12:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Political bias

First thing I want to say, is that even though it is said in the frequentely asked questions that the nazi party was far-right due to what was know at the time as far-right, I want to say that political intervetion on private property to make its function to serve the government and the society doesn't look far right. What I mean is, nazism and fascism are complex ideologies that should be classified neither as right or left, if you study you will find out many similarities between fascism and marxism, but I still wouldn't say it's left wing, both are complex ideologies that have their own characteristics, and shouldn't be labeled as far right, to prove my point, I will send here some books about fascism:

A History of Fascism, On page 8 it's written: "Fascism was not, however, nihilistic as many critics charged. Rather, it rejected many established values - wheter left, right, or center".

Anatomy of Fascism, On page 11 it's written: "It becomes hard to locate fascism on the familiar Right-Left political map. Did the fascist leaders themselves know, at the beginning? When Mussolini called his friends together at the Piazza San Sepolcro in March 1919, it was not entirely clear that he was trying to compete with his former collegues in the Italian Socialist Party on the Left, or attack them frontally from the Right. Where on the Italian political spectrum would what he still sometimes called "national syndicalism" find its place? Indeed, fascism always retained that ambiguity". And in the next page he wrote: "The ultimate fascist response to the Left-Right political map was to claim that they made obsolete by being "neither Right or Left," transcending such outdated divisions and uniting the nation".

Neither Right or Left: Facist Ideology in France, An entire book about fascism being neither from the right or from the left.

Now another thing that I want to say is, far-right by definition is not tied to racism, and other things like that, there are racist idiots who are far right, but that doesn't make the entire far-right racist. I have many friends that are far-right, none of them are racist or any of the things said in this article, but all of them are really conservative, with that I mean, this article ties far-right with racism and other things like that a lot of times, while it should be said maybe just when talking about some political groups (idiots) that are far-right.

I will not compare to the far-left article, I will instead compare to a better article in portuguese about far-right, the article is from Politize, and it's name is "O que é Extrema Direita?" ("What is Far Right?"). That article tells all the characteristics that makes the far-right while not taking sides or making a accusation that is purely political.

I would like to edit this page about far-right, I would delete most parts that link far-right with hate speech due to it being more political than it is academic, and I would also add a note saying that both fascism and nazism have controversy about the political spectrum and many does not consider it being far-right, hope you can understand.

(I removed all external links from this message). Pedro Cunha de Oliveirap (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

In case someone says those books are not reliable:

A History of Fascism, published by the University of Wisconsin Press

Anatomy of Fascism, published by Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group

Neither Right or Left: Facist Ideology in France, published by the University of Princeton Press Pedro Cunha de Oliveirap (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are trying to argue that what interpretation you think should take priority over what is widely accepted, and over what other people might think should. This isn't going anywhere. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The thing I am trying to say, is that it's NOT widely accepted as you say, and I did prove that Pedro Cunha de Oliveirap (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

In the book: Origins And Doctrine Of Fascism, Gentile himself wrote that on page 33 that the fascists did got inspirations and learned from the Marxists, this by itself already proves that you can not just classify as far-right and call it a day, it was more complex than that, and many respected authors agree Pedro Cunha de Oliveirap (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

"The Fascist, on the other hand, conceives philosophy as a philosophy of practice (praxis). That concept was the product of certain Marxist and Sorellian inspirations (many Fascists and the Duce, himself, received their first intellectual education in the school of Marx and Sorel)"

- Giovanni Gentile Pedro Cunha de Oliveirap (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Giovanni Gentile? This guy? Really? OK. Let's start with the very basics. Fascists lie. What they say about themselves is always self-serving and deeply suspect. Of course, they pitched themselves as some sort of "third position". It was an effective way to bid for support from both right and left. Did they know it was dishonest? Of course. Did they care? Of course not. Fascists lie whenever it suits them to. Is it true that they copied a few ideas from the left? Sure. We are not trying to hide that. Does this have much bearing on the fundamental nature of Fascism? No. Was it effective in confusing people as to the nature of Fascism? Somewhat, yes, but after 1945 most people wised up pretty damn quickly. That post-war academic consensus is what we reflect in this article and in the FAQ. What Gentile had to say on the topic before being shot in 1944 is neither here nor there. DanielRigal (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

So your answer to that is: "He lied, because I know the truth". What you said is basically: "I think that there is a consensus, therefore, this consensus is always right and everything else is not true".

And yes, knowing that he indeed had inspirations from the Marxists make us think a little more about the complexity of the fascism, and just like I showed you with the books I said, there is no consesus like you keep trying to say, many say otherwise.

What I am just trying to do, is edit the page to say that there is controversy and no such thing as a consensus (if there was, those books published by big and respected universities would not exist), while some may say fascism and nazism is far-right, many also say it's neither left or right. Pedro Cunha de Oliveirap (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, if you think about politics and economics, you will get to the same answer, neither left or right Pedro Cunha de Oliveirap (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Read he FAQ, this is not a matter of debate in any reputable academic sources. We're not here to muddle or whitewash history to suit individual editors. Acroterion (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Are Princeton and Wisconsin Universities not good enough for you?

It's not about "whitewashing" history, it's about proving that there is no consensus

And if you are not paying attention, nothing that I said is on the FAQ Pedro Cunha de Oliveirap (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Even Roger Griffin, the same author who is used in the article about fascism to say that it's far-right, he says in the book The Nature of Fascism, in the same paragraph on page 50 that he wrote "It seems reasonable to regard it for pratical purposes as a sub-category of the ultra-right but with special qualities of its own, that is we are dealing once again with a particular and thus unique manifestation of a generic ideal type", he also wrote in the same paragraph: "Not only does the location of fascism within the right pose taxonomic problems, there are good grounds for cutting this particular Gordian knot altogether by placing it in a category of its own 'beyond left and right'." Pedro Cunha de Oliveirap (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Pulling reasonable discussion of exceptions and qualifications of broad statements out of individual texts is not the same as showing a broad academic consensus for including waffling over whether there is a consensus. You will need to find appropriate sources that describe overall consensus of academic studies consensus, not cherry-picked details. Acroterion (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

If is that so, show the academic consesus you all say, because what I did was prove by different sources even the one that is the one used for saying that fascism is far-right, that there is no such thing as consensus that you all say, its not "cherry-picked details", you can go ahead and read it yourself, I provided the source and the exact page, and also read the books that I mentioned, because you completely ignored that, even knowing that the source is a famous university for two of them. Pedro Cunha de Oliveirap (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Read the source and its references; you're trying to take individual reasonable equivocation to make broad statements about academic consensus; i.e., cherry-picking. And read the FAQ. Again. The burden is on you to support your suggested changes, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And in any case, this article is about the far-right politics, broadly speaking, not just about fascism. Acroterion (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I did read the source, and you should as well, it's not equivocation, those are citations of books that have a lot of relevance, and as I said, if you want to just discard saying it's "cherry-picking", all of you can go ahead and read the books, because I can't just type by hand an entire book here, nothing that I said is out of context, and there is an entire book published by Princeton University Press supporting what I said, I will even add a citation from the page 3 of the book Neither Right or Left: Facist Ideology in France here:

"Even today, when some excellent works enable us to understand the facist phenomenom with a clarity that was scarcely possible previously, there is still no definition that is generally acceptable or regarded as universally valid. In comparison with socialism and communism, fascism remains a relatively unexplored subject, and it's very heterogeneity only serves to obscure still further a political idea that is already ambiguous enough. In the interwear period, fascism - which, among other things, was a form of extreme nationalism and hence particularism - was as widespread in the great industrial centers of western Europe as in the underdeveloped countries of eastern Europe, and was as attractive to the leading intellectuals of the time as to illiterate peasants. Thus, without any clear defined social foundation, fascism seems to lack consistency, texture, or even a real existence, and, moreover, it's intellectual origins are vague and confusing. As a result, some authorities reasonably enough doubt the possibility of ever arriving at a concepction of fascism that can satisfy the requirements of scientific precision, while others, unwilling to face the problem, less reasonably deny the very existence of fascism."

And also more that is in the book A History of Fascism, page 12:

"Nonetheless, the ideas and goals of fascists differed in fundamental respects from those of the new authoritarian right, and the intention, and the intention to transcend right-wing conservatism was firmly held, though not always realized in practice"

Or even better, the entire paragraph of the same book on page 8 that I used a phrase:

"Fascist ideology, unlike that most of the right, was in some cases secular but, unlike the ideology of the left and to some extent the liberals, was based on vitalism and idealism and the rejection of economic determinism, whether of Manchester or Marx. The goal of metaphysical idealism and vitalism was the creation of a new man, a new style of culture that achieved both physical and artistic excellence and that prized courage, daring, and the overcoming of previously stablished limits in the growth of a new superior culture which engaged the whole man. Fascism was not however, nihilistic, as many critics charged. Rather it rejected many established values - whether left, right, or center - and was willing to engage in acts of wholesale destruction, sometimes involving the most gasthly mass murder, as "creative destruction" to usher in a new utopia of its making, just as Communists murdered millions in the name of an egalitarian utopia"

And also, the entire paragraph that I mentioned of Roger Griffin's book The Nature of Fascism:

"Not only does the location of fascism within the right pose taxonomic problems, there are good grounds for cutting this particular Gordian knot altogether by placing it in a category of its own 'beyond left and right. After all, like radical Catholicism in the inter-war period and present-day ecologism and feminism, it claims to fight for a new vision, a Third Way pioneering a radical break with all traditional ideologies and parties, a point which we have seen is central Sternhell's conception of fascism (Sternhell 1979, and Sternhell 1987). Nevertheless, deeply ingrained habits of liberal and socialist thought make it counter-intuitive for most political scientists to deny that fascism belong to the right rather than the left. It seems reasonable to regard it for pratical purposes as a sub-category of the ultra-right but with special qualities of its own, that is we are dealing once again with a particular and thus unique manifestation of a generic ideal type. Perhaps the reader might come to feel comfortable with some such category as 'palingenetic ultra-right' by the end of this work, though once again the concept of 'ultra-right' would have to be given specifically populist (and not merely pseudo populist) connotations for the phrase to be coterminous with fascism"

I will present a logical argument about fascism and nazism not belong to the far-right by presenting characteristics that may lean in one side or the other, ultranationalism is in both extremes, North Korea is also ultranationalist so this would not be a good way to measure, being conservative could be one far-right characteristic but many doesn't consider fascism conservative due to it's revolutionary nature of reforming society, the capitalism is also not exactly a point that favors the far-right due to it being subjected to the government, and Hitler said that the wealth was for the national state, and also said "The land is National Property and in the end is only given to the individual as a loan". Considering what Gentile said in his book, which not only he says that there is inspiration in marxism but is also possible to se see similarities in marxism when he talks about the state and the anti-liberalism, considering that fascism and nazism does have social and economic characteristics that are similar to the left and to the right, and all the books presented here, trying to affirm that nazism and facism is far-right because of a "consensus" is a weak argument. There are authors who do said that fascism and nazism are far-right, and one of, if not the most relevant of them, did acknowledge that both could also be in their own category because they don't fit to well in the far-right.

I don't know who told you about academic consensus, over the history there were many cases of political propaganda being used to distort history, in this specific case I will say again, everything that I presented here is more than enough to prove that the consensus that everyone is saying is not true at all. Everything that is being said in Wikipedia:BURDEN was already provided by me, and yes, the article is about far-right politics, but my point is that this article is more of a biased political propaganda full of subjective adjectives than its an academic article, hate exists in all sides of the political spectrum, Karl Marx was antisemite, and the accusations made in the article are not fully supported by the academics, and I even compared it to another better article about far-right politics to make it clear how much bias this article do have. And nothing that is said is extraordinary, people just insist on a consensus that is not valid and does not exist, it's extraordinary only for someone that strongly believes in this false consensus. Pedro Cunha de Oliveirap (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

You cannot provide a logical argument for whether fascism should be placed on the political spectrum because NOR and NOSYN prohibit editors from making these calls.

The arguments you present have been discussed at length on the talk pages of Fascism and Nazism and I suggest you read them.

Also, if you are interested, there has been some scholarship recently about conservatives in the late Weimar Republic. All the arguments you present apply to them. But their uncharismatic leadership and identification with the Prussian Protestant aristocracy made them unpopular so they brought the more popular Nazis into their coalition. TFD (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

If that is a reason, the article should at least be less biased towards a side and remove all accusations that are political Pedro Cunha de Oliveirap (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It's biased toward what standard polisci textbooks say. The same applies to the JFK assassination, the moon landing, and 9/11. Articles cannot give undue weight to fringe views or report what editors think. If you can find an article about far right politics that is substantially at odds with what is published here, then we can consider that. Or you can get those policies changed or go to a Wiki where different rules apply. TFD (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I will present a logical argument about fascism and nazism not belong to the far-right is an excellent example of fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia's content is established, and it illustrates why the NOR, RS, V and NPOV policies are fundamental, existing to ensure that individual editors' pet theories don't overwhelm the encyclopedia (and talkpages). The advice you've been given on ptwiki is sound. Acroterion (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

"fascists lie"

Don't communists lie too? They're used as sources for articles relating to Marxism, communism, far-left politics, etc., yet they're not any more honest than a fascist or a Nazi. BozzaNova69 (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Have you considered reading the FAQ? Talk:Far-right_politics/FAQ Andre🚐 02:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

They do, but shifting the focus to communism may serve as a Straw man, much in the same way certain aspects from the sources listed by OP are possibly Cherry picking. DN (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliability does not depend on the writer's perspective. However, people who promote anti-Semitism, transphobia, climate change denial etc. rely on lies to support their opinions and therefore their views are not taken seriously in reliable sources. If you have a problem with this, get the policy changed. TFD (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

This is ultimately a case of WP:LITTER. Yes, I would agree there are some issues with sourcing on far-left articles for the reasons you state – but we don't improve Wikipedia by making that situation worse on this article. Instead separate coversations would need to take place on far-left articles to improve the sourcing there. — Czello ^(music) 07:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

👍 2601:603:4F80:1580:9131:D8BD:6BBB:AC38 (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Name a single fascist state that wasn’t far-right… I’ll wait. 184.98.31.51 (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Picture

To put a Neo Nazis picture, on an article of “far right” seems very biased. many far right movements are pro Jews, and not every far right party is antisemitic. 2A06:C701:4F3B:ED00:D08E:63E5:4926:6CEC (talk) 06:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

but the nazis are antisemitic and far-right. YBSOne (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

"Sometimes"?

I invite JustAPoliticsNerd and Biohistorian15 who have added the term, as well as Bluethricecreamman who reverted the first time, and Doug Weller who thanked me for reverting it the second time, to discuss whether the qualifier sometimes is required in the sentence Far-right politics have led to.... My opinion, as stated in my edit summary, is that the word is redundant. Generalrelative (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. It also may minimise Doug Weller talk 19:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

agreed. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It must be recognized that "far-right politics" covers a very broad range of ideology, some highly pacifist, as with the ideology of the Amish (sure meets the criteria of "xenophobic, theocratic, . . . homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary"), and the writing heavily implies that "oppression, political violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing, and genocide" are the inevitable results of any ideology that fits into this vague box that can somehow include Islamists and Islamaphobes, Nazis and Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Amish and traditional Catholics. Such a statement is clearly true for the Nazis, Darwinists, and similar constituent groups of the far-right, but though it isn't grammatically a statement generalizable to the entire group, it sure reads that way.

Frankly, I think this statement should be removed, and similar language only used in reference into specific subgroups here. There is a reason, after all, that it would be laughable attempt at propaganda to say on the far-left politics page:

"Far-left politics have led to oppression, political violence, forced assimilation, famine, and genocide against groups of people based on their social status or their perceived opposition to the state, state ideology, or revolutionary social institutions."

Even if that is absolutely true in some instances, it is a cruel extrapolation from those specific horrific instances. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess point by point breakdown?

A) "far-right politics" covers a very broad range of ideology, some highly pacifist, as with the ideology of the Amish

I have not seen any reputable source discuss the Amish as far-right.

B) the writing heavily implies that "oppression, political violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing, and genocide" are the inevitable results of any ideology that fits into this vague box that can somehow include Islamists and Islamaphobes, Nazis and Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Amish and traditional Catholics

We don't use the word inevitable in that statement though, nor do we suggest "all".

C) Frankly, I think this statement should be removed

WP:LEDE indicates the lede should include the most important info, and it is likely WP:DUE weight to include the noted history of far-right parties. The word 'genocide' occurs more than 16 times in this article, 'ethnic cleansing' twice, 'violence' 25 times, 'violent' 8 times, et c.

D) Far-left politics have led to oppression, political violence, forced assimilation, famine, and genocide against groups of people based on their social status or their perceived opposition to the state, state ideology, or revolutionary social institutions

Find reliable sourcing and do the WP:BOLD edit.

E) it is a cruel extrapolation from those specific horrific instances

An appeal to emotion is not supported by wikipedia policies? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

A) Did you read my explanation of how this very page defines the Amish as far-right on multiple points? Are they not homophobic and transphobic? They think you will go to hell for that. Are they not xenophobic? They think that the entire rest of the world has turned from God. Are they not reactionary? They refuse to use any technology from the last 200 years.

B) No, it is not explicitly said, but the average Wikipedia reader seeing this sentence is going to get that vibe.

C) We should note that the far-right has lead to violence, as it very much has, and I agree with this, but as I said, the parts of the "far-right" that lead to violence should be specified, and others excluded.

D) I very much think that this is the wrong approach to a subject like this, as it may lead to an improper generalization in the mind of a casual reader.

E) Wikipedia should try to remain unbiased.

I guess that's how I'd respond to this. Thinking on this more, it may not be necessary to remove the phrase, but to specify "some currents of the far-right, such as Nazism and Darwinism. . ." JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

A) read WP:OR. You didn't prove anything except that you made arguments that are your own original research. I could argue that Barack Obama pre-2012 was far-right because he didn't directly support same sex marriage until then. But unless there is some reliable source that supports such original research, my random assertions has no place on wikipedia.

B) I think the average wikipedia viewer would understand that the sentence remains in the general sense of the word. the sentence remains very generalized, tame overall, succinct and direct considering the subject matter. Not every far-right group is necessarily advocating for every word in that list, but most advocate for most of the terms.

C) Do the WP:BOLD edit and we can do BRD cycle on a hypothetitical change where you specifically point out which far-right groups are the violent ones, and which ones should avoid being . We are arguing about the inclusion of "some".

D) Again, this article talks about the history and espousement of violence, genocide, and fascist/neo-fascist ideologies. It would be WP:UNDUE not to mention the historical violence noted in history and literature.

E) WP:FALSEBALANCE applies. If most reliable sourcing indicates that far-right is linked to either violence/espousement of violence/ethnic cleansing/oppression, it would be WP:UNDUE to remove such a sentece.

F) some currents of the far-right, such as Nazism and Darwinism the list of far-right movements linked to various behaviors on the list is not limited to only nazism or darwinism. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I have applied an edit that would highlight the groups relevant to this and the groups irrelevant to this in as neutral of a way as possible, and I am curious what you think. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

That edit looked to me like WP:OR. Or can you highlight where the sources explicitly refer to Anabaptists as "far right"? The second issue with your edit was that, per MOS:LEAD, the lead needs to follow the article body. Generalrelative (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

My biggest concern with this edit is that I might have violated WP:SYNTH, and I have just found a source that can address this. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

https://anabaptistworld.org/resurgence-of-a-global-mennonite-far-right/

https://www.plough.com/en/topics/justice/politics/religious-liberty/the-anabaptist-vision-of-politics

Would these two together be acceptable to place the "conservative anabaptists" politically, do you think? JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. WP:SYNTH is a part of WP:OR. I see that the first source looks good from a NOR perspective (it explicitly mentions "far-right"). From a quick glance I don't see that in the second source. The next question will be if this source is reliable for the claim. Personally, I don't see why it wouldn't be, but others might disagree. In any case, the thing to do would be to build out the content according to WP:DUE weight in the article body (that is, not giving more space to your new content than we currently give to other, similarly well sourced content). If at some future point it becomes clear that this merits a mention in the lead, we can have a conversation about how best to phrase it. Generalrelative (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

This seems reasonable, and I agree with your prior suggestion that religious movements merit more of a mention in the body. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Ben Goosen's article says that some Mennonites have been attracted to the far right because of their shared culturally conservative and anti-Communist views. That doesn't mean that their religion is far right. Many Lutherans and Catholics are also attracted to the far right.

Also, the Mennonite religion is not homophobic or transphobic. Conflating aversion to same sex relationships with homophobia is a typical far right position in order to defend themselves.

The far right use misinformation to present LGBTQ people as threats to children and society in order to generate hatred against them. Think Westboro Baptist Church. This is a prosecutable crime in most countries.

Xenophobia too goes beyond dislike of foreigners. They incite hatred against immigrants by presenting false information about them that they are part of a plot to replace the white race and that they bring disease and crime with them. TFD (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

That said, if you want to flesh out coverage in the article body of contemporary far-right Catholic groups like Opus Dei, I'd be all for that. Generalrelative (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Generalrelative, MOS:LEAD would argue that the sentence should follow and support the information in the rest of the article while remaining succinct. The current sentence still seems better than the bold edit. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Good as-is. "Have led to" is factual and critically different than the judgement of "always leads to". VQuakr (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Relible sources do not classify ultra-orthodox Jews, Amish or most traditional Catholics as far right. The reality is that there are no examples where the far right has come to power and not been oppressive, particularly against minorities.

The far left is a red herring since it is an unclearly defined term. The most commonly used definition in reliable sources is groups that have no hope of ever coming to power. TFD (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Civitas, the SSPX, and countless other traditionalist Catholic groups are reliably labelled far-right on Wikipedia, while the definition given for far-right on this very Wikipedia page would undoubtably include the Amish, as I have already shown: Are they not homophobic and transphobic? They think you will go to hell for that. Are they not xenophobic? They think that the entire rest of the world has turned from God. Are they not reactionary? They refuse to use any technology from the last 200 years.

If these groups aren't far-right, this page should not classify homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and reactionary politics as far-right. Meanwhile, if Stalinism is not far-left, which is the basis for my "Far-left politics have led to. . ." spiel, then we may as well just trash the whole "far-left" Wikipedia page. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

It may be considered weasel wording. DN (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

"Weasel-wording" is allowed if that is what reliable sources say. Sources often use the terms some or many, which we can repeat. It's only a problem when Wikipedia editors decide what counts as some or many. TFD (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Online

Yeah, but doesn't this type of stuff (far-right ideology, segregation, elitism, xenophobia, racism,...) exist everywhere and happens daily? Someone can start listing international forums related to lifestyle, education, finance, travel, tech, hardware... or imageboards hosted in Europe/USA/South America/Russia/Japan/Australia... Hell, even back in the day of old and crusty Usenet (still alive with piracy), you had political newsgroups that shared this type of stuff.

It's kind of misguided to mention only a few extremely old and almost defunct websites when youth radicalization happens entirely elsewhere.

It's setting the bar so low that a simple "No, the rest of the internet is harmless" would be enough to say. It's part of lifeWslexplore (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

While it exists everywhere, only the far right would use it as the basis of a political movement. TFD (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Um, . . .

"Far-right politics have led to oppression, political violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing, and genocide against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state, national religion, dominant culture, or conservative social institutions." Anyone ever hear of Stalin or Mao?Mwidunn (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

What's your point? That sentence doesn't say anything about leftist or communist leaders. VQuakr (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't preclude that far left parties haven't also engaged in similar atrocities. Pointing out such goes in the appropriate page (that is, the far left page), as it isn't relevant information for the far right page. Red dwarf (talk) 05:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Only the first two occurred under Stalin and Mao and their leadership did not lead to oppression and political violence, they already existed. TFD (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)