Jump to content

Talk:Right-wing politics: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Assessment: banner shell, Politics (Rater)
 
(638 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{British English}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{controversial}}
{{controversial}}
{{pbneutral}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{calm}}
{{calm}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=B|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=top}}
{{Conservatism SA}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy |importance=High |political=yes |modern=yes |contemporary=yes}}
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Dhtwiki|date=8–9 January 2021}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|archiveheader={{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|maxarchivesize=100K
|counter = 21
|counter=24
|algo = old(30d)
|algo=old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Right-wing politics/Archive %(counter)d
|archive=Talk:Right-wing politics/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=1 |units=month}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template=
|target=/Archive index|mask=/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes|template=}}
}}

== Typically biased article ==

Because the article was written by left wingers, it describes the right-wing :) doctrine pejoratively, using a negative definition: 'they are against social equality'.

First of all, only a left winger would talk about 'social equality'. The concept itself is vague, it lacks substance and is not used by common people.

Furthermore, a right winger would not describe himself with the terms of the Left. For example, a libertarian would say that he supports freeing the individual from state meddling and state theft.

Or if he is a nationalist, he may say that he supports a strong national military and a carefully restricted immigration.

But to say that all right wingers accept or support 'social inequality' is silly. Even the Wiki entry about Social Equality recognises that this vague concept should include the equality before the law, which right wingers do support.

If social equality is defined as equality before the law and equality of opportunity, and if (as I think) most right wingers believe in these, then it makes no sense to define 'right wing' as an outlook that supports social inequality.

Finally, it does not seem to me that the main attribute of the left-wing doctrine is support for 'social equality'. For example, on the whole left wingers support an extreme level of inequality between leaders and members of the proletariat.

Support for wealth redistribution and state intervention in the lives of citizens are probably better defining attributes, as well as being clearer. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:WikiWorld88|WikiWorld88]] ([[User talk:WikiWorld88|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/WikiWorld88|contribs]]) 12:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:If you have any sources that define the Right, then it would be helpful if you would provide them.

:: No I don't have sources but I don't think it matters. The thing is, if you take a left-wing book you will find a pejorative definition of the Right. And if you take a right-wing book you will find a pejorative definition of the Left. If I had to write the entries about Left and Right I would just use a bullet list of their main ideas. I wouldn't try to summarize them in a way that suggests that people from the Right love to oppress their fellow men. :-) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:WikiWorld88|WikiWorld88]] ([[User talk:WikiWorld88|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/WikiWorld88|contribs]]) 16:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::::''No I don't have sources but I don't think it matters.''
:::See [[WP:V]]. If you don't have sources, you don't have an argument. &mdash; [[User:Goethean|goethean]] 16:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course he has, he is pointing to the fact that only left-wing books and articles are used as sources here. Equality is an stupid, ethereal concept that will never be solid in any society. There are thousands and thousands of academic sources pointing to that that will never be accepted here because of the cynical partisan bias that reigns here. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/177.99.56.96|177.99.56.96]] ([[User talk:177.99.56.96|talk]]) 04:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:That is circular reasoning. You think the article is left-wing therefore the sources must be left-wing. If you have any reliable sources that contradict what is in the article, please provide them. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 04:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
:::let's not mix us "social equality" and legal equality" as Goethean does. The statement by Goethean that "on the whole left wingers support an extreme level of inequality between leaders and members of the proletariat." is false. On the whole they do not approve of that. [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen|talk]]) 05:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line here is someone who can be unbiased and has either unbiased sources or can properly use opposing sources needs to reword this article. As it is, the article is written more to accuse and demonize the right wing than to write an unbiased article. It doesn't have to be positive, but it needs to not be aggressive. [[User:SteveTheSteeeve|SteveTheSteeeve]] ([[User talk:SteveTheSteeeve|talk]]) 19:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

::One often hears supporters of the Right say that those who disagree with them are "biased". Here are the references to just the lead of this article. Are all of these references biased?

1.Jump up ^ Bobbio, Norberto and Allan Cameron,Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction. University of Chicago Press, 1997, p. 51, 62. ISBN 978-0-226-06246-4
2.^ Jump up to: a b J. E. Goldthorpe. An Introduction to Sociology. Cambridge, England, UK; Oakleigh, Melbourne, Australia; New York, New York, USA p. 156. ISBN 0-521-24545-1.
3.Jump up ^ Rodney P. Carlisle. Encyclopedia of politics: the left and the right, Volume 2. University of Michigan; Sage Reference, 2005. p.693, 721. ISBN 1-4129-0409-9
4.^ Jump up to: a b c T. Alexander Smith, Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at war: moral conflicts in western democracies. Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd, 2003. p. 30. "That viewpoint is held by contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality or political participation.' In other words, the sociological perspective sees preservationist politics as a right-wing attempt to defend privilege within the social hierarchy."
5.^ Jump up to: a b Left and right: the significance of a political distinction, Norberto Bobbio and Allan Cameron, p. 37, University of Chicago Press, 1997.
6.^ Jump up to: a b Seymour Martin Lipset, cited in Fuchs, D., and Klingemann, H. 1990. The left-right schema. pp. 203–34 in Continuities in Political Action: A Longitudinal Study of Political Orientations in Three Western Democracies, ed.M.Jennings et al. Berlin:de Gruyter
7.^ Jump up to: a b c Lukes, Steven. 'Epilogue: The Grand Dichotomy of the Twentieth Century': concluding chapter to T. Ball and R. Bellamy (eds.), The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Political Thought. pp.610–612
8.^ Jump up to: a b Clark, William. Capitalism, not Globalism. University of Michigan Press, 2003. ISBN 0-472-11293-7, ISBN 978-0-472-11293-7
9.Jump up ^ Smith, T. Alexander and Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at War: Moral Conflicts in Western Democracies (Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd., 2003) p. 30. "That viewpoint is held by contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality or political participation.' '
10.Jump up ^ Scruton, Roger “A Dictionary of Political Thought” "Defined by contrast to (or perhaps more accurately conflict with) the left the term right does not even have the respectability of a history. As now used it denotes several connected and also conflicting ideas (including) 1)conservative, and perhaps authoritarian, doctrines concerning the nature of civil society, with emphasis on custom, tradition, and allegiance as social bonds ... 8) belief in free enterprise free markets and a capitalist economy as the only mode of production compatible with human freedom and suited to the temporary nature of human aspirations ..." pp. 281-2, Macmillian, 1996
11.Jump up ^ J. E. Goldthorpe. An Introduction to Sociology. "There are ... those who accept inequality as natural, normal, and even desirable. Two main lines of thought converge on the Right or conservative side...the truly Conservative view is that there is a natural hierarchy of skills and talents in which some people are born leaders, whether by heredity or family tradition. ... now ... the more usual right-wing view, which may be called 'liberal-conservative', is that unequal rewards are right and desirable so long as the competition for wealth and power is a fair one." p. 156. Cambridge, England, UK; Oakleigh, Melbourne, Australia; New York, New York, USA p. 156. ISBN 0-521-24545-1.
12.Jump up ^ Ferrie Pot. Employment Relations and National Culture: Continuity and Change in the Age of Globalization. P135-136.
13.Jump up ^ Modern Catholic Social Teaching: The Popes Confront the Industrial Age, 1740-1958. Paulist Press, 2003. P132
14.^ Jump up to: a b Goodsell, Charles T., "The Architecture of Parliaments: Legislative Houses and Political Culture", British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 18, No. 3 (July , 1988) pp. 287–302
15.Jump up ^ Linski, Gerhard, Current Issues and Research In Macrosociology (Brill Archive, 1984) p. 59
16.Jump up ^ Clark, Barry Political Economy: A Comparative Approach (Praeger Paperback, 1998) pp. 33–34
17.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Andrew Knapp and Vincent Wright (2006). The Government and Politics of France. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-35732-6.
18.Jump up ^ Rodney P. Carlisle. Encyclopedia of politics: the left and the right, Volume 2. University of Michigan; Sage Reference, 2005, p. 693. ISBN 1-4129-0409-9
19.Jump up ^ Gauchet, Marcel, "Right and Left" in Nora, Pierre, ed., Realms of Memory: Conflicts and Divisions (1996) pp. 247-8
20.Jump up ^ "The English Ideology: Studies in the Language of Victorian Politics" George Watson Allen Lane: London 1973 p.94
21.Jump up ^ Alan S. Kahan. Mind Vs. Money: The War Between Intellectuals and Capitalism. New Brunsiwck, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2010. p. 88.
22.Jump up ^ Ian Adams. Political Ideology Today. Manchester, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Manchester University Press, 2001. p. 57.

::I think many people who honestly support the Right do not know the history of the Right, and think that "right-wing" means only what one subgroup of the Right have decided it should mean, starting with the Tea Party movement in 1999. But the original right-wing supported absolute monarchy. Wikipedia must not only report on current events, but also answer the questions of students who read things written before the twenty-first century. It might be easier to change the name of the movement than to rewrite two hundred years of history. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 21:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The article itself reflects the sources. If Wikipedia policy said that each individual was free to accept any source he or she agreed with, and dismiss any source he or she disagreed with, Wikipedia would be a useless hodge-podge. "lol" is not a logical argument. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 19:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The first source "Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction" is from a socialist not surprisingly. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norberto_Bobbio#Life_and_views] The second seemingly comes from a person with similar views since he praises liberal/socialist thinkers such as Hobbes and Marx. [http://www.cambridge.org/tn/academic/subjects/sociology/sociology-general-interest/introduction-sociology-3rd-edition] (see endorsements section). So can someone remind me how the first statement in the article isn't from a biased source again? Like the OP said: the article was written by liberals. Incidentally, the left-ring article seems bursting with positive statements whilst the right and center ones are negative. --[[Special:Contributions/86.21.101.169|86.21.101.169]] ([[User talk:86.21.101.169|talk]]) 23:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

::Because an author does not share your views, that does not mean the author is biased. If a mathematician states that two plus two is four, and refuses to consider the possibility that two plus two is five, that does not prove bias. Bias is a deliberate or unreasoning distortion of the facts to uphold one viewpoint over against another. Bobbio, Cameron, and Goldthorpe have certainly studied the subject of political science in far greater depth than I have, and as best I can tell they have good reputations. If you want to impeach them, it is not enough to say they disagree with you. You need an academic source that says their views fail the standards of scholarly research. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 23:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

::The opinions of an author and his/her statements of fact are separate. No reliable sources question Einstein's special theory of relativity on the basis of his socialism or his religion. Textbooks give credence to the theory because most scientists do. Scientists give credence because the theory is consistent with evidence. Both the right-wing [[Conservapedia]] and the far right [[Metapedia]] reject the theory because of Einstein's belief system. That is an ''[[argumentum ad hominem]]'' - the claim that a statement must be incorrect because the author is supposedly wrong about other, unrelated statements. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 05:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
:::Well, if were' going into epistemological questions, it's not that simple. There are differences between sociology and [[hard science]]s like physics. Social sciences have different schools. For instance, Austrian economists and Keynesians will have radically different thesis and yet they're both academics. The same way there are Marxist sociologists and conservative political scientists (like [[Samuel P. Huntington]]). Often there is no "objective, single truth" in social sciences. Instead, different academics have different arguments and theories that we can use from references. Sometimes those theories are very commonly accepted and closer to not being so subjective. To my understanding, Norberto Bobbio's definition of the left and right is very notable indeed, but that it's just one viewpoint which stresses their relationship on equality as the most defining factor. Some political scientists have different definitions. Maybe I'll borrow some basic political science textbooks next, apparently these kind of basic definitions aren't easily found from scholar databases. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]][[User talk:Pudeo|']] 03:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
:::And by the way, thanks to whoever put the references quotations in the notes, it's really useful. I think I've now pin-pointed the problem in the lead. It says that right-wing movements view social inequality as "inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable." Social inequality, implying it is meant universally, is too broad to make a statement like this. For instance the 11th note: " the more usual right-wing view, which may be called 'liberal-conservative', is that unequal rewards are right and desirable so long as the competition for wealth and power is a fair one." So rarely right-wing movements reject all social equality, and usually in the case of moderate right-wingers it's mostly wealth distribution (as in rewards). The lead should be slightly modified, for example to clarify that they see ''some forms of'' social inequality as inevitable or preferable - not all. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]][[User talk:Pudeo|']] 03:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
::::Your source says the Right "accept[s] inequality as natural, normal, and even desirable." If you think its conclusions are wrong then find a source that supports your opinion. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 05:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}It's more of a technical linguistic Wikipedia issue. But yes, what inequality? Did the source mean universal social inequality?
Let's do a little deductive reasoning:
#Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that view social hierarchy or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable.
#Racial discrimination is a form of social inequality
#The British Conservatives is a right-wing party

Thus, the British Conservatives support racial discrimination? Simply, the definition sentence needs the "some forms of" because the sources speak broadly of equality, not necessarily even of social inequality - or did they mean economical equality - atleast the 11th note did bring two main lines - the other being liberal-conservatives who simply think unequal rewards are acceptable within fair competition - a limited section of equal income within social justice. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]][[User talk:Pudeo|']] 05:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

:You are missing my point so I will explain it again. We should not analyze subjects and report our findings but should report what reliable sources say about them. You have failed to do that, presumably because no reliable sources come to the same conclusions you do. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 05:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
::But my point is that the sources have been formulated to text in a too broad and thus wrong way by an editor, that is based on existing sources. Of course, the other option is to have a direct quote from one of the sources for the definition. none of the current sources in the article say that right-wing politics think ''all'' social inequality is normal or justified. They do not mention the word pair "[[social injustice]]"; an editor has formulated that. My formulation would be "-- that view some forms of social hierarchy or social inequality..." --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]][[User talk:Pudeo|']] 05:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
:::It is wrong to put in direct quotes when describing something that all reliable sources agree on. We do not say for example, "Professor so and so says that Finland is in Europe." The problem is that you disagree with what mainstream sources say and think the article should reflect your view. But that is contrary to policies of [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:NOR]]. Unless you can find some source that presents what you think should be in the article, this discussion is pointless. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 06:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
::::I don't disagree with those sources, I just disagree how it has been formulated into the sentences. The wording of the article is not permanently locked because it has citations; the wording matters. Have a look at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Right-wing_politics&oldid=515143140 29 September, 2012 version] of this article. The wording and formulation is different altough it uses the same sources. That's the point. "Get sources" is not a response to how to compress existing sources into two verses in the best possible way. Altering facts and slightly modifying verses are two different things. The first chapter of the lead uses 12 sources, is there only one way to form them into the lead? Anyway, did you not see my edit on the article? Are you not happy with it - it's just a minor clarification? Perhaps you wish to revert it and we can have a revert war and get third-party opinions, heh. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]][[User talk:Pudeo|']] 06:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
::To conflate social hierarchy with social injustice is to misrepresent the right-wing view, which is that justice requires that the "best" people deserve to be treated best. No doubt "some forms" is correct, but it is also an example of weasel words, and begs the question "which forms". [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 11:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
::As to your example of logic, it is fallacious. From A implies B (if British Conservative then accepts inequality), and C implies B (if racist then accepts inequality), you conclude A implies C. But the second arrow points the other way. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 11:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
:::[[Francis Bond Head]] provided a good summary of the ideology of his party, which today calls itself the "Conservative Party": "The family compact of Upper Canada is composed of those members of its society who, either by their abilities and character have been honoured by the confidence of the executive government, or who by their industry and intelligence have amassed wealth. The party I admit is comparatively a small one but to put the multitude at the top and the few at the bottom is a radical reversion of that pyramid of society which every reflecting man must foresee can only end by its downfall." [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 16:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I think some readers confuse position with ideology. I can understand an American conservative being very upset at hearing an academic use a phrase such as this. "The Nazi party emerged as a right wing party during the Weimar Republic." After all, do we not call American conservative movements such as the Tea Party "right wing?" So the implication seems to be that Nazis have some ideological affinity to American conservatives. Conservatives may challenge this and state, correctly, that the Nazis advocated a form of "socialism" and statism that bears no resemblance to American "right wing" politics. However, in the context of the Weimar Republic, the Nazis were in the right of the political spectrum and ultimately came to power in coalition with the German right (Zentrum) rather than the Social Democrats and Communists. Furthermore, the early Nazi Party had an internal divide between "left" Nazis and "right" Nazis. Likewise, even in a far left, communist context, scholars sometimes - perhaps confusingly - describe factions as "left" and "right." These are terms of positionally, not ideology.[[Special:Contributions/24.167.52.195|24.167.52.195]] ([[User talk:24.167.52.195|talk]])

[[Special:Contributions/24.167.52.195|24.167.52.195]] ([[User talk:24.167.52.195|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned"> — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 17:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:They are both relative and absolute terms. Socialists and Communists in the U.S. are left-wing, while Tea Party types in the Weimar Republic voted for the [[Enabling Act]] that gave Hitler dictatorial powers. No doubt a Tea Party America would be more benign than Nazism, but then the Weimar Republic's socialist government had been more benign than Stalinism. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 18:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

::Okay, let me take a crack at this. The source is "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," by Mark Twain. The statement, "The character of 'Jim' is referred to in a perjorative, vulgar manner," is a true statement, directly sourced. The statement, "The character of 'Jim" is referred to in a manner that was acceptable at the time the book was published," is also a true statement, directly sourced. This is a difference in phrasing, both from the same source. Each form, ''written by editors'' and sourced ''exactly the same'' shows a form of bias. How far that bias can lead is shown by the comparison of the TEA party with those who, as phrased above, "gave Hitler dictatorial powers." The softening statement that follows really does nothing to repair the obvious bias of the author. The Nazi comparison actually makes the point of the previous commentor. A more '''''neutral''''' sentence would have read, "Socialists and Communists in the U.S. are left-wing, while Tea Party types are right-wing." I think this provides a perfect example of the original point of this section. The terms "left" and "right" are by NO means "absolute;" they can only be understood relative to each other. (BTW, I understand comments here don't need to be NPOV, I merely use them as convenient examples.) Cheers. [[User:Jororo05|Jororo05]] ([[User talk:Jororo05|talk]]) 22:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
:::No, the Right is defined as the opposition to the Left,. If you have sources please provide them. Incidentally, ''Huck Finn'' does not say Jim is referred to pejoratively, nor that the character was acceptable at the time. Those are analyses that must be sourced to secondary sources, ''viz.'', books written about Twain. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 01:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

== Mrdthree's edit ==

Please explain what it is about the introduction to which you object. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 11:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
:[[Conservatism in the United States]] and right wing politics are different than in Europe where this analysis mainly focuses. Conservatism in the United States has as a starting point a European Liberal pov, and lacks the baggage of aristocracy, except in how one chooses to interpret slavery (which was ended by the Republican party). [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 15:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
::You are confusing Liberal/Conservative with party identity. The Republicans of the 1860's were the liberal factions of the old Whig party, with new northern anti-slavery democrats. There was a re-alignment of the political spectrum, several in fact. [[User:DD2K|Dave Dial]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 16:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
:::The [[Whig Party (United States)]] died out over the question of hierarchy.{{unsigned|Mrdthree}}
::::I don't know what that(even if partially true) [[wiktionary:What does that have to do with the price of tea in China|has to do with the price of tea in China]]? It's common knowledge that abolitionists and anti-slavery Whigs helped form the Republican party, and there were several political spectrum realignments from 1860-1980. In other words, in 1860, "conservative" didn't equal Republican, and Right-Wing certainly did not. [[User:DD2K|Dave Dial]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 00:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
::The article acknowledges that there are different ideologies that are considered right-wing, and that it has varied over time. Incidentally slavery was never a left-right issue. Conservatives, liberals and socialists were all divided over it. Can you point to any statement in the article that is inaccurate? [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 16:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
:::The first sentence: 'Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social hierarchy or social inequality'. A true definition must hold for all instances of the topic or it needs to be qualified. In the United States this statement only holds true for the [[Social Conservatism]] movement. How does it account for [[Libertarianism in the United States]] or [[Fiscal Conservatism]]? In the United States there is a large faction of the right wing that does not believe in social hierarchy. The extinct [[Federalist Party]] is more akin to [[Conservatism]] of the type that exists in Europe. As the page on [[Conservatism in the United States]] explains, all major parties in the US grow out of a classical liberal republican ideology. [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 23:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
::::If I read the first sentence in the most broad way possible i.e. Right wing politics believe social inequality happens naturally in any system and find its acceptable.... I am ok with it. But if I read it so broadly I cant imagine there are any Left Wingers who would disagree with it either. [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 23:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::I see your point. The problem is that as society has changed, conservatives have been increasingly replaced on the Right by liberals, and in some cases even socialists, their traditional opponents. We seem to be saying that the liberals accept hierarchy when they are part of the Right but not when they are part of the center even though they have not changed. It is just that political center shifted with the emergence of more radical parties.
:::::For example, in Venezuela the Right used to be conservatives and they were opposed by liberals, Christian democrats and social democrats. But with the emergence of Chavez, all these groups came together as the "right-wing" opposition to Chavez.
:::::[[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 01:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::That sounds true. I think what the first sentence needs is a qualifier that acknowledges there is a continuum of views or a temporal component to the definition; Its not about social order its about more or less social order (or if you are right wing, this or that social order). Besides no one really believes in absolute social equality there is always the social consequences of the gregarious and shy. Two possible ways to acknowledge that the temporal variability and continuum of views: '''Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that generally seek''' ''to preserve a historical or current social order and accept'' '''or support social hierarchy or social inequality.''' or '''Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that generally seek or support''' ''relatively more'' '''social hierarchy or social inequality.''' [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 03:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::My other thought is that if this were a [[Value debate]], right wingers would have already lost. The editors have already framed both right and left wings in terms of their orientations towards the value 'equality', and I think left-wing ideologies are in fact primarily oriented towards engineering 'equality'. As the opening sentence indicates, right wingers arent primarily oriented towards engineering equality. Mentioning only one value to differentiate these ideologies makes the left motivated by equality for equality's sake (arguably pro-social) and the right motivated by inequality for inequality's sake (arguably antisocial). I dont think right-wingers are motivated by inequality for inequality's sake. I think they justify inequality because they believe another value supercedes equality. I think its likely a ledger-like notion of justice where there is a universal set of rules that metes out rewards and punishments that accrue to different parties. Having rules reinforces social order which is different value than social inequality. [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 10:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
:The lead says "Manifestations of right-wing politics are affected by cultural norms of societies. In the United States, the political language of the Right includes: anti-statism involving a general mistrust of government, individualism, support of equality of opportunity while rejecting equality of outcome, and populism." which sounds about right to me. Libertarianism has never been right-wing, and the people who call themselves right-libertarian have allied themselves with social conservatives, but are only right-wing to the extent that they have rejected libertarian views and adopted conservative views. As Lincoln said, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. This article cannot possibly explain every viewpoint that anyone who has ever called themselves right-wing has ever expressed. The phrase would become even more meaningless than it already is. We might as well replace the article by a statement "Right-wing doesn't mean anything. Go away." [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 11:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
::Yeah but I still think it misses the point to define right wing politics as being the antithesis of what left wing politics values most (equality).[[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 12:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Its even more preferable to say right-wing politics are generally conservative and interested in preserving existing [[social order]]. Nor is it too far to imagine someone saying right wing politics are primarily concerned wiht social order, morality and justice. [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 14:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that right-wing is more than just the rejection of left-wing. But to suggest that right-wing believes in truth, justice, and the American way is equally specious. The Right supports God, king, and country. Have they changed since the French Revolution? Not that much. God is still the touchstone of the Right, they wouldn't exist without the religious Right. In America they don't have a king to support, but they support the aristocracy, the upper class, the rich, white, Christian male. And they are desperately ambivalent, like the guy in the news this week who, with a few hundred members of his militia, stood off the American police, saying that he did not recognize the United States of America as existing, while posing in front of an American flag. They hate America and they hate anyone who doesn't love America. How do you define a group that has no trouble in believing in two contradictory things at the same time? [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 20:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
:Thats pretty funny. Yeah, thats the red meat of right wing radio so maybe those sociology books have thought about that and the answer is hidden somewhere on page 2. [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 22:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
::Someone put an edit in that drops [[inequality]]. I reverted it because Im curious about the reasoning. Maybe the thing to do is to reread the article and try and make a summary statement about the article content. I tend to think an appeal to [[conservativism]] copuld provides an affirmative statement about right-wing politics : ''to preserve an ideal or current social order''. Even better the existing sentence in the body: The original Right in France was formed as a reaction against the Left, and comprised those politicians supporting hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 23:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
:::There is already plenty of material in the notes to the first sentence. In particular, ref name="T. Alexander Smith 2003. p. 30" T. Alexander Smith, Raymond Tatalovich. ''Cultures at war: moral conflicts in western democracies''. Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd, 2003. p. 30. "That viewpoint is held by contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality or political participation.' In other words, the sociological perspective sees preservationist politics as a right-wing attempt to defend privilege within the ''social hierarchy''." [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 10:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
::::WHy not just paraphrase the quote? Right wing politics are '''social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values'''. Put it in front an leave all the subsequent contrasting points and elaborating points where they are? [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 10:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::Also back in 2005 it was interestingly claimed that the right wing is defined by negation-- it is the forces opposed to the left wing. ''In politics, right-wing, the political right, or simply the right, are terms which refer, with no particular precision, to the segment of the political spectrum in opposition to left-wing politics.''https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Right-wing_politics&diff=14650956&oldid=14641489 [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 11:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I have heard the arguments in favor of the Right being nothing more than opposition to the Left, but I don't buy them, and I don't think that definition is standard. The definition you cite from Smith and Tatalovich seems much more accurate. The current "social hierarchy" and "social inequality" seem to fit this definition. I would like to see quotes from the many other books cited. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 12:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

:The quote is from Clarence Y. H. Lo's "Countermovements and Conservative Movements in the Contemporary U.S.," ''Annual Review of Sociology'' 8 (1982): 111-12. He was writing about the extreme right, as were Smith and Tatalovich. They are of course part of the Right, but the comments about them do not necessarily extend to everyone on the Right. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 20:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

:: I am fine with that as the definition so long as the thesis is that the Right WIng is defined as opposition to the left (its the Boolean category not left). I will admit if you were a liberal it is a great essentialization of everything about the right wing that would be disagreeable to you. On the other hand if it represents the politics I understand it to represent, then it has the properties you pointed out before and that content is fairly (though imperfectly) transmitted in the statement: 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose ''stated goals'' are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 02:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

::: How do you describe liberals who happen to be party of the Right? [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 02:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
::::I dont like the definition that Smith and Tatolovich give. I just think its an attempt to be balanced since it recognizes a motivation for right wing politics beyond inequality. From the history given in the article it does appear that the meaning of right and left has to do with traditionalists vs. egalitarian ideology.. As for liberals, I wonder if the problems of defining 'Right-wing' go away when a 2D [[political spectrum]] is used rather than a 1D [[political spectrum]]? I think people resist using 2D political spectrums but I think they are designed to try and answer the problem of liberals ([[Nolan chart]], [[Political compass]]). But do they make all the other problems about defining Right wing also go away? [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 05:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::Maybe a fineal critique is the current definition is over-reliant on [[Norberto Bobbio]], alternative framings exist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics#Relevance_of_the_terms_today. [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 06:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::Smith and Tatolovich were not defining the Right, they were defining the extreme right, that is, political movements seen as being to the right of the traditional right-wing parties (conservatives, liberals and Christian democrats). In other words, they meant nativists, klansmen and the Tea Party, not the Republican Party mainstream, or parties such as the UK Conservatives, the German Christian Democrats or even traditional European conservatism. The limited value of the 2D spectrum is that actual legislatures tend to divide into two opposing groups, not four, and that is true both in the U.S. with two parties and France with many. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 06:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that, until quite recently, both "right-wing" and "left-wing" were always used pejoratively. You called someone right-wing meaning they were racist or fascist, you called someone left-wing meaning they were communist. The big change in how these words were used came out of conservative "think tanks", who began to use "left wing" to mean liberal and to imply liberals were all socialists, socialists were all communists, and since communism had failed, that "proved" that liberalism had failed.
But if they were going to call liberals left-wing, they were stuck with the label right-wing, which meant that they needed to rebrand right-wing to mean something entirely other than what it originally meant. One definition they attempted (which echoes Mrdthree's claim that right-wing means "social order, morality and justice") was to assert that right-wing means "good", so all conservatives are good, and left-wing means "bad", so all liberals are bad. That has only worked with the less well-informed conservatives. Mrdthree obviously knows better. So the next attempt was to rebrand right-wing to mean small government. That attempt has been more successful, except that they actually support big government: big military, big government to deport Hispanics, big government to imprison law-breakers, big government to restrict voter registration, big government to restrict abortion. So the claim that the new meaning of right-wing is small government doesn't really hold water. It is propaganda, not descriptive of what the Right actually says and votes for. Which is the problem with following Mrdthree's suggestion that we just report what the Right says they believe in. If the Left says they believe in God, motherhood, and apple pie, should that be the definition Wikipedia uses? [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 14:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
:Alas -- we can not use what any editor "knows" about the history of the terms - we have to rely on what actual reliable sources state. And they appear to state that the terms are not well-defined as such, and that the meanings ascribed to them vary from place to place, time to time, and context to context. So far as calling any usage "propaganda" - that sort of claim would have to be made by a reliable source, and not by any editor. And since there is ''no'' single thing which the "entire Right Wing believes in", clearly that is rather a Straw Man argument in the first place. Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 14:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

:The history of the use of the term "right" is described in the introduction to the 3rd edition to ''The Radical Right'', and in numerous other books. After WW2, sociologists applied the term "radical right" or simply "right-wing" to "conservative" movements in the U.S. - nativism, klansmen, McCarthyites, Birchers and now the Tea Party. That is the group that Lo is defining - the pitchforks and torches brigade. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 17:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, Collect. I was not proposing an edit -- when I do that I cite sources. I was explaining why we don't just report what a group or person says about themselves, and instead require scholarly sources. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 18:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
:Is it a American vs. British English thing? Are both you guys from the UK? [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 02:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:: Its not just me. I typed "right-wing" and google and spat back the definition i thought it meant! the conservative or reactionary side of political party or system. I am no expert in sociology but if sociology is the only field that defines right-wing as pro-inequality then preface the first sentence with Sociologists define 'right-wing' .... [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 02:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
::: Conservatism is opposed to equality and reaction is really opposed to it. And you do not need to be an expert in sociology to know that academic disciplines do not operate in isolation. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 03:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
::::You could be right and I could be wrong. I will do research. I will check the top 3 dictionaries, political science text books, Economic textbooks, and sociology textbooks. (or their substitutes on google books). Journalism textbook? [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 08:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::DICTIONARIESpretty much standard definition of right as conservative and absolutely no mention of hierarchy or equality in these dictionaries: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right%20wing,http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/right-wing?s=t, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/right-wing. I even like the Wiktionary definition better too. Although it wass rewritten from the standard dictionary form by [[User:Robin Lionheart]] in 2010, its better because it at least acknowledges traditionalism over the straw man philosophies of inequalitism and hierarchicalism. [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 08:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::POLITICAL SCIENCE TEXTBOOKS ON GOOGLE: Search "political science, an introduction" on google books. Then "left right" (found this to be most useful as leftwing, rightwing usually lead to discussion without definition. nothing about hierarchicalism or inequalitism yet. One book defines by traditionalist morality http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=LZKSMxXKQ6EC&pg=PR23&dq=political+science+an+introduction&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pBZeU7c6jd3wBe7WgYgO&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBjgU#v=onepage&q=left%20right&f=false. [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 09:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
::::Still searching but I still like this gem of a definition from this page on 2011 because it acknowledges a motive other than inequalitarianism. In [[politics]], '''''Right''''', '''''right-wing''''' and '''''rightist''''' are generally used to describe support for preserving traditional [[social order]]s and [[social stratification|hierarchies]]<ref>T. Alexander Smith, Raymond Tatalovich. ''Cultures at war: moral conflicts in western democracies''. Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd, 2003. Pp 30. "That viewpoint is held by contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality or political participation.' In other words, the sociological perspective sees preservationist politics as a right-wing attempt to defend privilege within the ''social hierarchy''.</ref><ref>''Left and right: the significance of a political distinction'', Norberto Bobbio and Allan Cameron, pg. 37, [[University of Chicago Press]], 1997.</ref><ref>[[Seymour Martin Lipset]], cited in Fuchs, D., and Klingemann, H. 1990. The left-right schema. Pp.203–34 in Continuities in Political Action: A Longitudinal Study of Political Orientations in Three Western Democracies, ed.M.Jennings et al. Berlin:de Gruyter</ref><ref>Lukes, Steven. 'Epilogue: The Grand Dichotomy of the Twentieth Century': concluding chapter to T. Ball and R. Bellamy (eds.), The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Political Thought. Pp.610–612</ref><ref>Clark, William. Capitalism, not Globalism. University of Michigan Press, 2003. ISBN 0-472-11293-7, 9780472112937</ref>, although, since at least [[Edmund Burke]], the political Right has also been linked with advocacy of [[free market]] [[capitalism]]. The second part isnt necessary since not all people advocating capitalist reforms are 'right' wing (e.g. Iranian liberals, NOrth Korean liberals). [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 09:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
::::Another Bizarre point. There is a link to [[Anti-statist]] philosophies on the right wing page, but not on the left wing page. [[Anti-statist]] Right wingers are an extreme minority, most are for [[limited government]] which is not 'no government'. Meanwhile the loaded term 'anti-statist' never makes an appearance on the left wing page which drones on and on about anarchists and socialist libertarians. [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 09:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Your edit, Mrdthree, was reverted. I hope you understand why it was reverted. It was reverted because the words you used are too extreme, and only apply to what is called the extreme Right. The more moderate right do not want to openly enforce social stratification, but consider that social stratification is the natural order of things. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 12:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:No prob they were both minor changes. I guess I should ask what to do about point we agree on. You say:''I agree that right-wing is more than just the rejection of left-wing.'' In what way? You did suggest one answer: ''God is still the touchstone of the Right, they wouldn't exist without the religious Right.'' Or do you mean in some other way as well?[[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 14:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I read a lot, including a lot of old books, and the disconnect between the way older books use Right and Left and the way modern media use the words is striking. In older books, I find right-wing used to describe the Ku Klux Klan, Joe McCarthy, Nazi Germany, Franco's Spain, and Fascist Italy. Right-wing meant authoritarian, far Right meant racist. No old book I have read has ever used right-wing to describe small government. (The religious Right was a horse of a different color. They believed that the Holy Bible, especially the King James Version, was inerrant truth. They were mostly Southerners, and so, at the time, mostly Democrats. Many were racist, and offered biblical justification for racism.)

At that time, left-wing was a synonym for communist. It didn't have any other meaning that I'm aware of.

The phrase "Right-wing" was rehabilitated, at least in the US, earlier than left-wing, thanks largely to the efforts of William F. Buckley, Jr. It was he more than anyone else who used right-wing to mean small government. He also, at first, opposed integration, on the basis of state's rights, as did Milton Friedman and other libertarians, but not on explicitly racist grounds. Why Buckley chose to call his movement "right-wing" I cannot guess. At first, he was affiliated with the John Birch Society, which was right-wing in the older sense.

The Religious Right and the Republican Right came together over opposition to the Civil Rights Act. Because Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, led the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Solid South switched almost overnight from 100% Democrat to 100% Republican, and I cannot understand that in any way other than racism. The mainstream Republicans try to avoid racism, but they need racist votes to win elections, so the old Far Right is a part of the New Right.

It wasn't until the 1980s that I first heard anyone use left-wing to mean liberal, and that was a deliberate political strategy by Republicans, to tar Democrats with the communist brush. Remember Willie Horton? At first the liberals resisted the label, but today they have accepted it. Again, I cannot guess why.


== See Also section ==
So, this Wikipedia article needs to explain what right-wing means in books, for people who read books, and also what it means in the media. It needs to explain the difference between the religious right and the libertarian right. And it needs to explain what right-wing means in the US, and what it means in the rest of the world. I think it does a pretty good job of that, but it can always be improved.
Under the see also section, [[structural functionalism]] is listed. The article on structural functionalism directly says: "It is simplistic to equate the perspective directly with political conservatism" and cites a source; following this quote it states [[conflict theory]] can be seen as having a left-wing bent. I think either a removal or a further explanation in this article about how [[functionalism]] directly relates to right wing politics would be helpful. [[User:CalorusRex|CalorusRex]] ([[User talk:CalorusRex|talk]]) 00:26, 15 October 2017


==Claim that America leans Centre-Right==
Aside to Collect: I'm answering a question from Mrdthree, not saying that the above should be in the article. Some of it already is, with footnotes. If I add anything to the article, I supply references. I hope I can express myself a little more freely on the Talk page, as long as I stay on topic. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 15:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
You can not claims that America leans centre right when the polling shows a majority of Americans identify as moderate or liberal. According to Gallup, Democrats are more likely to identify as moderate than Republicans.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Lydia |first1=Saad |title=U.S. Political Ideology Steady; Conservatives, Moderates Tie |url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/388988/political-ideology-steady-conservatives-moderates-tie.aspx}}</ref><!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:104dragon|104dragon]] ([[User talk:104dragon#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/104dragon|contribs]]) </span>
::So its a word with shifting meaning. I dont understand the confederacy/states rights issue of Southern Republicans or know how the switch happens. Its pretty rare to meet a politician who stands alone on states rights without other baggage. Maybe BUckley "reclaimed" the word or something. Its pretty clear to me that its not an epithet and it is used in some political science textbooks as a scale for coloring political views in a way that agrees with internet definitions of left wing and right wing. For purpose of the article here it would involve a mention of 'tradition' as a reason beyond hierarchy and inequality. [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 23:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:Lipset wrote about the use of the terms in [[Political Man|''Political man: the social bases of politics'']] (1960), and quotes [[Robert M. MacIver]] on p. 222: "The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes.... The right has been more favorable to the aristocratic position, to the hierarchy of birth or of wealth; the left has fought for the equalization of advantage or of opportunity...." (''The Web of Government'' (1947)). The term "left" was used to refer to socialists, communists and anarchists.[https://www.google.com/#q=%22the+left%22+history&tbm=bks] The difference is that socialists called themselves left-wing, while conservatives and right-wing liberals did not usually call themselves right-wing, until Buckley rescued the term. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 17:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
::How does your analysis explain things like the position of conservatives on gay marriage? Suppose gays are wealthier on average (http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/06/pf/gay-money/). I guess the claim is marriage is a right belonging to a class (straight people) by birth, as in theory most gays are born gay? But what then to do with the ''traditionalism'' rationale of conservatives? What if not everyone finds the economic and class analysis of a political position to be the defining way of looking at things? [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 23:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


:American terminology is somewhat skewed in a way that erases the left almost completely. The USA has two main parties, Democrats (centrist to centre right) and Republicans (centre right to hard right). As that article says, "Conservatives, Moderates Tie". That ''is'' a centre-right lean over all. The moderates and liberals you speak of can be anything from centre-left to centre-right depending on what they think those words mean but, most often, "moderate" means centre-right in America. Given that America is the quintessential Capitalist hegemony, with discourse centred on how capitalism should be conducted rather then whether it is desirable in itself, that is a centre-right situation and that Gallup poll shows exactly that. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 17:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I mentioned above the alliance between the Religious Right and the Political Right. According to Marx, religion is the opiate of the masses, and by appealing to the popular prejudice against gays, the rich can convince the poor to vote against their own best interest. Another famous saying is that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Thus the Right simultaneously (or almost so) criticize Obama for not wearing an American flag on his lapel and then support people who say that they don't recognize the existence of the American government. Political movements, like individuals, are full of contradictions. Tax cuts for the rich seem common to most conservative movements in the US, as do anti-Hispanic sentiments, a love of guns, and a belief in that Old Time Religion. What brings these disparate groups together? Since the Right started as a movement supporting the upper class and the Roman Catholic Church, and since American conservative leader William F. Buckley, Jr. supported the upper class and the Roman Catholic church, that sounds like a place to start. Since distrust of people who are "different" is common to both the American and European Right, that is an important commonality. Then we have the Libertarian strain, which is considered right-wing in America and liberal in Europe. I don't have all the answers. Politics makes strange bedfellows. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia must reflect the views of those who have though along and hard about commonalities as well as contradictions in political movements.[[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 00:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
::Yes. Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia. By global standards, I would suggest the USA is more to the right than centre right. What Americans think is not really important. Americans make up less than 5% of the world's population. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 18:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
:::The US had made a dramatic political shift after the Bush administration. The right lost the culture wars, and the progressive left has achieved dominance in academia and large parts of the media. Many more Americans are now skeptical of capitalism, imperialism, patriotism, American exceptionalism, traditional family values, meritocracy, law and order. Some traditionally left-wing positions (freedom of speech, freedom of self-expression) are now considered conservative or even right-wing by the left. [[User:DarthBarth|DarthBarth]] ([[User talk:DarthBarth|talk]]) 07:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
::That is subjective to say the you think the moderates and liberals lean centre right without evidence even if I personally agree, therefore it should not be stated as a matter of fact based on the evidence cited in the article, which does not point to that conclusion. This poll is about how people identify, not how other people characterize them. The only way you could point to this conclusion as a matter of fact is if you were to find a poll that placed an ideological score on each person in the poll and found the average score was in centre-right territory [[User:104dragon|104dragon]] ([[User talk:104dragon|talk]]) 20:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
:::I equate "moderates" as being the "centre", which is why I think calling it a center-right lean is appropriate, based on the polling data given, especially when more people identify as conservative than as liberal. [[User:Dhtwiki|Dhtwiki]] ([[User talk:Dhtwiki|talk]]) 23:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


:We discussed the country information before and it was agreed to remove them. In every country, politics can be divided into a left and a right. That doesn't mean that the right in one country has anything in common with the right in another. The term right-wing is defined as opposition to the left, but how strong this opposition must be to be considered right-wing changes depending on context. For example, all major parties in the UK are centrist, the Tories are a center right party, the Tories formed a center-right coalition with the Lib Dems (where the Tories are right and the Lib Dems are centrist.
Conservatives instinctively resist social change because of fear that the social hierarchy will weaken. But intelligent conservatives accept change and sometimes drive it, when they realize it is inevitable and poses no threat to social order. Pitt supported emancipation, Peel supported free trade, Disraeli supported universal suffrage, Churchill supported the welfare state and Cameron supports same sex marriage. But the torches and pitchfork brigade are not conservatives, Roosevelt called them that as an epithet and they adopted the term. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 01:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
:So in this discussion, all editors are correct. The problem is that it is correct to call the Republicans right wing, center right or centrist depending on context. But without context, the terms are meaningless.
::OK I dont know anymore. I started reading the other political spectrum pages and I get better what it means to say these articles are arranged by degree in the spectrum. E.g. there are 7 pages arranged by degree far left, left wing, centerleft,center, centerright, right wing, far right. Is this correct? [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 02:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
:Note that while there are books such as ''The Left In History'' and ''Forging Democracy: The History of the Left in Europe, 1850-2000'', there is nothing for the Right. Instead, there are books about the specific ideologies of the Right: liberalism, conservatism, fascism, Christian democracy and sub-groups such as Nazism, neo-liberalism, right-wing populism, etc.
If so how does this page alert the reader that this is the context in which this article is written? The context is dissonant since as Norwood points out there is a growing conventional simplifying use of the terms left wing and right wing. [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 02:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
:I suggest we re-remove this.
:::The terms are used in both a relative and an absolute sense. As for the other articles, they are really dictionary terms. Only far right has a specific meaning. Generally, writers use more specific terms such as liberal, conservative, socialist, etc. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 02:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 14:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
:::: well I think in the absolute sense the definition on top is imbalanced by its failure to reference a what most sources agree is a defining trait of the right wing: a support of traditional societal views. Does the current definition actually rests on a singular source by excluding tradition? On a relative scale most of what I would expect is in centre right article but it sort of raises an original research claim as to how editors dovide issues and positions [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 05:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


::"Democrats (centrist to centre right)" The main article on [[centre-right politics]] lists associated political ideologies: [[Liberal conservatism]], [[Christian democracy]], [[economic liberalism]], [[neoliberalism]], [[cultural liberalism]], and [[green conservatism]]. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 14:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
::Tradition is essential to conservatism. The right-wing is similar, but not identical, being much more inclined to racism, anti-immigration, and support of the dominant class and religion. For example, a libertarian may support the American tradition of free enterprise and individualism, while not expressing the hatred of Blacks and Hispanics that is better described as right-wing. In Europe, a person who supports racial purity would be called right-wing, while a person who supports free enterprise would be called a liberal. As far as I know, these terms only overlap in America, and only because of the way the Republican Party has chosen to construct their political propaganda. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 22:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
:::And of course the main article has no sources for this and is original research. Center right is contextually defined, similar to the expression "fairly tall." Americans tend to be fairly tall. Basketball players tend to be fairly tall. Both statements are correct because what the speaker means by fairly tall is clear from context, although what is fairly tall differs in the two statements. On its own without context the expression is meaningless. I hope that no one decides to create an article "Fairly tall" with separate sections about Americans and basketball players. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 15:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
:::Contemporary societies have generally moved from more stratified to less. So its hard to imagine a case where a racist, anti-immigrant, aristocrat or whatever couldnt be described as motivated by tradition. [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 01:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


Americans have a tendency to support more left-wing economic ideas<ref>{{cite news |last1=Liesman |first1=Steve |title=Majority of Americans support progressive policies such as higher minimum wage, free college |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/27/majority-of-americans-support-progressive-policies-such-as-paid-maternity-leave-free-college.html}}</ref>, but at the same time view themselves as moderate or conservative.[[User:104dragon|104dragon]] ([[User talk:104dragon|talk]]) 16:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree, but we need to focus on suggestions for improving the article. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 12:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


104dragon continues to use these pages as if they were intended for discussion, like Facebook pages. This is an encyclopedia, and publishes referenced material. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 20:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
:See [[Steven Lukes]]' "Epilogue" to the ''Cambridge History of Twentieth Century Political Thought'', pp. 30-33.[http://sociology.fas.nyu.edu/docs/IO/244/cup.pdf] Eatwell and O'Sullivan's definition of the Right as a reaction to the Left is generally accepted. The other definitions provided relate to either part of the Right, such as conservatism, or to the left-right continuum. While absolute equality/inequality may represent the most extreme of left and right positions, they do not describe the vast majority of positions in between. Also, the dividing line of the Right has moved to the left. Ideologies that are considered right-wing today would not have been considered right-wing two hundred years ago. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 02:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
:: well I say put it to a sources vote. If the majority of sources use the word 'traditional' or a derivative then put it in the lede. If the majority of sources say inequality only then fine. I just dont like the dual purpose of this page-- describing political positions on a continuum and absolutely. [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 07:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


This is a talk page to discuss. The referenced material does not point to the conclusion claimed in the article.[[User:104dragon|104dragon]] ([[User talk:104dragon|talk]]) 21:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The page has to describe how the word is actually used, and it is used sometimes to describe an absolute worldview, traditional, and sometimes used to describe a position on a continuum, conservative vs. liberal. The real-world use of language is complicated, and we need to reflect that.[[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 11:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


:I read some of the first reference. It is available here http://cnqzu.com/library/Politics/Bobbio-Norberto-Left-and-Right-Significance-Political-Distinction.pdf. The central thesis of the book, the inequality/equaltiy distinction is discussed and it is described as controversial in the introduction, page x--'''Having defended the distinction, Bobhio then moves on to argue that the left tends towards equality and the right tends towards inequality. This theory has caused consider­able debate in the Italian press, and the alternative propo­sals are discussed in detail in Bobhio's ' Reply to the Critics' at the end of the book.''' The remainder of the book details how the hitherto conventional view of the right is one of traditionalism. At least thats my skim. Citation 4 seems to support the inclusion of tradition (see footnotes on 4), and a skim of Encyclopedia of politics: The left and the right / Rodney P. Carlisle (available here http://cnqzu.com/library/To%20Organize/Books/%5BRodney_P._Carlisle%5D_Encyclopedia_of_Politics._The%20Right.pdf) reinforces this conventional definition '''The terms left and right are derived from the political divisions of the French Constituent Assembly....The terms left and right stuck, with the left usually representing the radicals of politics and the right representing the conservatives....''' He then documents borderline cases (fascists (right), internationalists (left), protectionists (right/left)). It doesnt seem like he undertakes an attempt at a broad definition. [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 01:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
::I think you are mixing up definition and description. We could for example compare the views of Democratic and Republican congressmen and find where their typical differences lie. But the definition of a Republican is not what he supports or opposes, but what party he belongs to. Carlyle provides a definition, i.e., what groups are part of the right, while Bobbio provides a description of how views vary along the left-right continuum. But I do not think that there is much opposition to Bobbio's view on equality as the main distinction. Conservative scholars for example clearly state that they oppose equality. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 02:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}
As I said, complicated. And we can't write a book, so we must summarize many sources. I think this article does a fair job of that now, but it can always be improved.[[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 02:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
:: left wing politics carries this sentence at end of paragraph one, which is a fair way to account for both the absolute and relative meanings of the term which is an issue otherwise not explicitly addressed--''' In two party systems, the terms "left" and "right" are now sometimes used as labels for the two parties, with one party designated as the "left" and the other "right", even when neither party is "left-wing" in the original sense of being opposed to the ruling class.''' [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 05:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
::Sorry. One more change, eliminating the redundancy. I like it alot now which can only mean :( bad things for discussion . But I think it is a true statement. But if you dont like it I may call it a day and hibernate again. [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 02:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


:As the person who initially typed out the paragraph at issue, I would just like to point out that calling the US in 2019 center right was not my characterization of the data, but rather it was the characterization that the gallup news article used as a reference. Quoting from the article, "[I]n 2019, the ideological balance of the country remained center-right, with 37% of Americans, on average, identifying as conservative during the year, 35% as moderate and 24% as liberal." This is an encyclopedia; we go with what our sources say, generally speaking. We don't make up new non-obvious characterizations of raw data, as that would come dangerously close to [[WP:OR]]. While I certainly respect 104dragon for trying to make the article better, the source is clear here: The US in 2019 leaned center right because 37% of Americans self identified as conservative, 35% moderate, and 24% liberal. That's not because I'm saying it; that's because the author of the article was saying it.[[User:JMM12345|JMM12345]] ([[User talk:JMM12345|talk]]) 19:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)JMM12345
::: I do not think that is correct. The U.S. is AFAIK the only country with a two party system and the only one where the term "left" is applied to a non-socialist party. Although even in the U.S., a search of Google books for "American Left" mostly returns books about U.S. socialists,[https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22United+States%22+left+politics&=#hl=en&q=%22american+left%22&tbm=bks] [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 02:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
::::I get a bunch of books about the american left by David Horowitz when I hit your link, so I think we need to link through a proxy. [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 15:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::His four books probably hit the top because he is a popular writer and his last book just came out. But there are 142,000 hits and you can look at the first few pages. And Horowitz is writing about U.S. socialists too. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 15:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
::::::Well it may be a minority usage among books but I dont know thats true. I guess theres fertile ground in there to find books to recraft the statement so that it better reflects the relative usage of the term. [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 03:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Can you name any country (other than the U.S.) where the term "left" is used to refer to a non-socialist party? [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 03:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
::::::::I found an error in the Google search methodology for defining right wing in america-- this page is about right wing politics. It is not about far right wing or radical right wing politics. So in regards to finding books about right wing politics in america one must eliminate search terms such as terrorism, far right, extremism, dictatorships, radical right, extreme, violent, and the like. [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 06:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand the desire of people on the Right to redefine "Right" to mean "good Right, not bad Right". People on the Left are similarly inclined. But Wikipedia cannot redefine terms, but can only report how they are, in fact, used. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 12:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


::First, it's self-identification which is not necessarily what they really are. Second, the conclusions are questionable. Another analyst would say that 37% were center right to far right, 35% were centrist and 24% were left of center. What percentage of self-described conservatives are far right as opposed to center right?
Mrdthree, I do not think that is an error. Usually the term "right-wing" in the US and other English-speaking countries refers to extremists, although the colloquial usage of left and right to refer in the U.S. to liberals and conservatives is gaining ground. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 13:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
::Furthermore, it has little or no relevance to this article. You would have to show that this is a significant observation made in the literature about right-wing politics.
::[[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 19:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


:::I would first say that I think that you're correct that self-identification is not necessarily what people really are, however the source cited thinks that it can draw a general conclusion based on that self identification polling data. Furthermore it seems to be a very reasonable conclusion based on the data. If a plurality of a data set consider themselves to be conservative and the second most people consider themselves moderate, with self-identifying liberals trailing way behind the other two groups, I would think that calling the data set center-right would be the obvious conclusion to come to (even if there may be a slight difference between self identifications and reality). Anyway, the way the Wikipedia article currently stands, we have provided the underlying data and the conclusion that the source came to. We have not provided the conclusion that Wikipedia editors think that another source might hypothetically come to. If another analyst actually does characterize the data differently, I would encourage you to cite to the other analyst.
::One danger in the increasingly common confusion between the Right and Conservatives, and between the Left and Liberals, is that these usages are used by both sides to equate moderates on the other side with extremists. Thus, Republicans call the moderately conservative Obama "extreme Left" hoping to convince people he is a communist, and Democrats call the moderately liberal George W. Bush "extreme Right" hoping to convince people he is a racist. Properly used (that is, as the words are used by thoughtful people) the Conservatives are the moderate Right. There is nothing Conservative about the neo-Nazis and other extreme right-wing groups in the US. They vote Republican, but most Republicans repudiate them. Similarly, the Liberals are the middle, not left-wing at all. There is nothing Liberal about the American Communist Party. They vote Democrat, but most Democrats repudiate them. Does anyone have a good source for the idea that "right-wing" is generally used for people more extreme than mainstream conservatives? If so, I think that should be in the article. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 14:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
:::Secondly, I think it is relevant to the article. This portion of the article is specifically about right wing politics in the United States, so a source characterizing how right wing the US is seems to me to be a very relevant. But in any event, if there is a dispute about relevance of this information, that would seem to me to be a different discussion entirely to whether "You can not claims that America leans centre right when the polling shows a majority of Americans identify as moderate or liberal.", which is what 104dragon started this discussion by saying.[[User:JMM12345|JMM12345]] ([[User talk:JMM12345|talk]]) 22:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)JMM12345
:::More notably per Time article on the politics of the next generation - they heavily call themselves "liberal" and "socialist" but using far different definitions than used generally heretofore - they also appear heavily in favour of private enterprise and low taxes/government spending, but with such things as guaranteed health care [http://time.com/2974185/millennials-poll-politics/]. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 15:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
::::It is interesting that between the article reporting on 2019[https://news.gallup.com/poll/275792/remained-center-right-ideologically-2019.aspx] and 2021[https://news.gallup.com/poll/388988/political-ideology-steady-conservatives-moderates-tie.aspx] results, the writer dropped the term-center right, although the results barely changed. The writer probably thought better of it after reflection.
The Time Magazine article was interesting, and I was glad you provided a link to it, but neither Time nor Reason, Time's source, are reliable academic sources. Time is a reliable source for news, but not for opinion pieces. Reason is a self-proclaimed partisan conservative source, though with high standards given its mission to promote "free minds and free markets". [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 12:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
::::The problem here is that you have a source that is obviously reliable for polling but not for determining whether the results mean that the U.S. is majority center right. You would need a source that says something like, "there is a consensus among political scientists that the U.S. is a center-right nation," before we stated it as fact. Also, her first article is ambiguous. Center right can mean either a position between between center and right, the left of the right, the right of the center or a combination of the center and right. It is possible that the writer meant the second. IOW, Americans identify as right or center, if we define right as conservative and center as moderate.
:I did not propose using the article as an "academic source", and I would note many sources used on political issues are ''not'' "academic sources" in any event. That noted, the result of a poll is ''not'' an "opinion piece" in the normal context of that term - [[Reason Foundation]] appears to be a "libertarian think tank" - which does not make it a "partisan conservative source" AFAICT. The ''Arthur N. Rupe Foundation'' also appears unconnected to any political party AFAICT. And I find no policy whatsoever in Wikipedia which says a reliable source is not a reliable source for "opinion pieces" in any event - ''Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.'' is what you seem to be thinking of, but poll results ''are'' "statements of fact" and ''not'' "statements of opinion" by Wikipedia standards and usage. In fact, ''Time'' is used as a source for a ''great many articles'' on Wikipedia (well over 10,000 to be on the low end). See also [http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/07/11/poll-finds-millennials-pro-pot-anti-tax-unsure-on-bitcoin/], [http://www.realclearpolitics.com%2Farticles%2F2014%2F07%2F10%2Funder-30_poll_govt_inefficient_but_it_has_key_role_to_play_123274.html&ei=PajCU5f5J4SNyAS2zIKoCg&usg=AFQjCNE0W-MXn9-10b2rPkVqjWTE5sWIDA&sig2=Y9ta1yFQXSzg3N8yWYpyJw&bvm=bv.70810081,d.aWw] , representing two more reliable sources covering the dichotomies concerned. Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 15:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
::::[[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 23:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
The piece on the Time web page is labeled "opinion" and is written by a editor of Reason. The poll itself, which is here: http://reason.com/assets/db/2014-millennials-report.pdf may be a reliable source. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 16:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
:And once again ''Time'' is a ''reliable source for opinion columns''. '''The poll itself, however, is ''not'' opinion, and is cited in a number of other reliable sources.''' Clear? [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 16:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
::Of course, clear. But this isn't an article about somebody's opinion, and I said "the poll may be a reliable source". No need to shout.[[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 18:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
::Actually a huge amount of the current article is not "empirical fact" as the terms used have widely disparate meanings from place to place and time to time. Vide "socialist" and "liberal" as determined by the poll of Millennials where the definitions are very different from, say, European usage by a few thousand miles. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 20:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
:Type in "right-wing" to Google books and the results are mostly for extremists rather than mainstream groups.[https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22left-wing%22+history&=&gws_rd=ssl#hl=en&q=right-wing&tbm=bks] The mainstream " conservative, Christian Democrat and like-minded political parties" self-identify as "centre and centre-right."[http://www.idu.org/history.aspx]
:The poll is interesting. (Odd too that the Republicans would help establish a group, the [[International Democrat Union]], whose name combines three things they hate.) What makes the U.S. exceptional is the degree of shared political beliefs. There are no arguments about the monarchy, the established church, or capitalism, but there has always been a tendency to describe political opponents in extreme terms. Just as "conservative" was a term of abuse in the U.S., maybe in the future Democrats will call themselves socialists.
:[[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 16:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
What are you talking about, Collect? The lead to the article says "The term "right wing" has been used to refer to a number of different political positions through history." Is this not "empirical fact"?[[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 22:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
:Huh? I brought up a current news item which is "on point" for this article. Opinions != "empirical facts" and the lead basically says "there is no single actual definition for the term" which is not much of a "fact" in itself. The article then lists certain "characteristics" which are clearly called into question as far as Millennials are concerned per the poll. We are at a point where all the old definitions of "right wing" are basically cast adrift. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 17:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
:The poll did not ask people what they thought the term right-wing meant. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 17:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
::The words "socialist" and "liberal" hold decidedly different meanings for Millennials per the poll.
:::''First, millennials don’t fall into the traditional left-right mold of American politics. A considerable number see themselves as socially liberal and economically conservative (17%) and some as socially conservative and economically liberal (6%). ''
::Seems salient. And even the Nolan Chart cannot help much on them. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 18:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


:::::I wouldn't say that changing which group is the plurality is barely changing the percentages (even if the absolute change in values is small) for the purpose of offering analysis of data, and I also wouldn't say that changing the words used to analyze the numbers as those numbers change necessarily the same as reflecting on earlier writing analyzing different numbers and thinking better of it. Especially considering the fact that the 2019 article is still up and seemingly unchanged. Now, If you think that we should add another sentence or two going into the 2021 article, providing more context, I would support that.
:::I do not see the relevance. This article is not about "the traditional left-right mold of American politics." [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 18:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::Secondly, the words in the article right now is not nearly as strong as stating that the US is a center-right nation. I agree that had I said that, I would probably need some academic papers describing it. I would have been going way beyond my source. That's not what is written though. I merely said in one specific year, the the United States populace leaned center-right based on polling data, and that that was following a trend. Much less strong language, and much more supported by the source at hand. Anyway, if there is a group consisting mostly of centrists and right wing people, I would describe the overall makeup of the group as being center-right, so when you say the article is ambiguous, I'm not sure that the ambiguity, to the extent that there is any, really matters. [[User:JMM12345|JMM12345]] ([[User talk:JMM12345|talk]]) 00:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)JMM12345


== Proposition : Putting the Estatesgeneral.jpg image on top of the article. ==
== Inequality ==
On what planet is "right wing" determined to be a belief in inequality being a cool idea? That is just complete nonsense, to be honest. Let's clean up the introduction to the page to accurately reflect reality, rather than the smears of George Soros :( <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/130.95.254.41|130.95.254.41]] ([[User talk:130.95.254.41|talk]]) 02:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You can follow the links to the sources and see where they were published. If you have reliable sources presenting a different view, then please provide them. I do not think they believe inequality is "cool", just that people are not equal and cab bever be equal and ignoring that fact is unrealistic. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 03:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to assume your comment was made in good faith, and, like TFD, suggest you read some of the sources. You have been misinformed about what the phrase "right-wing" means. As a typical example, from the book I happen to be reading today, "The Age of Napoleon" by Will and Ariel Durant, page 34, "Despite such democratic trimmings, the election sent to the Legislative Assembly a substantial minority dedicated to preserving the monarchy. These 264 "Feuillants" occupied the right section of the hall, and thereby gave a name to conservatives everywhere." Any other book picked at random, except those explicitly supporting Right-wing causes, will use the word in that way: support for the upper class. America does not have a king, but it does have an upper class, who collectively have most of the wealth and power. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 11:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


As it stands, a specific poster from early 20th-century United Kingdom is a way too specific image to illustrate this subject on top of the article, and it date more than a century after the original use of the term.
That is complete and utter nonsense of the highest order. Cut the bias interpretations. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/180.216.13.55|180.216.13.55]] ([[User talk:180.216.13.55|talk]]) 12:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


[[File:Estatesgeneral.jpg|thumb|275px|5 May 1789 opening of the [[Estates General of 1789]] in Versailles]] <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:BookNotion|BookNotion]] ([[User talk:BookNotion#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/BookNotion|contribs]]) 19:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Check out [[Will Durant]], author of what you call "complete and utter nonsense of the highest order", winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and one of the 20th century's leading historians. Compare his credentials with the credentials of the sources you get your information from. Wikipedia uses reliable sources, not unsupported opinion. Once again, I am assuming good faith, I think you actually believe the things you say. I'm just suggesting you read a little more widely, and keep an open mind. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 13:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
*The image shows a hall full of people. I don't see the point. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 18:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
:::FYI in the US many in the upper class are considered to be 'left-wing', for instance [[George Soros]], as of late [[Warren Buffet]], many survivors of the [[Rockefeller]] family, and depending on wealth and influence level many others, see [[Liberal Elite]]. [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 12:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::Of course many upper class people are 'left-wing' if you use 'left-wing' to mean liberal. And many lower class people are 'right-wing', in the sense that they vote Republican. If you are asking why people often vote against their own apparent self-interest, that's a question for sociologists. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 15:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


:::::They are only considered to be left-wing by the extreme right. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 20:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
:And the term wasn't used until the 20th century. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 19:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, the current definition is good if we're looking it within the context of sociology. A more [[political science]] or economics orientated definition would be from a bit different perspective, and of course different authors have different view points. The fourth note acknowledges this sociology view point: "''That viewpoint is held by contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain--''". The sociological focus on social equality would ignore (macro)economic left-right axis; and social equality and economical (income) equality do not mean exactly the same thing. This viewpoint also ignores the moderate right-wing politics' relationship with the theory of [[equal opportunity]]. The sociological definition is valid, of course, but rather narrow when we take into account the actual, wider usage of the term. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]][[User talk:Pudeo|']] 04:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


== Why is social/cultural liberalism listed as right-wing? ==
::I'm not sure that the economic meaning is wider than the sociological meaning. Such things are hard to judge, but the statistics I've read suggest that only about ten percent of the Right are Libertarians, as compared with 30% who are self-acknowledged racists, and an even larger percent who see the Christian religion as their prime reason to identify with the political Right. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 12:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


Many people who identify as social/cultural liberals would object to being counted as right wing. Since the conception of left/right, social liberalism was usually a leftist project.
::The positioning of ideologies from left to right is based on how people and the parties see their relative position, and in many cases, the parties are actually seated in legislatures. Parties usually like this seating plan because it places them closest to the parties with which they are most likely to cooperate. Liberals for example may form coalitions with the Left or Right and therefore like to sit in the center, which is fine by the other parties. Research in Western Europe in the post-war era showed that two axes could be drawn that showed parties differed more in economic and social policy according to how left or right they were. But that does not mean that these positions define the left-right axis. They can reverse depending on circumstances as indeed they have both in the U.S. and in Europe. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 01:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


The political compass suggests splitting the political spectrum into an egalitarian (leftist) vs. economic liberal (rightist) dimension vs. an authoritarian/social liberal dimension. This reflects that eg. nazism is generally considered right wing and authoritarian, Soviet Union style communism is left wing and authoritarian. [[User:DarthBarth|DarthBarth]] ([[User talk:DarthBarth|talk]]) 07:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
==Disambiguation==
An IP added "The Right", an Italian party and "Conservatism" as disambiguation re-directs. I do not see the point of that. If someone is looking for the Italian party, they are not likely to type in "Right-wing politics." The number of articles this could lead to is excessive. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 07:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


::The article does not mention social/cultural liberalism. It does mention "liberal conservatives" who stress small government and free markets, but that is very different from social or cultural liberalism. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 10:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
: I ''did '''not''' add '''conservatism''' '' It was already present, and is still present after the revert, [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Right-wing_politics&oldid=619991090]
:: ''"Political right" redirects here. For the rights, see Political rights. '''For conservative political thought, see conservatism.'''
: [[The right]] redirects here. Why shouldn't informatiion about [[The Right]] be indicated in the hatnote? [[Political right]] redirects here, and the hatnote indicates the other article [[Political rights]].
:The hatnote even indicates why "The Right" is listed
:{{redirect|The right|the Italian political party|The Right (Italy)|other uses|right (disambiguation)}}
:The same reason why "Political rights" is indicated, because something redirects here.
:The "conservatism" was moved to a separate line to prevent confusions about what was being disambiguated, I did not add that target, I merely severed it from the line for "political rights".
: -- [[Special:Contributions/65.94.169.222|65.94.169.222]] ([[User talk:65.94.169.222|talk]]) 05:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


== Christer Pursainen due? ==
::About the compactness, the "compact" template doesn't work, it doesn't support enough alternate options, and the clarity of using the compact template is much less, as it doesn't clearly indicate which redirect each option is disambiguation for
{{tlx|redirect7|"Political right", "Right wing", "The right"|"political rights", the rights|Political rights|"right wing", the term used in sports|Winger (sports)|a right wing|Wing (disambiguation)|"The Right", the Italian political party|The Right (Italy)|other uses for "the right"|right (disambiguation)|conservative political thought|conservatism}}
::Notice that the rendering completely leaves out further coverage after right wing, because the compact template doesn't support enough parameters.
{{redirect7|"Political right", "Right wing", "The right"|"political rights", the rights|Political rights|"right wing", the term used in sports|Winger (sports)|a right wing|Wing (disambiguation)|"The Right", the Italian political party|The Right (Italy)|other uses for "the right"|right (disambiguation)|conservative political thought|conservatism}}
:: There's no {{tl|redirect}} hatnote template that properly supports 3 incoming redirects.
:: -- [[Special:Contributions/65.94.169.222|65.94.169.222]] ([[User talk:65.94.169.222|talk]]) 06:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
:::It is unlikely that someone looking for "The Right" party in Italy would type in "right-wing politics and there have been numerous parties with "right" in their name. Similarly the article "Liberalism" does not begin with links to the hundreds of parties that have had "liberal" as parts of their names. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 07:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
::::You should already know how redirects work on Wikipedia. Click on this link [[the right]], it will lead to this page. This is why this article carries a hatnote for [[political right]], because the redirect at location "political right" redirects to this page, that is why it says
::::{{redirect|political right|the rights|political rights}}
::::The article on the Italian party called "The Right" ''will not be found'' without a hatnote here, if you just type in "the right" into the searchbox on Chrome. That is why {{tl|redirect}} style hatnotes exist.
:::: It is not because they type in "right-wing politics", it is because they type in '''the right''' -- [[Special:Contributions/65.94.169.222|65.94.169.222]] ([[User talk:65.94.169.222|talk]]) 10:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


We have a single paper presenting a [[WP:FRINGE]] view of the politics of the CPC hinged off a single book by a minor academic. h-index - 9 - doesn't indicate he's particularly influential in his field. I didn't delete this when I did my first pass on the China stuff because I was more focused on the failed verifications but now I'm asking: does anybody think this is due a specific pullout? [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 12:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
:I've put the hatnote for the Italian party back in. These are not excessive - a similar example is the hatnote on [[Defamation]], mentioned at [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Redirecting to a primary topic]] as the primary topic for several titles. [[User:Peter James|Peter James]] ([[User talk:Peter James|talk]]) 12:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
==The definition of right wing here does not address common use==
I realize there is an "academic" meaning to "right wing" described here. But in popular culture, there is a completely different understanding of right wing. Someone who, for example, is a member of the Tea Party would be considered by most regular folk as "right wing". And yet a tea party member would find the ideas of an all powerful central government to be not simply wrong, but utterly incompatible with their views. Therefore, what many people in popular culture consider "right wing", including politicians and the media, according to this article, would be factually inaccurate. Barack Obama himself discusses people on the "right" in reference to people who advocate limited government. So according to this article, Barack Obama would be wrong. Anyone who advocates a limited government would fully reject, with force, the philosophical tenets as outlined in this article, and thus could not be considered 'right wing' by Wikipedia standards. I think there should be some education here, so that the average person has a clearer understanding that when Wikipedia talks about "right wing", it is using a classical academic definition that simply does not exist in 2014 popular culture. In today's culture, if you A) favor individual liberty, B) want lower taxation, C) hold conservative values, D) want to control your borders, and E) want the federal government generally out of your personal life, out of your business life, and out of your moral life then you are considered "right wing" by modern culture, however because "right wing" as defined by Wikipedia requires a vast central authoritarian government with virtually unlimited power, the compatibility between what Wikipedia says is "right wing" and what modern culture says is "right wing" is null. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.105.174.150|24.105.174.150]] ([[User talk:24.105.174.150|talk]]) 03:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The Tea Party is not considered right-wing because they want lower taxation etc., they are considered right-wing because post-war academics saw a similarity between them and right-wing groups in inter-war Europe. Odd that these people would choose to adopt the label, but it does not change the meaning of the term. The Tea Party of course is more in the populist than the traditional right - they see a hierarchy of merit rather than genteel breeding. But there is nothing in the definition that does not apply to them, particularly their opposition to the Left (i.e., socialism). [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 03:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The Tea Party is almost entirely composed of wealthy white people, and what they support in the name of "small government" is low taxes for wealthy white people. Tea Party organization is centered around local Tea Parties, who are not all alike, but they tend to be extremely authoritarian within their own ranks, and will expel members and vote against candidates who do not agree totally with their views. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 11:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I've gone back and read over the lead, with 24.105.174.150's comments in mind, and tend to agree that the lead, while giving an accurate definition of the historical and world-wide definition of right-wing, does not give sufficient emphasis to the uniquely American, twenty-first century definition of right-wing. I'll try to find a good source for that, and add it. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] ([[User talk:Rick Norwood|talk]]) 11:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
:::I agree there is a problem and tried to fix the lede, by noting the US is different from Europe, that the right wing = conservative movement and has been a major factor in since the 1980s, and that there are extremist groups on the far right.[[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen|talk]]) 16:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
:I am a supporter of the "tea party" and i detest authoritarianism or any attempt by the federal government to encroach on liberty or morality. I am very libertarian in my views, but many common people would consider me "right wing". So I embrace the notion of being "right wing" in 2014 United States popular culture. However, I have almost nothing in common with what Wikipedia defines as 'right wing'. So I can fully second the idea here, that there is a disconnect between 2014 American "pop culture" understanding of "right wing" and the wikipedia early 20th century academic definition of "right wing." When guys like John Stewart discuss "crazy" right wingers, I often find that he adequately describes my views (at least 50% of the time). But here at Wikipedia, the definition of "right wing" as presented here is 90% incongruent with my views. I contend that people like John Stewart and other American media leftists have a better grasp of common knowledge of "right wing" than Wikipedia. What Europeans considered "right wing" in 1940 is not really relevant today, in fact, to me, its meaningless since cultures change and definitions morph. "Right Wing" will never be an absolute concept, but a subjective one that is fluid with changing times. Authoritarianism is completely mutually exclusive with not just my views, but every "right wing" person I know. The idea that today's "right wingers" in popular culture favor an authoritarian government that regulates morality is absurd. I'm sure some do, but the vast majority do not, and in fact, completely detest the idea of a regulatory federal government.

Latest revision as of 15:41, 5 September 2024


See Also section

[edit]

Under the see also section, structural functionalism is listed. The article on structural functionalism directly says: "It is simplistic to equate the perspective directly with political conservatism" and cites a source; following this quote it states conflict theory can be seen as having a left-wing bent. I think either a removal or a further explanation in this article about how functionalism directly relates to right wing politics would be helpful. CalorusRex (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2017

Claim that America leans Centre-Right

[edit]

You can not claims that America leans centre right when the polling shows a majority of Americans identify as moderate or liberal. According to Gallup, Democrats are more likely to identify as moderate than Republicans.[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104dragon (talk • contribs)

American terminology is somewhat skewed in a way that erases the left almost completely. The USA has two main parties, Democrats (centrist to centre right) and Republicans (centre right to hard right). As that article says, "Conservatives, Moderates Tie". That is a centre-right lean over all. The moderates and liberals you speak of can be anything from centre-left to centre-right depending on what they think those words mean but, most often, "moderate" means centre-right in America. Given that America is the quintessential Capitalist hegemony, with discourse centred on how capitalism should be conducted rather then whether it is desirable in itself, that is a centre-right situation and that Gallup poll shows exactly that. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia. By global standards, I would suggest the USA is more to the right than centre right. What Americans think is not really important. Americans make up less than 5% of the world's population. HiLo48 (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The US had made a dramatic political shift after the Bush administration. The right lost the culture wars, and the progressive left has achieved dominance in academia and large parts of the media. Many more Americans are now skeptical of capitalism, imperialism, patriotism, American exceptionalism, traditional family values, meritocracy, law and order. Some traditionally left-wing positions (freedom of speech, freedom of self-expression) are now considered conservative or even right-wing by the left. DarthBarth (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is subjective to say the you think the moderates and liberals lean centre right without evidence even if I personally agree, therefore it should not be stated as a matter of fact based on the evidence cited in the article, which does not point to that conclusion. This poll is about how people identify, not how other people characterize them. The only way you could point to this conclusion as a matter of fact is if you were to find a poll that placed an ideological score on each person in the poll and found the average score was in centre-right territory 104dragon (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I equate "moderates" as being the "centre", which is why I think calling it a center-right lean is appropriate, based on the polling data given, especially when more people identify as conservative than as liberal. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We discussed the country information before and it was agreed to remove them. In every country, politics can be divided into a left and a right. That doesn't mean that the right in one country has anything in common with the right in another. The term right-wing is defined as opposition to the left, but how strong this opposition must be to be considered right-wing changes depending on context. For example, all major parties in the UK are centrist, the Tories are a center right party, the Tories formed a center-right coalition with the Lib Dems (where the Tories are right and the Lib Dems are centrist.
So in this discussion, all editors are correct. The problem is that it is correct to call the Republicans right wing, center right or centrist depending on context. But without context, the terms are meaningless.
Note that while there are books such as The Left In History and Forging Democracy: The History of the Left in Europe, 1850-2000, there is nothing for the Right. Instead, there are books about the specific ideologies of the Right: liberalism, conservatism, fascism, Christian democracy and sub-groups such as Nazism, neo-liberalism, right-wing populism, etc.
I suggest we re-remove this.
TFD (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Democrats (centrist to centre right)" The main article on centre-right politics lists associated political ideologies: Liberal conservatism, Christian democracy, economic liberalism, neoliberalism, cultural liberalism, and green conservatism. Dimadick (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And of course the main article has no sources for this and is original research. Center right is contextually defined, similar to the expression "fairly tall." Americans tend to be fairly tall. Basketball players tend to be fairly tall. Both statements are correct because what the speaker means by fairly tall is clear from context, although what is fairly tall differs in the two statements. On its own without context the expression is meaningless. I hope that no one decides to create an article "Fairly tall" with separate sections about Americans and basketball players. TFD (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Americans have a tendency to support more left-wing economic ideas[2], but at the same time view themselves as moderate or conservative.104dragon (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

104dragon continues to use these pages as if they were intended for discussion, like Facebook pages. This is an encyclopedia, and publishes referenced material. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a talk page to discuss. The referenced material does not point to the conclusion claimed in the article.104dragon (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Lydia, Saad. "U.S. Political Ideology Steady; Conservatives, Moderates Tie".
  2. ^ Liesman, Steve. "Majority of Americans support progressive policies such as higher minimum wage, free college".
As the person who initially typed out the paragraph at issue, I would just like to point out that calling the US in 2019 center right was not my characterization of the data, but rather it was the characterization that the gallup news article used as a reference. Quoting from the article, "[I]n 2019, the ideological balance of the country remained center-right, with 37% of Americans, on average, identifying as conservative during the year, 35% as moderate and 24% as liberal." This is an encyclopedia; we go with what our sources say, generally speaking. We don't make up new non-obvious characterizations of raw data, as that would come dangerously close to WP:OR. While I certainly respect 104dragon for trying to make the article better, the source is clear here: The US in 2019 leaned center right because 37% of Americans self identified as conservative, 35% moderate, and 24% liberal. That's not because I'm saying it; that's because the author of the article was saying it.JMM12345 (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)JMM12345[reply]
First, it's self-identification which is not necessarily what they really are. Second, the conclusions are questionable. Another analyst would say that 37% were center right to far right, 35% were centrist and 24% were left of center. What percentage of self-described conservatives are far right as opposed to center right?
Furthermore, it has little or no relevance to this article. You would have to show that this is a significant observation made in the literature about right-wing politics.
TFD (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would first say that I think that you're correct that self-identification is not necessarily what people really are, however the source cited thinks that it can draw a general conclusion based on that self identification polling data. Furthermore it seems to be a very reasonable conclusion based on the data. If a plurality of a data set consider themselves to be conservative and the second most people consider themselves moderate, with self-identifying liberals trailing way behind the other two groups, I would think that calling the data set center-right would be the obvious conclusion to come to (even if there may be a slight difference between self identifications and reality). Anyway, the way the Wikipedia article currently stands, we have provided the underlying data and the conclusion that the source came to. We have not provided the conclusion that Wikipedia editors think that another source might hypothetically come to. If another analyst actually does characterize the data differently, I would encourage you to cite to the other analyst.
Secondly, I think it is relevant to the article. This portion of the article is specifically about right wing politics in the United States, so a source characterizing how right wing the US is seems to me to be a very relevant. But in any event, if there is a dispute about relevance of this information, that would seem to me to be a different discussion entirely to whether "You can not claims that America leans centre right when the polling shows a majority of Americans identify as moderate or liberal.", which is what 104dragon started this discussion by saying.JMM12345 (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)JMM12345[reply]
It is interesting that between the article reporting on 2019[1] and 2021[2] results, the writer dropped the term-center right, although the results barely changed. The writer probably thought better of it after reflection.
The problem here is that you have a source that is obviously reliable for polling but not for determining whether the results mean that the U.S. is majority center right. You would need a source that says something like, "there is a consensus among political scientists that the U.S. is a center-right nation," before we stated it as fact. Also, her first article is ambiguous. Center right can mean either a position between between center and right, the left of the right, the right of the center or a combination of the center and right. It is possible that the writer meant the second. IOW, Americans identify as right or center, if we define right as conservative and center as moderate.
TFD (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that changing which group is the plurality is barely changing the percentages (even if the absolute change in values is small) for the purpose of offering analysis of data, and I also wouldn't say that changing the words used to analyze the numbers as those numbers change necessarily the same as reflecting on earlier writing analyzing different numbers and thinking better of it. Especially considering the fact that the 2019 article is still up and seemingly unchanged. Now, If you think that we should add another sentence or two going into the 2021 article, providing more context, I would support that.
Secondly, the words in the article right now is not nearly as strong as stating that the US is a center-right nation. I agree that had I said that, I would probably need some academic papers describing it. I would have been going way beyond my source. That's not what is written though. I merely said in one specific year, the the United States populace leaned center-right based on polling data, and that that was following a trend. Much less strong language, and much more supported by the source at hand. Anyway, if there is a group consisting mostly of centrists and right wing people, I would describe the overall makeup of the group as being center-right, so when you say the article is ambiguous, I'm not sure that the ambiguity, to the extent that there is any, really matters. JMM12345 (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)JMM12345[reply]

Proposition : Putting the Estatesgeneral.jpg image on top of the article.

[edit]

As it stands, a specific poster from early 20th-century United Kingdom is a way too specific image to illustrate this subject on top of the article, and it date more than a century after the original use of the term.

5 May 1789 opening of the Estates General of 1789 in Versailles

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BookNotion (talk • contribs) 19:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the term wasn't used until the 20th century. TFD (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is social/cultural liberalism listed as right-wing?

[edit]

Many people who identify as social/cultural liberals would object to being counted as right wing. Since the conception of left/right, social liberalism was usually a leftist project.

The political compass suggests splitting the political spectrum into an egalitarian (leftist) vs. economic liberal (rightist) dimension vs. an authoritarian/social liberal dimension. This reflects that eg. nazism is generally considered right wing and authoritarian, Soviet Union style communism is left wing and authoritarian. DarthBarth (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not mention social/cultural liberalism. It does mention "liberal conservatives" who stress small government and free markets, but that is very different from social or cultural liberalism. Rick Norwood (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christer Pursainen due?

[edit]

We have a single paper presenting a WP:FRINGE view of the politics of the CPC hinged off a single book by a minor academic. h-index - 9 - doesn't indicate he's particularly influential in his field. I didn't delete this when I did my first pass on the China stuff because I was more focused on the failed verifications but now I'm asking: does anybody think this is due a specific pullout? Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Right-wing_politics&oldid=1244190337"