Talk:Far-right politics/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

"Far right" globally

Are there sources that examine whether what is called "far right" by Western media (generally opposition to replacement level immigration) is a normal view globally? 86.187.112.61 (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not what far right means, it's one of the policies that they advocate. Similarly they mostly support the death penalty, but support for the death penalty is not the definition of far right. TFD (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The idea the Nazism is far-right or that the far-right ideology is fascist is jocular. The far-right movement is anarchic. Far-right means to be farther on the right side of the spectrum. The farthest right you can get is no government and the farthest left you can get is complete government rule. Nazism and fascism are far-left ideologies. Socialism is a far-left belief that calls for government control to the utmost, the Nazi party was openly socialist, just because they were nationalist doesn't mean they were right-wing. To be right-wing is to advocate for smaller national government. To claim that the far-right is fascist, a political ideology that boasts complete government role over it's people is completely outlandish and so backward. This article needs some drastic changes made, along with articles it's attached to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JScottFreeRW (talk • contribs) 17:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

That may be your opinion. Wikipedia doesn't deal in opinions, it deals in information supported by reliable and independent sources. Do you have such sources for your opinion ?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

That is the John Birch Society view but is not accepted in the mainstream. TFD (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the John Birch Society was a fascist organization. Aren't they ultaconservative nationalists, who oppose civil rights? Dimadick (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's a link to Cleon Skousen's article, "What is Left? What is Right?" While Skousen was not a JBS member, his writings including this article are part of JBS ideology and more recently Glenn Beck's. The Birchers are not fascist but strictly speaking fascist, although there is overlap among Bircher and fascist beliefs and supporters. TFD (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Could you look at your last sentence above, in particular "The Birchers are not fascist but strictly speaking fascist"? It's not making sense to me. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. Done. TFD (talk) 01:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. 18:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I suspect it is a matter of right-wing ideology being different from the views of certain politicians who ran for right-wing party nominations (e.g., alleged neo-Nazi Little). At the same time, Canada's left-wing (NDP) is supporting a candidate who allegedly endorses Hitler.

The Wiki page on Nazism notes Hitler called Nazism "creative Socialism", etc. He opposed the right-wing policy of capitalism, though later allowed limited private enterprise so long as it adhered to the goals of the Nazi state. At the same time he endorsed Stalinism - another left-wing ideology.

Right wing ideologies reject group identity (used by those like Nazis to justify anti-semitism) and favor individualism and hierarchies. Indeed, antisemitism is not only a historic scourge of the left, but a current one such as with the UK Labour party and controversies around Canadian PM Trudeau. Still, reasoned Talk page arguments cannot be used to change it to "far left" since the prevalent view is "far right." However in conjunction with RS, the claim can be mitigated with "far left" as an alternative opinion. Skingski (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

You need to get experts on far right politics to adopt your views before we can add them here. In the meantime, you should avoid making accusations against individuals, per WP:BLP. Blogs on the Conservative Party website are not reliable sources. Out of curiosity, if fascists are not far right, who is? TFD (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

An odd question. Whether fascists are left wing, right wing or both is a contentious point - to be left to the relevant pages. Skingski (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

From the point of view of left = more government and right = less, far-right would be anarcho-capitalism, anarchy, privatization, corporatocracy, monopolies, and similar things. A lack of government control causes power vacuums which can lead to corporate control, radical parties taking over, and/or rampant organized crime. Aaronfranke (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

To clarify TFD's comment - "experts on far right politics" - the experts can be conservatives, just as liberals can be experts on far-left politics. The problem is blogs in general are not reliable sources. Skingski (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hitler was a socialist. Mussolini was a socialist. Stalin was a socialist. So how can Naziism or Fascism be far right but Communism be far left? Illogical.(User:Sandvol) —Preceding undated comment added 17:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Because Hitler and Mussolini were not socialists according to all expert sources. TFD (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Fascism is only tangentially related to right-wing politics

Fascism and Nazism at their cores are not at all related to current right-wing politics. Their main reason to be miscategorised as right-wing is that it directly opposed left-wing politics, yet they also oppose right-wing politics. If they were to be categorized on a chart, they would actually be farther on the left, following the general trend of left meaning more government control and right meaning less. I recommend watching this video, specifically from about 4:50 onwards. This article also does not align with the various charts on the political spectrum Wikipedia page, such as this one, which show Fascism as perpendicular to leftist Communism, not opposite of it, and none of the other charts associate Fascism with right-wing, though they do correctly associate it with conservativism. Fascism and Nazism are radical conservative but also left ideologies, and have no place on a "far-right politics" page. Aaronfranke (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ. Acroterion (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I did read the FAQ. The questions relate to Nazis calling themselves socialists. I'm not saying that I disagree because of their name.

I'd like to add that what this page *should* be about, the true bad side of right-wing politics, is anarcho-capitalism. A lack of government control caused by far-right policies inevitably leads to anarchy, which allows other organizations, such as corporations or evil political parties, taking control of society. If you don't remove the Nazi references, at the very least you could add references to Wikipedia pages about anarcho-capitalism, anarchy, privatization, corporatocracy, monopolies, and similar things. Aaronfranke (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The FAQ goes beyond the name to discuss the academic consensus on the political spectrum. You need to reference mainstream academic sources, not YouTube videos. Acroterion (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The modern far right has many roots in historical fascism with people such as Ludwig Mises and Elmer Barnes providing a link. Their policies have changed, but the same is true of socialists, conservatives and liberals. TFD (talk) 06:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

"at the very least you could add references to Wikipedia pages about anarcho-capitalism, anarchy"

Anarchy is usually placed on the left or far-left end of the political spectrum. "Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology, and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics. Some individualist anarchists are also socialists or communists while some anarcho-communists are also individualists or egoists." Dimadick (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

In that context, Anarchy is only used as a tool to advocate a change in government, it is not actually intended as the end result. In reality, Anarchy, which is no government, is the polar opposite of Communism, which is total government. If you look at most political spectrum charts, they usually have communism on the far left, socialism and then liberalism to its right, centrism in the middle, then conservatism and libertarianism to the right of that. The trend of this chart is less government power as you move further right, so Anarchy would be on the right side of the chart. It would make no sense to go against this trend and put Anarchy on the left simply because some individuals are self-proclaimed anarchists and socialists. 162.235.17.96 (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It absolutely is intended as the end result by most anarchists, but let's set that aside for now.

Which charts are you looking at? Trying to fit each ideology into a specific slot is subjective and unworkable. The left-right spectrum is intentionally simple- that's the point. It's useful because it's a shorthand way of explaining broad tendencies, not because it's a set of rigid rules. Those rules don't exists. The Soviet's treatment of Peter Kropotkin is a good example of how it's not a simple history, because politics isn't actually simple enough to fit in a straight line (or a two-axis graph, or a horseshoe, or a tesseract, or...) Reliable sources overwhelmingly place anarchist movements on the left for reasons, and those articles explain what those reasons are. With that in mind, this interpretation is way too simple, and it appears to be WP:OR which is not supported by sources or historical context. Libertarian Marxism/Anarcho-communism, etc are defined by sources as leftist, and that's all we can really deal with here. Anarcho-capitalism is defined as far-right by the few who bother to pay serious attention to it. It is using the language of anarchism to justify corporatism and authoritarianism, which certainly fits the far-right. So again, what charts are you talking about, and are they reliable sources? I'm sincerely curious. Grayfell (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

This is totally wrong.

Right wing in politics denote lack of government, and minimal government control. Left wing is greater to total government control. It has nothing to do with racism. Socialism, communism, totalitarian is left wing. As is fascism and dictatorships. All left wing. These new definitions put in here by the left wing nut jobs is not good enough. Prairiefog1967 (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Please see the FAQ at the top of the page. Grayfell (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a popular definition among some segments of the extreme right since the 1960s but happens to be wrong and not supported in mainstream literature. TFD (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

"denote lack of government, and minimal government control" That is anarchy, a left-wing ideology. Right-wing politics instead derive from the ideology of the French nobility, the Ancien Régime supporters, the absolute monarchy supporters, and the Ultra-royalist reactionaries. And, naturally, associated with the political purges known as the First White Terror (1795) and the Second White Terror (1815). Dimadick (talk) 07:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

"Anti-communism"

"Anti-Communism" should not be listed as a "far right" belief.

An aversion to a murderous ideology such as communism is not a "far right" belief, and the "Encyclopedia of Politics: The Left and the Right" does not even make that claim, which is used as a source.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Bpx2AwAAQBAJ&pg=PR9&lpg=PR9&dq=%22Encyclopedia+of+Politics:+The+Left+and+the+Right%22+%22anti-communist%22&source=bl&ots=PW5akET7YY&sig=ACfU3U3GJoJi0lbuYgA0kf-aPeDTg7N3nw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjxhpmE7frhAhXxmuAKHTbhBMIQ6AEwBnoECAkQAQ#v=snippet&q=far-right&f=false Tom Jones HERO (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

You're correct that it isn't a part of the cited source. The cited page in the source says: "The term far right is usually used to describe persons or groups who hold extreme nationalist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist, or other reactionary views. Typically the term is applied to fascists and neo-Nazis, although subscribers to left-wing views sometimes use the term very liberally to describe any group on the right of the political spectrum whom they disagree with."
There is another place in the article which mentions anti-communism but cites a different source (Hilliard), maybe someone here could verify it?
– Þjarkur (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused. @Tom JOnes HERO: are you saying that there's a significant section of the far-right that isn't anti-Communist? Not that it matters here, but Communism isn't a murderous ideology, although many people have indeed been murdered by so-called Communists. There's a big difference. 16:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It actually means an extreme aversion beyond what an average non-communist would have. Compare with anti-fascist or "antifa," which is an extreme form of aversion to anti-fascism. I note that while the source says "usually used to describe," this article says "often." The term is used to describe two different groups, but the article does not clearly distinguish them. TFD (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2019

I support this. Topics such as these are prone to attract vandals and those wanting to push a POV. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 14:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

New article for Australia

I don't have time myself right now, but I think there's more than enough material to add to a new article entitled Far-right politics in Australia. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

100% support. Bacondrum (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Bacondrum. I'll try to get back to it sometime but it could be a while. If you or anyone else wants to make a start, I'm happy to contribute in fits and starts.

I found this possibly useful resource, which I'll just park here for now. Being a blog, it probably wouldn't pass as an RS, but could be a good starting point for following up some of the more obscure RWNJs and their various comings and goings and falling out with one another. A brief guide to the far right - April 2019. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, we should have another article for Australia (probably with more detail) but some of it should be left in this article - up to the same length as the UK part. Pkin8541 (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Pkin8541. Yes, it's usual to leave a summary in the general article, as you suggest, but one that is less likely to date as rapidly than the main article, and concentrate on keeping the main article up to date. I happened across another source here, and I'm sure there are lots of others. I still have my hands and brain full of other stuff, but will get back to this sometime... Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a very good idea. Please let me know when this is published or drafted. Grayfell (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey peoples, I went created the page for Far-right politics in Australia. I Copy and pasted some text, mostly stuff I authored or contributed to significantly. Needs a lot of editing, maybe change the format so it's not just a list, some sections should probably be rewritten so they are not just a copy of the lead from the main article...but it gets us started. Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Bacondrum:, well done, thanks for that. I will try to have a proper look at it soon. Will just ping @Pkin8541: and @Grayfell: to make sure they are alerted. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Far-right politics - Alt-right

Hi all, I'm after some uninvolved editors to look over the Alt-right article. I feel like it's been edited tendentiously by left and right partisans, all sorts of groups that are not Alt-right are included. Bacondrum (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the RFC tag, since this isn't an WP:RFC - look at WP:RFC and existing RFCs in WP:RFC/All for details on what they are and how they work (essentially, you lay out a proposed change or a clearly-defined dispute in a neutral manner, on the talk page where it's occurring, and ask people to weigh in on how it should be resolved.) If you wanted to open an RFC on this, you'd open it on Talk:Alt-right, but I'd think carefully about the wording and look at other RFCs for examples first. Also, while it's definitely acceptable to ask users on one article to take a look at another clearly-related one, it has to be done cautiously (in particular, with neutral wording) - see WP:CANVASS for details about what you have to be careful about. "It's being edited tendentiously by people on both sides" could, I guess, sort of be considered neutral in a pox-on-both-their-houses sense, but I'd still recommend avoiding language like that when posting requests for opinions on other articles, since it's a touchy subject. Something like "there's a dispute on article XYZ over [neutral summary of the dispute, eg. whether to include this-and-that]" would be better. That's also the rough wording I'd use for an WP:RFC posted on Talk:Alt-right, although I would spend some more time trying to hash out a compromise first (in part because you can probably identify a middle ground between "remove ALL OF THIS" and "keep everything exactly the same" that would be more likely to reach your desired consensus in an RFC, eg. "remove some of this, summarize some of this more briefly.") --Aquillion (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for your advice, I keep letting my frustration get the better of me. I will take your advice. Bacondrum (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Bacondrum isn't really interested in neutrality or following Wikipedia policies, what he wants is some way to whitewash the Alt-right artricle to his satisfaction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Assume good faith? Bacondrum (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

No, good faith is assumed when there is no evidence one way or the other, when everyone is starting from scratch. Once there is evidence, good faith is no longer a warranted assumption. To put is another way WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2019

\ ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi- \ Definition of fascism 1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition 2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge

Fascists define themselves by their actions and not by their political party. 67.10.93.254 (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Compare to "Far left politics"

Absolutely hilarious how the editors completely disregard even attempting to appear unbiased. All the blather in this article and the "far-left politics" article is so concise: "Far-left politics are political views located further on the left of the left-right spectrum than the standard political left. The term has been used to describe ideologies such as: communism, anarchism, neo-Marxism, anarcho-communism, left-communism, Marxism–Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, and Maoism.[1][2][3] "

Either call out the communists for the murderers whom they are, as they have killed far more people than the "far right", or adopt a more neutral tone in this article. You don't get it both ways. 108.46.59.94 (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

This isn't the page for far-left politics, this page is about the far-right. If you want to improve the far-left page please do so. We are not here to call anyone or anything out, we are here to build an encyclopedia. Bacondrum (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2019

It is so blatantly obvious, that Wikipedia is being controlled by the far-left. Which is pretty much what the far-left does. Another thing the far-left does, is blame others for the actions they themselves are guilty of.

All you have to do, to see Wikipedia's bias, is to look at the term far-left, which is only about three sentences long. Why??? Because anything they might say might upset the far-left, and Wikipedia would be under constant attack. Which is why, Wikipedia has been shifted many far-left behaviors over to the far-right.

NAZI - National "Socialist" - is a Far-Left ideology. So is, Totalitarianism, Mob Rules and Authoritarianism. Who often violate individual rights and use extreme force to attack. Like the extreme force used against Wikipedia to change the definitions of far-left and far-right. 2600:1702:4210:12C1:E153:A455:AA13:69C4 (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 13:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

2600:1702:4210:12C1:E153:A455:AA13:69C4 You are correct on one thing, there have been terrifying authoritarian leftist governments, Stalin and Mao were two of history's great monsters - but it's a fairly obvious fact that the Nazi's were firmly on the far right and Hitler personally despised marxism and communism. This is an extremely tedious argument, trade unionists, Marxists and others on the left were systematically singled out and exterminated under Nazi rule. I mean the intellectual father of communism was a jew, Marx was Jewish (at least in Nazi race law he would have been considered one). Education makes a big difference. I know reading can be a pain in the ass for some, but you should educate yourself rather than getting angry and blaming all the woes of the world on the left - the argument that the Nazi's were leftists is embarrassingly ignorant and offensive: https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists Bacondrum (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I read once that the way political canvassers in the UK could tell if electors were right or left-wing was to look inside their homes. If they had stacks of newspapers and lots of books, they were left-wing. If they did not and everything was in order and boots polished, they were right-wing. Nazis of course hated books but loved boots. And order. TFD (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

What does this "joke" add to the conversation? Wikipedia is not a forum Azerty82 (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. There's nothing funny about denialism and this isn't a forum. Bacondrum (talk) 06:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I thought the joke was the edit request. TFD (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, a bad joke. Still Azerty82 is right, it's not a forum. Bacondrum (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The reality is that the psychology, behaviour, beliefs, likes and dislikes of nazis have more in common with other right wing groups than with socialists. TFD (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely, it's a morally repugnant argument, historic fantasy and just plain wrong in every possible way. Bacondrum (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems very opinionated.

Article does not take into fact the difference between Alt-Right and right wing politics. Whilst also including only extreme right idealogies in the header description. Overall viewpoint does not seem objective. Emmanuel Pacings (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Ignore this saw regular right politics article. Silly me. Emmanuel Pacings (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Image relevance???

What exactly does white pride have to do with being far-right? Seems extremely biased and immediately twists the narrative of the wiki. I expected better. The only place that picture would have relevance would be on a page about white pride, or white nationalism. Not on far-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danisheditor (talk • contribs) 00:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

If you have to ask... Bacondrum (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2020

The liberal party of Australia and the National Party of Australia re political parties that are positioned on the center-right and are incorrectly stated to be far-right political parties. 14.203.186.172 (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

This article does not say they are far right. TFD (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Please re-read. The article talks about a number of political parties to the right of the centre-right Liberal Party of Australia and National Party of Australia Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Authoritarian is not specific to the far right

Given every single far left Government in history has gone full authoritarian to an extent even the Nazis (with their multiple socialist policies in amongst their authoritarianism) would fear, use of the term 'authoritarian' to describe the far right feels entirely inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.76.37 (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Your argument makes no sense. So we can't describe English people as English speaking because people speak English in some other countries too. TFD (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020

So, I see a problem with this article. Third paragraph:

"Far-right politics can lead to oppression, violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing and even genocide against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group,[10][11]"

I went through both sources, the ARPS one and the annualreviews one. Neither article ever once mentions violence, oppression, nor "forced" assimilation. Actually, I just now noticed that both sources are the exact same essays. So not sure why we have two for that. Anyway, perhaps the part the person who wrote that sentence is referring to this passage:

"Conditions in the post-war period have been different. Liberal democracy is widely accepted, capitalism has produced unprecedented levels of prosperity, militarism and imperialism have been discredited, and revolutionary nationalism is associated with war, destruction, and genocide. These changes have meant that the mass support needed to maintain a successful party-political form of fascism is no longer present in most European countries"

This seems to be a misinterpretation of what the article was saying. Of course a revolution brings about destruction. Every single form of politics, no matter what group one belongs to, can lead to a violent revolution. It's always always always a possibility. No party is immune to this. Therefore, I am suggesting now that either A) We improve the sources for these claims or B) Remove them entirely. 2601:18E:101:5FC0:696C:C5B5:5F6C:A5B8 (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC) 2601:18E:101:5FC0:696C:C5B5:5F6C:A5B8 (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Sourcing and claim seem fine. Bacondrum (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Placement

today far-right politics includes neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, Third Position, the alt-right, white nationalism,[8] and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, anti-communist, or reactionary views.[9]

this is some very extreme stuff, not sure the Japanese and Brazilian governments really fit in here.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.131.193.6 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention the Japanese government. Bolsonaro is included because of his historically far right positions and comments. Bolsonaro of course governs with the support of liberals and conservatives and Western democracies. TFD (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Openly revisionist, Nippon Kaigi is considered "the biggest right-wing organization in Japan".[128][129] the source is very questionable as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.107.172.172 (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Problem with article

Bacondrum, I would appreciate it if you didn't delete my post and, in response, only write three words. You see the effort I put into making this case, and you just delete it without letting anyone else give their opinion. I may be an IP user, but I know that is not how Wikipedia is supposed to be run. Moderators/admins do not have special privileges and it is up to the community to come to a consensus. At the very least, explain yourself in more than just three words. I mean no offense. Also your personal page says you are anti-fascist, so maybe the definition of what fascism/far-right politics are should not solely be left in your hands. Again I mean no offense, I just think neutral historians might provide a better definition. As you said in another post Bacondrum, "So instead of crying bias, make your case for changes. Otherwise it looks like you just have a bone to pick with leftists - obvious bias. Nazi's were not socialists, if you hate socialists (you probably should recuse yourself from editing political pages)" the same concept holds true here. The irony of what you said is that you also claim to be a socialist, yet have no problems being the end-all-be-all definition of the opposing ideology/ideologies. Anyway.

Here is my original post for anyone who missed it:

So, I see a problem with this article. Third paragraph:

"Far-right politics can lead to oppression, violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing and even genocide against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group,[10][11]"

I went through both sources, the ARPS one and the annualreviews one. Neither article ever once mentions violence, oppression, nor "forced" assimilation. Actually, I just now noticed that both sources are the exact same essays. So not sure why we have two for that. Anyway, perhaps the part the person who wrote that sentence is referring to this passage:

"Conditions in the post-war period have been different. Liberal democracy is widely accepted, capitalism has produced unprecedented levels of prosperity, militarism and imperialism have been discredited, and revolutionary nationalism is associated with war, destruction, and genocide. These changes have meant that the mass support needed to maintain a successful party-political form of fascism is no longer present in most European countries"

This seems to be a misinterpretation of what the article was saying. Of course a revolution brings about destruction. Every single form of politics, no matter what group one belongs to, can lead to a violent revolution. It's always always always a possibility. No party is immune to this. Therefore, I am suggesting now that either A) We improve the sources for these claims or B) Remove them entirely. 2601:18E:101:5FC0:64FE:9A64:4472:92E9 (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Backed by sources. Not a WP:forum. I'll let another editor decide to delete the comment or not. Bacondrum (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Wdym "let"? 2601:18E:101:5FC0:E0DB:9591:53F4:EAA4 (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

By country

I propose removing the country-by-country breakdown. The sections are clumsy (including the one I wrote on Australia, which simply lists far right groups here in Australia), they all have their own articles anyway. We have a section on the history of the far right in Europe, then we start listing a select few nations and go over European nations which are (or should be) covered in the Europe section. I think a section on the history of post war far-right politics would be far more appropriate, discussing the development of the far right as a global phenomenon, far right governments in India and Hungary etc. rather than an odd-job of select mentions of individual countries that essentially just list tiny bonehead organisations in random countries. Bacondrum (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do the work creating said Post WW2 history section and merge any relevant, well cited existing info from the By Country section. Bacondrum (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm opposed to this. Better would be to include more countries. Many, many article have incomplete lists of countries in them, it's never been a reason for removing the list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

And please do not do what you just did, start on your proposed project with deletions from the article before you have a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. you know very well tat the material you are deleting is sourced in the articles from which it comes, so it is not "unsurced" or "unverifiable", and therefore not properly subject to being deleted as "unsourced". Rather than deleting it, please copy the sources from the main articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

There are 195 countries on earth, almost all of them would have a far-right. Bacondrum (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

There is not a single article on Wikipedia which has a list of countries on whatever subject the article is on which lists all 195 countries. Lists are almost never complete, but that does't mean that we delete them and throw them away, it means that we keep adding to them as we find more information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:COPYWITHIN

The sections on Germany and England are a transclusion from the leads of the relevant articles and should be removed as per WP:CONTENTFORKING Bacondrum (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia is allowed. They do not qualify as content forks. Please stop grasping at straws. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I prefer not to respond to you at all as I understand you find it extremely difficult to be civil, but please try. Bacondrum (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

In your view "Please stop grasping at straws" is uncivil? AN/I is that way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that the original articles are themselves insufficiently sourced. This is better than nothing, but those sections should provide referenced content in the near future. Alcaios (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I feel like it would be better as an broad historic overview like the Europe section rather than a list, nation by nation. I feel like lists are clunky and super boring to read. As it stands the lists is completely random and makes little sense, it also covers regions already covered or that should be covered in the Europe sub section of the history section. Why have a Europe section and then go into European nations individually in separate sections? I think non-European sections should be treated like the European section...for example have an An Asia section that details the history of the far right in Asia more broadly, an Oceania section that covers New Zealand, Australia, Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia and goes through the history of far right politics in the region rather than simply listing far right groups and some random incidents (as the Australian section currently does). Australia's far right is definitely more interesting when placed in historic and regional context, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you; the article is also mostly centred on Europe for the moment. Alcaios (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Alcaios Great, I don't want to get into an endless battle with Beyond My Ken, so I'll wait and see what other editors have to say before doing too much work on it myself (only to have it reverted). To get it started would you agree that the German and Italian sections should be merged into the Europe section (being that they are part of Europe and all)? Bacondrum (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Although the European history section still misses a paragraph centred on Italian fascism and Nazi Germany (it stops ca. 1920; I'll be working on it), I think that we should rather write an independent sub-section on recent developments in Europe rather than transcluding the lede of other articles. Alcaios (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Bacondrum (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I also have no objection to that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Good. I think Mudde's The Far Right Today (2019) and Camus & Lebourg's Far-Right Politics in Europe (2017) are good and reliable sources of information on recent developments in Europe. They can be read via the GBooks preview mode. You'll find the links in the bibliography. Regards, Alcaios (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks I'll give them a read and give it a go later this week. Bacondrum (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

So, I've started on creating a Oceania section, moved Germany and Italy to the broader Europe section and expanded to include German laws which target Nazi groups and symbols. I removed the uncited UK section which was just a copy and paste anyway. I will write an original and properly cited section later this week and re add the UK. I will also create a section in the Europe history on Spain post WWII, a New Zealand and Fiji section for Oceania and start on an Eastern European section - specifically Hungary and Greece. We'll need to create a section on Asia for a fully comprehensive article. Give it a look over and see what you think. Bacondrum (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes that's progress towards the right direction, especially the enlargement to other countries & continents. I have only one issue with the new sub-sectioning within /Europe/: in some cases, you cannot really separate each European country from their European context. The MSI and Bardèche were cited as influential on European far-right in general, not as "anecdotical" event restricted to France or Italy like the story of Berlusconi's great-grandson, which in my view is a political anecdote. Alcaios (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough. I can see the problem with breaking the nations of Western Europe up. I feel like Eastern Europe has a similar problem, particularly the former Yugoslav states. I'll give the Europe section a tweak to start with. Bacondrum (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Any thoughts on Vichy France? Far-right or right? Robert Paxton argued that it was all but fascist in nature. Bacondrum (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to present Eastern Europe. What do you think? I've just been copying an pasting section to get us started, but I'd like to re-write most to make it a broad history rather than a nation by nation list. Bacondrum (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You may start with Ukraine and Romania (really Eastern European), you'll have enough material on that (Great Romania Party, Noua Dreapta, Right Sector, Svoboda, etc.).(KIENGIR (talk) 02:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC))

I must admit that I'm raising more issues than solutions. I would argue that it is probably better to write overall sections on Western/Eastern Europe than several sub-sections per country within the history section. For instance, we could encompass Salvini, Le Pen and others in a sub-section on radical right-wing populism as scholars do. In a similar way, the ban on Nazi symbols is not specific to Germany and common to most European countries. Regarding Vichy France, it's undoubtedly a far-right regime, but generally described as distinct from Fascism by scholars (debates have occurred for the last months of the war, when the Milice operated as a kind of unregulated single party with systematic use of violence against opponents). Alcaios (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I have no issue with more problems being raised than solutions :D I agree with all your points. I'd love a hand forming overall regional sections, if you have the time. I think Vichy France and other proxy Nazi regimes like the Ustaše should get a mention in the European history. Bacondrum (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes I'm planning to write a paragraph on the period 1920–1945 encompassing Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Vichy France, the Ustaše, the Iron Guard, etc. but I'm still thinking about the best way to do it. It's hard to summarize such a period in one or two paragraphs. Alcaios (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

PS: the International section is great. I haven't even think about Hutu Power which, indeed, displays the basic feature of the far-right: society as a natural body that needs to be 'purged' of 'impurities' seen as a disease or a parasitic animal (in this case, the Tutsis portrayed as 'cockroaches'). Alcaios (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, it is very hard to summarise. Thanks, there's a few far-right African movements I can think of, Rally of the Togolese People, Idi Amin, Liberia has Charles Taylor's National Patriotic Party. I'll keep working on that. India and Indonesia have some. Hindu Nationalists Maharashtra Navnirman Sena and Shiv Sena in India - I would describe the ruling BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) as far right, certainly has far right factions, but that's gonna be contentious as all hell. And Indonesia has a long history of far-right extremism including the mass killing of ethnic minorities, communists and others between 1965–66 Bacondrum (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Can't forget the Greek junta. There's a great Algerian-French film about the Junta Z (1969 film), if you haven't already seen it. Great opening scene, captures the barbarity of the far-right, a general referring to "undesirables" as mildew that need to be pruned before they infect the entire crop. Bacondrum (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, could you please add references for South Africa? It looks out of place as the only section with no references. Thanks!--Davide King (talk) 10:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely, I'll get around to it soon. Still lots of work to be done on all the recent additions. Ideally I aim to reword a lot of what I've added and merge sections to create broader regional histories, so it's not essentially a list of copied bits and pieces. And of course add/remove and improve refs. Cheers! Bacondrum (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree with not having national sections. In the Conservatism article, there are sections for every country that currently has an historically conservative party. That's possible because there are very few. It gets harder though when most countries have one or more far right parties. If we are to list countries, we need a source that shows which ones are most significant for inclusion.

Also, I question whether a lot of the proposed additions are universally considered far right. Before adding them I suggest we use a source about politics or the far right to see if they are included.

If we did have over 100 new sections, then we would have to split the article, which would mean removing country sections.

TFD (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces Yes, I don't think a nation by nation list is ideal. I'm adding far-right histories by nation at the moment, but I intend to edit these down into broader regional histories (for example, the central American far-right overlaps, with far-right groups from Honduras operating in Nicaragua with US backing, a broader relationship to US foreign policy in the region and companies like the United Fruit Company etc - it would work better as a section on the far-right in Central America rather than nation by nation). I'm just getting started, I'd love a hand editing this content into more succinct, broader sections, re-phrasing and tidying cites, if you or anyone else has the time. I've been careful not to include groups and movements that are not firmly on the far right, but I may have gotten the odd one wrong, this is a work in process, obviously. I only have so much spare time for this each week, but I will definitely make significant changes to the copy and pastes I've been adding. Bacondrum (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Are there any specific organisations, movements or party's included that you don't think are far right? Bacondrum (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Better I could say what are missing, but I already referred to that and I also know this is a work in progress. Well, Forza Italia is not a far-right party, it is connected with a once personal support of someone who could be associated with fascism because of his ancestor etc., the relevant-discuss tag is anyway there. So the question is if Forza italia is just menitoned to demonstrate how the situation in Italy evolved? Because if not, then it should be removed, and even any accusation of fascism could be as well irrelevant, since fascism and far-right and not necessarily one and the same, but the party has been definetly non-fascist as well.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC))

Sounds like a reasonable removal. And what is missing in your opinion? Bacondrum (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I would leave out most of the Latin American section. Right-wing dictatorships were not far right. TFD (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree the dictatorships in CA were/are not explicitly far right, but far-right death squads that oerated during these regimes are a significant part of the history of the far-right and of Central America, IMO. And I have a number of RS's that describe them as such.

Bacondrum, Great Romania Party, Noua Dreapta, Right Sector, Svoboda, i.e.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC))

Thanks, I'll add those soon. Bacondrum (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

National Rally

So, I'm looking to add National Rally to the article, any thoughts on how to treat this one? I was thinking of adding them into the Europe history section after the section about Pergida et al. Bacondrum (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

can put. Akg427 (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ill-defined subject without clear meaning

Terms like "far-right" and "far-left" have become simply terms of abuse with no clear meaning. A "far-right" or "far-left" regime is one that the writer does not like. Sometimes the same government is described as both "far-left" and "far-right" by different commentators.

The description of political positions as "left" or "right" is at best crude, and breaks down completely when extrapolated too far from the perceived middle, which is itself a shifting concept anyway.

How could the courageous German writer Friedrich Reck, for example, be categorized? He detested the Nazis, and ended his days in the Dachau concentration camp; his book, Tagebuch eines Verzweifelten, is a moving document of life in Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s, expressing understandable revulsion at almost every step the Nazis took. The Nazis are called "far-right" because we don't like them. But Reck's initial opposition to them was partly because of what he perceived as their left-wing policies. Reck wanted the monarchy restored (a 'reactionary' opinion) and was critical of Hitler's avowed wish to create a "classless society" in Germany. If left and right mean anything in politics, Reck's politics were clearly to the right of Hitler's. But to describe Reck as "far-right" seems a travesty. Longitude2 (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a body of literature about the far right, which is why we use the term. According to policy, we can't say that the literature is wrong and substitute our own opinions.TFD (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Longitude2:Why does it seem like a travesty? Many far-leftists like anarchists and trotskyists opposed the Soviet Union. Almost everyone who took part in Operation Valkyrie could be described as far-right as well, as they were revanchist reactionary militarist aristocrats. If you exclusively see far-right and far-left as terms of abuse, that's on you.RKT7789 (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2020

Right wing extremism has been a force that has shifted throughout history and has differing definitions to theories. In "Trans-European Trends in Right-Wing Extremism" we are introduced to the idea of European extremism being defined by Michael Whine as, "the French concept of ethnic that predominates with its basis in common racial, cultural, religious, and historical experience." Meaning European extremism is based on a phenomenological understanding. There is a specific axiom that defines the membership of European extremism. The author believes unique to Europe, this identity of extremism is posited in the disolution of the Soviet Union and a backlash to non-white immigration trends. The author believes the rise in European extremism can be linked to the rise in information communication systems. This technology allows for splinter groups to come together and move pass the difference in racial/ ethnic hatred to pure forms of otherism. "[It is] observed that their violence may be directed towards the 'inferior' groups, or it may be directed against the political authority which has allowed such a situation to develop." This rise in trans-national extremism has led to groups forming bonds through music and specific membership identities. The bonds have created a convergence in targeted extremism against the state and migrants, particularly Muslims. This historic trend has progressed into the cross national collaboration and an advocacy for a white humanity that has produced articles such as David Dukes, "Is Russia the key to white survival." The trans-national reality of extremist identity has led to a convergence of hate groups and youth culture. With the rise of ITC's and offline organizations, the uptick in hate crimes has been linked to the waves of violent rhetoric coming from political sectors."Civil society organizations and other non-governmental stakeholders continue to play a critical role in addressing this form of terrorism and violent extremism." Lizzie Phillips (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

References

I wanted to add this section to the European section to track the changes in how trans-national movements are linking up. We can comment on the movement with recent news and I think we should this section to the rest. Thank you for the advice. Lizzie Phillips (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Still not clear what changes you want to make. Bacondrum (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

South African far-right

So, I've been reading about South Africa's apartheid regime and while I think all Afrikaner parties are white nationalist and thus firmly on the far-right, or at least they were during apartheid - the National Party is not described as such in any of the academic papers I've been reading on the subject. There are firmly far-right Afrikaner parties and figures such as Eugène Terre'Blanche, Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging and the National Party splinter group Herstigte Nasionale Party. I'm leaning towards removing the NP and replacing them with these more hardline parties. What do others think? Bacondrum (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. A lot of the groups included in the article seem questionable. Right-wing governments can be authoritarian and racist without being considered far right. Terre'Blanche who modeled his party, its symbols and his leadership style on the Nazi Party went beyond the reactionary NP. TFD (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I'll work on fixing that section up over the week. Which other groups seem questionable to you? I'm happy to work on any concerns in that regard. Bacondrum (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, Chile, Central American death squads, and the paragraph on the Greek colonels' junta should go. I am not sure about Fiji. The military dictatorships were always called right-wing rather than far right. TFD (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't got around to checking Chile or Fiji, but the Guatamalan and El Salvadorian death squads are described as far-right in the sources, Greece's Metaxist, Nazi and neo-Nazi groups are described as fascist or far right in the sources, including Metaxas himself who is included in a number of authoritative histories of fascism, as a fascist or proto-fascist. Bacondrum (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Some sources use the term "far right" loosely, but the article is not about everything that has been called far right but a defined topic. it's better to use a political science textbook such as The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right or a textbook about political parties. The Routledge Companion doesn't mention Guatemala, and for el Salvador it only mentions the far right political leader Roberto D'Aubuisson. As for Greece, I said the colonels (1967-1973) were not far right, not the Metaxists or neo-Nazis.

TFD (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll take another look at the Greek junta, although our article on the junta describes them as such, we are not a reliable source, so I'll double check that. I removed Chile, you were right there, the majority of sources describe them as right wing liberal/nationalist or some combination. Guatemalan gov and death squads were firmly on the far-right according to other high quality political science text books that do mention them Encyclopedia of Human Rights, Volume 1 Oxford University Press. p. 344. "The far-right National Liberation Movement (MLN), led by Mario Sandoval Alarcon, became an important political player; after 1969 it was responsible for the first death-squad killings of activists and regime opponents" and Modern Genocide: The Definitive Resource and Document Collection ABC-CLIO. p. 970. Bacondrum (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I havent gone through the honduras and el Salvador cites properly, I'll do that and do a bit more research on El Salvador during the period in general, but I've never seen them characterised as anything but far/extreme-right, Roberto D'Aubuisson Arrieta was a far-right death squad leader before he was a politician...I've got a few books on the civil war, so I'll have a read and find the claims I'm referring to. Bacondrum (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you might be right about the Greek Junta, though its borderline. I'll have a bit more of a read when I have time. Bacondrum (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The MLN was considered far right, but the military dictatorship in common with other countries in Latin America wasn't. Generally their objective is to protect the economic status quo when it is threatened by democracy. TFD (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Typos

• Section 1 Definition, paragraph 4, sentence 1: "yer" -> "yet" -- Alohahi (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Done.[1] TFD (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2021

Fascism is a far-left ideology. That of authoritarian control via centralized power of government. Such centralization of governance is performed via such events as high taxation and regulation which are standard leftist policies. Economically fascists use Socialism to garner and maintain power via income redistribution. A tenet of Liberalism, Socialism and eventually Communism. These philosophies share events such as book burning, indoctrination of students in liberal institutions, open borders, gun control, high taxation and media propaganda. Fascists economic system is an authoritarian system employed by other fascists regimes such as Maoist, Nazis and Marxists. Fascists seek to control over govern their population.

70.109.61.229 (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I don't really think any of that is true. Volteer1 (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

New definition of Fascism

In a recent article, an author uses a definition of fascism developed by the writer and retired businessman, Laurence Britt. To develop his theory, Britt compared the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, George Papadopoulos and Suharto, all of which he deemed fascist. Can we now accept this new definition and change this article to reflect its findings? Please discuss at WP:RSN#Proud Boys. Note that while the source is used to label the Proud Boys as fascist, it could also be used as a source for other articles if it is deemed reliable. TFD (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey, TFD. Who is Laurence Britt? Is he a political scientist? I can't find much about him anywhere other than some blogs. Also, the link doesn't take us to any discussion. Bacondrum (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

His article says he is a writer and retired businessman. But his article went viral. I can't find any information about him beyond the information provided in his article. TFD (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Bacondrum. Btw. I already made my stance on the discussion you linked.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC))