Talk:Far-right politics/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Neo-nazism

An IP changed neo-nazis to neo-national socialism. I suggest using the most common term, neo-nazis. TFD (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

AfD

This article has no value, is completely in dispute, has no basis in fact and is waste of time to read or even think about editing. I have never seen an article more worthy of deletion.Mantion (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm shocked...literally SHOCKED, I tell you...to find out that a Conservative like you would think this article is erroneous (even though it has a lot of citations for such a small article). Give me a break. Jeez. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 22:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You are within your rights to formally nominate it for deletion if you really believe that the above constitutes a coherent reason to delete it and if you really want to make a issue of it. On the plus side, I could do with a laugh. One the minus side, it would be a waste of everybody's time and would stand no hope of success. Much as I could do with a laugh, on balance, I don't see this as a strong case for making such a futile gesture. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

POV is dated

In contemporary US politics left and right wing generally refer to a respective disposition towards centralized and large or decentralized and limited government. Authoritarianism, for example, is actually representative of far-left wing, not far-right wing government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.187.233.202 (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that I am officially authorised to speak for the whole of the English speaking world outside the USA, but I am pretty sure that most of us don't give a rat's arse about recent attempts by political groups in one country to stand long-established and reasonably well defined political terminology on its head just for their own narrow political benefit. If this really was a generally accepted definition among serious, independent academic and political thinkers in the USA then we would take much more interest, but it is nowhere near as widely accepted as is stridently and repeatedly asserted (without evidence) on various talk pages here. Seeking to artificially manipulate the language for political ends is doubleplusungood. Wikipedia should document the process when it occurs but should not participate in promoting such language changes prior to their general acceptance throughout the English speaking world. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No. That has nothing to do with the definitions of Left and Right. There are Left-Wing Anarchists, and Right-Wing Authoritarians...and neither are inconsistent with the definitions of Left and Right. Please look up the origins of the terms. Furthermore, the modern Conservative movement in the USA is only concerned about "small government" in relation to economic issues, and they are rather PRO-"big government" when it comes to the defense industry and promoting Christianity. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering the United states has three times the population of the UK, Ireland, and Canada combined, and considering the U.S. has had a rebranding of the right and left thats a little more than a century old because of the current left wing, i can only say your views are borne from bias and/or ignorance. The current article has the tea pary and nazis as links on the bottom of the page, now considering these two groups have NOTHING in common with each other other than maybe nationalism which both wings in america have, i think there is some clarification needed, and if you refuse to clarify then i believe the tea party link needs to be removed. If this article was intended for the rest of the "english speaking world" outside the united states it needs to be named as such, and needs all mention of the United States removed from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.215.96 (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The see also section is there to point to other articles of similar topics. It's not about equating political philosophies. Neoconservatism is also listed there, and there are no scholars who would link neocons with the Nazis. This article is about the far-right, not the right (this is directed at the first IP). The see also section merely points out different articles dealing with right-wing topics. The "right" is a vast spectrum. freshacconci talktalk 14:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You are using two contradictory arguments. You say on one hand that this is the far right not the right, but on the other you say the "see also" has topics on here that arent far right because the right is a vast spectrum. You dont have the Republican Party, or even other international right wing groups such as the UKIP on here. The only specific organization on here you have is the Tea Party. I dont understand the motive behind that if not to mislead. I honestly think both neoconservatism and the Tea Party should be removed as the tea party has the same relative ideology as the Republican Party other than they dont compromise and neoconservatives are actually generally more left wing than regular conservatives in the United States. In all reality Nazism is technically socialism (National Socialist Worker's Party) which is left wing but Im not going to argue about that because this argument has already been done a million times before by several people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.215.96 (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You're not going to argue it...because it's a stupid argument only made by people who get their "history" from high-school educated journalists, rather than history books. The fact that the word "socialism" is in the name of the NSDAP is of no more consequence than the fact that the words "Democratic" and "Republic" appear in the name of the "Deutsche Demokratische Republik." (You know...the DDR? COMMUNIST East Germany?) Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Also under this current definition of the far right, the Soviet Union/Stalin needs to be added because they were authoritarian(Stalin) Xenophobic(Execution of foreigners during the Great Purge) nationalistic, and were ultra religious in the sense that Stalin was atheist and tried to equally purge all religions instead of just one particular group, and also built several atheistic organizations around his country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.215.96 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What I meant was that the see also section, not being part of the main article, points readers to other topics in a larger, more generalized way. Having said that, neither the Tea Party nor Neoconservatism belong there since we do not include the US Republican Party, the British Conservatives and so on. The see also section should be limited to general articles dealing with the far right. I'm guessing the addition of those two topics was a bit of drive-by POV-pushing. I'll remove them per this discussion. As for Stalin: I'd agree with you but that would be original research. If there was some scholarly work done on the suggestion that Stalinism is actually far-right, we could include it in the main article. Again, the see also would be a problem since most readers would assume Stalin to be communist, i.e. far-left, so including him in that list without explanation would be a problem. I have never looked at the article on conservatism, but I'm guessing the Tea Party and Neoconservatism would fit there in the see also, if not the main text. freshacconci talktalk 17:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Its pretty clear from the discussion the Mr morrigan has a political philosphy to push through Wikipedia. Sorry but whether you like it or not Hitler was a socialist. I dont like him or his politics, and I could only describe myself as centrist. I have read your home page, and attempted to edit it, however you keep reverting it. I have lost alot of respect for wiki by reading Mr. Morrigans obvious use of this site as a tool to further his own political agenda. I agree with almost all of the above criticisms, and your unwillingness to even label the article as disputed only sheds further light on your crime! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haphaestus123 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's pretty clear that you are the one furthering a political agenda. That's why you are unable to present a single reputable source backing up your revisionist views. Furthermore, you obviously have not read the article labeled Right-wing socialism, and have not a clue as to what "Left" or "Right" actually means. Read a book, preferably by someone with the letters "P", "H", and "D" after their name. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

whats wrong with the peikoff contribution, hes not respected enough for you. haphaestus Adorno,T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J. & Sanford, R.N. (1950). The authoritarian personality New York: Harper. Ardrey, R. (1961) African genesis London: Collins Brown, R.(1986) Social psychology (2nd. Ed.) N.Y.: Free Press. Harper Bullock, A. (1964) Hitler: A study in tyranny N.Y.: Harper De Corte, T.L. (1978) "Menace of Undesirables: The Eugenics Movement During the Progressive Era", University of Nevada, Las Vegas. See here De Felice, R. (1977) Interpretations of Fascism Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U.P. Dietrich, D.J. (1988) National renewal, anti-Semitism, and political continuity: A psychological assessment. Political Psychology 9, 385-411. Feuchtwanger, E.J. (1995) From Weimar to Hitler: Germany 1918-33 N.Y.: St Martin's Press. Galbraith, J.K. (1969) The affluent society 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Gregor, A.J. (1979) Italian Fascism and developmental dictatorship Princeton, N.J.: Univ. Press. Hagan, J. (1966) Modern History and its Themes Croydon, Victoria, Australia: Longmans. Heiden, K. (1939) One man against Europe Harmondsworth, Mddx.: Penguin Herzer, I. (1989) The Italian refuge: Rescue of Jews during the holocaust Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press Lipson, L. (1993) The ethical crises of civilization Newbury Park: Sage. Locke, R. (2001) Rethinking History: Were the Nazis Really Nationalists? FrontPageMagazine.com. August 28. Madden, P. (1987) The social class origins of Nazi party members as determined by occupations, 1919-1933. Social Science Quarterly 68, 263-280. O'Sullivan, N. (1983) Fascism. London: Dent. Pickens, D. (1968) Eugenics and the Progressives. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press Ray, J.J. (1984). Half of all racists are Left-wing. Political Psychology, 5, 227-236. Ray, J.J. & Furnham, A. (1984) Authoritarianism, conservatism and racism. Ethnic & Racial Studies 7, 406-412. Richmond, M. (1998) Margaret Sanger's eugenics. See here or here. Roberts, S.H. (1938) The house that Hitler built N.Y.: Harper. Schoeck, H. (1969) Envy: A theory of social behaviour London: Martin Secker & Warburg. Shirer, W.L. (1964) The rise and fall of the Third Reich London: Pan Skidelsky, R. (1975) Oswald Mosley London: Macmillan. Sniderman, P.M., Brody, R.A. & Kuklinski, J.H. (1984) Policy reasoning and political values: The problem of racial equality. American Journal of Political Science 28, 75-94. Steinberg, J. (1990) All or nothing: The Axis and the holocaust London: Routledge. Taylor, A.J.P. (1963) The origins of the second world war. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Toland, J. (1976) Adolf Hitler Garden City, N.Y. : Doubleday. Unger, A.L. (1965) Party and state in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. Political Quarterly 36, 441-459. by the way here are some more very notable academics with alot better credentials then you who disagree with your opinion. haphaestus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haphaestus123 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Peikoff does have the letters P H & D after his name, unlike you, perhaps you need to do some reading, as well as numerous others cited above, describing nazis as far right is about as wrong as you can be, and using wiki to pump your worldviews is quite frankly shameful — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haphaestus123 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

My credentials are much better than yours, and I will have the letters P, H, and D after my name pretty soon. Furthermore, I guarantee you that you just copied and pasted the above, and have not read the articles in question. And what's wrong with the Peikoff thing, was that you have no idea how to properly edit Wikipedia pages. Have you actually LOOKED at a Wikipedia page? Do you really think your edit was in any way consistent with that? You are obviously incapable of rational discussion. You probably ought to pay attention to your talk page as well... Bryonmorrigan (talk) 04:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

-Bryonmorrigan is obviously right, and it seems like the other guy is getting his political views form an anti-Obama t-shirt, and it's all muddied by the fact that "Democrats and Repblicans" are different in America than "Liberals and Conservatives" elsewhere, but come on, you lose an arguement with "My credentials are better than yours." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.173.0.16 (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

New Far Right

The label is contentious. Adherents argue it is unfair since they are basically liberal (in the European sense) and opposed to the conservative Islamic fundamentalist influence. Critics argue that they are far right because they are defending Euro-centric values of liberalism and democracy. The term is notable because it is used in mainstream publications. I believe it should be a separate sub-section to separate this unique classification until the debate settles down. A separate section also allows piped links to help direct the reader to this debate. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The only source for the term is a report that says "we can summarise this refashioned far right agenda as the ‘new far right’" ("The EDL", p. 7). We cannot present this term as if it were generally accepted. None of the other sources in the sections use the term. Notice too that the sources use the term "far right" in two different ways. "The EDL" for example says, "This centres upon a rough distinction between an openly fascist ‘extreme right‐wing’, which admits it is inspired by neo‐Nazi and similarly revolutionary themes, and a more publicity savvy, though still extremist, ‘new far right’, which veils such connections in its public discourses" (p. 8). Journalists otoh use the term to refer to anything to the right of the old-line parties. Articles however are about topics, not words. TFD (talk)

You make an excellent point. The academic, Paul Jackson, is the main source for the term "new far right". Jackson wavers: he argues it is different but he doesn't buy it, for example when he says it exploits the “language of liberalism for inherently anti‐liberal agendas.” Archer, another academic, doesn't use the term even though he describes this "new far right" as different from previous antisemitic illiberal nationalists. Both the movements and the analysts are studying a very fluid subculture. I singled out the term because it seems to be a different strain of rightwing politics even to the point where an openly gay man can be a leader and hero to these people.

If the term is too new for warrant a isolated subsection--and you may be right here--the subject matter is still worthy of distinction. I may have been favoring Paul Jackson's way of thinking without being aware of it. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Nationalism

Two of us want to include nationalism as part of the description of far-right. Two editors object. The objection being that not all nationalists are right-wing. However, that's the converse of what is proposed, i.e. all right-wingers are nationalists. It used to be that collectivists were divided into two groups: internationalists (communists) and nationalists (fascists). Nationalism was the key element that distinguished the two. Even among more moderate divisions nationalism is a strong element. I find it surprising that you wouldn't include nationalism. It's true that since the 1970s rise of identity politics you have left-wing acceptance of national liberation groups without recoiling in horror over the nationalism. It used to be that ethnic nationalism was considered right-wing but now not necessarily so. Thus, not all nationalists are right-wingers but all right-wingers are nationalists. The way it reads now the phrase "authoritarianism, nativism and racialism" could imply that American Indians have traditionally been far-right. Is this what we want? I think we need nationalism. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Where a term is not really specifically associated with the topic of the article, its value is reduced. In the case of a political spectrum, "nationalism" is found pretty much across the board. Your argument that "all right-wingers are nationalists" would require specific sourcing which I quite fear will not be found, as virtually all organized political groups are "nationalists" of some sort. BTW, the inherent conservatism of tradional Native American culture is well-established, but is one reason why a "politial spectrum" generally fails when applied to a "cultural spectrum". Collect (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Authoritarianism is also found across the political spectrum. Communist nations are extremely authoritarian. The nationalism of the right is a strong element of their identity while the left tends to see localism and nationalism as subordinate to internationalism. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is the edit and here is the source. We are not supposed to add material not included in the source. Also, the sentence is describing characteristics normally restricted to the far right - authoritarianism, nativism and racialism - rather than characteristics they may share with other groups, such as nationalism. TFD (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite see what that book is getting at ... unless I read the whole book. What is it that you see on that page? Skimming the book, I see many references to patriot groups which would be another word for nationalism. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The source says, "promoting in various combinations and to varying degrees authoritarianism, xenophobia, conspiracy theories, nativism, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism, demagoguery, and scapegoating." The text in the article says, "commonly includes authoritarianism, nativism and racialism". (My emphases.) It seems strange to describe American patriot groups as "nationalist" (not a term normally used in relation to US politics) while nativism (politics) seems appropriate. Incidentally you seem to be confusing the topic of this article with politics of groups that are generally to the right of the mainstream, such as UKIP and the Lega Nord mentioned in your first source. To use an American example, one would be the KKK while the other would be the Tea Party. TFD (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The author starts the paragraph with “add to this” meaning that the above description is only partial. He then adds “free market capitalism” and throws in “traditional religious and family structures” and finally “US military hegemony.” After this hodgepodge he cautions that it is important “not to stereotype all organizations or movements of the far right with identical aims.” This helps? Jason from nyc (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC) Jason from nyc (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Now it is our burden to provide sources. I just looked for sources in the secondary literature (newspaper and magazines) instead of the primary literature (academic journals) and this is what I find: [[1]] “These parties have in common a deep rightwing cultural conservatism; oppose mass immigration, globalization and international finance.” [[2]] I see pharses like “traditional sovereignty” “nationalist-secessionist” “national sovereignty being at the heart of her political thought” [[3]] “nationalistic and authoritarian” Interesting, no? Jason from nyc (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The author is writing about the American Right in general and the sentence used is about the far right in particular. Again, you are confusing the two. This article is about the far right, and most of the sources you have provided are about the right in general. If we have an article about the KKK, American nazis etc., we do not use comments about the Tea Party to describe them. There is btw an article about right-wing movements, Right-wing populism. See also Radical_Right#Terminology, which provides links to sources explaining the terminology to describe right-wing groups. TFD (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

All three of my references use far right in the title or first paragraph. I'm not disagreeing with the distinction between right and far right. Traditionally nationalism was associated with the right. Both moderate right and far right must have the genus "right" and have something in common before we differentiate them. Nationalism is usually part of the genus. Thus, the genus should be part of the definition. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The only agreed definition of the Right is that it is opposed to the Left and there is no agreement about which ideologies constitute the Right. The terminology stems from where various parties are seated in European parliaments - fascists sit on the far right - rather than what they believe. TFD (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually you are right. The word is meaningless. It has even less meaning in America than it does in Europe. In Europe it used to mean nationalist authoritarian government. However, some conservatives have become liberal in the classical sense. They now want to conserve liberalism. The word right is now used for them as well even thought they are not authoritarian and nationalist in the sense of a strong national government. It's historic meaning is still nationalism.

In America we didn't use the words right or conservative very much until after WWII. It doesn't really fit us. But the right here still lean towards a benign nationalism while the left lean towards an international multi-culturalism. The right is more skeptical of international organizations such as the UN and is fiercely independent. It worries about seceding too much power to global organizations. If we were to choose one for the two words--authoritarian or nationalism--I'd say nationalism is more applicable to the American right. The libertarian streak is anti-authoritarian but the pro-American element is nationalist in the moderate sense of a focus. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe Mark Twain best described the American (mainstream) Right when he said, "Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals." Like you said, they want to "conserve liberalism," while not realizing the irony of their "moving target" of what they are "conserving." (i.e., Conservatives opposed emancipation, civil rights, and other "liberal" issues in the past, but now pretend they were aalways in favor of them...) But either way, regardless of how misused the term "Far Right" is thrown around in the USA, the term should not be used in reference to any "mainstream" Conservative groups, as it is rather better suited for groups like the Aryan Nations, KKK, and Westboro Baptist Church, rather than even the most ardent of Conservative Republicans. And for the record, if you think the modern American Right is not "authoritarian," then you obviously haven't looked at their social positions. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

These groups have a problem with authority, don't they? Throw in McVeigh, too. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC) Don’t get me wrong, I believe we should keep the “authoritarian” criterion. I’m only arguing that “nationalism” is as good a criterion. Let’s face it. ‘‘Far right’’ is basically a European phenomena. Le Pen gets up to 20% in elections. In the USA we have a few malcontents that we try to apply this European label. We really don’t have a ‘‘far right.’’ As TDF notes, it is nothing more than where one sits in European parliaments. These European groups are basically nationalistic as well as authoritarian. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The concern I had was that we present what is in the sources - the one used says "nativist". Perhaps we could put in a variety of definitions and the article needs work. The US does have a far right, they are groups that consciously copy the European far right, such as the American Nazi Party, the Aryan Nations and the modern KKK. TFD (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Not all nationalism is far-right in character, but there definately is far-right nationalism. Nationalism is a very unusual ideology - it combines a sense of democratic and egalitarian populism that could be seen as left-wing with a bordered exclusiveness commonly defined by a distinction with a rival national group based often on traditions that may have implicit chauvinism and xenophobia within it. The phenomenon of nationalism as a traditionalist and collectivist populism is well-known by scholars to be a sort of political conduit between far-left and far-right politics - people like Mussolini and Milosevic were formerly associated with internationalist communist politics who became frustrated with its seeming political impotence and unpopular nature, but when they saw a surge of support for nationalism in their countries, they transitioned; first claiming that they were left-wing nationalists opposing "oppression" of their people and "foreign imperialism", and then as their nationalism aggravated those who did not want to be part of their nation and leftists who oppose nationalism - they moved to the right and used chauvinism and xenophobia alongside populism to mobilize support, resulting in both Mussolini and Milosevic supporting ethnic cleansing and genocide. Fascists, to quote Mussolini almost verbatim, "don't give a damn" about where they stand on the spectrum - Mussolini fused ideas ranging from revolutionary syndicalist themes from the far-left with ideas on the far right such as the idea that Italians were racially superior to South Slavs and Africans. Overall, fascist politics has a strong far-right theme - that nations only survive through establishing their superiority in a world where national conflict and imperialism are viewed as natural and normal things, according to fascists.--R-41 (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Some excellent reminders. I hope we continue this discussion. Yes, nationalism isn't only found on the far right. Racism and antisemitism isn't only found on the far right either. Nor is ethnic cleansing and genocide. Communism holds the record for mass slaughter in the 20th century. If we define far right by its European origins, nationalism, authoritarianism, and nativism all seem to be part of the package. Let's continue our discussion and see if we can challenge ourselves towards a broad consensus. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

People don't have to be completely far-right to hold far-right stances. There were Dixiecrats in the southern United States who supported far-right racial segregation based on the belief that "inferior" blacks would "contaminate" "superior" whites; but the Dixiecrats also supported FDR's centre-left New Deal. It is true that far-left Marxist-Leninist regimes have committed mass murder such as the cases of Stalin and Pol Pot ethnic cleansing. However there is a difference in the motivation and justification of such violence. The mass murder committed by far-left Marxist-Leninist regimes is classicide - seeking the extermination of a social class; in this case an upper class. Ethnic cleansing and genocide was not officially pursued out of a sense of superiority as is the case with the far-right, but out of far-left claims that certain groups of people held "reactionary" and "counter-revolutionary" views and had to be relocated (as Stalin did with Chechens), genocide of Vietnamese and Chinese people living in Cambodia in the case of Pol Pot was connected with classicide - Pol Pot alleged that the Vietnamese and Chinese in Cambodia were an upper class bourgeoisie who were repressing the working class proletarian Cambodians. Horseshoe theory promoted by some scholars says that the far-left and far-right actually have more in common as mutual political extremists then they do towards moderate centrists.--R-41 (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Anent the claims made - Zimbabwe and Rwanda, inter alia, have had genocides which were unrelated to any "right-wing" origin, and where, in fact, the confluense of "calss warfare" and "race warfae" coincided. There is also a strong likelihood that Ethiopia in its communist period also engaged in such acts. And again - the linear classification of left to right is pretty much abandoned by current scholarship. Collect (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a distraction. If you can show that academics have replaced the term "far right" to describe groups such as the KKK and neo-nazis, then we can re-name the article. TFD (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TFD that this is a distraction. I will only point out that Mugabe like most tyrannical rulers, is mentally-unsound - he probably has narcissistic personality disorder - for instance his movement is based upon Marxism-Leninism that is officially anti-fascist, but Mugabe responded favourably to critics' claims that he is a "black Hitler" and has said that in so much as Hitler mobilized his nation Mugabe accepts the comparison as a compliment. Mugabe uses far-left Marxist-Leninist language to defend his actions, that white farmers in Zimbabwe are the remnants of the former ruling upper class of oppressive colonial imperialism of white-minority ruled Rhodesia. Mugabe like Milosevic and historically Mussolini is in that belligerent nationalist conduit that bridges the far-left and the far-right, Mugabe falls neatly into the Horseshoe theory claim that people associated with far-left movements can be very similar in practice to those in far-right movements.--R-41 (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the discussion, you people brought up many excellent points. What do the sources say about that transition from the far left prong of the house shoe (it as called a circle when I was young) to the far right? In my day it was generally considered a transition from the “internationalist” camp to the “nationalist” camp of totalitarianism. There seems to have been an evolution of the term “far right”. And you guys may be right, “nationalism” isn’t an essential element of the “far right.” My references were the secondary popular literature but you people have a better grasp of the recent academic literature. Are you satisfied that “nationalism” isn’t necessary? It seems that the combination of “nativism” and “authoritarianism” might be a modern replacement for “nationalism” in the old fascist sense of the practice. Perhaps this is more rhetorical than substantial. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

"Chauvinist nationalism" would be more appropriate for the intro, if a source exists for it. The difference from far-left nationalism and far-right nationalism is that far-left nationalism typically presents their nation as an underdog oppressed by upper-class nations and that they merely want to be treated equally amongst all nations, while far-right nationalism says that their nation is superior to other nations. The Horseshoe Theory is controversial, some say it is an exaggeration. But the general theme of Horseshoe Theory is similar to other theories I have read on political extremism: the far-left and far-right are mutual political extremists, and political extremists have common characteristics: an emphasis on promotion of an ideal "pure" society that has purged itself of all incompatible elements, dogmatism, black and white thinking (i.e. the phrase "you are with me or against me"), they have little desire to understand the actual motivations of their opponents - they simply see their opponents as being "wrong" and as "enemies" who must be defeated, and they have a willingness to use violence or similar belligerent means to force their political goals to be achieved. When an extremist becomes disenchanted with views they have held, their nature does not typically allow them to respond by moderating their views, but instead they are compelled to find another extreme perspective to hold.--R-41 (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

We should not determine what the article should say, then look for sources, but determine what sources say, then include it. TFD (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, R-41, your description is good but you and TDF are right that we’d need to see sources spell out this kind of nationalism. My sources (from the general press and not academic studies) don’t clarify their usage of nationalist. If the word ‘‘nationalist’’ is too general without qualifications, it should be removed from paragraph three of the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, if ‘‘authoritarian’’ is a mandatory requirement of ‘‘far right’’ then the last three paragraphs of the article should be removed as WP:UNDUE since they present a new usage of the phrase ‘‘far right’’ as a non-authoritarian far right that isn’t yet common or consistent with the traditional usage. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The history section does use a different definition and the sources, e.g., "A fourth phase of the extreme right?" use a different term. So I will remove the section. TFD (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

removal of entire History section

Removal of that section, comprising roughly 1/3 of the entire article, appears, on its face, to be quite excessively BOLD, hence I reverted it in order to determine consensus whether or not a History section belongs in this article. Collect (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not whether there should be a history section, but whether the history section is describing the same topic. The sources used are describing Klaus von Beyme's "extreme right" political family,[4] which is a broad category that includes right-wing groups such as the Tea Party. But the lead defines far right as support for "strong or complete social hierarchy in society, and supports supremacy of certain individuals or groups". TFD (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You removed an entire section. A BOLD edit. Now we discuss. That you do not LIKE a source does not affect whther it is a WP:RS for the claims made. If the claims are misworded, make the claims fit the source. Deletion of 1/3 of an article is rarely the proper course of action. And if you wish to add other RS sources, do so, with properly worded claims. And if the lede does not properly represent the body of an article, fix the claims in the lede. We do not do "write the lede, and only that which is expressly in the lede can go into the body of the article" as a rule. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Infering motives is a personal attack and unhelpful to developnment of the article. Articles are supposed to be about topics. The extreme right is anything to the right of traditional conservatism and liberalism and includes for example the Tea Party. The far right otoh refers to groups such as the KKK and American nazis. You may believe they are the same thing, but sources do not agree with you. TFD (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Collect, I also have reservations on some of the material in the History section. After an extended discussion I have some doubts on the last three paragraphs. I wrote most of the last two paragraphs. While you are right that it is well sourced (Archer and Jackson are experts in their subject) I worried that Jackson's use of the term new far right might not be in line with the term far right as exemplified in this article. Relying too heavily on Jackson (as someone properly pointed out to me) might be undue emphasis (i.e. WP:UNDUE). Jackson is correctly cited in the article on the English Defence League (disclosure: I put that in) but I may have been wrong to take his usage of new far right as accepted by a wider audience. I think the last 3 paragraphs, which describes nominally liberal or neo-liberal leaning groups and not authoritarian groups might not be appropriate to included here. That is my thinking now. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

"The extreme right is anything to the right of traditional conservatism and liberalism and includes for example the Tea Party." TFD, what reliable sources do you have to back up that statement?--R-41 (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Note specifically the fact the Tea Party is not "far right", "extreme right," "radical right" or the like per sources given to TFD in the past. [5], [6] etc. (Note the RfC discussion specifically where TFD argues thet the TPM is viewed as radical right.) As ever, the use of such epithets is ill-advised when the meaning is so vague. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Collect objected to a source that said most scholars put the Tea Party as part of the radical right, because the source cited disagreed with mainstream consensus. However, this article is about the far right, not the radical right. My argument is that the term "far right" is too narrow to include Poujadistes and the Progress Party, which were tax protest parties and the Pim Fortuyn List. (All these groups are listed as "extreme right" in R-41's source.) If we call them far right, then obviously we must also include the Tea Party. TFD (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem was that the source did not say what TFD claimed it said - in fact it said the precise opposite of what TFD said it said. Such use of sources seems endemic on Wikipedia, and I rather think TFD is ill-advised to bring it up here when the exact material is linked, and the resulting near-unanimous result was that the TPM did not belong in the Radical Right article. So much for making accurate statements about other editors, TFD. Collect (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If anyone wants to read the source, click here. The source says that recent scholarship puts the Tea Party within the tradition of the radical right, although the paper argues against this characterization. Collect seems to confuse the difference between a scholar stating his opinion and a scholar making a factual statement about what most scholars think. Collect may believe that we should only use scholars to explain what other academics think if they happen to agree with them. TFD (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems that were everyone else (or nearly so) disagreed with your interpretation that you might consider that your interpretation was in error rather than insist that everyone else is wrong on that talk page <g>. Your snide attack on me is errant - I do not make any such judgements about sources and you should well know it - R-41 and I have had no sourcing issues as far as I know. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If you do not believe the Tea Party is far right, why would you expand the definition of far right so that it could include the Tea Party? TFD (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

R-41, see for example the source that you provided, "A fourth phase of the extreme right?" "Political parties are often divided into “party families”, with an ideological core as the common factor. There are many such party families, mostly with widely agreed-upon family names, often based on well-known “isms”. There is a liberal, conservative, socialist (social democratic), Christian Democratic, (post)communist/left radical and a green (ecologist/environmentalist) party family.... [A group of scholars] emphasises the right-wing position in the ideological spectrum, with labels such as “extreme right” (with derivations, such as “right-wing extremist”), “far right” or “radical right”...." For the Tea Party, see "The Tea Party in the age of Obama", A brief history of right-wing extremism and the Tea Party, p. 111-114.[7] There are numerous sources putting it within the category of "right-wing populism", which is a subcategory of the extreme right. TFD (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not recall ever adding a source that described "a fourth phase of the extreme right". Does the source you noted on the Tea Party explain the reasons why it considers the Tea Party far-right? Also, have you looked into reliable sources that challenge such claims?--R-41 (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. Click here for a link to the article. The article groups fascist, tax protest, euro-sceptic and anti-immigration parties, under the category "extreme right". My source does not call the Tea Party "far right", it calls it extreme right because they "are not mainstream conservatives, but rather, they hold strong sense of out-group anxiety and a concern over the social and demographic changes in America." (p. 106). "The Tea ‘Party’ as a Conservative Social Movement" argues against this characterization. It says that the Tea Party is mainstream, although acknowledges that most scholars disagree. TFD (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

What does it mean by "mainstream conservatives"? Does it describe the distinction on the left-right spectrum between such "mainstream conservatives" as moderate rightests and the Tea Party as extreme rightests? I am asking these questions because we have to be careful with sources on contentious current political movements like the Tea Party, biased articles and books that promote or oppose the Tea Party abound in the United States today. --R-41 (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I see you guys have been debating this for some time. Let me ask how are these matters resolved? The Tea Party is clearly accepted by the mainstream National Review. Indeed, Mona Charon accepts it as mainstream and rejects extremist categorization in this NR article [8]. R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. argues TPM isn’t extreme in his mainstream journal [9]. Both publications regularly reject and purge “extremists” from their ranks. What are editors to do if academics contradict the actual position statements of mainstream moderate conservatives? Jason from nyc (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

(out) When writing about the Right, we need to exercise caution because there is no agreement on terminology, although there is broad agreement about categorization. Specifically there is agreement that there are groups to the right of the long established or "mainstream" parties. Von Beyme called these groups "extreme right" and Widfeldt adopts this terminology. Notice that the National Review had a praising obituary of the Pim Fortuyn[10] whose party Fortuyn lists as "extreme right". (The article is worth reading.) The NR routinely praises parties that Widfeldt and others call "extreme right". However, there is general agreement that there is a distinction between groups like the Pim Fortuyn List and the "far right". "[T]he term far right...is the label most broadly used by scholars...to describe militant white supremacists." (Webb, Clive. Rabble rousers: the American far right in the civil rights era. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, p. 10)[11] TFD (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, according to your source that describes far-right at least in the United States and Europe as associated with white supremacists (A definition which wouldn't be useful to describe the far-right Hutu Power extremists in the CDR during the Rwandan Genocide). By that US and European-centric definition, what is the evidence that the Tea Party is a "militant white supremacist" organization? Does the organization or its leadership endorse such views?--R-41 (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Party of course is not a "militant white supremicist organization", which is why we should limit the scope of the article to groups that are. But you insist on using a definition that includes them and your source includes for example the Pim Fortuyn List which is similar to the Tea Party. I see a difference between neo-nazi groups and radical anti-immigrant and big government parties, do you? Even if you believe that they have the same belief system, surely you can see that their organizations differ. For example, while you may believe that the Tea Party is racist, they behave differently than the Ku Klux Klan. TFD (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

We may be losing focus. Rereading the first two paragraphs it is clear that far right has a racist component in the sense that the other is viewed as "innately inferior" and not merely flawed in one's acquired character. The Tea Party is not organized around such a viewpoint. It is a small government type of movement that tries to stay focus on fiscal issues. Of course individuals in the movement belong to other movements and back other causes but there is no "racist plank" in the Tea Party's fundamental position. If our first two paragraphs define far right correctly (and the citations are there to support that) we have to be careful with other citations that are using the term far right in a different sense. Perhaps they use it in a more colloquial sense of far from the mainstream (a judgment call no doubt) but not necessarily far by being nativist and hostile to demographic groups based on perceived innate inferiority. Our first two paragraphs clearly single out such an element as a defining characteristic of far right. Can we hold that as a criterion? Jason from nyc (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

We need a different source for the intro. The current source is an introductory level polisci textbook. TFD (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You complained about the intro source before to a noticeboard before, they told you that the source was acceptable. TFD, you said The Tea Party of course is not a "militant white supremicist organization", which is why we should limit the scope of the article to groups that are. And then you say that I have been "pushing" for the Tea Party to be included? I have not. Secondly, the idea that all far-right groups are "white supremacist" is completely flawed, there are recognized far-right groups led by non-white people. The Routledge book on fascism and the far-right includes multiple mentioning non-white far-right groups, such as the notorious Rwandan Hutu Power group Interhamwe [12], that was led by people who were by skin colour, black. The Taliban is recognized as a a far-right religious fundamentalist movement (See: Louis J. Salome. Violence, Veils, and Bloodlines: Reporting from War Zones. Jefferson, North Carolina, USA: McFarland, 2010. Pp. 102.), it is also led by people who are not white supremacists. And here is an example of a Hindu far-right group in India, [13], again of course, not a white supremacist group.--R-41 (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No one has complained about this source before any noticeboard. Secondary sources are preferred over tertiary ones. A war corresponent refers to the Taliban as the Pashtun's "own far-right wing of the larger Sunni sect of Islam" and you conclude it "is recognized as a a far-right religious fundamentalist movement". In that case all we have to do is decide whom we wish to include and google for example ""[target group]"+"far right". Whether or not you are specifically pushing to include the Tea Party, you are pushing to include a source that includes similar groups such as the Pim Fortuyn List. TFD (talk)

I tried to find secondary sources (see my examples above in the last section) and found it isn't easy. Most people use the phrase but don't define it. The textbook is indeed a tertiary source but it is respectable, well written, and hopefully gives us a widely accepted definition. Are the first two paragraphs in contention? Jason from nyc (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

TFD, Stop accusing me of pushing this "Pim Fortuyn List", where in Woshinsky's source (the source that I did include) does it include that movement? TFD, you keep claiming that I put in a source that I never did that includes this "Pim Fortuyn List", please stop claiming that I did so. Regardless of the avenue in which you complained about the first source, I remember that your complaint was responded to and the response said that the source was acceptable. Wikipedia's policy on tertiary sources is the following: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself. Woshinsky's source is published by the respectable publisher Routledge that publishes many scholarly works, furthermore Woshinsky's book appears well-organized, detailed, and it explains the dynamics in the left-right spectrum.--R-41 (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Widfeldt's article talks about the Pim Fortuyn List. As I pointed out the history section is describing a different topic from the lead. In fact the List is mentioned in the history section. The problem with introductory textbooks is that they usually do not explain the subtleties of different definitions and do not provide sources. The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right may be a better source. On p. 5 it says, "The 'far right' consists of those anti-Communists and anti-socialists who, in pursuit of their goals, are also either hostile to or indifferent to the values and practices of liberal democracy."[14] It may contain more info on definitions, but I do not have full access. TFD (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The claim that all far-right movements are white supremacists is completely falsifiable. You complain that I shouldn't search material to demonstrate the reductio ad absurdum of your argument that all far-right movements are white supremacist. I understand that you do not want that because it is embarassing to realize how easily falsifiable it was to refute your claim, by demonstrating that writers have repeatedly spoken of non-white far-right groups, including the notorious Hutu Power groups in Rwanda, or the Hindu far-right in India, and there are others, such as Japanese far-right movements, and that according to your definition, they must be "white supremacist" even though they are not considered by racial interpretation to be white people. If I adhered to your demands to limit the way of searching for refutation of your claim, it means that it is technically not as easy to disprove your claim by simply demonstrating the known fact that there are known non-white far-right groups. However I still can, by simply searching "far-right" on Google Books, the second source is the Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far-Right, and in that source you can find multiple examples of non-white far-right groups that cannot adhere to your definition that the far-right is "white supremacist". Your claim that all far-right groups are white supremacist has been disproven via reductio ad absurdum.--R-41 (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I quoted a scholar who said "[T]he term far right...is the label most broadly used by scholars...to describe militant white supremacists." Since he was writing about the American far right in the civil rights era, we should read his comments in context. But what is your point? Do you think that the article should include people who are not supremacists of one sort or another? Specifically, should it include right-wing populist groups like Wildrose, the List and the Tea Party? TFD (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

As I have said, the Woshinsky source is well-organized, produced by a reputable publisher (Routledge), and is acceptable as a source within the Wikipedia guidelines on tertiary sources. Woshinsky actually investigates the left-right dynamic, and describes it, many sources do not - instead they go on tangents about one specific part of the spectrum and examples of it, especially sources on the far-right. Woshinsky describes the far-right within the left-right dynamic, as being extreme hierarchical - supremacist. Woshinsky's source appears well thought out and consistent with what confirmed far-right groups adhere to. If groups like Wildrose, Pim Fortuyn List, and the Tea Party do not demonstrate such supremacist views, then I do not see how they can be put alongside confirmed far-right groups like fascists, and other groups like the KKK and Hutu Power, etc.--R-41 (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The source for the lead does not particularly trouble me except that it is better to use secondary sources if available. Such a source for example would explain the different defintions of the far right, the terminology used, what issues were in dispute, what scholars said what and what is most commonly accepted, complete with sources. Polisci 101 books do not do that no matter who the publisher or writer is. And if there is a difference between what two tertiary sources say, we have no way of determining which is correct. With secondary sources we can. But this section is called "removal of entire History section". The history section is not about the "far right" as defined by Woshinsky and most of the sources do not even use the term. Instead it is about the "extreme right", i.e., groups to the right of old-line parties and including not only the far right but right-wing populist groups too. For example, it begins by saying "Von Beyme describes three historical phases in the development of far right parties in Western Europe after the World War II." (Actually he does not call them that, and neither do most of the sources used.) Von Beyme identified Poujadistes, the Finnish Rural Party, the Progress Party (Denmark), Anders Lange's Party for a Strong Reduction in Taxes, Duties and Public Intervention as the "second period of "right extremism according to the sources provided. If you do not think these groups are far right, then the entire history section must go. TFD (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the history section as it currently stands should either be removed or at least be completely re-written, it is very badly written, and inconsistent. I prefer a complete re-write. The history section fails to demonstrate any comprehension of the origins of the far-right in France with the reactionaries, nor the racialist far-right that arose in the mid-to-late 19th century, nor much else other than a half-rate attempt to describe the post-WWII far right, it has to be rewritten or removed. As for the intro TFD, if you can find a source that is actually defining the dynamic of the left-right spectrum and describe what the dynamic is within the far-right, similar to Woshinsky's source, then that is is acceptable. But there are many sources that do not even describe what causes the left-right dispute and those sources instead go into tangents about individual examples and their individual stances, this is especially the case for sources on the far-right. In the end, such poor-quality sources fail to even demonstrate what the the dynamic tension is between the left and the right. Woshinsky's source is acceptable within tertiary source guidelines and it actually describes the underlying dynamic of the left-right spectrum (promotion of egalitarianism on the left, acceptance of hierarchy on the right), experience of remembering the very aggressive and contentious dispute on this issue at the Right-wing politics revealed that users who opposed the definition that involved left = advocacy of egalitarianism and right = acceptance of hierarchy, were unable to find nor present any other alternative coherent definition of the left-right spectrum and its dynamics.--R-41 (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If we agree with Woshinsky’s definition in the first two paragraphs, let me return to the last 3 paragraphs of the history section. We have in the leading paragraphs of the article defining characteristics of “supremacy” based on perceived innate superiority. The “other” is deemed inherently inferior, not merely culturally disadvantaged. Further in the article we find that this leads to a hostility towards immigration.

Now, let me argue that the converse isn’t true. Opposition to immigration can stem from economic motives (as it often does for labor groups), conservation (limiting population and access to resources), social conservatism (wanting to preserve “our” way with “no disrespect” to yours), etc. The far right’s opposition stems from a deeper more insidious hatred and hostility to what it sees as “innate” disvalue in others.

The groups in the last three paragraphs tend to oppose immigration not by any fears of “innate” characteristics but by worries about lack of assimilation and its imagined threat to liberality. You have a openly gay man running for office because he sees or imagines a “supremacy” attitude that views him as less than human. Who is the “far right” here? It seems that he is fighting far right attitudes.

If we require the attribute of “authoritarianism” this so-called “new far right” seems to be fighting what it sees as threats to liberality. In the groups of the last 3 paragraphs I don’t see arguments from the references that these groups hold the required “innate superiority” nor the “authoritarianism.” Perhaps these source are using a non-standard definition of “far right.” If so, they should be part of this article and certainly not part of “history.” Can we remove these 3 paragraphs? Jason from nyc (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

There are badly analyzed perspectives of political phenomenon. This "new far right" material seems to be such a badly analyzed perspective. That being said there is real "new far right", the political parties in Europe such as the British National Party, the National Democratic Party of Germany, and now Jobbik that are currently disguising their neo-Nazi past with claims that they are "preserving" their nation's "cultural peculiarities" - code words for a desire to "purify" their country of people deemed inferior. As for the history section, the entire thing is badly written and begins at an arbitrary date of post-World War II, it needs to begin with the consequences of the French Revolution: the first acknowledged left-right divide, with reactionaries representing the far-right in France in the post-Revolution period. The reactionaries were far-right on class grounds, they despised the egalitarianism of the left entirely because the reactionaries' ideal system was the feudal society led by aristocracy of nobility that was based upon entrenched hierarchy and the belief of the innate superiority of the nobility due to their hereditary links to other nobles.--R-41 (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

History section (re-cap)

It seems that R-41 and Jason from nyc both agree with me that the history section is not discussing the history of the just the "far right", but includes various parties to the right of the traditional parties. In fact the main source does not use the term "far right". Therefore I suggest we remove it and re-write it with appropriate sources. TFD (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I would support deleting the existing content and re-writing it with sources that show an understanding of far-right in general, its history - including the post-French Revolution reactionaries, and the dynamics of the left-right spectrum.--R-41 (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I certainly agree that the last 3 paragraphs should be removed as I've argued above. I'm agnostic on the rest but agree that a full re-write should be undertaken by a knowledgable editor. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

We are now left with two sources for the history section, Widfelt's “A fourth phase of the extreme right?"" (2010) and Klaus von Beyme's "Right-wing extremism in post-war Europe" (1988). Widfelt is using the same definition as Von Beyme and is updating his theory about the three waves of the extreme right (or right-wing extremist) family of political parties. For an extensive description of this family, see Cas Mudde's The Ideology of the Extreme Right (2003), "The extreme right party family"[15] While the groups described in lead are included in this family, the family is broader so that it includes tax protest and anti-immigration groups as well. If we want to use this definition then we should change the lead and probably the title of the article as well, since the term "far right" usually refers to groups such as neo-fascists and klansmen. TFD (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

A definition based on association with white supremacism would not be acceptable for the far-right outside of Europe, such as in Japan. Nor would it be acceptable to describe the original far-right French reactionaries who were a different form of supremacists who to restore the upper class privileges of the monarchy, the hereditary aristocracy of nobility, and the Catholic Church clergy. The reactionary far-right in post-Revolution France was not centred upon racial or ethnic supremacist issues - monarchs and aristocrats ethnically intermixed with people from nobility and royalty of other ethnic groups and other countries - it was about the class politics in France and the notions of superiority of upper class nobility and royalty, that existed at the time.--R-41 (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not mention white supremicism, could you please not misrepresent me. If you have a different definition of the far right, then please provide a source. Certainly the term "far right" can have different meanings, but articles are about topics, not how the same two words put together can mean different things. TFD (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You mentioned the KKK as a primary example of what the far-right is, I noted that far-right French reactionaries were not like the KKK in their racial supremacism, they were based on upper class supremacism of royality, nobility, and clergy. The definition in the lead of the intro by Woshinsky had a good definition of what the far-right is. I have gone over your objections with Woshinsky for being a tertiary source before, Wikipedia accepts tertiary sources, and this is Wikipedia's stance on tertiary sources: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself. --R-41 (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's another article reviewing the definition of far right [16] particularly with regard to European context. I've looked at several books online that describe origins of the far right in fascism. Is there a good reference for the distinction between right and far right in the 19th century? I'd like to read more. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The essay is describing the Extreme Right as defined by Von Beyme. Notice that he writes, "Ignazi divides the far right [he called them Extreme Right] into two groups. The first group consists of the no-longer-relevant and basically residual old traditional parties, which have at least minimal ties to fascism or its heritage. The second group consists of new post-industrial parties, which are more successful with the voters." Although there is dispute over terminology, we need to be consistent in what we are describing. I suggest that the most common terminology is that parties to the right of the mainstream are called "Extreme Right". The most extreme right parties are normally called "far right", while the least extreme are called radical right in the United States and right-wing populist in the rest of the world.

If we use my suggestion for terminology, then the history section belongs in the article Extreme Right, which would describe the different waves, viz., fascism, poujadism, the 1980s and today. Incidentally, the terms left and right to describe political groupings began in the 20th century, so it makes it difficult to identify a far right before then. Of course there were pre-fascist groups, legitimists, etc., but it may be better to explain the historiography than outline the history, i.e., say that some historians trace the origins of fascism to legitimism.

TFD (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that all variants of right-wing populism are "radical right" or "extreme right"?--R-41 (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

AFAICT - they are not. Not only is all "right wing populism" not readical or extreme right, not all readical or extreme right groups (using the definition of "right" current for the group) considered "populist." And since "right wing populism" has definite "liberal" elements, I consider assertions that it is "radical" or "extreme" as a rule to be a tad off the wall. Consider the German usage [17] Right-wing populist orientations have to be treated as a multidimensional construct. IOW, the simplistic labelling sought here is errant. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

There was a right-wing populist party in Canada known as the Reform Party of Canada, it is true that the party had significant extremists in the party, especially xenophobic people who opposed non-white immigration and who were intolerant to Quebec. But Reform's Preston Manning sought to purge the party of such extremists and by 1997 multiple visible minority candidates ran for office, and in that election, Reform's candidate (and since disgraced Conservative MP) Rahim Jaffer became the first Muslim Member of Parliament of Canada. Also, a controversial right-wing populist party, Forza Italia - founded by Silvio Berlusconi had made alliances with other extremist movements such as Lega Nord and the neo-fascist National Alliance of Italy, but he is regarded to have governed from the centre-right.--R-41 (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(out) See the essay under discussion, which uses the term "far right" as an equivalent of for Von Beyme's category of "extreme right". "The last decade of the 20th century was accompanied in a number of Western European countries by the rise of new formations referred to as the radical right, extreme right, right-wing populist, right-authoritarian, or new radical right.... A less rigid and much broader definition of the far right than Ignazi’s is offered by Hans-Georg Betz (1993 a 2004). He uses term right-wing populist parties." Also, note the parties he lists as far right: Progress Party (Norway), Danish People's Party, Vlaams Blok. Collect, the sources used for the history section included right-wing populist parties. If ya dont like that they do this then why ya arguin to use these sources? TFD (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

TFD, how many other academic scholars accept this definition of right-wing populism?--R-41 (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What definition? TFD (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hans-Georg Betz's definition that you described above.--R-41 (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I did not describe Betz's definition - what relevance does it have to this discussion? I only mentioned him as an example of someone who uses the term "right-wing populism". TFD (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)