Talk:Right-wing politics/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Who keeps removing the bias tag?

There has been no consensus or even discussion about removing the tag - and yet editors are sneakily doing it over and over again. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

What is your alternative definition for right-wing politics? Please present sources with quotations so that users can see what the sources say.--R-41 (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

From the Oxford English Dictionary: right wing

noun (the right wing) 1the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system: a candidate from the right wing of the party [with reference to the National Assembly in France (1789–91), where the nobles sat to the president's right and the commons to the left] 2the right side of a team on the field in soccer, rugby, and field hockey: he reverted to his normal position on the right wing the right side of an army: at Austerlitz in 1805 he commanded the right wing of the Allied army adjective conservative or reactionary: a right-wing Republican senator

Falconclaw5000 (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40465460?seq=9&Search=yes&searchText=history&searchText=journal&searchText=wing&searchText=southern&searchText=right&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Djournal%2Bof%2Bsouthern%2Bhistory%2Bright%2Bwing%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don&prevSearch=&item=1&ttl=18612&returnArticleService=showFullText&resultsServiceName=null Also, the above scholarly work claims that Right means wanting to preserve the current order, while Left means wanting to tear it down. So in the case of the USA, Right can mean preserving the current capitalist system which allows for equality of opportunity and for prosperity for all, while Left can mean tearing down this system to put control of the economy in the hands of a few government officials and limited prosperity to those the government deems worth of it. In the Soviet Union, Right could mean preserving Communism, and Left could mean supporting capitalist reform. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 07:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If you oppose the intro's definition, provide sources for an alternate definition

I have revised the intro, found stronger sources, removed the source by Bobbio - a left-wing scholar - that was criticized by users I presume to be on the right, and I found material addressing valid issues addressed by users of wanting to show how the definition I found can relate to the right-wing of today - particularly the libertarian right. I found a scholarly source that describes that libertarians have opposed social or state imposed equality as being against personal freedom and that they oppose the idea of enforcing social equality because they deem that such enforcement will result in diminishment of personal merit in favour of social uniformity and mediocrity.--R-41 (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Now there are two options. (1) we can go around and around in a vicious cycle of pathetic emotional sophistry of users basically accusing each other of deceit, lying, idiocy, or stupidity, that will achieve nothing. Or (2), users who oppose the definition that I have provided several sources for, can find and present sources for an alternate definition of right-wing politics. Don't respond to this post with rhetoric, I would like to see sources for an alternate definition if you oppose the one that I have included.--R-41 (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

As for ERIDU-DREAMING's source by Scruton, there are fundamental problems with these two assertions about the right-wing:

"7) belief in elementary freedoms and the irreplaceable value of the individual as against the collective"
- The problem with this is that it assumes that the whole right is individualist, this is not accurate. The Catholic religious right in Europe is strongly collectivist and one might argue authoritarian - as papal infallibility and papal edicts determine the positions of the Catholic Church and its affiliated organizations. The Catholic religious right is a large movement
8) belief in free enterprise free markets and a capitalist economy as the only mode of production compatible with human freedom

- This assumes the right-wing is naturally capitalist. Again a contemporary example is the Catholic religious right, the papacy has issued many statements against capitalism, in Quadragesimo Anno (1931), the Catholic Church condemned "capitalist individualism" and "socialist totalitarianism". The Catholic right supports the Catholic Church's economic policy of Christian corporatism that is in practice very centrist, but the Catholic right has placed strong emphasis on upholding traditional Christian moral conceptions that brings it into opposition with the left on issues of the role of women in society, abortion, gay marriage, and divorce.--R-41 (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  - All of which boils down to Some of the 'right' is staunchly capitalist, some is not. Some is pro-avarice, some is not. Some is religious, some is not. Some is authoritarian, some is anti-authoritarian. and so on. In short, any attribute associated with the 'right' in one place and time may well be totally not associated with the 'right' in another place and time. I know this sounds like "there are no absolutes" but, in this case, it is true. Right now, the most solidly 'capitalist' society in some respects is the PRC! Collect (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
    - Please, no rhetoric as I suggested, what is your proposed alternative definition of right-wing politics? Please provide sources for the alternative definition.--R-41 (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Def:

There is no single consistent definition for 'right-wing politics' which applies to all time periods and nations. Some of the attribute which may be found in some cases include pro- and anti-monarchy positions, pro-capitalism and pro-planned economy positions, pro-religion and anti-religion positions, militaristic and anti-militaristic positions, isolationism and internationalism, and so on depending on the nation and era.

Then follow with examples of each wonderfully contratidictory time of 'right wing' found from place to place and time to time. (I believe the bits I stated all have such examples available) Collect (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

R-14, if you read the complete definition of Right-Wing which Scruton offers (scroll up) you will notice that he claims that Right-Wing denotes several connected and also conflicting ideas. In particular he believes that traditional conservatism and market liberalism are inconsistent. I think the first two sections of the article (thanks in part to your efforts) now does a pretty good job of acknowledging this inconsistency. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

What about: "Right, a noun, meaning opposite of the political Left, from the French droit, c. 1906". TFD (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"The Victorians scarcely knew left and right as political terms with reference to their own affairs. These were continental, mainly French terms, arising out of the semicircular seating arrangements of the National Assembly in the 1790's...Mill, writing home to his father from Paris about the events of the July Revolution of 1830, which he witnessed, uses 'left' only in French: Acton in his 1861 essay on Cavour, uses 'left' and right to describe Italian politics in the Risorgimento, but not to describe the English. Most Englishmen knew of such words to the extent that they knew about recent French history. They could have read of that in Carlyle's French Revolution (1837), where he spoke of the 'Left side' of the National Assembly or the d'Orleans side (I. vi.ii.308). The New English Dictionary, for which editing began in 1879, specifies for the political sense of 'right' only a foreign application: 'In Continental legislative chambers, the party or parties of conservative principle' (sense 17d), and it quotes an English example no earlier than 1887. Macaulay in 1835 writes as if he had never heard of the spectrum except in the context of French politics...But the terms were slowly being acclimatized, though it is doubtful of they became part of the ordinary currency of British political language before the First World War." "The English Ideology" George Watson pp.94-5 Allen Lane: London (1973).

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The terms "left" and "right" to describe political ideology did not arise until the 20th century. Prior to that they merely referred to where one sat in the legislature. They entered the English language with their current meaning during the 1906 general election with the emergence of a left-wing wing party, the Labour Party, as a major force. See Marcel Gauchet's article "Right and Left" in Realms of memory: conflicts and divisions, Columbia University Press, 1997. TFD (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I am responding here to a proposed definition by Collect that essentially says there is no definition at all. It is one of those postmodern cultural relativist positions that are typically flawed that says "the subject is culturally relative, therefore there is no common definition for it" which logically should go on to say: "because it is culturally relative and there is no common definition, therefore there is no proof that it even exists." I am bolding to make a point, I'm not shouting: so according to Collect's statement that "There is no single consistent definition for 'right-wing politics' which applies to all time periods and nations" - I could say an absurd statement that "right-wing means the politics involving people who have dancing monkeys" and according to the Collect's statement my absurd proposal is just as possible in my own cultural perspective and time period as other definitions. If there is no possible definition of it then why do people ascribe certain groups to it and not to others. The fact of the matter remains is that a schism has to exist to explain the animosity between the left versus the right and that schism requires some criteria.--R-41 (talk) 06:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

As I made no such inane suggestion that 'right wing' "does not even exist", I ask you redact your attempt to make fun of the fact given by the reliable sources that there is no absolute definition, which does not mean that there is no definition at each individual time and place. The source states there is no absolute criterion, but does not say there are no relative criteria depending on time and place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not making fun of anything, it is a severely flawed description by a cultural relativist source. As you have described it, it does indicate what the critera are the source does not even say what is the consistent line of thought that links right-wing together - so it is saying nothing other than that no definition exists and the author of that source has not even bothered to take the effort to consider the similarities of different right-wing movements - it appears to be a very poor-quality source. When a source says something exists but that it cannot even be bothered to describe the basic elements of it, that means that the source has presented no evidence of it being a common phenomenon.--R-41 (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Weasel words have been put in the intro that are not attributable to the sources

The following recently added sections to the intro are weasel words in violation of Wikipedia:No weasel words: the following has been added to the intro that now says that the definiton of the acceptance of hierarchy is only supported by "some sociologists" "although significantly not by political scientists". These are weasel words that are not attributable to the sources - nowhere in the source does it say that "only some sociologists" support the definition, nor does it say that the definition is "significantly not supported by political scientists", so the assertions both misrepresent the source and because they do not represent the source, and those statements are original research in violation of Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No original research. Thus should be removed immediately without dispute.--R-41 (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll revert my edit. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The words "some sociologists" are also weasel words, because nowhere in the source does it say "we a faction withing sociologists describe right-wing politics as...", it does not indicate how popular the definition is, thus again that is original research to make a claim about the level of popularity of the definition or the proportion of people supporting it, because the source does not say this. If you disagree with the definition currently in the intro, present sources that support an alternative definition.--R-41 (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Roger Eatwell and Noël O'Sullivan

Doesn't somebody have a copy of this book? My library does not have a copy, I don't own a copy. I hate to remove it, but will have to if nobody can supply the requested page number. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that "page number needed" is annoying me as well! ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Another vote for re-structuring the lead, not just putting in more footnotes

I think I agree with Rick Norwood. I would like to propose a restructuring of the lead. Please note I am deliberately not focusing on sourcing etc, because I think the messiness of the lead is actually making such discusions more difficult than they should be anyway.

In politics, the Right, right-wing and rightist has been defined by some sociologists as the acceptance of social hierarchy.[1][2] Inequality is viewed by the Right as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[3] whether it arises within social structures that uphold order, status, honor, and traditional social differences and values,[4] or within a market economy that respects private property and consumer choice.[5]

The political terms Right and Left were coined during the French Revolution, and were a reference to where people sat in the French parliament. Those who sat to the right of the president's chair were broadly supportive of the institutions of Ancien Régime: the monarchy, the aristocracy and the established church.[6][7][8][9] The Right invoked natural law and divine law to justify social inequalities.[10] In the modern day, right-wing libertarians reject collective or state-imposed imposed equality as undermining reward for personal merit, initiative and enterprise, which they view as unjust — because it undermines personal freedom; and creates social uniformity and mediocrity.[11] The meaning of right-wing thus "varies across societies, historical epochs, and political systems and ideologies."[12]

Roger Eatwell and Noël O'Sullivan claim that right-wing politics is more loosely defined than left-wing politics because it is a response to its leftist counterpart.[13][page needed] Use of the expression le droit (the right) became more prominent in France after the restoration of its monarchy in 1815, when it was applied to the Ultra-royalists.[14] Although the term originally designated traditional conservatives and reactionaries, its usage has been extended to apply to liberal conservatives, classical liberals, libertarian conservatives, Christian democrats and certain types of nationalists.[9]

In politics, the Right, right-wing and rightist are terms used in various ways to name political factions sharing certain beliefs and principles, and who are contrasted with opposed political factions who are left-wing. The exact principles which distinguish the left and right are not always the same, but in general the right is associated with convervatism, and defending the best elements of the status quo from change. This contrast between a political Right and Left was a terminology first used during the French Revolution, and were a reference to where people sat in the French parliament. Those who sat to the right of the president's chair were broadly supportive of the institutions of Ancien Régime: the monarchy, the aristocracy and the established church.[6][7][8][9]

Being right-wing has been defined as the acceptance of social hierarchy.[1][2] Inequality is viewed by the Right as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[3] whether it arises within social structures that uphold order, status, honor, and traditional social differences and values,[4] or within a market economy that respects private property and consumer choice.[5] Modern right-wing libertarians, for example, reject many aspects of the status quo such as collective or state-imposed imposed equality because these undermine personal freedom, reward the wrong types of behavior, and creates social uniformity and mediocrity.[11] The meaning of right-wing thus "varies across societies, historical epochs, and political systems and ideologies."[12]

Roger Eatwell and Noël O'Sullivan claim that right-wing politics is more loosely defined than left-wing politics because it is a response to its leftist counterpart.[13][page needed] Use of the expression le droit (the right) became more prominent in France after the restoration of its monarchy in 1815, when it was applied to the Ultra-royalists.[14] Although the term originally designated traditional conservatives and reactionaries, its usage has been extended to apply to liberal conservatives, classical liberals, libertarian conservatives, Christian democrats and certain types of nationalists.[9]

Comments?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think your version is an improvement, at least a starting place for discussion, but still includes the unsupported statement that the Right supports consumer choice, with the implication that the Left does not. This statement cannot be included without a reference, and the given reference makes no mention of consumer choice. Also, this version still supports the view, held by some Libertarians, that the modern Right is strongly Libertarian, which the recent Presidential primaries have shown is not even true in the US, where Libertarianism is strongest. It is even less true in Europe. There is still a lot of work to be done, but several editors have expressed their unwillingness for that to be done here, so I guess it has to be done in the article itself. I've removed two places where, without references, the lead has been used as a forum to argue in favor of Libertarianism. Even if one meaning of Right-wing is Libertarian, this is not the place to argue that Libertarianism leads to greater freedom and prosperity. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

RICK NORWOOD. The Right can and does include classical liberalism as part of its definition. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is saying it doesn't. The Right also includes support for school prayer, but that doesn't mean the lead to this article should be a forum to argue in favor of school prayer. Instead of just inserting your views, you need to provide sources. In particular, to say that "right-wing" is used to describe support for consumer choice, you need to show that a preponderance of the evidence says that a major use of "right-wing" is support for consumer choice. How often to you hear someone say, "He supports consumer choice, he must be right-wing"? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the problem of unsourced material, hasty edits have turned the lead into a jumble, jumping back and forth between topics. I'm going to try to group sentences on the same subject, so there is some flow to the material. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I will pause here, but two major problems I still see in the current lead: "is used by some sociologists" is weasel words. Either right-wing means support for hierarchy or it doesn't. And that hanging chad asking for a page number should be satisfied, or the reference should be removed. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

RICK NORWOOD. Read the Scruton definition again. Just because you are unaware (or unwilling) to acknowledge the connection between some on the Right and a defence of free markets means nothing. All it does is reveal your own ignorance (or your bigotry). Whoever added "sociologist" was correctly identifying the hierarchy point as a sociological description. The Right does not generally define itself as supporting inequality, it defines itself as supporting tradition, or particular religious beliefs, or metaphysical claims about what is right and wrong, and this includes claims about freedom. The inequality claim is a by-product of those assumptions, but I am not expecting you to understand that point. Stop deleting what you are either unable or unwilling to understand. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING, could you please avoid personal attacks on other editors. Note also that Rick Norwood does not speall his name in upper case. TFD (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING, you baffle me. At times, you can be a constructive editor. And at other times, you seem unable to understand a simple declarative sentence. Since I have said, several times, that there is a connection between some on the right and a defence of free markets, what earthly purpose is served by pretending I have not.

As for my point about "is used by some sociologists", that is more a matter of good style than anything else. The lead should say how the phrase "right-wing" is used. It is awkward to say that this is how some sociologists say it is used. If the sociologists are a reliable source, what they say should be in the lead. If they are unreliable for some reason, what they say should not be in the lead. Also note that the sociologists, political scientists, and other standard sources say that this is how the phrase is used in fact, not how they personally use the phrase.

If you want me to stop deleting your point of view, you have only to supply reputable sources that support it. And don't come back with this business about "the connection between some on the Right and a defence of free markets". I agree. Some on the Right defend free markets. The lead says that, more than once. But it is not the primary way right-wing is used. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Not all right-wing people are conservatives, there are right-wing classical liberals and libertarians such as Ayn Rand who are considered right-wing but not connected with conservatism. Furthermore right-wing classical liberals and libertarians are not traditionalists, they have challenged and sought to dismantle traditions that are against their values - they historically challenged the traditional European established religious institution a - and classical liberals are known for having dismantled aristocracy - a long-held tradition in Europe and replaced it with meritocracy, and for secularizing education and political culture. Libertarian Ayn Rand opposed traditional religion entirely - she was an athiest, and in the 1960s she challenged the social welfare state that at that time had become an accepted traditional institution in Western society since its growth from the 1880s to the 1940s - even supported by most mainstream conservative parties (before they criticized it from the 1970s onward) - so Rand was challenging a tradition. Plus not all traditionalist politicians are right-wing nor are all religious politicians right-wing, there is Christian socialism based on traditional Christian values.--R-41 (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

And most conservatives would be offended to be called right-wing, think of Ted Heath, Chris Patten, Anthony Meyer, Kenneth Clarke, Ian Gilmour. TFD (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The Canadian conservative Hugh Segal is not offended to be called right-wing [1]. Neither does American conservative commentator Sean Hannity who describes America as "a center-right nation".[2]. In recent history in my country of Canada, there was the movement to unite two center-right parties - the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party, the movement's slogan was "Unite the Right". Tom Flanagan, a policymaker of the center-right Canadian Alliance had a book titled "The uneasy case for uniting the Right" [3].--R-41 (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That is original research, the sort of argument ~~one expects in articles from 9/11 truthers and Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists~~ wher one looks for evidence, no matter how flimsy to support an existing viewpoint. Search "right-wing" in the book and we find, "the fragmentation that the U.S. right wing has generated since the Goldwater days". ~~Think that Segal considers himself a <Tea Bagger?~~ Siegal definitely does not consider himself to be in that category. Then he says, "Canadian conservatives have united from across the spectrum" - think he means that the spectrum begins and ends with the Right? (p. 195) Write to Segal (Hon. Hugh Segal, House of Senate, Ottawa ON Canada) and ask him if he considers himself to be a right-winger. BTW, the Reformers/CCRAP, who were after all right-wing populists, dropped the description right-wing when they began to reach out to moderate voters. TFD (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

TFD: You are a valuable editor here, but I am concerned that your responses are becoming more and more non-responsive. R-41 is providing valuable information. He didn't say all conservatives, he said one Canadian conservative, and gave a few other examples of how the phrase is used in Canada. Nowhere did he make a claim about even all Canadian conservatives. And he certainly never said anything about "Tea Bagger"s. You rightly chide other editors for rudeness, but your first sentence above is beyond the pale. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Presenting the fact that Hugh Segal called his book about Canada's conservative tradition, The Right Balance evidence that he is not offended to be called right-wing is original research. Segal does not call himself right-wing in the book and uses the term to describe the Goldwater campaign, which he considered extremist. If one wanted to argue that Segal was a conservative, one could find sources where he defines conservative and declares his support for the cause. But there is no similar literature for right-wing. TFD (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I also find current main definition inappropriate. Current definition as one of it's main sources uses An Introduction to Sociology by Goldthorpe to define it as "acceptance of social hierarchy". But according to Goldthorpe that definition is "now less often expressed" and "the more usual right-wing view, which may be called 'liberal-conservative', is that unequal rewards are right and desirable so long long as the competition for wealth and power is a fair one. There have to be genuine prizes to strive to if everyone is to to give their best." which seems to be more in line with changes that some editors here are proposing. -- Vision Thing -- 14:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternate definition for Right Wing

Two sources: rom the Oxford English Dictionary: right wing

noun (the right wing) 1the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system: a candidate from the right wing of the party [with reference to the National Assembly in France (1789–91), where the nobles sat to the president's right and the commons to the left] 2the right side of a team on the field in soccer, rugby, and field hockey: he reverted to his normal position on the right wing the right side of an army: at Austerlitz in 1805 he commanded the right wing of the Allied army adjective conservative or reactionary: a right-wing Republican senator

AND:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40465460?seq=9&Search=yes&searchText=history&searchText=journal&searchText=wing&searchText=southern&searchText=right&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Djournal%2Bof%2Bsouthern%2Bhistory%2Bright%2Bwing%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don&prevSearch=&item=1&ttl=18612&returnArticleService=showFullText&resultsServiceName=null Also, the above scholarly work claims that Right means wanting to preserve the current order, while Left means wanting to tear it down. So in the case of the USA, Right can mean preserving the current capitalist system which allows for equality of opportunity and for prosperity for all, while Left can mean tearing down this system to put control of the economy in the hands of a few government officials and limited prosperity to those the government deems worth of it. In the Soviet Union, Right could mean preserving Communism, and Left could mean supporting capitalist reform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconclaw5000 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I brought this up before. This article is about the Right, not the left-right political spectrum. Find articles about the Right that do not mention the Left. The articles Left-wing politics and Left-wing politics in the United States for example are about the Left, not about the left-right divide, and provide little or no discussion of the Right. The U.S. article for example does not even claim that a U.S. Right exists. TFD (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If articles that also mention the Left are to be excluded, then most of the sources in this article are to be excluded. Here are just the first four, which would all be disqualified: J. E. Goldthorpe. An Introduction to Sociology. Cambridge, England, UK; Oakleigh, Melbourne, Australia; New York, New York, USA Pp. 156. ISBN: 0521245451. ^ Rodney P. Carlisle. Encyclopedia of politics: the left and the right, Volume 2. University of Michigan; Sage Reference, 2005. Pp. 721. ISBN: 1412904099 ^ J. E. Goldthorpe. An Introduction to Sociology. Cambridge, England, UK; Oakleigh, Melbourne, Australia; New York, New York, USA Pp. 156. ISBN: 0521245451. ^ Smith, T. Alexander and Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures

I've always felt these sources were biased anyhow (even though they are academic) and so I wouldn't actually mind removing them. And by your standard, TFD, they should be removed. I can let you do the honors. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Falconclaw5000 on this, TFD. Most articles about the use of right-wing also mention left-wing. While this article should not go into detail about what the Left believes, it is only reasonable to contrast the Right and the Left if sources do. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If the Right were a coherent concept, e.g., like conservatism, then one would expect books and articles about it that did not necessarily contrast it with the Left, just as there are books about the Left that do not even mention the Right. The problem with using sources about the left-right spectrum is that they are defining right as a relative not an absolute term. In that case we should be writing about the left-right spectrum. How can we write about "right-wing" when none of our sources do? How far to the right must one be before one is right-wing? Cf tall and short. How tall must one be before one is a tall person? Could we have a neutral article about tall people? Notice that tall redirects to "Human height". TFD (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Is an article on Right-wing politics the place to expand on what Libertarians believe?

The article states that some Libertarians are sometimes called (or call themselves) right-wing. Some Southern Baptists call themselves right-wing. But clearly the lead of this article would not be the place to expand on what Southern Baptists believe. Neither is it the place to expand on what Libertarians believe. The lead should (and does) say that right-wing is sometimes used to describe Libertarians. If the reader of the article wants to know more about Libertarian beliefs, they will go to the article on that subject. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

What you keep missing is that the "freedom" (or classical liberal) sense of Right-Wing is widespread in the Anglosphere, and beyond. In the U.K. for example when people talk about "Right-Wing" politics it may mean the desire for a smaller State, lower taxes, a market economy, together with freedom of expression and movement, or it may mean respect for traditional sources of authority, order, and morality, and limitations upon freedom of expression and movement. Scruton notes that the two senses are in conflict, but in the Anglosphere some fusion of the two is very much in evidence. See for example see the article by the British journalist Simon Heffer about what "Right-Wing" means in the UK that I mentioned a while back. The TRADITION which is being preserved in the UK and USA is one which gives a high value to LIBERTY - to the liberties that render a Civil Society possible. Of course the traditions in China or Russia may be different, so I very much doubt that "Right-Wing" has a Classical Liberal sense in these countries. This is why COLLECT put in the quote about "Right-Wing" having different meanings in different times and places. But the Classical Liberal meaning IS central to the meaning of Right-Wing in English speaking countries. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)).

ERIDU-DREAMING: If what you describe is a major use of right-wing, you should be able to find a source that says it is major use, rather than one of many. The article already says it is sometimes a use of "right-wing". Rick Norwood (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

R-41: The article aleady says that one use of right-wing is to describe some Libertarians. The reference gives nine uses. Should each of the nine have a sentence in the article explaining its beliefs? If not, why should Libertarainism be given more space than the other eight?

Rick Norwood (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The "smaller State, lower taxes, market economy" sense of Right-Wing is not peripheral, it is mainstream in the Anglosphere. When people talk in the UK for example about Thatcherism, it is the above meaning that is generally being referred to as Scruton makes clear in his "Thatcherism" entry in the same dictionary:

"her unpopularity amongst the intellectual and media elite was due both to her right-wing philosophy and to her confrontational approach to those who disagree with her" p.546

He lists this philosophy as 1) Conviction (rather than managerial) politics 2) Monetarism 3) Privatization 4) Curtailing the power of Trade Unions 5) Hostility towards restrictive practices and monopolies 6) Seeking to decrease the hold of government bureaucracies over education and health 7) Upholding national sovereignty 8) Emphasis upon defence and law and order 9) General attempt to reduce the power of the state in domestic matters 10) Lower taxation pp.546-7 Roger Scruton "A Dictionary of Political Thought" Macmillan: London 1996.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)).

So to ERIDU-DREAMING, the bench-market of the Right is the Liberal Party, and you quote a columnist who identifies Cromwell and Gladstone as his heroes. Where does that leave the Royalists, Tories, the high chuch and the imperial system? Are they part of Britain's left-wing tradition? TFD (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Heffer is generally viewed in the UK as a paradigm example of a "Right-Wing" journalist (which is why he wrote the article) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/7737948/Only-a-Tory-without-principles-would-demonise-the-Right.html and he defines the "Right" in the UK is a "coalition of Hayekian liberals, Powellite souverainistes and social conservatives". Translating, this means that he is claiming that the Right in the UK are people who combine a belief in free markets, upholding national sovereignty, and traditional values. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The libertarian right is an important part of right-wing politics in the Western world. The source for that sentence is a scholarly one. The intro without the statement on libertarianism, only mentions the original right of France that was dominated by the authoritarian absolutists led by De Maistre; without including right libertarianism in the intro, it makes it appear that absolutism is naturally what the whole right-wing is based upon - and it is not the basis of the moderate right today.--R-41 (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING. instead of telling us that, provide sources. In the English Civil War, Cromwell was not considered to be on the Right. In the 19th century U.K., Liberals were not considered to be on the Right. If you want to reverse the normal meaning of words, then please provide sources. There are a lot of people like you out there who invent their own concepts and you are wasting my time. If I want to read non-standard views then I can go to a blog. We are trying to improve the article, not discussing our own ideosyncratic views. What per centage of people in the U.K. btw see the world the way you do? I suspect the per centage is far less than 1% and probably not much higher among right-wing organizations. TFD (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

1) The fact that one use of right-wing applies to Maggie Thatcher does not imply that it is the principle use of right-wing, even in the UK, less so world wide. 2) R-41, you say your source is a scholarly one, please provide a quotation to that effect. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The term "New Right" was coined to describe Thatcherism et. al. But as the book New Right points out it was just a term (in fact a reversal of the term New Left) and people who used it did not imply it meant right-wing. Notably, Ian Gilmour coined the term "neo-liberal" to describe Thatchersim. Liberalism is normally considered to be to the left of conservatism. TFD (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

R-41: If you want to include in an article titled "Right-wing politics" this statement: "In the modern day, right-wing libertarians reject social or state-imposed imposed equality as undermining reward for personal merit, initiative and enterprise — they claim it undermines personal freedom and creates social uniformity and mediocrity" please provide at least one example of someone saying that people who favor reward for personal merit, initiative and enterprise are right-wing, that people who favor personal freedom are right-wing, that people who are non-conformist are right-wing, or that people who oppose mediocrity are right-wing. Yes, Libertarians favor these things, but so do conservatives, liberals, and just about everybody else. And I have never heard anybody call any of these ideas right-wing. If it has happened, please provide examples. If not, please stop putting into this article. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying that all right-wing people support that, but that the libertarian right does. I don't think you could find a dense universal set of positions that can represent the whole right. The left-right spectrum from the scholarly sources I've found, says that it is a dichotomy between those who accept social hierarchy as a reality and those who promote egalitarianism and believe that social hierarchy of society is constructed. What the source does say is that libertarians reject social or state-imposed equality and explains there reasons. Contrary to your assertion, not everybody agrees with this - socialism and social liberalism believe that there is such thing as responsibility of society is important and have advocated compulsory-taxed social welfare - the state uses progressive taxation to redirect profits from wealthier members of society to poorer members of society who are in need though either direct payment or social assistance programs - it is compulsory because not all wealthy people would voluntarily give a significant proportion of their wealth to poorer people out of philanthropy, however some do. Right libertarians oppose compulsory social welfare based upon social responsibility because they are typically staunchly individualist and do not accept ideas of social responsibilities.--R-41 (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You say it is a dichotomy, but all the sources say it is a continuum. Please provide a source that supports your views. TFD (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING, as Ian Gilmour explained in Dancing with Dogma, the state actually increased under Thatcher, as did taxes. While the level of services declined, it actually cost more to have millions of people out of work, especially during 11 years of 0% economic growth. TFD (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

What I meant is that there the left and the right are polar opposites based on at least a theme or themes, that are generally irreconcilable to each other. If I used the wrong term, then I should have said continuum. I have presented the sources that I found for the definition of right-wing that are currently in the intro as I write now, if others oppose this definition they are welcome to present sources for an alternative definition to be discussed here.--R-41 (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

TFD, as for the issue of how much a government spends - well regardless of what political parties promise in elections - whether honest or not, typically governments end up spending more than what they promised simply because of the various crises, bureaucratic complications, and established interests that prevent reductions in spending. Political party economic programmes always assume favourable circumstances to their goals, when in reality the economy is unstable and quite honestly a policy platform designed usually six months to a year before a predicted or set election date, may be completely useless by the time they enter office due to the change of economic situations during that time frame.--R-41 (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. As Gilmour pointed out, the costs associated with Thatcherism were predictable. TFD (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

TFD, you are getting more and more uncivil and I wish you would apologize for your grossly uncivil comment you made that compared me to a JFK or 9-11 conspiracy theorist. Plus are we here to talk about Thatcherism or right-wing politics? Let's stop wasting time.--R-41 (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Then stop making unsubstantiated, incorrect claims. If you do not think it is important that whether the results of Thatcherism were known (as claimed by Ian Gilmour, who was in charge of the "Conservative Research Council"), then don't bring it up. TFD (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

R-41: You are usually such a rational editor that it is hard for me to understand why you consistantly refuse to address the points I raise, and instead keep saying that some on the right are Libertarian, and this is what Libertarians believe. Both are statements I agree with. But you have not provided a source that says that Libertarianism is more often called right-wing that other beliefs, or a source that says that Libertarianism is called right-wing because of those ideals it shares with Liberalism, which you list. Let me try a couple of anaologies. Certainly you agree that fundamentalist Christians are sometimes called right-wing. Suppose I inserted in the lead of this article the following sentence. "In the modern day, fundamentalist Christians reject social or state-imposed imposed equality as undermining rewards for faith, lovingkindness, and charity -- they claim it undermines family values and supports an unhealthy interest in sexuality and disrespect for religion." I'm sure you see how inappropriate such a statement would be in this article. The sentence you keep inserting is inappropriate for the same reason -- it is an argument in favor of the Libertarian belief system. I could replace it with a sentence that says, "In the modern day, right-wing libertarians reject social or state-imposed imposed equality as slowing the rapid accumulation of wealth by the richest one percent -- they claim it undermines the natural superiority of the rich and creates a situation where investors are forced to pay workers more than a minimum wage." I would never put such a negative description of Libertarianism into a Wikipedia article, because it is as biased against Libertarianism as you statement is biased in favor of Libertarianism. What we should do is not argue either way. Just state what the sources state, and leave it at that. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that it claims that the rich are superior you are putting words in my mouth. What the sentence that I included does say is that libertarians oppose society imposing equality upon them - they do not agree with empirical claims that human equality is a given thing that just exists - they do not believe that the state has the right to confiscate their wealth and redistribute it without their consent. Right libertarians commonly point out that redistribution of wealth involves the state controlling the capital of individuals without the consent of those who have that wealth, they view this as authoritarian. The statement that I included is almost a word-for-word paraphrase from a scholarly work by Moyra Grant called Key Ideas in Politics, it describes why it is right-wing. You changed what it said to something completely different that is not supported by the text, so I reverted it.--R-41 (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are links to the edit[4] and links to the source (p. 52)[5] As we discussed before, high school textbooks are not reliable sources for articles. TFD (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Well TFD, it is one of the rare sources on Google Books that is not talking about "right-wing extremism" or a biased lambasting of the right. Furthermore you have been told that there are instances were textbooks are acceptable, such as in response to your NPOV noticeboard post on Far-left politics, this is what a user said in response:

"I see nothing at all in any policy that says a textbook aimed at university students, rather than scholars, is unusable. In fact, WP:RS directly says "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." Even when the textbook is a tertiary source (and RS indicates that not all textbooks are), it says "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries..." I'd say that providing a basic definition in the introduction would count as "giving overviews or summaries"." by User:WhatamIdoing at 23:09, 1 March 2012, see here [6].

Now TFD, I imagine that the first point you will address is "this book is not aimed at university students like the user WhatamIdoing was referring to", true - but look at the second bolded quote in the section above that is taken from WP:RS, it says that textbooks may be used to give overviews and summaries. So TFD, this point that you bring up about the use of textbooks has been addressed on another issue and has been resolved.--R-41 (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

That discussion does not resolve anything. Policy says that introductory university textbooks may be helpful for "overviews or summaries", but scholarly works are preferable. The problem with introductory textbooks is that concepts may be simplified, no sources are provided and the claims do not enter academic discourse. Therefore there is no way of knowing the validity or acceptance of claims presented. In my experience, editors resort to these sources when they cannot find secondary sources that support what they want to put into the article. But if you cannot source a claim to a secondary rs, then it cannot be notable. TFD (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

R-41: You persist in failing to understand what I say, no matter how carefully I say it. Since I never said that you said that the rich are superior, I'm hardly putting words in your mouth by not saying what you say I said. In fact, I have not disagreed with anything that you said, as far as I recall, and in several cases stated explicitly that I agreed with you. What I said, and I don't know how I can put it more clearly than this, is that that the lead of this article on right-wing politics is not the place to present the case in favor of Libertarianism. And please tell me you have not really been trying to use a high school textbook to make your case! Rick Norwood (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

RICK NORWOOD. The article is already biased to the Left because it seeks to define the Right in terms of an issue that is a preoccupation of the Left, namely EQUALITY, but excising the classical liberal "justification" of inequality from the lead would make it EVEN MORE biased, because the traditionalist authoritarian "justification" of inequality would be retained, while the classical liberal "justification" of inequality would be excluded, falsely implying that the meaning of "Right-Wing" has not changed since the time of De Maistre, which of course, as you know full well, is absolute bunk. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)).

Unsure of my ground here, and I'm certainly not proposing to dig out sources, but might it be that you've hit upon the nub of the argument there, ERIDU. There is a difference between classical liberalism, which typically favours state intervention to alleviate poverty (Smith), and right-wing liberalism, which typically favours laissez-faire (Hayek). So the left-right divide in this particular area is not about free markets per se, but about interventionism. I haven't read all of the above, but could that way of looking at it help to square the circle? FormerIP (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I see if differently. Right-wing means support for inequality and the Left accuse liberals of supporting inequality and therefore call them right-wing. But liberals claim to support equality and call themselves centrists. They may even say that the Left support inequality and reverse the meaning of the terms. FormerIP, Hayek is only identified with the Right today, because neoliberalism has become the favored set of policies of the Right. But in his early career he saw himself as defending liberalism against conservatives. TFD (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to get into researching Hayek's biography, so I'll assume we can agree that laissez faire, at least, is pretty much always considered a right-wing philosophy.

My point is that, yes, you are correct that the key issue is inequality. And you also sound like you would agree that economic liberalism per se isn't really the property of either right or left. However, liberals can be on the right or the left accordingly as they oppose or support measures intended to reduce social inequalities created by markets. That's the proper way of sorting left-liberals from right-liberals. What any given liberal calls herself isn't really the point (plus I don't think you are correct, because there are many people who identify as liberal and not centrist - here I raise my hand).

The lead could, therefore, properly include reference to a difference between right and left in terms of attitudes to market intervention. This would partly satisfy ERIDU. But it could also be done without making it a claim of "right-wing libertarians", which I agree is not appropriate to the lead.

A key point, I think, is that the lead doesn't need to cover what liberals, libertarians, fascists or anyone else says about themselves. It can just give an overview from the perspective of social science. --FormerIP (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

FORMERIP: I think your "reduce social inequalities" point is a fair one (although remember that Hayek believed that there should always be a "safety net", and traditional conservatism includes a tradition of moral obligation to "consider the less fortunate") it is just that advocates of a "free society" believe that too much economic interventionism by the State, increases poverty, decreases freedom, increases the power of politicians, and decreases self-reliance. In practice nearly everybody agrees about the need to "consider the less fortunate", they just disagree about the policies which do this best. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC))

Yes, but where I agree with TFD is that it is not for the lead to present the various arguments of various factions or individuals, just to give a description in conceptual terms. What reasons someone gives for opposing a particular egalitarian proposition is secondary. It is the fact that they oppose it that puts them on the right. At least in relation to the specific proposition.

The lead could, subject to sourcing, say something like: It is a tendency of the right to be inclined against policies designed to alleviate social inequalities produced by markets because, variously, it is denied that such inequalities are present, because it is denied that such policies can succeed or because inequality is seen as the legitimate price of civil freedom.

That may be a little over-wordy, but maybe it could be a start. FormerIP (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU DREAMING you need to present sources for an alternative definition of the right-wing if you oppose the one in the intro. The current intro is supported by multiple sources. You claim that the intro is left-wing biased, but the only author in the intro sentence who is known as left-wing is Norberto Bobbio that I had removed out of concerns by right-leaning users here, but Rick Norwood restored. If you have a problem with the introduction, present sources for an alternative definition of right-wing and provide quotes from those sources, and then we can discuss an alternative definition.--R-41 (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that the definition is a compromise. Seeking to defend inequality is not how the Right define themselves (see the full Scruton definition already quoted) but it is how the Left define the Right, and since it is not wrong to define the Right as opposed to the egalitarianism of the Left, I have left it (so to speak!). My point is that deleting the classical liberal meaning of Right-Wing is a much more serious bias. Classical Liberalism was once on the Left, but is now on the Right, because there has been a general move to the Left since the French Revolution. There is also a different political tradition in the Anglosphere, which means that conservatives such as Edmund Burke see themselves as defending a tradition of freedom. What it means to be Right-Wing in the Anglosphere in the C21st is very different from the position that De Maistre was articulating. There seem to be a determined effort to ignore the fact, even though you would be hard pressed to find ANYBODY on the Right in the USA who wants to defend medieval feudalism! (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC))

ERIDU-DREAMING: It is not bias to insist on standard academic sources. Also, nobody, as far as I can tell, has suggested that the meaning of right-wing has not changed, so why keep bring that up? The question is to what extent Libertarians are called, or call themselves, right-wing. We have sources that say it happens, no reputable sources that say it is a major use of the phrase. Therefore, overloading the lead with Libertarianism, which many Libertarians strenuously object is not right-wing at all, is inappropriate. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

RICK NORWOOD: I am glad you agree that the meaning of Right-Wing has changed since the French Revolution. All you need to do now is agree that classical liberalism is now viewed as Right-Wing. Just re-read the sources that have already been quoted. You seem to have an obsession with deleting classical liberalism from the definition. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)).

As I have repeatedly pointed out, the term did not exist before the 20th century. TFD (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy does a reasonable job of explaining that there is a left-right spectrum with classical liberalism. As stated above, liberalism is not the property of either the left or the right. Perhaps all that needs to be considered is that it is hard to view Jeremy Bentham, for example, as belonging to the right. FormerIP (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING: What the hell (excuse my French) are you reading. Please show me where I have ever suggested deleting classical liberalism from the definition! How can I be "obsessed" with doing something I have never done? Please note that it is one thing to say some people describe some libertarians as right-wing, and an entirely different thing to use the lead in this article to argue the entirely unsupported claim that the reason some Libertarians are called right-wing is because they favor merit, choice, freedom, and non-conformity.

Also please note that a book that is essentially an A-levels crib is not an acceptable reference for anything.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with defintion "In politics, the Right, right-wing and rightist has been usually defined as acceptance of unequal rewards as desirable so long as the competition for them is a fair one." (An Introduction to Sociology by Goldthorpe) -- Vision Thing -- 12:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Goldthorpe is a fine source. Thanks for suggesting it, Vision_Thing. I've done a rewrite using Goldthorpe that I hope will be acceptable to everyone. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

R-41 and ERIDU-DREAMING: Please explain why you find Goldthorpe's formulation unacceptable. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying that Goldthrope is an unacceptable source, I was the one who added the Goldthrope source to the intro.--R-41 (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that we remove the source by Norberto Bobbio - the Italian left-wing liberal socialist scholar, and the source by Tom Flanagan - the Canadian right-wing libertarian conservative policymaker for the right-wing populist Reform Party of Canada and a senior fellow and the right libertarian Fraser Institute. Let's get scholars who do not have a clear political reputation and who cannot be criticized for having clear biases.--R-41 (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The claim by Norberto Bobbio (who was a Professor of Political Science at Turin University) that the Right is defined by its opposition to equality is pretty standard on the Left, deleting it would be absurd. It may be highly unusual to use somebody (Tom Flanagan) who is a Professor of Political Science in Canada, and on the Right, as a source for a Wikipedia article on the Right, but deleting the source on those grounds would be equally feeble. Mark Dickerson is the Professor of Political Science at the University of Calgary and Neil Nevitte is the Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC))

So you are accepting two users who have strong political opinions on the left and right to be used as sources. That's violation of WP:NPOV no matter whether both a person on the left and a person on the right are shown. We need neutral sources, Tom Flanagan is a staunchly libertarian conservative political theorist - not too mention extremely controversial, Flanagan said that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange should be assassinated using a military drone aircraft. If the article was about libertarian conservatism a quote by him would be acceptable.--R-41 (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Both the books mentioned are standard academic works. The fact that you dislike the politics of one or more of the authors is, of course, irrelevant. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No the issue is WP:NPOV. Why should we present sources by people with strong political motivations on a controversial topic such as this? We need sources by analysts, not present-day politicians. The politicians can be quoted for articles on what they specifically believe in - liberal socialism for Bobbio and libertarian conservatism for Flanagan.--R-41 (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Your assertion that because Tom Flanagan is on the Right politically, this excludes him from being used as a source on Wikipedia entry on Right-Wing politics, is of course absurd. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC))

The reliability of sources has nothing to do with the political views of the writers. Flanagan's book btw is an introductory college textbook and therefore not a good source. Otherwise it is not a biased book. Neutrality is a requirement of Wikipedia editors, not the sources they use. TFD (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Everyone who thinks forms opinions. If those opinions are reasoned opinions, it is not bias to hold them. It is only bias when the opinions go beyond what reason and evidence dictate, and while politicians often do that, and academics sometimes do that, in academia at least you lose respect if you show obvious bias. I know many academics who bend over backwards to present all of the arguments against their own point of view, in their effort to be fair. Will Durant was one example. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING: Once again I ask you, if you want this article to state that people use "right-wing" to mean people who favor freedom, provide evidence.Rick Norwood (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING, You say that rightists do not define themselves as supporting inequality, that is something the Left defines then as. By that same token, how many classical liberals define themselves as right-wing? Even so-called "right-libertarians" largely reject the term and see themselves as different from both the left and right. Also, politicans and philosophers define themselves by their ideology, not which wing they are on. While they may accept being placed on "the Right", I don't think you'd hear them say "as a right-winger I, believe.." but rather "as a conservative, I believe..." or "as a libertarian, I believe..." LittleJerry (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

LITTLE JERRY, There is a long answer and a short answer to that one. The short answer is that Classical Liberals define themselves as defending liberty, and because the political tradition which conservatives in the Anglosphere seek to defend includes a tradition of defending liberty, Classical Liberalism is now included as part of the Right. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)).

Are they included as part of the right by their own admission? If we can't define right-wing as acceptance of inequailty because rightists don't define themselves as such then perhaps we shouldn't define certain groups as right-wing if they themselves don't consider themselves such. I don't think you can have it both ways. LittleJerry (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The article has the Left-Wing definition of the Right (that the Right want to defend inequality) which I point out is a bit like defining the Japanese as non-European. It is a correct but odd way of putting it. I have made no effort to change it to a more accurate definition. If you are on the Left what is significant about the Right is that they oppose egalitarianism. If you are a hammer everything is a nail. How they define themselves is irrelevant to you. That is why I have let the definition stand. It is not incorrect to say that the Right oppose egalitarianism, just as it is not incorrect to say that Japan is not part of Europe. Changing the definition would therefore be pointless. You say, let us imagine for a moment that Wikipedia defines the Right in its own terms. Now, we have just established that Wikipedia does not define the Right in its own terms, but for the sake of your argument you want us to pretend that the Wikipedia entry defines the Right in its own terms. OK. How does the Right define itself?

Well let us pick up a book at random by somebody who is viewed as being on the Right politically. Take "Letters to a Young Conservative" by Dinesh D'Souza. He argues that Classical Liberals seek to limit the power of the government, increasing the scope for individual and private action. D'Souza claims that a Statist revolution of the 1930's introduced a new understanding of freedom that included a vastly greater role for government. He claims that a Liberation revolution in the 1960's was based on the claim that values should not be based on external authority but on the sovereignty of the self. Both of these changes were flagged up as increases in liberty. D'Souza responds that he is a conservative because he wants to conserve the principles of the "American Revolution". He views himself as a Classical Liberal. He opposes Statism. But he also claims that there are objective moral standards, and that a good life is lived in accordance with virtues.

"Since modern conservatism is dedicated both to classical liberalism and to virtue, it is open to the charge of contradiction."

D'Souza notes that conservatives are willing to endure inequalities of outcome, whereas Statists attribute inequality of outcome to unequal opportunities, which should be corrected by the State. D'Souza claims that at the heart of the dispute is two different conceptions of human nature. Some [let us call them the Left] believe that humans are intrinsically good, and so if people fail it is societies fault, and so we should create a new society; whereas others [let us call them the Right] claim that humans are not mere animals, but nor are we angels, and therefore utopian societies are not possible. A free market economic system (for example) uses self-interest to improve the general standard of living.

Now you point out that some of those who define themselves as defending liberty argue that there is no right and wrong way of living, and therefore they object to being lumped together with conservatives. They point out that some on the Right defend Classical Liberalism not because they think freedom is the right to do what you please, but because they view a free society as a precondition for virtue.

Fine. It nevertheless remains true that some on the Right, such as Dinesh D'Souza, do seek to defend Classical Liberalism, and because they are seen as being on the "Right", being on the "Right" includes people who defend Classical Liberalism, even if some of those who define themselves as being Classical Liberals are unhappy about being described as being "conservative" or on the "Right". (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC))

Noam Chomsky also claims to support classical liberalism and believes that his libertarian socialism is the rightful extension of it. LittleJerry (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

So what. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC))

Well, so what if D'Souza claims to support classical liberlism. Can you name any non-conservative classical liberals who define themselves as right-wing? LittleJerry (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU DREAMING is alluding to the argument made by Kirk and Meyer about American conservatism not the Anglospheric Right, and has little acceptance. See for example F.A. Hayek's "Why I am not a conservative". But if the U.K. has a right-wing tradition, it is conservatism, not liberalism. TFD (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

While self-definitions should be included, other definitions ("as others see us") are just as, or even more, important. Others are often more objective because they actually see our actions, which may stand in stark contrast to our professed beliefs. (ALL humans fight for freedom! ALL believe that their version of freedom is the best!) It may well hurt, but we learn much from hearing how others see us and then amending our ways. It's very human to see oneself as somewhere near the middle of the political spectrum. This is especially true of those who aren't activists, and are somewhat naive about the full political spectrum. Those who live in Europe, where every conceivable political party exists and is legal (unlike in the USA), are often much more savvy about such matters, and are more accurate in their understandings of their own place on the political continuum. It took several decades of this American living in Europe to really understand the things that define various political POV, and it's been quite a journey! So, include all types of definitions and attribute them. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Most of the cleavages between parties date back to 19th century revolutions and conflicts that are no longer important but are still divisive. TFD (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply to ERIDU-DREAMING (17:21, 21 March 2012 Posting:

We do not balance what left and right say about the right, we use academic/reliable sources.
Other than extremists, few people self-identify as right-wing since the end of the Second World War. Most right-parties went out of existence at that time.
People on the right tend to identify with specific ideologies, rather than a generic right. So if a right-winger for example extols the welfare state, he is not saying that that is the typical right-wing position, but that it is his party's position.
One cannot assume that conservatism is right-wing.
The argument that one can be a conservative in a society where there are no traditional institutions to conserve is not generally accepted. Roosevelt could just have easily called himself a conservative and his opponents would have continued calling themselves liberals. (Many writers in fact call Roosevelt and the New Deal conservative.)

TFD (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice claim - might you show us the "many writers" who call FDR and the New Deal "conservative"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

See for example John Spiller's "To what extent was the New Deal conservative", The United States, 1763-2001, Routledge, 2004, (p. 180: "...there remains a consensus that the essence of the New Deal was conservative".[7] While FDR himself is generally considered to be liberal, some writers have called him conservative, most notably Conrad Black in his recent biography. Notably the Conservative Party of Canada adopted New Deal Policies, but they were reversed by the Liberals when they took power in 1935. If that is difficult for you to understand it is because you define "conservative" as the trend that developed out opposition the New Deal. TFD (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Alas - your Google-farming for individual snippets does not support your bropad claim above - that "Many writers in fact call Roosevelt and the New Deal conservative." Not "FDR's essence and the New Deal's essence" whatever that means. You made a specific unsupported claim. And note that I do not "define 'conservative'" in any post on Wikipedia - I rely on the silly idea that we use reliable sources on Wikipedia instead of asserting over and over what I know. Try using reliable sources, really, instead of scrounging for people talking about "essences." Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Instead of pushing your views, you should try to ensure that articles represent published views weighted to the degree of their acceptance. You have made your views clear, but we are not here to argue our personal views but to explain how subjects are viewed in mainstream sources. I really wonder at your tenacity to continue to argue points long after clear evidence has been presented to you. TFD (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Read this carefully: PLEASE TELL ME WHAT MY VIEWS ARE THAT I AM PUSHING HERE - WITH DIFFS. I trust this is clear enough for anyone to read? My only position here is that of actually following Wikipedia policies -- such as ACCURATELY USING SOURCES AND NOT CLAIMING 'SYNONYMS' ARE WHAT COUNTS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not at all clear to me what this discussion has to do with the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

In short - TFD made a remarkably iffy claim as to what he knows - and was called on it. His response was to accuse me of POV pushing <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to ERIDU-DREAMING's comments that "classical liberal"=conservative=right-wing". These are three different concepts and we cannot assume that because a writer is talking about one s/he is talking about all of them. In the U.S. the cleavage between liberal and conservative was the New Deal. But outside the U.S., New Deal-style policies were more likely to be implemented by Conservatives than by Liberals, and the New Deal has been described as conservative. TFD (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

What you did was claim:

The argument that one can be a conservative in a society where there are no traditional institutions to conserve is not generally accepted. Roosevelt could just have easily called himself a conservative and his opponents would have continued calling themselves liberals. (Many writers in fact call Roosevelt and the New Deal conservative,

And I asked for the source for your astounding strange claim. You gave no sufficient source but decided to claim that I was a POV pusher -- which is as errant a step in a discussion as is possible. Cheers - but your strange claim is still visible to the readers here. Cheers and please avoid making false charges about my edits in future. Collect (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This source (click here) explains how Roosevelt first used the terms "liberal" and "conservative" to describe his supporters and opponents. His opponents initially rejected their description, saying they were the true liberals, but adopted the name c. 1955. Roosevelt was attempting to place himself within the American tradition and his opponents outside it by using what was a derogatory term to describe them. Of course as time goes by the tradtional institutions that Tories protect have largely disappeared or become less relevant. TFD (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Which still does not support your claim. In fact, it belies it. BTW, I do not find "Tories" used with reference to modern US groups at all -- perhaps you can tell me which current groups in the US are "Tories"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That is the point - we rejected conservatism in 1776. While the term has returned the concept has not. Hence, unlike Canada, we do not have long debates about whether to fly the union jack, have the Queen on our coins and currency, or whether citizens can accept knighthoods and peerages (or even whether they should be called citizens or subjects). TFD (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Overloading the lede again

I recently trimmed down the lead section and simplifed some things. I don't see why the Roger Scruton quotes needs to be in the lede. Why not put in the the "History and Use" and have the lede simply state that some see rightism as a loose term. Again, we need to focus on the body of the aricle and have the lede summarize it. LittleJerry (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, it refers to Scruton as a "conservative philospher". But he is not actually writing as such in the Palgrave-McMillan Dictionary of Political Thought. Normally when that type of source is used there is no need to quote the writer. It's a bit like saying "E=mc2, according to the left-wing scientist Albert Einstein". TFD (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

ED keeps reverting back the bloated version without discussion. LittleJerry (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Origins of usage of the term

An editor replaced "It was not until the early 20th century that the terms "left" and "right" came to be associated with political ideology" with "It was not until the early twentieth century that English speaking countries began to apply the terms "right" and "left" to their own political affairs." The second phrase is only partly true. The terms entered British discourse in the 1906 general election, but only the term "left" was normally used, because the Labour Party could be identified with the French Left, while Liberals and Conservatives were far too moderate to be identitied with the French Right. In any case, the source refers to the United Kingdom, not to "English-speaking countries". TFD (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Why turn the article into a Marxist hit piece?

WP:SOAP, WP:CIVIL, WP:DISRUPT

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why remove the bias tag and the Buckley quote without any discussion? Why insist on using this article for propaganda purposes, to suit a predefined world view? Why not present a fair and neutral and objective view on the topic? Why not quote from any sources that are considered right wing or conservative, the way the Left Wing Politics article quotes from liberals and socialists? Why try to frame the Right in such a negative light, when many on the Right seek to enhance equality of opportunity and lift people out of poverty and thereby decrease inequality? I don't understand the motives for this. The left wing politics article has not been similarly attacked this way by people with conservative or libertarian views. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems odd for a person who considers anyone who calls people who are not capital L libertarians "Marxist" to accuse others of trying to "suit a predefined world view"? You may or may not be correct about the recent edits, but instead of trying to remove the mote from our eyes, at least consider that there may be a beam in yours. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to decide what to do about your edit, Falconclaw5000. The easy thing would be just to revert it. You've removed a lot of references without any explanation. But I'm going to at least try to work with you on this, this time. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I've finished my edit for now. I left most of the changes by Falconclaw5000 in place, but eliminated a duplicated sentence and the neologism "C20". The three main problems with Falconclaw5000's edit were: 1) use of a high school textbook as a reference. Anything in a high school text will also be found in a college level text or scholarly book, which are prefered by Wikipedia. 2) This article is really not the place to argue in favor of Libertarianism. 3) statements should reflect the source.

Falconclaw5000, you say you say you don't understand the motives of people who do not agree that Libertarianism is the solution to all our problems and, apparently, the only reason you can see for someone not being a Libertarian is that they are doctrinaire Marxists. As best I can tell, no editors here are Marxists. If they are, they haven't said so. Most people are not Libertarians. Everybody has their own reasons, of course, but among those reasons are that they simply do not believe the Libertarian claim that Libertarianism will lift people out of poverty. They believe, instead, that Libertarianism will result in cut-throat competition in which the few will profit and the many suffer. Since I have been misunderstood before, let me say as carefully as possible that I am not arguing in favor of either view of Libertarianism, pro or anti. I am saying that this article is not the place to conduct this argument. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It is extremely insulting to accuse users here of promoting a "Marxist hit peace" - that is in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:DISRUPT, and yet another pathetic example of sophistry on this talk page. Especially after efforts of cooperation between users of left political persuasion and right political persuasion. Falconclaw5000, you and Rick Norwood have poured so much cheap emotional sophistry into this talk page that you have been clearly in violation of WP:DISRUPT. Plus Falconclaw, we have strong sources that show that right-wing means acceptance of hierarchy - either as being viewed as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable; we have discussed your objections and others ad nauseum, but you are either failing or refusing to get the point - again violating WP:DISRUPT. The fact is that no one who has objected to the current definition has been able to product a coherent sourced definition of right-wing politics as a whole, and editing on the intro has stabilized due to the inclusion of multiple sources into it. Falconclaw, unless you have sources for an alternative definition of right-wing politics that can describe it as a whole and not just the libertarian right, then it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Do not post anymore nonsense sophistry accusing users of promoting a "Marxist hit peace" or I will report you to administrators for gross violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:DISRUPT.--R-41 (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not clear that the "New Right" is a modern manifestion of the right, or merely a revival of 19th century liberalism, and Buckley does not state that he is speaking about the right, as opposed to his own views. We would not take the Thoughts of Chairman Mao as the benchmark of what left-wingers believe, because we know that there is a diversity in the Left. Incidentally the opinions of people who write reliable sources is irrelevant when it comes to reporting facts contained in their writings. Facts are not left-wing or right-wing, they are either true or false. And you seem to characterize all writers with whom you disagree as Marxist. This is circular reasoning. TFD (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest a request for mediation as a way to solve this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Guide I looked at the Talk page for the far left politics article, and it seems we have a few of the usual suspects using editorial tricks to block information which makes the Left look bad and the Right look good. I suggest formal mediation as a way to solve this. The other editors who found this article biased don't seem to be commenting here anymore, but I'm certain they agree with me, judging from their numerous posts above. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Insulting other editors is unhelpful. You need to provide sources, showing us what should be presented in the article but is not. TFD (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Those of us who disagree with this articles slant have provided a multitude of sources, and you have found excuses to reject all of them. I'll put this up for a formal mediation request as soon as I have the time to figure out the process. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 09:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You need to provide sources. TFD (talk) 10:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the sources provided by Collect and Eridu Dreaming. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Extreme right

This new addition misrepresent what Eatwell says. For example, it says: "Often violence is a characteristic." However, source says: "Recent academic attempts to define the "extreme right" have tended to drop violence as a necessary characteristic (although it is a notable feature of many groups on the fringes)." Similarity, TFD edit says "While in the past they were economic statists, today they are more likely to support free markets." while Eatwell says that: "growing popularity of free market views after the 1970s had an effect on some European parites [...] Moreover, some parties, which exhibited relatively free market views in the 1980s, [...], are now increasingly stressing anti-globalization views [...]". In general, I don't think we can rely on TDF interpretation of sources without checking them first. -- Vision Thing -- 09:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a big help if all editors include quotations from their sources supoorting the statements in the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This should be discussed at the Far-right politics article. I've added sources to that article, if it is an issue of mentioning the far-right here I recommend you utilizing the sources I used for the intro of that article.--R-41 (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Eatwell begins the section by saying, "In political contexts, the term 'extreme' is commonly associated with violence". I do not see my paraphrasing of Eatwell as misrepresenting what he says. Not all er groups are violent and perhaps most are not, but some are and it is notable. And Eatwell does not say that they have returned to economic statism. The description was three pages long and I don't think the entire passage can be reproduced here. If you think it can be re-phrased then go ahead. Here is the source. R-41, Eatwell appears to use the term "extreme right" in the sense defined in the article "far right", modern groups that have some sort of connection with historical fascism. Other writers (e.g., Klaus von Beyme) use the term in a wider sense to include both the far right and what Eatwell calls the "radical right", which includes right-wing populism. It is important to include Eatwell in the article because his typology is generally accepted, even if the terminology is disputed. When using sources for each of his categories however it is important that the source is clear that it is referring to the same category. TFD (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Eatwell does begin section that way, and then he says that it doesn't apply to "extreme right" anymore except for the small, fringe elements of it. Your addition that "today they are more likely to support free markets" is OR. There is only one passage on p. 11 where he talks about economic beliefs of extreme right and what you wrote is not supported by anything that Eatwell says. -- Vision Thing -- 11:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I expanded the section to include the additional details and look forward to the new objections you will now present. TFD (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Any article on Right-wing politics has to offer some explanation for the following use of "right-wing", taken from current news:

"Also on Monday, Breivik told the court that he tried to pick victims who looked "leftist," claiming that he could tell the difference, as Reuters reports. At the youth camp, Breivik apparently spared at least one young man who looked conservative: "This person ... appeared right-wing, that was his appearance. That's the reason I didn't fire any shots at him," Breivik explained to the court."

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

TFD: Thanks for greatly improving my recent edit. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Eatwell

Was being treated like Play-Doh in the description of "radical right." It now accurately reflects what the book says, which is what we are supposed to do. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Collect, the passage is about what "radical right" meant in O'Sullivan and Eatwell's typology in their 1989 book, The Nature of the Right (1989). While Eatwell said that use of the term "radical right" could be "problematical", he was not claiming that his own typology was problematical. Also, why did you post "citation needed" tags for the sourced paragraph O'Sullivan and Eatwell's description of the "extreme right"? Also, insulting other editors is unhelpful. We are supposed to accurately reflect sources, rather than score ideological points. Ironic that you would complain at radical right that that description is used by social scientists to describe the Tea Party yet here you want to extend the description to Margaret Thatcher. TFD (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not care what the source says - the point is WIKIPEDIA MUST USE WHAT THE SOURCE SAYS. Is that clear? Using a source for a claim WHICH IS NOT WHAT THE SOURCE SAYS is wrong. I trust this is sufficiently clear? Collect (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The passage begins, "Eatwell and O'Sullivan divide the Right into five types: 'reactionary', 'moderate', 'radical', 'extreme', and 'new'." We then explain what they mean by these terms not what other people may mean by them. I doubt they meant that their own definition was problematical or that they used it to refer to Thatcherism. TFD (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

[8] shows what Eatwell writeds. It is NOT what you assert he writes. There is a substantial dichotomy between what the source says in black and white and what you appear to wish it would assert. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sarcasm and the use of bold type and capitals are non-collegial. The passage is about what Eatwell meant by "radical right" in his 1989 book. He does not say that his definition of 'radical right" includes Thatcherism and we should therefore not misrepresent him. If you want to use the book as a source for others use the term, fine, but put it somewhere else.

Note that Eatwell begins the section by saying that he used the term "radical right" in his 1984 book, then says the term was originally developed by the writers of the Radical Right (1963). He then writes, "Today the radical right remains a common generic term, then mentions the problems with its current usage. At that point he is not talking about a book he wrote 15 years before. :TFD (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Use of caps etc. when faced with a clear case of IDHT is needed on occasion. The point is that Eatwell (not "Eatewell") must be used for what he writes, not for what anyne wshes he wrote. As for you knowing what he is not writing about, that is a remarkable claim of perspicacity, indeed. Collect (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, you are missing the point. The passage in this article is about the terminology used by Eatwell, not about how other people use these terms. Clearly all five of his terms describing the Right are used by different writers in different ways. But that is beside the point. Your edit implies that Eatwell said Thatcher was radical right, which is not in the source you use. It is ironic, because you have argued vehemently that we cannot say that the Tea Party Movement has been described as radical right, although they fit the bill better than Thatcherism. Incidentally, what is the point of your comment "not Eatewell"? TFD (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No. The point is misuse of a source. As for your inane assertion about the Tea Party movement where you also grossly misused a source - I wonder why you would dare use that as an example - LOL! The section on the TPM now precisly uses the source, and I suspect the RfC will be closed with complete removal of the TPM from the article you inserted it in. And the name appears to be "Eatwell" and not "Eatewell" as you repeatedly referred to him. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Collect (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is a frontbench spokesman for the (UK) Labour Party being used as a revered authority on the meaning of Right-Wing? This is the economist who claimed that if it wants to be more economically successful the West ought to try and be more like Japan, and more recently he declared the Euro (common currency) would bring economic stability to Europe. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You are confusing him with John Eatwell. Collect's reply does not present the facts accurately and therefore I will not comment further on it. TFD (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying my exact quotes are faked? Or are you saying Eatwell's name is "Eatewell" as you repeatedly edited the article to claim? Meanwhile, you are setting an ad hom record. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"You are confusing him with John Eatwell." OK. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)