Talk:Right-wing politics/Archive 21

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 19

Gregcaletta's edit, reverted by TFD

What Gregcaletta added to the article is clearly true, and I know I have seen observations to that effect in the mainstream media, but I'm unable to find a good source to cite. Can anyone suggest a source? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I cannot think of any examples outside the U.S. Even then the terminology is not consistent. TFD (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Again the failing is in a linear "political spectrum" which does not remotely fit, for example, African, Asian, East European and Middle Eastern governments. And not all European governments, nor the Mexican and South American governments. Collect (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The point is not that politics can be divided nicely into left and right. The point is that people think in dualistic terms, they divide themselves up, they pick sides. That is what Gregcaletta said -- even when left and right don't makes sense, people call themselves left and right and call their parties left and right. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Collect is correct that outside Western European nations, parties are not necessarily left or right and people often do not see politics that way, and cleavages are just as likely to be based on nationality, religion, region, etc. But I cannot think of any country (other than the US) that has a two party system where one of them is not socialist. TFD (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Pejorative

Why isn't there any mention of the fact that "right-wing" and "right-winger" are commonly used as pejorative terms? Not just in the United States but in parts of Europe I'm sure that's true and the usage is notable. The article for "Modern Liberalism in the United States" does mention that "liberal" has been used in that way. --107.203.21.210 (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think both articles should say that, until fairly recently, both terms were primarily perjorative. We need a source, of course.

The section in the article left-wing is a little different. It has to do with the attempt to attach the perjorative label "left-wing" to parties that were not considered left-wing in the past, when left-wing meant communist. It is part of a great shift in political language. I'd love to have a reference for that, also. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the article itself takes a pejorative point of view towards the Right, by characterizing social inequality as its defining characteristic. Bwrs (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It says "accepts or supports." You need a source that presents another defining characteristic. TFD (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Libertarians are not right wing

Editied the first section to reflect this. Libertarians, like Jimmy Wales, are not right wing, they don't believe in the concept of left and right wings except as a subset of their Nolan chart. Don't lump the founder of Wikipedia into the same category as Hitler! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.9.177 (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The question is not what you say libertarians are. It is not even what some libertarians say they are. It is what reliable sources say libertarians are. I agree that it is unfortunate that people use the same phrase to describe libertarians and Hitler. It is unfortunate that people use the same phrase to describe liberals and Stalin. But we must report how words are in fact used, rather than how words would be used in an ideal universe. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Added ref to Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which states "Libertarianism is often thought of as “right-wing” doctrine. This, however, is mistaken for at least two reasons. First, on social—rather than economic—issues, libertarianism tends to be “left-wing”. It opposes laws that restrict consensual and private sexual relationships between adults (e.g., gay sex, extra-marital sex, and deviant sex), laws that restrict drug use, laws that impose religious views or practices on individuals, and compulsory military service. Second, in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—there is also a version known as “left-libertarianism”. Both endorse full self-ownership, but they differ with respect to the powers agents have to appropriate unowned natural resources (land, air, water, minerals, etc.)."

Plus, not sure how to ref this correctly, but Nolan, a founder of the US Libertarian Party, specifically created his Nolan chart to show the difference between the right wing and his libertarianism. Details are already on the page for Nolan chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.9.177 (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Not all Libertarians are right-wing, but some are. For examples, see Ron Paul newsletter. I've tried a rewrite to express this. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It is important to distinguish between declared ideology and where one aligns in politics. Most libertarians today align themselves with the Right, for example in the Tea Party or right-wing populist parties in Europe. TFD (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be logically possible for someone to be both libertarian and right wing. If we assume "libertarian" means what the founder of the US Libertarian Party, Nolan, defined it to mean, then it is defined as being a non-overlapping category from "right wing". If some individual claims to be both then they are really neither, rather they are occuping some center ground between the two positions on the Nolan chart. (Perhaps such people could be called "right-libertarians" and similarly there are "left-libertarians". Neither are pure libertarians though, they are hybrid views.) These disctinctions are especually important in the UK at the moment, as the UKIP party has just taken a quarter of the vote and describes itself as libertarian but not right wing. It's opponents try to smear it with a right-wing label in order to make it look as if it aligns with the BNP, which it does not. (In fact it's the only UK party that explicitly bans far-right people from joining it -- both Labour and Conservative parties have ex-BNP members.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.14.187 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 3 May 2013

It is only a problem if we use the Nolan chart. TFD (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently libertarianism is orthogonal to the "left right political spectrum" and is not the only group for which defining the entire group on such a spectrum is worse than problematic. Some libertarians are left wing or right wing, but it may have nothing at all to do with libertarianism.

For Libertarianism is an ideology that questions not only the status quo, but ultimately the very existence of the Conservative Party and the whole political process.[1]

And so on. Collect (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

In your example, the libertarians were members of the Conservative Party which was on the right of the British political spectrum. Hence the term "New Right." TFD (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sympathetic with Libertarians who resent being called right-wing, as I am sympathetic with Liberals who resent being called left-wing. I'm not sure how to resolve the situation when Ronald Reagan and many others on the Right identify the Right with Libertarianism. Also, in the US, the most well-known Libertarian, Ron Paul, is strongly right-wing. I don't know how things are in the UK. Maybe we need to somehow make a distinction between people who are "real" Libertarians and people who just call themselves "Libertarian", but I don't know how to do that. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Most people on the right, unlike the left, reject the description, or claim that the political spectrum is meaningless, no longer meaningful or too complex to resolve into left and right. Ironically that does not stop them from calling their opponents left-wing. TFD (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like this American Ron Paul is not really very libertarian then, if he's a right wing social conservative. Real philosophical libertarians, in the sense of the Nolan chart and the Stanford Encyclopedia entry above, are more likely to be found at the burning man festival, supporting freedom to party, take drugs, have crazy sex etc. along with freedom from being taxed and told what to do by anyone. There are lots of them in California, they're the people who smoke a joint, trade some bitcoins then shoot some 3d-printed guns... not right-wing social conservatives. Ron Paul's wikpedia page says that he has been described as /both/ a conservative and a libertarian, and has been a member of both parties, suggesting that his personal position is somewhere between the two, a "right-libertarian" rather than a "libertarian". (UKIP make some very un-libertarian anti-immigration statements which might put them in a similar category? The UK does also have a small UK Libertarian Party which seems to follow the social freedom concept much more than UKIP. Then 'liberals' here are even more confusing, our Liberal Democrat leader is actually an ex-Conservative member.)

One's attitudes are not definitive of where one stands in the political spectrum. Instead, empirical research conducted after the war showed that they roughly correlated with where political groups were perceived to be. But it was not an absolute correlation, liberals were seen as more socially left than socialists and more economically right than conservatives and christian democrats.

So libertarians may see drug laws as a threat to freedom. But socialists who oppose them do so because they see them as a threat to equality, directed against the poor, the young and minorities. Even some conservatives oppose them because they are ineffective.

I agree with you that Paul's position on immigration is not libertarian, but that does not mean that we can ignore the fact that most libertarians align themselves on the right. Nor can we restrict libertarians to members of the party.

TFD (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the articile still has an anti-libertarian bias, by implying that the philosophical viewpoint is right-wing (and thus in the same category as Nazis etc) when it is not. It may be the case that many individuals who claim to be libertarians are actually right-libertarians, such as Ron Paul and UKIP. But that does not alter the meaning of the political philosophical concept of liberianism, which is well-defined in books like the Stanford Encyclopedia. (There's an interesting article about UKIP on the BBC today, whcih says "They can broadly be seen as right wing, with a strong libertarian flavour and a dash of social conservatism." , http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22396690. Here the right-wing-ness comes from the social conservatism, if they had a purely libertarian flavour then that would include social freedom, not social conservatism. Right-libertanians claiming to be 'libertarians' are tarring pure libertarians with the 'right wing' label, and perhaps confusing libertarians into voting for their non-libertarian social policies. There was an interesting comment above that libertarians don't call themselves right-wing but do call others left wing -- that's actually consistent on the Nolan chart, a libertarian is "up", and is happy to call various opponents "left" "right" and "down" wing. But in a 4-valued system it doesn't follow that everyone who opposes the left is on the right -- they can be up and down. I think it's important to have some kind of discussion of these distinctions on this page precisely because people like Ron Paul and UKIP are messing with the word and makign people think it means right wing, which might bring them to this article, so we should help to clarify the confusion. Lots of people in the UK are probably trying to figure out what UKIP actually stands for this week so we will be getting lots of readers here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.26.116 (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually here's another good question that we should address in the article: are monarchies and theocracies right wing? I'm thinking of countries like Saudi and Iran, where the social conservatism is huge but the market is centralised. Tim Rice thinks so ("in fact you might say he was fairly right wing" is his reference to Pharoah in the musical Joseph) but Nolan charters would say no, because they have a separate "down wing" category for this mix of social and economic control. The history section of the article is interesting in this respect already, as it describes how the social conservatives shifted their economic allegience from down to up over time. So does "right wing" now refer /only/ to social conservatism, or only to the mixture of social conservatism with free markets? Can anyone help to clear up these definitions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.26.116 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 4 May 2013

Policy requires that the article is based on sources, not our interpretations. I understand you do not like that royalists, fascists and libertarians are grouped together, but not the Saudi and Iranian governments. But that is just how the term right-wing is understood. The fact that Nolan and others have found a rough correlation between left-right orientation and attitudes on social and economic attitudes does not mean that we remove and add groups to the right. The right is more likely to be male and old. That does not mean that young women cannot be right-wing. TFD (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The article's looking pretty good now in this respect -- I see we now have only "right-libertarians" and "conservative libertarians" mentioned, which presumably everyone can agree are right wing. It's good to have them mentioned, and no mention of "libertarians" so that anyone interested in the connection or lack of between the two groups can see that everything relevant is there. I was thinking more about the issue of philosophical positions vs political and historical positions though -- I wonder if someone smarter than me can find a way to restructure the article to distinguish them more clearly? As in, there is a (modern) philosophical concept of right-wingness that should be quite well defined; but also through history various political groups have used the name to mean very different things. At the moment it's not so clear which parts of the "positions" are historical and which are current. Can anyone untangle all of that? Perhaps the whole article could be structed through history and all the different meanings, and end with the currently accepted definitions or something like that? Again, I think these definitions are really important in the UK especially, we now seem to have aquired a 4-party system here now so people are getting very confused about who stands for what and when the labels are being used in the philosophical vs historical senses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.206.61 (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

this week we have the right-libertarian UKIP and the nationalist socialist SNP party both calling each other "facists" to add to the fun ... seems many political terms are becoming meaningless to describe actual political parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.195.179 (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

People have been called dogs, cats, pigs, donkeys, cows, monkeys, apes, snakes, etc. Do you think those terms are becoming meaningless? TFD (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Right-wing refers to both traditional conservatives and economic conservatives.

A recent edit made changes in the article to stress economic conservatism over social conservatism. I reverted those changes, on the grounds that the term right-wing applies to both. Historically it has been applied to social conservatives more often than to economic conservatives. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Request

My request is that the this line be added after the first line on the article: "Right-Wing people believe that this helps grow the economy, instead of giving the poor free money, they believe that instead, giving them a job to work for their money helps the economy.." or something like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billybob2002 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You need a source for that. Some right-wing people by the way have no concern about economic growth and most support giving money to the (deserving) poor. TFD (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

right-wing (copied from User talk:FormerIP‎)

I am sure your removal of the paragraph on the use of "right-wing" in Europe and the U.S. was well-intentioned, but the use was supported by direct quotes from the sources. I've removed the wedge-brackets so the quotations are more easily available:

The use of the phrase right-wing differs from region to region. In Europe, the phrase is usually used to describe racist and anti-immigration policies.(ref)http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/139345/Fighting%20Poverty%20in%20the%20U.S.%20and%20Europe%20A%20World%20of%20Difference%20EdGlaeser.pdf "Modern right-wing European politicians play up their opposition to immigrants or other ethnic minorities."(/ref) In the United States, right-wing is used to describe libertarians, anti-communists, and religious conservatives.(ref)Sara Diamond, Roads to Domination: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States, p. 7, "Libertarianism, anticommunist militarism, and traditionalism have been the three pillars of the US Right.", The Guilford Press, 1995, ISBN: 978-0898628647(/ref)

Is your objection that, while each source gives a different definition, neither says the usage is different in the two areas? If so, I'll add a source that says that explicitly. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

That's part of my objection, but also neither of the sources support the statements "the phrase is usually used..." or "right-wing is used...". They are just examples of usage. Modern right-wing European politicians may well play up their opposition to immigrants or other ethnic minorities, but there's no indication in the sources that this is what defines them (and clearly it isn't). Libertarianism, anticommunist militarism, and traditionalism may well have been the three pillars of the US Right, but this doesn't meant hat it has had no other ingredients.

Compare: "Wikipedia editors argue about sources" - this statement would not support a definition of a Wikipedia editor as "someone who argues about sources". Formerip (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The first source says, "Modern right-wing European politicians play up their opposition to immigrants or other ethnic groups." It does not say that these policies are right-wing per se and it is not clear which politicians are deemed right-wing. Sara Diamond says that she uses the term "right-wing" because she dislikes the more commonly used terms radical right and right-wing extremism. TFD (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

My first inclination was to let the topic drop. I began with 143.167.9.177's claim that Libertarians were not right-wing. He's probably right, strictly speaking, but in the US the phrase right-wing is commonly used to describe libertarians. I looked for a solid academic sourse suporting that claim, and Sara Dimond's book is a well-reviewed academic sourse that says Libertarianism is one of the pillars of the US Right. Nobody said that her three pillars were the only ingredients. I was trying, after all, to write a sentence, not a book. To list all of the ingredients of the US Right would take a book -- and Sara Diamond's book seems like a good place to start. But, she was only discussing the American Right, so I looked for a source on the uses of right-wing outside the US, a subject I know less about. Several sources stressed the racism and nationalism on the Right in Europe. Again, I don't think I quoted the source out of context. If ethnic nationalism, broadly speaking, is not the defining characteristic of the Right in modern Europe, I would be interested in learning what is. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Rick, I don't think there is a single defining characteristic of the political right either side of the pond. The Diamond source looks fine in supporting the placement of libertarianism on the right (although caution is needed, because the author could mean more than one thing by this) and the World Bank source is sort of OK for placing anti-immigration politics on the right (although I don't think a presentation handout makes for a great source). But neither of them are any good for suggesting a radical difference between Europe and the US, because neither of them say that there is one. Making the assumption that you're an American editor, I would ask you to consider whether you really think that anti-immigration or race-related politics are not associated with the right in America. My guess is that those guys who patrol the Mexican border in their spare time are not sat quietly reading Chomsky while they wait for someone to shoot at, and that the Communist Party USA were not at the forefront of opposing the American civil rights movement. I can also tell you quite confidently that libertarianism (although, over here, we would say "economic liberalism"), anticommunist militarism and traditionalism were also pillars of the British right during the same period I presume Diamond is talking about. Formerip (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am an American. And, yes, I agree that there is plenty of racism and anti-immigrant feeling on the American Right. But I do think there is a difference between the European Right and the American Right, even if my post did not express it well. In any case, I'm content with the lead as it stands now. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The point that Eatwell and O'Sullivan made and seems to be accepted, is that there is no unifying doctrine of the right, that it is just a series of reactions. Each of the five types have unifying doctrines and have existed in the U.S. Certainly each of the new right of Thatcher and Reagan, the extreme right of European populist parties and the Tea Party, and the far right of Nick Griffin and David Duke had unifying doctrines. TFD (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Dictionary definition of "conservative".

Like many words, "conservative" has several meanings. "I wear a conservative suit", for example, would never be expressed as "I wear a right-wing suit". Right-wing is political. The use of "conservative" to mean "moderate" is not political.

The link you gave redirects to a definition of the word "conservatism". Here is what your source says:

"con·ser·va·tism (kn-sûrv-tzm) n. 1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order. 2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order. 3. Conservatism The principles and policies of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or of the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada. 4. Caution or moderation, as in behavior or outlook.

Note that because of the redirect this is a definition of "conservative", not of "politics + conservative". Also note that while the first three meanings mention politics, the fourth definition, which you cite, does not. Finally, note that the definition is itself a quote from The American Heritage Dictionary.

If this is still not clear, please refer to the sources cited in the article.

Rick Norwood (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Only the first three definitions are relevant. Also, this article is about "right-wing politics", not conservatism, even in politics they are not synonyms. TFD (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Racism reverts

Rick Norwood (8 reverts)

13:43, 22 November 2013‎

20:56, 5 October 2013‎

11:52, 30 September 2013‎

12:23, 1 September 2013‎

12:41, 19 August 2013

11:34, 19 July 2013‎

23:43, 15 July 2013‎

12:57, 14 July 2013‎

The Four Deuces (7 reverts)

03:58, 30 September 2013‎

03:28, 30 September 2013‎

19:04, 23 September 2013‎

01:32, 23 July 2013‎

03:21, 20 June 2013‎

21:47, 28 May 2013‎

18:57, 16 May 2013‎

There have (so far) been a total of 15 reverts by these two editors back to the (partisan and disputed) racism claim.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC))

You should not remove sourced content just because it conflicts with your personal opinion. Please provide a source that contradicts the information you removed before deleting it again. TFD (talk) 03:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, no claim was made in the article that "racism is part of the definition of the Right" any more than the article on left-wing politics claims that Stalinism is part of the definition of the Left. TFD (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. You should not add sourced content just because it accords with your personal opinion.

You say "Please provide a source that contradicts the information you removed". What does this even mean? Provide a source which details the racism of the Left? Easy. Provide a source which claims that the Left (from Marx onwards) has historically been more racist than the Right? Again, easy. Ever heard of Jack London? H.G.Wells? George Bernard Shaw? Just look at the history of American politics. I presume you know about the history of the Democratic Party? To any fair minded person it is obvious that Wikipedia should not be a forum for partisan politics. Claiming that (some people) associate the Right with racism is no more fair and accurate than claiming that some people associate the Left with racist views. It would not be hard (indeed it would be very easy) to find examples of anti-white (and anti-black) racism on the Left, but no fair minded person would seek to include racism as part of the definition of the Left. Why? Because it would be to engage in silly partisan politics.

I notice that you have repeatedly reverted changes (not made by me) which sensibly deleted the racism claim. I thought you were not supposed to revert more than 3 times? At the last count in the last few months you have reverted it 7 times. Rick Norwood has reverted it a total of 8 times. Are you and Rick Norwood going for some sort of record? Maybe you ought to ask yourself why various editors keep deleting this claim.

By the way nobody disputes that the Far Left is part of the definition of the Left, it is you who is assuming that this amounts to the claim that all Leftists are Stalinists. This would be like saying that all cookery is about the preparation of meat.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 05:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The distinction, which I believe has been pointed out to you before, is that the term right-wing is commonly applied because people are racist. Thus the Democratic party in the American South between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the civil rights movement was called right-wing because it was racist, just as during the civil rights movement it was called left-wing because it advocated equal rights. Of course, there are racists in all camps. But if someone is racist, they are often described as right-wing, never described as left-wing, because of their racism. The Right is defined by favoring the Establishment (or the Old Guard wing of the Establishment) which seeks to preserve the traditions of the majority religion, the male sex, the upper class, and the majority race. This information can be found in multiple sources. You have not provided any sources for your claim that "right-wing" is not commonly used in that way. Your only evidence is that lots of people are racist. This is a specious argument, especially when you pretend that there was not a time (the early years of this century) when the Republicans were the progressive party and the Southern Democrats were right-wing.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is governed by what references say, not by the persistance of editors who want to deny what references say. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

My most recent change was not a revert, it was an edit. I added an additional reference. I'll try to add additional references as necessary, since essentially all major references agree (as anyone who reads a lot of books knows) that "right-wing" and "far Right" are commonly used to describe racists and fascists.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

A perfect example of why no one uses Wikipedia as a reference, and it struggles to meet funding

Article is a complete, farcical leftist hack job.

"The right wing opposes social Justice"... Yes, of course, the Right Wing Republicans, (e.g. Abraham Lincoln) INVENTED social justice, the Left Wing Demo(Dixie)crats, (e.g. the KKK) are the ones who opposed it; violently, and lynched nearly 3000 Republicans. (almost as many as they did blacks)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.166.101.37 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 21 November 2013

It would be helpful if you could provide us with a reliable source that describes Southern Democrats as left-wing or says that Lincoln "INVENTED" social justice. TFD (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You have to forgive 12.166.101.37, TFD. Americans are so poorly educated that many don't know that right-wing means anything except "Republican", or that left-wing means anything except "Democrat". Rick Norwood (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible improvement to the intro, what do people think?

I see a problem with the intros on this article and on left-wing politics as not addressing the function of egalitarian social levelling - that the left supports in varying degrees while the right does not, again in varying degrees; but rather just a broad idea of equality. I understand there are various left-wing, right-wing, and centrist positions that involve economics, stances on inter-cultural relations, etc.

The definition seems to be very close to hitting the head on the nail of the tension between left and right on the issue of the politics of equality. But what the political right, from centre-right to far-right tends to have problems with is the action of leveling social differences. Therefore I will try here to propose a definition with tweaking of the wording maintains much of what there is but defines it as a reaction against left-wing politics, which indeed right-wing politics was originally founded as in the 19th century, as they were called "reactionary". I'm putting it here in bold and italics

"Right-wing politics refers to a specific outlook or position that rejects egalitarian social leveling. The position can range from a moderate inclination to this position known as the centre-right, to an extreme inclination to this position known as the far-right."

That is the negation or reaction to the left. The left-wing politics article would be similarly rephrased.

"Left-wing politics refers to a specific outlook or position that supports egalitarian social leveling. The position can range from a moderate inclination to this position known as the centre-left, to an extreme inclination to this position known as the far-left.

And the centre between them.

"Centrist politics refers to a specific outlook or position that has an intermediate stance on egalitarian social leveling and is positioned between left-wing politics and right-wing politics."

I believe that these definitions more precisely reflect the matter at hand and address concerns raised earlier about bias in this article, and show that there are levels - that it is not a black-and-white divide between left and right.--70.26.113.85 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You would need a source for that, but I do not think it is correct. The levellers were a 17th century faction, and their demands ar no longer an issue. One does not have to doff one's hat to lords anymore. TFD (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I meant by levelling as in levelling social inequalities, these do not necessarily mean a feudal-like rank system. Do you believe that the current intro's sources adequately reflect scholarship on the matter?--70.26.113.85 (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Possibly not. I think the best definition of the Right is opposition to the Left. Bear in mind the article is about the Right, not the left-right axis, the center or the Left, so we should just explain the Right, not the Left, the center, etc. But if you think there is a better definition, then please provide a source. TFD (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought what I proposed essentially kept what the intro was saying but clarified it. I suppose it does change it a lot, and I do not have a source to verify, so I'll withdraw my proposal.--70.26.113.85 (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies for talk pages

There are many links at the top of this page explaining Wikipedia's policies for talk pages. Article talk pages are only for discussing improvements to articles. They are not forums to discuss the topic in general. They are not pulpits to rant from, and they are not spaces to post personal attacks against other editors. Comments that violate Wikipedia policies can be deleted at any time. The comments I deleted violated these policies and were not made in good faith.Spylab (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

People have repeatedly attempted to engage in the debate about problems with the one sided approach to this article and by discussing those problems, how improvements could be made. You have persisted in edit warring and deleting these comments. I will allow your deletions to stand, not because I don't believe you are attempting to control and censor the discussion, but because your insistence on deleting this material proves my point that the article suffers from a lack of viewpoints and a one sided control of the presentation of the topic which is grossly POV. Your actions prove the point more than the deleted statements did. No doubt you will attempt to censor this as well...If you do, I will not fight with you. You are more powerful than I am in the hierarchy that is Wikipedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.178.108.235 (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

If you think it is one-sided then you need to show that there is a significant view that has been omitted. You need to establish its significance through sources. TFD (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

American Right sentence in lead

In the United States, the political language of the Right includes: anti-statism involving a general mistrust of government, individualism, support of equality of opportunity while rejecting equality of outcome, and populism.

Why does this sentence have to be in the article? It is only relevant to the U.S., and thus does not belong in the lead. Are we having a sentence in the lead which describes right-wing politics in each individual country? The right is not anti-statist in the U.S. or mistrusting of government as a whole: that is a position limited to the Libertarian Party which does not even have any national representation (0 seats in the congress, etc...). Additionally, certain right-wing parties do not support equality of opportunity, anti-statism, etc... Populism is more associated with left-wing politics. The left can also be just as anti-statist, mistrusting of government, or supporting equality of opportunity; so this is not a defining feature of right-wing politics, and thus should not even be mentioned in the article. Many (smaller than the Democratic Party and Republican Party, obviously) left-wing parties in the U.S. itself are also anti-statist, etc. Zozs (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It is a misrepresentation of the source which says that this is the "American creed", and "Both left- and right-wing politicians in the United States profess mistrust of government and stress the virtues of free market competition." (pp. 135-136)[2] I note too that the source did not refer to equality of opportunity or of outcome, just "egalitarianism." TFD (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a relative/absolute problem to me. The relative left in the US and the relative right are Dems and Reps. Mrdthree (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the US usage is important enough to be mentioned. Note that this is not about what the Right "is" but rather is about the language that the Right commonly uses. Examples of this rhetoric abound. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You need a source that explains how it differs from usage elsewhere. I do not think it does. TFD (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Right-Of-Centre

There are various sources on this and other websites as well as in mainstream media and society that refer to the term "right-of-centre/center". Would it not be a good idea to include a new section in the main article to define the concept? It seems necessary to me because the terms "centre-right", "right-of-centre" and "right-wing", while sounding similar, describe materially different political positions. For example, in the European Parliament, there is the centre-right European People's Party (EPP) group, the right-of-centre group of European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) and the right-wing European Alliance for Freedom (EAF). Each of these groups ideologies diverge significantly from on another, as such I believe it would be wise if terms used to describe said ideologies left little room for ambiguity. The term "right-of-centre" could also possibly include some of the less radical Eurosceptic political parties in the Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) group as well as parties from elsewhere in the world that subscribe to certain schools of conservatism. What I would like to see is the political spectrum content on Wikipedia include stand-alone articles for "Right-of-centre politics" as well as "Left-of-centre politics" alongside the established main poltical positions. Though, an alternative, and potentially better solution, seeing as they are both fairly short, could be for the articles Centre-right politics and Centre-left to be expanded and respectively renamed "Centre-right/Right-of-centre politics" and "Centre-left/Left-of-centre politics". If you agree with me, I would appreciate any assistance in this endeavour.

MBFCPresident (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The article discusses the different segments of the Right. But I do not think your terminology is standard. TFD (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Eridu Dreaming's deletion

ERIDU-DREAMING deleted a sentence with the following reason: "Was Stalin opposed to the ruling class? Deleted silly statement." The statement said, among other things, that the original meaning of left-wing was opposition to the ruling class, which is true. Stalin came along much later. However, since the sentence was unreferenced, I will not revert the deletion. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Inequality

On what planet is "right wing" determined to be a belief in inequality being a cool idea? That is just complete nonsense, to be honest. Let's clean up the introduction to the page to accurately reflect reality, rather than the smears of George Soros :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.254.41 (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You can follow the links to the sources and see where they were published. If you have reliable sources presenting a different view, then please provide them. I do not think they believe inequality is "cool", just that people are not equal and cab bever be equal and ignoring that fact is unrealistic. TFD (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to assume your comment was made in good faith, and, like TFD, suggest you read some of the sources. You have been misinformed about what the phrase "right-wing" means. As a typical example, from the book I happen to be reading today, "The Age of Napoleon" by Will and Ariel Durant, page 34, "Despite such democratic trimmings, the election sent to the Legislative Assembly a substantial minority dedicated to preserving the monarchy. These 264 "Feuillants" occupied the right section of the hall, and thereby gave a name to conservatives everywhere." Any other book picked at random, except those explicitly supporting Right-wing causes, will use the word in that way: support for the upper class. America does not have a king, but it does have an upper class, who collectively have most of the wealth and power. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That is complete and utter nonsense of the highest order. Cut the bias interpretations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.13.55 (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Check out Will Durant, author of what you call "complete and utter nonsense of the highest order", winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and one of the 20th century's leading historians. Compare his credentials with the credentials of the sources you get your information from. Wikipedia uses reliable sources, not unsupported opinion. Once again, I am assuming good faith, I think you actually believe the things you say. I'm just suggesting you read a little more widely, and keep an open mind. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI in the US many in the upper class are considered to be 'left-wing', for instance George Soros, as of late Warren Buffet, many survivors of the Rockefeller family, and depending on wealth and influence level many others, see Liberal Elite. Mrdthree (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course many upper class people are 'left-wing' if you use 'left-wing' to mean liberal. And many lower class people are 'right-wing', in the sense that they vote Republican. If you are asking why people often vote against their own apparent self-interest, that's a question for sociologists. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

They are only considered to be left-wing by the extreme right. TFD (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Mrdthree's edit

Please explain what it is about the introduction to which you object. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Conservatism in the United States and right wing politics are different than in Europe where this analysis mainly focuses. Conservatism in the United States has as a starting point a European Liberal pov, and lacks the baggage of aristocracy, except in how one chooses to interpret slavery (which was ended by the Republican party). Mrdthree (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

You are confusing Liberal/Conservative with party identity. The Republicans of the 1860's were the liberal factions of the old Whig party, with new northern anti-slavery democrats. There was a re-alignment of the political spectrum, several in fact. Dave Dial (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The Whig Party (United States) died out over the question of hierarchy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdthree (talk • contribs)

I don't know what that(even if partially true) has to do with the price of tea in China? It's common knowledge that abolitionists and anti-slavery Whigs helped form the Republican party, and there were several political spectrum realignments from 1860-1980. In other words, in 1860, "conservative" didn't equal Republican, and Right-Wing certainly did not. Dave Dial (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The article acknowledges that there are different ideologies that are considered right-wing, and that it has varied over time. Incidentally slavery was never a left-right issue. Conservatives, liberals and socialists were all divided over it. Can you point to any statement in the article that is inaccurate? TFD (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence: 'Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social hierarchy or social inequality'. A true definition must hold for all instances of the topic or it needs to be qualified. In the United States this statement only holds true for the Social Conservatism movement. How does it account for Libertarianism in the United States or Fiscal Conservatism? In the United States there is a large faction of the right wing that does not believe in social hierarchy. The extinct Federalist Party is more akin to Conservatism of the type that exists in Europe. As the page on Conservatism in the United States explains, all major parties in the US grow out of a classical liberal republican ideology. Mrdthree (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

If I read the first sentence in the most broad way possible i.e. Right wing politics believe social inequality happens naturally in any system and find its acceptable.... I am ok with it. But if I read it so broadly I cant imagine there are any Left Wingers who would disagree with it either. Mrdthree (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. The problem is that as society has changed, conservatives have been increasingly replaced on the Right by liberals, and in some cases even socialists, their traditional opponents. We seem to be saying that the liberals accept hierarchy when they are part of the Right but not when they are part of the center even though they have not changed. It is just that political center shifted with the emergence of more radical parties.

For example, in Venezuela the Right used to be conservatives and they were opposed by liberals, Christian democrats and social democrats. But with the emergence of Chavez, all these groups came together as the "right-wing" opposition to Chavez.

TFD (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That sounds true. I think what the first sentence needs is a qualifier that acknowledges there is a continuum of views or a temporal component to the definition; Its not about social order its about more or less social order (or if you are right wing, this or that social order). Besides no one really believes in absolute social equality there is always the social consequences of the gregarious and shy. Two possible ways to acknowledge that the temporal variability and continuum of views: Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that generally seek to preserve a historical or current social order and accept or support social hierarchy or social inequality. or Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that generally seek or support relatively more social hierarchy or social inequality. Mrdthree (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

My other thought is that if this were a Value debate, right wingers would have already lost. The editors have already framed both right and left wings in terms of their orientations towards the value 'equality', and I think left-wing ideologies are in fact primarily oriented towards engineering 'equality'. As the opening sentence indicates, right wingers arent primarily oriented towards engineering equality. Mentioning only one value to differentiate these ideologies makes the left motivated by equality for equality's sake (arguably pro-social) and the right motivated by inequality for inequality's sake (arguably antisocial). I dont think right-wingers are motivated by inequality for inequality's sake. I think they justify inequality because they believe another value supercedes equality. I think its likely a ledger-like notion of justice where there is a universal set of rules that metes out rewards and punishments that accrue to different parties. Having rules reinforces social order which is different value than social inequality. Mrdthree (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The lead says "Manifestations of right-wing politics are affected by cultural norms of societies. In the United States, the political language of the Right includes: anti-statism involving a general mistrust of government, individualism, support of equality of opportunity while rejecting equality of outcome, and populism." which sounds about right to me. Libertarianism has never been right-wing, and the people who call themselves right-libertarian have allied themselves with social conservatives, but are only right-wing to the extent that they have rejected libertarian views and adopted conservative views. As Lincoln said, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. This article cannot possibly explain every viewpoint that anyone who has ever called themselves right-wing has ever expressed. The phrase would become even more meaningless than it already is. We might as well replace the article by a statement "Right-wing doesn't mean anything. Go away." Rick Norwood (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah but I still think it misses the point to define right wing politics as being the antithesis of what left wing politics values most (equality).Mrdthree (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Its even more preferable to say right-wing politics are generally conservative and interested in preserving existing social order. Nor is it too far to imagine someone saying right wing politics are primarily concerned wiht social order, morality and justice. Mrdthree (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that right-wing is more than just the rejection of left-wing. But to suggest that right-wing believes in truth, justice, and the American way is equally specious. The Right supports God, king, and country. Have they changed since the French Revolution? Not that much. God is still the touchstone of the Right, they wouldn't exist without the religious Right. In America they don't have a king to support, but they support the aristocracy, the upper class, the rich, white, Christian male. And they are desperately ambivalent, like the guy in the news this week who, with a few hundred members of his militia, stood off the American police, saying that he did not recognize the United States of America as existing, while posing in front of an American flag. They hate America and they hate anyone who doesn't love America. How do you define a group that has no trouble in believing in two contradictory things at the same time? Rick Norwood (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thats pretty funny. Yeah, thats the red meat of right wing radio so maybe those sociology books have thought about that and the answer is hidden somewhere on page 2. Mrdthree (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone put an edit in that drops inequality. I reverted it because Im curious about the reasoning. Maybe the thing to do is to reread the article and try and make a summary statement about the article content. I tend to think an appeal to conservativism copuld provides an affirmative statement about right-wing politics : to preserve an ideal or current social order. Even better the existing sentence in the body: The original Right in France was formed as a reaction against the Left, and comprised those politicians supporting hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism Mrdthree (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There is already plenty of material in the notes to the first sentence. In particular, ref name="T. Alexander Smith 2003. p. 30" T. Alexander Smith, Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at war: moral conflicts in western democracies. Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd, 2003. p. 30. "That viewpoint is held by contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality or political participation.' In other words, the sociological perspective sees preservationist politics as a right-wing attempt to defend privilege within the social hierarchy." Mrdthree (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

WHy not just paraphrase the quote? Right wing politics are social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values. Put it in front an leave all the subsequent contrasting points and elaborating points where they are? Mrdthree (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Also back in 2005 it was interestingly claimed that the right wing is defined by negation-- it is the forces opposed to the left wing. In politics, right-wing, the political right, or simply the right, are terms which refer, with no particular precision, to the segment of the political spectrum in opposition to left-wing politics.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right-wing_politics&diff=14650956&oldid=14641489 Mrdthree (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

How do you describe liberals who happen to be party of the Right? TFD (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I dont like the definition that Smith and Tatolovich give. I just think its an attempt to be balanced since it recognizes a motivation for right wing politics beyond inequality. From the history given in the article it does appear that the meaning of right and left has to do with traditionalists vs. egalitarian ideology.. As for liberals, I wonder if the problems of defining 'Right-wing' go away when a 2D political spectrum is used rather than a 1D political spectrum? I think people resist using 2D political spectrums but I think they are designed to try and answer the problem of liberals (Nolan chart, Political compass). But do they make all the other problems about defining Right wing also go away? Mrdthree (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a fineal critique is the current definition is over-reliant on Norberto Bobbio, alternative framings exist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics#Relevance_of_the_terms_today. Mrdthree (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Smith and Tatolovich were not defining the Right, they were defining the extreme right, that is, political movements seen as being to the right of the traditional right-wing parties (conservatives, liberals and Christian democrats). In other words, they meant nativists, klansmen and the Tea Party, not the Republican Party mainstream, or parties such as the UK Conservatives, the German Christian Democrats or even traditional European conservatism. The limited value of the 2D spectrum is that actual legislatures tend to divide into two opposing groups, not four, and that is true both in the U.S. with two parties and France with many. TFD (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that, until quite recently, both "right-wing" and "left-wing" were always used pejoratively. You called someone right-wing meaning they were racist or fascist, you called someone left-wing meaning they were communist. The big change in how these words were used came out of conservative "think tanks", who began to use "left wing" to mean liberal and to imply liberals were all socialists, socialists were all communists, and since communism had failed, that "proved" that liberalism had failed. But if they were going to call liberals left-wing, they were stuck with the label right-wing, which meant that they needed to rebrand right-wing to mean something entirely other than what it originally meant. One definition they attempted (which echoes Mrdthree's claim that right-wing means "social order, morality and justice") was to assert that right-wing means "good", so all conservatives are good, and left-wing means "bad", so all liberals are bad. That has only worked with the less well-informed conservatives. Mrdthree obviously knows better. So the next attempt was to rebrand right-wing to mean small government. That attempt has been more successful, except that they actually support big government: big military, big government to deport Hispanics, big government to imprison law-breakers, big government to restrict voter registration, big government to restrict abortion. So the claim that the new meaning of right-wing is small government doesn't really hold water. It is propaganda, not descriptive of what the Right actually says and votes for. Which is the problem with following Mrdthree's suggestion that we just report what the Right says they believe in. If the Left says they believe in God, motherhood, and apple pie, should that be the definition Wikipedia uses? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Alas -- we can not use what any editor "knows" about the history of the terms - we have to rely on what actual reliable sources state. And they appear to state that the terms are not well-defined as such, and that the meanings ascribed to them vary from place to place, time to time, and context to context. So far as calling any usage "propaganda" - that sort of claim would have to be made by a reliable source, and not by any editor. And since there is no single thing which the "entire Right Wing believes in", clearly that is rather a Straw Man argument in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

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

I agree with you, Collect. I was not proposing an edit -- when I do that I cite sources. I was explaining why we don't just report what a group or person says about themselves, and instead require scholarly sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it a American vs. British English thing? Are both you guys from the UK? Mrdthree (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Its not just me. I typed "right-wing" and google and spat back the definition i thought it meant! the conservative or reactionary side of political party or system. I am no expert in sociology but if sociology is the only field that defines right-wing as pro-inequality then preface the first sentence with Sociologists define 'right-wing' .... Mrdthree (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Conservatism is opposed to equality and reaction is really opposed to it. And you do not need to be an expert in sociology to know that academic disciplines do not operate in isolation. TFD (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You could be right and I could be wrong. I will do research. I will check the top 3 dictionaries, political science text books, Economic textbooks, and sociology textbooks. (or their substitutes on google books). Journalism textbook? Mrdthree (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

DICTIONARIESpretty much standard definition of right as conservative and absolutely no mention of hierarchy or equality in these dictionaries: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right%20wing,http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/right-wing?s=t, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/right-wing. I even like the Wiktionary definition better too. Although it wass rewritten from the standard dictionary form by User:Robin Lionheart in 2010, its better because it at least acknowledges traditionalism over the straw man philosophies of inequalitism and hierarchicalism. Mrdthree (talk) 08:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

POLITICAL SCIENCE TEXTBOOKS ON GOOGLE: Search "political science, an introduction" on google books. Then "left right" (found this to be most useful as leftwing, rightwing usually lead to discussion without definition. nothing about hierarchicalism or inequalitism yet. One book defines by traditionalist morality http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=LZKSMxXKQ6EC&pg=PR23&dq=political+science+an+introduction&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pBZeU7c6jd3wBe7WgYgO&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBjgU#v=onepage&q=left%20right&f=false. Mrdthree (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Still searching but I still like this gem of a definition from this page on 2011 because it acknowledges a motive other than inequalitarianism. In politics, Right, right-wing and rightist are generally used to describe support for preserving traditional social orders and hierarchies

Reference: T. Alexander Smith, Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at war: moral conflicts in western democracies. Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd, 2003. Pp 30. "That viewpoint is held by contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality or political participation.' In other words, the sociological perspective sees preservationist politics as a right-wing attempt to defend privilege within the social hierarchy.

Reference: Left and right: the significance of a political distinction, Norberto Bobbio and Allan Cameron, pg. 37, University of Chicago Press, 1997.

Reference: Seymour Martin Lipset, cited in Fuchs, D., and Klingemann, H. 1990. The left-right schema. Pp.203–34 in Continuities in Political Action: A Longitudinal Study of Political Orientations in Three Western Democracies, ed.M.Jennings et al. Berlin:de Gruyter

Reference: Lukes, Steven. 'Epilogue: The Grand Dichotomy of the Twentieth Century': concluding chapter to T. Ball and R. Bellamy (eds.), The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Political Thought. Pp.610–612

Reference: Clark, William. Capitalism, not Globalism. University of Michigan Press, 2003. ISBN 0-472-11293-7, 9780472112937</ref>, although, since at least Edmund Burke, the political Right has also been linked with advocacy of free market capitalism. The second part isnt necessary since not all people advocating capitalist reforms are 'right' wing (e.g. Iranian liberals, NOrth Korean liberals). Mrdthree (talk) 09:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Another Bizarre point. There is a link to Anti-statist philosophies on the right wing page, but not on the left wing page. Anti-statist Right wingers are an extreme minority, most are for limited government which is not 'no government'. Meanwhile the loaded term 'anti-statist' never makes an appearance on the left wing page which drones on and on about anarchists and socialist libertarians. Mrdthree (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Your edit, Mrdthree, was reverted. I hope you understand why it was reverted. It was reverted because the words you used are too extreme, and only apply to what is called the extreme Right. The more moderate right do not want to openly enforce social stratification, but consider that social stratification is the natural order of things. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No prob they were both minor changes. I guess I should ask what to do about point we agree on. You say:I agree that right-wing is more than just the rejection of left-wing. In what way? You did suggest one answer: God is still the touchstone of the Right, they wouldn't exist without the religious Right. Or do you mean in some other way as well?Mrdthree (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

So, this Wikipedia article needs to explain what right-wing means in books, for people who read books, and also what it means in the media. It needs to explain the difference between the religious right and the libertarian right. And it needs to explain what right-wing means in the US, and what it means in the rest of the world. I think it does a pretty good job of that, but it can always be improved.

Aside to Collect: I'm answering a question from Mrdthree, not saying that the above should be in the article. Some of it already is, with footnotes. If I add anything to the article, I supply references. I hope I can express myself a little more freely on the Talk page, as long as I stay on topic. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

So its a word with shifting meaning. I dont understand the confederacy/states rights issue of Southern Republicans or know how the switch happens. Its pretty rare to meet a politician who stands alone on states rights without other baggage. Maybe BUckley "reclaimed" the word or something. Its pretty clear to me that its not an epithet and it is used in some political science textbooks as a scale for coloring political views in a way that agrees with internet definitions of left wing and right wing. For purpose of the article here it would involve a mention of 'tradition' as a reason beyond hierarchy and inequality. Mrdthree (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Lipset wrote about the use of the terms in Political man: the social bases of politics (1960), and quotes Robert M. MacIver on p. 222: "The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes.... The right has been more favorable to the aristocratic position, to the hierarchy of birth or of wealth; the left has fought for the equalization of advantage or of opportunity...." (The Web of Government (1947)). The term "left" was used to refer to socialists, communists and anarchists.[3] The difference is that socialists called themselves left-wing, while conservatives and right-wing liberals did not usually call themselves right-wing, until Buckley rescued the term. TFD (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

How does your analysis explain things like the position of conservatives on gay marriage? Suppose gays are wealthier on average (http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/06/pf/gay-money/). I guess the claim is marriage is a right belonging to a class (straight people) by birth, as in theory most gays are born gay? But what then to do with the traditionalism rationale of conservatives? What if not everyone finds the economic and class analysis of a political position to be the defining way of looking at things? Mrdthree (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned above the alliance between the Religious Right and the Political Right. According to Marx, religion is the opiate of the masses, and by appealing to the popular prejudice against gays, the rich can convince the poor to vote against their own best interest. Another famous saying is that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Thus the Right simultaneously (or almost so) criticize Obama for not wearing an American flag on his lapel and then support people who say that they don't recognize the existence of the American government. Political movements, like individuals, are full of contradictions. Tax cuts for the rich seem common to most conservative movements in the US, as do anti-Hispanic sentiments, a love of guns, and a belief in that Old Time Religion. What brings these disparate groups together? Since the Right started as a movement supporting the upper class and the Roman Catholic Church, and since American conservative leader William F. Buckley, Jr. supported the upper class and the Roman Catholic church, that sounds like a place to start. Since distrust of people who are "different" is common to both the American and European Right, that is an important commonality. Then we have the Libertarian strain, which is considered right-wing in America and liberal in Europe. I don't have all the answers. Politics makes strange bedfellows. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia must reflect the views of those who have though along and hard about commonalities as well as contradictions in political movements.Rick Norwood (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Conservatives instinctively resist social change because of fear that the social hierarchy will weaken. But intelligent conservatives accept change and sometimes drive it, when they realize it is inevitable and poses no threat to social order. Pitt supported emancipation, Peel supported free trade, Disraeli supported universal suffrage, Churchill supported the welfare state and Cameron supports same sex marriage. But the torches and pitchfork brigade are not conservatives, Roosevelt called them that as an epithet and they adopted the term. TFD (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

OK I dont know anymore. I started reading the other political spectrum pages and I get better what it means to say these articles are arranged by degree in the spectrum. E.g. there are 7 pages arranged by degree far left, left wing, centerleft,center, centerright, right wing, far right. Is this correct? Mrdthree (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

If so how does this page alert the reader that this is the context in which this article is written? The context is dissonant since as Norwood points out there is a growing conventional simplifying use of the terms left wing and right wing. Mrdthree (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The terms are used in both a relative and an absolute sense. As for the other articles, they are really dictionary terms. Only far right has a specific meaning. Generally, writers use more specific terms such as liberal, conservative, socialist, etc. TFD (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

well I think in the absolute sense the definition on top is imbalanced by its failure to reference a what most sources agree is a defining trait of the right wing: a support of traditional societal views. Does the current definition actually rests on a singular source by excluding tradition? On a relative scale most of what I would expect is in centre right article but it sort of raises an original research claim as to how editors dovide issues and positions Mrdthree (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Tradition is essential to conservatism. The right-wing is similar, but not identical, being much more inclined to racism, anti-immigration, and support of the dominant class and religion. For example, a libertarian may support the American tradition of free enterprise and individualism, while not expressing the hatred of Blacks and Hispanics that is better described as right-wing. In Europe, a person who supports racial purity would be called right-wing, while a person who supports free enterprise would be called a liberal. As far as I know, these terms only overlap in America, and only because of the way the Republican Party has chosen to construct their political propaganda. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Contemporary societies have generally moved from more stratified to less. So its hard to imagine a case where a racist, anti-immigrant, aristocrat or whatever couldnt be described as motivated by tradition. Mrdthree (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but we need to focus on suggestions for improving the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

See Steven Lukes' "Epilogue" to the Cambridge History of Twentieth Century Political Thought, pp. 30-33.[4] Eatwell and O'Sullivan's definition of the Right as a reaction to the Left is generally accepted. The other definitions provided relate to either part of the Right, such as conservatism, or to the left-right continuum. While absolute equality/inequality may represent the most extreme of left and right positions, they do not describe the vast majority of positions in between. Also, the dividing line of the Right has moved to the left. Ideologies that are considered right-wing today would not have been considered right-wing two hundred years ago. TFD (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

well I say put it to a sources vote. If the majority of sources use the word 'traditional' or a derivative then put it in the lede. If the majority of sources say inequality only then fine. I just dont like the dual purpose of this page-- describing political positions on a continuum and absolutely. Mrdthree (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The page has to describe how the word is actually used, and it is used sometimes to describe an absolute worldview, traditional, and sometimes used to describe a position on a continuum, conservative vs. liberal. The real-world use of language is complicated, and we need to reflect that.Rick Norwood (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I read some of the first reference. It is available here http://cnqzu.com/library/Politics/Bobbio-Norberto-Left-and-Right-Significance-Political-Distinction.pdf. The central thesis of the book, the inequality/equaltiy distinction is discussed and it is described as controversial in the introduction, page x--Having defended the distinction, Bobhio then moves on to argue that the left tends towards equality and the right tends towards inequality. This theory has caused considerable debate in the Italian press, and the alternative proposals are discussed in detail in Bobhio's ' Reply to the Critics' at the end of the book. The remainder of the book details how the hitherto conventional view of the right is one of traditionalism. At least thats my skim. Citation 4 seems to support the inclusion of tradition (see footnotes on 4), and a skim of Encyclopedia of politics: The left and the right / Rodney P. Carlisle (available here http://cnqzu.com/library/To%20Organize/Books/%5BRodney_P._Carlisle%5D_Encyclopedia_of_Politics._The%20Right.pdf) reinforces this conventional definition The terms left and right are derived from the political divisions of the French Constituent Assembly....The terms left and right stuck, with the left usually representing the radicals of politics and the right representing the conservatives.... He then documents borderline cases (fascists (right), internationalists (left), protectionists (right/left)). It doesnt seem like he undertakes an attempt at a broad definition. Mrdthree (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you are mixing up definition and description. We could for example compare the views of Democratic and Republican congressmen and find where their typical differences lie. But the definition of a Republican is not what he supports or opposes, but what party he belongs to. Carlyle provides a definition, i.e., what groups are part of the right, while Bobbio provides a description of how views vary along the left-right continuum. But I do not think that there is much opposition to Bobbio's view on equality as the main distinction. Conservative scholars for example clearly state that they oppose equality. TFD (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said, complicated. And we can't write a book, so we must summarize many sources. I think this article does a fair job of that now, but it can always be improved.Rick Norwood (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

left wing politics carries this sentence at end of paragraph one, which is a fair way to account for both the absolute and relative meanings of the term which is an issue otherwise not explicitly addressed-- In two party systems, the terms "left" and "right" are now sometimes used as labels for the two parties, with one party designated as the "left" and the other "right", even when neither party is "left-wing" in the original sense of being opposed to the ruling class. Mrdthree (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. One more change, eliminating the redundancy. I like it alot now which can only mean :( bad things for discussion . But I think it is a true statement. But if you dont like it I may call it a day and hibernate again. Mrdthree (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that is correct. The U.S. is AFAIK the only country with a two party system and the only one where the term "left" is applied to a non-socialist party. Although even in the U.S., a search of Google books for "American Left" mostly returns books about U.S. socialists,[5] TFD (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I get a bunch of books about the american left by David Horowitz when I hit your link, so I think we need to link through a proxy. Mrdthree (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

His four books probably hit the top because he is a popular writer and his last book just came out. But there are 142,000 hits and you can look at the first few pages. And Horowitz is writing about U.S. socialists too. TFD (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Well it may be a minority usage among books but I dont know thats true. I guess theres fertile ground in there to find books to recraft the statement so that it better reflects the relative usage of the term. Mrdthree (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you name any country (other than the U.S.) where the term "left" is used to refer to a non-socialist party? TFD (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I found an error in the Google search methodology for defining right wing in america-- this page is about right wing politics. It is not about far right wing or radical right wing politics. So in regards to finding books about right wing politics in america one must eliminate search terms such as terrorism, far right, extremism, dictatorships, radical right, extreme, violent, and the like. Mrdthree (talk) 06:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand the desire of people on the Right to redefine "Right" to mean "good Right, not bad Right". People on the Left are similarly inclined. But Wikipedia cannot redefine terms, but can only report how they are, in fact, used. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Mrdthree, I do not think that is an error. Usually the term "right-wing" in the US and other English-speaking countries refers to extremists, although the colloquial usage of left and right to refer in the U.S. to liberals and conservatives is gaining ground. TFD (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

One danger in the increasingly common confusion between the Right and Conservatives, and between the Left and Liberals, is that these usages are used by both sides to equate moderates on the other side with extremists. Thus, Republicans call the moderately conservative Obama "extreme Left" hoping to convince people he is a communist, and Democrats call the moderately liberal George W. Bush "extreme Right" hoping to convince people he is a racist. Properly used (that is, as the words are used by thoughtful people) the Conservatives are the moderate Right. There is nothing Conservative about the neo-Nazis and other extreme right-wing groups in the US. They vote Republican, but most Republicans repudiate them. Similarly, the Liberals are the middle, not left-wing at all. There is nothing Liberal about the American Communist Party. They vote Democrat, but most Democrats repudiate them. Does anyone have a good source for the idea that "right-wing" is generally used for people more extreme than mainstream conservatives? If so, I think that should be in the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

More notably per Time article on the politics of the next generation - they heavily call themselves "liberal" and "socialist" but using far different definitions than used generally heretofore - they also appear heavily in favour of private enterprise and low taxes/government spending, but with such things as guaranteed health care [6]. Collect (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The Time Magazine article was interesting, and I was glad you provided a link to it, but neither Time nor Reason, Time's source, are reliable academic sources. Time is a reliable source for news, but not for opinion pieces. Reason is a self-proclaimed partisan conservative source, though with high standards given its mission to promote "free minds and free markets". Rick Norwood (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not propose using the article as an "academic source", and I would note many sources used on political issues are not "academic sources" in any event. That noted, the result of a poll is not an "opinion piece" in the normal context of that term - Reason Foundation appears to be a "libertarian think tank" - which does not make it a "partisan conservative source" AFAICT. The Arthur N. Rupe Foundation also appears unconnected to any political party AFAICT. And I find no policy whatsoever in Wikipedia which says a reliable source is not a reliable source for "opinion pieces" in any event - Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. is what you seem to be thinking of, but poll results are "statements of fact" and not "statements of opinion" by Wikipedia standards and usage. In fact, Time is used as a source for a great many articles on Wikipedia (well over 10,000 to be on the low end). See also [7], [8] , representing two more reliable sources covering the dichotomies concerned. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The piece on the Time web page is labeled "opinion" and is written by a editor of Reason. The poll itself, which is here: http://reason.com/assets/db/2014-millennials-report.pdf may be a reliable source. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

And once again Time is a reliable source for opinion columns. The poll itself, however, is not opinion, and is cited in a number of other reliable sources. Clear? Collect (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course, clear. But this isn't an article about somebody's opinion, and I said "the poll may be a reliable source". No need to shout.Rick Norwood (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually a huge amount of the current article is not "empirical fact" as the terms used have widely disparate meanings from place to place and time to time. Vide "socialist" and "liberal" as determined by the poll of Millennials where the definitions are very different from, say, European usage by a few thousand miles. Collect (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Type in "right-wing" to Google books and the results are mostly for extremists rather than mainstream groups.[9] The mainstream " conservative, Christian Democrat and like-minded political parties" self-identify as "centre and centre-right."[10]

The poll is interesting. (Odd too that the Republicans would help establish a group, the International Democrat Union, whose name combines three things they hate.) What makes the U.S. exceptional is the degree of shared political beliefs. There are no arguments about the monarchy, the established church, or capitalism, but there has always been a tendency to describe political opponents in extreme terms. Just as "conservative" was a term of abuse in the U.S., maybe in the future Democrats will call themselves socialists.

TFD (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Collect? The lead to the article says "The term "right wing" has been used to refer to a number of different political positions through history." Is this not "empirical fact"?Rick Norwood (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I brought up a current news item which is "on point" for this article. Opinions != "empirical facts" and the lead basically says "there is no single actual definition for the term" which is not much of a "fact" in itself. The article then lists certain "characteristics" which are clearly called into question as far as Millennials are concerned per the poll. We are at a point where all the old definitions of "right wing" are basically cast adrift. Collect (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The poll did not ask people what they thought the term right-wing meant. TFD (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The words "socialist" and "liberal" hold decidedly different meanings for Millennials per the poll.

First, millennials don’t fall into the traditional left-right mold of American politics. A considerable number see themselves as socially liberal and economically conservative (17%) and some as socially conservative and economically liberal (6%).

Seems salient. And even the Nolan Chart cannot help much on them. Collect (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not see the relevance. This article is not about "the traditional left-right mold of American politics." TFD (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)