Talk:Wingnut (politics)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Disambiguation

How does one go about fixing the link to 'wingnut' so that it doesn't point to a tree? It should be obvious to anyone who is not a tree that the most common usage of the term 'wingnut' today is in the political context and not the arborial one.66.245.81.219 12:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

==hmm== not sure when the lowbrow political shit-slingers appropriated this term, but it has been around for decades, as a way of describing crazy people (like the wingnuts down at the soup kitchen). I think the political usage is rather recent, but as politics turns up in print far more often than street slang, I suppose it doesn't matter.

  • Maybe it has been changed since the opening post, but it points to a disambiguation page, as it should. The term wingnut has so many meanings that we cannot assume that everyone who types it into the search box is a Moonbat looking for the political usage. - Crockspot (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

deletion

I will edit this page so it does not get deleted. I will try to do that before the Aug 6 deadline, but if I need to remove the tag to extend the deadline, please assume good faith on my part.Kanmalachoa 20:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

don't delete it. There's plenty of wiki articles on derogatory names for leftists -SWF

This article says that the right uses it more often than the left does. One would like to point out that may be related to the general right-wing policy of insults as debate. -Homa Sapiens —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.199.228 (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I consult Wikipedia for up-to-date information and explanations of terms I'm not clear on. I was a bit late in looking up "wingnut"--the article has been deleted. Surely a factual NPOV version belongs in WP. Google finds 1,040,000 instances for wingnut politics--a prima facie case for WP inclusion, I'd say. No problem finding a reference, it's right here in the WP article on Moonbat:

Safire, William. "On Language: Moonbats, wingnuts", New York Times/Intl. Herald-Tribune, 2006-09-03. Retrieved on 2007-03-18.

Another Safire NYT column, courtesy of the Taipei Times archive: 

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2004/04/11/2003136244

Safire, William. "On Language: `Wing nut:' do we need a new name to call extremists? New York Times/Taipei Times, 2004-04-11.

And an academic source:

Glowka, Arthur Wayne. "Among the New Words" American Speech, Volume 75, Number 2, Summer 2000, pp. 184-198.

4granite 08:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

POV issues

This article seems to be POV-pushing hard (e.g. comparing Trump supporters to wingnuts, deplorables mentions, Mother Jones as a source (though this is the only source that's bad), potential liberal bias, and seemingly marking political views that the editor doesn't like as "wingnut" traits).

I'm not sure how to fix this because this is basically the whole freaking article. James1011R (talk, contribs) 10:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Seems like the article has been reverted to a good version. Thanks Drmies. James1011R (talk, contribs) 18:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

"primarily those considered to be right wing. "

Do what? For as long as I can remember "wingnut" (whether politically or otherwise) has simply meant "crazy person". If anything, I have encountered it more often being said by people more-or-less on the right.. And the only times I've encountered the supposed "left wing" version "moonbat" were sources from the 1960s.--Khajidha (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

  • (1) My experience is exactly the opposite of yours. I have only heard "wingnut" used to refer to "right-wing nuts." That is the sense used by John Avlon in his book Wingnuts: Extremism in the Age of Obama. I don't recall ever hearing it used to mean "left-wing nut", perhaps because there is no "left-wing" of any size or importance in the U.S.
(2) Regardless of either of our experiences, we do not write Wikipedia articles based on them, but instead based on what WP:reliable sources say. If you have citations from reliable sources showing "wingnut" as being used for those on the left-wing, please provide them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
All three references on which this article is based define it the same way. Here is the proof:

Reference 1: "Russia proved highly susceptible to the lure of what, in current parlance, would be called wingnuts (fanatics on the far left or right). — The Economist" Conclusion: This term refers to "fanatics on the far left or right", as clearly stated in the reference. Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wingnut Reference 2: "Alan Grayson, the Liberals’ Problem Child", David M. Herszenhorn Conclusion: The term "wingnut" is being used to refer to a person considered "liberal", so its use is clearly not exclusively for the far-right. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/weekinreview/01herszenhorn.html Reference 3: Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America, John Avlon: "someone on the far-right wing or far-left wing of the political spectrum—the professional partisans, the unhinged activists and the paranoid conspiracy theorists. They're the people who always try to divide rather than unite us". Conclusion: The term is used to refer to "someone on the far-right wing or far-left wing of the political spectrum", as clearly stated in the reference. Source: https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2010/05/16/six-questions-for-john-avlon So it has nothing to do with personal experience. Please follow the WP:reliable sources and stop this. --Nicholas0 (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Attempted removal of category

An editor is attempting to remove the category "Far-right politics in the United States", on the grounds that the article says that the term "Wingnut" can be used about people on the right and the left. However, logically, that doesn't make the category inappropriate, instead it would be an argument for the addition of the category "Far-left politics in the United States". For this reason I have reverted the removal, and warned the editor about WP:BRD on their talk page after they restored their edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

That is a drastic misrepresentation of what happened. I do not appreciate these lies and unsourced claims about my grounds for my edit. I most certainly did use the prefix "far-". That is why the category "Category:Extremism" fits. That has always been the definition and that is the definition as it was stated on that page and in all references when I made that edit. I never once mentioned the "left" or the "far-left" at any point, so you cannot claim that that was my grounds for my edit. That is an outright lie. I never wrote that. You are just making up things now. You cannot make up lies and then attribute them to me. Here is the proof that you are lying:
  • curprev 15:53, 30 January 2022‎ Nicholas0 talk contribs‎ 1,781 bytes −55‎ This article and its references state that the term is used for extremists of any sort, not just far-right. undo Tag: Reverted
  • curprev 16:51, 30 January 2022‎ Beyond My Ken talk contribs‎ 1,836 bytes +55‎ Undid revision 1068874217 by Nicholas0 (talk) Discuss undothank Tags: Undo Reverted
  • curprev 17:28, 30 January 2022‎ Nicholas0 talk contribs‎ 1,781 bytes −55‎ Undid revision 1068884776 by Beyond My Ken (talk) Reverting "undo" that was performed without an explanation. The term "wingnut", as defined in this very article and in all of the linked references, is not specifically about "far-right" politics. Therefore this category does not apply. If you revert this again then you will be edit warring. This is your warning. undo Tags: Undo Reverted

As you can see, I very clearly used the prefix "far-" in both edits, so stop lying that it was "on the grounds that the article says that the term "Wingnut" can be used about people on the right and the left." I never wrote that. Furthermore, you never mentioned anything about the prefix "far-" at any point. To claim that you "warned" me about the edit is absurd, because I am actually the one who warned you to follow the WP:reliable sources instead of simply executing a knee-jerk undo without providing any explanation. You should always follow the WP:reliable sources and provide an explanation for reverts. It's common practice on Wikipedia that everyone should follow. I based my edit on the three references quoted in the article. It's not a bold edit by any means. You provided no such information yet now you are attempting to make it seem as though it has something to do with a missing "far-" prefix, even though "far-" is explicitly stated in the quoted reference: "someone on the far-right wing or far-left wing of the political spectrum". Your argument holds absolutely no ground. It's very clearly stated as "far-right" or "far-left" extremists. Here is all the proof that you need:

All three references on which this article is based define it the same way. Here is the proof:

Reference 1: "Russia proved highly susceptible to the lure of what, in current parlance, would be called wingnuts (fanatics on the far left or right). — The Economist" Conclusion: This term refers to "fanatics on the far left or right", as clearly stated in the reference. Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wingnut Reference 2: "Alan Grayson, the Liberals’ Problem Child", David M. Herszenhorn Conclusion: The term "wingnut" is being used to refer to a person considered "liberal", so its use is clearly not exclusively for the far-right. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/weekinreview/01herszenhorn.html Reference 3: Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America, John Avlon: "someone on the far-right wing or far-left wing of the political spectrum—the professional partisans, the unhinged activists and the paranoid conspiracy theorists. They're the people who always try to divide rather than unite us". Conclusion: The term is used to refer to "someone on the far-right wing or far-left wing of the political spectrum", as clearly stated in the reference. Source: https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2010/05/16/six-questions-for-john-avlon Please follow the WP:reliable sources and stop this. Please stop attempting to rewrite history by claiming that a missing "far-" prefix was the cause of your edit when that was the status quo and had nothing to do with it. You never mentioned it in your "undo" nor in your initial comments on our respective talk pages so you're not fooling anyone. You are the only one preventing multiple editors from removing a category that simply does not apply according to the definitions presented in the article itself and in its references. It's the facts against you. Please follow the WP:reliable sources and stop this. --Nicholas0 (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I don;t have a clue what you're talking about. If you want to add the "Far-left" category, go right ahead, but the fact remains that "wingnut" began as a shortening of "right wing nut", and it is usually applied to those on the right, and not on the left. I'm sorry that you're unhapp with that fact, but that doesn;t justify your removal of an appropriate category. Please do keep in mind that since there is an ongoing discussion, you cannot make contested changes with a WP:CONSENSUS to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Now this editor Beyond My Ken has added in the statement "primarily those considered to be right wing. The word is a shortening of "right-wing nut"." without providing any references at all for any of these claims. Unsourced information is unwelcome on Wikipedia. This is your fourth warning now. Stop lying about me. I will prove you wrong every time by quoting the edit history. --Nicholas0 (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I did not "add" anything, I restored material that was in the status quo ante version of the article and should never have been removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:UNSOURCED: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Even if you restored the material, you are still responsible for it being there and you must still provide sources justifying its restoration. The means by which you added the claims are irrelevant. You have added it (by means of restoring it) so you are now responsible for it. Please refer to Wikipedia:UNSOURCED: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". It couldn't be clearer. You are responsible for all of the unsourced claims that you restore to the page. --Nicholas0 (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
All the information is sourced. See the Safire ref. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't see how the "Safire ref." justifies your addition of the claim "The word is a shortening of 'right-wing nut'" or your addition of the category "Category:Far-right politics in the United States". Please refer to Wikipedia:UNSOURCED: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". --Nicholas0 (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

What is the status quo ante of this article?

This article was created as an unsourced sub-stub. [1] At that time, it included this: "A Wingnut is a right wing extremist." By January 1, 2009 [2] the lede sentence read "Wingnut, a term derived from the phrase "right-wing nut," is used in United States politics as a political epithet referring to people who hold extreme conservative or far right views -- especially those who espouse right-wing conspiracy theories."

In January 2010, it included "In American politics, the term is more often aimed at members of the political right than those of the political left." [3] That wording stayed in the lede, with a source, until it was moved to the body of the article in 2017 [4].

In August 2019. with the text above still in the body of the article, this text was added to the lede "... mainly those considered extremely right wing" since the lede is supposed to reflect the body of the article. [5] I copy edited this to read "...primarily those considered to be right wing." [6] and restored the text when it was deleted without explanation by an IP.

This remained the status quo of the article from 2 August 2019 until 30 June 2021, when I added "The word is a shortening of "right-wing nut", again to reflect what was in the body. [7]

Thus the status quo version of the lede read:

"Wingnut" (sometimes wing-nut) is an American political pejorative term referring to a person who holds extreme, and often irrational, political views, primarily those considered to be right wing. The word is a shortening of "right-wing nut".

until 29 July 2021, when User:KorporalKrump, a red-linked editor who had never edited before, and would never edit again, [8] removed the material from both the lede [9] and the body of the article [10].

I didn't come across this change until a few days ago, when I restored it, [11] on the grounds that it represented the status quo of the article in general from 2007, and specifically from 2010. The fact that no one caught the deletion of sourced material from the article for 6 months, does not mean that the new version is necessarily the proper status quo, not given the long history of 14 years in which the article pointed out that the phrase was primarily aimed at the far-right.

My restoration of the material has now become a bone of contention, and I present this information as the prelude to the RfC below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for consensus

Request for consensus: Should the category "Category:Far-right politics in the United States" be removed because the category "Category:Extremism" already properly covers the term "wingnut"? --Nicholas0 (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Responding with Agree/Remove indicates that you agree that the term "wingnut" as defined by the references quoted in this article applies to extremists. By this definition, "Category:Far-right politics in the United States" is too narrow and does not fully cover the scope of the term. It should therefore be removed. The category "Category:Extremism" covers it already. Beyond My Ken claims that "wingnut" "is a shortening of 'right-wing nut'" but refuses to provide any reference to support this. That is the actual origin of this debate. Every time this claim has been removed, Beyond My Ken has restored it without providing a source to justify its restoration, as was done here: [12]. I feel that such unsourced claims should be removed.
Responding with Disagree/Keep indicates that you believe that the term "wingnut" as defined by the references quoted in this article applies exclusively to right-wing extremists in the United States, as Beyond My Ken claims with his additions such as "The word is a shortening of 'right-wing nut'". This claim has now been removed in the meantime, in my opinion rightfully so, but it should be noted that these are the sorts of unsourced claims to which I am referring, because Beyond My Ken has a tendency to attempt to hide this information from the debate.
Explanation: All of the quoted references clearly define the term "wingnut" as applying to extremists. None of them limit it to "far-right" extremists as Beyond My Ken is attempting to do by adding in the category "Category:Far-right politics in the United States" and statements such as "primarily those considered to be right wing" and "The word is a shortening of "right-wing nut"" without providing any sources. Attempts to remove these unsourced claims are repeatedly reverted by Beyond My Ken without any explanation or justification. The broader category "Category:Extremism" applies. Beyond My Ken has drastically misrepresented the intention and course of this debate multiple times so be very careful to always check the edits themselves rather than simply accepting Beyond My Ken's statements as fact. Beyond My Ken is continuously undoing and reverting everyone else's well-considered edits without providing any explanation or justification whatsoever (i.e. edit warring) rather than opening an actual RfC so I am doing it.
All three references on which this article is based define it the same way. Here is the proof:
Reference 1: "Russia proved highly susceptible to the lure of what, in current parlance, would be called wingnuts (fanatics on the far left or right). — The Economist"
Conclusion: This term refers to "fanatics on the far left or right", as clearly stated in the reference.
Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wingnut
Reference 2: "Alan Grayson, the Liberals’ Problem Child", David M. Herszenhorn
Conclusion: The term "wingnut" is being used to refer to a person considered "liberal", so its use is clearly not exclusively for the far-right.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/weekinreview/01herszenhorn.html
Reference 3: Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America, John Avlon: "someone on the far-right wing or far-left wing of the political spectrum—the professional partisans, the unhinged activists and the paranoid conspiracy theorists. They're the people who always try to divide rather than unite us".
Conclusion: The term is used to refer to "someone on the far-right wing or far-left wing of the political spectrum", as clearly stated in the reference.
Source: https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2010/05/16/six-questions-for-john-avlon
As you can see, all of the references are in agreement. So are all of the editors, apart from Beyond My Ken, who is squatting on this page and reverting all reasonable edits in an attempt to force Beyond My Ken's own personal definition onto an otherwise reasonable, fair, and unbiased Wikipedia. Please follow the WP:reliable sources and stop this ridiculous one-man edit war by Beyond My Ken. --Nicholas0 (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

In response to Beyond My Ken's claims that no justification is required for Beyond My Ken's reverts and no sources are required for Beyond My Ken restoring unsourced claims, please refer to the guidelines as per Wikipedia:UNSOURCED: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Even if Beyond My Ken merely restored the material, Beyond My Ken is still responsible for it being there and must still provide sources justifying its restoration. The Wikipedia guidelines on this are very clear. --Nicholas0 (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
This "RfC" is not properly formatted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
And your claim here is unsourced: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wingnut_%28politics%29&type=revision&diff=1068896945&oldid=1068894021 --Nicholas0 (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • ADMINS PLEASE NOTE: With this edit Nicholas0 WP:CANVASsed PackMecEng to this RfC. That and the completely improper formatting of the "RfC" -- no neutral questin to be responded to -- invalidates it as a means to determine consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • ADMINS PLEASE NOTE: with this edit Beyond My Ken is aggressively going after my edits, even to other articles.
Ridiculous. Moonbat is a companion article to this one, being the equivalent for lefties of "wingnut" for righties. I was unaware that we had an article for the term until I was editing this article and went to look to see if I could Wikilink "moonbat". Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC):
I have not made a single edit to either article yet you have made a multitude of edits and reverts to both. Your assumption that one term is a pendant "equivalent" to the other is the whole problem in the first place. Just because "moonbat" has a specific focus does not mean that "wingnut" does. --Nicholas0 (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it's called "editing an article". Read the Safire again, read what Avlon says inthe book. He says both far right and far left, but virtually all the behavior he describes comes from the right. This is because the lunatic right has pretty much taken over the GOP, whereas the left-wing crazies do not have a seat at tthe table (and before you say "AOC", Democratic socialism is not a "far left" ideology). Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Bad RFC and Keep in far-right category. This RFC lacks a clear, concise, neutral question, instead, headlined by one side of the dispute in a biased, badly formatted poorly structured presentation. That said, I ignored all of the presentation and instead focused on the question, which is "Should the category "Category:Far-right politics in the United States" be removed." It should not. The world "wingnut" is used to describe extremist far-right politics, similar to moonbats on the left. Ignoring one guy - John Avlon, the sole use of the term in the modern (generally post Regan) era is about the right. Hipocrite (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
  • Keep the categorization is appropriate, as this is specific to far right politics in the United States. Category:Extremism is too broad a category. It may also be appropriate to add Category:Far-left politics in the United States if there is ample usage of the term in that context as well. AlexEng(TALK) 05:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, the RfC is improperly worded. Per WP:RFCNEUTRAL, @Nicholas0: please amend the RfC statement to appropriately neutral wording. There are three issues in this RfC:
    • "RfC" stands for Request for Comment, not "Request for Consensus".
    • The initial statement is almost neutral, but begs the question. It needs to be reworded as a brief question that does not make any implications or assumptions. Try something along the lines of, "Should this article be included in the category Category:Far-right politics in the United States?" You can use the {{cat}} template to safely link a category.
    • You have a large paragraph that is a mixture of RfC instructions, such as your definitions of what agree and disagree would mean, mashed together with your argument and !vote for the RfC. These should be separated into two separately signed bullet points under the RfC statement, which is itself signed.
    • Please make the needed changes, Nicholas0. AlexEng(TALK) 05:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Separately, I am also struggling to understand why this page should not be deleted altogether, per WP:DICDEF. I think the best place to discuss that would probably be AfD, which I will file shortly. AlexEng(TALK) 05:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove and AfD - I see several sources that say the term can be "far-left" or "far-right". I'd like to see a source that supports User:AlexEng's claim that the term "is specific to far right politics in the United States". I also agree with User:AlexEng that WP:DICDEF would seem to apply here. I'm not sure I'd support deletion, but I'd definitely support testing this at WP:AfD. NickCT (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • There are only two sources presented which unequivocally maintain that the phrase covers both sides of the spectrum -- Merrian-Webster, Avlon -- while all others either say that it is used primarily against the right (Oxford, Safire 2006 and 2008, as opposed to Safire 2004), or themselves use it that way (Pierce, Boot, Stuart, Krugman, Waldman, Longman) or make it is clear, even as they direct it towards someone on the left, that its ordinary use is against those on the right (Herszenhorn). Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: So it sounds like what you're saying is unequivocally, the term can be accurately applied to either/both extremes of the political spectrum, it just happens to be a term more often used by those on the left in reference to persons on the right? OgamD218 (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
No, that is not a fair summary of my position, which is that the term is applied almost exclusively to the right wing, but has, on a small number of occasions, been applied to the left. If I had to come up with some numbers (pulled out of my nether regions), I'd say it was something on the order of 95% to 5% or higher. It is a shortening of "right-wing nut", and overwhelmingly refers to those on the right. The available evidence supports this position. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wingnut_(politics)/Archive_1&oldid=1143341735"