This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Far-right politics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 6 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Europe Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Discrimination High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American / Political parties Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance). Terrorism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

view · edit Frequently asked questions (FAQ) Q: Why is the Nazi Party labeled a far-right party? They called themselves socialists, so should they be left-wing? A: Almost all historical and present-day academic literature places the Nazi Party on the far-right of the traditional left-right spectrum, which in turn is the most common short-form classification used in political science; however, labor parties are typically on the left in party affiliation. The Nazis themselves attacked both left-wing and traditional right-wing politicians and movements in Germany as being traitors to Germany. While the Nazi regime's economic policies are very different from those of present-day right-wing parties that adhere to classical liberal or neoliberal positions (which advocate, e.g., a highly deregulated, privatized economic environment), Nazi economic policy was typical of the early to mid twentieth century far-right, and indeed most political currents of the time, in that it embraced interventionist economics. The Nazi Party absorbed the far-right reactionary monarchist and nationalist German National People's Party into its membership in 1933. The Nazi Party also held good relations with openly right-wing political movements in Europe, such as the Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right, whose leader Gil-Robles was a guest at the 1933 Nazi Party Nuremberg rally and sought to model his movement upon the Nazi Party. Q: If socialism is mainly left-wing and they called themselves socialists in their name, why is this being ignored? A: Historically several right-wing figures used the term "socialism" to mean something very different from what would be understood by traditional left-wing socialism, referring simply to the broader concept of collectivism and anti-individualism. For instance, "conservative socialism" was promoted by Austrian political figure Metternich. The prominent French reactionary monarchist Charles Maurras famously said "a socialism liberated from the democratic and cosmopolitan element fits nationalism well as a well made glove fits a beautiful hand". Maurras's views influenced fascism. Oswald Spengler's ideal of "Prussian Socialism" directly influenced Nazism, and Spengler promoted it as a member of the far-right Conservative Revolutionary movement. However, many socialists have a dim view of what they see as cooptation of socialism by otherwise right-wing movements. For example, Nikita Khrushchev sardonically remarked, "In modern times the word Socialism has become very fashionable, and it has also been used very loosely. Even Hitler used to babble about Socialism, and he worked the word into the name of his National Socialist party. The whole world knows what sort of Socialism Hitler had in mind." Q: The article on far-left politics says X, Y, and Z. Why doesn't this article say the same to make them equal? A: This is what we call false balance: our articles are meant to reflect the sources, not each other. Two ends of the political spectrum aren't necessarily equal, equatable, or comparable, and so the articles aren't obliged to have parity. Instead, anything written in either article should be determined by what reliable sources say, regardless of how the ideological opposite is presented.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Far-right politics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Far-right politics at the Reference desk.

I'm looking forward to removal of the lead image from the lead section and was asked to gather consensus for that by @Beyond My Ken. As supported by MOS:LEADIMAGE:

• Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic.

I explain in my edit that "Lead images should be fully representative of the topic and one carries an implication such as "<Far-right politics> is *this* (shows what looks like a peaceful demonstration on streets)"". Is it though? –Vipz (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But there is an "easy representation of the topic", and the image present does "illustrate the topic specifically" and is very much "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works", so all the necessary criteria are met. There is no justification whatsoever for the removal of the current image, or for not having a lede image at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the removal of the lede image from Far-left politics is not relevant (as is argued in edit summaries), since that image was on an ANTIFA rally, and ANTIFA is not a far-left movement and thus the image did not adequately represent the article's subject matter. Another image might do so, and would therefore be appropriate. (Also, see Aquillion's comment directly above about WP:FALSEBALANCE.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken you really love wikilawyering, huh? If I wanted to pose the comparison with Far-left politics as an argument, I would have brought it up in this talk page section. You're taking this discussion off-topic. –Vipz (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vipz: "you really love wikilawyering, huh?" is a personal attack. Please strike it from your comment. Regarding the argument in question, please note that in your edit summary to this edit, you wrote "Removing the image from lead section altogether, like was done on Far-left politics and discussed on its talk page," so you have already used that line of argumentation, which is why I responded to it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on the user talk page (just noting for others). –Vipz (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for striking, I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, so let's wait for a third opinion. –Vipz (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the image seems to meet the criteria. What makes you say it doesn't? TFD (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that an example of a far-right group being included is perfectly fine. — Czello 21:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces, @Czello: this one lacks key elements representative of the far-right. For one, no typical, widely recognizable far-right symbolism in it, and primarily flags of France instead; the 'Unite the Right Rally' one was better in that regard. If you saw that image standalone, would it make you think "far-right!" on first sight? We've got much better examples already contained within sections of the article. In any case, my point with removing it altogether was that there isn't a catch-all representative image of the far-right, though if one is kept, my point is that this one isn't the best pick. –Vipz (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fair point. The Unite the Right picture is a better representative picture. I don't agree with removing images altogether because of a lack of catch-all representations, but I do think the image to be included would be better served with Vipz's suggestion. — Czello 23:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Status quo image is better than nothing; good revert. VQuakr (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr: the current image has been there for less than two days: Special:Diff/1148403070. –Vipz (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair; struck "status quo". VQuakr (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are many articles across Wikipedia describing various political actors as "far right".

When this label is questioned as a smear on those individuals, the usual response is that far right doesn't mean neo-nazism or fascism, but things falling outside the mainstream right wing. This could range from anything from opposition to immigration, a belief that people cannot change gender, through to small government and libertarianism.

It therefore strikes me as very odd - and certainly not neutral - that the lead image for these apparently diverse set of opinions is a bloke center photo holding a swastika flag. BOOBOOBEAKER (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it sucks that so many alt-right and far-right groups are Nazi-adjacent and like to wave flags with swastikas. Oppose changing or removing the lead image. Wikipedia is not censored. Andre🚐 17:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Andre. People who don't want to be associated with the far right shouldn't associate themselves with the far right. Whether they see themselves as "merely" opposed to immigrants or to trans people or to government spending on the poor is beside the point. Even if not all such people are on board with waving swastika flags, enough of them are that the image is a pertinent and encyclopedic representation of what far-right politics looks like. Generalrelative (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't being objective though with that view. You're simply taking things you disagree with and labeling them as "far right". That was the whole point of my argument.

For example, the nazis (or neo-nazis) wanted a large state to police and "educate" people, the opposite of the small state which you are assigning to the "far right". I have no idea what Hitler's thoughts were on trans people, perhaps you do, but I would imagine the usurping of women's rights which some of the trans lobby advocate for would play into his patriarchal society.

So taking traditional left-right arguments and assigning them as "the mainstream vs the far right" might play well in your head if you have that political viewpoint, but it doesn't represent reality or the truth. BOOBOOBEAKER (talk) 08:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's based on what RS say. Andre🚐 08:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vipz: While there is a discussion here on the talk page about the current image, do not change the image in any way. This is a consensus discussion, and currently the consensus is to leave it as is. That can change, and if it does you can take the action that the consensus supports, but you CANNOT edit against consensus, as you just did in reverting to a previous image. Please watch your step, as you are starting to get into the area of disruptive editing, which can lead to being blocked from editing by an administrator. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: My edit was part of a normal WP:BRD procedure. I made a bold removal, you reverted, we discussed, active discussion resulted in me taking a different bold change (afaik, not dissalowed during active discussions) in line with what I perceive was general consensus at the time (as explained in the edit summary), which was in no way disruptive and was up to further reverts, refinements and discussions. You yourself said in Special:Diff/1148264591 about the 'Unite the Right Rally' image: "On the contrary, it is agood image, and appropriate". Critique is fine, but I would prefer one that is less hostile, non-accussatory, more assuming good faith and less threatening with ultimatums. Thank you. –Vipz (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make any additional changes to the image while a consensus discussion about it is proceeding. Please focus on that discussion on not on your opinions about me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So are we discussing a different image now, or are we wikilawyering? Personally I found it refreshing to see a non US-centric image as the lead graphic. The Unite the Right image places a lot of emphasis on the Swastika which isn't wrong per se, but maybe it is an over-focus that would be better suited for a more content-specific article (it is the lead image at Unite the Right rally). The Unite the Right image is also in use already in a half-dozen or so en.wiki pages, while the French one is in use on no other pages. VQuakr (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The non-US nature of the current image was the reason for my thanking Alejandro Basombrio for their replacement of the "Unite the Right" image with it. Far-right politics are, of course, a matter of great interest in the US, but that is also true throughout the world, as the article attests, and a non-American image seemed appropriate for an article with a global outlook. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Not to belabor the obvious, the Europe had a lot more first-hand experience with the far right in the 20th century than the US did. VQuakr (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

During the second world war? nearly 80 years have passed since then. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vipz, the nature of the far right is that it does not have shared symbols unlike for example socialism. Typically, they use national symbols, whether the St. George's cross in the UK or the Confederate battle flag in the U.S. Also, I think it is better to use a European example, particularly French, since that is where the concepts of left and right began. TFD (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, we need to use an image that is very clear to the average reader, and that one is IMHO not, it requires more knowledge. I understand the point about a US image, but in today's world the country where the far right has grown the fastest in the last decade is I think the US, and I'd be surprised if those who pay attention to the far right, wherever they live, don't recognise that. Doug Weller talk 07:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The US has competition but they're certainly in the running. We don't give extra weight to the last decade though. VQuakr (talk) 08:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see that as relevant. It’s the situation now which os when people are reading this, at least the lead which I’m told is all many people read. If and when that changes we change the image. Doug Weller talk 10:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It also has the swastika, an easily identifiable far right symbol which the current image lacks. Doug Weller talk 10:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. the unite the right image is contemporary, illustrates several symbols of the far-right, the UTR group is far better known, the image is more recent. Coming from neither the USA or Europe, I can recall that the UTR rallies received way more media coverage, not even comparable in that regards - I don't recall ever seeing Les Identitaires in the media here at all, the only reason I've heard of them is that I was studying rising support for the far right as part of my post grad - the UTR rallies on the other hand received rolling daily coverage here on and off for months....it's a no brainer, IMO Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that a far right candidate came second in the French presidential election, Italy elected a far right premier and far right parties have moved into the mainstream throughout Europe, the U.S. has not seen the most significant growth. TFD (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been very well documented that the USA has had significant growth on the far right and it's definitely on a similar scale to Europe. Certainly Donald Trump seems to take a very similar political position to Le Pen...obviously Giorgia Meloni is an actual fascist, so that makes Italy and Togo the only fascist governments in the world currently (correct me if I'm wrong), but arguments about whose further right, Europe or America are irrelevant really. I think the Unite the Right movement has had far more international media coverage than the Identitaires and the image is more current (2017 rather than 2011). Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that the far right in the U.S. is on the same scale only makes sense if you classify Trump and the Republican Party as far right. The most you can say is that they have shown more tolerance for the far right than reasonable people would find acceptable, but that's nothing new. Joe McCarthy, G. Gordon Liddy, Pat Buchanan, and Pat Robertson were all tolerated in their time, while until the 1980s, the Democrats also tolerated extemists within the party. TFD (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one outside the USA thinks anything going on in the USA today is normal - I've certainly never seen anything like it in my lifetime. Yes, Trump and his supporters are far right. The similarities between Trump and Le Pen are impossible to ignore. But you clearly see things differently and we are not here to debate our opinions. I will say that the both the USA and a significant number of European Nations have seen a notable spike in far-right parties and ideologies. And this is reflected in academia and media coverage. Recently, the tenth and final episode of the excellent documentary series 'Abyss — Rise and Fall of the Nazis' ends with an image of the White House invoking the memory of the Weimar Republic's failed efforts to halt the rise of National Socialism...says a lot, gave me shivers. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't seen anything like it in your lifetime, then you haven't lived very long. Did you really think that the men I mentioned were somehow less extreme than Republicans today?

If you think that the far right in the U.S. is as big as in Europe, here is what the editors wrote in their Introduction to Researching the Far Right (Routledge 2020): "Europe has seen electoral gains for Jobbik and Fidesz in Hungary, Lega in Italy, [AFD] in Germany, the National Rally...in France, and the [Freedom Party of Austria.] In the USA, Donald Trump's candidacy and presidency has been characterized by dog whistling to the far right through anti-Muslim and anti-Mexican racist rhetoric, and a repeated failure to condemn hate speech and the actions of white nationalists, even attracting endorsements from former Klansman David Duke and Alt-Right figurehead Richard Spencer.

While I appreciate that is alarming and unusual for a president, it doesn't mean that Republicans have transformed into neo-fascists. Instead Trump's just continued Karl Rove's winning strategy: whereas in the past, Republicans won by appealing to the center, today they win by appealing to their most fanatical supports, which is called "energizing the base." Rove learned that from when Buchanan and Robertson supporters failed to support the eventual Republican nominees.

TFD (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinion. I don't agree. What's going on in the USA today is anything but normal...and I'd certainly like to be a lot younger, thanks. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my opinion, it's accepted opinion in the sources. While there is a tendency to label political opponents as fascists, the reality is that U.S. government under Trump had little comparison with Nazi Germany. Political opponents for example were not jailed or executed, opposition press was not censored, the Democratic Party was not dissolved. In fact, despite the chaotic nature of Trump's leadership, government policy continued on autopilot and very little happened that would not have happened otherwise. TFD (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who called anyone a fascist? I never compared Trump to Nazi's...I mentioned a doco that invoked the failings of the Weimar republic. You're putting words inmy mouth. This is boring, lets stick to the article. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You said Trump was far right. TFD (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

I've returned the status quo (no image) (Unite the right, 2017) as per WP:STATUSQUO the new 'Les Identitaires' image was rejected by multiple editors and another image has been put forward 'Unite the Right'. So the status quo is restored until the editor/editors wanting to change the article has achieved consensus. Please do not edit war follow the WP:CYCLE - someones been bold, they've been reverted, now we discuss and the status quo remains until this is sorted. "This is the way" :P Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lets have a straw poll? - Do we use the 'Unite the right' (2017) image, or the image put forward by Alejandro Basombrio 'Les Identitaires' (2011)?

• keep status quo Unite the Right - It's a better image, the image is more recent (2017), Unite the Right is far better known than Les Identitaires who are very obscure and received very little media attention outside France. The Unite the Right rally photo exemplifies the modern far-right, their new prominence in American political discourse, contains the Swastika and more esoteric far-right symbols like volkish/norse imagery, confederate flags etc. In terms of educational value the status quo was a far better image, IMO. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tambor de Tocino: I don't blame you but you didn't read closely, I wasn't the one putting forward the 'Les Identitaires' image. I was for either complete removal or status quo previous image, Unite the Right. Please replace my username with that of Alejandro Basombrio's, thanks. –Vipz (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, yes I got confused between all the diffs and back and forth that have been going on since. I apologise. Thanks for bringing my mistake to my attention :) Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• keep status quo Unite the Right per Tambor de Tocino. Doug Weller talk 06:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Les Identitaires and quit gamingclaiming "status quo" on an image that was up less than two days with an image that been up 10x as long, thanks. VQuakr (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on, you know I'm not gaming, that's bad faith. I was just using the poll's terminology. But I take your point and have struck status quo and added Unite the Right. Doug Weller talk 07:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair, struck "gaming". It wasn't directed at you specifically. To recap my reasoning in the discussion above, the UtR image is used a bunch of times in this article family already while the LI image is used nowhere else. Repetition of the same image through the family of articles reduces its value. In addition, I found the non-US centric image refreshing. VQuakr (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Correct, the status quo would be no image until consensus is reached. The current image was disputed in less than two days since it was first put up, so "10x as long" should not count towards its favor. Arguing otherwise is the very definition of "gaming status quo" in my opinion. –Vipz (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough, I got it wrong about the status quo. I got this article and the Alt right article mixed up, which has had the Unite the Right image in the lede for years. my apologies. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Unite the Right per Tambor. There is more overt and commonly-recognisable far-right symbols being used in the Unite the Right image, and so is probably more representative of what most people imagine when they think "far-right". — Czello ^(music) 08:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Unite the Right is the best of the available options in the sense that it represents all the major strands of the contemporary far-right in a single image. I think it's best for the lead image to include a swastika or some other fascist symbol, since (as the lead says) fascism is central to the historical definition of the term, while neo-fascism and neo-Nazism are core parts of the contemporary definition. Having no image would be my second choice, if nobody can agree that that image (or another like it) encompasses all the key parts of far-right politics. --Aquillion (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I liked the "Unite the Right" image when it was up, but was also glad to see a non-American image as well (I am an American). Doug does make some good points about the "Unite the Right" image, so I'm wondering: can we find a European-based image which has the same kind of recognizable symbols in it that the "Unite the Right" image has? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi BMK, I think that's reasonable and would support using another image that illustrates the far-right as well as the UtR one does, and yes always better to try and find content from outside the USA seeing how USAcentrique Wikipedia is. I think the Les Identitaires doesn't serve it's intended purpose. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I also agree, no image would be worse than either. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW, IMO either of these images are better than no image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Can someone else please restore the status quo until we have a consensus? The guidelines are clear, we are supposed to restore the WP:STATUSQUO during ongoing debates. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT; WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. It would be stupid to revert to a state that no one wants for the sake of rules. VQuakr (talk) 05:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you say that because you've reinstated your preferred version despite an apparent consensus against using that image, that's why we normally restore the status quo until the debate is resolved as per WP:BOLD Tambor de Tocino (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As noted below, my first choice is the Nuremberg 1929 image. VQuakr (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Unite the Right—The rally/riot was a high-profile event that received substantial international coverage: BBC—one of many, many articles, France 24, Le Monde, China Daily, Al Jazeera, Moscow Times. I don't think the fact that it's used on other pages detracts from the argument that it should be used here—I would say that use is a consequence of its notability (and, indeed, the fact that the Generation Identitaire image isn't used elsewhere is a sign of its obscurity). I also don't really see the argument that image of a swastika should count against the photo—again, that's a recognizable symbol. And the photograph has the advantage over other alternatives of including two identifiable symbols—the swastika and the Confederate flag. There are costs, of course, to using an image of something specific to represent something general, but I'm totally unclear as to how those costs aren't equally present in the GI photo.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think Unite the Right is ideal for the topic of far-right politics as well: Y common and recongizable fascist symbolism present. Y the topic is about far-right politics as a whole, and Unite the Right image is a very rare photo depicting multiple far-right movements simultaneously. Y recentness, non-obscurity and the said event's impact shows that far-right politics are very much alive and well. I've looked through Commons and freely licensed photos on Google on the same day I opened this talk section and couldn't find anything alike (Unite the Right rally indeed is a unique phenomenon), only individual/sectarian demonstrations. UtR would be even more ideal if it showed more action, but maybe that's too much to expect. –Vipz (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't view recentness as a selling point. VQuakr (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree too. This is good because it shows several recognisable far-right symbols in one picture. It is an American picture but it includes both American and European far-right symbols. If we want one picture to illustrate the whole topic in one go then this is about as good as it gets. DanielRigal (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Les Identitaires Im infavor for the seconded Immage, the first image is obviously overused and is meant to paint most people on the far right as nazis and fascist. which i think is a volation of NPOV, and is a larger problim with the wikipedia article, AN example of a far right party that are not nazis is the Alternative For Germany party which is not opposed to democracy. Nazis/Neo nazis are only a small group of the far right. Here is a list of far right parties which are not Nazis. Alternative For Germany Fidesz Our Homeland Movement Revival (Bulgarian political party) Freedom Party of Austria People's Party of Canada Sweden Democrats If you look at List of right-wing political parties, just as an example, a large number of the Far-right are not nazis or fascist.--Zyxrq (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing discussion

Here are some other ideas that are less overused on en.wiki. Some also don't have the US centrism issues:

There are other candidates on commons. VQuakr (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VQuakr Mate, you are being uncivil and antagonistic, please restore the status quo, I'm not at all into going to admins. Just do the right thing yeah. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you a few minutes to make good, otherwise we're off to admins for edit warring, on-top of the personal attacks. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tambor de Tocino: it's not worth escalating the situation over this. –Vipz (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I'm finding the experience decidedly unpleasant and uncivil. He's also been deleting my comments and making personal attacks on my user page. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on the article content? VQuakr (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use Unite the Right. This is supposed to be an international encyclopedia and not everything has to be explained by providing things in the U.S. that are similar. Hitler and Mussolini will be remembered long after Trump is forgotten and Democrats will stop comparing him with them just as soon as the Republicans choose a new presidential candidate. Then we can argue about whether DeSantis or whoever should be featured in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs)

@The Four Deuces: maybe we should add some WW2-era images to the gallery of options? VQuakr (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added one, from Germany 1929. I like that one as the lead image for recentism concerns, addressing US-centrism, and the image is not currently used elsewhere in WP. VQuakr (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Fascism and Nazism are the archetypes of the far right, and Europe is where the political spectrum originated. TFD (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh, while I'd probably prefer that to the GI photo, I'm less sure that's an improvement over the Unite the Right photo. I think a modern image is probably preferable—and the Unite the Right photo at least has a greater variety of symbols, showing both the swastika and the confederate flag.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we might have a WP:SNOW close candidate here. As I see it (sorry for the notifications—will explain in next paragraph): @Tambor de Tocino:, @Vipz:, @Doug Weller:, @Czello:, @Aquillion:, @Vipz:, @DanielRigal:, and @Jerome Frank Disciple: (myself) have supported the Unite the Right image. @VQuakr: and @The Four Deuces: oppose the Unite the Right image, with VQuakr, specifically, endorsing the Les Identitaires photo and both endorsing the 1929 Nazi Germany photo. @Beyond My Ken: has not quite specified a preference, noting that he'd prefer an image to no image and that he'd potentially prefer a European-based image.

Still, since the possibility of the 1929 Nazi photo was introduced recently, I did want to ping all prior users to see if they'd switch from supporting the Unite the Right photo to that one. (As I articulated above, I'd still prefer the Unite the Right image, given that it's more modern and displays two recognizable far-right symbols.) --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAVOTE. I don't see that you voiced thoughts on the 1929 image in your comment in the section above; Germany seems an obviously more archetypical alt-right example than a protest in the US to me. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, not a vote, but, again, WP:SNOW. And sorry I wasn't clear—in terms of the 1929 photo I was referring to the comments I made here.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there it is. Thanks for highlighting! VQuakr (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think my opinion hasn't been heard yet, even tho I'm the one who added the "Les Identitaires" image. In my opinion, the image should stay since it already includes a far-right recognizable symbol (lambda), goes against the US-centric image and depicts a contemporary manifestation, in contrast with the 1929 image. Regarding this one, I see unnecessary the inclusion of an old image since the article covers the far-right in the contemporary era, not before WW2. The 1929 image could fit better in a subtitle about the German far-right. About the "Unite the Right" image, it is already used not only in this article, but it is also the leading image in the alt-right page. The flags in there represent the alt-right specifically and while they could fit here, they fit far better in the alt-right page. Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! I think that's not enough to change my view—I still think the "Les Identitaires" imagery is too obscure. But let's see what others have to say--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that that Unite The Right image is too specific to the American alt-right. It includes a mix of very widely recognised, old and new, American and European symbols. This is what makes it so good. That's more or less what a far-right rally looks like in most countries these days and the older symbols link it to the past as well. Even the Confederate battle flag is international now. (Ugh! What a time to be alive!) So, lets compare that with Generation-identitaire.jpg. I think you are mistaken in thinking that lambda is widely recognised. Obviously, it is in some circles but not so much in most of the English speaking world. More to the point, I can't even see a lambda in that image. (Maybe I am being stupid and missing something obvious?) The main thing I see is a banner for that one very specific far-right organisation and a huge number of French flags, which are not intrinsically far-right at all. DanielRigal (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see a lot of confederate battle flags and gadsen flags in the UK or Europe? I don't even think one would see many actual Nazi flags either. And there were an estimated 100s of demonstrators at the UAR compared with 10,000 in the October 2022 AFD rally in Germany. To me it would be like having a picture of a demonstration by the Communist Party USA as the main image for "Communism." TFD (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(top) A Generation Identity rally in France; (bottom) the Unite the Right rally in the US

• I don't think that the 1929 image is a good choice, since it makes it seem as if "far-right politics" is a historic subject matter, when I think the importance of the subject is the contemporary rise of the far-right. While I liked the Unite the Right image when it was first added, I do think that the global nature of the subject would make a non-US image a better choice. I agree that the Generation Identitaire image is less immediately accessible to the reader -- so I'm still in the position of preferring some other image than those three. None of the others offered above strike me as good choices either. I'll take a look and see if I can find something else. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As Doug Weller and others point out, one of the advantages of the Unite the Right image is the use of immediately identifiable symbolism. "Mainstream" contemporary far-right parties -- like AfD in Germany and the National Rally in France -- know better than to use anything which would connect them to Nazism or fascism, so images of their rallies don't have a lot of immediate visual impact. After looking around a bit and finding a couple of possibles, but no slam dunks, I'm wondering if we should use both of the main images under consideration, something like this: Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be content with using both at once, with a condition that one stays for the US if they ever were to change. I agree with everything you say but the suggestion that a non-US image should be used to fit the "global nature", as if were an easy way out to excuse the flourishing far-right where it is most tolerated. Staying on the theme of identitarianism, perhaps this one for Europe: File:Demonstration against Morten Kjærum in Vienna.jpg? –Vipz (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, I'm not understanding the meaning of the statement after "but", Can you restate it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The nature of the far right is that it does not have international symbols. Instead it uses national symbols such as the St. George's cross in England or the confederate battle flag in the southern U.S. An exception is that sometimes they use German Nazi symbols, but often they are disguised, for example, by Golden Dawn in Greece. So whatever example we use will have national rather than international symbols. TFD (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a very good point, which, I think, underlines the value of using the Unite the Right image, which has the very easily recognizable Nazi swastika -- and even the Confederate flag has, I believe, a large amount of global recognition. Being nationalistic in focus, far-right rallies would be apt to use their national flags, or their own individual symbols (see the "Festung Europa" image above as an example), none of which have global reach. Thus, I continue to think that using two images, one of them the Unite the Right image, is our best option. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding Beyond My Ken on the issue of making the subject seem historical. Already, a majority of images in this article are pre-1950. I'm also okay with using both the images, as BMK suggested.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's time to ask for a close at WP:Closure requests.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jerome Frank Disciple: does this require formal closure, and is consensus clear enough for closure? It seems to me there's a clear favorite in the UtR image, but I can't tell if there's consensus to introduce a multiple image gallery. VQuakr (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's the only reason I was thinking formal closure might be necessary. Honestly maybe the thing to do is, for now, use the Unite the Right image (which I think there was a clear consensus for) and then, separately, ask if it should be paired.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Les Identitaires Im infavor for the seconded Immage, the first image is obviously overused and is meant to paint most people on the far right as nazis and fascist. which i think is a volation of NPOV, and is a larger problim with the wikipedia article, AN example of a far right party that are not nazis is the Alternative For Germany party which is not opposed to democracy. Nazis/Neo nazis are only a small group of the far right. Here is a list of far right parties which are not Nazis. Alternative For Germany Fidesz Our Homeland Movement Revival (Bulgarian political party) Freedom Party of Austria People's Party of Canada Sweden Democrats If you look at List of right-wing political parties, just as an example, a large number of the Far-right are not nazis or fascist.--Zyxrq (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zyxrq, this RFC stopped running. It was started well over 30 days ago, and the discussion was acknowledged as having died down 10 days ago. As several users acknowledged, there was a consensus for the Charlottesville photo. The fact that you've disagreed with the RFC days after it ended doesn't mean the RFC needed to be given more time. If you want to start another discussion, you can, but the current consensus is for the Charlottesville photo.--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jerome Frank Disciple my apologies.--Zyxrq (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I am for including more photos. I propose 4 photos, the themes I propose: One photo concerns fascism; one photo concerning Nazism; one photo depicting Pinochet's Chile or similar dictatorships; far-right reactionaries (the historical pre-fascist far-right), i.e., supporters of the Ancient Régime or similar.

For fascism and Nazism can also be a unique photo; we can also consider putting an image of U.S. white nationalism that has pre-Nazi C.S.A.-inspired origins. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 08:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do think this article is good in lots of ways, I think it needs more improvement. for example, The overreliance on fascist imagery is misleading. For an example, the lead image. The lead image has has the flag of Flag of Nazi Germany. Is this necessarily bad, no. Is it misleading, yes. fascists and Nazis are far right but most people on the far right are not fascists and Nazis. For this example lets use the political party, Alternative for Germany. At the point of writing this they are polling at 19%, tying with the Social Democratic Party of Germany at second. [1] Summed up, why are we using symbols of fringe groups to represent the majority of the far right? More examples of far right to right wing parties.Fidesz Our Homeland Movement Revival (Bulgarian political party) Freedom Party of Austria People's Party of Canada Brothers of Italy Sweden Democrats. note most of these party's are right wing to far right. If most mainstream far-right political parties are like this, shouldn't this article reflect that reality. The truth is the difference between Right-wing politics and far-right politics is vary bleary and Wikipedia should reflect that ./. an idea I have is to make an article that represents the middle ground between Right-wing politics and Far-right politics. The same can be said about the corresponding left wing articles. Zyxrq (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A major problem with this article is that it conflates two topics: parties to the right of the mainstream and parties that are furthest to the right. (The article begins, "Far-right politics, or right-wing extremism.") In reality, academics distinguish between the two sets. Note that the second set is part of the first set. Unfortunately, they are inconsistent with terms, referring to one as "far right" and the other as "extreme right" or vice versa. Neo-fascism dominates the second set, even though some parties try to distance themselves.

As an example, Farage's UKIP could be considered far right because it was to the right of the Tories. But it was distinguishable from the British National Party which had fascist origins.

TFD (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"fascists and Nazis are far right but most people on the far right are not fascists and Nazis." My suspicion is that the unifying ideology behind every far-right variation is ultranationalism (with its eternal pursuit of supremacy). But there is no unified symbol for either ultranationalism or nationalism itself. Dimadick (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction of the article misleads. A far-right party can also be reactionary without necessarily being nationalist.

From the way the far right is presented in the article, it seems that before the Nazis and fascists it did not exist: nothing could be more false. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It says "tends to be," which means in some cases it may not be.

It's probable that the far right did not exist prior to Fascism. Do you have any sources that it did? TFD (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces Well, it's obvious that it existed before fascism, the historical far right are the reactionaries.

In the 19th century the expression "extreme right" was more popular. See for example: A history of the four Georges Volume 1 By Justin McCarthy, Justin Huntly McCarthy (1884), p. 24

"These men constituted what would now be called in the language of French politics the Extreme Right of the Tory party" 93.45.229.98 (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On Google Books you can see all the uses made in the nineteenth century (all texts are in the public domain):

https://www.google.com/search?q=extreme+right+politics&sca_esv=565306219&biw=1536&bih=814&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1800%2Ccd_max%3A1899&tbm=bks&ei=E-sCZYXOCsKVxc8PkZafuA0&ved=0ahUKEwjFo9W7_KmBAxXCSvEDHRHLB9cQ4dUDCAk&uact=5&oq=extreme+right+politics&gs_lp=Eg1nd3Mtd2l6LWJvb2tzIhZleHRyZW1lIHJpZ2h0IHBvbGl0aWNzSKYQULMFWMYPcAB4AJABAJgBV6ABzQWqAQIxMLgBA8gBAPgBAYgGAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-books 93.45.229.98 (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this person. There were far-rightist or ultraconservative movements prior to fascism, such as the Ultra-Tories in the United Kingdom, the Ultra-royalists in France, and the ultramontanists in Italy. This is classical right-wing politics, although an extreme version of it, unlike fascism and national socialism which are identifed, by themselves and scholars alike, as syncretic ideologies, combining elements from left and right. Trakking (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In your article, Extreme Right is used to refer to the German Conservative Party. It's not using the term in the same way we would today. They are called Extreme Right to distinguish them from the more moderate Free Conservative Party, which it calls the Moderate Right.

While both parties are defunct, three parties still exist: the Christian Democrats, Free Democrats and Social Democrats. The first is referred to as the Center, while the others are referred to as Extreme Left. We are more likely to refer to them today as center-right, center and center-left.

Of course, in a multi-party system, one party has to sit on the extreme right. But the topic of the article is parties that are to the right of the mainstream parties. The German Conservative Party was the governing party. TFD (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In A history of the four Georges? Can you tell me the page? I can't find "Extreme Right" for the German Conservative Party in the book.

In any case... there is a geographically and historically limited perspective in the article's incipit. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the first hit of the Google search you provided: The Saturday Review, p. 252.[2]

In the Georges, the author is comparing British Jacobites, who wanted to restore the Stuart monarchy, with French legitimists, who wanted to restore the Bourbon monarchy. They took their name, Extreme Right, from the position in which they sat in the National Assembly. Lots of parties in Europe, which were loose associations of elected members, took their names from where they sat. Of course there will always be members who sit on the extreme right or extreme left.

If you think that there should be mention of other movements from other times and places, please provide sources. Policy requires that articles reflect the balance in reliable sources. It is not our role to correct it. TFD (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: I just wanted to highlight an important aspect you mentioned. The word ”far right” is actually ambiguous and, as many dictionaries will inform you, may simply mean the most rightist faction of a party. Thus, all rightist parties have a far-right. For example, the National Right is the far-right faction of the Liberal Party of Australia, which is considered a centre-right party. Trakking (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. However, in comparative politics, social scientists used party families where they perceived relationships between parties in different countries. For example, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of the USA were considered to be in the same family, viz., the communist party family. That could be shown by similar names, symbols, ideologies, circumstances of origin, international cooperation and perception both by members and outsiders.

The main ideologies into which families fell were conservative, Christian democratic, liberal, socialist and communist. Naming them presented little problem because they self-identified with these groups and were perceived to belong to them. A problem arose with parties that were perceived to be to the right of the traditional families. They did not have similar names, symbols, ideologies, circumstances of origin, or international cooperation.

Most sources refer to them as either far right or extreme right parties. Can you think of what else we should call them? Or do you think the category does not exist?

TFD (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The example of the Ultra-Tories (sources are in the wikiarticle) is sufficient. According to Manual of Political Ethics For the Use of Colleges and Students Law Volume 2 (1875) by Francis Lieber, p. 271:

"The extreme right is always occupied by the party claiming to be the most royalist, or, as is the case now, super-royalist, that is, by the party who are for the old Bourbons; the extreme left, by those who claim to be the most liberal, or by republicans. Between them we have the right, the right centre, the centre, the left centre, and the left."

For historical reasons, the meaning of the extreme right in the past (i.e., exclusively reactionary) should be mentioned. There is a real lack of clarification on the difference between the old elitist extreme right and the new mass far-right.

This does not detract from the fact that the current article is also localist, in fact in Latin America the Brazilian integralists or the Pinochetistas in Chile have been important far-right factions. The last faction is the one that has most influenced the extreme Latin American right today, which is extremely anticommunist.

This clearly does not exclude the fact that far-right racial supremacism has pre-fascist and pre-Nazi origins, just think of the C.S.A. (1861–1865) or the First K.K.K. (1865–1872). It is also good to remember that racialism, racial slavery and segregation are reactionary politics. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As trakking mentioned, the term extreme right can be used in a relative sense. The Liberal Party of Australia has a narrow ideological range, yet we can talk about the its left an right wings. Stalin faced both a Right Opposition within the Communist Party but that did not mean they were right-wing. They were only right-wing relative to Stalin.

Your source was written at a time when as I mentioned parties took their names from where they sat in the National Assembly. Denmarks center-right liberal party, for example is called the Left because that's where they originally sat in parliament.

Also, parties that claim to be the most liberal are not far left, because there are socialist and communist parties to their left. In fact, by the end of the 19th century, most parties with left in their names were considered right-wing.

BTW you claim that racism is far right would mean that most if not all mainstream politics before the 1960s was far right.

Anyway, Wikipedia is a tertiary source that summarizes what reliable sources say in proportion to what they say about them. An article on far right politics therefore should read like a similar article in a political textbook. It's against policy to change the balance. TFD (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BTW instead of using books from the 1800s to find out whether or not the extreme right existed, you should use modern texts. Old texts not reliable sources. As you can see, what they meant by Extreme Right is not what is meant today. They never for example used these terms to describe anything outside legislatures. And the terms were used based on the party's original position in the legislature, which could change. So for example the Extreme Left Party was part of the French right-wing. See Marcel Gauchet's article "Right and Left" for an explanation of how these terms developed. TFD (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I specified "the meaning of the extreme right in the past". I didn't really write that: "that racism is far right would mean that most if not all mainstream politics before the 1960s was far right" but that "far-right racial supremacism has pre-fascist and pre-Nazi origins, just think of the C.S.A. (1861–1865) or the First K.K.K. (1865–1872). It is also good to remember that racialism, racial slavery and segregation are reactionary politics". However, it is a fact that the former American racist politics (once more mainstream) are now far-right...

"what they meant by Extreme Right is not what is meant today"

Individuals proposing the Ancien Régime restoration, feudalism (serfdom and legal status like that of the kholops), patriarchalism (divine right of kings), violent expansionism, colonialism and slavery of natives, monarchical absolutism, etc., etc., are still extreme right-wing today. These are policies still outside the mainstream right.

Fascism was certainly peculiar, but it is remembered as "far right" for reactionary policies not for reformist policies. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces I agree that old books are not reliable sources here. Doug Weller talk 16:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Over time, views that were once acceptable are considered reactionary. But I wouldn't say that Louis IV was far a right-wing extremist because today absolute monarchy has no support. In fact, I don't know of any right-wing extremists who advocate it.

If I were to group legitimists by ideology, it would probably be as conservatives. Maistre and a number of other French defenders of the Bourbons are considered conservatives.

The issue was whether the extreme right existed before WWI and if so who they were. Or was the extreme right something that emerged as a result of the chaos following the WWI and increased public participation in the political process. TFD (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces The German Reichsbürger movement is a far-right movement with extreme monarchist factions. Heinrich XIII Prinz Reuss literally attempted a coup. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces

"The issue was whether the extreme right existed before WWI and if so who they were"

I read the comment late... Action Française, founded in 1899, is a pre-WWI far-right group still in existence. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection there were some groups that would be considered far right in the late 19th and early 20th century in France and Austria-Hungary, which some writers consider urfascism. TFD (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TFD, we already have an article on proto-fascism and the "direct predecessor ideologies and cultural movements that influenced and formed the basis of fascism." Dimadick (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair Proto-Fascism doesn't necessarily mean far-right ideologies that came before Fascism Zyxrq (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a delineation between "hard-right" politics and "far-right" politics, or should we treat them as the same? I notice, for instance, that The New York Times conspicuously eschews the label "far-right" when discussing people like Matt Gaetz, but does not do so when referring to a presidential candidate in Argentina. I imagine other editors of this page are far more informed than I am on these two terms and their idiosyncrasies, but I figured I'd ask about it. Delukiel (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Hard right" is one of those sources that can mean different things by publication; in my experience it's not usually synonymous with the far-right, and sits between it and just old regular "right-wing". That said, it's nebulous at best. It's likely that the NYT doesn't consider Matt Gaetz far-right (or is more careful about using that to describe American politicians). In short, I don't think it should be treated as the same. — Czello ^(music) 17:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The extreme right is the same as the hard-right because there are references that indicate it, there is no bibliographic support that says otherwise. AmigodeMassa (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]

As above, it's not ubiquitous in sourcing. — Czello ^(music) 13:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For example, in this reference from the week^[1], it is indicated that both Cambio and Vox belong to the hard-right, while Javier Milei belongs to the far-right, therefore they are synonyms since I imagine that all people believe that Vox is even more right-wing than Javier Milei, however the hard-right classification is used. With this I want to affirm that they are exactly the same AmigodeMassa (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]

That's WP:OR — Czello ^(music) 13:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First we have to understand that hard-right is the same as extreme right, something that all the dictionaries in the world say. I attach examples:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hard-right

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/es/diccionario/ingles-espanol/the-hard-right

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/hard+right

https://educalingo.com/en/dic-en/hard-right

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hard%20right Monito rapido (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Monito rapido, I thought I'd find you here.

I see you've reproduced here some content that you posted during our discussion over your assertion that the Traditional Unionist Voice party was a "far-right" party, viz. TUV Political Position.

Your statement "First we have to understand that hard-right is the same as extreme right " seems to me to fall into the category of what the Wikipedia Manual of Style calls "Instructional and Presumptious language" [3] .

For what it's worth, my own undertanding of the recent increase in the use of the term "hard right" by journalists is that they are substituting it for the term "far right", not because they want to but because their readers are questioning the use of such a term.

My own point of reference when it comes to European political parties and their political nature is the following website: Wolfram Nordsiek, comparative study of party systems in Europe. Here is their own description of what their website is about: "Parties and Elections in Europe provides a comprehensive database about political parties, elections and governments in all European countries. The website contains the results of parliamentary elections from more than 100 countries and autonomous regions in Europe. The parties are classified according to their political orientation. Historical data can be found in the archive.The private website was established by Wolfram Nordsieck in 1997. The editor began his comparative study of party systems, parliamentary elections and constitutional laws in the late 1980s. Thereafter he studied law and history at the Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf. Today he practices law."

They include such categories as "Far-right politics" , "Right-wing populism", "Nationalism" and "Social Conservatism". BrownBowler (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what is your point? Monito rapido (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Monito rapido, I'm not trying to make a point, I'm just trying to do my best to elucidate a subject and to provide more information for discussion. At the same time, I added an opinion in case anyone was interested in what I had to say. That's what Wikipedia is about. I was criticising your style of discussion, that's true. BrownBowler (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of them are the same:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/ultra-right

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/far-right Monito rapido (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Dictionaries as sources. Doug Weller talk 18:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to use those references for anything, I'm only using those references for saying that the far-right, hard-right, extreme-right and ultra-right are the same and have the same meaning. Monito rapido (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [reply]

The problem is that the various terms are used inconsistently in reliable sources. News articles, whose writers are not experts, often chose their descriptions for brevity or unconscious bias. Authoritarians we like are hard right, while those we don't are far right. TFD (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are stating that it is the same. the term must be added equally, or as a synonym, or as a faction of the far right Monito rapido (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [reply]

No I am not. I am saying that the terms are used inconsistently. Someone could call Hitler and Rand Paul far right. Or they could call HItler far right and Paul hard right. Or they could call HItler extreme right and Paul far right. So they are using these terms differently. They may for example distinguish HItler and Paul or they may group them together. They are both to the right of mainstream politics but far apart within that range. TFD (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Monito rapido has been blocked by admin for sockpuppetry. Here is the comment from the admin clerk "Registered shortly after CulturalHuya and AmigodeMassa were blocked, exhibits precisely the same type of editing, with focus on far-right politics. Like master, seems to use Spanish language. Technical competence from first edit, continued to edit the same articles as master and socks.". No doubt to return very soon. BrownBowler (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I struck through edits of both of the socks. Doug Weller talk 12:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the section titled "Emergence" it reads "less similarities" which is incorrect. It should be replaced with "fewer similarities".

Normally I'd correct such a mistake by editing, however it's not possible on this page. Could someone who can edit this page correct it? 83.5.185.88 (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented your suggested change The Night Watch (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The NAZIs were socialists, which makes them a left wing party. And, the Democratic Party was the party of slavery and the South. Just saying… 2603:6011:4602:A679:B870:A08D:2C68:6DC (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the FAQ at the top of this page. — Czello ^(music) 16:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazis were never socialists. And the Republicans became the part of the South, also see DeSantis and Tim Scott on slavery as well as "Florida Democrat Introduces Bill To Prevent Teaching That Black People 'Benefited From Slavery'". And the Democrats ran the first black persons for President and later Vice-president. Doug Weller talk 16:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The pre-Civil War Republican Party was created in 1854 by anti-slavery Whigs and Democarts. The Democratic party ran two separate tickets in 1860, a Northern and a Southern ticket, thus letting the Republican Party to win. Doug Weller talk 08:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Title of this article[4]. Note that it says the Overton window has shifted:" Although the alt right collapsed, its goal of shifting the “Overton window”—the spectrum of what is considered legitimate political discourse—succeeded. Today, white supremacist, anti-LGBTQ+, and even antisemitic conspiracy theories have become so prevalent that what was taboo even in 2018 is accepted by many as not only normal but acceptable." Doug Weller talk 15:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The alt-right article points out how even though Charlottesville caused the alt-right to shatter, it had a ripple effect of radicalizing alt-righters into terrorism (Atomwaffen experienced great growth post-Cville). And now Republicans sort of occupy the position alt-right did a few years ago: White Genocide rhetoric is mainstream in GOP, etc.^[1][2]RKT7789 (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus on the reliability of the Daily Beast and no reason why the opinion of the journalist who wrote the story has any significance. Notice he says that the mainstream has ignored the growing strength of extremism, which suggests he is presenting a minority view.

I am not saying he is wrong, but I would need a better source to determine that. TFD (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The volume, for lack of a better term, of Far-right rhetoric from the GOP in the mainstream has changed over the years, particularly since Trump's election, and has been been increasingly discussed by academics and scholars since the J6 attack. Finding sources that show some consensus on the subject of the extent to which the far-right is shaping or controlling the GOP platform in the mainstream would be most helpful. Currently we have separate sources that seemingly coalesce, but the GOP's mainstream platform hasn't changed since 2016. DN (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the first sentence say "Far-right politics, or right-wing extremism, refers to a spectrum..." when, per WP:REFERS, it could say "Far-right politics, or right-wing extremism, is a spectrum..."

I'm asking on here rather than boldly replacing it as it seems like an obvious change and I'm confused why it hasn't happened already. TenToe (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection here. DN (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article to does not view far right politics the same way as it does view far-left politics. While the one on the left does mention authoritarianism, as for the right it says it was inheritly authoritarian, which is not the case. This may not belong in the article, but right-libertarians often lean further to the right, see their view when it comes to freedom of speech (as we can see they, they even wish to have the swastika to be covered by the constiution). Keep in mind this is my personal experience, not a decided fact, I however do wish a bit more neutrality to be actually apolitical. MrLW97 (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not that thrilled with right-libertarianism, but it is a modern extension of anti-statism as an ideology and laissez-faire as an economic principle. Where do you see similarities with the ultranationalism of the far-right, its "hatred of foreigners", its pursuit of "territorial expansion", and its support for political violence to achieve its goals? When was the last time you heard of a libertarian "carrying out acts of violence and hate crimes against immigrants" ... and "ethnic minorities" like some of the European ultranationalist parties? Dimadick (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between far right and far left is that while far right refers to a specific group of ideologies, far left is a vague term that merely means whatever part to his or her left the speaker finds unacceptable. The ideologies that are part of the far right are in fact authoritarian, while some on the far left, such as anarchism or the Biden administration, are not. TFD (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces Biden administration? That’s a joke, right? Doug Weller talk 22:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think TFD is indicating that some people (elements of the GOP, for example) call the Biden administration far-left. TFD's point is that the term "far-left" can mean whatever it needs to depending on who is saying it.

(I disagree, but that's a discussion we've had elsewhere and I don't want to enter WP:FORUM territory) — Czello ^(music) 22:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call Biden far left, but my point is that someone on the extreme right might because they place people on the spectrum differently. They see themselves as being in the center so Biden must be on the far left. Reliable sources however have described  Biden as being on the left, which could place AOC and Sanders on the far left. OTOH, far left could refer to groups to the left of Communist parties. it's a relative term that can mean different things depending on context.

The reason for this is that we don't have other terms to describe their ideologies. There is no other term that groups the KKK and the Nazi Party for example, while other parties typically self-identify with an ideology that is shared across national boundaries. TFD (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please help steer conversation onTalk/Joe Kent and how to determine standards for "is far right" and putting "far right" in the lede, particularly because of Nazi imagery on this page and it's syndication to Bing , Google & AI chatbots.

We have plenty of sources placing him "America First", "MAGA", "Republican" and naturally many who like "far right" because of this page.

see also BOLP/NB/JK Tonymetz 💬 01:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]