The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Deryck C. 14:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing socialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

This page was first nominated around six months ago, with the discussion closed as no consensus. Since then, the article's creator has acknowledged that the page was "idiotic" and that its content should be moved piece-by-piece to various more relevant pages. The fundamental problem remains the same as it was before - this is a mish-mash of random themes, each of which have, at some time or other, been occasionally described as "right-wing socialism" or something similar, often simply as a pejorative term. There is no such generally known, documented, coherent topic as "right-wing socialism". This page starts off by defining the term according to one academic's individual target and then throws in anything else it can behind it. N-HH talk/edits 14:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Echoing the complaint I made in the last go-round, there is no such single entity as "right wing socialism." There have been a list of proposed and actual socialist programs through the years characterized by critics as "right wing socialism" — but there is no logical, organic connection between, say, the "right wing socialisms" listed by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto and the Bismarckian system in Germany and Bernstein's reformism and the pro-war "Social Patriotism" of the World War I era and the "National Socialism" of Hitler. What we have here is List of things characterized as "Right Wing Socialism" in certain times and places by their critics. Which is not an encyclopedic topic. Each and every sub-topic here is the subject of its own article, so far as I am aware — this is a pure fork. Don't let the wall of footnotes distract you, keep your eye on the ball. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is original research, combining sources writing about widely different topics. TFD (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: Combining sources is not original research. OR happens when you make stuff up. The Steve 

No, but combining wildly varying things that happen, on one occasion or other, to have been described using the same random combination of terms as if they are all roughly the same thing - when no sources are brought to suggest that they do actually form a common concept - is indeed original research, at least on the level of synthesis. N-HH talk/edits 08:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Synthesis is using two (or more) sources to make stuff up. Random combination? No, specific combination - that is the common link of all these things. Also, please note that OR/SYNTH is never a reason to delete if there are sources. The correct fix (always) to Original Research is to make the article more closely match the sources, removing the made up stuff.  The Steve 

• Keep. This is an informative article, telling us how there are different forms of socialism. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what the main Socialism article does? Plus it ignores the point that half the things randomly dumped together in this article aren't actually generally included in the definition of "socialism" at all - it includes cases where libertarian right-wingers use the term as an insult about more statist right-wingers to imply they are "closet" socialists; the old meme that Nazis are really socialists; and things that have never been called, specifically, "right-wing socialism", even on the fringes of political debate, but which contributors to the article have deemed probably should be. It also has references to people who are on the internal right-wing, relatively speaking, within the actual socialist movement. All these disparate and discrete topics are covered separately elsewhere and should not be subject to WP:SYNTHESIS. If anything the suggestion that people are learning things from this article is all the more reason for it to be removed ... N-HH talk/edits 08:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after merging informative and reliably sourced information to better fitted articles, as proposed by article creator User:R-41 and myself on the talk page. The article does not have a coherent topic. While the individual sections are well sourced each for themselves, there is no justification to subsume these different topics in one article under the title of "Right-wing socialism". There is no reliable source that verifies a connection or context between them. User:R-41 has created this context himself (WP:Original research/WP:Synthesis) - falsely, as he himself has admitted. (see talk page) --RJFF (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic was discussed less than 6 months ago - and a significant number of editors felt that the topic exists, and that deletion was not called for. This is simply "repeating an AfD until the result we want occurs" as noted by one editor saying it took six tries to remove one article. Wikipedia is ill-served by repetitive abuse of process especially when the folks who DONTLIKEIT do not even wait the customary six months between bites at the apple. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you argue for keeping the article not for contentual reasons, but merely for procedural principles? It is a pity that you do not address the arguments that different users have provided for deleting the article. --RJFF (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try not to use strawman arguments -- the arguments that the topic did not exist were pretty well demolished at the earlier AfD. The primary argument being used now is "IDONTLIKEHOWTHEARTICLEISWRITTEN which is, alas, not a valid argument for deletion.

Noting that this article as recently as February was 29K long, and was reduced by 25K by one seeking deletion. The topic is clearly notable, and was used as a term in the New York Times [1], [2] in Socialism, Economic Calculation and Entrepreneurship by Huerta de Soto - 2010, [3] African Socialism by Rosberg and Friedland, etc. Notable topic, even if those seeking deletion removed 90% of the original content, the remaining content is proper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Re-added on-point and sourced section on conservative socialism", noting this is not related to "fascism" in any event. [reply]

Seems quite sufficient to indicate that the term is notable, used in reliable sources, and that the argument that one does not like the article is insufficient for deletion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure anyone has ever properly defended the article on any detailed policy or content grounds, or rebutted any of the detailed and clear arguments laid out against it. We know the combination of the two adjectives is sometimes found in passing - to denote widely varying things, as the two cites above show. However, there is no coherent, commonly defined topic, and in fact most of the defence seems to consist simply of "I LIKE IT" (which seems to be a bigger problem here than the claimed DONTLIKEIT). Anyway this second nomination has nothing to to with "abuse of process" - 1) the last AFD closed "no consensus", so the article was kept by default, not because its worth was definitively established; 2) as noted, the article's creator and main contributor has, since the last AFD, disavowed it and suggested it should be dismantled (although they have so far failed to take responsibility for that themselves). So, it seems wholly appropriate to revisit the issue, and see if we can get something a little clearer. N-HH talk/edits 14:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, the NYT article describes Peronism, as a "sort of right-wing socialism". The libertarian writer De Soto uses the term as a synonym for conservatism, which he considers to be collectivist and therefore socialist. The pro-Soviet writer I.I. Potekhin uses the term to refer to social democrats, whom he does not considers to be "false" socialists. Why do you think they are talking about the same thing? TFD (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TFD - you have used the same claims over and over and over -- but the earth still moves. Cheers -- and by the way, it is absolutely clear my !vote is founded in Wikipedia policy, so trying to say otherwise by anyone is simply ludicrous. Collect (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, policy says that different topics should be in different articles. See WP:DISAMBIG. De Soto never called social democrats "right-wing socialists", he called them "left-wing socialists". I.I. Potekhin never called conservatives socialists of any kind. And the NYT does lump conservatives and social democrats together into the category of "right-wing socialism". I am surprised you do not appear to understand the difference between conservatives and social democrats. TFD (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No - you misstate policy. Many articles contain many topics - such as the ones on Liberalism, Conservatism inter alia. In fact, articles which deal with disparate groups may help Wikipedia users a great deal - so that argument simply fails. And the great idea that it is proper to tell an editor "you just do not understand" is inane as a form of discussion. It is not up to us to "know" the "truth" - it is up to us to accurately state what disparate reliable sources state. Period. Collect (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those at least cover a broad contiguous range of concepts and are generally agreed upon classifications/terms in the real world of politican taxonomy. "Right-wing socialism" is not, at least in the sense presented here. It is an often polemical term which means wildly different things and is often applied to people and things who are not even considered socialists at all in most worldviews. If it's meant to refer to the "Right wing of socialism", which is the one meaning that might have some mainstream purchase, we have Social Democracy already. And when it comes to sources, where is one single source that asserts the phrase "Right-wing socialism" covers such a wide array of concepts simultaneously? By your standards, under which we take words and sourcing at their literal meaning, Frank Butcher should be included on this page. N-HH talk/edits 21:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Collect. One should look at the previous AfD. All arguments by participants remain exactly the same. All sources are exactly the same. What was the reason for the new AfD nomination? My very best wishes (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find I have explained at two separate points above - including in the nomination - why I put this up for AFD again. N-HH talk/edits 21:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did not find your arguments convincing. I am not an expert in humanities, but this article look logical and sourced to me. If creator (R-21) has anything to tell, he should do it here, but he has no special rights compare to anyone else. My very best wishes (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy per TFD in this this discussion until either the article can be improved to warrant a standalone article on its own merits, or we can decide where to merge it or how to split it.--JayJasper (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a sensible solution to me. The problem is that the creator has backed dismantling it, but has done nothing to effect that. No one is much of a fan of the page, or that interested in it, so it just sits there in limbo. N-HH talk/edits 21:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article has a massive number of sources, and easily meets the GNG. The main problems seem to be editing ones, which is a rather poor reason to delete. Even if one accepts the premise that some of the material should be moved elsewhere, there should still be a lead-in here, with a link to the other article in question. If the uses are "mainly pejorative" (another strange reason to delete), then that is what the article should say. A so-called "mish-mash" article is not difficult to fix, only time-consuming, and AfD is not clean-up.  The Steve  06:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See comment(s) above re combining disparate ideas where no individual source connects them. That is synthesis. Ultimately, the logical conclusion from this defence seems to be that we should have some sort of disambiguation/dictionary entry for this term. I thought we didn't do that sort of thing. Or a page that said "Right-wing socialism is a term used by different writers to mean various different things. Sometimes it refers to the moderate or gradualist wing of the socialist movement. It has also been used by some right-wing libertarian writers to criticise traditional conservatives who they see as too paternalistic and statist. It has also been used as a catch-all term by both libertarian and conservative right-wingers to suggest that fascism and Nazism - traditionally seen in mainstream political taxonomy as part of the authoritarian right - are in fact left-wing ideologies and variants of socialism etc etc". N-HH talk/edits 08:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ps: also on the sourcing point, it's not even clear that half the sections/sub-themes included have ever been described, specifically, as "right-wing socialism" at all, let alone in the same sense or with the same weight. Most of the cites are to books so can't be checked. The editorial synthesis here, based on what WP contributors guess might be categorised or described as "right-wing socialism" is even more glaring than simply the creation of a confused mish-mash. N-HH talk/edits 09:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The cites are to books so can't be checked" is not a Wikipedia valid groumds for anything at all. In fact it shows a misunderstanding of what reliable sources actually are - and the group is far wider than "I found it in a Google search" to be sure. I suggest you examine the quaint anachronism known as a "library" and also check out the large number of indexed books on-line, which is not just on Google. In short, you are not presenting a "policy based argument" here at all - just the traditional "IDONTLIKEIT" argument which is generally found to have de minimis value at most. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't patronise me. I know off-line books can be reliable sources and that they can be found in libraries. I also know not everything is to be found in Google or online. The point is that there is no evidence that half the sources even use the phrase "right-wing socialism"; the text as rendered here doesn't even claim as much in most of the sections. If they do, I am sure the person who cited them can provide the exact quotes. It's ridiculous to assert than in a contentious area, where the reliability, accuracy and relevance of much of the content has been challenged, people can cite anything they like and then demand everyone else travels to a library to look every single thing up. N-HH talk/edits 12:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than heading to library I spent 20 mins doing what research I could online on this point. I'm glad I didn't go the library as I'd have sent whoever added half these cites an invoice for my travel expenses and any sub fees, as well as a turd in a box probably. A sample of nine of the cited books I could go into via Google Books found only two mentioning right-wing socialism at all, by which they meant the (relatively) right-wing, or moderate, subdividision of socialism proper, ie what we cover currently at Social Democracy. Of the other seven, NONE mentioned the phrase "right-wing socialism" or any close variation of that at all - whether in passing or by way of any formal definition or categorisation based on the phrase. This again shows how ridiculous and shallow the "has lots of sources" defence always is. N-HH talk/edits 13:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny -- seems to me that the sources do deal with the topic. 20 minutes is enough for you to state definitively "IDONTLIKEIT" I suppose - but it is not how serious folks treat such issues. Nor is your complaint remotely near a reason to delete an article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK .. detailed analysis of the sources, which shows they don't even use the terminology they are being cited in support of is merely "dontlikeit" and "not how serious folks treat such issues"; but simply saying "seems [OK] to me" is, presumably, not at all like "dolikeit" and is how "serious folks treat such issues". Marvellous - you have rewritten the rules of academic research and rational analysis. Could anyone get anything more back to front? N-HH talk/edits 14:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated previously, all of these problems have editing fixes. Deletion is not the answer. Also, you seem to misunderstood WP:SYNTH - it is only concerned with Original Research. Disparate sources is not WP:SYNTH - the editing fix for SYNTH is to make the article match the sources quoted. No sources? remove the sections with no sources. The term right-wing socialist is obviously in use, and has been in use for some time. In fact, you yourself suggested a disambiguate editing solution. Disambiguate is not deletion, and you could have done that easily enough without bringing it here...  The Steve  21:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:DISAMBIG - we create separate articles. However we already have an article for conservatism, which is how the term is defined in the lead, and for everything else that has been called right-wing socialism for one reason or another. TFD (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is that in any way an argument against my suggestion? Your article looks like this:

• Comment: The article has many academic sources. Whether the topic itself is notable is something that I cannot comment and that may be the point. Normally, one would think of 'left wing socialism.' The German Nazis did make Labour Day a holiday in Germany but they were really right wing nationalists and hated all forms of German social democracy. --Artene50 (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Socialism has been described as "right wing" by X Y and Z[footnotes]. Main Article: Conservatism

Main Article: Socialism Is that really so hard??  The Steve  08:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

De Soto refers to the mainstream right, e.g., the ideology of the Republican Party, as right-wing socialism. Communists, call social democrats right-wing socialists. We can add to the article about the Republican Party that De Soto thinks they are socialists, and we can add to the article on social democrats that the Communists consider them to be to their right. But no one looking for the ideology of the Republican Party or social democracy is going to punch in "right-wing socialism". TFD (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Steve, bringing together disparate sources together to imply there is some coherent, generally accepted topic known under this name - and leading/defining the term with the most fringe polemical use of it - is surely synthesis or barely an inch away from it. And adding content that is not even described by the actual term, on the apparent basis that it kind of fits given how we define "socialism" and "right-wing" in other places, is very definitely synthesis. So we have a double problem. Could that be solved by editing not deletion? Perhaps. The problem is that since the creator has disavowed this article, and most others have such a low opinion of it that they don't want to be seen applying lipstick to the pig, it's just going to sit here for ever and ever as misleading and inaccurate content. Equally, as noted, even if someone does get down to it, any proper editing is likely to simply leave us, per your suggestion above, with a glorified disambiguation page for a made-up quasi-dictionary term of the sort deprecated here as I understand it. As for taking it to AFD, Merge, Redirect, Return to Userpace are all possible outcomes. I stand by a genuine personal preference for deletion, but if any of those are preferred by consensus, I'd be fine with that too. At least the issue would have been forced. N-HH talk/edits 11:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, one could express a lot of criticism about any page of C-class and lower. We suppose to look at multiple sources and briefly summarize their content. Reviewing multiple sources is a difficult creative activity which involves some degree of interpretation (even combining sources on the same subject together). The deletion could be justified if someone demonstrated that the entire subject or concept simply does not not exist. However it seems that just the opposite the case: same subject appears in multiple sources. My very best wishes (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, N-HH, I commend your thoroughness in checking all the sources you could. It is something more editors should do, but few (including myself) actually do. I can understand how references to conservative socialism got in, since "right-wing" is often considered synonymous with "conservative". I also applaud your goal of a coherent, generally accepted topic. Unfortunately, there may not be such a topic - which leaves us to neaten the mess as best we can. I say we do what encyclopedias always do: summarize, summarize, summarize. I have no problem with a glorified disambiguation page for a made-up quasi-dictionary term (it was my idea, after all), but your reasoning for deletion is certainly understandable.  The Steve  05:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.