Talk:Far-right politics/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Muslim Brotherhood

[1] Centre for Research on Globalization Tony Cartalucci

The Muslim Brotherhood is a faux-theocratic sectarian extremist movement – a regional movement that transcends national borders.

[2] Daily NNews Egypt

It is not an exaggeration or act of slander to say that the Muslim Brotherhood has always been the fascist alternative to what has been a reactionary regime. ... The Muslim Brotherhood is an extremist Sunni organisation, whose ideology is rooted in the writings of Sayyid Qutb, Al-Mawdudi and Ibn Timia, whose underpinnings are not shared by other sects of Sunni Islam.

[3] toronto Globe and Mail

“The Muslim Brotherhood is using the Salafists to deliver a message to the liberals,” said Emad Gad, a political analyst at the Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. “The message is: Stop attacking Morsi.” The extremism, however, does not please all Islamists.

[4] NBC News analysis

This is where they are shouting on bullhorns again, outraged because they say the Muslim Brotherhood has stolen the revolution and is railroading though a constitution that could lock in Muslim Brotherhood rule for 50 years, bringing more Islamic law. They cry -- not against Islam -- but that an extremist interpretation is being forced down their throats by a president who critics say is acting every part the tyrant. ... The constitution has long been the Muslim Brotherhood's lodestar and, in the past, they have been willing the kill for it.

[5] Agence France Presse

That assessment was not shared by Demrdash Ghoneim as he waited in vain for tourists to ride one of his 10 horses. "Extremist Islamists are keeping tourists away from Egypt," he said. The referendum result will solve nothing, Ghoneim predicted. "The Muslim Brotherhood divided the country with the constitution."

[6] Al-Monitor

While the initiative calls for all sides to participate in government institutions and maintain the “prestige of the state” — among other general policies — the extremist-controlled Brotherhood leadership issued yesterday [Nov.4] an internal circular calling for a boycott.

Etc. for the Muslim Brotherhod both in and outside of Egypt.

[7] NYT the Muslim Brotherhood’s willingness to rely on authoritarian tactics., [8] NYT It reflects a consistent trio of complaints: confusing economic policies of the Brotherhood-led government, a near-monopoly on power and civilian supporters’ use of force against opponents in a street battle two weeks ago ... [9] NYT It is impossible to know how much Mr. Morsi, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood’s political arm, knew about the Islamists’ vigilante justice. But human rights advocates say the detentions raised troubling questions about statements made by the president during his nationally televised address on Thursday. In it, Mr. Morsi appears to have cited confessions obtained by his Islamist supporters, the advocates said, when he promised that confessions under interrogation would show that protesters outside his palace acknowledged ties to his political opposition and had taken money to commit violence.

Blindness to what is in black and white is not really a virtue - most of these are not generally called "opinion articles". Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

None of your sources call them "far right" and books about the far right do not include them. Again, read synthesis, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." TFD (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources (including a bunch already given on this article talk page) call the MB "extremist", "fundamentalist" and "radical" and "right wing." Also "terrorist" and the prime mover of the Sadat assassination. But you are welcom to "know" that they are nice moderates in Egypt, I suppose - but since the reliable sources make clear that they are not that - then Wikipedia uses what the sources state, and not what you aver to be the truth. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

None of your sources call them "far right". Did it ever occur to you that they may be religious extremists (hint, look at their name). You should read WP:SYN, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." The far right has been a subject of study for a long time. It is possible that the experts have missed your conclusions, and I suggest you tell them about their error. However until they agree with you, we have to ignore your opinions. BTW as someone interested in this topic, I would like to know if the views you present are based on your own speculation or if there is some website I can view to read them. TFD (talk) 07:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

They do use the terms - and that you consider a group which tortures people and is political in nature to only be religiously extreme is extraordinarily remarkable indeed! And since I am using reliable sources and all you say is that your opinion supercedes the dozen or more sources provided - I am left with mouth agape. We see the group described as right wing, fundamentalist, extreme, terrorist, anti-woman, anti-gay, pro-dictatorship, etc.

Robert Dreyfuss in The Nation [10] (ot) is an extreme, right-wing, cult-like organization with a cell-based structure whose goal is anathema to progressives inside Egypt and out. seems from here to call it "extreme" and "right wing" but I suppose you missed that part of the quote. Carina Kamel in HuffPo [11] quotes Bassem Youssef "Our right wing here in Egypt is different from the U.S. because people here are more emotional about religion, they can't differentiate between politics and religion. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis are the right wing, I don't deal with them as religious groups but as political groups." They seem not to agree with your personal knowledge, TFD. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Robert Dreyfuss is a controversial writer who believes that the MB is backed by the CIA and Mossad, and the Egyptian military and elites. That would certainly qualify them as right-wing but most sources do not believe that those connections exist. Again neither Dreyfuss nor the comedian you cite call the MB "far right". Curiously, Dreyfuss calls the Tea Party "far right", and said they might be behind the failed Times Square bombing.[12] You know that in order to call a group "far right" we need to establish that there is consensus in the literature for calling them that. I know you know that because otherwise you would have edited the lead of the Tea Party Movement to call them far right. Or maybe you have undergone a 180 degree change in political orientation. TFD (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with TFD here. Nothing in the wall of text posted above explicitly places or describes the Muslim Brotherhood as "far right" or "extreme right-wing" other than your own deduction and your conflation of expressions genuinely found in sources; even if you could find one or two sources that do such a thing, in passing or otherwise, that is not necessarily definitive, in that it depends on which sources might say that and where the overall balance of description lies; and, finally, there is not the slightest indication in all of the above what change you are asking for in the article here anyway. Given that in a separate thread above you have also described the page in its current state as "almost entirely US-centric", when it says virtually nothing about the US or US political movements at all, I can only conclude trollery or a staggering lack of reading ability. Not for the first time on topics of this sort. Mouth agape indeed. N-HH talk/edits 17:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

What we have is the Muslim Brotherhood has always been the fascist alternative, ''The Muslim Brotherhood is an extremist Sunni organisation, The extremism, however, does not please all Islamists., an extremist interpretation is being forced down their throats, Extremist Islamists are keeping tourists away from Egypt, the extremist-controlled Brotherhood leadership issued yesterday [Nov.4] an internal circular calling for a boycott., all seem, to me, to assert the MB is extremist and fascist in nature.

This is not that same as TFD using a source for Radical right which specifically said the Tea Party was not "far right" and objected to use of the full quote' from the source he proffered. [13] shows the inaccurate use of a quotation. [14] shows what Courser actually wrote, [15] shows the discussion about labelling the Tea Party as "radical right" as supported by TFD and a total of one other editor, and note that the consensus was clear that the claim should be excluded from that article. Note further that contrary to the asinine assertion that I was opposed to labelling the Tea Party, I was opposed to gross abuse of a source. We can not use a source for a claim which the source says is not true which was the case there.

Meanwhile TFD asserts The source defines "far right" as "openly racist, anti-Semitic and anti-government. The MB is openly racist (see its words about Jews), anti-semitic and anti-governments unless it controls it. Cheers. And I wanna see anyone say that the sources do not call the MB "extreme" or "fascist" or "anti-Semitic." Collect (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not try label the Tea Party as radical right, merely say (as your link shows), "Recent scholarship tends to place the Tea Party Movement within the tradition of the radical right....Chip Berlet has described it as "the type of right-wing populist movement seen throughout U.S. history." That is clearly supported by Courser, although he disagreed with these writers. But following your reasoning, we should label the Tea Party "far right" because Dreyfuss calls it that. I have never defined the "far right" as "openly racist, anti-Semitic and anti-government", merely that those are qualities they have. I could add that the far right uses irrational arguments, without claiming that you and others who use irrational arguments are far right. TFD (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

MB in book review etc. in NYT

[16] NYT January 6, 2008. Seeds of Hate By JEFFREY GOLDBERG

“These contributions enabled the Muslim Brotherhood to set up a printing plant with 24 employees and use the most up-to-date propaganda methods.” The Muslim Brotherhood, Küntzel goes on, was a crucial distributor of Arabic translations of “Mein Kampf” and the “Protocols.” Across the Arab world, he states, Nazi methods and ideology whipped up anti-Zionist fervor, and the effects of this concerted campaign are still being felt today.

The former Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi once told me that “the question is not what the Germans did to the Jews, but what the Jews did to the Germans.” The Jews, he said, deserved their punishment. Küntzel argues that we should see men like Rantisi for what they are: heirs to the mufti, and heirs to the Nazis.

[17] Thomas Friedman:

Have no illusions: the Muslim Brotherhood at its core holds deeply illiberal, anti-pluralistic, anti-feminist views.

[18] Rushdie:

This paranoid Islam, which blames outsiders, "infidels," for all the ills of Muslim societies, and whose proposed remedy is the closing of those societies to the rival project of modernity, is presently the fastest growing version of Islam in the world.

Collect (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

None of your sources are of any relevant to the article as has been explained to you. TFD (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

When did the term “far right” first emerge?

I suspect that it was only during WWII or shortly thereafter. During the war the Allies had the need to portray Nazi Germany (the far rightists) as the polar opposite of the Soviet Union (the far leftists); later, moreover, after the war ended and the whole human rights movement and everything begin, there emerged a repulsion against ideological extremes and even against ideology itself, almost as an immunological defense mechanism against the putative pathogen behind the atrocities of the first half of the 20th century. You can draw the analogy with The Hunger Games, except that it was the other way around. Universalism was replaced with relativism, and thought with emotion, with man's irrational instincts. How do you fix the problem of too much government? By introducing even more government! I haven't determined if that tendency formed in the public on its own or was imposed on it by some governmental or non-governmental entities. Right wing, left wing; political terminology keeps getting more senseless as we move farther away from the French Revolution. “Observe, in politics, that the term extremism has become a synonym of ‘evil,’ regardless of the content of the issue (the evil is not what you are extreme about, but that you are ‘extreme’—i.e., consistent).” EIN (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

When the Nazis first entered the Reichstag they were seated on the far right. Here is a link to the seating plan following the German federal election, December 1924. As you can see, the nazis are seated with the far right German National People's Party. The two parties would enter into a coalition then merge in 1933. The term "right-wing" had originally been used earlier in the century to describe the conservative and right-wing liberal Parties who sat in the right wing of the legislatures of Europe. The seating of parties from left to right based on ideological position continues in many legislatures today. TFD (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Some interesting facts. Thanks for the information, especially the clarification that the term “far right” preceded the NSDAP. Would you support its inclusion to the article? A source would be needed. EIN (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There are sources that use the term "far right", but I have not found any that explain the origins of the term. If you find any, then we can add them. TFD (talk) 03:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

There is an apparently thorough definition of the origin of the left/right terminology from revolutionary France at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics Its description is consistent with what I have heard in the past about the origins of left/right terminology.Bkyoder (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, another historical bit of explanation (for which I alas can't recall a reference off the top of my head) is that the Bolsheviks had a habit in the early/mid 20th century of declaring any socialist groups that were for whatever reason political enemies "right wing" or "counter-revolutionary" as a means of denouncing them and apparently that term stuck when it came to their Nazi and Fascist enemies whose concrete policies were rather more like their own than their enemies' but for obvious reasons it was beneficial to define these enemies as "right-wing" and "anti-communist", "enemies of the people" and the like. Does anybody have a reference for this? Perhaps I can dig something up.Bkyoder (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget though that the terms right and left are relative (eg the left can have a "right wing" that is still more left wing than the "left wing" of the right, without being too Rumsfeldian about it); and, as acknowledged, the terms are often flung about polemically. Some of the sources I managed to dig up for this discussion show that the terms far or extreme right were being used for fascists and Nazis, and by mainstream news sources, from a relatively early point. N-HH talk/edits 10:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

While there are sources for the history of the terms "right" and "left", and even "extreme right", "radical right" and "new right", there are no sources I have seen for the origin of the term "far right." I assume it was used to refer to the parties that sat on the far right of legislatures in Europe, but we cannot add that without a source. The modern terminology of left-wing and right-wing btw developed in the 20th century. Hence Marx and Engels never used the terms.

Although the Communists referred to socialists as right-wing, but that was to group them with fascists, conservatives and liberals, who were already called the Right. C.f. "class collaborators", "social fascists". Stalin's Communist opponents were referred to as the "left" and "right" oppositions, although that merely indicated their position within Communism, which was considered to be on the Left. Communists never referred to socialists as "far right."

The term "far right" continues to be used today, because there is no other term to describe the family or families of ideologies described.

TFD (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

“New right” and “radical right” have somewhat different histories and connotations from those of “far right,” but a source for the earliest occurrences of “extreme right” would definitely be of value to this article.

I will have to disagree that there is no other classification for political ideologies. There are many. You could classify them by, say, the amount of government they advocate, on a spectrum from anarchism to totalitarianism. But yes, that classification would be almost as incomplete as the one by support for equality (what sort of equality?). For instance, the type of people who pride themselves for upholding the principles of limited government, by and large support strong governmental protection of private property rights, which many people on the authoritarian side wish to abolish. Now there are those who suggest that it should be not a continuum but a two-dimensional map, accounting for economic policy and social policy separately, and that makes sense, but is still far from perfect. Is the issue of income distribution more of an economic policy case or one of social policy? What about foreign policy, fiscal policy? or, for that matter, basic governmental structures and functions (e.g,. monarchism vs. republicanism)? Personally, I would be the happiest when people stopped seeing ideology as a matter of degree and started seeing it as a matter of kind. EIN (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The concept of the extreme right party family was developed by Klaus von Beyme in 1985.[19] Obviously people have applied all manner of relative modifiers to right, but scholars generally follow Von Beyme's definition. It is not btw seeing ideology as a "matter of degree" - this is the only political family he identified using the terms left or right. The term was chosen because they were perceived by the public, other parties and themselves to be to the right of the traditional parties. Does that mean they are right-wing? No. Does that mean they have any common policies on race, economics, foreign affairs etc.? No. Does that mean they have anything in common? No. If you have a better term to describe this group of parties then please provide one. TFD (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, so much for an etymology section. RE:“If you have a better term to describe this group of parties then please provide one.” Some people just call them fascists. EIN (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Most of these parties were new and had no connection with historical fascism. TFD (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Definitions

Several months ago I was working on an article relating to the so-called "war of words" definitions debate but it came under deletionist attack before I could get it to any decent standard. I've basically dumped the text at the start of this article rather than see it go to waste though I would have preferred to have continued working on the separate article. Francium12 (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a good approach. My understandings though is that they are using the terms "extreme right" and "right-wing extremism", not "far right". Since "extreme right" is now a re-direct, I suggest you turn it into an article. The term "far right" is usually used more narrowly, although it is sometimes used as a synonym, especially in news media. Note also that there is a "far right" category that includes groups such as the BNP but not UKIP. We should have separate articles for these different topics. TFD (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that more is needed on definitions and the difference between the use of far right, extreme right etc. However, I'd be wary of getting too bogged down in it, or in asserting that there are fixed definitions here and setting up a separate "extreme right" article, not least because there is surely no rigid objective distinction. As with all political terminology of this sort, there are gray areas and differing opinions depending on who you ask. I'd agree that "far" and "extreme" are indeed often used pretty much interchangeably, but suggest that it is not just in the media. The term "radical right" is one that arguably has a clearer distinction from the other two and is one more often applied to populist, conservative and libertarian groups (as opposed to neo-fascist groups); and we have that page already. Also, I continue to object, as I did at the AFD debate, to the description, whether in text or article title, of any definitional debate as "the war of words". Just because the phrase has been occasionally coined in respect of this debate – as it has of 1000 other debates – that does not mean it has become its semi-official title, any more than any other discussion is "the big question". N-HH talk/edits 17:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The title of your source is "The War of Words: Defining The Extreme Right Party". Why not call the article "Extreme Right" or "Extreme Right Parties"? A google book search shows that most hits for "extreme right" use the term in the same way as Cas Mudde. Type in "far right" and most hits are for neo-nazi type parties. In The emergence of a Euro-American radical right, pp. 11-12, the authors explain that the term extreme right came to be used when new right-wing parties appeared that had no connection to fascism, while in the US the term radical right was preferred.[20] But the term far right is most commonly used to describe white supremicist groups. (See Rabble Rousers: The American Far Right in the Civil Rights Era, p. 10, the term far right is generally used to describe white supremicists.[21] TFD (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I’m not likely to expand this article any further as I find contributing to articles relating to the far-right more trouble than it is worth! I’ve been accused of both a pro-far right bias and an anti-far right bias when creating articles in this area and find it all a bit too adversarial. I just added the text here rather than see it go to waste. Francium12 (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I might run through the recently added material shortly and trim it a little. As I said, I think defining the terms (and explaining any differences in definitions) is important, but we can get too bogged down in detail. Also, I think the list/bullet-point formatting probably needs to be prose-ified.

On an unrelated point, has anyone any ideas for improving the first sentence of the lead? "Highest degree of rightism in right-wing politics" just sounds odd, and as tautologous as it is informative as a definition of "far" or "extreme" right. N-HH talk/edits 17:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, far right is the most common. The highest degree of rightism means the furthest to the right on the left-right spectrum.--R-41 (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there's a debate above about whether this page should be called "far" or "extreme" right or how commonname comes into the discussion. Also, I didn't say that I didn't know what "highest degree of rightism" means, I said it's crap phrasing. It is. N-HH talk/edits 11:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

One of the problems is the inexactitude of any definition of "right" proffered anywhere - what is clear is that no such definition exists which applies to all places at all times, thus there is no way we can make this article be universally applicable either, using "extreme" or "far" as a modifier does not improve anything. The desire to categorise groups or ideas is understandable, but often inapt. All we can do is ascribe opinions as opinions - and ascribe such properly to the persons or sources holding them. Collect (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You could say the same thing about directions. East and west are relative not absolute terms. If one goes far enough east, one ends up to the west of where one begins. Parts of East Germany were to west of parts of West Germany and vice versa. People in the Far West who travel east end up in the East but if they sail west they end up in the Far East. South Dakota is north of North Carolina. The West End of London is in Central London. That does not mean that the terms including directions are meaningless. TFD (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually that is an inane and false argument, unworthy of being on an article talk page. And your claim about "East Germany" and "West Germany" is one of the most ridiculous arguments seen by mortal man when you look at the actual topic being discussed. Now might you kindly address your posts to actual issues? Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The point is that your continued complaints about the left-right spectrum whenever the term "far right" is used is a waste of time. People refer to specific groups (BNP, EDL, American Nazis, etc.) as far right. It does not matter whether that description is correct, it is the term they use to refer to a specific group. Since articles are about topics, if you do not like the term "far right", then please provide a better title. TFD (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

R-41, "far right" is of course the most common name for groups that are the farthest to the right in the political spectrum. But many "extreme right" groups are not. For example, the right-wing populist parties are classified as extreme right, but neo-fascist parties are the furthest right. TFD (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead

On top of the horrible opening sentence "highest degree of rightism" etc, the lead seems a little threadbare. To my eyes, it focuses too much on the issue of superiority/hierarchy as the main signifier of the far right. Although it does mention in passing subsequently a couple of other common features further on – eg nationalism, reaction, social conservatism etc – I'd have thought they should have equal billing, as it were, and also be elaborated on a bit more. I'm also not sure about the middle paragraph, which is all based on one source and probably elaborates a bit too much on the idea of "laziness" and "behavioural inferiority". Finally it probably needs something about far-rightism and the state/collectivism (eg extreme conservative libertarianism as against fascism, both of which regularly attract the label, despite their obvious differences). Any ideas? I might try to do something with it over the next couple of days. N-HH talk/edits 15:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing this a bit further, I'm not sure either about the beginning of the final paragraph and its claims about the "original" far right. It doesn't quite sit right and is not quite what the source supposedly supporting it says either, which simply says that "the right and extreme right .. displayed loyalty to notions of monarchy and aristocracy". It seems a total rewrite is in order, really. N-HH talk/edits 15:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the article is that it confuses two concepts. One, usually called the extreme right, refers to parties to the right of traditional parties and includes the Tea Party, UKIP. The term far right is usually more narrowly defined and refers to groups such as neofascists - the KKK, BNP, EDL. TFD (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

As discussed previously, I'm not sure usage is that strictly demarcated, at least not always; indeed, the terms are used pretty interchangeably in both academic discourse and in common use (and running 'far extreme right' as a search term through Google Books flags that up pretty quickly, from book titles onwards into actual content, including some text that notes the terms are used interchangeably. Plenty of books about neo-fascists refer to them as "extreme right"). I think we'd be imposing an ultimately artificial and arbitrary – or at least non-universal – distinction by splitting the two terms into different concepts, even if it is one observed by some writers. We have to deal with it all as a perhaps slightly ungainly lump, but explain the uses of the terms and what connects – or does not connect – the things they cover. N-HH talk/edits 18:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Certainly there is no agreement for the terminology used to map the Right, but that does not mean that there is no agreement on concepts. Most of the sources for this article use the term "extreme right", and define it as groups to the right of traditional parties, using Von Beyme's concept of ideological families. Type in "extreme right" on Google books and most results use this definition. Type in "far right" and most results are about neofascists. It could be that the distinction between neofascists and right-wing populists is not sharply defined. But do you not think that the literature draws a distinction between groups like UKIP and the Tea Party and groups like the KKK and BNP? TFD (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, but I don't think it's made by the switch between "far" and "extreme", at least not with any clarity or consistency. I'm going on my own experience of seeing the terms used, but, just so I can put something on the record, the top three books that come up for me on a Google Books search of "extreme right" that I can get a preview of are The Extreme Right in Western Europe by Elisabeth Carter, another book with the same title by Paul Hainsworth, and The Ideology of the Extreme Right by Cas Mudde, all of which appear to at least include, if not focus on, neofascist and similar groups. In addition, Mudde's book approvingly cites another writer's definition of extreme right as "placement at the far right of the national political spectrum". Another book, The Extreme Right in France, by JG Shields, explicitly says "no substantive distinction is observed here between these two terms .. they are often used interchangeably by commentators"; indeed in so far as he notes a distinction, it is the opposite to the one you are suggesting, with him writing that the term far right "is used as a somewhat more embracive term to include that wider area of right-wing political identification where .. conservatism, nationalism .. etc .. shade into extremism". (Apologies, I would link to these, but Google Book links never seem to translate well). Clearly that's just a quick and fairly arbitrary sample, and doesn't prove anything other than that the use of the terms is not clearly delineated; but that's all I'm arguing of course. N-HH talk/edits 20:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The first two books rely on Von Beyme's definition and their emphasis is on the right-wing populist parties. Since they are using the term broadly, it includes far right parties such as the BNP. Shields acknowledges a distinction between the two concepts, even if he uses them in the opposite way to how I have. Carter refers to Betz's distinction between 'old' and 'new'. Clive Webb in Rabble Rousers: The American Far Right in the Civil Rights Era, p. 10 writes, "The labels applied by scholars...are all problematic.... The inappropriateness of these terms has led me, to some extent by default, to use the term far right to describe militant white supremacists.... this is the label most broadly used by scholars...."[22] What terminology do you think is most appropriate? And since the sources for this article all use the term "extreme right", should we not change the name? TFD (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

As I say, I don't think we can separate them into discrete topics, or pages here. To be honest I'd happily toss a coin between the two to establish which one term we use as the primary one on this one page, or go on the fact that most sources used on the page currently are using "extreme" primarily. I think the more detailed semantics can go into a dedicated "Terminology" section, which looks at the use – and, where appropriate, distinct use – of the terms (along with a brief nod possibly towards the term "radical right"). The main thing I'd personally like to see is just a more focused and better lead. I'd start it something very roughly like "The terms far/extreme-right, or extreme/far-right, describe the broad range of political groups and ideologies usually taken to be further to the right of the mainstream centre-right on the left-right spectrum". It should probably spell out common or key themes fairly consistently associated with the more extreme right (eg social conservatism, hierarchicalism [sic], strong nationalism etc) as well as briefly highlight where the the label can cover contradictory ground (eg conservative libertarianism vs fascist authoritarianism, capitalism unleashed vs corporatism etc). The point about the overall left-right split coming from the French Revolution is worth keeping, but without the "original far right" phrasing if possible, which is slightly odd wording. N-HH talk/edits 00:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, a quick glance at the books returned for "far right" show that they mostly define it as fascist or neo-fascist. For example, Women of the Far Right is about Americans who thought the U.S. should support the Axis powers. The Far Right and Racism equates the two. From the Far Right to the Mainstream is about groups like the BNP and EDL. So is The Far Right and the Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right. The current article uses sources that almost exclusively use the term "extreme right", while most books that use the term far right refer to its racism, violence and threat to national security. I would avoid the term radical right because it is most often associated with the American Right, which was studied separately from the Right in Europe, Canada and other countries. I think we can separate the topics, because each relies on a different body of literature and usually use different terms. TFD (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

And the same applies to searching for "extreme right" alongside "racism" or "fascism" as it does for "far right". Gbooks also throws up another book that, in so far as it makes the distinction, makes it the opposite way: see p212 of World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia Vol 1 re the "European New Right", which says "parties on the far right also deny any association with the extreme right or fascist labels". As I say we don't have the real-world coherence to split; and even if we did, a split the opposite way is as logical. Btw my point about radical right was simply that it needs to be noted briefly in any dedicated terminology sectionas a related term, albeit one that usually does indeed cover different ground. N-HH talk/edits 09:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

As we agree authors often use the terms interchangeably. A search of the term "far right" shows that it is used almost exclusively fascist or neofascist groups,[23] while "extreme right" does not.[24] Most of the hits for ER are book titles. Most of the sources for the article use the term "extreme right".

Also parties such as BNP are usually described as far right in their leads, and included in the far right category[25] while parties like UKIP are described as right-wing populist. A book search for ukip + "far right" shows that most sources contrast it with the far right, rather than include it.[26] For example the first source says "party rules require all candidates to declare that they have no past or present links with far-right organizations."

To return to your question about the lead, it is taken from a tertiary source, which is usually a bad idea. Here is the link. Can you think of a better source?

TFD (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The remaining problem is the lack of any actual real definition of the term other than "a lot of authors use similar terms as though they all have the same precise meaning. Routledge is, by the way, generally considered a reliable source and its books are generally considered reliable sources and not barred as "tertiary" on Wikipedia. In fact, many hundreds of their books are used in articles. Collect (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

No they are not barred, but editors should use the best sources possible. Routledge's companion to fascism and the far right for example would be a more appropriate source. Probably the best source, if we want to define the topic broadly, would be Cas Mudde's writing which is already extensively used for the article. And unlike the tertiary source, he has written extensively about terminology. TFD (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite of lead

OK, per the above I've finally dived in with this and made a bold edit. It's lost a lot of the detail that was there, but tbh most of it was pretty awful. It was badly written, zeroed in in excessive detail on individual aspects and missed rather obvious general points, most of which are surely not controversial. Obviously it needs to be improved and added to, but if possible could we avoid a straight revert to the old version? N-HH talk/edits 14:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Note for material I am placing them here, you take them or leave them, I will not engage in lengthy debate about this. But before proceeding, N-HH, I apologized to you for my earlier extremely uncivil behaviour to you on your talk page. If what I added was "badly written" in your view, then the writing could be improved - poor writing is not a matter of content. I believe that you are confused about the nature of the left-right spectrum. First of all here is the problem: if as TFD has said, that the "extreme right" or "radical right" would include staunch right-libertarians of the likes of say Ayn Rand, then that would go against social conservatism being a universal facet of the topic of article - Ayn Rand was an atheist who lived in the United States who challenged existing traditional cultural viewpoints, such as her assertions of selfishness being a virtue. Ayn Rand is an important figure amongst the right-libertarian movement in the United States, such as in the Tea Party movement. So then, whether talking about the term described "extreme right" or right-wing politics as a whole, here is an important question: what is it that right-libertarians like Ayn Rand and authoritarian reactionaries have in common on the right? It is the acceptance of inequality. And if you look at groups identified under the word "far-right" ranging from the reactionaries in post-1789 France to the KKK, to the Nazis, it is a belief in very strong inequality that permeates between them. There are many sloppy, half-rate descriptions of the left-right spectrum - the worst of which tend to be from the United States that commonly confuse domestic cultural influences on the nature of their political movements with the left-right spectrum. There are multiple sources that describe the spectrum as involving support for equality on the left and acceptance of inequality on the right, that is what the left-right spectrum is really about.--R-41 (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There was a long debate about definition matters related to this on the Right-wing politics talk page, what resulted was that no other logical consistent conclusion arose about what right-wing politics meant as a whole other than that it involves acceptance of inequality; and since then the article's intro has stabilized, there have been no big disputes about it since then. That is my interjection, I will exit now.--R-41 (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I am not at all confused about the nature of the left-right spectrum (or rather, perhaps, no more confused than anyone else inevitably is about these kind of loose classifications that encompass a wide range of often contradictory ideas and characteristics). Reductive conclusions about the one thing that "right-wing" and the "left-right spectrum" must supposedly mean or refer to, based on individual deduction and the exclusion of any characteristic that is purportedly not shared among every single group that has ever been described as extreme right, constitute original research. Nor, even if that were accurate in one respect, does it provide a guide as to how to present a broad and often subjective topic of this sort.

Furthermore, your argument fails not only because not everyone would necessarily describe Ayn Rand as "extreme right" but also because the revised lead does not suggest that extreme rightists have to be socially conservative. The lead should offer a broad overview of the things that are often or usually – a word which is notably and deliberately included in the wide description offered – found to be characteristics or tendencies of groups or ideas that can be found, at least some of the time, described as being far or extreme right; not zero in solely on the one thing that one WP contributor claims, based on their own analysis, is found in all of them. Those characteristics would include, as any serious source would attest, the variety of things listed in the lead, including social conservatism. It doesn't mean every group or idea that has ever been described as far right must exhibit every single one of them. N-HH talk/edits 23:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This perspective on right-wing politics is not just my view. Look at the Right-wing politics article, multiple references support the conclusion that it is about justification of hierarchy or inequality. There was a long debate on what should be in the intro, I was one person in that debate, there were multiple others, including the user Rick Norwood, TFD, and others. Sources were brought forward and reviewed, debate eventually died down and the intro on right-wing politics was adopted after that long debate. As for the intro on this article, social conservatism is not isolated to the far-right, certain social conservatives are far-right, others are not. Such social conservatives would likely be classified as reactionaries - and that term is already listed in the second last sentence of the intro.--R-41 (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

And that entry, from its first sentence, suffers from the same reductive over-simplification and the same problems as most of the political pages here; ie an assumption that one single definition, analysis or perspective – however many footnotes can be dredged up from Google Books – can be announced as the definitive answer or dumped on a page without any regard for due weight, balance or context. As noted, the issue is far more complex than that, and disputed among sources (or at least subject to some nuance among them). As also noted, the intro here does not claim that all social conservatives are far right, or that all far rightists are socially conservative. It also still notes, prominently, that support for or acceptance of inequality and hierarchy is usually a critical feature. However, previously the lead overfocused on this one point and went into an inordinate and wholly undue level of detail on it in its second paragraph, elbowing out every other theme. As I said, the paring down was meant to be a start not an end, but a serious encyclopedia can't have a lead that refers to "the highest degree of rightism" or enters into lengthy discourse about "behavioural inferiority", "laziness" and people's purported "habits" as if these were the only things that counted for the far right. N-HH talk/edits 10:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with R-41 on this, and find your position to be quite untenable. Amd suggest that the fact which has consistently been shown to be true is that the "left-right political spectrum" has major and substantial problems when used as a Procrustean methodology. Collect (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

If you could explain exactly what you find "quite untenable" in my position, with reference to specific points I have made, and for what reasons you believe that to be the case, that might help. Oddly, of course, I actually made exactly your point about the complexity and inadequacy of the left-right spectrum. Regardless of course, it is in wide use, and we have an article here that attempts to describe what "far right" means and covers as a topic and a term. We have to work through that whether we like it or not. N-HH talk/edits 12:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I wrote my post above. I found it both concise and clear. See Procrustes Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I understood the post perfectly in so far as it went, as I rather obviously acknowledged – ie that you think the terms left and right are straitjackets, and that you have decreed my position "untenable" and that R-41 is right. What I am confused by, as I said, is in what way and on what basis you think the latter two to be the case or to be logical conclusions from the previous assertion. On my broad point, that this is a difficult question, we seem, in fact, to be in agreement; on the detailed sub-points about what this means for how to present the information in the lead itself, you supplied no specific responses or rebuttals for anyone, myself included, to understand. Not that I'm asking for them now, btw. N-HH talk/edits 13:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not "decreed" anything at all. In repeated discussions here and elsewhere, scores of cites have been given to show the problem, and I "decree" nothing at all- I simply go by what the reliable sources state - including Schlesinger et al. Which is that we need to carefully present the problems inherent in the "linear spectrum" as given in reliable sources and not blindly re-assert "left is to the left of right, and right is to th right of left" etc. Collect (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The article is about the political group or groups commonly called "far right", not about the political spectrum. If you can think of a better name for this article, then please provide one. TFD (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the changes. For one thing I much prefer the source. The validity of the left-right spectrum is not of much relevance to the article. The far right is "usually taken to be further to the right of the mainstream center-right on the traditional left-right spectrum." That of course is why they are called far right, whether or not the assessment is true. This political group or groups has always presented problems with naming and definition. The other main political groups self-identify as part of a group, have common elements of ideology, history, international organizations, symbols, and supply us with their own names - liberal, socialist, etc. Hence we are left with a name that may not be entirely satisfactory. BTW it would be helpful if N_HH could supply a brief exert from the source. TFD (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The opening sentence was more about starting off with a common-sense quasi-etymological definition, to replace the "highest degree of rightism" phrase; I wasn't relying on a source for it in particular. The other changes I made were more about removing, as noted, the excessive detail about and focus on "laziness" and other purported behaviours as supposedly seen through the far right lens. I didn't actually add much to what was already there to by way of replacement. As for sourcing more broadly, the lead as left is mostly a very brief summary of the themes extrapolated and sourced in main body. It certainly needs some expansion and correction of course, plus perhaps sourcing for anything that's thought to be genuinely contentious. N-HH talk/edits 13:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not intend to spend further time here, but here is something to consider: religious leftists invoke traditions of religion all the time and emphasize traditionalist aspects of social conservatism. The article on right-wing politics shows that right-wing politics has invoked tradition to justify hierarchy or inequality. And note that there was long discussion and debate involving many users on what the material in the right-wing politics should be, and the intro created was the result of those multiple users' contributions to the discussion. N-HH, it does not matter what your intentions are by prominently including social conservatism in the key descriptive sentence with no qualifications mentioned. You are saying that it is not claiming that all social conservatives are far-right nor that all far-rightists are social conservatives, but in fact it clearly appears to be indicating that social conservatism as a whole is a core part of the meaning of the far-right. What you are saying here about the fact that not all social conservatives are far-rightests and that not all far-rightests are social conservatives has to be acknowledged in the intro.--R-41 (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

We need a clear statement explaining the topic. Are we referring to groups that have a reputation for violence and developed out of fascism in Europe and groups like the Klan in the U.S. or are we talking about all groups that are perceived to be to the right of traditional parties, such as the Tea Party, UKIP or Reform in Canada? Incidentally, the approach of scholars is to identify groups categorized as far right, then try to identify common features. They do not start out with a set of features and decide which groups fit it. Saying they are socially conservative is an empirical observation, not a defining feature. TFD (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd actually probably prefer this sentence – "[commonly] used to describe Nazi and fascist movements, and other groups who hold extreme nationalist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist or reactionary views" – to be the first more detailed exposition after the opening (admittedly rather banal) observation that far/extreme right refers to things beyond the mainstream centre-right. I think that's a fair assessment and reflects the primary use of the terms. As noted, however, the terms are also sometimes used, however loosely, in respect of groups that might be more "correctly" described as radical, populist right or libertarian right. The lead needs to try to draw in all these options, without making definitive judgments. I'm not hung up on "social conservatism" but it needs to be noted at some point in the lead as one of the features that is commonly – although not always – found among groups and ideas often described as "far" or "extreme" right, whether the fringe racist groups or others. And there is a qualification there currently, as I have said, via the use of the word "usually" (and "often" would be as good). If you can point me to where the BNP, the Ku Klax Klan and others (even UKIP and the Tea Party) have announced their support for feminism, free love and communal living I might take the argument that the mention of social conservatism is unwarranted a little more seriously. And no, we don't need to lead readers by the nose and spell out the points being, correctly, made here by explicitly saying in the lead that "not all are far rightists are ..." in respect of every category mentioned. N-HH talk/edits 20:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

There are studies that have noted that the Nazis in practice were very tolerant for non-maritial heterosexual sexual relationships, because they wanted to increase the population size of Germany. As for fascism in general, it mixed social conservative ideas about women with assertive ideals about women - the Italian Fascists initially wanted Italy's women to be in peak physical shape and broke down previous gender barriers in sports by allowing women to enter into sports previously attended only by men, they turned away from this after pressure from the Catholic Church in the late 20s that was accusing the regime of "masculinizing" women. There were prominent assertive women who took part in fascist movements, such as Margherita Sarfatti as a key propaganda figure in Italy and Leni Riefenstahl - the German filmmaker who directed and produced Triumph of the Will. There are socially conservative societies based on strong traditionalist values that practice communal living, such as Amish and Mennonite people in the developed Western world and tribal societies elsewhere, they are not far-right, but they are socially conservative examples of communal living.--R-41 (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

We've already both said and acknowledged that not all far rightists are socially conservative and not all social conservatives are far right, so I'm not quite sure why there's a need to set out evidence to support the point in such detail or where it's taking us in terms of proposed article improvement. I'm also broadly aware of all those things you've listed, if it was meant to be some kind of instructional education for me or general political discussion (which isn't what article talk pages are for anyway). N-HH talk/edits 09:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

What I said was not off topic, it was in response to what you said here: "If you can point me to where the BNP, the Ku Klax Klan and others (even UKIP and the Tea Party) have announced their support for feminism, free love and communal living I might take the argument that the mention of social conservatism is unwarranted a little more seriously." You seem to be generalizing these qualities with very liberal societies, almost alluding to hippy lifestyle of the 1960s, which is a specifically American perspective. But your generalizations of what you regard as what must be socially liberal traits over socially conservative traits, do not meet up with cultural variations over history even within what is considered the Western world. Take ancient Sparta for instance, it was based on an extremely militarist, disciplined culture and xenophobic practices, that the Nazis admired and modeled upon. However, in combination with these far-right tendencies in Sparta, Sparta's tradition of military heroism brought about closely bonded men in its army and it accepted homosexuality that commonly practiced in the Spartan army.

Now this here not a far-right example, but an example that does challenge your generalizations of what you are defining as social conservative as I mentioned above. Amongst variants of Hinduism, there are those that accept homosexuality, transgender, and intersex identity on the basis that they identify a "third gender". Same-sex relationships have been described in Hindu literature, art, and culture since the Vedic period. There is a group of Hindu people known as Hijras - typically men who adopt feminine gender identity but also there are those who are of intersex gender with mixed gender sexual organs. Now albeit that other Hindu factions do not accept this, this is a long-established tradition in those variants of Hinduism that do accept it. So by preserving that tradition, that would be by definition socially conservative. But acceptance of homosexuality, transgender people, and intersex people would be conventionally considered socially progressive and left-of-centre in say the United States. So what is considered socially conservative is extremely subjective, and in fact it could be argued that there are a wide number of socially conservative traditionalist values across societies that could be categorized as left-wing. So why are we singling out social conservatism as a whole here on the far-right, and now acknowledging the on the left-wing politics article that there are religious left that are promoting traditions deemed left-wing, as this such are also socially conservative?--R-41 (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

When you start talking about Spartans and Hindus, you are entering into original research. As explained to you, we are supposed to represent what sources say, not present our personal interpretations. TFD (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

In the case of most Tea Party groups their political interests have nothing to do with social issues at all. According to their websites they are a narrowly focused movement addressing some combination of fiscal responsibility, constitutional limits on government power, opposition to corrupt relationships between businesses and government, and individual rights, so the "social conservative" label doesn't seem to be a very good fit. THe Libertarians are rather more "hippyish" given their positions on such issues as drug legalization, gay rights, and in general keeping the government out of private matters. The same applies to followers of Ayn Rand though they seem less enthusiastic about drug legalization than Libertarians are even though they support it. Being atheists, they certainly don't fit the traditionalist morality or religious definitions very well either. Likewise, the "against social hierarchy" standard doesn't fit the left very well at all either. There are plenty of leftist groups that take a very hard line authoritarian notion (some might call it "paternalism") toward the notion of the rulers and the ruled, certainly far more so than anybody on the contemporary "right" (whatever that is). I guess what really matters is one of two things, a report of how people use the terms whether they make any logical sense or not (which seems to be how the page works today) or something more accurate and consistent as an explanation of the right/left split. Perhaps describing the incoherence of the definition as commonly used putting unlike things together and calling them the same name deserves a sentence or a paragraph at least?Bkyoder (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If nothing else, can we all agree then that the world is a complicated place and that it's not always easy to fit everything in it into catch-all labels? Nevertheless, that's what happens in the real world and WP is going to have to reflect that as best it can. I think currently the lead, via a bit of hedging, eg "usually" .. "broad range" .. "used to describe", makes a stab at acknowledging all that (and of course the main body goes into more detail about definitions and terminology and the disagreements over them). As noted, the changes I originally made were intended to remove some of the over-detailed and unbalanced content. There's plenty that can be refined in or added to the current version, although I'd be wary about having too explicit and didactic a statement, which would presumably need to be in every right/left page, to the effect that the term in question is incoherent or not easy to define. N-HH talk/edits 10:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The approach taken in sources is not to develop a concept of far right ideology and then figure out which groups fit, but to determine which groups are seen as far right and then describe them. To use the Tea Party as an analogy, we could survey Tea Party supporters and determine what their general set of shared beliefs is. But we cannot take that and start deciding who is or is not a TP person. Who is part of the Tea Party is determined by self-identification and the perception of the general public. TFD (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

What I am saying is that if we are going to acknowledge that social conservatives - as in cultural traditionalists - have been involved in the far-right, that this should not result in unintended confusion about the variety of social conservative stances on the left-right spectrum. The examples I showed were merely to show the variations on what constitutes tradition in different societies, which did not coincide with N-HH's assumptions where he said that far-right movements would not endorse what he deemed as automatically non-conservative elements of feminism, free love and communal living, but this is a very culturally-particular assumption. Work is needed here to make sure that this article and indeed others do not make across-the-board assumptions on what constitutes social conservative traits based on one cultural viewpoint. Work is needed on other articles on the left-right spectrum, for instance we must acknowledge the fact that cultural traditionalism has been played a role in left-wing politics, and in particular religious left politics.--R-41 (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The content readded to the lead here is contentious. It is does not summarise any content in the main body nor is it independently sourced. Since I removed it and opened the discussion above, although there has been some discussion around it, no one has explicitly spoken in favour of it, or offered any proper justification for it. Is it seriously being suggested that if someone asks me what marks the defining difference between, for example, the BNP and the Conservative Party in the UK, I could tell them to simply look at the WP lead here and say that this assertion about superiority, innate characteristics and laziness etc explains it? N-HH talk/edits 18:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

There are cultural differences between the BNP and the Conservative Party that are outside of left-right spectrum - i.e. the Conservatives support globalization while the BNP is staunchly nationalist and is hostile to globalization. The BNP accepting strong inequality versus the Conservative Party accepting less strong inequality is a logical proposition. The material you deleted from the intro had several sources that stated the egalitarian-inegalitarian dichotomy as the basis of the left-right dichotomy.--R-41 (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is not about the political spectrum, but about the far right. Whether they are right-wing, left-wing, centrist or outside the political spectrum might be interesting if you can find a source that discusses it. But they are classified as far right because that is where they are perceived to be, not because they are more strongly opposed to equality. TFD (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I have never disagreed that a tendency towards support for hierarchy and inequality is commonly found in groups described as far right (and the right more generally). Indeed, the lead says as much already. What I disagree with is splashing into the lead any suggestion that it is necessarily the sole or key factor that marks the difference between left and right, or that whether such inequality is set in stone is the sole or key difference between the far and centre right; or that the lead needs a detailed exposition of purported theories about "habits" and "laziness" at all. Even if the material in question is directly sourced, the issue of how to present it with due balance and in context – and with how much detail – rather than as the single, definitive, overarching "truth", remains. You don't build a lead by just stitching together random discrete observations, even if they have a source, without regard for their relevance and how they fit together with the broader context. N-HH talk/edits 08:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop using hyperbole like "splashing into the lead". The sources that you deleted from the intro did look at the far-right from a broader context - one that cut across particular cultural manifestations of it. Yes, we should mention major recognized cultural manifestations of it in the intro, but far-right social conservatism is only one of several major manifestations. As for social conservatism, as I said there are many religious traditionalists who are left-wing - especially Christian religious leftists who utilize those traditions that have egalitarian components. Right-wing social conservatives utilize those traditions that have inegalitarian components. Even on the far-right, the Nazis had major elements that were anti-conservative, for instance, while Hitler gave rhetorical endorsement of Christianity, in reality Hitler only considered it the predominant mythology amongst Germans, that he claimed Jews stole from Aryans that was useful in that it had some valuable truths and lessons to be learned. This is unlike religious conservatives who thought it was an historical account. Hitler accepted biology including that humans evolved from primates, he utilized natural selection (albeit in an inaccurate manner). The Nazis and the Italian Fascists utilized what was then modern anthropological science on races - such as categorization and definition of races and their traits - that was later fully rejected as pseudoscience by anthropologists by the 1960s. Therefore: because of the obvious major historical impact of Nazism in history, the intro should include that the far-right can include appeals to social conservativism as well as appeals to modern sciences to justify claims of superiority of certain races and cultures over others.--R-41 (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The reliable mainstream sources speak of the complexity of all of this at length and it would be intellectually dishonest for us to elide the issues in this article. This also means that we should explain that specific "traits" may not be applicable to the "far right" in all places and at all times, and that groups having such "traits" may not be viewed as "far right" in all places and at all times. Collect (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I've made some minor changes to reflect some of the above discussion. I would still maintain though that we don't need explicit pedagogic statements about "this does not apply to all ..", especially in the lead. Words such as "usually", "commonly", "often" etc do that job. We're not writing for four year-olds. I would also maintain, as already pointed out, that this talk page probably doesn't need yet more thousands of words explaining in great detail what the Nazis stood for or other pretty well known points about politics and political theories. As noted, we do basically agree about the complexity and many of the underlying points and issues. The point is how to represent it. N-HH talk/edits 15:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer if it could mention the fact that there are also far-rightist appeals to modern sciences to justify claims of supremacy of certain races and cultures over others. This became a huge part of the far-right, and it still exists today. Today far-right Aryan racialists appeal to modern anthropological haplogroup categorizations to justify claims of the existence of the Aryan race. So while the traditionalism of far-right social conservatism has a major role in numerous far-right movements, appeals to modern science for purposes of promoting strong inequality and hierarchy are a major role in numerous far-right movements as well.--R-41 (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd argue that that is a fairly niche area of far-right thought and not something that needs much, if anything, in the lead. It's certainly something that could be explored in the main body. I don't see how its any kind of direct counterpoint to social conservatism. N-HH talk/edits 10:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I said that it was fine to have social conservatism mentioned as one manifestation of the far-right, but that we must avoid any confusion that social conservatism is the far-right. Use of biological science by racist far-rightists to justify racial superiority is not a niche area, The Nazis used biology and claims of biological inferiority of Jews to justify persecution of them and neo-Nazis and neo-fascists continue to use this, it is a major example of what far-rightests can advocate just as social conservatism is. Furthermore, what is as you described as a "counterpoint" is that the European racist far-right and the Christian social conservative far-right clashed over the racists' use of biological science that the Christian far-right opposed because biology challenged the traditions of the Bible on the origins of human beings.--R-41 (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)