Talk:Far-right politics/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Strong inequality

An editor continues to delete "strong inequality" from the lead, saying it is unsourced.[1] However, it is sourced to Carlisle, Rodney P., ed., The Encyclopedia of Politics: The Left and the Right, Volume 2: The Right (Thousand Oaks, California, United States; London, England; New Delhi, India: Sage Publications, 2005) p. 693, which is footnote 1. Footnotes may cover more than one sentence. TFD (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

If all you have is a single source, it doesn't belong in the lead (especially with the added modifier "commonly"). And since it's not supported elsewhere in the article, it doesn't belong in the lead at all. Federales (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in policy that says multiple sources are required. Instead, we use reliable sources that have already been fact-checked. Normally the lead should summarize an article, in which case sources are provided in the body and are therefore unnecessary in the lead, but this article has not advanced much beyond a stub. TFD (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not a stub, and the length of the article is immaterial when we have 6 paragraphs devoted to Definition, with nothing to support a statement made in the lead. Again, if this can't be developed - at least to a cursory level - in the body of the article, it doesn't merit mention in the lead. And, again, a single source is insufficient to say something is "commonly" viewed in a particular way. If anything, that would be a statement of opinion that requires direct attribution to the source. Federales (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

If you think that article leads should be double-sourced, then either provide the policy that requires it or change the policy. I am not interested in debating with you how articles should be written, only whether they conform to policy. What is wrong with the description anyway? Do you think the Nazis promoted equality? TFD (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a counter-argument, or not? See WP:LEAD: " Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The content under discussion needs to be supported in the body of the article, or it doesn't belong in the lead. There's your policy to comply with, right there. Federales (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Then you should expand the article to include more about inequality. Anyway, let's see what other people following this article have to say. TFD (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging that material in the lead needs to have support in the body. So what's stopping you from making the necessary additions? Federales (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

We are slightly hampered by the fact that the page is, indeed, little more than a stub, especially compared with what it probably could or should be given the breadth of the topic. Sometimes in an article under construction, the lead will get ahead of itself and perhaps force the issue a little (I mean that it a good sense in terms of encouraging editing of the wider page: there's something that needs including, and an initial mention of it in the lead can drive improvements and additions to the body). However, more directly on point, there is in fact already a brief discussion of inequality in the main body, sourced to this book. So I don't see that there's a problem with having it referred to in the lead pretty much as it is now (indeed, there used to be a lot more about inequality in the lead until recently). I would though query the modifier "strong". It does read a little subjectively while simultaneously not adding much in terms of precision or clarity. N-HH talk/edits 07:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The sourcing is pretty weak, considering this statement by Carter (page 18):

"Anti-partyism, anti-pluralism, anti-parliamentarism, a call for a strong state, a demand for a strong leader, an emphasis on law and order, and a call for militarism are all manifestations of the rejection of the fundamental values, procedures and institutions of the democratic constitutional state (i.e., they are all manifestations of extremism), while nationalism, xenophobia, racism, ethnocentrism and exclusionism are all manifestations of the principle of human inequality (i.e., they are all manifestations of right-wing extremism). These elements are possible elements of right-wing extremism, rather than necessary ones, and while they help describe and sub-categorize the extreme right, they do not define it."

If that's all we have to support this statement, there needs to be a qualifier of some sort, and it should probably come out of the lead altogether, since Carter doesn't actually say what you are claiming she says. Federales (talk) 08:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I fear you are misreading that quote (let alone ignoring the context of the wider text around it). She has already defined inequality as being, in her view, the key marker of the right-wing on p16 ("right-wing extremism emphasizes the notion of inequality of individuals") ; what she is saying in the above excerpt is that nationalism, xenophobia etc are evidential attributes that might enable such identification to be made; but they are symptoms of that underlying theme, as it were, rather than definitional qualities themselves. Indeed, as she explicitly says on p17: "They are mere manifestations of the principle of fundamental human inequality, which lies at the heart of right-wing extremism". N-HH talk/edits 08:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to Introduction

I decided to compare the articles of far left politics and far right politics. Specifically, I wanted to look at whether they are accurate, equal, and fair. I'm posting this in both the far-left and far-right articles' talk sections as it pertains to both.

Here's the introductory paragraphs to far left politics:

"The far left (also known as the extreme left) refers to the highest degree of leftism in left-wing politics. The far left seeks equality of outcome and the dismantlement of all forms of social stratification.[1] Far leftists seek to abolish all forms of hierarchy, particularly the inequitable distribution of wealth and power.[1] The far left seeks a society in which everyone is provided equal economic and social opportunities, and no one has excessive wealth or power over others.[1]

The far left typically believes that inegalitarian systems must be overthrown through revolution in order to establish egalitarian societies, while the centre left works within the system to achieve egalitarianism.[1] In societies that tolerate dissent, far-left groups usually participate in the democratic process to advance their goals.[2] The far left demands radical changes to dismantle unequal societies, including confiscation of wealth that is concentrated in a small elite, and redistribution of that wealth in an egalitarian manner.[1]"

Here's the introductory paragraphs to far right politics:

The terms far right, or extreme right, describe the broad range of political groups and ideologies usually taken to be further to the right of the mainstream center-right on the traditional left-right spectrum. Far right politics commonly involves support for social hierarchy, elements of social conservatism and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism. Both terms are also used to describe Nazi and fascist movements, and other groups who hold extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist or reactionary views.[1] The most extreme right-wing movements have pursued oppression and genocide against groups of people on the basis of their alleged inferiority.[2]

Both of these articles should shed equal light on these two opposing radical ideologies for the sake of balance. As it stands, I think the article on far right politics is much more negative then the far left one. Here are some changes I'm considering:

1). Regarding this sentence in the far right article: "Both terms are also used to describe Nazi and fascist movements, and other groups who hold extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist or reactionary views."

I believe this sentence is irrelevant and factually incorrect considering Nazi's (the German SOCIALIST Workers' Party) and Fascists, were, in most regards, socialists who work to abolish religion. That's far left, not far right! I propose we move that sentence to the far-left article, where it belongs, noting raciest and nationalist views. I could also include a note about the KKK, a much more racially centered example. However we should keep the fact that the far right sometimes hold xenophobic, raciest, chauvinist, and fundamental religious views, as that is accurate.

2.) Regarding this sentence in the far right article: "The most extreme right-wing movements have pursued oppression and genocide against groups of people on the basis of their alleged inferiority."

This is certainly true, however I think it should also be added to the introductory paragraphs of the far left article. Far leftism, from Hitler to the Soviets, is certainly also guilty of genocide and oppression. Both radical ideologies share these traits.

3.) Regarding this statement in the far left article: "The far left demands radical changes to dismantle unequal societies, including confiscation of wealth that is concentrated in a small elite, and redistribution of that wealth in an egalitarian manner."

I think this over glorifies the far left ideology. Also, far leftists don't seek to redistribute only money concentrated in a small elite; that's closer to center leftism. Far leftism often seeks to redistribute income as broadly as from people who have above median wealth to all who have below it.

I propose we revise that sentence to this: "The far left demands radical changes to dismantle perceived "unequal" societies, including confiscation of wealth held by wealthier segments of the population, and redistribution of that wealth in an egalitarian manner."

4.) I also propose we add this sentence to the far right article: "The far right favors virtually zero mandatory wealth redistribution."

The introductory statement of the far right article doesn't say much about economic positions, however the far left one does. So I thought this'd be a good starting point of something to add.

5.) Regarding this sentence in the far left article:

"The far left seeks a society in which everyone is provided equal economic and social opportunities, and no one has excessive wealth or power over others."

Here the article contradicts itself. Earlier, the article says the far left seeks "equality of outcome." Here it essentially says they seek "equality of opportunity." To fix this, I propose replacing it with these sentences instead:

"The far left seeks a society in which everyone is provided equal economic and social status and no one has excessive wealth or power over others. In practice, most far-left governments give large amounts of power to their leadership."

What do you think of these suggested edits? How would you change them? I welcome your thoughts. Libertyboy100 (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There can be some value in comparison of related articles, but at the end of the day this is the talk page for this page, not the far left one. As for your suggestions more specifically ..

1. I am not revisiting the "fascists are socialists" argument on this page as well. That is not the usual classification among mainstream writers, publishers and scholarship. End of story. As for the fact that "far right" is the term usually applied to fascist and related groups, again, this is not a controversial statement. Indeed, it's probably the main use of the term.
2. A suggestion that is mainly for the far left page (I don't think an identical phrase can or should be used there). I have occasionally thought that the genocide statement is a little OTT for the lead here, but it is nonetheless sourced and, again, uncontroversially verifiable.
3. For the far left page
4. The problem is that the economic positions of groups described as far right varies widely. Some are radical free-marketeers, others are more corporatist and statist. The statement that everyone placed on the far right favours "virtually zero mandatory wealth redistribution" is debatable at best
5. For the far left page

N-HH talk/edits 08:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a false comparison. "Far right" is the term used to encompass fascists and similar ideologies. Whether or not they are really right-wing is irrelevant. We continue to use terms such as "West Indies", koala bear, catfish, sea cow, seahorse, etc. "Far left" otoh is an expression with no specific meaning. TFD (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

UK government and Zionism

An anonymous IP continues to add current UK government policies and Zionism to the article, without sources. Whatever one's opinion on these subjects, they are rarely described as far right and sources are required to include them. TFD (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Bill Clinton quote

I find the Bill Clinton statement to be irrelevant and misleading for the article. The statement according to reference is made to a BBC journalist: "that’s why people like you always help the far right cos you like to hurt people, and you like to talk about how bad people are and all their personal failings". The "you people" who help the far right that Clinton is referring to here are clearly journalists, but the idea that journalists always help the far right is quite strange, and not of encyclopedia value. Clinton's statement is simply a polemic against his adversaries and we should be very careful about inserting political polemics in an encyclopedia article about a scholarly term. Overall, I don't think this article has a good quality and isn't stringent enough in explaning the term far right. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The terms "far" or "extreme" right are frequently used pretty casually and/or polemically, as "far right" was being there, and I don't see that we need to include references to every such individual example of passing usage. The page here is a meant to be a bit more academic in its treatment and to focus on the substantive topic. N-HH talk/edits 09:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

you guys are making a big deal out of this...

1)this is not SOME random person making an uneducated accusation against just anyone: one of the most influential presidents in the history of the u.s. claims that the people who impeached him, the neo-conservatives (see wikipedia's article about them here yourself),were far-right politicians. I am pretty sure president clinton knows what he is saying better than you and I do

2)that is why in the paragraph that you deleted it clearly said "according to former u.s. president bill clinton" because it is completely understandable that some people will disagree with him there; it was necessary to add that aforementioned line to indicate that we added it here only because it was a claim made by an recognized head of state.

3)when he said "you people" he did not just mean the "journalists" as you said; he, more precisely, was referring to the propaganda “advertisers” of his far-right political enemies like the interviewer who handled his interview there (that was a very simplified and shallow generalization from you to interpret president clinton's words like that)

4)discuss with other editors before removing paragraphs from any articles first pleaseGrandia01 (talk)

If you can find a book about the far right that finds this quote just as important as you do, then please provide it. Otherwise it is tendentious to include it. TFD (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

you ignored ALL four arguments of mine there simply with "find a book"? did ANY book in the world also point out that bill clinton's impeachment was nothing but an internal political war? (even some of us know that NOW with the advantage of hindsight only)

you know what, on second thought, whatever, i have wasted enough time here already.

"Don't argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." Grandia01 (talk)

As well as having been president, Bill Clinton is a politician with an axe to grind and a point to make like every other politician. I'm sure we could all dig up hundreds of quotes by politicians of similar stature throwing the term around. People who happen to disagree with you about the need to single out and flag up with such prominence a passing quote by one such politician, whether clearly attributed or not, are not idiots, they just disagree with you. Anyway, we have had the discussion and no one agrees with you. N-HH talk/edits 08:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

That quote is non-notable trivia and does not belong in this article.Spylab (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of the Left/Right paradigm

As clearly seen from points raised on this talk page, and when comparing the pages of "far left" and "far right", this interpretation of politics and views is a gross simplification at best and a tool to mindlessly associate and discredit opposing policy or views at worst. Personal views aside, any objections to a section being added about the commonly made criticisms of this phenomenon? What is left, what is right. Only directions, and generic positions slowly built into existence through political propoganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.63.147.224 (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This talk page is reaching new heights of crazy. Benboy00 (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The issues raised by 122.63.147.224 are more suited for other articles, such as political spectrum or left-right politics.Spylab (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If you can find a more commonly used term that is used to describe the KKK, BNP, EDL, NF, BUP etc. then please provide it. TFD (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This entire page is a horrifyingly slanted abomination and should be deleted and rewritten from the first word. The entire article could be replaced with the words RACIST HATEMONGERS and its content would be the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.169.248.4 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 6 December 2013

Feel free to propose or make any specific, constructive improvements or additions. Like most WP pages, I'm sure it could do with some, but I'm not sure it's as irretrievably terrible as that. N-HH talk/edits 22:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood

Books about the far right do not list the Muslim Brotherhood, books about the Muslim Brotherhood do not call it right-wing. It is not mentioned in the article and no sources have been provided to include it. I will therefore remove the image.[2] Please do not re-add without sources and discussion. TFD (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You might peruse [3] a fairly RS source talking about the MB in Syria as being specifically "right wing." [4] specifies Cairo MB as being "right-wing, radical, pan-Islam." [5] specifies Islam is a very strong force in Egypt, and in the last couple of decades a right-wing Islamic group known as the Muslim Brotherhood (which the government of Egypt has outlawed) has terrorized the country for being contaminated by western influences. I trust Praeger, OUP and Dekker are strong RS publishers. Collect (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Although it was problematic before, and some of them are for the better, I'm not sure the sum of the changes that followed recent drive-by edit, and the usual dive-in back-up of its entirely appropriate revert, has left us with a better lead. We now have the word politics four times in the first sentence and have lost any reference to fascism or Nazism, which are very much the contexts in which the terms are usually used. N-HH talk/edits 16:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

A lead should stick to what is generally true of the topic as discussed in the subsections of the article. If you note the compromises made, you will find the new lead is quite NPOV and does not ascribe positions clearly held by subgroups to the larger group. That fascism and Nazis might be generally viewed as right wing does not mean that we can make the reverse claim -- that "right wing" generally is fascist or Nazi in nature. I suggest that if you wish to insert "the right wing is generally fascist or Nazi" that strong sources be found for such a general claim. Those subtopics were not excised from the body of the article, so I am unsure what the problem is here. Cheers. (noting that the current version is not the edit I proposed) Collect (talk)

And where did I ever ask for the lead to say that "the right wing is generally fascist or Nazi" or anything even remotely like it? Are your powers of comprehension really that lacking or are you deliberately trying to misrepresent what I am saying? N-HH talk/edits 16:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I ascribed nothing whatsoever to you, nor ought you ascribe anything to me. (Your post above asserted: fascism or Nazism, which are very much the contexts in which the terms are usually used.) I find your post not in keeping with the purposes of this talk page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow. And you don't even understand what you've written yourself, let alone what anyone else has written. Re-read your sentence "I suggest that if you wish to insert ..", preferably without any specious suggestion that the use of "if" means you weren't really trying to suggest that I did wish to do that. As it happens, I find a post that responds to a practical comment about the content of the lead with non-sequiturs and blatant misrepresentation of what that original comment was suggesting to (while avoiding responding to the point that it was actually making) very much not be "in keeping with the purposes of this talk page". One might even call it deliberate obfuscation. N-HH talk/edits 17:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your elucidation as to what I meant when I wrote what I wrote. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that the article confuses different concepts, and in fact terminology is not consistent across sources. I would think that groups to the right of the center-right would be right-wing, but that includes distinct groups. For example, in the U.S., the Tea Party, the John Birch Society and the Ku Klux Klan are all perceived to be to the right of center-right politicians such as Bush, McCain and Romney. But Ware in Political Parties and Party Systems said all that can be said about the "extreme right" is that it is perceived to be more right-wing than traditional conservative, liberal and Christian democratic parties. TFD (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The topic is, at best, amorphous, and likely should be a subsection of the general "right wing politics" article. Right now it seems to be a shoebox into which multiple disparate material is crammed willy-nilly. Collect (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The terms "far right" and "extreme right" are in common use and definitely an appropriate topic for an entry here although, as noted, there is not any agreement necessarily as to the exact ground they each or both cover. That doesn't mean it's impossible to create and write a page that reflects the broad generality of their use and/or the various different ways in which they are used. N-HH talk/edits 17:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

npov check needed

marked it npov, please don't remove until agreement is made.

check here first, last 3 sections: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Far-left_politics#npov_check_needed

also, the lead were far right pushed genocide on its victims, as the communists and Nazis were socialist parties that sentence should be moved to the far left page. (Trfc06 (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC))

Nazi Party was far-right

You are obviously a sock and therefore we cannot consider your intervention as good faith. I revert you and if you reach a consensus the reference to genocide as extreme events coming from far-right policies can be removed. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not a sock and in my opnion this is npov, so i will re add the tag so people can discuss. You dont just decide, so please leave in place until a decision is made. Im not even saying your view is wrong, but there are other views as well. And your two sources, do you have the passages that you say back your argument, or are supposed to read the whole book?(Trfc06 (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC))

and nothing about the hundreds of millions killed, tortured, and who live in disgusting conditions because of the far left policies of communists? (Trfc06 (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC))

If you were not a sock, you would have asked what is a sock and you would not master words such as "pov" and "npov" after less than 50 edis.

The discussion can go on (but not with me) and I will remove your tag unless you can reach a consensus with several contributors.

First step for you will be to find sources of high standards as those here above stating that Nazism would be not be far-right policy. Pluto2012 (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, because this is not the page about the far left. And no, the Nazis were not socialists as the term is commonly understood and used but instead are usually placed on the far right (will WP ever be free of this one?). They did, however, engage in genocide. Is this disputed? N-HH talk/edits 13:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

so because i have read wiki for many years, especially the talk pages, and i know npov and sock etc that proves that i am a sock! I will ask that you leave the tag there, it actually states what it is, I think this article is not neutral and ask that people look at it, thats what its for. you dont prove its not neutral and then put the tag in place, that would be stupid! (Trfc06 (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC))

I've removed the tag. We aren't going to call the Nazi's a left-wing party and remove them from this article nor are we going to discuss left-wing genocide in this article. Dougweller (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

agree with Dougweller, i will leave the nazi bit for now, but still think this needs checking for bias, so i ask that you leave the tag. Not one editor decides, thats how its done, we discuss and see if we can reach a compromise agreement that is nearer the truth? (Trfc06 (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC))

KKK are NOT far-right

WP:NOTAFORUM

How can an organization started by and populated in the vast majority by, Democrats be considered far-right? Was Senator Robert Byrd far right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.80.32.193 (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, actually. Sen. Byrd was a Right-Winger when he was in the KKK. Try looking at Conservative Coalition. But then, you'd have to actually READ something, and people who make the argument that you are making...generally haven't read much on the subject. You realize that MANY Conservative "icons" (like Strom Thurmond, for example) were Democrats back prior to the Southern strategy? Turn off the uneducated talk-show hosts, and do your OWN research... --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 02:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC) Southern Democrats were right wing. After the Civil Rights Act they moved to the Republican Party while African Americans deserted the Republican Party in droves. TFD (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC) The KKK, in present times, are anti-government, anti-establishment, and libertarian. They are not statist, which is a central aspect (arguably the main one as most historians argue) of the far-right. Therefore, the KKK should be removed. Racism does not make them far-right. If racial or ethnic pride is far-right, then Pol Pot was far-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.194.158 (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC) This kind of argument often comes up but is slightly off the point. Not only are the claims about the relationship between statism vs libertarianism and far-rightism debatable but, more importantly for WP purposes, pages are not written to the analysis or speculative conclusions of individual editors about where the KKK or Khmer Rouge respectively etc stand – or ought to stand – on the political spectrum. The reality is that most serious real-world sources, for better or worse and however simplistically, usually place the KKK on the extreme or far right (on account primarily of their reactionary stand on racial equality) and the Khmer Rouge on the far left (on account, primarily, of their professed adherence to communism; whatever else they believe in or actually did). Hence, that's what happens here too. As for your addition to the KKK photo caption, I'm going to remove it. That kind of discursive personal commentary would be inappropriate for the main text, let alone for a caption. N-HH talk/edits 11:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Articles are supposed to reflect what mainstream sources say, not provide original analysis. TFD (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Libertarians are socially LIBERAL. Show me a Klanmember that believes in same-sex marriage, legalization of drugs, religious freedom, or any of the other central tenets of Libertarians in the USA. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 21:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC) "Libertarians are socially LIBERAL." Well, not quite accurate. Libertarians can tilt right or left. The single most prevailing characteristic is the degree of involvement they're willing to grant the federal government, as opposed to state and local governments. To a right-libertarian, the point of politics is to allow communities to set their own standards, as much as possible, minimizing a liberty- and diversity-crushing mandate from the top. A right-libertarian might not be particularly in favor of a given city legalizing prostitution, but he would be in favor of that city coming to its own conclusions about its legality. I'm not particularly thrilled to see the KKK included under the libertarian banner, but if they're interested in limited federal government, they have at least some of the hallmarks. Byff (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC) The KKK came out last year as being in favour of Obama's left leaning economic policy. They supported taxing the 1%, job security, Obamacare and what not. They might be right wing on social policy, but when it comes to economics the KKK has historically stood right behind the left. They were started by Democrats, don't forget, who were already in the 1920's pushing for stricter segregation, more spending in infrastructure and eduction as well as prohibition. 01:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Fartnut (talk) Really? Because when I go to www.kkk.com, I see the following sentences on their homepage: "Stay firm in your convictions. Keep loving your heritage and keep witnessing to others that there is a better way than a war torn, violent, wicked, socialist, new world order. That way is the Christian way - law and order - love of family - love of nation. These are the principles of western Christian civilization. There is a war to destroy these things. Pray that our people see the error of their ways and regain a sense of loyalty. Repent America! Be faithful my fellow believers." National Director of The Knights, Pastor Thomas Robb" Of course, it's pretty obvious that your uneducated "version" of history precludes you from actually reading anything that isn't dictated to you by other uneducated people like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. If you HAD actually done so, you'd know how utterly ridiculous your entire premise is, and how everyone is laughing at you for typing it. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 02:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Well, according to Jim Lo Scalzo and interviews with local Klansmen in Virginia by the Southern Poverty law center it was concluded that... "Last summer’s budget battle between President Obama and congressional Republicans seemed to crystallize the economic clash as one between the haves and have-nots—a dynamic not lost on those I was photographing. Even if most Klan members did not admit siding with president Obama, they openly railed against Republican budget proposals, specifically the GOPs attempts to cut social programs like Medicaid and food stamps while maintaining tax breaks for the wealthy." Your inane blabber was essentially just "Hurr durr Glenn Beck Rush Limbo durr durr". I love it when you leftists and racists have to resort to name-calling to fool yourselves into thinking you've actually won an argument. It's truly adorable. I would recommend reading a history book before making a such a clown of yourself. Fartnut (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Like many people who protect these pages from uneducated idiots, I actually have an MA in History, and have read far more than you on the subject. You will not convince anyone to suddenly adopt your ignorant views, which are neither based on reputable sources, nor have any business on an encyclopedia site. You really should get a better hobby, Sport. You will accomplish nothing here. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 03:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC) When did this talk page turn into the YouTube comments section? Anyway, whether the KKK have come out in support of more social spending or not is entirely irrelevant to the discrete point of whether they are usually placed on the far right of the spectrum. Nothing in that quotes explicitly disputes that placement. You're drawing your own conclusions based on what you believe "right wing" always might mean and what you believe some KKK positions might therefore mean. Find a serious, mainstream source that explicitly says the KKK are a left-wing and not a right-wing group, or are usually described as such, and what you want then to do with the article itself, or pass on by please. Good luck. N-HH talk/edits 12:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Adopting a few left-wing populist positions is a common characteristic of far right parties and groups. That doesn't stop them from being accurately described as far right. This is nothing new.Spylab (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Joe the Plumber took welfare because he "paid into it." Does that make him left-wing? TFD (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Nazis not Far Right either The Nazi Party (National SOCIALIST German Workers Party) was Far-Left. Also, please remove the "genocide" part, as it is ignorant. Only far-leftists start genocides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.0.112.152 (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC) The Nazis practiced euthanasia. Is that left- or right- wing? The Nazis were animal-rightists, pro-regulators, and economic socialists. They also KICKED OUT conservatives like Bloomberg from the Wehrmacht. The Nazis seized control of private businesses. They introduced a Social Security-esque pension system. Hitler described himself as an anti-capitalist socialist. Until 1941, Nazi Germany was allied with the USSR. The notion that the Nazis were right-wing stems from a misconception amongst historians that anyone opposing Stalin was right-wing, and that the Nazis were obviously not centrists.--173.21.80.54 (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC) Read a book. -- Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 01:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Follow your own advice. Erik_von_Kuehnelt-Leddihn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.34.59.148 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 21 November 2013 Although Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn thought that the nazis were left-wing, he never questioned that that was how the mainstream saw them. TFD (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Legitimate claims have been raised here, and ignored. I am removing all mentions of the Nazis from this page. They were Far Leftists. Daniel the duck (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Well no, such claims have been addressed, for example in the above section. Whether you, or one or two polemical American libertarian writers, believe Nazis to be far left – or indeed whether any other WP editor "believes" them instead to be far right – is irrelevant. The point, as noted above in respect of the KKK, is simply that we go by the terminology and classifications of the mainstream, real-world consensus. Which is, in both academic and everyday discourse, that Nazism falls under the far right umbrella. Furthermore, please do not blank content, especially content that is clearly referenced and sourced, because it happens to conflict with your personal beliefs about "the truth". N-HH talk/edits 08:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC) No. No legitimate claims have been made, because there are no legitimate sources disputing this classification. It's a conspiracy theory on par with "truthers", "birthers", and "flat Earthers". --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Articles are based on sources, not what individual editors believe. TFD (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC) I cried a little when I read nazis were far right. Please, stop destroying history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.169.210 (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC) We go by sources, not by your opinion, or mine. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Do you need a handkerchief to dry your tears? Even better, I suggest you...ya know...read about the subject. Perhaps, you could even start with the sources cited to prove the scholarly description of the Nazis as Far Right. You might learn something. (Although I doubt, just from your hit-and-run comment, that you have any intention of reading ANYTHING that doesn't agree with your uneducated opinions...) --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Please don't make personal attacks. You seem to do little more than be demeaning in all of your comments. Arzel (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Comments like the IP's above are worthy of nothing but ridicule and scorn. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 18:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary and POV-ish religious descriptors

There appears to be some disagreement over describing the KKK as "Christian" in an image caption. It would be good to talk it over instead of back-and-forth reverting.

IMO, since this article contains no treatment of religion or of any relationship between religion and the article topic, the descriptor is unnecessary and shouldn't be retained. Roccodrift (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm here with a strong draft of clear air to blow away the CC!

While I'm sure that the KKK's brand of Christianity is not representative of Christianity as a whole, it remains the case that the Klan has always been explicitly (as opposed to coincidentally) Christian. Its symbol is the Christian cross and its stereotypical threat is to burn a Christian cross on a lawn. There's just now way we can hide the Christian element of the Klan.

I don't want an edit war, so I strongly suggest that you put the word "Christian" back. If you don't, I will most certainly escalate to the appropriate forum. MilesMoney (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion and your original research, Miles. Duly noted. Roccodrift (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

As original as surfing to KKK. MilesMoney (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

First, it is questionable using a picture of the second Klan, which it is the modern Klan which is written about in literature about the far right. The Klan's main focus was against African Americans, but it also opposed Catholics, immigrants, and radicals. It is tendentious to focus on one of them. For example, we could call it a far right temperance movement, or a far right anti-Irish group, but that would give undue emphasis to one aspect. TFD (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, it was pro-Protestant, then pro-Christian. As explained above, Christianity has always been a core part of its identity, hence the symbolism. MilesMoney (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

This sort of dispute is best resolved by sources. Here's what kkk.com has plastered on top of their home page (per WP:ABOUTSELF):

Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America! A Message of Love NOT Hate!

White America? No, White CHRISTIAN America. Let's put this back already. MilesMoney (talk)

ABOUTSELF says, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities...so long as...the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim." You have to stretch that policy to make it fit. In any case, the issue is weight. How significant is this aspect of the Klan? Is that how it is normally described? In fact all the far right groups pictured are nominally Christian: the Rusian Black Hundreds, the Italian Fascists, the Nazis and Jobbik. BTW, it was white Protestant America. They burned a cross on Father Coughlin's lawn. Of course, the Second Klan never had a website. TFD (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

As the site says, CHRISTIAN. Hard to misread that. MilesMoney (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem, Miles, as I've outlined at the top of the section, as that religion is not germane to this article. It's irrelevant, and proving that the KKK belongs to one kind of religion or the other doesn't make it more relevant. Roccodrift (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

If it's not germane then why is religious fundamentalism mentioned in the lede? MilesMoney (talk) 06:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The short answer to your question is that drive-by POV-pushers frequently insert crap into article leads because they're too lazy or incompetent to do any actual content creation. So yes, you've asked a most excellent question: Why is it in the lead, when there is no discussion of religion elsewhere in the article? Since it's not supported in the body of the article, it should be removed per the numerous policies and guidelines concerning what to put in the opening segments of Wikipedia articles. Roccodrift (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It's in the lede because it belongs. We have an entire article -- Christian right -- dedicated to the intersection of Christian fundamentalism and right-wing politics. MilesMoney (talk) 06:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

QED Roccodrift (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

What does the article Christian Right have to do with anything? The KKK is not even part of the Christian Right and not mentioned in that article, it is part of the far right. Who says it belongs anyway? TFD (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources, such as The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right. MilesMoney (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not know what website you are referring to. I searched in kkk.net and the closest I could get was a copy of a newspaper article that says, "The given KKK group claims itself as a nonviolent Christian organization patriarching the whites." The first problem with using ABOUTSELF is that the KKK is not one organization, but unconnected groups all calling themselves the KKK

For the benefit of other editors, MilesMoney has a history of trolling, choosing one point to argue over, then finding sources, then polciies to support those sources. When challenged, he adds new sources, then finds policies, and when challenged, begins the process all over again, generating pages of talk page discussion.

TFD (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

For the benefit of following WP:NPA, I have redacted your post. Do not repeat this offense. MilesMoney (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's what the SPLC says:

The Ku Klux Klan, with its long history of violence, is the most infamous - and oldest - of American hate groups. Although black Americans have typically been the Klan's primary target, it also has attacked Jews, immigrants, gays and lesbians and, until recently, Catholics. Over the years since it was formed in December 1865, the Klan has typically seen itself as a Christian organization, although in modern times Klan groups are motivated by a variety of theological and political ideologies.

This is an authoritative and scholarly summary, using careful language and avoiding broad generalizations. It supports calling the KKK Christian. MilesMoney (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

No it does not. And if you read the careful language, you would know that. And since this authoritative source contradicts your view, I suggest you drop it. TFD (talk)

If you can't understand how "typically sees itself as a Christian organization" supports calling it Christian, you should not be editing this article. MilesMoney (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You are too intelligent to think the source supports your claim, and I am too intelligent not to realize that. TFD (talk) 07:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)