Talk:Far-right politics/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

Religious fundamentalism

Two editors are in disagreement about including Christian fundamentalism in the sentence that says the terms far right and extreme right " are commonly used to describe fascist, neo-fascist or other ideologies and organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, or reactionary views." The source, Carlisle's The Encyclopedia of Politics: The Left and the Right, Volume 2: The Right (Sage Publications, 2005). p. 693 was added 5 October 2011 by an editor who is no longer with us.[1] I have no access to the source, does anyone know what it actually says? It seems out of place, because only in the modern U.S. is fundamentalism associated with the Right. In the past, non-conformists and dissenters were typically opposed to the Right, which supported the Established Church. TFD (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned above -- and you ignored -- this is entirely settled by The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right. MilesMoney (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite a page number. TFD (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

288. MilesMoney (talk) 07:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to p. 288. It does not support your claim. Please try again. TFD (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Read it again. MilesMoney (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The cite in the lead is for page 693, but the book only seems to have 430 pages, so it appears that it may have been bullshit from the get-go. Ah, there's two different books in this discussion. OK, but still... Page 288 contains an entry on Fundamentalism that doesn't mention left-right politics at all. Fails verification. Utterly. Roccodrift (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:MOSINTRO (policy) states: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles." "Religious fundamentalism" is significant (as evidenced by the Wikilink to a 21kb article) and cannot be classified with any of the exceptions (quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles). Since it is not discussed or even mentioned in the body of this article, it should not be listed in the lead as a term to describe a far-right group. The citation really doesn't mean squat in the absence of supporting prose further down. Miles has already said that he doesn't want to edit war (but he did anyway), and that he's willing to escalate this if he doesn't get his way. Miles, if you can't convince TFD to agree with you, I suggest you take this to a noticeboard, where you are doing oh-so-well in dispute resolution of late. Roccodrift (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, I did read it, and it says nothing about fundamentalism being far right. it is just an entry in the book's glossary. Socialism is included in the glossary too (p. 343). TFD (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

What does the last sentence of entry say? What is the title of the book? I am beginning to doubt that you can understand English when it's not to your advantage to do so. Selective aphasia is rare. MilesMoney (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It says: "Some US fundamentalist Christians also claim biblical justification for white supremacist or violent anti-government actions." There's nothing there about the far-right, the right, the left, or the center. Fail. I now question if that citation supports anything at all that it's been used for in this article. It needs to be checked more carefully. Roccodrift (talk) 08:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, you are continuing to make irrational arguments and are becoming more abusive. Why are you doing this? TFD (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

TFD, I'm simply using the Socratic method. You say the book speaks of fundamentalist Christianity and white supremacists. What's the title of the book? Are these white supremacists considered right-wing? MilesMoney (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Casting aspersions on the ability of other editors to even read is not part of the Socratic method. It is, however, a part of being on the way out as an editor on Wikipedia. "Racism" is found in just about all societies, alas, regardless of "political spectrum" issues. Stalin, who was possibly on the left, hated Jews. Mugabe, who is possibly on the left, enacted pretty much anti-white laws. Anti-Gypsy laws are found in many "left wing" areas, as well as in "right wing" areas of Europe. A great many "fundamentalist Christians" are black. Care to continue a screed here - or did I blast the position to smithereens enough? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You ignored the questions and emitted a great deal of smoke and noise. That's not productive. MilesMoney (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes editors have trouble even understanding sources that are too academic for them; they mistake careful words for wishy-washy ones, they have difficulty drawing obvious inferences, and so on. Instead of complaining about the audience, it's often best to find sources at their level. When claims of bias are involved, it's also helpful to find a source that's biased against the information it's sharing. It's also important to make sure the source has the journalistic credentials to be reliable.

To that end, here's an article angrily reporting about a study released by West Point's Combating Terrorism Center, which links religious fundamentalism with the far right (in the form of right-wing terrorists). You don't need a college degree to understand it, and it's more than enough to restore the mention of religious fundamentalism in the lede. MilesMoney (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

"have difficulty drawing obvious inferences." Exactly, because WP:SYN says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". And there you go again, introducing another source so that you can continue your disruption. You are aware I hope that this article is supposed to include those parts of the world that are not in the United States and op-eds are not reliable sources. TFD (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Good to know, but this article is labeled news, so what's your next excuse for ignoring a reliable source? MilesMoney (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• I opened this thread in good faith. MilesMoney has had the opportunity to provide evidence in support of including religious fundamentalism but instead has used it as an opportunity for disruption. I will consider this discussion closed. TFD (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's see:

1. I provided a reliable source.
2. You claimed it was an opinion piece.
3. I refuted this claim and asked for any further objections.
4. You closed the thread.

I can only guess that this means you have no more objections. If you still harbored some but closed the discussion, that would be a pretty clear case of sandbagging this discussion, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to admit to that policy violation. MilesMoney (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

rs or not, it does not support what you want the article to say. And since you have drummed up no support, there is nothing further to discuss. TFD (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Your conclusion is in contradiction to our sources, therefore it is wrong. Even the title of the article makes it clear that religious fundamentalism is linked to far-right politics. I'm sorry, but WP:IDHT is not a valid argument. MilesMoney (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

No it is not, unless you use convoluted reasoning. TFD (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Convoluted?

West Point Study: ‘Far right’ includes Christians, Pro-lifers, Fundamentalists; dangerous to U.S.

Uh oh. Look who’s warning about ‘far right’ now!

If you’re a “right-wing” supporter of “civil activism, individual freedoms and self-government,” you’d better keep your head down.

You won’t believe who claims you’re actually a DANGER to the U.S.

Report unloads on supporters of ‘civil activism, individual freedoms, self-government’

A new West Point study released by the U.S. Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center is linking opposition to abortion and other “fundamental” positions to terrorism, and pro-life leaders say it’s just a way to paint them in a negative way.

I think that amply refutes your claim, though this is as much as I feel comfortable copying. Follow the link to read the rest. MilesMoney (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

For those able to handle academic/military writing, here's something from page 3 of the actual report:

There are three major ideological movements within the American violent far right: a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.

At this point, anyone denying that religious fundamentalism belongs in this article should be relieved from editing Wikipedia on, a permanent basis. MilesMoney (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles, did you even read the report? I only ask because on the very first page at the bottom it reads. "The views expressed in this report are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Combating Terrorism Center, U.S. Military Academy, Department of Defense or U.S. government." This is un-published report. It looks like it is probably a college paper. Arzel (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for conceding that the report does support the inclusion of religious fundamentalism in this article. As for the author, it's clear you didn't bother doing the least bit of research before calling it a "college paper". Rather than point out how completely wrong you were, I'm going to let you have five minutes to do that research and retract your statement. Time... starts... now! MilesMoney (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• After looking this over a little more carefully, I've concluded that this issue is less about sourcing and more about what the prose is attempting to say. This sentence in the lead is badly flawed and needs a rewrite:

"Both terms are commonly used to describe fascist, neo-fascist or other ideologies and organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, or reactionary views."

What we have here is called the fallacy of composition. Regardless of any sources we have looked at so far, the statement is inherently false. Fortunately, it can be easily fixed:

"Both terms are commonly used to describe fascist, neo-fascist or other ideologies and occasionally to describe organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, or reactionary views."

If the bolded text is inserted and we add another source (not the West Point source, which has some issues as TFD Arzel has pointed out), I would support re-adding religious fundamentalism to the second clause. Roccodrift (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Arzel hasn't responded yet, so you can take the challenge for him. Show me an issue. Start with the author, which Arzel claims is some undergrad. Or show me how the text doesn't support linking religious fundamentalism with the far right, as TFD has inexplicably claimed. MilesMoney (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, you changed TFD to Arzel, but Arzel is completely wrong. If you spend even 15 seconds researching this, as he failed to, you will see why. MilesMoney (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the report, and I've concluded that it isn't useful. And I spent enough time on it to learn that Perliger isn't an undergrad.

I'm proposing a reasonable compromise that will let us put "religious fundamentalism" back in the article. Responding with "my way or the highway" isn't going to help you reach your goal, Miles. Roccodrift (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say that the terms are always used to describe groups that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, or reactionary views. OTOH, there are people who hold extreme fundamentalist views and are not far right. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses, al Qaeda, the Taliban, ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel or the vast majority of people before the 20th century. Incidentally, the onus is not on editors to show why something should not be in an article, but on you for including it. TFD (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You may have something there. Why don't you propose another re-wording, so we can look at it? Roccodrift (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I actually looked at the report, so I know it's useful. In particular, it makes it quite clear that religious fundamentalism belongs in the lede. The passage I quoted earlier is direct evidence of this. Also, it's true that the author isn't an undergrad. More to the point, he'd got a PhD in the field and is published extensively by Columbia and Routledge, as well as various periodicals. From this, we can conclude that both Rocco and Arzel failed to do even basic research on this source before dismissing it and have instead objected in bad faith. 01:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you "looked at the report" after you used it as a source rather than having "read" it before you presented it? The report says there are three sub-groups of the far right in the U.S. - racist, anti-federalist and Christian fundamentalist. Their sub-groups incidentally omit some far right groups such as the New Black Panthers and the Jewish Defense League. None of this supports your comments. Had they divided the far right into Northern and Southern groups you would have said "both terms are used to describe ideological groups in the Northern and Southern states of the U.S." TFD (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

If you had read even the first few pages, you would have seen this statement:

It is important to note that this study concentrates on those individuals and groups who have actually perpetuated violence and is not a comprehensive analysis of the political causes with which some far-right extremists identify.

That's why he focuses on these three groups: they've actually launched violent attacks. There are other far-right groups but they have not been violent as of late, so they're not mentioned in this report.

Now that I've once again made it clear that you haven't done your homework, I'm not sure what to make of your argument. Are you denying that religious fundamentalists constitute a significant part of the far right? Are you denying that this document confirms the fact? What are you actually trying to say? It's unclear and obstructive. MilesMoney (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

If I were fooled into thinking that you believed you were making a rational argument, how would that help your self-esteem? You would never know if I had been sucked in or was just being polite. How does it improve your self-esteem to suck people in to thinking your have lack analytical skills? TFD (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I have redacted your personal attack. I'll note that you didn't answer my questions, either. It remains the case that we have reliable sources showing the connection between religious fundamentalism and far-right politics. We also have reliable sources which state that the KKK is a Christian group. If you wish to dispute this, you will need to do more than insult me, you'll need to actually make some sort of credible argument. Otherwise, you're just wasting everyone's time. 04:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You have presented an inductive fallacy, e.g., "some cats have fleas, therefore all cats have fleas." Also, you provided a source that says the KKK considers themselves Christians to say therefore they are Christians. Ever think of becoming a defense lawyer? Because if that sophist (not socratic) argument flew, you would be living the American dream. But of course you know that, so let's talk about something else. TFD (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered reading any text on logic? You'd be surprised by what you find, I assure you. Nobody is claiming that all far-right politics involves religious fundamentalism. That is a straw man (look that up in a logic book, ok?). The claim is that religious fundamentalism is a significant strand of the far right, which the source I listed supports directly. As for the KKK, they require their membership to be Christian and they consider themselves to be Christian and they intentionally use Christian symbolism (crosses, mostly). What else would you demand for them to be considered Christian? You're arbitrarily raising the bar. MilesMoney (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Taken under advisement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Miles, you really ought to stop accusing other editors of bad faith. It's against policy, it's not helpful to the discussion, and it harms your reputation, not theirs. Roccodrift (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I would expect a reliable source to support your theory. Remember what you want to include, the terms far right and extreme right" are commonly used to describe,...ideologies and organizations that feature extreme Christian fundamentalist views." BTW the world also includes places that are not part of the United States. TFD (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's the actual sentence, with the debated term in bold.

Both terms are commonly used to describe fascist, neo-fascist or other ideologies and organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist or reactionary views.

So the question is whether far-right and extreme right are used to describe organizations/ideologies that feature, among other things, religious fundamentalism. The source I gave you supports precisely this: it states that religious fundamentalism (as well as racism and anti-federalism) are features of far-right organizations.

You mention that this source is focused on America, and that's true, but America is part of the world. Since religious fundamentalism is one of the features found in far-right groups in America, and since America is part of the world, it necessarily follows as a syllogism that religious fundamentalism is one of the features found in far-right groups in the world. MilesMoney (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

No reasonable editor would use an entry in a glossary of a book about the far right as a source for a definition. A reasonable editor would look for definitions of the far right. Since you have failed to provide sources or reasonable arguments, there is no further point to this discussion. TFD (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

No reasonable editor would impugn a source that isn't under discussion. We're talking about the Perliger book, not Davis and Lynch, remember? If you won't discuss it then I guess you have no objections. MilesMoney (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I was discussing the glossary item from the Routledge book which you introduced above.[2] I am not impugning the source, just your misuse of it. You also misrepresented the West Point paper. Incidentally, when editing an article about the far right, which includes the part of the world that is not in the United States, a section of the U.S. far right in a paper about terrorism is not where a reasonable editor would look for a definition. I suppose you googled ""far right"+fundamentalism" and that was your first hit. Again, since you have no interest in improving the text, I suggest we close this discussion. TFD (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I support closure, taking note that there is no interest in discussing proposed edits and also noting that consensus supports the current edition of the article. Roccodrift (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

So do I! The conversation TFD is having with himself about Routledge has to end immediately. Nobody else is talking about that book, so there's no point discussing it further. Now, if he has any objections to Perliger (what he refers to as the "West Point paper"), he needs to be a bit more concrete than vague claims about misrepresentation. If he is unable to come up with some concrete objections, however, then we can move on to fixing the article. It was damaged recently when you removed some words despite sourcing. MilesMoney (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

This whole "Far Right" concept is a convoluted bunch of POV

I have been warned that any opinion I have (like that this page is an abomination and a bunch of slanted and very poorly sourced information) is not allowed on this TALK PAGE?? How ludicrous! There was only 1 reason for the invention of this page, and that is to attack your political enemies and compare them with every radical nazi, dictatorial regime in history. Let me explain something that is very relevant here. In Europe, "Right Wing" means the opposite as it does in the USA. . There can NEVER be a global consensus about who or what is "Far Right". In the USA, The most "Far Right" posible would be NO GOVERNMENT. In other words, Anarchy. I submit that this whole page should be redirected to the Anarchy page. Problem solved. It seems the creators here believe they have found a way to compare their political enemies to the worst people in history and since the ones with power here are also far LEFT, they agree with the slant. Is there a "Far Left" page? Since the opposite of Left is Right, I would suppose that, after reading THIS page, the Far Left page would be about people who love flowers and animals and want everyone to love everything and everyone in a perfect world, right? I mean CUMMON people! Mussolini, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc were all BIG GOVERNMENT REGIMES and therefore FAR LEFT! To say this is is not true is like saying Black is White! Its a plain fact here in the USA at least. For a site that claims to be unbiased, wikipedia sure allows a hell of a lot of bias. ---Jf (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You are expressing the theory developed by Cleon Skousen and popularized by the John Birch Society. It is a fringe theory and contrary to what you say, not generally accepted by the mainstream in the U.S. TFD (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Your "Left=Big Government/Right=No Government" argument is, like TFD suggested, a "fringe" idea, and I'd go further in stating that by having such an "opinion", you've just proved how uneducated you are on this subject. You were correct about one thing: Any opinion that you have is not allowed on this talk page. Opinions, particularly by lay-people who have no education in the subject...are of no worth whatsoever, either here on this talk page, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. If you're here to try to convince people to agree with your uneducated opinion, then you are on the wrong website. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 21:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that left-wing is synonymous with statism. The origin of the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" is from during the French Revolution. Few political factions in history have ever been much more statist than the original right wing (those who wished the restoration of absolute monarchy in France). I know I'm not going to convince you of anything by saying this, but it should demonstrate to anyone at all open-minded that the left/right axis does not correspond to the statist-anarchist axis. - Jmabel | Talk 03:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

^What he said. And furthermore, if you think that there is anything "Small Government" about the Right-Wing's goals of using the power of The State to enforce Christian Biblical Law (or Sharia Law, in Muslim-dominated countries), then you're probably not firing on all cylinders, Sport. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 03:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

"Any opinion that you have is not allowed on this talk page." Can you elaborate what opinions are not allowed on this talk page and what Wikipedia guidelines is that based on? --Pudeo' 20:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Personal opinions about the subject are not allowed on this talk page. See "Talk page guidelines": "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor." TFD (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

That is true, if they do not concern themselves with improving the article, but in that case is it reasonable to continue the offtopic discussion and reply to the OP? Even taking it as seriously as Bryon Morrigan and reach the lines of civility by repeatedly calling the editor "uneducated" and then presenting own opinions about the right-wing's goal being enforcing Christian biblical law. It really seems to be a recurring theme, as evidenced in the KKK are NOT far-right discussion above. Exactly the same pattern here, although in that discussion Bryon Morrigan went as far to call the editor an "uneducated idiot". --Pudeo' 21:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, if someone actually believes the garbage that has been written here (by the OP and others) regarding the Left/Right spectrum, then it's not an "opinion" that such a person is "uneducated", any more than it's an "opinion" that someone who believes that "2+2=5" is a poor mathematician. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 01:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link to Skousen's essay, if anyone is interested. TFD (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

left-wing - right-wing spectrum is flawed

the left-wing right-wing spectrum concept is flawed. It varies from country to country and across varies types of government. Something that's considered normal in one country will be considered 'extreme' in another. Even looking at Australian politics for a real life example, the centre-right wing party (called the liberal party) is essentially in line with the USA's centre-left party (the democrats). I think it's too ambiguous trying to categorise specific attributes to the far-right or far-left such as racism etc etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.200.153.103 (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

See Schlesinger's "Beyond Left and Right" and a host of other articles on that very problem. Nolan tried to assert a grid concept, but there is substantial reason to believe that that idea, too, is insufficient. We can, of course, settle back on citing opinion as opinion regarding political positions, but too many folks are too interested in labeling people and groups to accept the major limitations and problems of the "spectrum." FWIW, even the analogy of "spectrum" is flawed from the start - colour as defined by wavelength of light is not exactly how humans perceive colour, and there are major differences in colour perception between individuals, and even between the two eyes of a single individual! So it is with politics, the "colour" depends on the person doing the looking, and not on any intrinsic "wavelength" of a position. (There are gems which are both red and green, paints which have different colours in different rooms, and, famously' Land promoted a "two colour" system of colour photography.) Collect (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

That is the etymological fallacy. the argument that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. There is a group of political organizations, neo-nazis, klansmen etc. that are referred to in reliable sources as "far right." Is that a fair description? Possibly not. Is it an actual topic? Yes. If you think they should be re-named, kindly suggest a different article title. Incidentally, both the Liberal Party and the U.S. Republican Party cooperate internationally in the International Democrat Union, a self-described alliance of centrist and center-right parties. TFD (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

By international standards, both major US parties are centrist, in fact. But the problem that no real objective standards exist for such categorization is troubling, indeed. Collect (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

However flawed and simplistic the spectrum and associated labels may be, they are the standard terminology in common use in academia, the media and everyday political discourse (including, as it happens, by Schlesinger, and in a way that the Nolan alternative is not). If they are so used, it is not up to individual WP editors to declare them fatally flawed and therefore unusable. WP is not here to reinvent the wheel, even if some of us might think the wheel in question verges on the square. Equally, as a more general point, of course the terms are relative and depend on context, but that doesn't prevent them being understood. N-HH talk/edits 11:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If the term is applied as a "fact" in Wikipedia's voice, which version of that spectrum does Wikipedia as an entity use? US? Canada? Europe" China? India? Russia? Which one? "Facts" should be uniform across the globe -- but assignment of any person or group to that spectrum where such a spectrum differs wildly around the world is not "empirical fact" but simply opinion of someone - thus should be ascribed as opinion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

There are not entirely different versions of the spectrum depending on where you are on the planet nor, in most specific cases, are there wildly divergent applications of the individual descriptions. Equally, a request for precise uniformity "across the globe", in respect of anything, is needlessly prescriptive. Most human beings can work with grey areas, blurred boundaries and interpretation, where necessary, in the light of context; and nothing in WP policy, guidelines or practice says any of that should prevent content deferring to what the mainstream majority of sources and opinion broadly say about the subject-matter at hand and how they tend to classify it, whether we like it or not. N-HH talk/edits 13:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

In Russia, is Putin "right" or "left"? The CP in Russia is now "right" or "left"? I suggest that there is no uniform measure at all, and that the terms only have meanings in specific times and places, and are not absolutes in any sense at all. Collect (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't say myself. As for what WP should say, it should defer, as noted, to "what the mainstream majority of sources and opinion broadly say ... and how they tend to classify ... whether we like it or not". If the conclusion in the two suggested Russian cases is "not clear", fine, but that doesn't mean that there isn't something commonly known as "far right politics" – to which, for example, the LDPR in Russia would usually be said to ascribe – or that other political groups, such as the Democratic, Labour and Socialist parties in the US, UK and France respectively are not usually described as "centre-left/left-wing" and the Republican, Conservative and UMP parties as "centre-right/right-wing". Those labels are both relatively clear and in common use and we should not avoid them just because there may be less obvious cases out there as well. Anyway, this is quite a general discussion – I'm not clear what is being proposed for this page. N-HH talk/edits 14:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

No one claims that all parties can be placed in the political spectrum, just that most parties in developed countries can be. There are of course exceptions, such as Putin party which combines people across the political spectrum. So do Irish, Welsh and Scottish nationalist parties. But the validity of the political spectrum is irrelevant to whether there is a category of parties called "far right." No one questions that there are liberals, socialists, green parties, etc. The "far right" is just another category. It could be the name does not describe them accurately, but there is no doubt the category exists. Does anyone doubt that the U.S. Nazi Party and Ku Klux Klan belong in the same category in the same sense that the Labour Party UK and the Socialist Party of France belong in the same category?

TFD (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not up to us to "know" that any set of groups are in a set pigeonhole category, we are stuck with reporting opinions which are in reliable sources as those opinions (political spectrum categories clearly do not appear to be empirical fact). We do know that what is "right" to one observer can easily be "left" to another. On the really extreme cases, the word "extreme" is sufficient to describe extraordinarily "out of mainstream" groups, and "left" or "right" pretty much does not matter (vide Schlesinger). The use of political spectrum terms as pejoratives is a real problem - and we have to be careful lest we use any term in such a manner. F'rinstance -- some sources called Romney "extreme right" while most observers did not try labelling him at all in such a manner. Putin has been labeled in reliable sources all the way from far right, far left, fascist and centrist - depending on what source one looks at. Of you know of an empirical basis for defining positions, please tell us - so far I have not found such a basis. Collect (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you name any country where the main non-socialist party is considered to be more left-wing than the main social democratic party? TFD (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I can name countries where the term "socialist" has nothing to do with whether a party is "left wing" or "right wing". For example, Zimbabwe, where the ruling party is officially "socialist" and is in many ways acting in a Fascist manner -- is he "left" or "right"? If you can find a reliable source indicating what the answer must be, then I think I can provide examples to suit your requirements. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

That was not the question. Can you name a country where the main non-socialist party is considered to be more left-wing than the main social democratic party?" The major social democratic party in Zimbabwe is Movement for Democratic Change – Tsvangirai. Are you saying that Mugabe's ZANU is both non-socialist and more left-wing than Tsvangirai's party? TFD (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

No I did not say that -- I said Mugabe is officially socialist, and that much of his opposition is non-socialist -- so it comes down to whether you believe he is on the right or on the left -- as he basically both authoritarian and fascist in many respects. Putin is officially a socialist, and opposition parties which are not socialist are on his left, unless you choose to consider him a left-winger by Russian standards. Two examples. Need more? Cheers --unless you choose to take the outré position that Mugabe and Putin are both on the "left". Collect (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Mugabe's opposition, Movement for Democratic Change – Tsvangirai, is "officially" socialist. So is Putin's main opposition, A Just Russia. They are both members of the Socialist International. Can you name a country where the main non-socialist party is considered to be more left-wing than the main social democratic party? TFD (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I gave two and you decide to move the goalposts. Putin and Mugabe both insist that they are socialist, and they are either on the left or the right (you seem undecided on which except you have not assert that they are both centrist). Or are you falling into the trap of saying "socialist parties are left wing because I assert that they are left wing" here? In that case there is not a chance in hell of me finding a source sufficient to meet your requirements <g>. I presented you with two exceedingly clear cases of "right wing socialists". Collect (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Mugabe's party is post-Communist and to the left of Tsvangirai's socialist party. I do not think anyone in reliable sources considers Putin left-wing or socialist. It calls itself conservative, but it probably does not fit into the left-right political spectrum. Not all parties do, particularly in developing nations, where tribalism and ethnic conflict play a larger role than ideology. Where these parties adopt ideologies, it is usually secondary to nationalist issues.

But none of that explains why there cannot be a category of "far right" parties such as neo-nazis, in the same way that liberals, conservatives and socialists are categories. It could be that they are not really "far right", so the description is inaccurate. But that does not mean the category does not exist.

TFD (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting hand waving Post-Communist means what, precisely? Putin's party is self-described as "socialist" so I wonder just how you missed that. What you appear to say is "nothing socialist can be right wing" which is a very strange definition not found in reliable sources. And if a socialist is right wing, you seem to say "but his party is "conservative." It is likely "centrist" other than the fact it is aggressively militaristic, irredentist, and supportive of government control of the economy. Its supporters in Ukraine appear to be anti-Semitic at this point as well. But you say it is simply "conservative". Cheers -- I gave two examples, and you seem to just keep redefining things -- like calling Mugabe a "post-Communist" whatever that means. Mugabe is one of the most virulent opponents of LGBT rights in Africa, but he is simply "post-communist." Collect (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Putin's party. United Russia, self-identifies as conservative. (In 2009, "the leadership of United Russia declared 'Russian conservatism' to be its ideological program."[3]) And I have no idea what opposition to LGBT rights has to do with Communism - Communist ideology saw homosexuality as a symptom of bourgeois decadence. But this is a digression. Do you think that the BNP and the KKK are grouped together in reliable sources as a political category? Do you think reliable sources call them "far right" or if not what do they call them?

BTW there were mainstream socialists who opposed abortion, supported prohibition, supported blue laws, etc., and would be in U.S. terms "socially conservative", often more so than actual Conservatives.

TFD (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Social liberalism and socialism

An editor added to the lead, "Far right parties may also support social liberalism and socialism."[4] The sources provided do not support that, and I will therefore reverse them. TFD (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually the sources do support the statements.

link: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=11348

quote: In order to explore these discussions and their meaning, Herzog begins with an enlightening chapter on sexual morality in the Nazi era itself. On the question of how one would characterize the Nazis--prudish or licentious--her conclusion is ambiguous. The Nazis promoted an odd mixture of liberalism and conservatism. Official propaganda sometimes encouraged such behaviors as pre- and extra-marital sexual relations, unwed motherhood, and divorce, and sometimes warned against them.

link: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/economic-leadership-secrets-benito-mussolini

source: Economic fascism is a variety of socialism — individual rights may be routinely suppressed in the name of “social justice,” “national greatness” or some other utopian ideal. The Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises pointed out that “the economic program of Italian Fascism did not differ from the program of British Guild Socialism as propagated by the most eminent British and European socialists.”Jimjilin (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

And von Mises was criticized for saying that. He also said "It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error." His analysis of Italian fascism wasn't taken seriously enough for us to use him as a source. And generalizing from the Nazis to 'far-right parties' is not something we should be doing. Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Some more sources.

link: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-17-46.asp

quote from Bormann: The fertility of the Slavs is undesirable. They may use contraceptives or practice abortion, the more the better.

link: http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm

quote: 11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions. Jimjilin (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

To Dougweller: Von Mises is only one of those pointing out the socialist elements in the Nazi program. Many people said positive things about Fascism.

Check out this link: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/hitler-mussolini-roosevelt

quote: Roosevelt himself called Mussolini “admirable” and professed that he was “deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.” The admiration was mutual. In a laudatory review of Roosevelt’s 1933 book Looking Forward, Mussolini wrote, “Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.… Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.” The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, repeatedly praised “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” and “the development toward an authoritarian state” based on the “demand that collective good be put before individual self-interest.”

Here's another quote from the earlier Cato article: Politicians know better than private citizens what should be done. “Government alone,” Mussolini insisted, “is in the right position to see things from the point of view of the general welfare.” The government’s responsibility is to determine how much money is invested, how and where it should be invested and how the results will be judged. In Italy after 1925, all this was done through government-controlled cartels

Please note the articles I have been quoting mention both Nazis and Italian Fascists.Jimjilin (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Check out these articles: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/book-review-south-africas-war-against-capitalism-by-walter-e-williams/ http://hnn.us/blog/7608 Jimjilin (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a fringe theory that fascists were socialists, but it has no acceptance in mainstream writing. And we certainly can not state something as a fact, unless there is consensus in mainstream writing for it. Also, you are confusing the term "social liberalism" with "socially liberal." While the nazis may have been ambivalent on sexual morality, their persecution of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other minorities precludes them as being seen as tolerant or socially liberal. TFD (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

And by fringe you mean ideas you disagree with? It's nice to know we have someone who has been chosen as the voice of mainstream scholarship. lol

How about: "Far right parties may also support socialism and elements of social liberalism."Jimjilin (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Go to Google books and type in "far right".[5] Then read some of the books published by university or academic publishers. If none of them say that the opinion you hold is accepted, or even mention it, then it is fringe. TFD (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I did go to Google books and I found this: "Europe's right-wing populism is more socialist than(neo-)liberal."

link: http://books.google.com/books?id=EUhMAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA16&dq=%22far+right%22+economic+populism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fXiHU93RB4W_sQTwzYKwDA&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22far%20right%22%20economic%20populism&f=false Jimjilin (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead and edit the Nazi and Italian fascist articles to argue that they were basically socialist. As for your quote above, that's cherry-picking and not even a complete sentence. Why did you take that out of context? Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Can we admit the obvious? The National Socialist German Workers' Party contained socialist elements.Jimjilin (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said, go edit that article. Dougweller (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It is out of context. Basically it is saying that some right-wing populist parties support some elements of the welfare state. The first problem is whether the topic is the same. Is the article only about groups like the Ku Klux Klan or do we include groups like the Tea Party, which your source calls far right, but other sources do not. The next problem is before mentioning what some groups on the far right support, we would need to mention what most groups on the far right support. So we would same something like, "most far right groups, such as the Tea Party, oppose extension of the welfare state, while other far right groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan support welfare, but only for white people."

The best approach in writing articles is to present topics as they normally appear in mainstream sources rather than giving undue weight to aspects we consider important. You will find that easier by reading mainstream sources and staying away from the CATO and The Freeman website.

TFD (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

In the future I'll stay away from all sources that TFD disapproves of. That way I won't commit thoughtcrimes.Jimjilin (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not "sources that TFD disapproves of", or "thoughtcrimes". You are pushing fringe conspiracy theories that are only proposed by uneducated radio talk-show hosts. Nobody here is going to take you seriously, and all of your "arguments" have already been discussed, and are not worthy of anything further except ridicule. Read the archives of this, or any other relevant WP pages. Whenever one of you guys hears Glenn Beck or some other drop-out talking about this nonsense, you come on WP and say, "OMG! The Nazis were socialists! We have to change everything!", and we have to re-hash the same arguments, and explain to you guys that you have not stumbled upon some secret "conspiracy" by every reputable historian on the planet to "hide" something from the historical record. It's ridiculous, laughable, and getting really tiresome. -- Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

As you know Bryonmorrigan this is dishonest. I have quoted academics and noted fascist policies. No mention of "Glenn Beck or some other drop-out". lol And, can I ask, when were you elected spokesman for "every reputable historian on the planet"?

Here's another academic source that points out the important socialist element in fascist ideology.

quote about Mussolini: In retrospect, it is clear that his socialism harbored all the convictions that he was subsequently to refashion into the ideology of nascent Fascism.

link: http://books.google.com/books?id=DTZ_holEfS0C&pg=PA223&dq=economic+populism+mussolini+socialism&hl=zh-CN&sa=X&ei=HASLU7jvDcT98QX-84GYCQ&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=economic%20populism%20mussolini%20socialism&f=false Jimjilin (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, go edit the articles on Italian Fascism and the Nazi party. Get your edits accepted there and then come back here. But doing it the other way around isn't acceptable, ie trying to get your views on fascism accepted here first. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The only thing here "dishonest" is your attempt at promoting uneducated propaganda here on Wikipedia. It has been tried a thousand times before, and discussed in depth. You are arguing fringe theories against the academic consensus, and you will not prevail. The end. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Just for fun and to dispel any lingering doubt that Bryon Morrigan is utterly wrong, his intellectual pretenses farcical, I'll list some of my sources:

Walter Williams (Professor of Economics at George Mason University, chairman of the University's Economics department)

Dagmar Herzog (professor of history and the Daniel Rose Faculty scholar at the Graduate Center, City University of New York)

Ludwig von Mises (one of the most influential economists of the 20th century)

Anthony James Gregor (Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley)

And here's a new one: Zeev Sternhell (elected to the Léon Blum Chair of Political Science at the Hebrew University) who considered fascism "a synthesis of the two most forceful ideologies of the 19th century, nationalism and socialism".

link: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/06/books/when-fascism-was-in-flower.html

I've also quoted leading Nazi Martin Bormann and the Nazi Party program.

So to proclaim debate at an end is as dishonest as it is intolerant.Jimjilin (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

And yet you still won't add this at the most relevant articles. Before this view is accepted at the main articles then it doesn't belong here. The debate is over until that's done. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

But please don't just add it without agreement at those places or clog up the talk pages there. The problem is that you are cherry-picking sources and extrapolating from what some of them might say to build an argument and come to conclusions of your own. To take Sternhell for one - who comes up all the time as some kind of purported trump card and whose views are already noted on the Fascism page as it happens – first, his analysis is controversial and second, as the quote above suggests, his focus is on fascism, not on far-right politics per se, and his broad thesis is very much that it is a simplification to view fascism as merely coming from the far right, precisely because of what he claims to be its origins, in part, in socialistic and left-wing ideas. For different reasons in each case, I offer no comment on the citing of von Mises or Bormann. N-HH talk/edits 15:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

To Dougweller - This is what I found at the Nazism page: "Large segments of the Nazi Party staunchly supported its official socialist, revolutionary, and anti-capitalist positions and expected both a social and economic revolution upon the party gaining power in 1933."Jimjilin (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's make the opening paragraph shorter. I propose: Far-right politics or extreme-right politics are right-wing politics that are considered to be to the right of the mainstream centre right on the traditional left-right spectrum. The terms are commonly used to describe fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, or racist views.Jimjilin (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You added your edit back, but I do not see any support for it and will reverse it. You said in your summary "already discussed", but you need to persuade others. TFD (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Major changes to lead

This series of edits has added a lot of content to the lead. Although, broadly, it could be said to reflect reality, many of its assertions do not reflect what is currently in the body and are also stated too definitively. Also, from a more stylistic perspective, it trips over itself quite a lot and also contains odd words/phrases such as "inordinately", "constellation of viewpoints" and instructions as to how exhaustive it is or not. I might try to trim some of it, without that suggesting endorsement. N-HH talk/edits 08:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The edits among other things added the word "inordinately" to "considered to be to the right of the mainstream." The problem with this article is that it conflates the two. TFD (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Style

An editor changed "Some far-right movements, such as the Nazis" to " Some movements considered far-right, such as the Nazis". The edit description says, "Although Nazism is generally called far-right, it incorporates elements of both right and left. Describing it as far-right would be bias."[6]

The article is about the "far right", which is defined as groups deriving from inter-war fascism. While it could be that these groups were not right-wing, but were really leftists or centrists, the fact remains that "far right" is the term used to describe them. Similarly, teddy bears are not actually bears, but there is no reason to mention that every time the term is used in that article.

TFD (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Europe vs. US

This article confuses European Far-right politics with American Far-Right Politics. For instance the KKK was mostly made up of Democrats. (source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics ) Would you call Democrats Far-Right in America? I would say not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.98.37 (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You may want to read up on the 1950s and 1960s, when the most prominent far-right U.S. politicians were southern Democrats: neither party cornered the market for either liberalism or conservatism, they inhabited each end of the spectrum in both parties. That said, there are indeed considerable differences between European and U.S. far-right politics. Acroterion (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The KKK being 90% Democrats is kinda corning the market. Don't you think? I think your biases just want the KKK to be far-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.98.37 (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually the KKK (like the John Birch Society and other right-wing groups) was only predominantly Democratic in the South. But then the Democratic Party in the South was more right-wing than the Republican Party. TFD (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be trying to over-simplify the subject: the KKK in its heyday was a mainly southern Democratic phenomenon, a right-wing reactionary organization. Southern Democrats in that era were quite far from liberal, a legacy of the Republican-led Civil War: you're projecting recent politics into the past. Read about the Dixiecrats, Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Lester Maddox or Jesse Helms. I doubt there are many registered Democrats among current KKK members: many probably claim no affiliation at all nowadays.

Oh look! Another person who heard about the "secret" conspiracy about the KKK actually being populated by Liberal Democrats! Turn off the Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck (neither of which have any education beyond high school, nor work experience beyond talking on the radio). As others have shown, (and you would quickly see if you look around Wikipedia, or check the archives on this page) the concept of the Democrats being "Liberal" and the Republicans being "Conservative" is only a few decades old. The Democrats who filled the ranks of the turn-of-the-century KKK were Far-Right. No reputable historian on the planet disputes this. Many of the politicians who supported them even were heavily involved in the Conservative Coalition. Seriously, it's like we have a new person who "just discovered this amazing information that nobody knew!" about every week or so on any page dealing with Left/Right politics, the KKK, or anything related. It makes me ashamed to be an American that people are so easily duped into believing this kind of propaganda, and I'm sick and tired of these edits wasting everyone's time. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 03:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

Having read both the articles for far-left and far-right politics, the POV check can also be applied to this article. As referenced on the "politics series" box, there are several different conservative ideologies that can be summed up as: centrist, centre-right, right-wing, far-right, and radical-right (Increasing in order of magnitude). This article takes what belongs in the radical-right section (References to the Nazis and genocide, found in the first paragraph) and puts them here, a section meant for devout right-wing people. I will go ahead and remove the sentence that references such material. Redflorist (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Until you provide sources supporting your taxonomy, you do not have sufficient evidence to claim the article is not neutral. I will therefore reverse your recent edit. Please discuss here before restoring. TFD (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Until you provide sources proving otherwise, I'll go with what most people reading the article would believe. When people think of "Far-right", they think of figures like Ted Cruz and Rush Limbaugh. Sure, they may be considered a bit extremist by many people, but certainly not Nazi or in support of genocide. Redflorist (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I also see from this page's history that you spend much of your time reverting edits by people who remove the nonsense nazi connection from the page. What support do you have that the term "far-right" encompasses genocide, and not just far right-wingers like those in the GOP? Redflorist (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The reason all that nonsense nazi connection is here is that that is what the sources say. Even if Tea Partiers were far right and nazis radical right, we would still need articles about both and the only real issue would be what to call the two articles. As for your comment about other editors, lots of editors think global warming is a hoax, Obama was not born in the U.S., 9/11 was an inside job and fascism was left-wing. TFD (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Look..."Until you provide sources proving otherwise"? I think you have things the other way round. The sources are already there, and it is your "fringe" perspective that is not backed up by citations. (And no, neither Goldberg, nor Hayek are "RS" on this subject.) There are plenty of issues with the Left/Right spectrum, but Wikipedia is not the place to try to redefine the terms. All that can be discussed on WP are what the sources say. Period. The End. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 12:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Since there is no widespread consensus about the political nature of Nazism — some classify them as right extremists whereas others group them in the left side because of many socialist/left-like characteristics of the regime and others even say they are neither right nor left — and the right-extremist classification is not the preferred by many people, I have previously edited the article in order to change the phrase "some far-right movements" to "some movements considered far-right" when the Nazis are given as an example, which seems like clearly bias. - - Alumnum (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No reliable source groups them on the left. TFD (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

There are, moreover, reliable sources stating that the "left-right political spectrum" is very difficult to apply to such movements and particularly many sources stating that the fascists considered themselves a "third way." Meanwhile, I suggest that attacking those editors with disparate opinions is less worthwhile than asking them nicely to provide additional reliable sources for discussion. And again, the "spectrum" has no generally accepted definition covering disparate places and times. Collect (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)