Talk:Open–closed political spectrum

A fact from Open–closed political spectrum appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 May 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the 2017 French presidential election was not fought between left and right, but between open and closed?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2017/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Open–closed politics.

Wikipedia

Sources

Much of the content seems to derive from newspapers and periodicals - a water-cooler level of discourse. A Wikipedia article should do better than this.Peter R Hastings (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National identity does not imply racism

"Pro-closed voters tend to have a strong sense of national identity...[t]his does not mean that all closed voters are racist..." would seem to imply that racism is an obvious extreme example of national identity. I think this is equivocation. Mal7798 (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

anti-establishmentarism

the paragraph on this is purposedly and dangerously confusing. anti-establishmentarism cannot be perceived or constructed as something from the (extreme) right, or thoroughly "closed" only. rather it is a broad sentiment that is easily abused, and is labeled "conspirational". that is because the status quo (i guess also inexistant according to this item) is a reality where it is only all too easy to see how capital rules over (social but mostly litteral) justice. as such the construction of anti-establishmentarism as an alt-right idea is only a false propaganda for that what is actually crypto-fascism, besides it is historically an utterly crappy association it is very misleading. fascism is establishmentarism par excellence, the logical result of heaping powers on single individuals. 31.151.163.74 (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POVFORK?

I just discovered the existence of this article. This article seems to be at least partially about the Horseshoe theory, which we already have an article on under its common name. Is this subject distinct, in which case it should take care to distinguish itself, or is it a WP:POVFORK presenting a specific spin on the same topic? Is there one topic, in which case the two articles should be merged, or two, in which case the distinction should be made clear?

If this topic is distinct then maybe the first thing needed is to modify the lead to remove references to the Horseshoe theory as if it were a synonym? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As nobody more familiar with this subject has commented, I have done minimum edit possible to try to remove the most misleading claims here. I have removed all the claims that this is the Horseshoe Theory but left one mention that seems to show that it is related to it. Further work will be needed by somebody who actually understands this stuff to try to make the article fully coherent and comprehensible to the readers. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]