Talk:Radical right (United States)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Title

For a lot of people "radical right" is just synonymous with "far right." I suggest moving this to Radical right (United States) or something like that and redirecting the current title to far right.Prezbo (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As explained in the article the term radical right was chosen by social scientists and is the most commonly used term in academic writing. The term far right is generally used in a more narrow sense to describe nazis, skinheads and hate groups, although there is overlap. See for example The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right.[1] They seem to be more interested in holocaust denial and racial theory and are more likely to resort to criminal activity to obtain their goals. TFD (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm dubious but I can't really challenge your expertise. If you're planning on doing more work on this article it would probably benefit from some content explaining the difference between "radical right" and "far right" and the various uses of the term; even that Routledge book gives a very different definition than the one you give in this article.Prezbo (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I will add a section about the use of terminology. TFD (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have now added it. Reading through the literature it is easy to see how the use of terminology differs among different writers, but it is hard to find sources that discuss the use of terminology. Do you think the new section adequately explains the terminology or would it benefit from more detail? TFD (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

US emphasis

Re: the label "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject."

The article states, "Radical Right is a term used to describe various American political movements.... From the 1990s parties that have been described as radical right became established in the legislatures of various democracies.... However, scholars are divided on whether these parties are radical right, since they differ from the groups described in earlier studies of the radical right. They are more often described as populist."

The Right in the US and that in the rest of the world are studied separately, and there is little literature that compares the phenomenon. There is an article about the other Right under Right-wing populism.

TFD (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As there has been no reply, I have now removed this tag and also the single source tag, since there are now 10 sources used. TFD (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"Radical Right" for U.S. is being written from a Radical left point of view

This description is utterly absurd political propaganda: Re: "readiness to jettison constitutional processes and to suspend liberties"

This is the polar opposite of the American hard right, who's core ideology is to RETURN to the literal writings and processes in the Constitution. This description is political smearing and misinformation, period. There is also a section attempting to describe U.S. Republicanism as being radical right? Seriously? I worry for our next generations if they are learning the liberal re-writing of history through Wikipedia. --216.114.194.20 (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"The Second Ku Klux Klan" is not radical right wing

This absurd accusation is also intentional political misinformation, in the never-ending quest by liberals to paint the right as being racists. The KKK was originally formed by Democrats for the purpose of harassing white Republicans. The Later KKK this addresses was deeply with the Democratic Party (i.e. the LEFT). Senator Robert Byrd (a Democrat) who was in Congress up until his death in 2010 was a KKK officer right through the 1960's. There has never been any tie whatsoever between the KKK and the political right in America. (Not that the oligarchy of liberal gatekeepers on WP would have any interest in telling real history, though)--216.114.194.20 (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That's absurd. Byrd was a CONSERVATIVE Democrat...as were many KKK members of the time. In fact, the bipartisan group in Congress who banded together to fight Civil Rights and Integration called _themselves_ the Conservative Coalition. Check it. It has its own entry on Wikipedia. Get your history from books and historians...not uneducated morons like Glenn Beck. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Modern Examples

Can someone please add examples of modern extremism. I'm thinking of the Coors/Koch movement and Reagan's kitchen cabinet, the "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive war, some of the more radical recent Supreme Court decisions and the TEA Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.247.73.130 (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

wow. The liberals are still hell-bent on trying to paint the TEA party and Bush as being "radicals". Incredible.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

POV

This article is so POV. I beleive it need to be scraped and started over. Right wing is conspiritoial but the article Radical Left doesn't even exist. The radical left is full of conspiracy kooks. This is a book review not an encyclopedic article. Almost all the sources sited are from a two or three books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.59.55 (talk) 06:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think our anonymous editor is misled by the fact that the article is about the right instead of the left. Indeed yes. It is solidly based on standard reliable sources, and erasing them is close to vandalism. 96.228.59.55 needs to do some reading in the reliable sources rather than blindly rejecting ideas that make him unhappy. Rjensen (talk) 07:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think our anonymous editor is onto something that has concerned me as well. Yes, this is about the radical right. But your standard reliable sources, nearly all of them - Daniel Bell, Richard Hofstadter, etc, are either communists are closely associated with left-wing politics. Yet these sources are taken as word from Mt. Sinai. It's as if this were an article about "Shyster Jews" and all the sources were known anti-semites and treated as authoritative. Something just feels wrong about this whole thing. I think if all the sources that inform an entry have an innate hostility to the subject, and whose inquiry into that subject was perhaps even motivated by that hostility, it certainly should be noted. And yes, why is there no article on the radical left?KartoumHero (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there are plenty of articles on the "Radical Left." In fact, it's called Radicalism (historical). My only personal dislike in regards to this article is that the term "radical" in itself is generally meant (except in the USA over the past century) "Left-Wing." Its use as a qualifier to mean "extreme" as in "Radical Right" seems counterproductive, but since the term has now entered academic usage to differentiate between the "Far Right," which includes Neo-Nazis, Fascists, the KKK, and other groups, from the ones that this article focuses on, which are oriented towards more "Anti-Communist," "conspiracy theory," ideologies. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The article explains how the term was developed, why people have criticized it, alternatives used by other writers and that it is the most commonly used term. The article btw does not use Hofstadter as a source, and while there is one reference to Bell, the passage explains that this is Bell's opinion. TFD (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Rjensen. Please do not remove sourced material. TFD (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Synthesis?

Some of the sections seems to be pure synthesis. It appears that sections have been added through original research based on the criteria given in the lede: American political movements that are conspiratorial, anti-communist and "radical", rather than any specific RS that asserts a particular group is deemed "radical right". --Martin (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Your are wrong. Check the sources. TFD (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been checking the sources. The very first one cited fails verification. The cited lede states "Radical Right is a term used to describe various American political movements that are conspiratorial, anti-communist and "radical"", yet Kathleen Blee and Kimberly Creasap paper makes no mention of anti-communism at all: "In the United States, radical right can denote movements that are conspiratorial but not race-based, extreme right as those committed to white/Aryan supremacy, and far right as including both radical and extreme rightists as well as ultranationalists" --Martin (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I have Robert E. Shalhope paper "Republicanism and Early American Historiography," William and Mary Quarterly Vol. 39, No. 2 in front of me, no where does the term "radical right" appear in the text, so why is Republicanism in this article? --Martin (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I will ask Rjensen who added the reference to comment on it, but it is supported by footnote 3. In fact all the sections that you label "synthesis" may be found in Lipset & Raab's book. /Any "synthesis" was made by the authors used as sources. I will remove the tags and ask that you read the sources and familiarize yourself with the subject first. TFD (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

on republicanism--those folks in the 1770s believed in conspiracies and were radicals in favor of overthrowing the government--indeed they did overthrow it. On anti-communism, that is emphasized in the RS in footnotes 2 and 3. Blee and Creasap (footnote 1) clearly say anti-communism was historically a major factor ("Until the collapse of the Soviet Union, conservative anti-internationalism was grounded in fear of worldwide socialism and communism.") Rjensen (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If you find a source that states the Radical Right believes in conspiracies and overthrowing governments, and another source that states Republicanism believes in conspiracies and overthrowing governments, you cannot infer that Republicanism is an instance of the Radical Right, that is synthesis per WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research" --Martin (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

We should use a source that connects republican ideology with the antecents of the Radical Right. Lipset for example wrote about pre-revolutionary conspiracism as an antecedent to the Radical Right[2] and Berlet wrote about the scapegoating aspects of republicanism.[3] TFD (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't however have a single source that connects the two directly, but are still relying upon two sources. That's synthesis. David Plotke posits Republicanism, both liberal and mainstream, significantly to the left of the Radical Right[4]. --Martin (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't see a single statement that comprises "synthesis" -- which statement are we talking about? Rjensen (talk) 08:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Martin, you are misreading that source. Plotzke was referring to the Republican Party, which was founded in 1854, not the ideology that was embraced by Americans before the 1776 revolution. TFD (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Er no, the source clearly mentions "republicanism", not the Republican Party. The sources describe the "radical right" as a 20/21th century political phenomenon. What next, will you be claiming Leninism existed before Lenin was born? --Martin (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it is a clear reference to the Republican Party. If you believe they are referring to an ideology distinct from the party, could you please point out the page where that ideology is explained. BTW the U.S. was a republic long before the Republican party was formed. TFD (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there an implication that the Republican Party was "radical right"? Collect (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No there is not and your discussion is therefore pointless. TFD (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

major problems

This article is entirely synthesis and original research, presented in a non-neutral fashion, using coatrack to a vast extent, using absolutely zero sources verifiable by users, and relying almost entirely on a single source. Collect (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

nonsense. there are cites to many RS, many of which can be checked online, such as The Emergence of a Euro-American Radical Right by Jeffrey Kaplan and Leonard Weinberg. and Mulloy, American Extremism and Bell's Radical Right -- User Collect did not bother doing his research before making silly allegations. Rjensen (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The references used are not checkable on line - zero, in fact. Most of the references are to a single book. And this article is being used recursively by the same editor to show that the groups are "radical right" in their articles. Nor does this article attempt a semblance of NPOV by managing not to list a single source not calling each group "radical right." Lastly, the article makes links between the groups not borne out by the cites given in the first place. Until other eyes ee this, please leave the tags in place per WP guidelines and policies. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect, you may present these ideosyncratic arguments at the neutrality and OR noticeboards.[5][6] TFD (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Alas for you -= Lipset does not 'in any place define "radical right" as claimed in the lede. Nor do I find French parties to be "American." Nor Austrian parties to be "American." Nor Italian parties to be "American." Nor do I find the Federalist stuff to have anything to do with the stated topic of the article. Nor do I find historical "nativists" to be "radical right". Nor is there any basis for the "anti-semitism" stuff in this article, nor does the material even relate to the definition you provide for "radical right." Nor do I find "anti-communist" to mean "radical" when the US Democratic Party officially stated it was "anti-Communist". Nor do I find the coatracking of such groups as the KKK to be anything more than simple coatrack and SYNTH. The tagging here, by the way, alerts followers of the appropriate boards that there are issues here - there is no need for separate posts on noticeboards. For McCarthyism - you should note one of his main workers was Robert Kennedy. So much for this article being NPOV, or anything more than a mishmash of SYNTH, OR and strange coatrack. Collect (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

what Collect's personal views are do not matter. The issue is what the RS say, and Collect is not telling us what RS he is relying upon, if any. As for Lipset's views, see Lipset on Radical Right Rjensen (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I tracked down a copy oif the Lipset essay. It does not say what is claimed for it. If a source is abused in this manner, the entire list of claims ascribed to it are also suspect. Collect (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Which essay is that? TFD (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"Sources of the 'Radical Right'" [7] for one cite thereof. As that was the essay cited, I assumed it was a relevant essay. If, in fact, it is a "wrong essay" then I will try to find a single essay which actually backs the claims made in this "article." Collect (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Why are you looking at a footnote reference to the article in Political Man? The source given in the article (footnote 4) is p. 307 of the article in The Radical Right. It supports the text, "The term "radical" was applied to the American groups because they sought to make fundamental (hence "radical") changes in American institutions and remove from political life persons and institutions that threatened their values or economic interests." TFD (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The republicans of 1770 may have been "radical" but not "right" since being "on the right" meant supporting the monarchy and opposing the republic (which was a left wing revolutionary concept back then). --Martin (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The article says the term "radical right" was coined by Seymour Martin Lipset in his article included in The new American Right, published in 1955. The article does not claim that the Radical Right existed in the 1770s. Could you please read the article and the sources before wasting other editors' time further. (BTW, French supporters of the monarchy only sat on the right beginning in 1789.) TFD (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

In which case, all the stuff about Federalists etc. simply does not belong in this article in the first place. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect, this is not a spin room, please use reasoned arguments not sophistry. TFD (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(od) Your personal attack is not welcome. I have presented discussion which is agreed with by several other editors, and that is what you have to deal with. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

support for article deletion?

Discussion of ways to improve this article and its sourcing can and should continue, but not under this heading. There is no legitimate rationale for deletion here, and having the discussion continue in a quasi-AfD format is counterproductive. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

when did opposition to communism become "radical"?

is that neutral point of view? if not, what is the version we can revert back to that is neutral? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The source used for that claim does not actually back the claim (it is paywalled in any case). I tracked down a longer section, and the misuse of the cite is apparent. I think all the cites are now suspect, alas, and need a thorough vetting. Collect (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

the argument is that members of the radical right are always anti-Communist, not the reverse (anti-Communist are not necessarily members of the radical right.) Rjensen (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

what is your point Rj? are you saying it is possible to be anti-communist, without being radical, explain? if that is true, why does the 1st sentence say anti0communism is radical? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"D,J, Mulloy however noted... the radical right appeals to views that are held by the mainstream: antielitism, individualism, and egalitarianism. Their views on religion, race, Americanism and guns are held by a significant proportion of other white Americans". Your observation is addressed in the article . TFD (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

tfd, plz rephrase your comments, i do not understand your point. is being opposed to communism and a citizen of the usa, qualify one as a radical? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If you do not like the term "radical right" you are not alone. "There is disagreement over how right-wing movements should be described, and no consensus in terminology, although the terminology developed in the 1950s, using the words "radical" or "extremist" is the most commonly used. Other scholars prefer calling them simply "The Right" or "conservatives", which is what they call themselves." TFD (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hang on, Rjensen states "the argument is that members of the radical right are always anti-Communist", so the Anti-Masonic Party, Nativists and the American Protective Association were anti-Communist? Were these parochial American 19th century movements even aware of communism? --Martin (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

At the time the term was coined, the Radical Right opposed Communism and still do today. Obviously they could not oppose it before it existed. We have the same issue with liberal and conservative views on D.C. v. Heller or any other contemporary issue. TFD (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I have removed Anti-Masonic Party, Nativists and the American Protective Association from the article, since members of the radical right are always anti-Communist. --Martin (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Marting is verging on vandalism. They are always anti-Communist when there are Communists. Otherwise they go for the next worst anti-Christian anti-American force, as Davis explains--such as the Catholic Church (based in Rome) or the Masons (supposedly based in Europe) [David Brion Davis, Fear of Conspiracy p xviii] Rjensen (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NPA when making loose claims of "vandalism" please. Collect (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Catholic Church may or may not have been considered "anti-American", but "anti-Christian"? Are you kidding? --Martin (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Some protestants in the 19th century and even today did not accept the Catholic church as Christian, and saw the Pope as the anti-Christ. TFD (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Under your reasoning that Right-Wing Anti-Communism is the basic defining concept of RR...should I replace the sections you removed to links to the National Front, Rock Against Communism, and other Anti-Communist skinhead factions? (And yes, I'm being facetious...as I realize that they belong in the Far Right category, which is different...) I come back from 3 days of the flu...and find myself agreeing with Rjensen. How peculiar... Bryonmorrigan (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

various American political movements

this article is about various movements, which? shouldn't we be more specific or focus on a specific group? are there any other articles about various movements in wp? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

We also have Liberalism in the United States, Conservatism in the United States, Progressivism, Socialism in the United States, etc. TFD (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Liberalism in the United States is a broad political philosophy centered on the unalienable rights of the individual., compared to Radical Right is a term used to describe various American political movements that are conspiratorial, anti-communist and "radical". there is no neutral version of the article, the lede accuses members of conspiracy. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not our role to question whether or not the scholarship about any political ideology is neutral, but to report it in a neutral manner. If you can provide sources that describe the radical right in a different manner, then please add it. Note that the article already mentions various nterpretations and disputes about the subject. It is important that we "represent[] fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". TFD (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

typically RR says we need to form our own secret movement to counteract the evil secret movement. that's "conspiratorial."

if the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject of the article, and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

IOW we should not have an article about 9/11 truthers because it is derogatory to say that they believe 9/11 was an inside job. TFD (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

so tfd you agree the article consist primarily of attacks against the radical right? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the article "represent[s] fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". TFD (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

could you point to the sections that are not attacks? i have yet to read anything positive about the radical right here, what did i miss? simply representing all views does not change the fact all are negative views, which would require the article to be deleted. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you please point to a source that has postive things to say about these organizations that should be included. Note that all the groups mentioned have main articles, and you might want to question why they have nothing good to say. TFD (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The anti-Masonry movement was not "radical"

then why is it in the radical right article? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"There is disagreement over how right-wing movements should be described, and no consensus in terminology, although the terminology developed in the 1950s, using the words "radical" or "extremist" is the most commonly used. Other scholars prefer calling them simply "The Right" or "conservatives", which is what they call themselves." Your observation is discussed in the article. TFD (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

i copied that from the article, not an observation of mine. i am pointing out why the section should be deleted as it is not "radical" Darkstar1st (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Because the article is not about radicalism, it is about the radical right. "There is disagreement over how right-wing movements should be described, and no consensus in terminology, although the terminology developed in the 1950s, using the words "radical" or "extremist" is the most commonly used. Other scholars prefer calling them simply "The Right" or "conservatives", which is what they call themselves." We do not name articles based on which term is most descriptive, but on which term is most commonly used. We have the same issue with Conservatism in the United States and Liberalism in the United States. The terms liberal and radical may be more descriptive, but because of what Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn called "the great American semantic confusion", we accept the terms most commonly used. TFD (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The radical right is egalitarian?

Are you sure? isn't egalitarian about everyone share being equal, like communism? 'Their views on religion, race, Americanism and guns are held by a significant proportion of other white Americans, since most of the usa is what you consider "white", doesn't that mean they are not actually radical, but mainstream? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The article does not say that the radical right is egalitarian. TFD (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

true, it says it appeals to egalitarians. tfd, aren't you splitting hairs here? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it says it "appeals to views that are held by the mainstream: antielitism, individualism, and egalitarianism". You seem to have an ideosyncratic defintion of the term. The writers mean it in the sense of "all men are created equal", a belief that has been held by Americans from the time of the revolution, if not before. Of course Americans have long disagreed over what equality means. TFD (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

the history of radical right is rooted in Anti-semitism

Anti-semitism became a major force following the immigration of Eastern European Jews into American cities in the late 19th century. Jews became identified with Wall Street and the banking establishment and were seen as non-productive middle men. Jews are "a vast conspiracy against mankind" and this belief was taken up by the William Jennings Bryan wing of the Democratic Party, so some democrats are/were radical right? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The article does not say that the history of the radical right is rooted in anti-semitism. TFD (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

then explain why there is a section called: Anti-semitism Darkstar1st (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point and I deleted it. In the 1890s it was (some) Populist farmers (on the LEFT) who attacked Jews, and (some) upper class non-conspiratorial WASPs who discriminated against Jews. neither group at all fits the RR model. Rjensen (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The point that Lipset and Raab were making is that anti-Semitism became a central theme of the radical right in the late 19th century. The villains of right-wing conspiracy theories has evolved from Jacobins to Catholics, Jews, Communists and finally the New World Order. Of course these views were shared by others. TFD (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Should the history section be twice as long as the main body?

the majority of the history takes place before the term was coined. perhaps we should migrate this article into whatever is the predecessor of the radical right. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

the history is the main body--it's a historical term from the 1950s. Rjensen (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

would you be opposed to changing the name to the history of the radical right? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If you agree with Fifelfoo that there should be more sociology, then please add more. TFD (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

is Darstar1st suggesting two articles? I don't see how that's needed. Rjensen (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

no, i suggested we change the name to reflect the majority of the text, which concerns the pre-history before the term was coined. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you think that the articles about Conservatism in the United States and Liberalism in the United States should also be changed because those terms did not become widespread until the mid 20th century? TFD (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

tfd i think you missed the part about weight. the history of section in those articles is rather small, the history here is most of the article. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Then please be so kind and expand the other sections. However, notice that Fifelfoo was talking about the radical right internationally, while this article is specific to the U.S. "From the 1990s parties that have been described as radical right became established in the legislatures of various democracies including Canada, Norway, France, Israel, Russia, Romania and Chile, and had entered coalition governments in Switzerland, Austria, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Italy." Obviously an article that discussed them would have greater emphasis on the present because they are recent. But this article is about something that goes back 250 years and therefore has more history than something that only goes back decades. Also there are major right wing populist parties throughout the world today, but no radical right right wing party in the U.S. Incidentally, do you have any complaints that the article on the Federalist Party concentrates mostly on history - do you think we should change the name of that article? TFD (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

or you could edit the history. does any of the history show the positive side of the radical right? is it is possible to have a positive side of radical? is this article here solely to disparage the subject? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

(out) You mean "radical right". We must be guided by what sources say. However the article does say:

James Aho for example says that the way individuals join right-wing groups is no different from how they join other types of groups. They are influenced by recruiters and join because they believe the goals promoted by the group are of value to them and find personal value in belonging to the group. Several scholars, including Sara Diamond and Chip Berlet reject the theory that membership in the radical right is driven by emotionality and irrationality and see them as similar to other political movements. John George and Laird Wilcox see the psychological claims in Lipset and Raab's approach as "dehumanizing" of members of the radical right. They claim that the same description of members of the radical right is also true of many people within the political mainstream.

D. J. Mulloy however noted that the term "extremist" is often applied to groups outside the political mainstream and the term is dropped once these groups obtain respectability, using the Palestinian Liberation Organization as an example. The mainstream frequently ignores the commonality between itself and so-called extremist organizations. Also, the radical right appeals to views that are held by the mainstream: antielitism, individualism, and egalitarianism. Their views on religion, race, Americanism and guns are held by a significant proportion of other white Americans.

We could add to this the observation of Berlet and others that the radical right rarely acted on their views and that radicals who existed at the time (e.g., Jacksonians, populists) were far more likely to resort to violence and were often more racist and anti-Semitic than the radical right. TFD (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

how does radical right appeal egalitarianism? if the radical right appeals to the mainstream, how are they radical? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not our role as editors to argue that the radical right is radical or right-wing for that matter, merely to report what writers have said about this. They appeal to egalitarianism by opposing the "elites". TFD (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

no, they actually appealed to elites, according to the contradictions used in the article: A successful radical right-wing group would be able to combine the anxieties of both elites and masses. European immigration for example threatened the elites because immigrants brought socialism and radicalism. the radical right recruited elites who were afraid of other, meaner radicals? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If you disagree with how scholars have described the radical right, then you should take it up in a different forum. Our role is merely to report what they say, not analyze their conclusions. TFD (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

but i am agreeing with the sources in saying you are wrong about them opposing elites, they actually appealed elites who were concerned about immigrants, according to the source. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The sources say they opposed the elites. Perhaps the sources are internally inconsistent or the radical right is. If you have sources that make that argument then it would be helpful. The article says, " A successful radical right-wing group would be able to combine the anxieties of both elites and masses." It does not say that the radical right is not anti-elitist, just that unless the elites share the same anxieties that it will not be successful. TFD (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

agreed, the sources are inconsistent, and therefore the entire article you created and added almost 100% of the content, is inconsistent and should be deleted, merged, or fixed, which may be impossible as there really is no positive side to show of the several different unrelated groups you lumped together. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Come the revolution we may burn all the history and social science books, but until then we must accept them as authoritative. TFD (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Radical Right-style responses came in the 1790

since the term wasn't invented until 1950, how is this relevant? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

historians often study the past--they also invent new terms that were not used at the time. Rjensen (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Which historian? --Martin (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Every single historian who writes about the history of liberalism or conservatism in the United States, e.g., Viereck, Kirk, Allitt, Dunn, Woodward, Rossiter, or about the history of those ideologies in general. TFD (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

So Viereck, Kirk, Allitt, Dunn, Woodward and Rossiter all say Radical Right-style responses came in the 1790s? Which historian explicitly asserts this? --Martin (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No, please pay attention to what I wrote. "Every single historian who writes about the history of liberalism or conservatism in the United States...." The term conservative was not used until the 19th century and not applied to U.S. politics until the mid-20th. The authors of The Radical Right used the term to apply to groups that existed before 1955. Their scholarship has been accepted by recent scholars including Berlet, Norris, Diamond, Mulloy. TFD (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote

Collect makes a strange comment on the main page (it belongs here not there) "misuse of source to make a claim inaccurately per source - an "accurate quote" taken out of full context is pernicious". The quote by Bell is accurate and important--Bell himself says it's very important. So what's the exact problem???? Rjensen (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Reread the full claim, and then read the full section from Bell. Note they are not congruent. Collect (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

anyone can read the Bdell statement -- it's at Google page 2 and Collect has been unable to say what's misleading about using it. Rjensen (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Try "you have reached a page that is unavailable for viewing" on that link for me. And the "in this context it means" is not found anywhere near the quote at all. Secondly, the source likely should be [9] which also makes not the "context" meaning claim. So wrong author, and incomplete context. Conservapedia time - and TFD always objects to Transaction Publishers except here. Collect (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a reprint Collect. And you have never objected to that publisher anyway. TFD (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

TFD is right and Collect is wrong. Bell wrote this in 1961: "The ideology of this movement -- its readiness to jettison constitutional processes and to suspend liberties, to condone Communist methods in the fighting of Communism." and I quoted it from Bell, ed. The Radical Right p 2. Collect has the exact same quote which was a reprint of the original Bell essay, reprinted in a book called Conflict and consensus in modern American history , Volume 2. The two are identical, and as Bell says, this is the important point about the RR. "In this context" means in the context of the Wikipedia article (those words are not from Bell). Rjensen (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

We may combine the two Google Book searches to obtain the complete sentence, "What is new, and this is why the problem assumes importance far beyond the question of the fight for control of a party, is the ideology of this movement— its readiness to jettison constitutional processes and to suspend liberties, to condone Communist methods in the fighting of Communism."[10][11] TFD (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

And the anteceding words to establish precisely the context are? And the statement that this defines the word "radical"? And in what respect am I wrong? That I point out the source was from 1961? I would have thought that part was pretty obvious! The cite as available online, moreover, attributes the authorship of the book to the editors - as there is no way for me to verify much more, asserting that TFD is right and I was wrong is a remarkably unseeing claim at best. So at least quote the full anteceding paragraph as a minimum before I can remotely accept the quote. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Collect (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a description from Lipset (a scholar with whom you are familiar) that is available on-line and says the same thing.[12] I do not have access to the Bell article, however. TFD (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

(od) Lipset most specifically does not define "radical" to mean "anti-communist" in the cite you give. Thanks for making that fully clear. And that you had read less of the Bell material that I had (it took a while, but I found enough to indicate that Bell did not define "radical" to mean "anti-communist" in any context. Lipset, in fact, clearly defines "radical" to maen a desire to make far-reaching ("radical" ) changes in American institutions (likely he means "government" here), and to oppose those who threaten the values or "economic interests" (Lipset is a tad vague there) of the "radical right." He specifically does not equate "radical" with "anti-communist" andd the wording he uses is not capable of being stretched to that claim. Lipset also clearly states that most of the "radical right" pursues it goals through proper democratic means. I suggest footnote 2 on page 308 is salient, as it makes clear that Lipset is iterating that he makes no charges against "every or even most" of the "radical right." Perhaps that would be a far better quote than the Bell quote out of context. Collect (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to recommend a phrasing of the definition of "radical right"? TFD (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"Radical right" is generally used as essentially synonymous with "far right, "ultra-right", "hard right" and "extreme right." I find zero sources saying "radical right" is "anti-communist" as some sort of definitive delineation at all. And note that the "far right politics" article uses the terms as basically interchangeable in the lede. Collect (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Please provide sources. TFD (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Per request, and without taking a position in the discussion here, here's the full paragraph:

• Clearly there is more to all this than merely a contest for power with a party. Something new had been happening in American life. It is not the rancor of the radical right, for rancor has been a recurrent aspect of the American political temper. Nor is it just the casting of suspicions or the conspiracy theory of politics, elements of which have streaked American life in the past. What is new, and this is why the problem assumes importance far beyond the fight for control of a party, is the ideology of this movement--its readiness to jettison constitutional processes and to suspend liberties, to condone Communist methods in the fighting of Communism

Hope that helps, --Nuujinn (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is another source for the same assertion, if needed. I didn't add it to the article because it didn't seem appropriate in the lede:

The John Birch Society emulates Communist cells and quasi-secret operation through "front" groups, and preaches a ruthless prosecution of the ideological war along lines very similar to those it finds in the Communist enemy.

Source: Richard Hofstader, The Paranoid Style in American Politics (Boston: Harvard University Press 1964) p. 33 ISBN 0674654617 And--wait for it--he quotes Barry Goldwater: "I would suggest that we analyze and copy the strategy of the enemy; theirs has worked and ours has not."Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

General comments

The objections to this article seem to all involve around objections that individual editors have to the literature about the Radical Right, rather than how it is reported here. It appears to be a case of I just don't like it. I will therefore request comment to attract more input. TFD (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when claims are made which are not found in the sources, some people turn sceptical. Collect (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That is not true, and it would be helpful if you provided specific examples rather than engaging in global accusations with no basis in evidence. TFD (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Aha - so when a source does not bear out a claim, then no one becomes sceptical? A most interesting sort of view, that. On the other hand, I recall you saying that the SWP never claimed to be a founder of the UAF - recall that claim? Especially since the cite is on my UT page. Collect (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you provided specific examples rather than engaging in global accusations with no basis in evidence. TFD (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The cites you claimed were non-existent are on my user talk page, and I assumed you noted them as you posted comments on my UT page - are you asserting again that no sources existed for my comments there? Collect (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

We are discussing this article, not your talk page. TFD (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You made a claim that implied I was untruthful. The fact is that the cite is clearly given on my UT page, and you know it is there. Making charges here which in any way imply otherwise helpd the project not one iota. Collect (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

on his talk page Collect names a cite that he says he cannot get--anyone can get it from a library. Rjensen (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Were you aware that not every library has that book? Nearest one to me with that book is over 50 miles away. I could spend $70 to get it from Amazon - but that is a tad extreme for people to verify what is in an article. Meanwhile, I find the Lipset cite TFD furnishes to be a bit easier to find, and likely a better real fit for the article. BTW, Bell is listed as "editor" for the book - who is the writer of the specific section? Collect (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is called "The dispossessed", written by Daniel Bell. You can order a copy of the book from Alibris starting at $1.99.[13] If you have difficulty raising the funds, I will gladly pay to order and send a copy to you. BTW I did not realize that Pixley was 50 miles away. TFD (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

WTH is "Pixley"? and I note Bell is specified as "editor" and not "author" in the listing. Collect (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Bell was the editor and his essay is the first one presented in the book, beginning on p. 1, called "The dispossessed". Sorry, I thought somewhere you said that the nearest big town to you was Pixley. TFD (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

More likely you were "Pixleyated"? IOW, Bell wrote a non-peer-reviewed essay from a sociological viewpoint, and never presented it as an essay on the political spectrum as such? Collect (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk to your local librarian. They can get you journal articles free. Rjensen (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not furnish the attributed full paragraph here, showing that the author is using it as a means of defining "radical", as recommended when editors question a claim attributed to a cite? Collect (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Bell's article was not about the political spectrum. "Radical Right" was the name assigned to this group. (As you are aware, Lipset later wrote that he thought they may actually be "centrist".) Although the article may not have been peer-reviewed, it is part of the original literture, and is therefore acceptable in the same way that quotes from Locke and Smith are acceptable in books about liberalism. TFD (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In short - Bell's article made no attempt whatsoever to define "radical" as meaning "anti-communist." Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The text that you removed did not "define "radical" as meaning "anti-communist"". It said, "Radical" in "Radical Right", according to David Bell, means a "readiness to jettison constitutional processes and to suspend liberties, to condone Communist methods in the fighting of Communism." Do you understand the difference? I will restore the text. Please do not remove. TFD (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

And you said Bell did not define "radical" at all. Meanwhile, I await the posting of the full paragraph in order to make this lack of definition clear. Thanks - now can we finally have the full paragraph from the cite? Collect (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not say Bell "did not identify radical at all". Could you please stop removing text that you happen to not like and wait for Rjensen to reply. In any case if you remove this definition of "radical" then please replace it, e.g., with the one from Lipset provided to you. If you want to contribute constructively to this article, then I suggest you take time to actually read about. There are many sources provided for the article and many more available on-line. TFD (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Be glad to replace the false "definition". Bell appeared to say the entire right wing of the Republican party had this opinion. Collect (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

outdent] Bell 1962 wrote: "What is new, and this is why the problem assumes importance far beyond the question of the fight for control of a party, is the ideology of this movement -- it is a readiness to jettison constitutional processes and to suspend liberties, to condone Communist methods in the fighting of Communism." Rjensen (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect has opened a discussion thread at the RS Noticeboard.[14] Bell was calling the right wing of the Republican Party at the time "radical right". TFD (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Again the personal aside? The RSN page determined that Bell did not define "radical" to mean "fighting communism" (I note that you corrected me when I used "anti-communism" but I am unsure about the exact parsing of "anti-communism" v. "fighting communism"). Further, since Bell was restricting his comments to the GOP, unless this article is only about the GOP, I am unsure the quote belongs in the lede. Collect (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, the lede did not say that Bell "define[d] "radical" to mean "fighting communism"". I do not know why you are misrepresenting this, but it is disruptive. TFD (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The RSN page determined that Bell did not define "radical" to mean "fighting communism". Collect, with all due respect, the RSN page did nothing of the sort. All we determined that the quote was accurate and produced at your request the paragraph in question. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The claim in question read "Radical" in "Radical Right", according to David Bell, means a "readiness to jettison constitutional processes and to suspend liberties, to condone Communist methods in the fighting of Communism."<ref> Daniel Bell, ed. ''The Radical Right'' (2000) p. 2; the original publication date was 1962. </ref>; I consider that when a claim says something means something, that this means the word is 'defined by the source in that manner. Bell, alas, did nothing of the kind, and did not define "radical" as meaning "a readiness etc." "Radical" does not mean "a readiness etc.", nor did Bell make that claim. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect's private opinions are his own. Bell was clear in what he meant to say. He was not writing a dictionary but an essay. Rjensen (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Again - the actual wording in the article absolutely implied that Bell was in some way defining "radical." As he did not, the article should not so imply. "'X' means 'def' according to Doe" type sentences sure do imply that a definition is being offered. Now there is a matter of weight as to how important Bell's quote is in the lede. As it does not appear to be a "summary" of a section, I wonder why it is present at top instead of just in the body of the article. Collect (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that the inclusion of that particular sentence in the lead is perhaps not a good choice--it does not read very well, and seems more appropriate for a section treating the ideology of the radical right. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both Collect and Nuujinn, inclusion of the Bell quote in the lede is problematical. Lipset characterises it as "radical" "because it desires to make far-reaching changes in American institutions". Lipset makes no mention of "anti-communism" what so ever in his paper in regard to why he characterises it as "radical". Given that Lipset basically defined "radical right" I don't think we should be cherry-picking quotes from other authors to advance some kind of anti-anti-communist position. --Martin (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That was in an earlier version of the article.[15] I don't see that it makes much difference - Bell was clearly stating what made the radical right "radical". TFD (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It's mainly a style issues, since the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. Some argue that nothing in the lead should have a ref, since anything it the lead should be already well-sourced in the body of the article, although I myself do not go so far, esp. on contentious topics. Since there are different interpretation of what the phrase means or how it is used, it's probably best to not get into that in the lead itself. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should the tags for neutrality, original research and synthesis be removed?

Should the tags for neutrality, original research and synthesis be removed? TFD (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

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

See discussion at OR noticeboard.[16]

See discussion at NPOV noticeboard.[17]

• Remove all tags. The term "Radical Right" was coined by Seymour Martin Lipset in his article in The Radical Right (1955)[18] to describe right-wing populism in the United States. Other contributors to the book included Daniel Bell, Richard Hofstadter, Peter Viereck and others. More recently the subject has been written about by many writers including Chip Berlet, Sara Diamond, Pippa Norris Laird Wilcox and others. While scholars disagree on terminology, some calling it right-wing populism, etc., there is agreement that it is a distinct subject of study. TFD (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Retain all tags. The extensive ongoing discussion on this talk page demonstrates the issues remain unresolved. --Martin (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Retain tags And an RfC on "removing tags" is an innovative way of making them disappear when there is clearly ongoing discussion about the issues involved. Collect (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• retain tags how is this page different from the far-right page? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Remove all but neutrality tag. After reviewing the material posted to the relevant noticeboards, it's my opinion that the OR and SYNTH tags are wholly gratuitous.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Remove OR tag - After reading material, while it maybe WP:COATRACK, it is at least referenced. Not having read each and every reference, I cannot comment about SYNTH but would keep it unless there is consensus that they don't fall under that issue. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Not done--premature overly-specific title for current content (no prejudice should future need to distinguish other places). Merger or re-arrangement of several related articles is a separate editorial decision not impacted by req-move closure. DMacks (talk) 07:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Radical Right → Radical Right (United States) or American Radical Right — The term "Radical Right" was originally coined in America to describe a particular political phenomenon. Foreign writers have copied American terminology to describe similar movements in other countries. Adding "United States" makes it clear that this article is about the American political phenomenon. --Martin (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PRECISION as unnecessary or pre-emptive disambiguation of a title. There is currently no other article needing the title Radical Right. It is clear from the first sentence that this article is about American politics. If it's true that there are notable similar movements in other countries, either the information can be added to this article -- in which case the title should not be changed -- or new articles can be created, in which case the title can be changed at that point if this article is not the primary topic. Station1 (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Station1. Furthermore the move is not a good faith effort to improve the article but one by people who reject the idea of Wikipedia coverage of the Radical Right. Rjensen (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Agree The article specifies "American" in the lede, and otherwise is a fork of "Far right politics" at best. Indeed, if not renamed, it should be a redirect to "far right politics" in any case. Collect (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Agree attack piece, no neutral pov possible. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment, after some thought the proposed name ought to have been American Radical Right to properly reflect the content, since the brackets implies disambiguation. So I have updated the proposal accordingly. --Martin (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose; unnecessary disambiguation. This applies to both proposed titles. Powers ^T 13:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I had originally thought the move might be helpful, because the term "radical right" is used by some writers to describe similar movements outside the U.S. However, since this article is a primary topic, and there are no other articles about the "radical right", it would be incorrect to re-name it. TFD (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Station1's comments are exactly right. A move would be out of order, for the reasons he articulates.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Agree. The article clearly specifies that we are speaking of the American radical right. The title should reflect the content of the article. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The article ought to be expanded to cover all aspects worldwide, not just America. Tentontunic (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is possible, apparently there are significant differences between the American Radical Right and the European Radical Right, the main one being that the American Radical Right is not racist like the European variant. --Martin (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That's debatable. Powers ^T 13:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It is in the article right-wing populism, although that article should be expanded. TFD (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Far-right politics, right-wing populism and radical right seem to be essentially identical. Collect makes a strong case that this article should be merged and made into a re-direct if this move request fails. I am beginning to agree. --Martin (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You said, "there are significant differences between the American Radical Right and the European Radical Right... [they] seem to be essentially identical". TFD (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Wherever we come out on the whole move and retitling issue, the radical right in the U.S. deserves its own article and should not be merged with a discussion of related phenonema in other countries. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree if the term is related only to groups in the USA, otherwise Oppose.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

How is Radical Right different from Far-right politics

The term radical right are often used to imply that someone is an extremist. The term radical right refers to sections of the far right that promote views which are very conservative in traditional left-right terms, but which aim to break with prevailing institutions and practices. the far right include fascism, Nazism. what is the main difference between them? the radical left article is a disambiguation page, would anyone object to doing the same here? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The topic is well established in secondary sources. TFD (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

In which case, why do so many sources say the terms are interchangeable? [19]. [20] [21] And more. Collect (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There is disagreement over how right-wing movements should be described, and no consensus in terminology, although the terminology developed in the 1950s, using the words "radical" or "extremist" is the most commonly used. Other scholars prefer calling them simply "The Right" or "conservatives", which is what they call themselves. The terminology is used to describe a broad range of movements.[3] The term "radical right" was coined by Seymour Martin Lipset in his article included in The new American Right, published in 1955.[6] The contributors to that book identified a conservative "responsible Right" as represented by the Republican administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower and a radical Right that wished to change political and social life.[7] Further to the right of the Radical Right, they identified an ultraright. Most ultraright groups operate outside political life, call for drastic change and in extreme cases use violence against the state. These groups were seen as having developed from the Radical Right, both by adopting ideology and containing members drawn from them.[8] In The Radical Right a contrast is made between the main section of the Radical Right that developed in the 1950s and was able to obtain influence during the Reagan administration, and the related ultraright that had turned to violent acts including the Oklahoma bombing.[9]

Ultraright groups, as defined in The Radical Right, are normally called "far-right",[10] although they may be called "radical right" as well.[11]

According to Clive Webb, "Radical right is commonly, but not completely, used to describe anticommunist organizations such as the Christian Crusade and John Birch Society.... [T]he term far right...is the label most broadly used by scholars...to describe militant white supremacists."[12]

TFD (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No need to repeat verbatim what you have written here in the past. The longer the post does not mean the stronger the post. The fact is that the leg on which your argument stands is extremely weak. Collect (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of section

An editor has removed an entire section with the notation, "but where does the source state "radical right"?" In fact the source, which is a brief paper, uses the term 12 times, as well as synonyms. Even the quote from Chip Berlet refers to "right-wing populism", which is as is clear in the article the term that he and others use for radical right. TFD (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

See below --- "right wing populism" is not a synonym for "radical right" and absolutely does not allow us to categorize any person or group as "radical right." Opinions may be cited as opinions - in the case at hand, however, that is insufficient for your edit war to insert this material. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

slomo edit war

TDF keeps inserting material without discussion, i suggest we ask the page to be locked until we can have time to discuss. TDF, plz self-revert before the page lock. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

In fact I opened a discussion thread above, you have not commented but instead have removed sourced material, saying, "2 hours wasn't long enough for me to d". TFD (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

categorizations of people or groups

Sources which directly call a group or person' "radical right" may, at most be used as an expression of opinion. Sources which do not directly make a stetemnt can not be used here to categorize any person or group. Use of "synonyms" is an absurd position, as anyone can see. The claim that if a source calls a person or group "extreme right" or "far right" that we can then assert in Wikipedia's voice that the person or group is "radical right" fails utterly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Courser (used as the source to categorize the Tea Party as "radical right"):

However tempting it may be to lump the Tea Party together with characterizations of earlier social movements of the “radical right,” a careful and objective comparison evinces few similarities.

Hardly seems to categorize the Tea Party as "radical right" when he says it is not even similar! In fact, it is an abuse of Wikipedia to so grossly misuse a source utterly. Collect (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Although Courser objects to the categorization of the Tea Party as "radical right", he says that other writers have. That is all that the section you removed says, it does not say that the Tea Partyis radical right. Why else who he devote a substantial section of his paper to the book Radical Right? As noted in this article, scholars differ in the use of terminology, but clearly Berlet and others are talking about the same phenomenon. I posted the discussion to WP:NORN#Tea Party Movement. TFD (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You present it as fact. With NO PAGE NUMBERS even. This is an abuse of how cites are supposed to work. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not presented as a fact, but as an opinion. Notice the use of terms such as "tends to place", "is seen as", "has described it as". I used the HTML source which did not use page nos., but have now found them in the PDF source. TFD (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

First --it ain't even the source's opinion. Second placing it in this article is indeed categorizing the Tea Party as Radical Right. That is what placing it in this article means! Cheers - but next time I see such a gross abuse of a source, I suspect it will not go to NOR/N <g>. Collect (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The section should be included, but the author's opinion that the categorization is illegitimate should also be included. — goethean ॐ 14:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You mean a book saying "The John Doe association is not homophobic" could be used to justify labelling the "John Doe association" as homophobic by including that negative source in an article? Um -- ever read "Alice in Wonderland"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The source says that although the Tea Party has been described as part of the radical right, it should not be. My proposal is to have the article report exactly what the source says. I'm not sure how I can be more clear. — goethean ॐ 15:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought of including his opinion, but at present he appears to be a lone voice, and therefore WP:WEIGHT would exclude it. He writes, "This makes the Tea Party movement distinctive from earlier movements: its unwillingness to mobilize voters and its lack of organization." Yet some of the movements described as "radical right" did not mobilize voters or have unified organizations. We cannot make this point ourselves, but would need sources, which would be available if his views had received any recognition. Collect, a source that says, "Recent scholarship tends to label John Doe as homophobic" is a good source for the statement, "Recent scholarship tends to label John Doe as homophobic". It is not a good source to state that John Doe is not homophobic, regardless of the author's opinion. TFD (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the on-topic and intelligible response. — goethean ॐ 15:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

In the case at hand, the source clearly does NOT claim the Tea Party movement is "radical right" and the perversion of the source is improper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The source says explicitly, repeatedly and at great length, that the Tea Party has been described as being part of the radical right. The article can and should echo the source on this topic. I can quote the offending passage in question if you would like. — goethean ॐ 00:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the name of this topic a proper name?

I think "radical right" is a common noun phrase like "right-wing" or "far left". It should be written in lower case and the title should be "Radical right". Jojalozzo 01:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

To the extent that it is an attempt to attach "certain attributes" as a general rule to a part of the 'political spectrum", I again point out that there are zero definitions of the "political spectrum" which apply to all periods in all countries. The current Russian "radical right" has nought to do with the US "radical right" which has nought to do with the Chinese "radical right" and the "radical right" in each of these countries has nought to do with the "radical right" of, say, 50 years ago, as a matter of definition. The term is a Humpty-Dumptyism exercise at best, and a fount of POV-pushing at worst. Collect (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand how that applies to the question here. Jojalozzo 03:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It calls into sharp focus the question as to whether the topic itself as "interpreted" here by some editors even exists as something of more than ephemeral significance, especially with the straining to place the "tea party" in it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It is actually a proper noun phrase that refers to right-wing movements in the United States. I do not think it matters whether or not it is capitalized. Although the Left and the Right are normally capitalized, far left and far right are not. TFD (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is an organized "Radical Right" along the lines of the "Tea Party" then I could see it as a proper name but I don't know of such an organization. The "radical right" is a concept or classification that does not rise to proper noun-hood any more than does "right-wing movement". See here for a graph of capitalized usage in books. "Radical Right" and "radical right" peak together in the sixties and tail off in the seventies after which only "radical right" resurges into the 21st century. Jojalozzo 16:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move. (non-admin close) --Born2cycle (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Radical Right → Radical right – This article is about right-wing movements. The term "radical right" is a common noun phrase like "far-left" not a proper name like the "Tea Party". See the following lead sentence from Far-right politics: "Far-right, extreme right, hard right, radical right, and ultra-right are terms used to discuss the qualitative or quantitative position a group or person occupies within right-wing politics." (my emphasis) Jojalozzo 16:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support. Agree with the nom, looks like a common noun to me, which means it should be decapitalised per WP:CAPS. Jenks24 (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support as a clear case of WP:CAPS. Compare to global justice movement, which was recently moved due in part to a formal group calling itself the Global Justice Movement. The current capitalization suggests an entity, whereas the article simply describes radical right-wing groups. Some countries have parties with "left" or "right" in their names, but the US is not one of them. --BDD (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Determine a simple matter of style according to WP guidelines. Noetica^Tea? 06:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support per all, and WP:TITLEFORMAT: not a proper noun. ENeville (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• support - for all the reasons given above. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Comment The article is about American groups that are most often described as "radical right", not about the term itself. TFD (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Then why does the article begin "Radical Right is a term" and then go on to use "term" twice more in the lead? Jenks24 (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Also the article says it is used for various groups and not a single entity called Radical Right.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • In which case the lede is silly and misleading to readers. Sorry - this article needs to be about the "term" and the idea that it is to be a COATRACK for "bad Anerican groups" is errant. Collect (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • How do you think it should be phrased? TFD (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Often the lead will explain and define the term used as the article title. That does not mean the article is about the term. This article is not about the term. It is about the radical right, i.e. conservative political movements. The lead is could be better phrased if it said something like "The radical right refers to right-wing, conservative political movements." but this is standard lead structure even as written now. Jojalozzo 21:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Your formulation (like the current first sentence of the article) fails to respect the use-mention distinction. I think what you're looking for is "Radical right refers to right-wing, conservative political movements" or "The term radical right refers to right-wing, conservative political movements". Deor (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

And in what way does "radical" then figure in? The formulation you present would apply to the Boy Scouts even <g>. Collect (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

How could we end the following introductory sentence: "The radical right is ..."? Jojalozzo 01:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"The radical right are American political movements that are more conservative than the main political parties." Then continue lead with main attributes, why Bell, Lipset and others called them TRR, mention alternative names, identify major groups and literature. TFD (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice! I was stuck. I prefer "The radical right areis composed of American political movements that are more conservative than the main political parties." since the radical right is a collective noun that is considered singular. Jojalozzo 03:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Or "consists of". TFD (talk) 03:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, again. Jojalozzo 04:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

All conservatives are "radical" per new lede

A lede which asserts that anyone who is more conservative than a major political party is "radical" is nuts. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The lead does not assert that they are radical or right-wing but uses the terminology developed by Daniel Bell, Seymour Martin Lipset and others, who defined the Republican Party as the Right and groups to their right the "radical right". TFD (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

An unabated misuse of Lipset. Cheers -- but would you please show a source which says that anyone to the "right" of a "major political party" is "radical right"? I doubt such exists. In fact, I doubt that any definition exists of "right" which is applicable to more than one place at more than one time. Collect (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The new sentence added to the lead in this diff was completely WP:OR. I also do not see any discussion on the talk page and the edit summary suggests, only two editors discussing it briefly at the end of a move discussion. That is a wholly inappropriate place to discuss the lead. Such a micro-discussion, only discussed by two editors, should've been transparent and visible with it's own section header. The material was challenged. Per WP:V, I removed it until a source is found.--v/r - TP 20:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your removal because it resulted in a literally incoherent lede. I had this page watchlisted for some time, and just reverted it to make the lede coherent, not because I have any opinion on the content dispute. Feel free to remove whatever you wanted if it leaves the lede grammatically coherent. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought I had reverted to what was there before the new lede was written earlier today. As long as the WP:OR added in the above diff isn't there I've no concerns; or if a source is found.--v/r - TP 20:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Looks like I've stepped in "it" here. My apologies for acting without more notice. I misunderstood the level of participation in the page move discussion and took silence for consent. I also understood Bell to support my edit. I've no objection to backing out my changes though I think what was there previously was inadequate. Jojalozzo 20:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Plotzke writes on p. xxx of TRR: "In relational terms, a radical right normally includes the most conservative parts of the Republican Party and more conservative positions outside it." TFD (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What if we said: "The radical right consists of political movements that are significantly more conservative than the main political parties." Jojalozzo 20:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

And what is wrong with "radically"? I do not know of any quantitative measurements of "conservativeness" around in any sources. As for the silly suggestion that "radical right" be specifically linked to the Republican Party - that will not fly. Collect (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, the current first sentence implies that no member of the Republican Party can be part of the "radical right," a proposition that some would dispute, and there is no source for it. The real problem is that these labels are all matters of opinion and perspective, and therefore very troublesome as subjects of encyclopedia articles. It's one thing if it is a label to which people self-identify, i.e. "Tea Party" or "conservative." I doubt there are many people, if anyone, who call themselves part of the "radical right." Neutron (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The current wording would seem to include Amish as "radical right" <g> as well as libertarians, most Mennonites, uzw. Collect (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The proposed lead talks about "political movements", not religious ones, and it is possible to be to the right of the main political parties yet be a member of one. (U.S. parties do not expel members for factinalism or deviations from the party line.) It would be POV to say that they are significantly or radically more conservative than the Republicans, and not supported by sources. And if they are that far removed from the Republicans, then what does one call the groups that occupy the ideological space between Republcans and the radical right? TFD (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Again you assert that anyone to the right of the Republican Party is "radical" which is absurd. Would you say anyone to the left of the Democratic Party is "Radical left"? Cheers - this whole inane exercise of political spectrum name calling is worthless to an encyclopedia. Collect (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Whether you lack basic reading comprehension or are being deliberately obtuse, your continued misrepresentation of other editors' statements is very annoying and a disservice to other editors. Please stop per WP:DE, and contribute in a more positive fashion. TFD (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Please remove the personal attacks which you pepper talk pages with. Collect (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Collect is correct, thus my previous revert. The current version covers it well enough. A lead that says anyone more conservative than average is radical improperly defines "radical". The middle (or average) is not a singular thing, but a spectrum. Radical means what it means, at the outside fringe, as far as you can go to one end of the spectrum. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • While one may question why Daniel Bell and Seymour Martin Lipset used the term "radical right", they were referring to groups to the right of the mainstream, not "as far as you can go", which they termed "ultra right". It is similar to complaining about the pineapple article, because they are not actually apples. Incidentally, the term is now widely used to describe political groups outside the U.S. as well, such as UKIP, which is to the right of the Conservative Party. TFD (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• I struck the "smaller govt." and "personal freedom" because they sound too mainstream, and that isn't required to be radical right anyway. It would probably be good to include the fact that "radical right" is often used pejoratively as a political jab in the lead section. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Noted Progressives Father Coughlin, Huey Long were "radical right"?

The current revision gives us this description of Father Coughlin and Huey Long:

However protofascist movements, such as Huey Long's Share Our Wealth and Father Coughlin's National Union for Social Justice emerged, which differed from other right-wing groups by attacking big business, calling for economic reform and rejecting nativism. However, Coughlin's group later developed a racist ideology.

...

Father Coughlin was a Catholic priest who had begun broadcasting on religious matters in 1926. However when his program went national in 1930, he began to comment on political issues, promoting a strongly ant-Communist stance, while being highly critical of American capitalists. He urged government to protect workers, denounced prohibition and held the "international bankers" responsible for the depression. By 1932 he had millions of regular viewers. The following year he set up the "National Union for Social Justice". Although an early supporter of the U. S. president, Franklin Roosevelt, he broke with him in 1935 when Roosevelt proposed that the United States join the World Court. Coughlin then denounced the New Deal, which he claimed had accomplished little but had strengthened the position of the bankers. His organization became increasingly supportive of European fascism.

Coughlin... champion of "social justice"... anti-capitalist... was "right wing"?? What, because he was against the Communists? That cancels out all his very Progressive positions? Cognitive dissonance, anyone? I've been told by many Internet trolls that racism in and of itself is enough to label someone as right-wing (since "racism is inherently conservative", or some such prattle); is Wikipedia taking this stance as well? I guess that's what you get when you've got leftists defining what it means to be on the right. (Further reading: Father Coughlin: Man of the Left)

Then you've got Huey Long and his Share Our Wealth. I bet before you even click the link you can already guess what kind of decidedly-NOT-right-wing stuff you'll find out about "Share Our Wealth". It's today "redistribution of wealth" on steroids. FDR supporters were afraid he would split the progressive vote, hurting FDR. Yet he's "right-wing"? Why? Oh, wait, I see:

Long was considered to be right-wing because of his authoritarian style, building a large National Guard and police force, intimidating opponents and the press, and bringing the electoral process and prosecution service under his direct control.

All this really demonstrates just how utterly flawed the left-wing-defined Left/Right spectrum really is and how it's designed to push a narrative about how fascism and racism are "right wing" when nothing could be further from the truth.

References to people who are clearly not right-wing but have been "deemed" as such anyway in order to push a narrative should be removed. -- Glynth (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Now to convince others. Collect (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You might start with convincing the entire academic and scholarly community that they're completely off-base. I'm sure they'll demur to your obvious contributions to the realm of scholarship, as you no doubt have advanced degrees in history and political science, and have published articles about these issues in peer-reviewed publications. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The mere fact that you'd end this with the idea that fascism is not right-wing proves that you are completely uninterested in academic scholarship, which is the entire basis of Wikipedia. There are certainly nuances to left and right, but the fact that someone adheres to a left-wing position on one thing, while right-wing positions on all others, does not negate all of the right-wing positions. That's like saying that because Obama spoke out against gay marriage during his campaign...and he's widely recognized as a leftist...that this means that being pro-gay marriage is right-wing, or that Obama is not really leftist at all. Your comments are almost a textbook definition of logical fallacies. Leftists are Socially Libertarian and Fiscally Authoritarian...while right-wingers are Socially Authoritarian and Fiscally Libertarian. (Note: This is also why Libertarians like myself are described as Socially Left and Fiscally Right....) And yes, if you understand the basic definitions and origins of the right, you will understand that racism is inherently right-wing, as it is an example of social authoritarianism. The idea that right-wingers are against "big government" only applies to economic issues...as they are, and have always been, in favor of "big government" in reference to legislating religious "morality," and enforcement of social hierarchies. (It goes all the way back to the origins of Left/Right in the French Revolution...) You guys should really read some of the other WP articles, like Right-wing politics, Left-wing politics, and Left–right politics, (and pay attention to, and investigate, the citations!) before just spouting off the easily-debunked views of uneducated right-wing talk show hosts. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Huey Long? Nope - not considered "radical right" by the sources as a rule. And the other WP articles do not mean anything here - perhaps you should check WP:RS before using other articles as examples. <g>. Bell specifically refers to both Long and Coughlin as a "rightist-leftist amalgam." [22]. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not referring specifically to Huey Long. I'm referring to Glynth's general "narrative" regarding Left/Right, and the fact that he/she obviously doesn't understand the concept at all. I haven't done any research on Long, and am not particularly interested in doing so (I can only be an "expert" in so many subjects! Ha!) The other WP articles should really mean something to him/her, as he/she is basing his/her analysis on a non-academic reading of the terms left and right. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph from Bell reads:

The extreme McCarthy emphasis of the 1955 chapter was justified in the exceptional context of the early 1950s. It is perhaps no longer justified in the context of this 1962 edition. As for over-publicized groups like the John Birch Society, fortunately they have no chance of attaining anything like the mass base attained by McCarthy, Coughlin, or Huey Long. This is because they lack the demagogic populist or pseudo-socialist economic platform without which chauvinist thought-control movements have no chance of success. Note that Hitler called himself not merely a nationalist but a National Socialist. Note that Huey Long ("every man a king"), Coughlin ("free silver"), and McCarthy ("socialistic" farm subsidies) had a similar rightist-leftist amalgam rather than a purely rightist or nationalist platform.

However the source used to include Long is Lipset & Raab's The politics of unreason: right wing extremism in America, 1790-1970. Jonah Goldberg's opinions ("Father Couglin:Man of the Left") are interesting but as far as I know have not become generally accepted. It is not up to us to question and correct mainstream academic writing.

TFD (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Jonah Goldberg's un-scholarly opinion of ANYTHING is of no consequence to anyone with a brain (and certainly not RS for WP), as he is nothing but a journalist, with no credentials whatsoever in any academic field. There's a reason that wacky historical theories tend to come from people with no historical credentials (Goldberg, Barton, Beck, etc.), and it's not a "liberal conspiracy." It's the same reason that most wacky theories come from people without academic credentials in an area: They don't know what they're talking about. It's like getting medical advice from your plumber. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you miss the rightist-leftist amalgam bit which I noted? It is right there in the quote you give. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not miss it. What is your point? TFD (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note

You know, it began with Tom Watson, goes on through William Jennings Bryant, Huey Long, Father Coughlin.

The key shift has been as populism has moved from primarily a left-wing movement to a right-wing movement and that's come primarily because people no longer identify big business as the ultimate enemy in American culture. (Buchanan Appeal Follows Tradition of Populist Leaders, NPR All Things Considered, February 21, 1996)

In Huey P. Long: Southern demagogue or American democrat? by Henry C. Dethloff we find:

(McCoy) associates Huey Long with midwestern, farmer-labor, socialist, and progressive agitation.

Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort By Chip Berlet, Matthew Nemiroff Lyons has

(Long was) born and raised in an area of Louisiana with strong left-wing Populist and Socialist Party traditions ... and Long's movement blurred the lines between Left and Right.

And in Kingfish: The Reign of Huey P. Long By Richard D. White, Jr., we find that

According to Huey, either he or another third-party candidate would take take enough left-wing votes from Roosevelt in the 1936 election ...

In Voices of Protest: Huey Long, Father Coughlin, & the Great Depression By Alan Brinkley, we find

And in Minnesota, Farmer-Laborites were writing party leades to suggest that "you get on the right side of Father Coughl;in, Huey Long."

For a dash of salt, try Roosevelt's Peacetime Administrations, 1933-41: A Documentary History of the New Deal Years by George Henry Bennett:

(Huey Long) proceeded to unleash a range of radoical left-wing policies in the state.

Or Dugger and Sherman in Evolutionary Theory in the Social Sciences, Volume 4

Huey Long's left-wing reaction to the New Deal ...

Chaturvedy states in Political Governance: Political theory

Populism has taken both left-wing and right-wing forms.

Would you like a dozen more cites on this before asserting that you know the "mainstream opinion"? Some of these as "standards" in the field. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue is whether they are grouped with the radical right, which is where Bell, Lipset and subsequent scholars place them. Bear in mind that this article is about the "radical right", not whether individual groups are right-wing or radical, which would be original research. As you frequently say, you think that the terms left and right are meaningless, and it may be that Bell and Lipset should have picked a better term. TFD (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice arguemt if not for the fact that Bell calls it an "amalgam" in his writings - so asserting what he wrote should require that we look at what he wrote BTW, my statement is that there is no fixed "political spectrum" valid for all places at all times. When simplifying what I write, I think using what I write is a great idea. - Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I edited the article to include mention of both left and right wing influences on Long.[23] TFD (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The sources would support a similar edit for Coughlin. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Other than Bell's 1963 introduction to Viereck's 1955 essay, which includes Long, Coughlin and Senator Joseph McCarthy as left-right amalgams, do you have any recent literature that discusses Coughlin on the left-right spectrum? Chip Berlet begins his section on Long by saying, "Huey Long has often been called a fascist...we do not agree..." (p. 125).[24] But he has no equivocation about Coughlin and describes his free silver policies as "producerism" (pp. 137 ff.).[25] TFD (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

(od) For Father Coughlin, they (the demons) were the banks, the Jews and -- of course -- Wall Street. from THE ECONOMY AND THE CANDIDATES ROBERTSON'S POPULISM IS PAINFUL The Boston Globe, February 14, 1988 | David Warsh, Globe Staff. Father Charles E. Coughlin: Surrogate Spokesman for the Disaffected By Ronald H. Carpenter, speaks of Coughlin's plan for redistribution of American wealth. And of Thomas Charles O'Brien - a labor leader and Democrat whom Coughlin backed for Vice-President in 1936. Political Ideologies of Organized Labor: The New Deal Era By Ruth L. Horowitz. Coughlin did not hesitate to denounce the capitalist system. I rather think it is difficult to say a person is 'radical right" who is in favor of drastic wealth redistribution, etc. Coughlin opposed banks, Wall Street, wealthy WASPs, (and Jews) (his big problem was his anti-Semitism, which is not linked solely to the "radical right" if the Soviet history is examined). And Bell states the "amalgam" which is clearly a sufficient reliable source in itself. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

All of those facts about Coughlin are in the article. Do have any sources that explicitly state Coughlin had left-wing influences? TFD (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

How many do you need? I rather thought the Bell quote would be sufficient, and the others were lagniappe, but this is positively an Oliver Twist moment. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)