Jump to content

Talk:Radical right (United States)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

RfC: Should the article mention the Tea Party?

There is a clear consensus to exclude this information from the article. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 12:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the article say that "Recent scholarship tends to place the Tea Party Movement within the tradition of the radical right"? TFD (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source says that recent scholarship tends to place the Tea Party Movement within the tradition of the radical right. Some editors have pointed out that the scholar who makes this observation disagrees with what the scholarly community states. However I see no reason why the fact that a scholar disagrees with what the academic community believes is reason not to report what they believe. The edit is here and the source is here. See also the discussion at WP:NORN#Tea Party and above. TFD (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused.
1) A source (Courser?) says recent scholars classify the TPM as a continuation of the radical right.
2) Editors here point out that a scholar (a different scholar or Courser again?) is at odds with the scholarly community.
So the scholarly community disagrees that "recent scholars place the TPM within the tradition of the radical right"? What does the scholarly community say about where recent scholars place the TPM? Jojalozzo 02:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The reliable source states specifically:
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.

It is a perversion of WP:V and WP:RS top so grossly misuse a source. Cheers.Collect (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Include the material. It is difficult to understand, and even more difficult to sympathize with those who would exclude the material. Presumably, they would even oppose quoting from the source extensively. How does one "pervert" a source by quoting from it extensively? Such are the mysteries of Wikipedia. — goethean ॐ 23:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Collect, When a reliable source explains how recent scholarship views something it is reporting a fact. It is a fact that recent scholarship views it that way. However when the author expresses his opinion, he is expressing an opinion. Facts and opinions are different things - we report facts, including facts about the preponderance of various opinions, but we only report opinions "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". However Collect is shifting his position - he claimed that the source (which clearly refers to Daniel Bell'a book The Radical Right) was not referring to the radical right. Now he accepts that it was but thinks that weight should be given to the opinion expressed in the source. Instead of coming to this article with a pre-conceived view ("Tea Party good, liberal pointy-headed professors bad") Collect should commit to reflecting sources accurately. TFD (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
When a reliable source says that a group is NOT readical right, for us to cheat our readers by labelling it ourselves as "radical right" is a violation of core Wikipedia principles. You have asserted that "synonyms" are what you rely upon - and I state here that "synonyms" are not a valid rason to categorize a group as being "radical right" at all. Cheers - this is a violation of CORE principles at this point. Collect (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
By the way, when making egregiously errant claims as to what I claim or do not claim -- the further you depart form anything you could remotely back up from my posts, the motre concerned I am that Wikipedia values are being ignored. You will not find any post of mine saying anything remotely like what you claim I said - and that is not a great example for any editor. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Collect, if we have a reliable source that says most Americans believe in God, we are allowed to use it - it does not mean we are saying "in Wikipedia's voice" that God exists. The fact that the pollster or the reporter who wrote the story believes in/does not believe in God is irrelevant. You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between facts, where the relevant policy is WP:VERIFIABILITY, and opinions, where the relevant policy is WP:NPOV. Do you understand the difference between saying most scholars believe "x" and "x" is true? BTW could you please refrain from using UPPER-CASE LETTERS, and bold text to emphasize your opinions, as well as esoteric, erudite-sounding words - we don't all sit at our desks with a dictionary! In any case, readers would be interested to know how modern scholarship relates the Tea Party to the radical right. You should not see this as an attack on your belief system. TFD (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
When another editor seems not to read what is in black and white, the use of capittal letters is called for. Meanwhile, I would note the precept that one should discuss the edits and not the editors, and specifically not to misstate what the other editor has written. Complaining that another editor uses English words which one finds "erudite" is a comment about the editor. Courser's direct quote making it clear that he does not consider the Tea Party to be "radical right" is clearly thus acceptable to you, of course. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Courser rejects mainstream opinion. However, his writing is a reliable source so we can mention facts stated in his report. If you can show that his opinions have received any attention then we can report them as well, provided we assign them the proper weight. So far his opinions appear to have received zero attention.[1] If you demonstrate that your personal view has received attention in the literature, then please provide a source. TFD (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I notice you included Ronald Formisano's book, but not his comment, "The contemporary right-wing grassroots rebellion, however, differs strikingly from earlier mobilizations by enjoying a sometimes uneasy alliance with powerful astroturf groups and with Tea Party caucuses in Congress and state legislatures."[2] It is interesting that he puts the Tea Party in this tradition and that he remarks on how it differs from past manifestations yet, unlike Courser, does not claim it does not belong. TFD (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
As usual you insist on misusing sources -- you use Courser, yet now you say his stated opinion is wrong. I use Formisano, and now to you he is wrong. Neither Courser nor Formisano asserts "radical right" as a description for the TPM. Nor does the NYT use it as a description. I use the NYT, and I suppose to you, who KNOWS the TRUTNH, the NYT must be wrong. In fact, every source is wrong except for what you know is the [[WP:TRUTH}truth]]. Has it occurred to you that what you know to be the truth, just might be wrong? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I did not claim Formisano was wrong, I merely pointed out that you omitted part of what he wrote, and I think the article would be improved by adding the passage I quoted. It is a good xource. TFD (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Exclude The TP are not radical right. If they are why is a source which says they are not being used? Were are the sources which state they are radical right? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
    • There are "opinion pieces" which assert thay are fanatic, violent, racist, gynephobic, religious zealot, pro-ritualistic-cannibalism idiots who plan on overthrowing the government. I suggest that such opinion pieces do not belong in any Wikipedia article at all. Meanwhile, I hope readers will see that the mainstream sources do not make the claims TFD here asserts he knows are true. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
    • We are not saying that the TPM is "radical right" but that "Recent scholarship tends to place the Tea Party Movement within the tradition of the radical right", which is what the source says. Whether or not the TPM is radical right is not something on which I am expressing an opinion - personal opinions of editors have no place in discussions. TFD (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
You have written above that Courser's opinions have received no attention and that he rejects mainstream opinion, hence he is fringe. Why is he being used at all? If Courser is correct in his opinion then you will have no trouble finding academic sources which discuss how the TPM are radical right. You should not cherry pick a sentence from a source to push a POV. Courser says they are not RR as such the source should not be used to say that they are. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
It does not matter if the writer agrees with or disagrees with mainstream opinion, it is a reliable source for what mainstream opinion is. Often the best sources for explaining mainstream opinion are sources that challenge it. We can find numerous writers putting the TPM in the tradition of the radical right, for example Chip Berlet, Robert Altemeyer, Sean Wilentz. Over at the Tea Party Movement an editor listed sources.[3][4] Incidentally, what reason do you have to believe that Courser's statement was false? Do you think that because an academic forms an opinion contrary to mainstream orthodoxy that he must have his facts wrong? Could you please show what policy supports your view. TFD (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I see no sources in those archives which say the TP are RR. I also did not say that Courser had his facts wrong, as he presents no facts only his opinion. I fail to see how one persons opinion can be used for what is obviously a contentious edit. If he is correct in his assessment that mainstream scholarship views the TP as RR then you will have no problems in finding these sources and using those. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
That "Recent scholarship tends to place the Tea Party Movement within the tradition of the radical right"" is a fact not an opinion. (Compare with "most Americans believe in God". That is a fact independent of whether or not God exists or the opinin of the writer on God's existence.) All the sources in the link place the Tea Party within the tradition of right-wing movements, whether they call it "radical right", "right-wing populism" or whatever. As the article explains, "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." Fraser and Freeman for example place the Tea Party in the tradition of Know-Nothings, Huey Long, Father Coughlin, Francis Townsend, William Lemke, George Wallace, the John Birch Society - all of which are mentioned in this article.[5] As Courser explains, "Recent scholarship tends to place the Tea Party Movement within the tradition of the radical right". Is your objection that you do not believe the Tea Party be considered a right-wing movement or that you object to the term "radical right"? TFD (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
No, my objection is As Courser explains, "Recent scholarship tends to place the Tea Party Movement within the tradition of the radical right". Were exactly is this scholarship? Why do you not use this scholarship instead of a source which says they are not actually RR? One persons opinion, who you yourself have said rejects mainstream opinion which would make him fringe. You are giving undue weight to the opinion of a fringe author. Just use all the recent scholarship of which Courser speaks. And I think my comment on this RFC has gone on for long enough. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I have emended the faulty claims attributed to Courser with his actual words. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The actual and real statementts are:
What little recent academic analyses the Tea Party has received thus far has attempted to place it within the context of past scholarly work on conservative social movements. The comparison is not flattering, as social movements that originate from the right have almost invariably been portrayed as intolerant, resentful, ignorant, and paranoid.
beyond the fact the movement is concentrated within the Republican Party and consists primarily of onservatives, it is not as Berlet attests “the type of right-wing populist movement seen previously throughout US history.”
This characterization does not bear up under scrutiny and falsely places the Tea Party in the context of an academic tradition of marginalizing populist and conservative social movements as illiberal, intolerant, and radical. On the whole, Tea Party movement is neither racist nor radical, and its political demands fit within the mainstream of American politics.
Which are quite at odds with the claims heretofore asserted for the Courser work. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not think that long extracts are good style, when we could easily summarize them. The resulting section sounds a bit strange. We begin by stating that "recent academic analyses...has attempted to place [the Tea Party] with the context of past work on scholarly work", then we spend most of the section explaining why Zachary Courser believes this approach to be wrong. We do not even explain why mainstream opinion has reached this conclusion. Cf WP:FLAT - we acknowledge that scholars believe the earth is round, then provide arguments why it is not. TFD (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The "strangeness" is likely due to the fact that the original claim in this article is laid on its head by the accurate quoting of the source. Sorry TFD -- when one totally misquotes a source ofr misleadingly uses a source to imply what it actually does not only not imply, but contradicts, is always going to be "strange" to someone. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Collect, do you understand the difference between someone saying "most scholars believe x, but I believe y" and saying "y is true"? Our role is to accurately represent opinions on the basis of which they are held in mainstream sources, not to shill for the Tea Party. If you do not like how the Tea Party is viewed, here is not the place to correct general perceptions. TFD (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
What I did was read the entire source. As the claims made for it were not in the source and in some cases were 180 degrees away from the source, using quotations from the source seemed wise. I fear you are too sure of the WP:TRUTH that the Tea Party movement is "radical right" that when your chosen source states the opposite that you blame the messengers of that fact. And if you wish to claim I shill for anyone, then I assure you that you are egregiously mistaken in that attack. Courser does not say what you asserted he said -- as the exact quotes make clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
He said exactly what I put in, but said that he disagreed with what other scholars said and explained why. However, WP:WEIGHT requires us to provide more emphasis on the main body of thinking, not on minority views. The result of your edit is to inject bias, and place the Tea Party in a more favorable light than it is normally seen. That is POV-pushing. TFD (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

(od) What an amazing claim -- when I use the source you presented and used it honestly, you now think Courser is a minority viewpoint! LOL! Collect (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Courser writes, "recent academic analyses [of] the Tea Party has...attempted to place it within the context of past scholarly work.... This characterization does not bear up." A reasonable interpretation of what he writes is recent academic analyses of the Tea Party places it within the context of past scholarly work and Courser disagrees with recent academic anaylses. You appear to have difficulty understanding what Courser is saying, but I have explained it pretty clearly. TFD (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
You are interpreting Courser, finding opinions he does not state. I quote Courser, per WP:V. There is a big difference in the two types of editing. And mine is what Wikipedia policies require. Collect (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
See WP:WEIGHT (a policy btw): "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." See Courser: "What little recent academic analyses the Tea Party has received thus far has attempted to place it within the context of past scholarly work on conservative social movements." Policy requires us to give greater prominence to the viewpoint placing the Tea Party within the radical right. Whether or not Courser's own contrary views deserve any attention is something you failed to establish. If you don't like what academics are saying, just say so. Do not represent that somehow you are following policy. TFD (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
And again you ELIDE what Courser says! He says "attempted" which in Englsih means that the attempt was not successful in his opinion at all. And when a reliable source is used, it is simply weird to then say the reliable source's own statements do not count. And I would note that it was, indeed, you who insisted on using this source, so for you to then say it can not be used for what it clearly states is weird to the nth power! Collect (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • RFC Comment: This seems to be a good case for using more sources than just one. However, going just by the one, wouldn't it make sense to say something like "While the Tea Party is broadly/often/(whatever word the source uses) placed within the radical right, some commentators say there exist significant differences between the two." --Dailycare (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
We don't need to use precisely the same words that sources use, it's often better to capture the gist of what sources say and weave it into a text of our own. --Dailycare (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Even if the "rewording" is 180 degrees from what the source itself says? Not. Collect (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments
    In my experience, an RFC is less effective when it's dominated by insiders. IMO, the role of insiders is to clarify their positions but not to counter every statement that does not agree with their opinions.
    Courser's paper is a complex analysis that will not support simple bald statements. By my quick reading (but not an in-depth study) he is saying that the Tea Party is radical and very conservative. My interpretation of the quoted sentence above (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.) is that the TP is different than the earlier movement identified as the "radical right" (i.e. Bell et al.) in the 1950's. Since the 1950's, the term has broadened to include other movements that are conservative and radical andI do not see where Courser says the TP is not part of today's notion of "radical right" nor do I see where he says that contemporary scholars place it in the radical right as TFD suggests. I do not find Courser's paper very helpful in addressing the question.Jojalozzo 02:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    • He writes, "...recent academic analys[i]s...has attempted to place it within the context of past scholarly work on conservative social movements". He then says the comparison is not flattering and refers to Bell's 1963 book, The Radical Right, and 1955 articles by Lipset ("The sources of the radical right") and Hofstadter ("The pseudo-conservative revolt") that appear in it. He uses the term when he says he rejects the comparison and uses it several times more when he explains past scholarly work. TFD (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
      • IOW you use the title of a work to imply that anyone mentioned in the work is part of the group in the title, even if the author makes no such claims in the work at all. Sorry -- titles are not "verifiable sources for claims". Collect (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
TFD: The statement at the heart of this appears to require your synthesis and is not directly supported by the source. Why are you relying on a source that does not think the TPM is part of the radical right to make the claim that other scholars do so???? Please find one or more sources that make the association directly rather than depending on tenuous inferences from a critic of that position. Jojalozzo 02:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
It is not synthesis to say that he is talking about the same topic, although he alternatives the terminology, refering to them as "radical right" (in quotes) and also "past conservative movements". Read the the following sourced extract from the article and tell me that he is not talking about the same thing:
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 study of the radical right began in the 1950s.... A framework for description was developed primarily in Richard Hofstadter's "The pseudo-conservative revolt" and Seymour Martin Lipset's "The sources of the radical right". These essays, along with others by Daniel Bell, Talcott Parsons, Peter Viereck and Herbert Hyman were included in The new American Right (1955). In 1963, following the rise of the John Birch Society, the authors were asked to re-examine their earlier essays and the revised essays were published in the book The Radical Right....[13]
TFD (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Certainly Courser is talking about the radical right and the TPM but none of what you quote directly supports the statement that concerns this RfC. Where does he say other scholars are placing the TPM in the radical right tradition? Unless I am misunderstanding, these quotes refer to pre-TPM movements and do not concern TPM. If these quotes are as close as Courser comes to the statement in question, then I don't see how we can get the rest of the way without synthesis. Jojalozzo 05:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
As explained in Courser's article, recent scholarship tends to place the Tea Party in the radical right. Rather than conduct our own original research, it is better to accept that. But here are some examples:
This article['s] aim is to show that the Tea Party is a genuine right-wing movement... which revives particular American traditions of conservatism and the radical right.[6]
In the past two decades, European politics have witnessed the transformation of populist radical right parties from the margins to the mainstream.... not a political party, the rise of the Tea Party movement in the United States has created a surge of right-wing populism and has taken on many commonalities with European right-wing populist party agendas.[7]
Now, after the rise of the radical right Tea Party movement...[8]
...radical politics is often being practised most successfully by radical Right movements and parties. This is the case if one considers... the Tea Party in the US....[9]
TFD (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't see where Courser explains that specific point but I admit I have not read the article so carefully. I apologize for that but I am just a random drop in invited to comment here by RfcBot. Please show me. Jojalozzo 05:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
He writes, "What little recent academic analyses the Tea Party has received thus far has attempted to place it within the context of past scholarly work on conservative social movements. The comparison is not flattering, as social movements that originate from the right have almost invariably been portrayed as intolerant, resentful, ignorant, and paranoid (Bell 1963; Lipset 1955; Hofstadter 1955, 1965).... 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.... Hofstadter, along with Daniel Bell, Seymour Martin Lipset, and others in the edited volume The Radical Right (1955, 1963), expanded the thesis regarding paranoid populists to include groups on the political right that were associated with anti-communism and McCarthyism.... The lack of a stable social hierarchy and the mutability of social status in American life produced resentment and irrational fear in the radical right.... Bell draws a direct comparison between the Populists of the 1890s and the radical right of the 1950s and 60s as being “dispossessed” social groups that sought “targets on whom they can vent their resentments, targets whose power can serve to explain their dispossession.... [Bell] goes further to claim that the radical right is bewildered by the complexities of contemporary politics and is unable to cope. The “politics of frustration” is at the core of radical right.... So for Bell it is not only status anxiety that inspires the radical right, but the fact that society and politics advanced beyond their understanding or perhaps even their capacity.... Bell’s questioning of the capacity of the members of the radical right to conceive of their political world is indicative of a growing skepticism by academics in the 1950s and early 60s of democracy.... Despite the focus on conservatism being a pathology of social movements, the above depiction of the “radical right” offers little evidence that conservatism is inherently illiberal or dangerous." By "past scholarly work on conservative social movements", he is referring Bell, Lipset and Hofstadter's writing in The Radical Right about "earlier social movements of the “radical right”", and does not mention any other American scholars of the past. TFD (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
And so you consider then =m to be paranoid polulists? Sorry -- your posts are way off on this. Nor do I think comments made about groups specifically in the 1960s applies to groups in the 2010s. Cheers - but you weaken your case with every post <g>. Collect (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
@Collect: You've had plenty of say here and piling on like this is unseemly. I suggest you step back and let this process complete without further intrusion. I'm finished here also. Jojalozzo 16:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
@TFD: Ok. This is what I was reading also. I don't see anywhere in that content that Courser claims recent scholars are placing the TPM in the radical right tradition. I cannot find any support for your position in that source. Jojalozzo 16:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
What do you think he means by "the context of past scholarly work on conservative social movements", if not Bell, Lipset and Hofstadter? I posted the question at WP:NORN#Radical Right. TFD (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
He is explicitly general in his statement, identifying "conservative social movements". I do not see any basis for making a specific statement that narrows this down to the Radical Right. If he'd meant the Radical Right I must assume he'd have said that. He doesn't say that, so I don't see how we can use his paper as support for our doing so. You may get a positive answer the question you ask at NORN but that is not the question we are addressing here. It would be more useful to ask if we can assume the author is using the phrase, "conservative social movements", to mean the Radical Right. Jojalozzo 17:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
What about, "says that recent scholarship tends to place the Tea Party Movement within the tradition of "conservative social movements" as described in The Radical Right? (I put in in quotes because The Radical Right does not use that term.) TFD (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps start a new subsection with such a proposal. IMO, it's still synthesis because it would have been so easy for Courser to say something like that but, because he didn't, perhaps it's purposeful. '..."conservative social movements" such as those described in the The Radical Right' might be less presumptive but lacks the teeth of the RfC's original statement. Such a weak statement might not be worth including here. (BTW, I'd ditch "tends" as weaseling.) Jojalozzo 01:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Exclude. This is ridiculous; in the lead, WP tries to define the term as a collection of extremist groups. If you KEEP the definition, a libertarian non-violent grass-roots movement, which has considerable variation, can only be described as "Populist". Radical Right is being used not as an actual political classification, but as an epithet. If you want to include in the lead that the term is also used as an insult and without actual meaning by irresponsible Politicians, then and ONLY THEN include the Tea Party. The Tea Party itself isn't really a "right-wing" group at all, but libertarian, and initially formed in opposition to excessive REPUBLICAN/Bipartisan spending, namely bank bailouts.209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Exclude - The statement in question is only indirectly supported by the source and requires editorial synthesis. Find a source that either makes the statement directly or locate some scholarly works that actually place the TPM with the radical right. Jojalozzo 02:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Exclude - While I personally would identify the TP as "Radical Right," (and certainly not "Libertarian" as mentioned by someone earlier; They're far too Socially Conservative to be even close to Libertarian...) the source being used is not exactly a "smoking gun," and the lack of other RS being introduced is, to me, somewhat telling. Though, for the record, I think the term "Radical Right" is fairly absurd...like "Reactionary Left" or something... --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 02:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Exclude: per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. – Lionel (talk) 07:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Exclude: The information from the source does not meet the definition from the lede, to wit "conspiracist, attuned to anti-American or anti-Christian agents of foreign powers, and 'radical'"(citation omitted). In fact, it expresses the exact opposite, that the Tea Party is within the American mainstream. Eastshire (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Exclude. "Radical right" is a slur applied to the Tea Party movement by its countless less-than-scrupulous opponents. To suggest that (presumably intellectually honest) scholarship is involved in such a label is insulting, not just to the Tea Party, but to the intelligence of any reader who's paid any real attention to American politics in recent years. What, exactly, is the reasoning behind such edits in the first place? I know we're supposed to assume good faith here, but let's not kid ourselves. Look at the section below titled All conservatives are "radical" per new lede, and look who's there defending the notion of calling all people politically to the right of moderate Republicans as "radical". To call the Tea Party "radical" is to toss aside any attempt at reality-based objectivity in favor of a political-agenda-driven narrative. -- Glynth (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

American-centric article that does not represent a world view on what "radical right" means.

This article is completely American-centric article. I highly doubt that the term "radical right" is only used in an American context.--R-41 (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It is. In fact it is 1950s-80s US-centric. And most of what it calls "radical right" would not be called "radical right" in other places or times. Collect (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
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."
See Talk:Radical right/Archive 1#US emphasis. TFD (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


DCJH Why is there no specific article on the "Radical Left" in America? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.99.51 (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Tea Party Movement

The recent additions for the Tea Party Movement are not sourced to literature describing them as radical right and I will therefore remove them. TFD (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


The section regarding the Tea Party Movement is poorly sourced at best. I have therefore removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.245.87 (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

it should be re-added, either here on on the "far-right" page as the tea party members are not seen as "normal" but only as "extreme" or "far-right" by those in the republican party — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.212.54.237 (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 27 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 57 21:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The term "radical right" is American in origin, although it has been consciously adopted by some European writers who saw the right-wing parties that arose mostly in Western Europe in the 1970s as the same phenomenon seen in the U.S. (See The Emergence of a Euro-American Radical Right, pp. 10-1[10]) These new parties are more usually refered to as right-wing populism, although they are also refered to as the third wave of Extreme Right parties.

Note the other article, called Radical right (Europe) is a stub created yesterday,[11] and an editor moved the original article and turned the page into a disambiguation page.

TFD (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but policy says WP:Be bold and WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. --RJFF (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
This article is about a defined topic which is usually refered to as "Radical right" in the US. Ngram is not helpful in determining how a certain topic is commonly refered to, because "far right" may simply be used in a different context and with a (slightly, but notably) different meaning from "radical right"; they are not fully synonymous. --RJFF (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
RJFF The thing that the Ngrams do is to show that "far right" has a long history of use and that, while the terminology "radical right" became popular for a while, "far right" has remained in more popular use. My suspicion is that the terminology "radical right" has been the result of spin doctoring my far right groups. GregKaye 14:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I am the one who has moved this article. I was not aware of the failed 2011 move request as I did not check the talk archive, so I have just been bold – sorry. But the situation has changed since then: We now have more than one article titled "radical right" which makes a disambiguation necessary (unlike in 2011 when this was the only article with "radical right" in its title). The topic of this article is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Searching google books, more than half of the hits on the first few pages are about radical right parties or movements in Europe, a few are about Israel and only about a third are about the American radical right (I am in Europe, so my results may be influenced by this, but still). Of the links pointing to Radical right until yesterday, 21 refered to the US radical right, 15 refered to the radical right in Europe, and a few refered to a concept of radical right that is covered by neither of the two articles. All this speaks against a primary topic and for a disambiguation page at Radical right. --RJFF (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    • But that is not the correct comparison. How many of those articles are about the specific topic identified in the article Radical right (Europe) which is defined as the third wave of Extreme Right Parties? More often the term is used as a synonym for far right, an article that already exists. And Israel is not in Europe btw. TFD (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Right wing populism section

I could use some help navigating to find the cite for this. It just lists authors and page numbers as far as I can tell, and no link.

  • "Although the term "radical right" was American in origin, the term has been consciously adopted by some European social scientists. Conversely the term "right-wing extremism", which is European in origin, has been adopted by some American social scientists. Since the European right-wing groups in existence immediately following the war had roots in fascism they were normally called "neo-fascist". However, as new right-wing groups emerged with no connection to historical fascism, the use of the term "right-wing extremism" came to be more widely used." citation 32. DN (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

In addition, and in lieu of resolving the cite access issue, are there any other RS that can back these up as well (cite 30 & 31)? "Studies of the radical right in the United States and right-wing populism in Europe have tended to be conducted independently, with very few comparisons made. European analyses have tended to use comparisons with fascism, while studies of the American radical right have stressed American exceptionalism. The U.S. studies have paid attention to the consequences of slavery, the profusion of religious denominations and a history of immigration, and saw fascism as uniquely European." DN (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources don't have to be accessible on-line in order to be used. What specifically do you question about the text? TFD (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Any other sources at all? DN (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
For which claim? TFD (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Comparison

Let's compare leads of Radical right (United States) and Radical right (Europe).

US:

Especially historically in United States politics, the radical right is a political preference that leans toward extreme conservatism and anti-socialism. The term was first used by social scientists in the 1950s regarding small groups such as the John Birch Society in the United States, and since has been used for similar groups worldwide. The term "radical" was applied to the groups because they sought to make fundamental (hence "radical") changes in institutions and remove from political life persons and institutions that threatened their values or economic interests. They were called "right-wing" primarily because of their opposition to both socialism and communism and their ultraconservative or reactionary tendencies which limited new access to power and status.

Europe:

In political science, the term radical right has been used to refer to the range of European right-wing parties that have grown in support since the late 1970s. Political parties labelled as radical right have varied in their specific ideological approach, from right-wing populism to white nationalism and fascism. However, they have shared a number of common causes, which typically include criticism of immigration and multiculturalism, opposition to the European Union, and social conservatism.

How can it be that in America the radical right equals rational conservatism, protecting economy and anti-communism, while in Europe it equals fascism, anti-immigration and white racists? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The radical right in the U.S. equals basically what it does in Europe; the first blockquote is just more polite about it. Your description is more of American traditional conservatism. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Dixiecrats

Didnt see any citation that confirms inclusion for Radical right...DN (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. And they are not mentioned in the sources used for the article, so I will remove them. TFD (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
@Darknipples and The Four Deuces: The Dixiecrats are called "far-right" in this Washington Post article: Manipulating elections is a conservative tradition by historian John S. Huntington.
Not sure if that is enough for them to be included as radical right or not? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that meets the criteria of seeking to make fundamental changes. Basically, they resisted change. TFD (talk) 13:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I am not certain that the Dixiecrats fit the definition. They were white supremacists, making them similar to the radical right. But they seemed to favor New Deal policies. They did not use anti-government rhetoric, and their policies did not revolve around anti-communism. Dimadick (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
ahh okay, that's makes sense! Thanks for the quick reply. :) Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Radical_right_(United_States)/Archive_2&oldid=1254795156"