Talk:Right-wing politics/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Recent changes

An editor has changed the lead by changing referenced material and adding a quote from William F. Buckley. Among other problems, one should not change sourced material so that it does not represent the source and nowhere in the Buckley source does he explain that he is talking about right-wing politics. Therefore I will remove this change and ask that editors follow proper sourcing in edits. TFD (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not change any sources. If you look at the primary source, namely the Founding statement that I linked to, it is clear that he is talking about the American Right. The lead of this article is very anti-right wing. Nobody who is right wing today actually defines their beliefs that way. There should be both perspectives present in the lead. Falconclaw5000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC).

My mistake. Actually, I did accidentally screw up the reference, I have corrected it. Falconclaw5000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC).

While it may be clear to you, the term right-wing did not exist at the time of the Founding Fathers and there is no reason to imply that Buckley was calling them right-wing. My complaint about your changing text to inaccurately reflect the source however relates to changes that were made to other parts of the lead. If one disagrees with text in articles one should find sources that present a different view rather than merely alter sourced text to reflect one's one viewpoint. TFD (talk) 07:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What do the Founding Fathers have to do with anything? I was talking about the Founding Statement of National Review. For a good discussion of this issue, I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Left-wing_politics#Falconclaw5000_edit I didn't change any sources in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconclaw5000 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If you wznt to add text that helps the article then you need a source that specifically talks about the Right. You cannot synthesize that Buckley was right-wing and therefore what he says is a definition of the Right. I do not know if Buckley considered himself right-wing. His views were described as New Right and perhaps he was explaining them, but there is no reason to assume that he was describing the entire Right. Certainly he was intelligent enough to know that his principles did not describe the views of absolute monarchists. In any case, WP:SYN prevents us from guessing about what he was talking about. TFD (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I shall clarify what he was talking about. Indeed, he was not speaking for the ENTIRE Right, but as Thomas Sowell was quoted in the discussion above, the Right is mainly a series of vastly different ideologies who are united only in opposition to the Left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconclaw5000 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sowell was correct. So why then should we take one person who was described as right-wing as a spokesperson for the entire Right? Would we quote for example Mao Tse Tung as the spokesman for the entire Left? TFD (talk) 07:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I have clarified that Buckley was NOT speaking for the entire Right, only for the New Right in the United States. According to the Wikipedia article on the New Right: The first New Right (1955–1964) was centered around the libertarians, traditionalists, and anti-communists at William F. Buckley's National Review.[5] The first New Right embraced "fusionism" (classical liberal economics, traditional social values, and an ardent anti-communism)[6] and coalesced through grassroots organizing in the years preceding the 1964 presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater. The Goldwater campaign, though failing to unseat incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson, galvanized the formation of a new political movement. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In order to clarify, I have even added that the American New Right differed significantly from the Right in Europe. The quotation is useful for giving readers an idea of how prominent Rightists defined their beliefs. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The political term "Right-Wing" arose in France immediately after the French Revolution. It was applied to those who opposed the French Revolution, and was associated with ultramontanist Catholicism, and hostility to secularism, democracy, and free market capitalism. The term however has changed its meaning since that time, not only because of the "glissade a gauche" or shift to the Left in French politics - what "Right-Wing" meant in 1800 (Maury, De Maistre, Bonald et al) is very different from what it meant in the year 1900, or what it means in contemporary France - but also because French conservatism is different from the sort of conservatism found in Anglosphere countries, and the term "Right-Wing" is now widely used to describe the sort of conservatism associated with these countries. This version of conservatism is not closely associated with Catholicism (rather the opposite) and is not opposed to societies based on personal liberties and competitive free markets (again, rather the opposite) and when the epithet "Right-Wing" is applied around the world it is AT LEAST as often a reference to this sort of conservatism as it is to the sort of conservatism that could be found in France at the time of the French Revolution. The changes by Falconclaw (slightly extended by me to include countries other than the USA) are a recognition of this fact, and are therefore an improvement.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

For most of my lifetime, William F. Buckley, Jr. was the most prominant spokesperson for the American Right. This article, however, is from a worldwide perspective, and I think the Buckley quote would be more appropriate in the article Conservatism in the United States. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I'll put the Buckley quote in the Conservatism in the US article, but since we've acknowledged that the Right in the US is vastly different than that of Europe, please leave my clarification of this in the first sentence intact. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 05:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The statement that the American Right is "vastly different from that of Europe" is incorrect. Your Founding Fathers (as I am sure you are aware) drew upon British political thought and practice. Of course each country is different, but American political conservatism is not "vastly" different from British political conservatism. Nor for that matter is it "vastly" different (for example) from Canadian or Australian political conservatism. As Rick Norwood points out, this article is meant to be from a worldwide perspective.

As I have explained there were key difference between French and British political conservatism (they were seeking to conserve different things - the feudal Ancien Regime in the case of France and the 1688 Glorious Revolution in the case of Britain) but although "Right-Wing" as a political designation originated in France around the time of the French Revolution, it is now widely used to mean political conservatism in general, and this includes what is meant by political conservatism in the Anglosphere.

Nor is it true to say that French conservatism has remained the same as it was at the time of the French Revolution (although as recent events testify a degree of hostility towards Anglo-Saxon economics [and this includes the USA by the way] still remains) because if you were to fly over and talk to French political conservatives you would struggle to find a single person on the Right who told you that France should restore the Ancien Regime.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that French conservatives want to restore the monarchy, just that issues in the US and Europe differ. The major issues for US conservatives are: opposition to abortion, opposition to universal government health care, support for the right to own guns, opposition to gay marriage, support for prayer in the public schools, opposition to environmental regulation, opposition to immigration, and support for tax cuts for the very rich. Do any European conservatives hold any of these views except the last two? I'm asking, I really don't know. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

In the UK nearly all of these issues, to a greater or lesser extent, are current. As far as reproduction is concerned the debate has focused on abortion term limits and embryo research. There is an ongoing debate about how to reform/fund the Health Service. It is very unusual for people in the UK to have a gun (except for sport) but there have been debates about the gun ownership laws. A major enviromental issue at the moment is the wisdom or otherwise of having tax subsidised green sources of energy. There has been mass immigration to the UK in recent years, and so there is a debate about what sort of restrictions should be put in place. Gay marriage is also controversial. There have also been debates about the desirability of tax cuts. As far as prayer in public schools is concered, in the UK the issue is focused on whether or not religious schools (and in particular Muslim schools) ought to be encouraged or discouraged. Of course there are differences, but the Left-Right divide is pretty similar to the USA.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. It's good to know US conservatives aren't unique, I guess. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It is crucial to convey that the American Right has never voiced support for hierarchy for the sake of it. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The definition of right wing in the first sentence primarily relies on a source which, while academic, is obviously virulently anti-right wing, as seen in the following quotation: "In other words, the sociological perspective sees preservationist politics as a right-wing attempt to defend privilege within the social hierarchy." I'm beginning to think the definition provided is inherently biased and incorrect, or at least outdated, and not applicable to the 21st century. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I see possible POV edits being made with comments saying "see discussion page". So I come here expecting to see a consensus supporting those edits. Instead I see this. I am not impressed. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Falconclaw5000. This has already been clearly explained. The origins of the term "Right-Wing" are in Revolutionary France. It is not unfair to describe THIS as a "preservationist politics" which seeks to "defend privilege within the social hierarchy". But "Right-Wing" NOW means conservative politics in GENERAL. In the Anglosphere (and this includes the USA) conservative politics is more LIBERAL (Burke was a Whig you recall) than it was in France at the time of the Revolution, and it is this more liberal Anglosphere use of "Right-Wing" that you are using. You are correct to draw attention to THIS usage, but this usage is NOT restricted to the USA, it is pretty widespread in the Anglosphere, and to some extent beyond the boundaries of the Anglosphere as well. I have therefore returned the text back to the last version by Rick Norwood.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a lot of original research to me. Right means what it always meant, opposition to the Left. whether from traditional elites or modern populists. And significantly, no one in the mainstream calls themselves right-wing, they call themselves centre-right or centrist. TFD (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Any sources for this last statement? - BorisG (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The International Democrat Union claims to represent parties of the "centre and centre-right".[1] TFD (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Due to the objection to the focus on the United States, and I have removed any specific reference to America from the lede entirely, and only added a final paragraph to the lede explaining the distinction between the HISTORICAL right wing and the MODERN right wing. This is important. Otherwise, readers may think that those who identify as being part of the Right today (and many, including National Review, do) support social stratification for the sake of it, which they don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconclaw5000 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

William F. Buckley, Jr. most certainly supported social stratification. Here is just one example: "the central question that emerges... is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race." Rick Norwood (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, that statement there makes your political biases fairly clear, but whatever. William F. Buckley later recanted that view, and the point isn't what he believed personally. If you look at matters of CONSERVATIVE CONSENSUS, such as the Founding Statement I cited, which you probably did not read, or the Conservative Manifesto issued in 1937 by the Conservative Coalition, an opposition to social stratification clearly emerges. Woodrow Wilson was certainly a man of the Left, but he was also a racist and a segregationist. Does that mean that the Left supports social stratification, or that nothing Woodrow Wilson said offers insight into the American Left? No. Please avoid tainting this article with your biased views of what the Right stands for, which is not supported by objective evidence. The words of a sociologist aren't even relevant in an article about political science. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Social Stratification?

Can we really characterize the entire Right Wing as supporting social stratification? The first sentence does NOT limit this characterization to those in Revolutionary France, but rather applies to the Right wingers from any time or place. The point has been made that the only thing that unites the Right, in all of its different factions, is opposition to the Left. Perhaps this is the definition we should go by, notwithstanding an academic paper by a clearly leftist professor named Alexander Smith? Falconclaw5000 (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The book whose citation you remove is well-reviewed, from a respected academic press. And there are several additional citations as well. Please provide evidence that T. Alexander Smith (and his co-author?) are leftist to such an extent that their view is unsound before removing the disputed sentence. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I fear that "leftist", when used as an unsupported assertion, simply means "disagrees with my preferred worldview so it must be suspect" within the context of this discussion however I would also like to point out that even if Smith were of left wing opinions this would not automatically invalidate his writing, particularly if it is broadly accepted as valid by other academics of various other opinions. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You have it backwards. People who do not support social stratification are not right-wing, that is just what leftists call them. Leftists called them neanderthals as well, but I suggest we not change that article. Note what the author of the book The new right says, "I attach little significance to the word 'Right'; I use it for no other reason that the fact that the policial though I discuss is commonly called 'right-wing'. However I would stress at the outset that this book is not at all concerned with that old-style, neo-collectivist and anti-liberal 'Right' associated with some types of European conservatism."[2] TFD (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Smith characterizes the right wing as "preservationist politics" that seeks to "preserve privilege." Whether or not he's a leftist, he is certainly virulently opposed to the Right, as are many in academia, and probably man who reviewed his book. Thomas Sowell's book, mentioned in this discussion, is also academic, and also got good reviews. I am COMPROMISING by adding a brief section in the very end of the lead to distinguish the historic from the modern Right. However, a more accurate course would be to rewrite the entire lead, and show that Right really just means opposition to Left, and that American Conservatives have nothing to do with German Fascists. Your desire to preserve the badly written and obviously biased lead is a tyranny of the status quo. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the primary source refers to sociologists, not to political scientists, so it is not even appropriate at all for this article!Falconclaw5000 (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Show me one major right wing political party that actively supports social stratification today

And, if you succeed, compare that to what the Republican Party in the United States and the Conservative Party in the UK, probably the two most major right wing parties, say about upward mobility. Please, take your time. I'll wait. In the meantime, let my edits stand.Falconclaw5000 (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I'm talking primarily about the Republican Party in the US, who demand tax cuts for the rich and call for tax increases for the working class, who describe the rich as "job creators" and the working class as "looking for handouts". I'm talking about the Tea Party, who claim their constitutional right to peaceful assembly when they shout down speakers at political rallies, after being bussed in from outside, but deny that the working class has a right to peaceful assembly with the Occupy movement. I'm talking about the laws requiring voters to have picture IDs, knowing that well-to-do voters are much more likely to have photo IDs than poor voters. I'm talking about laws requiring police to stop and search anyone they "suspect" of being an illegal alien, which have the effect of stopping Hispanic Americans and demanding proof that they are citizens. I'm talking about the gerymandering and redictricting to reduce the votes of poor voters and increase the votes of rich voters. I'm talking about the phone calls to poor voters telling them, falsely, that the day of the election has changed. I'm talking about the attacks on the Union movement, attacks on teachers, cutbacks in police and firemen, while lavishing tax breaks on the wealthy. I'm talking about fighting against regulation of banks, while trying to regulate birth control for poor women. I'm talking about spending five times as much on the education in public schools of children of well-to-do parents than on children of poor parents. I'm talking about efforts to end health care for the poor, to end Planned Parenthood. I'm talking about the successful effort to end Acorn, which encouraged poor people to register to vote. Need I go on? Rick Norwood (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we fall into a trap if we allow ourselves to be drawn into too much arguing about the rights and wrongs of these issues from our personal convictions. We need to keep ourselves focussed on the objectives of the encyclopaedia, which is to describe the consensus and all other major recognised viewpoints on a subject as it already exists in a neutral manner without giving undue prominence to our own beliefs. To this end we need to keep drawing these digressive discussions back to the things that matter to Wikipedia: verifiability, neutrality and sourcing. Only this way can good editors, from all political standpoints collaborate to produce an encyclopaedia that is useful to everybody.

Much as Falconclaw5000 would like to challenge us to refute his brash but unsupported assertions, that is not the way it works. The onus is on him to demonstrate that the redefinitions of basic political terms which he is insisting on are a genuine and notable phenomenon with traction outside of the right wing circles which seek to propagate them (for obvious tactical reasons). Are serious academics taking this seriously? If so, we will have to accept it into the article no matter what we think of it personally. If not, then no amount of polemic bickering is going get it in. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to the litany of Democrat Party propaganda spewed by Rick Norwood, except to say that free enterprise has lifted more people out of poverty than the vicious quasi-socialism his beloved Democrat Party advocates. Fine, I'll let you keep your absurdly biased Marxist article. But tell me, why doesn't Thomas Sowell merit a mention? Not leftist enough? Falconclaw5000 (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You say you are not going to respond, Falconclaw5000, and then respond. Ah, well. DanielRigal is obviously correct. You need sources, not namecalling. And the sources say that America was at its most prosperous under the "vicious quasi-socialism" of the Democrats. As for Sowell, no, I don't think anyone who compares Barack Obama to Adolph Hitler if making a rational judgment. We need to make a distinction between Sowell's scholarly work on economics and childhood development and his popular political columns. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Rick Norwood, my understanding is that you have deleted text supported by a relaible source. You are not supposed to do this without consensus, are you? - BorisG (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The section removed by Rick Norwood is not supported by the sources.[3] Although Buckley's 1955 Mission Statement uses term "Right", it is used in the normal way it is used by English speakers, as a term of abuse. I do not have a copy of Moore's 1965 essay, and ask what it has to do with the use of the term "right" today. TFD (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is a Sociologist the main source for an article about political science?

Alexander T. Smith and Raymond Tatalovich are sociologists, not political scientists. I question their competence in this field. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

They are one of six sources for the first sentence of the article. However, sociologists, historians, economists and people from other disciplines are competent to describe the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems like this article is a bit biased towards the left side of the political spectrum.

Whoever wrote the majority of this article, especially the section on economics, made conservatives out to only care about themselves and be indifferent to homelessness and poverty. This is a political opinion, not an encyclopedic fact, and shouldn't be included on a supposedly neutral article. Furthermore, this article makes the generalization that all right-wing politicians are religious. Although many Republicans do support traditional Christian values, there are some conservatives that believe strongly in the Separation of Church and State. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.96.151.127 (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If you disagree with what the article says then provide a source that supports what you think the article should say and avoid personal attacks on other editors. TFD (talk) 07:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I was not the one who posted the above comment, but I HAVE provided sources that support the above opinion - The Conservative Manifesto, issued in 1937, and the Founding Statement of National Review, in 1955, but the editors here wanted to insist on using the viewpoint of a Marxist sociologist in an article about political science. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The "Conservative Manifesto" did not use the term "right-wing", it did not even use the term "conservative", that description was invented in 1965. And Buckley does not describe himself as right-wing in the National Review but uses the term to describe two different groups: the Eastern establishment and racist anti-Semites. BTW, why do you think that the sociologist is a Marxist? TFD (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Because only a Marxist could conflate support for economic freedom with support for social stratification and inequality. William Buckley was obviously right wing. Just look at this obituary from the Daily Beast, describing Buckley as "Mr. Right." http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/03/01/he-knew-he-was-right.html Falconclaw5000 (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What about Margaret Thatcher who said, "We are all unequal.... We believe that everyone has the right to be unequal."[4] What kind of Marxist was she? As for Buckley, find a source where he defines what right-wing means, rather than where he uses it as a term of abuse. TFD (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, for one, here is where he used it not as a term of abuse, but rather to define himself:

"But Buckley senior also did some judicious weeding. In his old age, he told his son, "I spent my entire life separating the right wing from the kooks." Though it cost him contributors and readers, he banned conspiratorial members of the John Birch Society from the pages of National Review along with the anti-Semites who had stained the far right."

This is from the link I posted above. You are correct that I have no definitive proof of Alexander T. Smith's political views, except that it is exceedingly obvious that he prefers the Left to the Right. I'm a right-winger myself, and from the definitions provided by the two articles, I would prefer the Left too! As for the Thatcher quote, she wasn't advocating inequality; but rather saying that it isn't necessarily bad, and is indeed inevitable. That's different than actively pursuing social stratification, as this article suggests. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You need to provide sources for your opinions and your original interpretation of primary sources. BTW why do you think that William F. Buckley, Sr. was an authority on the political spectrum? What was the distinction he made between the right-wing and the kooks? Can you name any mainstream political figure or theorist who calls him or herself right-wing? TFD (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, it's William F. Buckley Jr., not Sr.. The distinction was that the kooks thought Eisenhower was a communist and the kooks were anti-Semitic. He's an authority on the Right because he is the Father of the modern American right. Second of all, can you find quotes of any major and powerful political figure calling himself left-wing? Buckley has been widely acknowledged as being right wing. Jonah Goldberg, who works at National Review, the magazine Buckley founded, always identifies himself as being on the Right. Oh, here we go, I did find one: Whittaker Chambers. :Chambers resigned from Time Magazine and worked during the 1950s for Life Magazine, Fortune and the National Review. Chambers wrote to his friend, William Buckley: "I am a man of the Right because I mean to uphold capitalism in its American version."' http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAchambersW.htm Falconclaw5000 (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You said it was "Buckley senior". Tony Blair who was the UK prime minister (and therefore major and powerful) called himself left-wing, as do most if not all socialist politicians the world over. Anyway I was talking about the mainstream, not National Review journalists. TFD (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

What mainstream Democrat has called himself left wing? Show me a quote of Tony Blair calling himself that. And what difference does this point make anyhow? And Buckley Senior as compared to his son, Christopher Buckley. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Here a link to Blair's essay, "Socialism" where he refers to his side as "the Left". Socialists in the U.S. also call themselves left-wing. The point is that few if any mainstream politicians or theorists call themselves "right-wing". So you are not going to get many people who call themselves right-wing and explain what it means. That is no reflection on the neutrality of the article. TFD (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Falconclaw wrote: "I'm a right-winger myself, and from the definitions provided by the two articles, I would prefer the Left too!". Then you probably really are a leftist, but have been led astray. Welcome back to the fold. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that some editors see this article as neutral but to me it sounds like written by a Guardian journalist. Great tools are employed to defend its status quo, such as sources that contradict the status quo are rejected as non-mainstream. Another tool is to denmand that only academic sources be used. Since the majority of political scientists in academia are left wing, this assures us that the article will be skewed that way. The only way to counter this view is to seek neutral or even perhaps right of centre academic sources to balance this view. They are in a minority but they do exist. So if those who see the article as biased should seek these sources rather than whine like I am now :). And no, the fact that few people call themselves right-wing is not a good argument to use only left-wing sources. The best sources are always such that it is difficult to judge what the author's political views are. - BorisG (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

What are these sources and what do they say. Writers on the subject say that those on the right do not normally call themselves right-wing and usually see the spectrum as meaningless/outdated/left-wing propoganda. TFD (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Falconclaw about the definition for left wing sounding much more appealing than the definition for right wing. Personally, I support wealth creation for all; I believe that capitalism is the best system for everyone to live a good life, and that socialism actually results in misery for poor and rich alike. This is why I consider myself to be a man of the Right. And Boris, Falconclaw cited two sources, and the rest of the editors found reason to reject both of them. This is a losing battle. It seems these people are intent on preserving the bias of the article. NeedlessRisk (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note NeedlessRisk has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Falconclaw5000 [5]. --TFD (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Neoliberalism

An editor has removed elitism from the sentence, "The so-called neoliberal right, popularized by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, combines support for free markets, privatisation and deregulation of the economy with traditional rightist beliefs in patriotism and order", with the commentary, "It was established in the Talk page that Reagan-era conservatism did NOT espouse a strong belief in elitism - if anything, this view was much stronger among the Democratic Party at the time."[6] The source however says they "retain[ed] other more traditional attachments of the right, notably to patriotism, elitism and a strong commitment to law and order". (Luke, p. 623)[7] My reading of Talk:Right-wing politics#Ronald Reagan, Thatcher, and the New Right did not support elitism does not support this conclusion and no alternative sources have been provided. I will therefore revert this edit and ask for new sources from anyone who challenges it. TFD (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the problematic definition of "elitism" (not defined in the context) (AFAICT, the Soviet leadership was "elite" etc.), I fear its inclusion here is making things less clear to readers rather than more clear to them. [8] has a direct Reagan quote opposing "a little intellectual elite" for example. [9] specifies some of the problems in definition of "elitism" and cites Reagan as "populist" and Dukakis as "elitist." [10] pretty much defines everyone in power as part of the "elite." [11] asserts that the GOP's economic policies were previously seen (before Reagan) as 'responsive to an elite" and then asserts that Reagan changed that perception. Kennedy in [12] states that Reagan "condemned the elitism of arrogant bureaucrats." Wapshott in [13] jouns Reagan and Thatcher as opposing the "cozy elite." Moe than enough cites which would raise legitimate issue with ncluding "elitism" in the article as cited based on a single source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The rhetoric used by polticians cannot be used to rebut reliable sources describing their ideology, you need to find a source that provides a different description. TFD (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Um -- the sources are not simply the "rhetoric" but include sources making specific findings about "elites" as viewed by the parties named. Cheers - but assigning them as as simply "rhetoric" is rather a gross inaccuracy. Collect (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

TFD, you have no monopoly on defining what sources can be used. All sources quoted by Collect qualify under WP:RS. Some of these are statements by politicians while others are secondary analytical sources. - BorisG (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not a question of rs, but of correctly reflecting what they say. Collect's first source refers to Populism and Elitism (1992), by Jeffrey Bell (political operative) and Republican Congressman Jack Kemp, who argued that "real populism was something quite different than what everyone had always thought it to be". The source says, "Bell's book was tiresome and confusing but his clever inversion device--capable of transforming the traditional instruments of left populism into the rankest form of elitism--would prove extremely useful to those determined to extend the deregularoty and low-wage agenda." IOW if we re-define elitism as anti-elitism then Reagan is anti-elitist. TFD (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Um -- I find your claim that any book by a persopn with political opinions is automatically disqualified as a source if their opinions do not coincide with yours. The books is not a polemic, is written from a scholarly perspecticve, and meets WP:RS as do the others I listed. %20Jeffrey%20Bell&f=false specifically is an example of another scholarly book using the Bell reference. Others also use it - so your seeming insistence that this RS be disqualified becauce you know the author has political views fails utterly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This conversation will proceed better if you read my postings before responding. I wrote above, "It is not a question of rs" and your response is it "meets WP:RS". Incidentally you say nothing when Falconclaw5000 refers to a "clearly leftist professor" or "left wing academics". Let's stay on the ball! TFD (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. I most certainly read your posts, even the tendentious ones. And it is not up to me to characterize the posts of other editors, so that part is just inane. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

So your argument is that instead of actually looking at Reagan's rhetoric, record, and writing to find out what he believes, we should look to left wing academics? The only thing preventing a consensus opinion here is you, TFD. One editor's opposition based on precarious reasoning hardly qualifies as a lack of consensus. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

We are always going to have a minefield when we try to talk about terms as vague and widely abused as "elites" or "freedom". Even when impartial sources are available they may not be using the terms unambiguously, or it may not be clear what their usage is when a quote is taken out of context. I am wondering whether we should regard the word "elite" as too vague to use unqualified at all. If a politician makes regular use of anti-elitist rhetoric then we need to mention this and state which particular groups they identify as elites. This needs to be done in a way that does not endorse the views of the politician. (To pick an extreme example, we would note that Hitler was endlessly banging on about Jewish elites supposedly controlling Germany but not actually give his ludicrous claims any credence.) In the case of Thatcher and Reagan we certainly can't say that they were simply pro or anti elites. They oversaw a shifting of the elites supported by the right. They dropped some, but certainly not all, of the old right's favoured elite groups and built up new groups in their place. There was a shift from old money to new money wielding power but that is not, in itself, anti-elitist. They rubbished academics who disagreed with them but they built up their favoured clique of academics and quasi-academics who agreed with them. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The confusion probably arises from the fact that both leads made an appeal to right-wing populism, which is anti-elitist, but followed a neoliberal rather than populist agenda once in power. TFD (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is a populist agenda? Falconclaw5000 (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The book The Populist Persuasion (pp. 260-266) explains the gap between populist rhethoric and policy under Reagan.[14] TFD (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I'd have to try very hard to guess what the political bias of the writer is. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

On what do you base this "guess" of yours? Rick Norwood (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Collect: I'm willing to let "union-busting" go though I could easily give references for it.

Turning to an earlier sentence in the section, I have a problem with the idea that Right-wing movements support capitalism, not because it isn't true, but because it isn't characteristic of Right-wing movements nor unique to Right-wing movements. Right-wing rhetoric tends to put things in either/or terms. The Right is patriotic. Therefore the Left is unpatriotic. The Right supports capitalism. Therefore the Left opposes capitalism. But these days even Communist China supports capitalism. And Democrats are every bit as patriotic as Republicans. The only thing anybody has been able to come up with that really distinguishes the Left from the Right is that the Left supports the working class and the Right supports the upper class. Every other distinction seems to me mere propaganda. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not necessarily true that right-wing movements support capitalism. Many do, but there are right-wing movements that support distributism (e.g. Red Toryism), and distributism is not a form of capitalism.[15] The anti-globalization right (European New Right, national anarchism) may also count, depending on whether globalization is included as an inherent feature of capitalism. --Nortaneous (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"The only thing anybody has been able to come up with that really distinguishes the Left from the Right is that the Left supports the working class and the Right supports the upper class. Every other distinction seems to me mere propaganda." This line is hilarious in its irony. That is one of the most propagandistic and untrue statements I have ever heard. Who is more friendly to means testing of Social Security, the Right or the Left? Who passed welfare reform, which made welfare less harmful to poor people and less likely to disincentivize work? The Right or the Left? Did you know that over 75% of the Bush tax cuts are actually for the middle class, and not for the wealthy? Leftists like to pretend they favor the working class, but their policies really hurt it very badly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZlsR3tNI_c Is George Soros upper class or working class? Did a majority of House Democrats, or House Republicans vote for the bailouts, which most directly helped the upper class? (It was the Democrats; a majority of House Republicans voted against them). And so on. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The populist Right indeed presents a problem because their base of support is middle class, which traditionally would put them in the political center. But they are considered to be more right-wing than the traditional Right because, although they sometimes pose a threat to the establishment, they are more often system supportive. Hence the most vehement opponents of the bail-outs were the Left, while the Tea Party concentrates on reducing upper tax rates and inheritance duties. RW populists see parts of the elite as corrupt (Soros, Rockefeller, the CFR, Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission) , and believe that if they are exposed then capitalism will function properly. TFD (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Result: There is no real actual continuing definition for "right wing" or "left wing" in the first place. Usage applies, at best, to a single place and time for any definition. Ascribing absolutes to any such position in the political spectrum is not borne out by reliable sources, and anyone who [[WP:KNOW}knows]] what they mean is not acting in accord with Wikipedia polcies and guidelines. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

As Thomas Sowell says, "What is called "the right" are... the various and disparate opponents of the left." If you believe that "left" is a meaningless concept, then why do you insist on labelling people "left-wing"? Is there something we should WP:KNOW? TFD (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

As I do not so insist (I recall one article (Unite Against Fascism see my edits at [16], [17] etc. where my position should be quite clear about labelling any group at all : The Times, Daily Mail, Sunday Business Post, International Business Times and other news organisations have described the group as "left-wing". seems quite accurately worded, and not asseting anything which is an opinion as a "fact." ) where I said that opinions cited as opinions are permitted and I so noted - feel free to assert any BLP where I asserted that "left" and "right" were essential labels for the person as a statement of fact), but I have not backed labelling of people as factually "left" "right" or anything that I can recall. For the very reason that in many cases the "political spectrum" is not a concrete yardstick to assign such positions as "fact." I think you should check before making claims about other editors' positions on labelling. Collect (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding [18] which makes my position on any "political spectrum" claim as fact pretty clear. Anyone need more evidence of my consistent stance thereon? Collect (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

In your first example, you removed the terms "terrorist" "Extreme-Far Right", "Nazism", "Blasphemy", "Racial Hatred", "Traitor" and "Bigot" from the info-box for Unite Against Fascism and removed a reference to them as "Rapists" and a statement that they "were shown waving Nazi Flags", etc. However you ran a long campaign to label them as left-wing, as this posting by you at RSN shows. (This is an organization supported by the Conservative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.) May I suggest that before you rely on your memory that you search edit histories so that you can avoid misstating the positions you have taken. And please do not add the "left-wing" tag to Camerson's article. TFD (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Never cease to amaze. Removal of terms not supported by reliible sources which are covered by WP:BLP is required. Mandatory even. Identifying Ken Livingstone as a "Traitor" was, in fact, against WP:BLP. And you object to that edit? Really? And I did not seek to "label" UAF as left-wing, and you should damn well apologize for that attack. I did support noting that a number of major newspapers refered to them as "left-wing" and that is clear absolutely - did you expect readers here would believe your claim when the links are there for everyone to read? As for searching edit histories - you make an errant claim and expect me not to show how far afield the charge was? Really? And your absurd aside about me seeking to label Cameron as "left-wing" is , I suppose, just sarcasm, but considering how absurd the rest of your charges are, it is hard for people to see where that line gets drawn. Cheers - now GET BACK TO IMPROVING THIS ARTICLE! Is that sufficiently clear? Collect (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's take these points one at a time, and discuss them rationally, instead of making such a large number of changes that it is hard to focus on which improve the article and which do not. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Falconclaw5000's edit.

I'll let someone else take a turn reverting your edit. If everyone else agrees with your edit, then it can stand. I will point out that none of the references provided for the first sentence include the limit that this usage only occurs outside the United States, that you have provided no reference for your change, and that references should appear in the article itself, not on the talk page. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I think his "outside the USA reference is wrong" so I will revert. I appreciate what Falconclaw5000 is trying to do, but by limiting his libertarian definition of Right-Wing to the USA he is creating new problems.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will keep trying to reach a solution to this that is acceptable to everyone, but the article as written (before my edit of two minutes ago) effectively says that the Right in America today is all about preserving privilege, which just isn't true. The article itself notes that historically, those on the Right were OPPOSED to capitalism because it creates opportunity for all classes of society to be prosperous. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan, Thatcher, and the New Right did not support elitism

From the article: "The so-called neoliberal right, popularized by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, combines support for free markets, privatisation and deregulation of the economy with traditional rightist beliefs in patriotism, elitism and order" Reagan and Thatcher were populists, and anti-elitists. They were always denouncing "so-called experts." DanielRigal, I understand that you're a liberal and left-leaning, but must the article reflect your biases? Falconclaw5000 (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It is funny how everybody who doesn't share your worldview is biassed and tainted. It must be such a strain being the only truly objective viewer in a whole world of Marxist degenerates. It is entirely understandable that you might feel the need to invent imaginary friends to agree with you.

Anyway, here is a good tip for all people to bear in mind, whether they are left or right wingers: When you hear somebody condemning the power of an alleged elite you should ask yourself whether that person is really against elites, per se, or just has a problem with the particular group that they are identifying as an elite and seeks to replace them with an alternative elite of their own choosing. Furthermore, it is also well worth asking exactly how elite that group really is and what power they actually wield. Many of the alleged elites identified by demagogues of the past have actually been pretty pathetic groups built up into bogeymen by popularist rhetoric. This approach may not yield easy answers, and I am not advocating that any of us put our own original research in the articles, but it does help one to see things from more than one angle, which is a step towards objectivity and fuller understanding.

As for so-called "so-called experts", there are plenty of politicians who regard experts who disagree with them as "so called" and unworthy but I have yet to hear of one who wasn't also extremely keen to embrace and empower other experts more to sympathetic to their own views. Whether they were aware of any hypocrisy in this is unknown but a distaste for academia or relevant experience is always a selective phenomenon in the political sphere. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I find it puzzling that some editors argue here that the term righ-wing is a meaningless concept, while over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism. whose periodical is The Right Stuff, they argue that conservatism, which they equate with right-wing politics, is a coherent concept. TFD (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this is easy. Conservatism, that is, a tendency towards preservation of existing order and traditions, is a coherent concept. The situation with the word 'right-wing' is much more complex. Many people call themselves conservative, they even have mass parties called conservative, but as you say, few call themselves right-wing. I wouldn't say the word is meaningless, but it is very broad in meaning, and I would say it is one of those words which has too many meanings. It means different things to different people. To an extent, it is indeed a term that the left uses to label their opponents. BTW, left-wing is also quite broad. Does Khmer Rouge have much in common with the Australian Labor Party? I know the right would like to make an association between the two, but is this really serious? - BorisG (talk) 11:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Even though the term right-wing is broad and poorly defined, it is more descriptive of the subjects that project covers, because it also includes liberals, christian democrats, populists and other groups whose only connection is opposition to the Left. BTW while the Khmer Rouge has little in common with the ALP, they can both be traced to member organizations of the First International and call themselves socialist. TFD (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but I am no longer sure what we are arguing about. - BorisG (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

We are not arguing, we are discussing. My point earlier was that the Right is not a coherent ideology or group of ideologies, it merely means opposition to the Left. I brought up Sowell's explanation not as an expert opinion but to show that even the so-called Right agree with that viewpoint. Most groups we now call right were originally opponents of the Right. So while I see the left-right spectrum as a suitable subject for an article, I think that an article about the Right should be about definitions only. TFD (talk) 06:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think I now realise how I would approach the terminology aspect. Thinking of the right-wing as a term which is not vague but broad, I think it would be useful to make clear that different key aspects of the right, such as preservation of traditions, support for hierarchy, opposition to immigration, support for free market capitalism, support of small government, even racism, are not all attribute of any right-wing ideology or movement even in a different mix, but attributes that might or might not be present. If we emphasise this, we may reconcile the positions of different editors on this contentious issue. - BorisG (talk) 08:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good, although I would caution that it is the needs of the readers we need to serve and that keeping editors happy is very much a secondary concern. I don't think it will make the people with serious POV problems happy anyway; They won't be happy until their ideology is defined exclusively in terms of hearts and flowers while the other side is defined exclusively in terms of abuse. For everybody else, though, this is a good idea.

Nobody was intentionally suggesting that all right wing people are morally akin to fascists, even in some watered down way, any more than we would want to suggest that all left wing people are tainted by Stalin and Mao. Covering the breadth of opinion on the right (as well as the left) can help avoid giving false impressions along those lines. Writing it so that it comes out broad rather than vague will take some skill but it is the right way to go. It can lead into coverage of the history of, and differences between, the various schools of thought within the right. Given that many of the English speaking countries now have political systems where it could be argued that all the main political parties are somewhere to the right of what was regarded as the centre for most of the 20th century, such differences within the right are clearly of great importance. Covering the nuances of the subject serves the readers well. If all the different shades of grey cause the POV warriors' heads to explode, well, that's just a bonus.  ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• When right-wing fake populists say "elites", they are referring to people like academics, artists, scientists, and people who use good grammar. When other people say "elites", they are referring to people with lots of power, money and property, which is what the word actually means.Spylab (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The point is that right-wing is not an ideology or group of related ideologies. while there are lots of sources that explain the left-right continuum, there are none written specifically about the Right. The Right includes groups that in another period or another country are considered centrist or left-wing. Mises and Hayek were not right-wingers in pre-war Austria, social democrats in modern Venezuela are now the part of the Right. TFD (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Spylab, that is an oversimplification. The rw populist sees the elites as having betrayed them, but attributes that to corruption rather than to the economic system. Expose the wrong-doers, restore capitalism and the constitution and all will be well. Sometimes the elites will use rhetoric that appeals to populists, at other times they have suppressed them. TFD (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

So your argument is that instead of actually looking at Reagan's rhetoric, record, and writing to find out what he believes, we should look to left wing academics? The only thing preventing a consensus opinion here is you, TFD. One editor's opposition based on precarious reasoning hardly qualifies as a lack of consensus. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Falconclaw5000: if you read what is written above, you will see that TFD is not "the only thing preventing a consensus". Reagan and Thatcher both supported the upper class over against the working class, even though Reagan (not Thatcher) got the working class to love him. Consider their union busting, to give just one example. Reagan was first catipulted onto the national stage when, as governer of California, he fired all the air-traffic controlers when they protested that their long hours were impacting safety. This earned him the applause of the Right. Thatcher's union busting was even harsher. If you want to replace "the elete" by "the upper class", I think that would be an improvement. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

With a substantial number of RS sources contradicting a single source for asserting "elitism" it is clear that it is, at best, a contested claim for which additional sourcing is required. I am, of course, willing to have you add "according to" and then add the other sources contradicting the claim if that would be easier for readers to understand, but removal of the claim in the first place would be simpler. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the topic of the contested paragraph is economics, it is not the place to discuss general Right-wing beliefs. I've removed both claims, which are certainly subject to dispute and not on-topic in this paragraph. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Collect, the one source is adequate but there are countless sources that neoliberalism is elitist. All your sources show is that Reagan made an appeal to populism, and tried to paint his opponents as elitist. TFD (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Then find the dang sources for the general claim instead of stealthily re-entering it into the article. At this point, it is disruptive to re-insert "elitism" into this article, as there is quite absolutely no consensus for that addition. Thanks. Collect (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There may never be a consensus on anything you personally disagree with, but the use is referenced, and that is what counts. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A Better Definition

You know, the article on right wing politics in the Simple English Wikipedia is far more accurate and honest about what right wing politics means in the general sense in the 21st Century. http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing "Someone who is right-wing in politics is usually someone who supports social or economic conservatism. In other words, if a person has chosen to be Conservative, that person is usually more "conservative" about economic and social change. Right-wing refers to the right side of the political spectrum which wants less government involvement in the economy while left-wing refers to the left side of the political spectrum which supports more government involvement in the economy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconclaw5000 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You need sources. What your link provides is a description rather than a definition, and therefore varies according to time and place. TFD (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, note that the article from Simple English Wikipedia contradicts itself. First, it says a Right-wing person is "conservative" about social and economic change, then it says that person "wants less government involvement in the economy", which is a call for economic change. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Less relative to the left. Not necessarily relative to the current state of affairs (whatever it is). - BorisG (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

They have combined two different definitions. TFD (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Most sources, where several definitions exist, use all of them. Amazing? Collect (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

They are not using different definitions of the Right, but definitions of constituent groups, in this case tradtional conservatives and neo-liberals. PS - sarcasm does not create a collegial environment. TFD (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I take it that my point was sufficiently strong in any case. Cheers.Collect (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

What was your point? TFD (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

My point was exactly what was in my post FGS. Is there any reason why you seem not to accept that? Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I fail to understand what was the point of your post. TFD (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

But you re-insert "elitism" in the article absent any CONSENSUS at all -- and you decide that semantic gamesmanship as to what the definition of "definition" is - which makes precious little sense when seeking WP:CONSENSUS? Thanks. Collect (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, I fail to understand what point your point is. Could you please re-phrase your comments. Also, please avoid bold typeface which has the appearance of shouting. TFD (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

TFD, you say that there's not one definition for right wing. Then how about the article's first sentence present two definitions: one which is the historical about social stratification, which is the only one it gives, and one which is the modern, which is a blend of economic libertarianism and traditional social values. Also, I like the way Rick Norwood ignored my post completely rebutting his silly assertion that the Democrats are the party of the working class. Also, TFD re-inserting the elitism bit on the basis of "no consensus" is cute. On that basis, Iwe should just delete the entire article, cuz there's no consensus to keep it - and at this point, there is more support for my idea than for the status quo. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Falconclaw5000: I try to respond to questions, but my time is limited. I do have a day job! Since many reference works support the idea that the Democrats are the party of the working class, you hardly need me to explain that. Similarly, TFD's mention of "elitism" is supported by sources. Essentially, while a consensus would be nice, it is cited sources that have to be the deciding factor when no consensus is possible.

It seems to me that your edits ignore the majority use of right-wing in favor of a minority use of the word, which occurs primarily in the American popular media (not in the academic press). But academic sources are considered more reliable than popular media sources, though the latter may be used either 1) to show what the popular media say or 2) where an event is so recent that no serious books have yet been written on the subject.

It seems to me that you want right-wing to mean Libertarian. Correct me if I'm wrong. That usage is non-standard and, in my reading, virtually unknown except the modern American press. I read a lot of serious old books, and in them right-wing refers almost exclusively to those who support the upper class, the White race, the Christian religion, and the male gender, over against "the great unwashed", "foreigners", "Jews", and "the weaker sex". These are, needless to say, anti-Libertarian rather than Libertarian ideas.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case, than all the books you read are written by leftist hacks and are thereby hopelessly biased. The Democrats support policies that go against the interests of the working class, because their policies, like FDR's New Deal, are bad for the economy and increase unemployment, especially among the working classes. Furthermore, many more Democrats than Republicans supported TARP, which obviously primarily benefited the wealthy. Most academics are left wing, so when it comes to this subject, we should not be restricted to academic sources. That would be like relying on Nazi sources for an article on Judaism. Right wing in the United States does NOT mean libertarian. It means ECONOMICALLY libertarian, socially conservative, and hawkish on foreign policy. Most, or at least a great number, of the English Wikipedia's readers are American, so saying "only in the United States does right wing mean..." is almost like saying "only on Earth does right wing mean..."Falconclaw5000 (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

So it is not that you do not accept the existence of a consensus but just that you disagree with it? That would be fine in itself. Nobody is saying that having a non-mainstream opinion automatically prevents people from writing objectively but they need to understand where their own opinions differ from the mainstream and write accordingly. The problem here is that you seek to impose your non-mainstream opinion by argumentation. This is a WP:TRUTH issue. You seem to believe that you can nullify a long-standing consensus, formed by experts of a variety of political viewpoints, just by disregarding all sources that you disagree with as "biased", "left wing" and "hack". Not only is this an improper way to approach referencing, your willingness to write things you disagree with off as "biased" and "hack" leaves little scope for discussion. That is a pity because there are elements in what Rick Norwood characterises as the consensus above that could be challenged but you are never going to get anywhere on your current basis. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Falconclaw5000: You just called Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, Will Durant, Walter Isaacson, David McCullough, Woody Holton, and Doris Kearns Goodwin "leftist hacks".

You make statements without providing evidence for those statements, or giving any reason to doubt the evidence against them. I know that some economists claim that labor unions are bad for the workers, that helping the poor makes makes them lazy and good-for-nothing, and that tax cuts for the rich trickle down to the working class. Other economists disagree. Economics is not an exact science. But since the establishment of the Federal Reserve System, the rise of labor unions, and the modern welfare state, America has become the richest, most powerful country in the world. Under Reagan and Bush II, who supported deregulation and opposed organized labor, unenployment rose into the double digits and the former increase in working-class wealth stagnated, while the richest one percent grew much, much richer. It is clear from history which economic theory has actually helped the working class, and which economic theory has actually hurt the working class.

I agree that in the United States in the last few years the popular press has started using right-wing in the way you use it. The article should and does say that. But that usage has not replaced the more general usage. You may think well-educated people are more likely to be wrong than uneducated people. You aren't alone in thinking that. But Wikipedia explicitly favors standard academic sources. As for your claim that in the English Wikipedia the United States is, like, the entire planet -- I'm speechless.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the point of User Falconclaw5000 is that in the right-left debate academic sources may be biased, and a broader use of sources would be useful. I think he has a point. Non-academic sources that meet the WP:RS standard could be used alongside academic sources. - BorisG (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that this actually is his point but I don't think anybody will disagree with the use of other RS sources provided they are used responsibly rather than cherry-picked. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

My point wasn't that the English Wikipedia should focus exclusively on the United States. My point was that it's silly, if we're being charitable, to supply a definition of Right Wing that talks about 18th century French monarchists, and is patently untrue and not applicable to the American Right, when Americans are the biggest consumers of the English Wikipedia. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich (and other supporters of the French monarchy)

I notice that the BBC is asserting that a "Right-Wing" politician called Newt Gingrich has won the South Carolina Primary in the contest for who is going to be the Republican candidate for the American President. I am assuming (from the definition on Wikipedia) that this means that he wants to restore the French monarchy, the power of the French nobility, and the property of the Catholic Church. Thank goodness for Wikipedia keeps me up to speed on the meaning of Right-Wing! Here in the UK when the media use the phrase "Right-Wing" it generally means economically libertarian, socially conservative, and hawkish on foreign policy, but obviously in the USA it means something completely different.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

As I say above, in the past few years the popular press has started using right-wing to mean the Republican party. This article says that, but does not say that this usage has replaced the older usage. It may some day, but it is too soon to assume that the language has changed so completely in such a short time.

It also seems to me that when the popular press describe the "right-wing" of the Republican party, they mean "more crazy", and when they describe the "moderate-wing" of the Republican party, they mean "less crazy". But I wouldn't dream of adding that to the article unless I found a reliable source. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

In all my lifetime "Right-Wing" has generally meant Thatcherite (i.e. the sort of views associated with Margaret Thatcher) in the UK, not the sort of views you associate with De Maistre - although it is sometimes also used in that sense. Margaret Thatcher plugs into a tradition that goes back to at least Edmund Burke (i.e. it is older than the USA) and it means something closer to "economically libertarian, socially conservative, and hawkish on foreign policy" than it does to a belief in the French feudal system. The key date here is 1688. The French have a different political tradition, but even in France the "Ancien Regime" sense of Right-Wing has been obsolete for at least a hundred years.

I have no doubt "Right-Wing" means "crazy" in the sort of newspapers and books you read, but all that tells is the sort of newspapers and books you read!

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Rick has correctly said once that the term right-wing is seldom used by those usually charactersied as right-wing. They generally prefer more nuanced self-characterisation, e.g., conservative, liberal, libertarian etc. This causes an inherent bias among soources discussing this phenomenon (and the term). - BorisG (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU_DREAMING: I like your new edit, but I do wish you and Falconclaw5000 would stop making unjustified assumptions about "the sort of newspapers and books" I read. I don't read any newspapers (except for the comic strips). I get my news from Slate, NPR, Time, The Week, and Science News. The books I'm currently reading (I usually have four or five books going at once) are War and Peace, The Post-American World, The Federalist Papers, Common Sense, and Writing Science Fiction & Fantasy. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU_DREAMING: Thatcher's opponents indeed called her right-wing, by which they sought to associate her with historical reactionaries, including fascism. She herself incidentally did not plug into a tradition goes back to Burke, but to classical liberalism. In any case, you need sources. Incidentally, while the French far right may not be able to restore the old regime, they developed out of a group that did, and opposed the 1989 bicentennial celebrations. The cleavages of the past continue to be reflected in arguments over symbolism. TFD (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

THE FOUR DEUCES. Your idea that members of the Conservative Party in the UK disown the label Right-Wing is incorrect. Before the Conservative politician Maggie Thatcher became Prime Minister she published an outline of her intended policies called "The Right Approach" (1976). Of course calling somebody "Right-Wing" is not a positive epithet if you are on the Left. Just as calling somebody a "Leftist" is not a compliment if you are on the Right. Maybe you ought to refrain from telling people in the UK what they mean when they use the phrase "Right-Wing". In some cases it does mean ultra-conservative, but more often than not it means somebody who believes in free markets, lower taxes, and a smaller State.

You are also wrong when you assert that Maggie Thatcher rejected Edmund Burke. If you read Burke (for example his pamphlet "Thoughts and Details on Scarcity") you will discover that he is an advocate of free markets. He said that Adam Smith told him that "he [Burke] was the only man who, without communication, thought on these topics exactly as he [Smith] did". You are confused because the conservative political tradition in England is different from the conservative political tradition in France.

Now it is true that Right-Wing was very little used in the UK until the early C20th, it being a term derived from French politics, and that its early usage was associated with ultra-conservatives such as the American poet T.S.Elliot. But, as I say, in my lifetime when people are using the term "Right Wing" they are most often (although not always) using it in the sense of somebody who is in favour of free markets and a smaller State.

Nor does not mean that a British conservative is a classical liberal. British Conservatism is not value neutral, it is belief in a specific tradition; but the tradition which they cherish (and seek to defend) is one that places a high value on freedom. A good book which explains the differences between the British (and American) and French political traditions is "The Roads to Modernity" (2004) by the American author Gertrude Himmelfarb. One of the key differences she seeks to draw attention to is the fact that in France "Enlightenment" thinkers were far more hostile to religion.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Both Burke and Thatcher supported free markets, therefore Thatcher supported Burke. Thatcher wanted to take the right approach to policies, therefore she was right-wing. I certainly do know btw what people in the U.K. mean when they call themselves right-wing. It means that they are to the right of the Conservative Party, whom they call "left-wing" or "liberal". TFD (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"For me as a British Conservative, with Edmund Burke the father of Conservatism and the first great perceptive critic of the Revolution as my ideological mentor, the events of 1789 represent a perennial illusion in politics. The French Revolution was a Utopian attempt to overthrow a traditional order - one with many imperfections, certainly - in the name of abstract ideas, formulated by vain intellectuals, which lapsed, not by chance but through weakness and wickedness, into the purges, mass murder, and war. In so many ways it anticipated the still more terrible Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. The English tradition of liberty, however, grew over centuries: its most marked features are continuity, respect for law, and a sense of balance, as demonstrated by the Glorious Revolution of 1688"

THE DOWNING STREET YEARS Margaret Thatcher p.753

"First, there has always been a strong free market element in [British] conservatism, going right back to Edmund Burke himself. Second, [British] Conservatives have always understood that there is more to life than free markets - the ties of history, community and nationhood. These two propositions remain as true of the Conservative Party in the 1980's and 1990's as throughout its history."

MODERN CONSERVATISM David Willetts p.47

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

What strikes me most about these two good quotes is that neither uses "Right" or any variant thereof. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I applaud ERIDU's excellent bit of satire here. He illustrated the point I was trying to make far better than I was doing. I half expected Rick and others to argue that Newt Gingrich is indeed a French monarchist. I also find hilarious Rick Norwood saying that the "language hasn't changed yet" from a definition for right wing that is about 200 years older. Rick, did you know that "liberal" used to mean more or less what "libertarian" means today? Nowadays "liberal" means, at least in the economic realm, what "socialist" used to mean. Liberalism and socialism used to be seen as opposites. Now Liberalism and Conservatism are seen as opposites, even though conservatives advocate classical liberal ideas when it comes to the economy! The real reason why Rick and others want to define "right wing" as believing in hierarchy is because 1. They are trying to discredit the Right by associating with it beliefs that most people no longer believe in, including those like me who identify with the Right today, and 2. They are trying to discredit the ideas of the Right, namely capitalism, and associate them with preserving privilege, whereas in reality those who wanted to preserve privilege OPPOSED capitalism. I suppose if you repeat a lie often enough, you come around to believing it, and that's what Rick and others are suffering from. And James Madison's main goal was to preserve privilege? Really? Falconclaw5000 (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I would remind ERIDU and Falconclaw that this page is here to discuss improvements to the article. What does any of this have to do with improving the article? TFD (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU and I are trying to prove that Right Wing does not, in today's language, mean protecting social hierarchy, and that therefore the article's emphasis on French monarchists and the like is misplaced. Ronald Reagan has a lot more to do with how people perceive the Right than any French Reactionary. As to Rick complaining that the word "Right" isn't mentioned, I quote from the top of the article: "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Conservatism on Wikipedia." The word "conservative" is thereby interchangeable with "right wing." Falconclaw5000 (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The term "conservative" is not interchangeable with the term "right-wing" otherwise we could merge the two articles. And Reagan was considered right-wing because he was seen as preserving the interests of American elites, by which they mean people who have extensive wealth not people who are educated, live in cities or eat organic food. That is what the sources say and if you disagree with them, then find ones that contradict them. TFD (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Um -- perhaps the sources you know are truth make that claim - as noted above there are a great many sources which do not assert that Reagan supported "elites", and in fact asserted he opposed the "elites", and so stating that he supported the "elites" as uncontroverted fact is against Wikipedia policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

THE FOUR DEUCES - I have no doubt that you and your friends take it as axiomatic that President Reagan went into politics in order to further the interests of an elite. But I have news for you. If you were to talk to Republicans you would find people who claim that Democrat politicians go into politics in order to further the interests of an elite.

A different elite for sure. For example, a Chicago machine politician who tells his voters he is in politics to help the poor, as he redistributes money and power to himself, and his friends, or a crony capitalist who gives donations to the Democrat Party in return for market distorting political favours, but still an elite.

Without much difficulty you could discover Republicans who would tell you that lower taxes and smaller government shifts power AWAY from political elites, and that President Reagan went into politics in order to give people the freedom to make their own choices, to improve their own lives, and escape dependency.

Now it is possible that one is correct and the other is wrong. It is possible that both are wrong. It is possible both are correct. These different views are what is called politics.

Wikipedia should not be "The world according to a Democrat voter" or "The world according to a Republican voter" it should try (not always easy I grant you) to be factually accurate and politically neutral.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I heartily agree. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING's edit

I think we're actually making some progress! I find ERIDU_DREAMING's edit a good compromise between the two versions. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how it changes anything at all; the basis of contention is that right wing politics is NOT about preserving hierarchy and privilege. Any article that says that it does in the very first sentence without any sort of caveat is obviously biased. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

In my current edit, the first sentence reads as follows:

In politics, the Right, right-wing and rightist historically refer to support for a hierarchical society justified by an appeal to natural law or tradition, but in modern times refer to a blend of beliefs which include economic libertarianism, social conservatism, and support for a hawkish foreign policy.

This is an actual compromise between the two version. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me note here, rather than above, that Falconclaw5000 is mind-reading again.

The purpose of a compromise, which I agreed to, is to stop a revert war. But now Falconclaw5000 wants to take the compromise as a new baseline, take his own unreferenced opinion as gospal, and make a compromise with the compromise. "I'm right and you're wrong," is not a compromise.

I have not reverted Collect's recent edit, but I would still like to see a reference. If the attempt to change the meaning of the phrase has been successful, some standart source should take note of that fact. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ledes are summaries - the recent belief that claims in the lede need added cites when a casual observer can note that it is a summary is not borne out by policy or guideline. If you feel that any part of the lede is not a reasonable summary, address that issue here. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. ... The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. In the case at hand, I suggest that the material in the summary is not particularly "contentious" as it is already within the article body. Noting, of course, that some categories such as BLPs have stronger requirements per their policies. Collect (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Rick, I don't see what the initial compromise even was. My compromise was to include the historical definition and the modern definition, not to talk anything as "gospel." Falconclaw5000 (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

These are not definitions but positions held at different times in different places. Historically, the Right has supported protectionism and free trade, democracy and dictatorship, absolute monarchy and republicanism, Catholicism and Protestantism, welfare and no welfare, etc. None of these positions make them right or left-wing. Incidentally the modern Right does not support "economic libertarianism", but a system of non-tariff barriers and subsidies (e.g., NAFTA) that they call "free trade". TFD (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

source for that claim? I rather think you overreach on your definition there. Collect (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

By that logic, we shouldn't have an article for right wing politics at all. If you don't want to call it economic libertarianism, fine, but lessening the government's role in the economy is the defining feature, more than any other, of the American Right, and from what I understand, was Margaret Thatcher's defining issue as well. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It represented a reversal of the previous positions of their parties. Ergo, it is not a defining feature, merely the policies that they happened to follow. TFD (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Preserving privilege has never been a major characteristic, let alone the defining characteristic, of the Republican Party. This was a Party that was founded on anti-slavery principles. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The early Republican Party was almost exclusively a northern party where slavery did not exist. Obviously they were not set up in order to protect privilege in another part of the country. TFD (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest a good history text would help. The Republicans did not back any elite in any part of the country. And there are some historians who considered them the "left wing" of American politics at the time as they favoured individual liberty over "property rights of slaveholders." Cheers, but you are not in your field. Collect (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

While your neoconfederate historiography is interesting, it has nothing to do with improving the article. TFD (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL! As I am assuredly not a "neoconfederate" I find your post the height of absurdity! And your namecalling improves the article, pray tell? I think it does not. You made an assertion of what you "know" to be the "truth" with the very minor problem that the claim is errant. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Did the Republican party ever support the upper class?

The Right in America was not ashamed of its support for the upper-class, until relatively recent times.

For example, Clinton Rossiter, in his American Heritage article, "The Giants Of American Conservatism", wrote: "The Right of these freewheeling decades was a genuine Right: it was led by the rich and well-placed; it was skeptical of popular government; it was opposed to all parties, unions, leagues, or other movements that sought to invade its positions of power and profit; it was politically, socially, and culturally anti-radical."

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

And? I would note the propensity of agricultuaral areas to support the Republicans to quite effectively refute any such nice oversimplifications. And the Republicans in opposing slavery were decidedly "radical". Collect (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Collect: You said "The Republicans did not back any elite in any part of the country." They did, as this example shows. You reply with an example to show that Republicans did not always back the elete, and seem to think that supports your earlier view. It doesn't. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Your quote does not say "Republican Party" as far as I can tell. Nor does it say the entire Republican Party was a monolith with regard to how it regarded "elites." Can you provide a cite which backs your claim? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The Federalist/Whig/Republican Party was never monolithic and always contained anti-elitist elements. Nonetheless they have always been supported by and controlled by the elites. Even Lincoln drew support from the elites and failed to obtain the support of disadvantaged voters. TFD (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Weird catenation not supported by any reliable source = of little value here. Are you saying, moreover, that if any member of a party is "elite" that therefore you can assert that the party favoured "elites"? I suggest that is an absurd position, and one which I can find no source backing. Even unreliable ones. Collect (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You may read Seymour Martin Lipset's "Elections: The Expression of the Democratic Class Struggle".[19] Previously you have provided Lipset's essay "Fascism - Left, Right and Centre" as rs. Both articles are taken from the same book, Political Man. TFD (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

IIRC you argued against Lipset on that article being used. You appear here, however, not to refer to Lipset's words but to Robert MacIver's opinions. Cite Lipset's words from page 414 - that is "Such terms ... have been defined on the basis of many different issues -- political democracy versus monarchy, the free market system versus traditional economic restrictions, secularism versus clericalism, agrarian reform versus landlordism and urban exploitation of the countryside, social reform versus laissez faire, socialism versus capitalism." Far different from the simplistic view you appear to favour. By the way, I suspect the winning parties in the recent Egyptian elections are "right wing" and specifically draw most of their support from "poorer classes". Care to explain this phenomenon using your claimed position? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The coalition that was elected is composed of religious, socialist and social liberal parties. As Lipset explained, religious and regional cleavages may provide dimensions to party politics beyond the traditional class-based left-right divide. And as he also pointed out, right-wing parties have been able to attract some lower class support. In fact where they have been unable to do so, they have disppeared when suffrage has been extended. TFD (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In short - you misstated Lipset's position. Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No, you have misunderstood what Lipset wrote. You asked me to present a source. I did. TFD (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Collect: This is an article about right-wing politics. The topic under discussion is whether the adjective Right-wing is used to describe those who support the upper class elite. In arguing against the idea that "right-wing" is still used to describe those who support the upper class elite, you say "The Republicans did not back any elite in any part of the country." I offer a counterexample, and your response is that the quote only uses the words "the Right" and that the title of the article only uses the word "Conservative", and so the quote does not show anything about the Republican party. If the Republican party is not conservative, and not right-wing, why did you bring it up in this discussion in this article? Rick Norwood (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In each case I have responded to the fairly erroneous claims made. Your assertion that "Republican" is identical to "Conservative" is identical to "right wing" is sufficiently absurd as to warrant no added comment. The title of this section was, in fact, selected by you. Collect (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No, he did not say that. Incidentally Collect, you need to distinguish between sources presented by editors and what their personal views are. TFD (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Essentially he did. And he was the one who named this section. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Collect, the Republican party has been liberal in some eras and conservative in others. Right-wing views are similar to conservative views -- the words are often used interchangably -- but if they were identical, we wouldn't need two articles. My comment about titles refers, clearly, to the title of the article, not to the title of this thread on the talk page. And, yes, it may be time to declare a victory and bring the troops home. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well - you just accused me of inserting "Republican" into this discussion when it is clear precisely who did so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

1) I did not "accuse" Collect of anything. 2) I did not say Collect "inserted" Republican into this discussion. 3) I said that Collect wrote "The Republicans did not back any elite in any part of the country." He did. It's so much easier to argue when you make up things and pretend other people said them. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Read

you say "The Republicans did not back any elite in any part of the country." I offer a counterexample, and your response is that the quote only uses the words "the Right" and that the title of the article only uses the word "Conservative", and so the quote does not show anything about the Republican party. If the Republican party is not conservative, and not right-wing, why did you bring it up in this discussion in this article?

Rather seems to imply that you asked why I brought up the topic. In fact, that is exactly what you asserted in clear English. At least I did not pretend that you wrote what you wrote in clear English! LOL! Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Collect, you would be a more respected editor if you did not split hairs in attempts to show that you are right, in cases where you are clearly wrong. To say that you didn't "bring it up" you just said it is splitting hairs. You still said it. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh? I would suggest the person who brought up the word "Republican" was, in fact, the person who set up the title for this section. I daresay no one could call that "splitting hairs" in any good faith. [20] Guess who set up the section title, Rich? Collect (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The topic of this section, which has gone on much too long, is whether your statement, "The Republicans did not back any elite in any part of the country," is or is not correct. So, yes, you are still splitting hairs. Please address the question of whether your statement is or is not correct, or retract it, or keep silent. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

My point, which was clear and in response to claims made, stands. Your claim that I in some way introduced "Republican" into this section is shown to be errant. I decline to go around Robin Hood's Barn with you further. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Collect, just accept you were mistaken and move on. TFD (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone seriously suggesting here that upper class, elite and the rich are all the same thing? - BorisG (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The word "elite" is defeined as "a superior group" (Merriam-Webster). Clearly, the upper class are superior in class and the rich are superior in wealth. The Tea Party uses the word "elite" in a rather different way. When they say "the elite" they seem to mean "people who think they're better than me". Sometimes this means "college educated", sometimes it means "Washington politicians". When the Tea Party uses the word, it is always used in a negative sense, while the more common usage is frequently positive -- an elite university, an elite country club. Even in the Tea Party usage, most people who are considered elite are also rich and upper-class, but in the Tea Party usage the elite are limited to rich, upper-class people who are not members of the Tea Party. Or so it seems to me. What is your understanding of the term? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

In the UK (and many other places), "upper class" refers to traditional aristocracy, while people whose wealth derives from trade are referred to as "upper middle class". Hence, the US, Canada and Australia would not have an upper class, although Americans call the upper middle class upper class, particularly when they are part of the elite. Some rich people, particularly nouveau riches, especially when they live outside major centers of the elite, such as London and New York, may not be part of the elite. Hence eccentric billionaires bankroll the Tea Party, the John Birch Society and UKIP. In any case, it is not what we are suggesting, but what sources, such as books written by Rossiter and Lipset, say. TFD (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Largely agree with TFD. These terms have (somewhat) different meanings. You are correct also about the use of sources. My suggesting refer to situations where quotes about upper class are used to back up edits about elite. We need to be careful about terminology. As for the tea party, I think we all understand what the elite means. Yes, it is Washington elite, people educated in elite universities and their academics, and elite media (NYT, WP, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS); also civil service. All these 'old boys' networks. Tea party's understanding of it is similar to everyone else's. It is negative simply because the Tea party are anti-elite. - BorisG (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)