![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
An editor continues to delete "strong inequality" from the lead, saying it is unsourced. [1] However, it is sourced to Carlisle, Rodney P., ed., The Encyclopedia of Politics: The Left and the Right, Volume 2: The Right (Thousand Oaks, California, United States; London, England; New Delhi, India: Sage Publications, 2005) p. 693, which is footnote 1. Footnotes may cover more than one sentence. TFD ( talk) 23:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
We are slightly hampered by the fact that the page is, indeed, little more than a stub, especially compared with what it probably could or should be given the breadth of the topic. Sometimes in an article under construction, the lead will get ahead of itself and perhaps force the issue a little (I mean that it a good sense in terms of encouraging editing of the wider page: there's something that needs including, and an initial mention of it in the lead can drive improvements and additions to the body). However, more directly on point, there is in fact already a brief discussion of inequality in the main body, sourced to this book. So I don't see that there's a problem with having it referred to in the lead pretty much as it is now (indeed, there used to be a lot more about inequality in the lead until recently). I would though query the modifier "strong". It does read a little subjectively while simultaneously not adding much in terms of precision or clarity. N-HH talk/ edits 07:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I decided to compare the articles of far left politics and far right politics. Specifically, I wanted to look at whether they are accurate, equal, and fair. I'm posting this in both the far-left and far-right articles' talk sections as it pertains to both.
Here's the introductory paragraphs to far left politics:
"The far left (also known as the extreme left) refers to the highest degree of leftism in left-wing politics. The far left seeks equality of outcome and the dismantlement of all forms of social stratification.[1] Far leftists seek to abolish all forms of hierarchy, particularly the inequitable distribution of wealth and power.[1] The far left seeks a society in which everyone is provided equal economic and social opportunities, and no one has excessive wealth or power over others.[1]
The far left typically believes that inegalitarian systems must be overthrown through revolution in order to establish egalitarian societies, while the centre left works within the system to achieve egalitarianism.[1] In societies that tolerate dissent, far-left groups usually participate in the democratic process to advance their goals.[2] The far left demands radical changes to dismantle unequal societies, including confiscation of wealth that is concentrated in a small elite, and redistribution of that wealth in an egalitarian manner.[1]"
Here's the introductory paragraphs to far right politics:
The terms far right, or extreme right, describe the broad range of political groups and ideologies usually taken to be further to the right of the mainstream center-right on the traditional left-right spectrum. Far right politics commonly involves support for social hierarchy, elements of social conservatism and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism. Both terms are also used to describe Nazi and fascist movements, and other groups who hold extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist or reactionary views.[1] The most extreme right-wing movements have pursued oppression and genocide against groups of people on the basis of their alleged inferiority.[2]
Both of these articles should shed equal light on these two opposing radical ideologies for the sake of balance. As it stands, I think the article on far right politics is much more negative then the far left one. Here are some changes I'm considering:
1). Regarding this sentence in the far right article: "Both terms are also used to describe Nazi and fascist movements, and other groups who hold extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist or reactionary views."
I believe this sentence is irrelevant and factually incorrect considering Nazi's (the German SOCIALIST Workers' Party) and Fascists, were, in most regards, socialists who work to abolish religion. That's far left, not far right! I propose we move that sentence to the far-left article, where it belongs, noting raciest and nationalist views. I could also include a note about the KKK, a much more racially centered example. However we should keep the fact that the far right sometimes hold xenophobic, raciest, chauvinist, and fundamental religious views, as that is accurate.
2.) Regarding this sentence in the far right article: "The most extreme right-wing movements have pursued oppression and genocide against groups of people on the basis of their alleged inferiority."
This is certainly true, however I think it should also be added to the introductory paragraphs of the far left article. Far leftism, from Hitler to the Soviets, is certainly also guilty of genocide and oppression. Both radical ideologies share these traits.
3.) Regarding this statement in the far left article: "The far left demands radical changes to dismantle unequal societies, including confiscation of wealth that is concentrated in a small elite, and redistribution of that wealth in an egalitarian manner."
I think this over glorifies the far left ideology. Also, far leftists don't seek to redistribute only money concentrated in a small elite; that's closer to center leftism. Far leftism often seeks to redistribute income as broadly as from people who have above median wealth to all who have below it.
I propose we revise that sentence to this: "The far left demands radical changes to dismantle perceived "unequal" societies, including confiscation of wealth held by wealthier segments of the population, and redistribution of that wealth in an egalitarian manner."
4.) I also propose we add this sentence to the far right article: "The far right favors virtually zero mandatory wealth redistribution."
The introductory statement of the far right article doesn't say much about economic positions, however the far left one does. So I thought this'd be a good starting point of something to add.
5.) Regarding this sentence in the far left article:
"The far left seeks a society in which everyone is provided equal economic and social opportunities, and no one has excessive wealth or power over others."
Here the article contradicts itself. Earlier, the article says the far left seeks "equality of outcome." Here it essentially says they seek "equality of opportunity." To fix this, I propose replacing it with these sentences instead:
"The far left seeks a society in which everyone is provided equal economic and social status and no one has excessive wealth or power over others. In practice, most far-left governments give large amounts of power to their leadership."
What do you think of these suggested edits? How would you change them? I welcome your thoughts. Libertyboy100 ( talk) 03:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
An anonymous IP continues to add current UK government policies and Zionism to the article, without sources. Whatever one's opinion on these subjects, they are rarely described as far right and sources are required to include them. TFD ( talk) 23:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I find the Bill Clinton statement to be irrelevant and misleading for the article. The statement according to reference is made to a BBC journalist: "that’s why people like you always help the far right cos you like to hurt people, and you like to talk about how bad people are and all their personal failings". The "you people" who help the far right that Clinton is referring to here are clearly journalists, but the idea that journalists always help the far right is quite strange, and not of encyclopedia value. Clinton's statement is simply a polemic against his adversaries and we should be very careful about inserting political polemics in an encyclopedia article about a scholarly term. Overall, I don't think this article has a good quality and isn't stringent enough in explaning the term far right. Regards, Iselilja ( talk) 09:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
1)this is not SOME random person making an uneducated accusation against just anyone: one of the most influential presidents in the history of the u.s. claims that the people who impeached him, the neo-conservatives (see wikipedia's article about them here yourself),were far-right politicians. I am pretty sure president clinton knows what he is saying better than you and I do
2)that is why in the paragraph that you deleted it clearly said "according to former u.s. president bill clinton" because it is completely understandable that some people will disagree with him there; it was necessary to add that aforementioned line to indicate that we added it here only because it was a claim made by an recognized head of state.
3)when he said "you people" he did not just mean the "journalists" as you said; he, more precisely, was referring to the propaganda “advertisers” of his far-right political enemies like the interviewer who handled his interview there (that was a very simplified and shallow generalization from you to interpret president clinton's words like that)
4)discuss with other editors before removing paragraphs from any articles first please Grandia01 ( talk)
you know what, on second thought, whatever, i have wasted enough time here already.
"Don't argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." Grandia01 ( talk)
As clearly seen from points raised on this talk page, and when comparing the pages of "far left" and "far right", this interpretation of politics and views is a gross simplification at best and a tool to mindlessly associate and discredit opposing policy or views at worst. Personal views aside, any objections to a section being added about the commonly made criticisms of this phenomenon? What is left, what is right. Only directions, and generic positions slowly built into existence through political propoganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.63.147.224 ( talk) 00:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Books about the far right do not list the Muslim Brotherhood, books about the Muslim Brotherhood do not call it right-wing. It is not mentioned in the article and no sources have been provided to include it. I will therefore remove the image. [2] Please do not re-add without sources and discussion. TFD ( talk) 03:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Although it was problematic before, and some of them are for the better, I'm not sure the sum of the changes that followed recent drive-by edit, and the usual dive-in back-up of its entirely appropriate revert, has left us with a better lead. We now have the word politics four times in the first sentence and have lost any reference to fascism or Nazism, which are very much the contexts in which the terms are usually used. N-HH talk/ edits 16:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
marked it npov, please don't remove until agreement is made.
check here first, last 3 sections: /info/en/?search=Talk:Far-left_politics#npov_check_needed
also, the lead were far right pushed genocide on its victims, as the communists and Nazis were socialist parties that sentence should be moved to the far left page. ( Trfc06 ( talk) 11:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC))
so because i have read wiki for many years, especially the talk pages, and i know npov and sock etc that proves that i am a sock! I will ask that you leave the tag there, it actually states what it is, I think this article is not neutral and ask that people look at it, thats what its for. you dont prove its not neutral and then put the tag in place, that would be stupid! ( Trfc06 ( talk) 13:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC))
agree with Dougweller, i will leave the nazi bit for now, but still think this needs checking for bias, so i ask that you leave the tag. Not one editor decides, thats how its done, we discuss and see if we can reach a compromise agreement that is nearer the truth? ( Trfc06 ( talk) 15:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC))
How can an organization started by and populated in the vast majority by, Democrats be considered far-right? Was Senator Robert Byrd far right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.80.32.193 ( talk) 18:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The KKK, in present times, are anti-government, anti-establishment, and libertarian. They are not statist, which is a central aspect (arguably the main one as most historians argue) of the far-right. Therefore, the KKK should be removed. Racism does not make them far-right. If racial or ethnic pride is far-right, then Pol Pot was far-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.194.158 ( talk) 04:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
"Libertarians are socially LIBERAL." Well, not quite accurate. Libertarians can tilt right or left. The single most prevailing characteristic is the degree of involvement they're willing to grant the federal government, as opposed to state and local governments. To a right-libertarian, the point of politics is to allow communities to set their own standards, as much as possible, minimizing a liberty- and diversity-crushing mandate from the top. A right-libertarian might not be particularly in favor of a given city legalizing prostitution, but he would be in favor of that city coming to its own conclusions about its legality. I'm not particularly thrilled to see the KKK included under the libertarian banner, but if they're interested in limited federal government, they have at least some of the hallmarks. Byff ( talk) 21:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC) The KKK came out last year as being in favour of Obama's left leaning economic policy. They supported taxing the 1%, job security, Obamacare and what not. They might be right wing on social policy, but when it comes to economics the KKK has historically stood right behind the left. They were started by Democrats, don't forget, who were already in the 1920's pushing for stricter segregation, more spending in infrastructure and eduction as well as prohibition. 01:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Fartnut ( talk)
Your inane blabber was essentially just "Hurr durr Glenn Beck Rush Limbo durr durr". I love it when you leftists and racists have to resort to name-calling to fool yourselves into thinking you've actually won an argument. It's truly adorable. I would recommend reading a history book before making a such a clown of yourself. Fartnut ( talk) 12:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Nazis not Far Right eitherThe Nazi Party (National SOCIALIST German Workers Party) was Far-Left. Also, please remove the "genocide" part, as it is ignorant. Only far-leftists start genocides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.0.112.152 ( talk) 21:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC) The Nazis practiced euthanasia. Is that left- or right- wing? The Nazis were animal-rightists, pro-regulators, and economic socialists. They also KICKED OUT conservatives like Bloomberg from the Wehrmacht. The Nazis seized control of private businesses. They introduced a Social Security-esque pension system. Hitler described himself as an anti-capitalist socialist. Until 1941, Nazi Germany was allied with the USSR. The notion that the Nazis were right-wing stems from a misconception amongst historians that anyone opposing Stalin was right-wing, and that the Nazis were obviously not centrists.-- 173.21.80.54 ( talk) 00:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Talk 01:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Legitimate claims have been raised here, and ignored. I am removing all mentions of the Nazis from this page. They were Far Leftists. Daniel the duck ( talk) 02:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I cried a little when I read nazis were far right. Please, stop destroying history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.169.210 ( talk) 15:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
|
There appears to be some disagreement over describing the KKK as "Christian" in an image caption. It would be good to talk it over instead of back-and-forth reverting.
IMO, since this article contains no treatment of religion or of any relationship between religion and the article topic, the descriptor is unnecessary and shouldn't be retained. Roccodrift ( talk) 03:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
This sort of dispute is best resolved by sources. Here's what kkk.com has plastered on top of their home page (per WP:ABOUTSELF):
White America? No, White CHRISTIAN America. Let's put this back already. MilesMoney ( talk)
Here's what the SPLC says:
This is an authoritative and scholarly summary, using careful language and avoiding broad generalizations. It supports calling the KKK Christian. MilesMoney ( talk) 06:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
An editor continues to delete "strong inequality" from the lead, saying it is unsourced. [1] However, it is sourced to Carlisle, Rodney P., ed., The Encyclopedia of Politics: The Left and the Right, Volume 2: The Right (Thousand Oaks, California, United States; London, England; New Delhi, India: Sage Publications, 2005) p. 693, which is footnote 1. Footnotes may cover more than one sentence. TFD ( talk) 23:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
We are slightly hampered by the fact that the page is, indeed, little more than a stub, especially compared with what it probably could or should be given the breadth of the topic. Sometimes in an article under construction, the lead will get ahead of itself and perhaps force the issue a little (I mean that it a good sense in terms of encouraging editing of the wider page: there's something that needs including, and an initial mention of it in the lead can drive improvements and additions to the body). However, more directly on point, there is in fact already a brief discussion of inequality in the main body, sourced to this book. So I don't see that there's a problem with having it referred to in the lead pretty much as it is now (indeed, there used to be a lot more about inequality in the lead until recently). I would though query the modifier "strong". It does read a little subjectively while simultaneously not adding much in terms of precision or clarity. N-HH talk/ edits 07:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I decided to compare the articles of far left politics and far right politics. Specifically, I wanted to look at whether they are accurate, equal, and fair. I'm posting this in both the far-left and far-right articles' talk sections as it pertains to both.
Here's the introductory paragraphs to far left politics:
"The far left (also known as the extreme left) refers to the highest degree of leftism in left-wing politics. The far left seeks equality of outcome and the dismantlement of all forms of social stratification.[1] Far leftists seek to abolish all forms of hierarchy, particularly the inequitable distribution of wealth and power.[1] The far left seeks a society in which everyone is provided equal economic and social opportunities, and no one has excessive wealth or power over others.[1]
The far left typically believes that inegalitarian systems must be overthrown through revolution in order to establish egalitarian societies, while the centre left works within the system to achieve egalitarianism.[1] In societies that tolerate dissent, far-left groups usually participate in the democratic process to advance their goals.[2] The far left demands radical changes to dismantle unequal societies, including confiscation of wealth that is concentrated in a small elite, and redistribution of that wealth in an egalitarian manner.[1]"
Here's the introductory paragraphs to far right politics:
The terms far right, or extreme right, describe the broad range of political groups and ideologies usually taken to be further to the right of the mainstream center-right on the traditional left-right spectrum. Far right politics commonly involves support for social hierarchy, elements of social conservatism and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism. Both terms are also used to describe Nazi and fascist movements, and other groups who hold extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist or reactionary views.[1] The most extreme right-wing movements have pursued oppression and genocide against groups of people on the basis of their alleged inferiority.[2]
Both of these articles should shed equal light on these two opposing radical ideologies for the sake of balance. As it stands, I think the article on far right politics is much more negative then the far left one. Here are some changes I'm considering:
1). Regarding this sentence in the far right article: "Both terms are also used to describe Nazi and fascist movements, and other groups who hold extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist or reactionary views."
I believe this sentence is irrelevant and factually incorrect considering Nazi's (the German SOCIALIST Workers' Party) and Fascists, were, in most regards, socialists who work to abolish religion. That's far left, not far right! I propose we move that sentence to the far-left article, where it belongs, noting raciest and nationalist views. I could also include a note about the KKK, a much more racially centered example. However we should keep the fact that the far right sometimes hold xenophobic, raciest, chauvinist, and fundamental religious views, as that is accurate.
2.) Regarding this sentence in the far right article: "The most extreme right-wing movements have pursued oppression and genocide against groups of people on the basis of their alleged inferiority."
This is certainly true, however I think it should also be added to the introductory paragraphs of the far left article. Far leftism, from Hitler to the Soviets, is certainly also guilty of genocide and oppression. Both radical ideologies share these traits.
3.) Regarding this statement in the far left article: "The far left demands radical changes to dismantle unequal societies, including confiscation of wealth that is concentrated in a small elite, and redistribution of that wealth in an egalitarian manner."
I think this over glorifies the far left ideology. Also, far leftists don't seek to redistribute only money concentrated in a small elite; that's closer to center leftism. Far leftism often seeks to redistribute income as broadly as from people who have above median wealth to all who have below it.
I propose we revise that sentence to this: "The far left demands radical changes to dismantle perceived "unequal" societies, including confiscation of wealth held by wealthier segments of the population, and redistribution of that wealth in an egalitarian manner."
4.) I also propose we add this sentence to the far right article: "The far right favors virtually zero mandatory wealth redistribution."
The introductory statement of the far right article doesn't say much about economic positions, however the far left one does. So I thought this'd be a good starting point of something to add.
5.) Regarding this sentence in the far left article:
"The far left seeks a society in which everyone is provided equal economic and social opportunities, and no one has excessive wealth or power over others."
Here the article contradicts itself. Earlier, the article says the far left seeks "equality of outcome." Here it essentially says they seek "equality of opportunity." To fix this, I propose replacing it with these sentences instead:
"The far left seeks a society in which everyone is provided equal economic and social status and no one has excessive wealth or power over others. In practice, most far-left governments give large amounts of power to their leadership."
What do you think of these suggested edits? How would you change them? I welcome your thoughts. Libertyboy100 ( talk) 03:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
An anonymous IP continues to add current UK government policies and Zionism to the article, without sources. Whatever one's opinion on these subjects, they are rarely described as far right and sources are required to include them. TFD ( talk) 23:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I find the Bill Clinton statement to be irrelevant and misleading for the article. The statement according to reference is made to a BBC journalist: "that’s why people like you always help the far right cos you like to hurt people, and you like to talk about how bad people are and all their personal failings". The "you people" who help the far right that Clinton is referring to here are clearly journalists, but the idea that journalists always help the far right is quite strange, and not of encyclopedia value. Clinton's statement is simply a polemic against his adversaries and we should be very careful about inserting political polemics in an encyclopedia article about a scholarly term. Overall, I don't think this article has a good quality and isn't stringent enough in explaning the term far right. Regards, Iselilja ( talk) 09:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
1)this is not SOME random person making an uneducated accusation against just anyone: one of the most influential presidents in the history of the u.s. claims that the people who impeached him, the neo-conservatives (see wikipedia's article about them here yourself),were far-right politicians. I am pretty sure president clinton knows what he is saying better than you and I do
2)that is why in the paragraph that you deleted it clearly said "according to former u.s. president bill clinton" because it is completely understandable that some people will disagree with him there; it was necessary to add that aforementioned line to indicate that we added it here only because it was a claim made by an recognized head of state.
3)when he said "you people" he did not just mean the "journalists" as you said; he, more precisely, was referring to the propaganda “advertisers” of his far-right political enemies like the interviewer who handled his interview there (that was a very simplified and shallow generalization from you to interpret president clinton's words like that)
4)discuss with other editors before removing paragraphs from any articles first please Grandia01 ( talk)
you know what, on second thought, whatever, i have wasted enough time here already.
"Don't argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." Grandia01 ( talk)
As clearly seen from points raised on this talk page, and when comparing the pages of "far left" and "far right", this interpretation of politics and views is a gross simplification at best and a tool to mindlessly associate and discredit opposing policy or views at worst. Personal views aside, any objections to a section being added about the commonly made criticisms of this phenomenon? What is left, what is right. Only directions, and generic positions slowly built into existence through political propoganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.63.147.224 ( talk) 00:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Books about the far right do not list the Muslim Brotherhood, books about the Muslim Brotherhood do not call it right-wing. It is not mentioned in the article and no sources have been provided to include it. I will therefore remove the image. [2] Please do not re-add without sources and discussion. TFD ( talk) 03:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Although it was problematic before, and some of them are for the better, I'm not sure the sum of the changes that followed recent drive-by edit, and the usual dive-in back-up of its entirely appropriate revert, has left us with a better lead. We now have the word politics four times in the first sentence and have lost any reference to fascism or Nazism, which are very much the contexts in which the terms are usually used. N-HH talk/ edits 16:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
marked it npov, please don't remove until agreement is made.
check here first, last 3 sections: /info/en/?search=Talk:Far-left_politics#npov_check_needed
also, the lead were far right pushed genocide on its victims, as the communists and Nazis were socialist parties that sentence should be moved to the far left page. ( Trfc06 ( talk) 11:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC))
so because i have read wiki for many years, especially the talk pages, and i know npov and sock etc that proves that i am a sock! I will ask that you leave the tag there, it actually states what it is, I think this article is not neutral and ask that people look at it, thats what its for. you dont prove its not neutral and then put the tag in place, that would be stupid! ( Trfc06 ( talk) 13:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC))
agree with Dougweller, i will leave the nazi bit for now, but still think this needs checking for bias, so i ask that you leave the tag. Not one editor decides, thats how its done, we discuss and see if we can reach a compromise agreement that is nearer the truth? ( Trfc06 ( talk) 15:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC))
How can an organization started by and populated in the vast majority by, Democrats be considered far-right? Was Senator Robert Byrd far right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.80.32.193 ( talk) 18:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The KKK, in present times, are anti-government, anti-establishment, and libertarian. They are not statist, which is a central aspect (arguably the main one as most historians argue) of the far-right. Therefore, the KKK should be removed. Racism does not make them far-right. If racial or ethnic pride is far-right, then Pol Pot was far-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.194.158 ( talk) 04:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
"Libertarians are socially LIBERAL." Well, not quite accurate. Libertarians can tilt right or left. The single most prevailing characteristic is the degree of involvement they're willing to grant the federal government, as opposed to state and local governments. To a right-libertarian, the point of politics is to allow communities to set their own standards, as much as possible, minimizing a liberty- and diversity-crushing mandate from the top. A right-libertarian might not be particularly in favor of a given city legalizing prostitution, but he would be in favor of that city coming to its own conclusions about its legality. I'm not particularly thrilled to see the KKK included under the libertarian banner, but if they're interested in limited federal government, they have at least some of the hallmarks. Byff ( talk) 21:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC) The KKK came out last year as being in favour of Obama's left leaning economic policy. They supported taxing the 1%, job security, Obamacare and what not. They might be right wing on social policy, but when it comes to economics the KKK has historically stood right behind the left. They were started by Democrats, don't forget, who were already in the 1920's pushing for stricter segregation, more spending in infrastructure and eduction as well as prohibition. 01:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Fartnut ( talk)
Your inane blabber was essentially just "Hurr durr Glenn Beck Rush Limbo durr durr". I love it when you leftists and racists have to resort to name-calling to fool yourselves into thinking you've actually won an argument. It's truly adorable. I would recommend reading a history book before making a such a clown of yourself. Fartnut ( talk) 12:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Nazis not Far Right eitherThe Nazi Party (National SOCIALIST German Workers Party) was Far-Left. Also, please remove the "genocide" part, as it is ignorant. Only far-leftists start genocides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.0.112.152 ( talk) 21:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC) The Nazis practiced euthanasia. Is that left- or right- wing? The Nazis were animal-rightists, pro-regulators, and economic socialists. They also KICKED OUT conservatives like Bloomberg from the Wehrmacht. The Nazis seized control of private businesses. They introduced a Social Security-esque pension system. Hitler described himself as an anti-capitalist socialist. Until 1941, Nazi Germany was allied with the USSR. The notion that the Nazis were right-wing stems from a misconception amongst historians that anyone opposing Stalin was right-wing, and that the Nazis were obviously not centrists.-- 173.21.80.54 ( talk) 00:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Talk 01:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Legitimate claims have been raised here, and ignored. I am removing all mentions of the Nazis from this page. They were Far Leftists. Daniel the duck ( talk) 02:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I cried a little when I read nazis were far right. Please, stop destroying history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.169.210 ( talk) 15:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
|
There appears to be some disagreement over describing the KKK as "Christian" in an image caption. It would be good to talk it over instead of back-and-forth reverting.
IMO, since this article contains no treatment of religion or of any relationship between religion and the article topic, the descriptor is unnecessary and shouldn't be retained. Roccodrift ( talk) 03:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
This sort of dispute is best resolved by sources. Here's what kkk.com has plastered on top of their home page (per WP:ABOUTSELF):
White America? No, White CHRISTIAN America. Let's put this back already. MilesMoney ( talk)
Here's what the SPLC says:
This is an authoritative and scholarly summary, using careful language and avoiding broad generalizations. It supports calling the KKK Christian. MilesMoney ( talk) 06:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)