This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 5 August 2018. The result of the discussion was retarget. |
There is a page for Hard left separate to Far-left. It makes sense to do the same with Hard right and Far-right. If it's argued that Far-right and Hard right should be merged, then the same should happend to Far-left and Hard right. ( Garageland66 ( talk) 12:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC))
This seems a bit of a WP:POINT creation, by admission too, per the above justification. It also lacks a coherent subject, being little more than a mini-list of things that have been described in various places as "hard right", ranging from Progress and Blairite Labour (according to a tossed-off phrase from John McDonnell) to UKIP and the Tea Party. WP pages are not meant to be a dictionary or disambiguation entry for multiple discrete topics that happen to have attracted a one-off conjunction of the same adjective and a noun. If you want to deal with the Hard left page – which no-one disagreed was probably, as a general term, superfluous to the Far left page – deal with that. The only issue there was whether a separate page about the "Hard left" faction within intra-Labour divisions in the UK in the 1980s should be maintained, just as we have a page about the " Soft left" of the time. N-HH talk/ edits 22:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
As noted in my edit summary when restoring the tag and as discussed above, the issue is not necessarily disambiguation or splitting, but about coherence and clarity. Currently the page is simply a bundling-together of times the words have been found together to describe something, ranging from things as disparate as white nationalism to the Progress faction in Labour, and kicks off with a cite to tyhe casual use of the term on a random "consultant"'s blog. There's no indication of what exactly the topic is and how it differs from far right, radical right etc. It needs a much better definition, cited if possible, for example, to an authoritative political dictionary. N-HH talk/ edits 17:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
In line with comments made by multiple editors here, I have blanked and redirected this article to Far-right politics, as they appear to be synonyms, and I couldn't find any content in the article that satisfied our verifiability and no original research policies. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 5 August 2018. The result of the discussion was retarget. |
There is a page for Hard left separate to Far-left. It makes sense to do the same with Hard right and Far-right. If it's argued that Far-right and Hard right should be merged, then the same should happend to Far-left and Hard right. ( Garageland66 ( talk) 12:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC))
This seems a bit of a WP:POINT creation, by admission too, per the above justification. It also lacks a coherent subject, being little more than a mini-list of things that have been described in various places as "hard right", ranging from Progress and Blairite Labour (according to a tossed-off phrase from John McDonnell) to UKIP and the Tea Party. WP pages are not meant to be a dictionary or disambiguation entry for multiple discrete topics that happen to have attracted a one-off conjunction of the same adjective and a noun. If you want to deal with the Hard left page – which no-one disagreed was probably, as a general term, superfluous to the Far left page – deal with that. The only issue there was whether a separate page about the "Hard left" faction within intra-Labour divisions in the UK in the 1980s should be maintained, just as we have a page about the " Soft left" of the time. N-HH talk/ edits 22:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
As noted in my edit summary when restoring the tag and as discussed above, the issue is not necessarily disambiguation or splitting, but about coherence and clarity. Currently the page is simply a bundling-together of times the words have been found together to describe something, ranging from things as disparate as white nationalism to the Progress faction in Labour, and kicks off with a cite to tyhe casual use of the term on a random "consultant"'s blog. There's no indication of what exactly the topic is and how it differs from far right, radical right etc. It needs a much better definition, cited if possible, for example, to an authoritative political dictionary. N-HH talk/ edits 17:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
In line with comments made by multiple editors here, I have blanked and redirected this article to Far-right politics, as they appear to be synonyms, and I couldn't find any content in the article that satisfied our verifiability and no original research policies. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)