![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Reactionary received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() |
|
![]() | The contents of the Regressivism page were merged into Reactionary. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
"Reactionary" is very commonly used incorrectly in the U.S. to mean "reactive." For example, I often hear sentences like, "So what if he hasn't called you in three days? Don't be so reactionary." It seems to me the article should address this, but I am no expert in editing, so please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.66.119 ( talk) 20:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Nazism/Revolutionary not Reactionary This is the reasons why the word 'reactionary' needs to be removed from the Nazism article. WHEELER 16:18, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The Magruder's highschool American Government textbook uses the label as the "far right" position, described as "favor[ing] extreme change to restore society to an earlier, more conservative state". Not sure what else to say about that...
I'm wondering about a few (semi-)recent edits.
I believe this is a relatively unexplored topic, and possibly borders on original research. I find it is pertinent in any case. It strikes me that many of the issues of the modern day GOP have drifted away from truly conservative values into the scope of this article. Is there any consensus here? I'm talking about the Republican Party of the United States of America. -- VictorC ( talk) 22:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
As long as wikipedia stays neutral conservativism and reaction should not be accused of being an opposition to progress. Both conserv. and reaction(historical as well as contemporary) have a different opinion on what is and what isn't progress. From the reactionary point of view royalists during the french revolution were not blocking progress but were preventing degeneration.
Isidoros47 ( talk) 21:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, in a lot of countries, it is used by the ruling powers to describe any old dissent, even when teh opposition is considered to be more liberal, ie communist countries. Although I know a lot of people who just use it against left-wing agitators YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I've seem Euroscepticism described as "reactionary" by various people (mainly Europhiles) in various media sources. If it's possible to find a citable source, would this be a good example of the use of the term? However, there should be a caveat to show that this is a claim made by people's political opponents.-- 86.157.189.229 ( talk) 14:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
According to the article, reactionary..."refers to any political or social movement or ideology that seeks a return to a previous state". So by that definition, does a Marxist-Leninist desiring the re-establishment of the former Soviet Union and its hegemony in Eastern Europe meet the criterion to now be called a reactionary? Dr. Dan ( talk) 04:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Please note the specific fault(s) so can be addressed. Lycurgus ( talk) 04:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This article possibly contains
original research. (January 2009) |
Reactionary (also reactionist) refers to any political or social movement or ideology that seeks a return to a previous state (the status quo ante). The term originated in the French Revolution, to denote the counter-revolutionaries who wanted to restore the real or imagined conditions of the monarchical Ancien Régime. In the nineteenth century, the term reactionism denoted those who wished to preserve feudalism and aristocratic privilege against industrialism, republicanism, liberalism, and socialism.
Presume removed material was the OR. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 16:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Surely they warrant a mention? Everything I've seen from them suggests this is a very accurate label - is there no source suggesting this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.169.133 ( talk) 12:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The Tea Party movement really is the textbook definition of a reactionary movement. I think it would very much be a worthwhile addition to the article if we could find solid sources making the connection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagisterMundi ( talk • contribs) 08:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/memo-to-washington-the-oc_b_3938198.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/us/politics/occupy-movement-prepares-for-democratic-convention.html?_r=0
http://www.occupytogether.org/aboutoccupy/
--
OxAO (
talk)
19:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Beyond any question, Donald Trump is a reactionary. His appeal "Make America Great Again"* suggests the desire for a return to an allegedly better time in history in which certain core values (government more responsive to economic elites (anti-environmentalism, anti-feminism, reduction of the welfare state, tax cuts for the super-rich, hostility toward education for its own sake, exultation of corporate power, and contempt for diversity) and is inherently reactionary. The reaction goes beyond undoing the changes brought forth by a President that he holds in contempt; it is endorsement of ways often dating ninety years or earlier.
Whether he succeeds at such or does not is irrelevant to whether he is a reactionary. The Welfare State has become the norm throughout Western Civilization; whether he would return fully to the Gilded Age is in doubt. He has yet to propose legislation to gut or outlaw labor unions or abolish minimum wage laws, but one cannot rule such out. Many within his Party and many of its supporters would like such to happen.
Does anyone else have the sense the both the "Tea Partiers" and "Donald Trump" sections of this talk page are more about justifying the application of the reactionary label to these two than to discussing a NPOV entry on the topic? I suggest deletion of both sections to prevent this talk page (and others) from devolving into endless debates about whether terms with negative connotations apply to this or that individual or group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.178.45.161 ( talk) 02:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
This section needs a lot more cites. They were a slight media curiosity in late 2013-early 2014, but we need something better quality than their blogs or the blogs of their opponents for Wikipedia. Is there any third-party academic work on the subject? - David Gerard ( talk) 09:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I have located another early use of the term "neo-reactionary", in 1970. The Sarasota Herald-Tribune of October in that year reported that Irving M. Levine of the American Jewish Committee claimed that unless social groups in America sucessfully reduced white-African American tensions, then those tensions "would be seized and exploited by "anti-progress, neo-reactionary forces"." [3] 176.61.97.121 ( talk) 22:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The origin of the word 'reactionary' is discussed in this passage:
"Reactionary" derives from the French word réactionnaire (a late 18th century coinage based on the word réaction, "reaction") and "conservative" from conservateur, identifying monarchist parliamentarians opposed to the revolution.[6]
The citation points here, but the indicated page does not discuss the word origin:
The Governments of Europe, Frederic Austin OGG, Rev. Ed., The MacMillan Co., 1922, p. 485. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hw1zg4;view=1up;seq=501
A search through several dictionaries failed to produce any entries in agreement with the derivation claimed in the article. I suggest the page be updated to reflect the origin of 'reactionary' as described in the OED entry below.
Taken from http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/158839?redirectedFrom=reactionary#eid Origin: Formed within English, by derivation; modelled on a French lexical item. Etymons: reaction n., -ary suffix1. Etymology: < reaction n. + -ary suffix1, apparently originally after French réactionnaire (1799 or earlier as noun in the passage translated in quot. 17992 at sense A.; earlier as adjective (1794)). With French réactionnaire (noun) compare earlier réacteur reactor n. (compare quot. 17991 at sense A.) and révolutionnaire revolutionary n.
MALescos ( talk) 00:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is against the move at this time. ( non-admin closure) Calidum 03:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Reactionary →
Reactionism – The article is about the concept of reactionism rather than the term reactionary. This would be consistent with the names of other articles about political ideologies, such as
Political radicalism,
Extremism,
Conservatism,
Liberalism,
Progressivism, etc.
Lmatt (
talk)
12:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I believe this article, like many in Wikipedia, should open with a paragraph that is largely sensible at a 16 year old reading level to those unfamiliar with the concept. If you google "reactionary," there is the google definition "adjective 1. (of a person or a set of views) opposing political or social liberalization or reform."reactionary attitudes toward women's rights" synonyms: right-wing, conservative, rightist, ultra-conservative, ultra-right, alt-rightof. And then the previous wikipedia definition, with it's repeated use of the term "status quo ante."
Both are unhelpful in that reactionary IS NOT a synonym for conservative or right-wing or even ultra-conservative. Reactionary, in my experience, is ALMOST ALWAYS used by critics of a political position against that position. Donald Trump and his supporters call THEMSELVES conservative, but I believe never or almost never call themselves reactionary.
Political theory is perhaps a different matter in that theorist are generally describing rather than disparaging. Reactionary is perhaps not a disparaging term when used by political theorists, but it is almost always disparaging when used in political discourse.
Also, WHY would we use the term " status quo ante" here. It is a phrase I never heard used until Condoleezza Rice et al. used it repeatedly in the run-up to the war in Iraq. It is pretentious and entirely unhelpful outside of overly legalese treaty provisions, as is clear from the wiki entry. It means past. I left it alone, but I think I am going to edit it to past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjlebl ( talk • contribs) 07:29, July 31, 2019 (UTC)
The term reactionary just means those who wish to return to a previous societal state. It does not need to be those who oppose liberal or left wing change. For example the bolshevik party of the soviet union is considered radical left by political scientists but they were also the reactionaries following economic liberalizaton with the dissolvement of the soviet union in the 90s. Reactionary thus can be explained also as those who simply want to return to a previous state of society whether conservative or left wing. Xanikk999 ( talk) 21:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Although they are slightly different IP's this appears to be the same person (given their edit descriptions) who keeps undoing this edit made by multiple other people.
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Reactionary received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() |
|
![]() | The contents of the Regressivism page were merged into Reactionary. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
"Reactionary" is very commonly used incorrectly in the U.S. to mean "reactive." For example, I often hear sentences like, "So what if he hasn't called you in three days? Don't be so reactionary." It seems to me the article should address this, but I am no expert in editing, so please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.66.119 ( talk) 20:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Nazism/Revolutionary not Reactionary This is the reasons why the word 'reactionary' needs to be removed from the Nazism article. WHEELER 16:18, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The Magruder's highschool American Government textbook uses the label as the "far right" position, described as "favor[ing] extreme change to restore society to an earlier, more conservative state". Not sure what else to say about that...
I'm wondering about a few (semi-)recent edits.
I believe this is a relatively unexplored topic, and possibly borders on original research. I find it is pertinent in any case. It strikes me that many of the issues of the modern day GOP have drifted away from truly conservative values into the scope of this article. Is there any consensus here? I'm talking about the Republican Party of the United States of America. -- VictorC ( talk) 22:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
As long as wikipedia stays neutral conservativism and reaction should not be accused of being an opposition to progress. Both conserv. and reaction(historical as well as contemporary) have a different opinion on what is and what isn't progress. From the reactionary point of view royalists during the french revolution were not blocking progress but were preventing degeneration.
Isidoros47 ( talk) 21:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, in a lot of countries, it is used by the ruling powers to describe any old dissent, even when teh opposition is considered to be more liberal, ie communist countries. Although I know a lot of people who just use it against left-wing agitators YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I've seem Euroscepticism described as "reactionary" by various people (mainly Europhiles) in various media sources. If it's possible to find a citable source, would this be a good example of the use of the term? However, there should be a caveat to show that this is a claim made by people's political opponents.-- 86.157.189.229 ( talk) 14:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
According to the article, reactionary..."refers to any political or social movement or ideology that seeks a return to a previous state". So by that definition, does a Marxist-Leninist desiring the re-establishment of the former Soviet Union and its hegemony in Eastern Europe meet the criterion to now be called a reactionary? Dr. Dan ( talk) 04:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Please note the specific fault(s) so can be addressed. Lycurgus ( talk) 04:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This article possibly contains
original research. (January 2009) |
Reactionary (also reactionist) refers to any political or social movement or ideology that seeks a return to a previous state (the status quo ante). The term originated in the French Revolution, to denote the counter-revolutionaries who wanted to restore the real or imagined conditions of the monarchical Ancien Régime. In the nineteenth century, the term reactionism denoted those who wished to preserve feudalism and aristocratic privilege against industrialism, republicanism, liberalism, and socialism.
Presume removed material was the OR. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 16:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Surely they warrant a mention? Everything I've seen from them suggests this is a very accurate label - is there no source suggesting this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.169.133 ( talk) 12:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The Tea Party movement really is the textbook definition of a reactionary movement. I think it would very much be a worthwhile addition to the article if we could find solid sources making the connection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagisterMundi ( talk • contribs) 08:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/memo-to-washington-the-oc_b_3938198.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/us/politics/occupy-movement-prepares-for-democratic-convention.html?_r=0
http://www.occupytogether.org/aboutoccupy/
--
OxAO (
talk)
19:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Beyond any question, Donald Trump is a reactionary. His appeal "Make America Great Again"* suggests the desire for a return to an allegedly better time in history in which certain core values (government more responsive to economic elites (anti-environmentalism, anti-feminism, reduction of the welfare state, tax cuts for the super-rich, hostility toward education for its own sake, exultation of corporate power, and contempt for diversity) and is inherently reactionary. The reaction goes beyond undoing the changes brought forth by a President that he holds in contempt; it is endorsement of ways often dating ninety years or earlier.
Whether he succeeds at such or does not is irrelevant to whether he is a reactionary. The Welfare State has become the norm throughout Western Civilization; whether he would return fully to the Gilded Age is in doubt. He has yet to propose legislation to gut or outlaw labor unions or abolish minimum wage laws, but one cannot rule such out. Many within his Party and many of its supporters would like such to happen.
Does anyone else have the sense the both the "Tea Partiers" and "Donald Trump" sections of this talk page are more about justifying the application of the reactionary label to these two than to discussing a NPOV entry on the topic? I suggest deletion of both sections to prevent this talk page (and others) from devolving into endless debates about whether terms with negative connotations apply to this or that individual or group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.178.45.161 ( talk) 02:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
This section needs a lot more cites. They were a slight media curiosity in late 2013-early 2014, but we need something better quality than their blogs or the blogs of their opponents for Wikipedia. Is there any third-party academic work on the subject? - David Gerard ( talk) 09:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I have located another early use of the term "neo-reactionary", in 1970. The Sarasota Herald-Tribune of October in that year reported that Irving M. Levine of the American Jewish Committee claimed that unless social groups in America sucessfully reduced white-African American tensions, then those tensions "would be seized and exploited by "anti-progress, neo-reactionary forces"." [3] 176.61.97.121 ( talk) 22:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The origin of the word 'reactionary' is discussed in this passage:
"Reactionary" derives from the French word réactionnaire (a late 18th century coinage based on the word réaction, "reaction") and "conservative" from conservateur, identifying monarchist parliamentarians opposed to the revolution.[6]
The citation points here, but the indicated page does not discuss the word origin:
The Governments of Europe, Frederic Austin OGG, Rev. Ed., The MacMillan Co., 1922, p. 485. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hw1zg4;view=1up;seq=501
A search through several dictionaries failed to produce any entries in agreement with the derivation claimed in the article. I suggest the page be updated to reflect the origin of 'reactionary' as described in the OED entry below.
Taken from http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/158839?redirectedFrom=reactionary#eid Origin: Formed within English, by derivation; modelled on a French lexical item. Etymons: reaction n., -ary suffix1. Etymology: < reaction n. + -ary suffix1, apparently originally after French réactionnaire (1799 or earlier as noun in the passage translated in quot. 17992 at sense A.; earlier as adjective (1794)). With French réactionnaire (noun) compare earlier réacteur reactor n. (compare quot. 17991 at sense A.) and révolutionnaire revolutionary n.
MALescos ( talk) 00:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is against the move at this time. ( non-admin closure) Calidum 03:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Reactionary →
Reactionism – The article is about the concept of reactionism rather than the term reactionary. This would be consistent with the names of other articles about political ideologies, such as
Political radicalism,
Extremism,
Conservatism,
Liberalism,
Progressivism, etc.
Lmatt (
talk)
12:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I believe this article, like many in Wikipedia, should open with a paragraph that is largely sensible at a 16 year old reading level to those unfamiliar with the concept. If you google "reactionary," there is the google definition "adjective 1. (of a person or a set of views) opposing political or social liberalization or reform."reactionary attitudes toward women's rights" synonyms: right-wing, conservative, rightist, ultra-conservative, ultra-right, alt-rightof. And then the previous wikipedia definition, with it's repeated use of the term "status quo ante."
Both are unhelpful in that reactionary IS NOT a synonym for conservative or right-wing or even ultra-conservative. Reactionary, in my experience, is ALMOST ALWAYS used by critics of a political position against that position. Donald Trump and his supporters call THEMSELVES conservative, but I believe never or almost never call themselves reactionary.
Political theory is perhaps a different matter in that theorist are generally describing rather than disparaging. Reactionary is perhaps not a disparaging term when used by political theorists, but it is almost always disparaging when used in political discourse.
Also, WHY would we use the term " status quo ante" here. It is a phrase I never heard used until Condoleezza Rice et al. used it repeatedly in the run-up to the war in Iraq. It is pretentious and entirely unhelpful outside of overly legalese treaty provisions, as is clear from the wiki entry. It means past. I left it alone, but I think I am going to edit it to past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjlebl ( talk • contribs) 07:29, July 31, 2019 (UTC)
The term reactionary just means those who wish to return to a previous societal state. It does not need to be those who oppose liberal or left wing change. For example the bolshevik party of the soviet union is considered radical left by political scientists but they were also the reactionaries following economic liberalizaton with the dissolvement of the soviet union in the 90s. Reactionary thus can be explained also as those who simply want to return to a previous state of society whether conservative or left wing. Xanikk999 ( talk) 21:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Although they are slightly different IP's this appears to be the same person (given their edit descriptions) who keeps undoing this edit made by multiple other people.