Economics Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Politics Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Socialism Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The topic of the article by itself is problematic, as the term "right-wing socialism" is used predominantly by conservative thinkers, especially exponents of the Austrian School (as you can already see from the list of literature this article is based on: Peter Viereck, Murray Rothbard, Jesús Huerta de Soto). Therefore it does not adher to NPOV, but represents the POV of those Austrian School thinkers who use this term. On the other hand, it lumps together very different movements and currents, where the connection is not verified by sources. Who has ever called Bismarck "right-wing socialist"? Who has called Oswald Spengler "right-wing socialist"? Who says that Fascism were "right-wing socialism"? Who says "right-wing socialism" when they mean "War socialism" (which is an established historical term)? Lumping all these different and distinct movements together, just because one could call them "right-wing socialism" (but no reliable source does) is original research/synthesis and is opposed to the principle of verifiability. --RJFF (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on R-41's talk page some time ago. "The source you used was a libertarian text, and they have their own terminology which is not necessarilty shared by the broader academic community. But I cannot think of another term. There are articles on Tory socialism, red toryism, One nation conservatism, wets and State Socialism, but they are all specific to individual countries". We need a source that unites all these concepts. Incidentally, it is good practice to find sources for a topic before writing about it. Otherwise it becomes a coatrack and and attracts all the regulars on Mass killings under communist regimes and Communist terrorism. TFD (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose the following approach:

1. Intro/lead section - (1) keep here, explain the libertarians' theory of "right-wing socialism" or (2) delete as not notable (no secondary/third-party sources!)
2. Conservative socialism - (1) split to a new article Conservative socialism or (2) merge into Klemens von Metternich, as it mainly refers to his ideas
3. Religious socialism - already has an article, should be treated there
4. War socialism - notable historic term, could deserve an own article
5. Fascism - already has an article, should be treated there
6. Charles Maurras and National Syndicalism - National syndicalism already has an article, should be treated there
7. Bismarckian state socialism - already has an article: State Socialism
8. "Kathedersozialismus" - extra article? if notable enough...
9. Plenge - not sure, indeed an interesting connecting figure between Nazis, conservative revolutionaries and social democrats... treat at Johann Plenge?
10. Sombart and Spengler - treat at Conservative Revolutionary movement

What are your thoughts? --RJFF (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to know much about this topic, haven't bothered to read many of the sources within the article, and are reacting like a typical left-wing hack who wants people to believe that the left is the only real opposition to capitalism, which is not the case.

1. Peter Viereck was not affiliated with the Austrian School. He was a highly moderate conservative who supported the New Deal.
2. Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, Oswald Spengler, and Werner Sombart all self-identified as socialists. The precise term they used to describe their position was German Socialism, and they made it abundantly clear this had nothing to do with Marxist socialism. But as anyone who has read the Communist Manifesto should know, Marx never had a monopoly on the word 'socialism'. All three figures were actively involved with the right-wing during the Weimar Republic. Hence right-wing socialism. This is neither revisionism nor the opinion of some Austrian economists.
3. Zeev Sternhell is also not an Austrian School economist, but a respected scholar of the history of fascism. His analysis, which many scholars accept, locates fascism's roots in a merger between nationalism and non-Marxist forms of socialism in France at the turn of the century around certain Boulangists and organizations like the Cercle Proudhon.
4. The Maurras quote in the article demonstrates that they did indeed use the word 'socialist' at the time.
5. Self-identified fascists such as Pierre Drieu La Rochelle came to to same conclusion a half century before Sternhell did. In a book titled 'Fascist Socialism', Drieu named the Cercle Proudhon as proto-fascist.
6. Since many of the right-wing socialist movements have marked similarities and, in some cases, influenced each other (see the Sombart section where he lists various 19th century figures), an article that collates these various strains is very much justified.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.167.225 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 28 February 2012

In order to group these different things together, we need a source that connects them. Viereck btw does not write about "right-wing socialism" but of the "conservative socialism" that in 1830 Metternich claimed to follow. I believe that in continental Europe, especially Scandinavia, this is called "social conservatism" today. Also, I started an article some time ago about Bismarck's State Socialism. TFD (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There might be some translation issues, but in most of the world "social conservative" refer to one's positions on issues like abortion, traditional family values, secularism, etc. It has nothing to do with one's economic views. It's not the same thing as "conservative socialism." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.167.225 (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, this is the most common term in Scandinavian countries. In the U.K. it is more likely to be called "traditional conservatism". Of course in the U.S. (or "most of the world" if one prefers) many political terms take on opposite meanings. Here for example is a source describing Disraeli's "One Nation Conservatism" and Bismarck's welfare policies as "social conservatism". TFD (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed material sourced to Murray Rothbard because it does not use the term "right-wing socialism" in the same sense as how it is defined in the article. He uses the term to refer to reformist, rather than revolutionary, socialism, while the article uses it to refer to socialist policies carried out by liberals, conservatives and fascists. TFD (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree with lumping together different political terms, just because one author does. You can find a detailed rationale and discussion of this problem on this talk page. Moreover, it contradicts NPOV to present the theories of one libertarian author, as if it were universally accepted and neutral. --RJFF (talk) 06:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When an article passes AfD and an editor removes almost the entire article, it is likely that such an extreme "edit" will get reverted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the article passed AfD is independent of whether off-topic writing should be removed. TFD (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your position failed to prevail at AfD - trying to delete the article by edit is against Wikipedia policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was about deleting the article. It does not mean that we should keep sources that do not discuss the topic. TFD (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the material salient, and started an RfC which should run for a month in the meantime. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC) Note also that it up to you to gain WP:CONSENSUS for the "bold edit". Collect (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article have an edit made removing "original research"? [1] 13:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

I note that the specific material removed constitutes more than 95% of the article. An AfD on the article recently failed (3 May 2012). Collect (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC) The question relates to the specific edit and not to a general question as to removing actual "original research" (in response to a comment which may have moisapprehended the question). Collect (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove We must not ourselves determine what is right-wing socialism and add it in - that is original research. Instead, we should use sources that are relevant to the topic. TFD (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have to say that this mass deletion of content is concerning.[2] The edit summary begins, "it's still gross OR and synthesis to mingle different, distinct political terms, just because one author does." Actually, if it's cited to a source, by definition, it's not OR. The edit summary also states, "And it is still non-NPOV to present the theory of one libertarian author, as if it were universal and neutral" This, too, is incorrect. If other sources disagree, then we document the dispute. If no sources disagree, it's against NPOV to use our own personal biases to determine article content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might have used a wrong expression. What I meant was that Huerta de Soto uses the term "right-wing socialism" in a way that is different from most other authors. Usually "right-wing socialism" is used for the right wing of socialism, synonymous with revisionist socialism or social democracy and not for a "type of socialism in which institutional aggression is employed to maintain the social status quo and the privileges certain people or groups of people enjoy." No source labels the policies of Klemens von Metternich to right-wing socialism, therefore the association of Metternich's positions with "right-wing socialism" is OR or synthesis. No source associates Johann Plenge, Werner Sombart, and Oswald Spengler with "right-wing socialism", therefore this is OR/synthesis, too. No source associaties Charles Maurras' National Syndicalism with "right-wing socialism", therefore this is OR/synthesis, too. Only Huerta de Soto uses the term "right-wing socialism" as an umbrella term for military socialism, guild socialism, agrarian socialism, and some forms of Christian socialism. And only Rothbart labels fascism, nazism and Bismarck's policies as "right-wing socialism". But these theories are anything but mainstream, and therefore it is a breach of NPOV to dedicate a whole (long) article to this minor opinion, and present it as if it were fact or a mainstream theory. --RJFF (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And your position failed to sway consensus at the AfD, hence is not likely to sway consensus here. And it is WP:CONSENSUS which counts, not what any editor [[WP:KNOW}knows]] about a topic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

restore, OR, by definition, does not apply here as all the page is RS. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can't rescind Wikipedia's basic principles like WP:V and WP:NOR in one article. --RJFF (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, there is no consensus that this article in fact violates WP:V and WP:NOR. --Nug (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No consensus to remove reliably sourced text. --Nug (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statements themselves are reliably sourced. But their association with the concept of "right-wing socialism" isn't. The content is okay. It just doesn't belong in this article. In the section #Original research and POV, I have proposed to move the - indeed well-sourced - sections in articles where they belong. The problem is that subsuming different concepts under the title "right-wing socialism" is - mostly - original research. There is no source to verify that the ideas, concepts and positions of Metternich, Plenge, Sombart, Spengler, Maurras are "right-wing socialism". --RJFF (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

given socialism is still unable to be defined in WP, and right-wing suffers the same identity crisis, i suggest we allow as much material that can be RS and let the reader decide. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a disingenuous comment. Articles are about topics, in this case right-wing socialism, which is defined by De Soto. The fact that either word may mean different things does not mean that we can mix and match and form a glorious coatrack. De Soto writes "The theorist who has most brilliantly explained conservative or right-wing socialism is Hans-Hermann Hoppe. See A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, chap. 5." (p. 99, footnote 45). Hoppe wrote, "conservatism...is a form of socialism.... [It]is the anti-egalitarian, reactionary to the dynamic changes set in motion by a liberalized society: It is anti-liberal and, rather than recognizing the achievements of liberalism,tends to idealize and glorify the old system of feudalism as orderly and stable."[3] It seemms that the topic of the article is explaining why libertarians think that conservatives are socialists. TFD (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So even though De Soto cites Hans-Hermann Hoppe who has "brilliantly explained conservative or right-wing socialism", you still claim it is an invention of one single author. Then you make the OR claim "It seems that the topic of the article is explaining why libertarians think that conservatives are socialists." as if that somehow disqualifies it from inclusion from Wikipedia. --Nug (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove - I am here because of Rfc. There are many issues here that can (and are) being discussed. As this is more of a political issue than a legal issue, the odds are that everyone making a comment here on the topic itself will be too close to the topic to render a neutral opinion. As such, I will comment strictly on the request that was made. "Should the article have an edit made removing "original research"? - Under Original Research guidelines, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research." As this is a clear guideline and there is no evidence of it being something where you can "ignore all rules", the content should be removed. --Morning277 (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have not addressed the substance of the RFC. At issue is whether specific text in the article is original research, if it is it should be removed, if it isn't it should remain. As all the text is cited to reliable sources then it doesn't fit the definition of "original research". --Nug (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Substance was addressed. The Rfc is not whether the content is original. The question posed is if the article should have an edit reverting "original content" (inferred by the requester by using quotations that it is original content - their quotations, not mine). You are correct with stating that "as all the text is cited to reliable sources then it doesn't fit the definition of original research" is correct. If it is not original content and is well cited, then it should remain (if not, it should be removed). That issue can answer itself (a simple Google search can also find additional references for the term). Nothing else is posed regarding the issues that you reference in your comment. If you are familiar with Original Research (which I am sure that you are by your comments), then the questions you pose answer themselves and there should be no need for Rfc. --Morning277 (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please keep in mind that my Rfc has nothing to do with the article content. I am simply commenting on the question posed. There does seem to be information to support the topic HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE. (While these may not be the most reliable sources, they did come from a simple search of Google which tells me that those who care enough about this article can find and source additional information to support the content if they so choose).--Morning277 (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may have mis-interpreted this RFC, as it has everything to do with article content. The question was "Should the article have an edit made removing "original research"? [4]", with a link to the text in question. Therefore the question was whether that specific block of reliably sourced text should be removed as "original research", not some general "should text be removed if it is OR" for which the answer is so obvious that no RFC is necessary. --Nug (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your first hit quotes E.C. Riegel who defined rw socialists as those "are not known as socialists and call themselves capitalists, individualists, private enterprisers, etc. They even believe themselves to be anti-socialist and profess full faith in private enterprise." The third source quotes L. Neil Smith who finds it in "more prisons, harsher penalties, sterner judges, capital punishment" as advocated by Republicans in the United States. (The other two sources are just blogs.) I would be happy to include this content because it is consistent with the topic as defined in the lead. The material removed however had nothing to do with this topic, which is why it was removed. TFD (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So now you concede that "right-wing socialism" is more than an invention of one single author De Soto as User:RJFF misleadingly claims in his preferred version of the article, but in fact is supported by E.C. Riegel, L. Neil Smith and Hans-Hermann Hoppe . Thank you. --Nug (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. De Soto's wording makes it appear as if it is his own term, but further reading of his text shows that he is relying on an existing libertarian concept. TFD (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Frankly, there is no WP:Consensus to reduce this article to stab. This is especially inappropriate during standing RfC. Hence I restored the content. My very best wishes (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove - [from uninvolved editor, invited by RfC bot] - The term "right wing socialism" is very specific and somewhat rare, thus editors cannot use their own judgement to guess whether or not a source is discussing "right wing socialism". This article can only include material that is based on sources that explicitly use the term "right wing socialism", otherwise it is a violation of WP:Original research policy. I glanced at one source (footnote #20: Russia in the age of wars, 1914-1945 by Fetrinelli) and that source does not use the term "right wing socialism"; so that source cannot be used. Based on the tone of the article's prose, I suspect that most of the article's sources do not use that term. I recommend that the article be returned to a stub, and that editors who wish to add material first provide quotes from the sources (put the quotes here on the Talk page). Only then should the material be added to the article. See WP:BURDEN. --Noleander (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Source list - I picked another random source "A History of Modern Germany, 1800-2000" and it also does not use the term "right wing socialism". That is zero out of two sources; so all the text in this article is suspect. But Google Books does show many books using the term, such as:

• Socialism, Economic Calculation and Entrepreneurship
• The dynamic force of liberty in modern Europe
• Right-wing revisionism today
• Creative revolution: a study of community ergatocracy
• Marxian socialism in the United States
• Mobilizing on the Extreme Right: Germany, Italy, and the United States
• ... and many others ...

So, there are ample sources to use to create this article; but it looks like the editor that supplied most of the text used inappropriate sources. I suggest that the article be re-worked, based on the dozens of sources that do use the term. Also, if a source only uses the term in on place, say on page 44, only the surrounding text can be used for this article: an editor cannot jump to page 200 and grab random text for this article: the source must be explicitly discussing "right wing socialism". --Noleander (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and articles are about topics. We are not supposed to Google mine for examples where the words "right-wing" and "socialism" appear in conjunction and cobble together an article. The lead of the article defines the topic, it is right-wing" or conservative socialism as mentioned by De Soto who refers to E.C. Riegel who says about rw socialists that they "are not known as socialists and call themselves capitalists, individualists, private enterprisers, etc. They even believe themselves to be anti-socialist and profess full faith in private enterprise."[5] That is not the same thing as people who call themselves socialists but are really on the right of the movement or any other concept we choose to include.

Note that De Soto and Riegel are libertarians, and believe that conservatism is a form of socialism that redistributes wealth from the producing haves to the non-producing haves sometimes but not always sharing a fraction with the producing and non-producing have-nots. I do not think this concept is sufficiently established to warrant its own article, but the results of the AfD were inconclusive and we should therefore try to expand it using relevant sources. I would ask other editors, including those who vehemently argued for keeping the article to use sources related to the concept rather than adding back irrelevant material.

If anyone believes that this article should be about another topic, then please provide source that defines this alternative.

Here is my explanation for the removal of each section:

1. Conservative socialism Discusses Karl Marx's rebuke of other socialists - he was not calling conservatism a form of socialism.
2. Right-wing religious socialism Called socialist because it incorporated socialist ideas, not because it was conservative.
3. War socialism Term used by Ludendorff, who was right-wing. It is synthesis to call it rw socialism when Ludendorff did not.
4. Fascism Sources used do not call it rw socialism.
5. Right-wing socialism in France/Germany Sources used do not call it rw socialism.

Please do not restore these sections without resolving these issues.

TFD (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a reasonable idea to place all these materials in article Socialism, however it is already too long. In addition, placing the National Socialism in Socialism may cause objections. What I really object here is the unilateral removal of material without proper discussion and consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- blind reverting for an absurd "bold edit" removing well over 95% of the content of an article is silly -- and when you also remove new reliably sourced material, it does make it possible to assert that the removal is done not to improve the article, but to deliberately make it into a stub without any sources. Cheers - now can you stop the gaming? Collect (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. We need to include material relevant to the article and exclude irrelevant material, no matter how well-sourced. --TFD (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A blind revert removed Drake's work (Harvard University Press) and Bell's (Cornell University Press) both of which are absolutely reliable sources. Cheers - but when blindly reverting, it makes sense to read the material being blindly deleted. Collect (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support your revert of the removal [6]. The materiel seems well-sources, and not undue. I suggest a discussion here to gain consensus before removing such a large amount of the article again. Thanks JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did not blindly revert your edit (click here). Drake applied the term "right-wing socialism" to the right-wing of the socialist movement, i.e., social democracy and claims that Eduard Bernstein was a "major force". Daniel Bell also uses the words to describe social democracy and refers to August Bebel and Karl Kautsky. Basic reading comprehension shows that he is not talking about people who "are not known as socialists and call themselves capitalists, individualists, private enterprisers, etc. They even believe themselves to be anti-socialist and profess full faith in private enterprise." All these people called themselves socialists, were members of the Social Democratic Party and criticized capitalism. TFD (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In which case I would note your "kelpful edit summary" of Removing off-topic material - please do not restore without explaining relevance on talk page) was about as poor an edit summary as have ever graced any edit on Wikipedia. The material is sourced to incredibly reliable sources being Cornell and Harvard University presses, and the claims are fully supported by those sources. Cheers -- but this looks more and more like IDONTLIKEITTHEREFOREIWILLDELETEEVERYTHINGINSIGHT... Collect (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

TFD is right. In fact, different sources apply the term "right-wing socialism" to two very different concepts: the right wing (or revisionist wing) of the socialist movement (Bernstein, social democracy) on the one hand, and the libertarian concept to consider right-wingers (including, among others, traditional conservatives and fascists) that criticise some aspects of market economy and individualism and advocate some degree of collectivism and social harmony "right-wing socialists". While many sources can be found for the first concept, the second concept is a minority view, because traditional conservatives are usually considered conservatives and fascists are considered fascists and not socialists. Some authors associated with the Austrian school and the Mises Institute (most notably Ludwig von Mises himself), however, equal fascism with socialism (some examples: here, here and here). We must properly distinguish between the two concepts, even though both are referred to by the same term. We really should decide on what this article should be about (which of the two concepts) to avoid serious editing conflicts. --RJFF (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And his edit summary? Sorry -- the same applies as my answer here as above. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a strong rationale - try improving the article instead of deleting it, please. Collect (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to have the article describe the differences noted for the "two very different concepts" (with appropriate citations, of course), and then in two sections further expand on those two concepts? In other words, we have the information for one in the article now, yes? If so, rather than deleting it, add the 2nd type with introductory words to compare & contrast? JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:D provides guidelines "when [a single term] refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles." The other definition should be provided in the lead and/or a hatnote link at the top of the page. Social democracy is probably the most appropriate article. But we would not have a separate section on it. TFD (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support revision along the lines proposed by RJFF: restore this article to discussion of the actual subject matter: the theory held by some libertarians, that conservatism is socialism in a free-market disguise; and remove the other topics which are unrelated to that theory, unless by some kind of OR/synthesis conflating the moderate wing of the socialist movement with what libertarians actually mean by "right-wing socialism". Not to do so is to create confusion and nonsense. (On a more personal note, I find this whole article and the discussions here revelatory of a grudge-match between libertarians and their conservative allies, with the added spice of the old blood libel that fascism=socialism; but that's me.) --Orange Mike | Talk 23:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to not being smart enough to even notice the grudge-match. Perhaps I'm like Little Orphan Annie at the Prize Fight. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I largely agree with Orangemike here. I think the edit summary in this particular edit was not satisfactory, but The Four Deuces has a point. Indeed, each of their objections in the above section should be carefully examined, with material unrelated to the article removed.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100% with those querying the content and purpose of this page. A classic Wikipedia mess cobbled together with superficially impressive sourcing that technically allows it, in terms of its constituent parts, to avoid being outright WP:OR at a micro-level but nonetheless leaves it rather blatantly in breach of rules on both neutrality and synthesis of the cited sources. What the hell, for example, per this section, have Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky got to do with fascism or conservatism? As noted, the right/reformist wing of socialism is an entirely different thing from the thesis that many traditionally thought of as being on the right are actually socialists of some hitherto undiscovered sort. The page as currently written leads with that minority and contentious viewpoint - based on the work of one writer yet which it then presents as if it were a standard and mainstream description - and then drags in 101 things that might or might not be vaguely related to that concept. N-HH talk/edits 13:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That one does not like an article is of little import. Add RS material if you feel the article is unbalanced - that is the way Wikipedia operates. Removal of reliably sourced material because one "knows it is wrong" is not how Wikipedia works. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. The article synthesizes two conflicting definitions, as has been explained to you many times already. Adding more material will only turn a short incoherent article into a long incoherent article. TFD (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'm not sure how the previous comment relates to or responds to any of the points I made eg about synthesis, confused content and the overall presentation of the topic. N-HH talk/edits 14:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No -- I fear it is you who miss the point that once the article went through AfD and the discussions there and here did not agree with what you appear to WP:KNOW, that continuing to argue the same points over and over and over does not make your point any stronger. See WP:Collect's Law. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs only determine whether there are sufficient sources to justify an article. They do not provide a license to violate Wikipedia policies. TFD (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that editors who remove 95% of any article are not representative of "Wikipedia policies" in any case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To which policy are you referring? TFD (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect. The article, as currently constituted, has rather obvious problems (which in turn is nothing whatsoever to do with my claiming special "knowledge" that contradicts anything proven by any of the sources used here). Those problems have been laid out in some detail, yet the only response we get from you is a blanket "you're wrong. Because I know so". The majority of people commenting here agree there are problems. And we're only having to say the same thing "over and over" because it seems to be going totally over your head - denying the blindingly obvious over and over again does not make your rejection of it any stronger. A Wikipedia entry is not just a collection of randomly strung together sentences, paragraphs and themes, however well sourced each individual part might be. And yes, plenty of WP articles would be improved if 95% of their content disappeared.

You might also wish to re-read point 2 of your pithy little law - this article, as pointed out, is based around a description/thesis based primarily on a single source but presents that as if it were mainstream terminology. That's problem 1. Problem 2 comes, as also pointed out, when we add the random and unrelated other things being covered and linked - by editorial decision, not by the sources themselves - under this umbrella term. Now, what is your reasoned response to those specific criticisms? Or can anything be put into any WP article, however irrelevant to the topic and however badly it might misrepresent the source being cited or the balance of sources overall, so long as it has a footnote, which allows that content to then claim squatters' rights? N-HH talk/edits 16:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(od) In the case at hand, the material is reliably sourced. Thus WP:NPOV is what governs - not endless rehashing of the AfD arguments which did not prevail. It is not up to us to assert "truth" at all -- it is only up to us to make sure the claims made are supported by the reliable sources. WP:V, like it or not, remains clear. And I am sure plenty of articles should be deleted -- and that is why AfD exists. It is there you should argue as to existence - not here. The purpose of this page is to discuss improvements. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you miss the point and have everything back-to-front any more spectacularly? I have not denied most of the material, in its constituent parts, has sources (that's not the point - do you really not understand it?). Nor am I arguing for outright deletion of the article. Nor am I asserting what is the "truth". I am, however, seeking to improve this article from its current state and challenge its incoherence and random/confused content, as well as its lack of neutrality in so far as it represents one theory as being standard description. N-HH talk/edits 16:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable, but because other policies and guidelines also influence content, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion." TFD (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the basis for any such decision remains WP:CONSENSUS - and there is no consensus that the article should be reduced to two or three sentences. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of consensus, your poorly-worded RfC above has expired and there is no consensus for restoring the off-topic information. I will therefore remove it. If you want to improve the article, then please use relevant sources. TFD (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, one does not "remove" expired RfCs. Cheers. And please note the WP guidelines on redacting such from article talk pages. Collect (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say I would remove the expired RfC. TFD (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then what did Speaking of consensus, your poorly-worded RfC above has expired and there is no consensus for restoring the off-topic information. I will therefore remove it. mean? Collect (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, if you can't demonstrate that the material noting Bernstein and Kautsky is relevant to the topic as framed in the lead, other than by the confluence of the same adjective and noun, I will remove those specific additions (without prejudice to the contention that the content of the entry as a whole is a mish-mash of vaguely related themes, brought together under this title - which itself is the contentious and POV coinage of one writer - as a work of implicit WP:SYNTH). N-HH talk/edits 10:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of SYNTH failed at the AfD. It fails here as well -- and the onus is not on me to "prove" anything at all. Is the material a reliable source? Are the claims accurately presented? That is what editors may decide by WP:CONSENSUS. That you dislike a topic is no reason to dismember it <g>. I am sure there are hundreds of articles which you can cheerfully dismember. But removing proper claims properly sourced requires a consensus for removal - not the other way around. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the AfD was "no consensus".[7] I do not see any consensus for Collect's version of the article. TFD (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no "version" of the article. I would note, moreover, that massive removal of content requires WP:CONSENSUS which I siggest has not been shown up to now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that we have achieved a consensus. It would be helpful if you were to get on board, because articles are here to explain topics, not confuse readers. TFD (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alas - last I checked no such consensus backing your edit exists, and thus your post makes no sense to me. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, the claim of wp:synth was not "rejected" at the AFD, which, as noted, was merely closed with "no consensus" to delete the article. As to the Bernstein and Kautsky material that I (and others) have recently highlighted as especially problematic, you added it over TWO WEEKS after the AFD was closed, so it has no bearing on that particular content anyway. Now, as you have been told 1000 times, there is a rather obvious difference between the main theme of this article as presented - ie the libertarian claim that some usually classified as being on the right wing are actually closet socialists - and discussion of professed socialists who are on the revisionist right, relatively speaking, within the left-wing, however literally you take some of the descriptions you've dug up on Google. East London is in the western hemisphere, not the eastern; Karen Carpenter is not a carpenter etc etc. This is a matter of basic English and conceptual understanding, not an RS issue. You have failed to explain why those additions are relevant here and hence I shall now remove them. As also noted, the wider problems with the rest of this article remain, with you seeming to be the only one quite so complacent about them. N-HH talk/edits 08:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article is not about some variety of socialism as commonly understood, but instead is set up to focus on a pejorative propaganda term employed by some on the libertarian right to critique conservatives who are less favourable to capitalism, should it have this sidebar at all? It's like having the entry on Social fascism described as beng part of the WP series on fascism (interestingly, that page appears with the Communism sidebar, which is probably more appropriate, and also is far more explicit in describing the term for what it is rather than presenting it as accepted fact or mainstream theory - and also suggests that this page might be better filed under "Libertarianism" or "Conservatism")N-HH talk/edits 08:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should be the libertarianism sidebar. It is a slur against conservatism just as much as it is about socialism. TFD (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You make assertions which indicate that you "know" the "truth" -- as the topic is not specifically "pejorative" AFAICT, your assertions fail. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. Is it possible to discuss anything seriously yet with an open mind on a talk page with you? Or will you just shout "NO!", without further elaboration, at every reasoned and evidenced argument? The only unreasoned assertions about what is purportedly the "truth" are coming from your keyboard, not anyone else's; and that "truth" as you claim it to be seems to flatly contradict even the opening sentence of this page, which clearly attributes - and sources - the terminology to libertarian writers as a critique of other right-wingers (with other synthy content pummelled in subsequently, as noted). By contrast, if you do not accept that observation, where is your counter-evidence that the term "right-wing socialism", with the meaning set up in this article, is a common and/or academically accepted description of a certain sub-type of socialism? How do you square the application of the socialism sidebar here with our treatment of "Social fascism", which we take to be a derogatory term used by communists about other, more moderate socialists rather than a genuine category of fascism, and hence give it the communism sidebar rather than the fascism one? N-HH talk/edits 12:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you need are reliable sources making the claims you assert are the "truth" -- this is not my position, it is the requirement of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As a number of sources in the article clearly refer to socialists, the claim that they are somehow not socialists seems a claim which would require strong sourcing as a minimum. And the claim that "other stuff exisits" on Wikipedia is, of course, not a proper argument - I do not read every article on Wikipedia, nor does Wikipedia say anyone should do so. Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you had to agree with how we treat Social fascism and that that would prove the point about the sidebar on this page, by WP or any other standard, I just asked for your comment, you know, in the spirit of rational inquiry. Clearly you're not willing to offer that. Equally, the child-like demand that I "prooove" what I am saying about the use of this term is absurd. No one calls most conservatives, eg Bismark, "socialists". A couple of libertarians write politically driven critiques claiming that they are and then in order to satisfy you, other WP editors have to run around presentng sources that specifically say "Bismark [et al] was not a socialist", or was "not commonly thought of as a socialist"; or you claim one or two political tracts trump everyone, scholars included, and can rewrite the entire landscape of standard political terminology. Saying sources matter - which they do - doesn't mean that editors can fling any old shit at a page as long as it has a vaguely respectable-looking source and demand it sticks, along with 101 other superficially related random soundbites, until everyone else is forced to find specifically contradictory sources, and/or finally get through to you how tenuous and coincidental the connections are. That's what WP:FRINGE, WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE are there for. Meanwhile, you refuse to answer my request to you for sources demonstrating that "the term "right-wing socialism", with the meaning set up in this article, is a common and/or academically accepted description of a certain sub-type of socialism". N-HH talk/edits 13:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Rational inquiry"? Huh? What I said is simple - Wikipedia has policies and guidelines. We follow them. We use reliable sources for any claims. Period. And since quite evidently the sources use the term "right-wing socialism" it is quite absurd for anyone to ask me to demonstrate that the sources use that term. And casting aspersions on some vague "couple of libertarians" is not actually an argument aimed at improving any article. All I see here is IDONTLIKEIT and POLICIESSCHMOLICIES etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, as noted - and apparently ignored - there is more to using reliable sources than that, both in WP policy and common sense. I'm not asking you to demonstrate that sources uses the term. We know that they do and I have never denied that they do. What I and others are asking, if you could pause for two seconds to understand the point, is how many sources use it, and what they mean by it in each case. If it's minority or polemical usage, and/or people mean different things when they use it, we can't just randomly lump all these disparate ideas together and imply they're related and that this is standard, neutral terminology. And no, I don't like it when I see that happening, you're quite right. The other problem here is that every criticism you level at others is far, far better directed at your actions and comments. N-HH talk/edits 13:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is - it is not up to us to "know" what a source "means." It is up to us to use what a source states in black and white - without inferring more than what the source actually says. As for your implicit personal attack -- saying it is wrong to actually follow Wikipedia policies is inane. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It is not up to us to employ any judgment whatsover, simply than to blindly follow the literal meaning of the words we see in front of us. Karen Carpenter is a carpenter and I will insist on the right to add details about her and her brother to the carpentry page until someone else provides a reliable source that she is not. The "Football" page should be a random, totally mixed-up jumble of names and observations about the American, Association and Aussie Rules games that treats them as if they were all the same thing, so long as the sources cited refer simply to "football". And where did I ever say it is "wrong to actually follow Wikipedia policies". Only the inane could fail to spot I am actually arguing we should be following policies and guidelines - including those I mentioned relating to due weight, fringe views, neutrality and synthesis of sourced material - and that your position lies in contradiction to them, even if you haven't quite worked that out yet. Even the main WP:RS page you keep citing as if it supports you says, inter alia, the following:

• "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made"
• "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process"
• "individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources"

Anyway, I'm done discussing this with you. Talk page sections like this are one of the reasons why this place is such a waste of time and why much of the main article content is so unremittingly awful. N-HH talk/edits 07:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, going by the lead, the term is a pejorative term for things which go by other non-pejorative names. In that case, the article should be either renamed, or (if such would result in duplication) be deleted. On the grounds of both a neutral title, and wp:not a dictionary. North8000 (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no real argument that it should be under libertarianism other a claim that libertarians sometimes use the word as a pejorative. By that standard, "liberalism" should be categorized under conservatism.  :-) North8000 (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Social fascism is under communism because the phrase was used by communists. Under that theory, Right-wing socialism could be under libertarianism. I don't think anyone will think it is a form of libertarianism, given the content. If there is any possible confusion, that can be fixed in the text. (Of course, after a quick skim I wonder if there may be a lot of WP:Original research to fit the content into the theory, even if sources don't use the phrase, so that might be a relevant issue.)

Also, I think that most of the see alsos at Socialism_for_the_rich_and_capitalism_for_the_poor#See_also could be used here.

By the way, which category would you put that phrase into? Might help you decide on this one. CarolMooreDC 02:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should just lose the sidebar altogether. The Socialism one is definitely wrong for the bulk of the material here, which does not refer to socialism or socialism as commonly understood; but I accept the Libertarianism one might be confusing and not quite right either (plus, as currently drafted, the page does range more widely than simply the libertarian argument about conservatives; which of course is part of the problem with it - it leads off with that definition but then wanders off in 101 tangents to things that may or may not be substantively related). N-HH talk/edits 07:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Get rid of it. [[Socialism_for_the_rich_and_capitalism_for_the_poor which is a similar article also does not have one. CarolMooreDC 13:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an even discussion so far - get WP:CONSENSUS for the removal please - that is how Wikipedia functions in cases such as this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have TFD, Carolmooredc and me all in favour of taking it out. North8000 said it should not be replaced with the libertarian sidebar, as was at one point suggested (but which has not been attempted), but said nothing in favour of keeping it and did express broader concerns about the title and content. You are on your own in wanting the Socialism sidebar here among the opinions expressed so far. On what fucking planet is that "even"? Meanwhile, you have also knee-jerk reverted every other recent change people have made, whether an addition of content or removal of it, while again, usually, being as much as 5 against 1 on every single issue. If you want to fling policy around see WP:OWN. N-HH talk/edits 15:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:AGF unless you really think the edit removing more than 95% of the article was reasonable <g>. In case you wish to note it: R-41 has seven times the number of edits on the article as I. Now can youalso read WP:NPA as well? Collect (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware they wrote much of the page. Most articles have a few active editors who write most of the content - that is not what WP:OWN addresses. As it happens, FWIW, I have never commented specifically on the gutting of the page as the solution to the manifest (to everyone except you) problems with much of the content. However, neither of those are the points at issue here - which is that there appears, by your rules, to be no requirement on you to "get consensus" for the inclusion of your random off-topic material on Bernstein & Kautsky (5-6 people are opposed to it, none in favour, on the talk page) before you initially introduce it and then also revert it back in over and over again; yet when I come here to seek consensus on the sidebar before doing anything, get it bar your apparent veto, and then act on that by removing it, you are apparently entitled to put that back in too, and also remove legitimate tags, while bleating about "consensus". The attitude and behaviour on display here beggars belief - which is no more an unwarranted personal attack than my criticism of your arithmetic skills or your ownership bid here. N-HH talk/edits 15:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would everyone please bear in mind that I being the one who created this article, upon review recognize that it is an idiotic article. Please understand: I recognize that this is perhaps the most stupid article that I have ever made, because it has no coherent topic. However there are topics within it, I suggested below this section to split this article into different articles. I suggested below this section to split this article into different articles.

• Merge the material on Klemens von Metternich's "conservative socialism" into the article on Metternich
• Merge the material on Charles Maurras' views into the article on Maurrassisme and/or National syndicalism
• Merge the material on "war socialism" - a term coined by German high command official Erich Ludendorff, into an article titled War socialism
• Merge the material on Johann Plenge's views into the article on Plenge
• Merge the material on Werner Sombart's views into the article on Sombart
• The info on Spengler already has its own article on his book Preussentum und Sozialismus - so no new article needs to be made for that.

After transferring relevent material here to those articles, then delete this article.--R-41 (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent proposal. I couldn't agree more. Please remember that I proposed a similar approach several months ago. Please go ahead. --RJFF (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I founded this article on the basis that it addressed an important issue. However upon review of users criticisms here, I think that the criticism that it doesn't have a coherent topic is valid. I will support breaking up this article, moving material to other articles that exist on this material, and creating new articles for material such as on self-declared conservative socialists like Metternich. Perhaps it could be briefly mentioned in the Socialism article that while mainstream socialism is left-wing, that there have been right-wing individuals and groups that have claimed to be advocating socialism.--R-41 (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to do anything about this? In the meantime, an incoherent article that even you as creator admit is "idiotic" is sitting here as part of the WP record .. N-HH talk/edits 08:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to any individual editor to delete an article -- the AfD process is well-established, and this article was kept on 12 April, only a few months ago. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that discussion closed as "no consensus", as many poorly debated and attended AFD discussions often do, not as "absolutely must be kept by unanimous decree". Nor are myself or R-41 talking about simply unilaterally deleting the article (they for one were talking about simply moving much of the content to more appropriate places). However, since that AFD was nearly six months ago and given the two months that have now passed since the above admission, it is clearly time for a renomination, which I shall put together when I get time, if someone else doesn't beat me to it. N-HH talk/edits 12:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about moving the content to the respective articles before starting a new AfD? Without new arguments it will not be successful. --RJFF (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The best approach would be to userify it to R-41's namespace, so that he can decide where to put it. The article has already been re-nominated for deletion. I don't know if additional arguments would be helpful. TFD (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That could be one outcome of course of the new AFD discussion. As for the prospects for that AFD, I fear RJFF you underestimate the utterly random and capricious nature of the AFD process when it comes to outcomes. Yes they're meant to be about policy and rule-based arguments, but everyone knows the results are ultimately down to the "votes". They totally depend on who turns up to comment and how bold the deciding admin then is in over-riding the sillier "Keep" ones and whether they'll take a certain number of "Keeps" as offering them the cop-out of "no consensus". N-HH talk/edits 20:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For example, one editor created an article called Richard Tylman which had no reliable sources and was only deleted on the fourth application.[8] Oddly, the creator of the article has created a new article about someone with the same name. TFD (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, another WP discussion ends as "no consensus" by veto. Three people think, often without any stated justification, that a page or title has merit and there you are. It stays and WP invents a whole new concept and takes it to the top of the Google rankings. Anyway, something like the following probably needs to be done now ..

• Rewrite the lead, and the wider content, so it is clear that this page is about a term and its disparate uses, not a topic as defined by one such use
• Gut this article of any content that is not specifically referred to in the cited sources as being "right-wing socialism"
• Where the term has genuinely been applied, attribute it and if necessary note as polemical use, eg "de Soto accuses ..."

My brief review of sources for the AFD suggests not much will remain (and my hunch tells me that User:Collect will edit war it back in).

The other thing that could of course be done is to create a mirror article on "Left-wing conservatism", lumping together everyone and thing that can even plausibly be described under a combination of the terms, including: polemical criticism by radical socialists of what they see as overly moderate and cautious left-wingers; polemical criticism by the 1960s New Left and 1990s centrist socialists of what they saw as outdated, unreconsructed old-style left-wing socialism; figures and tendencies such as Ken Clarke and Tory wets in the UK and Red Toryism in Canada; National Bolsheviks and more mainstream CCCP nostalgists, including the Communist Party of the Russian Federation in Russia etc etc. The old trick of searching in Google Books for the term in question suggests to me we could pull together a synthy and incoherent essay-style article including all those things that can nonetheless be staunchly defended at AFD. Not sure it would prove anything other than the pointlessness of this article, but it seems that this needs proving. N-HH talk/edits 15:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we use Jesús Huerta de Soto's concept that the mainstream right, including the Republican Party, are in fact socialists. TFD (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's where it is now - but it seems to me that's a specific, polemical and minority use, which explains more about the right-wing libertarian view of the world than it does about his intended targets. My assumption, which has only been reinforced by a basic bit of online digging around since coming to this article, has been that the most common use of the combination of terms, such as it is, is to refer to moderate socialism. I'd suggest something like:

• "Right-wing socialism is a term applied to a variety of topics, most commonly to the moderate or right-wing of the socialist movement, usually referred to today as social democracy. However, it has also been applied with different meanings in a number of other contexts .. etc etc"

Obviously that's all made up, because there's no source that defines this topic coherently, and we're trying to define a term and its various uses, dictionary style, but it seems reasonable as a summary, which is what a lead is meant to be. N-HH talk/edits 17:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - we do not use "that is not my view of the world" as a reason for decapitating any article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well this article as it is has been made up precisely on the basis of a couple of random people's view of the world and this phrase. Anyway, I'm not suggesting that we do rely simply on my view either - it was a proposal, inviting reasoned discussion, as to how to frame the page as a whole; as well as a prior, unremarkable, suggestion that we need to remove any material based on sources that do not refer to "Right-wing socialism". Since your comment adds nothing by way of reasoned discusion, but simply the usual "No!", and does not offer any additional justification for including material not supported by sources, I don't see what weight we should give your intervention. N-HH talk/edits 17:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - it is how AfD works. When an article is not deleted, it is considered "poor form" to remove its contents whn one sought deletion. Otherwise we would end up with "deletion by edit" as being the common result in such cases. As such is non-collegial, it is not a recommended process. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When an AFD closes, we are back to normal editing. That very much includes removing content that is not appropriate or incorrect, as well, possibly, as an extensive rewrite. A AFD closed as "No consensus to delete entire article" neither means nor mandates "keep article exactly as it is, in its entirety". I have not said I want to delete the entire page, piece by piece. I have said I want to remove content that is not sourced to the term or topic. Are you saying such content should stay? N-HH talk/edits 18:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you earnestly follow the advice in WP:CONSENSUS and discuss each section prior to taking shears to the article. I recall one case where the "loser" at AfD removed well over 95% of the entire article <g> which, I suggest, is unwise and contrary to the Wikipedia policy on consensus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And establishing consensus - which btw does not confer veto rights - is exactly what I was trying to do before you started coming over all Ian Paisley. N-HH talk/edits 18:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I am more Lowell Weicker than Ian Paisley, I am not complimented by your inapt suggestion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy is WP:DISAMBIG. I see only two cases where sources actually use the term "left-wing socialism" and since we already have an article on social democracy, I suggest we write about the libertarian concept and provide a link for social democracy. I suggest we begin by removed all material says nothing about right-wing socialism in the sources used. TFD (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, I'm slightly concerned that this would give the impression that this is the main use and meaning of the phrase, which I'm not sure it is. It's merely one among several fringey/polemical uses of the term, all of which are probably overshadowed in mainstream usage by it as describing the "right wing" of what is generally accepted as socialism proper. Of course the fact that we already have an article on mainstream/moderate/reformist socialism at social democracy is one of the main arguments in favour of deleting the entire page, but we're stuck on that score now. As long as it had a hatnote directing people to the social democracy page that might be OK I guess. N-HH talk/edits 08:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ps: sorry, I think I've got the point now that if we start by removing the unsupported stuff, we can see what we're left with. That seems to be the right thing to do in itelf, and also a sensible procedural step as it were that will help direct the focus of the page. N-HH talk/edits 09:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rothbard

I'm trying to set aside some time to go through the sources in a bit more detail - I did it for the AFD but didn't keep written records of the trail. Anyway, another quick look has brought up this problem - the Rothbard piece used in the lead and body follows the broad libertarian point of saying that socialism, paternalist/traditional conservatism and fascism are all cut from a similarly collectivist and statist cloth, which ties it in with the de Soto stuff and offers the chance of some coherence. However, when he uses the actual term "right-wing socialism" is he is referring to moderate "real" socialism, such as the revisionist wing of the SPD in Germany, Fabians in the UK etc. He nowhere says Bismarckism, for example, is "right-wing socialism" (nor, as far as I can tell, does AJP Taylor, who is cited in support of that claim in the body). N-HH talk/edits 10:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article, I admit it is terrible, it has no coherent single topic. I already said how to resolve this, split the material into different articles. Stupidly, we are still reaching "no consensus", I mean Jesus Christ man! I've heard enough criticism about what I wrote, I get it people - it is a crappy article, now please just delete the goddamn thing already, and stop complaining on my talk page about it! Let me make this absolutely clear: I, the original author of much of the content on this article, recognize that this article was a terrible mistake, it has no coherent topic, delete the article - I hate it and I understand why others hate it. But I do insist that the material in the article on specific topics in this article be moved to articles on those specific topics. I could start the next deletion request if I have the time to organize it, I am working in the real world for long hours, and don't have much time to deal with this stuff, if I don't I permit another user to just quote what I have said here to use in another deletion request.--R-41 (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It went to AFD again, but closed again as no consensus because a couple of people turned up to say they still liked it. Anyway, per the above thread, we're trying to at least work on reformulating it so the the worst of the problems can be sorted out. N-HH talk/edits 08:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]