Talk:Far-right politics

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Far-right politics article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13: 180 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Europe Mid‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Human rights Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American / Political parties Top‑importance

	Politics portal 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance).

Terrorism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects 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.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q: Why is the Nazi Party labeled a far-right party? They called themselves socialists, so should they be left-wing?

A: Almost all historical and present-day academic literature places the Nazi Party on the far-right of the traditional left-right spectrum, which in turn is the most common short-form classification used in political science; however, labor parties are typically on the left in party affiliation. The Nazis themselves attacked both left-wing and traditional right-wing politicians and movements in Germany as being traitors to Germany. While the Nazi regime's economic policies are very different from those of present-day right-wing parties that adhere to classical liberal or neoliberal positions (which advocate, e.g., a highly deregulated, privatized economic environment), Nazi economic policy was typical of the early to mid twentieth century far-right, and indeed most political currents of the time, in that it embraced interventionist economics. The Nazi Party absorbed the far-right reactionary monarchist and nationalist German National People's Party into its membership in 1933. The Nazi Party also held good relations with openly right-wing political movements in Europe, such as the Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right, whose leader Gil-Robles was a guest at the 1933 Nazi Party Nuremberg rally and sought to model his movement upon the Nazi Party.

Q: If socialism is mainly left-wing and they called themselves socialists in their name, why is this being ignored?

A: Historically several right-wing figures used the term "socialism" to mean something very different from what would be understood by traditional left-wing socialism, referring simply to the broader concept of collectivism and anti-individualism. For instance, "conservative socialism" was promoted by Austrian political figure Metternich. The prominent French reactionary monarchist Charles Maurras famously said "a socialism liberated from the democratic and cosmopolitan element fits nationalism well as a well made glove fits a beautiful hand". Maurras's views influenced fascism. Oswald Spengler's ideal of "Prussian Socialism" directly influenced Nazism, and Spengler promoted it as a member of the far-right Conservative Revolutionary movement. However, many socialists have a dim view of what they see as cooptation of socialism by otherwise right-wing movements. For example, Nikita Khrushchev sardonically remarked, "In modern times the word Socialism has become very fashionable, and it has also been used very loosely. Even Hitler used to babble about Socialism, and he worked the word into the name of his National Socialist party. The whole world knows what sort of Socialism Hitler had in mind."

Q: The article on far-left politics says X, Y, and Z. Why doesn't this article say the same to make them equal?

A: This is what we call false balance: our articles are meant to reflect the sources, not each other. Two ends of the political spectrum aren't necessarily equal, equatable, or comparable, and so the articles aren't obliged to have parity. Instead, anything written in either article should be determined by what reliable sources say, regardless of how the ideological opposite is presented.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Far-right politics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Far-right politics at the Reference desk.

Hard-right? PT. 2

Should there be a delineation between "hard-right" politics and "far-right" politics, or should we treat them as the same? I notice, for instance, that The New York Times conspicuously eschews the label "far-right" when discussing people like Matt Gaetz, but does not do so when referring to a presidential candidate in Argentina. I imagine other editors of this page are far more informed than I am on these two terms and their idiosyncrasies, but I figured I'd ask about it. Delukiel (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Hard right" is one of those sources that can mean different things by publication; in my experience it's not usually synonymous with the far-right, and sits between it and just old regular "right-wing". That said, it's nebulous at best. It's likely that the NYT doesn't consider Matt Gaetz far-right (or is more careful about using that to describe American politicians). In short, I don't think it should be treated as the same. — Czello ^(music) 17:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~The extreme right is the same as the hard-right because there are references that indicate it, there is no bibliographic support that says otherwise. AmigodeMassa (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)~~ [reply]

As above, it's not ubiquitous in sourcing. — Czello ^(music) 13:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For example, in this reference from the week^[1], it is indicated that both Cambio and Vox belong to the hard-right, while Javier Milei belongs to the far-right, therefore they are synonyms since I imagine that all people believe that Vox is even more right-wing than Javier Milei, however the hard-right classification is used. With this I want to affirm that they are exactly the same AmigodeMassa (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]

That's WP:OR — Czello ^(music) 13:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~First we have to understand that hard-right is the same as extreme right, something that all the dictionaries in the world say. I attach examples:~~

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hard-right

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/es/diccionario/ingles-espanol/the-hard-right

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/hard+right

https://educalingo.com/en/dic-en/hard-right

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hard%20right Monito rapido (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Monito rapido, I thought I'd find you here.

I see you've reproduced here some content that you posted during our discussion over your assertion that the Traditional Unionist Voice party was a "far-right" party, viz. TUV Political Position.

Your statement "First we have to understand that hard-right is the same as extreme right " seems to me to fall into the category of what the Wikipedia Manual of Style calls "Instructional and Presumptious language" [1] .

For what it's worth, my own undertanding of the recent increase in the use of the term "hard right" by journalists is that they are substituting it for the term "far right", not because they want to but because their readers are questioning the use of such a term.

My own point of reference when it comes to European political parties and their political nature is the following website: Wolfram Nordsiek, comparative study of party systems in Europe. Here is their own description of what their website is about: "Parties and Elections in Europe provides a comprehensive database about political parties, elections and governments in all European countries. The website contains the results of parliamentary elections from more than 100 countries and autonomous regions in Europe. The parties are classified according to their political orientation. Historical data can be found in the archive.The private website was established by Wolfram Nordsieck in 1997. The editor began his comparative study of party systems, parliamentary elections and constitutional laws in the late 1980s. Thereafter he studied law and history at the Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf. Today he practices law."

They include such categories as "Far-right politics" , "Right-wing populism", "Nationalism" and "Social Conservatism". BrownBowler (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~what is your point? Monito rapido (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Monito rapido, I'm not trying to make a point, I'm just trying to do my best to elucidate a subject and to provide more information for discussion. At the same time, I added an opinion in case anyone was interested in what I had to say. That's what Wikipedia is about. I was criticising your style of discussion, that's true. BrownBowler (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~All of them are the same:~~

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/ultra-right

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/far-right Monito rapido (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Dictionaries as sources. Doug Weller talk 18:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to use those references for anything, I'm only using those references for saying that the far-right, hard-right, extreme-right and ultra-right are the same and have the same meaning. Monito rapido (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [reply]

The problem is that the various terms are used inconsistently in reliable sources. News articles, whose writers are not experts, often chose their descriptions for brevity or unconscious bias. Authoritarians we like are hard right, while those we don't are far right. TFD (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~You are stating that it is the same. the term must be added equally, or as a synonym, or as a faction of the far right Monito rapido (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)~~ [reply]

No I am not. I am saying that the terms are used inconsistently. Someone could call Hitler and Rand Paul far right. Or they could call HItler far right and Paul hard right. Or they could call HItler extreme right and Paul far right. So they are using these terms differently. They may for example distinguish HItler and Paul or they may group them together. They are both to the right of mainstream politics but far apart within that range. TFD (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Monito rapido has been blocked by admin for sockpuppetry. Here is the comment from the admin clerk "Registered shortly after CulturalHuya and AmigodeMassa were blocked, exhibits precisely the same type of editing, with focus on far-right politics. Like master, seems to use Spanish language. Technical competence from first edit, continued to edit the same articles as master and socks.". No doubt to return very soon. BrownBowler (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I struck through edits of both of the socks. Doug Weller talk 12:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Marsden, Harriet (2023-08-16). "Javier Milei: the 'tantric sex instructor' Trump fan who could be president". theweek. Retrieved 2023-09-28.

"The Far Right Is Growing Stronger—and Has a Plan for 2024"

Title of this article[2]. Note that it says the Overton window has shifted:" Although the alt right collapsed, its goal of shifting the “Overton window”—the spectrum of what is considered legitimate political discourse—succeeded. Today, white supremacist, anti-LGBTQ+, and even antisemitic conspiracy theories have become so prevalent that what was taboo even in 2018 is accepted by many as not only normal but acceptable." Doug Weller talk 15:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The alt-right article points out how even though Charlottesville caused the alt-right to shatter, it had a ripple effect of radicalizing alt-righters into terrorism (Atomwaffen experienced great growth post-Cville). And now Republicans sort of occupy the position alt-right did a few years ago: White Genocide rhetoric is mainstream in GOP, etc.^[1]^[2]RKT7789 (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus on the reliability of the Daily Beast and no reason why the opinion of the journalist who wrote the story has any significance. Notice he says that the mainstream has ignored the growing strength of extremism, which suggests he is presenting a minority view.

I am not saying he is wrong, but I would need a better source to determine that. TFD (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The volume, for lack of a better term, of Far-right rhetoric from the GOP in the mainstream has changed over the years, particularly since Trump's election, and has been been increasingly discussed by academics and scholars since the J6 attack. Finding sources that show some consensus on the subject of the extent to which the far-right is shaping or controlling the GOP platform in the mainstream would be most helpful. Currently we have separate sources that seemingly coalesce, but the GOP's mainstream platform hasn't changed since 2016. DN (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of neutrality

This article to does not view far right politics the same way as it does view far-left politics. While the one on the left does mention authoritarianism, as for the right it says it was inheritly authoritarian, which is not the case. This may not belong in the article, but right-libertarians often lean further to the right, see their view when it comes to freedom of speech (as we can see they, they even wish to have the swastika to be covered by the constiution). Keep in mind this is my personal experience, not a decided fact, I however do wish a bit more neutrality to be actually apolitical. MrLW97 (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not that thrilled with right-libertarianism, but it is a modern extension of anti-statism as an ideology and laissez-faire as an economic principle. Where do you see similarities with the ultranationalism of the far-right, its "hatred of foreigners", its pursuit of "territorial expansion", and its support for political violence to achieve its goals? When was the last time you heard of a libertarian "carrying out acts of violence and hate crimes against immigrants" ... and "ethnic minorities" like some of the European ultranationalist parties? Dimadick (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between far right and far left is that while far right refers to a specific group of ideologies, far left is a vague term that merely means whatever part to his or her left the speaker finds unacceptable. The ideologies that are part of the far right are in fact authoritarian, while some on the far left, such as anarchism or the Biden administration, are not. TFD (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces Biden administration? That’s a joke, right? Doug Weller talk 22:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think TFD is indicating that some people (elements of the GOP, for example) call the Biden administration far-left. TFD's point is that the term "far-left" can mean whatever it needs to depending on who is saying it.

(I disagree, but that's a discussion we've had elsewhere and I don't want to enter WP:FORUM territory) — Czello ^(music) 22:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call Biden far left, but my point is that someone on the extreme right might because they place people on the spectrum differently. They see themselves as being in the center so Biden must be on the far left. Reliable sources however have described Biden as being on the left, which could place AOC and Sanders on the far left. OTOH, far left could refer to groups to the left of Communist parties. it's a relative term that can mean different things depending on context.

The reason for this is that we don't have other terms to describe their ideologies. There is no other term that groups the KKK and the Nazi Party for example, while other parties typically self-identify with an ideology that is shared across national boundaries. TFD (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be true that "far left" is used by those of a right-leaning persuasion to refer to anyone significantly to the left of their ideology. But to suggest that "far right" is not used in the same way by those of a left-leaning political outlook is utterly false. The "far right" tag is often applied by those on the political left to refer to views which only a few years ago were generally considered to be just slightly to the right or even fairly central. Don't fall into the trap of believing that the "far" tag is not applied in a similar way by both sides of the political spectrum. 70.178.140.205 (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly people misuse terms. But can you find a better term to describe political ideologies and movements that are to the right of mainstream right-wing parties such as conservatives, Christian democrats and liberals? TFD (talk) 05:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines for "Far Right" in Lede

Please help steer conversation onTalk/Joe Kent and how to determine standards for "is far right" and putting "far right" in the lede, particularly because of Nazi imagery on this page and it's syndication to Bing , Google & AI chatbots.

We have plenty of sources placing him "America First", "MAGA", "Republican" and naturally many who like "far right" because of this page.

totalitarianism authoritarian is far left

Far right, (on left you have extreme totalitarianism authoritarianism to the far right of total self autonomy). Nazi or national socialism Is still far left even if some consider nationalism on the right. Nationalism of no extreme is moderate. Far right exceeds any need of nationalism as it is full anarchy for self autonomy (full freedom as long as it is not i fringing on others). What infringements occur it goes full left as that is authoritarianism. 2603:7080:2C01:EA7:F031:C781:F39F:4910 (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the #FAQ at the top of this page; this is a definition of far-right/left that isn't recognised by historians and politican scientists. — Czello ^(music) 15:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess

Not sure how I landed here, but this article is a staggering mess. The sourcing relies far too heavily on primary sources, most of which do not have secondary sourcing to establish due weight. This has lead to a great deal of original research and synthesis to be infused into the article. I went through and tried to verify a bunch of the content, and in many cases the cited sources do not support the text attached to the cite. Just a mess. TheMissingMuse (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example or two? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Example passage:

In United States politics, the terms "extreme right", "far-right", and "ultra-right" are labels used to describe "militant forms of insurgent revolutionary right ideology and separatist ethnocentric nationalism"

The cited source appears to be a self published webpage hosted on http://www.publiceye.org. This primary source only mentions far-right only once in passing:

Ultra Right (Sometimes called Far Right or Extreme Right)

TheMissingMuse (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do think we should seek out a stronger source for the broad definition/overview statement. In the meantime, I've at least attributed the quoted material to its publisher. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "attributing quoted material to it's publisher". The sentence isn't supported by the citation. TheMissingMuse (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is. The source establishes "far right" as synonymous with those other terms (as is common) and then provides a definition. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the self published source states that Ultra Right is sometimes called Far Right. That's a very different claim than saying it's synonymous. The source doesn't support the text, and the source shouldn't be used in the first place without secondary sourcing establishing due weight of the source. TheMissingMuse (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source, which is secondary, is saying that the terms are used synonymously, and it provides a definition for their shared synonymous meaning. Certainly, all the terms can be used differently, but it provides one common usage that aligns with the topic of this page. I agree that there are likely stronger sources, but it's not problematic enough to remove. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not a secondary source. It's the source that made the claim. And no, you're engaging in synthesis when you say that "sometimes used" is the same things as "synonymous". Like I said, the article is a mess, and it's full of this kind of bad sourcing, OR and synthesis. You might approve of this misuse of sourcing, but that doesn't change the fact that the sourcing is bad. TheMissingMuse (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In some sense, providing a definition is "making a claim", but such an odd view invalidates the primary/secondary/tertiary distinction. I'd prefer to use a more common sense understanding. I'm very happy to see the sourcing improved, but it appears your understanding of the sourcing flaws is itself quite flawed. See below for more examples. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a very solid understanding of sourcing. Your implication that a public eye web page is a reliable secondary source not incorrect. From WP:SECONDARY: A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. The webpage cites no primary sources, and presents specific claims in it's own voice. It is neither WP:SCHOLARLY nor from a news organization. It is WP:QUESTIONABLE source from an organization with a clear WP:BIAS, and cannot be used to establish WP:DUE weight. TheMissingMuse (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another example:

The skinhead culture gained momentum during the late 1980s and peaked during the late 1990s. Numerous hate crimes were committed against refugees, including a number of racially motivated murders.

is supported by two cites:

Neither of these citations are strong enough to support content without secondary sourcing supporting the citation, and inclusion here is undue. TheMissingMuse (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- The Helsingin sanomat is Finnish, which makes sense, and I've updated the citation url (and archive). The Ravndal paper link is to a free version of his peer-reviewd article published in Terrorism and Political Violence. Will update the citation info later, as I'm stepping away for a bit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a forum for your perceptions of Wikipedia

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article is extremely biased like most political articles on Wikipedia. Clearly a lot more opinion here than fact, but Wikipedia has become extremely left wing and unreliable. Until someone comes along in authority to set down some neutral ground rules it will continue to be that way unfortunately.Bjoh249 (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur that there is some significant left-wing bias on Wikipedia, due in large part to the nature of who is most likely to edit Wikipedia. However, this article, out of all article on a politically contentious topic, does an excellent job in keeping away from significant bias, I would argue, and is largely factual, though not without error. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding The Image At The Top Of The Page

About a year ago, there was a weak consensus that the image at the top of the page should be of the American "Unite the Right" rally, rather than the picture of the Austrian Identitarian protest that has also often been on the page, and was on the page for a long time prior. This was largely because of how the "Unite the Right" rally was more recognizable and relevant. However, given the significant recent rise of the European far-right, the original has frequently (accidentally against consensus) been restored, likely because the original Identitarian protest is now a better representation of the "far-right" globally, one which is now significantly more relevant, recognizable, and representative than the "Unite the Right" rally. I, personally, would agree with this stance, and I am writing here to ask whether other Wikipedia writers, on the whole, agree:

Should the original image of Austrian Identitarians be restored, or should the Unite the Right rally image remain? JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody has any objection over the next few days, I will switch the image back. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any issue with a European image, but we don't need to change images to match current trends in far-right politics. Two reasons given in the last discussion for preferring the status quo are that it represents an event that got a lot of international media coverage and that it includes recognizable symbols of the far right. If an image from another country can be found that has those characteristics, I think many of us would be happy to consider it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my reason exactly - I think that the Identitarian protest is probably more recognizable at a global level, while outside of the US, the Unite The Right Rally might not be very recognizable, compared with the "rise of the European far-right" being plastered over every newspaper everywhere for such a long time as of late.

Something like an AfD rally might be both more recognizable and more significant, though there will inevitably be some people who might change it back saying "thEy'Re nOt tHaT FaR-RiGHt." JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to reopen this settled matter. The reason why the current image is obviously substantially better is that it shows two of the most relevant flags/emblems of both European and American far-right politics: The swastika and the Confederate battle flag respectively, both of which are recognised internationally and have both historic and contemporary significance. It isn't about the Unite The Right rally specifically. It illustrates the far-right as a whole. An AfD rally would not be as good as a lead picture because German law prevents them from using the most recognisable symbols that they would like to use. Of course, if there is a good picture of an AfD (or similar) rally then we can add it to the Germany section. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've added the best picture I could find. It's good because it shows two of the specific things that the German far-right is into at the moment: complaining about Muslims and moaning about "censorship". --DanielRigal (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

neutral point of view seems bias

From Wiki: "Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information." However under Far-Right the photo is of hate groups like Nazi's. The far-left photo is a nice peaceful congress looking photo. These two do seem "Neutral" and not agenda driven at all(sarcasm intended!). 69.195.29.42 (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word you want is "biased." Hate groups are most prominent on the Right. Do you have any suggestions for images of scary leftists? They are a lot harder to find these days than images of Nazis. We are not obligated to create false symmetry by assuming that each component of society or politics has an equal and opposite mirror. Acroterion (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Marsden, Harriet (2023-08-16). "Javier Milei: the 'tantric sex instructor' Trump fan who could be president". theweek. Retrieved 2023-09-28.

[2] ttps://www.npr.org/2022/05/17/1099223012/how-the-replacement-theory-went-mainstream-on-the-political-right

[3] ttps://truthout.org/articles/4-years-after-el-paso-massacre-republicans-use-same-rhetoric-as-mass-shooters/

[1]

[1]

[2]