Talk:Far-right politics

The inclusion of a Nazi flag is highly charged and doesn't represent the mainstream far-right in current politics. Neo-Nazism as an ideology is a fringe, politically irrelevant ideology, and the current mainstream far-right is far from being neo-Nazi; they're mostly associated with populism. I also believe the image also gives an American-centric view of the far-right as it clearly represents just the American alt-right movement with the inclusion a Gadsden flag (ambiguously far-right since its also used by conservatives and libertarians in the US) and Confederates flags.

As a suggestion, I would recommend not using an image at all, such as the other political spectrum articles, which none of those use a lead image (right-wing, center-right, center, center-left, left-wing and far-left). ~2025-35140-61 (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Invoking the concept of "the mainstream far-right" is patent nonsense and precludes any possibility of taking this request seriously. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

What the heck kind of thinking is that? All movements have a mainstream area and fringe wings. Come on! ~2026-35978-0 (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

That’s ridiculous. Doug Weller talk 09:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

When someone goes on the Reform UK Wikipedia page and sees that it's listed as "far-right" and hovers over this text, they are immediately presented with a Nazi flag. Same with the current ruling parties of Italy, Hungary, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, and Argentina. In all of these cases, this is misleading to an extent that I do not believe anyone could state that they consider this unbiased unless they are lying. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@WriterOfScrolls Funny, I checked up on this page for a similar reason. They're debating how best to describe Restore Britain, and whether "far right" is an accurate descriptor. It seems to be, based on the sources... but previewing the "far right" hyperlink shows a Nazi flag. That is: the Restore B. page is one click away from a swastika, which is ridiculous.

I can't bring up this point on the Restore B. talk page, it's irrelevant. It's this article that needs fixing. SullyK (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics#United_Kingdom) Does linking to the UK specific section work? DN (talk) 07:35, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, now we immediately have a section about how the British far-right was born out of the fascist movement, which if we are trying to describe, say, Restore Britain, there is clearly no lineage of the party going back to any fascist movement. The page ultimately just needs to use much broader language, holistically through, I think. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Point being, changing this article's main image to suit one of the many far-right groups, past or present, seems to ignore the rules and process for improving this article, even with a proper WP:RfC. Cheers. DN (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not "one of the many" I am concerned with. @SullyK and I were simply using that one example to demonstrate what is occurring with parties described as "far-right" throughout many, many countries, which are supported by many, many people, and which are (regardless of one's political leanings), clearly misrepresented by a man waving a Nazi flag.

The current ruling party of Italy is another good example. One can have disagreements with their politics, and I certainly would, but no one would say that Italy is run by Nazis or anything of the sort.

For another example, are the Swiss Socialists and Greens currently sharing power with a party that is most closely represented by a man waving a Nazi Flag? Doubtful, I think it is clear, that the SVP is anything of the sort, even if credible sources call them "far-right." WriterOfScrolls (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

This isn't a problem to address on this page. If Reform UK didn't want to be associated with the far-right they could change their platform such that reliable sources would not describe them as far-right.Simonm223 (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The issue isn't that any one particular party is associated with the far-right; it's that the far-right is being improperly represented (at least visually). I laid out my reasoning above. The discussion is not a partisan one. SullyK (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

There are TWO different things we're talking about here: Nazis and the "far-right." The former is a subset of the latter, but your response tells me that you are thinking of them as synonymous, which is false. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

That isn't what they said. DN (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

"If Reform didn't want to be associated with the far-right"

I am not saying that they are not far-right. If credible sources say they are, then for the sake of making a Wikipedia article that accurately reflects the truth, they are. But it's not reasonable to say, if parties such as them are "far-right," that the "far-right," as a label, is most closely represented by Nazis. This is a very extreme example, which does not represent the majority of parties and organizations listed on Wikipedia as "far-right." WriterOfScrolls (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

In other words: you can have "far-right" be defined on Wikipedia as being Nazis, or you could have it be defined on Wikipedia as being the politics of something like 40% of global voters, but you cannot have it both ways. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Where in the world do you get 40% of global voters? Source please. Doug Weller talk 09:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

"this is misleading to an extent that I do not believe anyone could state that they consider this unbiased unless they are lying"

The well already seems poisoned, but feel free to WP:AGF. Cheers and good luck. DN (talk) 09:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Modi's party in India, with ~50% support in the largest democracy in the world, is listed as having far-right influences. Parties in the European Parliament as a whole which are listed as being far-right are polling at a collective 30%, plus a large portion of the 5% unaffiliated parties (https://europeelects.eu/ep2029/). Argentina's Milei, who leads a "far-right" party, has received a majority of votes in a democratic election, as has Chile's Kast and El Salvador's Bukele, with Brazil's Bolsonaro (also listed as leading a far-right party) being close.

Regardless of what you think of all of these leaders and parties, to have a link to a Nazi flag in the ideology box of every single one of them when such a indisputably large portion of people support them and they rule many countries that are clearly not anything like Nazi Germany is patently ridiculous. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 08:32, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Per reliable sources, these parties are, at least partly, similar to Nazi Germany in that they have far-right elements. The image depicts a modern far-right rally. That's the common thread. To intentionally downplay this connection for the benefit of these parties (or to protect the feelings of those who voted for them) is not going to work. If you're unhappy with these parties being connected to the far-right, your problem is with those parties, not with this Wikipedia article. Grayfell (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

You are going around in circles of definitions. They are similar in that they are "far-right?" Yeah, that's why I have a disagreement with the way that "far-right" is represented. Are these actually similar? Should these actually be represented as equivalent? Word games are not an argument, but in fact the opposite: evidence of ignorance. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

That is not 40% of global voters. Doug Weller talk 11:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

My point is not that it's 30% or 40% or whatever. My point is that it's a lot. And I think you see this, and are being a sophist. Please don't. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Let's see if we can find some consensus. Would you agree that Nazis are considered by mainstream sources to be one of the most prolific examples of far-right politics, with possibly the most recognizable symbolism of all far-right groups? DN (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

This is all rather silly. WP:SKYBLUE applies. Nazis are the defining example of far-right politics. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Of course. Doug Weller talk 13:38, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Would ancient athenians be far right then as well? They too had a strict enthostate. Whatever Doug that you say your opinions are poisoned by leftist rhetoric that you are unable to give an ubiased view. Having a confederate and nazi flag representing far right politics is idiotic and a child can see it clearly but not leftist lunatics. Persian Meowth (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

^User is now blocked. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I would agree that Nazis are far-right and are universally considered so. But if you're going to also define such an massive proportion of the political spectrum apart from the Nazis as far-right, then you have to broaden your definition of far-right. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

This is my stance. The definition of "far-right" used is so broad as to be misleading by lumping together disparate things. Also, I'm only suggesting a change in banner image, nothing to do with the content of the article. SullyK (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

if you are going to... No this isn't me and my personal opinions - this is sources. The image of far right politics" is largely derived from movements in the 19th and 20th century that engaged in exterminist racist politics. That's groups such as the Nazis and the KKK. When sources consistently call contemporary political groups far-right, the sources are inviting that comparison. Wikipedia has no need to censor itself just to ease the discomfort of Reform UK at being compared to Nazis. It's not Wikipedia doing that. It's reliable secondary sources. This page is about far-right politics. Of course Nazi symbols are prominent. Simonm223 (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Those same sources would face defamation charges and lose, should they try to call Reform UK or Vox or the Brothers of Italy "Nazi" or "the KKK." You have no evidence to say that this is a comparison that they are inviting, and the fact that distinctions are readily drawn between "Extremist organizations" and parties that are simply labelled "far-right" is ready evidence that there has become a linguistic distinction between the typical application of this term and terms that would be more precisely applied to Nazis or the KKK. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The Nazis were literally a political party. Simonm223 (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I am well aware. What I am saying is that there are organizations around today which are extremist organizations that are compared to Nazis or called "Neo-Nazi" by relevant and reliable sources, and that when a party, even on labeled "far-right" is associated with them in any way, it is explicitly considered a scandal from the perspective of those reliable sources.

So for example, when members of the youth organization of the Brothers of Italy party that currently runs Italy were found to have made Nazi salutes, it was a major scandal and was covered as such, resulting in their expulsion from the party. This demonstrates a major distinction between organizations reliably described as "far-right" and those which are Nazi are Nazi-adjacent, to the extent that if the former is associated with the latter, it is a major scandal. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I think you should probably drop this. You don't have any consensus to remove the image. It's just wasting time arguing about this further. Simonm223 (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Why are you even writing here? What is this for, if not to seek consensus? You don't even respond to what I'm saying, you just say unrelated things pretending not to understand what I'm saying, and then when I clarify, you say this?

What? WriterOfScrolls (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

We don't seem to be any closer to consensus than when we started, and now you are talking about "defamation charges" which is borderline WP:LEGAL. I think they are just trying to help prevent WP:BLUDGEON. DN (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I am by no means making a legal threat to anyone! I am so sorry if it sounded that way. I am saying that the relaible sources would face a legal threat if they were to say what he has said they are saying, as it would be defamation.

I think we're talking past each other here a bit. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok, let me be clear: as the only support you have comes from someone blocked from editing this page you are at WP:1AM and you are bludgeoning. Your arguments are irrelevant to Wikipedia policy and are principally grounded in dissatisfaction about how this page presents in hyperlinks to other pages. Please stop or the next step will likely be a more formal assessment of your behavior on this talk page. Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

If I have been disrespectful, I sincerely apologize. It is not my intention to bludgeon, or to act in bad faith in any way, shape or form, let alone to threaten anyone. I must ask, however, that you not conflate my position with that of some Nazi troll, and that you substantively respond to my point before invoking WP:1AM in a debate involving 3 people. That being said, I also think I have not done a good enough job communicating what it is that I am stating here, so that we can have an accurate and constructive discussion of the facts at hand.

So I would like to summarize my argument more clearly and ask where I am deviating in my perspective from that of Wikipedia policy. If this is long, I am sincerely sorry, but I want to make sure that I communicate clearly:

I am approaching this entirely from the perspective of considering what this Wikipedia article is meant to represent, and ensuring that the image accurately, and with due weight, represents that thing. If the image represents only a subset of that thing and stands in serious contrast to most manifestations of that thing, then the image should be one of multiple images, should be used only for a sub-section of the article, or should not be used at all, because to do so would be WP:UNDUE. For example, if the Wikipedia article about Helicopters only had a picture of a one-man ultra-light Rotorcycle in the lead and no other image, this would obviously be undue weight, because most helicopters are not like that.

Now, the vast majority of the spectrum of ideas reliably labelled "far-right" in this article and in other articles on Wikipedia are not accurately represented by a Nazi flag. This is a type of far-right politics, undoubtedly, and it would accurately represent some historical contexts of far-right politics and a certain radical grouping within far-right politics today. But it does not accurately represent most movements currently considered far-right and which fall under the categories of ideas described in this article. To this end, I listed earlier the great variety and importance of parties which are reliably described as far-right on Wikipedia, and which are seriously misrepresented by a Nazi flag, from the Brothers of Italy to the BJP.

I know that is a lot to write, but I wanted to explain this in detail so that there is no misunderstanding. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

That isn’t 40%, probably nowhere near. Doug Weller talk 13:37, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

In the most recent Canadian federal election, the far-right PPC was so unpopular thst they only managed to achieve a third place in one riding. They represent a minuscule percentage of vote share. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm talking about the world as a whole, and you are talking about Canada. There is a major difference here. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, to your claim that 40% of the world supports far-right politics I have just one thing to say: ^{[citation needed][dubious – discuss]}. Simonm223 (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote?

"My point is not that it's 30% or 40% or whatever. My point is that it's a lot. And I think you see this, and are being a sophist. Please don't." WriterOfScrolls (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, wikipedia is dominated by leftist lunatic users so decision will be theirs to have. Persian Meowth (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your purpose here. I feel safer already. DN (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Your comment here is not constructive or helpful in any way. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2026 (UTC)