Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:36, 30 January 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Right-wing 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 Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 30 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.

Template:Pbneutral

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Right-wing 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 Right-wing politics at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Politics B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Right-wing 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 Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Request for semi-protection

I have requested semi-protection for this article here. TFD (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The IPs are now blocked. TFD (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Right wing

The term "Right Wing" tends to have more than one definition. While the definition of 'resistance to change' is often used, it is not the sole definition employed. In the west, "Right Wing" often refers to those things that are in line with Church doctrine. This definition of right wing is also in line with the origin of the term in the French Revolution, when the church was allied with the monarchy.

For example, many people considered "right wing" are opposed to certain socialistic government programs, even though those programs have been around for nearly a century or more. While the notion of "Right Wing" as resistance to change is confounded by this apparent attempt at change, the notion that western conservatives conserve particular religious values is amenable to it. Obviously this notion would need to be sourced. But it's worth considering digging up sources which establish this definition. I will when I have more time. --Ryan W (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you are trying to completely redefine the term contrary to established academic usage. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

By way of illustration, a quote from the book I happen to be reading at the moment, "A History of the Twentieth Century" by Martin Gilbert. "It was the right, not the left, that was gaining the initiative in the streets of Germany. ... They were, Hitler explained in the first issue of their own newspaper, the SA Gazette, not only an instrument for the protection of the Nazi movement, but were 'primarily the training school for the coming struggle for freedom'..."

Anyone who lived through World War II knows that Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were commonly described as being on "the right" while Stalin and Mao were commonly described as being on "the left", with America staunchly liberal, meaning neither on the right nor on the left. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Saddhiyama and Rick Norwood. TFD (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

We are going around in circles here. As was discussed previously here, we don't source Misplaced Pages articles from personal anecdotal evidence, but from reliable published sources such as Zeev Sternhell, an expert on Fascism, who states "Fascism is 'ni droite ni gauche', neither right nor left." No consensus developed for adding "fascism" to lede in that previous discussion. --Martin (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Martintg, give us a break. Sternhell, while a scholar has extreme views that no other scholars accept. It makes me sick to my stomach to hear these fringe views brought up over and over again. If I want to read them then I will stop reading Misplaced Pages and get all my info from Glenn Beck's website. TFD (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Not helpful. Arkon (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Let's stick with mainstream opinions. TFD (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Your stomach reactions are original research. Sticking to one-sided sources and calling them mainstream does not make them so. - BorisG (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

My point is when we approach a topic we should look at what mainstream opinion is rather than look for sources that support our own point of view. Sternhell's views are not widely held, and I do not see why editors are continually using sources like that. TFD (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking for sources that support our POV, then calling them mainstream, does not make them so. Mainstream is in the eye of the beholder. - BorisG (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If mainstream were in the eye of the beholder, then Misplaced Pages would not exist. In spite of extreme views from the Right and the Left, there is a mainstream consensus, ideas accepted by a majority of informed sources. This mainstream is represented in print encyclopedias, such as the Britannica, in The World Almanac, in the Oxford English Dictionary, and in other standard reference books. When books and articles are referenced, they should show an awareness of this mainstream opinion, show caution where they depart from it, and offer overwhelming evidence for any such departures. Misplaced Pages should cite such departures only with a note that they are departures from the mainstream, and in all such cases give more than one source, unless the subject of the article is the book or its author. Misplaced Pages should avoid referencing books that show no knowledge of the mainstream, make a large number of non-mainstream claims, and assert opinions without evidence. Such books are notable for disagreeing with each other, and growing more and more divergent. Books of substantial value build toward a consensus. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most of this. But the process of defining mainstream sources should be decided by the consensus of the editors, not just declared by one or two editors. Mainstream encyclopedias such as Brittanica are very careful about labelling movements, people etc. And they are also careful of presenting opinions, however mainstream, as facts. And also in declaring what is mainstream. Also all significant minority opinions have to be mentioned. This probably includes all scholarly opinions. The best thing we can do when discussing controversial issues is attribute every major opnion like many scholars consider etc, rather than present them as facts. The problem is when a handful of editors decide for the whole of wikipedia what mainstream is. Anyway, enough of these meta discussions. I'd better try to contribute content. Time for me to put up or shut up. - BorisG (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing populists

I'm removing the sentence which lists people considered right-wing populists as it adds nothing. The section should describe what right-wing populism is and what right-wing populists believe. It should not simply list some. LittleJerry (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The sentence in question gives examples of right-wing populists in several countries, and the people listed are those right-wing populists most commonly in the news in their respective countries. I do not understand your objection. You say examples add nothing, but examples are commonly used to make clear otherwise abstract concepts. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand the objection either. Examples are provided in many articles, and these are sourced. TFD (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you can't give examples but you can't just list some random populists and think you're describing what right-wing populism is. As I said the section should describe what right-wing populism is and what right-wing populists believe. It should not simply list some. LittleJerry (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The selection, as I said, is not random, but consists of major examples. If you think the description insufficient, I'll work on that. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is against our BLP policy to label living people in this sweeping manner. Misplaced Pages is better than that: it describes facts without labeling people and lets readers decide. WP is much more nuanced in its descriptions of people. Just look at the article on Silvio Berlusconi. Nowhere it says that he is a populist (or not a populist). The fact that a newspaper article (or a book) identifies these people as right-wing populists does not make them so. At most you can say that such and such author suggests that Berlusconi is a right-wing populist. And why are we giving modern examples but not older examples? Do wer have examples of other types of right wing people? And how can you have in one line a long serving and elected national leader and a talk show host? It is bizarre. There is a difference between an opinion piece and an encyclopedia. - BorisG (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

My comment about US -centric nature of this was an mixup. - BorisG (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Right wing populists can be either politicians or pundits or both. If you want to add a few historical examples, please do so. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that Burlesconi could be described as a right-wing populist. The source refers to his "cunning conservative populism", but it seems to be a reference to his style, not ideology. BTW since right-wing populism is a fairly recent phenomenon in Europe the historical examples do not go back far but could include Poujadism. TFD (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Lablelling people is against Misplaced Pages BLP policies. - BorisG (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Describing people's political ideology is not. TFD (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Is populism an ideology? - BorisG (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing populism is an ideology. TFD (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The selection, as I said, is not random, but consists of major examples. They are not "major". They are simply popular writers and commentators who are not historically important. How about mentioning people who've actually made an impact on right-wing/conservative populism like the Southern Agrarians. LittleJerry (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The southern agrarians were not right-wing populists. Beck on other hand has received considerable coverage as a leading proponent of right-wing populism, especially with his work in popularizing the books of Cleon Skousen. TFD (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Populism is not an ideology, it is an appeal to the common people, usually anti-intellectual in nature. Mao Zedong practiced left-wing populism. William Jennings Bryan practiced right-wing populism. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand that. However, right wing populism has been identified as an ideology - see all the references in this Google book search. Also called radical right, extreme right, etc. In the U.S. they call themselves conservatives, but in the rest of the world, where the term "conservative" has a clear meaning, they use different terms. TFD (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

When some editors (and the sources they quote) say that the tea-party, which favors small government, financial prudence and low taxes, and Neo-Nazis (which favor big authoritarian government), share the same ideology, they cannot be taken seriously. They are entitled to their views, but trying to say they are mainstream is a POV, and a fringe one at that. I don't have time to take on this one, but it is sad that some areas of Misplaced Pages are becoming a mirror image of Conservapedia. - BorisG (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Who has provided sources that the Tea Party and the Nazis were/are right-wing populists? What makes you think that people who wrote about the subject - Peter Viereck, Daniel Bell, Seymour Martin Lipset, Sara Diamond, Pippa Norris, Chip Berlet, Klaus von Beyme and many others - are all fringe? Even if you dislike the expression "right-wing populism", you still need to find a term to describe right-wing parties such as UKIP. TFD (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This paper, which is about UKIP, argues that the extreme right and right-wing populism are two separate families, mentioning among other things that right-wing extremism supports a "strong state" (p. 8). It still accepts the term right-wing populism. TFD (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't even know (yet) whether I dislike the term, but the article you mentioned, right wing populism, does include both groups. I assume that it is based on some sources. Yet these movements have almost nothing in common, and certainly not a common ideology. - BorisG (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The party you support belongs to a group - it has similarities with parties elsewhere. You may not like the name, but it is the one most commonly used. TFD (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

These arguments embody a classical logical fallacy, which takes the form, "Joe is a vegetarian. Hitler was a vegetarian. Hitler was a Nazi. Therefore Joe is a Nazi." Or its contrapositive, "Joe is not a Nazi, therefore Joe is not a vegetarian." The Tea Party is a right-wing populist movement, but does not necessarily have anything in common with other right-wing populist movements except its right-wing populism. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

@TFD I take exception to the phrase The party you support. I am not sure which party I am meant be supportive of, but this isn't the place to discuss my or your political sympathies. I am pointing out that a number of parties you are trying to postray as sharing a common ideology have very little in common. I have not expressed support for either of them, so please refrain in the future from discussing my political sympathies. - BorisG (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

@RN: Maybe you have a point. But: if two parties have almost nothing in common and hence presumably don't share common ideology then even if they do share one attrtibute (right-wing populism), this attribute is not an ideology. Another point is that trying to find a common attribute between radically different movements and write them alongside one another is tendentious. I will try to see if they appear together in reliable sources. If not, they should not be in the same list. - BorisG (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As an aside I would ask if you would classify Billy Hughes as a right-wing populist? A worker and prominent union leader turned Prime Minister, he achieved huge popular support due to his most vocal promotion and defense of the White Australia Policy and opposition to racial equality (demanded by Japan at Paris Peace Talks). Yet he was also the most vocal opponent of the British policy of appeasement of Nazi Germany against cross-party support for this policy in Australia. ----

By "the party you support", I am referring to your user page, where you write, "I broadly support a small Liberal Democratic Party", " which was "started and run by ordinary citizens", which would appear to be a right-wing populist party. It is however fairly small, and there is much more literature on One Nation.

Hughes belonged to a socialist party and then a liberal party. See for example this chart that groups Australian parties according to political familes. Outside the U.S., right-wing populism did not emerge until much later.

You may dislike the categorizations that are accepted by the academic community, but it is not up to us to question their reasoning. Surely you would object to someone who claimed that both diamonds and talc cannot both be metamorphic rocks, because they are total opposites. I suggest you read the sources for right-wing populism and accept that we must accurately reflect them.

TFD (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing populism goes back to, at least, Gaius Marius, Roman consul in the first century BC. I'm sure I could find earlier examples if I tried. So the idea that right-wing populism "emerged" in modern times ignores common themes in history and in human nature. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No doubt one can find foreshadowing of modern ideologies in the classical period, but it is ahistorical. It would be more usual to see the two parties of Rome as liberals and conservatives, although it would be a loose comparison. As S.D. Clark explained, only in the U.S. did the weak political and social control structure allow these movements to develop. That has only changed recently. TFD (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

@TFD, I still insist that your reference to my support of a political party is totally inappropriate, especially since this party was not discussed in my comments or in any of the articles under discussion here. You really do not need to go to my user page to answer the questions raised here. Please refrain from this tactic in the future. BTW diamond and talc are minerals, not rocks. Diamond occurs in igneous rocks, not in metamorphic rocks. Talc occurs in metamorphic rocks. They have indeed nothing in common (except that they are end members on the hardness scale). Bad example. - BorisG (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I will have a look at the sources when I have time. I still believe singling out certain persons as right-wing populists is a BLP violation and I will raise it at RFC when i have time. - BorisG (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Why do you post your allegiance on your user page and then complain when other editors mention it? TFD (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Because it is an Ad hominem argument. Also please see this. - BorisG (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If you remember, I wrote, "The party you support belongs to a group - it has similarities with parties elsewhere. You may not like the name, but it is the one most commonly used." (The party I referred to was the one you state supporting on your user page.) In what sense is that ad hominem? Why do you post your allegiance on your user page and then complain when other editors mention it? TFD (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

What does it have to do with the parties we discussed (The Tea Party and the Neo-Nazis)? - BorisG (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

We were not discussing neo-nazis and the Tea Party, you were. And the Liberal Democrats are an example of a right-wing populist party. I would have thought with your knowledge that you would see a similarity between them and the French National Front, the German Republicans, the Dutch Centre Democrats,the Belgian Front national, the Freedom Party of Austria, the Danish Progress Party, the Norwegian Progress Party, and the Swedish New Democracy, the UK Independence Party, the former Reform Party of Canada, Australia's One Nation, and New Zealand First. TFD (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

And the Liberal Democrats are an example of a right-wing populist party. Are they? Any sources? - BorisG (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I do agree with you that some of the parties you mention have a lot in common (I know some but never heard of others). I know them as far right. The common policies are strong central government, strong nationalism, opposition to immigration. National Front and One Nation are fairly typical examples. Parties that advocate small government and individual freedoms do not belong here. I am surprised that you have included UK Independence Party but not British National Party. I thought it would be a more clear-cut example. - BorisG (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to reject what mainstream scholarship says about these parties you are free to do so. I do not see how continuing this conversation can be helpful because we are supposed to reflect what sources say rather than form our own opinions. TFD (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not want to reject any mainstream opinions. I question what opinions are mainstream, and also how these opinions are presented. But I agree with you that this discussion is not going anywhere. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The concepts are explained in the articles right-wing populism and the radical right, both of which are sourced. You can also read about the subject in Google books by typing in "Right-wing populism". TFD (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages depends on references.

Please, when editing Misplaced Pages, especially when making controversial edits, supply references, and do not replace referenced material with unreferenced material. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Jprw (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)== Modern Usage ==

There have been a number of rewrites of the description of how "right-wing" is used today. It is not clear to me if the changes reflect the book referenced: A Dictionary of Political Thought Roger Scruton Macmillan Pp.481-2." Also, should a 1982 book be used to reference modern usage? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to The concise Oxford dictionary of politics (2009) definition. TFD (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Jprw has placed the following comment on my talk page:

Fascism, an old chestnut, but still...I have reverted your including a reference to the term "fascism" in the lead to the article on right-wing politcs, as I believe it to be inaccurate and misleading and pandering to the old canard that there is an inextricable or latent link between conservatism and fascism. It's as unfortunate and damaging as making a natural connection between those on the left, and say, Stalin. Best wishes Jprw (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

He has removed the reference to fascism..

In reply, I would state that not all conservatism and rightg-wing are not synonyms, otherwise this article would be a re-direct to conservatism, not all conservatism is right-wing, Churchill certainly did not consider himself to be right-wing, and not all people described as conservative are real conservatives, some are classical liberals, etc. Also, we do not exclude information because we do not like it.

TFD (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a case of not liking it, it's a case of removing something that is inaccurate and misleading. Jprw (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of Politics is not a "reliable secondary source." Considering Schlesinger's writings on fascism, and Lipset's (among others), I consider the linkage in the lede to be extraordinarily weak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 14:28, 26 January 2011

I notice that the dynamic IP has resurfaced and edited the article. Since the IP is blocked for sock-puppetry and edit-warring (see above Talk:Right-wing politics#Request for semi-protection), I will roll back any edits made by him, and request other editors to do the same. TFD (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Given your most recent extraordinary and utterly bogus claims that I am a Sockpuppet I suggest to other editors that we take your latest accusation above with a pinch of salt. Jprw (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

TFD (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the above; it was removed by THE FOUR DEUCES, whose style seems to be "If another editor knows more about a subject than I do, or is able to outargue me, shut him up". A perfect example of the Bolshevik mindset in action.Jprw (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You would do well to discuss the subject at hand, instead of name-calling. While your right to free speech allows you to call people names, that will not win you respect here on Misplaced Pages. Your edits are deleted for the simple reason that they are not supported by standard reference works. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Last sentence of lead

A weird kind of atrophy seems to be taking place to the last sentence of the lead. I've tried to rectify matters with the following wording:

"Today, the term right-wing is primarily used to refer to conservatives, liberals (in the European sense of the word), advocates of the free market and nationalists".

There are three imortant points:

• the free market should be mentioned
• libertarianism should NOT be mentioned – this is the domain of both the left and right
• fascism/the far right also should not be mentioned, as it is completely out of place here.

Two and three above are the most important points: if they are allowed to stand the lead will be deeply misleading to readers. Jprw (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand that this is what you believe, but Misplaced Pages is not based on what the editors believe but on what references say. Clearly, you think that the Oxford encyclopedia is wrong, but they are an authority and you do not cite any authority. Every book I have ever read on the history of modern times calls fascism and racism right-wing. You seem to wish that were not so, but it is a fact, and trying to hide it will not make it go away. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it not the case that liberarianism is the domain of both the left and right? What are these sources that you mention? (by the way, "Every book I have ever read on the history of modern times" sounds like hyperbole, to say the least. This might be a good place to understand the complexities of the term fascism, but in any case we are getting away from the main basic point of the problems with the lead: it is deeply misleading to any reader trying to find out about the subject. Anyway, my dealings on these talk pages have given me a first-hand insight into how the WP politics pages are hopelessly biased and compromised (and, of course, inaccurate). Jprw (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Rick Norwood. BTW "liberals (in the European sense of the word)" are considered to be centrist in Europe and in fact sit in the center of the legislatures, including the European parliament, together with the other liberals. The dictionary is a good source because "right-wing" is a political term, rather than an ideology. In any case, a study showed that extreme right parties (including neofascists) were more opposed to public ownership than other parties, as well as scoring highest on the social policy scale. (Ware, Alan. Political Parties and Party Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 22, pp. 27-29)) The results of the study may be seen on this page, taken from the University of Dayton. TFD (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The article does not mention where fascism fits on the political spectrum and in fact elsewhere Orwell refers to fascists as "right-wing", e.g., here. Furthermore, Orwell was a writer not a political scientist and his observations, while interesting, are not relevant to this article. TFD (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the very interesting link to the Orwell article. What he says about the word "fascist" is today true of the word "socialist". But, no, I'm not exagerating when I say that just about every book I've read on modern history uses "Right-wing" to describe fascists. When serious historians use the word "Fascist" they usually mean explicitly and avowedly Fasicst governments, notably the governments of Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco, and commonly describe these governments as rigth-wing -- as commonly as they describe avowedly communist governments as left-wing. In any case, the reference cited uses the word "fascist". Rick Norwood (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• B-Class politics articles
• Top-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles