Ultraconservatism: Walt Yoder ( talk ) 00:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: The article for ultraconservatism has been deleted so many times due to it being a redirect.  If it were to simply be a synonym for Far-right politics , can we have consensus that it should redirect to that article?  There have been plenty of users in the past who have argued that ultraconservative ≠ far-right, so this clarification is necessary. -- WMrapids ( talk ) 00:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: it does not seem to be as clear-cut of a synonym as you propose it is.  Sources in the article define ultraconservatism very clearly and do not make a case of it being just a synonym for the far-right.  Willing to change vote if proven wrong with sources that make the assertion.  – Vipz ( talk ) 01:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] After JPxG's observation, I'm leaning to redirecting to Conservatism#Authoritarian conservatism .  Another suggested target article is Far-right politics , although I find the former more relevant (while also referring to the latter article as the Main one).  – Vipz ( talk ) 12:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Agree with Vipz on the sources' definitons of ultraconservatism.  HeartCat1 💬 📝 04:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per Vipz, the sources make a distiction between the far-right and ultraconservatives, and from a political point of view, a distinction can be made through their tolerance of moderates and social beliefs.  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 09:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - ’Ultraconservatism’ is a term I find very useful, as it simply refers to an extreme form of conservatism.  The term far-right is sometimes used to refer to very non-conservative groups such as revolutionary nazis or hardcore libertarians, making the relation to classical conservatism dubious.  Trakking ( talk ) 21:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with Trakking.  "Far right" can be anything extreme that is not Leftist, including Conservatism.  Therefore, "Ultraconservatism" is a part of "Far right", not a synonym.  Then, my opinion is: the article "Ultraconservatism" should be kept.  Gondolabúrguer ( talk ) 16:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Sorry, I forgot to write it clearly.  Gondolabúrguer ( talk ) 16:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete: The definition of "ultraconservatism" is very different from the sources used by WMrapids.  Jason H. Gart's definition says "Ultraconservatism, which combine(s) traditional anticommunist rhetoric with fresh acrimony toward civil rights legislation, welfare programs, organized labor, and taxation" while, according to the New York Times, "Huntington sees ultraconservatism as a broad part of the right-wing spectrum, encompassing fringe extremists, racists, violent reactionaries and those willing to moderate their views when and where necessary.", contrasting with his definition: "Ultraconservatives occupy a broad section of the right-wing continuum, wedged between conservative pragmatists, those willing to moderate their views and work with the political center, and fringe extremists.".  The one from El Orden Mundial says: "(ultraconservatism) adds elements such as populism, anti-immigration or protectionism to traditional values, and encompasses a recent international wave that includes former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, the Spanish Vox party or the US radical right promoted by figures like Trump. These movements have also been described as neoconservative due to similarities such as the strong rejection of the left. However, the importance they give to national sovereignty contradicts the foreign policy interventionism of US neoconservatism".  ---- Neither of the three sources used have a coherent definition, the first one labeling "ultraconservatism" as opposition to civil rights legislation, welfarism, taxation combined with anti-communism, the second one as a branch of the right-wing composed of extremists, racists and reactionaries and rightist willing to cooperate with centrists (not a concrete term but an umbrella one), the fourth one as a populist and protectionist variant of neo-conservatism that also supports traditional values (doesn't common conservatism also defend traditional values?) and opposes interventionism.  Also note how the user that made the article uses directly a definition from the Oxford dictionary to start the article, violating the Wikipedia:DICDEF rule.  ---- I invited some users with expertise in the field of "conservatism" from the WikiProject Conservatism to debate if the article should be deleted or not.  Alejandro Basombrio ( talk ) 21:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC) User indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE . -- WMrapids ( talk ) 21:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Many political ideologies don't have a consistent definition, or you could find varying definitions in use in reliable sources.  ( t · c ) buidhe 19:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Agree with previous commemts: the concept may be partially included sometimes in the "far-right" label, but not necessarily.  The concept is properly sourced, too.  If the New Oxford American Dictionary , among other reliable sources, consider that this is a relevant and stand-alone concept, who are we to deny it?  PedroAcero76 ( talk ) 21:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or Delete .  I think this might be something of, I don't know what to call it -- a " RACKEN STEIN "?  Essentially, all of the sources here do use the phrase "ultraconservative", but it's not clear that they are doing so as a reference to a coherent group.  To explain this a little better, I offer an analogy: we can imagine an article called gigantic tree , for which exact phrase a newspapers.com search brings up 26,000 results.  But this does not indicate that anybody is using "gigantic tree" to mean a specific type of thing meaningfully separate from a "large tree" or a "huge tree".  You could try anyway: A gigantic tree is any tree that is of notably large size.  Different commentators have given different heights for a gigantic tree, ranging from 50 feet to 300 feet.  That looks like what has happened here.  The 1961 New York Times article says, for example: "Senator Jacob K. Javits said today ultra-conservative fanaticism in the United States was under control. But he warned that it 'represents a danger to the Republican party'."  Here, it just seems like he is talking about people who are very conservative (i.e. much more so than the Republican party of the time).  This article seems to use it the same way: note that the abstract says "systematic analyses on how far-right leaders recreate their countries' foreign policy identity are still underdeveloped"; it doesn't at any point advance "ultraconservative" as a thing separate from being unusually far-right.  If there are any sources that actually establish or comment on "ultraconservatism" as something separate from the simple fact of someone being extremely conservative, ping me, and I will strike this "delete" ! vote -- but I do not see any here.  jp × g 07:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JPxG : These are very good points, and I would have most likely voted for 'delete' the first time had that been nominator's rationale.  Would you say there's merit in a redirect and/or a paragraph & anchor about it somewhere in Conservatism and/or Far-right politics (without all the coatrack content)?  – Vipz ( talk ) 15:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to the closer: relisting may be a good idea.  – Vipz ( talk ) 08:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ WMrapids : as the author of the original article, what do you think about above (please also see my new vote on the top of the page)?  I presume you also saw my ping in this diff regarding the coatrack content (Germany and France sections) that was added by another editor.  Cheers.  – Vipz ( talk ) 11:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: @ Vipz : It is difficult for me because there are good arguments against coat racking, but there seems to be a difference.  My main concern is, are there reliable sources that explicitly say that far-right = ultraconservatism or authoritarian conservatism = ultraconservatism?  There are sources that explain ultraconservatism and define it, though I have not found any sources that equate ultraconservatism with anything else.  WMrapids ( talk ) 21:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ WMrapids : I'll go with the latter for now because that's what I proposed above.  There's a plentiful of sources that describe certain ruling regimes as ultraconservative, authoritarian [...] or ultraconservatism, authoritarianism [...] (incl. swapped order of these words) and these two go hand-in-hand in most, but finding explicit "ultraconservatism = authoritarian conservatism" statements can prove a bit more difficult.  Here are a few that might come close: Use with Care: Managing Australia's Natural Resources in the Twenty-first Century , pg.  256 ultra-conservatism, a weltanschauung characterised by a strong commitment to an authoritarian social order [...] How White Evangelicals Think: The Psychology of White Conservative Christians , pg.  84 : Ultraconservative ideologies then cause people to embrace authoritarian policies and leaders in the face of persistent threats, real or imagined.  69 This happens crossculturally.  The specics may be dierent, but the general process is the same.  Encyclopedia of Power , pg.  33 : On average, authoritarian personality is still used primarily for ultraconservatives such as religious fundamentalists, military dictators, theocrats, and so on.  Political Socialization in Western Society: An Analysis from a Life-span Perspective , pg.  129 : [...] They found authoritarianism to be related to political ultra-conservatism and fascism.  The central theme in many other sources is that they are illiberal, anti-democratic, nationalist, ethnocentric, extreme right, etc. and that ultraconservatives tend to argue for authoritarianism.  I can link and list out quotes for any of these if needed.  – Vipz ( talk ) 07:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Vipz : It's about the same as what I found.  Interpreting the sources in such a way would be WP:SYNTH , so unless we have something more definitive, it could be inappropriate to make this article a redirect.  WMrapids ( talk ) 03:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting per request above… Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  09:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Redirect to Far-right politics : This is a WP:CFORK .  There's no substantial difference between the two, they're both conservative extremism.  –– Formal Dude (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Ultraconservatism is clearly different from general conservatism.  Mureungdowon ( talk ) 03:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock.  –– Formal Dude (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Btw: any source that states clearly that ultraconservatism and far-right politics are the same?  Then, whe should also merge or redirect conservatism to right-wing politics, etc.  This is not endorsed in any way by reliable sources as far as I know.  PedroAcero76 ( talk ) 20:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Looks like a consensus for keep?  If we want a separate discussion for possibly making the article a redirect page, I would suggest opening a separate move discussion when this discussion is closed. -- WMrapids ( talk ) 23:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm certainly not withdrawing the proposal.  JPxG has expressed my views better than I have, specifically with: the sources here do use the phrase "ultraconservative", but it's not clear that they are doing so as a reference to a coherent group.  Walt Yoder ( talk ) 23:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you support the creation as a redirect then?  Because there are three separate opinions on this deletion proposal; delete, keep and redirect.  Not asking you to withdraw your proposal at all, just seeking clarified responses.  WMrapids ( talk ) 23:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not opposed to a redirect.  Walt Yoder ( talk ) 19:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Randykitty ( talk ) 08:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the term is part of the lexicon.  Ultra-Liberal brings back fewer results but is also defined and used just not as often.  If this article is kept Ultra-Liberal may warrant an article as well.  Lightburst ( talk ) 15:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you saying that the term "ultraconservatism" is a suitable topic for an article (i.e. WP:WORDISSUBJECT ) or that the concept is?  TompaDompa ( talk ) 16:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Ultra-liberal" is WP:OTHERSTUFF and Wikipedia is not a dictionary .  jp×g's comment above addresses exactly this.  – Vipz ( talk ) 16:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Vipz : Are you suggesting a redirect then?  We should still determine where a redirect should go since the notable usage of the term itself warrants some sort of article attention, whether it be a redirect or independent.  WMrapids ( talk ) 22:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ WMrapids : I certainly am suggesting a redirect, as can be seen in my reiterated vote on the top.  The topic is about conservatism (albeit of an extreme kind) so I see Conservatism as the appropriate redirect target.  I'm not sure whether a merge of some content is warranted if that is done, and what's the best approach.  Without much thought about it, #Authoritarian conservatism section seemed most relevant.  – Vipz ( talk ) 23:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Where does this fall on the spectrum of conservatism?  We have "very conservative" (111,000 Google News results), "ultra-conservative" (6,970),  "super-conservative" (77), "extremely conservative" (11,600), and "tremendously conservative" (10).   I would say that these phrases are just happenstance resulting from someone putting an intensifier on "conservative", and that "super-conservative" and "extremely conservative" do not actually refer to significantly different concepts.  There are no sources I can see that lay out a spectrum with meaningful distinctions.  (Parenthetically, note also the news results for "infra-conservative" (0), "red conservative" (67), "blue conservative" (also 67), "X-conservative" (62) and "gamma conservative" (3)).  jp × g 22:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus