Talk:Third Position

message: I think that in external politics, third position may also refer to the situation of the neutral countries during the Second World War. └Nitro4ce┘┌t┐  05:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reference for this usage? --Cyclopia 10:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is Third Way. --JamesPoulson (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality?

message: Although i have almost no experience in editing wikipedia, I do have a lot of knowledge about the "third positionist" movement and would be willing to help, as i read on the article page that references and etc are needed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.138.167 (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Position Help?

message: Does anyone have any current third position groups, or know of any. I have looked a few up on google etc, but when I attempt to post, apparently the one link I found, which still exists, is worthy of deletion? Please, friends, this article needs some updating  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumpenproliteriate (talk • contribs) 02:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardy Lloyd Runs the New Dawn, the only american based Third Position group out there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.117.103 (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Groups 

message: I've added the jargon tag. I don't think the opening is clear enough - it is full of technical political jargon which I don't believe many would understand. Politics is something I understand, but I had to look up pretty much every word!
If someone could simplify it, that would be great Dvmedis (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For example: "a racially-homogeneous decentralized tribal form of nationalism coupled with corporatism, distributism or solidarism as a third-way economic system". Dvmedis (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, when discussing Third Positionism, there is political jargon that is unavoidable. Regardless, the example you give is a bad one since it is an explanation for what is meant by the simpler expression "racial socialism". Furthermore, we are simply repeating what sources tell us. That being said, I'll see what I can do to "dumb down" the lead... --Loremaster (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there Loremaster. Many thanks for your efforts. As per Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable, dumbing-down isn't required, just improvement for a general audience (From Wiki: Eliminate long strings of adjectives, Add a concrete example, Use jargon and acronyms judiciously, Use analogies, Use language similar to what you would use in a conversation etc etc.) I understand word selection might be difficult, especially when you are sacrificing bits of article you yourself have previously contributed, but I'm only aiming to make it more understood to a wider audience. Many thanks for changes so far - feel free to remove tag whenever Dvmedis (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think of the Lead now? --Loremaster (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jargon Tag 

message: I don't think distributism quite belongs on the list, even though it shares some features with third position ideas. Mainly because distributism is not per se a nationalist ideology, let alone tribalist, but a Christian one. --Rallette (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Distributism doesn't have to be a nationalist or tribalist ideology to be mentioned in an article about Third Positionism. The reason why it should be and is mentioned is because it is one of the three economic ideologies that many Third Positionists embrace. --Loremaster (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but it's been put on the list of "varieties of third positionism". The article defines third positionism as a "nationalist political ideology" with racialist tendencies, and as said, distributism is not a nationalist ideology but an economic system. Distributism, while arguably reactionary, is entirely compatible with an utterly anti-nationalist politics. (The same actually goes for corporatism.) I have no problem with distributism being mentioned in the article, only with its inclusion on that list in the box.--Rallette (talk) 05:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you should be raising this issue on the Template talk:Third Position page rather than here... ;) --Loremaster (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seeing Social market economy is an implementation of Distributism Germans will not be happy being told that their current economy is associated with Neo-fascism. --JamesPoulson (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distributism 

message: I propose that Syncretic politics be merged into Third position. Syncretic politics refers to ideologies that combine elements from existing ideologies, for example fascism and libertarianism. It is a subject appropriate for a dictionary not an encyclopedia. TFD (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think syncretic politics could serve as a succinct synonym for the definition on the Third position page, which is better fleshed out. I'm for it. Ruodyssey (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

text: these notions are not really well-defined in scientific literature, so i think we have some freedom in handling them. there are also a bit more "leftist" movements that can't be easily interpreted in the left-right terminology, and syncretic politics could serve as a neutral point of view. that is, i'm against merging. by the way third way tries to appear very scientific, but in fact that's the left-leaning article, what u can see with a deeper examination of its basic references. 193.224.72.132 (talk) 09:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: As asked in the headline, where in the sources does it say that?--R-41 (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where in the sources does it say that Third Position supports "separate but equal"? 

message: The cites could use sharpening up with page number info. See , , and other footnote templates for some tools which can help with doing this with re-used cites. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sharpening up cites

message: In my opinion, this article does not bring an accurate definition of "third position" in both domestic and international politics. Third Positionism is an historically situated idea: an alternative to the Cold War bipolarity. The Non-Aligned Movement is its well-known product. Latin American populism (Perón and many others), Panarabic Nationalism (Nasser and many others), and other national liberation movements worldwide  in Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe participated in this trend. And many political theorists and commentators from third-world countries (I can give a list of Latin American authors) used "third position" to label their political views.
But this article almost says that "ẗhird position" is a by-product of European fascism, ignoring the well-known international history of third-positionism. It is important not to confuse third-world national liberation movements from European and Western fascism: they are completely different phenomena.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Observatorio (talk • contribs) 23:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: While I understand that you're saying "third position" can be taken literally to merely mean "a third option other than capitalism and communism", the term is no longer so general. It has come to specifically denote groups united by racial and environmental preservation -- two issues capitalism and communism have obviously neglected which led to a reactionary movement. It is not simply a synonym for "independent" or "third party". On the other hand, I do agree with the other part of your post. Third Positionism is not unique to Europe and the article heavily cites sources with clear "anti-fascism" agendas. The article needs to be cleaned up so that the citations are simply defining Third Positionism rather than being openly hostile or affiliating it as "rebranded nazism". There are Third Positionist movements all around the world.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.242.57.132 (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article may have serious conceptual problems 

message: There is a movement in Greece which is generally labelled as being third-positionist, aiming to crack down on what they view as corrupt foreign financial institutions and instead promote racial and environmental restoration. I believe they should be added to the list -- especially since most of the other groups on the list are historical and GD is current.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.242.57.132 (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Phalangist movement in Lebanon is also a candidate. While on the surface they appear to be a religious group, their existence was heavily grounded in defending "authentic_ Lebanese blood and soil from a massive demographic shift via Arab Islamic immigration into Lebanon. This included an ideology mixing elements of radical collectivist economics with hardline cultural conservatism - hence the name alluding to Spanish Falangism which was a sort of third revolution after Spain was dissatisfied by the shortcomings of feudalism, capitalism and communism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.242.57.132 (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Golden Dawn

message: Advocates of Third Position typically present themselves as "beyond left and right" and "against communism and capitalism" etc. On the contrary, national-bolsheviks present themselves as left-wing nationalists who combine elements of nationalism (especially Russian nationalism) and Communism. GrenadeF1 (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between Third Position and National Bolshevism 

message: "During the 1930s and 1940s, a number of splinter groups from the radical left became associated with radical nationalism; Jacques Doriot's French Popular Party (from the French Communist Party) and Marcel Déat's National Popular Rally (from the French Section of the Workers' International). " doesn't work as a sentence.
Is "During the 1930s and 1940s, a number of splinter groups from the radical left became associated with radical nationalism, INCLUDING  Jacques Doriot's French Popular Party (from the French Communist Party) and Marcel Déat's National Popular Rally (from the French Section of the Workers' International). "  what is meant?
Or "During the 1930s and 1940s, TWO splinter groups from the radical left became associated with radical nationalism: Jacques Doriot's French Popular Party (from the French Communist Party) and Marcel Déat's National Popular Rally (from the French Section of the Workers' International). " ?
[Feel free to delete this comment after fixing.] Fp cassini (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  FRANCE sentence clarification 

message: Shouldn't Third International Theory be mentioned?ShimonChai (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Third International Theory?  

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Querfront. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Hildeoc (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Querfront" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Should the lead of this article have "neo-fascist" in it? Is "nationalist" more appropriate? What is the best way to respect WP:NPOV here? See the previous discussion on the talk page above. CelebrateMotivation (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No: Within the realm of 'Third Positionism,' we encounter a diverse range of ideologies, some of which hold anti-imperialist, national liberationist, and anti-state (only national anarchism) views (such as National Bolshevism, National Anarchism, and Social Nationalism). These perspectives stand in contrast to fascism, which is fundamentally characterized by its imperialistic and expansionist tendencies. Consequently, it would be inappropriate to categorize these ideologies as "Neo-Fascist" and to exclusively define Third Positionism as "Neo-Fascist" Mr.Feinstein (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that the previous comment here was two years ago (and that was from a block evading sock). Better to start a new conversation in such cases. Generalrelative (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC about having the word "neo-fascist" in the lead

message: So, this just kind of something that I've surmised, looking at kind of a lot of articles, here, on various far-Right groups, and, so, I'm not requesting to edit the article to include information in this regard, unless someone happens to have it, but, just looking at the various organizations and figures and all, it seems kind of like the so-called "third position" has some sort of influence on far-right accelerationism.  I don't have any real evidence to support this, but, after clicking through my many tabs for kind of an extensive period of time, it has become something that I do generally glean.  It seems to me that the third position is kind of the de facto ideology of certain neo-fascist intelligentsias and that far-right accelerationism is their praxis.  I'm not about to sift through the scores of neo-fascist ideology to find out for absolute certain, but, if anyone has done so already, I would call it a good hunch, y'know. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Third Position and Far-Right Accelerationism  

message: Ba'athism#Controversy says that Baathism has fascist and racist inspirations. 186.32.216.85 (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  BA'athism and others ideologies