Talk:Terza Posizione

message: Someone is reverting my edits about Terza Posizione being "far-right," as it is not far-right, it is Third Position. I will now give my arguments as to why Terza Posizione should not be referred to as right-wing in this article.
1. Third Position is by definition not right-wing or left-wing, it is Third Position. Third Position is defined by taking aspects of the both extremes but is not in itself either side. This can be read about on the Wikipedia article dedicated to Third Position (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position)
2. Terza Posizione is Third Position. It's name literally means "Third Position" in Italian. It's motto is "Neither red front, nor reaction, armed struggle for the Third Position!" with the "red front" being an obvious reference to leftists and "reaction" to rightists. It is a Third Position philisophically.
3. As Terza Posizione is Third Position, it is thus not far-right.
4. Calling a group that's name is literally Third Position far-right is incoherent and oxymoronic. Calling it such is analogous to labeling an organization called Centrism, which advocates Centrist policies, "far-left."
5. Third Position is mutually exclusive with the right-wing, and Terza Posizione is about as Third Position as it gets, therefor it's not right-wing.
6. Thus, references in this article to Terza Posizione being right-wing should be removed. Doing so makes the article consistent, both internally consistent and consistent with the aforementioned article on the Third Position.
--73.222.125.50 (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: None of this matters. Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations or euphemistic word-games. Fascism and neo-fascism are overwhelmingly categorized as far-right by reliable sources. That is all that matters. Grayfell (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

text: This is WP:OR, and "dilineations" only matter to the extent that they are supported by reliable sources. It is not "debated by scholars" unless those "scholars" are WP:FRINGE. Grayfell (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

text: No, they are not cited in the third position article. The article says that . This is public relations, and Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations, and I see no indication that you have actually read your linked source. Fascism is far-right, per extensive sources and tedious discussion at  Talk:far-right politics. Your personal opinion that there is an inconsistency is irrelevant, and other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

text: The link should've been to Talk:Far-right politics. See Talk:Far-right politics/FAQ also. This is not merely my opinion, this is the consensus of reputable academics. Researchers who are incapable of sniffing out a poorly-constructed euphemism are beyond Wikipedia's help. Grayfell (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Oh, and also the bright red box at the top of Talk:Fascism. We've heard all of this before, and it is a fringe position defended by very few serious scholars. Grayfell (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Far Right" 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion