Talk:Reactionary

message: "Reactionary" is very commonly used incorrectly in the U.S. to mean "reactive." For example, I often hear sentences like, "So what if he hasn't called you in three days? Don't be so reactionary." It seems to me the article should address this, but I am no expert in editing, so please help.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.66.119 (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stray Comment 

message: I'm wondering about a few (semi-)recent edits.
*  removed "as well as being based in a desire to not only halt progressive change but to reverse it." This may have been ill-placed (too associated with "opprobrium"), but I think it is basically on the mark and should be stated somewhere.
*  changed "In the 19th century this term was used…" to "In the 17-19th century this term was used…" I doubt that the term was used at all in the 17th century; I'd be very surprised if it originates before the late 18th in any language. Having been wondering about this, I looked it up in the OED Online, which my local library nicely makes available. Their earliest citation is "1840 J. S. MILL in London & Westm. Rev. Mar. 276 The philosophers of the reactionary school—of the school to which Coleridge belongs." For etymology, they say "[f. REACTION (chiefly in sense 4) + -ARY1. Cf. F. réactionnaire (19th c.).] " I am reverting this edit, and will cite the OED for early use date. - Jmabel | Talk 01:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: As long as wikipedia stays neutral conservativism and reaction should not be accused of being an opposition to progress. Both conserv. and reaction(historical as well as contemporary) have a different opinion on what is and what isn't progress. From the reactionary point of view royalists during the french revolution were not blocking progress but were preventing degeneration.
Isidoros47 (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Well, in a lot of countries, it is used by the ruling powers to describe any old dissent, even when teh opposition is considered to be more liberal, ie communist countries. Although I know a lot of people who just use it against left-wing agitators YellowMonkey  (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Backwards" 

message: I've seem Euroscepticism described as "reactionary" by various people (mainly Europhiles) in various media sources.  If it's possible to find a citable source, would this be a good example of the use of the term?  However, there should be a caveat to show that this is a claim made by people's political opponents.--86.157.189.229 (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reactionany" [[Euroscepticism]] 

message: Beyond any question, Donald Trump is a reactionary. His appeal "Make America Great Again"* suggests the desire for a return to an allegedly better time in history in which certain core values (government more responsive to economic elites (anti-environmentalism, anti-feminism, reduction of the welfare state, tax cuts for the super-rich, hostility toward education for its own sake, exultation of corporate power, and contempt for diversity) and is inherently reactionary. The reaction goes beyond undoing the changes brought forth by a President that he holds in contempt; it is endorsement of ways often dating ninety years or earlier. 
Whether he succeeds at such or does not is irrelevant to whether he is a reactionary. The Welfare State has become the norm throughout Western Civilization; whether he would return fully to the Gilded Age is in doubt. He has yet to propose legislation to gut or outlaw labor unions or abolish minimum wage laws, but one cannot rule such out. Many within his Party and many of its supporters would like such to happen. 
*Note that I have waited until he proposes legislation to consider such a slogan 'reactionary' for purposes of contributions to Wikipedia Pbrower2a (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donald Trump 

message: This section needs a lot more cites. They were a slight media curiosity in late 2013-early 2014, but we need something better quality than their blogs or the blogs of their opponents for Wikipedia. Is there any third-party academic work on the subject? - David Gerard (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is terrible. RationalWiki is in no way a WP-quality RS. (I wrote large chunks of the article that was cited, but would never claim it was an RS-quality source.) Sorry to blanket fact-tag, but each of the claims as to neoreactionary beliefs needs a cite to reliable sources (not to neoreactionary blogs). They're really not a very noteworthy bunch in the wider world, for all they were a media curiosity late last year, and it's not clear they really warrant mention - David Gerard (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

text: I note also that all four of the sources cited the four sources cited at the end of the paragraph are actually personal opinion pieces hosted by RSes - two are on domains with "blogs" in the title. Unless there are actual RSes for this section, the section needs removal - David Gerard (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsourced and blog-sourced material removed. If nobody can cite it in the past four months, it deserves gone - David Gerard (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you remove the fact that Moldbug used the term "neoreactionary" before Kling? The reference was Moldbug's blog, but this use of a primary source is acceptable to directly verify a fact as per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. You left in the fact that Orwell used the word in 1943, with a reference to the newspaper article where Orwell did so. The two cases seem analogous to me. cagliost (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Orwell is notable, Moldbug's blog isn't. But if you want to be consistent, feel free to remove Orwell. I'm entirely unconvinced the neoreactionaries pass Wikipedia notability at all, even as I am personally amused by them. This entire section is really thin on good sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinking about this further, whether or not Moldbug is notable is a red herring. The point is that the article as it stands is wrong, regardless of what TechCrunch says. Kling did not coin the word neoreactionary to describe Moldbug -- Moldbug did. Linking to Moldbug to verify a direct fact about a primary source is the right thing to do. Whether or not we link to Moldbug to verify that he coined it, we should remove the claim that Kling did, because it is not true. cagliost (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neoreactionaries 

message: The origin of the word 'reactionary' is discussed in this passage:
"Reactionary" derives from the French word réactionnaire (a late 18th century coinage based on the word réaction, "reaction") and "conservative" from conservateur, identifying monarchist parliamentarians opposed to the revolution.[6] 
The citation points here, but the indicated page does not discuss the word origin:
The Governments of Europe, Frederic Austin OGG, Rev. Ed., The MacMillan Co., 1922, p. 485.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hw1zg4;view=1up;seq=501
A search through several dictionaries failed to produce any entries in agreement with the derivation claimed in the article. I suggest the page be updated to reflect the origin of 'reactionary' as described in the OED entry below.
Taken from http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/158839?redirectedFrom=reactionary#eid
Origin: Formed within English, by derivation; modelled on a French lexical item. Etymons: reaction n., -ary suffix1.
Etymology: < reaction n. + -ary suffix1, apparently originally after French réactionnaire (1799 or earlier as noun in the passage translated in quot. 17992 at sense A.; earlier as adjective (1794)).
With French réactionnaire (noun) compare earlier réacteur reactor n. (compare quot. 17991 at sense A.) and révolutionnaire revolutionary n.
MALescos (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious Etymology of 'Reactionary' 

message: I believe this article, like many in Wikipedia, should open with a paragraph that is largely sensible at a 16 year old reading level to those unfamiliar with the concept.  If you google "reactionary," there is the google definition "adjective 1. (of a person or a set of views) opposing political or social liberalization or reform."reactionary attitudes toward women's rights" synonyms: right-wing, conservative, rightist, ultra-conservative, ultra-right, alt-rightof. And then the previous wikipedia definition, with it's repeated use of the term "status quo ante."
Both are unhelpful in that reactionary IS NOT a synonym for conservative or right-wing or even ultra-conservative.  Reactionary, in my experience, is ALMOST ALWAYS used by critics of a political position against that position.  Donald Trump and his supporters call THEMSELVES conservative, but I believe never or almost never call themselves reactionary.
Political theory is perhaps a different matter in that theorist are generally describing rather than disparaging.  Reactionary is perhaps not a disparaging term when used by political theorists, but it is almost always disparaging when used in political discourse.  
Also, WHY would we use the term "status quo ante" here.  It is a phrase I never heard used until Condoleezza Rice et al. used it repeatedly in the run-up to the war in Iraq.  It is pretentious and entirely unhelpful outside of overly legalese treaty provisions, as is clear from the wiki entry. It means past.  I left it alone, but I think I am going to edit it to past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjlebl (talk • contribs) 07:29, July 31, 2019 (UTC)
:Reactionary can be used as a snarl word, but in and of itself it is merely a label that has acquired bad connotations. This is why, for example, most modern day fascists don't call themselves fascists but use euphemistic or crypto language. Incidentally there is a neoreactionary movement who are quite happy to self-label as reactionaries. Therefore I am removing the disclaimer about self-description and offensiveness. LakeQueen (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common usage of reactionary [[User:Sjlebl|Sjlebl]] ([[User talk:Sjlebl|talk]]) 07:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)in American (and I believe Canadian, Australian, UK) Politics in political discourse. 

message: The term reactionary just means those who wish to return to a previous societal state. It does not need to be those who oppose liberal or left wing change. For example the bolshevik party of the soviet union is considered radical left by political scientists but they were also the reactionaries following economic liberalizaton with the dissolvement of the soviet union in the 90s. Reactionary thus can be explained also as those who simply want to return to a previous state of society whether conservative or left wing. Xanikk999 (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The first definition given in the article should be primary meaning, someone added Mark Lilla's view above what is the primary meaning of the term, and that is not right. The older version of the article has the definition first, and that is how it should be. Hzh (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition problem