Talk:Wingnut (politics)

RfC: Is there sufficient material in the body of the article to support a sentence being added to the lede?

Question: Is there sufficient material in the body of the article for the following sentence (with refs as indicated) to be added to the lede:

"According to language pundit William Safire, the term derives from the older phrase "right-wing nut",<ref name=safire2008 /> and although it is occasionally directed at extremists on the political left, it is primarily aimed at those on the far-right.<ref name=safire2006 /><ref name=safire2008 /><ref name="nytimeswingnut" /><ref name=lexico />"

This version of the article can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Note: Neutral pointers to this discussion have been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes - In the last few days I have added 12K bytes of material to this article, the vast majority of which shows that "Wingnut" is primarily directed at extremists on the right-wing, and that it is a shortening of "right-wing nut". There is clearly enough material now to justify these statements. Safire is the primary source, but even Herszenhorn, writing about someone on the left, acknowledges that the phrase is usually used about those on the right. (Interesting, the part of his column where he said that was never added to the article before.) All the other sources, except for Merriam-Webster and Avlon, are examples of the phrase being used for those on the right.
  Avlon is an outlier, but, interesting, although he defines the phrase as being applicable to both side, when you actually read the book, almost all the examples, about 85% - 90%, are about right-wingers. There are only a few relatively short sections about those on the left. Thus Avlon's false equivalence is belied by the evidence he actually presents: if the appellation were really used equally about the right and the left, the examples he presented would have been equally about the right and the left, but they're not.
  I think that the facts in evidence in the body of the article clearly indicate that the phrase is used primarily about the right, and the lede should properly synopsize the body and say that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• No Merriam-Webster defines the term as denoting, in the slang field, "one who advocates extreme measures or changes (as in politics)". Lexico, a joint venture between Oxford University Press and Dictionary.com, on the other hand, has it as denoting a "person with extreme, typically right-wing, views." The Cambridge Dictionray does not have the slang meaning. The "right-wing" meaning has not yet been adequately established, it seems, in the major dictionaries and encyclopaedias. Perusing the media and the social media, one can find numerous uses of the term when referring to non right-wingers. -The Gnome (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Non-Neutral RFC - RFC is invalid, written in a non-neutral way. But, also No per The Gnome. PackMecEng (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Mostly No I've skimmed the article. Not seeing why William Safire belongs in the lede to the exclusion of everything else in the article. I think a more NPOV lede would read something like "it is more often aimed at those on the far-right, but sometimes aimed at those on the far-left". MarshallKe (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• No and Bad RfC - This is a sorta nutty discussion. We're trying to create definitions for slang. What are we? Urban dictionary? Given there's an open RfC on a similar topic and a AfD on the article, creating this new RfC seems ill advised. NickCT (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes the above sentence looks fair and is attributed to Safire. Safire, who is a well-respected writer in this sphere, does in fact belong in the lead, on the balance. Other uses of this term aimed at left wingers post-date Safire's work and represent semantic progression of the euphemism. To be abundantly clear, I would support some minor changes to the above wording, but I am satisfied with it as written, and I don't want to get into minutiae right now. The purpose of clarifying this intent is explicitly to prevent it from later being used to block all changes, however minor, to the exact phrasing mentioned above. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes - restating AlexEng's comment - it is properly attributed and there's no reason to not include this in the lead. The lead as it stands is too short and does not adequately summarize the article content. ButlerBlog (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, per everything AlexEng has already said. I won't restate, but I don't find the main thrust of the proposed wording unfair or unbalanced. — HTGS (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: Those who made the effort to actually check out William Safire's April 11, 2004, column in the New York Times (we need a subscription to access it, but it has been reproduced by the Taipei Times here) have noticed that the author was not supporting the use of the term under discussion exclusively or even mainly for "right-wingers." I'll cite the two relevant mentions of the term in Safire's text:

"...the pragmatist William James predicted that a canonical formula 'would certainly develop both right-wing and left-wing interpreters'."

"The attack word catching on with political non-wingers and by mainstreaming media is 'wing nut.' It is applied with supposed fine impartiality to both left-wing kooks and right-wing nuts." (Note placement of dash.)

I'll add that Safire was a Nixon speech writer who's defined himself as a"libertarian conservative." To think that Safire intended the use of "wing nuts" exclusively for his chosen side of the aisle, even if only for the fringe seats, should strike us as highly improbable.

Political terms, and especially derogatory ones, should be defined very carefully in Wikipedia, on the basis, if anything, of the explicit demand for neutrality. In fact, in cases of controversial or disputed terms (and this one is, indisputably), we must not weasel vagueness in. We have enough sources to keep clear of this mine, e.g. "True confessions: a left-wing nut bares all" in the Globe and Mail, 2000.

To be accepted as defining exclusively right-wing extremists, the term must be in use as is, i.e. without the words "right", "rightist", etc, attached to it (but it is in, for example, The Independent here, 2021). The term has not yet gravitated towards being a single-significance signifier. -The Gnome (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

If you'd actually read the article, you'd find that in 2004, Safire said it applied to both, but in 2006 and 2008 (book) he had changed his view and said, very clearly, that the phrase comes from "right-wing nut" and was appied almost exclusively to the right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you pay more attention to the dash. I already pointed that out. Moreover, selective use of sources favorable to one's view and elevating such sources to a level they do not deserve is uncalled for, at least here in Wikipedia. William Safire is an excellent amateur linguist but not the top expert on American vernacular; having his take, whatever it might be, definining the term in the opening section is engaging in hyperbole and causing unnecessary controversy. -The Gnome (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely inaccurate. The summaries of Safire 2004, 2006, and 2008 are correct and represent Safire's growing understanding of the use of the term. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The bit about Safire's "growing understanding" is entirely your own interpretation. And you're still trying to insert one popular yet amateur linguist's take in the opening paragraph. Wouldn't such an attempt strike you as unseemly in any other circumstance? -The Gnome (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes Looks fine to me as a summary of the etymology section GordonGlottal (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Mostly No (Summoned by bot) The amount of text devoted to Safire seems disproportionate, though a sentence or two could be used. If the term has been so little written about, it's questionable whether the term deserves an article at all IMO. It also appears that the content of the "examples" section seems random. Examples should fulfil some clear illustrative purpose, supported by refs as to the point being illustrated - otherwise what are the criteria for inclusion? Pincrete (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC wording

• Comment @Beyond My Ken: Come on, BMK. We just talked about non-neutral RfCs during the above RfC only a couple days ago. Please reword your RfC statement to be neutral. You can add all of the surrounding context, including the bit about your 12KB addition, in your response in the "Survey" section. Every time this sort of thing happens, it derails an RfC into a bunch of Bad RfC !votes interspersed with pieces of relevant discussion that actually help achieve consensus. The non-neutral wording is posted by the bot on the main RfC page, which should not include your analysis of what the refs show and whatnot. I again request that you reword the RfC statement per WP:RFCNEUTRAL. AlexEng^(TALK) 23:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• I didn't think it was particularly non-neutral, as the information provided was a straightforward description, but I've acceded to the comments and requests and reworded the RfC. Because of this All !voters should take a look and decide if they want to change their !votes or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)