Talk:Far-left politics/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Image in article RFC
Should this article have an image in the lede? To be on parity with the related article far-right politics, it should probably have an image. My idea is to have an image from the October Revolution, but other movements from beyond this era should not be included at all such as Antifa (United States), since it is WP:UNDUE to think of it as a parralel to illegitimate movements and terroristic ideologics such as white nationalism. It is best to present it from a neutral point of view, so nothing paints labour movements/related from the past 50 years as illegitimate. 51.37.241.193 (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that if this article must exist we should have pictures, we should always strive to use pictures, but I must say that we need to be strict with ourselves in not trying to be arbiters of what is and isn't 'legitimate' in the terms of political thought or action and we should not be calling any ideology as 'terrorist' ideology unless it is a self-described term as this will be very firmly in non-NPOV. my point is minor to your overall point but we must be firm with ourselves to leave the moralism and non npov language at the door. For example, what ever argument you would use to call things 'terroristic ideology' I see used to label left-wing groups as terrorist in teh lead of my watchlist articles every month and i can tell you it is not helpful to writing encyclopedia articles. SP00KYtalk 18:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- Disagree with using pictures for this specific article. I don't think images are needed in this instance and it’s probably going to be very difficult to get editors to gather around a consensus that whatever is shown represents the far-left. It also, in my view, places too much power in the hands of editors (consensus or not) to be able to determine what does and does not constitute a picture representing the far-left. Pictures of what is and is not far-left is not exactly something you're going to be able to easily find a free to use image that has the backing of a reliable source stating what is in it to be far-left. I also just think generally it’s not an article where pictures are particularly important in aiding understanding for the reader. Helper201 (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Helper201 That's an excellent argument. IF we found a picture that several clearly reliable sources said was an example of far-left politics (the incident, not the specific picture) then that might be ok. By the way, this isn't an RFC. Doug Weller talk 11:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- We have already been over this, it is kind of an irrelivent argument as we cannot find consensus on any groups , individuals or actions that are 'far-left' to begin with anyway, so consensus is kind of out of the window. We can still use pictures from one of the many articles that has pictures and is labelled as 'far-left' and we could caption for example 'X, widely considered/written to be far-left'. So something taken from article that already is labeled under this term that has some pictures to take,such as International_Freedom_Battalion (just a random example pulled from the hat because it is just wat i was reading/looking to edit and has a lot of pictures, this is not a suggestion as such). SP00KYtalk 18:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm in strong agreement with @Helper201. There are many articles that could use an image in the lead section, but this is not one of them. This article is in fact one of the rarer ones that are better off without a lead image. What is even 'far-left' independent of one's standing on the spectrum? For many in the U.S. the most moderate social democrats like Sanders are unironically called 'far-left'. For some it starts with, while for others it starts after democratic socialism. Where do you draw the line? As the article for communism says, even it isn't entirely considered 'far-left'. Same case with anarchism. But let's say they are - how do you adequately represent these two in one image? How do you even adequately represent all the wildly different tendencies of those two with one picture? Whatever you put, it's going to be disputed as WP:UNDUE representation of everything it doesn't show. Collage of various images then? You're not going to cover everything with that either, and many of them are still going to be disputed as 'far-left'. In the end, Wikipedia is not a picture book to "always strive to use pictures" against all odds. –Vipz (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- The definition of far-left should be based on what is said on Wikipedia. I don't care if some Americans call Sanders a "far-leftist", because that doesn't change the fact that a far-left actually exists, which, as the article says, it's represented by anarchists and communists. About your claim on "how do you adequately represent these two in one image?", I don't see reason to include the whole faction of the far-left. The one on "Far-right politics" depicts the Identitarian movement and not all far-right movements like integralism, reactionism, fascism, ultramontanism, traditionalism, theocracy, national socialism, national syndicalism, revolutionary nationalism, etc. Yet that doesn't make the inclusion of that image invalid. A leading image doesn't necessarily has to cover each single ideology labeled as far-right or far-left, but represent something that could help people recognize part of the movement easily. The image I suggested below (@W1tchkr4ft 00 @Czello I suggest you to check it) could work too, if the ANTIFA image is controversial here. Stalinism is in no way a moderate ideology, and the image I suggest could it better Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- I am going to have to agree with you both I guess.
- @Alejandro Basombrio It is not right for us to say 'the far-left is anarchists' as a blanket statement, at least in any article. It is a wide body. Simply A lot of anarchists would disagree with this and the literature reflects this. SP00KYtalk 18:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm in strong agreement with @Helper201. There are many articles that could use an image in the lead section, but this is not one of them. This article is in fact one of the rarer ones that are better off without a lead image. What is even 'far-left' independent of one's standing on the spectrum? For many in the U.S. the most moderate social democrats like Sanders are unironically called 'far-left'. For some it starts with, while for others it starts after democratic socialism. Where do you draw the line? As the article for communism says, even it isn't entirely considered 'far-left'. Same case with anarchism. But let's say they are - how do you adequately represent these two in one image? How do you even adequately represent all the wildly different tendencies of those two with one picture? Whatever you put, it's going to be disputed as WP:UNDUE representation of everything it doesn't show. Collage of various images then? You're not going to cover everything with that either, and many of them are still going to be disputed as 'far-left'. In the end, Wikipedia is not a picture book to "always strive to use pictures" against all odds. –Vipz (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- Disagree with using pictures for this specific article. I don't think images are needed in this instance and it’s probably going to be very difficult to get editors to gather around a consensus that whatever is shown represents the far-left. It also, in my view, places too much power in the hands of editors (consensus or not) to be able to determine what does and does not constitute a picture representing the far-left. Pictures of what is and is not far-left is not exactly something you're going to be able to easily find a free to use image that has the backing of a reliable source stating what is in it to be far-left. I also just think generally it’s not an article where pictures are particularly important in aiding understanding for the reader. Helper201 (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Definition of the far left
In response to my question, "Can you give us a definition of far left?" 120.22.132.101 replied, "I reference the same references from the article on Syriza itself." Can they please provide the definition for us. TFD (talk) 06:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- I referenced that Syriza had nothing to do with the far left. In full fairness of a more specific analysis of the issue, While Tsipiras himself was once a member of the communist party in Greece, he denounced his association with it and the "Synaspismos" which was the coalition of the "left." I was making reference to their ideology. The particular point I was making that while "Syriza had been characterized as an anti-establishment party, whose success had sent "shock-waves across the EU"... it has abandoned its old identity... that of a hard-left protest voice, becoming more left-wing populist in character, and stating that it would not abandon the eurozone..." citing references 74-77, on the page to do with Syriza. There is no way of linking the current version of Syriza with communism or the KKE, and the KKE, is a footnote anyway, that really ended somewhere in Greece in the 1980s never really actually getting off the ground, after losing traction from failing to have any notable effects during and after World War II where Stalinism may have been seen in any way relevant. Not to bring wp:or into this, I should know personally however. My grandfather like many others fought against Communism in Greece after the power vacuum that was created by the puppet Nazi regime in Greece, and the Greek Civil War after the end of World War II. Communism in Greece and any real link to it being relevant ended at that time. Any other reference to it in the modern day sense is an an anachronism.
- What I was referring to is the donkey who thinks that somehow there are Stalinist sympathizing Russians hiding underneath the bed of the average Greek person, or somewhere in modern Greek politics. In fact when it comes to the average person in polling conducted as recently as 2008 in a "...Gallup poll, Greeks were asked "whether it was better that the right wing won the Civil War". 43% responded that it was better for Greece that the right wing won, 13% responded that it would have been better if the left had won, 20% responded "neither" and 24% did not respond." But, the majority indicated that it was better for Greece that the right won, that right at the time being a military occupation supported by both the US and the UK. The prevailing position in Greece ever since the Junta has been that of a progressive country which over the years since the third Republic has only ever been led by three parties, those being New Democracy, PASOK, and SYRIZA. Any reference to the illegitimate claim to a communist government ever existing in Greece, as a result of the military reoccupation of Greece, also marks that as an illegitimate footnote.
- What I was really saying with all of this is that the people of Greece have never supported communism in a majority, never really have, and it doesn't play into the general ethos of Greek people, or their way of life. In fact we went as far to fight a war about it, so to say that it plays any part, or has done in any significant way really since the 1980s, shows how little the poster I was referring to really knows about that matter, or anything else. If you would reference the facts apart from what is now recognignised as the illegitimate "provisional government" there has never been any communist representation in Greece at all from the entire list of the leaders of Greece. --120.22.132.101 (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Extremo esquerda
A extremo esquerda também pode ser formada de preconceitos, racismo, xenofobia. Vocês precisam adicionar isso 181.225.173.176 (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- There can be people like that in every political group. It's not however a defining characteristic. It's similar to saying that some members of the far left could be monarchists or deeply religious. It doesn't mean it's a defining characteristic.
- Incidentally, you are supposed to write in English in the English Wikipedia. TFD (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Article neglect
Comparing and contrasting this article to its sister article "Far-right politics," the amount of content explored and sourced indicates a polarization of American politics favoring liberality. I do not intend to create argument over the case of reality: Rather, it is relevant to discuss the neglect of discussion of this article. Because Wikipedia strives to be impartial and informative, I will create a copy of this message on the community forum. 3vvww661 (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't really fully understand your comment, so I'll just say this: Wikipedia is an entirely volunteer project, and editors can work on whatever they choose to work on, so separate articles have no particular relation to each other. Because Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, you should not try to measure the quality of any article at Wikipedia using some other article as a standard. Rather, measure the quality of an article according to its adherence to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There is a volunteer group here working on assessing article quality, and you may enjoy reading about what they do at Wikipedia:Content assessment. This article, for example, is rated 'C' on the article quality scale. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- These are articles on two separate subjects. There is no reason to expect that they will be equally lengthy, discussed, sourced or well-defined. As an example, if you look at the US, there are a massive number of far-right forums, radio broadcasts, tv shows and politicians. There are far fewer far-left equivalents. The terms are not polar opposites and suggesting they be treated as such would be a false equivalency. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with this. There is no reason to expect them to be parallel articles. Doug Weller talk 15:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- That's because while far right politics is an actual distinct topic with books and articles written about it, far left is merely a term used by speakers to arbitrarily distinguish between the acceptable and unacceptable left. It's like the term stupid people. Where on the continuum do you draw the line? TFD (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Biased depiction between far-left and right
| Whether this is intentional trolling or not, there is nothing productive to be had here. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
It's surprising that Wikipedia is full of biased people who tend to depict the far-left ideology as a good thing (saying that the term "Far-left" does not have a single, coherent definition; some scholars consider it to represent the left of social democracy,), while Wikipedia describes the "far-right" as racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. So, this is WP:Neutral Point of View is meant to be. It's meant to be not-neutral, but considered neutral when it supports certain communities or ideology. Myacc748239 (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
|
Terrorism
Zilch-nada, I was wondering if you had any thoughts about how to organize the information about terrorism. I don't think separating it out as its own section is necessary. There's nothing that really makes it more important than other aspects of far-left politics. My suggestion is that we intersperse it throughout the history section: the period of anarchist terrorism in the early 20th century can get its own paragraph, and the period of Marxist terrorism during the Cold War can get its own paragraph. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
The following recently added (and subsequently toned down from "overlap significantly" to "overlap in some areas") statement is highly problematic and very exceptional:
They also overlap in some areas with far-right politics, as they express similar grievances and engage in similar behaviors regarding radicalism, nationalism, Euroscepticism, and populism.
What are the similar grievances? Euroscepticism on the far-left is motivated by anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism, but also by EU agencies' human rights violations on its borders (Frontex § Controversies) and its anti-immigration policies. Euroscepticism on the far-right is motivated by ultra-nationalism, racial/ethnic supremacy, and anti-immigration sentiments. Both are radical in their stances and appeal to "common people", yes. I'm not sure where they draw "nationalism" as an attribute of the far-left from, because the vast majority of the far-left is internationalist (and correctly identified as cosmopolitan in the previous sentence); the "left-wing nationalists" are a minority and are merely masquerading as being on the left.
"Euroscepticism" is here reduced to mean "opposed to European Union", and along with general attributes of populism and radicalism used to claim far-left and far-right politics significantly overlap (or "have a plenty in common" in the source). I objected to this on the basis of this being on the level of Reductio ad Hitlerum. Multiple high-quality, exceptional sources should be cited for such exceptional statements and excluded if there is consensus for doing so until then. –Vipz (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, you go based on your personal opinion, I'll go based on what the sources say. Sounds like we have a plan. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Three explicit calls for following the WP:ECREE policy are repeatedly dismissed and characterized as nothing but a personal opinion? Doesn't seem very constructive to me. It's borderlining a WP:BAIT the way the response is worded. –Vipz (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- You deleted sourced content, citing your own original research about why you felt it wasn't true. That's not how we do things on Wikipedia, and it's not a "call for following the WP:ECREE policy". Your interpretation of the source is not a factor to consider when writing the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Except the thrust of the source provided [1] is that far-left and far-right voters are radically different. The contention of the source is that far-left and far-right voters have been in the past sometimes characterized as having similar positions but that this characterization is largely wrong or over-simplified. The source contends voters of both extremes are ideologically driven but that the ideologies that drive those voters are differ fundamentally. We are using the source to support a position that is on several points the opposite of what the source concludes. Moreover, the source is a study of far-left and far-right voters not of far-left and far-right ideas. The current article text is simply not supported by the source. CIreland (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Meijers, Maurits J. (2017): The summary of this source states (1st paragraph) that Eurosceptic politics are heterogeneous [heterogeneous, adjective: diverse in character or content.] and dynamic (2nd paragraph) have significant variation in motivations for Euroscepticism, then the source lists out these motivations. Not only does it not support the claim that far-right and far-left have "similar grievances" it states the opposite, just like the above laid out by Clreland (cheers, thanks for taking time to investigate that source). Doesn't seem to support "engage in similar behaviors" claim in the summary, but I kindly request a quote if it does in the body.
- McClosky, Herbert; Chong, Dennis (1985): The extract confirms that far-left and far-right hold hold sharply contrasting views on various questions (listed out there), no "similar grievances". It does support the "engage in similar behaviors" claim though, stating that they "resemble each other in the way they pursue their political goals"; however, a rewording may be in order to come closer to what the source states.
- Rama, José; Santana, Andrés (1 January 2020): The abstract claims that "LWPPs and RWPPs voters are similar in their attitudes towards immigration and the European Union (EU)". Not only can we not rely exclusively on an unelaborated statement from an abstract (access to the full work and from it quotes relevant to supporting this claim as well as their sources will be required to confirm), but such exceptional claims (about attitudes towards immigration) should be better sourced (with a number of works from credible authors).
- The sentence I object to is a classic case of synthesis of published material. –Vipz (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- Three explicit calls for following the WP:ECREE policy are repeatedly dismissed and characterized as nothing but a personal opinion? Doesn't seem very constructive to me. It's borderlining a WP:BAIT the way the response is worded. –Vipz (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)