Talk:Regressive left

Earlier usage

Maybe not the earliest usage of the term, but much earlier citations that are found with a quick Google search. On the commentary track of Fight Club, with the two lead actors and director, one of them uses the term in reference to reviewers, including Roger Ebert, of accusing the film of being pro-fascist. I'd time-stamp it myself, but I don't currently have the blu-ray to hunt down the mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:203:4716:51B1:F7FF:6C37:F13D (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable questionable sources

Removing the "criticism" section for lack of WP:RELIABLE. This section has two paras, each with one citation, both are opinion pieces. Per wikipedia guidelines, opinion pieces are unacceptable especially for something as contentious as "criticism". Further more,

• first citation is from "The Huffington Post". Wikipedia lists this source as having "questionable reliability", "biased" and "opinionated" (WP:POV, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#HuffPost
• second citation is opinion from "BuzzFeed". Wikipedia has doubts on its reliability, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#BuzzFeed. Moreover text in the article uses WP:POV terms such as "currently HEAVILY used". More importantly the text in article sidesteps the "conclusion" of the article which concludes "In other words, it's a sign that the sentiments behind the alt-right [in tending "regressive left" on twitter] may not be as far out of the American mainstream as some of us would like to think." Finally, the conclusion drawn by the author of the source in the "opinion" piece itself is "tentatively/speculatively", he pre-qualifies his opinion as "may be".

Please feel free to re-add criticism provided it is not based on "opinion" pieces, and must be based on uncontentious, reliable, verifiable, secondary sources. Thank you. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I have reinserted per WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Simply because the sources are not-neutral is not valid reason to remove them; especially when this is apparently political and any criticism would be non-neutral. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

My apologies dear RandomCanadian, I will have to revert/remove it, because the issue is not just the BIAS/NEUTRALITY alone, but the bigger issue is WP:RELIABILITY, Wikipedia:NOTOPINION and WP:ONUS for disputed content. That consensus on unreliablity of these sources have been achieved by a much larger consensus process at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. There is no policy which exempts political onion piece from both "reliability and neutrality" requirements. A very low threshold may be acceptable only in case of undisputed content on uncontentious article. Also per WP:BIAS "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering." This source does not even meet the requirements of policy you cited. Opinion piece, from biased and unreliable source, there no many strikes against this section. If you are still keen, please find some reliable, unbiased, neutral sources to make the edits future-proof, otherwise sooner or later such edits are likely to be removed by someone. Avoid opinion pieces too. If you can not find now, do not worry, something will come up from reliable source in few months/years. I am sorry for making you do bit more to find the source. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The entries for both of these say "No consensus", not "Unreliable"... That means we should use them on a case by case basis, and here the content seems accurate. Unless you intend on removing valid criticism of the far-right? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced text, finding citations

I came across the following two preexisting unsourced passages in the "usage" section of the article. These are potentially contentious on a topic like this. Hence, could be disputed and removed in future.

1. "which was later published in a short book, titled Islam and the Future of Tolerance (2015)."
2. "In a review of the book in the magazine National Review Online, political writer Brian Stewart noted that according to both Nawaz and Harris "regressive leftists" in the West are "willfully blind" to the fact that jihadists and Islamists make up a significant portion (20% in Harris's estimate) of the global Muslim community and the minority Muslim communities within the West, even though these factions are opposed to liberal values such as individual autonomy, freedom of expression, democracy, women's rights, gay rights, etc."

Following two source to be applied to support the text,

• The Washington Times, already exists in the article in 4th para of "use of term" section.
• National Review A Liberal Atheist and a Liberal Muslim Discuss the Problems of Contemporary Islam, 7 October 2015. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Both of these have a "source" (described textually). In the first case this would be Islam and the Future of Tolerance; which can be cited without too much difficulty as a reliable secondary source (the citation from the Wash. Times can also be used):

• Harris, Sam (2015). Islam and the Future of Tolerance : a Dialogue. ISBN 978-0-674-08870-2.

And the second also just lacked the proper citation format, i.e. as follows:

• Stewart, Brian (7 October 2015). "A Liberal Atheist and a Liberal Muslim Discuss the Problems of Contemporary Islam". National Review.

Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)