Talk:Far-left politics/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

POV to explain why the Extreme-Left is considered extreme?

Apparently so. The article is about the extreme left, yet when I attempted to add text to explain why it is characterised as extreme, from an impeccable academic source, it was reverted by User:Freshacconci [1]. This paper by McClosky and Chong, Similarities and Differences Between Left-Wing and Right-Wing Radicals in the British Journal of Political Science and published by Cambridge University Press was a survey of far-left and far-right politics and it determined the characteristics that make the Far-left, well, far-left. Surely no one seriously considers the title POV too, do they? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is not with the source but with the way you represent it as if its conclusions were absolute truths and without saying what groups the authors consider to be far-left. try to write the same thing with more background e.g. "In a survey of bla bla bla McKlosky and Chong argued that the far left could be defined by..."·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh, one would think it would be simple enough to attribute the viewpoint, rather than an outright revert. I'll re-add the text with attribution. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Its not quite as simple as that - we need to know more about who McKlosky and Chong consider to be far-left. The way you write it it seems that all parties considered far left anywhere would have those characteristics, which they obviously don't.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Apart from idenfifying the usual suspects such as Stalinists, Trotskyites, Maoists and New Left radicals, McKlosky and Chong identify their survey respondants in these terms:

Thus, of the American left-wing respondents typically surveyed (or other-wise interviewed) by research investigators, few are hard-core revolutionaries in the classical mould. Nearly all are college-educated, young (mainly students, in fact), more intellectual than most, secular, cosmopolitan in orientation, recently recruited and (very likely) transient radicals who because of their location in the social structure have been repeatedly exposed to the norms of the prevailing liberal democratic political culture - norms that they are bound to have absorbed to some extent and still retain to some degree. In their social characteristics and their relation to the existing political culture, they differ in important ways from the respondents who turn up in most surveys of the radical right - the latter being, on average, less educated, older, more rural, more parochial, more religious and less intellectual. Most left-wing survey respondents also differ from the hard-core revolutionaries of the left in that the latter are likely to be older, no longer students, engaged in political organizational work of some type, radicals of long standing and deeply immersed in a Marxist-Leninist (or other revolutionary) subculture that is profoundly antagonistic towards American mainstream values.

This article is about the politics, not a list of individual groups. Obviously there is a distinction between left and far-left. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• I have now read the article and you don't give a very good representation of what it is about. It is an argument in the long debate about whether left-wing radicals can be have authoritarian personality types like their right-wing counterparts or not. There is a rather large literature on this and McKlosky and Chong come to the opposite conclusion of most of the earlier studies, namely that while far-left and far-right activists are politically opposites on the left-right scale, both groups are characterised by authoritarian tendencies. The authors don't describe very clearly which groups they have surveyed, but mentions that they have concentrated on "left-wing militants", and they in fact write frankly that their survey of left radicals can not be considered representative of the "hard-core revolutionary left". ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that explains the use of the terminology so we can determine whether your addition fits? I can find sources for example that describe the Tea Party, etc. as far right but would not add them to that article because they do not fit in with the standard definitiion used in that article. TFD (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, re-read the above, source has been provided. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It does not such thing. TFD (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does, I have the full text of the paper in front of me. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

(out) Can you find something in the article similar to what is used in the article "radical right" to explain the terminology?

There is disagreement over how right-wing movements should be described, and no consensus in terminology, although the terminology developed in the 1950s, using the words "radical" or "extremist" is the most commonly used. Other scholars prefer calling them simply "The Right" or "conservatives", which is what they call themselves. The terminology is used to describe a broad range of movements.[Diamond, pp. 5-6] The term "radical right" was coined by Seymour Martin Lipset in his article included in The new American Right, published in 1955.[Plotke, p. lxxvii] The contributors to that book identified a conservative "responsible Right" as represented by the Republican administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower and a radical Right that wished to change political and social life.[Plotke, pp. 26-27] Further to the right of the Radical Right, they identified an ultraright. Most ultraright groups operate outside political life, call for drastic change and in extreme cases use violence against the state. These groups were seen as having developed from the Radical Right, both by adopting ideology and containing members drawn from them.[Plotke, pp. xxxix-xl] In The Radical Right a contrast is made between the main section of the Radical Right that developed in the 1950s and was able to obtain influence during the Reagan administration, and the related ultraright that had turned to violent acts including the Oklahoma bombing.[Plotke, pp. xi-xii]

Ultraright groups, as defined in The Radical Right, are normally called "far-right",[Davies & Lynch, p. 5] although they may be called "radical right" as well.[Davies & Lynch, p. 335]

According to Clive Webb, "Radical right is commonly, but not completely, used to describe anticommunist organizations such as the Christian Crusade and John Birch Society.... [T]he term far right...is the label most broadly used by scholars...to describe militant white supremacists."[Webb, p.10]

TFD (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Having now read the article it seems clear that their definition of "far left/radical left" is "militancy" and "hard-core" revolutionarianism.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Martin may expect to see a symmetry between terminology used to describe the Left and Right. Such symmetry however does not exist because while all left-wing ideologies can be categorized according to well recognized terminology (socialist, Maoist, etc.) ideologies that are more right-wing than conservatism cannot be, hence the need for terms such as "far right". TFD (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

TFD, I don't "expect to see" any such thing. You seem to be refuting arguments I am not making. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

If you cannot find any literature that establishes the "far left" as a topic rather than a term that is ideosyncratic to individual writers, then all of this is original research and provides misleading information to readers. I will therefore remove it. Incidentally, in his book Laird Wilcox did not "identify" far-left groups. You have provided his 443 page book as a source without citing page numbers. TFD (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

II've already supplied an number of sources that treat the far-left as a topic. The abstract to Laird Wilcox's book lists some some of the groups as "far-left". Is it is my problem that you do seem to not read these sources I supply? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to appreciate the problem. The problem is that there is no common shared definition of what is "far left" as is the case for "far right", we cannot just throw together different sources that use different definitions without alerting the reader to that fact - that would be OR. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Upon what basis do you assert "there is no common shared definition of what is "far left"? Please support your claim by providing sources that give unworkably different definitions of "far left". --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It works oppositely, you need to show that there is such a definition - McKlosky and Chong actually says that there is no standard definition and choose to adopt a working definition of "militant, hard-corte revolutionary" (which makes their conclusion that far-left tends to be undemocratic and intolerant somewhat circular). And they state that their study is not representative.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Never the less, it didn't stop McKlosky and Chong from writing about the far-left, obviously McKlosky and Chong don't think a standard definition is sufficiently important enough to stop them writing about the far-left, therefore it shouldn't stop us writing about what they write about the far-left. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well first you have to provide a single definition of the far left and btw Martin, you have not read Wilcox's book and are misinterpreting it. TFD (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope, the abstract clearly articulates who Wilcox identifies as far-left. Are you claiming Wilcox or his publisher have misinterpeted their own book when they wrote the abstract? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting the abstract which btw does not use the same terminology as the book, which you would understand if you read it. TFD (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

However the author used the terminology when he wrote the abstract. How can an abstract be misinterpreted if it is almost copied verbatim. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears that TFD has blindly reverted all changes[2], with the edit comment "rv POV edits that do not represent the source", which is somewhat misleading, since we discussed the issue of POV in this section, and that was fixed by properly attributing the source, and User:Maunus subsequently improved upon that [3]. I don't see how progress can be made when we solve specific issues such as properly attributing sources where necessary, only to have it all deleted to naught. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

How do you know that McKlosky and Chong are writing about the same topic that the article is about? Can you find a book that explains what the far left is and how it is defined by different scholars. TFD (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, maybe because McKlosky and Chong also identifies Trotskyists, Maoists and New Leftist as far-left, just as your gutted article does. I've already added the views of a couple of scholars, but you deleted it. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You claimed that Laird Wilcox called the Communist Party USA far left and now you provide a source that excludes them. You really need to find a source that explains what "far left" means before adding snippets. TFD (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

McKlosky and Chong also identify The Communist Party USA as far-left too on page 335. McKlosky and Chong also explain some of the defining features of the far-left, for example they have a tendency to censor their opponents. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually that is not a defining feature. The ad hoc definition they use is militancy and revolutarianism. They find out the militant left wingers tend to have authoritarian characteristics. They don't say that those characteristics define the far left. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

And, might I add, this is why this has been labelled POV and OR: Tammsalu, you are attempting to make the source fit what your idea of "far left" is. Case in point: you titled this section "POV to explain why the Extreme-Left is considered extreme?" Well, the article is called Far-left politics not Extreme-left politics. You equate far-left with extremism and that is POV. What the far-left is depends on where you're standing. We need to first define what far-left is and then we can identify various ideas of far-left, some of which are extreme but not all. Someone on the far-right would consider Obama far-left (i.e. a "socialist"). Whereas a liberal would consider him centrist if not leaning to the right. But we simply cannot label the far-left as "extreme" based on your interpretation of one source. freshacconci talktalk 12:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You are kidding right? The lead sentence states "Far left, revolutionary left, radical left and extreme left are terms which refer to the highest degree of leftist positions among left-wing politics." NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. I added one significant view that the far-left represents militancy and revolutarianism, with attribution, but that was deleted. The correct way to establish NPOV is to add other published views, not remove reliably sourced views. That source used was a peer reviewed source published in an academic journal. I'll wager that you will never ever find a peer reviewed academic source that claims Obama is "far-left", so your argument has no merit. Your claim that I "am attempting to make the source fit what your idea of "far left" is", is also without basis. Firstly I do not have any preconceived idea of what "far left" is, that is why I rely upon reliables sources to inform me. Secondly, the text I added was quoted almost verbatim from the abstract of the academic paper I cited. If you don't know, abstracts of academic papers are written by the authors themselves as an accurate summary of the content of the paper. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to establish that there is a concept of the far left in serious literature and that the sources are discussing that conecpt rather than merely using the same words. The lead btw is not sourced and you have failed to establish that any topic exists. Cf with articles on the Right. As explained, some writers use the term far right to refer right-wing populists, while most use it to refer only to racist groups. It would therefore be wrong to say in the article far right: "The Christian Democrats in Australia are far right.... x says that the far right is racist and violent." We must decide whether we want articles to be informative or merely to be defamatory toward unpopular groups. TFD (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

McKlosky and Chong's study establishes that the concept of the far left exists in serious literature, in a journal paper published in Cambridge University Press. In fact their paper points to a whole body of academic study of the far-left. The text I added related to McKlosky and Chong's study made no mention of any group, yet you deleted it entirely rather than Laird Wilcox's view which seems to be at issue with you. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Maunusm what McKlosky and Chong argues is summarised in the abstract of their paper, and text is derived from that abstract. Surely you are not claiming McKlosky and Chong are misrepresenting their own paper when they wrote the abstract, are you? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Where is the abstract that you claim to cite from? The paper does not begin with an abstract, you must have gotten that somewhere else. I would be surprised if they present an argument in the abstract that isn't in the paper.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC

While McKlosky and Chong use the terms "far left" and "far right" in the abstract,[4] they are writing about authoritarianism, not trying to define far left and far right. We would have the same problem including their writing in the article about the far right because we do not know whether they are discussing the subject of that article or right-wing authoritarianism, radical right, right-wing populism, right-wing terrorism or any of a number of topics that have been variously called by some writers "far right". I notice btw that Martin has only attempted insert this paper into this one article, although beans may apply. TFD (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

McKlosky and Chong uses the term "far left" 113 times within the 34 page paper, and "authoritarian/ism" only 40 times. There is absolutely no ambiguity here that they are discussing the far-left. What McKlosky and Chong is writing about is the political, psychological style and tactics of the far-left and they conclude that this can be labelled as authoritarian. The abstract is an accurate summary of the paper and the text used is an almost verbatim quote of the concluding paragraphs of that abstract. Maunus' contention that I misrepresented this source is verifiably without foundation. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the paper is a valid source about the concept far left and that it should be included in the article, but you represented it as making a general definition of the far left's politics which is not what it does. It presents an argument in the debate about left-wing authoritarianism, and it is an argument that has been contradicted in numerous sources - how many times they use each word is utterly irrelevant, it requires syou to actually read the paper to know what it is arguing, I am beginning to doubt you have read it. Also you manipulated the quotes to make it seem as if they were singularly characterising the far left when in fact they were saying that this description was valid for both the far left and far right groups that they had surveyed (which were only the militant ones). And you also made it look as if their conclusions could be extended to other definitions of "far-left", which they specifically say that it cannot. That is misrepresentation of a source. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I most certainly did not represent it as a general definition, it was properly attributed as the viewpoint of these two scholars, which you yourself improved upon here[5] after you read the paper. So please do not make stuff up. Whether or not a particular characteristic is also shared by the far-right is irrelevant. Ofcourse if you prefer we could write "McKlosky and Chong write that the far-left and far-right share authoritarian tendencies..." --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes you did when you wrote it without mentioning that their definition only includes militants. And yes it matters that their general argument is that the militant movements on the left and right share the same psychological build up. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No I didn't. What stopped you from adding "only includes militants" when you made this improvement[6], but instead you delete the whole thing. And I am perfectly happy for you to add that the far-left and far-right share the same psychology. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that that argument is controversial, and this page is not the right place to present the debate about left wing authoritarianism.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in policy that prevents the presentation of "controversial" viewpoints. NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. The solution is to present the other viewpoints that you think are missing, not deleting reliably sourced viewpoints. If a debate exists about whether or not the far-left politics has authoritarian tendencies, then NPOV requires us to present that debate in this article. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Do they provide a definition for their use of the term? Do they represent that there is an agreed definition they are using or are they using it with a meaning specific to their paper? Do they reference any sources for their use of the term, and is the usage in this paper cited in subsequent literature. Take a look again at how terminology is discussed in far right, radical right, right-wing populism. right-wing terrorism and left-wing terrorism. Use them as examples of how terminology must be explained before articles can be written from an NPOV. Otherwise this article will become another piece of POV garbage like CT or MKUCR.

BTW could you please take the courtesy to other editors to actually read the sources you are presenting and gain familiarity with the literature before adding material. Otherwise other editors have to spend time reading the sources, none of which you have accurately presented.

TFD (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope, you have access to the abstract, nobody disputes the abstract is an accurate summary of the article, please show how an almost verbatim copy of the conclusions of that abstract is a misrepresention. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

IOW you refuse to or are unable to reply to my reasonable questions. TFD (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Maunas has already answered your question: "I agree that the paper is a valid source about the concept far left and that it should be included in the article". Can we move on to some other issue now? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

He said that you misrepresented the source, and has not explained what use the article would be. TFD (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

When he claimed I misprepresented the source he was not aware that an abstract extisted until you pointed that out. The abstract shows that I quoted virtually verbatim the conclusion contained in the abstract. He then modified his criticism to claim I had omitted to mention militancy as a feature, I pointed out to him that he could have easily added that detail when he improved the text[7] rather than outright deletion. Where upon he then claimed that I hadn't mentioned the paper's viewpoint that far-left and far-right share the same psychology, I didn't think was relevant but please be my guest and add that to the article if you wish. His current position now is that we shouldn't mention reliably sourced viewpoints if they are "contraversial", but that seems contrary to WP:NPOV. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 03:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Please don't speak for me. Especially not if you misrepresent all aspects of what I have said. That is a blockable offense.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

What I have said and what I keep saying is this: By cherry picking a section of the abstract out of context your edit made it seem as if McKlosky and Chong presented an argument that they do not make (neither in the abstract nor in the article), namely one that was a general characterisation of the far left. They explicitly say that the data on which they base their conclusions is not representative of other groups than the particular militant groups they have data from. Their argument is about left-wing authoritarianism, arguing that left-wing authoritarianism exists - not that it characterises the entire far left. Left-Wing authoritarianism is a big debate and it is treated elsewhere on wikipedia - we cannot just pick a single article out of this large literature and present its viewpoint as fact as you did. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Claiming I "cherry-picked" the abstract is a gross assumption of bad faith, I work to the best of my abilities as we all do. Again I state there was nothing stopping you from adding additional words of clarification to the text as you did previously[8], so please don't misrepresent my position. And where did you say is the topic of Left-wing authoritarianism is treated in Wikipedia? And you still haven't explained how removal of reliably sourced viewpoints, no matter how "controversial" you believe they are, is inline with WP:NPOV, which requires all significant viewpoints to be presented. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that you wilfully cherry picked it, but you did pick an present a quote that did not adequately reflect the entirity of the paper. A significant part of NPOV is WP:UNDUE which is meant to guard against using a single source from one side of a larger debate instead of an adequately weighted account of the debate. You do not help NPOV by inserting a conclusion from one primary source rather than adressing the larger issue. The issue of left-wing authoritarianism is adressed here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion of the paper ("In sum, when the views of the far left and far right are evaluated against the standard left–right ideological dimension, they can appropriately be classifled at opposite ends of the political spectrum. But when the two camps are evaluated on questions of political and psychological style, the treatment of political opponents, and the tactics that they are willing to employ to achieve their ends, the display many parallels that can rightly be labelled authoritarian.") is nothing controversial. It is a common conslusion that is usually represented by biaxial models of political spectrum like this one:

-- Vision Thing -- 21:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that recent biaxial political models which werent used when they wrote the paper accomodates this structure. They were however not arguing in the political sphere primarily but adressing the debate within political psychology about the authoritarian personality-type and the F-scale which has nothing to do with the biaxial model. In Psychology the debate of the dexistence of left-wing authoritarianism is long standing and Mcklosky and Chong did not provide the last word - describing the debate balancedly would require a recent secondary source, not a primary source from 1985.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems like you are pretty well acquainted with the matter. Best solution would be if you could provide such source and balance the content in question. -- Vision Thing -- 16:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly different writers will use the term far left, but you need to show that it exists as a consistent topic. For example, a writer may say that intelligent children do well at school. Your could use this observation to create an article called "intelligent children", Google mine for rs about intelligent children and end up with a well-sourced OR article. TFD (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is one such source (p. 183-191). It deals with ideology and politics in Britain, but it also gives a general overview of the extreme left. -- Vision Thing -- 16:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC: What is the subject of this article?

What should be the subject of this article? Do recent edits violate Wikipedia policies of disambiguation, synthesis, neutrality? TFD (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The term "far left" is not clearly defined, and various writers will use it will varying meanings. The term refers to the most left-wing groups, individuals, and ideologies on the left-right political spectrum, but there is no agreement what those are. The Right presents similar problems, where there is also no agreement on terminology, but there is at least agreement on general concepts, so we are able to present articles on individual topics by finding sources that explain terminology as shown in the following example from Radical Right:

There is disagreement over how right-wing movements should be described, and no consensus in terminology, although the terminology developed in the 1950s, using the words "radical" or "extremist" is the most commonly used. Other scholars prefer calling them simply "The Right" or "conservatives", which is what they call themselves. The terminology is used to describe a broad range of movements.[Diamond, pp. 5-6] The term "radical right" was coined by Seymour Martin Lipset in his article included in The new American Right, published in 1955.[Plotke, p. lxxvii] The contributors to that book identified a conservative "responsible Right" as represented by the Republican administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower and a radical Right that wished to change political and social life.[Plotke, pp. 26-27] Further to the right of the Radical Right, they identified an ultraright. Most ultraright groups operate outside political life, call for drastic change and in extreme cases use violence against the state. These groups were seen as having developed from the Radical Right, both by adopting ideology and containing members drawn from them.[Plotke, pp. xxxix-xl] In The Radical Right a contrast is made between the main section of the Radical Right that developed in the 1950s and was able to obtain influence during the Reagan administration, and the related ultraright that had turned to violent acts including the Oklahoma bombing.[Plotke, pp. xi-xii]

But no one has identfied any similar literature for the Left, the lead is unsourced and the article is a collection of comments by writers who may be discussing different topics. It appears to violate policy.

1. Disambiguation requires that when a term is ambiguous and could refer to more than one topic, that the different topics be covered in more than one article.
2. synthesis prevents us from developing our own concept of "far left" not found in any source.
3. There is also an issue of neutrality, where unpopular ideologies may be labelled "far left" despite a lack of academic consensus for that description.

TFD (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• The lead should be a summary of the text, so it normally doesn't need cites if the main text is already cited. There is no synthesis here, all text is reliably sourced and attributed, there is no idea expressed here that is not already expressed in the sources. For example Dr. March gives a clear and explicit definition of the "far-left". There is no evidence of a lack of academic consensus, no one has found a source that disagrees with Dr. March's definition. In any case, the simple solution to any POV issue is to add alternate viewpoints, if they exist. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • March does not provide a source for his definition or his categorization and you need to demonstrate that either his usage of the term "far left" or his concepts are generally accepted. Note that the article is published by a Social Democratic thinktank, the Friedrich Ebert Foundation. Their categorization of competing parties may not represent mainstream usage, for example, Social Democrats refer to conservatives, Christian Democrats and liberals as "bourgeois" or "right-wing". Because your source was publsihed outside the mainstream, it is unlikely that any mainstream sources will comment on its conclusions or its use of terminology. TFD (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Please provide sources to establish what you consider to represent "mainstream" usage of "far-left". --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Don't take issue with the section giving different political scientists definitions of "Far-left". IMHO this should be the basis of the article. Not at all sure about the table Far-left politics#Political parties. What is the difference between "radical left" and "extreme left"?? No definition is given. Probably should not be part of the article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually yes, the definition of the difference is based on Luke March's work which is summarised in the preceding section. It does seem likely however that using this primary source as the sole basis for such a table give that particular paper and its classification undue weight, especially given the fact that it is not a disinterested academic source.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a secondary source, March is a British academic from the University of Edinburgh writing about the continental European far-left. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a secondary source when it refers what others have said done or written, it is a primary source regarding its own classification scheme which is made by March and not attributed to any other researcher.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• • March does define the difference between the radical and extreme left, the former is accepting of democracy and wants to reform capitalism, while latter is more hostile to liberal democracy and denounce any compromise with capitalism. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• I think there is an issue of synthesis that will not be resolved untill the article is based on secondary sources instead of primary ones. The various sources use the same words "far left" - but they use different definitions and are therefore not necessarily talking about the same thing. The synthesis which is not present in any of the different sources is therefore the paradoxical notion that all of these different definitions somehow describe the same entity that can be the topic of a wikipedia article. Untill someone procures some secondary sources about the topic the article runs the risk of becoming simply a list of of different scholars who have used the phrase "far left" in different ways. That is not what wikipedia is.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • You do not appear to understand the difference between primary and secondary sources. From WP:PRIMARY: "Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." All the sources provided are secondary sources written by academics, none of them personally involved in far-left politics, and have based their studies on the literature/bibliography listed in their respective papers. All the sources presented so far congruently represent the same phenomenon, nobody has presented a source for an alternate definition they claim exists. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

They are primary sources for the purpose of definition of the topic since they do not follow anyone elses definition but each establish they're own. A secondary source would be a textbook, encyclopedia entry or review article summarising and evaluating research on "far left politics".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Please supply some sources for these alleged other definitions to support you claim "they do not follow anyone elses definition". What you describe are tertiary sources, from WP:SECONDARY: "Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources." --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

No they are tertiary sources for the data, but they are secondary sources for statements about the research. Academic articles are secondary sources for claims about the world, but primary sources for their conclusions about that data. March does not give a citation for his definition of "far left", which if he follows the rules of academia means that he invented that definition itself. His definition is different from the ones used in all of the other sources, e.g. McKlosky and Chong who describe as far left only those that are "militant", not even March's extreme left groups are militant. That is because he is talking about something other than what Mcklosky and Chong are talking about.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This source might provide a workable definition of the "far left" in the present: Hloušek, Vit; Kopeček, Lubomír (2010). Origin, Ideology and Transformation of Political Parties: East-Central and Western Europe Compared. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing. p. 45. ISBN 9780754678403..

Thanks for the additional source. In regard to User:Maunus's points, March's paper is not a research paper, it is a review paper. The term "far-left" is an established term with common understanding, as this new source shows, there is no contradiction between what March writes and what McKlosky and Chong writes, militant groups are a subset of the extreme-left, which in turn is a subset of the far-left. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

March's paper may be a review paper, but it is not published by an academic press but by a political interest organization. It also does not provide any sources for the definition of the term which is what we are after here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

March makes exactly the same definition in the paper co-authored with Cas Mudde "What’s Left of the Radical Left? The European Radical Left After 1989: Decline and Mutation" published in the journal Comparative European Politics, 2005, 3, (23–49). You still not have provided an alternative definition or cited an academic who disputes March and Mudde's definition, so there is only one definition on the table here, agreed by Hloušek and Kopeček in 2010. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you tell me how you deduce that the definition is used by Mcklosky and Chong is the same as March's?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hloušek and Kopeček write, "at the beginning of the 21st century it is no longer possible to speak of a Communist family of parties, but more of a broader family of the far left" (p.45) The page's footnote then says "March and Muddle do not use the term "far left" but "radical left"". Note that that they are referring to March and Muddle's academic paper "What's Left of the Radical Left After 1989: Decline and Mutation" (Comparative European Politics, 2005) not March's paper for the Social Democrats. Also note that they reject his definition and make no claim that their use of the term "far left" is generally accepted. So there is no agreement on terminology. Also, the concept of political families uses the term "extreme right" to describe parties such as European nationalists. Does Martin intend to add the description "extreme right" to articles about the Tea Party, UKIP, etc.? TFD (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think the Hlousek source is indeed exactly what we needed to show that Mudde and March's definition has currency. Also notice that militant left doesn't figure in his breakdown of the far left into three subcategories. Like March, he is only talking about established political parties, not militants. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Not withstanding the fact that the Mcklosky/Chong paper was written in 1985 and related to the USA, 20 years before the March/Mudde paper written in 2005 which is related to contemporary Europe, both Mcklosky/Chong and March/Mudde identify Trotskyists and Maoists as belonging to their definition, thus confirming the commonality. The difference is in scope, with March/Mudde having a broader focus. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a complete non-sequitur. The fact that they happen to mention some of the same groups does of course not mean that they have the same definition.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. The March/Mudde paper discusses the decline and mutation of the radical-left since 1989, in the paper they discuss the history and mention the renunciation of revolutionary goals by some parties but do state some residual militancy continues to exist in the radical left, from page 38: "A large number of militant (and usually tiny) radical left youth wings do exist in the wider subculture, particularly in the East, increasingly communicating and coordinating activity through the Internet, and occasionally succeeding with ‘flash-mob’ demonstrations, or incidences of violence." --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Although Marsh and Muddle's definition has currency, it is their definition of the "radical left", not their definition of the "far left". Hloušek and Kopeček use the definition for "radical left" and call it far left. Our next problem is to determine what is the most common term used for this new political family. (I have posted the March paper to RSN. The March and Muddle paper of course meets rs, but I question using a paper from a partisan political source.) TFD (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

March uses the exact same definition in his 2005 paper "What’s Left of the Radical Left? The European Radical Left After 1989: Decline and Mutation" as his 2008 paper "Contemporary Far Left Parties in Europe" [9]. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You should be using the paper he wrote for an academic journal, rather than the article he wrote for a Social Democratic organization. TFD (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't yet collected the full literature on the topic but at this point I'd like people to consider moving this article to "Radical left politics". March and Mudde's categorisation of the "radical left" has fairly good coverage in the literature and in academic discourse the term "radical left" is used with far more precision than the "far left" [10]. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

In regard to McKlosky and Chong (1985), probably for inclusion later on in the article but they don't provide a workable definition of the far left. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, they are describing particular tendencies of the extreme-left described as authoritarian, not providing a complete definition. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is another source, published by the Manchester University Press, which calls them "left parties", by which is meant "to the left of mainstream social democracy". It also calls them transformatory parties.[11] TFD (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw that, an interesting source. The definition of far left seems pretty obvious indicating a relational position on a political spectrum. The problem is it's so axiomatic that it has remained largely undefined. This introduces a new and frankly confusing terminology (Left parties as the far left). While I know the term is more pejorative, I think we should really look into the use of "radical left politics". FiachraByrne (talk) 05:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

March's topology is just more detailed, he positions the extreme-left to the left of the radical-left, while placing both as sub-types within the "far-left" category. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to establish which terminology is most widely accepted, as was done in the article radical right. See Radical Right#Terminology. We have Hloušek and Kopeček use of the term which is the same as March and Muddle (2005) use of the term radical left. We then have March (2008) using the term in an article written for the Social Democratic think tank. All these uses differ from that used by other writers. Unless you can provide a source explaining the usage, all we say (in this article anyway) is that different authors use the term in different ways, but they all agree that it means the farthest left side of the political spectrum, although there is not agreement about what groups it includes. TFD (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You argument regarding the article radical right is a complete non-sequitur, the body of literature concerning that topic is different to the body of literature concerning this topic. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The terms "far right" and "far left", "radical right" and "radical left" bear some similarity - the adjectives in both cases are the same and the nouns are opposites. The same standards apply. We don't lower standards because an article is about the Left, rather than the Right - that would be WP:POV. TFD (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles are based upon what has been published in reliable sources, not upon one's personal theories of the symmetry of terms. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 06:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The point is that all articles should be written to adequate standards, and I presented articles that had some degree of similarity. Obviously you are unable to provide sources to establish the main usage of this term. Going forward, we should identify a primary topic for the article and then decide if we are using the correct name. If you want to use Hloušek and Kopeček's definition, it refers to a political family that came into existence after 1989 and is to the right of historic Communism. A good topic to write about but I am not sure that is the most common usage of the term. TFD (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources have been presented alright, you just don't appear to accept them. You have not presented any source that shows an alternative definition exists or that any scholar disputes March's topology in a published reliable source. Hloušek and Kopeček shows that March's topology has currency. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Hloušek and Kopeček rejected the terminology that March and Muddle provided and March's later paper has received no recognition. Could you please read the sources so that we could better discuss them. (March and Muddle for example never use the term "far left".) TFD (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Please support you extraordinary claim by citing the text where Hloušek and Kopeček reject the terminology used by March. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents here would be to convert this article to a redirect to Left-wing politics, having a space to discuss different usages of left, far-left, etc., there. There is no coherent, universal, definition of 'far-left' and gathering random quotes from seemingly random academics becomes SYNTH at some point. The notable exception is France, in which the term 'extreme gauche' has a specific historical meaning and is reasonably well-defined. --Soman (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Does "extreme gauche" really translate best as "far left" though?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. 'extreme' in this case is understood as 'furthermost towards' rather than implying 'extremist'. --Soman (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

March posits "extreme-left" to the left of "radical-left", and both are grouped as subtypes within "far-left." March and Mudde provide a clear and comprehensive definition of the terms. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Martin, this "extraordinary claim" is from the source that you provided, p. 45, where Hloušek and Kopeček write, "March and Muddle do not use the term "far left" but "radical left".[12] Could you please read the sources you are providing before commenting on them. You are wasting everbody's time. TFD (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

March defines the term "far-left" in his 2008 paper, which incorporates both the radical-right and the extreme-right. RSN has shown that his 2008 paper was published as a reliable source. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Edward Sidlow and Beth Henschen in their textbook America at Odds give following definition: "Persons on the extreme left side of the political spectrum who would like to significantly change the political order, usually to promote egalitarianism." In the radical left they include "socialists, communists, and, often, populists". -- Vision Thing -- 18:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

But Hloušek and Kopeček define "far left" as what March and Muddle call "radical left", and it is to the right of communism. Vision Thing, high school textbooks are not reliable sources. In any case, you have misquoted your source. It says "radical left" not "extreme left", "consists of those who would like significant changes to the political order". It defines the "far left" as "extremely liberal".[13] Communists btw are not "extremely liberal". Could both of you try to accurately report the sources you present, because it takes time for me to look up your sources, only to find that you have misrepresented them. TFD (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Textbooks are reliable sources, especially when they are written by professors of political science. Communists are "extremely liberal" if you define liberal as "concept of "big government" and government intervention to aid economically disadvantaged groups and to promote equality". -- Vision Thing -- 16:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The idea that "Liberal" = "Big Government" is patently ludicrous (...as would be the opposite, if used to define "Conservative"...), both in a historical and modern context. Even in a modern American context, "Liberals" are generally "Social Libertarian," and "Economic Authoritarian," while "Conservatives" are "Social Authoritarian" and "Economic Libertarian." The idea that the two ideologies are separated by "Big Government" or "Authoritarianism," is absurd. If Communists are "extremely liberal" as you erroneously claim, that would make Fascists "extremely conservative." (And both of those examples are also absurd misuses of terminology...) Bryonmorrigan (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable source examples: "Textbooks at the K-12 level do not try to be authoritative and should be avoided by Wikipedia editors." I will not even attempt to reply to your theories. TFD (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The term "liberal" probably shouldn't be used in this article at all, since it's very confusing. In the United States, "liberal" is used to mean roughly what's meant by social democracy in Europe (a bit left of the American Democratic party). In Europe, "liberal" is used to mean something between the Democratic and Republican parties in the US. None of these has anything to do with "far left", which might be described after the source mentioned above as left of social democracy. This would mean e.g. democratic socialism and anarchosyndicalism. --Dailycare (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

double revert

Restored my lede changes after others tagged the article for issues(s) they address. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles are suppossed to be about topics. In an article about Christian Democracy for example, we have a clear definition of the ideology and acceptance of which parties belong under the banner. For Progressivism we have an article about how a term has been used. Both types of articles are acceptable. What is not acceptable is to confuse the two and create a synthesis. Laird Wilcox's definition of far left for example differs substantially from that of Luke March. March's terminology has not been accepted by subsequent writers. In order to write an article we would need to agree on a topic. We should revert back to the earlier NPOV version of the article. Please discuss additions. TFD (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Information update needed

There are many parties in Asia with far left as their position, the article includes information about European parties only. Please update.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You have a point, but the tags you put in were wrong. This is not about "updating", but about providing a global view of the topic. I've exchanged the tag you used for the correct one for the rationale you've provided.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that the answer would rather be to remove the table of European parties. As discussed ad nausea, having a listing of parties and organisations becomes irrelevant, as there are no global definition of 'far left'. --Soman (talk) 07:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If so then there is no communism, no socialism, no capitalism if there is no left-right politics, nazism never existed if there is no global far right, there were no dictators no anarchists etc. Sorry please bring logical views before you even jump to discussions. There is an excellent global line which defines left-right politics.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you read any of the previous debates on this subject? --Soman (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I did, but it looks like you never read anything and jump to discussions.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If you did, you would be familiar with the argument that universal left/right definitions are impossible. What is considered as a 'far left position' in the U.S. would be a moderate centrist opinion in most European countries, for example. --Soman (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

We do not consider present views for "GLOBAL definitions" nor your own point of views. Your arguments for this one is as illogical as the UCPN(M) arguments that you presented. Global left-right positions are defined from a long time ago and parties are classified as such. FYI, for example in the US where I live I can assure you that the Democrats are considered in the centre left due to their socialistic approach and the Republicans are in the right due to their conservative ideology etc. There is nothing to discuss here. I am not sure why user Soman is so persuading to delete the left right political spectrum from wikipedia. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The Democrats are to the left of the Republicans but they are not "socialists" and "conservatives" - that is merely Americans importing foreign ideological categories into their dialogue. Apparently what divides them, as indicated in the last election, is whether the maximum federal income tax rate should be 36% or 38%. TFD (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, did i miss some years here? Where did the whole health issue go? The health bill from democrats is inclined towards socialism as accused by the republicans themselves. And please be assured that only the tax is definitely not the only issue between the two parties. Also, as you said, 'democrats are to the left of the republicans' should enlighten some of the issues that our friend soman has not been understanding in terms of the political spectrum/left-right politics which exists globally. If there were no global definitions then you could very much say everything is relative and nothing is global.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Why!? (Sob)

Why, if this article exist, don't we have articles on giraffes taller than 18 foot and red cars? I think this article shouldn't really exist, and that it is better to merge the information with other articles. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Extrême gauche

According to PONS Dictionary, extrême gauche translates fo far-left, so there is not reason to remove the content refering to extreme-gauche. --RJFF (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just noticed you placed the split discussion tag, so I have reverted at edits back to that point so that we can have that discussion. --Nug (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Political parties

First this article explains that there are different definitions and explanations of "far-left" and then there is the "Political parties" section, which attributes parties to the far-left category only based on one study. As if this study would be the one and only authoritative attribution which parties are far-left and which are not. I think this article should explain the phenomenon of far-left politics in an abstract and general manner.

It should not explicitly list certain parties. The list could, if it is indeed of encyclopedic value, be moved to a List of far-left parties, and would than have to be based on several existing sources on that matter. Which in turn, would be very difficult, because different sources may contradict in their classifications of parties in the political spectrum.

The current version presenting the thesis of one single study as the absolute and unopposed truth is not acceptable. --RJFF (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The source defines far left parties as those that are to the left of Social Democrats and says that the most successful are "pragmatic and non-ideological". The is certainly different from the lead: "the highest degree of leftist positions among left-wing politics.... advocating radical fundamental change". Historically, "far left" meant to the left of the Communists, while the source article uses the term for a new (post 1989) political family, in between Social Democrats and Communists, that has yet to be named. See WP:DISAMBIGTFD (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. thesis of one single study as the absolute and unopposed truth is not acceptable. is there anything that would refute the findings of this study? How does the fact that there's been no other study presented on the topic justify the removal of sourced and hitherto in no way disputed material? Seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me.Estlandia (dialogue) 14:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The compilation of parties is according to Dr. March's definition of far-left as all parties "that place themselves to the left of social democracy" which is not undisputed. (See other definitions of far-left.) It is a minority opinion to classify the Scandinavian green-left parties as far-left. Parties that Dr. March himself describes as, in part, "pragmatic and non-ideological", "accept(ing) democracy" and having "(often vaguely defined) aspirations towards political reform and/or direct democracy and local participatory democracy..." This is very much contradictory to other (prevalent) definitions of far-left, including the definition this article uses in its lead section: "the highest degree of leftist positions among left-wing politics". Compare e.g. the Cambridge Dictionary which defines far left as "refer(ing) to political groups whose opinions are very extreme" This seems to reflect the common and usual comprehension better than Dr. March's definition as "everything that is to the left of social democracy." I don't want to deny the ligitimacy and validity of Dr. March's definition. But I want to show that it is only one out of many. We have no reason to prefer and highlight just this definition.

In my opinion, a list of far-left political parties does not belong here at all, as this is not a list article, but a general encyclopedia article which should define a topic and inform about it in a general and abstract manner, without conclusively naming all parties or movements that adher to this position. Moreover I think it is inconsistent to list far-left parties in Europe in a quasi-conclusive manner while not naming far-left parties on the other continents. This is WP:Systemic bias. However, this article naturally can never list all far-left parties and movements around the world. A List of far-left parties could, if the user community wishes so. --RJFF (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a published source that backs your viewpoint, I'm afraid it is WP:OR. WP:YESPOV requires us to provide all significant viewpoints, deleting Dr. March's view is contrary to WP:NPOV. --Nug (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Richard Dunphy labels many parties that Dr. March categorises as far-left parties, simply as "left parties". Therefore Dr. March's classifications are not uncontested and universally agreed. Moreover, I don't want to delete Dr. March's view on how to define far-left. But this article cannot enumerate all parties that have been described as far-left in reliable sources. Then, it would not be an article, but a list. The list of far-left parties according to Dr. March already makes up about half of this article. And it includes only European parties. If we would consequently continue with Asian, African, Latin American far-left parties, it would blast the article. Why don't you start a List of far-left parties? --RJFF (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Dunphy reserves the term "far-left" to parties such as the French Trotzkyists or the Italian Democrazia Proletaria that are even to the left of mainstream communist parties. Obviously, there are diverging definitions of far-left, and not only one. --RJFF (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because Dunphy may have a differing definition, it is your synthesis to suggest DR. March's definition is "contested", unless you can provide a quote from Dunphy stating that he actually contests Dr. March's viewpoint. But even is he did that does not justify removal of March's classification, which was clearly attributed to him, as we should represent all viewpoints per WP:YESPOV. --Nug (talk) 08:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Dunphy has published his book before March published his study, so how could he react on the study? If he defines far-left in a different way, it implies that March's definition is not universally shared. I don't want to reject Dr. March's view as invalid or illegitimate. I just want to show that there are other definitions. Therefore it is rather undue to highlight March's as if it were the only and authoritative. --RJFF (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't show there are other definitions by deleting one particular viewpoint. March's viewpoint was appropriately attributed and there was no text stating that it was the only authoritative viewpoint. If you think his viewpoint has been given undue weight, the approach would be to add other viewpoints, not deleting March's. A NPOVed article should be like a road map where a reader can read all the significant viewpoints on the topic. --Nug (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Nug, you want to merge post communist parties with the Weathermen. You would need sources to push your POV. BTW why do you keep changing your name? TFD (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? All viewpoints published in reliable secondary sources should be represented. Your removal of one viewpoint in favour of another clearly indicates who is POV pushing. --Nug (talk) 08:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to remove any viewpoint. Still the objective of the article Far-left politics is explaining the concept of far-left politics and not enumerating all far-left parties. An article may have an embedded list, but here the list is already as long as the prose. And it is anything but complete, because it only contains European far-left parties and it only depends on a single source while there are several sources with differing definitions of far-left parties. Again: this article cannot exhaustively list all far-left parties. It should focus on explaining and defining the concept of far-left politics generally. You have not yet reacted to my proposal to outsource the list of parties to a separate list article. What speaks against it? --RJFF (talk) 09:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the point of splitting off the list into a separate article when as section titled "list of far left parties" would suffice, particularly if it illustrates a particular topology as adjunct and illustrative to a particular scholar's classification. Feel free to add graph, tables or trees illustrating other scholar's topologies, but don't go deleting March's. --Nug (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nug. The classification of European far-left parties that we have here quite nicely illustrates the trends within the far-left and hence there's no reason why this should be split off from the main article.Estlandia (dialogue) 11:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:DISAMBIG. Articles are supposed to be about topics not words. Obviously moderate, pragmatic parties that the Social Democratic Party paper calls far left are not the same as the extremist bomb-throwers in the article's intro. The effect is that the article is misleading. TFD (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't base articles upon what you WP:KNOW or your personal political conviction, but upon published WP:RS. That you disagree with Dr. March and remove his reliably sourced and attributed viewpoint[14] with the misleading edit comment "Remove OR" is evidence of disruptive POV pushing. --Nug (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The paper from the Social Democratic Party used the term to refer to groups to the left of Social Democrats while the lead uses it to refer to extremist groups. They are using the same term to refer to two different concepts. Do you understand that different writers may use the same term with different meanings? TFD (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your contention that a generic description and a more specific description refer to "different" groups is inaccurate. There is nothing that prevents those two from being a complete overlap. A different way of putting something does not mean you are referring to different things. There is no mutual exclusivity of terminology as you allege. That is simply to be explained in the article.

To the original point, there's no positioning of any source as the one authoritative one, it's just that in articles on politics, it's simpler to attribute everything even though it interferes with article readability. (That's not to mean there are not such seminal sources, if we believe we have any such sources here, that's a separate discussion about the source and its status among scholars in the field as opposed to its specific content.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Political parties (cont.)

To re-cap the discussion above. The topic of the article is "the highest degree of leftist positions among left-wing politics". Nug and Estlandia want to include a list of parties called "far left" in a Social Democratic Party policy paper. RJFF, Spylab and I disagree because per WP:DISAMBIG the paper is discussing a different topic. Since there has been no discussion in the past few days, and most editors support removing the section, I will remove it. TFD (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest explicit agreements on content other than no exchange on the topic the last few days as an appropriate gate for any content under contention. Editors have a life, and not every editor has time to participate every day or even every week. I've been following the discussion, I just don't have time to participate. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Until you are able to follow the discussion and form a reasoned opinion, you should not be editing the article. TFD (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, did I not say I've been following the discussion? I don't need to argue with you over editorial content to have a "reasoned opinion." I suggest you get true consensus on changes than "XYZ time has expired, done", consensus. I"m not stating any more or any less. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

@TFD, I've mentioned this three time in an earlier discussion, this will be the fourth time: March makes exactly the same definition in the paper co-authored with Cas Mudde What’s Left of the Radical Left? The European Radical Left After 1989: Decline and Mutation published in the journal Comparative European Politics, 2005, 3, (23–49). This "Social Democratic Party policy paper" argument is a furfy. --Nug (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The term "far left" is not used in that paper at all. Please do not misrepresent sources. TFD (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus by reliable sources that those specific parties are considered far left. Presenting the biased list as if it is neutral fact is a violation of Wikipedia policies. The list serves no useful encyclopedic purpose and does not belong in this article.Spylab (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The text is not presented as a neutral fact, it is clearly and explicitly attributed as the opinion of the author Dr March. No legitimate justifcation has been given for its removal. Stop violating Wikipedia policy WP:NOTCENSORED and stop disrupting the split discussion. --Nug (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

L::See disambiguation. Disambiguation requires that when a term is ambiguous and could refer to more than one topic, that the different topics be covered in more than one article. Or since you like writing to authors, write to Dr. March and ask him if he was writing about the subject defined in this article. TFD (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced text

TFD has deleted sourced text with the edit comment "Wilcos and Laird do not make this claim"[15]. Yet the abstract referenced clearly claims "Groups active during or since the 1960’s on the far left include the Communist Party USA, Socialist Workers Party, Black Panther Party, Students for a Democratic Society, Progressive Labor Party, and many others."[16]. TFD, please explain. --Nug (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Wilcox does not describe them as "far left" in the book. While the abstract uses the term "far left", it does not say that that he calls those groups far left, and in any case is not a reliable source. TFD (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Abstracts are generally written by the authors themselves, but I'll go to the library and verify what Wilcox and Laird write in their book. Why did you delete you claim of using it in other articles[17], because the question follows that if you consider the source unreliable, why did you use it in other articles? --Nug (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed my comments because I did not think they advanced the discussion. I used his writings as a source for his descriptions of various groups in the U.S. But when I wrote about his theories, I have used other writers as sources, because it is better to use secondary sources. D.J. Mulloy's American extremism: history, politics and the militia movement is a good source for them. Wilcox's contribution was the theory of "extremism". Incidentally, he now writes for popular media and uses the term "far left" to refer to anti-war Democrats and supporters of universal health care, which is why we should be careful in obtaining sources that clearly explain terminology and provide sources, like Mulloy's book. There has been discussion of abstracts recently at RSN, mostly for scientific and medical subjects, and little support for using them. TFD (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

The edit warring on this page is unacceptable by all the editors involved. I suggest you gain consensus before removing/restoring the sections in dispute. If you fail to reach consensus on this issue, you are welcome to use dispute resolution to resolve this. But I do not want to see any more of this edit warring, or a block will result to the offending parties. —Dark 09:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that when a section is highly disputed, the default position is to leave it off until there is consensus to re-add it.Spylab (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Only in cases of BLP, which this is not. I left a clear warning for the editors involved to stop edit warring over it. —Dark 06:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is about violent, extremist groups operating outside electoral poltiics. An editor has found a paper that uses the term differently, to refer to ex-Communist parties and coatracked a list of ex-Communist parties into the article. The paper does not try to group these parties with extremism, and subsequent references to the paper do not use the term "far left". This violates violates WP:SYN by conflating unrelated groups and presenting an opinion not present in the sources. While removing this material may be mandatory only in a BLP, the "if in doubt keep it in" approach is not mandated by policy. TFD (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is that due to the different, and in parts even contradictory, definitions of "far-left", is is impossible to compile a complete and universally acceptable list of far-left parties in this article. Moreover, considering the different positions on how to delimit the far left, it is WP:UNDUE to dedicate more than half of this article to Dr. March's definition and selection of European parties. Even if we explain that it is only the classification according to Dr. March, it creates the impression that it were the only, authoritative, and conclusive list of far-left parties. And I still think it is problematic to enumerate European parties that have been considered far-left in a seemingly conclusive way, while ignoring far-left parties on other continents (or don't they exist at all?) --RJFF (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be no agreed terminology for these parties - far left, extreme left, left, radical left, post-Communist. But if we decide that they are the subject of the article then we need to remove sources that talk about unrelated groups. Maybe we should change the name of the article to post-Communist parties. TFD (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Change the name of the article to post-Communist parties? I disagree, that would be wide off the mark. Not all far-left parties listed here can be called post-communist and by far not all the main post-communist parties (e.g Hungarian Socialist Party or Polish SLD) are far-left.Estlandia (dialogue) 15:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

March excludes those two parties from his survey because he is writing about parties that are not members of the Socialist International. Otherwise he includes "pragmatic and non-ideological" parties. Subsequent writers who reference March write about "post-Communist" parties. An alternative would be to redefine the article to use March's terminology, although that would be odd because he has abandoned it and it has not been picked up by any other writers. TFD (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Dr. March includes parties that he decribes as "no longer extreme", and "pragmatic and non-ideological". This is at odds with this article using "far-left", "radical left", "revolutionary left", and "extreme left" as synonyms. The article also covers French extrème-gauche (defined as to the left of the Communist Party), and German Linksextremismus which according to Dr. Jesse includes autonomists who are ready to use violence. We should decide on what the topic of this article is (left-wing extremism/extrème gauche/Linksextremismus or Dr. March's "soft" far-left definition). If we decide to present all possible meanings and definitions of far-left/radical left/extreme left in one article, we have to present them in a balanced way and with a balanced portion of the article for each. We cannot put an undue accent on Dr. March's definition whom we currently dedicate more than half of the article. I do not have a problem with presenting March's definition of far-left (as one out of several possible), but it is not acceptable to illustrate it with a long list of parties that are far-left, according to his definition. And I have not seen anyone here tackle this argument. --RJFF (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Richard Dunphy, who lectures politics at the University of Dundee, labels the Italian PRC and PdCI, French PCF, Greek Synaspismos and KKE, Portuguese PCP, Spanish PCE-IU, Danish SF, Finnish VAS, and Swedish Left Party (all considered far-left by Dr. March) as "left parties", not as far-left. So, obviously Dr. March's definition and attribution of parties is not generally shared in political science. Therefore it is not acceptable to expose it and emphasize it as if it were the only representative and authoritative categorisation. Because, even if we write "this is only the categorisation according to Dr. March", it creates the impression that it were authoritative. We would then have to write behind every party "Please note that Dr. Dunphy does not consider this party far-left, but merely left". And the more studies and publications by other scholars we find, the more notes we would have to make. "Dr. A considers this party far-left, Dr. B doesn't, Dr. X prefers the term radical left, Dr. Y considers it post-communist, while Dr. Z uses new left or rejects the bipolar political spectrum completely". Please agree with me that such a list is impossible to complete and will always evoke quarrels and fighting. --RJFF (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"Left" is the term they use to describe themselves. Perhaps we should change the title to "Left parties", although "Post-Communist parties" would be another possibility. TFD (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

RJFF, well obviously "left parties" are a superset of "centre-left" and "far-left", while "far-left" is inturn a superset of "radical-left" and "extreme-left". Dunphy's classification of certain parties as "left parties" is not in conflict with March's more acute classification of the "far-left" within the "left parties". Why do we need to synthesis a unified definition of what constitutes "far-left", why not just list all the significant views, so it forms a road map for readers to understand the current scholarly thinking. If Dr. A considers this party far-left, Dr. B doesn't, Dr. X prefers the term radical left, Dr. Y considers it post-communist, while Dr. Z uses new left or rejects the bipolar political spectrum completely, so what? Why not just list them all in an intelligent way, the article is currently small as it is. --Nug (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Nug, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Articles are supposed to be about topics not words. Pick a topic and we can pick a title and move the article. At present there could be a complaint that the article tries to combine one defintion of "far let" with extremism and another with post-Communist parties. That would appear that we are trying to intimate that post-Communist parties are extremist, which of course we should not do, because we are neutral. If we do that, then we are promoting an extremist view. What is your solution? TFD (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The solution is to reflect all viewpoints with due weight, not to attempt synthesise some kind of hybrid topic. If Dr. March's viewpoint is presented here it is because he actually discusses the topic of far-left politics in depth, if you think his viewpoint is given undue weight, then add additional viewpoints of other scholars who also actually discuss the topic in detail. --Nug (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hear, hear! "all viewpoints with due weight" This is exactly what I have called for during the last weeks. So we finally agree. We present the different definitions and explanations of far-left in an equilibrated way. That means that we introduce Luke March's definition of far-left

("Dr. Luke March of the School of Social and Political Science at the University of Edinburgh, defines the "Far-left" in Europe as those that place themselves to the left of social democracy, which they see as insufficiently left-wing. The two main sub-types are the so called "radical left", for their desire for fundamental change to the capitalist system while accepting of democracy, and the "extreme left" who are more hostile to liberal democracy and denounce any compromise with capitalism. March sees four major subgroups within contemporary European far-left politics: communists, democratic socialists, populist socialists and social populists.")

but we omit the long list of political parties according to his definition, because this detailed illustration of his thesis would get his position, which is only one out of many, WP:UNDUE weight. Have we finally found common ground now? I hope so. --RJFF (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. The problem here is that no one as presented any significant alternate viewpoints, Dr. March's classification is currently the only show in town. All you have given us are the hypothetical views of Dr. A, Dr. B, and Drs. X, Y and Z, and claim Dr. March's view is given undue weight compared to these hypothetical scholars. Unless you present sources from concrete scholars discussing the classifcation of the far-left in detail, Dr. March's viewpoint reamains. --Nug (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Nug, since you do not appear too understand the difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia, allow me to explain it to you. Dictionaries explain the meanings of words while encyclopedias explain the meanings of concepts. If a word has several meanings it will be included in one article in a dictionary but several in an encyclopedia. (See WP:DISAMBIG. On the other hand, a concept may have several names (and therefore appear under several articles in a dictionary) but have only one encyclopedia entry. If a sports writer refers to a hockey player as a right-winger and a political columnist refers to a politician as a right-winger, we do say that they are in dispute about the meaning of the concept. Do you understand this? TFD (talk) 06:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

R-41 has added "The far left seeks the creation of strong or complete social equality in society and the dismantlement of all forms of social hierarchy. It seeks revolutionary action to forcibly dismantle social hierarchy, particularly to end unequal distribution of wealth - especially identifying capitalism as a major source of social inequality. The far left seeks the complete equalization of the distribution of wealth, and a society where in theory everyone is to be completely equal and where no one will have excessive power or wealth over others." Could he please explain how this jibes with Dr. March's description of some or most of these parties as "no longer extreme" and " pragmatic and non-ideological". TFD (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Does Dr. March's description represent a widespread view or just that person's view? Far left to most people including scholars means the most radical and revolutionary left. Dr. March's description that you claim states that says that there are far left parties that are "no longer extreme" and are "pragmatic and non-ideological" sounds like they are not far left at all anymore - because as it says they no longer hold an extreme/radical view and are no longer ideological. I assume that Dr. March is referring to the ex-communist parties of Eastern Europe - the issue with them is less of them being officially far left, but that they had become entrenched establishments and institutions in the Cold War era, these states rather than political movements that resulted in their dilution of ideology and increase of pragmatism. The reference I included states that the far left by its intentions is necessarily revolutionary, the scholar I used says requires a revolution to completely equalize society and completely equalize wealth because wealthy people are not normally predisposed to give up most of their wealth for redistribution to others, and thus a revolution is required to confiscate the amount of wealth deemed excessive from them. This is not the centre-left where moderation and limitations apply to assertion of egalitarian goals, this is the far-left that seeks radical and complete assertion of egalitarian goals.--R-41 (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This confirms my argumentation that there are very different and even contradictory definitions of "far-left". Therefore it is undue to present a list of far-left parties according to one definition (not even a very common one), but not according to the others. --RJFF (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The source you provided, Explaining politics[18] is an introductory textbook and therefore a tertiary source and not recommended. Notice the writer uses the terms "far left" and "extreme left" interchangeably. It does not explain the origin of the term or refer to previous scholarship. The fact is that the term has no clear definition and is used differently by different writers. Unlike the term "far right", the term far left is redundant, because there is clear taxonomy for all left-wing groups and there is nothing to put in this article that does not belong elsewhere. This article is similar to the others in the series - we have a title, now we are searching for a topic. TFD (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, Woshinsky seems to be one of the few to actually explain what left-wing, right-wing, far-left etc. means, what values, aims, positions are behind it, while most other authors indeed use these terms, but without defining and explaining them. For lack of sufficient other sources, we may for once use a tertiary source, if of course we utilize it rationally. --RJFF (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

He does not explain the terms. Even if did, you would have to show that the definitions have gained acceptance. As he provides no sources, we cannot see where he gets his definitions. Since it is an introductory textbook, we cannot expect other writers to comment on them. I notice on page 142 he writes, "Supporters of the [moderate Left] are known as liberals' in the USA and social democrats in most other nations." (p. 142)[19] Well that is helpful to Americans in Polisci 101 but confusing to people living in countries where both liberal and social democratic parties exist. Their separate histories, international memberships and attitudes toward capitalism, class and unions make them distinct. TFD (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed the "revolutionary action" part. For now this is one of the few sources that I have encountered that describes far-left politics in detail and in a relatively unbiased manner (there are many very strongly biased sources on far-left politics), if a better source can be found then this tertiary source could be removed, but until then this is the best definition we have.--R-41 (talk) 14:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:RSN#Far-left politics. TFD (talk) 15:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Stalinism, Maoism

It is synthesis, because the source does not speak of far left violence, but of Stalinist and Maoist violence. A. Stalinists and Maoists are far left (which is unverified, Stalin hated left-wing radicals and persecuted "left deviationists") B. Stalinists and Maoists have committed violent crimes so Conclusion: the far left has committed violent crimes. This is an ideal example of WP:Synthesis. --RJFF (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the one who wants to add content. If you want to add it, then you have to provide evidence that this belongs here. The sources have to explicitly verify what you write, not indirectly, because otherwise it becomes WP:Synthesis. If you think Stalinist crimes are far left crimes, you have to provide sources that say they are "Far left crimes". If the sources say they are Stalinist crimes, then it belongs in the article Stalinism. --RJFF (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have to provide evidence that Mao and Stalin are not far-left. And you know that very well. That's not how Wikipedia works. And this is exactly the dispute that is going on here for weeks and months, whether (mainstream) communism is far-left, or far-left is something to the left of mainstream communism. And using the term far-left in a communist single-party state doesn't make sense at all, because they don't have a normal political spectrum. "Far left" implies, that it is a position on the fringe of the political spectrum. But Stalin was not on the fringe, but in the centre of the political spectrum of Soviet Russia at his time, as he had all the power. Who was against Stalin, was on the fringe. Same with Mao. The Communists in China aren't far-left, they aren't far-anything, they are in the centre of the power.

But that's not the point. The point is, that you have to provide sources explicitly linking these crimes to the concept of far-left politics, and not indirectly, otherwise it will always be WP:Synthesis. --RJFF (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I took out some of the trash. The term "far left" unlike the term "far right" has no clear meaning. TFD (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That could be an argument for AfD. But the article will never be deleted. If you take out some pieces of "trash", why is the other "trash" better and not taken out? I don't think that the statements you took out are less relevant than the rest of the article. The whole article as an unencyclopedic mess, to put it very charitably. --RJFF (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)