Talk:Far-left politics/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Expanding the article

User:Greyfell Rather than removing entire section please in the future attempt to point out what portion did not meet criteria... I clearly added several points, maybe the point of view was not as neutral as it should be and that should be fix via editing, but they were all sourced and events that occurred. This is the second time I am talking to you to ask you to remember to keep a charitable view of others. I am going to be reverting your actions and attempting to ensure they are neutral. I am attempting to fix the article as it stands. I am not attempting to flag or flame and would appreciate your help in this matter. D3bug l0gic (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Where to start? Your edits had far too many problems to incrementally revert. The burden is on you to gain consensus for sweeping changes, not on other people to clean up after you. Do not combine sources to support claims not made by those sources. These edits demonstrate unacceptable recentism bordering on WP:GOSSIP. The paragraph on Unite the Right 2 is ridiculously WP:UNDUE, and presenting protests as "terrorism" is inflammatory editorializing. This article is about all far-left politics spanning many decades, so leading off the section on terrorism with a recent US-based controversy based on news-blurbs is misrepresenting the topic to promote a specific political agenda. There are no reliable sources saying that clashing with Milo Yiannopoulos is a defining trait of ALL "far-left terrorism" spanning the centuries of the term's use. Assuming good faith doesn't mean allowing unacceptable edits. Other people have, in good faith, worked on the article you are now trampling on. Following WP:BRD and we can discuss incremental changes based on sources and policy. Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Dude take a it down a notch... the protests are what they are, they are being used as context for how the FBI and DHS could label antifa as a domestic terrorist group. How is the Los Angeles times not reputable source? Furthermore, this is not all far-left terrorism, it specifically mentions 'In America' in the first paragraph. D3bug l0gic (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Please read before making edits. I dont want to have to consider your behavior as toxic D3bug l0gic (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussing content is the basis of Wikipedia. Sorry, sometimes people will disagree with you.

You seem to be confused about how this works. The article is a summary of the entire topic according to reliable sources, and it is not confined to a single country. We have an article on American Left, and antifa (United States) and similar, but this article is an overview of the entire topic of far-left politics. This includes the US, but also (at random) Kurdistan Communities Union, Anarchism in Spain, and hundreds of other manifestations. Placing very recent protests in a section with "terrorism" in the title is inappropriate for many reasons, but let's start with one: You decided that it was important, so you added it. That's not how we decided on what belongs and what doesn't. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. Just because you can find a source for something doesn't mean it belongs in whatever page you feel is appropriate. This is a summary article, and recent newspaper blurbs which are only tangentially related to "far-left terrorism" do not justify presenting this as vitally important to the entire global topic with centuries of history. Grayfell (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for discussing content, you didnt do that...

Antifa is only recently come to the promentants in America, if you are suggesting either shortening of the information, to make more concise I understand you have a good point about there already being an antifa page. However you appear to be insisting that I cant add antifa if I dont add other far-left terrorist groups, that is self defeating.

D3bug l0gic (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I am discussing the content you are inappropriately trying to add into the article, and I am trying to explain why these changes are not productive. If you want to talk about edits, talk about edits, but you keep bringing up "toxic" behavior, how we're not being "charitable", and how your comments keep flying "over our heads" (which isn't very charitable, hmm...)

You're not answering my questions. If you want to call this "self-defeating" you have to explain yourself better. This article isn't just about America, this article is about the entire far-left. Who is saying antifa has a new-found prominence in America? What reliable source is saying only their terrorism is worth mentioning? What reliable source is saying that this prominence applies to all far-left politics? across the entire globe? over centuries of history? In other words, why does antifa belong as the first paragraph of this section on terrorism, based only on recent news sources? Grayfell (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Mate again I can make it more specific, I am not in anyway trying to imply that antifa is the only far-left terrorist group. It is self defeating because you seem to be putting an extra restriction on adding to the terrorist heading that I need to add multiple groups at the same time. I was trying to add one as the moment that look into other groups to add (you are arguing on how information is added not what information is added). "flew over heads" is a way of saying you missed the point, next time I'll just say that, again why are you looking for malice mate?

But again, "why does antifa belong as first paragraph" how can I make it second if there is no other info filled in for antifa as of yet???? How many other groups should I add before you are satisfied? Furthermore, order doesn't matter if its the first one. If you wish to change the order add another one then change it. D3bug l0gic (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree the additions are undue. Articles should not be dominated by whatever happens to be the topic of the day for Fox News hosts. TFD (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Antifa is a movement, not a group, and has never been officially labelled a terrorist group. There was a story in Politico 2 years ago claiming thattalk Antifa activities were viewed by Homeland as terrorist, but that was based on anonymous sources and the Politico story was the only source. Terrorism is a serious charge and must not be made without being verified by official government statements, particularly as it could have repercussions for individuals. I've gave the editor a DS alert recently but they seem to be ignoring it. 05:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Sorry, wrong number of tildes! Doug Weller talk 07:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Grayfell, TFD and Doug Weller. This is not an article about the US in 2017-18 and filling it with detailed news items about the US in 2017-18 would be undue even if the edits about antifa were accurate, which they aren't. The stuff about Hegel and feminism is some kind of original research. And ledes should be concise summaries of the contents of the article not the place for introducing footnoted details. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

ANTIFA classified terrorist

So... Apparently even though the US DHS and FBI classified ANTIFA as domestic terrorists in September of 2017, Wiki will just ignore that fact? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/antifa-domestic-terrorists-us-security-agencies-homeland-security-fbi-a7927881.html

But the Guardian can misrepresent a Sheriff's departmenr memo and claim it's an official FBI document to the world, to be further reported by US news without substantiation, and wiki will demolish groups like Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer on heresay?

Truly a sad day for integrity and free speech. PatrioticMiguel (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Serious concerns from a red linked editor with one day of editing under his/her belt. Carptrash (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I would like to see a link to the actual report. In any case, it seems pretty minor compared with the topic. TFD (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: it's discussed in Antifa (United States). It's all based on anonymous sources/documents and the story never got wide coverage even in 2017 when Politico wrote it, and so far as I know there's never been any sort of followup. Doug Weller talk 17:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits by sockpuppet

This edit[1] is poorly sourced. The macleans.ca may mention "radical left" in the headline, but headlines are not reliable sources - they're generally written by specialists to grab attention and not by the author of the piece, which doesn't mention "radical left" or even "far left". The next source, fair.org, is a criticism of a Washington Post article for incorrectly labeling some Democrats as far left. Its mention of "far left issues" is to make fun of that label and point out that the issues aren't far left at all. The 3rd source is the Britannica which doesn't mention "far left" at all.

Ouch. Having written this I've realised that a lot of the article is based on one source which is looking the European political scene. I find this idea that the "radical left" is somehow part of the "far left" confusing.

The lead says:

Far-left politics are political views located further on the left of the left-right spectrum than the standard political left, particularly in terms of egalitarian[1][2][3] ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies[4].

The term has been used to describe ideologies such as: communism, anarcho-communism, left-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, Marxism–Leninism, Trotskyism, and Maoism.

I'm happy with that. Note that it says "left-communism" as many communist parties have moved closer to the center over the decades. I think I prefer an earlier version of next section which was called "Meanings of far-left" and read:

In France, the term extrême-gauche ("far left") is a generally accepted term for political groups to the left of the French Communist Party (such as Trotskyists, anarchists, Maoists and New Leftist).

The German political scientist Eckhard Jesse includes anarchists, different trends of communism (communists of pro-Soviet orientation, Maoists and Trotskyists) and the Autonome among the (German) 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 see four major subgroups within contemporary European far-left politics: communists, democratic socialists, populist socialists and social populists. Hloušek and Kopeček adds secondary characteristics to those identified by March and Mudde, such as anti-Americanism, anti-globalism, opposition to NATO and rejection of European integration McKlosky and Chong surveyed a number militant, revolutionary far-left groups in the US and they argue that like far-right extremists they tend to show traits of authoritarianism. McKlosky and Chong further assert that in the USA, the far-left groups they studied are deeply estranged from American society and highly critical of what they perceive as the spiritual and moral degeneration of American institutions, they view American society as dominated by conspiratorial forces that are working to defeat their ideological aims.

References

Doug Weller talk 16:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems biased compared to Far-right politics

Far-left politics: "Far-left politics are political views located further on the left of the left-right spectrum than the standard political left. The term has been used to describe ideologies such as: communism, anarchism, neo-Marxism, anarcho-communism, left-communism, Marxism–Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, and Maoism.[1][2][3]"

Far-right politics: "Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of extreme nationalism,[1][2] nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies.[3][4]

Used to describe the historical experiences of fascism and Nazism,[5] it today includes neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, Third Position, the alt-right, white nationalism[6] and other ideologies or organizations that feature ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, anti-communist, or reactionary views.[7] These can lead to oppression, violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing, and even genocide against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group,[8][9] nation, state,[10] national religion, dominant culture or ultraconservative traditional social institutions.[11]" Skillabstinenz (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "[It] means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Consider Greece that has a major party often described as far left (Syriza) and a major far right party (Golden Dawn). Syriza governed Greece from 2015-2019, when it was defeated by New Democracy in a democratic election. During their administration, they were never accused of authoritarianism or extra-judicial violence. Golden Dawn has on the other hand has been accused of involvement in football hooliganism, violent attacks against immigrants, LGBTQ people, Jews, anarchists and others they view as opponents, and is being prosecuted as a criminal organization. We cannot pretend that there is a moral equivalence just for the sake of appearing unbiased. Also, unlike far right, far left is not a real topic, but a term used the people to describe other people they consider more left-wing than themselves. Hence it's definition is contextual. From the prospective of the man in the MAGA hat, CNN, NBC and the rest of the mainstream media are far left. TFD (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

So-called edit-warring

I just noticed a dispute here between Davide King and Bacondrum because the latter placed an edit warring notice on the former's talk page (which I have watched) without specifying what page it was about and I checked Davide's edit history to see if it was a page that both he and I have edited recently in which Bacondrum was not involved, but it turned out to be this page instead.

Not having looked at the content in dispute yet, from a strictly procedural point of view it appears Davide is in the right here per WP:BRD. Bacondrum recently added a large amount of content that Davide seems to think is not entirely appropriate and so heavily pruned. That was bold and revert (more or less), the appropriate next step is to come here and discuss. Bacondrum has instead since reverted Davide's pruning, which Davide reverted, and Bacondrum reverted again, which constitutes edit warring on Bacondrum's part, not Davide.

Bacondrum, please discuss here to justify your addition over Davide's criticisms instead of just re-inserting it. I'm going to revert once more to the pruned state pending further discussion. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Bacondrum (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

"About" header and usage of "authoritarian"

"This article is about extra-governmental politics. For states with a communist constitution, see communist state." This seems somewhat out of place - how would this be confused with "far-left politics"? I'm not sure if this line should be here.

I'd also like to raise some issues with this line: "Typically used to describe more hardline or authoritarian forms of left-wing ideology - communist, anti-state, anti-establishment, revolutionary and class conflict based ideologies - that are more militant and/or oppressive than mainstream left wing ideologies are." I take issue with the use of "authoritarian" here: while authoritarian left and authoritarian-communist ideologies are most frequently classed as far-left, placing ideologies which inherently define themselves on anti-authoritarianism, such as anarchism and anti-state ideologies, under the banner of "authoritarian" is self-evidently contradictory. I don't dispute that they are far-left ideologies, but that particular descriptor is clearly inappropriate.

In general, the opening section is messy and vague. The list of examples of specific far-left atrocities is sloppy and should probably not be in the opening section, but expanded upon in the meat of the article. Compare to the opening section of far-right politics, which is specific and descriptive but concise. I acknowledge the difficulty in how to phrase this, since "far-left" tends to be a more inclusive/broad category than the corresponding "far-right" - ie the far-right is almost exclusively the domain of authoritarian-right ideologies, with right-libertarianism not conventionally classed as far-right, whereas the same is not true for the far-left. Surely we can do better than this, though. Erinthecute (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The reason for the difference is that while far right is a defined topic with books and articles written about it, far left is an ambiguous term which basically means more left wing than I am. So for example Fox News calls Clinton Democrats far left. BTW generally far left means more left wing than the Communists. People did not refer to the governments of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China after Mao as far left. TFD (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey Erinthecute thanks for your thoughts, I agree the lede could be improved, the whole article can be improved. I've given it a go, but I'm generally a reader, not a writer so my prose are often clunky. "more hardline or authoritarian", it's not saying all far-left ideologies are authoritarian (ie Stalinism), they may simply be "more hardline", like calling for the abolishment of government altogether (ie anarchism). I'd be happy to rephrase, so long as we are not sanitising. The examples in the lede are expanded upon in the body, it's important to have examples in the lede to give an overview of the subject, not simply say all far-left ideologies have done this or that, because the ideas and the way they've been inacted have been complex (unlike the far-right). Again, happy to work on rephrasing, but some specific examples in the lede are warranted, IMO. Unfortunately extreme violence, ethnic cleansing and mass oppression have occurred frequently on the far-left, this is well documented. Just to be clear, I'm driven by books and papers here, not an ideological axe - I'm a great big honking leftist myself. I find anarchism a hard one as it's obviously ideologically far-left, but its history is one of the least violent of any ideology anywhere on the spectrum...many anarchist movements have been completely pacifist in nature - perhaps we could reflect this in the lede and body somehow, that there is a breadth of relations to authority on the far-left, from authoritarianism to anarchy? Bacondrum (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces Hi, I totally agree that the far-left is far more complicated historically and intellectually than the far-right. I don't think anyone is going to claim the Soviet Union wasn't far-left (forced collectivisation and a dictatorship of the proletariat is about as extreme left as one can get). The PRC after Mao was still far-left, it's arguable that since the reforms of Deng Xiaoping it is less so, but they're still an oppressive, authoritarian socialist one-party state, that's far-left. Socialism isn't far-left, but coupled with one party authoritarianism it certainly is. Bacondrum (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the issue is this centrist bias where both the far-left and far-right are authoritarians and extremely so. That may well be true for the far-right, but not for the far-left as a whole; you can see this from many users moaning about Far-left politics and Far-right politics not being treated the same way, etc. Indeed, one moving further left would be someone like an anarchist (wanting to abolishing both capitalism and the state at once, or not using statist means to abolish either). Why or how one would be an authoritarian by moving left of social democracy? Authoritarianism is also relative; capitalism may not be authoritarian for the capitalists but it may certainly be for the working class and the poor. Likewise, socialism would be authoritarian for the capitalists and political elites but libertarian for everyone else. Political views aside, I very much doubt the Soviet Union or China as being far-left because as pointed out by The Four Deuces far-left refers to the left of that. Furthermore, are dekulakization, the Red Terror, the Cultural Revolution and all the things mentioned in the current lead discussed in reliable sources about far-left politics? Otherwise, that's original research and synthesis. I think this version is without original research and synthesis, so we should work from there.--Davide King (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Most sources put militant and authoritarian ideologies left of mainstream socialist ideologies like democratic socialism on the far left. Certainly never come across a single credible claim that Stalinism/Marxism-Leninism/Trotskism etc are not far-left. We on the left may not like it, but Stalinist and Leninist purges were definitely born of far-left ideology, unless Marxism-Leninism are not far-left (which they obviously are). Bacondrum (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

That's certainly not what our reliable sources in the Definition section say. The whole Far-left ideologies section should be deleted because it's a repetition of what their articles already say and none of the text or sources used specifically say they're representative of far-left politics. Same for the terrorist group section. Both should be about how those ideologies and groups relate to far-left politics, not merely a copy and paste from their respective articles and lead sections. Either way, there was no consensus or discussion for all your additions in the first place, so the page should be reverted to the status quo as I did and we should discuss and reach a consensus on whether to add them, how, etc.--Davide King (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• While we are here, I want to discuss content in general. I think a section on re-education camps, show trials and purges would be warranted as they are an extreme and distinct feature of many Marxist-Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist etc regimes, IMO. What do you folks think? Bacondrum (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Again, do reliable sources discussing far-left politics actually reference to that and describe it as far-left politics? Otherwise that's your own original research.--Davide King (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, many do. Which claims are you contesting specifically? Don't just unilaterally remove three quarters of the article, much of it cited with academic sources, discuss changes here, as per guidelines. Bacondrum (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Then please show us. You need to show reliable sources saying that re-education camps, show trials and purges are examples of far-left politics or that they're discussed when talking about it, otherwise it just seems to be that because you may personally think those are extreme, then they're somehow far-left (again, read what I wrote about centrist bias defining both the far-left and far-right as extremely authortarian and basically making them out to be the same thing when they're not). Most of those sources I removed are sources about Marxism-Leninism and each ideology (do they describe them as far-left?), not about far-left politics, i.e. the main topic of the article; same for the terrorist groups. It's basically copied and pasted from each article anyway. You can't just copy and paste those things because you think they're far-left, or because you think the Soviet Union et all were somehow representative of left-wing/socialist politics as a whole, let alone far-left politics itself. As pointed out by The Four Deuces, [p]eople did not refer to the governments of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China after Mao as far left and far left is an ambiguous term which basically means more left wing than I am. So for example Fox News calls Clinton Democrats far left. BTW generally far left means more left wing than the Communists rather than the Soviet Union et all as your edits imply.--Davide King (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I notice that there is no mention of re-education camps, show trials and purges in the far right politics either, although they were carried out in Nazi Germany. No mention either of they were responsible for the Second World War or that they killed millions of people. Any reason why you aren't editing that article?

The problem with this article is that the topic has not been defined. Until that is done, adding more material just confuses the matter.

TFD (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with The Four Deuces, including the point at Far-right politics. That's why I reverted to a version that at least doesn't include original research and synthesis and from which we could work on; yet I was reverted and even accused of edit warring. Just because no one reverted all your previous additions, apart from me now, it doesn't mean that they're correct or that there's consensus for them in the first place.--Davide King (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I accept many of your criticisms, but the version you reverted to was even worse, David. One thing I will say is that it's ridiculous to claim that Marxism-Leninism et al are not on the far-left, that's like claiming that fascism isn't on the far-right, if you really insist I will dig through and find the specific citations, but it's kind of like citing that the sky is blue. TFD, I'm not editing the far-right page because I'm editing this page at the moment, please assume good faith - at the far-right page we are constantly subjected to whataboutisms regarding this page from right-wing editors, lets focus on the article at hand rather than whataboutisms. The old version was even worse, lets work towards better content. I hear what you're saying Davide and I agree with removing the lists of terror groups and ideologies, but I don't think removing all of that content completely is the way to go, we should work the relevant material into the article and delete the rest/reformat etc. I agree that "the problem with this article is that the topic has not been defined" So lets:

1. define it.

2. Discuss what a good article on the subject would include.

3. I'm happy for the article to change significantly, but reverting to an equally lousy, if not worse version is not the answer. Bacondrum (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

How was this version even worse? It eliminates the content that is copied and pasted from each relative ideology/terrorist group article, only giving a short summary of the latter. If we can't even define the topic, what makes you think that your version, which includes re-education camps, show trials, purges and so on, is any better? None of the sources we actually use in the Definition section explicity say any of that. So the solution in disputes like this is to revert to a stable version and work from there, discussing and reaching a consensus. As far as I know, The Four Deuces is right in writing that far left is an ambiguous term which basically means more left wing than I am [and generally] means more left wing than the Communists so how are your edits improving the article rather than make it messier and even more confusing?--Davide King (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Removing content that is based on original research and synthesis isn't wrong but the right thing to do.--Davide King (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

"far left is an ambiguous term which basically means more left wing than I am [and generally] means more left wing than the Communists" You got a citation for that? That's just an opinion, the far-left is a real thing, if it's not then there should be no article. Bacondrum (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Have you even read the Definition section? Come back to me when you've done that, please. Either way, the Far-left ideologies section should be deleted unless each ideology section specifically discusses its relation to far-left politics rather than a mere copy and paste from each article's lead section; same thing for the far-left terrorist groups. For instance, why do we have only some ideologies (basically only Marxism–Leinism et all)? Why there's no mention of anarchist and other communist ideologies mentioned in the lead? Same for the terrorist groups. There seems to be no criterion for why some are mentioned and others aren't. we write that [m]any far-left militant organizations were formed by members of existing political parties in the 1960s and 1970s[41] such as the Montoneros, the Red Army Faction and the Red Brigades but neither are listed or discussed any more as is done instead with other groups.--Davide King (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes I have read it, you are being obnoxious. Bacondrum (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, the onus is not on me to provide a definition, since I am not proposing to add anything, but on you. Your claim "it's ridiculous to claim that Marxism-Leninism et al are not on the far-left" isn't sourced either. I can't find a definition for a topic that doesn't exist. Can you? TFD (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I never said you had to provide a definition, I just think we should try and define it. If it can't be defined and the topic doesn't exist then perhaps the page should be deleted? Bacondrum (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, how am I being obnoxious in pointing out that your version included original research? Or that you take it as a given fact that Marxism–Leninism et all are far-left; or that if you read the Definition section, you would have found out that there's no mention of that or of far-left politics being associated to re-education camps, show trials, purges and so on; hence why it was reverted. The current version isn't as bad as the one including all that. It looked like you didn't read it because I don't understand how that section supports your view on the matter and your lengthy additions.--Davide King (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I accepted I was wrong and self reverted, you are being obnoxious. This is obnoxious: "Have you even read the Definition section? Come back to me when you've done that, please"...going on your above comment, you knew it was obnoxious too. It's very hard to assume good faith or collaborate with obnoxious people. I wont be engaging with you any further. Bacondrum (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, that certainly wasn't my intention and I wholeheartedly apologise for that. I simply thought you didn't fully read that section because I don't understand how you may have thought that was in line with your additions as the article contradicted itself and that was an issue. I was trying to solve it and make you notice that. No, I actually didn't know it was obnoxious and in written form may sound like that, but in real life I would say that very calmly and normally. I wasn't being sarcastic either; I was merely asking you or suggesting you to read in full that section because I thought you didn't read it all of it.--Davide King (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Davide, and I'm sorry if I took you the wrong way and that we've gotten off on the wrong foot. Bacondrum (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

i reviewed the discussion and think we all agree that left-wing ideologies can be put along a spectrum from left to far left. but we need a source that defines within the Left where it can be called far left. TFD (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, instead of finding a definition in a reliable source, can you tell me what you think the topic should be? What is the distinction between non-far and far left? TFD (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, like the far-right, they are further left on the left-right spectrum than the standard political left. Typically authoritarian, militant or revolutionary. Authoritarian takes on Marxism ie: Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism et al. Despite being anti-authoritarian I'd put Anarchism in there, not because it's oppressive or authoritarian, but because the ideology calls for such radical change (don't get me wrong, I'm very fond of anarchist philosophy). I have lots of books on far-left political movements, I'm sure I can find a better description and more detailed analysis from secondary sources. I'll have a look over the next few weeks. Bacondrum (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

You also need to define the standard left if you are going to define the far left as more left-wing than the standard left. TFD (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Your turn, can you define the standard left? Bacondrum (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Far-left definition

An IP user is adding terms to the definition of 'far-left', using sources specifically talking about subsets of far-left politics such as Marxism (one of which doesn't even mention the term 'far-left' and is called 'The Encyclopedia Of Libertarianism' to boot). Can I get consensus that they need better sources before making these changes? Sumanuil (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. The references need to be WP:RS to be used at all. RS references can be used to make points only which are on topic for the article (which these probably are) and which the reference really does support (which would need to be checked). Even then, the points would need to be covered in a proportional way.

More specifically, libertarianism.org describes itself as "the Cato Institute’s treasury of resources about the theory and history of liberty" so that is a "libertarian" (in the weird American usage of the term) think tank with an axe to grind and is not an RS for anything other than demonstrating what the Cato Institute says. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The Cato Institute is one of the most authoritative think tanks in the world [external link] (p. 62). Sources with an axe to grind are routinely used in Wikipedia (SPLC, for instance). --Humanophage (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, there is no consensus on its reliability. TFD (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I might use Cato for somethings, but not as a reliable sources for the definition of far-left or who is far-left. We also need to avoid a one-size fits all. For instance, not all communist groups are far left. My biggest concern though is "far-left" in the US might mean something different than it does in the UK. Shouldn't far-left be a mirror of far-right? Sorry if I'm jnot clear, I'm pretty tired. Doug Weller talk 18:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

If I am reading this correctly, we are not even talking about Cato's definition of "far left" but someone else's version or claim of it. I would be interested in seeing what Cato has to say about the far left, but not filtered through some other entity. Carptrash (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm having an issue whereby the article has leader problems in terms of a summative paragraph, but efforts to address this are being undone. I've taken direct quotes from sources used later in the topic to try to provide an overview of the attitudes held by groups identified as far-left later in the article, but felt that repeated citations were pointless. I've also found that the list of names groups (marxism, etc) does not include a few which are then included later in the article: i add these in the leader, and they are always removed. Why is this? I'm not getting what I consider to be sufficient feedback from editors, and was advised to take it to talk by the last one. 92.16.97.55 (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

One of the main changes you have tried to make is to include democratic socialism as part of the far left. However they are generally referred to as center-left or left. See for example, "From the 1997 election archive: Centre left at centre state", New Statesman, 2 May 2017. If you call the Blairites far left, then you're out of words to describe groups to their left. While you conflate Orangebook Liberals, Blairites, Corbynites, and Communists, mainstream sources do not. TFD (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I think they're basing this on the fact that March refers to Democratic Socialists as one of the factions in the far left, here. But in the context of the rest of the paper, I think that he's saying that some factions of the far left moved on to democratic socialism after the failure of Communism; he particularly describes it as them occupying ground that the "mainstream" left has abandoned, eg. The more the mainstream centre left has appeared to abandon the mainstays of the social democratic welfare consensus, such as public ownership, economic interventionism and full employment, the more the far left has rushed to appear the defender of Keynesianism, welfarism, trade unionism, equality and workers’ rights. I think it would be a mistake to classify them as far left based on that. (It doesn't help that, as we've discussed previously and as he brings up himself, very few writers other than March use the term "far-left" at all; it lacks the broadly-accepted definition and body of scholarship tying it together that the far-right has.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

One of the problems in discussions of the Left is that different writers use different terminologies. That's fine, because they make it clear who they are writing about. In this case by democratic socialist, March was referring to "Left" parties that combined the left-wing of Socialist and Green parties, Trotskyists, and Communists. Furthermore, as you say, March's definition of the term far left is not widely accepted and he now uses the term radical left instead. TFD (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

We have an article on Democratic socialism in any case, and any mention of it here would have to be based on what that article says. One problem is that the term means different things in different contexts. Despite what the right may say, American Democratic socialists are not far left. Doug Weller talk 13:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Fellow Wikipedians, I propose an ellaboration of the general definition section. Even though there are clear distinction in the literature between different definition of left and far-left politics, practice and research has shown that they are clearly distinct. Even if there are some contradiction there definitely are core assumptions that define what far-left politics is. Additionally, I will attempt to step away from Luce March, although it going to be challenging and introduce more recent research and perspectives from other scholars. Car4uso (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Car4uso (Car4uso (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC))

Proposal to remove the section on Far Left Terrorism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Comment: Author is neutral on this see below for reasons.

I propose that the section on "Far Left Terrorism" be removed from the article and a link placed in the See also section. The section has dubious weight in an article that is about far left politics in general, over a long period of time and in a wide geographic region. The content references three groups, two of which are no longer in existence and were largely controled or heavily influenced not by far left popular politics, but by ruling groups in outside governments. The third example FARC has been rejected by all legitimate political parties, left and right.

This section give undue weight to groups which has nothing to do with the overwhelming majority of far left politic groups. A link in the See also section would probide due weight.

I started this to resolve an emerging problem; please see my comment below for my position. // Timothy :: talk  18:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Neutral: I offer no position on the above. I am looking for a clear community consensus to an emerging problem not for a particular outcome.  // Timothy :: talk  18:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: While I can definitely see where you are coming from, I disagree, and will try to quickly outline why. Firstly, and the biggest reason, is that Far-Left Politics as I understand it is inextricably tied to terror(ism) at least to some degree, or at the very least, has a history with it, so it warrants mentioning, though I think the section is a bit too small and slim, and could do with a bit better description, as a reader might do with a better description of left wing terrorism? maybe it is good in its current state with the "main article", but that's that for me. on the other bits you bring up, as you say, this article is about things that happened over a long period of time, and over a wide area, so of course we ought to include defunct and far-flung orgs, as precisely an example of that! also, I assume you meant other group than "FARC", which isn't mentioned here. even if it were, I'd say it has a place, as any political party being "legitimate" is incredibly subjective and a silly way of determining if something is far left or far right. there are no "legitimate" Nazi parties in germany, yet the far right terror, is very much so far right, to use an analogy.Cheers!AxderWraith Crimson (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have no stated opinion. I simply want to attempt a consensus, so that the section can either be developed to proper due weight, or be removed as meriting no due weight.  // Timothy :: talk  19:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I apologize if it seemed like I was misconstruing it as if you held the opinion, I was merely stating my reason for opposing the getting rid of the section. It was not my intention to say that you were pushing it, so on and so forth.AxderWraith Crimson (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Usually proposers support their proposition, so its an unusal situation.  // Timothy :: talk  19:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support The lead identifies far-left politics as "politics to the left of the left–right political spectrum than the standard political left." Unfortunately it then provides two distinct definitions: to the left of social democracy or to the left of Communism. If we use the first definition, then the far left is fairly large. The European United Left–Nordic Green Left holds 39 seats in the European parliament, Syriza was the government of Greece and various other "Left" parties have joined coalitions in a number of European states. In Germany for example, they have 69 seats and are part of coalitions in 2 states. The left-wing terrorist group in Germany, the Baader–Meinhof Group , had several dozen members and has been inactive for over 20 years. Nor is there any connection between them. TFD (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per reasons already delineated above. The whitewashing and deconstruction of this article need to stop. Also, User:BunnyyHop, an apparent socialist/communist who has a tendentious history of removing sourced content, needs to be taken to WP:ANI for violation of WP:3RR. - JGabbard (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: The section itself could be more developed, at least somewhat comparable to the one on the far-right politics page. A balance needs to be established, a neutral point of view which critiques both sides, and taking away this section while leaving the terrorism section on far-right politics untouched is a disruption of the equilibrium. One could even add the Weather Underground Organization for its activities in the late 1960's to late 1970's, and how its goal was to achieve "the destruction of U.S. imperialism and form a classless communist world". It also bombed the US Capitol Building in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972. Reaper1945 (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: per the arguments above.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC))
• Oppose Speaking as someone on the moderate left, dismayed by some people on the right calling President Biden "far left", I think this article can serve a useful purpose in explaining what far left means. I do not think it means "politics to the left of the left-right political spectrum than the standard political left." I'm not even sure that sentence even makes sense. The politics of Jesus is far left under that definition: "If someone strike you on one cheek, turn the other cheek" is certainly to the left of people who believe in self-defense. Rather, I would define the "far-left" (and "far-right") as people who recommend or use violence to attain their goals. Of course, for the article to say this, references would be needed, but I have no doubt they can be found. I do think it is important to compare and contrast this article and the article on the far-right, to make sure neither article supports either side. With this definition, it would be easy to identify far-left and far-right groups, and to distinguish them from those who work within the system to elect communist, socialist, pacifist, or libertarian candidates, who would, I think, be on the left or right but not far-left or far-right. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment" "I would define the "far-left" (and "far-right") as people who recommend or use violence to attain their goals."Take for example Militant tendency, could justifiably be called "far-left" but is it fair to claim they recommended the use of violence, guess same could be said for any number of "far-left" groups? Acousmana (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support as per TFD. These issues are often skewed by an extreme right bias. For example, here in Australia the federal government tried to ban the small Communist Party of Australia in the 1951, basically for opposing war and fascism (terrifying, I know! What monsters!), on the other hand they took no action what-so-ever against a large white supremacist paramilitary group the New Guard that aimed to overthrow the democratically elected NSW state government, was regularly involved in extremist violence and was a genuine threat of violence. While many people are geared up to see a left/right equivalence, there is in-fact none. Bacondrum 20:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per above and per WP:NPOV. We don't whitewash political extremism. Whataboutism about the right or far-right is not relevant. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question for consensus about controversial section added to lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am neutral in this proposal; I am trying to form a defintitive consensus

It has been proposed that the lead be changed to read [2].

The change has been left out of the lead pending a complete discussion. Since this content is new, failure to reach a clear consensus for inclusion will fail ONUS.

Question: Should the above change [3] be implemented in the lead.  // Timothy :: talk 

!Votes

• Neutral As proposer of question. I will take no position.  // Timothy :: talk 
• No. I saw that change and considered reverting it myself. It does not seem to be neutrally worded but, as it did not seem to be an egregious or deliberate attempt at POV, and as I do not have access to the reference to see how well it supports the claim, I decided to leave it and see what other people thought. Looking at it more closely it seems rather confused. To say "Historically, far-left movements in their extreme forms led to atrocities against political opponents, most notably regarding left-wing terrorism" seems to conflate human rights abuses committed by incumbent regimes with terrorism committed by those who oppose incumbent regimes. It is possible that there is some merit to expanding the content here but this does not seem like a good way to do it. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• No, the above change should not be implemented. The source referred to as "Aubrey" does not say anything about mass killings by communist regimes, as put forward in the proposed edit, and the other source, identified only by the author name "Moghadam" and page number, is not in the references list. Please provide a quote for what these sources actually say that would support your proposed addition. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. The references are now complete, and they provide support for the statements. The terms used are specific and descriptive, while the more general wording is less helpful. - JGabbard (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• No The aspects emphasized in the lead should reflect those emphasized in reliable sources. We don't say for example that "Historically, U.S. conservative ideology has led to atrocities including millions of individuals killed in Vietnam, Iraq and other countries, and support for torture and international terrorism." Instead we talk about fiscal responsibility and national security. TFD (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• No Who defines communist states as far-left? The definition section below does not include them. Dimadick (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes The page as a whole is a fraction of what the far-right politics page is, adding more information and specific details will add to the overall quality of the article. Some information about what far-left has caused or done can be added, especially with a descriptive introduction. One could even add information about mass killings from scholars such as Rudolph Joseph Rummel, who wrote extensively on the issue. Reaper1945 (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• No. The cited sources don't even mention "far left" on the cited pages. Moghadam does not use the term "far left" at all anywhere in the text; Aubrey uses it nowhere near the cited pages, using the term only a handful of times and not for anything remotely comparable to what it's cited for here. Furthermore, even if you ignore the fact that they don't use the term "far left", neither cited pages reflect anything remotely close to the stridently aggressive wording they're being used in an effort to cite here - there is no mention of targeting political opponents, and no mention of mass-killings or crimes against humanity; only the bare acknowledgement of movements that used violence (eg. Revolutionary left-wing terrorist organizations were common in Western Europe and the United States from the late 1960s to early 1980s. Their violence is usually directed against their own governments, which these groups perceive as authoritarian and fascist. from Moghadam - this is basically the opposite of what it is being used in an attempt to cite here!) Both sources are more appropriately summarized by the more neutral older wording. --Aquillion (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• No. Adding to the reasons delineated by the editors above, particularly Aquillion's, which are pretty much all there is to say IMO, if there's nothing that connects "mass killings" and "far-left ideology", it's the textbook definition of WP:OR. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 07:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, per JGabbard.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC))
• No clearly a load of politically motivated wank, get real. Acousmana (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• No. We have a section on left-wing terrorism already adequately summarised in the lead, and potentially these sources could be used in that section (although not if they don't mention "far left"). We've already mentioned communism in the lead so no need to add a POV spin to that, although again the "Radical left parties" section of the body might be expanded to say more about Communist parties and states. Otherwise, Aquillion's seems pretty definitive. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• No I feel I have made my case previously and I feel anything I say has already been said already, and Aquillion makes the best case here, so "No", per them.AxderWraith Crimson (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• No I have not seen sources attributing terrorism and killing to far-left actors (at least sources that don't espouse nonsense like "alternative facts"). While Marx's socialism is certainly an artifact of the Left, the USSR's communism—and the way it was forced on its populace—bears such a strong resemblance to the rule of the Czars, or fascism under Mussolini or Hitler, that I can't see any practical difference between them. On a personal level, it annoys the hell out of me when politicians slap a scary label on something to make people afraid of it. That duplicity has no place here, and that's why I insist on reliable sources. The questions posed by Dimadick and Aquillion are quite apropos to this debate, too. Cheers! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• No - looks like a POV attempt to draw a false equivalence to the far-right. This false equivalence is universally rejected by academics in the field. We can discuss the GULAG etc, but claiming an equivalence to the violence of the far-right is not in the realms of reality. Bacondrum 20:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

The question is about adding content to the lead; as such and since it has been disputed, the WP:ONUS for achiving consensus is on those that wish to add the content. The above shows there is currently no consensus for adding the content. I see no way a yes consensus could form with the state of the !votes currently.

Unless there is an objection, I propose leaving this open for another 24hrs and then closing it as No consensus to include proposed content. Pinging yes !votes @JGabbard, Reaper1945, and KIENGIR:.  // Timothy :: talk  01:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

improperly/unsourced content being added to lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:TimothyBlue You say you have fixed the sources issue, but the "sources" as listed continue to just be the name of the author, followed by a page number. It isn't properly sourced, it's just a name and a page number. How would one verify anything about that? it needs the ISBN thing and naturally, the title of the work it is citing! the section should otherwise be removed, because how would we know if the content is reliably sourced at all?AxderWraith Crimson (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The sources are listed in the sources section. the references are sfns.  // Timothy :: talk  20:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not new content being added, it has already been disputed here which resulted in a no-inclusion, as well as here, summarized. Nothing has changed since then, and this seems like an attempt to get around consensus. The only comment to justify its inclusion was "Sourced data". --BunnyyHop (^talk) 18:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the summary, I was unaware of this being the case. even so, I await why the reasoning behind the insistence of its inclusion, assuming it has changed since the thread you have pointed me toward, of course.AxderWraith Crimson (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of lede sentence (inserted twice)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An editor inserted some text, twice, into the lede, and I removed it, requesting it be discussed here. This article is reasonably controversial (especially right now), so I thought it best to put up for discussion. The text:

Historically, far-left movements in their extreme forms led to atrocities against political opponents, most notably regarding [[Crimes against humanity under communist regimes|crimes against humanity under communist regimes]].

The editor inserting it has been sanctioned several times (see his Talk page history; he deleted the entries) for tendentious editing and POV insertions. Not that this doesn't belong here, but I question whether it belongs in the lede. At any rate, it certainly doesn't need to be there twice. Cheers! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 16:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

— I have added the text twice as a mistake (the intent was to reinstate this removed text once, as the reason for removal was not clear), I see that you assume bad faith, even if the typo is evident. Also a bad faith assumption, when it comes to me clearing up all discussions on my talk page. I would request you reread AGF and act accordingly, even if my edits offend your political sensibilities.

As for the article, yes, it does seem that this part is being constantly edited out, even though "Crimes against humanity under communist regimes" will list unlimited sourced facts of mass murder, repression and other atrocities committed in the name of the far left causes. Not sure why you would want this facts hidden from the public. Far left extremists have commited multiple crimes both in the countries they occupied in the past, and in other countries, such as far left anarchist bombings prevelant in the 1910s and 1920s in USA. Why hide well sourced historical facts? Also you seem to use the fact that I made a typo and was previously sanctioned as your main argument. Doesn't really match the "don't be a dick" picture in your profile, to be honest. FreedomGonzo (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

You need a source that connects the two. Usually the term far left refers to movements to the left of Communist parties that held power. Like far right, it means they are at the farthest extreme. Notice that sources did not refer to these regimes as far left. TFD (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@FreedomGonzo: It's too bad you didn't read a little further down on my User page. If you had, you would have seen this, which pretty much sums up what is, I believe, the problem:

Another key to the problem here, {name of contentious editor}, is you don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing The Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral.

You do need to refrain from presuming to know my thoughts ("I see that you assume bad faith") and my intentions ("Not sure why you would want this facts [sic] hidden from the public"). Try being nice before you go for the throat—you'll have better luck with people that way. If you can't—or won't—do that, take a look at the quote on my User page attributed to "Unknown"; there is great truth there. Cheers! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 05:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.