Talk:Far-left politics/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Trans movement

Given that increasing numbers of women who describe themselves as liberal and feminist are rejecting trans extremism, isn't it time we started regarding trans activists as far left? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.228.207 (talk) 09:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Then you have to start by changing Transgender rights movement and explaining when the word liberal (or feminist for that matter) started to mean far left. Doug Weller talk 10:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any connection between the transgender movement and the Left. Leading supporters include Chelsea Clinton, George Clooney, Whoopi Goldberg and Caitlyn Jenner, all of whom are on the right of the Democratic Party or in Jenner's case are Republican. Meanwhile, Kim Jong un remains silent on the issue. If it's extremism, it's far center politics, if the term has any meaning. It ties in with centrist politics. Their focus is the freedom of the individual, which is how the debate is presented. TFD (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Jnicholls02.

The lead section is comprehensive and accurately explains the varying definitions of far-left politics. The lead also mentions the article's major sections and does not include any information not found later in the article. The lead is concise and does not include unnecessary text. The content of the article is relevant to the topic, does not include irrelevant information, and is up to date. This article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. The article is neutral in its tone and does not try to persuade the reader one way or another. All aspects of far-left politics are represented. All facts presented are backed up by reliable second-hand sources that are mostly current. The authors are somewhat diverse, though they tend to lean male and Eastern European in origin. There are not better sources available and all the links work as intended. The article is well written and organized, and is free of grammatical and spelling mistakes. There are no images on this page, and the addition of them would strengthen the article. The discussions in the Talk tab are all about semantics or an extreme opinion that gets taken down by other writers. This article is C-Class and part of the Politics Wiki Project. The way that Wikipedia addresses these issues is similar to the way we address them in class, in both cases the information is presented in a concise and unbiased format. However, in class we study specific events or ideas more closely than in the article. The article's overall status is average, but could certainly use some work. The article's strengths are that it is comprehensive and unbiased. The article could be improved by adding more information about specific far-left militant groups and terrorist groups. While noted, they are not discussed in depth. The article should also discuss far-left parties in more detail. The article is underdeveloped, but with a few additions could become a completed piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnicholls02 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

political repression, indoctrination, xenophobia, and mass killings

Nothing in the main prose about any of this, yet the lead states: "In addition, governments ruled by political parties who either self-describe or are identified by scholars as far-left have caused political repression, indoctrination, xenophobia, and mass killings." This reads like an MOS:OP-ED/WP:AWW where an editor has made the statement, and then dumped three cites at the end, pointing to scholars who have mentioned involvement in political repression, indoctrination, xenophobia, and mass killings. We need a secondary that states "governments ruled by political parties who either self-describe or are identified by scholars as far-left have caused political repression, indoctrination, xenophobia, and mass killings" otherwise this is as good as WP:OR. But, if it's not dealt with in the main body at all, it shouldn't be in the lead. Acousmana 17:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. And which political parties that formed governments ever self-described themselves as far left? TFD (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

WikiProjects of interest

I reverted this edit to the WikiProject banners because the same changes were previously reverted by Ohnoitsjamie and no discussion has taken place to justify this inclusion of additional WikiProjects. I fail to see how the inclusion of banners for both WikiProject Crime and WikiProject Terrorism are relevant to this article when this article distinguishes the subject from Left-wing terrorism. One needs to draw the line somewhere and, to me, the descent of a political belief into criminal activity to achieve political ends marks the boundary of the topic in question. While this article might refer to Left-wing terrorism and various groups that have resorted to militant action, it doesn't explain why such criminal activity is, necessarily, part of the political belief system of the far-left, or even the far-right. The use of violence suggest to me that the politics has failed and the need for violence and terrorism is indicative of something else that is no longer political. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

comparison to Far-Left politics

There is no needed to include a comparison to Far-right politics in the introduction. Far-Right politics is already mentioned in See More section as a means of cross-pollination and education. Maintaining both the Far-Left and Far-Right introductions as commensurate stand-alone theses is needed to prevent perceived bias, as both sides are on the same ordinal political measurement system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8C01:6940:758A:E2B8:2142:376A (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the reference and I request that it not be re-instated unless a consensus arises against that notion.Lmomjian (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Editors continue to reinstate reference to far-right as an integral component of the opening paragraphs describing the far-left, I await their responses here on why that is necessary.Lmomjian (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

See the discussion below. — Czello 20:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Remove bias by mirroring opposing descriptions

If one political description is softer than its political opposite, bias is created. To mitigate this bias, a simple solution is to weight each equally through mirrored descriptions. It favors neither side, keeping Wikipedia neutral, as it should be. 174.214.48.109 (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Articles on Wikipedia aren't supposed to be mirrors of one another, they simply reflect whatever the sources say. Ultimately the far-left and far-right aren't mirrors: they have their own criticisms and controversies. Therefore they require their own bespoke approach. — Czello 14:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

And in the US their actions are very different, with the right wing being much, much more violent. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Radical leftist violence is almost nonexistent in the US.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

How can you both say this when Antifa and BLM burned, looted, rioted, and destroyed parts of most major US cities from June 2020 until well into 2021? 223.25.58.48 (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

agreed! -Jf (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

the "far right" is much more violent? Were you here during the BLM riots? Antifa? what's your source for this opinion? -Jf (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

They are not political opposites. Far right is a classification of political ideologies about which numerous books and articles have been written. Far left is a vague term which usually means "more left-wing than I am." There are no books or articles written about it, with the exception that Cas Mudde used the term in an article about political parties to the left of the Labour Party, but they are now generally referred to as "left parties."

Even if they were opposites, how we treat them depends on sources. Cops and robbers are opposites for example, but sources do not treat them as morally equivalent.

TFD (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Antifa left wing

Why isnt there a section describing Antifa in the left wing politics page?

2600:6C56:6408:71:A510:7826:8E2A:85EC (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)anonymous

2600:6C56:6408:71:A510:7826:8E2A:85EC (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it's because far left isn't a term used in sources for political science. It basically means more left wing than I am. Hence Fox News calls Joe Biden and his big business supporters far left. TFD (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces just out of curiosity, do you mean commentators such as Sean Hannity, who did say that? Doug Weller talk 16:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The commentators routinely refer to lots of people as far left. The news service doesn't as far as I know. TFD (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

And of course not being an organisation is a problem, as is the fact that you don't have to be left wing to be anti-fascist. All decent people including conservatives should be. Nor in antifa black block. Doug Weller talk 08:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

If a bunch of right-wingers started organizing (although unofficially) in the name of ending pedophilia and child abuse, calling themselves Anti-Chomo, and had a flag, and symbols, and dressed all in black, and organized using various social media platforms, and then claimed they weren't an organization, but (in an organized fashion) harassed transgender people and gays (and POC) on the street, and occasionally assaulted them, you wouldn't have a problem with this? And whenever people tried to criticize this group they just come back with "Hey, aren't you against child abuse?"

People are starting to catch on to what you editors are doing, and what you stand for. This is why people have lost all respect or consideration for Wikipedia (at least when it comes to current event or political articles). We know this is all straight out of Marcuse's Repressive Tolerance playbook, and we are starting to wake up and recognize what you are doing. 223.25.58.48 (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

There is a group that harasses LBGT etc. people called the Westboro Baptist Church. Their article doesn't call them far right. There are many other single issue hate groups whose membership is probably far right, but their articles do not describe them as such. TFD (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

We're just being trolled. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

"in the name of ending pedophilia and child abuse" In other words, banning Christian priests from having contact with children? Then the proper article would be Anti-Christian sentiment. Dimadick (talk) 08:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

<rev personal attack>

There seems to be some pot calling the kettle black going on here. Jmurphy, you hardly seem like a neutral editor yourself. Carptrash (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

He thinks Hitler was far left. I guess reading the Washington Post makes me what, far right or fat lefT? I’m confused. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

It is disputed that Antifa is far-left, what its exact ideolog is, what it even is and whether or not it even exists. Mostly, it is pointed to by fascists as a fictional "enemy". Lucydesu (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is a farce

You will not find a single political science textbook that accepts "far-left" as a scientific term. This article should be deleted. 120.22.38.19 (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources in this article which use this term. — Czello 07:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

None of which explicitly define WHAT far left politics is, which is a farce. Anyone who had actually studied political science would tell you how much of a farce this article is and why it should be deleted. In fact this entire article is a hypothetical which goes against Wikipedia policy itself particularly Wikipedia:CRYSTAL on point four (4) in particular

"Although currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections."

On that basis alone this article due to its speculative nature should be entirely deleted... "Far Left" is not a term any political scientist would use (and it is a science, generally falling under systems science, due to the relationship with the way systems science, and systems theory works in general) however hard it is to observe what the machinations of politics do at a scientific level beyond qualitative analysis. There are literal effects on the world around us or "system" aka "biosphere" due to the results of politics. "Far Leftt" is just not a term any man of science actually uses though... Even this article states that it IS NOT clearly well defined enough yet.

Quoting reason enough itself for the article not to be here from the article itself

"The term does not have a single, coherent definition." --120.22.14.186 (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Clearly there is a term called "far-left" which is notable and used widely, given how well sourced it is. The fact that there isn't a single unifying definition doesn't mean the term doesn't exist or isn't notable - nor that we shouldn't discuss it. Indeed, part of the purpose of the article is to discuss the fact that it might not have a singular definition. — Czello 08:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

A lack of coherency often indicates a lack of cogent thought on the matter, lots of people have speculated about the term far left, but the frequency of its use (which often tells us a lot scientifically) in actual studies is usually in places such as Fox News and other non-mainstream news sources where it comes up far more frequently. And yes, frequency is something we can study scientifically in political science pretty much under any studying of cultural anthropology actually where frequency and terms specific to ideologies and politics often come up, along with views about conservatism, liberalism and many other things (and what makes these things). My argument is such, that while it may be a term, it's not a very good one, and using terms spuriously that have very little cogent and coherent meaning is often dangerous at best, and life threatening at worst (as we've already seen with the far right politics of this world) that come up with these bastardisations of terms. Just look at the January 6 riots or the Christchurch mosque shootings to see where misuse of terms actually gets us when some idiot (even the former President of the United States) takes misuse of terms way too far. That is why this topic lacks usefulness (and is dangerous) to the vast majority of the world.

If you missed the message misusing terms leads to ideologues (people who take ideologies too far) and bigots that do dangerous and stupid things. that much is self evident. Trying to create an alternate reality where an equivocal far left exists in the same sphere of influence as the far right (which is an actual thing) is dangerous and foolhardy at best... Even the Bay of Pigs Crisis (mostly spurred on by the United States) never killed nearly as many people, as in general, most, if not all modern conflicts have been spurred on by those from the far right, and even when it does lead to someone like Fidel or Raúl Castro these people are not nearly as dangerous or stupid as their right wing equivalent.

AND FYI, no this isn't a spurious matter off the top of my head, people have written entire books about this issue such as Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies: Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics with far more weight than my own voice about the moral bankruptcy of neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and conservative iealogues in general who use these terms. --120.22.28.205 (talk) 07:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I certainly agree that defining this term is challenging but the same can be said about thousands of other Wikipedia articles. That is why it is entirely appropriate to write in articles, "some reliable sources define the topic as A while other sources define the topic as B, or less commonly as C. An assertion that this topic lacks usefulness (and is dangerous) to the vast majority of the world should be ignored by all serious Wikipedia editors. We care not at all about Righting great wrongs terminology like "usefulness" or "dangerousness". We summarize what reliable sources say, period, end of story. Cullen328 (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not here to right a great wrong though I'm here to point out why this article is stupid. As per the assertions on P. 147 of the book I mentioned about the tribalism of the modern media landscape and the ongoing cultural war like the failed war on drugs which was nothing more than another conservative attack on progressive people. The assertion as per P. 147 is that the radical left (another term for far left) is built into technology as per the preeminent discussion that it may be the "built in" perspective on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, that swirls around every US election cycle (without much evidence in terms of results to show that's the case by the way). These are problematic facts of trying to define any "far left" or whether it exists, in fact, as another analysis the author I suggested talks about "communicative capitalism" and using the media landscape to construct an alternative narrative which we know for a fact does happen through people like Rupert Murdoch and the Murdoch Press and the endless scandals that eventually plagued orginisations such as News of the World... Which by any assertion presents me as a person of the middle of the road that is highlighting how dangerous and nefarious this term "far left" actually is... and before you ask there are a million and one other precedents I could use as example to support my position so don't go there that it's just one man standing on a soap box. It isn't. It does highlight the strong link between capitalism, money and being able to buy a conservative perspective that "ultra-left nationalists" may be hiding under your bed though... which is the problem with the term "far left" and where it stems from (in the modern sense). --120.22.28.205 (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

In order to add any content about highlighting how dangerous and nefarious this term "far left" actually is, we need references to high quality reliable sources making that assertion. Claims made by random people on the internet, whether you or me or anyone else, must be ignored on Wikipedia. Our role as Wikipedia editors is to summarize published reliable sources, not to spout our own opinions. This is firmly established, and non-negotiable. Cullen328 (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I just sumarised a position actually (with a page number) you can go and investigate for yourself, that says exactly what I'm saying, in far less words, in one of these amazing things called "credible sources" i.e. a book... Maybe you could try clicking on the link I placed above to said book where you can read the information I sumarised into the ideas presented in said book. I didn't rely on my own (quite extensive) thoughts, but a literal direct paraphrase of the general argument presented on P.147 of said book above. the good news is that p. 147 of said book which clarifies the matter I stated above is available for free. --120.22.28.205 (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

So what exactly are you proposing here? If it's still deletion of the article I can say that won't happen - despite disagreement on what the term means, it is a term that is used, rather notably so; indeed, part of the article discusses the fact it might not be precise. If, however, you're now just proposing a quote it's a quote from the aforementioned book - well I should think we could add that with attribution. — Czello 09:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The issue is the one that I've raised as per what is outlined in the book "communicative capitalism" and the use of the term "far left" in the modern sense (particularly in America) as a pejorative, widely used by media sources (e.g. the Murdoch Press) as I outlined above, to literally do nothing but muck raking. I think that at least deserves to be explained in this article, as it's a well known fact. I could sumarise it myself, but I don't have an account here, because I often feel, due to how difficult it is to interact with Wikipedians, that having an account here is often a waste of my intelligence.

I mean at the very least the perspective that it is a pejorative is a widely held belief (beyond myself) that can be atributed by multiple sources (even beyond the one I mentioned). That fact needs to be at least represented in this article.

Quite personally I maintain the fact that far left is a farce, but it doesn't seem you want to come on board with that, even if I provide you the evidence as such. Just because a term is widely used does not mean it is not farcical thought. --120.22.83.117 (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the vast majority of current usage of the term in Western media is as a meaningless pejorative. That does not mean that the term has no actual meaning. With adequate sourcing, I think the wide usage as a pejorative used against anyone not on the far-right should be added. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

What an interesting discussion. I'll start by saying that statements such as "having an account here is often a waste of my intelligence" does little to advance any discussion, given that most of us here do have accounts. I am also one of those who is alternately amused and concerned about the use of the term “far left” in the media. But the same could be said about the term “socialist,” as in “Joe Biden is pushing the socialist agenda.” However this does not mean that wikipedia should remove the Socialist article. So user 120.22.83.117|120.22.83.117, I would be very interested to see you really have a go at the article, you do not need an account to do that, and use your intelligence and sources on the article rather than on the talk page. Carptrash (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I am going to agree that it is essential meaningless as a term, or a 'propaganda term'. this is especially an important thing to understand what with what the current media spotlights have been in several countries currently, such as france where the terms are again thrown every day currently. Maybe it does have an 'actual meaning' but I do not personally thing it is one useful enough to be used in an encyclopedia. SP00KYtalk 14:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

See: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary": "Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness. However, articles rarely, if ever, contain more than one distinct definition or usage of the article's title."

Speakers use the term far left to refer to positions that more left-wing than what they consider acceptable. Hence Soviet Communists refered to Maoists are far left, while Fox News presenters refer to Joe Biden as far left.

The solution would seem to be to say that it is a term that means different things depending on the speakers and leave out the details of everything that could be conceivably referred to as far left.

TFD (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

"Soviet Communists refered to Maoists are far left." Never heard that in my life, have you got a source for that? The Sino-Russian relationship is complex but in general the two sides are and always have been quite favorable to eachother and would be reported as such in most media sources, and journal articles, dating way back to when the Maoists took over mainland China. Now if you're talking about what Taiwan (which is the actual China that evacuated to the island of Taiwan) thinks about China or Russia that's a very different story, but you said China not Taiwan. --120.22.83.117 (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that "far left" is a concept, it appears frequently in the media and I also think that the Soviet-China example is not such a good one. In fact, (opinion) a bad one. Carptrash (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking more in terms of Maoists outside China, such as in the New Communist movement. While I cannot find a source at the moment, here are some examples of Communists referring to people to their left: "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder, Left Opposition, Left communism in China (aka "ultra-left").

Anyway, since far left is not an encyclopedic topic, we can only rely on our own experience and research to determine how the term is used. Maybe someday someone will write an academic article about the topic so we can put it into the article. But there is no reason for having an article for every possible juxtaposition of an adjective and a noun. Some people for example might describe Elizabeth Warren as very liberal. But that doesn't mean we need an article about very liberalism. TFD (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Just like we do not really need an article on the term far left, but it is here anyway, right? I mean by that logic... Look, the term IS problematic, ill defined, troublesome as I have pointed out through better experience than my own, and not really definitive of anything except political diatribe. I have never once heard anyone self-reference themselves as “far-left” or their ideology as far left, in any serious nature, and I do not think anyone ever will because it is just not really a term that is used by anyone other than far right extremists. Anyway, Marxism at its core is completely unproblematic as it has never really been tested in the way Marx or Engels intended it to be tested, and for all the pseudo-babel in the world going on here for god sake... I will highlight a point that is notable to this concept of far left as below:

Marx himself like other later revolutionary thinkers such as Keynes were only really testing their theories on economics as Marx did in his most prolific book Das Kapital (which was nothing more than a critique otherwise known as an analysis) which is really just a prediction of what is going on now which is Late capitalism and on the basis of that point, where people were assumed would get sick of capitalism considering we are all getting shafted by it as Marx predicted. It does turn out instead that the world is full of Sadomasochism and some people gather sexual arousal and gratification from being shafted as per the fifth addition of the DSM (DSM-5) by forces outside of their control (to meet the current definition of sadomasochism).

And I refer to the current interpretation anyways, of late stage capitalism, not the one Marx created when he was talking about it (I am not a Marxist). I am, however, a person with a degree in political science who understands what Marx was actually getting at and not the diatribe about communists hiding underneath your bed and yes as a person with a degree in political science I understand political sociology and how to read, interpret, and apply the DSM to this mess which is really just a critique on fascism and the Fasces (sometimes referred to as an axe) which is wielded over people's heads as a form of control (particularly in the United States where you will work, or you will die). This comparison was not achieved by me, but the world famous and highly reputable Atlantic journal in the article on this link.

It was McCarthyism that made Marx a swear word and nothing else and, to be frank, McCarthyism is nothing more than propaganda. There is nothing credible that makes Karl Marx a swear word today, the core of the concept has just been eroded by a bunch of hapless idiots who no longer have any reference point for what Marx was actually about. They read Marx as if its some kind of Manchurian prophecy of the assassination of society as we know it, when in reality it is a social analysis of why the people on the bottom level of any capitalism system are always going to be screwed by the 1% who own the wealth and all the tools to make wealth... Read without the bullshit, there is nothing wrong with Das Kapital and it is a fine analysis of where we are today. --120.22.83.117 (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

"where you will work, or you will die" Considering the country's overly expensive and inadequate healthcare system, that should probably be "you will work and you will die" or "you will work until your last breath". Dimadick (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Probably the second one in actuality, if you don't have a good pension fund in the United States you will work until you die and then there is no guarantee even if that's the case due to chapter 11 you will ever receive your entitlements (unlike Australia). Living in the United States is much more like living with the burden of planning for a highly burdened, self managed Superannuation in Australia and then there is not even a guarantee in the United States that you will ever have a good enough job to achieve that either... and here we are decrying the left in this article as if its evil --120.22.86.177 (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• I mean, the article basically says that? The second sentence is The term does not have a single, coherent definition; some scholars consider it to represent the left of social democracy, while others limit it to the left of communist parties. And the bulk of the article is saying "scholars don't agree on a single definition for the far-left" and then listing the various conflicting definitions they've proposed. Most sourcing covers this problem - the term is used to mirror "far-right" but lacks the same concrete meaning for a variety of reasons, mostly relating to the far-left encompassing far more things. But there's still enough coverage of the term to write an article saying these things. --Aquillion (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The term "far left" as I mostly see it does not mean left of the Communist Party, not when it is employed, as was the case with Kamala Harris who " critics were quick to label her as far left." Also, I don't think it was Sen McCarthy who made Marx a swear word he just tapped into a pool that was already there. The same pool the "far left" users are drawing from. Carptrash (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

When I raised issue with this article the vast majority of my complaint was that the article fell under the rules based on crystal balls by stating that the vast majrity of this article is a hypothesis, in the worst sense. We're not here to create articles on what something "may" be to quote Wikipedia on what wikipedia is not:

"Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions."

This comes from the literal policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not by the way, so I'm not going out swinging on some "branch too far."

I feel points three (3) and points four (4) are most relevant:

3. Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. Although scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on weapons in Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not.

4.Although currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections.

I feel like the vast majority of this article is a projection in the worst possible sense, taken from the Oxford dictionary "the unconscious transfer of one's desires or emotions to another person" and while this may not be intentional, I still feel that's the type of projection going on here. --120.22.13.74 (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• A radical proposal. Let us just use RS and ignore the PAs. Not only does this follow PAG, it's easy as the article already does this. Although, with adequate sourcing, I think the wide usage as a pejorative used against anyone not on the far-right should be added. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

A bare minimum would be to include the fact that the way the term is often used largely as a pejorative, I think we can find a consensus point on that. Sometimes such radical proposals are not so bad. --120.22.13.74 (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you find any reliable sources that define the far left? I could not find any books or academic articles about it because it is not a concept but just a juxtaposition of an adjective and noun which has meaning according to the context implied by the writer. TFD (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Reviewing the history of the lead, I think the issue is that an edit a few months back added a lot of stuff with the intention of making the lead here a "mirror" of the one at Far-right politics. Reviewing it, it seems WP:SYNTHy to me, in that it strung together a lot of passing mentions of the term "far-left" with the intent of producing a definition that resembled the other article - which is especially a problem given that the sources we do have that discuss far-left politics directly generally say it lacks a coherent definition; the two articles therefore shouldn't be mirrors of each other. I think a lot of the concerns above stem from the reasonable concern that that synth-y rewrite, which sort of contradicted the first part of the lead and implied that the term has a concrete definition, could lead to the perception that we're endorsing the more handwavy pejorative usage. --Aquillion (talk) 04:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

To be honest reviewing the article it seems like the whole thing is a little bit too speculative to begin with. You are correct in one sense, it does seem like a mirror, and some of that is deliberate. At the very least it needs to be pointed out categorically that there is no clearly coherent definition of what far left actually is --120.22.119.56 (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

So can someone here point me to a use of the term "far left" that is not just a pejorative label handed out from someone on the right? Carptrash (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
For the term “far left” to have any literal meaning it would need to be referring to people who are left of the Communist Party USA, the Social Democrats, USA, the Socialist Party USA, the Working Families Party, the Socialist Workers Party (United States), and at the very least the Green Party (United States) because these are the left in America. When the term “far left” is applied to any member of Congress, with perhaps a few exceptions, it is just being used as a negative, value loaded label. Carptrash (talk) 05:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

No, for a term to be relevant it has to be coined and relevant to something or other. Take for example the school of Constructivism in international relations which is now an accepted (if inherently new) school of political science and international relations. Constructivism is a school of thought among many things psychology, education (which is a form of psychology anyway coming from the behaviorists such as Skinner, Thorndike and Pavlov originally). It works on the input, synthesis, output and system philosophy to tell us what the variables of a system are where they begin with the input, the synthesis of thought that goes into making something related to the international relations cycle, e.g. an actor, and an output where we can observe what that actor is and how it acts inherently in relation to the entire system as a construct. We can study it and know that it exists as something scientific, and not just as a brain fart. It is scientific, analytical and at its core is truly part of systems science and by way of that quantum mechanics.

In fact to step back a little education is also probably a good example Lev Vygotsky wanted to know inherently what you had to do at the input level, to construct knowledge, inside of a school, to get a learner from point (a) to the output at point (b) and so he commited long term studios effort to tell us how to achieve that... Also roughly give or take about 125 years ago we didn't have the concept of education, the child or even psychology as we know it today. People like the people who created the school of constructivism in laymans terms coin theories to express what it is they're doing, in this case behaviorist psychologists, when enough people have an idea of what it does, other people speculate on it and therefore it becomes something that is observable, if it's observable we can research it, if it's researchable then we can hypothesize that there may be this thing called the behaviorist model of psychological education, if that is the case we can (and we have) tested it with experiments, analysed it, and reported back on what it is. We know for example through operant and cclassical conditioning we can train a dog to salivate to the sound of a bell, therefore the experiment works as a model of what it is. The same can be said for the school of constructivism, which is really the sociological observations of how states and actors are created, and held collectively so we can identify for example what a "Vladimir Putin" or "current day Russia is" which is what then lets us analyse what they are or may be as an individual or state actor. We can look at how a Vladimir Putin is created at the input level (what are the variables to create a Vladimir Putin, study the synthesis of how he came to be, and look at the outcome as a construct we can analyze sociologically to know what a Vladimir Putin does to the world as a state actor.

See the problem with this far left thing is that it doesn't fit neatly into any box where we can analyse what it is, at the moment my best understanding of far left is to associate it with diatribe, poliemics and screed (see particularly definition 5 of screed from the sister project Wiktionary), see, there doesn't seem to be any clearly identifiable way to make any sense of what the term "far left" actually is, but then again, that's what the right wants, the act of saying far left, is to actually create the conversation of "what's a far leftist?" which leads to obfuscation through confusion and that's the problem with this article in a nut shell.

In my humble opinion for however little it's worth (as an original point of view) "far left" is nothing more than a tool to obfuscate in arguments (in this case make the left seem obscure, unclear, and unintelligible, particularly the "far left" for the point of cheap point scoring in Polemicals and this isn't a university nor am I here to vent my spleen in a polemic debate or a moot. We are here to give people a reference to what "far left" actually means. That is, if Wikipedia still considers itself an encyclopedia?

Because all I am getting from reading this article is:

”Far-left” has no specific definition.

And for an encylopedia that is supposed to give a reference point about what something IS that is very problematic. Also I fail to see how when we all know capitalism is fundamentally flawed and broken how "Far-left politics is radical for calling for fundamental change to the capitalist socio-economic structure of society..." or even how that statement meets the basis point of a neutral point of view. Being against capitalism itself is unproblematic. It's what you do with that viewpoint in the mean time that counts. Stating such nonsense explicitly as if it's a bad thing is nothing more than a McCarthyist diatribe at best. Also there are plenty of other mixed market systems that work fundamentally fine such as most of Europe which by now is social democratic across the board, with welfare states accross the entirety of continental Europe, not to mention Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. All of which are mixed market, social welfare states.... The only examples of broken capitalist states by this point are China and the United States, and its not working out well right now for either of them. Mind you Chinese capitalism is very different than American capitalism as the market is quasi and still largely state controlled, but it is a market none the less, and the entirety of the modern Chinese system runs off of it because of the failures of Maoist Communism. 120.22.119.56 (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Carptrash and of course there are a number of those. Ok, not a forum but becoming one, but my experience and understanding is that far left people/groups are revolutionaries trying to gain power by force, unlike for instance the Communist parties that control some Indian states. Ditto far right. Doug Weller talk 11:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Again it is essential to have a source that defines the topic so that the article can have a scope.

I disagree that because the far right is a topic that means far left is too. Far right has a rich body of literature, far left has none. Far right incidentally has two major definitions: right of mainstream parties (e.g., right-wing populism) and the farthest to the right possible (e.g., fascism). But there is extensive literature about how to define the term. Usually writers will accept one definition and call the other topic extreme right. Again, there is nothing like that for left-wing politics. TFD (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

This, for something to be a reference we need to be able to define WHAT it is --120.22.170.225 (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Well in parts of the world "far left" might have meaning but in the USA it is just an attempt at a nasty thing to call someone. My guess is that after serious researchers delve into it they will discover that it was a right wing reaction to being called "fascists." Of course I have not yet published my theory so . . . ........... Carptrash (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The terms far right, extreme right, etc. came to be adopted by social scientists in comparative politics after WW2 to describe various right wing groups. The problem they faced was that there were numerous groups that had no obvious connections with each other. For example, the American Nazi Party, the John Birch Society and the KKK were not historically related but had overlapping ideas that were to the right of the mainstream. The origins of this usage can be sourced. But this was never a problem with left-wing groups so no similar terminology for categorization was required.

Previously the term neo-fascist had been widely used, but was hard to justify since many far right groups had no connection with historical fascism. OTOH, almost all left wing groups have connections with historical socialism or anarchism. TFD (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

If I may suggest the radical step of looking at sources, there looks to be quite a lot of them.[1] I get the general impression that the term is mostly used in relation to European politics, with themes of communism, terrorism, anti-semitism, and Euro-skepticism. Sennalen (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but the issue here is not so much the treatment of the term in relation with European usage, but with the American usage. The sources that you have pointed out seem to suggest that the term "far left" in the USA refers to groups or ideas left of the Communist Party USA, but in fact the way that it is being used today is about, for example, members of Congress, none of whom are left of the CPUSA. That is the usage that we are struggling with. Carptrash (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Anyone who doesn't believes in background checks for gun purchases, Medicaid, the ACA, climate change, vaccines, not banning books about Rosa Parks or the KKK or even To Kill a Mockingbird , anything non-Christian, sexual orientation, etc. is labeled far-left. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Anyone who doesn't believe in these things is "far left?" More like (opinion) anyone who does. Carptrash (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I said "labeled". O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Objective3000 Huh? Anyone who doesn’t believe in banning books about Rosa Parks is labelled far-left? That’s just wrong. Doug Weller talk 15:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Apologies Doug, just engaging in hyperbole -- the current fad. MLK and Rosa Parks books were recently banned in a PA school district and FL schools dropped mention of race as the reason Rosa Parks was told to give up her seat. "Wokeness" was the reason given with this and other book bans; a term who's original meaning (awake/aware) seemingly has been twisted into anything non-right. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Ahh, my error. Struck a word. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you are both incorrect. Wikipedia is a global wiki not an american wiki and needs to reflect that. Any article about or discussion about said article must not hobble itself by reducing its scope to explicitly how it is used in the US Right Media in 2023 as you guys seem to want, nor any hyper-specific scope. SP00KYtalk 15:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Well pick out one of them and tell us what the definition is, because it seems that there is no consistency. Also, one major category seems to be about "far left parties," but these are generally referred to today as "left parties." Examples include PODEMOS and SYRIZA. Do you want to make that the topic and change the article title to its common name? TFD (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

SYRIZA is a good one, no one in Greece referred to them as radical at all at the time (I am Greek and Australian at the same time) no one refereed to them anything at the time really other than the obvious. Due to their close relations with the communist party in Greece, some people refereed to them as communists or communist sympathizers. I wouldn't go as far as to say that they were communists either, there hasn't been true communism in Greece since before the military junta and there has never been popular communism in Greece what so ever really except for a brief period after World War II. The real point is, that even in the European terms SYRIZA was not seen as radical at the time. The radical party at the time when SYRIZA was Golden Dawn which was a radical right Neo-Nazi party modeled on other far right activists such as those in France such as Marine Le Pen that focused at the time on racism, the destruction of multiculturalism and ethic pluralism in Europe. It really was a period of us and them which came with the European Financial crisis, where migrants became the scapegoat as in America withDreamers which is also just another poorly thought out version of McCarthyism. In fact to circle back to Greece, most people voted for SYRIZA because they were not PASOK or New Democracy. But at the same time they also voted for them because there was wind a party like Golden Dawn would win, and a lot of people instead voted for SYRIZA because they WERE NOT the radical option. The other thing with anything to do with radical is mistranslated also.

Radical in this sense means nothing more than "grass roots" which would align it basically with any of the Green parties in Europe including the one that is currently the elected government in Germany. There is nothing radical about them either. ΣΥΡΙΖΑ can be translated from Greek in a literal sense to the English term "grassroots" which in its most simple sense means appealing to the everyday person in your local community.

See the problem here is that there still doesn't seem to be a clear definition of anything provided that is anything more than a childlike pejorative. --120.22.3.176 (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

As I said, they are called left parties which is what they call themselves. Mostly they are coalitions of people with diverse views. Originally Luke March, writing for an SDP thinktank, called them "far left" parties, but he now accepts left parties as a better description. I agree though that they are not on the extreme left. SYRIZA, which is the only left party to gain power, did not govern particularly differently from PASOK. TFD (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

So should we retitle the article "Far left in Europe" and leave the USA out of it, to be dealt with, or not, somewhere else? Carptrash (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I would change it to "Left parties" and outline groups such as SYRIZA. There is at least one left party outside Europe, Québec solidaire, so I would not say it is European only. TFD (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Carptrash, SYRIZA didn't govern any different to PASOK because they knew they would get slaughtered in the polls, and anyway SYRIZA was just basically PASOK for "young people" after one too many Papendreous Just like one too many Clinton's in America. Apart from a short time during Nazi occupied Greece and after with the Junta, Greece is not a radical country... In fact to use Greece as an example of radicalism is the world's biggest political farce. Even the right in Greece is left by world's standards. Greece is one of the most sensible countries in Europe in general because it has to navigate the treachery of both East and West while getting screwed by both, therefore using Greece as an example of radicalism when it has to manage its ties with North Africa, the Middle East, Turkey and America through NATO is problematic, when Greece generally has to find a sensible middle ground to deal with all of these powers including Russia to avoid being obliterated living on the borders of both the Balkans states and the Middle East. If anything Greece is well known to represent one of the most sensible moderate voices in global politics in the whole of Europe... Greece just has its own problem of being screwed by Germany, for aligning itself with the European Union. To tie Greece to radicalism, actually no, the vast majority of people in Greece and even SYRIZA as a party were full of moderates, even the current New Democracy is moderate by global standards. Greece in general is a moderate, middle of the road country. That's because while the job sector continues to collapse something in the order of 45% of young people in Greece have a tertiary degree which is well above the OECD averages and quite comparable to other OECD countries that pride themselves on their education like the United States where that number is roughly 50%. Greek people are generally highly educated and moderate, the problem is really the lack of jobs, leading to the bleed off or "brain drain" to other OECD countries. I digress, there is a strong correlation between high levels of education and liberalism which just solidifies the point. Whether that is that more liberal people go to university, or liberalism is created by education curriculum (that's irrelevant to the point I'm making.... using Greece as a talking point for far left politics (if there is such a thing) is entirely bizarre to say the least --120.22.105.51 (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Will i do agree with what you are saying and empathise completely, i think you are veering of deeply in to the realm of personal opinion. I do not think a lot of this is relevant. Whilst i do not personally believe SYRIZA should be on such a list, any list made that contains parliamentary-political parties should be based on something tangible like policy, to have SYRIZA on such a list is to suggest the list is made by little but 'what the newspapers claimed they were'. SP00KYtalk 15:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

You should keep your comments briefer and stick to the point. Your comment is that SYRIZA governed like the parties before it because it is cautious and pragmatic. That's a good argument that they are not extremists. As you say, they are PASOK for young people. Over time, lots of political parties die and are replaced by new ones that at first look better but essentially fill the same place. TFD (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

History by country?

I took a look at this article. I find it perhaps too short, but actually not bad. The lead is similar to the lead of far-right politics, which I think is probably appropriate. I notice that far-right politics has a history by country section. I think this article should have something similar. This could in turn go into genocides in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Cambodia, for example, just as the far-right article goes into the Rwandan genocide. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The basic problem is that if you type "far right" into Google books, you get thousands of results, type in "far left" and you get nothing. The term far right and similar ones were coined to group a number of similar but unrelated groups, such as Italian neo-fascists and American Klansmen. But that problem did not happen for the Left, which is made up of related groups. So this article is about how the term far left is used. TFD (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

False. Plenty of books also talk about the radical left in Europe or the guerrillas in Latin America Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Please provide an example. TFD (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

JSTOR:

https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=extreme+gauche

https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=far-left

Google Scholar:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=es&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=far-left&btnG=

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=es&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=extreme+gauche&btnG=

Google Books:

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=far-left Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a reason this is not done. Unlike the fascist movement, the far-left is composed of many different groups, often with wildly different ideologies. Even within the Stalinist branch which ruled over China, North Korea and the USSR there is a lot of variation in ideology and action. Cambodia is in many ways the exact opposite of Stalinism, and in some ways even the opposite of communism due to its repressive and ultranationalist nature. These branches, in turn, cannot even be compared to modern far-left politics, which often does away with authoritarianism, pursuing either a libertarian or idealist society. Thus, to add a summary by country is oversimplification to the point of becoming propaganda. Lucydesu (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the far-right is also composed of many different ideologies. They're not like a ideological monolith. For example, in Spain the far-right can be composed of reactionary Carlists, the nationalist Francoists and National-Catholics, and the Falangists. Same with Germany when at the time National Socialists from the NSDAP and ultraconservatives from the DNVP. Metaxists, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army or the Chetniks fought fascism and they are considered far-right too. If you consider adding history of the far-left as "propaganda" then we could consider the whole history of the far-right as propaganda too Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the reason the term far right was coined was because it is composed of unrelated ideologies. TFD (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

You literally said "...the far-left is composed of many different groups, often with wildly different ideologies" using it as justification to not make a section of history by country. Both the far-left and the far-right are composed by different ideologies. In the far-right we will find from reactionary ideologies such as traditionalism and integralism or revolutionary ideologies like fascism or national-socialism. In the far-left we will find from libertarian ideologies such as anarchism and it's variations (communist, mutualism, syndicalist, eco-, individualist, feminist, trans-) to totalitarian ideologies such as Marxism-Leninism or Maoism. I don't see how is this a justification for not adding said subtitle Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You are including things that clearly have nothing to do with far-left other than the far-right claiming such. Let us not fall for such nonsense. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The article about anarchism literally says: "Anarchism is usually placed on the far-left of the political spectrum". Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say the far left is composed of many different groups, that was another editor.

I note that your first example to prove that far left is a meaningful concept is, "LES RADICAUX D'EXTRÊME-GAUCHE EN FRANCE ET LES RAPPORTS ENTRE PATRONS ET OUVRIERS (1871-1900)," which was published in 1961. The fact you would pick an old, obscure article in another language shows a lack of familiarity on the literature.

For the elucidation of other editors, the author uses the term exteeme (not btw far) left to refer to the most left-wing parties in the French Chamber of Deputies at the time. The name he uses is a reference to the fact that they sat on the extreme left of the Chamber.

These parties were pro-capitalist but toward the end of the 19th century began to support social reforms, similar to Gladstone's Liberal Party in the UK. But with the entry of Socialists into the Chamber after 1901, they came to ally themselves with conservatives and in fact were part of the block that supported Sarkozy.

All of this tells us that one possible definition of far left is the most left wing members of any legislature. Is that what you think this article should list?

Anyway, I don't have time to read articles you haven't bothered to read yourself. Obviously you have no sources. TFD (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Your claim was "... if you type "far right" into Google books, you get thousands of results, type in "far left" and you get nothing", then I proved you some example, and you just ignored them. My point on showing you those sources was to prove that there ARE academic sources that use the term "far-left". LES RADICAUX D'EXTRÊME-GAUCHE EN FRANCE ET LES RAPPORTS ENTRE PATRONS ET OUVRIERS literally has the term in the title. You're just being stubborn Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I shall rephrase it. If you type in "far right" you find books auch as The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right that define the topic, explain the terminology used by different writers, identify the literature and give an overview of the topic over time and in different countries. The types of books you find when you type in far left do not do this. The only consistency is that they mean that part of the left that is unacceptable to them.

In the same sense, type in "tasty recipes" and you will find lots of recipes the authors find tasty. But that doesn't mean that there is any clear definition or a topic that deserves its own article. TFD (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

How is the photo of a peaceful protest (or any photo of Germany's ANTIFA) a good one for the lead?

Surely there is something better. This could even confuse people into thinking it's something to do with the Antifa movement in the US. Doug Weller talk 06:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we should probably avoid any images for now, since (as discussed above) most coverage doesn't really support a single definition for far-left politics, whereas any image would inevitably carry the false implication that "far left politics is this" and end up putting undue weight on a position that lacks widespread support. I also want to point out that the edit summary that restored the image again presented the argument that this page needs to mirror Far-right politics, which isn't appropriate - the sources are clear that the terms are not mirrors of each other. "Far-right politics" is extensively studied and has a singular well-defined definition, whereas "far-left politics" does not, so it is expected that the articles would be very different. --Aquillion (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree. The term is "far" too nebulous to assign to any group. Perhaps an image of a nebula. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, with 'probably' and 'for now' removed. In fact, I think neither of the two should have a lead image and the same implication applies on the Far-right politics article too ("far-right politics is this" *peaceful demonstration*). On top of that, antifa's primary activity is antifascism, not far-left politics, and it does not necessarily contain only far-left individuals. Therefore, not representative of the topic. –Vipz (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

For god sake, anti-fa just means the loose association of groups of people who are against fascists. If being against fascism is far left then 99% of the world is far left. If you are against fascism then you are anti-fa by definition --120.22.105.51 (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but the image is the German organisation. That's different. But it is misleading as many would assume it's the US movement. In any case it isn't helpful. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

"We are the 99%" has nothing to do with fascism. It is mostly an opposition of concentration of capital. It's well known that fascism opposed capitalism Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a well known WP:FRINGE view you're putting forward, @Alejandro Basombrio, and is irrelevant on this talk page anyhow. Stay on topic. –Vipz (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes I know the reply has little to do with the image, but the replies under my comment proof the kind of people that want the image of ANTIFA, a far-left movement, retired. As for @120.22.105.51, He claims that ANTIFA stands for "anti-fascism" yet there are more than three articles referring to the ANTIFA movement as different from the anti-fascist ideology (Antifa (Germany), Antifa (United States) and Antifascistisk Aktion). The image really fits since all those articles label ANTIFA as a far-left movement. Even if it's peaceful (which is not) what matters is the ideology they promote Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

No it didn’t. That’s against all the evidence. Doug Weller talk 20:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Capitalists thrived under Hitler.[2] O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Hitler is not the only fascist in existence. Mussolini was very critic of capitalism. In fact, the term Proletarian nation was coined to designate states such as Italy under Mussolini that were inclined to "serve the proletariat". Goebbels from the NSADP was very critic of capitalism too seeing it as a "jewish plot". Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Wrong article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The article talks especificaly about fascist Italy Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Depends on what your definition of everyone is. It's not well known to antifa supporters who see fascism as the final stage of capitalism. It's not even clear in political science textbooks. TFD (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Which is kinda strange since plenty of anti-fascists historically have ALSO been right-wing. De Gaulle is a good example, being the head of the French Resistance during WWII, yet he was a conservative. Some factions of the Chetniks were also anti-fascist yet they are still considered "far-right". Even some Polish national-radicalists were opposed to fascism Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

They were exceptions. The main right-wing parties (liberals, Christian democrats and conservatives) voted overwhelmingly to make Mussolini premier in Italy and unanimously in Germany to make Hitler dictator. Ludwig von Mises, the economist of U.S. libertarians, was the economic adviser to Dolfuss, the fascist leader of Austria before Anschluss. DeGaulle was in a small minority of right-wingers who opposed the Vichy regime. More recently, Donny Deutsch said he would vote for Trump over Sanders.

A lot is lost in semantics. By capitalist, the Right was referring to the middlemen, i.e., Jewish bankers, retailers and lawyers. They didn't mean producers including manufacturers, oilmen and miners. TFD (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

That is not what anyone means when they say antifa. Antifa is very explicitly used in reference to those of us who bloc up to physically confront fascists on the streets. it has and has not ever ment just 'anyone who is antifascist'. if you want to debte this then fine, carry on, but you should not use blatient and barefaced lies to do so. SP00KYtalk 19:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

User:W1tchkr4ft 00 aka Spooky, who are you replying to? Doug Weller talk 06:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Since it's a five-level indented reply, likely the IP. –Vipz (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Who has been blocked for 48 hours, personal attacks. Doug Weller talk 10:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It is an Etymological fallacy, the belief that the modern meaning of terms should reflect the meanings of the words that make them up. Most people for example are "pro-life," but the term has come to be associated with opponents of abortion, most of whom ironically support the death penalty. For better or worse, the term stuck and we shouldn't get into arguments about how valid it is every time it is used. TFD (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a general problem with this article, the word encyclopedia comes from Greek enkyklopaídeia εγκυκλοπαιδεία for enkyklios paideia ‘all-round education’. The problem with this article is that when I read it, I get an article based on everything that Far Left Politics might be and everything that it is not. The previous statement makes this article entirely problematic because I'm not getting an education on anything by reading this article. --120.17.217.218 (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Spooky, not denying that a lot of US antifa supporters use force, some just dox, but that doesn't make them far-left. Doug Weller talk 10:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

"ANTIFA" Referential image removed

Why was the referential image removed? All the articles of regional ANTIFA variants (Antifa (Germany), Antifa (United States) and Antifascistisk Aktion) as "far-left". We should follow parameters of Wikipedia, even if some people disagree that ANTIFA is only left-wing and "not extremist". Also, ANTIFA is different from the antifascist movement, reason why there are two different articles for both. ANTIFA being a internationalist movement could help a lot into being a referential image since you can see the same movement in different parts of the world, being easier to identify. Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

A lot of claims here. Where are your references? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The Bundestag and the Bundesministerium des Innern considers ANTIFA as far-left extremism: https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/557014/7e164d071a4a535dfb6bb4efdd5bca2c/wd-7-069-18-pdf-data.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20201208205543/https://www.verfassungsschutz.de/download/vsbericht-2018.pdf Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

It's clear to me that consensus established in the previous section is to not include any antifa image in the lead section. Your question has already been answered. –Vipz (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not think it is a good faith reading of the conversation above to think it indicates any consensus over the issue. SP00KYtalk 19:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

i do not see why the images cannot be used. Whilst 'far-left' or 'ultra-left' are useless terms it is beside the point as they are the terms used often to describe the exact kind of activities we do under the banner of antifa, however propagandistic the term is. And for those who are Ameri-centric the american press regularly uses the spectre of antifa as 'the far left' coming to take your bibles and guns and kids and etc. SP00KYtalk 19:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that the second section of the lead starts with The term does not have a single, coherent definition... Any image of a specific group that has been referred to as far-left would inherently imply otherwise and lend weight to that definition as the "real" one, in contradiction with the sources that say that no singular accepted definition exists. --Aquillion (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

And our article on the antifa movement is more nuanced, it doesn’t say it’s only far left - because it isn’t and sources make that clear. Doug Weller talk 10:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Yea fair enough. I see the point. An article without pictures is also a worse article though and that is a shame. SP00KYtalk 15:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Not every article needs images. You could search Category:Far-left politics for images or Commons[3]. I see articles on the far-right with no images. Doug Weller talk 16:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, as we have spoken above about, 'far/ultra/hard-left', and etc are nothing but a propaganda terms designed to be derogatory. It is hard to think of any image to add that would not fall in to exact same problem that @Aquillion points out. and besides that, come on.... you did not even bother to look at the list you posted did you? Because just go and look at it now, this is an absurd list.... you cannot possibly think a picture of Pol Pot, Ted Kaczynski or Fidel Castro would be a better representation for what the public/media perception of what is meaned by 'far/ultra-left', can you? and we both know the only reason an 'antifa' page is not on this list is complete chance, that is, whatever far-right coconut made the list didn't think to add it.

Aside from everything else... If we are to understand that 'The term does not have a single, coherent definition..' such a list as you have posted is pointless, idk if it was you or somebody else that made this but they should honestly feel ashamed for thinking this is good content. SP00KYtalk 20:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@W1tchkr4ft 00 So you won’t show good faith for me and you don’t understand what I posted. You still have a lot to learn about Wikipedia. Go look at the Commons list again and figure out what it is, please. Doug Weller talk 20:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

...Well the commons list is full of antifa stuff so you clearly did not click that one either... Funny how you say 'won't show good faith' when you act so condescending... Almost like maybe you are more interested than 'winning' one of your little wikipedia arguments (the long-term wikipedians favourite sport...) than actual coming to any genuine consensus. I do not feel like actually looking at what you are linking and telling others to look at is not an unreasonable ask on my part. I just realized you are an administrator here though. I have no interest in continuing with you. I do not engage with people who hold power over me, it is a game in which the house always wins, so i am disengaging. Good day. SP00KYtalk 21:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

There is an image that would suit the irony of the existence of this article it's called screed. At the moment this is the best image for the lead of this article

2008-12-09 Anhydrite screed for underfloor heating with undesirable blistering

screed | skriːd | noun

1 a long speech or piece of writing, typically one regarded as tedious: her criticism appeared in the form of screeds in a local film magazine.

2 [mass noun] a levelled layer of material (e.g. cement) applied to a floor or other surface.

• [count noun] a strip of plaster or other material placed on a surface as a guide to thickness.

verb [with object]

level (a floor or layer of concrete) with a straight edge using a back and forth motion while moving across the surface.

It also highlights this article is as bland as concrete with no particular point for its existence other than to highlight a desire pathway the far right wants to create over the "far left" (if there is such a thing). Once again an encyclopedia is supposed to give us a well rounded education on what the topic may be, at the moment there is no clearly defined topic being discussed here. Maybe you can start by actually coming back to defining what far left is or just accept that this entire article is in breach of Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. It's in particular breach of points three (3) and four (4) of Wikipedia:CRYSTAL and these are particular RULES that exist as policy guidelines to define what Wikipedia is not under wp:not. At this present point in time this article is NOT a valid Wikipedia article with a point for an existence. In fact it comes pretty close to falling under WP:FORUM as a forum of original ideas, that fail wp:or as original research for the point of ridicule of the left which is also not allowed under Wikipedia. You should consider fixing it before someone issues a request for deletion on it. --120.17.217.218 (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

What bit of WP:FORUM applies? Doug Weller talk 06:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

User talk:W1tchkr4ft 00(sorry SP00KY I can't figure out to link to anything but your actual username) I'm annoyed, not trying to be condescending. I spent quite some time looking atthe Commons lists for far-right and far-left hoping I'd find something, only to be dismissed by you:"such a list as you have posted is pointless, idk if it was you or somebody else that made this but they should honestly feel ashamed for thinking this is good content". I don't know why you have such a bad opinion of experienced editors, but it's not going to help you. I can't even get my head around it. And you don't have to worry about me blocking you as that's not allowed for involved Admins. And blocking and bannning is the only "Power" I could have over you, so that should not be a factor. I don't think "antifa' is that relevant. My opinion about the far-left and far-right is that they both abandon using democratic means and use violence to try to gain power. That's not true of antifa, although it may be true for some adherents. Doug Weller talk 07:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

As I've said above and as the primary IP contributor here, who has a well reasoned and academic voice (all be it I'm only allowed to skirt around what I know here or else face the wrath of failing Wikipedia:Or) it fails on Wikipedia:FORUM because its mostly an original concept.

It hasn't been fleshed out either academically or scientifically and you wont find "far left" in a credible political science textbook (or anyone outside of the likes of the Jordan Peterson's of this world that have ventured so far outside of their scope of knowledge that they have deplatformed themselves in the eyes of the vast majority of sensible academia, that if you referenced Jordan Peterson outside of his polemics on life you would be basically laughed at a research institute (last I heard he was about to be discredited by every psychologist in Canada and has his license threatened like many others who venture too far outside of their scope e.g. Phil McGraw(for different reasons but still within the original scope of science, making the point relevant for that alone of psychologists speaking pseudo-psychobabble which would not be advised to be followed by any sensible person)).

Anyway, the point is, the only people who are using the term far left are the polemicists on the right, no moderate, even moderate conservative, or even the likes of far right (but moderately sensible) conservatives like John McCain has approved of the use of the terms far left. In fact I'm pretty sure before McCain died he came out in the coalition against Donald Trump and Fox News.

The point is, no one uses the term far left in any credible sense except far right extremists. You can look over my previous posts for many sensible explanations of this failure, and why "far left" isn't a concept in political science, or even academics, and how other concepts e.g. constructivism became relevant in international politics by proving the existence of it under systems science. No such high water point has been met by the term "far left." Last I heard this wasn't the Joe Rogan Show or a platform for ideological conspiracies McCarthyism, or just plain old diatribe. Wikipedia is supposed to do its best at being a platform for encyclopaedia's which (as a native Greek speaker) means round knowledge. There is nothing rounded about a subject that has no accepted definition. 120.17.217.218 (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The point is, no one uses the term far left in any credible sense except far right extremists. Categorically untrue. Even when scholars can't agree on the exact definition, the idea that they're not credible (or, more comically, "far right extremists") is absurd. — Czello 09:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a credible source for that opinion? As I will present one for what I said from McCain above. The original article was in context of what McCain said to The Atlantic which is considered a journal of historical repute, pretty much second only to the New York Times of where people go when they want to find out what happened on a particular date in time. I am an academic by qualification.... so yeah... Please feel free to reference your opinion, otherwise it may well be considered "categorically untrue." By the way that's not for you to decide, especially on Wikipedia unless you want to fall foul of Wikipedia:No original research. By the way, "far right" is a well accepted term in academia that has been around for decades. We know what it is, we can define it, and pretty much in retrospect of the facts scientifically define how we got there. Not the same game with the term far left I'm afraid, even as this article admits. The point is even on his deathbed McCain highlighted his personal character was worth more than the lies, the bullsh!t and rhetoric of the far right... That much is on the record about this very subject. 120.17.217.218 (talk) 09:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of academics cited in this article who use the term "far-left". The point is that they may not agree on it meaning the same thing. That doesn't mean their uses are either not credible or (again, laughably) far-right. As we've gone through a lot on this talk page, a lack of concrete agreement on a specific definition doesn't make the term non-credible. And yes, I'm aware you're active in academia; you've brought it up several times now. — Czello 09:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

How can you say anything is credible without being able to define what it is? Do I really need to drag the Feynman lectures into this discussion about the matter and recite a tangent about Ancient Mayan algebra and astronomy to get you to realise how problematic your knowledge is when it is ill conceived and ill thought out, or are you going to regather your sensibilities and investigate that yourself?.

I'll save you the trouble of finding the link to what I'm referring to, maybe then you'll see how weak your knowledge actually is when you can't define what it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TI1M3abAM8

Or you can keep talking and dig yourself an even deeper hole. Just imagine our civilisation reduced to not understanding why a concept exists or what it even is "it doesn't matter" hey? please see the link above about how problematic that is. 120.17.217.218 (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

You're, once again, getting hopelessly off-topic here. Ultimately we go with what the sources say, and there isn't an academic consensus to say, as you said, no one uses the term far left in any credible sense except far right extremists. Indeed, academics themselves use the term. Trying to support your statement by saying that said academics can't always agree is WP:OR. — Czello 09:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

No nothing I posted above is off topic. It does highlight your insularity by using global statements like that though (that we're all supposed to agree to in that form of globalism) that "it doesn't matter that we don't know what it is." and by the way again I will correct you, it's not for you to define who is hopelessly off topic when I am 100% on topic.

Ultimately, if you had bothered to understand anything I posted above its about a lot more than "magic and lucky numbers." Please feel free to come up with a credible and unilateral definition of what Far Left Politics is, or admit that you fucked up and supported an article that has no relevance to Wikipedia. 120.17.217.218 (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you're getting off-topic when you're linking to Feynman and thinking it somehow applies here, overriding Wikipedia policy, or should support a deletion of this article (if that's what you're still arguing). Your insistence on a unilateral definition is the issue here, and demonstrates that you're still not getting the point. — Czello 10:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

No nothing that I posted from Feynman above is off topic and that's once again not for you to decide. Neither are your global statements (as if we're supposed to all agree to your diatribe). That argument has everything to do with meaning making, and knowledge, and without it your lost in the hocus pocus of trying to make meaning out of baseless drivel like this topic that you're so hopelessly enamored to.

You're not winning any arguments here, you haven't linked your thoughts to any information or semantics, you're just making yourself look more stupid by attaching yourself to this meaningless diatribe while you try to argue with someone on a particular subject about rhetoric who is in the process of attaining a JD.

Your arguments are weak and pathetic just like your insularity about your baseless knowledge. That is for me to decide when you can't even link to one reference point that supports your position. 120.17.217.218 (talk) 10:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I am really not the one going on diatribes here. Nor am I the one getting excessively worked up or upset because his case to get this article deleted is failing - so I'll say this clearly: no personal attacks. Remain civil, or don't comment. With that out of the way, yes it's off topic for the simple fact that it doesn't undo how Wikipedia works. Get over it and come back with better arguments if you are still arguing for this article to be deleted. Your continual boasting about your own knowledge while insulting the knowledge of other editors isn't good enough, and frankly is /r/iamverysmart material. — Czello 10:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Nothing in my case is failing which is why its being debated. Once again you have referred to a classical all or nothing global statement that's inapplicable to anything I've said... You're really not up to date on this how to form a coherent argument thing are you? The next thing you will do is recite the Flying Monkey's argument from the Wizard of Oz. At least if you're gonna be a narcissist do it properly. I should not have to link to the Ted Bundy article to tell you how. 120.17.217.218 (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

If your case is still for the article to be deleted, it is indeed failing as there's nothing approaching a consensus for that - and I can save you the trouble by telling you it's not going to happen. Perhaps you should direct your academic intellect towards a more moderate proposal? — Czello 10:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Czello IP blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks. Doug Weller talk 10:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

okay. so delete it. problem solved. and that goes for your 'so bad it is low-key offencive to the eyes' list also.. We deleted `List_of_left-wing_militant_groups`, rightly. And the articles presented here are not so different, especially aforementioned category list. you people really love to make mountains from mole hills. SP00KYtalk 16:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Then raise an AfD as this is all a waste of time. Doug Weller talk 17:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)