Talk:Radical left

disambiguation?

Radical right redirects to far-right.. is there some reason Radical left doesnt redirect to far-left? Stbalbach 05:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes there is. As you can read in the article, Radical Left has also a historical meaning different from far-left. Electionworld 06:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Seems odd radical left is being disambiged but radical right is not. Radical right could be neo-conservative for example, Im sure there are others. It would also be more useful to have both "radical" go to the same article and be a proper article. This is not how disambig pages are meant to be used, they are navigation aids, not neo-articles. Stbalbach 07:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

weird!

How strange and funny to read the old bickerings here. The things people will do on Wikipedia to spite one another (redirecting Radical Left to Far Right? come on, people) are sometimes just jaw-droppingly hilarious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikodawgzz (talk • contribs) 19:15, 10 January 2006

merge?

I am honestly unsure why we have multiple separate pages for the terms Ultra leftism, Far left, Radical left. Each of the articless explains somewhat redundant history and the fact that the terms are vague (used by different groups to mean somewhat different things). In other words, the terms are vague and to the extent they have substance it's largely non-evident from the name ("ultra"--what does ultra mean? it's a meaningless intensifier) or non-evident to people who don't use that particular term, and the groups intended to be covered by the term are similar in each set anyway (whether or not they really belong together). "Ultra left" is just never going to grow -- it's basically a meaningless phrase used simply as a pejorative; "radical left" just says it's lumping together anarchists, communists & socialists; and while there's a lot of content in "far left", it's largely redundant with left-wing politics. I propose that we just merge them all into a single page, redirect the other two terms to the single page, and have one page that defines each separate term. (I'm choosing "radical left" simply because it actually has a specific meaning and "radical" has a specific meaning, unlike "far" or "ultra".) That way we can be much more consistent within discussing each term and its discussions of other terms, and we can take a clear eye at figuring out whether the content currently on far left should be kept on the combined article, or moved into left-wing politics. --lquilter 13:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Since wikipedia isn't a dictionary and all the terms are either vage or used pajoritivly, I vote we redirect all of the pages to left-wing politics and merge any usefull info into that page.--JK the unwise 14:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I see some merit in keeping a page to group together terms used to describe the various radical left tendencies, distinct from center/liberal left ... not sure of the best way either way, but raising the question. --lquilter 14:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ultra left should be kept as it is the name of an actual movement (although the detail on its use as a pejorative term should be cut to a disambiguator pointing to far left). Radical left has pretty much nothing of importance - while our article claims it has a specific meaning, I suspect it will be difficult to find references for that, so it might be better redirected to left-wing politics. I'd like to keep far left, as it's a common term with a vague definition but lots of potential references to allow an article to explore the concept. Warofdreams talk 15:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Warofdreams that ultra left should be kept separate since it's an article on a specific movement of Marxism, but the discussion of the term as a generic/pejorative one should be moved. I think radical left should be redirected to far left, which already discusses the ideas in more detail. --Delirium 04:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Does agreeing with Delirium make me delirious? ;) But seriously, I have merged (and redirected) Radical left with the Far left article. --Loremaster 04:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Weighing in late: Extreme left and far left were right to be merged, and probably radical left too. Ultra leftism needs to keep its seperate page, as it (also) refers to something very specific, as its page makes very clear. A while back, incidentally, I removed all links to ultra left that should have gone to extreme/far left. BobFromBrockley 13:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And looking at the pejorative uses section of ultra-left, I think it needs to be kept, not moved, as it is clear from the article that ultra-left as a pejorative has a fairly specific use within the far left. BobFromBrockley 13:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Loremaster 14:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We have agreement not to merger Ultra Left. I will remove the tag from that page. --Duncan 12:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I also think we have agreement to merge this page into Far left. Is that okay?

far left merge is incorrect

I disagree with the merge of Radical Left into Far Left and I think we should have a very thorough discussion and a vote on this. This is especially true given that it seems the redirect is done without having first paid attention to the construction of the Far Left article, which according to Wikipedia is very badly done (and which looks it, too), and hasn't been cleaned up or attended to yet. Kiko 15:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you give a substantive reason why the merge is incorrect. Do the terms have separate meanings? C mon 16:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, radical left can refer both to liberal left and to far left. --Checco 23:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation then to radicalism (historical), the far left and parties called radicals of the left? C mon 23:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I can live with it, but I still prefer the current version. --Checco 14:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ultra-leftism

Ultra-leftism was merged into the far left page despite this consensus, and more recently the section was deleted without discussion, so I have re-created the page. Needs some work though. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

This page is terrible.

Can we delete it? --Duncan 12:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should. Except for disambing the danish and french parties, what real content is there. Is there any source for the claim that 'radical left' has any independent meaning, except for 'left that is radical'? We cannot have an article for every imaginable position along the highly contextual left-right-axis (left moderate left, revolutionary left, militant left, populist left, liberal left, etc.). --Soman (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any, any sourcing for the wordings in the present article? I've posted a {{totallydisputed}} tag on it, and if no credible reference pops up, I'd post an afd. --Soman (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Anarchist OR Communist?

Aren't those two philosophies mutually exclusive? How can "radical left" refer to both simultaneously?

Depends on which brand of communism. Anarcho-communism, council communism, communalism, and libertarian municipalism all incorporate some Marxist/communist theory, but for a purely anarchist end.72.78.177.33 (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion

It has been proposed that Far left be merged into this article. Please comment here. TFD (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually tried the other day to unilaterally move the content of far left over to here, but obviously that failed and was reverted, as I'd suspected it would be. But the radical left, as a group, really is discernably different from either far left (which can mean "farther to the left of something else but still not radical as radical is currently known") or social democracy (which in some sections of the world is still erroneously seen as somewhat 'far left', too).

The reason we should be using the term "radical left" to refer to revolutionary socialist and anarchist sectors of society is that "radical left" is largely the label they use for themselves. In a day or two, I'll try once again to transpose the article content of far left over to here, unless a bunch of people chime in between now and the next 48 hours and make good cases as to why this shouldn't happen. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not see the terms radical left or far left used in any consistent way. Could you please provide a source for it. They are more like dictionary then encyclopedia articles. It probably be better just to merge far left into The Left and leave this article as a disambiguation page. TFD (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You can't just copy-and-paste the content of another page and call it a new article. If they truly are exactly the same, then a redirect would do. If not, then the new page would have to be substantially different from far left to constitute its own article. Also, Radical left is currently a disambiguation page. All the content would have to be moved elsewhere, instead of simply deleted. Radical left (disambiguation) is the target you want to aim for, assuming you write an article for Radical left. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 16:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hold on there now, Schmloof. I virulently disagree with the basis for your view. With the action of transposing the content of far left over to here, I'm not "making a new" anything. None. Instead, with that action, I am unequivocally making the case that the term radical left is objectively the most-used worldwide term to refer to the collection of anarchists, revolutionary socialists, revolutionary communists, left communists, etc. as an overall political 'grouping'. I am arguing that the content of the far left article is better suited here, under the name "radical left", than it is under the name of far left. And I will continue to argue that point. Also, it's weird for anyone to expect anyone to provide "sources for" the idea that radical left is the most appropriate overall term. It would be like me asking you to provide "sources for" the idea that far left is the most appropriate overall term. Both are equally ridiculous things to actually expect in the real world. Maybe we should put this thing to a vote, and also invite WikiProject Socialism into the debate as well? Kikodawgzzz (talk)

When you make the comment, "the term radical left is objectively the most-used worldwide term" you need a source that states this and explains what the term means. For example for radical right there are many sources that explain taxonomy, one of the most recent being a 2010 book on the U.S. far right that says, "Radical right is commonly, but not completely, used to describe anticommunist organizations such as the Christian Crusade and John Birch Society...."[1] TFD (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not refer to anything about content. It's not something I have an informed opinion about; it's something you should consult WP:WikiProject Socialism about. I merely provided the technical reasons behind my reversion and proffered some suggestions on how to proceed. Also, as per WP:VOTE, this is most likely NOT something we should be voting on. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 21:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

And as per Wikipedia:Voting is not evil, I am going to counter that we should vote on it and that WP:Socialism should definitely be in on it. I'm going to make a Vote Discussion Box (if I can figure out the code) on this Talk page. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide a reliable source supporting your comment, "the term radical left is objectively the most-used worldwide term". TFD (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably, and I'll look for one, but on the other hand, can you provide a reliable source supporting your implicit counter-comment that the term far-left is the most-used worldwide term (used in self-description by the radical left)?" If you can't, then why are you expecting me to support mine with evidence? That'd be a double standard... Kikodawgzzz (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of "using a double standard", which may be seen as a personal attack. I did not make the "implicit counter-comment that the term far-left is the most-used worldwide term". In fact, if I wrote, "I do not see the terms radical left or far left used in any consistent way"[2] TFD (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Kiko, I think you're consistently misinterpreting us. We have tried to be as neutral as possible, while you have accused us of having several viewpoints or agendas. There is no need for a poll; a grand total of three people are in this discussion, and there have been no counter-points to your suggestion so far. There is simply nothing to vote on. Also note that WP:VOTE is a guideline, while WP:Voting is not evil is an essay which warns to "consider [its] views with discretion". And the reason you must provide a source is that the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". I highly suggest you consult the WikiProject, seeing as there appear to be no other interested editors involved. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 20:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to involve editors over at the Socialism WikiProject, the Communism WikiProject and/or the Anarchism WikiProject (and/or the Portals of these three) by linking back to this discussion on each of those Talk pages. I maintain my position that radical left is the most common term and I believe that those in the WikiProjects I mention (most of whom can be assumed to have similar politics to the articles in that project) will agree with me and will say as much, possibly also including the evidence you've asked for before I could get to the point where I could offer it myself. All that being said, the fact it's the case that the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" is sort of not applicable to this situation because, as you'll see if you look at the History tabs of far left, radical left, extreme left, and so on, you will see that the content currently in far-left has been at various times moved between the different names, with different degrees of content and expansion, over quite a long span of time. So the fact that I'm raising this now... why does it place the burden of proof specifically on me? Is it because I'm the one proposing it now, at this point in time? It's just as valid to ask any of the number of people who have moved these things around in the past, as it would be to ask me specifically. You're probably only asking this of me because I'm the current one who believes that the content should be transposed. But I am not the first one to suggest it nor am I the first one to actually have pursued definitive action in this regard. Several others have moved the content around over these years already. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide a source that the term "radical left" is the one most commonly used, and also could you please provide a source that provides the definition. As far as I can see it is inconsistently used and has no clear definition. TFD (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, I maintain that I hold no stance on this issue. I would just like to point out that even if WP:BURDEN was not enforced in the past, it doesn't mean that you get to do it, too. How many people speed down a highway and how many get caught? –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 01:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

So I'm the one on the proverbial highway that got caught and so now the burden is mine? Piffle. We'll leave it to other editors (I've now pasted the existence of this discussion over in the appropriate WikiProjects) to round this out and chime in. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose any action: Malformed request; there are no scholarly reliable sources given in this discussion (or on this talk page) discussing terminology to allow invited external editors to make a considered editorial position. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose no reason given for move based on reliable sources. TFD (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment My impression is that the taxonomy of the Left is adequate (and used by them) and therefore scholars had no need to invent one. It lends itself to taxonomy modelled on biology - virtually all left-wing groups developed through splits in the Left since 1848, and they can be categorized according to their point of departure. The Revolutionary Communist Party for example can be described as a Maoist party, which is a subset of communism, which is a subset ot the Left. The Right however presents taxonomic problems because they lack shared history, ideology or self-identification. The John Birch Society for example did not develop from a counter-revolutionary tradition, and does not consider itself to be right-wing (per Cleon Skousen's view of the leftr-right spectrum, which places anarchists on the right), yet has similarities with the right-wing counter-revolutionary National Front). So scholars developed terms, all of which are controversial, viz., far right, radical right, right-wing populism, right-wing extremism. Some writers have applied these categories to the Left, but with even less consistency. We have the same problem with the use of the terms center-left, centrist, and center-right, which are also vaguely defined. Why use these terms as categories when one may accurately describe these parties as conservative, christian democratic, liberal, etc? TFD (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, 'radical left' is an ambigious term and is only suitable as a dab page for organizations named 'radical left'. 'Radical left' is not = 'far left', although the terms have some similiarity in some contexts. --Soman (talk) 09:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing issue

Kikodawgzzz inappropriately canvassed for support at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics#proposal_over_at_.27radical_left.27_article WikiProject Politics. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is it inappropriate, Fifelfoo? How is WikiProject Politics not in the appropriateness loop? Kikodawgzzz (talk) 06:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In this diff you say "I need input from this WikiProject and other similar ones to provide me with the backup I need to push the proposal through." WP:CANVASS says, "canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate.". It is normal to notify interested projects. It is not acceptable to ask editors on such projects to take an opinion on the matter, for instance, by asking for backup to push a proposal through. Thanks! Fifelfoo (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I shouldn't have added that particular wording; it was impulsive on my part and was not actually meant, now that I think more about it. On the other hand, I am sure that those who disagree will be more than willing to take it upon themselves to offer objections. Do you think I should modify the proposal in order to excise that "take an opinion" wording? I can certainly do that. On a separate note, though, I still notice a tad of hostility in your "voice", and I want to remind you that there is no reason to attack me or my intentions; Wikipedia is a collective and I seek only its betterment, in concert with other editors who want similar betterment. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The main problem I see is that you have not provided any reliable sources that support the conclusions you have made about the use of terminology. TFD (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

And the main problem I have with article content that should be under Radical Left being at Far Left instead, is that no one over at Far Left has provided any reliable sources that support the conclusions they have made about the use of that terminology, either. It would seem we are at an impasse. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

When at an impasse, search for literature reviews and signed scholarly articles in academic encyclopedia (SAGE, ABC-CLIO, Oxford, Cambridge, etc...) which deal with the state of literature in a field. You may also want to determine what magisterial survey works exist in the field. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Retarded Page

Is there any reason for this page to exist? Like, it seems to exist basically just to use the epic meme term "radical left". I can see the little drumphkins and drumphkinettes giggling they ass off while typing out this page all official-like. This should not be a disambiguation, if it means something in some other context then just make it redirect to that.

Imagine if there was a page that was like "Gay F****t (Disambiguation)". 2600:1700:F56:FE10:9840:45C4:7AC1:44A (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)