Talk:Regressive left/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Pinging other editors

@CAPTAIN RAJU, Zzuuzz, AlexiusHoratius, and Wikiisawesome: Hi! Sorry for bothering you guys -- I was just wondering if you would care to provide your thoughts on this page and the recent content disputes. I noticed that you were listed on either WikiProject UK politics or WikiProject Islam, so I figured you might be interested. Thanks, GAB^Hello! 02:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi GAB, this area is very much out of my wheelhouse but I'll offer what I can:

• the sentence beginning with "New Atheist activist, author and neuroscientist Sam Harris" seems a little too long to me. Perhaps the part about Glenn Greenwald can be broken into its own sentence.
• I'd excise the word "mainly" in the second paragraph, unless the references show that he has applied the term to other groups. (I haven't really read through the references, so he may have; just pointing it out.) Perhaps "has applied" would be preferable?
• the additions (about Quilliam's funding; since removed) seemed off. However true it may be that Quilliam has accepted these donations, I'm not sure it's immediately relevant to the discussion of regressive liberalism. And the use of "ironically" was certainly an issue. /wia /tlk 03:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• I was the person to originally delete the paragraphs for not being neutral, and am against them being restored, even if rewritten, simply because they are Tu Quoques against Nawaz and Quilliam, and not anything to do with the actual term, which is the point of the article. If the editor in question wishes to try to provide a counterpoint to the views of Nawaz and Quilliam, then they are free to do so, but they must adhere to neutrality, and crucially, stick to the relevent pages. 90.205.188.244 (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi,I concur with the above users regarding the deleted paragraph (which I also deleted) The additions were not neutral and were also not relevant to the topic itself on this page.Fatsozappa555 (talk) 10:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The word "mainly" in the second paragraph needs to be replaced with "exclusively" for accuracy/balance provided no sources to the contrary can be found. Also, for balance, I believe it should be included that it is an ad-hominen attack that has been targeted exclusively againt critics of Nawaz and his political allies. Spoonerj2015 (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this user about the wording "mainly". "Almost exclusively" should be the more appropriate characterization. But apparently it's not possible to make this change without getting my edit reverted on the ground that it "verges on original research". Ironic because using the word "mainly" is just as much original research and doesn't reflect the truth. -Zaheen (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Zaheen: My apologies if I didn't explain my rationale adequately. I reverted because it seemed unduly critical to point out that this wording would apply to all religions, when in fact it was used in the context of Islam by Nawaz. Furthermore, I was not sure how it clarified the meaning or relevance of the phrase. GAB^Hello! 02:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the definition of the term in the first paragraph (which uses Majid's own quote) does not mention Islam in particular, but refers to "minority groups", presumably minority religious and/or racial groups, which gives the impression that Majid is talking about Left's treatment of all minority religions. To me it sounded too open for interpretation, too broad, not precise enough, threfore unclear. When one reads Maajid's books, articles, etc. or listens to his interviews published so far, it becomes abundantly clear that his focus is not mainly, but almost exclusively on the left's treatment of Islamism, not of other minority groups/religions. I wanted to capture this nuance. I didn't think I was going out of bounds there.

That being said, we could hypothesise on why he is doing so, but it probably doesn't belong in this particular Wikipedia article yet, since that would be original research by an user. I think once we start seeing more analyitical pieces on the usage of this "popular" term, we could mention them here. -Zaheen (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, "application to..." is seperate from supposed definition. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary the section "mainly applies to" is inaccurate and misleading. Reality is that it only ever applies to Muslims or non-Muslims who are charged with sympathising with so-called Islamists. Spoonerj2015 (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. As I said above, Maajid's definition as presented in this article seems to cover the entire range of minority groups and religions, but so far he (and those who share his point of view) has used the terms almost exclusivly for the portion of the left, who, in his opinion, sympathizes with radical Islamists. Let's be honest here. It's quite obvious that it's not a proper "term" per se, because it's not mainstream at all, Maajid just coined it a few years back! It has been picked up very recently (probably starting from the second half of 2015) and heavily used by Sam Harris and his ubiquitous Internet acolytes, scientist Richard Dawkins, comedian Bill Maher and may be a handful of conservative, non-left politicians. To me, if we look beneath the veneer of this apparently clever and sophisticated-sounding term, it's a facile way of name-calling the very same portion of the left who has previously name-called people like Maajid as "Islamophobe" or such. It's a tit for tat thing. You call me "Islamophobe", I'll call you "regressive left". That it's been used as a name-calling device is quite clear even from the quotes presented in this very article. -Zaheen (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, request that Breivik's "cultural-Marxist" link is reinstated in "similar expressions for Islam-favouring left-wing politics" . Every bit as legitimate as other two examples Spoonerj2015 (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose removing "mainly", because, as Zaheen noted, Nawaz' definition does not mention Islam specifically. In his Bigthink video, where this definition comes from, he also says: "And it’s what I call the racism of low expectations: to lower those standards when looking at a brown person if a brown person happens to express a level of misogyny, chauvinism, bigotry, or anti-Semitism and yet hold other white people to universal liberal standards." The terms "brown person" and "white people" are racial, not religious, and do not refer to Islam (although Islam is sometimes mistakenly considered a "race" –especially in the context of accusations of "Islamophobia"– and according to Sarah Haider (13:20), some on the [regressive] left erroneously regard Islam as "the religion of the brown man"). It's not until the third paragraph in the video's transcript that Nawaz actually starts talking about how this applies to the 'regressive left's' attitude towards Muslims. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

With "Nawaz mainly applies to..." "mainly" relates to WHO the definition has actually been applied to; not the definition itself. Nobody has provided a shred of evidence that Nawaz has "applied it to" anyone other than those that have been critical of his theories regarding the radicalization of Muslims. Spoonerj2015 (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how that's relevant, Maajid Nawaz is not the only one using the term. It applies to those who are using the cloak of "liberalism" to promote illiberal ideas - and that is hardly limited to those who are "critical of his theories." It applies to those who meet the criteria. EyePhoenix (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I have worked through the comments here. I assume this is the discussion to which the NPOV header tag refers. Without getting unduly snowed under in every aspect I believe the tag can be removed now, and should only be introduced if new substantive issues are clearly articulated in a new discussion. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks FeatherPluma. So we've now pretty much established the article is written neutrally. Now we just need to correct possible instances of SYNTH. I see you've already done some cleaning up, and argued for KEEP, thanks for that as well. A happy 2016 btw. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to thank Wikipedia editors for restoring this article. When I went to look for this topic (as Google search recommended me to do), I unfortunately saw that it had been deleted just before I got here. I've heard the term used by at least five different people, most of them names that the average person interested in Western politics would recognize as notable philosophers, scientists, professors, pundits, or activists as the case may be for each individual. It had been frustrating not to be able to learn more about this critique of a part of the left, here. So, thanks for restoring this article so I can read it. 24.57.193.111 (talk) 08:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to thank the editors too. This term is used frequently, especially in political social media, so it needs to exist. 174.108.85.50 (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi Protection

Given the vandalism problems this page has been plagued with due to people with vested interests attempting to edit/remove the page in line with their own thinking, is it worth requesting semi protection? Mrkingpenguin (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

This page is now semi-protected until the deletion judgement is over

New Paragraph as a possible secondary source

I have added a paragraph in the beginning of Analysis section. The source is a podcast from The Humanist Hour. The whole discussion is about the term and it's relationship to safe spaces on campuses. I omitted the safe space part because it didn't seem relevant to rest of the article, but feel free to add or remove parts in relation Peter Boghossian's extended discussion on what he considers the regressive left. I don't know if this meets the requirements of a secondary source, but it looks like it meets Reliable Sources criteria and is a discussion on the term itself. Anaverageguy (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Pejorative

It is arguably intrinsic to both / either the linguistic tone of the word "regressive" and the application in political criticism that this is a pejorative. I don't have a huge problem if we collectively want to use the adjectival descriptor, but I am making the edit to remove it presently because the present citation needed tag is not going to be fixable if we take a linearly literalist approach, trying to find the citation that doesn't exist. I think we can work on a form of words that conveys that it is used as a criticism label. FeatherPluma (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's a political epithet, and should be referred to as such in the lede. Amateria1121 (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

If this pages survives AfD, as others have noted, it certainly needs to be made clearer that this is a term which some liberals use polemically and/or pejoratively against political opponents. It is not an objective classification of political belief or an agreed term in academic taxonomy. I think editors can also make judgments about using simply descriptive terms such as "pejorative" as a matter of style and presentation, without having to source the specific word to a specific source. On top of that, those to whom the label is sometimes attached would also dispute the underlying accusation, ie that they are too tolerant of intolerance and/or lose sight of human rights when other issues come into play. The lead needs to be clear that that is an accusation against these people, not an agreed characteristic of them. N-HH talk/edits 19:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Ironically, if the term actually has any validity at all, it would be to describe the people who champion its use. After all, they're the ones who claim to be liberals yet seem to think that freedom of religion and indeed freedom of thought should only apply to those who agree with them. — Red XIV ^(talk) 01:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

For now, rather than going with the "open road, flat out, top speed" use / tone of "pejorative", which may in fact be what we decide in the end, I have strongly tilted the hat to the element of criticism by using the less strident / (NPOV?) "finds fault with". I have the impression that this wording was perhaps a bit more powerful traditionally as a critical term than it is now. I will continue to mull it over, including coming back and re-reviewing the other suggestions again. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree pages don't need to lead readers by the nose, but equally I think they need to be clear in their definitions and explanations from the outset, especially when there is the risk of people being encouraged to believe that this is simply an equivalent to more objective descriptions such as "Radical left" or "Revolutionary left". I would argue that "finds fault with" slightly understates the issue (also, at the risk of being pedantic, it is not the term that finds fault as such, but the people using it). In addition the current first sentence – "The regressive left is a political term that finds fault with a section of left-wing politics that tolerates illiberal principles and ideology" – as noted takes it as read that the people so labelled do "tolerate illiberal principles", which is a matter of some dispute. The wording needs to be clear that it is a) a pejorative, b) used by political opponents and c) based on accusations of tolerating illiberalism. Eg something more like: "Regressive left is a pejorative term sometimes used in political debate to criticise those on the left who are accused of tolerating illiberal practices and ideology ..." N-HH talk/edits 10:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

original research?

I'm concerned that the following passage is WP:Original Research. I don't have time to watch the whole program that is linked, but it seems to be tacking on a related issue to this article, which does not really directly address the specific topic of this article, namely the regressive left. We need to try to stick quite closely to the specific issue of the regressive left without venturing into the broad possibilities of every dispute to do with multiculturalism, immigration and identity politics that are related. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC) "In recent decades, Western society has become more multicultural. When local government authorities, such as school boards, represent a socially conservative, local majority population, consisting of a group that represents more broadly within the nation a minority, political leaders and faith leaders have questioned whether there are or ought to be possible limits of discretion for these local agencies.[23] The Trojan Horse series of revelations disclosed that hard line Islamist governors were pushing secular schools to adopt strict Islamic practices.[24] In some Western nations, such as France, norms of society at large have been partially codified under the legal rubric of separation of state and religion.[23]"

Agree. I have removed this recently added passage. N-HH talk/edits 10:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I am happy enough for the specific material to be removed, based on a reasonable (but reaching) argument that the content is possibly tangential to the specific topic, in favour of very close adherence to the core concept. I have watched the whole program (twice), however, and your concerns that the content was WP:Original Research are unfounded. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not trying to remove the content for the sake of removing it, but the above passage doesn't address the topic "regressive left". If I understand it well it is discussing a different phenomenon, that in certain areas where school boards become dominated by "islamists" they start pushing for schools to adopt "strict Islamic practices". That is a different, but related phenomenon, unless you can demonstrate that "leftists" or "regressives", are supporting the move. If such discussion exists in the linked show, I would be happy if you could provide a time marker so that we could more easily review it. Otherwise I'm afraid that it is either OR or SYNTH at least. Apologies that I don't really have time to delve into the whole show to check for myself. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

As is evident in other conversations on this page, the objective reality is that narrow (close to the specific form of words) or wide (encompassing the [precise] topic theme even when the form of words is not utilized) treatment of the topic would each be subjectively reasonable. I accept that redacting this type of content speaks to a decision in favour of an on-point article. 05.50 to 7.34 has Nawaz advocating for liberalism and against liberals tolerating extremism of several types, among which he points to Islamism. Within the show, at timestamps that I will retrieve if it's really necessary (it isn't, so don't waste my time either), is the foundational background that a 1944 law in England requires religious education be part of the curriculum. You are asking for a smoking gun, that spoonfeeds specific support for intolerance by specific people. As a matter of logic, however, your requirement of individual named names is incorrect. It is not OR or SYNTH to assert that in the alternative the burden is met by pointing to the tendency of liberalism to tolerate the intolerable (i.e. it is met by the defining characteristic of the political philosophy, not in this case by specific current day named persons.) This is provided, of course, that this comes from the source, which it does: in this TV debate, the toleration bias of Western society's structures at large is precisely what is discussed, as the underlying principle that has given rise to a (problematic?) specific application example, giving rise to a question of whether the 1944 law is not perhaps ripe for being updated, because its effects are no longer as intended given changes in the cultural milieu. I do not think a series of excerpts will persuade you of this, or even the entire show, because you happen to want a specific type of evidence that is not in the show. Frankly, however, I have already made it perfectly plain that I am happy for the content to be removed provided a strict construction standard is applied evenly. It is unnecessary to your point of preferring a very tight focus, which I have gracefully accepted, as well as needlessly provocative, "at least", to invoke, and now reinvoke, the pejorative of "either OR or SYNTH at least". Your grandmother has sucked eggs, maybe once or twice before. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think I explained myself well, as I'm not sure what my grandmother has to do with this. I really was not trying to attack your ideas or you in any way, and if that's the impression I gave I apologise. I was simply trying to understand the additional text and discuss why you wanted to include it rather than simply removing it. I can see that it is clearly closely related to the topic at hand, and Nawaz explains himself eloquently there. I simply didn't think that discussing the particularities of educational policies in the UK were strictly related to the topic, and could be seen to constitute an element of synthesis, even though they are indeed discussing issues of tolerance of religious "extremism". However, I wanted to give you a chance to explain the addition, which was certainly a plausible one, with reference to the policies I thought it might contravene. I didn't intend for it to be pejorative at all, simply trying to keep the focus narrow, as that is the precedent I have usually seen applied on wikipedia, and as I see that you also agree to, but didn't seem to at that time. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Peregrine981; Thank you for that nice explanation and discussion. We are on the same page. (Yes, I would conceptually have had a very mild preference for a broader treatment, but upon reflection I do accept that editorial discretion needs to be applied particularly narrowly on this topic.) Take care, FeatherPluma (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Boris J

Can we please clarify what the thoughts were that the Boris J content should be removed as reflecting "reading comprehension problems, here" (edit summary) ? FeatherPluma (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

In theory, the article is about a thing, not about any time someone used the words "regressive" and "left" next to each other. Someone describing an instance of "left-wingery" as "regressive" doesn't belong here, and I assume it comes about because a previous editor did a Google search desperately looking for properly sourced uses of this term and either didn't realize or didn't care that "regressive left wingery" is not a thing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Roscelese I get your point: you see his use of this phrase as more of an independent random assortment of words rather than pointing to the specific concept we are addressing in the article. You suspect the random association of words merely came from a search. OK, except in the quote he amplifies himself quite explicitly as to what he means by "regressive": "the most negative and regressive Left-wingery, larded with a ghastly finger-wagging political correctness". This overlaps appreciably with the exact usage by Sam Harris (as cited) and by Richard Dawkins [1] and [2], when they make a connection of "regressive" to certain aspects of political correctness and potential shaping of free speech. Unlike you, I think it is quite reasonable reading comprehension to see the final phrase as an amplifier of the preceding phrase, rather than an additive run on. So in my view, the usage is not mere adjacency of words, it's expressing the same concept. I am not going to revert immediately as this is a very small issue. This article is quite obviously a hot political topic apparently. I didn't know that when I pitched in. My own internal clock is running the way it always runs. I suspect we will eventually work this out together; I would prefer to interact with you on this over time and get it right from both viewpoints. Once you have had a chance to carefully reconsider, please let me know your thoughts. Perhaps we could find some form of words that reintroduces this reference without making too much of it, certainly without overemphasis of this brief allusion to the concept. FeatherPluma (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem with this bit, and with the article as a whole, is that Wikipedia requires the use of reliable sources to demonstrate that a topic is notable and does not permit original research. If he were obviously talking about the same thing as these other guys, and reliable sources had covered the issue, then maaaaaaaybe you might have a case for inclusion. But right now what you're saying is "he used a phrase in passing that's superficially similar to a phrase used by a couple of polemical talk show hosts, but referring to something different". And in fact I didn't realize until I opened the source to check that it's not even news, it's an op-ed. I can't believe so many editors are wasting their time on this advocacy article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Roscelese I understand why you took this to AfD. I also agree that this op-ed isn't a secondary source analyzing the concept in a deeply meaningful way. And I think we would both like very much to advance beyond a list of quotes and usage examples. Fair enough. This would take a deeper rewrite, mentioning and referencing the abundant academic literature on the authoritarian left, which interestingly lacks its own article for some reason. This particular term more gently conveys some (modest?) concerns regarding possibly misplaced domestic political correctness, and a consequential "cultural free pass" for literalist Islamism (rather than a "secular" or figurative Islam), in distinction to e.g. Pol Pot and the neoconservative[3] USSR. Conceptually, however, this term is referring to the "soft" end of authoritarian left, and if all that complexity needs to come in, so be it. I do see you see advocacy at play, but that penny hasn't clunked in my cage. Also, in working on the article, I have watched some of these so-called "polemical" talk shows. I suggest to you that labeling these as "polemical" is possibly dismissive misframing. As to the specific BJ usage, I am not saying he was "referring to something different" - on the contrary, my stated opinion is "it's expressing the same concept" (emphasis added). Nonetheless, let's let this particular small component go, noting it's removal is not for "reading comprehension failure" but for something like "op-ed source that does not encyclopedically analyze concept". On the central issue, if the article survives AfD, I will then be interested in your view as to whether we should take it in the direction of a broader treatment of the authoritarian left, or in the interests of specificity and comparative (if admittedly imperfect) sanity, do our best to keep this narrower concept as "clean" as feasible. I am willing to embark on either approach now, but I am also willing to work with you upon AfD closure if you'd prefer (I think that might be better?). FeatherPluma (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I personally am rather conflicted by this article. On the one hand, I think by standard wiki guidelines this is clearly not a term that is ready for a full article yet. Just read WP:NEO and this article seems to be a textbook definition of a neologism NOT ready for inclusion. That said, I'm really not interested in getting into a protracted battle about wikipedia standards of inclusion, given that so many people want an article.

Given that situation, I think it best to make a fair article. Right now it is extremely one sided. No mention is made that this is a rather pejorative term used to label ideological opponents, and that those most often labelled do NOT accept it as a label for themselves. As mentioned above, it would ideally be a term that is linked to other contexts than simply the present spat within the atheist/progresive movements, as it smacks of WP:RECENTISM at the moment. I think it is rather incumbent on those who want to include the article in wikipedia to try improving the article along those lines. At the moment this article is something of a travesty against NPOV and RS standards. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents, FeatherPluma's post pretty much encapsulates my thoughts about the AFD. I'd be happy to take part in such retooling discussions and work, if it comes to it. Regarding the Boris quote, it seems at this point that it's somewhat tangential to the article. Perhaps if the article does get reworked, we can talk about restoring the quote. Amateria1121 (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Several quick points. First, it strikes me as a consequence of this dialecic, that the essence of my recommendation to keep this article is more capably explained by distinguishing it from JUST a quote farm. The various shows are not randomly independent content that happen by chance to stumble on the term. In what I have looked at since embarking on this, they are in essence media analyses of the concept by prominent notable individuals. The concept is analyzed for its coherence and is used as a springboard to analyze its deductive implications. Now these aren't the typical print sources like the New York Times that we would usually prefer. That needs to be said. It also needs to be said that if someone disagrees with these sources being more than mere polemic rants, I'd be happy to look at the respective media again, "line by line" and discuss it comprehensively. Secondly, obviously if the term is perceived as pejorative (as per Peregrine981's input) then let's find somebody saying this and look at that source for suitability for inclusion. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

One problem is that there just aren't that many sources that truly get into a discussion of what the term really means, which is why I think that the AFD has more merit than the vote count shows. I can't find very much discussion at all specifically about the term in academic or "serious" (ie with established expertise or editorial oversight) journalistic sources. Nawaaz wrote about it, and it has been widely picked up on, but I seriously can't find much discussion about the nuances of what the term means, does and does not include. I haven't been exhaustive, but I have tried to find some basic articles in the main publications that might have articles on this topic. There are indeed a lot of more long format interviews that discuss the ideas around the term, ie. the Rubin Report, Secular Talk, Sam Harris in various fora, etc... But, I'm not so sure how credible these shows are from a wikipedia RS point of view, especially to use as foundational discussion about the definition of a term. The Rubin Report for example is just a one man interview show; no disrespect but there's no editorial oversight there, so I really don't think it is considered encyclopedic content as I understand it. This would mainly be considered a primary source. Relatedly, I can't easily find any RS where those (like Greenwald, Chomsky, etc) who have been labelled with the term respond to it. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

To borrow from my post on the AFD discussion (after all it isn't actually a vote), an important question to consider is whether or not the term "regressive left" presupposes the concept it describes. If it does, then the article will have to deal with the term itself, but this (as we are seeing) is a difficult thing to do, given the relative lack of RS. Sources like the Rubin Report and Sam Harris' podcast should be used sparingly because, as Peregrine981 says, they have no independent editorial overseight. The challenge is the relative paucity of sources that do have such editorial overseight. Mainly they appear to be columns or opinion pieces, so their reliability is indeed questionable.

However, if the term "regressive left" exists simply as a new label of convenience to describe a broader trend (as I believe it does), then to get reliable sources we might have to look beyond just those sources that use the term. I think this is the approach to take (though I welcome discussion); refocus the article to incorporate more information on the phenomenon, and focus it less on the usage of the term by various media personalities - which is, after all, not very encyclopedic. Amateria1121 (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Both excellent comments. As I have previously stated, I always understood (and briefly had a touch of flirtatious dalliance) with the reason the article was nominated. Fundamentally, there are several options. The academic one is to heave in all the academic literature on authoritarian left, rename it as such, and turn this into a subsection of that. The other is to work on this specific use. That seems to me far better as an approach that caters to a sensible general reader. I also think that approach would be considerably saner in terms of not embarking on a Sysiphean struggle over many, many bridges too far. But if somebody wants to put forward the merge case I could see why. Personally, I struggle a little bit with the idea that some conventional media RS needs to have deeply dissected and parsed this out absolutely completely to the n'th academic degree. They haven't, but then we and they have a general reader in mind, and that's not how I read the Wikipedia guidelines. I think the threshold is closer to "substantial and substantive presence" rather than "deep think". Obviously I accept that the Washington Times and The Independent articles are somewhat thin, but it seems to me these sources were astute enough to realize something like: "OK, it's a political concept, and the implications are culturally controversial, so let's carry this verified controversy, and not tendentiously parse back and forth like we have a deep think position." I think adding a header pointing to the ascription in the media of the controversial implications (as pushed to their limits, and perhaps well beyond, by Dawkins, who pushes many things maybe) would be a good next step. Also, following up on the idea of thematically incorporating pertinent sources e.g. the Independent's 2013 article on Siding with the Oppressor: The Pro-Islamist Left|Why is the left so blinkered to Islamic extremism? adds pertinent background analysis to the topic. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Normally, I'd be spending my New Year weekend doing good things but a nasty cold laid me low and I used the time with this effort, and watching numerous videos and finding even some classic print media sources on this theme while luxuriating in a steamy bathtub. Just saying. Maybe the article is a scratch better than when we all started on it. Although to be honest I am going to have to check this claim that the term dates from 2010, and not e.g. 2012. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I could understand an attempt to move this article to authoritarian left, and that might be better ideally speaking, but it would indeed be a mammoth undertaking and likely not worth the effort. I personally certainly am not in a position to devote the required time needed. So, would agree with FeatherPluma that a more cautious approach building on what exists is best. Agree also with Amateria1121 that we could try to incorporate some information from articles, ie the Independent which are talking about the exact same thing, though not using the term. Care obviously needed not to make it an essay or verge into WP:OR. Would be nice to link to another article on earlier forms of leftist coziness with authoritarianism or theoretical "enemies". My main concerns would be to indeed avoid simply listing quotes from public figures who may have discussed or mentioned the term, which risks overloading the article with trivia. Keeping it a relatively simple article seems appropriate at this point given the paucity of sources. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to contribute much over the coming week or so, but would like to have a go at improving as time allows! Peregrine981 (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

There is already a comprehensive definition which was first coined in 2009. I think Maajids fanbase should accept that there was a pre-existing use of the term regressive left whose scope was more wide ranging as a concept. Maajids use has been to relate it to his specific ideological / political stance.

"The Regressive Left; From Al to Zen - Flaws in the philosophies of the Liberal Left".. MAS used the term to define those that call themselves progressives, who maybe unwittingly, hinder the advancement and growth of not just society but the individual.Fredperry2016 (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The Context of "Regressive"

It seems clear that "regressive left" is, indeed, used in a pejorative sense - and the lede reflects that. Another way to phrase that would be to say that the term "regressive left" is an exonym, used by people who consider themselves to be "classical liberals" (but not neoliberals). I think it bears mentioning that those whom the latter label "regressive" mostly self-identify as "progressive" (i.e. that's their endonym). I think the juxtaposition of the two terms is interesting, and almost certainly intentional on Nawaz's part. This makes me wonder if there are any RS out there that make that comparison. But more importantly, I think the article should make more reference to other political philosophies (see links), so that way the term/label/epithet "regressive left" can be seen in its full context.

Right now, the Origin section focuses on Nawaz's coining of the term, specifically how he used it to refer to Islamo-Leftists, and rightly so. In the Analysis section, however, I think more could be added to contextualize the term on the broader political spectrum, as well retaining the secondary analysis of Nawaz's usage of it. Or maybe a new section would be appropriate. Amateria1121 (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I have added a new paragraph with a new source. There are more details under "New Paragraph as a possible secondary source" section of this page. It's an Interview with Peter Boghossian and he does define it in broader terms and compares "regressive" to "progressives". Anaverageguy (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Maajid Nawaz did not coin the term regressive left. He brought it to your attention. Facts matter.Fredperry2016 (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Analysis section needs an overhaul

The "Analysis" section needs a complete overhaul. It's just a collection of examples where people used the term except for the second last paragraph, which lacks a coherent point or train of thought anyway. Also, all the examples are ones promoting the use of the term. It's not analytical whatsoever.

Previous unsigned input is a reflection upon a previous version. FeatherPluma (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The First Use of the term Regressive Left was not by Maajid Nawaz

I can understand that there are some Maajid Nawaz fans/cultists who do wish to attribute the term Regressive Left to him regardless of the facts, however Regressive Left was first introduced by bloggers Sylvia and MAS in 2009 "The Regressive Left; From Al to Zen - Flaws in the philosophies of the Liberal Left".LINK HERE MAS used the term to define those that call themselves progressives, who maybe unwittingly, hinder the advancement and growth of not just society but the individual.

I'm uncertain as to why anyone would use wikipedia to distort or remove truths or facts.Fredperry2016 (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This is copy-paste of the reasoning that I left on your talk page : While it's true that the bloggers you cite have mentioned the phrase "regressive left", it has, in my humble opinion, very little to do with how the term/phrase is interpreted currently by many commentators who are mentioned throughout the article. So this little tidbit about some blogger coincidentally coining the same phrase in some random blog entry seems really out of place within the context of the article as it stands now, and frankly, it is not really notable since this particular instance and its definition has never been picked up by any commentator at all. That's why I have removed it for now. Zaheen (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand the cult-like following Maajid Nawaz has and the importance of promoting him as some great 'progressive reformer' to those who buy into his particular neo conservative narrow vision. However the original entry is entirely incorrect in its claim that MN first introduced the term. In an honest review of the term there should be an acknowledgement that the concept/idea existed albeit with a broader recognition of the politics of the liberal-progressive left.

Maajid Nawaz has merely taken the term and narrowed its point of action that is particular to his ideology with respect to his contentious views of extremism and islam in order to discredit those that crtique his thinking. Maajid Nawaz's use and current usage is a means of abuse not about furthering debate.

My addition does not detract from acknowledging his appropriation of the term, it adds to the understanding of where the term originated and how it was meant to define a more generalised view of the 'liberal - progressive left'.

Maajid Nawaz's use of the term wholly falls into the original definition of the term. I'm a bit lost as to how you do not recognise this obvious observation. Let's try to be honest rather than spinning the actuality. Fredperry2016 (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is no proof that one fateful day, Maajid Nawaz read this particular blog entry by some not-so-well-known bloggers called MAS and Sylvie (who?), and then appropriated the term "regressive left" to mean something different and then narrowed it down in tune with his ideology. How do you know all of this? His definition does not really seem to be based on what is written in that blog entry, which to me seems very vague and can be interpreted in many ways. Moreover, the way the phrase is used right now by other commentators like Sam Harris, Dawkins, Maher, etc. has nothing to do with the blog entry.

So the question is : Why should we include this piece of information from some obscure, vague blog entry in the lead section of this article which is about a more specific phenomenon? I don't see any reason why. It's simply not coherent in the context of the article. Moreover, that blog entry has zero currency among the commentators who are using the phrase right now. I know you want to keep it for the sake of "honesty" and "integrity", but I think your concern is misplaced. IMO that information just doesn't fit in the article in a coherent manner. We might find a way to keep it somewhere in the article (IMO definitely not in the lead section), or not. But it has to be discussed first.

One more thing : nobody is a Maajid Nawaz fanboy here. When you create a single-purpose account to make a very specific edit and engage in an edit war (you have reverted 3 times already) in the name of upholding "honesty" and throw insults towards anybody who doesn't agree with you for being a "cult-like promoter", "Maajid Nawaz fanboy", "fanatic", "spinning the actuality", that just looks odd, don't you think? Pardon me, but it seems that you are not here to contribute, discuss respectfully with other editors and contributors who have already been working on it for some time, but to forcefully push a specific piece of information, then when faced with disagreement, you start ranting by giving your personal interpretation of what might have happened and accuse the other editors by calling them names, and then engage in an edit war. That shouldn't be the case in a collaborative encyclopedia. Hopefully other editors who have worked on this article can give some feedback (Pinging @Peregrine981, FeatherPluma, Anaverageguy, Nederlandse Leeuw, and N-HH:). Zaheen (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Zaheen and Fredperry2016: OK, interesting. To move this along, I removed "first" because that is a legitimate criticism, although it did not say "he was the first to use it", it said "he first used it". But OK, it's too close. I also made some other related changes.

I am not in favor of incorporating the blog. The consensus has been to avoid general usage examples where the two words happen to be in adjacency, and instead narrowly focus on the point of action (concept) of the appropriated use. A chronological, dictionary-style tracing of who used the two word conflation first, or of how (mechanistically) the usage has evolved, would be extremely difficult to source properly. Earlier (and even earlier) usage examples of the two words in adjacency, which no doubt could be unearthed, simply are not relevant.

FeatherPluma (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Zaheen: Is this page about the term regressive left and its evolution or is it about promoting a specific ideology propagated by a small cabal of individuals?

Whilst I have no objection to the great deal of MN appreciation here, I do believe this specific page that claims to be about the term regressive left should primarily reflect and be about the term.

It does not matter how obscure you might find the original blog, the point is that it already existed and has the same general political definition albeit less targeted to a specific cause.

As an aside MN is known to 'steal' longstanding terms and to then re-appropriate them for his particular bug-bear. As examples: 'Voldemort' 'Jihad' 'Jihadist' 'Islamist' 'Islamism' all have existed prior to MN taking them and redefining them to meet his ideological needs to his particular group of adherents.(Pinging @Zaheen, Peregrine981, FeatherPluma, Anaverageguy, Nederlandse Leeuw, and N-HH:). Fredperry2016 (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@FeatherPluma and Zaheen: Hi, yes the new approach is far more honest and an improvement. However I have to say that the original use of regressive left is very important if one is to understand its evolution, moreso if it really is about the term and not about MN. If its about MN then it should not exist separately but only as a paragraph/chapter on MN's wiki page.

Now, the point is that the use by MN falls within the original definition. MN's usage is not something new or novel, merely a very targeted, very specific extension of its use.

I suggest that a small addition pointing to the origin of regressive left is required as a fair representation of the term in 2009 and further references as to how the term has evolved under MN and possibly others.

You will surely agree this page is only about the term not specifically about MN. Currently it appears to be more about MN at the moment. Fredperry2016 (talk) 12:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of the case may be, this blog entry cannot be used in this article. First of all, a blog is almost never accepted as a reliable source by Wikipedia. There are good reasons for this, having to do with traceability and reliability of the information. We have no way of knowing who is really behind this blog posting, when it was really written, if it was changed, etc... Secondly, Wikipedia should rely on secondary sources to report information, not first hand research. We would need an secondary article saying that this blog post used the term first to even consider inclusion. Simply finding a blog post dated earlier than the date MN is reported to have used it and concluding that it was the first usage is original research which is not allowed. Further, as pointed out above, this blog post has really nothing to do with the way that it is currently being used; that is why we should rely on an RS to authoritatively link the two terms in terms of substance, not just as a coincidental use of the same words in a loosely similar way. I'm sorry about this, I can see that you included it as a good faith effort to correct the record, but there are a few rules to follow before including stuff in Wikipedia. I'd encourage you to follow the links I've included here to get some more details. Don't hesitate to ask me if you have questions. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Peregrin981: Why would you not want an honest,authentic reporting of the use of the term. It is obviously clear that the blog is 'as is' in its original form. I'm surprised you would dare to suggest otherwise. Why does fact - truth upset you so greatly?

I'm uncertain why asking for integrity and an evolutionary timeline detracts from your obvious ideological stance. Surely the aim is to educate and inform not indoctrinate through falsehoods. Again why would you not add an acknowledgement, it is standard practice in peer reviewed research regardless of claimed 'obscurity' or single source references.

If the direct blog link cannot be used, there is no reason or bar to not acknowledge on this page that the there is a prior claim to the term and that it had a not too dissimilar definition.

Time to stop being childish and so precious, in the interest of accuracy,fact and integrity. Fredperry2016 (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Fredperry2016:It is not "obvious" that a blog post is in its original form. They can be edited after the fact. In any case, that's not really the major problem here. As I said, blogs can usually not be used; I quote from WP:BLOG, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

This is from a BlogSpot blog from 2009 with a total of 5 entries. Not exactly a titan in the literature of its field. It is simply not acceptable by Wikipedia standards for sourcing, this has nothing to do with suppressing "the truth". You will have to show that the authors are somehow recognized, published authorities in the field, or that this claim has been picked up in a published source. That's all there is to it. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Fredperry2016: Please carefully read both helpful responses from Peregrine981. In explicit answer to your stated question, this page not "about the term regressive left and its evolution". It is about the narrowly focused point of action (concept) of the appropriated use. Your input is appreciated as it has led to an improvement in the article's wording and has further highlighted this consensus. Intellectually, your opinion that this is a very targeted, very specific extension is correct. Nonetheless, that valid point does not logically lead to labeling others as "childish" and "precious", or lacking "integrity", when the material you propose is substandard. You have been properly and fairly advised to review reliable source and original research as further discussion depends on demonstrating basic understanding of these principles. Thank you for those components of your input which are intelligent and civil. We warmly welcome you as a new editor. But we expect new editors to familiarize themselves with the guidelines, and consider why these have been formulated by the community. This is fair warning that we value collegiality. I hope you will settle down and enjoy editing encyclopedically. Take care. FeatherPluma (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Peregrin981 and FeatherPluma: It is increasingly becoming apparent to me that the term 'regressive left' was long in use prior to MN's appropriation and was being used in a similar manner albeit at different targets. Take your pick:

LINK HERE

LINK HERE

LINK HERE

There is also a link to its use at the hurry up harry website 2009 (who give support and share an ideology with MN) in the similar manner as MN but which is blocked by wiki

Since you have accepted the 'appropriation' of the term by MN and others, it is only proper for this page to acknowledge that fact with an addition of a line or two to the rather lengthy piece that is accrediting MN as if the term was not in use by others elsewhere and in a similar political context.

I really don't see the issue here, I'm merely asking for an acknowledgement of the term pre 2012 and how it has been appropriated. I'm at a loss why the impression has to be given that MN somehow came to this term out of nowhere especially since it was already being applied in the circles he is likely to have frequented.

At present there is no one use of the term regressive left which is clear by a quick search engine query. So it is in fact incorrect to claim that at present MN has the primary context/value. It occurs to me that the 2009 incarnation is in fact at present the majority usage to attack the left.

It has also come to my attention that in the analysis section a reference is made to sam harris and his use in the appropriation of the term. If that is valid then surely so are the wider references and in particular "Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal" - 2007-10 to be found at conservapedia. link here.

Fredperry2016 (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Fredperry2016: Thank you for the less strident tone. I most certainly appreciate the intellectual basis of where you are coming from. That said, you will not grasp what is unacceptably subpar with ALL of these items until you read and absorb reliable source and original research. I had a similar reaction to the peculiarities here in my early days, until I digested what these are all about. After WP:RS and WP:OR, you would want to look at WP:SYNTH, WP:CIR and WP:DONTGETIT. But focus on WP:RS and WP:OR first. I encourage you to look at some other good (and bad) articles and make some good edits even if they are non-controversial and "low brow". A very high proportion of articles can benefit from grammar or even spell checking. This is probably the best way to get a broad sense of how things operate here. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@FeatherPluma: Thank you for your condescending response. The issue remains 'regressive left'. Regressive left was, it appears, in common usage pre MN. That much cannot be disputed and I have presented clear archived references as a point of proof. Further it is very clear that at present the MN specificity is not the prime usage. Any search engine query will present its usage as defined in 2009 and in the terms of the examples I have presented earlier not as presented here.

The claim has been that MN introduced the term. This is now proven to be incorrect. This claim was the basis of maintaining this page. Further the claim has been to suggest that MN usage is primary use. It has been shown that it is not and as suggested a search engine query will show that it is not.

I can understand why you wish to discuss points of process rather than proof of origin, common usage and the manner this page is presented, which now increasingly appears to be merely a political enterprise with you acting as gatekeepers to that essentially pro atheist neo conservative islamophobic propaganda.

It is clear this page in reality should not exist since the basis of it has been refuted in all aspects. Alternatively if it is to exist it should more honestly reflect the term, its origin and its current use. It should not be a platform for self appointed gatekeepers to promote the odious ideology of a like minded cabal.

I suggest at least some changes to this political narrative to properly reflect the issue and the term. In changing the narrative there is no requirement to be anything but objective and impartial. At present this page is neither of those two Fredperry2016 (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Fredperry2016: I did not intend whatsoever to be condescending and I apologize if my attempts to be helpful to you are poorly implemented. Your opinion is heard. At this time, however, it isn't possible to further accommodate to one-sided disruptive persistence. The legitimate business of this thread is to review the subpar blog you persistently added. Zaheen properly advised you on your Talk page of that option. That work is now done. 3 editors (of different persuasions) have talked it through with you, and additional editors also redacted its addition. When you read WP:RS and WP:OR, you could then come back if you put together properly referenced text that you would like to propose for inclusion, for review by the community of editors. FeatherPluma (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)