Talk:Far-left Politics
Get Talk:Far-left Politics essential facts below. View Videos or join the Talk:Far-left Politics discussion. Add Talk:Far-left Politics to your topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
Talk:Far-left Politics

Recent changes

There was recently a large amount of changes by user - Corriebertus. Firstly the article was changed so that the introduction only concerned Europe. The article is about a worldwide topic and therefore should reflect this and not focus on only one area. Furthermore, there is no one universally accepted definition of far-left by political scientists. There are plenty of left-wing parties in Europe that are not far-left and left-wing parties that are democratic socialist, and again, not far-left. Political parties in France to the left of the French Socialist Party are also not all far-left. There are multiple parties to the left of this party that are not far-left. Helper201 (talk) 06:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You were right to remove the additions, in my opinion. The problem with this article starts with the lead, where it says far left can mean different things. If that is the case, then the article should be about these different meanings. Alternatively, per disambiguation, it could be about the topic covered by one of the definitions. I think some editors expect there should be symmetry in describing the Left and the Right, but there isn't. While the Right developed by unrelated and competing parties coming together, the Left developed through splits and divisions. Hence the need to create terms such as far right to describe sections of the Right. TFD (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Oddly, I think it the issue might be the opposite of that - there have been a lot of distinct, successful far-right parties, each of them flavored by their own sort of nationalism and the like; so "far-right" became necessary in the literature as a way to encompass all of these (since you can't uncontroversially lump them all together as Fascist, but some term to encompass their commonalities is necessary). The same isn't true for the far-left - while there's a lot of differences, the only really successful movements universally recognized as "far-left" would be communism and perhaps anarchism, which are distinct enough that lumping them together isn't really useful. So unlike scholars studying the right, scholars writing about the left would tend to just write "communism" or "anarchism" and make that their topic. I seem to recall that March (one of the few scholars to repeatedly use and define the term "far-left") mentioned that the general failure of far-left movements to gain traction in the west was one reason why there wasn't much scholarship on it as a broad grouping. Actually, maybe I should dig that cite up and put it in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
March used the term "far left" in 2008 to refer to Left parties, such as The Left (Germany), which developed after 1989 and brought together Communists, left-wing Social Democrats and supporters of other left-wing parties, as well as reformed and unreformed Communist parties. However he later stopped using the term, saying, "I prefer the term 'radical left' to alternatives such as 'hard left' and 'far left', which can appear pejorative and imply that the left is necessarily marginal." (Radical Left Parties in Europe (2012), p. 1724.)[1]
I didn't say left-wing parties should be lumped together, just that they are related. Anarchists were part of the First International, but were expelled. Communists broke from Socialists in 1919, while Maoists, Trotskyists etc. are all forms of Communists. Furthermore, the names are applicable in every country. For example, there are Trotskyist parties in France and in the UK. But there is no similar term that groups the National Front in France and the BNP in the UK., except far right.
TFD (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Expanding the article

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

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

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

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

Discussing content is the basis of Wikipedia. Sorry, sometimes people will disagree with you.
You seem to be confused about how this works. The article is a summary of the entire topic according to reliable sources, and it is not confined to a single country. We have an article on American Left, and antifa (United States) and similar, but this article is an overview of the entire topic of far-left politics. This includes the US, but also (at random) Kurdistan Communities Union, Anarchism in Spain, and hundreds of other manifestations. Placing very recent protests in a section with "terrorism" in the title is inappropriate for many reasons, but let's start with one: You decided that it was important, so you added it. That's not how we decided on what belongs and what doesn't. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. Just because you can find a source for something doesn't mean it belongs in whatever page you feel is appropriate. This is a summary article, and recent newspaper blurbs which are only tangentially related to "far-left terrorism" do not justify presenting this as vitally important to the entire global topic with centuries of history. Grayfell (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is for discussing content, you didnt do that...
Antifa is only recently come to the promentants in America, if you are suggesting either shortening of the information, to make more concise I understand you have a good point about there already being an antifa page. However you appear to be insisting that I cant add antifa if I dont add other far-left terrorist groups, that is self defeating.
D3bug l0gic (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I am discussing the content you are inappropriately trying to add into the article, and I am trying to explain why these changes are not productive. If you want to talk about edits, talk about edits, but you keep bringing up "toxic" behavior, how we're not being "charitable", and how your comments keep flying "over our heads" (which isn't very charitable, hmm...)
You're not answering my questions. If you want to call this "self-defeating" you have to explain yourself better. This article isn't just about America, this article is about the entire far-left. Who is saying antifa has a new-found prominence in America? What reliable source is saying only their terrorism is worth mentioning? What reliable source is saying that this prominence applies to all far-left politics? across the entire globe? over centuries of history? In other words, why does antifa belong as the first paragraph of this section on terrorism, based only on recent news sources? Grayfell (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Mate again I can make it more specific, I am not in anyway trying to imply that antifa is the only far-left terrorist group. It is self defeating because you seem to be putting an extra restriction on adding to the terrorist heading that I need to add multiple groups at the same time. I was trying to add one as the moment that look into other groups to add (you are arguing on how information is added not what information is added). "flew over heads" is a way of saying you missed the point, next time I'll just say that, again why are you looking for malice mate?
But again, "why does antifa belong as first paragraph" how can I make it second if there is no other info filled in for antifa as of yet? How many other groups should I add before you are satisfied? Furthermore, order doesn't matter if its the first one. If you wish to change the order add another one then change it. D3bug l0gic (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree the additions are undue. Articles should not be dominated by whatever happens to be the topic of the day for Fox News hosts. TFD (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Antifa is a movement, not a group, and has never been officially labelled a terrorist group. There was a story in Politico 2 years ago claiming thattalk Antifa activities were viewed by Homeland as terrorist, but that was based on anonymous sources and the Politico story was the only source. Terrorism is a serious charge and must not be made without being verified by official government statements, particularly as it could have repercussions for individuals. I've gave the editor a DS alert recently but they seem to be ignoring it. 05:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Sorry, wrong number of tildes! Doug Weller talk 07:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Grayfell, TFD and Doug Weller. This is not an article about the US in 2017-18 and filling it with detailed news items about the US in 2017-18 would be undue even if the edits about antifa were accurate, which they aren't. The stuff about Hegel and feminism is some kind of original research. And ledes should be concise summaries of the contents of the article not the place for introducing footnoted details. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.



Music Scenes