Regarding the lead image...[edit]

I added this image and caption to replace the ANTIFA one since it was highly debatable if ANTIFA movement was left-wing or far-left. This new image I added could work as a better alternative for the following reasons:

This image could work far better than the one used before, since it depicts a far-left organization with it's main symbols and fits the description of "far-left politics" as redacted in the article. Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is that the expression far left is relative and therefore what is far left to one person is not far left to another.
I take it for example that you are not a Stalinist.
~~~~ TFD (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Extremists doesn't like to be labeled themselves as "extremists". A Marxist-Leninist would call a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, a Titoist or a Polpotian a "radical" or a "revisionist" to hide his extremism, such as how they do with the left-communists, or call a moderate leftist as "center-right" or directly a "fascist", like some of they do with the social-democrats. But that doesn't remove their radicalism from their ideology. Stalinism is undebatable a totalitarian and revolutionary ideology. There's no point to debate if it is a radical ideology or not. Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, let us all learn about extremism from someone who denies forced sterilization (of indigenous peoples) is racism and genocide, and about far-left from someone who pushes for the narrative that Nazism is socialist, among general whitewashing and downplaying of far-right politics that constitutes their entire contributions log.
On the subject - no. Stop opening new sections while ignoring everything said in previous ones. –Vipz (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ad hominem - You're just attacking me based on my political posture and my edits instead on the image I just suggested. I could say a lot of things about your posture considering you have "project:Socialism" or "project:Yugoslavia" in your profile yet I'm not gonna limit on silly ad hominems. Now that you bring national socialism to the table, there's a whole article on Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism, where extremism and totalitarianism are some of the key components that make both leaders similar. In no way Hitlerism can be considered moderate, and Stalinism should be neither. Now give me an actual reason why the Stalinist image doesn't represent the far-left. Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The concept of extremism is that it is removed from the norm. But the norm can vary depending on time and place. Thomas Paine for example might have been considered extreme in Bourbon France, but in the modern U.S., his views are fairly moderate. Similarly Stalin was not particularly left or right wing in the USSR.
I imagine your peeve is that there is no symmetry between terms used to describe left and right. While the terms left-wing and far right are well defined, the terms right-wing and far left are not. Also, while people on the left self-identify as left-wing, people on the right do not identify as right-wing. Instead they call themselves center-right, moderate or claim the left-right spectrum is meaningless.
Of course none of this is fair, but articles have to reflect sources. TFD (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The norm can vary depending on time and place. So all definitions are fungible? Like women had a meaning for 4k years, now its its a guy with a dick. 209.128.213.142 (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A changing norm doesn't change the definition of far left and far right, just the contents. If the average woman was 10 foot tall for example, our standards for short and tall women would change but the definition of a woman would not. TFD (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Likewise, regardless of if the Bolsheviks are described as "right-wing" hundreds of years from now (just as classical liberalism often is today) it wouldn't matter because we are considering academics - particularly historians and political scientists - in the past and today. The contents of far-left politics absolutely include the USSR because of such hitherto scholarship.
"but the definition of a woman would not [change]" - off-topic, but that's not a good example, because of recent... uh... rewordings... of some dictionaries... Zilch-nada (talk) 10:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The lead image should be representative expression of the topic. This picture would have two big problems. 1. A party that neither currently nor historically seems, even among the far-left, relevant (their article consists exclusively of self-sources and curiosity "look how crazy these guys are"-articles). 2. The Stalin portrait is neither representative too and at least since decades more of a curiosity. Only the hammer and sickle is outdated, but at least still somewhat usual as a symbol among the far-left. 2A02:810B:109F:E7D8:FC2A:8A19:84D4:5FBB (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Couldn't you say exactly the same about the far-right? It is not a question of relativism ("some parties are more far-right/left than others") but a question of what is widely described as "far-left/right". Zilch-nada (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Doug Weller @Czello @W1tchkr4ft 00 consider the usage of this image Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the ping. This seems like an appropriate image to me, for the reasons you list. — Czello (music) 06:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Doug Weller talk 07:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong disagreement. Similar format as the one used in "Far-right politics" (Contemporary political demonstration with banners): WP:FALSEBALANCE (already brought up). Depicts widely recognizable far-left symbolism in it, such as the hammer and sickle, the communist star and the red flag: great, but that's not the reason you're pushing for this image. Depicts Joseph Stalin, a a prominent far-left figure: this is the reason you're pushing for this image, of course; no and false, as explained by TFD. Also - stop canvassing (Special:Diff/1152054618) and pinging only the people you expect to agree with you. These are serious violations of Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines. –Vipz (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are clearly not 'pinging only the people you expect to agree with you.' but pinging people involved in to this conversation. Stop being dishonest. Act in good faith. This is a violation of Wikipedias behavioural guidelines. SP00KYtalk 18:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the given link Vipz meant, Alejandro selectively invited a person that never before commentated here (in the ping not though). Anyway, this is off-topic talk. 2A02:810B:109F:E7D8:40FE:828B:B753:2B8A (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that this party would normally be described as far left, not because it uses Communist symbolism, but because it is a tiny group that rejected Soviet Communism as right-wing and in alliance with U.S. imperialism. No other left-wing party today carries portraits of Stalin, who was denounced by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1956 and was later removed from the pantheon in China. In the same sense a group of people today carrying St. George's flags would normally be far right, but that doesn't mean that when it was the national flag the nation was far right.  
The approach is backwards. We should first determine the topic of the article. If it means the part of the left that the writer finds unacceptable, then it violates neutrality for us to single out any group. TFD (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree on adding this image. By modern standards, Stalinism is considered an extreme-left ideology everywhere in the world. And especially in British politics, which are known for being quite libertarian and conservative, Stalinism has always been considered an extreme-left ideology. Many prominent British left-wing politicans and philosophers have been aristocrats, supported the monarchy, and considered themselves Christians: it is a very right-wing country overall, which makes support for Stalin extremely extreme. Trakking (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"No other left-wing party today carries portraits of Stalin" Wrong, the Communist Party of Greece is Stalinist in ideology and hero-worships Stalin. Per the main article on the party:
The problem here is exactly the same one as before. True Marxism hasn't really existed in any meaningful sense in Britain since the 1970s, or perhaps at the very latest, mid 1980s... And even the Marxism seems to exist entirely within the walls of universities in Britain, and when it does surface through the candidacy of Jeremy Corbyn it almost single-handedly destroyed the Labor movement in the UK from which it never really has recovered since... Anyone who would be using such an image in the lead of this article would be cherry picking at best. I still say that this image of screed is the best choice for a lead image for this article. As to the KKE the communist party in Greece is also a footnote of a forgotten past. Even Syriza denounced the remnants of the KKE despite coming from the same roots as the KKE. You're really stretching on wp:relevance here by even bringing up the KKE. It says as much about my point on the article for Alexis Tsipras. It seems the person creating this nonsense knows about as much about Greek history as a donkey. The KKE is a footnote to Greek history, denounced by the opposition party of Greece itself, and yes I can reference that. [4]-- I reference the same references from the article on Syriza itself. As to the irony of 17N. The small irony is the circular theory that all elements be they communism or otherwise, once engaged in terrorism are promoting far right politics. As terrorism itself is a form of far right politics in the form of the use of violence to achieve totalitarian control. No part of that has anything to do with the "left" no matter what the stated aim is to begin with. 120.22.132.101 (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Even Syriza denounced the remnants of the KKE despite coming from the same roots as the KKE." Not much of a common origin. Syriza was formed two decades ago, as a loose coalition of leftist parties. The largest of them was Synaspismos, itself a successor to the Communist Party of Greece (Interior) (1968-1987). These were Eurocommunists who had largely rejected Soviet influence in 1968, in protest to the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia. Syriza and KKE reflect two rival versions of Greek socialism, largely opposed to each other for the last 55 years. In the 1990s, Greek satirists pointed out that the KKE kept mourning the Dissolution of the Soviet Union, in contrast to every other parliamentary party in Greece. Dimadick (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Estrichglaettung_5
What I was getting at is that both Tsipras, and Syriza have denounced any links to true "communism" and therefore this person by the name of W1tchkr4ft_00 really doesn't have a leg to stand on with that argument about communism either... In fact I can't really think of a sensible argument they have made in this entire discussion... As I said elsewhere there hasn't been any sense of communism in Greece anyway since shortly after World War II, and even the "government" that was formed thereafter has since been seen as illegitimate. Using Greece as an example of anything to do with communism, is quite frankly a stupid argument and the KKE is a footnote of a history that was long since defeated... which its only claim as a party in the 1980s was to reshape the junta as a civil war... There was nothing civil about it, the military seized control (rightfully) at the time because the "provisional" government had no rights to call it as such... My grandfather (for his part), at the time, during that "war" slit the throats (rightfully) of communist sympathisers from ear to ear under the rules of just war if you know anything about that theory. If you know anything about that then how can you remotely support the facts that communism as such has any relevance what so ever in Greece? If all forms of Soviet communism haven't been relevant in Greece for more than 50 years (arguably 70 years) what point is this donkey trying to make about the far left in Greece?
There is no reference to it, and as for "soft" communism anyway it's unproblematic because Lenin's revolution failed and we have no idea what true communism would even ever be. The closest thing in Greece is the strongly socialist ideologies, and they are a very good think as we saw when the IMF tried to set up a puppet regime and it was rejected due to the mass privatization and devolution of socialised welfare, healthcare and education under that ND government. For the average Greek person nothing good came of it, and it only exacerbated the exodus of young people from Greece. --120.22.93.228 (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is exactly what i am talking about.. You are like parodies of people. Jesus. SP00KYtalk 23:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Epochi, rizospastis gr | Synchroni (21 December 2003). "rizospastis.gr – Τεράστια η συμβολή του στην υπόθεση του σοσιαλισμού". Ριζοσπάστης. Retrieved 24 May 2022.
  2. ^ March, Luke (2009). "Contemporary Far Left Parties in Europe: From Marxism to the Mainstream?" (PDF). IPG. 1: 126–143. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2018-05-21 – via Friedrich Ebert Foundation.
  3. ^ "Left". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009-04-15. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriza#cite_note-77

Suggestion

I think it would be good to have an image of some sort. How about a picture of Karl Marx? Marx is a pivotal figure in far-left thinking so he is unambiguously on-topic. He is associated with the far-left in general, rather than that of one specific country. Most far-left thinking traces back to him. While a divisive figure, Marx is not seen as universally good or bad so it would not be poisoning the well in the way that, say, an image of Stalin would be. It seems to me that most people, whether they support or oppose the far-left, would regard Marx as a reasonable image to use. What do we think? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I wrote above, the term far left is defined by context. To some it means groups so far to the left that they have no chance of influencing the public, leading a revolution, electing legislators or governing anywhere. To others, it means people who think trans-gendered people should be allowed to bathrooms of their chosen gender.
Marx was not only the leading influence on Communism but a leading influence on Socialism as well and the Social Democratic Party of German was officially Marxist until 1959. OTOH, anarchists, who are to the left of Communists, do not claim influence by Marx. TFD (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think most Anarcho-communists are influenced by Marx, albeit to a much lesser degree than Marxists. The key point is that Marx is pretty much universally recognised as the poster boy for the far-left, who most people will recognise and who most far-left people will have positive to mixed feelings about. I certainly can't think of any individual more appropriate. I don't see any point in suggesting, say, Kropotkin as an image, even if he does have a better beard, as he is not widely enough recognised. I guess we could go with a symbol. I was thinking a hammer and sickle but that is so closely associated with the Soviet Union and hence that runs the risk of well poisoning again. A completely generic red flag or red star maybe? Is that really better than Marx? DanielRigal (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to second this with some certainty. Marxist economics are absolutely not exclusive or contradictory to the realm of anarcho-communists. This is not a dichotomy and to take it as such is deep in the realm of disingenuity. SP00KYtalk 16:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If one lead image could satisfy this article, it wouldn't require such a long discussion. No image seems the most accurate. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit to lead to emphasize history of socialism[edit]

This is regarding this edit, which I have reverted. While it's tempting to introduce a simple definition of a concept to the article, this definition shouldn't be so vague as to be uninformative. "Far-left groups often seek to replace existing institutions" is so vague it's basically meaningless, but it is dripping with implications, and those implications are not really supported.

"Ideas of a society with no social class or private ownership have existed throughout human history" is filler. By introducing this in the lead, the article is suggesting-without-saying that these two ideas are intrinsically linked and they are both inherently far-left idea. The lead of this article really isn't the place to make this case, and it's editorializing regardless.

As mentioned above at #Article neglect, the vagueness of the term "far-left" isn't a bug, it's a feature. We absolutely should not expect readers to fill-in the gaps with their own assumptions, we should provide information, and if the term is vague we shouldn't pretend otherwise. Grayfell (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The lead is expected to summarize the body of the article. You reverted away from a lead that summarized the article toward a lead that did not. The things you've quoted are in the article, with sources and with additional detail. If you take issue with the specific wording of those quoted items or the way that they're presented, we can change that. I'd be happy to discuss how to improve the wording; my goal here is to expand Wikipedia's limited coverage of ideology. But when you revert thousands of bytes of text over this, that conflicts with WP:E and makes it difficult to find any sort of consensus. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As experienced editors, I'm sure we both know that being thousands of bytes isn't, by itself, a justification for preserving this content, and the burden is on you to build consensus for changes to the status quo
Obviously, I do take issue with the specific wording. I have several different problems with this wording. I could rewrite much of lead to address all of those issues, but that wouldn't really be any better regarding edit-warring, would it? You could, quite rightly, revert me for undoing your hard work, and we'd be right back here either way. That's why this is the place to discuss these changes.
I will add that I appreciate that you removed the line "Far-left terrorism consists of extremist, militant, or insurgent groups that attempt to realize their ideals through political violence rather than using democratic processes". This is bordering on tautology. It applies to most, if not all, terrorism regardless of ideology, and doesn't inform readers about far-left politics specifically. This example helps explain some of my issues with the proposed wording.
As a summary of the body, I would suggest that glossing-over the first paragraph of Far-left politics#Ideologies but including a list of ideologies from that section is too far. Per that paragraph Far-left ideologies include types of socialism, communism, and anarchism. The definition of the far left varies in the literature and there is not a general agreement on what it entails or consensus on the core characteristics that constitute the far left, other than being to the left of mainstream left-wing politics. (emph. added). Going from that to Ideologies of the far-left include socialism, communism, anarchism, and their variations is over-simplifying, to put it mildly. The body of the article also includes a lot of context on the history of Marxism, (arguably too much, tbh) and to present Lenin as a direct continuation of Marx would again be over-simplification. Especially in the lead of this article, which is intended to be an overview of a term that is, per many sources, broad and ambiguous. Grayfell (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wrote "include" to indicate that it was not a definitive list. Would it be preferable to write something like "Examples of far-left ideologies"? There's also a sentence in the body specifying that there's no clear boundary between centre-left and far-left, which could be reflected in the lead if you think that's appropriate (if I had thought to, I would have added that to the lead anyway). The focus on Marxism–Leninism is derived from the sources; they generally give a lot of focus on that aspect and it's easier to find coverage for it. It makes sense, given that Marxism–Leninism, along with types of liberal capitalism, was the driving global ideology from 1945 to 1991. With that said, I am still trying to find more sources to expand on other areas, particularly the sub-types of socialism and anarchism. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm in complete agreement with everything Grayfell said, but also want to point out that equality of outcome is not an idea far-left politics are going for (the only sources I've heard claiming so are conservative circles; the article on the subject itself has a whole section on the conflation with far-left politics, but indeed needs better sourcing), while the major idea of social ownership of the means of production central to socialism of any type (including communism and anarchism) was left out from this list of Ideas supported by adherents to far-left politics in the lede. Anti-capitalism is also not an idea (of the far-left); just like anything "anti-" it is a stance towards another idea.
Ideologies of the far-left include socialism, communism, anarchism, and their variations. from the lede and Far-left groups may be defined as those to the left of social democracy. from the #Ideologies section ignore the fact social democracy is a tradition of socialism often considered as part of the socialist movement, and that democratic socialism is often considered not far-left. –Vipz (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are not a reliable source, and I have zero interest in anything you have to say about the subject. Now if you have something to say about sources about the subject, then we'll have something to discuss. Until then, you're just trying to force through your own original research because you don't like what the sources are saying. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regardless of your personal level of interest in what another editor has to say, it appears you do not have consensus.
The purpose of this article is not to summarize the history of socialism, Marxism, and anarchism individually. There are better places for that. Our shared goal is to figure out how to summarize many sources on far-left politics specifically, and that will include leaving-out some perspectives and including others. This is about policy and guidelines, but it's also about editing at its most basic.
Like-it-or-not, "equality of outcome" has become a loaded talking point derived from discourse about the distinction between "equality" and "equity". (Here is a Vox article that touches on this a bit). Using that term in the lead of this article is, regardless of intentions, going to introduce confusion to a lot of readers who mainly know of the term from memes and similar. That doesn't mean the term cannot be used, but we should think about this a bit more carefully. Per countless sources, this concept is not exclusive to the far-left. It's also widespread among mainstream liberals, leftists, and some conservatives. So why emphasize it here? I don't think it's possible to provide context on what the term "equality of outcome" actually means to the far-left which is separate from how it's used by everyone else. Perhaps sources could be found for this, but the lead of this article really doesn't seem like the place for it. Grayfell (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with your reasoning (and thank you for providing some form of source so it wasn't just your opinion). There are any number of ways to present the information in the lead so long as it represents the body. My wish is for this article to be relatively comprehensive, which it definitely was not when I found it. For this, I believe that it needs a solid amount of coverage of the main far-left ideologies (those three, along with a little bit of the New Left, were the only ones I could find given significant coverage in general sources on the topic). But how the content is worded or organized is secondary as far as I'm concerned. Now if you know of sources that can help add coverage to the general sense of far-left politics or how its various schools of thought interacted with each other, that would be immensely helpful—it's hard to find high quality academic sources that don't focus on one very specific aspect, and I think that shows in the article so far. My main goal right now is to find coverage of far-left politics in Africa or non-Marxist far-left politics in Asia. But at the same time, I don't want to focus on individual countries, which would be excessive detail unless they made a huge impact in far-left thought like Russia and China. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well... it sounds like you've already identified the main problem. The point about the lack of African and Asian perspectives is a good one. Most of the article's current sources are from a small handful of scholars writing from a specific ideological point of view during a recent window of time about a narrow subset of a broader topic. This will, naturally, limit the scope of this article. That's not actually a bad thing, because we need limits. Articles require boundaries, so we should embrace those boundaries. For example, the Breslauer and Brown cites are specifically about communism, and my understanding is that March focuses on soviet and post-soviet Europe (and maybe also the US?). Any information about the far-left is going to be in that context. When they describe the far-left, they describe it for a reason, and that is, typically, to contextualize soviet/post-soviet communism. That info should not be transplanted here in isolation, as that would ignore the context.
So for example, if Marcel van der Linden mentions Utopian socialism as it relates to the far-left, we should include that context. If it's only mentioned as part of a broader history of socialism, it probably shouldn't be included here at all. We already have many articles on the history of socialism.
I would suggest evaluating, contextualizing, and potentially removing some of this background info, then we can evaluate what is and is not specific to the far-left. This will also make it much easier to differentiate between the term as it's used by political scientists, and how it's used by the meme crowd I mentioned above.
I've noticed that this talk page's history is littered with discussions about the term's loose definition. That doesn't really matter by itself, but does show what people are specifically looking for in this Wikipedia article. Letting them know that "The term does not have a single, coherent definition" seems like a very good first step in explaining the topic. Grayfell (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do think that Marxism–Leninism in particular should have a significant presence on this article based on how prominent it is in the broader discussion of far-left politics. But overall, are there any specific sources or other aspects that you think are problematic? Based on the discussion so far, I suspect that the history section is the one that could see the most benefit in this area. Ideologies is the appropriate space to break down the different schools of thought by summarizing their main points, and (I think) positions does a pretty good job of covering far-left politics in general rather than specific ideologies. But history is a bit disjointed right now. Right now it's somewhat justified in that other sources confirm that socialism, Marxism, etc are far-left, so it's reasonable for at least some coverage from sources specifically about those. But it would be much better if it could be made more cohesive. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, let's try:
  • equality of outcome is not an idea far-left politics are going for:
  • while the major idea of social ownership of the means of production central to socialism of any type
    • See the extensive referencing on the same claim on the first sentence of the article Socialism.
  • Anti-capitalism is also not an idea (of the far-left); just like anything "anti-" it is a stance towards another idea.
  • ignore the fact social democracy is a tradition of socialism often considered as part of the socialist movement
    • See the extensive referencing on the same claim on the first sentence of the article Social democracy.
  • and that democratic socialism is often considered not far-left
There are nicer ways to engage with other editors and challenge them on sources, but I suppose you're not interested in that either? –Vipz (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I notice that communism in Millard's article is anarcho-communism, the abolition of the state. Actual Communism, described as "Marxism Leninism" is not far left in his model. Marxist Leninists did not advocate abolishing the state, but believed it would wither away in the distant future.
Before we can agree on content, we really need to decide the topic of this article, which is a policy requirement. TFD (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't we fall back to the conclusion that "far-" is relative? The ultimate far-left position is anarchist communism. Actively advocating state abolition versus slowly reforming the state from capitalism to state capitalism, then pretending the state is going to wither away at that pace any moment now, which one is the radical left position here? Both are radical left positions from positions to their right. –Vipz (talk) 06:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TFD is right, the article is out-of-focus. It would be reasonable to present this as a relative term, but that's not what the article is currently doing. I see a lot of WP:SYNTH here which ends-up reducing this concept to something even more simplified than it already is. For example, with one exception, none of the biographies linked in the history section mention "far-left" at all. If the linked articles with all of their sources do not use this term, why are we citing them as examples here? The one exception is Stalin, which says "...and he is regularly invoked approvingly within both Russia's far-left and far-right." It would strange and inappropriate to claim that none of these people were far-left, but by the current standard we could add literally anyone from Category:Socialists and similar categories, which include thousands of biographies. The article is using examples of communism, socialism, and anarchism to work backwards to imply a concrete definition of the term 'far-left', but again, this is WP:SYNTH. It isn't up to us to say that it is obvious that Stalin belongs in the history section. We have to use sources to explain why this is relevant to the 'far-left' specifically.
Likewise, the ideologies section's lead mentions 'far-left', but after that the term is used only twice in eight lengthy paragraphs. The section isn't about "far-left ideologies" it's about communism, socialism, and anarchism individually, with readers expected to fill in the gaps with their own assumptions for how this applies to the far-left. Again, we need to uses sources to provide this context directly, without OR and assumptions. Grayfell (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't believe it's inherently OR to use sources about specific aspects of the subject, and those sources prominently mention figures like Stalin. I also think it's reasonable for child-concepts of this article to be summarized here per WP:SUMMARY, especially since this is a broad subject article. I advise against using other Wikipedia articles as reference points for editing, as we shouldn't be using any unreliable source to inform what the subject is. With all that said, we've talked a lot about what shouldn't be in the article. But what should be in the article? What specific sources do you recommend as the ideal for this type of article? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are not specific aspects of the subject, they are different topics referred to by different people as far left.
Incidentally, I disagree with the interpretation of the reference to Stalin. After Stalin was denounced by Khrushev and his disciples were denounced by their respective parties, only the far right and far left admired him. That does not mean he was far left, just that if you still didn't get the memo from the 20th Congress, your brain isn't working properly.
In comparison, some of the defining characteristics of the far right, such as white supremacy and anti-Semitism, were fairly mainstream views at one time. That doesn't mean that the mainstream was far right. TFD (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this something that you read in a reliable source about the topic, or is this just what you think about it? Everything you're suggesting here should pass WP:VNT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not to put too fine a point on it, but your opinions about Stalin's relevance to this topic are no more or less OR than any other editor's. That's my point here. What are sources saying about "far-left politics"? Sources specifically say the term is broad and ambiguous. Using a narrow sample of sources on three very large topics (of the histories of socialism, communism, and anarchism) and using that sample to inform a definition of "far-left politics" is WP:SYNTH. It's also ignoring what other sources might say about these same topics.
As I said, if those linked articles, with their many sources are not using the term "far-left" than where is this coming from? If sources are mentioning these names in relation to the far-left, we should summarize those sources. If not, including these names here is OR. Grayfell (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sources said that communism is part of far-left politics, so I gathered sources about communism. I recognize that this has a whiff of synth, which is what I'm hoping we can fix. If it seems like I'm coming off a bit strong, it's because I just finished dealing with two months of disruption from an editor who challenged the sources based on their own personal knowledge before they finally got page blocked. It's a massive timesink when an editor comes to a talk page with The Truth and then works backward from it, trying to find sources that justify their beliefs rather than finding the best sources and summarizing them. I sensed some of that in this discussion. But my impression is that you really do wish to fix possible synth issues here, which is why I'm hoping you have some sources—or at least some type of sources—in mind. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thebiguglyalien, see WP:NOR: "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content." We are allowed to discuss what sources actually mean, otherwise there would be no need for talk pages.
However, your interpretation of the source is OR and therefore cannot support any text. The source says Stalin "is regularly invoked approvingly within both Russia's far-left and far-right." It does not say Stalin himself was far-left. Incidentally notice the reference to far-right. Why not interpret the text to say that Stalin was far-right? I assume because we know Stalin was left-wing not right but that is synthesis.
Stalin had considerable support. Not only did he lead the USSR, but was supported by other Communist countries and Communist parties throughout the world and had support among some academics. Even the UK and U.S. formed an alliance with him during WWII. His support was not relegated to the fringes and therefore was not far left or far right.
TFD (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, that's representative of my broader concern. It would be very silly to pretend that Stalinism has no connection to "far-left politics", but by presenting these details without context, the article is making a large number of assumptions about that connection and how relevant it is to this topic. To put it another way, this level of detail is telling readers several things without actually saying any of them directly, and that's a form of editorializing.
Thebiguglyalien, I sympathize with how frustrating this is. I apologize for being blunt, but I think a lot of this information should be trimmed. The neutral way to introduce this information is to summarize what sources say about it specifically in relation to 'far-left politics', mostly with attribution. So if (hypothetically) Breslauer makes the connection, we say something like "According to George W. Breslauer, the far-left includes..." This way, readers at least understand what we mean when we say "the term does not have a single, coherent definition". That also means that information which is not linked directly to "far-left politics" by reliable sources should be removed. That's what 'see also' links are for. Grayfell (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no objections to trimming and changing: that's just Wikipedia. The ideal would be to actually find sources that are specifically about "far-left politics". I took the approach of going from main topic to sub-topics in the article because sub-topic sources are better represented in the literature. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are no sources for far left politics. It's merely a term people use to refer to the section of the spectrum that is too left for them. It's like the expression "smart people." It has no absolute meaning but has meaning only in context. TFD (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are no sources for far left politics - then what is this article then? Made up? Nothing but a foul, disruptive statement. Zilch-nada (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reverted edits[edit]

@Grayfell why did you revert my edits of a) an image under "terrorism" section extracted from left-wing terrorism and b) an image of Karl Marx (with sources), who is clearly an influential - perhaps most influential - figure in far-left politics? Zilch-nada (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the 'terrorism' one, I will repeat my edit summary: It doesn't make sense for only one section to get a photo, and for that photo to be redundant with both the primary article and 1983 United States Senate bombing. It's not at all clear that this is representative of the topic, either.
For the bog-standard portrait of Marx, it is both a visual cliche at this point, and also kind of silly. Marx was influential to many groups, not just the ones on the far-left. He influenced the field of economics and sociology, as well as more moderate leftist groups such as the progressive movement, social democrats, etc. He also heavily influenced and far-right movements like National Bolshevism and similar. Using a very common image to fill space is decorative, but it's not informative. Worse, it is potentially misleading to readers who may reasonably infer that anyone influenced by Marx is a far-leftist.
Please gain consensus before restoring those images. Grayfell (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't make sense for only one section to get a photo; I added two photos, and I think there should be more. Visual cliche at this point; I don't think that's relevant at all - just because many articles relating to left-wing and far-left politics, such as communism, socialism, etc., make abundant references to Marx, does not mean we should tire of using his image in this article as well. Marx's influence is much more on the left-wing side; communists and socialists who described themselves as Marxists became much more influential than National Bolshevism of all things. Misleading to readers who may reasonably infer that anyone influenced by Marx is a far-leftist.; How on Earth does it imply that? Marx being profoundly influential to the far-left does not at all imply that anyone influenced by Marx is a far-leftist; how the bloody hell would anyone "reasonably" infer that at all; logical fallacies aren't reasonable. Zilch-nada (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've made my case. I can see now that you've already discussed similar issues on this talk page without changing consensus. At this point, if you cannot make the effort to understand what I and others have said, that's on you. Images are not an excuse for decorative editorializing, and whether you agree or not, Marxism and Leftism are treated by sources as separate topics. Grayfell (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
if you cannot make the effort to understand what I and others have said, that's on you - isn't that clearly an assumption of bad faith, that I am not "mak[ing] the effort"? Zilch-nada (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because I could obviously equally say that you are putting no efforts in understanding my own arguments. You disagree with my arguments, citing consensus against me, and then your own shallow disagreement counts as such consensus against me. That is frankly nonsense. Zilch-nada (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has been discussed to death in sections above, but we definitely can't include a picture of Marx; the problem is that that would imply a coherent clearly-defined definition of "far-left" that the sources specifically say does not exist. Other images generally have similar problems but the Marx one in particular is glaring. --Aquillion (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please note that I did not add the image of Marx to the lede, which would imply a link to the general overview of far-left politics. I added it to "socialism" under the "ideologies" section. Zilch-nada (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I.e., I don't think the usage of such images would imply anything about coherence at all. Zilch-nada (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories