The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A huge portion of !votes were given considerably less weight in this discussion due to WP:ATA, particularly in the keep camp. Ultimately, many of the concerns brought up were editorial and WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Mkdwtalk 02:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regressive left[edit]

Regressive left (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatantly obvious synthesis, and the sources that aren't being drawn in synthetically are poor. Bill Maher uses a phrase on his talk show, clearly it's a real thing that Wikipedia needs to document. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dude !!! What are you thinking? I was the first person to indicate Keep. I do care about the pillars. And in my humble opinion the other Keep input has seemed to be able to tap into Wikipedia policy reasonably. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's objectively true that most of the keep voters here fit that description, and they keep coming. Is there a reason you're so defensive about being associated with them? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again. I suggest to you that I am not being defensive. The association you mention is in fact precisely the same as for you and I: you and I are working on the article. Period. I appreciate, in the hypothetical, that there could be an effect from some link about which I know nothing. However, I suggest that it is not "objective" to characterize opposing input as "a ton of" irrational non-arguments, political, or manifesting lack of respect to the pillars. I tried to convey to you that perhaps you were using your brush too broadly. Rather than availing yourself of the opportunity to refine or tone down your contentions, your point stands in its original bright raw energy. The big paintbrush approach will be weighed on its merits and possible demerits by the closer. I would say to you that when I initially came to this article I could relate to the reason you undertook the AfD, but as you know from life, there is a distinction between holding to your principles and recalcitrance. Since this AfD doesn't need to get cluttered by a diversionary debate, I will stand down here. FeatherPluma (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I would point out that the person who coined the term has been canvassing for support on Twitter, here. --
Aquillion (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Twitter user Imperien Cypher (@imperien) has attempted to rally his supporters here. The French Rat (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't usually come back and amplify myself at AfD discussions. But I do so here because perhaps it isn't clear that the essence is that this article is not just a quote farm. The various video media analyses are not randomly independent content that happen by chance to stumble on the term. Misframing these discussions as isolated opinionated polemics would be far off the mark, and would suggest these sources were possibly dismissed automatically rather than carefully reviewed. In what I have looked at since embarking on this, these sources are media analyses of the concept by prominent notable individuals. They are of an order closer in gravitas to e.g. Christopher Hitchens on video than to trite polemical sources. I judge that they do in fact represent modern secondary sources in that they reference the concept's origin, and then analyze its coherence and then use it as a springboard to analyze its deductive implications. Of course, this isn't the typical print sources like the New York Times that we would usually prefer. That needs to be said. Nor do they have the imprimatur of any editor, and that's a big issue, unless we argue that The Rubin Report is a firm RS, which we are not arguing at all. But then again the article isn't absent any print references. It's a matter of judgment whether the multiple existing print references in e.g. Washington Times and two Independent articles are "substantial" or not (and a quote in Newsweek). The WT article is all / only about "regressive left" etc. I would also say that someone wants to seriously challenge the video media references as mere polemic rants, I'd be happy to look at the respective media again and review what these various analyses say, "line by line" / "time stamp by time stamp" and discuss it comprehensively and collaboratively. By the way, I am not an advocate for the concept, as some off-AfD input suggests. On the contrary, I am dispassionate in considering the merits of this AfD and have put hours into diligently coming to my recommendation. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:NEO, which this falls under, requires coverage by secondary sources analyzing the term itself; all your sources are primary sources using the term. Nobody doubts that there are people who use the term, but we require secondary sources discussing it before it can be included on Wikipedia. --Aquillion (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Aquillion, for the input. In the article, after yesterday's updates (before your input), we cite (4 times) the relevant thematic analysis by James Bloodworth (28 June 2013). "Why is the left so blinkered to Islamic extremism?" The Independent. That source was in the article before, but with a lesser footprint. Bloodworth uses the (harsher sounding?) synonym "degenerated progressive". I suppose a reasonable case could be made to add this to the introductory sentence, but I didn't do so because as a source it gives a clearly expressed, detailed, analytic opinion (which, as it's politics, can be deemed right or wrong) on this article's topic but uses the synonymous wording once only. More broadly, we would contend that the article is not a dictionary entry about the specific form of words "regressive left", but is an encyclopedic handling of the cultural phenomenon that the words describe. When we started in on this AfD, the article was enough of a mess that the nomination was understandable. Despite undergoing some trimming of certain elements, it's overall 43% larger than at AfD initiation, reorganized, and has abundant video and print sourcing. And we also referenced the thematically relevant Bruckner, Pascal (2010). The Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism. Princeton University Press. ISBN 1400834317. We haven't explicitly reproduced in all its detail Bruckner's (revulsion)/opinion as to the "reversal of the burden of proof" because this article is for a general readership. FeatherPluma (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Response to nominator's comment: That kind of not-so-subtle implication typifies why articles such as this one become a political battleground for both sides: those who oppose such terminology and those who support it. My comment pointing out that SYNTH is not an advocacy tool, and the comments of others questioning the premise of the AFD, were drowned out by the clarion call referring to the malign influences of Gamergate, sockpuppets, and "low-activity accounts". The arguments against deletion may be rather evidence-free, but then again, so is the argument for deletion. Simply stating "delete because SYNTH and RS" without elaborating doesn't really do much in terms of justifying an AFD. In the case of SYNTH, it's difficult to prove the negative case, and no proof has been offered for the positive case. Although I agree with the nominator about RS, surely tagging the article with ((Unreliable sources)) or ((Partisan sources)) would suffice for now, instead of outright deleting the article. If those tags were left unaddressed for some length of time, then yes, perhaps AFD would be the next step. But to jump straight to AFD seems like an overreaction. Amateria1121 (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"This neologism doesn't have reliable-source coverage, and spurious attempts to pull in other sources to claim notability are falling foul of NOR" is a pretty standard reason for deleting anything. I don't think tagging would help because it wouldn't be asking users to go out and find better sources, it'd be asking them to hang onto an article that doesn't meet WP's standards in the hopes that the term would one day be in common use so that sources might exist. That's bad policy and, frankly, advocacy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably true, hence why I argue the politicking goes both ways. I understand that there may be a rush, by some, to legitimize the term by writing up an article on it, and that under such conditions users would not necessarily follow OR and RS to an acceptable degree. But that does not necessarily invalidate the topic. See WP:WORDISSUBJECT; regardless of the current state of the article, the so-called "Regressive Left" describes a phenomenon as legitimately noteworthy as the so-called Homosexual agenda. You say that tagging the article is likely insufficient, and that in many cases is true. But for this article, I think it would be best served in the longer run by retooling it to focus more on the topic and less on the term (again, see WP:WORDISSUBJECT). That would open up a, perhaps not wealth, but at least some better sources for inclusion and citation. Leaving the article to focus on term would indeed make it ripe for the type of "speculative advocacy" you describe, but if the article's deficiencies can be edited out (as I believe they can), then deletion is not necessary. Amateria1121 (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing that the "regressive left" exists or doesn't exist - what I'm saying is that even the neologism doesn't have enough currency in reliable sources to write about per WORDISSUBJECT. Ultimately, an article with either focus is still subject to WP:N, WP:RS and so on. (But if the sourcing isn't sufficient even to write about the neologism - which I don't think it is - how much further away it is from being able to write about it as a real phenomenon.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have a bit of chicken-and-the-egg here. Does the term presuppose the phenomenon? It's a neologism, and yes, the neologism in and of itself is probably not worthy of documentation due to lack of RS, at least. But if the phenomenon itself is within the scope of WP, does a description of it necessitate using the term (and the related primary sources)? Or could such an article incorporate both reliable sources and use the term as a convenient label? I believe so, and that doing so doesn't necessitate the deletion of the article as it is now. I can see how a position with such future expectations could be seen as bad policy. But if the article is being actively worked on and improved (largely thanks to FeatherPluma at this point), I maintain that it's a reasonable position for now. Amateria1121 (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I wrote the above I was not aware of the canvassing concern so I'm retracting my SNOW suggestion. However I still find the WP:NEOLOGISM argument pretty weak. The term itself has received significant coverage by people other than Nawaz. It has in particular been notably discussed, in depth, by Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris. These are WP:BIASED sources and care should be taken accordingly. However, those who want to argue that the sources aren't "reliable" enough are not considering what reliable means. They reliably explain the concept as set forth by Nawaz, as well as endorse it. In turn, their views have been widely discussed in the public sphere, for example:[1],[2]. Yes, all the sources necessarily flirt with the line between fact and opinion, because this is an inherently polemical topic. That doesn't mean it isn't notable or shouldn't be covered. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WOW, was I wrong. On close examination, there is really nothing to keep in this article. The whole "Origin" section belongs in Majid Nawaz, the connection to Islamo-Leftism is pure OR (and wrong), the next paragraph is based on a summary of a partisan report, and the remaining four paragraphs have mediocre sourcing and are not the basis for an article. I would say cut out the fluff and merge and redirect what's left over from the last few paragraphs to Criticism of multiculturalism#Multiculturalism and Islam. I have no objection to a real article on this subject being written, but this isn't one. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sammy1339 I think, from what you have said, that you agree with the general concept that there, on occasion, exists a phenomena of "an inherent hesitation to challenge some of the bigotry that can occur within minority communities [...] for the sake of political correctness". This is an intensely important subject that, just in the UK, has resulted in social services and police failing to address problems. This NP front page speaks of "1,400 child sex victims in one town" with "Social workers too scared of being branded racist to act". There is a very legitimate and notable phenomena of which the main term applied to it is "regressive left".
https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/674477682277486594 and a [3] great deal of similar content just in connection to this one thinker. GregKaye 16:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@GregKaye: I don't think the topic is non-notable. It's clearly part of the current political conversation, and SV's video [4] from her comment below is very strong evidence of notability. I think it's almost certain that we will have academic sources very soon, but that's my WP:CRYSTAL. Currently, however, we have a situation where the only substantive parts of the article are entirely based on op-eds, talk shows, and primary sources. A stand-alone article should not be based solely on such sources, though they can be used to support an article. That's why I think the material should be merged. I'm opposed to deleting the history, and have no objection to having an article on this subject next week when better sources appear. I also can't rule out that there are more quality secondary RSes hiding among the massive number of GHITS. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sammy1339 WP:UCRN has little to do with academic sources but to what readers will find to be a "commonly recognisable name. Also, though this is a valid topic worthy of article space, it is a neologism and a choice of name use, whether by a top professor or the barber chatting to you while cutting your hair, will be subjective. It will be somewhat a matter of art rather than analytical science. We use academic sources to clarify which worn track is more valid.
Also, as far as academia is concerned, I see little difference if an academic, like Richard Dawkins, consistently and persistently uses a term in a published paper or in published tweets. They are all reference material only that the tweets are more commonly used and with content with potential to be more commonly recognised.
If a different term comes into more common or approved use than "regressive left" then we can use WP:RM in the normal way. GregKaye 18:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is peer-review, and anyway this is a little outside the expertise of evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. Again I think it's a notable topic but that the current sources are insufficient for a standalone article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of a vast amount of rape and violence, the topic is far too important not to have a stand alone article. No argument is offered here to say that the phenomena does not exist. All there is is a current quibble in regard to what the phenomena should be called but with this within the context of no second naming option being offered. GregKaye 03:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One additional note; rightwingers are starting to appropriate the term to describe opposition to *their* regressive views as "the regressive left". There *is* a difference. This makes an article that accurately defines it all the more important. Atomicdryad (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If, as is stated at the top of this page, "consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes", then what does it matter whether a contributor has "made few or no other edits outside this topic"? Does that in any way affect the merit or otherwise of their argument? This playing of the man and not of the ball is the kind of tactic that I have come to expect from, dare I say it, regressive leftists. FWIW I read Wikipedia more than the average person I'm sure, but this page (which I came to from within the encyclopaedia) is the first time I have felt sufficiently strongly about an issue to say anything. I didn't realise there would be an insinuation that I had come here as a result of 'canvassing' or whatever, and that therefore what I said somehow carried less weight. How very welcoming. We all have to start posting somewhere. BeenAroundTheWorldAndIII (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those two concepts seem very at odds with each other. At best Islamo-leftism is a subset of the regressive left. The Islamo-left align with Islamism because they have a mutual interest in destroying western cultural institutions. The regressives appreciate islamic culture, but they don't have any interest in it pervading their culture. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the discovery that the ORA.tv counts as RS below, it's hard to find RS extending it beyond that concept. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Islamo-leftism is unequivocally unrelated. That term describes an unlikely marriage of Marxist and Islamist ideology in parts of the Muslim world, which plainly has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic. A better merge target is Criticism of multiculturalism. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment: when I was writing that, I was more or less thinking of the article's lede, which describes Pascal Bruckner's position, which sounded like what MN was talking about when I was reading it. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find that a large portion of GN hits pick up sidebar links to an article on one source, showing several unrelated articles in the search, disqus comments on Deutsche Welle. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me as though "snarl word" is the only snarl term being used here. "SJW" is proudly used by many SJWs themselves, and "regressive left", whether you like the term or not, has a widely understood definition: those elements of the left who excuse and embrace Islamism, despite its implacable opposition to gay rights, women's rights, free speech, freedom of religion, and other causes that the left claim to stand for. These people contradict themselves in such a fundamental, absurd and obvious way that some phrase was bound to be coined to describe them. You cannot expect us all to pretend the phenomenon doesn't exist just to spare your feelings. If you think the article needs improving, and you can do so fairly and within the rules, then no-one is stopping you, and there is no need for silly deletions. It's probable that in this big old world of ours, "regressive leftist" is sometimes used as a generic snarl term, but are you really going to say that the same doesn't apply to "right-wing", "far right", "bigoted", "racist", "fascist", "xenophobic", "homophobic", "hate speech", "Islamophobic", "troll", "denier", etc? Should we delete articles on those terms as well? BeenAroundTheWorldAndIII (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point here is not whether or not the term is useful. The point is not about sparing people's feelings. Nor is it about whether the term is sometimes used as a "snarl word." The point here is whether or not there are enough secondary reliable sources discussing this term. Those would be needed to improve the article and make it a balanced, useful, encyclopedic entry. We're all ready for you to produce the sources. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not to go too "other stuff exists," but right-wing, far right, bigoted, racist, fascist, xenophobic, homophobic, and Islamophobic are all redirects, largely because we don't have articles on those as terms. An article on leftist attitudes towards Islam would be a perfectly fine place to redirect this towards. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Winter's Tulpa: Racist redirects to racism, xenophobic redirects to xenophobia, right-wing redirects to right-wing politics.... "Snarl word" is not the right argument. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BeenAroundTheWorldAndIII "SJW" is the definition of a buzzword. It's internet slang with no standardized definition, and can mean different things depending on who says it. Nobody actually self-identifies as one outside of being ironic to make fun of the people who use it as some kind of insult. "regressive left" in it's current usage is a similar kind of snarl word, and has no actual agreed upon definition because it's a slang commonly used by people looking to attack rather than have discourse. CitrusTachibana (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Phatwa How does number of google hits make any difference? We are urged specifically not to use this as a criteria for inclusion on its own. How many of those RS are secondary discussions OF the term, and not simple mentions of the term? I'd be eager for you to include these great sources in the article itself. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CitrusTachibana You mention "non-notable ..." but, as far as the topic is concerned, a large number of attacks and rapes have occurred in context of evidence suggestive that the officials concerned were intimidated by potentials of accusations of prejudice. Many people suffer because of racial and other abuse and there is an issue here with the potential to prevent these issues being addressed. The contention that is made in the article is that the issue has long existed, even in connection to a variety of faith or cultural topics, but it is only just been highlighted. In this case I think that cases of obvious name changes are relevant. I'm not in anyway implying that the article is of the same prominence but in the context that Jorge Mario Bergoglio was ordained as Pope Francis it was instantly clear that this should be the article title. The issue is real and the neologism term used to describe the phenomenon has gained significant traction. If it fades out, which I don't think it will, the article can be deleted in a couple of years. Ping: RasputinAXP TFD GregKaye 12:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that people are conspiring not to prosecute crime for fears of accusations of prejudice is a blatantly false partisan spin designed to fear monger toward minority groups. It is also not relevant to this discussion, nor are our opinions. What is relevant is that this lacks reliable secondary sources, features heavy synthesis, and completely fails WP:NEO. This is a non-notable recent neologism, and has never been cited as being said by more than 5 people. WP is not a dictionary for every variation of slang and/or adjective-noun that is ever used. As someone else mentioned, for similar reasons to the logic mentioned here, right-wing, far right, bigoted, racist, xenophobic, homophobic and so on are all redirects. CitrusTachibana(talk) 23:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would be someone with one of those low activity accounts so may be I should address your concerns. I contribute to articles that I find interesting and relevant to my own life. There are periods when I find making contributions easy and then there are periods where it's impossible. But I try to fix things whenever I can. I should also point out that my account is not an SPA by any means. My vote to keep this article was influenced by constant defense of Islam by liberals because their interpretation of it happens to be benign. But it goes further than defending Islam. Ex-Muslims and reformists are frequently disinvited and maligned by universities due to pressure from their campuse's Islamic groups. This has happened to Ayan Hirsi Ali (giving her and then taking away an honorary degree), and Maryam Namazi (she was disinvited to speak, also was heckled at a different talk by Muslim students - the campus's feminist and LGBTQ+ groups sided with the Muslims). I can make a much longer list if you don't find these few events compelling enough to validate the term in discussion. I probably shouldn't be using anecdotal arguments here but as an ex-Muslim, I want to hear people representing me in public and so far, we have been constantly told to shut up because our views on Islam don't align with the mainstream perception of it. I hope that clarifies that even if the keep vote is coming from a low activity account, the argument made in the vote should matter more than the logs of the person making the argument. - Anaverageguy (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anaverageguy That's all very interesting, but with due respect the situation of ex-muslims on campuses is not relevant to this discussion. The discussion here is about the number of secondary sources available to discuss this topic. Do you know of some secondary sources that would be relevant? That is what would sway my vote, and what is important to establishing if we should maintain an article, not the importance we as individuals place on the topic. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason why I mentioned my personal motivations was because there are too many people pleading to dismiss keep votes from low activity accounts. I don't see why votes from low activity accounts should be dismissed given that they contributed sometime in the past and plan on contributing in the future. As for secondary sources, it's a term that's more commonly found on youtube shows and twitter discussions rather than a scholarly magazine. However, even before this term was coined by Majid Nawaz, there was discussion within reformist community about the silence of the liberals in regards to Islam. The words "regressive left" never popped up but the attitude was discussed. I will research for more resources and put them in the talk page. Anaverageguy (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, insofar as there is a coherent underlying topic, it already seems to be covered to some extent under Left-wing fascism and Islamo-Leftism. The existence of these pages highlights the "dictionary" problem: WP is taking multiple, related phrases and explaining how each of them are used, in their own entries, rather than focusing on a single topic or genuine category. N-HH talk/edits 12:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More