Talk:Far-left politics

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Jnicholls02.

The lead section is comprehensive and accurately explains the varying definitions of far-left politics. The lead also mentions the article's major sections and does not include any information not found later in the article. The lead is concise and does not include unnecessary text. The content of the article is relevant to the topic, does not include irrelevant information, and is up to date. This article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. The article is neutral in its tone and does not try to persuade the reader one way or another. All aspects of far-left politics are represented. All facts presented are backed up by reliable second-hand sources that are mostly current. The authors are somewhat diverse, though they tend to lean male and Eastern European in origin. There are not better sources available and all the links work as intended. The article is well written and organized, and is free of grammatical and spelling mistakes. There are no images on this page, and the addition of them would strengthen the article. The discussions in the Talk tab are all about semantics or an extreme opinion that gets taken down by other writers. This article is C-Class and part of the Politics Wiki Project. The way that Wikipedia addresses these issues is similar to the way we address them in class, in both cases the information is presented in a concise and unbiased format. However, in class we study specific events or ideas more closely than in the article. The article's overall status is average, but could certainly use some work. The article's strengths are that it is comprehensive and unbiased. The article could be improved by adding more information about specific far-left militant groups and terrorist groups. While noted, they are not discussed in depth. The article should also discuss far-left parties in more detail. The article is underdeveloped, but with a few additions could become a completed piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnicholls02 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

political repression, indoctrination, xenophobia, and mass killings

Nothing in the main prose about any of this, yet the lead states: "In addition, governments ruled by political parties who either self-describe or are identified by scholars as far-left have caused political repression, indoctrination, xenophobia, and mass killings." This reads like an MOS:OP-ED/WP:AWW where an editor has made the statement, and then dumped three cites at the end, pointing to scholars who have mentioned involvement in political repression, indoctrination, xenophobia, and mass killings. We need a secondary that states "governments ruled by political parties who either self-describe or are identified by scholars as far-left have caused political repression, indoctrination, xenophobia, and mass killings" otherwise this is as good as WP:OR. But, if it's not dealt with in the main body at all, it shouldn't be in the lead. Acousmana 17:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. And which political parties that formed governments ever self-described themselves as far left? TFD (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

comparison to Far-Left politics

There is no needed to include a comparison to Far-right politics in the introduction. Far-Right politics is already mentioned in See More section as a means of cross-pollination and education. Maintaining both the Far-Left and Far-Right introductions as commensurate stand-alone theses is needed to prevent perceived bias, as both sides are on the same ordinal political measurement system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8C01:6940:758A:E2B8:2142:376A (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the reference and I request that it not be re-instated unless a consensus arises against that notion.Lmomjian (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Editors continue to reinstate reference to far-right as an integral component of the opening paragraphs describing the far-left, I await their responses here on why that is necessary.Lmomjian (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

See the discussion below. — Czello 20:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

WikiProjects of interest

I reverted this edit to the WikiProject banners because the same changes were previously reverted by Ohnoitsjamie and no discussion has taken place to justify this inclusion of additional WikiProjects. I fail to see how the inclusion of banners for both WikiProject Crime and WikiProject Terrorism are relevant to this article when this article distinguishes the subject from Left-wing terrorism. One needs to draw the line somewhere and, to me, the descent of a political belief into criminal activity to achieve political ends marks the boundary of the topic in question. While this article might refer to Left-wing terrorism and various groups that have resorted to militant action, it doesn't explain why such criminal activity is, necessarily, part of the political belief system of the far-left, or even the far-right. The use of violence suggest to me that the politics has failed and the need for violence and terrorism is indicative of something else that is no longer political. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Remove bias by mirroring opposing descriptions

If one political description is softer than its political opposite, bias is created. To mitigate this bias, a simple solution is to weight each equally through mirrored descriptions. It favors neither side, keeping Wikipedia neutral, as it should be. 174.214.48.109 (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Articles on Wikipedia aren't supposed to be mirrors of one another, they simply reflect whatever the sources say. Ultimately the far-left and far-right aren't mirrors: they have their own criticisms and controversies. Therefore they require their own bespoke approach. — Czello 14:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

And in the US their actions are very different, with the right wing being much, much more violent. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Radical leftist violence is almost nonexistent in the US.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

How can you both say this when Antifa and BLM burned, looted, rioted, and destroyed parts of most major US cities from June 2020 until well into 2021? 223.25.58.48 (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

They are not political opposites. Far right is a classification of political ideologies about which numerous books and articles have been written. Far left is a vague term which usually means "more left-wing than I am." There are no books or articles written about it, with the exception that Cas Mudde used the term in an article about political parties to the left of the Labour Party, but they are now generally referred to as "left parties."

Even if they were opposites, how we treat them depends on sources. Cops and robbers are opposites for example, but sources do not treat them as morally equivalent.

TFD (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Antifa left wing

Why isnt there a section describing Antifa in the left wing politics page?

2600:6C56:6408:71:A510:7826:8E2A:85EC (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)anonymous

2600:6C56:6408:71:A510:7826:8E2A:85EC (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it's because far left isn't a term used in sources for political science. It basically means more left wing than I am. Hence Fox News calls Joe Biden and his big business supporters far left. TFD (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

And of course not being an organisation is a problem, as is the fact that you don't have to be left wing to be anti-fascist. All decent people including conservatives should be. Nor in antifa black block. Doug Weller talk 08:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

If a bunch of right-wingers started organizing (although unofficially) in the name of ending pedophilia and child abuse, calling themselves Anti-Chomo, and had a flag, and symbols, and dressed all in black, and organized using various social media platforms, and then claimed they weren't an organization, but (in an organized fashion) harassed transgender people and gays (and POC) on the street, and occasionally assaulted them, you wouldn't have a problem with this? And whenever people tried to criticize this group they just come back with "Hey, aren't you against child abuse?"

People are starting to catch on to what you editors are doing, and what you stand for. This is why people have lost all respect or consideration for Wikipedia (at least when it comes to current event or political articles). We know this is all straight out of Marcuse's Repressive Tolerance playbook, and we are starting to wake up and recognize what you are doing. 223.25.58.48 (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)