From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Please note that Alavanos remains the leader of the Coalition as Tsipras is not an MP. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

December 2008 unrest[edit]

Wouldn't it be right to add the fact that SYRIZA was the only political party that did not condemn the December 2008 riots? Many times the party and Tsipras expressed feelings of sympathy towards the rioters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The daydreamer (talkcontribs) 16:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Agree. But it is never going to happen in this article, party supporters will never allow it.Zisimos (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Neoliberal reform of the pension and social security systems"[edit]

I can't believe that a a party obviously opposed to neoliberalism pushes for a reform like that, even though it might be something like the negative income tax they're for, this paragraph should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


While on Wikipedia the colour of Syriza is supposed to be yellow, in the map of the official site of the Ministry of Ιnterior, though, the electoral districts which were won by the Coalition of the Radical Left are coloured with pink. If you search on the web the colour is pink by other sites also, such as by news agencies etc. What is the official colour anyway? I think that yellow may be the colour of Synaspismos only and not the colour of Syriza. I don't know I may be wrong. The thing is I made a map and at first I used pink and then I changed it to yellow according to Template:Coalition of the Left of Movements and Ecology/meta/color. Is there any way to find out for sure? --RoseAphro (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Use the color used by the Ministry of Interior (pink). It certainly counts as a reliable source. Kosm1fent 09:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I know and thank you for the reply, but the thing is that in Greek legislative election, 2012 for example, we'll have on the top the Syriza party second with yellow colour and then at the bottom of the box in the map with pink? It's not right, is it? I don't know. --RoseAphro (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Of course it's not right, but that can be changed to pink as well. In any case, the use of yellow for the party is unsourced. By the way, some other parties need their colors changed as well. Kosm1fent 12:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but how can we be sure about the right shade of pink? This shade you chose corresponds to the one on the map of the ministry, and that's good, because it's a reliable source. But still. Is there another source that we can use? Such as official members of the party or official site of the party? Which other parties do you refer to exactly? --RoseAphro (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Naming conventions[edit]

  • I removed the reference to "punning" in Syriza's name: "ριζοσπαστική" is no more a pun than is "radical", even though both words, of course, refer to "roots".
  • I have changed instances of "the SYRIZA" to simply "SYRIZA". Written and broadcast media sources consistently use phrases such as "anti-austerity parties like Syriza", "Greeks [are] ready to give Syriza their vote", "Explanations for Syriza's success" -- without any definite article.
  • I would also propose that "SYRIZA" be changed to "Syriza" throughout, since that is how it is almost always written in English-language sources. -- Picapica (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Kosm1fent 12:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Now done. -- Picapica (talk) 05:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Left-wing to far-left[edit]

There seems to be some controversy over this. The source in question is by professor Featherstone, released in LSE Research Online [1], although a blog text type, it's still a LSE expert text with a Library of Congress classification and entry in the LSE scholar database. There are other scholarly sources too. I replaced the other one with an entry of the quite famous socialist political theorist Alex Callinicos, explicitly stating: "Its much shallower social base has given Synaspismos much greater room for manoeuvre, and its far-left partners in Syriza allow it to project a very radical image when it suits.", from here. Callinicos is also a professor of European Studies at King's College London

The SYRIZA includes moderate socialists, but more far-left communists like Maoists and Trotskyists too. Is it not fair to describe it as "left-wing to far-left" when the socialist scholars describe the situation as such? -- (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I will also add that it is important to note that the SYZIRA is a coalition of several parties ranging in different positions. It would be good to use sources from 2012 because there have been important political developments in Greece and SYRIZA during the two parliamentary elections, with the crisis certainly enforcing more radical policies on both the right and left. -- (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

SYRIZA isn't just left wing to far-left a better description would be big tent leftist because it has centrist and centre-leftist parts e.g. Union of the Democratic Centre and Unitary Movement.

Far left is more accurate, given that the party has a radical policy agenda, and deliberately represents itself as being outside the mainstream.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

As long as it at least includes Far-left, it would be accurate. SYRIZA is primarily composed of Far-left organizations, though it does include more moderate Social Democratic streams, so I am in favour of describing it as Left to Far-left. JamesBay (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say that is should only include Left Wing, as Left Wing is open to interpretation. And in the Greek Political Spectrum, the KKE is considered to be Far-Left, PASOK is Centre-Left and SYRIZA is considered Left Wing. Far Left also implies a complete overthrow of the System, SYRIZA seeks radical reform, rather than complete revolution. And seeing that SYRIZA is a Democratic Socialist party that does includes far more Social Democrats, and Socialists than Marxist, Marxist Leninists or Anti-Revisionists.Brendanww2 (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

saw this on twitter - 'I am re-reading Dugin's hacked emails. He was working closely with/advising Syriza ALL throughout 2014. Will post discoveries' - Alexander Dugin ! how left wing is that? to have a pro-Kremlin line and be in coalition with a pro-Kremlin far right party ? [2] - Sayerslle (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, fact is that many reliable sources describe the party as "far-left", including BBC, France 24 and Deutsche Welle,[1][2][3][4][5] but this is reverted because someone has decided it is only "left-wing". The irony is that the only two sources used for left-wing are an "International socialist journal", and the other source in fact say "far Left" and not left-wing(!) if you've read it. Admittedly, a Google-search do show about double hits for left-wing over far-left, but IMO they both seem more than common enough for inclusion of both (116k v 276k). Isn't Wikipedia's policy to reflect mainstream reliable sources? User2534 (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Read also the Most party members are Marxists, thus a Marxist party section, which also discusses on ideology. The fact is that it is not enough for a "reliable source" to say that "party A is far-left", but you need to correlate it to the party's actual ideology as well. As of now, the far-left article defines the concept as "Far-left politics or extreme-left politics are left-wing politics that are further to the left than mainstream centre-left politics. The far left seeks equality of outcome and the dismantlement of all forms of social stratification. Far leftists seek to abolish all forms of hierarchy, particularly the inequitable distribution of wealth and power. The far left seeks a society in which everyone is provided equal economic and social opportunities, and no one has excessive wealth or power over others", whereas left-wing is defined as "left-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality. They typically involve concern for those in society who are perceived as disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished." They seem very similar to each other, but there is one key difference, and that is that the far-left "typically believes that inegalitarian systems must be overthrown through revolution in order to establish egalitarian societies". SYRIZA's ideology seems to fit well with most of both ideologies' characteristics, but with the difference that they do not support "revolution" in order to overthrow inegalitarian systems (such as the KKE does; party which, by the way, has denied its support to SYRIZA precisely because of that).
Nowadays, it is very easy for the media to say "hey, this party is against the current establishment; they are far-something!" but they rarely correlate it to the party's actual ideology, and avoid entering into most of the party's programme. This said, if you can find enough reliable sources making that correlation between the definition and characteristics of far-left and the consideration of SYRIZA as far-left, and that correlation can be proven with actual facts, then we could consider far-left as an option. But as of currently, SYRIZA seems to be actually moving more to the center-left of the political spectrum, rather than to the far-left.
Btw, SYRIZA is SYRIZA, not its constituent parties. I say this because some guys tried several times to push forward the strange conception that because a few of the constituent parties of SYRIZA are far-left, then SYRIZA as a whole is far-left. By that premise we could also say that, as some of SYRIZA's constituent parties are center-left, then SYRIZA is center-left. "Left-wing" is also a compromise in this sense, since it encompass both the center-left soul of SYRIZA as well as the far-left one. Impru20 (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Thompson, Wayne C. (2014). Western Europe 2014. p.282. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9781475812305.
  2. ^ Featherstone, Kevin (2012), Greece implodes as protests drown out its European vocation, LSE Research Online 
  3. ^ "Greece anti-bailout leader Tsipras made prime minister". BBC News. 26 January 2015.
  4. ^ "Far-left and far-right celebrate Syriza's victory". France 24. 27 January 2015.
  5. ^ "EU wakes up to euro uncertainty following Syriza's victory in Greece". Deutsche Welle. 26 January 2015.
SYRIZA is a member of the European United Left–Nordic Green Left. That should be sufficient evidence that the party/coalition is far left not left wing. Also the fact that it is to the left of the traditional socialist party in Greece.Royalcourtier (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
GUE/NGL is hardly far-left entity. Syriza and KKE occupies the space of the mainstream left in Greece, to the left of the centrist PASOK. --Soman (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
If Professor Featherstone, of the LSE - a left wing university - calls it far left, and socialist political theorist Alex Callinicos, calls it "far-left", who are we to dispute this? Incidentally far left does not "implies a complete overthrow of the System" any more than far right does. The French National Front is clearly far right, but no one suggests it supports revolution.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

European affiliation[edit]

SYRIZA is a member of the European United Left–Nordic Green Left but only Synaspismós is a member of the Party of the European Left and Renewing Communist Ecological Left is an observer but Synaspismós is an obsever in the European Anticapitalist Left but the Anticapitalist Political Group is a member of European Anticapitalist Left thus the page only represents Synaspismós's European Affiliation TURTLOS (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The official website of the Party of the European Left currently lists SYRIZA as a member in its own right.--Autospark (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I know but when i orginally made the comment it wasn't TURTLOS (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't this mean that Syriza should be described as far left rather than left wing?Royalcourtier (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
No it doesn't because SYRIZA is no longer in European Anticapitalist Left and Far Left elements within SYRIZA have mostly left the party.TURTLOS (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Name, logo, colours[edit]

@Philly boy92 for the name, logo and colours of SYRIZA please visit the official — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimth (talkcontribs) 17:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC) --Dimth (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 20 December 2014[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed.

Fifteen editors have indicated support for the proposed move: PanchoS, Soman, Charles Essie, Rothorpe, Number 57, Alakzi, Timrollpickering, The Four Deuces, JamesBay, Qwertyus, Sayerslle, DWaterson, Damac, Signedzzz, Yaksar.

Six editors have indicated opposition to the proposed move: Autospark, Checco, Impru20, RGloucester, Philly boy92, Srnec.

Supporters generally cited WP:COMMONNAME. Opposers generally disagreed with the idea of having an acronym or abbreviation as a ttle where a formal name is available. Both sides note the existence of comparable articles using either a spelled-out name or abbreviated forms. Because Wikipedia has a mix of political parties using formal names and parties using abbreviated forms, there is no consistency issue either way. Some editors have raised concerns about pronunciations, which is generally not an issue for written article titles (this could theoretically be an issue for users using text-to speech applications, but those users would likely be familiar with pronunciations used in English language new broadcasts). The basis put forth for moving the page is permissible, while opposition based purely on the proposed target being an acronym does not raise any issue that makes the move impermissible. Therefore the substantial majority in favor of this move carries the proposal. bd2412 T 05:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Coalition of the Radical LeftSYRIZA – As @Picapica: already stated two years ago, the party is now referred to as "SYRIZA" by media nearly worldwide. Noone talks or writes about the "Coalition of the Radical Left". Plus: now that SYRIZA has become a (more or less) unitary party, it isn't even a coalition anymore, so the full name isn't descriptive anymore either. --Relisted. --Mdann52talk to me! 21:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC) PanchoS (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support, Greek name nowadays used extensively in international English-language media. --Soman (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, we don't commonly, and shouldn't, name articles about political parties on based on the party initials/abbreviations in their native languages: For example we have an article called Social Democratic Party of Germany, not SPD (Germany). Also, remember that the article on the Greek language Wikipedia about the Coalition of the Radical Left uses the party's full name for its title, not the abbreviation.--Autospark (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Can't compare those two cases. SYRIZA is a clear case of WP:COMMONNAME (see the FIFA example there), while the other one isn't.
    In seemingly all English-language media, SYRIZA is referred to as "SYRIZA" or even "Syriza", with "Coalition of the Radical Left" usually not being mentioned at all, see here or here. The SPD on the other hand usually goes by "the Social Democrats" or "Social Democratic Party" with "SPD" being given in parentheses. --PanchoS (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, PASOK's arcicle is called the panhellenic socialist movement because that is it's real name in the same way the syriza's is called the coalition of the radical left, they are refered to as pasok and syriza in the media because that is easier to say. Whether or not it is a coalition is not an indication of whether or not we should call it the coalition of the radical left and even if it was SYRIZA is a Greek abreveation of coalition of the radical left so that really doesn't change anything. An example similar to this is the of the Coalition of Left, of Movements and Ecology, Syirza's largest constituent party, which it often referred to as synaspismos which means coalition even though it turned into a political party in the early nineties.
  • Strongly support per PanchoS. Charles Essie (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Renew requested move, January 2015[edit]

  • Strongly support per above. Now that it has won the election, Syriza is the name. Rothorpe (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Quite clear that Syriza is the common name, although should probably be decapitalised per common usage in the media (e.g. BBC). The arguments above about not using party acronyms are somewhat weakened by the fact that we do have numerous articles on parties known by acroynms where they are also readable words, as opposed to having to speak the individual letters as is the case in the SPD example. For instance, in Israeli politics several parties are known by their acronyms in the form of readable words: Gahal, Rafi (political party), Maki (political party), Telem (political party) and so on. Number 57 12:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - the party's name is Coalition of the Radical Left (Synaspismós Rizospastikís Aristerás), and SYRIZA is merely an acronym, not a name. We do not, for example, name articles about political parties on after initialisations and acronyms - for example, we have Union for a Popular Movement, not UMP (France), New Democratic Party not NDP (Canada), and so on. Articles on Greek political parties commonly if not exclusively translate the party's native name into English on (for example Panhellenic Socialist Movement; note that the article is not titled PASOK). The English language mass-media is not an expert on the Greek language or Greek politics, and is likely to not even be aware that SYRIZA is an acronym rather than a name, so we should not follow the lead of laymen.--Autospark (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Autospark: You've already opposed once – please don't !vote again. You're wrong about not naming parties on after initialisations and acronyms – please read my comment above. You're also wrong that the English mass-media is "likely to not even be aware that SYRIZA is an acronym rather than a name", the BBC article I linked to above states "Syriza, acronym meaning the "Radical Coalition of the Left." Number 57 13:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support 'Syriza' per Number 57. Alakzi (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose per Autospark. Syriza is an acronym just like Pasok, SPD, UMP, etc. --Checco (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Checco: Can you explain why it being an acronym is a reason to oppose. As illustrated above, we have numerous articles that have titles that are acronyms, so there clearly isn't any rule against it. As far as I am aware, the only guideline we have that does apply here is WP:COMMONNAME, which Syriza clearly meets. Number 57 15:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Broadly speaking, I disagree with article's names that are acronyms. My argument is simple: also the UMP or Pasok are better know with their acronyms, but it would not be a good idea to move their articles. Most parties are known in Wikipedia not by their common name (the acronoym), but by their extended name. FRELIMO, RENAMO, etc. are the (good or bad) exception. --Checco (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, what is being suggested is that the name being changed to "Syriza" instead of "SYRIZA". Remember that it is an acronym, whatever way you want to call them, and that "Syriza" in itself means nothing. It's not like i.e. "Podemos", which is both the party name and acronym, and is an existing word that was used to name the party because it has a strong meaning behind ("we can"). And please, don't compare with Israeli politics because 1. Hebrew language has its own particularities respect to other languages, 2. Acronyms in the form of readable words seem a custom practice for Israeli politics (the parties themselves and Israeli media seem do that, actually), not for Greek politics (SYRIZA refers to itself as "SYRIZA" in the form of an acronym, not in the form of a readable word, just as Greek media does) and 3. Israeli politics are very different to politics of other countries. Impru20 (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with native languages. Like it or not, WP:COMMONNAME is the policy, because it helps readers if we call things by their common names. Rothorpe (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
"Like it or not" does not seem like a valid argument to me. At the very least, I can understand naming the article as "SYRIZA", never as "Syriza" (Otherwise, I invite you to request moves for "Pasok", "Psoe" and so on, as well). Impru20 (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. The argument for moving the article to 'Syriza' is a very weak one indeed, and is only consistent if articles on political parties were generally named after their native-language acronyms.--Autospark (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
@Impru20: Yes, Hebrew does have its own peculiarities, but you ignored the fact that I mentioned parties from several other countries aside from Israel that are known by their acronyms - the ones listed above are from English and Portuguese-speaking nations.
What everyone seems to be ignoring here is that there is a clear difference between acronyms like UMP or SPD and those in the vein of UNITA and SWAPO. The latter two are spoken (and read) as actual words rather than acronyms, and are treated differently. The same is clearly the case for Syriza. Number 57 17:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
@Number 57: Yes; and the ones you listed from English and Portuguese-speaking nations are written in capital letters (because they are that, acronyms), not lower case. Furthermore, the specific examples you put have some reasoning behind: FRELIMO seems to refer to itself as "Frelimo Party" (so it's not just that some English guy in a newspaper put the name in the media; the party itself refers to itself as such). That said, it should be noted that FRELIMO, MPLA, UNITA, RENAMO, SWANU, ZANU and SWAPO seem to be liberation/military movements later turned into political parties, so they seem to be special cases (as has been said, the exception, not the rule), because military factions are generally known by their acronyms (not to say that they are also named as such by historians), and they just preserve those names from their military time when turned into political parties. The exception, not the rule, as said.
And I'm not ignoring that fact. PASOK and PSOE are also spoken (and read) as actual words (For PASOK see here or here, from the BBC). For the specific case of PSOE, it is spoken and read as an actual word in Spain (outside Spain it is most commonly named as just "Socialist Party [of Spain]". The full name "Spanish Socialist Workers' Party" is rarely used). None of those have their articles named after the party's acronym. And I could bring you other examples of parties being refered to with their acronyms or other colloqual names ("the Tories" for the British Conservative Party, almost all of Spanish parties having acronyms ("PP", "PSOE", "PNV", "UPyD", "CiU"), "VVD" for the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (and other parties of the Netherlands, such as the CDA, or the PVV, which rarely see their full names frequently mentioned in the English media). Etc. Impru20 (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
As noted by other editors, PASOK is another case where the article should really be moved based on WP:COMMONNAME. PSOE may be treated as a word in Spanish, but that's not relevant on Spanish Wikipedia, and like you say, "Socialist Party" or similar is more common. I am yet to see a policy-based reason why the current title is acceptable. Number 57 18:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I am yet to see a policy-based reason as to why "Syriza" would be prefered over "SYRIZA", as well. The first one isn't even the acronym (if any, it would be SyRizA); the second one is. Furthermore, "Syriza" means "fizzle" in Greek. It would not be a neutral name under WP:POVNAME.
That would be WP:COMMONNAME as well - it's more commonly written in its lower case format, at least in the media I've been reading. But I wouldn't object to SYRIZA if given the choice between that and the current non-compliant title. I can't see how the meaning of the word in Greek is relevant on the English Wikipedia – all that matters is usage in reliable English sources. Number 57 19:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe it is important because you are giving a specific meaning to a political party's name? A meaning that the party has not given itself? Remember that neutrality is above usage in reliable English sources. "Syriza" being a word having a meaning in the Greek language, with SYRIZA as a Greek party, would obviously be a non-neutral name unless the party itself intends his name having that specific meaning (such as Podemos), independently of how English sources name it. Otherwise, such a change could be identified as an attempt to try to put a label to the party that it has not intended to. Politics being a sensitive topic (as can be seen with the fact of multiple users toying with the parties' ideologies everytime), names which can potentially suggest meanings different than those intended by the parties (even adding a meaning to an acronym which the party has no meaning for) would qualify, at least, as a colloquialism as per WP:POVNAME. Usage in English would matter the most if there wasn't other encyclopedic alternatives, but on this issue, there are. Impru20 (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I have to say I disagree entirely. But there's no point in continuing arguing – let's let the closing admin weigh up the respective strength of the arguments. Number 57 20:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
"σύριζα" syriza is not the spelling of any word in Greek; "σύρριζα" syrriza, though homophonous in the koine, is a word, meaning "to/from the root". Alakzi (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, this actually translates it. Impru20 (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
It's wrong. Alakzi (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
In any case, the acronym would be either "SyRizA" or "SYRIZA" (the later prefered). "Syriza" can't be argued to be the acronym, because it is just a mere word with dubious validity. We know that the party refers to itself (other than by their full name) as "SYRIZA" (which is why the English sources refer to it as such), so, if moved, it should be moved to the name in capital letters. Impru20 (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
But "Syriza" is -- by far -- the most common form in English-language sources, for better or worse. Prescribing language use is not part of our mission. Alakzi (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
What? And if the English media called them the "Radical Left Party" or other curious name we would refer to them as such? One thing is to see the usage in the English media, but other different one is to disregard entirely the party's stance on its own name, which they always spell on capital letters (see website). Or does the party itself have no say on how to name itself?
WP:ACRONYMTITLE sets that "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject" and that "In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognize the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title." The acronym is "SYRIZA", not "Syriza". And the party itself refers to itself, other than the full name, as "SYRIZA". Furthermore, we are not talking about historians or studies refering to them as "Syriza", but of English media. Are we now putting media above the party's own considerations on how to name itself? Impru20 (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The party's own considerations shouldn't come into it. Apparently Boko Haram don't like being called that, but it doesn't mean it's not the correct article title. Also, the party is not consistent in how it refers to itself - sometimes it does use Syriza. Number 57 21:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The party's own considerations on how to call itself should have some relevance, because it is its name. In the case of Boko Haram you seem to skip that it is done for the evident purpose of seeking simplicity, because of its actual name being "Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'Awati Wal-Jihad". The problem is that you want to turn into a general rule something that is done in a case-by-case basis. Just as DVD uses the acronym on its title name, Compact disc doesn't. Or just as NATO and NASA use the acronyms, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Security Agency or Central Intelligence Agency don't (and please, don't tell me that it's because reliable English sources don't use FBI, NSA or CIA to refer to them, because they actually do). So, please, don't try to turn this into a rule to be applied to everyone.
The doubt presented here, aside from the one whether to change the name or not, is whether to call this party "Syriza" or "SYRIZA", the only difference being that the latter is the official acronym, while the first one isn't, but both of them being the same length, being spelling the same, etc. By putting "SYRIZA" as the article name, it is understood that it is an acronym to something else. By saying "Syriza" it could lead to people thinking that it's actually the name of the party when it is actually an acronym. I can't really see the problem in using an official acronym instead of a word made popular by the English media, when both of them are spelled the same, and even when I've presented you situations of English sources prefering one term but the article being named in another way.
The article you posted on "Syriza" has been copied in SYRIZA's website from an English source (that's why it's spelled "Syriza" and not "SYRIZA"). That said, English sources "sometimes" also refer to SYRIZA as "Coalition of the Radical Left" (in fact, they usually do it at the beginning of their articles in order to explain what the acronym does mean). But as has been exposed, English sources are not what always matter. Impru20 (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I expect when the article is renamed, that the fact it is an acronym will be explained in the first sentence (as it is at present, and as it is in the other articles I linked to above). This fact also doesn't stop the BBC et al referring to it as Syriza. Number 57 22:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there's much to be gained or lost by using either Syriza, or SYRIZA. I side with the former, for being more common, but it does incur a cognitive 'load', as you say. It's not a make-or-break point for me, and I'd welcome either over the present title. Alakzi (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, I don't know what you mean with "relevant on Spanish Wikipedia". "Syriza" is not relevant on Greek Wikipedia, either, since they don't use the acronym as the title, but the full name. Impru20 (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The comment about Spanish Wikipedia was in reference to your comment about PSOE being a word in Spanish. How other languages (general usage or Wikipedia) treat party names is not relevant to this discussion – as stated above, all that matters is usage in reliable English sources. Number 57 19:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
No, the point of Spanish Wikipedia and media has been brought up by you. English media refers to PSOE as either "PSOE" or (more frequently), the "Socialist Party of Spain", "Spanish Socialist Party" or "Spanish Socialists". I just commented on the Spanish media to say how even in Spain itself the name "Spanish Socialist Workers' Party" is rarely used in its entirety (due to it being long), but reliable English sources do frequently refer to them with names other than the full name. And, as I pointed above, usage in reliable English sources is not all that matters (neutrality also matters). Impru20 (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused by your response – I never said I didn't bring this up. You said "For the specific case of PSOE, it is spoken and read as an actual word in Spain". I was trying to point out that this is not relevant to the English language Wikipedia, but only relevant to the Spanish language one. How parties are named in the English language media is the relevant factor when determining what the name of the article should be. Number 57 20:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Syriza per WP:COMMONNAME. English language media coverage of the Greek election is calling the winners "Syriza" and not "Coalition of the Radical Left" - if anything I've heard "Radical Coalition of the Left" more than the current article title. It's probably the case that the Pasok article needs moving as well but that should not prevent a move here. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Now that it has won the election, it is becoming known and known as Syriza. TFD (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support As noted above, it is the most common nomenclature in English language media. The article should certainly mention its full name in the opening paragraph and infobox, but the title should move to SYRIZA. JamesBay (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose – Per Autospark. As an acronym, the term "Syriza" is meaningless without being written out. In addition, the proposed title isn't English, and includes sounds not commonly found in the English language, such as the terminal "a". That means that it isn't natural to an English speaker. We cannot allow such foreignisms into the encylopaedia. RGloucester 22:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Evidently, English speakers will pronounce Syriza using the sounds of their own language. Which is what English-speaking reporters have been doing all along. Alakzi (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
This is a joke, right? Are you going to do the move of Viet Minh to League for the Independence of Vietnam, because no article on enwiki should end in -nh? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - per Autospark. Firstly, living in the UK for five years not once have I heard the name "Syriza" being pronounced correctly. It ranges from anything from "seereetza" to "saireesa", and the only time I have ever read in British media an acknowledgement that "Syriza" is an acronym was yesterday on the BBC. Secondly, the fact that almost entirely English-language media write the acronym as "Syriza" and not "SYRIZA" (in all caps) further reinforces the point that they are, actually, unaware that it is an acronym for a much longer name. Nowhere in Greece do you find it written as "Συριζα" - it is always "ΣΥΡΙΖΑ". Thirdly, "Syriza" is catchy in Greek because it means "from the root" and retains its "revolutionary" connotations even as an acronym, something that is lost in English. The only acceptable abbreviation would be SYRIZA, not "Syriza". -Philly boy92 (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Once a word has entered the English language its spelling and pronunciation are at the mercy of English speakers. There are many Greek words in English, and they are not generally pronounced in a Greek way, as I'm sure you've noticed. Rothorpe (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Greece and Greek are pretty far removed from how they are pronounced in Greece too. TFD (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
SYRIZA is not a word, it is an acronym. Just like FBI is not a word and you would not write it Fbi and pronounce it "fbee". The same applies to GOP - who ever writes it as Gop like they do with "Syriza"? Also, your comment about Greece and Greek is completely irrelevant, the correct way to say "Greece" is Hellas, as is evident by the fact that Greece's official name is Hellenic Republic and not Greek Republic. Greece in Greek is a different word, it's not a matter of pronunciation. --Philly boy92 (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you should stop trying to shove what you consider to be correct language use down our throats, ya know? You're attempting to make an editorial decision based on feeling and conjecture. That is unacceptable. Alakzi (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The only thing I'm doing is stating my opinion. If you can't handle it, I honestly do not care. The vote will decide which one we chose, not me. I have a right to contribute to this conversation, and I don't need your permission nor your passive-aggressive behaviour. --Philly boy92 (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I apologise if you thought I was being passive-aggressive. Your disagreement appears to boil down to, Syriza is an acronym, and so it shouldn't be written like it is a word -- which, in the absence of further clarification, strikes me as prescriptivism. Alakzi (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
ICE and FEMA are acronyms but pronounced "ice" and "feema." There are lots of other examples. TFD (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Why are you telling me this? Alakzi (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Philly boy92, whether people pronounce something correctly or not is not relevant to how we should name the page. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support "Syriza" (preferably lowercase) per WP:COMMONNAME: this is the recognizable name of the party used in most non-Greek media. We don't translate Venstre (Denmark), Herri Batasuna or Sinn Féin and there are lots of pages whose titles are acronyms (MS-DOS comes to mind). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support WP:COMMONNAME - no highfalutin argument in favour , but really, the encyclopedia should follow commonname I think in this caseSayerslle (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly support as "Syriza" (decapitalised). Really, this is a bit of a no-brainer - Syriza is clearly the common name which is being used almost universally, and is being pronounced as a word rather than as an acronym. DWaterson (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Since SYRIZA and Syriza will both get you here, yet the opening line reads best beginning with "The Coalition of the Radical Left...", the current title is best. It also averts any confusion at the outset as to what SYRIZA is, how it should be spelled or pronounced, or what it means. Srnec (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The opening line with the official name in English is fine; the problem is the title, which should be the WP:common name. Rothorpe (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly support I'm an English-language journalist based in Greece. Syriza is now almost universally known simply as Syriza in the media. While in the past, certainly in the 2009 and 2012 elections, its full name was often used, most media outlets no longer spell out what Syriza means. Moreover, most outlets in English refer to Syriza, as opposed to SYRIZA, which should tell the reader that the is pronounced as a word and not spelled out like an acronym (compare IRA, Nato, HIV/Aids etc). Seeing Syriza referred to as "Coalition of the Radical Left" in the table showing the breakdown of parliamentary seats is ridiculous as the average reader will know exactly what Syriza means but will be left wondering about this "Coalition of the Radical Left". May I also point out that for a brief period in 2012, when it was still a coalition and not a unitary party, Syriza, in Greek at least, changed its name to Syriza-EKM and stopped referring to itself altogether as the Coalition of the Radical Left, dropping these words from the party's logo. (They're now back, and the EKM has been discarded.) If I remember correctly, this was to ensure that it would benefit from the 50-seat bonus if it won the election.Damac (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support COMMONNAME, used everywhere, including by the party themselves. zzz (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Seems to be the term overwhelmingly used to English language coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Most party members are Marxists, thus a Marxist party[edit]

References to Syriza as a Marxist party have been repeatedly deleted, most recently here: A reliable source quoting the party's top economic advisor saying "I'm a Marxist, most of us are" was included. How can it be argued that this party, which sprang from a coalition made up mostly of Marxists parties, and which prominent members say is made up mostly of Marxists, is not a Marxist party? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You need a reliable third-party source to back up that assertion, and preferably a source that explicitly describes the Coalition of the Radical Left as an organisation is a party of Marxist ideology. An out-of-context quote from a party's advisor taken via a news article is not the same thing.--Autospark (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
They are called a "neo-Marxist" party in this article: Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Another article calling them "neo-Marxists" whatever that is..... Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Last paragraph of this article: "What’s at stake is clear. If Syriza wins a subsequent election, it will end the austerity imposed by the EU and International monetary fund and call Germany’s bluff. It will be a fragile, inexperienced Marxist government in an EU and Nato member state." Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Definition of "neo-Marxist": "Relating to forms of political philosophy which arise from the adaptation of Marxist thought to accommodate or confront modern issues such as the global economy, the capitalist welfare state, and the stability of liberal democracies." In otherwords, it's modernized Marxism. Which is still Marxism - "the political, economic, and social theories of Karl Marx including the belief that the struggle between social classes is a major force in history and that there should eventually be a society in which there are no classes." Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine about with SYRIZA being described as Neo-Marxist but not just Marxist because it has become a broad term the encompasses ideologies things sort of like Socialism. TURTLOS (talk) 10:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Please do not use news articles and media opinion pieces to categorise a political party. That is bad academic practice - and opens an encyclopaedia up to being based upon invalid sources. Use objective academic/scholarly sources instead please. (Also, please note that neo-Marxism is technically a theory in social sciences, and perhaps a broad umbrella term, not a political ideology as such.)--Autospark (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
This is a relative new party so good luck finding scholarly articles! This is not rocket science, just look at the coalition parties that Syriza was formed from! Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
There are scholarly articles and sources for parties that as less old than Syriza (founded over a decade ago in 2004), it just requires research. An encyclopaedia requires authoritative sources, certainly for controversial assertions.--Autospark (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
On your point about the 17 parties SYRIZA was formed from only 7 of them are Marxist/Communist and of these 7 only 3 have Wikipedia pages. That hardly counts as proof of SYRIZA's Marxist ideology. TURTLOS (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by TURTLOS (talkcontribs) 23:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Any party that is described using the words "Marxist" "Trotskyist" "Maoist" "communist" "democratic socialist" or "socialist", or some hyphenated or neo version, is almost certainly a Marxist party, unless it is a utopian socialist party or non-Marxist anarchist party. Here is the list from this article:

  • Active Citizens (Ενεργοί Πολίτες): democratic socialism, patriotism
  • Anticapitalist Political Group (ΑΠΟ): communism, trotskyism
  • Citizens' Association of Riga (Velestinli): patriotism, internationalism, democracy, ecology, social justice[57]
  • Communist Organization of Greece (KOE): maoism, communism
  • Communist Platform of Syriza: Greek section of the International Marxist Tendency, communism, trotskyism[58]
  • Democratic Social Movement (DIKKI): left-wing nationalism, socialism,[59] euroscepticism[60]
  • Ecosocialists of Greece: eco-socialism, left ecology
  • Internationalist Workers' Left (DEA): revolutionary socialism, communism, trotskyism
  • Movement for the United in Action Left (KEDA): communism
  • New Fighter: democratic socialism, social democracy
  • Radical Left Group Roza
  • Radicals (Ριζοσπάστες): democratic socialism, patriotism
  • Red (Κόκκινο): communism, trotskyism
  • Renewing Communist Ecological Left (AKOA): democratic socialism, eurocommunism, green politics
  • Synaspismós (SYN): democratic socialism,[61] eco-socialism,[4] eurocommunism,[62] environmentalism,[61] feminism[61]
  • Union of the Democratic Centre (EDIK): centre-left
  • Unitary Movement: democratic socialism, social democracy

Using my uncontroversial categorization method, 14 or 15 out of 17 appear to be Marxist parties (15 if Radical Left Group Roza is considered Marxist). Remember, Marxism means based on the socialist ideas of Marx, not those of Lenin or Stalin. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

By Marxist i meant any form of comunist, if we use the standard u used we would hav to consider moderate parties like the Democratic Left as Marxist. The reason for this is becuase most parties that call themselves democratic socialist and socialist are really reformed and have strayed heavily from marxism, there are 8 proper Marxist parties in SYRIZA (the orignal seven parties that i implied plus ROZA which i forgot about). TURTLOS (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Most parties described using the words "democratic socialist" or "socialist" are not Marxist. The Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK) for example is not Marxist, nor are the Social Democrats in Germany, for example. TFD (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The Social Democrats in Germany (SDP) don't use the word "socialist" in the name of their party. Can you cite reliable sources to support your assertion that "most parties" described as "democratic socialist or socialist are not Marxist", i.e. they don't believe in taking political power through elections and using it on behalf of the working class? Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
"But Marx knew the path to progress would be slow, and that ultimately the best way to re-balance society was through the ballot box. He also believed, however, that the working man had the right to revolt if those in power tried to deny him such political expression -- free speech, free assembly, freedom of the press -- and the vote." Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
From the same article: "Today, many people know Marx only through the crimes of the former communist countries. But Marx's ideas also helped give birth to mainstream political parties in Western Europe -- Britain's Labour Party, Spain's Socialist Party, France's Socialist Party, and Germany's Social Democratic Party. And yet, for some reason in America, these parties are generally not considered part of Marx's legacy." (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
All the sources you need are available in the Wikipedia articles about socialism. I notice you are using the same type of argument at the American Left, that because there are socialists in the Green Party of the United States, that it too is a socialist party. That is a logical fallacy and if you cannot see that, then I do not think this conversation will lead anywhere.
It is unhelpful too that you can made the unsourced statement, "Any party that is described using the word[]..."socialist" almost certainly a Marxist party", then asked for sources disproving your claim when it was questioned. You never did answer btw whether you think PASOK is a Marxist party. TFD (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Ghostofnemo Your statement is correct that Socialism is heavily intertwined with Marxist politics but most "socialists" are social democrats and social democrats are reformist marxists that have abandoned many marxist ideas (Dictatorship of the proletariat, Historical materialism, Scientific socialism etc.) and have fused many liberal and capitalist ideal into their own philosophy (Social corporatism, Welfare capitalism, Liberal democracy, etc.). This means that the majority of the socialist movement although having marxist roots has become a variant of capitalism. (im not saying that all socialists are capitalist and im not saying socialism is not realted to marxism im am just saying that the majority of people who call themselves socialists are moderate capitalists and thus cannot be true marxists).
Marx did support democracy but he believed that democracy should be as direct as possible in the Dictatorship of the proletariat and believed that bourgeoisie representative democracy was a transitional stage from tyranny to proletariat rule unlike many democratic socialist/social democrats who view liberal democracy as the best form of democracy.
All the parties that you mentioned are social democratic parties that have historically been marxist or had strong marxist factions, none of those parties are proper marxist political movements that don't have very powerfull marxists factions.
Your claim that anarchist parties can't be marxist is also wrong, anarcho-communism and libertarian marxism are anarchist or seemi-anarchist and marxist. (although this last point isn't overly important so don't bother debting it unless you fell that you really really have to) TURTLOS (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The German SDP was "revisionist Marxist" until 1959, but abandoned revisionism with the Godesberg Program. No reliable source would classify them as Marxist today, although they remain members of the Socialist International. Marx btw was not the only father of socialism, there was Lassalle too and arguably he had a greater influence on socialism than Marx. And it has been said of the Labour Party (and their cousins in Canada, Australia and New Zealand) that they owe more to Methodism than to Marxism. TFD (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I never argued that the Green Party of the United States was a socialist party, I said it's part of the American left. OK so most of the editors here feel that Syriza is NOT a Marxist or neo-Marxist party, despite its top economic advisor's claims to the contrary, despite the fact that it has Leninist and socialist parties as part of it's coalition, and despite the fact that numerous reliable sources are calling them "neo-Marxists" or "Marxists". Fine, this is Wikipedia. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Just because SYRIZA's economic advisor said that SYRIZA is marxist that doesn't necessarily means its Marxist, golden dawn doesn't admit to being neo-nazi but a simple adimission (or lack there of) doesnt mean it isn't. The economic adiviser might have exagerated syriza's marxist elements or had a very broad definition of Marxist. Being socialist doesnt necasarily make a party marxist as many editors having been explaining, socialism actually predates Marxism. There are only six leninist parties in SYRIZA plus ROZA (a non-leninist communist party) 7 and if you count reformist eurocommunists as marxists there are 9, that is 7 or 9 out of 17 parties that means approximately half the parties are marxist, that is in proof of SYRIZA's Marxism. On top of all this you have not provided any sources for your argument except the original source which was not enough information to back up your claim. Now you should have understood why your edit has been refused but instead you just repeat the same claims without properly addressing criticisms, how did you possibly expect that this would cause other editors to agree with you. This is Wikipedia, not politics. TURTLOS (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I have not provided any sources? Are you serious? I'm simply cutting and pasting from up above in our discussion:

Here are some more:

Those are opinion pieces from the new media, not authoritative third-party sources.--Autospark (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
According to WP:NEWSORG "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)." Only the Slate and Washington Post stories are clearly opinion pieces, and they are both by the same "director of political studies". Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
If we include the original story: we have five news stories and two opinion pieces that call Syriza "Marxist" or "neo-Marxist". Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
You are taking the wrong approach to research. Instead of forming a conclusion, then seeking sources to support it, try identifying the most reliable sources, then determining what they say. Otherwise you are going to encounter conflict and it is not because they are trying to hide the truth about socialism, UFOs, 9/11 and other topics where you complain about this, but because the weight of reliable sources ignores what you wish to add. It is just editors following the neutrality policy and that is where you should take your complaints. TFD (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Just because SYRIZA's economic advisor said that SYRIZA is marxist that doesn't necessarily means its Marxist, golden dawn doesn't admit to being neo-nazi but a simple adimission (or lack there of) doesnt mean it isn't. The economic adiviser might have exagerated syriza's marxist elements or had a very broad definition of Marxist. Being socialist doesnt necasarily make a party marxist as many editors having been explaining, socialism actually predates Marxism. There are only six leninist parties in SYRIZA plus ROZA (a non-leninist communist party) 7 and if you count reformist eurocommunists as marxists there are 9, that is 7 or 9 out of 17 parties that means approximately half the parties are marxist, that is in proof of SYRIZA's Marxism. On top of all this you have not provided any sources for your argument except the original source which was not enough information to back up your claim plus some news articles mostly from newspapers with an anti-SYRIZA bias, the only one of the article's doesn't insult, exaggerate, ridicule or fabricate something about SYRIZA. Now you should have understood why your edit has been refused but instead you just repeat the same claims without properly addressing criticisms, how did you possibly expect that this would cause other editors to agree with you. This is Wikipedia, not politics. TURTLOS (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Ghostofnemo The reason that i just copied and pasted my previous statement and made some edits on it is because you have ignored 90% of what i said. You have gone on and on about the one mistake that i made without addressing any of my other statements. TURTLOS (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I've supplied numerous reliable sources that call Syriza a Marxist or neo-Marxist party. Can you provide any reliable sources that say "Syriza is not a Marxist or neo-Marxist party"? Or that call it something else? More than one or two secondary sources (i.e. not from Syriza or its supporters)? Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Did u even read my response or did u just reply without thinking, i adressed the problems with your sources as have some other editors. Here are some sources that dont call SYRIZA marxist, , , . here are some secindary sources that do not describe SYRIZA as maxist, none pf them are by SYRIZA or SYRIZA backed group, one of them actually critisizes SYRIZA. TURTLOS (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

All the answers have been supplied and time to move on. TFD (talk) 08:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
You've provided extremely weak counter sources. Is this really how Wikipedia is supposed to work? Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I have provided no counter sources because you have not provided any sources except your questionable logic that because some members of the party are Marxist the party is Marxist. That is called synthesis, which Wikipedia policy prohibits and if you think that is not how Wikipedia should work, then get the policy changed. TFD (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm posting these links to this talk topic for the third time -
Still waiting for even one RS that says SYRIZA is not and has never been a Marxist party. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Still waiting for even one RS that says SYRIZA is or ever was a Marxist party. TFD (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
All of the seven sources above refer to SYRIZA as a Marxist, neo-Marxist or Euro-communist party. Please stop trolling. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, it isn't enough for a source to say "party X has X ideology" to qualify a party being of a X ideology. Even if there are plenty of sources, if those citations do not discuss political positions nor explain what they mean by "far-left" or how SYRIZA's policy correlates to it, they can't be considered as nothing more than simply rhetorical sources from English media websites. If the term 'Marxist' is used as just an adjective but with little to no correlation to the party's majoritary ideology, program or proposals, specially if done by media articles, then there is no sense in paying them much attention. I could also show you quite a lot of sources saying, i.e. that the People's Party of Spain is something like a neo-francoist and a far-right party, yet here on Wikipedia, we don't give those much relevance.~Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we should be second-guessing reliable sources. I can see your point if there is some name-calling or accusations, but most reliable news media sources avoid doing that. Ghostofnemo (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Your first source, by Anne Applebaum of all people is an editorial hence fails rs, but even in her obvious hatred of the Left, merely describes them as "neo-marxist", whatever that means. She says they oppose austerity, call one another "comrade" and want to create 100,000 new jobs. Nothing about a proletarian revolution or confiscating the means of production. TFD (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I would call The Guardian a WP:RS for calling Syriza a neo-Marxist party; they ought to know how to tell apart the different flavors of the European left. The Slate article is an op-ed piece and therefore right out. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian does not call them marxist, Helena Smith, their Greece correspondent, calls them "neo-marxist". Neo-marxism is part of the New Left, based on the theories of Gramsci and Adorno and emphasizes psychoanalysis, existentialism, structural analysis and feminist therapy, and sees capitalism as monopolistic rather than competitive. No wonder they won the election! TFD (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I´d like to add something about marxism, I don´t understand why we still use "Marxism" derived from the theories of Marx, but we don´t say "Smithianims" or "Hayekianism" "Friedmanism", -with the notable except of Keynesianism- etc. they are normally terms used for Schools of Economics, but politically it´s nearly impossible to have a political party derived only from the ideas of one single person (Marx) but we have a -ideology- made of differente authors and sometimes a wide variety of ideas. I propose to use "Socialism", "Socioliberalism" or even "Communism" instead, I know it´s going to be difficult to remove terms from Wikipedia. Apart from all this, I would not consider Syriza purely as Marxist, and if we take into consideration the facts, it is very rare to find Marxist or even pure Communist parties in Europe or Occident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Two syllables, it's nice and snappy. Try ridding the language of racist, sexist, fascist... Rothorpe (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


Since "Coalition of the Radical Left" is very rarely used in English-speaking publications, should we not include "Syriza" in the title? There is nothing even to show this title is a name, let alone a Greek political party.

I might suggest "Syriza (Greek Coalition of the Radical Left)"? Jezza (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Syriza alone is what it's called. WP:COMMONNAME. I've attempted to restart the Requested move above. Rothorpe (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Why did you guys make a new section? its already on this page. TURTLOS (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jezzabr: You need to add your comment to the requested move section above. Number 57 12:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation Of SYRIZA[edit]

Are we quite sure on the pronunciation of the word 'SYRIZA'? The pronunciation tip in the article indicates a full-blown 'ee' sound, and that's how i've heard it pronounced in TV and such (but always by non-Greek speakers), but i would expect the Y (Greek Upsilon) to sound more like English 'U', or at most as German 'Ü' (Umlaut-U), resembling somewhat what happens in Russian (though i have no idea whether Greek Y and Cyrillic Y are at all related). What say you, native Greek speakers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Not one, but I believe it to be correct. Rothorpe (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The Greek pronunciation is correct, yes. Modern Greek υ is pronounced like "ee", see iotacism. Alakzi (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 19 February 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - Strong consensus to retain current title based on COMMONNAME and MOS:CAPS while MOS:CAPSACRS acknowledges allowable inconsistency with our handling of acronyms Mike Cline (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

SyrizaSYRIZA – The above move discussion led to a consensus to move the article to SYRIZA, however @BD2412: further moved the article to Syriza. Now without any doubt this is a common capitalization, but neither the only common one nor the one the majority of discutants IMHO opted for. So I'm proposing to move the article halfway back to SYRIZA.
My main argument is that while both are common and easily recognizable per WP:COMMONNAME, the all-caps variant doesn't conceal that it used to be an acronym. While it is the common name of the party it is not a common English-language word. Mentioning Syriza in articles without giving enough context leads to a number of readers not knowing what kind of (possibly generic) thing that is. Mentioning SYRIZA in other articles at least makes it clear that this is an acronymic name, so if the reader doesn't recognize it, they will look it up.
Supplementary arguments are that it is the official styling of the party's English name, and that it corresponds to the Greek acronym 'ΣΥΡΙΖΑ' (whereas 'Συριζα' isn't used at all in Greek). Now let's concentrate on this final aspect and find a consensus. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. The majority of discussants who !voted in favour did in fact write it out as 'Syriza', hence the subsequent move. Alakzi (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Common usage appears to be Syriza rather than SYRIZA. Given that it's explained in the very first sentence that it's an acronym (and that SYRIZA redirects here), I can't see how it's confusing to anyone unless they don't actually bother to read the article. Number 57 14:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Sure the context is obvious on the SYRIZA page itself, but I referred to "mentioning Syriza in articles without giving enough context", i.e. all other articles. --PanchoS (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Why would that even matter? Number 57 15:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Because people reading "Syriza" in other articles' context may not realize that "Syriza" is actually an acronym and not the actual party name. We have gone on to the point that, in the article itself, "Syriza" is stated as the acronym, stating also that "SYRIZA" is "sometimes" said, when it is actually the other way round, as "Syriza" is not the actual acronym. I'm sure no one would say "Nato" is the actual North Atlantic Treaty Organization acronym despite being commonly refered in its uncapitalized form in English media. Impru20 (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
          • And why would it matter if people reading other articles did not realise it was an acronym? Number 57 16:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
          • Yes, Nato and Syriza are acronyms despite not being capitalised. See, for example, the Guardian style guide, where this is explicitly stated. Alakzi (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Firstly the nominator is misinterpreting the previous discussion where most of the support !votes used the decapitalised form and many explicitly said this should be used. Syriza is pronounced (awkwardly) as a single word not a series of letters and so this is the correct form. Per Respect Party. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support As per PanchoS, as well as my own reasoning on the issue already explained in the previous discussion. Also, in response to Timrollpickering, I don't think the pronunciation is that relevant. NATO or FIFA are not commonly pronounced as series of letters but as single words yet they are still shown in their capitalized forms. Impru20 (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Impru20. --Երևանցի talk 15:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Who needs WP:SHOUTING acronyms? Also, WP:common name. Rothorpe (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – weird request by nominator. always syriza in sources never SYRIZA. majuscule does not using in sources. usual is minuscule like what we call Nato. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Togashi Yuuta (talkcontribs) 05:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is commonly spelled "Syriza". TFD (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support As per PanchoS TURTLOS (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:ALLCAPS & MOS:TMRULES. "Using all caps is preferred if the letters are pronounced individually", but that's not the case here. We should use the non-caps variation "as long as this is a style already in widespread use". This isn't like NATO and FIFA, because the non-caps use seems to be commonly found. —BarrelProof (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per ALLCAPS, as the allcaps common Greek usage does not overrule the normally-capitalized English usage. ONR (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Most English-language sources use the lower-case form. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Acronyms are normally presented in all uppercase. The form using only an initial uppercase appears to be a distinctly British form which is not acknowledged at MOS:CAPSACRS and may confuse readers from elsewhere who do not recognise Syriza as an acronym (and may mistake it as a typo for Syria). As with ISIS and NATO, SYRIZA should be in all caps. sroc 💬 01:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why Populist?[edit]

I still personally don´t understand why the term populist is used when defining the ideology of Syriza among other parties of the left. Radical left, democratic socialism, or a mix of partys of the left are valid terms, but populism is a very subjective term, which I think it´s mostly used by the media, -specially bad media- to criticize a party or ideology. Then, the term "populist" should be deleted from all objetive and serious descriptions of political parties in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Populism as an ideology is "a political doctrine that appeals to the interests and conceptions (such as hopes and fears) of the general people, especially contrasting those interests with the interests of the elite." You should differentiate between the pejorative use and the actual definition of populism, which in itself does not denote anything bad. By your statement, we should also remove everything like "communism", "fascism" and other such ideologies from Wikipedia articles because of their frequent use as pejorative terms. Impru20 (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your explaination, it is OK, I have no problem to maintain the term populism in use. Nevertheless, I think that populism is sometimes refered ambiguously, and it is used both in right and left wings, which makes a clear difference with another ideologies, e.g. fascism is frequently associated with far right parties, while communism with the far left, and I don´t find populism as an ideology itself, but a characteristic of a party. Apart from this, I find subjetive to call a party populist while there are others that are not classified under this way, e.g. the Italian party "Il Popolo della Libertà" might be described as a populist (see Berlusconi), or the party or Syriza which I don´t consider to be a populist party in fact. The problem is the problematic and not objetiveItalic text term of populist, whichs doens´t make a clear statement of why there is right and left populist if the definition says about interest of general people contrasting with the elite, populism should always be consider as kind of left on centre-left ideology), maybe I am wrong and it is different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Populist means the people against the elites, which today is used primarily by right-wing parties. While the media and Syriza's opponents use the description, I would like to see academic sources that explain to what degree they are populist. Certainly all parties use populism to some extent, but I do not think it plays as significant a role here as sometimes portrayed. TFD (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a lot of debate in political science about the content of the term, with some political scientists advancing the definition offered by the user above (ideology of "people vs. elites") and others arguing that the term has become unwieldy and doesn't have any specific meaning at all. The term was more used for far-right parties in the Western Europe but it has become recently popular to apply it also to left-wing parties like SYRIZA and Podemos with a definite negative hue. It is a politically charged term and I don't think we should pretend it is all "scientific" or use it lightly. SYRIZA's ideology does not differ significantly from other leftist parties in Northern Europe (e.g. Die Linke, Vänsterpartiet) but our Wikipedia entries don't describe those parties as "populist". I think there is definite bias in the use of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Secularism is redundant[edit]

Looking at it objectively, 'secularism' in the Infobox is more irrelevant/redundant than populism. SYRIZA is broadly speaking a democratic socialist, or socialist, political party, and by its nature is secular. Essentially all political parties in Europe are secular, with rare exceptions such as the Reformed Political Party of the Netherlands. If one counts the modern European Christian-democratic parties as non-secular camp, then it is quite obvious from the article content that SYRIZA is not Christian-democratic in origin either. Secularism no more belongs in the Infobox of this article than it does in the Infobox of the vast majority of political parties in Greece or elsewhere in Europe, as it is completely redundant. (Also, please note that secularism is not the same thing as either anti-clericalism or laicism.)--Autospark (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. As you say, it might be notable if the party were expressly laic or anticlerical (especially in Greece where there still exists quite some interconnection between church and politics), but the cited article does not say so. Being secular is indeed "standard" and self-evident for most European parties, especially left-wing and socialist ones. Greece is not a theocracy and no serious party wants to make it one, so being secular is not a distinction (just like "republicanism" would be redundant in a republican state that has no substantial monarchist movement). --RJFF (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

SYRIZA program[edit] (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)I noticed that an edit which took place on the 9/5/2015 added a so called "Syriza's 40 Point Program for the 2015 elections". I read it and noticed a number of things that were wrong.

First of all, the link that was provided is highly problematic. It led to That site claimed that it found SYRIZA's manifesto through the the daily bulletin of Italy’s Communist Refoundation Party. The original source of that information though does not seem to be Italy's Communist Refoundation Party but the site of Greanville Post ( I visited this site and there is no link to anything posted by Italy's Communist Refoundation Party. However, even if there was a link to that party, this party has nothing to do with SYRIZA. As a result, there is no proof that this 40 point program actually reflects SYRIZA's policies.

After some research I managed to locate this site This site is indeed presenting a program that reflects these 40 points. However, according to this site, this was SYRIZA'S program for the elections that took place on the 12th of may 2012. What is more, the link to the program's original source, is leading to the main page of SYRIZA's website. It does not lead to SYRIZA's actual program.

This is obviously misleading information. This is why I deleted it.

Drachmeza joke[edit]

please mention the "Drachmeza joke - and all events around it — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

149 or 148 MP's[edit]

I edited the number of SYRIZA MP's from 149 to 148 to take into account that if you add up all of the political parties infoboxes represented in parliament, the total comes to 301, as the infobox for SYRIZA is 149 and Ecologists Greens is 1 which obviously means this 1 EG/SYRIZA MP is being double counted. This edit was reverted so I have now gone to the Ecologists Greens page and removed there 1 MP from the infobox. I just wanted to ask the question on here, shall we consider the MP elected on the SYRIZA list who is a member of Ecologists Greens a SYRIZA MP or a Ecologists Greens MP? Guyb123321 (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I would say that u let the mp be listed with both parties TURTLOS (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Party Splits[edit]

I have not yet seen a statement from the Communist Organization of Greece themselves, but the Communist Platform (International Marxist Tendency Greece) is reporting that the KOE announced its withdrawal from the party during the recent SYRIZA Central Committee meeting. There is a big possibility that the Left Platform and other groups could end up doing the same.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilltherevolutionist (talkcontribs) 11:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Additional sources are now speculating about a split of the SYRIZA left-wing following Tsipras announcement of his resignation. [2] Chilltherevolutionist (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

If you dare[edit]

If you dare to edit this section and present SYRIZA as it really is you are automatically banned from wikipedia. The guys from SYRIZA are excessing censorship better than the Chinese state. SYRIZA is a neo-Thatherist party and has nothing to do with left politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible change of ideologies and political position?[edit]

There have been arguments that since Syriza gained power it has become more moderate.

All the citations for the ideologies currently listed in the info box are from before the party got into power (with the exception of Secularism and Soft Euroscepticism). Is there any evidence the party is still left-wing and not just centre-left? Or that the party has took any action to implement democratic socialism, populist left-wing policies, eco-socialism, reform or remove capitalism, or set in place any policies around alter-globalization? Helper201 (talk) 07:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I second that change the ideologies to Right wing. Tomwalker89 (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I think both centre-left and left-wing should be cited in the infobox. This seems to be the standard procedure in cases where different opinions on a party's position in the political spectrum circulate in reliable sources. I think that a party's position on the left-right axis is more of a longterm development and is often influenced by subjective and emotional elements. There are no objective criteria or gauge to scientifically determine where exactly on the left-right scale a certain party sits. There is no automatism that makes a party left-wing or right-wing if it supports this proposal or enacts that measure. Moreover it is normal for a political party to act differently depending on whether they are in power or in opposition. Think of the British Labour Party: How different are their positions now that they are in opposition from the time of their government under Blair and Brown. Nevertheless it was labeled a centre-left party then and still is now. An originally left-wing party may see itself forced to enact neoliberal reforms (that we would rather consider centre-right), but still is a left-wing party for the sake of traditions, ideals and long-term ambitions. You may bet that Syriza will snap back to the left as soon as they are out of government. --RJFF (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Syriza Right Wing[edit]

after coming into power the party has done nothing left wing at all. they have Only done Right wing austerity measures Cuts to welfare , Cuts to schools, Cuts to health care, Cuts to pensions. this page really needs to be updated. its not left wing anymore. Tomwalker89 (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Isn`t Syriza a far-left wing party?[edit]

" Coalition of the Radical Left" Does not sound like a form of social democracy to me. And "radical" shows a clear touch to an extreme political position. Therefore why is the article calling this party "left-wing to centre-left"? (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It formed from a coalition of leftist parties (most of them minor ones), which differed in ideological positions within the Greek political spectrum. The largest predecessor party was Synaspismos (a democratic socialist party calling for progressive reforms), but several of the others were Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyist, Luxemburgists, and even Maoists. For several years, the main result of the coalition was constant infighting. (No surprise since these are opposing ideologies.) In recent years, Syriza has also absorbed former members (and voters) of the centrist PASOK who have been disillusioned with the direction of their former party.

The term translated as "radical" is "Rizospastikís". In the Greek language, the term means someone or something which breaks away from "the roots" (the past, the tradition) and calls for major changes in politics and society. It does not have particularly negative connotations, though the term is closely associated with Syriza's rival, the Communist Party of Greece (a relatively large Marxist-Leninist party, which still largely adheres to the ideologies of the Soviet Union.)Dimadick (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)