Talk:Red Party (Norway)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Red Party (Norway) article.|
|WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I think perhaps its better to put this article under its Norwegian name. The name doesn't translate to well. --Soman 12:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I do not really see why the name doesn't translate too well. But, I propose that we wait and see how they will present themselves in English, and in the mean time work on the content. Bertilvidet 22:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Socialist? Do you have any clue or whatsoever about what a socialist is INTERNATIONALLY speaking? They may call themselves socialist, just like the communists in Russia, China, etc. called themselves socialist. They are COMMUNIST! And they are based on the ideas of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. Why would you edit that? User:Neutralfacts 20:50, 17. April 2007
Why does it matter? Communism is a kind of socialism. User:18.104.22.168 09:28 10. May 2007
- As far as I can see, English wikipedia is normally translating party names to English, so I guess the name given here is the best possible. --Oddeivind 21:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Merger is probably more correct, or ?cKaL 02:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- According to the rodt website they still do, probably until the municipal elections are over. --Soman 06:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Revolutionary or not
I'm going to reinstate the revolutionary socialist tags if there aren't any objections here. The party define itself as revolutionary (see paragraph 6.2 on socialist revolution in the principle programme). According to the programme Red wants a fundemental change in society by abolishing the capitalist system, preferably by peaceful and democratic (parlamentary) means, though these changes may happen through an uprising led by the majority of the people (6.2, 7.3). Bricklayer (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Social-Democracy belongs to the centre-left or/and the centrist politics. How can a social-democrat lean to the far-left of the political spectrum? This is controversial... I see that there is a reference in the text. However I just can say that Social-Democracy is not Revolutionary or Far-Left... User:Radical Agitator —Preceding undated comment added 11:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC).
Abolishing private property
I think the use of "private property" in the opening section gives a wrong impression of what the party actually stands for. The Marxist meaning of the term is much different from the public's view of the term (see Private_property#Socialist_perspective. I'm going to assume that Red follows the Marxist definition since they are a Marxist party. If there aren't any protests, I'm gonna remove this. Any thoughts? Bricklayer (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Description of politics a bit off?
I think this article does not correctly describe Red's politics. It does not mention the far-left stances this party has, and makes them sound basically like a moderate social-democratic party. For example, the article says that Red "favours the welfare state and high taxation upon the wealthy", which is basically Labour Party politics. It doesn't mention that when Red was known as the Worker's Communist Party, it openly supported the killing of the wealthy! Theis101 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I see no mention of FRP's support for the Apartheid regime in their article either. In fact few of the Norwegian political party articles mention these extremist supports and views. They were held by the parties for a limited time or not officially at all(at least I doubt they ever supported mass executions in their principle programme). But I'm no expert, so if you've got a source to back up your claims, and you think the Norwegian political articles on en.wikipedia are neutral, be my guest. Also you should remember that at this point, Red has no hope or intention of holding a majority in the parliament, so their main goal is to simply defend socialist views in the assemblies in which they've got members. If you ever read a protocol from the Oslo City Council this would be very evident. --Magnode (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
File:Engelsklogo.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:Engelsklogo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Engelsklogo.jpg)
I have been reverted twice by User2534 for adding the ideologies that the party describes itself as in its party program. According to the reverting user, I can't use primary sources. I find this very weird. An ideology is a bunch of ideas that a party holds on to. I think the party should be allowed to define this by itself. There's now doubt about eco-socialism is correct either, because of the party's environmentalist positions. Neither about anti-racism, because the party is strongly anti-racist, hence advocating a very liberal immigration policy, ban on neo-Nazi groups and penalties for racist expressions, among other things. Feminism is central in the party's ideology. The first thing you see at the webpage of its youth wing, Red Youth, is: "Red Youth is a revolutionary, feminist organization, fighting for a classless society; communism". In the Red Party's program of work, there is a whole chapter dedicated to women's liberation. "Socialism of the 21st Century" is more difficult to define. However, the party has shown interest for the ongoing socialist experiments in Latin America, particularly Venezuela. They also clearly define what they mean with the term in the basic program.
I can't see how secondary sources should be a demand as long as the changes are not controversial. Who could be a better source to define the ideology of a party than the party itself? On the Norwegian Wikipedia, it is the other way around: the party's declared ideology is added in the infobox.
As for secondary sources, sorry, I doubt that you will find many sources for ideology at all. In Norway, there is not much focus on ideology when we are talking about parties. They talk about the parties by their name, or of "the blue parties" and "the red-green parties", or the "left-wing" or the "right-wing". Foreigners has shown no_interest_at_all for this party - which is not weird, because it doesn't even have parliamentary representation. Te og kaker (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)