Jump to content

Talk:Red Party (Norway)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Subjective

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:77.110.193.141 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)[reply]
Yes. Unless the parties themselves have formal international names it's best to use direct translation of the norwegian name. The progress party doesnt have much in common with the political ideology progressivism, but it's still the natural translation of the party name. The Conservative party's name is Høyre, which translates to "Right". But they have a formal international name, so it's more correct to use that name. Laddmeister (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Fusion

[edit]

Merger is probably more correct, or ?cKaL 02:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Do they still use the old RV logo? Fornadan (t) 22:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the rodt website they still do, probably until the municipal elections are over. --Soman 06:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary or not

[edit]

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)[reply]


Far-Left Leaning social-democrats???

[edit]

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).[reply]

Abolishing private property

[edit]

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)[reply]

Description of politics a bit off?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

File:Engelsklogo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
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
What should I do?

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.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Engelsklogo.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology

[edit]

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)[reply]

Indeed this is strange! As a member of the party itself i can confirm that the norwegian article is the correct one when it comes to ideology, the sources used for the ideology-section in the infobox here is simply outdated and does not reflect the party-program itself, which clearly describes Eco-socialism, Democratic socialism, Socialism of the 21st Century, Anti-racism and Feminism, as well as the ideologies currently listed in the english-language infobox. I think this is reason enough itself to add these ideologies to the infobox to make it more up to date! User:Vif12vf 22:40, 18th july 2017 (UTC +01)

Why is it strange that the party should be subjected to independent third party sourcing like any other party on Wikipedia? There is no reason that this party is to be be granted some "special status" in which it gets to bypass normal rules and just use it's own self-descriptions as sources. You can't have one rule here and other rules everywhere else just because of what "you can confirm". The fact that you admit to being a member of the party itself is also highly problematic, especially when you push an agenda like this against Wikipedia rules. User2534 (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It remains a fact that the media in Norway rarely publishes about Red Party policy, and when they do, it is usually a gross misinterpretation. Furthermore, when politics are discussed in norwegian media, acctual ideology is never discussed. The ideologies presented in the infobox in this infobox reflects the party's acctual policies and opinions, unlike what the media thinks the party is, which seems to be some form of "democratic communist" party. Tiberius Jarsve (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vif12vf: The party is mixing liberal and communist traditions.. That is clear, and a party which states it wants to build the society Karl Marx called communism is communist.... Obviously what Red defines as communist is very very different from the Soviet or the Chinese conception of the term.... And alas, all these things with ideology. They don't make the infobox clearer. Obviously Red is a communist party which has green policies, that it considers revolutionary... it doesn't become clearer what the party actually is if you add more ideologies... The opposite is the case, it becomes more confusing. --TIAYN (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On a far lighter note, I edited this article for the very first time in 2009! --TIAYN (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will argue that the main ideology of the Red Party is not communism, and should not be the top ideology in the Wikipedia article. The leader has even stated that "Red is a socialist party. You can call it communism if you feel like it, it is a nice name, but [Red] is not a communist party" [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablo Discobar (talk • contribs) 09:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with the above Overlord (talk) 11:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is communism and marxism listed as ideologies for Rødt? In the principle program (2019, page 15-17) you can clearly se that this party has socialistic ideology. It is also stated that the party has no intention of copying previous ideologies, but use them as inspiration for their own way socialistic ideology. Veaas (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to left-wing to far-left, re-adding Marxism and adding hard Euroscepticism

[edit]

I have found a few sources that claim the party is left-wing, seen here:

I am making a note of this here encase I am reverted, as it is asked to discuss this on the talk page first. I advocate changing the party's political position to Left-wing to far-left, using these sources to support this. I can also add more citations for far-left to show that most sources still place the party there.

As for Marxism, I think it should be re-added. I have found a reliable source that states the party is Marxist and is perfectly acceptable to use as a citation. Even if this is only a small faction of the party, it should still be included in the ideology list if reliable sources state so. Here is a source that calls the party Marxist:

The book source given in the second bullet point also states: 'The left-wing Red Party (Rødt) is against both the EU and the EEA; and explicitly states that it will not respect a yes majority in a popular referendum (Rødt 2006).'

I advocate using the above to also add hard Euroscepticism to the ideology list.

Please add any thoughts below. Thank you. Helper201 (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well our party does make references to Marx and how Marx defines our outlook of the future, so it is definatively correct! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, the quote is from bullet point 4, the pdf source. Helper201 (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Euroscepticism, especially the hard/withdrawalist and soft/reformistist separation, is usually defined in terms of countries that are already members of the EU. And the source you gave sites a party program from 2006, that I can no longer find and may be out of date. The current party program just states it's against EU membership (which is the norm for most Norwegian political parties) and that it wants a public referendum on EEA. The program states specific EU policies and goals as the reasons for opposing membership (which is part of the definition usually given for "soft Euroscepticism"), not a fundamental opposition to the concept of a European union (which is part of the definition usually given for "hard Eurosceptisism"). Therefor (if we are going to have this single issue, one that is not up to the parties to decide at that, listed among the core ideologies of this party in a country that is not part of the EU) I think we should just use the term "Euroscpeticism" rather than "hard" or "soft". 46.9.43.94 (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faction ideologies

[edit]

It's well known at this point that Rødt has several factions and groups with differing goals within the party, for example the Trotskyists from the International Marxist Tendency, Sosialistisk Revolusjon to be specific. Is it ok if I add an 'internal factions'-section to the ideology part of the infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoaTsu (talk • contribs) 07:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think this would make the ideology section of the infobox overloaded. It already has a lot of ideologies listed. For a such a small party I'm not sure if political factions within the party are significant enough to be included here. It could be different if elected members of the party came from different factions. However, I see no problem with mentioning the factions in the party in the ideology and positions section of the page in a new paragraph there (providing the information is cited using a reliable source). Helper201 (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Internal tendencies like marxism-leninism, trotskyism and democratic socialism are already mentioned just below the lede. There has been little to no internal discussions about factions or specifical ideologies except socialism, so i doubt it is really that noteworthy! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of first party ideologies from the infobox

[edit]

I think we should remove the ideologies of democratic socialism, eco-socialism, feminism and republicanism from the infobox as these are only supported by the party's website, which is not an independent source. However, Vif12vf said - "Because you largely can't find good third-party sources describing actual ideologies in Norway because ideology is not a subject ever spoken of in specifics, and practically all norwegian media outlets have a specific political standpoint meaning they lack neutrality on the subject." Personally, I do not have the knowledge to support or deny this claim. However, either way I don't think we should let claims stand that can't be backed by at least one reliable independent source. Also, even with these ideologies removed there will still be multiple ideologies left listed in the infobox (revolutionary socialism, communism, Marxism and hard Euroscepticism), all of which are supported by at least one independent source. I think this is enough ideologies to go with for the infobox. The infobox is too overloaded with 8 different ideologies, 4 is enough and these are properly cited. The infobox is supposed to be a summary and I've seen multiple editors state we should be limiting the number of ideologies we include the infobox to just a couple. Helper201 (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the independent sources being used aren't actually any good either. The source for revolutionary socialism is an educational platform for children that is on its way out of the norwegian educational system, and its understanding of ideologies as a whole are largely generalisations. The source which is used for communism is common on wikipedia, but does not provide any explanations for how it comes to its conclusions, and it is from 2017, and the party has indeed had several changes since then as parties tend to. It also ignores the fact that the party doesn't actually identify as communist, but rather has a single reference to it in a single text. The reuters source is correct in understanding the party as marxist, but fails to state that the party primarily identifies as democratic socialist or socialist in a broad sense, this source is also from 2017. And lastly, while it is true that the party opposes the EU and EEA, the source itself is from 2009 and is as such grossly outdated! It should also be pointed out that the ideologies you propose to remove are what the party actually advocates, which is technically all we have to go on as the party are in no relevant positions of power. The party is also likelly to expel any elected members who goes against what the party agrees to advocate, meaning that elected members can't divert from official party policy, except on matters the party has not covered. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Summoned by bot) I don't know the party, nor Norway sufficiently well to dispute the detail of what Tiberius says about sources, but generally speaking we go with what independent RS say about a party, rather than what it says about itself. This for the obvious reason that in modern democratic states, political organisations tend to make themselves sound 'voter-friendly' in their public declarations and to down-play, euphemise or otherwise hide any controversial beliefs they may have. Which specific ideologies should go therefore I am not sure of, but if not supported by independent RS as being noticably a feature, they should probably go. We are all green, feminist patriotic democrats who love animals and babies in the modern world! Pincrete (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Great Norwegian Encyclopedia calls them a "socialist party". Socialism. Few would probably contest that as a broad brand, although some would like it diffused and specified in more detail. Geschichte (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point out that this is not compliant with the RFC Guidlines; in the future, try to keep the RfC topic neutraly stated and brief. Thanks! ¡Ayvind! (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Third party RS are needed for these claims to be made in WP:WIKIVOICE. You can discuss whatever the party characterizes itself as in article prose with proper context, but the infobox should only contain verifiable WIKIVOICE facts. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As established by WP:ABOUTSELF, claims by self-published sources are acceptable in certain circumstances, and I would say this situation fits those circumstances. Obviously, such claims by a party about their own ideology shouldn't be taken as gospel, as there are several examples of parties making claims about their own views that aren't necessarily realistic, but I wouldn't say this is the case here (there is "no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity", in the words of WP:ABOUTSELF) ¡Ayvind! (talk)

Ideology tab

[edit]

I don't really understand why it's written "revolutionary Socialism in the tab for it's ideology? 2001:4645:E4B2:0:E97E:EA48:3AB7:AC15 (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Party_(Norway)&oldid=1225965876"