Talk:Left-wing politics/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Spylab's Edit

Good edit, Spylab.

And it's good to know that Britney Spears, as an entertainer, is part of the lumpen Proletariat.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Progressives and the left

I've reverted an anonymous rewrite that attempted to spread lies about what progressives believe. There are enough conservative web sites that do that already.

To mention just one example, progressives have never opposed school prayer -- in fact the American Civil Liberties Union has supported the right of people to pray in the public schools. What progressives oppose is public schoolteachers who use their power in the classroom to try to convert their students from the parent's religion to the teacher's religion. The conservatives have tried to frame this as opposition to "school prayer". Rick Norwood (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Rick Norwood thinking the boundaries of the USA are the boundaries of the world again. I left all (or nearly all) of the text in, even though it is laughably unbalanced. I notice, for example, that there is no mention that Eugenics was popular amongst progressives on the Left in the USA in the early years of the Twentieth Century. Since Norwood deletes even minor textual changes, I think that he would be truly unable to cope with a more balanced survey of progressive thought over the last 200 years. As for the rest of the world, forget it.

Maybe this article ought to be called "What the word Left means to me Rick Norwood - a registered Democrat voter in the USA"?

P.S. I do wish somebody who knows something about it (not Rick Norwood obviously) would re-write the section which implies (in true Leninist fashion) that the moderate Left split from the extreme Left because of their support for the First World War. It is amazing how many of the political articles on Wikipedia are derived from Soviet propaganda sheets. Hint - the moderate Left pre-dates the First World War and Marxists are active supporters of war (so long as it is not war upon Marxist regimes needless to add) if it is deemed to facilitate class struggle.

Let's see if we can get past the name calling and work on the article. (I can't call you names, since you don't sign what you write.)

Here is a quote from your latest edit: "on the misguided ground of a claim to superior knowledge, wreck arrangements that embody practical wisdom that has accumulated over many centuries". Do you really think it is NPOV to state at the outset that the claims of progressives are "misguided"?

The problem with attacks from the Right on progressive ideas is that the attribute to their own ideas "practical wisdom that has accumulated over many centuries" but don't cite sources. Also, note that many of the small changes I make are just to correct the grammar. When you blindly revert them, you restore grammatical errors. Still, the current version is better than the previous one, and I'm willing to work with you. Note that I am not reverting what you wrote, just removing that strongly POV sentence and fixing the grammar a little. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious (even to you - unless you are borderline insane) that your quote from my latest edit is a brief summary of the conservative counter-argument to progressivism. I appreciate that you do not agree with what conservatives say about progressives. But this is not, as I keep pointing out, the Rick Norwood opinion page. It is an attempt to supply balanced and informative articles on the topic at hand. I added it not because I agree or disagree with it, but because gives the section (much needed) balance. If you want to read further I suggest "Rationalism in Politics and other essays" by Michael Oakeshott or indeed any other major conservative thinker since Edmund Burke all of whom use this argument against progressive thought.

As for the racist character of Leftist progressive thought in America in the years before the Second World War, a review of the book by David W. Southern on the topic briefly summarises the issue:

"The Progressive movement swept America from roughly the early 1890s through the early 1920s, producing a broad popular consensus that government should be the primary agent of social change. To that end, legions of idealistic young crusaders, operating at the local, state, and federal levels, seized and wielded sweeping new powers and enacted a mountain of new legislation, including minimum wage and maximum hour laws, antitrust statutes, restrictions on the sale and consumption of alcohol, appropriations for hundreds of miles of roads and highways, assistance to new immigrants and the poor, women's suffrage, and electoral reform, among much else....Yet the Progressive Era was also a time of vicious, state-sponsored racism. In fact, from the standpoint of African-American history, the Progressive Era qualifies as arguably the single worst period since Emancipation. The wholesale disfranchisement of Southern black voters occurred during these years, as did the rise and triumph of Jim Crow. Furthermore, as the Westminster College historian David W. Southern notes in his recent book, The Progressive Era and Race: Reform and Reaction, 1900-1917, the very worst of it - disfranchisement, segregation, race baiting, lynching - "went hand-in-hand with the most advanced forms of southern progressivism." Racism was the norm, not the exception, among the very crusaders romanticized by today's activist left....How did reformers infused with lofty ideals embrace such abominable bigotry? His answer begins with the race-based pseudo-science that dominated educated opinion at the turn of the 20th century. "At college," Southern notes, "budding progressives not only read exposes of capitalistic barons and attacks on laissez-faire economics by muckraking journalists, they also read racist tracts that drew on the latest anthropology, biology, psychology, sociology, eugenics, and medical science." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.64.24 (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want this article to include the conservative counter-argument against progressivism, you need to phrase that in those terms "Conservatives claim...". Following the pattern of other articles, it should probably be in a separate section. "Reaction against Progressivism" might be a good title. And it should be referenced.

The material you quote about Progressives and racism is valuable, and should certainly be included in the article.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"Contrary to the belief spread by the radical scientists, eugenics for much of the twentieth century was a favourite cause of the left, not the right. It was championed by many progressives, liberals, and socialists, including Theodore Roosevelt, H. G. Wells, Emma Goldman, George Bernard Shaw, Harold Laski, John Maynard Keynes, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Margaret Sanger, and the Marxist biologists J. B. S. Haldane and Hermann Muller. It's not hard to see why the sides lined up this way. Conservative Catholics and Bible Belt Protestants hated eugenics because it was an attempt by intellectual and scientific elites to play God. Progressives loved eugenics because it was on the side of reform rather than the status quo, activism rather than laissez-faire, and social responsibility rather than selfishness. Moreover, they were comfortable expanding state intervention in order to bring about a social goal."

(Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature [New York: Viking, 2002], 153 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.166.152 (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead Section

The lede states: "The term has had different meanings in different countries and time periods." While there are some minor exceptions, the term refers to the successors to the parties that formed part of the First (Socialist) International who considered themselves the successors to the Montagnard Jacobins, especially Danton. All these parties claim to represent the working class and to protect them from the aristocracy and bourgeoisie. So the meaning has not differed.

Also, it would be helpful to include a short history of the use of the term outside France. How did the seating assignment in the Estates General come to influence terminology in other countries?

The lede also states: "Today, in most of Europe the Left refers to socialist parties, while in the United States the Left usually refers to modern liberalism." The term's use is world-wide. As for the US, I think it should read "sometimes". Does anyone know how widespread the use is in the US? As far as I can see, the term is used most often by American "conservatives".

The Four Deuces (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The leading leftist magazine in the US is The Nation, which styles itself "The Flagship of the Left". That is the exception that casues the lede to be written the way it is, since The Nation, and its followers on the American left, do not consider themselves succesors to the Jacobians, but rather successors to the abolitionists. The evolution of the term in the US is interesting. The phrase did not really become popular until the Cold War, where "leftist" was a synonym for "godless commie". Under the leadership of William F. Buckley and others, those who hated godless communism because it was godless and those who hated godless communism because it was communism closed ranks. Ronald Reagan ran for preseident on a very successful platform of Amiercanism and anti-communism, and Republicans began to call Democrats "leftists", implying that Democrats did not believe in God. (Nobody who does not believe in God can ever be very influential in American politics. George W. Bush went so far as to say that "athiests aren't real Americans".) Of course, America is a very religious country, and most Democrats do believe in God, but rather than fight the leftist label they accepted it, and tried to change its meaning. (There is a similar battle between liberals and conservatives over the meaning of the word "liberal" which, to a liberal, means a lover of freedom and equality, but to a conservative used to mean a nigger-lover but now means, according to Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, someone who hates God and hates America. The whole subject is an Orwellian nightmare.) Rick Norwood (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Nation became a forum for Socialist writers in the 1930s and New Left writers in the 1960s, so I think they are using "left" in its traditional sense. In any case, they do not consider modern liberals to be the left, and have consistently criticised Democratic administrations. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to google a use of the phrase "the Left" in recent mainstream US reporting, and you tell me if that use is the traditional use. Here is what I found.

"Marxist principles have been dripping steadily into the minds of American youth for more than a century. This isn’t altogether surprising. After all, most parents want their children to be far left in their early years — to share toys, to eschew the torture of siblings, to leave a clean environment behind them, to refrain from causing the extinction of the dog, to rise above coveting and hoarding, and to view the blandishments of corporate America through a lens of harsh skepticism."

At first glance, the use of the word "Marxist" seems to confirm your point. But, when we read the list of "Marxist principles": share, eschew torture, clean environment, don't kill the dog -- it is clear that the use of "Marxist" is ironic, and reflects the tension between the way the phrase "the Left" is used by liberals and by conservatives. Here is the URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/books/review/Crain-t.html

This is the first non-Wikipedia hit for "the Left" on google today. The article appeared on Jan 11 of this year. Of course, that's anecdotal evidence, but in the context of the article, "the Left" stands for social justice, not socialism.

I see your point, however, in that the Left supports the working class over against the aristocracy. If you want to rewrite the lede to show that, I think it would be an improvement.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have made the alterations to the lede. I think in the US that most modern liberals do not consider themselves left-wing, and scholars do not refer to them as such. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

True, but the popular press has almost universally adopted "the Left" as a synonym for "the Democratic party". We may bemoan the usage, but it is now too common to ignore. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

We should not ignore modern usage, but in the US the term now has two meanings. I would note however that the modern usage of left-wing and liberal is more commonly used by the right. By the way, I moved "social liberalism" in the lede to the sentence on the US. If you follow the link to the article, it states: "Social liberal parties in Europe tend to be centre-left parties, although there are social liberal parties across the political spectrum." If you follow the links to individual parties throughout the world, they are mostly described as centrist. Some of these would be described as "conservative" in the US. Usually they are small parties in competition with larger parties on the left and right. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I like your rewrite.

A few years ago I would have agreed with you about "left wing" being used by the Right. But I've noticed that these days in almost every newsmagazine or newspaper I read, "the Left" is used to describe the Democrats. The Wall Street Journal almost never mentions President Obama without identifying him as "leftist" or "far Left". But even liberal newspapers like the New York Times are now casually using Left as a synonym for Democrat. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• In respone to The Four Deuces, centre-left is still left. Therefore, social liberalism is considered left-wing by that definition. This article is about all left-wing politics, not just the far left. Also, socialism, communism and anarchism are not "successors" to the First International; those ideologies already existed. Finally, I added social democracy because it isn't necessarily the same as socialism. Note that its cousin, democratic socialism has a separate article.Spylab (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Skylab. The problem with including social liberalism is that it now defines the left as very wide indeed. All Western governments until the 1970s followed social liberalism. So Churchill and Nixon were then left-wingers. Could you please provide a source including them as part of the left.

By the way, I did not say that socialism did not exist before the Socialist International, just that today's left traces its origins to the organizers of the International. Sorry if this was not clear.

I agree that Social Democracy should be included. It had been there but you removed it in one of your edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Left-wing_politics&diff=266318593&oldid=266265287

--The Four Deuces (talk) 05:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It is still incorrect to state that it is only in the USA that "Left" can mean "modern liberalism" - defined as a combination of social liberalism, social progressivism, and a mixed economy - as this usage is widespread across the world i.e. that bit of the planet outside the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.185.243 (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, there must be a source for this assertion. In "European Politics into the Twenty-First Century: Integration and Division" by Hans Slomp (2000), social liberalism and Christian Democracy are at the center of the political spectrum. You can see the Nolan chart from this book in the Political spectrum article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European-political-spectrum.png

I accept that their are different views, but the academic consensus is that social liberals are at the center of the political spectrum. They even call themselves centrists, e.g., the Centre Party (Sweden).

The Four Deuces (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• I added two references from the social liberalism article that are used to support the sentence "Social liberal parties in Europe tend to be centre-left" in that article. As for your comment that it is somehow a "problem" that the left is defined as very wide, I don't see your point. The left is, in fact, very wide - as is the right and the centre. Left, right and centre are all relative terms, varying in different places and time periods, and sometimes overlapping. I don't know of any mainstream commentators who describe Churchill and Nixon as left-wing, but certainly their economic policies are to the left of later politicians like Thatcher, Reagan, and those who continued with their policies. If someone campaigned today on the promise of restoring the welfare state to levels that existed when Churchill and Nixon were in power, today's right wingers would accuse them of being radical socialists.Spylab (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with these two sources is that they do not back up the assertion that "Social liberal parties in Europe tend to be centre-left." The first source (Ian Adams) only says, "Liberal parties in Europe now find their niche at the centre of the political spectrum".(p.32) The second source, Hans Slomp, says "Conservative liberals occupy a place at the right end, social liberals in the middle".(p. 35) Slomp shows this in his Nolan chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European-political-spectrum.png

The Four Deuces (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Post-left anarchy... is a recent current in anarchist thought that seeks to distance itself from the traditional Left (communism, social liberalism, social democracy, etc.) and to escape the confines of ideology in general. It has rapidly developed since the fall of the Soviet Union, which many view as the death of authoritarian leftism; however, its roots are clearly visible in the ideas of the 1960's Situationists." http://www.anarchymag.org/node/8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.29.127 (talk) 12:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed is an American publication and we have already agreed that the term left is sometimes used in the US to refer to social liberalism. Even so the quote is meant to define anarchism not the left, and if you read through the magazine the term "left" is not used consistently. Most importantly, an anarchist magazine is not a reliable source for other political philosophies. Why use an obscure fringe publication instead of using a political science textbook or an academic journal? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If it is "agreed" that social liberalism is linked to the political designation "Left" then stop pointlessly prolonging the argument.

P.S. The fact that the reference (taken at random for the purposes of this discussion page and not as a suggested reference for the article) is from an anarchist site is irrelevant. The writer just assumes (like most other people) that social liberalism is associated with being on the Left politically. You may wish that this was not so, but the Wikipedia is not about how you think people ought to apply the term Left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.80.251 (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Try registering a username instead of randomly editing the article under a multitude of different IP addresses. Try using edit summaries to explain what you are botching up. Oh, and try and learn to sign your messages rather than letting a bot do it for you.--Sting Buzz Me... 01:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Try to address substantive issues and stop deluding yourself that your vandalism is motivated by anything other than ego and malice.

Third-Worldism

There seems to be an omission in this section. I could be wrong but I seem to remember a dusty old textbook telling me that the USSR and Cuba (who I believe were on the Left) actively intervened in Third World politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.185.243 (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sting Au's revert war

Without taking sides, I would like to observe that neither Sting Au nor the anonymous editor/editors, who seem to be engaged in a revert war, are guilty of vandalism. Both versions are attempts to write a good article. The attempt should be discussed in Talk. Revert wars settle nothing. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There has I admit been a big improvement in this article since I last had a look at it, and this is largely down to the fact that people such as your good self (much as I despise your ignorance and bigotry at times) have been willing to make and reflect upon changes to the content. Our friend Sting AU simply deletes (without discussion) and is motivated (in my judgement) by little more than malice and ego. That is why his (from what I can see) constant use of the undo button is little more than vandalism. His approach is quite out of keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, which at the end of the day is about the pursuit of truth.

In articles such as this one our prejudices are inevitably going to get more of a challenge than they would in less controversial entries, but that means (myself included) we have to be more curious not less curious about what others are telling us, even when we find it uncomfortable. If you have no interest in truth and seek only to project your own ego, or promote a party line, you are of course exempted from any such obligation, but the contributions made by such a person would rightly be designated as vandalism.

Thank you (I think). It is best not to question a person's motives. It is hard enough to understand my own motives. I have little chance of understanding the motives of a stranger. The only question is which version of the article is better -- the difference is largely one of emphasis. Let's wait and see if Sting Au is willing to discuss his edit here. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I was reverting vandalism. Pretty plain from the edit summary. Ego eh? That comment was made by one of the IP's. Checkuser coming up. It seems to me that it is entirely possible that editors of this article may be logging off and using different IP addresses to vandalize this article. Unfortunately this is the type of article that it always going to be prone to political point of view pushing. IP editors are in the main pushing a biased point of view. The article needs to remain neutral. Your comments about my ego are irrelevant. The IP edits were done in such a way as to try and create confusion of what was being changed. Several edits from different sources with little or no edit summary to explain what was being done. And yet I'm supposedly a vandal? This article would be best served by putting in a WP:RFC. What do you think? --Sting Buzz Me... 07:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The article confuses "the left" as it is generally understood with its use as a relative term, especially as used in the United States. The left is working class, internationalist, and identified with the Red Flag, and the Internationale. Social liberalism is a modern concept that refers to the policies of Gladstone's middle class Liberal Party, somewhat similar to Disraeli's Tory Socialism, and now largely abandoned.

Why apply an American perspective of the political spectrum to world politics instead of say a Soviet one, with their Left Opposition and Right Opposition defining the left-right divide?

And there is no reason to substitute the definitions that can be found in the numerous books listed in the article in favour of an idiosyncratic, revisionist one.

To the anonymous editor: you actually gain more anonymity if you sign your posts. As it is, I can tell you are from Lancashire, and subscribe to Tiscali. The NWO can find you.

The Four Deuces (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The Left "is working class" is very obviously wrong.

The Left is "identified with the "Internationale" and "the red flag". If by "identified" you mean is a synonym for this is also clearly wrong.

Social liberalism is "now largely abandoned" is again obviously wrong.

Why "apply an American perspective.....instead of a Soviet one"? How about just trying to write an accurate article?

"idiosyncratic" and "revisionist" - Unlike the true faith.

P.S. If the National Wrestling Organisation knock at the door I will not answer, not least because I live nowhere near Lancashire! By the way if you sign your posts to preserve your anonymity that is your affair.

References! Where are your references?

I would say that the unifying principle of the Left was support for the working class over against the upper class. The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary says "those professing political views marked by a desire to reform the established order and usually to give greater freedom to the common man".

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The edit war: I think it may be best to continue to attempt to improve the article and get semi-protection if the edit war continues. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

References? I don't need no stinkin' references!

Southern & Oakeshott

Mr. Anonymous has brought up these two writers and I think it is important to address what significance they have to this article. Southern wrote about the Progressive Era (1900-1917) and includes TR and Wilson as two Progressive presidents. He places progressivism as an indigenous middle-class American movement and never describes it as left or right wing. In fact, no serious writer describes them as left-wing, and there is no reason to include them in this article.

Oakeshott wrote a criticism of Rationalism from a Conservative perspective. Rationalism includes socialism, progressivism, modern liberalism, laissez-faire capitalism and American constitutionalism, and is found in "all political persuasions". His article does not define "the Left". If you want a conservative criticism of the left why not use a writer who directly criticises the left?

The Four Deuces (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Mr "The Four Deuces". I am well aware of your definition of the Left. You seem to assume that if you keep on repeating something it will make it true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.201.91 (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

My definition is of no relevance. What is relevant is having a properly sourced definition. I notice that you have added "egalitarian" to the lead, but have provided no sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that I think you are the sort of person who is capable of moving on once they have lost an argument. That assumption is entirely misplaced. Nevertheless I will reach over and pick up a book, The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Science (1991) edited by Vernon Bogdanor (Professor of Government at Oxford University) and quote you its definition (p.324) of The Political Left

"This usually embraces a belief in the progressive perfectibility of men and women and the possibility of making the individual and society better by political agency; a favourable attitude towards change and innovation; a commitment to maximizing civil and moral liberty, to equality in political matters and hence to an insistence that sovereignty resides in the people; a commitment to fraternity, and hence, to internationalism. The political left is associated with an ideology which affirms the superiority of reason and science over tradition and religious dogma; and, through this, a belief in the evolutionary betterment and progress of humanity as a whole."

Now it goes without saying that this disagrees with your definition, but since you assert that your definition "is of no relevance" this is hardly of any great concern.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.68.241 (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The encyclopaedia article you quoted is not a "definition of the left" but a part of a paragraph about Karl Marx, and I agree that he was on the left. By the way, do ever wonder why the term "Left wing" comes up in an article about Karl Marx and not in an article about Gladstone, Churchill or Nixon? The article says "the Left" "is associated with an ideology which affirms the superiority of reason and science over tradition and religious dogma". Do you believe that the left follows reason and science and their opponents rely on tradition and dogma? Do you want to change the lead to reflect this opinion? The Four Deuces (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The above quote (as you must be aware) is not part of a paragraph about Karl Marx. The political term Left is (as I am sure you are aware) used more broadly than you are willing to accept. However (as previously mentioned) I am not persuaded that debate with you is going to achieve very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.80.195 (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have found a source and accept that there are different views on this matter and that none of them are necessarily right or wrong. However, The lead lists a collection of different ideologies as left-wing, but does not explain why they are grouped together and the first two footnotes actually contradict the listing. It might be helpful to indicate what defines the left and what political positions, if any, are not left-wing.

Incidentally the quote from the Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Science is taken from an article about Marxism. I do not have a copy of the book but parts of it are available on Google Books. The article on Marxism runs from p. 322-326 and the quote is from p.324. Since the quote begins "This usually embraces...", it would have been helpful if the preceding sentence(s) had been included so that the passage could be seen in context.

The Four Deuces (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the key phrase here is "I do not have a copy of the book". All I can say is I am quoting from the "left and right" entry - an entry which does not even mention Marx - in an encyclopaedia of political science (which I happen to have to hand) that is not seeking to be controversial or idiosyncratic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.16.47 (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Here are links to the article in the Encyclopedia:

P. 322: http://books.google.com/books?id=NIZfQTd3nSMC&pg=PA386&dq=Blackwell+Encyclopaedia+of+Political+Science#PPA322,M1

p. 323: http://books.google.com/books?id=NIZfQTd3nSMC&pg=PA386&dq=Blackwell+Encyclopaedia+of+Political+Science#PPA323,M1

p. 326: http://books.google.com/books?id=NIZfQTd3nSMC&pg=PA386&dq=Blackwell+Encyclopaedia+of+Political+Science#PPA326,M1

The page you refer to, 324, is missing, but pages 322, 323 and 326 are all about Marxism. Are you saying that 324 is not about Marxism?

The Four Deuces (talk) 06:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The "Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Science" (Edited by Vernon Bogdanor) - from which I am quoting - and the "Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought" (Edited by David Miller) - to which you are referring - are two different books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.179.21 (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for confusing the two books. It would have been helpful to see the complete definition. For example, how the editor enumerates the ideologies that are included. Or whether progressives like William Jennings Bryan are considered as supporting "reason and science over tradition and dogma", or where libertarians fit on the scale. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Women's Rights Sources

Is this an acceptable NPOV source: http://www.johndclare.net/Women1_ArgumentsAgainst.htm ? I think it is but I might as well double-check. Soxwon (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a primary source material. There is information on using them under Wikipedia:No original research. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit Wars

Could editors please discuss changes here before making them. Most of these changes are made by an anonymous editor. If this continues I will apply for protection and hope that other editors will support me. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Does this include you for deleting "social liberalism" without discussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.163.67 (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Note to 88.109.163.67 -- your edits are much more likely to be respected if you sign them.Rick Norwood (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Note to Dave from Essex: Social liberalism has been removed by several other editors, and restored by you each time. I merely restored the section to what it was before you last altered it. By the way, you still have not provided the complete version of your "left-wing" definition. What little you have given obviously does not apply to social liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr "Gangster action is mixed with laughs in this tale of Prohibition-era America. Bootlegger Jack Palance and his mob hijack a shipment of "bathtub gin" meant for a rival, and soon a full-blown gang war erupts"

Your obsession with finding my name and location is borderline creepy (Is becoming a secret policeman one of your fantasies?) and true to form your efforts are wholly inaccurate. You also seem to be prone to self-justifying delusions, because as you know full well it is you who keeps deleting the social liberalism epithet.

You appear to have convinced yourself that "social liberalism" not only should not be associated with the Left, but that those who do associate it with the Left are committing a thought crime. I can only speculate that you are the sort of Marxist who hates the liberal-left with a passion on the grounds that it arrests the "logic of history". "Social Liberalism" is "Left-Liberalism". Note the word L E F T prior to the designation Liberalism. This is a quite different position from "Classical Liberalism" (with its worship of the dreaded free market), indeed Classical Liberals generally view Social Liberalism as Liberalism in name only. After all even Marx thought he was liberating people!

Left-Liberalism endorses active and "progressive" intervention by the State into the everyday life of its citizens, in combination with an antinomian approach to morality quite at odds with the assumptions of classical liberals such as Adam Smith. Now it is perfectly true that the border between Classical Liberalism and Left-Liberalism is a hazy one (Was Mill a Leftist?) but then most people view the Left as a spectrum from Left-Liberalism at one end to the sort of deranged hatred of the world you find in Marx and Lenin at the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.11.248 (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the one marked vandalism, I looked at the one edit claiming all leftists favoring gov't intervention and assumed you were marking them all that POV. Soxwon (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look you will see that the substance of the text is unchanged from the previous version, but you will of course require some reading comprehension abilities to be able to grasp that, and that is evidently not your strong point. By the way it said that nearly all those on the Left believe in active political intervention in the workings of a free market. I did not write the original text but you would have to be either very ignorant or very sophisticated to dispute it. I look forward to your sophisticated explanation why it is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.11.248 (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from insults (see WP:CIVIL). I think the "tightening" changes the POV. The first line for instance goes from "varying degrees of social or gov't intervention" to "state intervention." There was also much more to Marx's theories than a simple critique of capitalism. As for the Marx section, too much was left out in my opinion. Soxwon (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, your reply simply confirms my "insults" that you not only have poor reading skills but lack the intelligence to appreciate your ignorance of the subject. You are a textbook demonstration of the limitations of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.234.23 (talk) 09:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The comments from 88.110.11.248 and 79.71.234.23 fall below the level of respect owed to other contributors and are offensive and hurtful. Could you please follow the level of civility that others deserve. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Instead of continually insulting me, could you perhaps point out why you think I was incorrect? Soxwon (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A word means what it means.

In civil discourse, people use the dictionary meaning of words to communicate. In propaganda, people distort the meaning of words in order to win converts. Wikipedia is dedicated to civil discourse, and should not be used for propaganda.

The meaning of "left-wing" has changed greatly over the years, and to pretend the way the word is used today is the same as the way it was used in 1950, or in 1800, it to be motivated by a desire to propagandise rather than a desire to communicate.

The best way to discover the meaning of a word, as the OED aptly demonstrates, is to see how major writers and educated people use the word. Usage is best illustrated by quotes.

A google search turns up the following. The first cite is this article, which illustrates the importance of wikipedia, and the importance of getting this article right.

The second hit is a blog, www.myleftwing.com. It is a liberal blog and uses the phrase "left wing" to mean "liberal".

The third hit is www.politico.com. It is a conservative blog and the first paragraph, "The vast new left-wing conspiracy sets its tone every morning at 8:45 a.m., when officials from more than 20 labor, environmental and other Democratic-leaning groups dial into a private conference call hosted by two left-leaning Washington organizations." clearly shows that it uses the pharse "left wing" to mean "social liberal".

The fourth hit is another conservative blog that uses "left wing" to mean "socialist" and gives Barack Obama and Hugh Hefner as prime examples of extreme left wing socialists.

The fifth hit is from Yahoo, and is an attempt to explain what the phrases "left wing" and "right wing" mean. "The Third Estate consisted of revolutionaries, while the First Estate were nobles. Thus, the left wing of the room was more liberal, and the right wing was more conservative."

If I consult scholarly books, I get a less up-to-the-minute answer, but essentially the same answer.

Joanne C. Reuss is a Research Administrator at the University of Michigan. Her book "American Folk Music and Left-Wing Politics" is a scholarly study, and uses "left wing" to mean social activism for liberal causes, such as the labor movement and the civil rights movement, in addition to communist and socialist movements. It is a good example of how the phrase "left wing" crossed over, from meaning liberal to meaning communist, from the 1920s to the 1950s.

Van Gosse is a professor of history and author of "The Movements of the New Left (1950-1970)". He discusses left wing causes such as the new communism, cold war liberalism, civil rights, black power, antiwar movements, and gay liberation. This also documents the shift in the phrase "left wing" in the years he covers, away from communism and back to social liberalism.

Please, in editing this article, consult sources instead of trying to push any particular point of view. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not POV-pushing. As I stated from the beginning the term "left-wing" has an historical meaning and this definition should be shown in the article because a great deal of literature as well as usage throughout the world uses this original definition. In fact most of this article uses left-wing in its historical sense. And in fact the only recent edits I have made to the article have been to reverse anonymous edits, and you can see this by checking the edit history. I also mentioned that in the Political ideologies in the United States the terms left and right take on a different meaning, and there are academic sources for this. Furthermore, American usage has influenced usage in other countries.

But it is misleading to combine the two spectra.

In fact there are hundreds of articles in Wikipedia that use the term left-wing in its historical sense and are mostly linked to this article. Here are some of them:

Left-wing activists in New Zealand

History of the Left in France

Bob Crow

Italian general election, 2006#The left-wing primary election

List of political parties in Turkey

Bernard Kouchner#Minister in left-wing governments

Labour Party (UK)

Jessica Mitford#Communism and left-wing politics

Ben Gold

In fact many of the articles using the term "left-wing" in Wikipedia are about historical events. Anyone who clicks on a hyperlink will find this article confusing. In fact here's an American one: Anti-Stalinist left.

Furthermore if social liberalism is included then the article should contain information about its historical development within the UK Liberal Party, its adoption by the Labour government and its influence on other parties. The article should also mention that social liberalism followed Tory Socialism. Incidentally, the term "social liberal" is not usually used in the US, where they usually use the term liberal.

Interestingly, very few of the major American political issues dividing left and right are as divisive in other countries, e.g., health care, abortion, gun control, school prayer, same sex marriage, capital punishment, creation science, global warming, candidates' families, color and religion.

However, if you believe that modern American usage should take priority, then may I suggest that we delete this article and re-direct to the Political ideologies in the United States.

The Four Deuces (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand what using left-wing in its historical sense means. It means opposing hereditary power and supporting the rights of man, as in the French Revolution. But what do you mean by using "left-wing" in its "normal sense". What, in your view, is the "normal sense" of the word?

I also understand that in many ways America is out of step with the rest of the developed world. I only hope we are moving in the right (but not the Right) direction. On the other hand, American influence is vast, and that includes American influence over common usage of the English tongue, and to pretend otherwise is to deny reality. Maybe it shouldn't be the case. I deplore such Americanisms as "like" for "such as" and "literally" for "figuratively", which is why, above, I preferred scholarly to common usage.

I have always respected your edits. Please do not construe my comments above as attacking you -- they were aimed at the often ill-informed and badly written anonymous edits you have reverted. We disagree about the modern meaning of "left wing", but we do so politely and rationally.

Perhaps it would be prudent to add a subsection mentioning the differences referred to in this discussion? A smaller subsection titled "American Left" or something of that nature. Soxwon (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

By "normal sense" I was referring to historical usage (I have now made the change), i.e., socialists (of all types), anarchists and syndicalists. I think it would be more helpful to separate the two definitions. Although American usage influences the world, there are in fact very few major liberal parties outside the US and they usually compete with larger social democratic parties so they would not normally be considered left-wing. The Liberal Party of Canada (which is the largest liberal party outside the US), compares itself with the US Democratic Party and considers itself centrist, while the smaller social democratic New Democratic Party of Canada, which identifies more with the Progressive Democrats, considers itself left-wing. Google "center-right coalition" or "center-left coalition" and one will find that the centrist party is usually liberal, even in American publications. As Rick mentioned before, The Nation, which published Socialist writers, calls itself "the flagship of the left", and the term "left" is frequently used with its historical usage in the US.

The two sources that Rick mentioned use the term "left" in their titles in the historical sense (although I have not read them). "Left-wing politics" is the politics of Joe Hill, Paul Robeson, Woody Guthrie, and Pete Seeger. The New Left distinguished itself from the Old Left not FDR-LBJ. It would be helpful for the article to quote what these sources say about the change in meaning.

To confuse matters, the American left began calling themselves liberals, e.g., the Liberal Party of New York (notice the hyperlink in this article to "leftists"). Myleftwing.com is an example of this. Note that the "Fairy Blogmother" of the site, who calls herself "A Radical Leftist Liberal Socialist Commie Feminist Pinko from Hell", is not a mainstream Democrat, and would probably not belong to a liberal party if she lived in any other country, nor would she call herself one, nor would anyone else for that matter.

The Four Deuces (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I trust you understood that the "Radical Leftist Liberal..." quote above was intended as humor.

You describe using "the Left" in the historical sense as meaning "socialists (of all types), anarchists and syndicalists". I suspect that, of all the people reading this, you and I are the only ones who know what "syndicalists" means! Certainly it was not the original meaning, nor is it the modern meaning, of the word. Also, while most people know the word "anarchist", they don't know any anarchists. In other words, your definition is neither the original meaning of the word, nor the current meaning of the word, but is a usage from a particular period that is now obsolete. If I'm mistaken about this, please cite a major source that uses the word "leftist" to describe a contemporary anarchist or syndicalist movement. All of the sources I can find that use the phrase to describe current politics use it to mean either "socialist" or "liberal". Rick Norwood (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I realize the Blogmother is being humorous but if she lived in Germany e.g., she probably would not join the liberal Free Democratic Party.

I don't know if there are any syndicalist groups today, and anarchist groups are minor. I doubt there are any bonapartists or orleanists either but they are still described as rightist in Right-wing politics. And there are some small extemist groups that are still considered right-wing. Here are a sample of magazine references to contemporary anarchists as left-wing. Note the use of the term "left".

Anarchism and the Anti-Globalization Movement

Magazine article by Barbara Epstein; Monthly Review, Vol. 53, September 2001

But it was the young radicals who blockaded the meetings of the WTO, fought the police, liberated the streets of Seattle, and whose militancy brought the attention of the media to a mobilization that would otherwise have gone relatively unnoticed outside the left.

Is That Anarchy I See Going on in the Seminar Room?

Magazine article by George Mckay; New Statesman, Vol. 125, August 30, 1996.

Interestingly, here there is agreement between the right and the defeated left, including those anarchists who view anarchism's central thrust as being against the state.

Making Trouble on Main Street

Magazine article by Michael Rust; Insight on the News, Vol. 16, January 24, 2000.

In Seattle, organizers of the massive rally angrily criticized the seeming nihilism of the anarchists. But others on the left rejoiced at what they saw as a bracing burst of anger.

Americanism According to Professor Lipset

Magazine article by Stephen Goode; Insight on the News, Vol. 16, December 11, 2000.

SML: If there ever would be a left-wing movement that caught hold in this country it probably would be anarchism -- an antistate movement.

Here's a link to a 2003 article from The Guardian questioning whether an American left even exists: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/11/usa.garyyounge

By the way try using google.ca. If you ignore articles about hockey players and links to US sites, most searches of "left-wing" return articles are about socialists.

The Four Deuces (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess there are more anarchists than I thought there were. Probably a few commies in the woodwork, too. Still, when the Wall Street Journal says Obama is an extreme left-wing president, they probably don't mean he's an anarchist or a communist. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well they are not calling him a social liberal either, they are calling him a "radical socialist". http://www.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/2030757.aspx Other "conservatives" call him a Marxist. Notice also that none of the quotes cited in my last post use the term "left-wing" to mean liberal, and they are from respected sources, including American.

By the way the I don't think the new lead makes sense. It makes it look like the foremost leftists of their time were Gladstone , Stalin, Willi Brandt and Bill Clinton and Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Castro and Hugo Chavez were not left-wing because the word had a different meaning at that time.

Try googling "Left wing" AND "South America", "Europe", "Asia", or "Africa" and see how the term is used.

The Four Deuces (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge your point, and I like your edit that explains the difference between the way the word is used in the US and the way it is used everywhere else in the world.

As for the Wall Street Journal, I don't think anybody at the WSJ thinks Obama is a "radical socialist" in the classic sense -- that is, he doesn't want to nationalize the oil industry or do away with capitalism -- but rather that he favors taxing the rich to pay for social services, something that is taken for granted in most developed countries. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Socialist influence on conservative and liberal policies

I thought it would be helpful to include a section on the history of socialist influence on conservatism and liberalism particularly in Germany and the UK. First conservatives and then liberals adopted extended voting rights, social welfare programs, and work standards which were described as socialist at the time. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Leftism

I think leftism as it is described in the dictionary is the perfect politics. It promises a class less society, equality and justice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JonathanPoindexter (talk • contribs) 11:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The question is not what leftism promises, but whether the methods of leftism are likely to deliver on those promises. Stalin promised a classless society with equality and justice for all. If wishes were horses, then beggers would ride. Rick Norwood 13:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but Stalin was fucked up, but it's true even the best forms of goverment can became corrupt (Bush)

This is also an encyclopedia, promoting ideals; not just results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.10.254.63 (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary Edit Removal by Soxwon

I am a leftist and I can't even edit this article without an immediate undue and totally erroneous charges of criticising my President. After the sentence of the Wall Street Journal charge that then Senator Obama was "far left", I added that the charge came from the National Journal rating and it was removed as "irrelvant". Huh? Then I added it again and that that it failed to prevent now President Obama from getting elected and that was removed for being irrelevant and criticism of Obama. Both charges are off base and illogical. RCPayne (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, what about the rest of the world leaders and presidents, both past and present? Perhaps irrelevant wasn't the best word, but really it's not that important or notable to the left-wing movement as a whole. Soxwon (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What about other Presidents? If these two sentences are irrelvant then the preceeding sentence is also irrelvant. That sentence is about labeling President Obama as to the "extreme left". The two I added were both directly connected (the basis for this charge), relevant (the tactic of an opponent labeling someone as extreme left did not work) and these comments were both factual and unbias. This is not or at least should not be your personal blog. RCPayne (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Instead of making personal attacks, please remember I'm human and make mistakes. I should have removed the preceding sentence, but didn't realize it was there, and saw your two sentences as extraneous commentary. I apologize. Soxwon (talk) 04:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There was no person attack levied. I was simply defending the reason I added the sentences. The are relevant to the point that President Obama was labeled as far left and the fact that he won the election is very relevent to the article itself. Please read material before removing it. Apology accepted. RCPayne (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The First International

The following phrase has been cut from the article in two places.

"The organizers of the First International saw themselves as the successors of the left-wing of the French Revolution."

My impression is that the statement is true, and it should be restored if a good reference can be provided. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a reference that appears to back up the claim[1]]. There is also the fact the the French left in 1848 called itself "The Mountain, the left adopted the Red Flag and the Internationale was first sung to the music of the Marseillaise. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Origins

"In the case of Denmark and Norway the historical liberal parties still carry the name Venstre (literally meaning 'Left') even though they are now considered to be right-wing. A similar phenomenon exists in France, where it is known as sinistrisme." This should be shortened to: "In the case of Denmark and Norway the historical liberal parties still carry the name Venstre, literally meaning 'Left'." The rest of the information is neither clear nor accurate. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have now changed the text. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Relgion and other edits

This was at the advice given here: [2]. You've cited a lot of blogs, and one site that seems anti-semetic. I'm not sure if quite a bit of the info given is accurate, and there are a lot of generalized, WP:WEASEL statements. Soxwon (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What parts to you think are inaccurate ?

Of course it is possible to find better sources for some points. 

On weasil stuff, i have put in examples. some you took out earlier, i don't know why you dont like them. It is impossible to have a comprehensive list but there are ok wiki pages that have a more somprehensive list and treatment there. Perhaps you dont like using far left groups as an example ?

If there is a particular thrust of the article or argument you find unconvincing, please let me know.

By the way, how do you get a user profile ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.121.104 (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

To: 60.242.121.104. Please note what it says at the top of this page:

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

The Four Deuces (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

60.242.121.104: To get a User Profile you click "log in". If memory serves, if you are not a member you will then be prompted to create a user name, profile, and password.

It is the responsibility of each editor of Wikipedia to do the hard work necessary to provide references. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I added a couple of references and will add more when I have time. Soxwon (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

history

I read a lot of old books, and before about 1970 the use of the words "liberal", "conservative", "left-wing" and "right-wing" seems to be fairly consistent. Kennedy is a liberal, Goldwater a conservative, communists are left-wing, Goldwater is right-wing.

In the past decade or two, now that the outcome of a political campaign can be worth billions of dollars, the propaganda machines have ratcheted up their saturation coverage to a whole new level.

(Aside: Remember when Nixon, asked if he could raise "a million dollars" in hush money, said, "I can do that." Now that sounds like Doctor Evil demanding a ransom of "one million dollars". Quaint. Last night, on MSNBC, some right-wing commentator was going on about how the government was using a million of "your tax dollars" to educate "prostitutes and pimps" about VD. "I think the government could find a better use for that money, or, better yet, reduce taxes, and let the people who earned the money keep it." I'll do the math for you. A million dollars is about 0.000001 percent of the federal budget, and costs the average taxpayer about 3 cents.)

One difference between propaganda and discussion is that a discussion is about ideas. Propaganda tries to make ideas impossible by changing what words mean.

This article needs a good, academic source for the way the meaning of "left-wing" has been changed by this massive propaganda machine. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you, that seems to be a commentary on policy, rather than a reclassification of what a left-winger and right-winger are. Soxwon (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the paragraph that Rick tried to insert has a lot of problems:

In the United States, where "left-wing" is usually a term of opprobrium, right-wing journalists often attempt to use the phrase to cast Democratic politicians in a bad light. For example, the conservative newspaper The Wall Street Journal regularly labels President Barack Obama as "left-wing" or "extreme left", even when the president's policies are middle-of-the road.

For one it is WP:OR. It's also weasely, rather slanted, and ignores the large portion of the media that is left-wing. It also gives POV to where Obama stands as it gives nothing to justify his "middle-of-road" position. Finally, it's purpose seems to be an attack on right-wingers, rather than describing anything about left-wing politics. Soxwon (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As best I can tell, Soxwon, you are the only person who objects to the paragraph, which illustrates the way the term, which is the subject of the article, is used or misused in a major publication. I added what you call "weasel words" in an attempt to meet your objections. Clearly they do not have that effect, since you describe a large portion of the media as "left-wing", and I assume you do not mean "communist". I'll remove the attempted explanation, but the use of "left-wing" in what is clearly a non-standard sense should stand. This article should state the truth about how words are used. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If it was removed I wasn't the only one who had problems with it, and hardly anyone has commented on it. You're ignoring the fact that it's WP:OR (citing one example for a sweeping generalization about WSJ), use weasel words to suppor it (regularly), and really it serves no purpose in such a small context. Soxwon (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I could cite a hundred examples. If the use was, as you imply, exceptional, then it would not be noteworthy. It is, rather, typical. I'll cite three more examples, if that will help. You can I can usually work things out. We're both reasonable people. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added three recent uses of "left-wing" to mean "Democrat". The ease with which I found these shows that the usage is pervasive and clearly not according to the definitions of the phrase offered above. When a word changes its meaning, Wikipedia should report the fact. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

ok, so why WSJ, rather than ABC, CNN, NBC, FOX, AP, NYT, or WP? Why is the WSJ's characterization so important? Second, none of the sources provided are examples of the WSJ's views (a letter, an op-ed piece by Rove, and a report on what Republicans are claiming). They therefore have no place in the article. Soxwon (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the phrase has this current usage, which differs from its older usage. I could, I suppose, find quotes with that usage from every source on your list, but that seems to me to be overkill. Pick one, and I'll find a use of "left-wing" to mean "Democrat". Rick Norwood (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh hold on, you've yet to rectify mistating WSJ, none of those are opinions of WSJ. Soxwon (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep missing the point. Maybe I haven't been clear. Let me try again. This article is about the use of the phrase "left-wing", not about the Wall Street Journal. The brief paragraph is not about anybody's "opinion". It is about word-usage. Well-known people used the phrase "left-wing" in a way that differs from the usage described in the lede. The WSJ, a well-known newspaper, chose to print that usage. Therefore the assertion that the phrase is, in fact, used in that way is true. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That's misrepresentation, it needs to be stated as Karl Rove's, the letter-writers, and the Republican's opinion. You are also ignoring the use of modifiers such as extreme for the likes of mao and stalin. As for the lead, isn't Obama a supporter of gradual progressivism? Soxwon (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, this is not about opinion. It is about usage. I've removed mention of the WSJ -- I agree with you that it is a distraction -- and added a non-WSJ example that specifically identifies "left-wing" and "Democrat". As for whether or not Obama is a supporter of gradual progressivism, to quote your own words from another article, who isn't? When Obama continues a policy of Bush, the same policy is called right-wing when Bush does it, left-wing when Obama does it. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look at serious sources, the term left-wing is still used by educated people in the United States to refer to progressive opponents of capitalism.[3][4][5] Calling your opponents something they are not is hardly new:

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries? (Marx, 1848)

A red is any son-of-a-bitch who wants thirty cents when we're payin' twenty-five. (Steinbeck, 1939)

Thomas Hartz, Lipset and others have noted that Americans saw any reform of laissez-faire capitalism as radical and labelled it socialism because the US had no major socialist party. Ironically, American socialists opposed the New Deal and many other "socialistic" government measures.

I made a slight change to the American reference in the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What I'm getting at Rick is that those sources aren't valid and they're not representative of what the WSJ believes. Also, left-wing isn't necessarily pejorative, and to use original material, and then say it is pejorative is WP:OR. And even ignoring the original research aspect of it, a blog (Ben Smith), an out of context quote (doesn't even mention left-wing, just a comment of being left of Europe), Karl Rove's ghostwriters, and a letter sent into the Wall street journal do not qualify the weasel worded statement. Soxwon (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The sentence Soxwon deleted says: In current United States politics, where there are no major socialist parties, the phrase "left-wing" is frequently used pejoratively by Republicans as a synonym for "Democrat". There are reliable sources that more doctrinaire supporters of laissez-faire capitalism in the US call attempts to reform it socialism. Contending Liberalisms explains this but there are other sources that are more explicit: "[The] New Deal...in the absence of an effective socialist movement..appeared radical"[6] I'm willing to omit pejorative however. It implies that the people using the term were being polemical rather than uninformed, but perhaps the reader should decide. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If you use sources like that I wouldn't object, I just don't think that a letter to the editor is a WP:RS. Soxwon (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon: You keep coming back to the question of what the WSJ "believes". That is unknowable. On the other hand, what the WSJ prints is a matter of record -- whether it prints it in a column or a letter is beside the point. Both reflect modern American usage. A phrase is used in whatever way a phrase is used, and this usage of "left-wing" is pervasive. It is a usage in the popular press. It is not the same as the academic usage.

I am trying to avoid a revert war, which is unproductive. Let me ask you directly: Do you honestly believe that the popular press in the United States today does not use "left-wing" as a synonym for "Democrat" and "right-wing" as a synonym for "Republican"? If you do honestly believe that this usage is not common, how many examples from how many different sources would it take to convince you? I invite you to investigate for yourself. Pick any American publication from the past year and search on "left-wing", and I think you will find at least one use of "left-wing" that means "Democrat".

Please note that I am trying to work with you on this. I removed mention of the WSJ specifically. I removed the modifier "extreme". Please focus on the single, well illustrated sentence in question. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Soxwon's point is that we need a secondary source. In Political ideology today, Ian Adams wrote about Left and right in the USA.[7] "Ideologically, all US parties are Liberal and always have been. Essentially they espouse classical liberalism....The point of ideological difference comes with the influence of social liberalism....The American right has nothing to do with maintaining social order....Left-wingers are social liberals....In American political parlance, right-wingers are 'conservatives', while left-wingers are rather confusingly called 'liberals'. Thus, to an American conservative 'liberal' is a term of abuse and means virtually the same as 'socialist'." So "left-wing" is used in three senses in the US: the left section of conservative liberalism (modern American liberalism), the left section of liberalism (social liberalism) and the left section of the political spectrum (socialism). The Four Deuces (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

A phrase is used the way that phrase is used. What better evidence is there of usage than usage? Here is yet another example that I came across today. This is from ABC news, reported in This Week magazine, May 15, 2009, page 13, on the subject of the Spanish judge who wants to investigate torture alleged to have taken place under the Bush administration. This is how The Week reports what ABC news said: "Garzon doesn't want to right the wrongs of the world, but rather intends to cement his reputation as a darling of the Left. He wants 'to become the leader of the global cause against the Bush administration.'" In other words "the Left" is opposed to Bush and to torture. Now, let's try to construe those words using any of the standard definitions of "the Left". Opposing Bush and torture is socialist? No. Opposing Bush and torture is progressive? No. Opposing Bush and torture is social liberalism? No. The only way to construe this is that opposing Bush and torture is the position of the Democratic party.

This would not be important to this article if it were not so commonplace. But it has become commonplace. How can anyone think that the way a phrase is used is not important in an article about that phrase? Rick Norwood (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that the article is using "the Left" to refer to the Democratic Party of the US. Here is a link to the article: [8] The article says Baltasar Garzón is a Spanish prosecutor who has gone after Falangists, Pinochet and Bush, all of whom are disliked by the left, but has not gone after Fidel Castro and Raoul Castro, who are leftists. It is not, by the way, the position of the Democratic Party to bring prosecutions against Bush officials for alleged torture at Guantanamo Bay. So the only possible interpretation is that the article is referring to socialists when it says "the Left". The Four Deuces (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Lock this page

lock this page. How many times does it have to be changed in a day? It pisses me off

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.226.62.93 (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Does the meaning of Left-wing have anything to do with the meaning of Left-wing?

According to Spylab "(again moved sentence out of the Variations section because it has nothing at all to do with the topic of the section)"

So, variations on the meaning of Left-wing has nothing to do with variations on the meaning of Left-wing. I really am trying to understand your point. Please explain. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

When I get out to school tomorrow, I'll check in the new edition of Garner's Modern American Usage. That would be an ideal source, though the current pervasive use of Left-wing to mean Democrat may be too recent to be included. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• The Variations section has nothing to do with different meanings of the term left-wing. It is clearly about different types of leftism, ie centre-left, far left, ultra-left, Chinese New Left, New Left and hard left. Perhaps a different title for the section would clear up the confusion. Sentences about usage and different meanings of the term left-wing belong either in the lead section or the Origins and history of the term section.Spylab (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I misunderstood. I'll make the change you suggest. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Obama's middle of the road looks pretty state sponsored economics under the red flag of the unions to me

Some big hearted fellow wrote on this page that Obama's policies were obviously middle of the road, not left-wing. Does this still hold?--Radh (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. For example, there is his appointment, today, of Jon Huntsman, Jr., a Republican, as ambassador to China. The best evidence that he is middle-of-the-road seems to be his high approval rating with Americans of all sorts. People who call Obama "left-wing" don't seem to be using the word in any of its traditional meanings. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The us-american and west-european definitions of left-wing are certainly different. But the democrats' (Union driven) new-deal economics will be a desaster (and is also left-wing, esp. in the us context). It would be the same desaster, if it were middle of the road politics. I also think, that Obama is (in regards to GM, etc.) certainly only a Trojan horse for hard core democrat and trade-union economics.--Radh (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If Obama supports stimulus spending, it's left-wing. When Bush supported stimulus spending, was it left-wing then? When Obama supports increases in health care, it's left-wing? When Bush supported government paid-for prescription drugs for the elderly, was it left-wing then? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, why not. If Bush makes, supports a left-wing policy, he is (in this instance) left-wing (Here comes Bush the momentary pinko!). And the Fed with its Cheap Houses for the poor policy certainly had a social-democratic agenda) Also, I don't give a damn about Bush, why should I? Your "supports stimulus spending" puts it very very defensively, it is a policy that will let loose an inflation that will rob every middle class and working class american of every cent he now thinks he owns. Very left-wing, that?--Radh (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally have been hurt by Bush's deregulation of the banks, and helped by Obama's middle class tax cuts. What the future will bring, we'll both find out soon enough.

You see danger in spending that helps the poor. I see danger in spending that helps the rich. Some politicians pay lip service to spending cuts, but only when they aren't in power. I can't think of any government that has ever voluntarily reduced its spending. Can you? Rick Norwood (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No, they all think it is their birthright to spend like there was no tomorrow, let's put them all out of their misery. I am also against spending just to help the filthy rich, but a ruined economy will hurt the poor most and first. I also don't want to see ruined economies. I would love the new new-deal succeeding. But the fdr new-deal did not end the Great Depression, WW2 did. The disgusting us- agrobusiness is a direct result of new-deal administration policies (and of a part of it ripe with fascists and cp). And have a look at us defense spending before and after WW2.

My family has been hurt badly by the Lehmans desaster, but I have been hurt economically all my life by the lousy german economy thanks to an ever expanding welfare, which we cannot pay for even in the very best years of the economy.--Radh (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you say. But the bit about WWII ending the Great Depression, so often quoted by Libertarians, ignores the method by which WWII ended the great depression. It ended the Great Depression by ending objections to massive government spending. It wasn't war that ended the depression, it was spending that put everybody back to work. And what a formidable economy that spending produced -- ships and tanks and guns rolling off the assembly line in record numbers! The question is, can we put everybody back to work without needing the excuse of a war to do it.

And we can pay for welfare, easily. Clinton did it in 1998 and 1999. The only problem is, you have to tax the rich to do it, because the rich have most of the money. The rich aren't hurt by these taxes, because the people who get the money spend it, which is good for business. The smarter rich people, Bill Gates for example, know this. But many rich people see the money going out in higher taxes, and don't notice it coming right back in booming business.

Which would you rather have, Clinton taxes and a Clinton stock market, or Bush taxes and a Bush stock market? Rick Norwood (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

reptiles with money

Re: People who now decide not to be with the reptiles anymore: As the old german folkwisdom has it: "Spare in der Not, dann hast Du Zeit dazu".--Radh (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

What, if anything, left-wing means today.

Spylab, I've provided a couple more quotes. It seems that left-wing has come to mean "I don't like you." In the quotes I offer, the speaker uses left-wing to mean "Democrat", "opposed to torture", "critical of the United States", "disloyal Republican", and, in the final example, "indecisive".

Someday somebody will write a book on the subject, but this plethora of meanings is too new for a book, so examples are the best evidence available. I'll be glad to provide more if you like. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• No evidence has been provided to prove that there has been a definite change in the early 21st century, and that the supposed new meaning is "non-standard." Maybe I'm missing something, but are you claiming that right-wingers -- especially in the United States -- in the 20th century and earlier used the term "left-wing" to mean something positive, and only in the past few years starting using it as a pejorative term? Also, saying examples "abound" is uncited opinion, so I changed it to "Examples include the following."Spylab (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I do not see anything in the Garzon quote that is non-standard. It is a reference to Socialists and Communists. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

None of the examples really demonstrate a new or non-standard usage of the term left-wing. They are all examples of right-wingers using the term in a pretty standard way, to describe views that are to the left of their own.Spylab (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think too that when Republicans use the term left they are actually calling Democrats socialist. Here is what their platform said in 1908:

The trend of Democracy is toward socialism, while the Republican party stands for a wise and regulated individualism. Socialism would destroy wealth, Republicanism would prevent its abuse. Socialism would give to each an equal right to take; Republicanism would give to each an equal right to earn. Socialism would offer an equality of possession which would soon leave no one anything to possess, Republicanism would give equality of opportunity which would assure to each his share of a constantly increasing sum of possessions. In line with this tendency the Democratic party of to-day believes in Government ownership, while the Republican party believes in Government regulation. Ultimately Democracy would have the nation own the people, while Republicanism would have the people own the nation.[9]

The Four Deuces (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean 2008. I like the change to "examples include..."

Garzon has often attacked socialists and communists, so it is unlikely that the phrase about his friends refers to socialists and communists. The only people who will be pleased by Garzon's comments are people who are anti-US.

Republicans claim that Democrats are socialist, and so when a Republican calls a Democrat a leftist, they are trying to make the socialist tag stick -- that's standard usage, and has been going on for a long time. But when Time and Newsweek call mainstream Democrats "left-wing", that's non-standard usage, and I've only seen in in the last few years. Now, I can hardly pick up a magazine without seeing "left-wing" used as a synonym for "Democrat", without any implication of socialism.

And, in particular, there is nothing socialist or communist about opposition to torture. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The quote is actually from 1908. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to a textbook, Political ideology today and a section Left and Right in the United States.[10] It confirms that the terms left and right may refer to Democrats and Republicans even though both parties are essentially liberal. It seems uncontentious that the Democrats are more left-wing than the Republicans, even though their history and ideologies would exclude them from being considered part of the left. However if the US had a major socialist party, like the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, and most other countries, they would be the left. BTW the socialist parties in these countries refer to themselves as the left, and the conservatives and liberals complain when they are called the right. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow! 1908. The more things change the more they stay the same. But in 1908, the slogan of the Democratic party was "The party of the the White man."  ?!? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Green politics

I'm not sure that this section should be here. For example, Lincoln Allison in Ecology and utility says that: "Green thought does not belong in any particular part of the left/right continuum; it has a legitimate place in almost all established political positions." Same work also calls into question relationship between Marx and green politics. -- Vision Thing -- 12:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The communist and former communist nations have some of the worst pollution on the planet, as the article notes. On the other hand, most Green Parties are left/liberal parties, and conservative politicians and writers have worked hard to undermine efforts to combat pollution, claiming it will hurt business. So, while I see opposition to environmental protection on both the Left and the Right, most support for environmental protection seems to come from the Left. You do have the Christian stewardship movement, but I'm not sure how to classify them. Not all Christians are automatically on the Right -- the Christians whose churches were bombed in the South during the Civil Rights movement were explicitly called leftists. Does Lincoln Allison give examples of people on the Right who support Green thought? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the author, Adolf Hitler was a supporter of green thought. I don't know if you consider him a member of the right wing. :)

You restored material I had removed: "In an ideal world, scientific questions would be settled by observation and experiment. In the 21st Century, however, questions about the environment have become increasingly politicized, with the left generally accepting the findings of environmental scientists about global warming, and the right vigorously disputing those findings." even though that text is not supported by the sources. -- Vision Thing -- 14:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)\

I do not see why the Marx as ecologist paragraph is here. The source is an article in Socialist Worker online and they are entitled to argue that Marx was an ecologist. I don't mind if the story is mentioned as an opinion. But my reading of Marx is that he was concerned about damage done to agricultural land, which he thought would lead to lower food production in the future. Certainly he could not have envisioned the environmental problems that only became evident following WW2. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Vision_Thing has a valid point that the first sentence is opinion ("In an ideal world, scientific questions would be settled by observation and experiment.") Spylab has deleted that sentence and improved the paragraph.

I found the material on Marx interesting, since I did not know about the passage quoted. If Socialist Worker has put a spin on the quote, then the spin should be removed. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Source I mentioned above says this about him: "For Marx, one of the progressive aspects of capitalism was its rejection of the 'deification of nature'. It was a good thing that 'nature becomes for the first time simply an object for mankind, purely a matter of utility'." That is in a conflict with what is written in the section. Also, main article Green politics doesn't mention Karl Marx at all.

Source supporting claim "Left generally accepting the findings of environmental scientists about global warming" and source supporting "and many on the Right vigorously disputing those findings" don't mention either "left" or "right". -- Vision Thing -- 20:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What Beinhocker says.

Beinhocker is certainly a good reference, but the claim attributed to him is far from representing his actual view. Rather, he sees the Left as a spectrum, ranging from anti-globalization at one extreme to a combination of capitalization with socialism, as advocated by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, at the other end of the spectrum. He says explicitly that, in his opinion, the Left/Right distinction is not relevant in modern economics, and we need to follow what he calls a "third way". Rick Norwood (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As you say, Beinhocker's opinion is that life/right distinction is not relevant. However, I was not reporting his opinion on that but his observation that the "left" is usually associated with government interventions. -- Vision Thing -- 14:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the inserted material is accurate it does not reflect the source. The inserted line is:

In the economic sphere, left-wing is usually associated with policies advocating strong government intervention in the economy.

The source reads:

By the early twentieth century, the Left had become associated with policies advocating strong government intervention in the economy, ranging from outright ownership of economic assets in communist economies, to partial ownership and a regulatory role in social democracies....[11]

The author is referring to a specific period of history. The inserted material implies that strong government intervention in the economy is a defining characteristic of the left. Since Beinhocker does not think the term left is meaningful today, it should be phrased in the past tense, and should mention what the left-wing position had been before then. It seems it belongs in the body of the article not the lead. BTW listen to what Tony Blair said about this.[12]

The Four Deuces (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that both this article and right-wing politics should note in their leads that many people think that left/right classification is meaningless. -- Vision Thing -- 20:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be more specific, citing current sources. I think the argument is that the classification is no longer meaningful because both left and right wing ideologies have been rejected leaving neoliberalism as the only viable alternative. Some of these people (e.g., Fukuyama) have now found the conclusion to be premature. I would like to see it in the articles, but I do not think it is sufficiently widespread a view to include in the leads. I think too that more detail is required. Bobbio accepted that liberalism was the dominant ideology but still saw left and right forces. Lipset also accepted this but found it useful to continue the model because most modern political parties (outside the US) were the continuation of class-based ideological parties, even if they had changed over time. And others have pointed to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and bolivarism as challenges to the consensus ideology. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You may be correct, The Four Deuces. But my impression is that the left/right distinction is no longer meaningful because the phrases are so widely used by people who have no knowledge of history, and are trying to use the phrases to spin current fads in US politics. Thus one group claims that freedom is always left-wing and another group claims that freedom is always right-wing, one group claims that racism is always right-wing and the other group claims that racism is always left-wing. One group claims that the Left is always good and the Right is always bad. The other group claims the opposite.

It seems to me that what happens is this. A person or group, for whatever reason, siezes on one or the other phrase, and then attributes everything they approve of to the group they see themselves as having joined and everything they disapprove of to the other group. Thus words lose all meaning. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Similarly with the terms liberal, conservative and socialist. But we don't throw them out especially when talking about countries where the oldest parties are Liberals, Conservatives and Socialists (e.g., the UK and Canada). The Four Deuces (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

True, "liberal", "conservative", and "socialist" are still worth trying to save. I'm not so sure about "left-wing" and "right-wing". Rick Norwood (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Rick, don't you think that the terms left and right are now used as synonyms for American liberalism and American conservatism? Traditional right-wing ideology is largely gone, although French right-wingers tried to stop celebrations of the revolution. But the left continues in Chavez, Morales, the anarchists and even in the social democratic parties of Europe.

BTW look at this article, "Nova Scotia: A historic shift to the left."[13]. Liberals are not normally considered to be part of the Left. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the American press uses them that way. I agree that this is a new coinage, which is why the article should reflect the changing usage. But the American press also uses the term in other, contradictory ways. Hugo Chavez and Barak Obama have very little in common, but they are both called Leftist, and even "extreme Leftist" by the Wall Street Journal.

Words should mean something, and the debate should be over issues, not labels.

I wish the traditional right-wing was gone, but to the extent that "right-wing" means support for religion in government, it is still alive, at least in the United States. The Texas school board recently ruled that in Texas, textbooks must teach that evolution is only a theory, and that creation science is just as valid. Since the courts have ruled that creation science is religion, not science, this is a successful attempt to teach religion in the public schools.

I could also mention the power of Rush Limbaugh, who is usually considered a traditional right-wing demagogue. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

By the traditional right-wing I was referring to the right as it was originally defined. That right continued in Franco's Spain and Latin American countries long into the 20th century, but is largely gone. Therefore there is less confusion when American conservatives are called right-wing. But the belief that capitalism is inherently exploitive and that parliamentary democracy cannot achieve desired change, is a major force in the world today. So the term left unlike the term right is still meaningful in discussing world politics. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The original "right-wing" were supporters of the king and the Roman Catholic Church. If you extend that to any king and any religion, Saudi Arabia is a very right-wing country today, in the classic sense of the word. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

But the term right is not usually applied to the Arab or Muslim world, whereas the term left is used. I tried google for "Arab right"[14] and "Arab left"[15] and the second search turned up many references to articles and books while the first reference returned only one article that I could not read. My point is that the term right did not travel as well as the term left and the term left, which arrived in the English language earlier than the term right, still retains a clear meaning, regardless of current American usage. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Religious nationalists in Israel are almost always called "right-wing", religious nationalists in Islamic countries are almost never called "right-wing". I wonder why? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the Herut, now called Likud was originally considered "right-wing" as in fascist, rather than being compared to the traditional European Right. (See Einstein's 1948 letter to the NY Times.[16]) The Four Deuces (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Iran, Pakistan and Turkey have right-wing parties. 174.124.182.180 (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Names, please. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Check the religion section in the right-wing article, 174.124.182.180 (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Despite the inclusion of these parties in the article, they are not generally called right-wing with the exception of the Turkish Great Union Party, which is right-wing because of its historic relationship with Turkish fascism, not because of its embrace of islamism. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

At least it cites sources, you don't. 174.124.182.180 (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It cites no sources that these parties are "right-wing". If you have any sources, please provide them. Generally people who make statements are required to provide sources, not people who challenge them. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)