Talk:List of socialist parties with national parliamentary representation

Requested rename

I suggested that this article be rename and move to articles titled List of Left-wing parties with national parliamentary representation.

• Oppose - while that is true, the majority of the anti-capitalist parties are formerly communist, and therefore are highly influenced by communist thought. --TIAYN (talk) 09:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • many anti-capitalist parties also highly influenced by Democratic socialism or Social democracy thought, why don't you merge the anti-capitalist parties and the Democratic socialit parties into a article. and few communist parties use this term "anti-capitalist party" to decribe themselves.(talk) 10:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I said former communist parties, see Red-Green Alliance for instance. At last, there a very few anti-capitalist parties in the list. Most of the anti-capitalist parties are in a sense socialist anti-capitalist. And to split a list between socialist anti-capitalists and communists is all put impossible; democratic socialism is a vague term. --TIAYN (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
      • why impossible? you can remain all socialist anti-capitalist party in your list. and anti-capitalism is also a vague term. i notice your change with this article just now. honestly? AsharaDayne (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• I changed since many of those parties had a clearly articulated ideology.... Its not easily to define, for instance several democratic socialist parties seek nationalization of all property and so on, the only difference being that they don't consider revolution (but several communist parties neither consider revolution possible in this day and age). Democratic socialism is also a "propaganda" term if I may say since its used to clearly distinguish the party/person from the dictatorships of the former Eastern Bloc, however at an ideological level thta doesn't hold since the communists themselves supports the creation of a socialist democratic society. Its not easily definable. We've had this debate before, the result was keep it as it is. At last, you're argument is bad; you think a list of anti-capitalist parties is notable, the article as it stands is barely notable enough to not be deleted (at least in my mind...) --TIAYN (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • i insist a single article about communist parties in paliament whether this article exist continully. i create that article because when i can't check the situation about cp in paliament in wikipedia, but redirect this complex (at least i think it's) list.AsharaDayne (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• @AsharaDayne: I agree, its a bad list. Certain things needs to be fixed, I for one vote for the removal of the "Leader" and "Refs" column.. The refs can be used in a column, and who is leader can quickly become outdated any of us are going to try to maintain this article up-to-date, therefore keeping information up-to-date on the African and Asian parties can become difficult, not to say the European once. What do you say, remove two columns? --TIAYN (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • i don't care two columns. do you accept my propose: you can remain this article as you want, i will cancel the request of move，and please don't undo List of communist parties with national parliamentary representation again. i say a single article about communist parties in paliament is useful and clear.AsharaDayne (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@AsharaDayne: I don't agree with you, no, I don't. However, that doesn't mean you have the right to create an article which copies information from this article making the one you've creating superfluous. YOu are not following WP's own rule, and as long as you're not doing that I will revert you.And if you don't stop soon I'll mention you at an Administrators noticeboard and get you blocked since you're breaking WP rules and because of you're belief that you have the right to push you're agenda on to this encyclopaedia. --TIAYN (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

See section below, it was deemed original research to have far-left; the communist parties in Russia, the Czech Republic, Brazil, Ukraine, France, Spain, Kazakhstan et cetera are not deemed far-left so it would be inaccurate, also oppose that is. --TIAYN (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Original research

The list seems to be a collection of original research. The decision which parties are far left is completely arbitrary. Many of the parties are to be considered simply as left-wing, but not far left. The raison d'être of such a list is dubious. --RJFF (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Communist and anti-capitalist parties are commonly associated with far-left ideology - all of these parties are either self-declared communist or anti-capitalist officially. --TIAYN (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what I would describe as a mix of OR and Synthesis. I doubt that the National Unity Party (Burma), Progressive Party of Working People, French Communist Party, All India Forward Bloc, Socialist Party (Ireland), People Before Profit Alliance, Hadash, Japanese Communist Party, Socialist Party of Latvia, Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova, Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), Sandinista National Liberation Front, Democratic Unity Coalition, Portuguese Communist Party, Communist Party of the Russian Federation, United Left (San Marino), United Left (Spain), Communist Party of Ukraine, Communist Party of Venezuela are considered far-left by neutral, reliable sources. As long as you have not provided sources for the classification as far-left, I have to consider it TIAYN's original research.

The argumentation "Communist and anti-capitalist parties are generally considered far-left, these parties are all communist or anti-capitalist, so every single of them is far-left" is a typical example of WP:Synthesis. The Left (Germany) also identifies as anti-capitalist, but only hardcore conservatives would consider the party as a whole far-left (while there are far-left factions).

Moreover, it is dubious whether in communist single-party systems such a thing as a political spectrum even exists. How can a ruling party be considered FAR left (which implies that it is placed on the periphery of the political spectrum) whereas it really is in the centre of power? Therefore the whole list does not make sense. --RJFF (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This is point of view, and yes, you are correct - the perspective varies, and the majority of people in, lets say Russia, would not consider the CPRF far-left. But the most normal definition of far-eft (and far-right politics) is parties or organisations who support a radical change in society... Ideologically, these parties want to change society, in practice, well who knows.. I was going to add a definition, or more, on far-left politics, when I twas finished references the table. --TIAYN (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I moved the page to List of communist and anti-capitalist parties with parliamentary representation, OK? --TIAYN (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Brazilian parties

The Communist Party of Brazil (Partido Comunista do Brasil - PCdoB) isn't considered far-left anymore by many groups. The trotskyist Socialism and Freedom Party (Partido Socialismo e Liberdade - PSOL) is widely considered a more leftist party then PCdoB. It has 3 seats in the Chamber and 1 seat in the Senate. Either way, should both parties be counted, just PSOL, or just PCdoB? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.228.52.132 (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

About Mauritian Militant Movement

I wonder whether MMM should be added to this list; the Wiki page of this party says that its ideology is Marxism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.64.96.219 (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: English far-left parties not listed

82.40.117.233 posted this comment on 12 November 2013 (view all feedback).

English far-left parties not listed

Its because none of the small leftist parties elected to parliament in Britain are officially committed to anti-capitalism or the creation of a socialist society (Respect was, but it dropped out of parliament) --TIAYN (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

"Anti-capitalist"

Technically, most Islamist and ultranationalist parties are also "anti-capitalist", yet they're not inclided here, I think "far-left" would make a better description than "anti-capitalist". Charles Essie (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem with far-left is that its vague (the term I mean)... But are there many nationalist parties which oppose capitalism currently? Could you give some examples? --TIAYN (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I suppose we could use the term "left anti-capitalist" or "left-wing anti-capitalist", but that would make an already-long title even longer... So I'm not sure. I can't think of any good alternative to the current name. KS79 (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Economic Freedom Fighters

Economic Freedom Fighters should be added.

On this subject their own website defines them as Marxist-Leninist. Why are they here listed as the vague "left-wing populist?" Zellfire999 (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of National from heading

Please restore former name by removing the term 'national' from the title of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.221.128.193 (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

United Kingdom

We currently have five UK parties listed in this article (Labour, Sinn Fein, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Greens). I would like to ask if all of these are considered anti-capitalist? As far as I am aware they are mostly centre-left parties supporting a mixed economy including both socialist and capitalist elements. Is this the definition of anti-capitalist that we are using? Do Germany's SPD or its Greens (say) not also come under that definition? Neither seems to be listed here. Shall we expand this to a list of all the world's parliamentary parties that are not market fundamentalists? Or should we use a narrower definition of those who want to abolish all capitalism from their economies? Polly Tunnel (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

imho is ridicolous put this 5 parties as anticapitalist  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.36.0.79 (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 

I have removed Labour, SNP and Plaid and left Sinn Fein and the Greens. Polly Tunnel (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Removing Sinn Fein and the Greens as they do not define as anti-capitalist. If anything Labour is the only programmatically socialist one of the bunch. Dsakey1978 (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Contemporary Venezuela

Left parties of Venezuela have have lost their seats in parliament in recent elections. So I think the list should be updated.

Do you have a source that breaks down the 2015 election results? The GPP article lists 55 delegates, the PSUV article lists 52 and the PCV article lists 2. I'm not sure if these articles are all up to date (particularly the PCV one) but that still leaves one missing delegate. Most English-language sources I can find (such as the Wikipedia article on the election) only refer to the GPP's 55 delegates and don't bother to subdivide it.

Polly Tunnel (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The "one missing delegate" is from the Bicentennial Republican Vanguard (another member of the GPP). Charles Essie (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Spain

The list of Spanish parties is still from the 2011 election (with the exception of Podemos). Does anyone have any reliable sources about which member parties of EH Bildu and IU-UP picked up seats? Charles Essie (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I just updated the list of Spanish parties to the best of my ability for the November 2019 election. There's a million of them with varying political alliances and coalitions so it was pretty confusing. Geograph2002 (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Justice party (South Korea)

Should Justice Party (South Korea) of South Korea be in list? It is a left wing political party opposing Capitalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.102.84.2 (talk) 07:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done

Thanks for the suggestion. I've added the party to the list. It would be useful if someone could add a citation – I know nothing about the party other than what it says in WP and I cannot read the Korean references. Polly Tunnel (talk) 10:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done

The addition of the party has been reverted by 4idaho with the following edit summary: "This isn't a list of centre-left parties, it's for explicitly anti-capitalist and communist parties". Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Formatting Issues

Have updated this table for several different countries, but in doing so seem to have royally screwed up the formatting for Tajikistan and Turkey. Might someone be able to help me fix this? 90.213.130.249 (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of anti-capitalist and communist parties with national parliamentary representation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903011006/http://www.rte.ie/news/election2011/results/index.html to http://www.rte.ie/news/election2011/results/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100111070218/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rp.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rp.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6BRmFRbow?url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ts.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ts.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6BRmFRbow?url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ts.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ts.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Democratic socialism does not equate to anti-capitalism

There seems to be quite a lot of socialist parties listed here that aren't cited (either here or on their individual pages) as being anti-capitalist. It should be made clear that just because a party is socialist or democratic socialist does not automatically make it anti-capitalist. For example the UK Labour Party is democratic socialist to a degree (and this it is listed among it's ideologies), however it does not oppose capitalism. The party seeks to nationalise (bring into public ownership) some major utility industries (such as the railways, postal service and the energy industry) but otherwise maintain and work within the capitalist system. I would assume the same or similar to be true for quite a few of the other socialist parties listed here. And if they can't be cited as being either anti-capitalist or communist (in accordance with the title of the page), they shouldn't be listed here. Helper201 (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The Inuit Ataqatigiit isn't communist any more

The article for the Inuit Ataqatigiit specifically states that it has turned away from leftism, and wants to compete with a capitalist market, and therefore it is not communist now.

"Formerly a left-wing socialist party, it has developed towards supporting privatisation and market economy. It believes that an independent Greenland should be competitive."

Should it be removed at this point?

Vkb123 (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of anti-capitalist and communist parties with national parliamentary representation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930165509/http://www.elecciones2011.tse.org.gt/resultados.oficiales.primera.vuelta.2011.php to http://www.elecciones2011.tse.org.gt/resultados.oficiales.primera.vuelta.2011.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120116061706/http://kprf.ru/party/charter to http://kprf.ru/party/charter/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140508205706/http://effighters.org.za/about-us to http://effighters.org.za/about-us/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305044228/http://www.elections.org.zm/media/28092011_2011_national_assembly_elections_results.pdf to http://www.elections.org.zm/media/28092011_2011_national_assembly_elections_results.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

SYRIZA and Other parties of GUE/NGL

Why are Parties like SYRIZA of Greece is not in this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.220.16.114 (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Am I counting correctly?

"9 of them are republics ruled by a socialist, communist or anticapitalist party, five of them are official socialist states ruled by a communist party, of them four of them espouse Marxism–Leninism (China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam) while the fifth (North Korea) espouses Juche." Correct me if I'm wrong, but i'm counting 13: The mentioned 5, aswell as Nicaragua, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Uruguay, Ethiopia, Zambia and Nepal. (Tanzania aswell, but that one is not in this list.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janomoogo (talk • contribs) 02:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 14 May 2018

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

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane ^talk 21:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

---

List of anti-capitalist and communist parties with national parliamentary representation → List of socialist parties with national parliamentary representation – The argument about what qualifies as an anti-capitalist party has never really been properly resolved. This would simplify the problem and shorten the long name. Charles Essie (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I don’t think "national" is needed in title either but I'd rather focus on this first. Charles Essie (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose creates false equivalency with some social democratic parties such as French Socialist Party or Portuguese Socialist Party. The word "Communist" should remain.Miacek (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I should have been more specific. I was also suggesting that the scope of this article be broadened to include all socialist parties regardless of tendency (communist, democratic, libertarian, social democratic, ect.). The whole "anti-capitalist and communist parties" thing is confusing and this would make it easier. Charles Essie (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I see your point but I don't think we need here a general list of far-left, left-wing and center-left parties. What we have here and what we need is (also) a list of communist parties.Miacek (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It isn't necessarily a "general list of far-left, left-wing and centre-left parties". It's a list only for socialist parties and it wouldn't be that much bigger than the current list because not all centre-left parties are socialist and I suppose we could exclude social democratic parties if necessary. Charles Essie (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support rename and change in focus. It makes more sense than the confusing current name.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Alternative change. If this is going to be moved I'd advocate it to just be called List of anti-capitalist parties with national parliamentary representation. There are parties included which are socialist and not communist, and those which are communist and not socialist. Keeping it to just anti-capitalist parties keeps the range of scope broad and lessens potential ambiguity of which parties should and should not be included. I would not include social democratic parties within this as while social democratic parties are opposed to certain aspects of capitalism which they wish to reform, the vast majority of social democratic parties wish to keep and generally work within a capitalist framework. Helper201 (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that would work because there are political parties that identify as "anti-capitalist" that adhere to far-right ideologies like fascism and Islamism. Charles Essie (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

And if it was to be just anti-capitalist party's what would be the problem with including them also? Helper201 (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see why that would be more useful than an article for socialist parties. Charles Essie (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Because it would allow for a broad scope, thus negating the need for multiple different pages to accommodate different types of anti-capitalist parties. As you mentioned, there are a variety of types. Why negate all of them except for socialist parties? Not to mention, it is possible for a party to be socialist and not anti-capitalist. For example the UK Labour party advocates a degree of democratic socialism when it comes to key industries e.g. water and rail, but does not advocate dismantling or getting rid of capitalism and is not classed as anti-capitalist. Therefore, as you can see the more specific the articles title, the more debatable and controversial it gets. Also, as mentioned there is currently a lack of clarity and ambiguity among the list of parties that are currently included i.e. communist vs socialist (please see my above post). These debates would be lessened and the article more accurate if we left it open to only parties that can be cited as anti-capitalist and have national parliamentary representation. There are also already list pages for Labour Party's and Workers' Party's. A page listing socialist parties and a page listing communist parties could also both be made, although I don't think they are in any way necessary. Helper201 (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. The current scope and title represent a POV that suggests that anti-capitalist and communist are synonyms. This at least has a chance of being an encyclopedic list. Alternatively we could AfD this and if anyone is interested, start an encyclopedic page from scratch. The original title and scope list of far-left parties with parliamentary representation [1] was no more encyclopedic, it just had different problems. Andrewa (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

---

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

As to the section above

How was this deemed as consensus to move when two supported the move and two opposed it? My proposition for an alternative move was because I opposed the move that was suggested. I advocate it be changed back as there was not a consensus for the proposed move. Helper201 (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The Socialist People's Party (DK)

This party, like the ones in Greenland, is no longer anti-capitalist. Thiemann, Per (1. may 2008). "SF har arbejdet for at afskaffe kapitalismen i 50 år gennem en socialistisk revolution. Men partiformand Villy Søvndal er nu klar til at slette en række socialistiske mål fra partiprogrammet". Avisen.dk. Retrieved 05/1/2021. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |access-date= and |date= (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link) --Primake (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

National vs Regional Representation

I noticed there were a few legislative bodies in this article that served only as regional parliaments and not national parliaments, the legislative bodies of: the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, Iraqi Kurdistan, New Caledonia, & Northern Ireland. It's so few that it's probably not worth making a whole other article for them, but maybe they could be separated and added to a smaller list at the bottom of the main article that specifies they're parties with regional parliamentary representation and not national parliamentary representation. I just wanted to see what others thought before doing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geograph2002 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 27 March 2023

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) MaterialWorks (contribs) 21:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

---

• List of socialist parties with national parliamentary representation → List of socialist parties
• List of socialist parties → ?

– According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Non-commercial organizations, a notable political party should have at least a national scope. Any national political party worth their salt has at least representation in the national parliament, so the "with national parliamentary representation" in the title is kinda redundant. It's as if the list was named "List of notable socialist parties". A party with no such representation is likely either a local one (with fringe notability according to the page) or a minor member of a bigger party that's actually a coalition of parties (see WP:BRANCH). Cambalachero (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 01:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: pages with content, such as List of socialist parties, are ineligible to be new titles in move requests unless they, too, are dispositioned. List of socialist parties → ? has been included in this request to meet that requirement. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment a different article is located at the target. That article needs to be moved if this is moved. I suggest that article be called List of parties referred to as the Socialist Party, as that is the scope of the article at the target location (parties that may be referred to as the "Socialist Party" with capitals, and be a set index. -- 65.92.244.249 (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  There already is such an article. Charles Essie (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The notability guide is for articles. Inclusions on lists are not as strict. List of socialist parties of national scope would prevent inclusion of subnational entities. However, what is "national" is vague, is Greenland or Scotland a national entity or a subnational entity? And there are some notable non-national socialist parties, that meet WP:GNG but fails the direct notability quote you indicate, that would also clean the scope of this list as to not include parties that are non-national but that meet GNG. (yes, also avoid the pairing of terms "list of national socialist parties") -- 65.92.244.249 (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• 'Comment there are several socialist parties list articles [2] on Wikipedia. I suggest that "list of socialist parties" become a WP:List of lists instead -- 65.92.244.249 (talk) 02:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose the Democratic_Socialists_of_America do not have real representation in the House of Representatives (they claim five members, but all of them were elected and serve as Democrats... so the two categories are not actually synonymous. Parliamentary representation is quite a higher bar to clear than notability. Red Slash 03:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose—abstractly, consider situations where (1) there is no parliament ; (2) an otherwise notable party is banned from parliament, (3) loses all parliamentary representation in an election, (4) is disbanded, (5) only contests regional elections, or (6) expressly disclaims participation in parliament. Some examples of such political parties: Meretz, Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation, Quebec Liberal Party, Labour Party (Hong Kong), League of Social Democrats, South African Communist Party, Communist Party of India (Maoist). Docentation (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.