Talk:The Left (Luxembourg)

formation...

1) This is not a party, rather a political group to which individuals or members of parties can adhere. 2) Whether the group is socialist is debatable. The simplest would be to say it's a leftist anti-capitalist group. 3) It was founded by individuals, many but by far not all of them members of existing political parties. Today the majority are not members of any parties. 4) Before the 2004 elections, after requesting a fixed quota of CP members (by far exceeding their representation) on the election lists a number of communist party members left the movement and the CP ran on a separate platform. Yet a number of other CP members remained with "déi lenk" and were later expelled from the CP (along with the CP's front runners in the City of Luxembourg elections).

It might be notable to mention that in 1999 André (Aender) Hoffmann was elected to parliament. Less then a year later, after re-elections in Esch-Alzette Hoffmann ceded his parliamentary seat to Aloyse (Ally) Bisdorf of the CP. At mid term then according to "déi lénk"'s statutes (requesting all mandates to be rotated) Bisdorf ceded the seat to Serge Urbany.

I would recommend someone create biographical articles on Hoffmann and Bisdorf (as well as René Urbany) as they are/were three of the most important personalities of the communist party of Luxembourg as well as the new left and left today.

Lastly, obviously I'm not neutral on these issues which is why I won't modify the actual article and just post some comments here. I am a member of "déi lénk" and have been almost since the start. I've run in three elections for the group and will do so again if asked. I also was not a member of any party before this (though I had voted for the CP in one elections and the greens in several others). The four points raised above all stem from my personal experience (while I was not at the founding congress I have read the original statutes and talked to numerous members who were present...). Enough said about that, after all I'm not here to promote myself (and under pseudonymn anyhow).

--Caranorn 14:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Responding to myself here, but wanted to leave a record. I felt I had to correct some of the errors I previously mentionned. I left the mention of socialist unchanged as it probably covers the majority of members. But I had to change the party part (public talk of Déi Lénk being a party was one of the reasons for the withdrawal of a large number of KPL members). Founded by individuals not parties. I could also have added that many of the founders were labour union members and labour union functionaries (particularly the rail road union, to a lesser degree the OGBL (I note there are no articles on local unions yet, I'm not too knowledgeable about their history so can't write those, at least not alone)). Just corrected the 2004 split slightly but not going into too much detail. I also added how it came that we had 3 MP's with a single seat (but again not too much detail as this was a statutary issue). I will try to write short biographical articles about Hoffman and Bisdorff (maybe also Urbany, though maybe a single article about the Urbany clan (Dominique Urbany MP and minister, René Urbany MP, Janine Frisch city councillor and Serge Urbany MP (and that doesn't mention René Urbany's son, wife, sister, Janine Frisch's husband, son and daughter (and I certainly forgot some, particularly as I don't know those who remained with the KPL)), though I will probably be going from personnal interviews.

If anyone has questions or suggestions let me know. As I already said I at first intended not to edit this page at all as I'm a member of Déi Lénk. But I could not leave the errors either.--Caranorn 21:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Logo

What's the meaning of the logo? -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It is the same as for the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia. The two red cherries is a symbol, which I think stems back from the Paris Commune, symbolizing equality. --Soman (talk) 09:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- I've heard of a number of them (including the rose), but never that one... AnonMoos (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 3 February 2015

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: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 21:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

---

The Left (Luxembourg) → Déi Lénk – "Déi Lénk" doesn't really translate to "The Left" but to "The Lefts" (meaning Leftists), which however sounds awkward. International media from Al Jazeera, BBC, Le Monde, Tageblatt, has however referred to the party as "Déi Lénk" or "Dei Lenk", and in its non-Luxembourgian-language press releases, the party also doesn't translate its name. We should therefore use the original name as title while giving a translation attempt in the first line of the article's intro. PanchoS (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Strongly oppose: The party's name in mainstream languages (Die Linke in German and La Gauche in French) are directly an unambiguously translatable to "The Left", even sharing a German-language name with The Left (Germany). Also, the other articles on the main parliamentary political parties in Luxembourg use English translations of the native language party names as the article titles, and there is no strong argument for why The Left should be an exception to the rule.--Autospark (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Strongly oppose: How many English-speaking readers would understand what "Déi Lénk" means? The current name of the article is totally uncontroversial as it uses English and specifies the country in which the party is active. Generally speaking I think that articles' names should serve primarily readers, who definitely benefit from the use of English. Finally, there is a number of articles on parties named "The Left": articles' names not in English should be adopted only as strongly-motivated exceptions. In a nutshell, I totally agree with Autospark. --Checco (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Strongly oppose – Per WP:UE, let's stick to titles that people can understand and pronounce. There is no reason to make a mess with foreign languages in the English Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 23:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Whether "strongly" opposed or "thought" to be so and so: the opinions you are stating are of merely subjective nature and don't follow our most central naming rule given in WP:COMMONNAME stating that the most commonly used name is to be preferred.
  WP:UE which you are referring to is only about anglicized vs. local spellings, while this here is about a totally different thing: "The Left" is a translation of "Déi Lénk", which is neither predominantly used by media nor by the party itself, and in this case it even is an outright wrong translation.
  --PanchoS (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, which overrides all the arguments above. We don't translate Likud as Consolidation (political party), because that's not how it's commonly known. Whether English speakers understand it or not is irrelevant, as the translation is usually included straight after the name in the introduction. Number 57 17:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • In addition, the proposed move is also in line with WP:NCPARTY, the naming convention for political parties, so another policy-based reason for the move. Number 57 12:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Your comparison is flawed. "Likud" is clearly an established name in English-language sources, both mainstream media and expert literature, and the English translation "Consolidation" is totally unusual, even in English-language texts. This is clearly not the case with "Dei Lenk": anecdotal evidence of which is not common usage. --RJFF (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support move to Dei Lenk per Number 57, the common English name in reliable sources seems to fairly clearly be this title. I'm not seeing the diacritics so much in English sources, however, they mostly do seem to use plain "Dei Lenk". They don't, however, call it "The Left". None of the opposes here have given any consideration to that common name issue.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: I am not convinced that either "Déi Lénk" or "Dei Lenk" is the established name for this party in reliable English-language sources. French (Le Monde) and German-language Luxembourgish (Tageblatt) sources are irrelevant because we determine our article titles according to common usage in English-language sources. The BBC chart lists all parties' names in Luxembourgish, while we use English translations for all of them (in accordance with the "use English" guideline). "The Left" is used by Tom Lansford (ed.). Political Handbook of the World 2014. p. 860.; Gemma Loomes. Party Strategies in Western Europe. p. 136.; Sascha Wagener. The Left in Luxembourg (PDF). pp. 33–40. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) (probably the most in-depth article dealing with this party that is available in English) and the NSD European Election Database. --RJFF (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Btw, @PanchoS: the party itself uses "La Gauche" and not "Les Gauchistes" as its official French name, so translating it as "The Left" (instead of "The Leftists") is not so wrong as you claim. --RJFF (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

---

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

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Lesser coat of arms of Luxembourg.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)