Talk:Radical left

message: Radical right redirects to far-right.. is there some reason Radical left doesnt redirect to far-left? Stbalbach 05:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there is. As you can read in the article, Radical Left has also a historical meaning different from far-left. Electionworld 06:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems odd radical left is being disambiged but radical right is not. Radical right could be neo-conservative for example, Im sure there are others. It would also be more useful to have both "radical" go to the same article and be a proper article. This is not how disambig pages are meant to be used, they are navigation aids, not neo-articles. Stbalbach 07:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: disambiguation?

message: I am honestly unsure why we have multiple separate pages for the terms Ultra leftism, Far left, Radical left. Each of the articless explains somewhat redundant history and the fact that the terms are vague (used by different groups to mean somewhat different things).  In other words, the terms are vague and to the extent they have substance it's largely non-evident from the name ("ultra"--what does ultra mean? it's a meaningless intensifier) or non-evident to people who don't use that particular term, and the groups intended to be covered by the term are similar in each set anyway (whether or not they really belong together). "Ultra left" is just never going to grow -- it's basically a meaningless phrase used simply as a pejorative; "radical left" just says it's lumping together anarchists, communists & socialists; and while there's a lot of content in "far left", it's largely redundant with left-wing politics.  I propose that we just merge them all into a single page, redirect the other two terms to the single page, and have one page that defines each separate term. (I'm choosing "radical left" simply because it actually has a specific meaning and "radical" has a specific meaning, unlike "far" or "ultra".) That way we can be much more consistent within discussing each term and its discussions of other terms, and we can take a clear eye at figuring out whether the content currently on far left should be kept on the combined article, or moved into left-wing politics. --lquilter 13:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since wikipedia isn't a dictionary and all the terms are either vage or used pajoritivly, I vote we redirect all of the pages to left-wing politics and merge any usefull info into that page.--JK the unwise 14:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see some merit in keeping a page to group together terms used to describe the various radical left tendencies, distinct from center/liberal left ... not sure of the best way either way, but raising the question.  --lquilter 14:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ultra left should be kept as it is the name of an actual movement (although the detail on its use as a pejorative term should be cut to a disambiguator pointing to far left).  Radical left has pretty much nothing of importance - while our article claims it has a specific meaning, I suspect it will be difficult to find references for that, so it might be better redirected to left-wing politics.  I'd like to keep far left, as it's a common term with a vague definition but lots of potential references to allow an article to explore the concept. Warofdreams talk 15:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Warofdreams that ultra left should be kept separate since it's an article on a specific movement of Marxism, but the discussion of the term as a generic/pejorative one should be moved.  I think radical left should be redirected to far left, which already discusses the ideas in more detail. --Delirium 04:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does agreeing with Delirium make me delirious? ;) But seriously, I have merged (and redirected) Radical left with the Far left article. --Loremaster 04:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weighing in late: Extreme left and far left were right to be merged, and probably radical left too. Ultra leftism needs to keep its seperate page, as it (also) refers to something very specific, as its page makes very clear. A while back, incidentally, I removed all links to ultra left that should have gone to extreme/far left. BobFromBrockley 13:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: And looking at the pejorative uses section of ultra-left, I think it needs to be kept, not moved, as it is clear from the article that ultra-left as a pejorative has a fairly specific use within the far left. BobFromBrockley 13:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Loremaster 14:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have agreement not to merger Ultra Left. I will remove the tag from that page. --Duncan 12:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I also think we have agreement to merge this page into Far left. Is that okay?
=== far left merge is incorrect ===
I disagree with the merge of Radical Left into Far Left and I think we should have a very thorough discussion and a vote on this. This is especially true given that it seems the redirect is done without having first paid attention to the construction of the Far Left article, which according to Wikipedia is very badly done (and which looks it, too), and hasn't been cleaned up or attended to yet. Kiko 15:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Could you give a substantive reason why the merge is incorrect. Do the terms have separate meanings? C mon 16:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, radical left can refer both to liberal left and to far left. --Checco 23:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disambiguation then to radicalism (historical), the far left and parties called radicals of the left? C mon 23:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can live with it, but I still prefer the current version. --Checco 14:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: merge?

message: I disagree with the merge of Radical Left into Far Left and I think we should have a very thorough discussion and a vote on this. This is especially true given that it seems the redirect is done without having first paid attention to the construction of the Far Left article, which according to Wikipedia is very badly done (and which looks it, too), and hasn't been cleaned up or attended to yet. Kiko 15:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you give a substantive reason why the merge is incorrect. Do the terms have separate meanings? C mon 16:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, radical left can refer both to liberal left and to far left. --Checco 23:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disambiguation then to radicalism (historical), the far left and parties called radicals of the left? C mon 23:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can live with it, but I still prefer the current version. --Checco 14:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  far left merge is incorrect 

message: Ultra-leftism was merged into the far left page despite this consensus, and more recently the section was deleted without discussion, so I have re-created the page. Needs some work though. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Ultra-leftism

message: Can we delete it? --Duncan 12:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we should. Except for disambing the danish and french parties, what real content is there. Is there any source for the claim that 'radical left' has any independent meaning, except for 'left that is radical'? We cannot have an article for every imaginable position along the highly contextual left-right-axis (left moderate left, revolutionary left, militant left, populist left, liberal left, etc.). --Soman (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any, any sourcing for the wordings in the present article? I've posted a  tag on it, and if no credible reference pops up, I'd post an afd. --Soman (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is terrible. 

message: Aren't those two philosophies mutually exclusive?  How can "radical left" refer to both simultaneously?
: Depends on which brand of communism.  Anarcho-communism, council communism, communalism, and libertarian municipalism all incorporate some Marxist/communist theory, but for a purely anarchist end.72.78.177.33 (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchist OR Communist? 

message: Kikodawgzzz inappropriately canvassed for support at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics#proposal_over_at_.27radical_left.27_article WikiProject Politics. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it inappropriate, Fifelfoo? How is WikiProject Politics not in the appropriateness loop? Kikodawgzzz (talk) 06:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In this diff you say "I need input from this WikiProject and other similar ones to provide me with the backup I need to push the proposal through."  WP:CANVASS says, "canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate.".  It is normal to notify interested projects.  It is not acceptable to ask editors on such projects to take an opinion on the matter, for instance, by asking for backup to push a proposal through.  Thanks! Fifelfoo (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I shouldn't have added that particular wording; it was impulsive on my part and was not actually meant, now that I think more about it. On the other hand, I am sure that those who disagree will be more than willing to take it upon themselves to offer objections. Do you think I should modify the proposal in order to excise that "take an opinion" wording? I can certainly do that. On a separate note, though, I still notice a tad of hostility in your "voice", and I want to remind you that there is no reason to attack me or my intentions; Wikipedia is a collective and I seek only its betterment, in concert with other editors who want similar betterment. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problem I see is that you have not provided any reliable sources that support the conclusions you have made about the use of terminology.  TFD (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And the main problem I have with article content that should be under Radical Left being at Far Left instead, is that no one over at Far Left has provided any reliable sources that support the conclusions they have made about the use of that terminology, either. It would seem we are at an impasse. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: When at an impasse, search for literature reviews and signed scholarly articles in academic encyclopedia (SAGE, ABC-CLIO, Oxford, Cambridge, etc...) which deal with the state of literature in a field.  You may also want to determine what magisterial survey works exist in the field. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Canvassing issue