Talk:American Left/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Fundamental egalitarian change

I added "fundamental" to Ubikwit's lead. The word "fundamental" is in Buhle's first preface for a reason. It helps to distinguish the left from liberals. Think of the distinction between fundamentalist Christians and Christians for example. That's the type of thing we're talking about with fundamental egalitarianism for the left versus egalitarianism for the general classic liberal tradition. The boundaries are unclear for similar reasons. Flying Jazz (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe "radical equality" could take care of the same concept, but if people are going to think of the first sentence as definition-like, I think it should stay in. Flying Jazz (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I see the aim of making the distinction, but the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, so what is meant by "fundamental" should be described in the main body. There would probably have to be clarification as to the difference with mainstream liberalism. Does Buhle offer any concrete examples that underpin his characteristic? For example, does he suggest modifying the concept of legal personhood for corporations? If there aren't concrete examples, the term sounds kind of peacocky.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Bear in mind too that it is not really a definition but a description. Social scientists do not define the Left, then look for groups that meet the definition. Instead they identify the Left, then look for commonality. A lot of members of Social Democrats, USA, for example would fit few definitions of the Left, but the party is included. TFD (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Your sentence appears redundant. But also with that last sentence seems not exactly contradictory but rather like doubletalk. Why would something be included if it failed to meet the definition? That would mean either the definition is wrong or that it is incorrectly being included.
Definitions are often descriptive. Looking for commonality is indistinguishable from looking for groups that meet a definition because the commonality is typically though the definition. How do you identify the left without a definition or criteria? Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point. The Left exists and social scientists try to find commonality. In the same sense, the Republican Party exists and social scientists attempt to explain what they stand for. But if someone belongs to the Republican Party but holds different views we do not say that they are not a Republican, although we might say they are a Republican in Name Only. And when Democrats act like Republicans we do not add them to the article on Republicans. TFD (talk) 08:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit to lead of article

This edit is being questioned (at my talk page): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Left&diff=648903873&oldid=648762101 I think the current version is better because it doesn't single out social democrats for no apparent reason, and because it is much better written (frankly) than the original version.

  • original version: "The American Left consists of individuals and groups, such as social-democrats, that have sought fundamental egalitarian changes in the economic, political, and cultural institutions of the United States. It refers on to elements with a national scope that believe radical equality can be accommodated into existing capitalist structures as well as socialists, communists and anarchists with international imperatives. Although left-wing ideologies came to the United States in the 19th century, there are no major left-wing political parties in the US."
  • my edit: "The American Left consists of a broad range of individuals and groups that have sought fundamental egalitarian changes in the economic, political, and cultural institutions of the United States. Left-wing ideologies came to the United States in the 19th century, but there are currently no major left-wing political parties in the U.S., although the rank-and-file of the Democratic Party is almost evenly divided between left-of-center liberals and more centrist moderates. Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I added "social-democrats" not to single them out, but because they were the only apparent example of "reformists", as counterposed to traditional left-wing groups with an international dimension to their ideologies. In the present version, the historical dimension is somewhat lacking.
Maybe adding a sentence stating, "Historically, it has encompassed..."--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I was trying to cover that angle by mentioning liberal Democrats. Did you have a different group in mind? Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Just changed "consists" to "has consisted" per Ubikwit's suggestion. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Although it is fine to include different definitions of a subject in the lead, it should explain the topic of the article. It is not clear whether the article is about "individuals and groups that have sought fundamental egalitarian changes" or the 50% of the U.S. that is to the left of the statistical center of the U.S. political spectrum. TFD (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Liberals support anti-poverty programs and advocate progressive taxation (higher tax rates on higher incomes), so they could be considered egalitarian, too. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
We already have an article on modern liberalism in the United States. Incidentally, support of a graduated income tax and a minimal welfare state is held across the political spectrum in the U.S., and by traditional right-wing parties in Europe. Even the Declaration of Independence says, "all men are created equal." You could stick all that in the article, but it makes the scope excessively wide.
Incidentally, I has curious about your last posting. I think you are confusing "social democrats" and "liberal democrats."
TFD (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

AFAICT, there are many "right of centre" folks who are "egalitarian" and I fear the new lead seems remarkably non-utile. (And there are folks on the left who are blatantly "non-egalitarian" as well). As there is no solid perpetual "one size fits all" definition of the political spectrum, what we are left with is on the order of:

The American Left consists of those groups and individuals who have been perceived as being significantly on the left-side of the American political spectrum, which has had varying meanings from time to time. Many of these groups and individuals have sought radical changes in the structure of American society, economy or government.

Because that is about all folks are likely to agree on. Collect (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"divided between left-of-center liberals and more centrist moderates" is self-contradictory

The statement in the introduction saying, "the rank-and-file of the Democratic Party is almost evenly divided between left-of-center liberals and more centrist moderates," citing [1] represents the WP:PRIMARY opinion poll source with some precision, but it is entirely inaccurate because per [2] the demographic center of Americans' political preferences is considerably further to the left than the Democratic party platform, and has been since the New Deal through Kennedy era. We can see how this manifests in [3], [4], and [5], which all show the preferences of elected Democrats far to the right of those in the American middle class, especially since 1973.

Therefore, I propose that the introduction describe the fact that the demographic center of Americans' political preferences is in fact to the left of both major parties, and the term "centrist moderates" not be used to describe the right wing of the Democratic party. EllenCT (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

By definition, 50% of the U.S. population is to the left of the statistical center. That is why it is called the center: because 50% of the population lie to either side. But I do not see what relevance it has to the article. TFD (talk) 07:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't seem contradictory to me. There are clearly two major groups in the DP - Clinton/Obama centrists and the progressives. We should not second guess reliable sources. If you want to add an additional reliably sourced line that expresses a different view, that would be fine. The reason this is worth mentioning is that without it, it appears that there is no support for left of center positions in the U.S., since there are no major left wing parties. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
So you are defining the U.S. Left as Progressivism in the United States, making this article a fork. TFD (talk) 08:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
No one is define it as that. On the contrary, you are defining the left to exclude progressivism. Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Since the Left is part of progressivism in the United States, then defining the Left to include progressivism is defining the Left as progressivism. (If A includes all of B, and B includes all of A, then A=B). TFD (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
No, all of A is not all of B, nor is all of B all of A. (A is a set and B is a set, they over lap but are not equal to each other. Think venn diagram.) Notice you only say part in the begining of the sentence but then jump at the end to say all contradicting yourself. But its good to hear you say that the left is part of progressiveness. You're evolving your position. Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I never said the Left was separate from progressivism and the article actually explains the involvement of the Left in progressivism. But I note the list of "notable figures" now includes Franklin Roosevelt, the founder of modern U.S. liberalism, which is redefining the Left to include modern U.S. liberalism. TFD (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The sentence is not about the U.S. population, it's about the Democratic Party. Do you have any sources showing that the preferences of the Democratic Party are to the left of the population as a whole? EllenCT (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
"Progressive" can have different meanings. The more common, modern meaning is either synonymous with "liberal" or is a more populist left-of-center position. The historical meaning is a "good government" reformist, like Teddy Roosevelt or Robert LaFollette. The article you linked to is about historical progressivism. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
There is an article called Progressivism in the United States. Can you explain how you think this article is something different from that article. TFD (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
As I thought I just explained, that article is about the historical "good government" progressivism of Teddy Roosevelt and Robert LaFollette - a non-partisan, anti-corruption movement. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders

Is there any reason why there is a subsection for Bernie Sanders in the section about socialist parites?[6] The subsections now are Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA), Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), Socialist Party USA (SPUSA),Socialist Alternative, and Bernie Sanders. One of these things is not like the other.

Also none of the sources provided support the text that he was the "only openly democratic socialist candidate to be elected to national office." Meyer London and Victor Berger were elected as congressmen for the Socialist Party of America. Vito Marcantonio was elected on the Labor Party ticket and Congressman Laguardia claimed to be a socialist too. No doubt there have been others.

And when using a term that can have different meanings, in this case "democratic socialist", it must be defined before calling someone that.

TFD (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


No individual should be named in his or her own section as though he formed his own party. Each claim should be sourced as a claim within a party or group. Alas - I fear defining "democratic socialist" is not an easy task - few would choose to be called "anti-democratic" in this day and age. Collect (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, we can change it to, "only openly democratic socialist to be RECENTLY elected to national office". You can edit material without deleting an entire section and all the supporting reliable sources! This article is entitled "American left" not "Political parties of the American left". Bernie is clearly notable and relevant to this article.　Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Title of one of the cited reliable sources is "Bernie Sanders: America's No1 socialist makes his move into the mainstream -Vermont senator, for years a political exile, insists his left-wing beliefs chime with Americans far more than people think". Thus we have a reliable source calling him both a socialist and left-wing. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
If you are questioning Sanders' years in office, there is a wikilink to his Wikipedia article to support that. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
If you find the concept of democratic socialism puzzling, there is a Wikipedia article that can help you here -> Democratic socialism. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Did you read the article "democratic socialism" you are recommending? "Some forms of democratic socialism overlap with social democracy, while other forms reject social democratic reformism in favor of more revolutionary methods, and overlap with Revolutionary Socialism." Do you think it is informative to readers to let them guess which form describes Sanders? Also your sources do not say he is a democratic socialist merely that he uses the description. And he did not run as a socialist or run on a socialist platform or sit as a socialist, things you neglected to mention. TFD (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Reliable sources are calling him a socialist, so I referred to him as a socialist. I mentioned that he is officially an Independent. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Is it necessary to have defined with in a single source what kind of socialist he considers himself and people consider him for him to be considered be? For a specific section if a specific socialist subgroup is not available would sourcing his record qualify or would that be only opinion?
"*A could be considered *B due to supporting *C as *group*D does." Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
You did not refer to him as a "socialist" but as a "democratic socialist." So you need to explain what you mean by that. And to show the relevance to the article you need to explain what that has to do with his political career. Did he run as a socialist? Incidentally, self-identification is insufficient as a source. TFD (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require editors to do original research - we are simply supposed to quote reliable sources. I've supplied multiple reliable sources that call Sanders a socialist. As I noted above, I changed "democratic socialist" to "socialist" when I restored the deleted section, to better reflect the sources. I should have been more explicit when explaining the change, but you can see from the current version of the article that is has been changed to "socialist". Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Only your third source, The Guardian, says that he is a socialist, the others say he calls himself one. So you should delete the first two sources. And don't you think creating a new section called "American Left#Left candidates running as independents is excessive, since your third source calls him "America's solitary successful socialist"? Best to put the mention of him, if it is worth mentioning, somewhere else. TFD (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
In either case, he is either identified, or reported as being self-identified, as a socialist by reliable sources, therefore he can be labeled a socialist in the article. Do you have a reliable source that says he is not a socialist? To address your second point, you yourself said that there were other socialists who have been elected as independents in the past, so it is certainly possible that it can happen again. I think your constant hair-splitting here is bordering on trolling. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
You appear to claim Sanders is sui generis a "socialist" not fitting into any current group listed. Absent a connection to a major group, he does not warrant any section of his own - just as we do not cover every other soi disant "socialist" in the world, which would have included Saddam Hussein inter alia in the articles on word socialism. Collect (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
That's a good point and probably explains why American Dreamers: How the Left Changed a Nation, published in 2011, does not even mention him. If a book about the American Left does not mention him, then how does balancing aspects justify a mention, let alone a separate section? TFD (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not claiming anything - reliable sources are. A topic does not have to be mentioned by every possible reliable source to be notable. Sanders does not have his own section - he has a sub-section under the section "Left candidates running as independents".Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

He is the only entry at all in that section - did you miss that? Where a section has only one entry, and no material other than that single entry, it is logical to say the section is about that person. Sorry -- the "he is only one part of a larger section" might work if it were not that he is the entire content of that entire section. Collect (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

How can an article about the American Left omit the most high profile American leftist in the country? That is simply crazy! He's a U.S. Senator, for cryin' out loud! Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not know if he is the most high profile leftist today, there's Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky for example. Nor is he the most high profile leftist in U.S. history, yet you give him his own section. He did not even run as a leftist, he ran as an independent. It seems overkill. There is not section for Jean Kirkpatrick for example and she was ambassador to the UN and considered running for president. TFD (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Neither Michael Moore nor Noam Chomsky are politicians. He is a U.S. Senator and multiple reliable sources describe him as a socialist. Your opinion and my opinion are not relevant. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Even if he were still just mayor of Burlington, VT (which I should add) he would still be notable. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC) If you like, you can add other socialists who ran as independents to this section, just leave Bernie at the bottom since he is the most recent.Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not sufficient that you think it is important, but that sources about the topic consider it important. I do not think they do. While it is no doubt significant to the article about Sanders, do you have any sources that say it is important to this subject? TFD (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, one of the cited reliable sources refers to Sanders as "America's No. 1 Socialist": http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/21/bernie-sanders-socialist-vermont-interview Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus is that he should be added. AlbinoFerret 22:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Is Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator from Vermont, previously U.S. Representative from Vermont, previously mayor of Burlington, Vermont, a notable enough person (as an American socialist politician) to be mentioned in the article American Left in a section entitled "Left candidates running as independents"? Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Cited reliable sources:


  • No The article is not about individual candidates who have been called "socialist" but about the history of individuals and groups collectively described as "Left" in United States history. Sanders as an individual running as an independent (i.e. not on a Socialist Party ticket) may be personally interesting, but not of sufficient importance to warrant this listing when far more notable persons elected to office using the actual term "Socialist" are not included. [7] noting that his official biography does not even use the term "Socialist" in it. If he does not self-describe as "Socialist" in his official biography, then we ought not do so here as his defining political characteristic. Collect (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes The Des Moines Register article above calls him a democratic socialist, and the other cited reliable sources call him a socialist. The Guardian calls him "America's No. 1 Socialist". He is a possible candidate for President in 2016. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes I don't understand this apparent belief that someone needs to be a member of a political party to be listed as an example. Bernie Sanders is probably currently the most notable socialist in the United States, and absolutely deserves a mention. I not so certain about where to include him, and I'm not a fan of Ghost of Nemo's proposed sub-heading, but Sanders should be there. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No The RfC is misleading. Sanders is given his own section, the only person in the article to have one. I could find no mention of him in any books about the U,S. Left. Notably he did not run on a socialist platform or as a socialist. AFAIK Sanders is the only person to self-identify as a socialist and run as an independent. That is no more significant to this article than if he had run as a Democrat, Republican or Socialist. TFD (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No as per TFD BlueSalix (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sure inclusion is as yet justified but would it not make more sense in the timeline section than where the previous edits have gone if anything were to be included?SPACKlick (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, one problem with this article is that it has two foci - it is not entitled "History of the American Left" but "American Left" so we need to mention current info as well as historical info. If we mention Sanders in the timeline, and have no section for Independent leftists, it would be easy for readers to assume there are no currently active Independent leftists. Not all of the currently active parties and politicians are mentioned in the timeline either. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    • As far as sources allow, all existing left-wing parties are mentioned. The reality is though that they played a far greater role in the U.S. in the past than today. For example, the presidential candidate of the Socialist Party of America received almost 1 million votes in 1912, while the candidate for the Socialist Party USA received 4,000 votes in 2012. That compares with Canada, Mexico, and the UK where Socialists came in second place in the last elections. It's like the temperance movement - something historically important but less relevant today. TFD (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. As The Guardian, a respected British newspaper has noted correctly, Bernie Saunders is America's No. 1 Socialist. The reliable sources are there. If you search the newspapers like the Manchester Union, you'll find plenty of stories about Bernie. He's very well known in northern New England for his socialism. He's also a great guy. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes per The Guardian. Reading the article, they seem to be going on and on about his socialism. The very title "No1 socialist" should have indicated an obvious 'yes'. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course not The current article is a risible facade of subjective historical analysis with no currency. It misuses outdated terminology by making selective use of particular references that establish an obvious neo-conservative, ahistorical, unacademic point of view with regard to language. The article is a joke that portrays the American Left as being always to the left of any popular, elected, public official. According to the article's point of view, Bernie Sanders cannot be a part of the American Left because the American Left is always to the left of the American voter. If the voters seem to have elected someone from the Left, they really have not. By the article's definitions, the Left must always be to the left of the voters, so if voters move to the left, as they have in Vermont, their elected officials are now mainstream and the American Left has moved further left. If Bernie Sanders and other American populists and progressives were in this article then it might be taken seriously. By leaving him out, the obvious irrational nature of the article as neo-conservative agitprop remains more plain to a sane reader of Wikipedia. Leave the article as a damaged joke. It's too far gone to rescue. Flying Jazz (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I am changing my vote to Conditional Yes in light of recent changes to the article's lead and scope. My condition would be to perform at least a partial overhaul of the article first instead of just plopping Sanders in there. I felt that it was important to portray a living politician in his correct historical and ideological context instead of just dumping him into an article that misrepresents reality in so many ways. But those feelings were too strong to put into words in a collegial way or even to fully understand myself. Hopefully, this temporary drama will lead to future collegiality. Perhaps the article is not too far gone to rescue after all. Flying Jazz (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No (summoned by bot) - Agree with Collect's comments. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, while I am leaning to supporting Collect's and TFD's reasonings, I think MOS:IDENTITY applies here. How does the subject of this RfC describe themselves? If Senator Sanders describes themselves as a member of the Left, so be it. If not, than why include him here? We can verify that others view the subject as a member, but would that be giving those sources undue weight?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes While I tend to agree with Flying Jazz (talk · contribs)'s characterization of the article as "neocon agitprop", having discovered misrepresentations of sources with only a quick check, I don't think we should leave it at that. Hopefully the closer will note the facetious irony to FJ's vote/comment...
@RightCowLeftCoast: All one has to do is check the lead of the Bernie Sanders article for sources on that:

Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist,[1][2] and has praised Scandinavian-style social democracy.[3][4]

  1. ^ Lisa Lerer (July 16, 2009). "Where's the outrage over AIG bonuses?". The Politico. Retrieved April 19, 2010.
  2. ^ Michael Powell (November 6, 2006). "Exceedingly Social But Doesn't Like Parties". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 26, 2012.
  3. ^ Sanders, Bernie (May 26, 2013). What Can We Learn From Denmark? The Huffington Post. Retrieved August 19, 2013.
  4. ^ Sasha Issenberg (January 9, 2010). Sanders a growing force on the far, far left. Boston Globe. Retrieved August 24, 2013.
    • “You go to Scandinavia, and you will find that people have a much higher standard of living, in terms of education, health care, and decent paying jobs.'’ – Bernie Sanders

What I've just done is add a subsection to the History section for "2000 to present" and included the Bernie Sanders info there along with other recent info. Perhaps this is a solution which everyone will find acceptable, since we seem unable to agree on having a separate section for socialists who run as independents. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes because Sanders is often the only representative of the demographic center, let alone the left, in national politics, as per [8], [9], [10], and [11]. EllenCT (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2015 (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.

RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus is that it is not the correct definition if it cant be found in reliable sources. This is a policy based argument and carries more weight than non policy based arguments. AlbinoFerret 22:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Is

The American Left consists of individuals and groups that have sought egalitarian changes in the economic, political, and cultural institutions of the United States

a correct and proper definition for the article American Left? 12:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

discussion

As far as I can tell, two editors are proposing (insisting on) the use of this definition which is fond in no reliable sources. The prior version for quite some time (since 2011)was

The American Left consists of individuals and groups, including socialists, communists, social-democrats and anarchists, that have sought fundamental change in the economic, political, and cultural institutions of the United States

And the original version from 2010

The American Left consists of socialists, communists, anarchists and related organizations, political movements and trade unions. Collect (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes I think the labor movement, civil rights movement, anti-war movement, equal rights movement and the New Deal are all arguably manifestiations of the American Left, so I think describing these and left political parties as "egalitarian" is more appropriate. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue, of course, is not what editors want. It is what the reference says. Here is the plain logic involved:

  1. An encyclopedia on a topic shows both an old preface and a new preface
  2. The old preface says "The term means X but not Y, and it blablabla 1, 2, and 3."
  3. The new, updated preface says something different. Now it says "The term means X and Y, but our encyclopedia is only about X."

A correct citation of the reference would need to refer to what the authors of the citation said in both prefaces. The term means X and Y, and it blablabla 1, 2, and 3. Because we are a general encyclopedia, our article is about X and Y even though the author said it was only about X in their first preface. Detach yourself from the content, just cite the reference, and stop thinking about what you want to see. This is what we do here. The text is up there on the talk page for all to see. Try to figure out what X, Y, 1, 2, and 3 are on your own. Combine them in a way that cites the author. That's it. Nothing more. Except this: Pay attention to text for god's sake or you should not be here. That applies to things that we write to each other too. Flying Jazz (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

What is the actual scholarly basis for the new wording? Or just an editorial position that Wikipedia should assign this brand new definition sua sponte? Collect (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Here it comes....brace yourself...I might get in trouble for saying this but it really isn't that bad considering some of the other things that are said in Wikipedia...and this type of thing has never happened to me before at Wikipedia...it's very rare, but here is is anyway. I don't know if I'll enjoy it or regret it but here it comes anyway: Begone, troll. You have no powers here. Flying Jazz (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
That is one of the least helpful posts on an RfC in my recall. Collect (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
What is the purpose of this RfC? An attempt to preserve the status quo?
Why is the entire lead not included, instead of taking the first sentence out of context? That is not neutral wording...--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The RfC is absolutely neutral and asks how we should delimit the article, and whether this new version accurately reflects definitions used by scholars. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not seeing that. In the version I copy edited, I basically streamlined the presentation and integrated like categories (according to "international imperatives", etc.) in an NPOV manner, in conjunction with the elimination of some unsourced and misrepresented material in the main body.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
This will be my final post on any US politics article or talk page for 24 months. At Talk:American_Left#Encyclopedia_of_the_American_Left_2nd_ed._1998_verification_failure_.28use_of_first_edition.27s_preface.29 are Buhle's prefaces. We cite Buhle. Use Buhle's prefaces. Buhle is an encyclopedia. WP:Scope gives the sound advice that encyclopedias are good for defining scope. Reread Buhle. Assign A, B, C, !, 2, 3 to the words and concepts. Write the lead. If you do it well, you'll get something extraordinarily close to what I got. Anyone who argues otherwise is not writing an encyclopedia. That's it for me. Too much of teh stoopid here for me to continue. Bye! Flying Jazz (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, now I see what the argument is. I think that the article should be inclusive, describing both radicals and reformists. In fact, in some cases (e.g., McCarthyism) it has been an objective of right-wingers to associate pragmatic minded Americans of affiliation with international communism, etc., as a strategy to discredit them as unpatriotic, etc.
Sanders would appear to fit the reformist category.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikapedia is not a dictionary. While the lead should and does point out that the term "left" can have different meanings, the purpose of the lead is to explain the topic of the article. The current topic meets notability and a Google books search for "american left" shows numerous books about this topic.[12] While Flying Jazz has complained that three of the books found in the first ten hits which were written by Daniel J. Flynn and David Horowitz are not reliable sources, the fact is that none of the books define the topic differently.
The issue is what the scope should be. There is already an article called Modern liberalism in the United States. That they are often called "The Left", particularly by conservatives, is no reason to effectively delete this article.
Regarding Sanders, no one has questioned whether he falls within the scope of this article, the only issue was his significance. I was opposed to the suggestion that he should be singled out as the only person in the article to have his own section, which would make him the most important person in the history of the American Left. Even when only the current Left is considered, Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore and others are certainly as significant.
TFD (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
We do have to be inclusive, per RS and NPOV.
Maybe a section on notable individuals currently active or something along those lines, including Chomsky and Moore along with Sanders. I don't think that would be recentism. Maybe even a list would do, but a brief description of respective issues and stances might be good.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I echo User:Collect's sentiment. What is the scholarly basis or the RS(s) used to define "American left"? This source, for example, uses it refer to labor-based politics. That seems to be what this article deals with in large part. Perhaps we should add a note in the lead clarifying that this article deals with traditional left-wing political movements in the United States and not mainstream American liberal and progressive causes (with a redirecting link). --Precision123 (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2015 (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.

Article is Bizarre, Incorrect

The statement "there are no major left-wing political parties in the US" is quite absurd and seems to be backed by one opinion and a one-sided economic definition of "left-wing". Pure marxism and communism and socialism are expressions of fiscal left, but the US is dominated by social leftism in both of its mainstream parties. The US is very "left-wing" socially compared to nearly all of the world and "left-wing" fiscally compared to still most. America's often inherent racism means that Americans only compare themselves to western Europe, and that since western Europe is further left than the US, then the US is "right-wing". However, the US is considered extremely far-left in most of the world that Americans completely ignore politically, for example on a continent named Asia. Furthermore, the definition of "left-wing" in this article seems to be conventionally incorrect. the origin of the terms left/right wing are likely from the Napoleonic era and denote a distinction between those siding with royal traditions (right) and those against (left). In more modern times "left wing" has come to refer to people who favor merchant leadership (aka liberals) combined with sociological nihilism (in the US this describes precisely the Democratic party and quite closely the Republican party). Right wing on the other hand in most of the world refers to collective nationalist movements such as national socialism and fascism, but in America refers to those favoring merchant leadership (aka liberals) who still acknowledge old-world biological and cultural empiricism in the form of mores. Or in a briefer summary: The article seems to have invented an arbitrary definition of left-wing which is conveniently as extreme as possible then proceeds to state using a single opinion as a source that there is no left-wing presence in American politics, when in reality, American politics is entirely dominated by the left under traditional and global definitions. This is an attempt to depict US politics as "centrist" despite the majority of the world being situated far to the right of the US, which is one of the most left-wing nations on the planet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.167.111 (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

No support is provided for these claims. -- 184.189.217.91 (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Unsupported attributions

"Some writers[who?] ascribe this to the failures of socialist organization and leadership, some to the incompatibility of socialism and American values, and others to the limitations imposed by the American Constitution.[Lipset, Seymour Martin and Marks, Gary. It didn't happen here: why socialism failed in the United States. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 2001.]"[13]

An editor tagged this sentence explaining, "Statements such as "some writers" "most experts" "various academics" should be clarified."

"Unsupported attributions" says, "Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves...."

Obviously it would be original research for editors to read through the literature and determine the weight of various opinions. However, experts are able to do that. In this case the main author was Seymour Martin Lipset who was, among other things, a former president of the American Political Science Association.

TFD (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Public office holders section

Do we really want to list every elected progressive public office holder in the United States in this article, including local school board members? If so, will we do this just for current office holders, or have sections for those elected each year? This is all unsourced information by the way. Do we need graphs to show there is one elected official on a board or council? What do other editors think? Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The articles shows lists of elected officials that are members of the Green Party of the USA, Socialist Alternative, Socialist Party USA, the Vermont Progressive Party, and the Working Families Party. Aside from the fact it is unclear all these parties are left-wing, the information is better placed in articles related to each party. TFD (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"far to the right of central preferences" seems clearly POV

"because while the Democratic Party is almost evenly divided between liberals and moderates,[4] elected Democrats and the Democratic Party's platform are to the right of the American population's central preferences."

This does include citations but its clearly an opinion and the cited editorial pieces don't support the assertion and the research pieces directly contradict the assertion. While asserting the American public is secretly left wing to liberal might might work for propaganda, it isn't reflected by reality (and I say that as an American liberal). I think it should be removed. PantsB (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Removed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American Left. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on American Left. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Notable figures

While Wallace certainly had Communist support during his run for the presidency in 1948 and praised the Soviet Union, he was not actually a member and always supported liberalism and private ownership of industry. (Whether or not his actual policies would have helped or hurt what he supported is beside the point.) There were many Democratic and Republican politicians who had left-wing supporters, beginning with Lincoln. But I don't find it helpful to add them all to the list. TFD (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, the Progressive Party (United States, 1948) was clearly a left wing third party and was certainly to the left of the contemporary Democratic Socialists of America and even more so, far to the left of the anticommunist Social Democrats USA, both of which are part of this article. Wallace did not just have "left wing supporters", he was a prominent figure on the American left of his own accord, and belongs on this list, in my judgment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Cullen328, According to Henry Wallace's 1948 Presidential Campaign and the Future of Postwar Liberalism, pp. 1-2, there are two ways of viewing the party. (1) It was a project of the Communist Party that duped Wallace into being its candidate. (2) It was founded by New Deal liberals upset about Truman's supposed betrayal of the New Deal and his hawkishness. But whichever side one takes, it doesn't mean Wallace was a leftist. Here's what Wallace said during the campaign: "Any Communist who supports the independent ticket will be supporting our program not the Communist program. I am not a Communist, Socialist or Marxist of any description but I find nothing criminal in the advocacy of differing economic and social ideas, however much I differ with them." (Democrats and Progressives, p. 65).[14]
Furthermore, the plaftform was not to the left of the Democratic Party but on the left of the party. Wallace's running mate was liberal Democratic Senator Glen Hearst Taylor, who complained Truman had stolen his platform. In fact the platform was not particularly radical except for its views on relations with the USSR.
Do you have any reliable sources that say Wallace himself was left-wing, rather than just more left-wing than Truman and most Democrats?
TFD (talk) 05:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Wallace voluntarily and eagerly led the ticket of an overtly left wing, pro-Soviet presidential campaign that got 2.4% of the vote, far more than Jill Stein got. He belongs on this list as much, if not more, than figures like Michael Harrington, A.J. Muste, Irving Howe, Cesar Chavez and especially Tom Kahn, who was a dedicated anti-Communist activist whose mentor was George Meany, of all people. Why keep them on this list while removing Wallace? Plus, FDR is still on the list, for some reason. What are the inclusion criteria for this list, anyway? Also, how can you be "more left wing" than Democrats without being left wing? How is that logical? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Here is an article in Slate that calls Wallace "one of the most lionized left-wing politicians of the 20th century". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
This article in The New Yorker describes a 1942 Wallace speech as "rousingly leftist" and describes his political philosophy in 1948 as "far left internationalism". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Here is a book called 1948: Harry Truman's Improbable Victory and the Year that Transformed America's Role in the World that describes Wallace as Truman's "embittered left-wing predecessor as vice president". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The Slate article also calls William Jennings Bryan left-wing. I agree that the left-wing of the Democratic Party is often call left-wing, in fact left-wing is frequently used to refer to all Democrats or liberals. But that's outside the topic of the article. I thought I had removed Roosevelt (see my edit summary)[15] but will remove him now. Roosevelt and Wallace are the only two people on the list who were not socialists, social democrats, communists, anarchists or anarcho-syndicalists and who supported capitalism and liberalism (at least they said they did). TFD (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Are the sources I provided insufficient to conclude that Wallace should be on the list, The Four Deuces? If so, why specifically? And why keep the others I mentioned?Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders - democratic socialist or social democrat

An IP changed the description of Sanders from democratic socialist to social democrat saying, "For Bernie Sanders, changed "democratic socialist" to "social democratic" due to the fact that Sanders does not openly advocate public ownership of all means of production."[16] However, these terms are normally used interchangeably, so we should use the one used in sources. TFD (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

References 1 and 2

I can't see where these references support the articles's first statement. Can someone identify why those sources are used to support the definition sentence? - Shiftchange (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It is always a problem when editors add new material and change sources so that the two are no longer in sync. I replaced the lead with an earlier version. TFD (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 18 February 2020

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) BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


American Left → Socialism in the United States – This title most accurately describes the article's current scope. A person looking for information on the American Left might also be looking information on Modern liberalism or Progressivism in the United States, they're currently finding an article that 95% about Socialism. While a person looking for information on Socialism in the 21st century United States is currently getting History of the socialist movement in the United States.

Renaming the article as proposed, and converting American Left into a dab page with three primary entries, solves both problems. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is the article's name capitalized? Briefly scanning sources, the phrase is usually "American left" when used in sentence case. American Left suggests that this is a specific group or defined movement. Grayfell (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2020 (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.

Requested move 29 March 2021

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. After extended time for discussion, there is no consensus for a move at this time. A potential move to Left-wing politics in the United States can be raised as a separate discussion. BD2412 T 18:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

American Left → American left – Per MOS:ISMCAPS (and in line with the left-wing politics article and the titles of similar articles, e.g., Christian left). 24.77.42.223 (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). – Ammarpad (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • It doesn't come under any of the cases mentioned in that section. It does however come under the lead of MOS:CAPS: "words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." TFD (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It is absolutely covered by MOS:ISMCAPS: Doctrines, ideologies, philosophies, theologies, theories, movements, methods, processes, systems or "schools" of thought and practice, and fields of academic study or professional practice are not capitalized, unless the name derives from a proper name Vpab15 (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • As I said, it doesn't come under any of those categories. And capitalization is rarely if ever used for any of those categories in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Name one of the things it falls under in MOS:ISMCAPS.

TFD (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned not one but four things: doctrine, philosophy, movement, ideology. Vpab15 (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
My apologies. Left-wing doctrine, philosophy and ideology (assuming we can refer to one at all) is called leftism, not the left.
Nor does it meet the definition of a movement, which can be defined as "a group of people with a shared purpose who create change together."[23] The article Political movement doesn't mention the Left. It would be more accurate to say that political movements can be left-wing or supported by the left. Note too that political movements don't have an ideology but concentrate on specific objectives such as equal rights for a specific minority, although it can have a broader range of goals, such as the progressive movement.
Per consistency, we also have the British Left and French Left, and Old Left and New Left. And we generally use capitalization in Left–right political spectrum and Left-wing politics.
TFD (talk)

Oppose requested move; support move to Left-wing politics in the United States. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2021 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tery Turchie Quote

I do not know if this should be there at least the way it is because it you look at his statement he claims the same people the FBI went after now control congress, but this article really is not about the Democratic Party, but more left-wing groups that do not control congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104dragon (talk • contribs) 18:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Political currents and bogus nature of article

What is a political current? The term appears in this article as a headline. Notice the article lead contains few if any key facts about the "American Left". Why not? Because its not a thing. It doesn't exist. Its not real. This article is bogus. Its too vague. That is why it doesn't appear on the US navbox and why the article fabricates something called political currents. The debate about the name or creating a redirection or creating a disamb. page should continue. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This comment looks a lot more "bogus" than the article to me. Like FBI psyop "bogus". Dvdkrz (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Left/Archive_3&oldid=1180053977"