Talk:The Left (Germany)

Socialism Mid‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Germany High‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: Political parties

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance).

"Trivia Section"[edit]

I think, that kind of "trivia"-section has nothing to do with trivia but is a politically statement to critizise the party. I am from Germany, but don´t support "The Left", but the Trivia could get into a "Critizism" section or in the article about Oskar Lafontaine - also as critizism, but not so called "trivia". I will delete that kind of trivia section because of that reasons. You could also make a "trivia" section about the Democratic Party of the United States and whrite "Althoug the Democratic Party supported slavery in the 19th Century, now they have the first black presidential candidate Barack Obama." But that where in the actuell context no kind of trivia but critizism. --80.133.190.3 (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you might have noticed: The democratic party has nothing in common with this party and slavery was more than 100 years ago. I think it is important to mention that the leader of the party just criticized it that heavily only few years ago. Would for example Bill Clinton have supported slavery in the 90ties, it would have certainly found a place in the article of the democratic party. Under this circumstances and because Mr Lafontaine did this very often in the 90ties, I think it should be left in the article. Please don't remove references, you may change the text but leave the references in. Reachtests (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see Wikipedia:Trivia sections --Soman (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of Name?[edit]

Is it really appropriate to translate the name "Die Linke" into English? 172.174.54.138 09:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't call the SPD "Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands" we call it the Social Democratic Party of Germany. We don't call the FDP the "Freie Demokratische Partei", we call it the Free Democratic Party. More tellingly, we don't call the Greens "Bündnis '90/Die Grünen", we call it Alliance '90/The Greens, and still more tellingly, we didn't name the article for that predecessor party "Die Linke.PDS", we called it The Left Party.PDS. It's just precedent. Oh, and not to mention: it's policy on the English Wikipedia to use English in article titles. Find me an English-language news article about this party calling "Die Linke." and I might change my mind. Lockesdonkey 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The official title is "Die Partei DIE LINKE" ("The Party THE LEFT"), abbreviated to "DIE LINKE." But German media are ignoring the capitals and simply using "Die Linke" or "Linkspartei" (Left Party). Standard usage for the English-language services of Deutsche Welle and dpa is "Left Party" and "The Left." "Left Party" is a reasonable translation of the party's full name, "Die Partei DIE LINKE," and "The Left" of the party's abbreviated title, "DIE LINKE."--langohio 19:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would "Die Partei DIE LINKE" translate more clearly as "The party of the Left?" In addition, I have heard the party's name being spoken as just "Linke". Free Socialist 12:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Socialist (talk • contribs)

No, it wouldn't. "Die Partei DIE LINKE" is equivalent to such names as "Political Party 'Ukrainian Freedom'" in the Ukraine -- we only use "Ukrainian Freedom" as the party name in such cases. —Nightstallion 19:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Party itself calls itself 'Die Linke' on its election posters all over Berlin for the Sept 2009 elections. °°°° —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.242.133.213 (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting the name[edit]

Sorry to resurrect an old topic, but I feel I must agree that the name of this article should be 'die Linke'.

In response to those criticisms set out above;

i) Precedent, while important shouldn't be overstated. If sufficient evidence exists for a change, it should trump precedent.

ii) A news article which consistently uses 'die Linke' as the name of the party.

iii) Wikipedia: Use English doesn't quite apply as implied above. The policy is not to name articles in English, it is to name articles using the most common name used in English language sources. Hence 'Michelangelo', not 'Michael the Angel', 'Bundestag', not 'Federal Parliament (Germany)', 'Pravda' not 'Truth', etc.

In terms of positive arguments towards a name change:

i) The party calls itself 'DIE LINKE (the left)' on it's English language page here.

ii) A wikipedia article should be located where it is most likely to be found by an end user. I doubt anyone enters 'The Left (Germany)' in the search box, but someone might enter 'die Linke', even if it is just a German looking for English language info on the party. More specifically 'die Linke' is a more unique name for the party than 'The left'.

iii) There are significant number of English language webpages which use the name "die Linke", doing a search for '"die linke" +party' on English language pages on google I get about 170,000. It's very hard to do a direct comparison between number of pages, given that there a lot of pages which can use the terms 'the left', 'party' and 'germany' without being associated with the subject under discussion, but I won't pretend that there aren't also a significant number which simply call the party 'the left'.

I don't plan to do anything radical here, but I would be interested to see if people's opinions on this matter have changed since 2007.

I feel inclined to agree with the mysterious unnamed editor above ;). Especially since the party seems to call itself "Die Linke" in English also. Janfrie1988 (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is it common to translate german proper names into english? Ok you might tranlate it because it means the same political terminology, but it is the name of the party itself, not usually the name of the political ideology. Or do you also translate "Autofahrerpartei Deutschlands" into "German Cardriverparty" ? If this is done with a lot of other proper names then i can just say: biggest fail in wiki. For example you can translate "Die Linke" into "The Left" like it were a typical left wing party in the USA(or so) but their politics differ a lot, so this could leed to missunderstandings. If you know what the expression "lost in translation" means then you kow what i mean. Also its not common to tranlate such proper names. Or do you make an exeption because its about partys of germany? Or what the hell! Greets--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit/ The party "Die Linke" is really a left wing party(differ from usa left wing partys). But other partys are also called "the left" or "the left people, left partys". Their proper name is "Die Linke" but their political possition is a "left" one. In germany they are mostly called "the left" not so much because of their name, its because of their political "ideology". I hope someone gets my point. And maybe that should be decribed in such a way. By the way: You didnt translate "Bundestag" or "Verfassungsschutz" into english. I suspect someone didnt understand the name of the party in relation to the political ideology. --Lexikon-Duff (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a guideline to WP:Use English on English Wikipedia. The title of articles should generally reflect the WP:Common name in English-language publications. --RJFF (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im sry but this is just stupid. What about changing this guideline? Greets--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And some user above said that this guideline doesnt apply. "The policy is not to name articles in English, it is to name articles using the most common name used in English language sources. Hence 'Michelangelo', not 'Michael the Angel', 'Bundestag', not 'Federal Parliament (Germany)', 'Pravda' not 'Truth', etc." And come on, do you srsly translate proper names like "Uwe Ochsenknech" into "Uwe Oafservant"?? Greets--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, what is the most common name in English-language sources? --RJFF (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ehm, "Die Linke"? But you dont understand what i mean, it doesnt matter if its the most common name. You dont translate proper names from a foreign language into another language, which would end up in ridiculous names like i showed above with the "Uwe Oafservant" name. Greets--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: And in the same articel you dont translate "Bundestag" or "Verfassungsschutz" which is right ! Greets--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RJFF is absolutely right, as a rule of thumb we translate foreign countries' party names if the majority of sources translate them. That's not uncommon and not at all the same as translating a surname (the German Wikipedia does it, too, see de:Republikanische Partei, de:Demokratische Partei (Vereinigte Staaten), de:Einiges Russland, de:Bürgerplattform, ...). It's as ridiculous as having different names for the same city in different languages (Brussels, fr:Bruxelles, de:Brüssel; Aachen, fr:Aix-la-Chapelle, es:Aquisgrán), i.e. not ridiculous at all. --Six words (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proper names of political parties are translated in English all the time, compare e.g. Union for a Popular Movement (France), The People of Freedom (Italy), or the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party. WP:Common names is a Wikipedia policy. Changing policies is not impossible, but usually difficult, and I know a lot of Wikipedians (including myself) who would defend this policy. You can propose an amendment of the policy at Wikipedia talk:Article titles. If "Die Linke" is the most common name for this party in English-language publications and you can show this, you don't have to change policy, but you can simply propose a Wikipedia:Requested move. The page explains pretty well how to do this. If you need help, you can ask me. --RJFF (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to The Left Party.PDS[edit]

I think it's sensible to do the same as was done in the German WP. Basically that would be:

- This article would be removed. - The Left Party.PDS would be renamed to The Left. - The Left Party.PDS would redirect to the new location.

The ideological and historical differences with the recent name change and addition of the WASG are very small and I think Die Linke is most approriately seen as an evolution of that party rather than a new entity.

88.72.212.200 (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I live in germany and i was born here and i can asure you that this is not the case. there is a huge difference between the The Lft Party.PDS and The Left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.137.197.120 (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parteiprogramm Die Deutsche Linke 2008 und 2009[edit]

Es gibt in Bayern 2008 die Kommunalwahlen und die Landtagswahlen

Es gibt in Bayern 2009 die Bayrische Wahl des Bundespräsidenten, die Bayrische Wahl zum Europaparlament, die Bayrische Wahl der 44 Bayrischen Direktmandatebundestagsabgeordneten aus Bayern.

2009 wählen bei den Wahlen zum Europaparlament und zum Deutschen Bundestag 48.000.000 Deutsche Wahlberechtigte.

193.208.90.130 (talk) 10:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC) PC 1715 1989/1990[reply]

So, what's your point? MikeZ (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Observation[edit]

The article says: "It is currently observed by the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, Germany's domestic intelligence agency, responsible for the surveillance of anti-constitutional activities in Germany." But the "Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz" does only observe some working groups into this party not the whole party. Further the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz thinks the observation of this party is no longer needed. (http://de.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idDEBUC74192320080127)87.174.38.58 (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to explain in detail, which parts of the Linkspartei like the "communist platform" are in the focus of the observation, this would be fine. But simly delete the fact of the observation has not worked in the german wikipedia and will not work here.Karsten11 (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fact of the matter is that writing the whole party is being observed is factually wrong and therefore either based on ignorance or a blatant lie. I agree that the observation should be mentioned: But it should be put into context. First of all, not all platforms are under observation. Secondly, the 16 states handle this in very different ways (observation takes place only in states with conservative governments). Thirdly, the observation of certain Die Linke polititians has been declared unlawful by German courts. In the German article it says that in political science it is a contentious issue whether Die Linke is extremist and observation is therefore justified or if it is not extremist. I think a formulation like this is adequate. In any case, we should avoid giving readers the impression that the whole party is nothing but a remainder of totalitarian GDR-style communism. There are (a few) people like that in the party but they are a minority. In Eastern Germany Die Linke is part of several state governments and is acting quite pragmatic, whereas in western Germany part of its success can be explained by the rightward drift of the SPD under Schröder and the subsequent creation of the social democrat WASG, which later merged into Die Linke. Janfrie1988 (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of proven facts[edit]

Hi,

there is one anonymous IP constantly removing facts about the party. It is about its extreme tendencies, for example openly demand a change from the democratic system to a non-democratic system in Germany and its connection to terrorist groups all over the world. I don't know why the IP deletes these facts, because major parts of die Linke are openly not democratic.

Here are the proven facts:

More than 75% of the members have been member of the dictator party SED.

At least seven members of the Bundestag of "Die Linke" are former employees of the Stasi which consistently violated human rights in East Germany by doing murders, tortures and other cruel crimes^[1].

Many members of Die Linke are sympathetic to terrorist groups (for example PKK, ETA, Farc and many more) and dictators ^[2]. These groups are also forbidden in Germany and considered to be terrorist groups by the European Union.

^ http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/neuwahl2005/linkspartei_aid_99530.html
^ [1]

Reachtests (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Hi Reachtests, I just now removed your biased language, which has no place in an encyclopaedic entry (this is the first and only time I have done so, so someone else did it previously).

To constantly refer to the SED as a 'dictator' party is non-neutral language. This is one of your more justifiable points since the SED claimed to believe in the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. However, neither Ulbricht nor Honecker were dictators like Hitler, Pinochet, Franco, etc., control rested in the Politburo of the SED and these leaders could be done away with at their will (as was Ulbricht). As you mention in the talk page your point is to demonise the Left Party on this issue by implying that its leaders are pro-dictatorship and pro-terrorism, whereas I do not believe the SPD and CDU and FDP pages claim to have begun as 'dictator parties' due to having many prominent members from the NSDAP (as they should not). Perhaps this is just an anti-Left, or anti-DDR bias.

- Secondly this is not a phrase in English. 'Dictator party' ( < Diktaturpartei??) makes no sense in English. Taken on face value, it would seem to mean a party that exists to support a dictator. If you were to phrase something better like, "75% of members were members of the SED, which for 40 years was in power in East Germany and led with authoritarian rule", then perhaps it would be acceptable. But what you have written is clearly emotional and biased.

As for the Stasi, pointing out that they were involved in human rights violations when your only point is that certain members of the Linkspartei collaborated with them is unnecessary. How many members of CDU and SPD have collaborated with the CIA? Is the West German secret police as well as Verfassungsschutz not involved in any human rights violations if we use the same ideology-neutral standard for all nations? But it seems to me politically incorrect to talk about how the BRD spies on its citizens and compare this to the Stasi. In any case, your comment could be admitted if such comments for the other traditional BRD parties were more allowed and common.

Many members of CDU, SPD, FDP, and Greens are sympathetic to terrorist groups KLA, Chechen terrorists, the Israeli Defence Force and certainly maintain relations with certain dictators and authoritarian presidents. But this information will also not be found in a typical Wikipedia article on these parties. Again a double standard used to make the Left Party look like some sort of cross of Hitler and Stalin while all other political players are supposed to be somehow normal, clean, so-called "democratic" leaders, despite how much they act against the will of the people, particularly on economic and social policy.

Hello, if you have proven facts that these parties are officially sympathetic to terrorist groups which are officially recognized as terrorist group than add this to their articles. However I only find official statements of The Left spoken by their leaders or documented in their party program that they are sympathetic to Terrorist groups which are officially recognized as terrorst groups. As for the stasi: The Stasi was part of the degrading regime of the DDR. They violated the right of free speech and thinking and it is a very well known fact that they were involved in crimes against humans. They also are linked to this party. I can't see that any other secret service (the verfassungsschutz or the BND is not a secret police) is linked to a party. As for the party SED: dictator party is the correct term. The DDR was a dictatorship which is also a proven fact and it is comparable to other dictator regime - people who thought different were killed and in this context it does not matter that hitler killed million and the SED just thousands. They did not ruled autoriterian, but constantly human-rights-violating. Keep in mind that the DDR just was a few years ago and I agree that former NSDAP members may have been found in Zentrum, CDU,SPD,FDP, KPD and of course the SED (so to say in all parties after World War 2), but this was longer time ago and most of them were checked by the Allies and there where many courts, which does not hold for the former DDR, unfortunately. But this is a different topic.

I think it is up to the reader making up his own mind given him a few proven facts. Reachtests (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Reachtests, here is one such reader. Let me make up my mind. Your claim that these seven members were 'former employees of the Stasi' is NOT borne out by your source, which says that they were 'informelle Mitarbeiter.' Spin as much as you like, it's not the same thing. (And you should know how many people worked for the Stasi 'informally' for all kinds of reasons, many involuntarily.) That article from Der Spiegel by Bernd Musa, its anti-left (I won't say 'reactionary') POV is abundantly clear--and for the record, its most often-used argumentative strategy is declaring guilt by association. Lafontaine = Batasuna = ETA, that sort of thing. Well, no. In both cases, then, 'a few proven facts' is more than a misnomer: it's a falsheood. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In single-party states, those who are into politics usually join the governing party. Remember that Putin is a conservative, and is famous for the quote "Those who do not miss the Soviet Union have no heart, those who want it back have no brain." However, he was also a member of the Communist Party because he wanted to have the power to change. So do not assume that party membership in the SED defines that one was/is a pro-totaliatarian person. 85.167.187.129 (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent editing[edit]

In the past week Reachtest (talk · contribs) has done 18 edits in this article. Seeing the overall contribution (edit diff) the sole purpose seems to be to portray Die Linke is an as negative light as possible. Perhaps the user should reflect a bit on his/her intentions in the editing process, is it to enhance the quality of the encyclopedia or just push a point?

First of all, Reachtest seems to be anxious that his/her edits make it into the lead of the article. This is not a very good practice, and certainly doesn't go well in line with WP:UNDUE or WP:LEAD.

The Spiegel article is clearly an opinion piece/commentary. Just look at the ending of the article "Der Linkspartei ist es eine Herzensangelegenheit, Solidarität mit nach Freiheit strebenden Völkern zu üben. Parteichef Lafontaine wäre deshalb gut beraten, die Frage der Rechtmäßigkeit von Gewalt glaubhaft zu beantworten. Heiligt der Zweck wirklich die Mittel? Und was ist wichtiger: Mensch oder Ideologie?" Hardly a newspiece or academic work.

The Focus article states that the Federal Commissioner for the Stasi files, Marianne Birthler, claims that seven left MPs had been 'IM'. Any mention of this cannot go in the lead, and it should be clear who makes the accusation, rather than stating it as a fact. Moreover, I wouldn't translate IM as 'employee', the IMs were informal cooperants of Stasi. The IM page uses the term 'informer', I think its a bit misleading but better than employee. What needs to be taken into account is the width of the Stasi networks in East German society, the IM-ship was by no meand limited to the SED core. --Soman (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Der Spiegel is "Europe's largest and one of the most influential weekly magazines with a circulation of more than one million per week.". Focus (German magazine) "It is the third-largest weekly newsmagazine in Germany". If these magazins are not WP:RS, there could be none. If you want to improve the article by using better translations: Please do! But suppressing relevant information declaring the leading german political magazins "not reliable sources" ist not helpfull.Karsten11 (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noone is disputing that Der Spiegel is a very notable publication, both in Germany and internationally. This article, however, is an opinion piece, a commentary. It is not comparable to a newspiece or an academic article. --Soman (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that´s wrong. It´s not a commentary. It´s a regular article, describing, the paramentary initiative of Ulla Jelpke MP (die Linke) to legalize PKK in Germany, the contacts of Helmuth Markov MP to ETA and much more. But if you dislike the Spiegel. What´s about this source Die Linke parlamentary group in the Bundestag: Legalize PKK in Germany. I know: It´s not a newspiece or an academic article... To avoid edit wars: Can we proceed like this: You post the issues you don´t belive in (or in the sources). Then we can add additional sources or improve the text. Karsten11 (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues: Which newsarticle ends itself with the following words "Heiligt der Zweck wirklich die Mittel? Und was ist wichtiger: Mensch oder Ideologie?" It is clearly an opinion piece, a commentary. One could claim that it is a notable commentary, but its still a commentary. 2) Does wanting to change terrorism legislation make you a terrorist? Is critique of the current EU policy of arbritary terrorism listings terrorism in itself? I suggest a through reading of WP:NPOV. --Soman (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Der Spiegel is a (left wing) political magazin. Please don´t expect an academic article. But this is not requested for a reliable source. Have you read the text, you have deleted. The text was not "The Left is a terroristic organization" The text was: "Die Linke is sympathetic to terrorist groups". That´s exactly what the Spiegel-Link (as well as the Die Linke-link, I´ve posted) is describing. But finaly: Do you agree with the approach I´ve suggested?Karsten11 (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't agree with your approach, nor the passage that the party is "sympathetic to terrorist groups". You might want to read WP:TERRORIST. --Soman (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I´ve changed the passage according to your arguments. If you like to continue reverting, please read Wikipedia:Vandalism.Karsten11 (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last edit is by no means an improvement. With the risk of being repetitive;

Why is the link to left-wing politics removed in the lead?
Why is the BfD issue put in the first section of the lead? Clearly undue.
ggysi.org is clearly not WP:RS
Why is the {{fact}} tag removed from the passage "More than 75% of the members have been members of the SED". I agree that the majority of PDS members might have been SED members, but from where does the figure 75% come?
The Focus article issue has already been dealt with above (employees vs. IM). It is clearly misquoted.
The Spiegel link does not back up the sentence "The whole party Die Linke is sympathetic to PKK, ETA, Farc and other militant groups and dictators". The next sentence is highly insinuatory.
The RBB passage on the 'Cuba crisis', where is the motivation for its inclusion in the lead. Moreover, i don't think this is a factual representation of the views of Die Linke on the Cuba issue.
As per vandalism claims, you may want to study WP:VANDAL more indept. Content disputes are not vandalism, and you may note the passage "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."

--Soman (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off all: Thank you for bringing forward some arguments.

Why is the link to left-wing politics removed in the lead? Redundancy: In the box you can read ideology = Democratic socialism. But this simple redundancy should not be reason for an edit war...

Why is the BfD issue put in the first section of the lead? Clearly undue. This ist the most objective source to identify the relationship of political organisations to the principles of freedom and democracy (in German: "Freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung"). Everybody who is mentioned in this BfD report can request for deletion on independent German courts. The Left did so in many cases and the reports have been confirmed.

*ggysi.org is clearly not WP:RS I agree. But: Why did you not mention this earlier? I´ve changed the sources.

Why is the {{fact}} tag removed from the passage "More than 75% of the members have been members of the SED". I agree that the majority of PDS members might have been SED members, but from where does the figure 75% come?. I´m sorry. This is a c&p error

The Spiegel link does not back up the sentence "The whole party Die Linke is sympathetic to PKK, ETA, Farc and other militant groups and dictators". Could you please offer an recommendation, which wording is better?

The next sentence is highly insinuatory Sorry for my bad english. What´s "insinuatory"?

The RBB passage on the 'Cuba crisis', where is the motivation for its inclusion in the lead. Moreover, i don't think this is a factual representation of the views of Die Linke on the Cuba issue. The original text of Reachtest (talk · contribs) mentioned "terrorists and dictators". I assume, that he meant the relationship between The Left and the Cuba regime. This relationship is worth to describe. And the fact that the executive committee (german: Das Präsidium) declares that it´s not compliant with the parties policy to criticize human right violations is a clear fact on the views of Die Linke on the Cuba issue. But: As before: Feel free to improve the wording but don´t try to suppress the facts.Karsten11 (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous Stasi claim deleted[edit]

Deleted

At least seven members of the Bundestag of "Die Linke" are former employees of the Stasi which consistently violated human rights in East Germany by doing murders, tortures and other cruel crimes[2].

as the claim was later corrected by the original source (Marianne Birthler, the official for the Stasi-document archive) - not seven, but an unknown, lesser number; and not Bundestag members, but Left Party candidates.[3] Rd232 ^talk 14:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and of course not "employees", but "unofficial collaborators". Rd232 ^talk 09:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Totalitarian" and "extremist"[edit]

I have removed (twice now) additions to the introduction made by an editor. These included statements that used words such as "extremist" and "totalitarian", which violate WP:NPOV. --Linkswechsel (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have vandalized the article by removing referenced facts. It is certainly not "POV" to cite the Verfassungsschutzbericht - the official, authoritative report on political extremism in Germany. It is vandalism to remove it.

If you believe the GDR was not totalitarian, you should note that it is mentioned already in the introduction of the article on totalitarianism. I'm certainly not interested in discussing with people who thinks Nazi Germany or GDR were democracies. Jörg ÖA (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal attacks, such as claiming that I am a supporter of the DDR. This is an encyclopedia, which is not supposed to present a point of view. "Totalitarian" and "extremist" hold a particular connotation, and therefore should be avoided. The Left Party is now one of the established parliamentary parties, and therefore labeling it as "extremist" is suspect. The list you cite as you list as your source is simply a watch list, and it includes almost every group to the left of the Social Democrats. If you continue to insert POV statements in Left Party-related articles, I will seek Arbitration. --Linkswechsel (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it is possible for a party to be an established parlimentary party, and yet also an extremist party. Remember the NSDAP?

A question that arises is: does the Left intend to abolish the parlimentary democracy if it ever comes to power? It seems to have several factions: some say yes, some say no. There is already some information on the different factions, but I think the article needs more background info on each one - including which ones the Federal Govenment thinks need watching. °°°°

You are a blatant POV pusher, as seen already from your political user name, and the repeated removal of referenced and highly relevant information constitutes a blatant breach of Wikipedia policy. I'm not labelling the Left Party extremist (Straw man), German authorities are, whether you like it or not. This is relevant information that ought to be included. If you continue vandalizing, you may be banned from Wikipedia. Jörg ÖA (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you added a quote ("a clear extremist threat") from a politician at a press conference and made it sound like the official judgement of the BfV. If that was intentional it was clearly POV-pushing; but there's no reason to assume anything other than an honest mistake. Let's be civil and non-judgemental and I'm sure we can reach a compromise. Rd232 ^talk 14:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add a quote from "a politician", but from the Federal Minister of the Interior at the official presentation of the yearly federal Verfassungsschutzbericht - when he told why the Federal Ministry of the Interior will continue to observe the Left Party - which is something very different than a random quote from a politician. As the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz is subordinated the Federal Minister of the Interior, the judgement of the Minister is ultimately even more important. He can decide whether a party will be observed or not. But I have no problem with sticking to the wordings used in the report. Jörg ÖA (talk) 05:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But I didn't use the word "random", and as I'm sure you know, spoken statements by a Minister (a politician) are rather different from written statements in official documents. Never mind. Rd232 ^talk 23:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors (perhaps the same person) have tried to reinsert the text here and here. This is disputed text, and in my opinion should remain out of the article until this is resolved.

As a compromise, I have added what I think is neutral wording about the BfV list here. If you disagree with the wording of the text, please discuss it. If someone/anyone reinserts the POV text again, I will seek administrator assistance. --Linkswechsel (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've followed the German Wikipedia in removing mention of it from the intro and having a proper subsection. (Mention in the intro is especially problematic in English Wikipedia as readers will be less familiar with the issues and out of context quotes will be particularly misleading.) What do people think? Rd232 ^talk 14:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think this approach is well balanced. I see no problem keeping your version. --Linkswechsel (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also happy with the wording introduced by Rd232. ~~However, perhaps the passage 'Despite the changes within the party since 1989' needs to be reworked as it talks not only about Die Linke but PDS as well.~~ --Soman (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A separate and more detailed section on the observation is fine, but clearly this information also needs to be mentioned briefly in the introduction (analogous with the article concerning the National Democratic Party of Germany, a similar case) - as it is very important concerning the nature of the party. Jörg ÖA (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the other editors currently here disagree with you. German Wikipedia disagrees with you also ([4]), and I give substantial weight to that. And I gave a reason above why having a mention in the intro would be more problematic than in the German Wikipedia (readers will be less familiar with the issues and a passing mention out of context is likely to be misleading). Finally, I notice that you today created the category Category:Political parties observed by the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz [5]. Of course The Left was the first party you added to the category, since it's pretty obvious you only created the category in order to be able to add The Left to it. I'm minded to suggest the category for deletion, but I'm busy now and I'm hoping you might see on reflection that this was not perhaps the way to go, certainly in the context of the current discussion, and without discussing it first - and do so yourself. Rd232 ^talk 22:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPD is hardly a comparable case just because it's under observation as well. Or did I miss the NPD's conversion to inclusive, democratic politics, thereby making a comparison with The Left something other than offensive? Rd232 ^talk 22:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. German governments have attempted to ban the NPD, while no such actions have been taken against the Left Party. Further, the report emphasizes that segments of the Left such as the WASG are "non-extremist" (nichtextremistischen). Comparing a minor, semi-legal group with Germany's fourth largest party demonstrates an unwillingness to be neutral. --Linkswechsel (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "verfassungsschutz" is not observationg the "The Left" as a whole, but indeed observating some comunistic groups within the "The Left": e.g. the Kommunistische_Plattform Therefore it should imho be mentioned within the text but not within the introduction. --84.137.92.162 (talk) 14:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the circumstances under which Category:Political parties observed by the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz was created, I've nominated it for deletion. I'm OK with it if it survives, but there should be a debate IMHO. Rd232 ^talk 12:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocommunism[edit]

Adding Eurocommunism to the article is quite twisted. SED was never Eurocommunist, on the contrary they were one of the main opponents of Eurocommunism in Europe. --Soman (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that, I can just about see where the user's coming from. But your statement about the SED is correct and applying it to the PDS or Left Party probably doesn't make sense since Eurocomm was about relations with the Soviet Union which doesn't exist any more. But possibly there are elements of inspiration or overlap - I wouldn't want to rule that out but it would need evidence to put it in. 88.251.77.247 (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

on the other side the left are socialdemocrats now as you can see from the former name pds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.137.92.162 (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not socialdemocrats, but "democratic socialists". That's what the DS in PDS stood for. -- megA (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Political Position[edit]

Alright, I am not going to make this an edit war but I would ask Soman to respect the conventions regarding the infobox and refrain from deleting the (sourced!) political position(s). If it is your opinion that the position within the political spectrum should not be included in articles on political parties, please bring the matter up at WikiProject Political parties and try to find support for changing the conventions there. For the time being, the position is mentioned in all articles on German parties in the Bundestag and in all articles on parties that I have come across. Personally, I think including it gives laypersons a good first overview before they delve deeper into the topic. However, it is not our place to just disregard community decisions here and act in violation of conventions without ever bringing the matter up in a discussion.

As for having two political positions: The sources simply differ on the matter. As much as I might oppose the demonisation of the left by some German politicians and parts of the media, I must acknowledge that there are substantial sources (Verfassungsschutz!) that deem parts of Die Linke to be far-left or extremist. To not include this would be a distortion and manipulation on our part. Of course it would also be a distortion (as I mentioned further above) to give this position undue weight or to represent Die Linke solely as a party of authoritarian GDR-Style communists. We must find a balance here, because both German media and politics are devided on the issue. Our own opinion on this is rather irrelevant. I think having two positions is not confusing to the reader but neatly represents the split in politics and media and is adequately differentiated with regard to the complicated situation. Opinions? Janfrie1988 (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, since there are no objections, I will add back both political positions. Please discuss if you are of a different opinion. Janfrie1988 (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Far-left" in the lead[edit]

Yet again, and for the record: whether the Left is "far-left", "left-wing", or whatever is a contentious issue both among German and international media and German authorities. We have sources for both claims (see infobox). It would violate WP:NPOV to give one of these positions undue weight, especially in the lead, just because it reflects your personal political bias better. So, either we explain this complicated situation in the lead and say something horribly complicated like "...is a far-left or left-wing socialist political party..." or we keep it to "socialist" and mention the political position(s) in the infobox, as it now is. Janfrie1988 (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Just keep the description as a socialist party and not a "far left" party.

Exiledone (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this party should be called far left. It is essentially a democratic version of the community party. If communism is not far left, I don't know what is!101.98.140.129 (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't think so. I am German, not member of that party. Extremely few people in Germany would share the "far-left" assessment, where as "left" or "democratic socialism" would be ok. Look eg at Ramelow, a quite pragmatic head of Land Thüringen. And please login for a more personal discussion. BR Nillurcheier (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there even a debate about whether a Communist Party should be considered far left?203.80.61.102 (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because they aren't communist; they are democratic socialist. 136.152.142.112 (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar[edit]

This doesn't make sense: "Some feel the Left Party has is responsible for the actions of a predecessor party..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.99.253 (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for my change, 11 Aug 2011[edit]

The reason why I removed the "swastika section" was the following. It is bad style always to look for some spots to nag about. It is forbidden to use the swastika, but there is always room for discussion whether it is legal to use it critizing the Nazis themselves; which was the case in the reported instance even though it was anti-Israel. And besides, let the public prosecutors take care of offenses; they need not be nagged about.
Thus, "usage of swastika" is nothing for us here to critizise. If there is a thing to critizise, it is what the swastika was used for. And used was it for the Nazi -- State-of-Israel equalization which, regrettably, is by no means a thing that happened somewhen (in that case, we'd better forget it with the remark that even Nazi history can't help people being stupid), but rather a commonplace among leftists. In German, public opinion (though not law) outlaws this, and it is whispered only (among leftists); France logically is not so eager to cry out, and the most regrettable compound "Israheil" is far from being unknown there. It is still a heavier affair as accompanied by a anti-Israel boycott, which arises memories of the antisemitic boycotts of the Nazi regime.
But I said let somebody describe this who is able to; and this'd include an appropriate description about the party's (as a whole, not only a bundesland office) relations to Israel, the Jews, etc. There is no plain use to complain about a usage of a swastika in a byproduct of the party, which, though it apparently happened to be used in patterns of - what can be described as - leftist antisemitism (or, as leftists prefer and openly profess, antizionism), was apparently not used as pro-Nazi, but as anti-Nazi-critizing-others-to-be-nazilike. The latter is not forbidden in Germany.
And all that not for any reason of political sympathy with the Left Party. I'm most of the time a CSU voter (the party they dislike most); PDS never as yet, and never plan to do. I just dislike tossing aroung dirt, instead of giving real criticism in a friendly (or popularly polemical) way.--91.34.249.95 (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The better reason to delete this is that the only (and original) source is a right-wing blog, hardly a reliable source no matter what the truth. Additionally, if true, it was found on the sub-page of the youth organization of a party chapter at town level - hardly something representative for the party as a whole. --Echosmoke (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it self-evident that a party that is ideologically (and in terms of personnel) the successor of the Communist Part, far left? The East German communist party was one of the most hardline and left wing of the communist parties.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism in the Party[edit]

German sientists says the party have strong anti-Israel and Antizionist tendencies.--95.114.223.5 (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Israelism is not the same as antisemitism, the same way that anti-Palestinianism is not anti-islamism. 85.167.187.129 (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Anti-Israeli is not the same as anti-Semitism, as not all Israeli are semite, and not all semites are Jews (the majority are not). Antizionism is opposition to a political doctrine. Palestinians are not all Islamic, traditionally the majority were Christian, so that analogy does not work their either. A better analogy is with the Communist Party in the USSR. Despite being heavily influenced by Jews, the Party remained inherently anti-Jewish.101.98.140.129 (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formation/Foundation[edit]

Should the first section be called "Formation" rather than "Foundation"? It seems when I am describing a political party I would say it is formed, rather than founded, but I could be mistaken. Magicwalltree (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox political position[edit]

What is the general consensus on the political position of this party (on the German political spectrum)? I know a lot of individuals who are left-leaning may disagree with a 'far-left' description but the party is certainly controversial given the allegations of political extremism and antisemitism, which, if they were common against a right-wing party, would normally lead to a party getting the far-right label in it's Wikipedia info-box. I am pretty sure no one is suggesting calling this party centre-left, so really the debate is whether people want Left-wing, Far-left or Left-wing to Far-left. I would support any of those, but my personal preference is Left-wing to Far-left.--Jay942942 (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gerrymandering[edit]

The article claims that the districts in Berlin were gerrymandered in 2000. Now, as far as I know, this isn't possible in the same way as in the US (where the term comes from). The language is also suggestive of a conspiracy against the party, which would require ample evidence, in the way of the majority of news articles claiming this. However there is no reference whatsoever. What I could find (on wikipedia) on the 2000 re-districting in Berlin is this (German). The only thing happening were district mergers. I'm removing this point for now unless anybody can come up with a reason for its existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjuna92 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, taking a look at the link helped. wahlrecht.de even mentions it as "allegations of manipulations appear again and again, be it in France, Northern Ireland or Berlin, where mergers of West and East districts reduce the PDS's chances of obtaining direct mandates". Still, there were only allegations by the then-PDS, it would have to be phrased accordingly. In my judgement, for what it's worth, it needn't be mentioned.Arjuna92 (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 February 2015[edit]

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 consensus to move after over a month of discussion. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Left (Germany) → Die Linke – Isn't Die Linke the most commonly used name of the party? Charles Essie (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I think we need to see some evidence that English-language newspapers and media use the term "Die Linke" preferentially over "The Left"... --IJBall (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not easily quantified based on Google's search results as both The Left" Germany and "Left Party" Germany overstate article counts including different capitalizations referring to diverse generic terms.
  What still makes it easy to assess that "Die Linke" is WP:COMMONNAME is the fact that a search on "Die Linke" Germany returns an impressive number of hits including Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Financial Times, BBC, Telegraph, Deutsche Welle, TIME Magazine, Reuters, Zaman, Hürriyet.
  Therefore I clearly support this proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is fairly anecdotal, but most of the English language news I read about the subject seems to use the proposed title.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose Articles on the other mainstream German political parties use the English language names. The Left is the literal translation of Die Linke, with no ambiguity or possibly controversies in the accuracy of the translation. Die Linke is not the common name for the party in English language media articles and academic sources – if anything, Left Party is the commonly name (one example, or another) derived from the colloquial Linkspartei, which is still very commonly used in the German media despite not ever being the party's official name in German. As long as 'Die Linke' redirects to The Left (Germany) and the intro passage to the article mentions the Left Party/Linkspartei informal name, there is no reason to use the party's native language name for the article title.--Autospark (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yaksar's comment. CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Does anyone have any evidence that the party is most commonly called Die Linke in English language sources other than pure conjecture? Left Party is far more common.--Autospark (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. Evidence or not (and I doubt there is any), I do think that moving the article to the proposed name would be quite unreasonable and inconsistent with the general rule according to which English has to be used in articles' names as much as possible. This is not just a Wikipedia rule (and a custom for political parties all over the world), it has also tangible implications: English names are clearly more recognizable for English-speaking readers. Why should this article be an exception among German parties and "The Left" parties? Moreover, "The Left" is an obvious translation, it is widely used in English-language media and literature, and it is the official translation adopted by the party itself. In a nutshell, I totally agree with Autospark. --Checco (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (strongly, but no idea why some people feel the need to stress that – I do hope closers don't give more weight to people who shout more loudly). I don't recall ever seeing this party referred to as "The Left" – mostly it seems to be referred to as "Die Linke" (see e.g. Die Linke triumph: Mixed reaction as German far-left gains power on the BBC News) and occasionally "Left Party". The move is appropriate per WP:COMMONNAME, which should override WP:UE (just as we have Likud rather than Consolidation (political party) or Venstre (Denmark) rather than Left (Denmark)). Number 5 7 12:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per PanchoS and Number 57. Yes, some sources use "Left Party", but the majority name in the most English-language reliable of sources is "Die Linke", as shown in the list above from PanchoS. WP:COMMONNAME is king here. — Amakuru (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Current title is highly misleading, the Left in English normally refers to Left-wing politics and would include several different German parties as well as factions within them and others, and the current disambiguator does not solve this. Andrewa (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the guideline at WP:NCPARTY, which I'm surprised no one has brought up, viz.: The title used in reliable English-language sources both inside and outside the political party's county (in scholarly works and in the news media), should be preferred. ... For example, Plaid Cymru, Bloc Québécois, Likud, Kadima, and Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami are used because their English translations are rarely used even in the English-language media, either inside or outside the country. Whether or not other articles use the English title for their subjects is therefore irrelevant (and smells of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). It is difficult to test conclusively because "the Left" is such a generic term, as others have pointed out, but as far as I can tell Die Linke is far more commonly used in English. As an example, a search on Google Books for '"die Linke" Germany' returns 38,200 results, as against '"Left Party" Germany', which returns 7,020. —Nizolan ^(talk) 11:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I am not convinced that the German name "Die Linke" is indeed the most commonly used in English-language publications. It is not a "household" name, unlike the mentioned precedents (Fianna Fáil, Forza Italia, Likud etc) whose English translations are totally unusual. Unlike these names, "Die Linke" has no special connotations in German that would make it difficult or impossible to translate it. "Die Linke" in German has the same meaning and connotations as the English translation "The Left". A deviation from the basic rule ("use WP:ENGLISH") is therefore not necessary. The most common name for this party in English-language news media and literature (according to my perception) is not "Die Linke" but "Left Party" (including e.g. the Britannica), which is a little infortunate as it is an inaccurate translation of the official name. Therefore, the best option is to keep the status quo. --RJFF (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: Comprehensive English-language works about this party do not have "Die Linke" in their title, but "Left Party":
- Dan Hough; Michael Koß; Jonathan Olsen (2007). The Left Party in Contemporary German Politics.
- David F. Patton (2011). Out of the East: From PDS to Left Party in Unified Germany.
Oppose per RJFF. --IJBall (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – proposer does not take into account that we do no speak German on this website. i cannot read german, i cannot type german. i'm interested in german politics tho, in english. eu politics are good, anyway. but no reason to use german title i can't read. it is just dumb. imagine calling communist party of china as Zhōngguó Gòngchǎndǎng. no one can read that, useless. i'm new but i like points made by RJFF. it is good to see that wikipedia favor english words. he cited WIKIPEDIA:ENGLISH. good idea. follow english. use words we understand. this is such an easy translation, there is no trouble. do not wrote linke, do not write Gòngchǎndǎng. same story. by the way, news usually call this party as "the left party" or like that way. im a jap but do you think I want you to call Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) as Jiyuu-Minshutou? no. it is dumb to do that. come on, man, don't be so dumb like nominator. speak clearly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Togashi Yuuta (talk • contribs) 03:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the usage is difficult to quantify. But English is the preferred language here (duh) and other German party articles on en-Wiki also use a translated name (see "Consistency" in WP:TITLE). GermanJoe (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're are many precedents on Wikipedia of political parties being identified by they're own countries' languages, and many of those countries also have parties that we identify by their English names. They may not be fully consistent, but they abide their most commonly used names. For example, we use Kuomintang instead of Chinese Nationalist Party, and at the same time we use Communist Party of China instead of Zhōngguó Gòngchǎndǎng as mentioned above. Charles Essie (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"other German party articles on en-Wiki also use a translated name" This is not entirely true. As I mentioned in my support below, the Social Democratic Party is referred to throughout their page by the German acronym SPD (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands). A2soup (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the party's own English-language page [6]. Also, in common English parlance, the major German political parties are usually known by acronyms-- the CDU/CSU, the FDP, and the SPD. While CDU/CSU and FDP are the same acronyms in English and German (and so we cannot distinguish which language's acronym is being used), the SPD is the German acronym (English would be SDP). So there is a precedent for calling German political parties by German names in English, when it is not too confusing. A2soup (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, En.wiki uses political parties' native-language acronyms even when they do not match English-language equivalents: see for example Union for a Popular Movement, Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, Panhellenic Socialist Movement, Austrian People's Party, etc. It is not just German parties.--Autospark (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - clearly a case of WP:COMMONNAME which conveniently in this case is also its German/offical language name. In addition to the earler links provided demonstrating the use of Die Linke in English language sources, because see: the guardian and the economist. Ebonelm (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The links you provide are do not give strong support for your case, as they use both "Die Linke" and "The Left" (in brackets). And in cases of doubt WP:USEENGLISH asks us to prefer the translated variant, while the official name is not decisive (per WP:OFFICIAL). I could cite these two articles just as well as arguments against the move (given that they support the use of "The Left" as the common English translation). --RJFF (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – This the English Wikipedia, and there is no reason whatsoever to use an incomprehensible German name. I'm not convinced that "Die Linke" is the common name, and in cases where it is unclear, English should be favoured by default, per WP:EN and WP:NATURALNESS. I largely agree with what RJFF said above. RGloucester — ☎ 21:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Political position[edit]

I'm sorry to bring this up again (this has been probably discussed multiple times before) but after reading the article I'm seriously wondering what would it take for a party to get branded far-left on Wikipedia. This party is called extremist by the German authorities, it has many extremist factions such as the Communist Platform, even on the federal level a third of its MPs were under surveillance for extremism (Protection of the Constitution) until 2014 (when the Federal Interior minister decided that they would stop surveillance of even extremist factions of the party), it is the successor to the SED of the communist GDR, a large percentage of the party's politicians are known or suspected agents of the former East German secret police Stasi, four western German states consider the party to be entirely extremist and the party's vice president is a member of the Communist Platform. Also many international news sources consider the party as far-left, including the BBC, the Guardian, France 24, AFP, Euronews and Der Spiegel^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]. At the same time Wikipedia describes the political positions of multiple right-wing populist parties as far-right or "right-wing to far right", despite them being about as equally far from the centre ground as Die Linke. These populist parties include Sweden Democrats, Danish People's Party or the National Front. The same situation is found also among other fringe parties on the left of the political spectrum such as Left Party (Sweden), French Communist Party, which are not branded as far-left despite them being probably even further from the centre ground than the forementioned right wing populists. I'm not sure whether all of this is intentional, but the trend certainly isn't a good thing for Wikipedia, since Wikipedia has been accused of having left wing bias multiple times before. Regards --Ransewiki (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to [[7]]. This German page name it an issue of discussion to whether Die Linke is far left (linksradikal). you are right, some some valid sources name them "far left". however there is no direct conclusion that this is generally agreed and refer to in academic literature. Nillurcheier (talk) 12:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cant see what makes the party Far-left today. It has had a social democratic (SPD) leadership and are not Communist any more, as they where in the past. They accept the liberal democracy and works within Parlamentsval with reforms. The academic sources i have read, non state that the party as far-left, but left-wing. I want to underline that i am not against to include "far left", but to say only far left like the IP-number clearly wants is POV. Dnm (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This, again, underscores why it is a bad idea to have 'political position' in the infoboxes in the first place. There are no absolutes on the left-right scale, a party which might be considered left in one context might be considered right in another. The 'far left' label is quite unhelpful here, it adds no encyclopediatic value and is quite ahistorical as well. In contemporary German politics the far left is occupied by groups like MLPD etc.. --Soman (talk) 08:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30342441. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ http://www.france24.com/en/20110120-the-weakest-Linke%3AGermany's-far-left-mired-in-controversy. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/17/german-elections-die-linke-party. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "Former East German rights activist to be president: Merkel". Agence France-Presse. 2012-02-19. Retrieved 2012-10-15.
^ http://www.euronews.com/2014/11/20/far-left-die-linke-take-charge-of-german-region/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-left-party-strong-but-shunned-by-mainstream-a-922870.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Left (Germany). 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/20150705072802/http://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/de/europawahlen/EU_BUND_14/ergebnisse/bundesergebnisse/ to http://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/de/europawahlen/EU_BUND_14/ergebnisse/bundesergebnisse/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150617125317/http://www.israelcfr.com/documents/gregor-gysi.pdf to http://www.israelcfr.com/documents/gregor-gysi.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303151803/http://www.landtag.sachsen.de/de/aktuelles/pressemitteilungen/1378_3646.aspx to http://www.landtag.sachsen.de/de/aktuelles/pressemitteilungen/1378_3646.aspx

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) 09:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-capitalism[edit]

Helper201 do I really have to explain political theory 101 to you like you are a child and I am your tutor? PLease educate yourself on the most simplest of facts before you edit a topic. Demcratic socialism opposes capitalism. The Democratic socialism page makes that clear in the opening lines. "Democratic socialism is a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, often with an emphasis on democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system as a replacement for capitalism" Take note of the last four words in the quoted section. Also do not accuse me of edit warring or say you are tired of my edit warring when I am not the one who broke the 3RR on Fianna Fail page.Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do I really have to constantly repeat myself? Yes democratic socialism does usually seek to overturn capitalism. However just because a political party advocates democratic socialism does not, A. mean it follows it exactly to its law or B. seeks to implement it in the purest form (or the exact form to which it is explained on Wikipedia). As I have already mentioned, some political parties, such as the Labour Party (UK), have the ideology of democratic socialism, but do not actually want to repeal capitalism. I could understand more if the material was contradictory but your persistent attempts of removal are even more unreasonable when you agree the party holds both ideologies, yet you seek to remove content. Even if someone where to agree with your perspective, all you are doing is unnecessarily removing content that only seeks to clarify and expand on the party's outlook. Also, your attempts at insults are doing you no favors and only emphasise an apparent lack of of professionalism. And yes, you have been edit warring. I've seen it with other users too. You revert until you get your own way, even when you have little to no good reason. Its always the other person that is at fault, its never you edit warring. Helper201 (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but Proof by assertion isnt a good argument. Factions of the Labour Party are democratic socialist, others are social democrcy. The party contains both democratic socialists and social democrats. Either way your uneducated opinion doesnt matter, the democratic socialism page is sourced. Again, that is rich, considering your activities on the AAA-PBP page and the Fianna Fail page where you broke the 3 revert rule.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Labour Party still officially classifies itself as a democratic socialist party, despite revision of Clause IV. As quotes on the Clause IV page, 'The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party' (that's even post 1995 revision). There is no need for your condescension. At the time I was not aware of this rule, I gave good reasons for my edits. Yet you still constantly have this self-righteous attitude, despite the fact you knowingly broke this rule on the AAA-PBP page, I can see at least four times you have reverted, yet somehow you believe you are always innocent and correct. Helper201 (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but the British Labour Party is a social-democratic party, not a democratic socialist party. It doesn't matter how parties self-describe themselves in terms of how they are objectively categorised (and for historical reasons many major social-democratic parties describe themselves as democratic-socialist or make a reference to democratic socialism in their declarations – even the SPD refers to "Demokratischer Sozialismus" in their Hamburg Programme).--Autospark (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution, Autospark. However it seems that there has been a consensus to display democratic socialism as an ideology of the party on its Wikipedia page none the less. I think to maintain the ideology of anti-capitalism on the list (on this page) only adds to improving the overall clarity of the party's position and helps negate some of this confusion, I don't see how it subtracts. Helper201 (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-capitalism and far left/socialist are two different things. Many people from both the left and right are anti-capitalist. Those on the left tend to be anti-free market as well. But anti-capitalism is not inherently left wing, or anti-free market. This party is socialist (in the Communist sense) and anti-free market as well as anti-capitalist203.80.61.102 (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Left (Germany). 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/20110609230050/http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/bundestag-paves-way-lisbon-treaty-ratification/article-185252?Ref=RSS to http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/bundestag-paves-way-lisbon-treaty-ratification/article-185252?Ref=RSS
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080920151144/http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/download/SHOW/vsbericht_2007.pdf to http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/download/SHOW/vsbericht_2007.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122182355/http://www.netzeitung.de/deutschland/675695.html to http://www.netzeitung.de/deutschland/675695.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141218030110/http://reformlinke.net/ to http://www.reformlinke.net/

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) 19:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Left (Germany). 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/20070927210617/http://die-linke.de/fileadmin/download/international/programmatic_points.pdf to http://die-linke.de/fileadmin/download/international/programmatic_points.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927210617/http://die-linke.de/fileadmin/download/international/programmatic_points.pdf to http://die-linke.de/fileadmin/download/international/programmatic_points.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070827083024/http://www.monthlyreview.org/0507is.htm to http://www.monthlyreview.org/0507is.htm

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) 15:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Founding Date[edit]

"Through the PDS, the party is the direct descendant of the ruling party of the former East Germany (GDR)" and "Founded 16 June 2007"... Actually technically it's still the same party. They only renamed and rebranded a couple of times. Reason for this is also access to funds from the former GDR. --105.12.6.99 (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology[edit]

Given the fact that one of the groups within the party is Communist Platform (Germany) Shouldn't under ideology it say faction that is Marxist or communist? 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I'd probably say no. The element of using a "factions" section is debatable to begin with. Firstly, none of the other major German political parties have a faction’s section, so this would look very out of place in this context. Secondly, I think factions’ sections are only worth prominently highlighting in the infobox if that faction has a large membership in the party and/or holds powerful positions within it, neither of which is the case for this faction. The Communist Platform's last membership figure given on its page was reported to be 961 members and The Left has around 60,000 members. This would mean less than 2% of The Left members are members of Communist Platform, therefore it seems a very small element within the party. The party also has so many internal caucuses (anti-capitalist, communist, democratic socialist, ecologist, libertarian socialist, social-democratic, reformist, Marxist etc) that to list them all would make the infobox overbearing and to selectively include some over others would be highly dependent on editor opinion on what is and is not more important than one over another i.e., it would be far too subjective. The infobox should be a concise summary, of which this is currently well achieved by this infobox. Helper201 (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I get that I was think the same, but when I saw that former leader Sahra Wagenknecht was a member of that faction I thought it would warrant adding. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There may have been an argument for it when she was one of the chairs of the party but now she no longer is I wouldn't say its relevant. Helper201 (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We need to understand that most parties have a single ideology (there are left-wing and right-wing factions that understand it a bit differently but we should not imply a party has a bunch of ideologies) and political scientists categorize them simply as socialist/social-democratic, liberal, conservative, left-wing/right-wing populist, so we should be doing the same. In the case of The Left, anti-capitalism, anti-fascism, and antimilitarism are not only proper ideologies (they are opposition to something) but they are redundant and undue because academic sources do to not say The Left is an anti-fascist and antimilitarist party, they say The Left is a democratic socialist party, and we should be doing the same.

This is a summary of the key facts. Its hardly a big or unwhedley edit. It doesn't overload the infobox or make it difficult to read so I don't see how it breaks any guidelines (note thise are guidelines, not hard rules). Also, I don't see how anti-cpaitalism is reducnt and I'd say antimilitarism is more an ieology than a policy This looks like your personal views, and while I agree on flexibility about policies and guidelines, ultimately we must follow and respect them. It is redundant because socialism is anti-capitalism (from the Historical Dictionary of Socialism, all socialists, including social democrats, are anti-capitalists insofar as criticism about "poverty, low wages, unemployment, economic and social inequality, and a lack of economic security" is linked to the private ownership of the means of production). The onus is on you to show they are due for the infobox as key facts.

As for any fear, we already have WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS to help us in categorizing the parties so that we can put its categorization as main ideology, and at least no more than three and proper ideologies, not any -isms. To answer your question, Who gets to decide which ideology is more justifiable to include in the infobox over another? — RS and weight do that for us. Clearly, you are not being helpful either in just reverting me. Finally, I reiterate that while I am pointing to policies and guidelines, your arguments simply boil down to this is what we currently do, even though it is a malpractice; therefore, the onus is on you to justify why their addition is an improvement or in line with our policies and guidelines; there has been no clear discussion about it to establish consensus either but they clearly violates weight. Davide King (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most parties have a key/primary ideology for/of which they are identified with. This does not mean it is their only ideology. Before any one editor takes it upon themselves to remove cited content, I think there should at the very least be consensus on the relevant talk page. I disagree that having more than one ideology listed in the infobox ideology equates to the infobox no longer being a summary or undue weight. An overbearing list of say eight or more ideologies I can understand, but removing a couple down to only one seems unnecessary.

Parties that are cited as socialist are not necessarily anti-capitalist and certainly aren't in all instances. The Labour Party (UK) for example is democratic socialist but it is not anti-capitalist. It basically agrees with some of the principles of socialism and supports nationalisation of some key industries but is not opposed to capitalism. So, socialism does not necessarily equal or equate to anti-capitalism and vice versa.

My main point is that discussion should be had either on a talk page by talk page basis or a wider discussion on the matter before any one editor goes around making such fundamental changes to the way political party infoboxes are done and before they themselves unilaterally decide what ideology/ideologies to keep and which to dispense of when the claims are all backed by citations from reliable sources.

I just think this needs a broad discussion involving as many editors inputting their views as possible before such fundamental changes are made across what is such a large and varied area of Wikipedia (political party infoboxs). Perhaps someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics or Wikipedia:Community portal could point towards the best place to have this discussion. Helper201 (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it appears that you are confusing factions for ideologies, which is weird considering your comments above in the same section, with which I agree with and I thought you would agree with me too and support my edits. As I said, parties are categorized as socialist, liberal, conservative, right-wing populist, and so on. Sometimes I can support more specification such as social liberalism, liberal conservatism, or national conservatism, but we should strive to list only the main ideology and have no more than three; in this case, democratic socialism and left-wing populism are enough, though the former is clearly the main one.

You are mistaken on anti-capitalism, though I can symphatize because I thought it like you before. As I wrote here and as the Historical Dictionary of Socialism explains, all socialists, including social democrats, are anti-capitalists insofar as criticism about "poverty, low wages, unemployment, economic and social inequality, and a lack of economic security" is linked to the private ownership of the means of production, and socialism is not only an economic system but a political philosophy, too,^{[nb 1]} therefore your comment is misleading and amounts to other stuff existing rather than citing references or guidelines in support.

^ Social democrats have always had a more pragmatic view of capitalism, which they saw as useful for the development of socialism, and is in line with the orthodox Marxist view at that time; the difference was that reformists thought this could be achieved gradually and through reforms (evolutionary socialism), while revolutionaries thought a revolution was still necessary (revolutionary socialism). Even in the post-war era, social democrats accepted capitalism only insofar as capitalism's typical crises could be prevented and if mass unemployment could be averted, which was still in line with their evolutionary socialist views. Even the Third Way was motivated by their pragmatism, namely that the spectrucm shifted sharp to the right, so they saw anti-capitalist politics as non-viable; keep in mind the context is the failure of 1968 and that of the Maidner Plan in Sweden, and in short — rather than a shift towards democratic market socialism as ... say ... social democrats in Sweden advocated, neoliberalism triumphed, so it is not like they woke up someday and thought socialism was done with. Similarly, even their neoliberal policies were justified by the need of further economic growth to maintain support for the welfare state (The Four Deuces, who has been very helpful to me, can further clarify this); of course, things went different, and I personally did not like it, which is why most social democratic parties have seen shifted back to the left, but I can see the context and understand why that happened. That does not mean social democracy is no longer socialist, it just means that some social democrats may no longer be socialists because some of them went to the right-wing party, or became left-liberals. The problem is that some news outlets have confused the Third Way for social democracy, when many democratic socialists are simply social democrats before the neoliberal era and the Third Way, and presented a misleading narrative — it is not democratic socialists vs. social democrats but democratic socialists and social democrats vs. liberals and left-(neo)liberals.

I just do not understand why we cannot do this on a case-by-case basis or try to reach a compromise here and now, like at at least removing stuff that is not a proper ideology or is redundant (Euroscepticism or opposition to something). I think for the time being we should strive to have just one ideology, and no more than three as a compromise. Your revert violates WEIGHT (sources describe the party as democratic socialist, not all the stuff you added to the infobox, which is perfectly fine for the lead and the body to describe the party's own policies and support), so it is not about preferences, it is about respecting our policies; bloating the infobox with undue stuff violates WEIGHT. In short, you and those who support bloating the infobox may be violating both INFOBOX and WEIGHT policies by having undue stuff rather than key facts, so this is not a matter of preference ans is not fine from my reading of policies. Davide King (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"academic sources do to not say "The Left is an anti-fascist and antimilitarist party, they say The Left is a democratic socialist party,""

This is a weird point. It's like saying "they say the substance is water, not that the substance is the liquid form of H20". "Democratic" means anti-fascist. "Socialist" means anti-fascist. Just in the same way that "being anti-murder" is anti-fascist. Just in the same way that "having a coherent ideology at all" is anti-fascist. CrickedBack (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Left parties are unusual because they do not have ideologies, but are broad tent, covering the ideological geography between socialist parties, such as the SDP, and Communist parties. Therefore if we point out that they are a left party, it is redundant to enumerate the various ideologies members have. If we did, we would have to list all of them along with their membership numbers. That would be better placed in the body of the article. TFD (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please Davide King, I have asked you repeatedly, just take this matter to Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics or Wikipedia:Community portal or some other part of Wikipedia where a large amount of editors can comment upon this matter before doing what you are doing in unilaterally doing mass drive-by fundamental changes of the long-standing format of political party infoboxs across Wikipedia based on your sole interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. If you are so confident you are doing the right thing then I see no reason why you wouldn't. Helper201 (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that I would like to reach a compromise first. There is no consensus in the first place to bloat the infobox, it is just a bad practice. As it is common — as a gentleman agreement and BRD practice — to remove things from which there is no consensus, we should shortened it as a compromise until you actually gain consensus. And of course TFD is right about it, I just think that democratic socialism covers all that. Most of the edits I made were eventually accepted, and you are the only one who is so keen at reverting them. Autospark has also sought to reduce bloating the infobox, especially on stuff that is not a proper ideology or is redundant.

I am all for consistency but if that consistency is currently a bad practice, it needs to be worked on on a case-by-case analysis. It is also not a good reason to revert every single edit I make to the infoboxes, especially if no other user but you reverted me (as in this specific case), or the justification is consistency, which again is really a bad practice for which there has never been consensus in the first place. In this case, I think democratic socialism is enough, and moving all the other stuff to the lead is a fair compromise in regards to our policies and guidelines, and some flexibility. What is so hardline about it? Davide King (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. By reducing undue stuff in the infobox and only putting the main ideology, we would significantly reduce edit warring and such discussions in the first place, as we would be arguing why that is there, why that is not, pro-Europeanism is not historical, yes pro-Europeanism is historical (as in here, and perhaps we would work to actually improve the political party-related articles, which are a mess because of this insane malpractice of treating the infobox as if it was the body. Davide King (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked you to take the matter to somewhere like I have stated above so as many editors can comment on the situation as possible. Here is not the place to reach a wide audience that regularly edit political party pages or a place to make a general consensus. You can do a case-by-case basis as well as this if you want. All I am asking is that you make what you want to do known to as many people in the community as possible and hear out any concerns they may have before continuing this. Helper201 (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to this article, can you explain with sources, and following our policies and guidelines (again, TFD got it right that is the function of the infobox), how all that is due? While the party is mentioned in Antimilitarism: Political and Gender Dynamics of Peace Movements, it is seen as a policy more than an ideology (e.g. "Die Linke maintains a strong anti-war stance", not "Die Linke is an [idelogically] antimilitarist party" the same way it is done for democratic socialism), and anti-capitalism is redundant per the Historical Dictionary of Socialism. I also find it persuasive that "policies change and different parties often switch sides on policies" (I think they also got right to the crux of the matter, i.e. a lack of understanding of ideology and the parameter; we should list the main one, not any policy which is much easier subject to change) but it can be done in the body, there is no need to do it in the infobox. We should just list democratic socialism, which is how we describe the party as in the very first sentence, irrespective of any other infoboxe, because it is the party's ideology that everyone can understand. Davide King (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of info-boxes is to provide high level information not to explain intracacies. If for example someone comes to this article because they read about a proposed red-red-green coalition government in Germany, they might want to know what type of party each was. They would be less interested that 2% of members of the Left Party belonged to a Communist group.

Of course party names usually tell us what their ideology is. The Left Party is a left party, the Green Party is a green party, etc. But the names of the Free Democratic Party and Alliance for Deutschland do not indicate their ideologies, so adding liberal or extreme right respectively tells readers what they are.

Party ideologies are helpful in comparing parties in different countries. For example, the Green Party in Germany shares an ideology with Green parties in the UK and U.S. Granted, these parties differ from each other in some ways and they have a wide range of views within them.

I suspect that some editors don't understand ideology, that different people see the world differently. In the U.S., for example, both major parties share the same ideology (liberalism), but differ on various policy issues, at least in degree. So they might find it necessary to list their policies. However, policies change and different parties often switch sides on policies.

TFD (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Helper201, the Nazi Party is a precedent (same thing was done for the National Fascist Party), and as stated here (the onus is usually on those wanting to add stuff to prove it is due), we should follow my proposed compromise until there is consensus to add further stuff. Davide King (talk) 06:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, my opinion is that there should be only one ideology listed in the Infobox, namely democratic socialism, signifying socialist parties which accept parliamentary democracy. Listing several "anti-" this and that sub-ideologies, as the article does at present, doesn't help anyone.--Autospark (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Autospark, I completely agree. All of that can be better discussed in the lead and the body. Davide King (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC) [Edited to fix typo] Davide King (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree somewhat. I do think the inclusion of left-wing populism in the infobox is also important as it distinguishes Die Linke from other parties on the German left. However, I do not think that the inclusion of so many "anti-isms" is necessary considering that those listed—anti-capitalism, anti-fascism, and anti-militarism—are expected from most democratic socialist parties and leftist parties in general. CentreLeftRight ✉ 22:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Party colour[edit]

I am little confused on the party colour. Die Linke uses the colour red as official party colour, for example the party's logo uses red. However in the media, people uses magenta for the party not purple. Can some clarify on this. 159753 (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@159753: It's probably because using red for several parties would be a nightmare for graphic designers, particularly those tasked by the German government with creating diagrams of election results and seat counts. CentreLeftRight ✉ 22:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022[edit]

The following statement is synthesis: "Outlets including the BBC,[114] The Guardian,[115] Euronews,[116] and Der Spiegel[117] have described the party as far-left."[8] If you want to discuss how the media has presented the party, you need source that addresses that. I note these sources are from 2009 and 2014. While some sources used the term far left to describe parties to the left of the SDP and other Socialist International member parties, that description at least among experts has been discontinued as misleading and derogatory. None of these parties for example call for the violent overthrow of capitalism or for supporters to disobey the laws of the countries they live in. TFD (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure who you are addressing, and I do not speak for whoever added that sentence to the article, but what exactly is the synthesis being made? All those sources use "far-left" to describe Die Linke, and the sentence is not stating anything other than that. I think what you are trying to point to is the potential bias in the editorial boards of these companies that regulate how entities should be described by their writers. However, that would be a different issue, and you cannot simply point to synthesis. CentreLeftRight ✉ 18:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's synthesis because it implies that this is how these publications normally refer to Die Linke. It's also not accurate. It was Jenny Hill writing for BBC, Kate Connolly for The Guardian and Charles Hawley for Der Spiegel.

Secondly, the statement follows the sentence, "Both media and political scientists have discussed whether The Left should be considered extremist in nature." The implication is that these sources call the party extreme. But you don't know whether these sources are referring to Die Linke as extremist or merely to the left of the SDP.

I you want to provide these sites as evidence the party is extremist, it should be sourced to a study that makes the connection.

TFD (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first sentence about media outlets describing Die Linke as "far-left", your contention, then, is that the attribution is not specific enough (e.g. "BBC describes" and not "Jenny Hill of the BBC describes") and the sources are quite old.

While I agree that up-to-date sources would be preferred, your first contention about attribution is not well-founded. The writers are bound by their agencies' editorial board and regulations. For example, the BBC is not featuring an opinion piece or special report solely written by an unaffiliated or independent contributor. Jenny Hill is a writer for the BBC and her articles are reviewed by other staff so that they adhere to the BBC's editorial positions and standards.

Regarding the second sentence ("Both media and political scientists ..."), you are essentially requesting quotes from the source material, or at least that's what I think you're asking for in your last sentence.

Also, just to remind you, I am not the editor who added those sentences and I still do not know who you are addressing with "you", but presumably it is me given your reply to my reply. CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to be clearer. What information are you trying to convey to the reader? Are you trying to explain the terminology that some reporters use to describe left parties or are you trying to say that they have a difference in their interpretation of the party? In this case, are they saying that the Left is an extremist party or are they saying that it is more left-wing than the SDP? You should be able to answer if you want the information in the article. TFD (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I am not [one of] the editor(s) who added content that calls Die Linke far-left. I was simply confused as to what change you are proposing and what issues you see with the content you are pointing to, and so I inquired further.

I think I understand what you are proposing, but if you want that information (that context) to be clearly stated, you can just edit the article yourself. You keep trying to put the onus on me as if I have a position on this matter, but the only edit related to this content where I have an expressed an opinion is this one, which was a revert based on existing content in the article body.

If you think the opinions of the media outlets being cited need to be clarified, just do it yourself; the only thing stopping you is the pending reviews process, but if your edit(s) is acceptable then there's no problem. But I feel the need to say this again, I do not think WP:SYNTHESIS is the issue you're trying to tackle, but a lack of context in the article (I do not know the exact policy related to this issue). All the best, CentreLeftRight ✉ 00:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis is "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." In this case we have one source that says, "Both media and political scientists have discussed whether The Left should be considered extremist in nature." We follow that with three examples from the media calling Die Linke "far left." The message we are implying is that these sources are calling die Linke extremist, otherwise why would we mention it?

Furthermore, I am not required to find sources for material in the article. When I put controversial statements into articles, I begin by ensuring that they reflect the body of literature. I don't think that die Linke is calling for the violent overthrow of the German government or that they are planning on burning down the Reichstag. If you think they are, you find a source.

Also, it doesn't matter who wrote the material, you are defending it.

TFD (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what part of this discussion can be construed as me defending calling Die Linke "far-left" or "extremist". Your first comment is about your issue with a certain part of the article, my reply to that is I don't see how it's synthesis, and then there's a couple back-and-forths where I say I don't think your argument adds up and you tell me to prove something I don't care much to defend.

Regardless, I think we'll just continue to disagree endlessly about what policy is being violated, but my only point is that you can change or remove the material you are challenging. However, I realise it may be controversial to do so, so I suggest waiting for others to weigh in on your arguments so that this is not a bilateral affair. Either way, I don't have an opinion on the validity of this issue (i.e. I am not opposing your challenges of the material!), and this is my final comment on the matter. All the best, CentreLeftRight ✉ 03:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read the paragraph:

"Both media and political scientists have discussed whether The Left should be considered extremist in nature. Outlets including the BBC, The Guardian, Euronews, and Der Spiegel have described the party as far-left. Among academics, there is a general consensus that at least some sections of the party are extremist; however, political scientist Richard Stöss states that they make up less than ten percent of the party membership...."

If you don't think the sentence about the BBC et. has nothing to do with the sentences before or after, what is it doing in this paragraph. Note that paragraphs are dedicated to a single issue and are not an indiscriminate collection of random sentences.

TFD (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is reasonable to change the infobox description pertaining the political position of the party to "Far-left to left-wing".

Its tolerance and acceptance of communists (communism is a far-left ideology after all) in the party membership and the party leadership as well as is its glorification of the Spartacist uprising is documented.

If I need to find more sources for that so be it but I would first like to know what the main objections are with changing the political position section in the infobox before people just continuously revert my edit. Locaf1985 (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its standard formatting to place the position closest to the centre first going outwards to the more extreme i.e. left-wing to far-left, right-wing to far-right, centre to centre-left, centre to centre-right etc. Not to say I'd necessarily agree or disagree with classifying the party as left-wing to far-left, but that is the way around it should be. Helper201 (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The description "left to far-left" might be more suitable perhaps. Locaf1985 (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Die Linke's political position[edit]

For a very long time and through many discussions, the page has been stating Die Linke's political position as "left-wing" with a note stating: "A broad left-wing party, The Left includes some far-left factions."

Locaf1985 has been wanting to change this to "left-wing to far-left". Three citations were given to support the change: https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article215227820/Janine-Wissler-Eine-Trotzkistin-will-an-die-Linke-Spitze.html, https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/gohlke-linke-afd-verfassungsschutz-1.4795496, https://www.bpb.de/themen/linksextremismus/dossier-linksextremismus/264080/linksextremismus-in-der-deutschen-parteienlandschaft/

I've read the three citations and from what I've read, they fail to verify "left-wing to far-left". They all refer to small factions in the party as "far-left" or extremist, none refer to the party as a whole. They in fact support what we had: "A broad left-wing party, The Left includes some far-left factions". Robby.is.on (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose such a change (from left-wing with a note to left-wing to far-left) for the same reason I would oppose changing the political position of the Republican Party to centre-right to far-right (excuse the example, for anyone who does not follow American politics): Although "extremist" elements constitute a significant minority of the membership, the party as a whole does not advocate their positions, and as such the party is not wholly described (by reliable sources) as constituting those extremes. CentreLeftRight ✉ 21:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This party has an openly Communist group and a party leader that has openly voiced her sympathy for Trotzkyism.

I cited articles from reliable German newspapers and the German Verfassungsschutz.

Start using your common sense please.

What else do you want? I fail to understand the issue. There seems to be a bias and it is very unfortunate. Locaf1985 (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I find a source that cites it being "far-left", what is the chance you will still have an objection to it?

I do not feel like wasting my time on this for ages. So let me know. Locaf1985 (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove the field. You pointed that "party has an openly Communist group and a party leader that has openly voiced her sympathy for Trotskyism" and the party calls itself "The Left," consistent with its categorization as a "left party." All the field tells readers is where Wikipedia editors place this class of party on the left-right spectrum. TFD (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That may be compromise.

However other editors might have to weigh in on that idea first. Locaf1985 (talk) 10:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One could say the same thing with the article on the AFD by the way regarding its placement on the right-side political spectrum, but that is a subject for the article on the political party I mentioned. Locaf1985 (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Oskar Lafontaine and Gregor Gysi election poster.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies section needs to actually say controversial things.[edit]

"Extremism" should be cashed out.

But much worse is the section which just says it's popular. The idea that leftism being popular is bad does not make any sense.

I came here because I heard someone say that the part has fascists in its ranks - something actually bad - but instead this page just tells me that the party believes their policies and their policies are popular. CrickedBack (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Die Linke really doesn't deserve a controversies page in the first place; there simply haven't been many big crazy scandals coming out of this party. 172.58.167.76 (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tree Chart[edit]

I really like the tree chart in section "History". I'd like to suggest to add a line which leads from "KPD" to "KPD-Ost". Ceeesa (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The Left (German Political Party" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect The Left (German Political Party has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § The Left (German Political Party until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delusional not to call this party far-left.[edit]

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20210925-could-far-left-die-linke-become-part-of-next-german-government

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/german-far-left-disbands-after-senior-member-quits-to-form-rival-group/

https://www.voanews.com/a/populist-left-leader-moves-to-launch-new-german-party-/7322313.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/16/carola-rackete-activist-aiming-to-revive-germany-far-left-die-linke-party

There's four reliable, neutral sources that call Die Linke Far-left. This very wikipedia article calls it the "furthest left party in German parliament," and it is the literal descendent of the East German communist party. Change this, please. 172.58.166.10 (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/neuwahl2005/linkspartei_aid_99530.html

[2] [1]

[3] ttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30342441. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[4] ttp://www.france24.com/en/20110120-the-weakest-Linke%3AGermany's-far-left-mired-in-controversy. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[5] ttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/17/german-elections-die-linke-party. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[6] "Former East German rights activist to be president: Merkel". Agence France-Presse. 2012-02-19. Retrieved 2012-10-15.

[7] ttp://www.euronews.com/2014/11/20/far-left-die-linke-take-charge-of-german-region/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[8] ttp://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-left-party-strong-but-shunned-by-mainstream-a-922870.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[9] Social democrats have always had a more pragmatic view of capitalism, which they saw as useful for the development of socialism, and is in line with the orthodox Marxist view at that time; the difference was that reformists thought this could be achieved gradually and through reforms (evolutionary socialism), while revolutionaries thought a revolution was still necessary (revolutionary socialism). Even in the post-war era, social democrats accepted capitalism only insofar as capitalism's typical crises could be prevented and if mass unemployment could be averted, which was still in line with their evolutionary socialist views. Even the Third Way was motivated by their pragmatism, namely that the spectrucm shifted sharp to the right, so they saw anti-capitalist politics as non-viable; keep in mind the context is the failure of 1968 and that of the Maidner Plan in Sweden, and in short — rather than a shift towards democratic market socialism as ... say ... social democrats in Sweden advocated, neoliberalism triumphed, so it is not like they woke up someday and thought socialism was done with. Similarly, even their neoliberal policies were justified by the need of further economic growth to maintain support for the welfare state (The Four Deuces, who has been very helpful to me, can further clarify this); of course, things went different, and I personally did not like it, which is why most social democratic parties have seen shifted back to the left, but I can see the context and understand why that happened. That does not mean social democracy is no longer socialist, it just means that some social democrats may no longer be socialists because some of them went to the right-wing party, or became left-liberals. The problem is that some news outlets have confused the Third Way for social democracy, when many democratic socialists are simply social democrats before the neoliberal era and the Third Way, and presented a misleading narrative — it is not democratic socialists vs. social democrats but democratic socialists and social democrats vs. liberals and left-(neo)liberals.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[nb 1]