Talk:The Left in the European Parliament

No Mention of Far-Left?

This is the farthest left group in European Parliament, with many members who are frequently described as being far-left. There are also some reliable sources that describe them as far-left, one of which I have attached.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137265111_3 JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Nowhere in that chapter, nor anywhere in the book, does the author characterise GUE/NGL as far-left. The author discusses PEL as the far-left grouping. Do not make false claims about the content of sources.

There are currently eleven sources which describe this as simply a left-wing group. The weight of sources indicate it is characterised as left-wing. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong source, here's a couple:

https://www.rferl.org/a/european-parliament-elections-results-epp-far-right/32986621.html

https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/57114/european-parliament-election-party-stances-on-migration JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

One source run by the US government and one funded by the EU itself: not the kind of independent secondary sources used. These really don’t establish due weight to characterise it differently when weighed against the twelve sources (eleven cited and one to which you link above) that refer to the subject simply as left-wing. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

These sources are generally considered reliable, but if you want to nitpick, then fine, here's two more:

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/06/10/extreme-left-lost-but-gained-unexpectedly-in-the-north

https://www.orfonline.org/public/uploads/upload/20240529105124.pdf JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Needless to say, many of the constituent parties are far-left, as well. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

“here’s two more” - and then you post a link to a source that says in the European elections is the left-wing European United Left/Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL).” So yet another source that describes them as left-wing. This is like a ‘70s farce. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It also calls it far-left, both in the title and in the tag. Thus, left-wing to far-left, the label which I am arguing for, is perfectly acceptable. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

https://shapingeurope.eu/the-different-political-groups-in-the-european-parliament/

There's another that calls it "left to far-left"

https://www.intereconomics.eu/contents/year/2024/number/2/article/the-far-right-and-the-2024-european-elections.html

There's one that only says "far-left"

https://www.ft.com/content/80d97abc-2f51-42b3-a5f3-fba3f6c572d1

Another that says it is "made up of far-left parties"

https://www.politico.eu/article/socialists-in-turmoil-as-meps-defect-to-hard-left/

Another for "hard-left"

I have cited 8 reliable sources now, just as many as have been cited to call this party left-wing. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The headline is not relevant – it is not a reliable source. See WP:HEADLINES for an explanation of why. Neither Euronews nor Politico describe the article subject as far-left, hard-left, nor any synonymous phrase in the actual article content.

RFERL is not considered generally reliable. It is considered a biased source with no consensus of reliability. While it might be useful for some uncontentious fact, it's not appropriate to try to establish a new political position of a European Parliamentary group.

Thus far there are the eleven sources cited on the article that describe it as "left-wing", then two more sources that you found, while searching for something that describes it as "far-left", that in fact describe it only as "left-wing". Thus far a total of thirteen describing it only as left-wing. Beyond that we have the sixteen sources below which I found with 30 seconds of searching, all of which describe it as only left-wing. This brings the total to twenty-nine.

Many more could be found with little effort, as that's the way the majority of sources describe it.

Against that we have the two publications from think-tanks/lobby groups and one article in a right-leaning newspaper. So no, not "just as many". Far fewer, in fact a comparatively insignificant number, and certainly not such that they establish weight for what is very evidently a minority view.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16] Cambial — foliar❧ 22:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The actual Wikipedia statement about RFERL is mostly based around its articles from the 50s through 70s, but if you insist, fine, ignore that. Your sources, too, are flimsy

Your first source is paywalled

Your second source calls two major constituent parties of GUE/NGL (Die Linke and the Belgian Workers' party) far-left and calls GUE/NGL "radical left"

Your third source calls GUE/NGL "communist," is not focused on the group, and in the entire 22 page document only calls it "left-wing" one time in passing.

Your fourth source refers to GUE/NGL as "Communists on the extreme left," only refers to GUE/NGL once as left-wing, and on page 92 calls it "far-left"

Your fifth source refers to GUE/NGL as "left-wing" only once in the entire research paper

Your sixth source is paywalled

Your seventh source describes GUE/NGL as uniting "radical left wing, socialist and communist parties," later calling it "extreme. . . left" and "extreme left-wing" on the same page, and "far-left" again on a different page, then far-left again on another page, and finally far-left one more time a line before conclusions. "Left-wing" is used only once.

Your eighth source is focused on large language models trying to differentiate left from right, and only uses "left-wing" loosely and in passing

Your ninth source is paywalled

Your tenth source is paywalled

I'll finish looking through these in a bit. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Your eleventh source uses "left-wing" twice in well over 150 pages

Your twelfth source uses the same numer of "left-wing"s in a similar number of pages, written by a gender studies scholar.

Your thirteenth source is paywalled

Your fourteenth source is paywalled

Your fifteenth also has this gender studies scholar as its sole author, and only uses left-wing once.

Your sixteenth source uses "left-wing" and "far-left" equally, each one time on the same page.

So, overall, of what I have access to, about half of YOUR sources use some variation of "far-left," and many of the ones that only use "left-wing" are not focused on this classification. So, I ask you again, do you really think we should keep it "left-wing," or make it "left-wing to far-left?" JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Your third source calls GUE/NGL "communist". It does not. It says "The European United Left / Nordic Green Left (Left) consists of national parties with a socialist, new leftist, or communist belief system or ideology" which is accurate. It does not support your view.

All three of the sources - two from think-tanks; one the FT - that you felt adequate sourcing to characterise the subject as "far-left", only describe the subject as "far-left" once in passing. In one it is only within a table. In another it is once within sixty pages. Now suddenly you are concerned that six sources describe it as "left-wing" on only one or two occasions. This selective concern that you express for the number of occasions a characterisation is used in a source - apparently you apply it only to sources with which you disagree - meshes with your efforts elsewhere to add "far-left" and remove "left-wing" regardless of the sources. It's not how we write an encyclopaedia.

No, you don't get to decide, after claiming that other sources that mention the subject's alignment exactly once in sixty or so pages were adequate sourcing (for your project to add "far-left" to party articles), that the fact other articles mention alignment only once or twice renders them insignificant. That kind of bait-and-switch game is not going to fly. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

My sources are not 60 pages, they are news articles only a few pages in length. Now, you can nitpick purported inconsistencies in my evaluation of these sources, but you are yet to address the elephant in the room:

Half of your sources (that I can see) use far-left and equivilants. What do you have to say about this? JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

You can't even get straight basic facts about the sources you posted: you suggested this - https://www.orfonline.org/public/uploads/upload/20240529105124.pdf It is a 60-page document. An argument based on a principle you only wish to apply selectively, against sources that do not support your POV, carries little or no force.

Four of those sources make some reference to far-left. I've not claimed that no sources exist that characterise it as such. They are significantly in the minority, with the weight suggesting "left-wing" as the common characterisation. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@JustAPoliticsNerd and Cambial Yellowing: If there are several reliable sources describing the group as left-wing and several describing it as far-left, it doesn’t matter which description is used more often, we should use “left-wing to far-left”. Brainiac242 (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

That’s not the case. The principle of WP:weight is that we give prominence in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. So where one description significantly outweighs another, it obviously matters which description is used more often. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t mean that it is literally irrelevant which description is used more often. I meant that numerous reliable sources describing the group in a certain way, provide enough weight for that description to be included in the infobox. So, if there are several reliable sources describing the group as left-wing and several describing it as far-left, regardless of which description is used more often, we should use “left-wing to far-left”. Brainiac242 (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

This is what I am trying to describe, though I am not articulating it very well. It is most reasonable, by Wikipedia's policies regarding due weight, to include both. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

maybe a good compromise could be to say that the party is left wing but some consider the party to be far left (do note that we should should source something that directly calls the party far left on the latter statement, in order to avoid WP:AWT which it honestly still might violate.) Gaismagorm (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@MZH2020 @GlowstoneUnknown @lliVaiNill @Nablicus @Autospark @Mtlelas, and @FellowMellow,

All of you have had varied stances and have been productive contributors to the discussion over on the ideology of Patriots for Europe. Would any of you like to weigh in on this? JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not opposed to including such a mention, but I feel it should either be as a Faction: or as a footnote stating that it's often described that way by critics (or perhaps both somehow?). – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 15:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@JustAPoliticsNerd I would keep it as left-wing to far-left. I’m not opposed to having it as factions: also. I have seen GUE/NGL be described that way and there have to be reliable sources ofc. There are some really far-left forces in the group like the Belgian Workers' Party of Belgium, French LFI, the Danish Red-Green Alliance, the Basque EH Bildu, and the Communist parties in Portugal (CDU) and Cypriot AKEL. However we should do it in the way that ECR does it, but have it centre-left and far-left factions, as parties like Greece’s SYRIZA and the Irish Sinn Féin have centre-left in it. That’s my argument.

Like this:

Left-wing

(including centre-left

and far-left factions) - FellowMellow (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Good point, this would be an ideal solution. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 09:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with this. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose to "Factions" unless there are reliable, third-party (preferably scholarly) sources which explicitly refer to the group as containing factions. Another other claim is WP:SYNTH. We are here to reflect any evidence that may exist, not actively invent it.-- Autospark (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep to simply left-wing. Far-left is WP:UNDUE. Helper201 (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly with Helper201, as per above – left-wing only.-- Autospark (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Helper201, Autospark, GlowstoneUnknown, FellowMellow, and JustAPoliticsNerd: (tagged recent editors) How can we justify "left-wing" over "left-wing to far-left" when a MAJORITY (more than 50%) of the parties in the group are described themselves as either "left-wing to far-left" or just "far-left"? There are more parties in this group that are described as far-left than there are parties described as left-wing on their respective articles. This is telling.
P.S. There wasn't consensus above. Two editors agreed with the factions proposition, and three didn't. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing, Brainiac242, and Gaismagorm: Tagging other involved editors. (Not WP:CANVASSING since not trying to influence the result, just trying to get participation.) Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: let's try not to get into a source battle (more than enough sources are provided above). Let's try to reach some kind of consensus through argumentation here. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

There are indeed more than enough sources provided above, many describe the group itself as left-wing and many describe it as far-left. As I said above, “numerous reliable sources describing the group in a certain way, provide enough weight for that description to be included in the infobox”. I’d prefer describing the group as “left-wing to far-left”, but I might also agree with some other way to include “far-left” in the infobox. Brainiac242 (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

"Left-wing to far-left" is WP:SYNTH, I wouldn't be opposed to including it in the way suggested above, that is:

Left-wing

(with centre-left and far-left factions)

any other form of inclusion would be WP:UNDUE. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 02:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@GlowstoneUnknown: Do you think “left-wing to far-left” is WP:SYNTH in this case, or in every case? And what centre-left factions do you think exist inside this group? Can you point to reliable sources that agree with you on the existence of such factions? Brainiac242 (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Only in this case do I consider it Synth, I haven't done a great deal of looking for sources to back up "centre left and far left factions", but if "far-left" is to be included at all, I wouldn't support it without also including "centre-left". I'd prefer to retain the status quo. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 02:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@GlowstoneUnknown: Why do you consider the description “left-wing to far-left” to be WP:SYNTH for this group, but not for all the parties, including many of the members of this group, that have, like this group, many reliable sources describing them as “left-wing” and many others describing them as “far-left”? Why would you support including “centre-left factions” if you don’t know of any centre-left factions inside this group? And why don’t you support including “far-left” in the infobox unless we also include “centre-left”, when there are plenty of reliable sources that describe this group as “far-left” and barely any that describe it as “centre-left”? I’m not trying to fight with you, I just want to understand your reasoning. Brainiac242 (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it was mentioned above that several of the sources describing it as far-left were unreliable or otherwise biased sources, your initial revival of this suggestion was based on the individual members' positions, not based on sources. I'll rescind my "centre left and far left factions" suggestion on the grounds that after some (albeit brief) research, I failed to find any sources using "centre-left" and I return to my original suggestion for how to potentially include far-left: it should either be as a Faction: or as a footnote stating that it's often described that way by critics (or perhaps both somehow?), I'd forgotten this was my original viewpoint and I feel it's more suitable than including "centre-left" or including "far-left" as a primary position. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, a footnote seems kinda odd for something like this. BUt then again I might be wrong and this is possibly a correct of using them. Gaismagorm (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@GlowstoneUnknown: 1) I didn’t revive this suggestion, Paul Vaurie did. I simply commented here after I was pinged, just like you. 2) At no point have I suggested that the way we describe this group should be “based on the individual members' positions”. Quite the opposite, in fact. Every single on of my comments on this topic has been saying that, because plenty of reliable sources call this group “left-wing” and plenty of other reliable sources call it “far-left”, we should describe it as “left-wing to far-left”. 3) There really are plenty of reliable sources that describe this group as “far-left”, not just “unreliable or otherwise biased sources”. Paul Vaurie pinged us here urging us “not to get into a source battle” and said that “more than enough sources are provided above”, but if you think I need to start listing sources, just let me know. 4) As I said above, “I might also agree with some other way to include “far-left” in the infobox”, but to say there are far-left factions in this group, we would need to provide reliable sources that specifically refer to such factions, it’s not enough that some of the members are referred to as “far-left” in their infoboxes. Brainiac242 (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

To place centre left as equivalent to far-left would be undue weight, I do think. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not feeling the greatest, so this response might not be the highest quality, but maybe large political party groups such as this can't exactly be defined by a single section of the poliical compass. If we take a look at the individual pages for the different parties, the following have designations other than left-wing. Left Block (Portugal) is listed as "Left wing to far left". Sumar (electoral platform), Party for the Animals, Podemos, Portuguese Communist Party, Progressive Party of Working People, Red-Green Alliance (Denmark), and EH Bilsu are also listed as such. Sinn Féin and Syriza are listed as center-left to left wing. Workers' party of Belgium is the only one just listed as far-right within the infobox. The rest (unless I made a mistake) are listed as simply left-wing. While it has been pointed out that determining the groups political position by this is a WP:SYNTH violation, it does (at least in my opinion) show that attempting to classify such a varied political group such as this in just one political compass position is nearly impossible. I mean, what would we do if a political party group had half of its parties be far-right and the other be far-left? Gaismagorm (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gaismagorm: I think you meant "far-left" for the Workers' Party of Belgium (not far-right). Personally, I beg to differ that it's nearly impossible to classify this political group. what would we do if a political party group had half of its parties be far-right and the other be far-left? — this rarely ever happens, but if so, big tent, syncretic, or just plainly omitting the position, are options in different scenarios. Regardless, this isn't the case here, so let's focus on this. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

About the half and half question, fair enough, I suppose I was giving a bit of an extreme example. Anways, I feel that omitting any mention of far left isn't a good idea. It shouldn't be as blatant as saying the party is far left, but saying that some consider the party to be far left or saying that its left-wing to far left. Also yes, I did mean far left, that's my bad. Gaismagorm (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

We should go by what sources call the position group itself, not what parties within the group are labelled as. To an infer a conclusion based off the parties within the group are sourced as falls under a WP:SYNTH violation. Helper201 (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Sources call it both left-wing and far-left. Those two together thus do seem reasonable. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

A small minority of sources use the phrase "far-left". But as Helper201 and Autospark point out above, such claims are undue weight for the infobox. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Did I not demonstrate, earlier in this discussion, that the precise opposite is true, such that most sources you can cite are either written by some obscure gender studies scholar or also call it far-left, even if in passing? JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You did not. Why would that specialism be relevant? Do you have some particular animus against the discipline? Cambial — foliar❧ 05:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the analysis by Gaismagorm and JustAPoliticsNerd. There is a fair distribution of sources calling it both far-left and left-wing, and it would not, in my view, be WP:UNDUE to mention far-left within the infobox. Again, although this is not a way to classify a group, the fact that a majority of the parties are individually described as far-left is indicative of something: that the sources labelling the group as "left-wing to far-left" (or some variation, or the inclusion of both) aren't outliers or oddities. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I could not have phrased it better. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

If no challenge, I will go ahead and change the infobox to reflect "left-wing to far-left", as the sourcing supports this conclusion. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I concur. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Re-reading this most recent discussion: Helper201, Autospark, GlowstoneUnknown and myself oppose such a characterisation. Paul Vaurie, JAPN, Brainiac242, Gaismagorm are for it. That isn't a consensus to include. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Would you be in favor of a footnote saying "Also occasionally described as far-left"? In my opinion, not mentioning far-left in some capacity would be WP:UNDUE. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I would not strongly oppose that (I think "Described as far-left by some sources" has a more formal tone). If so we ought also to include a sentence in the article body at the end of "Positions" section. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I can agree on that. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This also seems reasonable. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: I know not everyone has responded to this proposal, but I think you can go ahead and make the change if you'd like. I might do it at a later time if not. If someone opposes that change, they will bring it up here. We have some kind of mini-consensus right now. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposing semi-protection

Hi everyone,

I am proposing to semi-protect the following pages: The Left in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL, European Conservatives and Reformists Party, Renew Europe, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, Europe of Sovereign Nations (party), Europe of Sovereign Nations Group, and Patriots for Europe. The same message is copy-pasted on all of the relevant talk pages, so that the merits of this proposal can be discussed for each of these pages.

My reasoning is the same for all pages: all of them have been the victim of recurring vandalism over the past few weeks, where (mostly) anonymous users change the ideology of the party/group without sources or discussion. Mostly, this is done to remove "far-right" (often when the ideology is "right-wing to far-right"), change "far-right" to "right-wing", remove "center-right" (when the ideology is "center to center-right"), change "center-right" to "center-left", or change "left-wing" to "far-left". These changes are often quickly reverted, but their continued occurrence is problematic. Semi-protecting the page would prevent anonymous users from making such edits.

Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of quality edits are made from registered accounts, which would not be affected by the semi-protection. This is particularly true since these pages are part of a rather niche group (European parties and parliamentary groups) that is very rarely edited by non-wikipedians. As a result, I do not think that the semi-protection would have a negative impact on the continued development of these pages.

Happy to discuss! Julius Schwarz (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)