Talk:Centre-left politics

Liberal Party

Not that I am a fan, but the Liberal Party of Canada has a social liberal agenda, supports government intervention in areas such as child care, healthcare, and public broadcasting. They might not be as progressive as the NDP, but I think that since the end of the Jean Chretien era anyway centre-left is a term that describes them accurately. I don't overly like the fact that this article exists as in many cases the distinction between centre-left and left of centre can be blured. Take for example the NDP, historically a democratic socialist party, considered by most to be on the Left, opposes globalization and supports an expansion of government services and regulation, yet on the other hand provincially in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario at various times in government has followed a very centrist agenda. Maybe this article should be merged? (Canadianpunk77 03:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

Also to call the Democratic Party U.S.A., "centre-left" is a bit of a stretch. Perhaps if Howard Dean were their presidential candidate? Social policies and economic policies cannot be measured the same way and as far as economic policies are concerned the Democrats favoured fairly conservative fiscal policies at least during the Clinton era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadianpunk77 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger suggestion

This should be merged into Left-Right politics. -- Kaihsu 17:12, 2004 Mar 1 (UTC)

Or perhaps Left-wing politics should have a centre-left subsection? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:17, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I disagree completely. Left-Right politics has its place, but I should note that there is also a Left-wing politics page, a Right-wing politics page, and a Centre-right page to go along with this one. If we attempted to fit everything into the Left-Right politics page, that page would be split due to wiki policy (re: length). All of these pages relate to each other, and, as such, an effort should be taken to minimize repetition. However, this does not mean that all left and right related pages should be merged into one specific page. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 02:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

I also think that it should be merged with Left-Right politics the blurring of distinctions between Left and Centre-Left makes the list of "centre-left" political parties on this article misleading and confusing. Take for example the NDP, currently if you look at ideology the BC NDP, Yukon NDP, Alberta New Democrats, Ontario NDP and Maritime parties all have leftwing, democratic socialist agendas while the Saskatchewan and Manitoba NDP's are very firmly planted in the centre. The NDP has gone back and forth from supporting strong government intervention and regulation, not too mention a large social safety net to supporting "competetive" taxation and spending restraint on social programs. The same contrasts exist within the British Labour Party, French Socialist Party, German Social Democrats, Australian Labor Party, even the African National Congress not too mention numerous others. Besides democratic socialists favour a gradual move towards public ownership, should they really be listed as belonging to the centre-left? (Canadianpunk77 03:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

Norway

This just doesn't make any sense. And it is all wrong. Like Norway. The Norwegian Red-Green Coalition and the Labour Party itself are not center-left. They are left-wing.

Don't hesitate to make changes. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 23:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

Yeah I also think that the Red Green Coalition should be removed, the Norwegian Labour Party may consider itself to be centre-left, but I highly doubt that the Socialist Left Party would refer to themselves as such! (Canadianpunk77 03:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

USA Parties

I removed the Libertarian Party from the list of center-left parties. While they do uphold many of the same viewpoints about civil liberties, their fiscal policies are completely inconsistent with "center-left" ideology. Many Libertarians also dislike the simplistic notion of a left-right spectrum, which is why they represent themselves on a graph with both a social freedom and a fiscal freedom axis. Therefore, despite their social views, it is likely that Libertarians would take issue with their inclusion on this list. Rob Shepard 10:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I previously signed at the top somehow so I just removed that. Rob Shepard 10:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually Libertarian ideology is the height of simplicity, but I agree that they are an extreme right-wing party and don't belong on the list.Nwe (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Socialist Party USA

The Socialist Party USA supports the gradual nationalization of the American economy and creation of a socialist state. That makes them a party of the Left, not the centre-left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.105.238 (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

US Democratic Party mixture of centre left and right

Someone please explain to me how the Republican Party is a mixture of centre right and right-wing but the Democratic Party is so balanced between centre left and centre right. What makes someone right-wing and what makes someone left-wing? And you say Dennis Kucinich is centre left??? I respect your opinion, but I just have a really hard time believing Dennis Kucinich is anything but left-wing. What credible source do you have to support your claim?--Lucky Mitch (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Because the American political system is skewed towards the right. Many people in the Democratic Party hold decidly centre-right views on key issues (eg. on death penalty, private healthcare, workers' rights, gun ownership, support for American foreign policy, business-influence on political parties), much more mainstream Republicans are likely to hold extreme right-wing views on religion, the markets or foreign policy, while conversely only the rarest examples are likely to hold noticeably centre-left views. Kucinich is obviously centre-left. His policy positions have left-wing connotations (he's not anti-capitalist, opposed to every aspect of American foreign policy by default etc.). His opinions fit with general centre-left, social-democratic values.Nwe 15:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

So in your opinion, what issues/beliefs make someone left-wing and are there any major left-wing politicians in the United States?--Lucky Mitch 02:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already given you some of them above; anti-capitalism is the most important example. There are very few major left-wing politicians in the US, such is the nature of politics in America. Even people like Bernie Sanders or Ralph Nader are centre-left by international standards. For various historical reasons the US has never had a proper socialist political tradition and hence has no real major left-wing politicians. There are plenty of left-wing writers and intellectuals and so, arguably, is Michael Moore; aswell as most of the many Socialist parties and, previosly, the Socialist Party of America. But this is really mostly besides the point. In the context of this discussion the most important fact to remember is that the mainstream policy Democratic Party for most of last 20 yaers has been undeniably centre-right, as are the apparent stalwarts of the current Democratic Party, the Clintons, and is most closely affiliated in terms of ideology with the European Christian Democratic tradition.Nwe 12:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, so you're saying that a left-winger is automatically a socialist? So is a right-winger automatically a facist?--Lucky Mitch 03:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Fascism is not the opposite of socialism, you should know that. Socialism is a far more popular and inclusive term than Fascism, to make a complete understatement. No mainstream centre-right party is called the "Fascist Party", as opposed to mainstream centre-left parties, in fact no party in the world calls itself "Fascist". You're unlikely to get 20-50% of populations describing themselves as "Fascists". Most left-wingers are likely to be at least fairly close to socialism (although a lot of self-described socialists are more centre-left). By right-wing we generally mean a strict, ideological adherence to the free-market, as well possibly devout religiosity. Both ideals have a strong thread in the Republican party, Socialism does not have a strong position in the Democratic party, which is closest to the Christian Democrats.Nwe 13:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right I do know that fascism is not the opposite of socialism. I was merely trying to set you up to see if I couldn't catch you on it, but I see you know better. You put up a very persuasive argument. But I still have another question; wouldn't it make more sense to say that the Democratic Party is a mixture of centre and centre left? I mean Rudy Giuliani shares some left-leaning ideals but I don't think that would make him centre left or even centre. I just fail to see how Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or some of the other Democratic politicians of the United States could fit into the centre right position. Forgive me for sounding stubborn; I really am open to what you're saying--Lucky Mitch 16:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. With regards to the centre-right issue. Yes its true that Giuliani, for example, holds some left-leaning views, but, as you say, that isn't his general position. Clinton, and many mainstream democrats, hold fundamental values that mirror an explicit centre-right political position. This is the case with respect to economic and social issues in particular. But also foreign policy, proximity to corporate interests etc. At the half the Congressional Democratic Party, I'd guess, would, if transferred to most other national political, would fit most conveniently into a mainstream centre-right party. They'd be there with the moderate Republicans. Describing the the Democrats as "centre and centre left" would simply be misleading. It would simply imply some sort of particularly moderate leftism as its ideological basis, which is fundamentally untrue.Nwe 17:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments next to party names

Left-wing does not mean the same thing as far left, it includes both the far left and the center-left so right off the bat saying a party is "a mixture between center-left and left-wing" doesn't even make sense. Many of these comments next to the party names are both uncited and highly debateable. Also, a party can only be in one spot on the political spectrum. A party may have some different tendencies but it lands in the general center-left or far left area thus it can only be either center-left or far left not a mixture of any kind.--Lucky Mitch (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Defunct parties

Should defunct parties like the US Natural Law Party remain on the list? levin-bj84 18:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland seperate from United Kingdom?

In the list of parties nationally, why is Northern Ireland seperate from United Kingdom? If you list them as two seperate entities, the UK should be refered to as Great britain. United Kingdom is the name of two kingdoms United - Britain and ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.35.211 (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't necessarily on a national basis, and parties in Northern Ireland are completely different from those in UK, so it makes sense.Nwe (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the first poster - Northern Ireland is part of the UK - so you should have said '...parties in Northern Ireland are completely different from those in Great Britain' - because the UK is both. Either UK is changed to GB or NI has to be under UK. It makes no sense otherwise. 80.195.146.94 (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland politics is unique from mainland British politics, it's doesn't share the main centre-left party (Labour) as the rest of Great Britain, ditto with the centre-right parties and the centrist 'liberal' party. --92.21.61.190 (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

...then the text should read 'Great Britain' rather than 'United Kingdom.' And that wouldn't be improper or incorrect in any wise, if it be so as ye all say that the parties we have listed under 'United Kingdom' apply not to Northern Ireland: that would necessarily mean that they apply only in Great Britain; and the kingdom's full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The Democratic Party is a Centre-Right Party

I find it laughable that the Democratic Party is considered a centre-left party. Maybe back in the days of FDR but for the most part it's a moderate/liberal Republican party. Most New Democrats are Rockafeller Republicans. Bill Clinton moved the party to the right and today is widely supported by big business and Wall Street. No Centre-left party would've enacted NAFTA, reformed Welfare and staffed their cabinet with Wall Street types. Not gonna happen. And finally the new London mayor, Boris Johnson, a LIBERTARIAN, actually sought out advise from former CLINTON people on economic policy. It turns out that in most nations, the Clintons and the Democratic party are seen as centre-right.

The Democratic Party is a centrist party at most.

Response:

I'd also suggest to stop the soapboxing. Most western left/centre left major parties have become far more economically liberalised. The 'centre' has shifted, centre-left and centre-right are relative. Timeshift (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but how are the Democrats Centre-left? they are well to the right of other Centre-left parties in the world, and on this list. --92.8.29.116 (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the Democrats article for starters? They are not "well" to the right of other centre left parties in the world. They are not as left as say a democratic socialist but still "fit" as far as "Centre-left" list goes. Try reading up on some of these left/right articles a bit first before you go reverting all over the place. To remove the Republicans from the Centre-right article was pretty close to vandalism in my opinion. You really need to educate yourself on this whole left/right situation.--Sting Buzz Me... 00:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Take the WP:SOAPBOXing elsewhere. The US Democrats are a centre-left party. Timeshift (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

In any first world country other than the US, the United States Democratic Party would be classified as a center-right party. All of the other political parties on the list that I'm familiar with are so far to the left of the USDP that including it on the list makes a mockery of grouping parties from various countries together. Even comparing it to the US Green Party, the USDP is a notably conservative party. Simply because political discussion in the US is so limited that, by the standards of US politics, the USDP is a center-left party and the GOP is center-right, does not mean that this is true in comparison to other political parties worldwide. 64.178.115.134 (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If you refer to all the wiki articles on various political parties and the left-right spectrum, I find it hard to disagree with this. 89.241.152.119 (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

(australian) Greens centre-left?

I think there is room for a re-think on the greens been placed on the list, certaintly many of there detracters (liberal party) would call them 'dangerous' socialists, is there someone who can confirm this or confirm as to why they make the list cheers --Mdavies 965 (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC) matt

Don't take this as a disagreement or agreement (more a comment), but don't the Liberals call Labor dangerous socialists too? Everyone is a dangerous socialist to them. I note the definition of centre-left is "whose views stretch from the centre to the left on the left-right spectrum, excluding far left stances". I wouldn't call the Greens far left. Timeshift (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Its just that the greens although supporting labor tend to hold, to put it simply, a more leftish view however i wouldnt consider myself an expert but the greens tend to hide there more "extreme" policies and gain public intrest from issues such as climate change and social justice--Mdavies 965 (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course the Greens are more left than Labor. Labor are centrists. And for you to say the Greens have "extreme" policies is your point of view, and from my point of view, untrue. Timeshift (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No that is not my view i was merely having a joke —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdavies 965 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're not here to seriously discuss the article, then don't post here at all. Wikipedia is not the place for that. Timeshift (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

My point is that many of the views the greens share (for which i largly agree) would be considered outlandish by the largly conservative public--Mdavies 965 (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That's your point of view, and original research. The fact of the matter is the Greens are not far-left, so they do come under the centre-left umbrella, which ranges from the centre to the left under the left-right spectrum. Timeshift (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The Australian Greens have an almost universally enviro-social agenda and at best exhibit minimal interest or policy that could be considered pro-business, pro-development or pro-anything from the 'other side of the fence'. That would make them fair and squarely left-wing. I don't think they can be considered far- or extremist-left, as perhaps some of the non-political environmental groups in Australia tend to be, but there is no way they can be considered centre-left, especially if you consider Australian Labor centre-left. I've removed the reference on this page.150.101.108.23 (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Original Research

This article appears to be entirely original research. Does anyone have any source that there is a specific ideology or group of political parties called center-left? Mostly when the term center-left is used, it refers to a coaltion between a centrist and a leftist party. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Parties

Why has the list of parties been removed? --Welshsocialist (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No sources. See the AfD.[1] The Four Deuces (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What about the centre-right page? --Welshsocialist (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Following the AfD an editor re-wrote this article but did not work on Centre-right. Also, use of the term centre-right is more consistent. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of text not supported by sources

I removed text with the notation "remove text not supported by sources or irrelevant" and an editor restored it with the notation "rv - you cant just remove countries like that just because the definition mightn't suit you." Please note that I did not remove the text because I did not like it but because it did not support the claims it was supposed to support. Since this article is about the "center-left". sources used to support the inclusion of parties as center-left should actually say that they are center-left. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Left-of-Centre

There are various sources on this and other websites as well as in mainstream media and society that refer to the term "leftt-of-centre/center". Would it not be a good idea to include a new section in the main article to define the concept? It seems necessary to me because the terms "centre-leftt", "leftt-of-centre" and "left-wing", while sounding similar, describe materially different political positions. For example, in the European Parliament, there is the centre-left Party of European Socialists (PES) group, the left-of-centre European Green Party (EGP) and the left-wing Party of the European Left (EL). Each of these groups ideologies diverge significantly from on another, as such I believe it would be wise if terms used to describe said ideologies left little room for ambiguity. The term "left-of-centre" could also possibly include some of the parties in the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party (ALDE) group as well as parties from elsewhere in the world that subscribe to certain schools of Liberalism. What I would like to see is the political spectrum content on Wikipedia include stand-alone articles for "Left-of-centre politics" as well as "Right-of-centre politics" alongside the established main poltical positions. Though, an alternative, and potentially better solution, seeing as they are both fairly short, could be for the articles Centre-left and Centre-right politics to be expanded and respectively renamed "Centre-left/Left-of-centre politics" and "Centre-right/Right-of-centre politics". If you agree with me, I would appreciate any assistance in this endeavour. MBFCPresident (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate

The following appears wholely inadequate to differentiate itself from other viewpoints. "The centre-left opposes a wide gap between the rich and the poor and supports moderate measures to reduce the economic gap, such as a progressive income tax, laws prohibiting child labour, minimum wage laws, laws regulating working conditions, limits on working hours and laws to ensure the workers' right to organize.[2]"

The centre-right could also be said to also oppose a wide gap between rich and poor and its policies to better shrink it. Witness the much greater income gaps in Blue States than Red, Socialist Countries than Capitalist. Labor laws are supported by many parties of various degrees of right-left as being just.

It seems that rather than policies, there must be principles that can be used to describe their relationships. For example, the Far Left advocates for Government ownership of companies and properties. Center-Left believes in private property, heavy regulation of corporations, partial government ownership of land, and a strong presence in morality. The Center Right believes in protecting the rights of individuals by the rule of law and light regulation of industry, and cultural permissiveness. The Far Right advocates for a government strictly occupied by foreign relations (including military) and strong individualism. (Barca 23:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC))

British English

Why is this article in British English? Why does wikipedia seem dominated by British English? 68.96.84.98 (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

You can read about it here. freshacconci (✉) 00:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

List of anglosphere centre-left parties?

Why is the list of centre-left parties here specific to the Anglosphere? Seems like it places WP:UNDUE weight. Wouldn't it make more sense to include centre-left parties from all over the world or just not have that section at all? – ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's done to keep it tidy, otherwise it would be too long of a list. Gorrrillla5 02:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Add nepal in list

Please add Nepali Congress from Nepal as political party under centre left . 49.244.23.223 (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

*Center

Why not use Moden International English, for an International audience? Wikipedia is for everyone, not just that little island or pseudo-continent that still use Victorian-era English. And that's got nothing to do with "American"; it's just the most sensible, modern, and general form of English... 2003:D5:D744:3B00:6D3C:1076:D288:BD07 (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

1.) Because it's policy is to leave it in whichever English variant the article was first written in unless there's a good reason to change it.

2.) Your opinion on what is "sensible" is just that, an opinion. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Green politics

IP editor, would you care to explain why in your edit summary, you claimed that there are no sources supporting the claim you removed? That's hard to believe, given that you removed the sources in that very same edit. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I will repeat similar thing that I already wrote in my edit summary. Please stop to include own views, there are no sources who strictly consider it as one of the main center left ideologies, I repeat one of the main. And even if there is one source, one source for that type of claim is not enough. It needs many reliable sources for that and wide support in sources about. But to it is sometimes described as center-left or have center-left variants that yes as the other related and already listed ideologies. 109.93.236.194 (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Those little numbers next to the text are links to sources. They confirm that green politics is one of the ideologies described as centre-left. They're the same ones that confirm social democracy, so I don't know why you think that the sources are good enough to confirm social democracy but not green politics. It seems that you're removing green politics because it's your personal opinion that it doesn't belong there. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I explained to you, you have to find sources what will clearly say to green politics is one of the main centre-left ideologies along with social democracy, social liberalism and progressivism, and not just related ideology that are sometimes described as centre-left or have centre-left variants for example democratic socialism. That sources I didn't saw and don't see, and seems to you doing some own research but that you should do on own blog not here. I repeat also, we here talk about centre-left just, not left wing or wide left movement, just center-left.109.93.236.194 (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Also I will register here, as it seems that "IP editor" label is used for kind of giving less value to editor. 109.93.236.194 (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Also it is really easy to find many sources about politics and political parties what clearly make difference between green politics and green political parties and center left and center left political parties for example:.109.93.236.194 (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. It's an article from a university magazine written by a student. I have already found multiple sources. You deleted them from the article. I'm curious why you chose to remove green politics but not social liberalism or social democracy, even though the same sourcing confirms all three of them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, it is really easy to find many sources about politics and political parties that clearly make difference between green politics and green political parties and center left and center left political parties. Or maybe you think to its just like that accidentally or so. We talk here about the center-left only, and yes green politics is left leaning and left wing, and related to the center-left but not one of the main well-known ideologies what are core tenants of center left politics and center left political parties. Idk what is not clear.109.93.236.194 (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, well I've already found sources that disagree with your claim. You're saying that your opinion of the classification outweighs the sources in the article. It does not. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Editors should not try to put on back doors some private wishes or to make synthesis of sources to make some point. Check sources better, it is easy to use google you know also. Social democracy is almost always used as a synonym to the center-left. It is one of the main and center tenent ideologies recognized ad center-left. And in mostly all sources, center left parties compete with left wing, far left and green political parties so many sources about that, old and new and all. For eg:. I now even start to question do green politics at all belong here, eventualy as related ideology similar to democratic socialism or as it is now. 109.93.236.194 (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

This source simply says that social democracy and green politics are two different ideologies. I don't care that you think green politics isn't a centre-left ideology. The article summarized what the sources say, and you're changing it because you don't like what the sources say. Have you actually read the sources that you removed? They say that social liberalism, social democracy, and green politics are examples of centre-left ideologies. You're inexplicably saying that the sources are not valid for the green politics claim but they suddenly are valid for the other claims, leading me to believe that you're just trying to alter the article based on your personal opinion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Some center left and center right parties can eventuality adopt some pro-environment policy positions, but that does not mean green politics become one of the main core ideologies of the center left or center right politics. Someone can maybe think as that, but it must to be said exactly as that into big number of relevant sources, exactly as that. Something as "along social democracy and social liberalism, green politics is the main ideology of center left politics". One source is not enough for that type of claims so it needs various sources. Everything other than that is just a private opinion or someone's wish at least currently. And what is problem, related ideologies are sometimes described as center left, democratic socialism and christian democracy so as it is green politics also.109.93.236.194 (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

These are from the sources that you removed, which are free to access:

• Cronin, Shoch & Ross (2011): Center-lefts now include a variety of political forces, among them social liberals, social democrats, democratic socialists, progressives, greens, and human rights campaigners.
• Ostrowski (2023): Often, ideological families, their hybridizations and subcategorizations, are classed as ‘centre-left’ (e.g. social democracy, green ideology, social liberalism, some forms of Christian socialism)

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Super "ideological families, their hybridizations and subcategorizations" and in one source, "democratic socialists, progressives, greens". Exactly you have two sources what mention other related ideologies that are sometimes described as centre-left or have centre-left variants. As it is normal. But not as one of the main, core ideologies or in a case of social democracy almost as a synonym for.22:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.236.194 (talk)

Found so many diffent sources when green is separated from center-left, and social democratic policies and parties etc in various froms and ways. All is easy with google hehe,. Even green's in own, but primary sources where they are against to be labeled in any left right spectrum. Easy to find too. But as I said primary. So anyway, into related ideologies that are sometimes described as centre-left or have centre-left variants (as there are some right wing variants of green politics as green liberals and green conservatives for example) without problem. 109.93.236.194 (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Again checked sources and it totally seems all clear. Democratic socialism, the third way, green politics and Christian democracy are related ideologies to the centre-left, that are sometimes described as centre-left or have centre-left variants, but not the core center left ideologies as it is for example social democracy what is in many sources even used as synonym for. And when there is one section for related ideologies, it fits perfect into. In general, I don't see some big problem about. 109.93.236.194 (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I again see some changes without reason and I don't see to any changed since talk here. Also this “The centre-left is more likely to support environmental policies over the centre-right, but environmentalism is a relatively low priority issue in electoral politics and this is not a consistent trend.” seems kind of totally clear, so I have restored it.109.245.227.244 (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that it'd reasonable to interpret sources that list green politics as part of a small list of center-left ideologies as establishing it as "main", but if it truly bothers you we could just remove the word main and avoid stating so unambiguously - that doesn't require completely removing green politics as an element of center-left politics. The sources do clearly support listing it as a center left ideology (because they list it that way themselves) and likewise support the idea that giving it equal focus to the other ideologies we list would be WP:DUE (because they do so themselves.) Also, I don't think the sources for the other ideologies we list specifically call them the one of the "main" ideologies of the center-left either - the sources we use for social democracy and social liberalism are even exactly the same as the ones we use for green politics, and use the exact same language for each; why remove green politics and not those? So the argument being used for exclusion here is inconsistent (which is a serious problem - WP:DUE weight has to be relative; if we drop one part of the article due to an article due to an argument that applies equally to the rest, then we're not giving due weight to green politics as an aspect of center-left politics.) Let's just avoid using the word "main", it's unnecessary and implies a degree of precision that isn't really present in the sources with regard to any part of center-left politics anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello all! I have decided to join as a registered editor after checking Wiki policies. And it is easier for me. To be related ideology or so it can be, or by that logic we could include Democratic socialism and Third Way and so on also as it is also described sometimes as center left ideology or have center left factions. So related yes but to it is one of the "main" and defining I didn't see any source or so what supports it. To some center left parties are more oriented toward environmentalism, for now is like that, but that would be that only. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources. I know people would say Wikipedia is not a reliable source but it is not a blog.YellowFreedomRose (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

This is the problem: you said "by that logic". But Wikipedia doesn't care about your logic or my logic. You can come up with any argument you want, but none of it counts because we are not reliable sources. You're trying to put your own logic into this article, but you're not allowed to do that. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

No, you are one who try to put your own logic and conclusions into this article and better you make your personal blog as this is not place for that. There you can create anything and put anything as the main or not main or so on. But after all this is one encyclopedia and it must only improve and it will.YellowFreedomRose (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Am I also using my own logic by putting social democracy as one of the ideologies? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

If you have any internet search engine you can easily check for example to any social democratic party is described as center left. That is kind of sky is blue thing. Really not possible to someone with social democratic views are described as far left, center or right wing. And that is going on for last 100 of years at least. We are here talking about more recent form of some kind of "greening the mainstream". And green politics is more wide, also with parts where some right wing and even far right people find a place with own ways and views also the same goes on for far left people and organizations. YellowFreedomRose (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I just don't see what's extraordinary about describing green politics as center-left. We have plenty of sources listing it that way and nothing really seems to contradict it. For eg. democratic socialism, there's a historical context to consider, and we have specific sources describing that (and how views on it have shifted). There's no such sources contradicting the idea that green politics ought to be listed as center-left. Obviously when you start getting to these more precise left-right definitions they're always going to be a bit hazy (so we can only go with what the sources say); but by the same token, that makes it hard to argue that it's exceptional to categorize green politics as center-left as opposed to eg. left-wing or centrist. --Aquillion (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

To be listed as related is more than ok, and that is even too much generous, (could be noted into positions just about environment) with only major connection for now is to some center left parties are more keen to the environment, kind in a way of a political parties with green politics as major ideology, and even that not in a constant way, and to some factions of that politics has been described as center left. And some people who support green parties with green politics as their main ideology sometimes vote for center left options. Green politics is wide and defined different and was also described as left wing and even with some far left tendencies and recently with some forms as are as eco-capitalism and green conservatism. Dem. Socialism is even much more related and has been described as center left by some sources indeed. For now it is like that. Other stuff is just wishes for now. Until there is a majority of sources who puts green politics on the same level as social democracy and progressivism it will be just related and when there is that subsection it is ok totally. YellowFreedomRose (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

YellowFreedomRose Please do not make edits that contradict the sources cited in the article. The same sources that support social democracy and social liberalism also support green politics. Reorganising the article based on your own preferences against the cited sources is disruptive. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Nothing in the sources what btw you posted in one major rewriting of this article, does not says about green politics as the main, defining or synonym ideology in the level of social democracy for example, in the way you interpret it and how you previously wrote to green politics is one of the main center left ideologies and that made me deep check this article. And there was already talk about it and I have checked all sources carefully. It is a question now, when look better, should green politics as a whole be included in related ideologies with bigger content than democratic socialism what is more often described and more closer to center left. All this is already talked about, but you push for your own views and keep by every price to try to "own" this article and how it was after your major rewriting. Even if some stuff are type of sky is blue fact. YellowFreedomRose (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit difficult to understand what you're trying to convey, but I find myself disagreeing with you. Regardless, you made a change and someone challenged it, the onus is on you to convince us. Find sources that say that green politics can be right-wing and you can make your change; otherwise it's not going to happen. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Uhu what. The point is to Green politics is wide and defined different. And can't be as a whole considered into center left. My point is that it is related ideology to center left about some issues and I didn't see any source what strictly consider green politics as that among the main center left ideologies or in the same level to social democracy which is used almost as a synonym for center left politics.Can't everything go in the same basket. YellowFreedomRose (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

In my view, green politics is quintessentially a centre-left ideology. I am not sure that it should be mentioned in the lead of this article, but it is surely more relevant than progressivism, that is quite generic and redundant. The fact that there are green variants like green conservatism (centre-right), green liberalism (centre) and eco-socialism (left-wing) makes even more reasonable to think as green politics as a centre-left ideology. --Checco (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I also would place green politics as an ideology of the centre-left, and quite honestly am genuinely puzzled that anyone would consider otherwise. Yes, there are more left-wing variants such as eco-socialism or “deep green” ideology, but those aren’t the mainstream of green political parties, and besides, having ideologies to the left of it doesn’t mean that social democracy isn’t on the centre-left either.--Autospark (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of progressivism from the lead. It's a coherent political movement and philosophy, and reflects cited sources. DFlhb (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Checco, this is the same logic that was criticized above: you're inserting your own original research rather than going by what the sources say. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

While green politics can stay, I strongly object progressivism, which is not a proper political ideology. The Wikipedia article reads "Progressivism holds that it is possible to improve human societies through political action. As a political movement, progressivism seeks to advance the human condition through social reform based on purported advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization. Adherents hold that progressivism has universal application and endeavor to spread this idea to human societies everywhere. Progressivism arose during the Age of Enlightenment out of the belief that civility in Europe was improving due to the application of new empirical knowledge to the governance of society. In modern political discourse, progressivism gets often associated with social liberalism [...]". According to Britannica, progressivism is "in the United States, political and social-reform movement that brought major changes to American politics and government during the first two decades of the 20th century". Thus, progressivism in this article's lead is at best redundant. --Checco (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so it's not appropriate to cite it here. That text from Britannica is about one school of thought in one country at one point in time. The lead should reflect the body, and the body should reflect the cited sources. You might also wish to read Wikipedia:Tertiary-source fallacy, which explains why this style of argumentation is inappropriate. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The fact that neither Britannica nor any source cited in Progressivism describes it as an ideology should make you think. There is no need to read that Wikipedia project page to understand that "progressivism" is not generally described as a distinctive ideology or an ideology per se by sources. --Checco (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that "progressivism" is not a coherent ideology or ideological description, and in my experience seems to most often be used in texts as a synonym for cultural liberalism.--Autospark (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

References

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Centre-left politics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DimensionalFusion (talk · contribs) 00:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright so right off the bat I’m not seeing any maintenance tags or any other reason to quick fail, so I’m just going to jump right into the article.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is clear and precise, SPaG is correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section is the appropriate length and depth for the article size. Meets MoS requirements for layout, WtW, Fi and LI.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are provided in the appropriate section at the bottom of the article.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Checked citations, sources are reliable and back up their corresponding claims inline.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All claims are backed up by inline citations
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Ran it through copyvio detector, after reviewing them I didn't find any copyvios within the article. Checked through the sources now, couldn’t find any book or PDF copyvios either
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article addresses the primary components of the topic and describes the topic broadly.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article does not go into unnecessary detail, providing summaries of complex topics and all sub-topics are spun into their own articles linked with hatnotes
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article complies with NPOV and does not give any one opinion undue precedence
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is generally stable, doesn’t change from day to day and no edit warring as far as I can see
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The only image in the article is tagged with its copyright status and is free content
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The image in the article is correctly captioned and relevant to the corresponding article text
	7. Overall assessment.	Article meets GA criteria, passed GAN

Prose

“The centre-left is more likely to support environmental policies over the centre-right, but environmentalism is a relatively low priority issue in electoral politics and this is not a consistent trend.” Could this be rephrased to be more concise? I had to read this a few times to understand what it meant

“By the beginning of the 21st century, the centre-left had almost entirely overtaken farther left groups in politics globally” This should say “further” instead of “farther” as it is not a physical distance — Preceding unsigned comment added by DimensionalFusion (talk • contribs) 01:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I've made both changes. I'll also note that in the version that I nominated, "Green politics" was its own subheading with the others, as the cited sources list it with the others. An IP editor removed it and has been repeatedly deleting it whenever it's restored, even after being asked not to. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien Alright thanks for fixing it-

As for the IP, have you reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism? DimensionalFusion (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

"Vandalism" is specifically restricted to obviously malicious things like blanking pages or inserting gibberish. For now I've restored the sourced version of that section and added a note explaining that reliable sources are necessary for the list. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.