Talk:The Left in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL

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)