Talk:American Left/Archive 2

Green Party
Green parties are not left-wing except in a relative sense and therefore we should not list them as left-wing parties. As United States: Greens become NY's third party after strong left campaign points out, some left-wing people support the Greens, and perhaps the article should mention that. They have also supported the Republicans, the Democrats and many smaller non-left-wing parties.

The second source says that the Greens are to the left of the Democrats, which is no doubt true, but it does not make them left-wing either.

TFD (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Are there sources that would support a single sentence, saying that the Greens (some of the Greens?) are sometimes described as being on the left? Maybe from the time of Ralph Nader's presidential campaign? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Diff of deleted material: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Left&diff=641098677&oldid=641029922 Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Quotes from supporting reliable sources:
 * "But all of this should not cause us to forget that the Ralph Nader Green Party campaign for the presidency was arguably the most extraordinary phenomenon in US left politics in many years." Monthly Review.
 * "The radical wing of the US Greens is anti-capitalist, seeing Green politics as an expansion of traditional socialist perspectives to include the harmonization of society with nature as well as of human with human." The Green Party and the Future of the US Left
 * "Green Party gubernatorial ticket in New York in the November 4 elections — headed by left-wing activist Howie Hawkins for governor and International Socialist Organization activist Brian Jones for lieutenant governor — scored a large rise in the Green vote." United States: Greens become NY's third party after strong left campaign
 * Why is this not sufficient? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a new one: "In 1984, Hawkins co-founded the Green Party of the United States and settled into what has become his permanent political home. “I see the Green Party as the political expression of the New Left of the ’60s,” Hawkins said." https://indypendent.org/2014/10/28/meet-howie-hawkins-anti-cuomo Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Because even though left-wing people have been active in the Green Party, they have also been active in the Democratic and Republican parties as well as many minor non-socialist parties. Furthermore, these are not rs for the article - editorials are not rs for facts.  But the editors of the Monthly Review say, "Nader is not a socialist", i.e., not left-wing and neither do they say the party is.  So if you find rs saying what the editorial said, then add it.  But do not say that the Green Party is left-wing.  TFD (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear that the cited reliable sources consider the Greens to be a left party, and that you disagree. In such a case, we have to let the reliable sources take precedence over the personal opinions of editors. Whether "left" equals "socialist" is a topic for another article, and we shouldn't be doing original research. BTW Hawkins was a founder of the party, not just an activist. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * None of them say the Green Party is left-wing, and what a member of the Green Party says is not a reliable source. Note that the categorization of most of the other parties is sourced to academic books.  I will therefore tag your section.
 * I have begun a discussion at WP:RSN.
 * TFD (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Are there multiple reliable independent secondary, and preferably scholarly, sources on the subject of the American Left that clearly include the Green Party as part of same? If not, I can't see how including it in this article doesn't violate WP:OR. The sources listed above don't even come close to meeting that criterion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * From Indypendent story on party co-founder Hawkins: Yet beneath the candidate’s unconventional biography is a man whose belief in independent left third-party politics hasn’t wavered over five decades. “The richest 1 percent already own the two major parties. It’s time working people had one of our own,” Hawkins is fond of saying. When progressives join with Democrats, he explains, “You’re also in a coalition with the biggest capitalists on Wall Street and the real estate industry and other corporate influences. You lose your independent voice, even your independent identity as a fundamental alternative. Instead, you end up becoming a liberal.” Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK here you go, from the Encyclopedia of American Political Parties and Elections: "Considering these values and principles that guide the members of the party, the Green Party is accepted as a left-wing alternative in American politics, further to the left than the Democratic Party." https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=d-379E2mFmYC&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=green+party+american+left&source=bl&ots=ICs8o_ms8z&sig=NrxN6GN-dqwhEGEuhh6DX6yZe48&hl=ja&sa=X&ei=1_SsVPPHIeW0mwXIpYH4DA&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=green%20party%20american%20left&f=false Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Based on their tax incidence and redistributive preferences, foundations in environmentalism, and frequent flirtations with socialism (in the sense of state ownership of the means of production, not just Social Security), I am not opposed to calling American green parties leftist or even far left. However, I am also of the opinion that we should point out clearly and repeatedly that both Republicans and Democrats are clearly to the right of the demographic center, which is such a minority opinion (at least among my stalker crew who respond to my RFCs) that I am pessimistic about making any progress with such labels. EllenCT (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I cannot find anything on the Green Party website about state ownership of the means of production or redistributionism, or any secondary sources that mention it. AFAIK their criticism is that the United States has strayed from the values of the American Revolution rather than the left-wing view that the Revolution was bourgeois.  Do you have any secondary sources that say anything different?  It could be that the U.S. is so strongly neoliberal, that anyone challenging those principles is seen as a socialist, but that is more perception than reality.
 * There was at one time a faction within the Greens, the "Left Green Network", although ironically they claimed to support the values of the U.S. Revolution and opposed state socialism, and in Extremism in America they are compared to Posse Comitatis. In ""Is the Left-Green Network Really Green?", Lorna Salzman, the 2004 presidential candidate of the Greens, explains that the Greens are not left-wing. She writes, "At the risk of being accused of "Left-baiting," it seems that the LGN is "Left" not because its values or even main objectives are strikingly different from Green movement values and objectives, but because, like the traditional Left and Marxists, it persists in promoting an a priori political world-view that can then be applied across the board to all extant societal problems."
 * TFD (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what has been on their website in the past couple years, but I have been given state Green Party handbills which I recall strongly implied they supported -- at least some time in the past decade -- state ownership of utilities along with much if not most manufacturing, transportation, and agriculture. EllenCT (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly because there are left-wing elements within the green parties that may dominate in some areas? What state[s] are you referring to?  There are also right-wingers in Green parties.  TFD (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I added to the section that the Green Party although not left-wing had a left-wing faction. If we plan to keep this section, I will add others showing that the Democrats and Republicans, although not left-wing parties, also had left-wing sections.  Don't think this helps the article, but at least it balances the section about the Greens.  TFD (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This further illustrates why the "left-right political spectrum" has no actual definition fitting all places and all times. I would like to suggest that where the major parties are both essentially "centrist" that trying to say they each had left-wing and right wind sectors is a tad useless.  In fact, by some European standards,   neither US party has a major left wing nor right wing sector . Collect (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant that both parties have had socialist members. That did not make either party left-wing, they were as you say centrist parties. Whether or not one accepts the political spectrum as meaningful, the articles is about socialists, communists, anarchists, syndicalists and anarcho-syndicalists, but the term left is shorter.  TFD (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to debate this any longer, unless you can find a reliable source that refers to the Green Party of the United States as a centrist or right wing party. I posted this above. You don't need to do any original research into their party platform:
 * From the Encyclopedia of American Political Parties and Elections: "Considering these values and principles that guide the members of the party, the Green Party is accepted as a left-wing alternative in American politics, further to the left than the Democratic Party." https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=d-379E2mFmYC&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=green+party+american+left&source=bl&ots=ICs8o_ms8z&sig=NrxN6GN-dqwhEGEuhh6DX6yZe48&hl=ja&sa=X&ei=1_SsVPPHIeW0mwXIpYH4DA&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=green%20party%20american%20left&f=false
 * I posted what the presidential candidate said. Certainly they are an alternative to left-wing voters to the Republican and Democratic parties, that does not mean they are left-wing.  I notice that you think Wikipedia is covering up the truth about 9/11 and UFOs and therefore do not think that I will be able to persuade you of anything.  TFD (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Which chart is being used to describe "left"?
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2d-political-spectrum.png
 * https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Nolan-chart.svg/2000px-Nolan-chart.svg.png
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum#mediaviewer/File:Political_chart.svg


 * If you use the last chart, The green party candidate is clearly on the left. http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Neither chart is being used. You could not really have an article about the 50% of the U.S. population that is to the left of the mean median, which would mean the inclusion of the Democratic Party and sometimes the Republican Party too.  TFD (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Then what is the measure of "left"? Media refers to politicians and politics as "Social left" and "economic left", those charts use those terms to create scales. Republicans were considered left before and during reconstruction because they were socially left, now they are socially right - they are still economically right though.Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the current use of "left" and "right" was not in use in the 19th century in the US.  shows its first US usage in 1919. Collect (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Same site you used:
 * Usage - 1871. Though that was not my claim that they used the term "Left" but that the term "left" would fit them based on current usage. They used terms such as "Federalist" and "Anti-federalist" during the revolutionary war which can be put on a left-right scale, where federalists would be left and anti-federalist would be right. The start of the GOP was left as they were against slavery socially liberal. Using that same site for that same reason if liberal is stationary at the left, as it is considered today, then we can say that GOP was leftist when it first came about.Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Um-- British usage and American usage are not the same. The fact is that the US did not use the "spectrum" analogy until after WWI.    Nor did any contemporary source refer to Federalists as "left wing" etc.  We can always strain to call Socrates "left wing" but it is an anachronism to try assigning it as being something anyone at the time might even have thought of. Collect (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Anachronistic? We are looking into the past and using a slightly different language then the past to describe the past. That is inherently anachronistic. But that seems irrelevant to the topic at hand.
 * The opening is about "socialists, communists, social-democrats and anarchists" then states "Although left-wing ideologies came to the United States in the 19th century", which is before WWII as you state would make this article starting at too early a date if you would try to keep it contemporary rather than anachronistic. Also using wiki's left wing page (which also states that left wing was from during the french revolution though not sourced - as well your etymology site claimed it was rebranded in 1776, coincidentally(?) during the American Revolution - which would not make it anachronistic, and "the left" later during reconstruction in the US which would make it spot on.)
 * Is the left, left wing or not?
 * "In left-right politics, left-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality." Which makes the article seem either arbitrarily starting with socialists in 1848 or seem to make that the article has a POV.
 * Is the article supposed to be American Left from the start of the concept "leftwing", from the start of "the left", from the start of the country, or only about socialism with a few small mentions of other things like greens, or something else?Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What is left and right is relative to each country. For instance, in the US communist parties are far-left, but in France and Russia they are generally viewed as just left. If the Democrats represent the centre-left in the US, logically speaking the Green Party is left-wing. --TIAYN (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That may be, but articles are about topics, and the topic of this article is socialism, communism, anarchism and related groups that are generally called the left in other countries and in serious writing in the U.S. and which is what you find by conducting searches of Google books and scholar for "American Left." TFD (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

How about the book American Dreamers: How the Left Changed a Nation[ http://www.amazon.com/American-Dreamers-Left-Changed-Nation/dp/B00F6DXPWQ ]? Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. American Dreamers says, ""If Barack Obama and Noam Chomsky are both on "the left," then how does one make sense of their opposing views on U.S. foreign policy, and a good many other subjects?  So I adhere to the classical definition.  The left is that social movement, or congeries of mutually sympathetic movements, that are dedicated to a radically egalitarian transformation of society." {p. iv)
 * I do not mind mentioning in the article that "left" can mean different things and the article says that. But the article is about a topic not the various ways in which the word "left" can be defined, and uses the same definition as American Dreamers.  Note that book, although published in 2011, does not mention the Green Party at all.


 * TFD (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You skipped this part: "So I adhere to the classical definition: The left is that social movement, or congeries of mutually sympathetic movements, that are dedicated to a radically egalitarian transformation of society. They often preferred "radical" or "revolutionary" or "progressive" -- or a narrower term like "socialist", "anarchist", or "communist" which proclaimed their membership to one of the ideological families that populated the village of the left."
 * Progressive and Liberal are often used interchangeably.
 * Also the section that would pertain to the greens: "The right of property holders and corporations to do what they wish with their assets clashes with environmentalists' desire to preserve the natural habitat" some people referred to as eco socialists and greens would fall under environmental left.Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no accepted "one size fits all" definition of "left" or "right" which fits all places at all times. None.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Dairyfarmer777, the key words are "radically egalitarian transformation of society." Indeed some greens are left-wing, that does not mean that the Green Party is left-wing.  Indeed, some Republicans were socialists, that does not mean the Republican Party was a socialist party.  On a point of history - and it is in this article - some socialists were Progressives (for example Upton Sinclair) and they used that name particularly with the Progressive Party c. 1948.  But Taft and Herbert Hoover were progressives, but not socialists.  TFD (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So for the sake of the article left is a synonym of socialist? Dairyfarmer777 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Try a Google book search for "the american left." The definition used in the article is consistent with that used in the ten hits on the first page.  But socialism is just one part of the Left.  TFD (talk) 06:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Dairyfarmer: Yes. The creator of the article "skipped this part" about the actual definition and scope of the American Left. For the sake of the article he created, the American Left is synonymous with what he chooses because that is consistent with the top ten Google Books that happen to be consistent with the current scope of the article. I briefly managed here to get the article's creator to put in writing that the top ten google books he's been using to justify the article's scope for months are "non-reliable writings." But that realization didn't last long. Well-written articles can portray a complex reality, but that would take editors interested in writing an encyclopedia article who also must engage with editors who are resistant to discussing scope and context. Flying Jazz (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is biased and needs to be re-written.
This article needs lots of work. The main problem is that the article is completely at odds with the accepted and well sourced wiki pages regarding left wing, right wing and left right politics. Instead of sourcing the origins of the term 'left wing' or 'the left' and using that from which to proceed, the authors here have fallen into the trap of thinking that the most objectionable components of 'the left' form the entirety of 'the left'. Some socialists might be on the left, but not everybody on the left is a socialist and, indeed, the terms 'left' and 'right' precede any formal implementations of either socialism or Marxism. As it stands it is an incomplete summary of a portion of the spectrum, the socialist left in America, and pointedly fails to approach the entirety of the spectrum.

At the very least the article should have a different title, a brief precis on the history and historical differences between left and right, some discussion of political theory regarding civil rights, criminal rights, property rights and some discourse on economic theories at play. TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The article follows what reliable sources say. If you have alternative sources for the American Left, then kindly provide them.  In fact, this article is entirely consistent with other articles on left-right politics.  TFD (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * What you say is in direct contradiction with WP:NOT, specifically "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. "  Merely calling all Lefists socialists doesn't cut it. This article merely assumes that since someone once said all leftists are socialists makes it true... TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not what "someone once said", but what reliable sources say, beginning with the Encyclopedia of the American left (Second edition). Oxford University Press, 1998.  Do you have any alternative sources?  TFD (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You mean the Encyclopedia of the American Left written by Dan Georgakas, anarchist poet and Paul Buhle, former spokesman for the SDS??  I repeat: this article is biased and needs to be rewritten.  It is not consistent with other wikipedia articles about left-right politics and doesn't make any attempts to put things in context.  TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a book about the American Left that serves as an example of what you would like to see? Incidentally, the politics of writers are irrelevant to the reliability of their works.  And Georakas and Buhle did not write the Encyclopedia, but were chosen by the non-anarchist Oxtord University Press to edit the book using articles by dozens of contributors.  TFD (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you mistake me for a deletionist when I say that the entire article needs to be re-written. I think the information that is here is a view of  one aspect of the spectrum.  My point is that it is not the entire spectrum and it is completely out of context.  I'm not advocating any deletions. I'm not questioning any of the information contained herein.  I'm questioning the comprehensiveness and completeness of the information contained herein... And I'm saying that such incompleteness and lack of context clearly forces the reader to draw incorrect conclusions.  I'm advocating additions and corrections that place the American Left in context.  On the matter of sources:  I already provided sources; the other wikipedia articles on left-right politics.  In those articles there are, literally, dozens of sources that describle "left" and "right" and point out that the "left"  is not limited to socialism either in America or elsewhere.  Any one of those can be cribbed for here.  On the reliability of writers, most especially political writers: they can be reliably political.  I think that Georgakas and Buhle deliberately, and Oxford University (which has flirted with Socialism for a long long time) attempt to claim an entire section of the political spectrum as their own 'turf'.   I think that's what Marx tried to do. I think that's what many political writers try to do. And to dress it up in scholarly-sounding  "Encyclopedia of..." is disingenuous at best and just plain bad history at worst.    If that's the case simply relying upon that, wholly political, view will be furthering that view. TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a book about the American Left that serves as an example of what you would like to see? TFD (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Anything by John Maynard Keynes, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Arthur Schlesinger or John Kenneth Galbraith. Take your pick.   TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The only book by any of them I have read is Galbraith's The Scotch, which is about his early life in rural Ontario.[ http://www.amazon.ca/The-Scotch-John-Kenneth-Galbraith/dp/0395393825 ] There is no mention in the book of the American Left.  TFD (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TreebeardTheEnttalk, this article is not in harmony with left wing, right wing and left right politics. The article seems better titled as "American Far left" since its mainly about socialism. Though internationally US Democrats and US Republicans are centrist, within the country one is consider left and the other right respectively. If this article is about the American left, it doesn't appear to conform to the country it talks about. If it wishes to use left an international sense then it should be more forthright about that, but actually it should include both perspectives. Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that it is unusual in the world to refer to socialists as far left. Would you call the government of France, the previous government of the UK, or SDUSA members who worked for the Reagan administration far left?  And if so, what do you call groups to their left?  TFD (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that this article is supposed to be about the "American left", not "American left though the eyes of the world but in english." Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Dairyfarmer, I recommend that you watch the 9 minute video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEoVOGtD0_gv for starters. Then move on to the free bits of Zaretsky's book, especially the Introduction. After that, it will hopefully be obvious to you that neither major party in the US has ever been (the or an) American Left. Zaretsky's text poses that (classic, not modern) American liberalism and the American Left are "interdependent...with a tense and productive relationship between them" based originally on the historical origin of the New England colonies being populated with refugees from the English Civil War. Zaretsky (aptly in my view) describes the American Left as a "nagging radical tradition" toward trying to deepen ideals of equality that were not achieved during the English Civil War. This takes the ideas of the American Left and the uniqueness of the American Left compared to the left elsewhere even further back into American History than the French Revolution, and it probably serves to explain why New England remains further to the left than most other parts of the country today. Although I don't have a citation for that, I'm sure the idea isn't new. If you know some good editors who have the background and interest to channel Zaretsky, Lukas, Keynes, Moynihan, Schlesinger, and Galbraith, please invite them here. Unfortunately, they will also need to devote the time and have the background to deal with editors here who are resistant to a change in scope. Flying Jazz (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The article says, "Although left-wing ideologies came to the United States in the 19th century, there are no major left-wing political parties in the US. As a result, Americans frequently use the term "left-wing" to refer to radicalism or even liberalism."  If you think that "American Liberalism" should be re-named "American Left", then discuss it at that article.  This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary of the American language.  TFD (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, my issue is with the conservative definition of left rather than evolving as it has in American English, and without decently acknowledging that. American liberalism isn't American Left, it would be Modern American left or Pop American left because they are considered left within the 2 parties.
 * I would rewrite that statement as "The 19th century saw an influx of left-wing ideologies, though no major party formed from them. Americans refer to radicalism and even liberalism as left-wing. Although liberalism is left of United States of America's center, from an international perspective the 2 major parties, democrats and republicans, are centrists to right of center." Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see that left-wing is often used as a synonym for liberal in reliable sources, it's more in conservative blogs. And even then they are usually claiming that they are socialists.  Reliable sources refer to the new Greek government as left-wing, but it is rare to find the Obama or previous democratic administrations referred to in that way.  Certainly, unlike even parties such as the Labour Party, they do not self-describe that way.  TFD (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Definitions to utilize for generalizing the scope of the American Left and British Left articles
Refactored section. The original text is available here Flying Jazz (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"The liberal tradition stands for formal equality, the equality of all citizens before the law, whereas the left probes the social and cultural conditions that lie behind formal equality, and may serve to either eviscerate it or realize it. But the difference runs deeper than that. Behind the left's commitment to equality is a passion for emancipation from entrenched forms of domination. Criticizing forms of domination that liberals tolerate or ignore, the left stands not only for equality, but also for an enhanced conception of freedom."

Where is this quote from? If you're curious, google it. The definition obviously encompasses both the POV of those who emphasize the evisceration of the liberal tradition by probing from the left (which the creator of the current article certainly seems to favor) and also those who emphasize the realization of the liberal tradition by probing from the left (which many of those who complain on the talk page seem to favor). The scope looks neutral to me. Flying Jazz (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Could you please explain what you mean by the evisceration and realization of the liberal tradition by probing from the left. Also, what does any of this have to do with neo-conservatism?"  TFD (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oops. I was interpreting Zaretsky incorrectly. When he wrote, The liberal tradition stands for formal equality, the equality of all citizens before the law, whereas the left probes the social and cultural conditions that lie behind formal equality, and may serve to either eviscerate it or realize it, he meant that the left probes the social and cultural conditions that lie behind formal equality and it's those social and cultural conditions that may serve to either eviscerate formal equality or realize formal equality. To determine exactly what Zaretsky meant, read his book. You asked me for a reliable source that defines American Left, and I've provided two. Of course, neo-conservatism has nothing to do with the article's topic. That's precisely why books by and for neo-conservatives on Google Book's top ten list would not be used as justification for the article's scope except by an editor who is only doing it to try to get his or her way. Flying Jazz (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The lead says the U.S. Left "includ[es] socialists, communists, social-democrats and anarchists, that have sought fundamental change in the economic, political, and cultural institutions of the United States." That is entirely consistent with what Zaretsky wrote, although less detailed. I suppose that the lead should say "and others" and explain the fundamental changes the U.S. Left envisioned, since fundamental change could also be in a right-wing direction. But the second point is probably best explained within the article.

The only thing in Zaretsky's book that is ignored in the article is abolitionism. Certainly some abolitions were left-wing (Owen, Spooner), but the limited view of his writings does not show the connection he makes, so it would be hard to include.

You began by saying that the Progressive Movement and the New Deal were left-wing, but Zaretsky merely says that some elements of them were which is what the article says. Similarly his third Left (the U.S. New Left) is also mentioned in the article, as well as the opinion that it was not actually left-wing. Zaretsky`s disagreement with the "neo-conservatives" (he actually uses the term "liberal") is their claim that the Left was insignificant and unneccessary. The article does not say they were.

You are certainly free to improve the article. But your claim that it is pov or inconsistent with sources (including Zaretsky is false.)

TFD (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I recommend that you use Zaretsky's definition or the others written in the talk page by multiple editors as an indication that the article's lead needs to be rewritten and the article's entire structure is unsound. I hope you use Zaretsky's definition and the others here to convince yourself that your lead is not best for the encyclopedia. When another editor brings up references in the context of discussing scope and definitions and the need for a complete rewrite, their real purpose is not to deliver further evidence to convince you that your scope and your lead are best. Flying Jazz (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Another definition to consider in generalizing the scope of this article
"The left...starts from the basic humanist idea of equality...The tradition of the left interprets this idea as requiring both a political and social ideal: the political ideal of equal citizenship, where all have equal civil rights that are independent of their capacities, achievements, circumstances and ascribed identities, so that government represents their interests on an equal basis; and the social ideal of conceiving ‘society,’ including the economy, as a co-operative order in which all are treated as equals, with equal standing or status. It is distrustful of the idea that markets and, in general, unregulated competition exemplify such co-operation since they naturally generate inequalities of reward and condition, which, as they become excessive and cumulative, corrupt and nullify relations of social equality."

This scope/definition occurs in the epilogue of an uncontroversial and dull Cambridge University Press text described as "A comprehensive overview of the development of political thought to the end of the twentieth century," but it is not America-specific. The definition in my previous subsection occurs in a book that is specifically about America, but it's self-described as an argument. The sets of ideas are similar to each other. One definition mentions social and cultural conditions that lie behind equality. The other mentions political and social ideals. It's not a coincidence that the definitions above are similar to other articles about the left on Wikipedia. There's nothing magical in the fact that an American Left article would be about the left in America. Flying Jazz (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Scope, definition, and a new outline for an NPOV article
Refactored section. The original text is available here Flying Jazz (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

If someone did want to create an NPOV article here by arguing with the article's creator over and over for months or years, then that neutral article's structure, and scope would benefit from the definitions above. I understand from the talk page and the history of the article itself that it's important to the creator of the article that there are no major left-wing political parties in the US. I agree. That fact would definitely stay in the introduction of an NPOV article. But a neutral article would spend the bulk of its introduction on ideas related to the above definitions because that's what the American Left is. You know, that whole writing-an-encyclopedia thing is about writing about what things are. Yes, other texts suggest or say outright that those definitions are no longer meaningful in the modern complex world or that they never had meaning. But a reader who comes to an article about the American Left is well-served by a point of view that the left might actually mean something.

An NPOV introduction would be followed by an expanded history section that runs up to the present using Zaretsky's text or a similar text as a guide. Following Zaretsky and Lukes, quoted above, I'd divide the history section into a social/cultural history and a political/economic history. The social/cultural history would follow the particulars of how the American Left has stood for equality and freedom (following Zaretsky's usage) from the 1800s all the way through to the present. There are countless examples of the huge historical distinction between modern liberals and the American Left up to the present on specific social issues. The most liberal publication in New York would not even print the word "gay" for years after the Left had already formed the Gay Liberation Front and similar organizations. Other examples exist with every social movement in US history that increases equality.

The political/economic subsection of the history section might contain some of the information in the current article. But, obviously, in a sane article, an introduction that makes the cogent point that there are no major left-wing political parties in the US would not be followed by an article that emphasizes leftist political groups in the US. Continuing the article's scope and definition of the topic itself, the Left's protests against NAFTA and WTO in the '90s and the Occupy movement more recently would be written about from the Left's perspective of battling inequality, as in the final sentence of Lukes's quote in my previous section. The History section would make up the bulk of the article because the American Left changes so dramatically based on which inequality is being attacked at which moment in history.

Using books about the American Left that were written by scholars of the American Left would be more neutral than repeated references to "American Extremists: Militias, Supremacists, Klansmen, Communists & Others" and similar texts to that one that have been used by the article since its creation. It really is funny, isn't it? The choice of texts and identity of editors creating the article has resulted in an article that has been consistently hilariously not-neutral. Flying Jazz (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You still have not provided any book that could be used as a guide to how the article should be written. I do not see the need for extensive descriptions of Left-wing politics and the left-right spectrum that are not specific to the U.S. - they are best covered in those articles.  Bear in mind that articles are supposed to represent the views expressed in reliable sources in accordance with their significance, which may not necessarily reflect your or my opinions.  TFD (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The book "American Extremists: Militias, Supremacists, Klansmen, Communists & Others" IS NOT a better guide for scope in an article titled American Left than the book "Why America Needs a Left". Flying Jazz (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * John George and Laird Wilcox's book Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe is considered a classic in the study of political fringe movements. It is particularly useful in the description of the activities of small groups that are generally ignored by most sources.  Have you read it?  TFD (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

(After-the-fact sarcasm alert): This article's POV must be strengthened
Refactored section. I'm a novice at such things. I beg forgiveness if I've botched the refactoring. The original text is available here Further discussion about this talk page and the article's scope is on my talk page. Flying Jazz (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC) By associating the American Left in its first sentence with "socialists, communists, social-democrats and anarchists" without including the more palatable (and therefore more dangerous) populists and progressives of the capitalist American Left, the point of view of the current version of this article might seem to deal a lethal blow to the enemies of the factual truth of neo-conservative ideology. But no! The reality of the dangers and repeated failures of the American Left must be made even more plain in this article. The neo-conservative point of view must be stronger because only neo-conservatism is reality. The omission of capitalist populists and progressives from the introduction of an article on the American Left are not lethal blows to our leftist enemies who stalk Wikipedia. These omissions are only glancing blows! The more palatable the American Left seems to a Wikipedia reader, the greater the danger.

Neo-conservatism (and its more-child-friendly but nearly identical neo-liberalism) must continue to rule America today with our crony multinational corporate allies. We will not let Wikipedia get in our way. Bernie Sanders, the Occupy movement, Noam Chomsky's writings, and Ralph Nader's new book "Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State" are part of the public consciousness. Therefore they cannot be part of the American Left because the American Left is always to the left of the public consciousness. That way, we truth-tellers can keep using the term to mislabel people.

For example, the New Deal represented a huge and popular shift to the left in the USA. In the words of the article introduction, it "created fundamental change in the economic, political, and cultural institutions of the United States." Only by omitting populism and progressivism from the American Left can this article correctly represent the New Deal's shift to the left in America as a tremendous failure for the American Left. Because America shifted to the left, the American Left needed to move further left to remain in its Wikpedia-defined place of way-too-far to the left of America. The American Left is so far left that if you think you might be there, you're probably not, but if I want to mislabel you, I can say you are. That's what makes me a truth-teller. That's what makes me an American neo-conservative patriot.

So what changes do I recommend? Footnote 52 about Mao and Stalin needs to be in the main text in boldface. All mention of populism and progressives must be removed from the article entirely and there must be huge images of Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin with captions reading "These are your heroes, you vermin leftists, you. Reagan rules. Jeb Bush in '16. Obama is a socialist." Only then can we have a factual Wikipedia article about the American Left. This article goes far, but it does not go far enough. Flying Jazz (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between modern U.S. liberalism and the subject of the article. Liberals see themselves in the tradition of Jefferson and see the problems of America as being caused by a betrayal of those values by the elites.  Standard left-wing analysis blames America's problems on liberalism, the very system the founding fathers defended.  That goes to the core of the reason provided for their lack of success.  Of course the Left has worked with liberals, and conservatives have accused liberals of being socialists.  But it is not helpful to confuse the two.  Incidentally, the Left is much wider than Stalin and Mao, and in most countries there is a major left-wing party.  TFD (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree! The subject of the article is the American Left. That means socialists, communists, social-democrats and anarchists but neither capitalist populists nor capitalist progressives because capitalist populists and capitalist progressives are not part of the American Left as defined by the subject of the article. Your logical analysis is impeccable and air tight without containing any circular reasoning. I salute you, sir. I also appreciate your one-sentence description of how liberals see themselves. It is not facile because it contains a shout out to Jefferson and the concept of "the elites." Flying Jazz (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There's not really anything particularly egregious about the article. The article's focus is a bit narrower than the title might initially suggest to the lay reader, but—contrary to your claim about it shifting goalposts ("Because America shifted to the left, the American Left needed to move further left to remain in its Wikpedia-defined place of way-too-far to the left of America")—that focus is maintained pretty consistently, namely, American anticapitalist movements of various types: not an especially unconventional usage of the term "the Left". I would compare the page on the British Left. Footnote 52 is a citation of Kirkpatrick Sale, who is hardly a "neoconservative", and in general I see absolutely no reason to think that there's a hidden right-wing agenda at work behind the article, as you seem to suggest. — Nizolan  (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That was an excellent suggestion. The British Left article has been tagged as outdated since 2011 with multiple comments on its talk pages such as "does socialism = left? perhaps in the old days". Merging/renaming suggestions on that page have ranged from merging with History of the socialist movement in the United Kingdom to deleting the article all together. To a reader with an ounce of sense, a former version of that page and the current version of this one both have the same laughable and obvious problems which is why those problems must be further exacerbated in the future by making this article even more POV. Readers with less than an ounce of sense, readers with only a milligram of sense, must laugh at this article. Your post could be read to suggest the possibility of renaming this current American Left article to give it the title "American Anticapitalist Movements" and creating a new American Left article which is actually about the left in America. But that would involve less amusement for the reader of this current article. Editors who find it "not especially unconventional" that "The Left" is synonymous with "Anticapitalism" in the US and Britain are true heroes. Both the American Left and the British Left articles must continue to be protected against those who actually do use language in a way that editors with the correct POV find to be only partially "not especially unconventional." Completely "not especially unconventional" is the only way to go. I think I've lost my train of thought with excessive parsing. Where was I? Oh, well. I'll just plow ahead. I never meant to suggest a hidden right-wing agenda. I meant to applaud a proud, laudable, and overt neo-conservative and neo-liberal agenda working hand in hand to save us and our posterity from both the right and from the left. Flying Jazz (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to suggest moving the article to anticapitalism in the United States then feel free to do so instead of making ad hominem attacks on other editors and throwing out bizarre conspiracy theories. Thanks. — Nizolan  (talk) 08:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am doing what I believe best serves the reader of Wikipedia. I certainly do not mean to throw out ad hominem attacks. If you have a specific example of my talk page behavior that you'd like to discuss, please write to me about it on my Talk page with diffs that cite my words. We can talk about it there. Like I wrote above, I think accusations that people you disagree with are making bizarre conspiracy theories are a delicious treat, and I recommend adding such accusations to articles like this one in order to increase their factual content. And you're welcome. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Naming problems and utilizing Google Books to solve them
U.S. politics have always presented naming problems with Americans abandoning the earlier descriptive dichotomy of democrat/whig and adopting misleading dichotomies such as liberal/conservative and left/right, while still using the latter terms in their original meaning. While the first dichotomy was accepted in the 1950s, we still do not see any mainstream politicans describing themselves as left-wing or right-wing. Mainstream sources use these terms to refer to groups outside the mainstream of U.S. politics. Instead they use the terms liberal and conservative and we have articles about Conservatism in the United States and Modern liberalism in the United States, while Liberalism in the United States captures the entire liberal tradition in the U.S., which includes conservatism. I see no reason to re-name those articles. "American anti-capitalist movements" has the disadvantage both that it is an obscure term and could equally apply to conservatism. Equally confusing is that right-wing groups in the U.S. in the 1930s denounced what they called "capitalism", but now call socialism, i.e., the Eastern establishment. TFD (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * When naming problems exist, some solutions are rational and serve as a useful indication that a good, well-defined article may exist while other solutions are hilariously irrational and therefore serve as useful warnings that an article is unsound because it hasn't done the bare-minimum task of sanely defining its title. You're right that the introductory paragraphs to the article Liberalism in the United States do a good, rational job at explaining sound naming distinctions that readers might not understand. That's helpful to the reader. That stands in stark contrast to the current version of the introduction to this article which amounts to little more than Humpty Dumpty saying, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less." The current introduction to this article looks like it was written by a person who argues by writing things like "Try a Google book search for "the american left." The definition used in the article is consistent with that used in the ten hits on the first page." Ok, well, let's take a look at those books...David Horowitz, David Horowitz, Daniel J. Flynn, David Horowitz. What a broad range of perspectives about the American Left are in that list of books! That's why I'm proposing an alternate solution to help the reader: make the article more POV to make the warning stronger. What's needed is more flagrant neo-conservative triumphalist agitprop here and everywhere else on Wikipedia where certain editors write things that a guy like me who pops into Wikipedia now and then finds amusing. Flying Jazz (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles need to clearly define topics per disambiguation. Neither David Horowitz nor Daniel J. Flynn's writings are used as sources, and neither are neo-conservatives for that matter.  Sure their non-reliable writings are prominent because they are popular writers.  But there is also "Labor and the American Left", "Film and the American Left", "The American Left and the American Mind" and "Recovering the Poetry of the American Left" - all reliable sources.
 * I am intrigued by the neoconservative conspiracy theory. Is it something you have discovered on your own or is it mentioned in reliable sources?  If it is, it could make an interesting addition.
 * 07:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs)
 * From your policy citation, it seems like we're still in agreement about the importance of defining article topics and article scope with both clarity and accuracy, as was successfully done in the introduction to Liberalism in the United States. We also agree that this article does, indeed, seem to clearly define The American Left. Of course, our disagreement seems to rest on whether this definition and scope is so clearly incorrect and limited that it supplies amusement and invites ridicule from a perceptive reader. Less than a month ago, you wrote repeatedly on the talk page that a Google Books search provides justification for the article's scope and title definition, and yet hours ago, you wrote that the two authors that currently appear in 4 of the top 10 google books create "non-reliable writings." Complete the syllogism and the conclusion seems to be that you:
 * are defending the use of non-reliable writings to justify an article's entire scope and title definition or
 * you changed your mind and no longer wish to justify the article's scope using the top ten google books list.
 * If there are other options, what are they? Of course, D Horowitz and DJ Flynn do not need to be cited in the article itself in order for us to have this discussion because you already brought them up by using the Google Books search as a justification for article scope. I have an obligation to read the talk page and see how my observations have been raised and addressed previously by the community of editors here, and I have a habit of actually checking such things. Thank you for the repeated mention of conspiracy theories. I hope you consider adding accusations that "the other has conspiracy theories" to the article because they're always funny! I also encourage you to add the sentence "Standard left-wing analysis blames America's problems on liberalism, the very system the founding fathers defended." to your article because I think it's juicy, it's great for giggles, and it is plainly a crystal clear statement. Why should your best stuff be limited to the talk pages? You know you want to. C'mon...put it in there somewhere. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Whether or not Flynn and Horowitz's books are reliable, they use the same definition of American Left as do the reliable sources and this article. If you think the article should define the topic differently, then please provide an example of a book about the American Left that does so.  I do not see for example books called:  The American Left: From Jefferson to Obama.  What is the neo-conservatism connection?  TFD (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand. There's nothing hilarious about using the absence of a particular book's title to make a point. The lack of existence of a book with a particular title is firm and sound evidence that your etymological analysis into the meaning of the term "American Left" is neutral and sound. Descartes himself could have said, "There is no book with the title I think. Therefore I am not." and he would have been very convincing. Ah, and I see I also need to add a third possibility to my list above:
 * Regardless of whether the top-ten books in Google Books are reliable, a serious encyclopedist will use them to get his or her way.
 * However, you have asked for an example of a book about the American Left that defines the topic differently than you have. OK. Against my better judgement, I'll provide one in a separate subsection. Flying Jazz (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of the American Left 2nd ed. 1998 verification failure (use of first edition's preface)
Consensus opinion on the talk page has favored citation of page ix of Buhle, Buhle, and Georgakas in the lead since 2010. . I'm at the library now verifying this text:
 * (From 1990 1st edition preface, on page ix of 2nd edition): Defined as that segment of society that has sought fundamental changes in the economic, political, and cultural systems, the subject [The American Left] does not include reformers who believe that change can be accommodated to existing capitalist structures, or who believe that an egalitarian society can be attained ultimately within national borders.

By 1998, the same authors had changed their view.
 * (From 1998 2nd edition preface, on page vii of 2nd edition): Although we have incorporated many enrichments and additions into this new edition, we have retained our emphasis on the radical rather than reformist sector of the American Left. This decision is not meant to imply that the broad American constituency for social change consists only of radicals, or that this broad constituency is in any way less important than the more radical elements of the American Left. Our purpose in limiting our coverage is practical rather than ideological: we simply wish to give maximum attention to a vital segment of our political tradition that is routinely ignored or devalued. For this purpose, we have defined reformers as those who believe serious political, social, and economic change can be accommodated into the existing capitalist system and that attaining a viable egalitarian society is primarily a national rather than an international imperative.

Much talkpage and editing drama for the past five years could have been avoided if the updated preface had been utilized in the lead and scope of the article rather than the outdated 1st edition's preface found in the 2nd edition. I hope other editors here join me in altering the lead of the article and the entire structure of the article over the next few weeks to reflect the plain text about subject scope from this useful reference. Flying Jazz (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead already acknowledges that other definitions of the "American Left" exist, but this is an encyclopedia article, not a dictionary article, and disambiguation applies. It is clear that a topic exists, hence an article is justified.  The current definition is entirely consistent with the definition you provided earlier from Eli Zaretsky, Why America Needs a Left: A Historical Argument, John Wiley & Sons, 2013.  BTW do you know what groups, people and ideologies they are referring to then they say the "reformist sector of the American Left?"  Are they referring to people like Michael Harrington, who is already covered in the article?
 * It would be helpful if you could provide a book about the subject that provides a guide for what you think should be in article. The current article is consistent both with what is covered in the 1998 Second Edition of the Encyclopedia of the America Left and Zaretsky's 2013 book.
 * TFD (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should simply say "The definition used for the purposes of this article is ..."  and then say "many other definitions may exist for American Left"  Collect (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you will find consensus for this opinion. Please consult WP:Scope about "artificially or unnecessarily restricting the scope of an article." The most recent preface to the Encyclopedia of the American Left is important to the terminology, scope and structure of the article we create. Flying Jazz (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Collect, that seems to be a good suggestion. The lead already infers that, but you might phrase it so as to avoid all these semantic arguments.  Flying Jazz, since "Scope" is an essay, not a policy or guideline, I see no point in arguing whether you have interpreted it correctly.  The scope of the article is consistent with the content of the only two sources you have mentioned.  If you think that they unnecessarily restrict the scope then please tell me what the scope should be, specifically what should be in the article that is not and provide a book about the U.S. left that has a different scope.  It is difficult to respond to you when you do not make any real suggestions.  TFD (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting what I described at Talk:American_Left but I'll be using Buhle's actual 2nd edition encyclopedia preface as a guide. Like the current article, Buhle will be the foundation. When a reference (a good reference, like Buhle's) has been used as the foundation of an article, and the reference fails verification, I think the foundation of the article ought to change to reflect the reality of what the writer (Buhle) actually wrote. I don't mean to make this personal, TFD, especially since I have been very snarky recently, but, I believe that at the heart of this issue is your unwillingness and/or inability to pay attention to the plain text of what other people write on-line at Wikipedia and off-line in books. I understand that you don't understand that, but it may be the best we can do. I came here partly for kicks and for the fun of trying to figure out what was happening in this article and on this page, but, now that I think I've figured it out, what I'll be doing shortly will be repair work. I intend to clean up a problem that began when you decided to cite a first-edition preface from the second edition of a book and when dozens of other editors trusted that you had done the citation correctly. I'm not writing that to make a statement about good faith or bad faith. I just want to let you know my view about what is happening in more detail. After I create a skeleton for the revised article, I'll put it on the talk page. Flying Jazz (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. I changed my mind about this. If I devote a lot of time to creating a new article skeleton in the current talk page environment, it will just be discarded. My intent is to state what an editor would do under circumstances where consensus for the path of encyclopedia-making predominated. In the current talk page environment, I intend to do nothing. Flying Jazz (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You say in your essay you link to that you would use Zaretsky's Why America needs a Left as a guide to the history section, but the history section is already consistent with what Zaretsky wrote. Your suggestion that "the Left's protests...[sh]ould be written about from the Left's perspective" is inconsistent with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. I am still not seeing any real recommendations, just a lot of unhelpful hostility. TFD (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am now suggesting that the prefaces that Buhle actually did write ought to be used as a guide for editors to enlarge the article's scope and engage in a complete rewrite (incorporating current elements) to benefit the general reader. I understand that you wish to discuss many other things with me right now. But all conversation about scope and context must wait until after handling the matter of whether a citation that has failed verification ought to be used in the lead. Flying Jazz (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Buhle, Buhle, and Georgakas should still be used to determine article scope.
TreeBeardTheEnt previously wrote:
 * "Georgakas and Buhle deliberately, and Oxford University (which has flirted with Socialism for a long long time) attempt to claim an entire section of the political spectrum as their own 'turf'. I think that's what Marx tried to do. I think that's what many political writers try to do. And to dress it up in scholarly-sounding "Encyclopedia of..." is disingenuous at best and just plain bad history at worst. If that's the case simply relying upon that, wholly political, view will be furthering that view."

I think TreeBeardTheEnt would suddenly like using their Encyclopedia now as a guide for scope, at the exact same moment that certain other editors have started to suddenly intensely dislike it for that purpose. I think that editors with opposing opinions regarding context and scope in the article should be consistent about their approval or disapproval of using references for that purpose. If you liked this reference before, there is no reason to not like it now just because it's been updated to reflect a scope that you disagree with. For the sake of other editors and especially for the reader, please be consistent. There are ideas in the updated Buhle, Buhle, and Georgakas encyclopedia about how the American Left may be subcategorized, and, looking back at the talk page history, I think a consensus exists here that those ideas will be valuable for the reader. Flying Jazz (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Verification failure of defining reference: Changes to lead
The previous talk page section was about the impact of the defining reference's verification failure on scope. That's a large remediation project that might not take place for a very long time. This section is about the required change in the lead. The lead is no longer supported by the reference cited in the lead. I have altered the lead to the following text:
 * The American Left consists of individuals and groups that have sought fundamental, egalitarian changes in the economic, political, and cultural institutions of the United States. It includes elements with only a national scope who believe radical equality can be accommodated into existing capitalist structures and also socialists and communists with international imperatives.  Although left-wing ideologies came to the United States in the 19th century, there are no major left-wing political parties in the US.

I'm confident that this lead is soundly referenced, unlike the previous lead. I know I've been stepping on toes and changing my mind about many, many things here. I'm confused and feel out of my league and haven't edited in an environment like this one here. So, if I'm reverted I'll bring up the questions I have about these details of using 1st and 2nd edition references to WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. I'm aware that this might "get me in trouble" somehow for how I've been stumbling about. I'm not even sure that's the right noticeboard. But I'll find out I suppose. I might learn something, and I could really use the help from people who are not involved here. Flying Jazz (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind about going to that noticeboard. There is and has been consensus that Buhle is reliable, so I suppose that noticeboard would not be appropriate. It's a simple verification failure, and my attempt to correct it was reverted. No rounds of discussion are needed. I have no desire to enter an edit war, so I've tagged the citation as a verification failure. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is a summary of the changes you made:
 * The American Left consists of individuals and groups, including socialists, communists, social-democrats and anarchists, that have sought fundamental [egalitarian] change in the economic, political, and cultural institutions of the United States. [It includes elements with only a national scope who believe radical equality can be accommodated into existing capitalist structures and also socialists and communists with international imperatives.] Although left-wing ideologies came to the United States in the 19th century, there are no major left-wing political parties in the US. As a result, Americans frequently use the term "left-wing" to refer to radicalism or even liberalism.
 * Bear in mind that the lead is supposed to summarize what is in the article. If there are alternative definitions of a topic or disputes, they should be addressed here.
 * I do not see why anarchists should be removed from the scope and find "elements with only a national scope" vague.  Does that refer to social democrats, whom you removed?  Or is it something else which the article does not discuss?  In that case it should say it is beyond the scope of the article.
 * I get that in the U.S. "left" can have different meanings, and that should be in the lead, which in your version it no longer is. But articles are supposed to be about topics not definitions and the article is about the same topic as presented in the Encyclopedia of the American Left and Why America needs a Left, which are the only two sources you have mentioned.
 * I am unclear whether you have a disagreement about the scope of the article. If you do, it would be more constructive to discuss that first before re-writing the lead.
 * TFD (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you quote changes that I intended to make to the article, please have the courtesy to also include changes that I made to the cited references that are the topic of current discussion. Thank you. Flying Jazz (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am here to discuss improving the article not to exchange insults. If you do not wish to respond to my comments, then I consider the discussion closed.  TFD (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)