Talk:Red–Green Alliance (Denmark)

Minor changes
The link to the party's homepage in English is broken, and should be as follows: http://enhedslisten.dk/content/red-green-alliance Can anyone secure in Wiki-edits please do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.249.0.170 (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I've streamlined the references, (One article was referenced twice) and reworded one passage from:

"leading imams" to "some imams"

The imams are not called leading imams anywhere in the article referenced. Malangyar 16:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"some imams" does not work. Let's say "imams". You must find at least one imam who explicitly does not support her. Hizb-ut-Tahrir rejects any democratic candidate, so that's irrevant. Are they imams? Ovest (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it is not irrelevant, because Hizb-ut-Tahrir are part of the Muslim community, and do have imams. Thus, there are some imams in Denmark who do not support Asmaa. Malangyar (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Malangyar, is that what you call islamic logic? Or is it socialist logic? Hizb-ut-Tahrir does not have imams, therefore they are an example of an imam who does not support Asmaa.

You have lost me Ovest (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I never said that Hizb-ut-Tahrir did not have imams. I explicitly stated that they do, in fact, have imams. (Basically one who leads the prayer) Those imams are opposed to Asmaa. I don't see how you can deny this. Do you honestly think the Muslim community agrees on everything? Now is the time to turn on your NPOV switch, Ovest, if you have one. Malangyar (talk) 10:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am deleting "some" again, until you provide a reference. If you insist on referring to Hizb-ut-Tahrir, I am sure we can have a lengthy discussion about how this should be done.

And stop the NPOV hypocrisy. You are not neutral Ovest (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm adding it back in. There are imams in Denmark who do not support Asmaa, thus it would be more accurate to say "some imams" than simply "imams". This is simply a fact. It would be POV not to note this. It is an important feature of the controversy, that some elements of the Muslim community opposed Asmaa. Malangyar (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * EDIT: You could add a "citation needed" if you want. Malangyar (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You make the claim, you provide the evidence! "imams" does not mean "all imams". "some imams" means "explicitly not others". You are making the claim. Ovest (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hizb-ut-Tahrir is against Asmaa. Hizb-ut-Tahrir have imams. Thus, there are some imams in Denmark who do not support Asmaa. Add a citation needed if you want, but don't delete the some. If you go down this road of deleting well known but unreferenced information, I could start deleting stuff that you wrote but wasn't referenced. Malangyar (talk) 10:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok this is a bit messed up now: "She is endorsed by some imams (others, e.g. in Hizb-ut-Tahrir, do not), ...". How about: "She is endorsed by some imams and opposed by others such as those in Hizb-ut-Tahrir, ...". Naa, still doesn't sound right. Malangyar (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

How's this: "She is endorsed by some imams, [2] opposed by others (Such as those in Hizb-ut-Tahrir), wears an islamic headscarf and will not shake hands with men." Malangyar (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have trouble seeing what you have achieved in this discussion, but if you're happy, that's fine, so am I. Ovest (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * An improved article. Malangyar (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Facts added
Please don't revert my changes and call them vandalism. They're all referenced and are not POV. Malangyar (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And to repeat what I've written below: I've added some more information about the party during the elections and moved some of the candidate specific information about Asmaa to the Asmaa Abdol-Hamid page. I think we should focus this article as much as possible on the party itself and keep candidate information in their respective articles. Malangyar (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My edits have been accused of breaching wikipedia guidelines. In fact I am in complete accordance with the following: (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy)

"Boldness There are also different editing styles in the sense of how bold people are willing to be. Generally, most of us think we should be bold in updating pages. Virtually no one behaves as though previous authors need to be consulted before making changes; if we thought that, we would make little progress. Quite the contrary: some Wikipedians think you should not beat around the bush at all—simply change a page immediately if you see a problem, rather than waiting to discuss changes that you believe need to be made. Discussion becomes the last resort. An intermediate viewpoint accords that dialogue should be respected, but at the same time, a minor tweak should be accepted. In this view, to edit radically or not will often depend on the context—which seems reasonable enough. There is a place for all of these attitudes on Wikipedia."

"Preserve information Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of deleting, try to:


 * rephrase (This has been done)
 * correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content
 * move text within an article or to another article (existing or new) (This has also been done, I moved the text to the Asmaa article as explained three times now.)
 * add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced  (This has been done)
 * request a citation by adding the Fact tag  (I have added citations for all the text I've added)

Please, if you check out the details of my editing, and check out the Asmaa Abdol-Hamid article, you will see that the information has been moved and that references have been added.


 * Asmaa Abdol-Hamid must be proud of the tenacity of all her agitprop supporters who are so keen to suppress the facts. Like all the rest, Malangyar, you hate the glaringly obvious truths:

- she is controversial because of her headgear, her rejection of handshakes and her endorsement from imams.

- people everywhere are questioning her commitment to democracy, not just in the Danish People's Party.

- the party lost votes because of her.

These issues are central to the 2007 election.

Your edits are clearly an attempt to obfuscate the whole issue, like the other agitprop people, Soman and Åberg. I will not stand for it. Ovest (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, she's controversial. This has also been added to the article. No, not everyone is questioning her commitment to democracy. There have been talks both of the party gaining votes and losing votes from her. I've provided references to both such statements.

I'm sorry sir, but you're the one who seem keen on "suppressing the facts". Malangyar (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, in response to "Your edits are clearly an attempt to obfuscate the whole issue", remember to Assume good faith Malangyar (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've incorporated the rest of what you removed from my edits. Malangyar (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Factual corrections
Earlier today I made some factual corrections to the article.

These were shortly after removed.

1) Yes, DKP vetoed KAP's entrance to Enhedslisten in 1990. But one year later KAP was accepted in Enhedslisten. You can read Enhedslisten's history (in Danish) at http://enhedslisten.dk/partia.asp?voksen=38

2) It is true that the direct translation of Enhedslisten is "Unity list". However, the offical name in English is The Red-Green Alliance.

It would be correct to move / rename the article to "Red-Green Alliance". I haven't done that since I am not certain about the consequences for pages linking to this page.

Does NELF still exist?
"The party cooperates with a number of international organizations, including The European Anticapitalist Left (EACL), The European Alliance of EU-critical Movements (TEAM), and The New European Left Forum (NELF)..." - I'm not at all sure that NELF exists any more.--86.142.110.97 17:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It certainly existed at the time when you asked your question ( http://www.vasemmistoliitto.fi/politiikka/kannanotot/kannanotot_2007/en_GB/1194268393859/ ). 86.155.65.123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC).

Asmaa Abdol-Hamid
Some users systematically delete my text on Asmaa Abdol-Hamid. Apparently they want to suppress the fact the she never appears in public without islamic headgear, refuses to shake hands with men and is endorsed by leading imams/islamists. These are readily verifiable and highly pertinent facts. Arguably, nothing else is as important for the party at the present juncture.

I am willing to discuss the text with anyone, but I will not abide your fascist impulses to suppress facts that you don't like.

Regards 90.184.4.231, Copenhagen, Denmark


 * I (and other editors) have already explained to you on the talk page of the corresponding Danish language article that your edits violate WP guidelines in numerous ways. You are an obvious islamophobic POV-pusher. Obviously, it is no coincidence that this article is becoming a target of POV-editing immediately prior to the Danish elections on Tuesday. I have already explained to you, that your claims of a 'split' in the party is clearly an exaggeration, and that the party hovering near the 2 per cent barrier is not clearly related to the candidacy of Asmaa Abdol-Hamid, as 1) the party has frequently (or always, depending on definition) been close to the 2 per cent barrier, and 2) opinion polls have been going both UP (!) and down since she was appointed candidate. If this issue should be developed any further, it should definitely be done by someone who is willing and capable of writing about this issue in a balanced, NPOV manner, while respecting WP guidelines (i.e. not 90.184.4.231). Alfons Åberg 15:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Åberg. It is the pot calling the kettle black. I am stating the facts - you are not disputing those facts. You simply censor them. Or should I say POV-censoring? The claim that there is no connection between Asmaa and the waning support in the polls is plainly absurd. Even pary members will admit that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.4.231 (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am by all means entitled to delete blanket statements, such as the ones introduced by you. Your statements (in this and other articles) being blatant POV pushing does not make your case any better at all.
 * Regarding your statement that some party members may agree with your analysis that Asmaa Abdol-Hamid may be responsible for scaring away more voters than she attracts, you should remember that there are opposing views represented within the party. You are simply propagating one point of view, while there are actually several points of view. This only serves to demonstrate your lack of balance and understanding of NPOV. Alfons Åberg 16:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The anon user should learn some of the basic principles of wikipedia. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, who anyone can edit. The guidelines are quite explicit that any text entered in an article can be removed or reworded at any time. It is also a fundamental principle that claims needs to be sourced. The burden of proof lies on the editor entering a passage, not the one removing it.
 * In the edit summary of my first edit in this emerging edit war, i stated that the issue was far more complicated than indicated in the text. The issue at stake is not whether Hamid wears a headscarf or not, but to what extent wearing a headscarf is the causal factor for low gallup figures for Enhedslisten. Perhaps it the infighting in the party, just a few weeks before elections, that makes voters reluctant to put confindence in the party? Perhaps its a combination with other factors? Wikipedia is not the place to indulge in speculations, even in many cases were such speculations are found in major newsmedia. My suggestion is to keep the passage brief, so it is not undue weight. If, with some hindsight, some political scientist publishes a research paper in an academic journal and claims proofs to causality that the headscarf was the main reason for enhedslistens electoral performance, it would be completly legit to add a passage on it in the wiki article. --Soman 16:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Soman and Åberg, you are always finding details to quibble about. Rather that amend the text, you use it as an excuse to delete it. You simply will not allow me to state that she is endorsed by the imams. They are islamists in my book, but in a compromising spirit, I will agree to call them imams. You also hate the bit about islamic headgear and handshakes. It is a fact and, like it or not, it is highly pertintent. I will accept deferring further discussion on polls etc. till after Tuesday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.4.231 (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 90.184.4.231, your latest variant of your islamophobic slander is not much of an improvement. It's full of weasel words, wich is against Wikipedia's guidelines. You obviously have an agenda, namely to show that a party promoting a Muslim candidate will be punished by the electorate, and thus it would be more appropriate for any party not to promote a Muslim candidate in the first place. While you are definitely entitled to publish such a theory on your personal blog, Wikipedia is not the place to do this. Not now, and not after the election either. Downgrading your slander from "islamist" to "imam" just doesn't solve the basic problem. I find this dialogue futile, as your edits are bad faith edits and part of a (negative) election campaign. I am not necessarily going to take the time in the future to remind you to respect Wikipedia's guidelines. Alfons Åberg 17:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Åberg, where is the slander? I am referring, among others to Mr. Abdul Wahid Pedersen. This gentleman endorses Asmaa and he CALLS HIMSELF AN IMAM. How can it be slander then, when I call him an imam? Åberg, you are simply being ridiculous.

What are the weasel words? Suggest changes, Åberg, grow up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.4.231 (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Åberg, your mindless vandalizing and insistance on untenable arguments will get you nowhere! Oh, sorry. I take it back. You will be fine as an MP for Enhedslisten :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.4.231 (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You have clearly shown your incompetence and/or unwillingness to edit this article in a way that serves to improve it, rather than just POV pushing. Please stay away from this article entirely. The time I've spent reverting your POV pushing could have been spent improving the article. Alfons Åberg 18:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Åberg, you are so cute. What I am unwilling to do is accept your vandalism. I call it vandalism because your are not arguing at all. You simply insist on excluding facts that you don't like. And do yourself a favour, stop the hypocrisy about wikipedia guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.4.231 (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, Åberg, you seem to think, you have the right to tell me to stay away from the article. Who do your think you are? Your are obviously delusional. Regards 90.184.4.231 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.4.231 (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with "90.184.4.231, Copenhagen, Denmark" I cannot speak Danish but this blog http://agora.blogsome.com/2006/04/05/asmaa-abdol-hamid/ confirms everything said about Asmaa Abdol-Hamid. If somebody who speaks Danish could quote directly the sources given in this blog that would resolve the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmckeon ie (talk • contribs) 20:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am venturing the assumption that Åberg will no longer remove my text. All the claims are supported by outside sources. I am also venturing the assumption that Åberg will not be able to dismiss The Guardian and Information (Danish daily) as purveyors of right wing islamophobic slander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.4.231 (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Saying that wearing a headscarf is 'conspicuous behaviour' is clear islamophobic slander. --Soman 09:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Soman, I profoundly disagree. You must remember the context. It is completely secular. Religion had all but vanished from Danish politics. Her religiously motivated refusal to shake hands and her islamic headgear have drawn enormous attention. She is not simply "Aisha next door", so people are raising eyebrows. It is conspicuous behaviour - even her supporters are putting a lot of stock in it. A vindication of their beliefs and symbols. I am open to change the wording, but lets have the facts right: First she does and says something new/unusual/conspicuous. Then people react strongly. Some condemn her. Some even leave the party.

90.184.4.231 10:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

So essentially you're saying Muslim women have no place in public life in Denmark? How does that argument contradict my point? --Soman 10:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am saying no such thing! It is totally beside the point. There are plenty of muslim candidates, also women. She is controversial because she seems to take guidance from islam and from its clergy rather than her personal beliefs. This is all the more strange, because her party's views on a number of issues are totally incompatible with islamic jurisprudence. 90.184.4.231 10:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You are saying that Muslims are ok as long as they don't 'take guidance from islam'. The problem is that Muslim means follower of Islam. Essentially you're saying that Muslims have to actively reject Islam to be acceptable in Danish society. Its partially sympathetic that you are willing to allow people with Muslim names to run for office as other citizens of Denmark, but essentially your line means that religious Muslims should stay away from believing that they are equal to other citizens. Moreover, equally disturbing, who are you to judge what is abdol-hamid's 'personal beliefs'? --Soman 10:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Soman, I disapprove of the way you are trying to portray me as some sort of bigot. The fact of the matter is, that Abdol-Hamid raises controversy, whereas other muslim candidates do not. I have cited reasons and sources. Don't take my word for it. Check up on it.

As for my personal views. If being a religious muslim means that you reject secular democracy, as some muslim clergymen are saying you should, then no, you should definitely not run for public office. You do not belong in Parliament. Why would you want to be part of a system you reject? Only to subvert it, of course. Nobody can make any claims about Abdol-Hamid in this regard, but her behaviour and the support she is getting from the islamic clergy raises suspicion. 90.184.4.231 11:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't like seeing yourself as a bigot. But the consequences of your positions, the wish to exlude Muslims from decision-making process, various weasel wordings (like 'conspicuous behaviour') or your views that muslims are potential fifth column in the parliament, do in my understaning constitute clear signs of islamophobia. As to secularism, you make an odd and strecthed defintion. Secularism, a secular state, is a system where no particular religion is imposed over the citizens, the state is neutral towards religion. Secularism does not mean a state in which persons holding religious beliefs are excluded from decision-making. To say that the wearing of hijab is a threat to a secular society (like is said in debates on French school system) is a nonsense excuse for islamophobia, has there ever been discussion on banning wearing cross necklaces for Danish parliamentary candidates?

I follow Danish public debate off and on, and I'm aware of the debates both inside enhedslisten and outside regarding Abdol-Hamid's candidature. I'm disturbed by how islamophobia has become a national consensus in Danish politics, and how politicians (from sectors of Enhedslisten and SF to Kjaersgaard) compete over the title as muslim-basher (of course, always with a democratic facade, saying that there's nothing wrong with muslims as people, just their religion/culture/behaviour has no place in Danish society). I reject the formulations that you've introduced into the article, as they point to that Adbol-Hamid is the one to blame. That essentially gives her bullies right, and is a pov-ish and oversimplified way to describe a far more complex issue. --Soman 11:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would stop the name calling. Have I been calling you names? Eh?

You cannot deny that islamic clergymen all over the world are rejecting democracy. I don't think followers of this belief have a place in our democracy. I think that is perfectly reasonable and indeed the only sane position for someone who believes in democracy and wishes to keep it. If that makes me an islamophobe or a bigot in your eyes, Soman, I am afraid there is nothing I can do about it.

Keep in mind, I am not advocating the exclusion of people on the grounds of religious beliefs. I am simply saying that if you reject democracy in favour of islamic supremacy, then you are unacceptable as an MP. Again, I am not saying this applies to Asmaa, merely that she has not done enough to counter the suspicion. 90.184.4.231 11:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As per name calling, you did use the word 'fascist' in your first entry to the talk page. This discussion has strayed far away from its subject. That said, i think that your last sentence captures the very essense of the controversy on abdol-hamid's candidature, namely that a muslim in Danish politics has to undergo a scrutiny that no other candidate is subjected to. This is of course a racist double standard. (see http://politiken.dk/politik/article405645.ece for abdol-hamid's comments on the issue) --Soman 13:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagreement For the record, I am introducing the text which is causing all the controversy. The present and previous versions have been deleted innumerable times:

''Ahead of the 2007 parliamentary election, the party enlisted Asmaa Abdol-Hamid as a candidate. She is endorsed by leading imams, wears an islamic headscarf and will not shake hands with men. This conspicuous behaviour and her statements on politics and religion have drawn criticism from opponents and has been cited by prominent left wing figures as reasons to withdraw their support from the party.''

Please suggest changes that would make the text acceptable to all. 90.184.4.231 13:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did present an alternative wording: "Ahead of the 2007 parliamentary election, the party enlisted Asmaa Abdol-Hamid as a candidate. Being a devout muslim, her nomination received criticism both from within and outside the party." That text is shorter and less speculative on causality. In any case this dispute is unlikely to end before elections are held in denmark, and we would have to rework it anyway. --14:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Soman, she is drawing attention to herself because of her behaviour, her views and the fact the she is being endorsed by people who put islam above democracy. We would be total idiots if we did not scrutinize such a person. It has nothing to do with racism, Soman. Islam is not a race, nor is socialism. 90.184.4.231 14:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be really, really naive to say that treatment of the Muslim community in Denmark would be detached from racism. The treatment of Abdol-Hamid cannot be seen as detached from the situation of the Muslim community at large. --Soman 14:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am in no position to claim that true racism does not exist. But skepticism and even hostility towards Asmaa is not racism per se. You are trivializing and defiling the concept of racism. Your accusations are the real slander in this whole affair. By your definition, a person would be a racist whenever he/she criticizes someone who is not white, regardsless of that person's views.90.184.4.231 14:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The racist element lies in differntial treatment. Do you think we'd have had this argument if her family name was Jensen? --Soman 14:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If she had the same views and were called Jensen, I would have exactly the same problem with her. Why are you assuming that I am a racist, Soman? --90.184.4.231 14:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to Abdul Wahid Pedersen, an imam and and ethnic Dane --90.184.4.231 14:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't like to assume anything futher than what you express in writuing on this community and again this talk page is intended to deal with the article in question. Look, the point here is that the relations between Muslims and non-Muslims in Denmark cannot be seen as detached from immigration issues nor of the socio-economic status of the community. The fact that there is a handfull of ethnic Danes who have embraced Islam does not remove the fact that the Muslim community in Denmark is essentially an immigrant community. The fact that a young women of this community dares to stand as candidate in a national election, and without denouncing her origins or beliefs is outrageous for those who don't wish that Muslims should have equal status as citizens of Denmark. If this is not the case, what is the motivation for DF to lobby for banning hijab in the parliament? --Soman 14:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Soman, I think your are overdoing the hostility towards muslims. I don't know anyone who wishes to deny muslims equal status as citizens or wants to discriminate against them. Some parties want to be strict on immigration, but that is different.

The important problem is that some muslims reject democracy and want to replace it with islamic supremacy under which the rest of us will be dhimmis. It is the duty of every democrat, muslim and non-muslim, to reject this aspiration totally. No reference to cultural or religious origins can justify it. Asmaa may not embrace islamic supremacism, but she is not denouncing it either. The situation makes it legitimate for us to ask her to do so. 90.184.4.231 15:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

At this point we simply have to make a choice: is this issue about 1) the right for all Danish citizens to stand for election, regardless of headwear, or 2) the imminent danger of islamic supremacy in Denmark? --Soman 15:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Soman, you know jolly well I am not questioning her right to be a candidate. The issue seems to be whether you will accept our right to question her commitment to democracy and to disagree with her without having abuse hurled at us. An even more pertinent question is, can we agree to describe the issue in a neutral and appropriate way, suitable for wikipedia? --90.184.4.231 15:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Everybody is always very careful to make sure that nazi and related groups do not get a say in politics. Rightly so, even if these groups are totally insignificant. We should also make sure that the much more numerous islamic supremacists are kept away from any influence. We should not be minimizing or ridiculing this concern. --90.184.4.231 16:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think your POV has been very clear throughout the whole dispute. Sentences such as:

"her behaviour and the support she is getting from the islamic clergy raises suspicion" ,

"she is drawing attention to herself because of her behaviour, her views and the fact the she is being endorsed by people who put islam above democracy" ,

"The important problem is that some muslims reject democracy and want to replace it with islamic supremacy under which the rest of us will be dhimmis. It is the duty of every democrat, muslim and non-muslim, to reject this aspiration totally. No reference to cultural or religious origins can justify it. Asmaa may not embrace islamic supremacism, but she is not denouncing it either. The situation makes it legitimate for us to ask her to do so" ,

These make it very clear that you're trying to incorporate your own POV on Asmaa into the article. Some of these statements are in complete contradiction with her own website, and she has even stated several times that she is a socialist and supports a secular government. Not only this, it has been made clear more than once that she is in complete accordance with the political program of Red-Green Alliance. A political program in which a secular government is strongly embedded.

Not only this, your closing statement is a blatant piece of personal POV:

"P.S. Everybody is always very careful to make sure that nazi and related groups do not get a say in politics. Rightly so, even if these groups are totally insignificant. We should also make sure that the much more numerous islamic supremacists are kept away from any influence. We should not be minimizing or ridiculing this concern."

This kind of POV is not suitable for Wikipedia, as stated by the guidelines. Moreover, it only takes a quick look at Hamid's website to see that her political views are completely different from the views you suspect she has. Malangyar (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Malangyar, all the other Asmaa supporters have grudgingly accepted that even a card-carrying right wing bigot like I have the right to an opinion. So will you. I am against islamic supremacism. If you are for it, may the Lord have mercy on you!

I am entitled to express my views on the discussion page. If you feel that I am expressing my views in the article, then say so. Don't simply delete. Suggest changes. Ovest (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said you weren't entitled to your views. The fact is you accuse others of being POV while you're yourself being blatantly POV. I have reworded some of the text in the article, following the guideline of "Be bold". I have never "simply delete"d anything. I have reworded and moved some of the facts. This is completely in accord with the guidelines. No matter how many times you try say it isn't so, or threaten me, my edits were fine, and this is proved by the fact that you tried to report me but no mod would take you seriously enough to ban me. Amen to that.

Simply put, I don't care what poltical opinion you have. If you try to add POV stuff to this article, without any reference, I'm going to reword or delete it. Deal with it. Malangyar 16:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Malangyar, your adolescent tough-talk doesn't impress me. You deleted my stuff, and you know it. Happily you managed to gain control over your leninistic delete button reflex before anyone had to stop you. Don't say I don't give credit where credit is due! We were able to reach a compromise, let's congratulate ourselves.

And Malangyar, please distinguish between the discussion page and the article. You are allowed to be "blatantly POV" on the former, not in the latter. Ovest (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection
Since this page is protected due to a content dispute, please can someone answer these questions for me:
 * What caused the dispute/edit war??
 * Who are the main participants in the dispute/edit war??
 * How can we resolve this on the talk page??

Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 18:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion (as one of three main participants in the edit war), the conflict lies in two issues: 1) in how to explain causality of issues concerning Asmaa Abdol-Hamid's candidature and 2) whether to use weasel wordings against Abdol-Hamid. I think that the resolution lies in patience. The elections are held in Denmark on Tuesday, and in the week to come there will be plenty of analysis of the electoral outcome in Danish media. That will give a basis for decent and properly sourced wording on the issue.--Soman 19:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am the author of the texts that are so abhorred by my opponents and have been deleted innumerable times without willingness to compromise. The latest version is the following:

''Ahead of the 2007 parliamentary election, the party enlisted Asmaa Abdol-Hamid as a candidate. She is endorsed by leading imams, wears an islamic headscarf and will not shake hands with men. This conspicuous behaviour and her statements on politics and religion have drawn criticism from opponents and has been cited by prominent left wing figures as reasons to withdraw their support from the party.''

Alfons Åberg seems to be the most intransigent. He has not been willing to discuss anthing. He knows only the delete button. Soman and I have been discussing at length above. Thank you! You seem willing to compromise. All I ask is that the central issues be mentioned: endorsement by Imams and handshakes/headgear. These issues have caused the whole discussion. My opponents may think it is racist, islamophobic and so on, but it is a fact that this has been the central topic. I am supplying references. This discussion must be documented. The form can be dicussed, but it is not fair that som users are trying to suppress the discussion. --90.184.4.231 21:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Nobody has proposed alternatives to the so called "weasel words". Apart from the fact that I resent being called a weasel, I deplore the fact that no alternatives have been proposed. I am all ears. 90.184.4.231 21:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't read this thread and I don't plan to do so. However, Asmaa's candidature is deeply controversial in Denmark and it has been a standing joke / comment among political commentators for weeks that she might cost the Red-Green Alliance its representation in parliament. Several newspapers blame her squarely for the Red-Greens' sharp drop in opinion polls. (Danmarks Radio citing Fyens Stiftstidende and Nordjyske Stiftstidende: Asmaa brings the Red-Green Alliance to its knees),  (Jyllands-Posten: Religious war in the Red-Green Alliance),  (Politiken: Asmaa scares the Marxists). On the other hand, elections specialist Risbjerg Thomsen now seems to have swung to the opinion that she may win representation anyway.  (Danmarks Radio)  (Jyllands-Posten). In any case, this controversy needs to be described one way or the other. Valentinian T / C 14:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Valentinian, I emphatically agree and thank you for your support. Ovest 14:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC) (formerly 90.184.4.231)

Here is my proposal for a post-election text:

Ahead of the 2007 parliamentary election, the party enlisted Asmaa Abdol-Hamid as a candidate. She is endorsed by leading imams, wears an islamic headscarf and will not shake hands with men. Along with her statements on politics and religion this made her the target of much criticism from across the polical spectrum. Prominent left wing figures also cited her candidacy as a reason for withdrawing their support to the party.

Although causality cannot be proven definitively, the controversy seemed to affect opinions poll figures after the announcement of her candidacy. A number of polls put the party below the 2 per cent of the votes necessary for parliamentary representation, but the party managed to secure 2.2 per cent in the election, down from 3.4 per cent i 2005. Abdol-Hamid herself maintains that on balance, she has attracted voters to the party.

Ovest 13:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added some more information about the party during the elections and moved some of the candidate specific information about Asmaa to the Asmaa Abdol-Hamid page. I think we should focus this article as much as possible on the party itself and keep candidate information in their respective articles. Malangyar (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit protected
Editprotected The article should contain the following phrase: In the 2007 elections, the party lost two seats in parliament and now has a total of four. The party got 2.2 % of votes, putting it just above the cut-off limit of 2.0 % required to be in parliament. User: (talk • contribs • count) 07:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose to wait until the block is lifted since the election is, in a sense, part of the controversy, see above

Ovest 13:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is a separate chapter on 2007 elections, which should mention campaign (issue taken up by the party) and results, like above. Abdol-Hamid should be mentioned, but the article should avoid straying into speculations. The passage should also be in balance to the rest of the party history. --Soman 13:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The election is part of the controversy, yes, but the number of seats in parliament, as well as the names in those seats once available, are matters of indisputable fact and the article should reflect this, IMO, regardless of disputes about Asmaa in the article. User: (talk • contribs • count) 14:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It is more convenient to write the text in one go. I am not disputing your facts, I am merely suggesting that it might not be worth the trouble to add them straight away. Ovest 16:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Why the heck has my simple request for an NPOV edit turned into a discussion about a lot of unrelated things? I know it's an ongoing discussion, so I'm not taking it personally, but frankly, it had nothing to do with my edit request. I am moving all your irrelevant comments into a new section, so that those who still wish to have a discussion on my edit protected request can do so. User: (talk • contribs • count) 22:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Spin-off discussion
It sounds like Soman is referring to his old claim that any assertion of a link between Asmaa and the party's losses is "speculation". He is more keen to peddle positive agitprop stories about the party than Frank Aaen, arguably the most prominent party member, a well-trained former communist party official. No small feat. Mr. Aaen has publicly blamed Asmaa. Ovest 16:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Mr. Aaen has publicly blamed Asmaa' = 'Asmaa stadig en del af partiet/- Hun vil blive ved med at være en fremtræden politiker i Enhedslisten, hvor hun vil kæmpe for integration og mangfoldighed, siger Frank Aaen.' ??? Nice try. What is said is that Aaen aknowledges that Asmaa's candidature has had 'a negative impact'. That doesn't really provide any info on to what extent this contributed, just that it contributed in some way. As an analysis, this article gives no basis at all. --Soman 20:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Soman, nice to see you read the piece and came across the important bit. Mr. Aaen said, she had a negative impact. I call that blaming her for the defeat. He says some other things as well, but he still blames her. My point is that when even a top party figure acknowledges her negative impact, then we can damn well write about it in Wikipedia. We should not leave out what is clearly relevant and glaringly obvious to anyone but the likes of Soman and Åberg, i.e. the most ardent supporters of the islamist-socialist alliance. Ovest 00:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You consciously twist Aaen's comments. The whole point of his presentation is that he reaffirm's his support to Abdol-Hamid. He does in the end say that her candidature had a 'negative impact', but 1) this appears to be in response to question posed by journalist (as opposed to something he would have emphasized) and 2) as opposed to the rest of the article, we are not provided with Aaen's own wording (suggesting that the wording formulated by the journalist would have been more direct than the one used by Aaen). In short, to say that he 'blames' her is incorrect. Regarding the impact, I don't dispute the claim that Abdol-Hamid's candidature is probably one of several factors that contributed to the loss of votes for Enhedslisten, but the wordings you've used have speculative, biased and outright offensive to Muslims. Let's stick to facts and where we can't say something for sure, let people form their own opinion. --Soman 11:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Soman, you keep telling me my wording is offensive. So why don't you propose alternative wording? I have been asking for this many times. I understand that you now agree to mention that some voters may have been slightly put off by our little islamic warrior and that a connection between her candidacy and the poor election result is not an entirely silly assumption. Big progress, thank you. I am so grateful, I wont even argue with your lengthy interpretation of Mr. Aaens statements.

One last thing. We should state the facts fairly and objectively, even if may offend someone. The Ku Klux Klan are bound to be offended by the Wikipedia article about them. So are various others, including nazis and other unsavoury characters. As far as I am concerned, they can stay offended. This also goes for people who put islam above democracy and free speech. Do you agree, Soman? Ovest 15:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This question needs to be addressed in two parts: 1. NPOV is a policy applies for all article, regardless of subject. The fact that this is not followed in many cases is not an excuse that holds. 2. The problem here is that there is absolutely no basis for the argument that Abdol-Hamid would be against democracy or free speech. Wearing a headscarf is not an antidemocratic act, and the guilt-by-association arguments you try to push don't hold. --Soman 20:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see a positive discussion here. I think it is better to wait for the article to be unprotected, rather than to have this added now. In general, content changes should not be made to protected pages. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

For once, I have to agree with you, Soman. NPOV is fine, I am still waiting to see you have a go at writing such a text! From a neutral point of view, we can condemn neither a headscarf nor an endorsement by imams. What you can say is that she has been criticized fiercely and that her commitment to democracy has been called into question. Many voters and party members were put off, and this was a contributing factor behind the poor election result. How's that for NPOV? Ovest 21:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Correction: I disagree with the "no basis" bit, but I agree that statements are not NPOV. The should be included but not as facts. Ovest 22:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is it "green"?
Is this party an environmental party? There is no mention of it in the article. F 09:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The official full name of the party in Danish, with direct translation into English, is 'Unity List - the red-greens'. Note that 'Red-Green' is not identical to 'Green' nor to 'Red'+'Green'. The English name 'Red-Green Alliance' has probably been chosen to profile it towards other left movements in Europe. There have been important influences from enviromental movement to the party, and it pursues active environmental policies, but it is not a 'Green Party' in the sense that the German or Swedish Green Parties are. Notably, the Danish SF has worked more towards profiling itself as the 'Green Party' in Danish politics. --Soman 11:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps green was really a good choice. In the future it can represent both the environment and the Hezbollah :-) Ovest 15:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Upon formation, Enhedslisten invited both minor left-wing parties, such as DKP, Fælles Front, etc. -- all not represented in Folketing; furthermore, they invited minor green parties -- particularly "De Grønne" and possibly others -- however, even though the minor party "De Grønne" had some influence on the party program, they eventually split and did not merge with Enhedslisten, as they could not accept the party program being highly influenced by revolutionary communist agendas. The name Red-Green alliance is therefore historical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.102.19 (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

End of dispute
I have inserted the text on Asmaa Abdol-Hamid and the November 13 election which I proposed earlier (see above). This text was criticized but no alternatives were proposed and I therefore assume it is acceptable to my opponents after all. Ovest (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Reopening of dispute
The user Malangyar has deleted the passage which emerged as a result of the dispute. Simple deletion of this sort is against wikipedia guidelines. If Malangyar believes changes should be made, please use this discussion page and please make only verifiable claims. If no the page will need to be blocked again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ovest (talk • contribs) 20:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Ovest (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know which passage you're talking about, but I've read the guidelines and am completely in line with them. Furthermore the statements I added to the article are all referenced and I have in fact explained my edits on this discussion page. Look at the top of the page if you're in doubt. Malangyar (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Appararently you now accept that the text is left intact. Thank you, let's keep it that way. It is really scary how all you Asmaa supporters share the same anti-democratic impulse to delete facts that don´t favour your cause. It is always the same passage that you want to remove. The very passage that refers to the imams and her religious behaviour. The very passage that provides the reasons why people might distrust her or question her commitment to democracy - rightly or wrongly. Ovest (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You yourself show an amazing bias not only against Asmaa, but against "hard-line leftists" in general. As a result of this, you completely FAIL to follow the principle of assuming good faith. It's really sad.

And I would've preferred if the information about Asmaa was kept in the Asmaa article, but if you want it to be spread to this article about the Red-Green Alliance, so be it. People can draw their own conclusions. Some people might see the endorsement by imams as a positive thing, others might see it as a negative thing. Some might not care at all. Your anti-leftist and anti-muslim stance has been made very clear, thank you very much. But if you try to vedge it into this article, without reference, I will remove it. This is in complete accord with the guidelines.

Furthermore, I never deleted any statements, I merely moved some of them to the Asmaa article and reworded some phrases which were POV. I also added additional facts about the Asmaa controversy. Facts that you repeatedly removed, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE REFERENCED!

In conclusion, your arrogance is astounding. You think you're the only one who has read the guidelines, while in fact you don't even follow them yourself. You blame others for deleting content, but do it yourself. Luckily, the mods are clever enough not to ban people just 'cause YOU disagree with them. Good day to you, sir. Malangyar 15:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, reading on, I just noticed the text on Asmaa and the elections was not a result of any dispute. It was a text that YOU wrote, and seeing as nobody offered another text you just put it in, and claimed it was a result of the dispute. It's not a result of anything, it's a text written by you, and nobody else. Some of it isn't even referenced.

You don't have a shred of NPOV about you. You're blatantly against this party, just take a quick look at what you wrote:

"Perhaps green was really a good choice. In the future it can represent both the environment and the Hezbollah :-)"

This is grounds enough for taking any future edits that you make to this article under SERIOUS consideration.

Anyway, I'm done here. To anyone else running into difficulties with Ovest, just take it up with the mods. His text isn't justified more than any other referenced text. Malangyar 15:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Nobody objected to my text although plenty of people took part in the dispute. I attempted to accomodate the criticism, and people didn't object. Therefore the text is the result of the dispute. Quod erat demonstrandum!

2. I proceded fairly and made sure that the article was not turned into a piece of agitprop by the likes of you. I will continue.

3. I am glad you noticed my Hezbollah remark. You are entitled to disagree and be offended. Just as I am entitled to think that the only good thing about Enhedslisten is that it is very small.

4. Stop the BS about NPOV. Are you neutral? I know you find certain political views unacceptable, but it is still a free country, no thanks to all you hardline leftists.

5. It would be nice to hear Asmaa denounce the Hezbollah unequivocally. Wonder what her friends in Lebanon would say. Ovest (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Far left
An editor continues to insert that the party is "far left" in the info-box. The first source is from a an article published by the think tank of a rival political party. I am reversing for obvious bias. BTW I had this same discussion with editors trying label conservative groups as far right. Let's just report what the general consensus is and leave the polemics to the blogs. TFD (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * User:The Four Deuces appears to be edit warring my addition of citations, which I had placed in response to an inline "citation needed" tag. Apparently these four references are insufficient:
 * March, Luke (2008). Contemporary Far Left Parties in Europe. Berlin: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. p. 3. ISBN 978-3-86872-000-6.
 * Edwards, Geoffrey; Georg Wiessala (2000). The European Union: annual review 1998/1999. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 184. ISBN 9780631215981.
 * Banks, Arthur S.; Thomas C. Muller (1995). Political Handbook of the World 1994-95. CSA Publications. p. 234. ISBN 9780933199101.
 * London School of Economics and Political Science (1999). Government and opposition, Volume 34. Weidenfeld and Nicolson. p. 73.
 * --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that these sources are more than sufficient. Other than the fact that the first source is published by an organisation affiliated with the Social Democratic Party of Germany, TFD's position to simply reject the well-sourced far-left label for this party is nonsense. I also have a source here, published ten days ago jointly by Ritzau and NTB, which describes the party as "ytre venstre", literally "far-left". I think there is pretty clear consensus that the party, a coalition of old communist parties, is far-left. – Bellatores (t.) 16:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there is certainly more consensus that Enhedslisten is far left than there is about what "far left" actually means...·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That would anyway be another discussion. The matter is that on Wikipedia we cite what the sources say, and the consensus is clear in that this party is regarded by the mainstream as far-left. If you want to debate the meaning of far-left, then it should be done somewhere else. – Bellatores (t.) 19:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We are doing that here, that it what caused Tammsalu's sudden interest in Danish politics. I agree with him in this case, but find it slightly WP:POINTY that he chooses to tag groups with this term while the topic is still being discussed elsewhere.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should the ideology of Communist successor parties be called far left?
Should the ideology of Red-Green Alliance (Denmark), which is a Communist successor party in coaltion with other left-wing groups, be called far left? TFD (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * While some sources describe the Red-Green Alliance (Denmark) as far-left, there is no consensus about the meaning of this term, and they are more likely to be called left-wing. A google scholar search for ""Red-Green Alliance" denmark left-wing" returns 119 hits, while ""Red-Green Alliance" denmark far-left" returns 27 hits.    I would avoid using the term, because (1) it is a pejorative WP:LABEL and (2) it is not the normal description used for the party.  TFD (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong with calling them far-left. I don't think many in the Red-Green Alliance would object to being described as far-left anyways, and I don't think they would view it as a pejorative at all. It's a very common description of the party in Danish politics, especially given that they are further left than the other big Socialist party in Denmark, the Socialist People's Party (Denmark). A Google search for the terms in Danish returns 22,300 hits . And this major Danish encyclopedia says the party was founded by a collection of far left groups in Danish politics to get into parliament(sorry for dumping non-English sources on you). Also, there is this paper and three other English-language sources cited in the article, where the Red-Green Alliance is described as "far-left".TheFreeloader (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I also don't see the label as problematic.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Question - Is there an alternative "position" label that "far left" is being weighed against? Such as "left"?  Or is this RfC focusing on "Far left" vs no position at all?  --Noleander (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * They do describe themselves as a "democratic socialist" party. But to me that just seems like an even more ambiguous description of them, as that might imply they are just a regular social democratic party, which I think most people will say they are not. Also, the term is almost never used about the party outside of their own material. Here are some recent example of "yderste venstrefløj"(meaning lit. the furthest left-wing, but it is the common term for the far left in Danish) being used about the Red Green Alliance in a Danish newspapers.TheFreeloader (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Democratic socialism and Social democracy are two different things. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, but as the article on Democratic socialism explains, the terms are only different from each other sometimes. I would not be opposed to having "democratic socialist" in parenthesis after "far-left", in the same sort of way that this paper has democratic socialism as a subcategory under the far-left.TheFreeloader (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Based on the content of the article as it stands now, certainly the position "left" is sensible.  Using a more pointed term like "far left" or "ultra left" would require a neutral reliable source to justify it.  If the sources being provided (I have not looked) to justify "far left" are opposing parties, that is not good enough to justify "far left" in the InfoBox, because opposing parties are biased.  But if the Danish newspapers use the term "far left" routinely, then "far left" would be acceptable.  Maybe just plain "left" is a good compromise? --Noleander (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Today I saw a newspaper using "yderste venstre" (furthermost left).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Since the party is an alliance of different ideological groups, it may be misleading to refer to the party's ideology. Whether or not "far left" is neutral in Danish, it is pejorative in English.  The same issue has come up with right-wing parties.  The Danish People's Party; UKIP, the Tea Party Movement, etc., are all often called "far right", although there is no consensus to call them that and none of the info-boxes use that description.  There are sources that explain how terminology is used to describe right-wing groups, which we follow.  But none has been provided for left-wing groups.  TFD (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No the party has a written programme setting out its ideology - it is a coherent unit not composed of smaller subgroups.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is how The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right (2002) explains the terminology: "The 'far right' consists of those anti-Communists and anti-socialists who, in the pursuit of their goals, are also either hostile to or indifferent to the values and practices of liberal democracy. However, their view, that the ends justify the means, even if the means include extra-legal violence, terror and dictatorship, often echo those of the far left." (p. 5) TFD (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it is clear that there are two possible meanings of "far left" - either it means violent, undemocratic, revolutionary leftists outside of the parliamentary system (the ROutledge/McKlosky & Chong definition), or it means those organized political parties that are on the furthermost leftwing of any particular parliamentary system (the March/Danish definition).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources - There are lots of sources that use the word "left" (or variants thereof) in association with the party, so "left" is acceptable in the InfoBox.  As for "far left", that would require a more detailed analysis of sources.   Here are three several sources that call the party both "far left" and "extreme left":
 * http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/ipa/05818.pdf
 * http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article533
 * http://www.social-europe.eu/2011/09/danish-social-democrats-electoral-victory-electoral-disaster/


 * If there are several more unbiased sources that describe the party as "Far left" that would probably justify the term. But if it is just one or two unbiased sources, then "left" is probably all that can be said. --Noleander (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the basis for this onerous burden of proof for applying this description. Do we have competing sources which claim that the Red-Green Alliance is only left-wing, or that it is not far-left?TheFreeloader (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good question. The fact that an RfC was initiated on the issue means that there is some dispute over the characterization of the party.  I can only find (so far)  three sources that describe it as "far left", but dozens of some sources that use other terms.  Also, the term "far left" is a bit vague and ill-defined.  For those reasons, I'd say that sourcing for the specific term "far left" has to be fairly strong.  Ideally, we'd do some kind of statistical analysis on the various terms used for the party, and see which term is  most prominent.  --Noleander (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you show the sources which use other terms?TheFreeloader (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, there are three other offline sources for the term "far-left" cited in the article.TheFreeloader (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The other sources I saw tended to use the terms "socialist" or "left wing" to describe the party. I cannot say for sure if those terms are more prominent than "far left" or not.   I don't have time right now to list all the sources and do a detailed count.  My comment above about "other terms"  was simply a gut feeling based on what I was seeing in Google.  So far, there are three (or six) good sources that say "far left", so my objection is not so strong now.  --Noleander (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. I have repeatedly been the witness to parties and organisations being labeled "far-right" on Wikipedia on the mere basis of a newspaper article. Although I think that sort of sourcing is way too weak, the sources for applying "far-left" to this party is by far more than sufficient. (Also, I would argue that it is far simpler to characterise a party as far-left than far-right, as the former is based on rather clear ideology (marxism in one shape or form). Far-right is more difficult to apply, given the wide range of tendencies between the various groups; economy notably can be anything from capitalist to socialist.) – Bellatores (t.) 14:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've found 6 or 7 sources so far that say "far left", so my concerns are not as acute as they were before. --Noleander (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * However, the topmost most by TFD suggests that "left wing" is more commonly used than "far left", so we should probably count how many sources use "left wing" before concluding that "far left" is the most accurate term. --Noleander (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We do call some parties "far right", where there is consensus that they are far right, e.g., the British National Party, the American Nazi Party, just not more mainstream right-wing parties. It is actually easier to label a party "far right" because there is a wealth of literture that defines it as used in Routledge (See Google books or scholar for "far right" and "far left").  It is also often more convenient because while left-wing parties can be grouped into known ideologies, e.g., Trotskyist, Maoist, the most right-wing parties, unless they are neo-fascist, normally cannot.  TFD (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The term ""left-wing" it too broad and basically meaningless, as the parties can have "left-wing" and "right-wing" factions within it too. Also it contradicts the more precise positioning system we use for other parties, for example Social Democrats (Denmark) are positioned as "centre left", so In this context "far-left" means to the left of "centre left". If we list both Red-Green Alliance (Denmark) and Social Democrats (Denmark) as "left-wing", that would just muddle things up and mislead people into thinking these parties shared the same platform. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Socialist People's Party (Denmark) which is left of the Social Democrats and Right of Red-Green Alliance is just labelled "Left Wing"·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Martin's source used for this article categorizes them (the "SF") as far left as well. ("Contemporary Far Left Parties in Europe", p. 4)  It defines "far left" as "those that define themselves as to the left of... social democracy".  If we want to be consistent, then we have hundreds of articles to correct.  TFD (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is also a confusing definition since The Social Democrats ten years ago where considerabaly to the left of where they are now. I guess they were far left then...·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * March also labels Socialist People's Party (Denmark) "far-left" too. However he further subdivides "far-left" into two sub categories: "extreme-left" incorporating Red-Green Alliance (Denmark) and the "radical-left" incorporating Socialist People's Party (Denmark). Here "extreme" isn't meant as "extremist" but meant as at the extreme end of the political spectrum. So my understanding of March typology is: extreme-left -> radical-left -> centre-left. I haven't looked closely at the right-wing topology, but presumably it follows a similar pattern: centre-right -> radical-right -> extreme-right, and latter two are grouped as "far-right". And to our American friends "centre-left" == "liberal" and "centre-right" == "conservative". To add to the confusion here in Australia the conservative centre-right party is called "The Liberal Party" :) --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Klaus von Beyme described parties to the right of conservatism as extreme right, and violent groups such as the KKK are most often called far right. The more moderate groups are sometimes called radical right.  But various writers use these terms interchangeably.  (The terminology is explained at Right-wing populism and Radical Right).  TFD (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There appear to be enough sources, both books and newspaper articles to call them far left. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The term "far left" does not mean anything but something within the spectrum of not defined socialist or communist ideas. Fox1942 (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose, on principle: I'm not up on this issue, so my comments must be general, but as a rule ascription of extremism should only be done in the clearest cases. I assume there is sufficient grounds to call them leftist; without some substantive reason, however, 'far-left' seems like an effort to pass judgement.  I'll add that (as a rule) 'far-left' usually cannot apply to statist organizations or organized parties.  'far-left' is reserved for semi-anarchic revolutionary groups, or other anti-state, hyper-liberal constructs.  But that's more an impression than an established fact.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think something like this can be opposed on principle. You gotta make these decisions on a case by case basis. And in this case we have a pretty good collection of academic sources referring to this party as "far-left". It's clearly not being used in judgmental way by those sources. As I have said before, I doubt the members of the Red-Green Alliance would themselves object to being called "far-left", seeing as they are further left than the other socialist party in parliament. I don't think we should restrict our usage of useful terms just because they in some cases might be used in a judgmental fashion. I mean in some contexts even the term "socialist" might be seen as a judgmental label.TheFreeloader (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It has not been shown that the terminology has been established in academic sources. Firstly, the party family is new, after 1989.  And there is no consistency.  Also, the term "far left" generally refers to violent groups to the right of the Communists, not legal parties to their right.  We had the same discussions for groups like the John Birch Society.  While some writers call them far right, the term is normally reserved for groups like the American Nazi Party.  TFD (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the paper by Luke March shows that "far-left" does not have to refer to violent groups. In the end it is a term which describes a group's ideology, not how it wants to implement that ideology. I do realize that "far-left" is a term which covers many diverse political groups, which is also why I have suggested to specify their position by adding in parenthesis "(democratic socialist)", which again is the subcategory March puts the party under.TheFreeloader (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, you need to provide evidence that the terminology used by March is generally accepted and the evidence is that it is not. In any case, we should try to use academic sources rather than partisan think tanks.  And if we do accept March's terminology, then we need to be consistent and for example call Rick Perry, Sarah Palin etc. "far right" because that is his terminology.  I would oppose that for among other reasons that it would lump them together with the American Nazi Party, skinheads and the Ku Klux Klan.  TFD (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Where does March call Rick Perry and Sarah Palin "far-right"? As fas as I know he only covers left-wing politics. And where is the evidence you talk about which points to March's terminology not to be accepted? We do have three other sources cited in the article which describe the Red-Green Alliance as "far-left".TheFreeloader (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article does not seem to be available on line anymore. However, he refers to the right-wing populist parties as "far right", which is the terminology used by some writers to describe positions to the right of mainstream conservatism.  The most usual use of the terms far right and left, as explained above are "The 'far right' consists of those anti-Communists and anti-socialists who, in the pursuit of their goals, are also either hostile to or indifferent to the values and practices of liberal democracy. However, their view, that the ends justify the means, even if the means include extra-legal violence, terror and dictatorship, often echo those of the far left." (Routledge, 2002)  The McKlosky & Chong source used above, which references March, disagrees on his use of terminiology for radical, far and extreme left.  It would be surprising anyway to find consensus on the description of a family of political parties that did not exist 20 years ago, i.e., parties to the left of socialists and to the right of communists.  It also raises the question of what one should call groups to the left of communism.  TFD (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Factions
Enhedslisten is pretty notorious for its factions, so i found an article by the danish newspaper "Information" which goes into depth with each one, as well as the (still active even though its from 2006) political programme of the largest of the factions (which is SAP) i have cited both in the new "factions" subsection of the wikibox. I have also made some minor additions to the introduction which now mentions its history as well as its current political work, i have made appropiate citations. Kindly do not delete my additions:-) 89.23.235.49 (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Factions break the point of MOS:INFOBOX and the sources that you've added do not back up the added claims. I've restored it to the last stable version. Vacant0 (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Color change to Orange
Here in Denmark, our main brodcasters are DR and TV2. They use some specific political colors assigned to the different parties we have at the moment. Both of them uses the color orange to represent the party, as seen here (Ø represent the party) . Apart from that on the official site of the parliament, orange is also the color used to represent Red Green Alliance (EL represents the party)

Here is two pictures to demonstrate why I believe that orange would be an improved color for the party.

(current)

(my proposal)

Currently the colors of Liberal Alliance and Danish People's Party match their popular color in the media instead of their logo color, and I really think that having 3 parties with a type of red is a bad idea, so I think an alteration to Orange is needed here.

Diff: Thomediter (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)