Talk:Regressive left/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Balance post-AfD

Recent edits have helped improve the article and clarify the topic, such as it is, but have also had the effect of simply highlightly one of the problems raised at the AfD debate: the page is now basically just telling everyone about Maajid Nawaz's use of the term to label people whose politics he doesn't like, with a bit of "a few other people agree with him" tacked on to the bottom. Much as WP should be wary of "criticism"-type content or using pages to debate political points, equally it shouldn't uncritically provide a platform for the polemical commentary and terminology of, primarily, one activist. N-HH talk/edits 10:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not a terminology used by one activist though; it is being used and adopted by several people, including journalists. Majid happens to be the one who coined the term. I am not opposed to adding a criticism section if there is material out there addressing the use of this term as a negative thing. Anaverageguy (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, which is why I said "primarily" and noted that some others have followed the usage. I'm not disputing it's in occasional use – all sorts of adjective-noun combinations are, especially when used to make a political point (eg "loony left") – but it just seems odd to me that WP is giving such an uncritically high profile to one aspect of the terminology and views of one fairly marginal individual, which arguably would be better simply included on his own page. The first 50% of the page currently is basically an unmediated exposition of Nawaz's views on this; the next 50% sets out the comments of a few people who have made similar points and/or also used the term. That said, that's the way the AfD debate went, so it's a bit of a moot point. I'm also certainly not arguing for a dedicated Criticism section or for more convoluted political debate on the rights and wrongs of the term. I did look around quickly for some third-party analysis of the term that could be incorporated with more balance, but couldn't find much, which in turn simply adds to the suspicion about its encyclopedic notability – but as noted, that ship has sailed of course. N-HH talk/edits 14:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
From a meta pov, I tend to agree with you there, N-HH. In a way, the very existence of this article on WP kind of serves to popularize Maajid's viewpoint and helps push his own narrative (agenda?), in which the pejorative "Regressive Left" is a cog in the wheel, a rhetorical tool. But it is also a testament to the seductive, persuasive power of his apparently polished narrative in the current political landscape. I also don't think he is a lone, marginal voice. He has successfully pushed his POV onto high-level British politicians. No matter how you or I feel about the recent popularity of Maajid's ideas from a meta perspective, they are now out there and are being appropriated by a section of liberals in the US. I think with time we might see critical analytical pieces regarding this term, which can then be used as secondary sources to counter the imbalance in the article that you are talking about. Zaheen (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
That's the thing. It might not be a term used by just one activist, but it is a term essentially used only by one activist and a few of his friends. — Red XIV (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
@Zaheen: - "the very existence of this article on WP kind of serves to popularize Maajid's viewpoint and helps push his own narrative" - That can be said of any new political concept, and it sounds a bit like WP:BELONG. I listed several examples of "regressive" behavior from those who would be on the left of political spectrum in this article's ADF discussion; with all due respect, I don't want to repeat myself ad nauseam so I will refer you to the article's ADF discussion page. The point is, Majid is claiming that there is a real problem of regressive behavior that exists within the left; whether that's part of a narrative (made up) or something tangible can be discussed as the article is expanded further.
@Redxiv: I am not sure what you mean by that. I have found reliably-sourced articles from all over the world using this term; Media from countries like China and India is giving credence to this concept (while talking about the events in the west). Not everyone that is using this term is Majid's friend. He put two words together but there has been a discussion of this behavior for a much longer time. When some liberals use words like "native informants" and "not real Muslims" to describe reformists then that's something that does merit a term and an article of it's own, given that it meets notability requirements. - Anaverageguy (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Anaverageguy, Maajid Nawaz's Quilliam Foundation explicitly says on their website that they want to push counter-Islamist narratives in the media. Evidently, labeling a section of the left as "regressive" is part of this counter-narrative. 27.147.212.231 (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
To Anaverageguy, are the sources from China and India using the term independent of its usual backers in the west? ie, Majid Nawaaz, Sam Harris, and the various other like minded atheists and secularists who primarily use the term? If so, it would be useful to include them in the article. If not, it doesn't really mean that they are being picked up elsewhere to any significant extent.
The problem with this article, as N-HH aptly pointed out, is that there simply isn't much balanced secondary source coverage, or even "counter" coverage of the term to create a balanced encyclopedia article. The only people who seem to use the term right now is a group of like minded political commentators. That's fine, but makes it hard to create a proper article, whatever the merits of the term may or may not be (which is not our concern). I personally think it is incumbent on those people who voted to "keep" to find the supposedly bountiful coverage of this term and include it so that we can avoid this simply becoming a relay station for their POV. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
About Quilliam's stated goals and how they relate to this article...I can't really see WHY that is any more relevant than how any organization, that we may or may not like, carries out it's objectives. They are going to talk about their believes and concepts, which, if they become part of the common vernacular, will eventually end up in Wikipedia anyways. Peregrine981 I said the media from these countries is giving credence to the concept, but they don't necessarily use the two words put together the same way Majid/Harris/Rubin/Namazie do. Here is an article from DNA India talking about the same thing without use of the term (nevermind - they do use it towards the end). In this South China Morning Post article they use the phrase "political authoritarians" instead of regressive left. This Huffpo article does use the term, but it wouldn't be considered a secondary source.This is an open letter written to Ben Affleck from a woman in Pakistan after his altercation with Sam Harris and Bill Maher; it doesn't use the term, but talks about the same concepts. I highly doubt any of these authors are "backed up" by Majid Nawaz or the others who use this term (and even if they were, it wouldn't take away the reliability of the source). These sources could be included if we didn't put the term "regressive left" under a microscope and looked for instances of people using those words put together. I am in agreement with FeatherPluma that making the article expand further to describe authoritarian left and including regressive left as a part of it would make more sense. As for the unbalanced POV, I have stated before that a criticism section of this term is welcome. But you have to consider that those who are labelled as the regressive left haven't addressed this criticism towards them. If there isn't an article describing why use of this term is wrong, then we can't provide that point of view. And finally, I am actively working on the article, but it shouldn't be left up to those who voted Keep to fix every perceived flaw of the article that is mentioned in the talk pages. — Anaverageguy (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I misunderstood what Peregrine981 said about the "usual backers" of the term in my original comment. I thought you were referring to the journalists being backed up, but I reckon you were talking about the term itself. My apologies, yet to address your question, yes, they are independently talking about this behaviour. — Anaverageguy (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, either this article is about the term or about the underlying issues, such as they are. If after all it's going to be the latter, it should be done under a neutral name, not the recently coined and pejorative nomenclature of a couple of people on one side in the debate (just as substantive content about Islam in Europe is covered under that title rather than under Eurabia). Either way, the point about balance is not to have an exposition of Nawaz's views followed by a dedicated "Criticism" section full of quotes from Chomsky et al saying "I don't recognise the description of the left, I don't like the word 'regressive', and that Nawaz is an apologist for imperialism" or to have a proxy political debate here about the left, multiculturalism and "political correctness". As noted, it's about relying on third-party sources, preferably academic, taking an overall view and using the term, explaining what it is and explaining any controversy around it: like they do with, for example, Far Right or New Left. As for getting those who aren't sure the page should even be here to work on it, that's asking a bit much surely. N-HH talk/edits 17:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
N-HH, I don't think there's enough material at the moment to have an article comparable to Far Right or New Left. Besides, it's worth noting that the phrase Regressive Left is going through semantic changes at the very moment. Nawaz's original definition has been widened to mean for example "people in the left who actively censor/silence criticism of Islam (radical or otherwise) by other liberals (mainly New Atheists)". May be this recent semantic shift/widening by Harris et al. should be captured as well. Zaheen (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I also agree with N-HH that even though it resonates with the opinions of many different people who don't use this specific term, "Regressive Left" itself unfortunately sounds like a biased accusatory pejorative just like Eurabia does. I am of the opinion that this article should principally treat the definition, scope and evolution of the term itself and not be the dumping ground of all political ideas that share some of its premises. Zaheen (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

N-HH That's noted, and it's being worked on, but given that the same arguments were being regurgitated regarding the lack of use of this term, I was skeptical that there will ever be a point when this article is considered non - biased by those who don't like it. The reason to list those articles was to point out that the term is not just used by Majid and his friends - something that's been brought up again and again - It's being used by publications who are outside of his sphere of influence; and in essence, they are at least validating the concept by using the term. As for the discussion on the term itself, that may be a rare thing but not impossible to find. The Humanist Hour podcast is precisely that, but it may appear one sided because Peter Boghossian happens to agree with Majid. From what I gather the two men have never met so it would be unfair to say that he is influenced by Majid when he is dissection the term. He comes at it from his own experiences in the academic world. — Anaverageguy (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

What Zaheen said about evolution of the term and how it should be covered is a fair point and we can work on that. — Anaverageguy (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Zaheen's proposal to stick to the term and its evolution, as I think that is all that is really possible. It will get out of control if we try to tack on the plethora of other possibly related issues. People who don't like the term may of course always object to the existence of the article, but it doesn't take away from the fact that as it stands this article suffers an acute lack of secondary sources that can provide context to the term. I personally doubt that such sources currently exist. It seems that it is currently used pretty much exclusively by like-minded secular/atheist leftists as an epithet against people they disagree with on the left. Quite a number of them use it, and have discussed it to some degree, but as far as I know there has been very little discussion in RS of the term by the people it labels, or by people more independent of the debate around it which is a major, and likely insurmountable, problem for this article's NPOV and encyclopedic value (which again is why the AFD debate should have gone the other way rather than getting bogged down in partisan squabbling about it). Peregrine981 (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I am a little late on this but I added another paragraph last week that covers criticism of the term. I understand the idea is not to have a proxy debate but to cover it through secondary sources, and that is exactly what I did in both of my edits in the analysis section. Anaverageguy (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Strangely I was told that 'evolution' of the term did not have a place, yet here this is what is being proposed.
I can therefore only arrive at the conclusion that rather than being an impartial objective overview this page is more about promoting a political agenda (as acknowledged earlier). There is no real other cause for this page to exist as a separate entity. If there is a regressive left then surely there is a regressive right. And there we have it kids in the playground.
BTW what is Zaheens personal interest in promoting MN?Fredperry2016 (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I think it's perfectly possible that this article will ultimately return for a second AfD. I think there is an underlying concept here, but the concept is pinned very inelegantly to an epithet that is distracting, for various reasons, not least of which is the two word conflation also having broader application in language, beyond its conceptual deployment in the specific dialog on multiculturalism. That's the way the real world works sometimes. That said, my understanding is we have been collectively approaching the topic with a view to looking at the evolution of the concept as narrowly defined within multiculturalism dialog. It would be extremely unhelpful, counterproductive, and disruptive to approach this with rhetorical flourishes and ongoing personal gibes at everyone. I personally have endless patience but in my experience I have seen that the community eventually reaches a point of corrective action. FeatherPluma (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Potential NPOV problems

Just bobbing in here, I'd just like to suggest that multiple people review the article to affirm it fits NPOV. I'm pretty sure it does, although it could be interpreted as very slightly against the term. Peace, 69.49.78.232 (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Removing Weasel Words in the Lede

Just so everyone is clear, the lede had some very very weasely words:

The regressive left is a political epithet used by certain commentators to negatively characterize a section of leftists whom they accuse of being politically regressive (as opposed to progressive) by tolerating illiberal principles and ideology for the sake of multiculturalism.

I've removed these for now. I know that in some cases these may be appropriate to include in a lede, but in this case, I think it slants the article a bit. I think the intent was to include the accusatory nature of the term, so I've reworded that a bit and re-inserted it:

The regressive left is a political epithet used to negatively characterize a section of leftists who are accused of holding politically regressive views (as opposed to progressive) by tolerating illiberal principles and ideology for the sake of multiculturalism.

This way, it doesn't reduce the term to being just something "they" (i.e. certain commentators) say, which is what the previous wording rather implied. --Amateria1121 (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Amateria1121, that was the best version I've seen so far. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, imo the "certain commentators" part, even if it appears weasel-y, is apt in this particular case, because in its current usage, "Regressive Left" is not a term describing an universally acknowledged well-established political concept agreed upon by the vast majority of political commentators/theorists, but rather an accusatory epithet, a very recent one at that, used by certain like-minded liberal/left-wing commentators (i.e. the handful of commentators mentioned in the "Analaysis" section) whose accusations have not even been properly responded to by the people they use it against. To remove this nuance would be to give this fledgling, under-developed, ever-evolving phrase more gravity than it currently deserves, making it the cover term for an universally-agreed-upon phenomenon or concept, which it isn't. So the "certain commentators" phrase is there for a reason, not to unnecessarily obfuscate. Just my opinion. Zaheen (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Fair point, and my opinion above is also - just my opinion. I do think that Amateria1121's version gave a more neutral point of view. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Amateria1121 in that that "certain commentators" is not especially necessary; in other words, it is used by some, but not all. I think we could reasonably say the same thing about many other phrases -- like Political correctness, War on Women, etc. The "accuse" part should stay in, though, for the sake of NPOV. GABHello! 15:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Zaheen: I understand your position; it is certainly a term that doesn't have a very widespread acceptance, and is only routinely used by, shall we say, certain commentators. However, I feel it would be more appropriate to point out the limited scope of the term and the polemic surrounding it in a different way. Regardless of whether or not the lede is intended to be weasely, it appears that way, as you semi-concede, and I think that is the real problem here. Even just the appearance of weasel-ness slants the article, and that's the reason people use weasel words in the first place. I think the first sentence of the lede should be very unambiguous. We can add a sentence saying something like "The nature (and veracity) of the concept is highly contested, and as such the term has only been adopted by a few commentators, such as Nawaz, Harris, Rubin etc." --Amateria1121 (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Sure. The additional sentence approach seems fine to me as well. Reads better. Zaheen (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with noting that this is (unsurprisingly) controversial. GABHello! 20:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Just to play the devil's advocate here, even though some may think that it should be, has this "term" really been "highly contested", "controversial" or "polemic" even among left-wing publications, let alone mainstream media? It seems to me that it's just being ignored. Nobody but a handful of commentators and may be the same 20/30 twitter users (Check here) actually use the term, and they do it quite religiously. But virtually nobody from the target population (the so called Regressive Left) is actually seriously contesting them, even on twitter. Zaheen (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Good point; truth be told, I'd have to do a bit of digging to find out for sure. GABHello! 20:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, we will have to see if it achieves wider usage. It has deeply annoyed at least one target but most appear to be trying to bury it in silence. It might be better to say that it has limited currency. As for veracity, that's not really a relevant concept. Recognition as a concept may be better. A bit like being a vegetarian in the UK, where it's a recognized concept and people will understand what you mean, as opposed to Spain, where it isn't and it needs explaining every time. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The term being "highly contested" is a judgment call, indeed. You're of course right about it being largely ignored by its target population, and when it does come up, they tend to dismiss it as preposterous rather than address it. If you consider the concept it refers to, though, I think there has been a little more public acknowledgement. Consider the published email exchange between Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky, or the public reaction to the halloween costume email incident, or the 2015–16 University of Missouri protests (specifically involving Dr. Click), or indeed the South Park (season 19). In these cases, I am purposefully conflating political correctness and the regressive left, to illustrate the following: those who would use the term "regressive left" would argue (and in some cases have argued) that this recent so-called "PC mania" is perpetrated by the very same regressive left. Many in the mainstream (or at least from what I've seen) would agree that this "PC mania" goes too far, but skirt around the term "regressive left", either because they do not know it, or because they haven't been convinced of the idea that there are biases underlying the "PC mania". Of course, those who support the "PC mania" vehemently reject any accusations of bias.
My long-winded point is this: there is a lot of cultural debate surrounding the phenomenon certain commentators refer to as the "regressive left", even if the term itself is not widely acknowledged. This is what I intended to refer to in the lede. So here are the questions: How narrow should the lede be? Does the article specifically focus on the term and its usage, or on the implications of the term as well? I would say at this stage the article tends towards the latter, though not completely. I think the lede should reflect this, hence my suggestion. --Amateria1121 (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
As I wrote above, I have no objection towards your approach of writing the lede. But the wording of the additional sentence that you suggested might need a little bit of reworking, and frankly, at this point, I can't wrap my head around it. Please feel free to edit the lede as you see fit.
As an aside, and to make matters even more confusing, I find it interesting to note that Majid Nawaaz himself makes occasional (Freudian?) slips on twitter and conflates the entire Left with the Regressive Left, like this twitter conversaion here. How to interpret it? It could be that to him, he is one of the true Leftists and any other leftist who doesn't agree with his pov has to be automatically labeled "Regressive Left", which at this point seems to make up the vast majority of the Left. Or maybe subconsciously he doesn't really consider himself a Leftist in the way we interpret one. Which is it? Is he really at odds with almost the entire Left? Not sure what to make out of this sort of slip. It's hard to ignore how ambiguous this whole thing has become even for the person who apparently coined the term in the first place, in that he had to post-disambiguate his own tweet. (If I were a very, very harsh critic, I would say he's trolling for attention. ;)) Zaheen (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Edits made, and I'm still open to improvements. Now regarding that tweet, I'm not entirely sure if I'd call that a slip - definitely seems more like trolling, deliberate conflation or oversimplification for the sake of the pun. But I think you have a point that some people on the right will probably (or maybe have already) jumped on the term to try to steer the debate towards conservatism... --Amateria1121 (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

"Regressive Left" usage before Nawaz

I think it's important to see when and where this term was used before Nawaz, so I want to use this section for myself and others to just post links to prior references and a sentence or two to see the context.

The following is a sampling from 2002 to 2007:

Ywaz (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Broken link to "One Law for All"

The second paragraph of the Analysis section begins with a link to One Law for All, which appears to be a movie from the 20s, and nothing relevant to this article. One law for all (note capitalization) is currently a redirect to Equality before the law. But the capitalization in the prose suggests that link should be going to an article about some specific political action campaign, not just a general concept article or one about an old film. Can someone please correct the link to whatever it should really be? --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Delinked, thanks. Whether there should be an article about One Law for All comes down to whether it is notable. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Questionable new external links

What do the recently-added external links to McCarthyism and Un-American have to do with the topic of this article? --Pfhorrest (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The "link" that I see is that they're sort of catch-all labels widely used in the mid 20th century to denounce people guilty of wrongthink. Therefore, guilt by association, "regressive left" must also be such a label. --Amateria1121 (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Amaterial121. I made those links, and that is the defence I would have given. KindaQuantum (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I now see that GeneralizationsAreBad deleted those links -- which are internal, of course, not external as misleadingly stated above -- without having refuted the justification. Reinstating, therefore. KindaQuantum (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
It occurs to me that Nawaz and his coterie might wish to claim that the term "Islamophobia" should be similarly described. Perhaps we should add a link to that? KindaQuantum (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I was in no way defending the inclusion of those links; I was arguing against them. "Guilt by association", as I described it, is insufficient to warrant inclusion of "McCarthyism" and "Un-American" as it is violation of NPOV, unless the relationship between the aforementioned and "Regressive Left" is explicitly dealt with in the article. As for "Islamophobia", that is more directly related to the concepts in the article. However, it is not directly addressed in the article, so including it in the See Also section would seem to negatively associate the term with "Regressive Left" - which violates NPOV, i.e. all those who use "Regressive Left" are "Islamophobes". I'm removing all three until there's input from other users. --Amateria1121 (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Obviously I'm not happy about this, as it seems a borderline invocation of NPOV on a topic that is, after all, all about bias, but I'm willing to bow to what appears to me to be greater experience, at least for the time being, since I don't want to start a silly and annoying edit war. Having made what I think is the collegial concession, can I now request advice on how I might go about establishing that explicit connection satisfactorily and without breaching NPOV or any other rule. What's ruled in, what's ruled out? KindaQuantum (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I should have said: "bias and unsubstantiated, wide-brush generalizations of the form 'all x are y'" KindaQuantum (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I am minded to add "See also" links to either Political correctness or specifically Political correctness#Right wing political correctness, to Loaded language and to Propaganda. Given the recent reversions, I'm suggesting it here first. Any objections? KindaQuantum (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
"Political Correctness" is central to the concept of "Regressive Left" so that definitely merits inclusion. Linking to the sub-heading is unnecessary. However, "Loaded Language" and "Propaganda" are no different in principle from "McCarthyism" and "Un-American". See WP:UNDUE and WP:LABEL; the terms you have proposed are, in fact, loaded language (i.e. they're all negative or pejorative), thus violating both policies. Again, if they were specifically dealt with in the article, it would be a different manner.
Thank you for that guidance, I was hoping for something along those lines. Sorry to be a headache, but I don't see where WP:UNDUE applies -- it seems to involve claims about widespread acceptance, and we're talking about a niche/fringe concept in the first place here; I think that's uncontroversial. As to WP:LABEL, what else is 'regressive Left'?! The whole page should be deleted under that rule! KindaQuantum (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I would argue that WP:UNDUE applies with the whole guilt-by-association problem I mentioned. Most of the proposed See Also links give undue weight to the negative or critical interpretation of "Regressive Left", by associating it with value-laden terms that are widely considered to have been used to both censure and censor dissent, often unjustly. This association applies that value statement (unjust) to the term "Regressive Left".
As for WP:LABEL, essentially, the policy says that value-laden labels should be avoided. "Un-American" is the perfect example of such; it is a legitimate topic for discussion (which why it has its own article), but to call something un-American in order to discredit it, or indeed imply that it is, violates the policy. As the article notes, the term has "historical associations with political abuses and jingoism", and to include it in the See Also for this article would imply that the term "Regressive Left" is also associated with political abuse and jingoism. I'm not passing judgment on the veracity of that association, but it is clearly not demonstrated in the article.
Keep in mind that these supposed implications are just my opinion. Disagreement is healthy, but we should wait for other input before doing anything. --Amateria1121 (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


Now, as for actually including such terms in the article, I would say the only one that actually merits discussion is "Islamophobia", since it directly relates to the topic. As an example: many proponents of the term "Regressive Left" will say that the term "Islamophobia" is little more than a dog whistle and lacks any substantive meaning, except perhaps that it is reasonable to fear the spread of Political Islam to the West. They also contend that the term deliberately conflates anti-Muslim bigotry with fear or dislike of Political Islam (this is actually discussed in that article). On the other hand, many opponents of the term "Regressive Left" will characterize proponents as being "Islamophobic", i.e. anti-Muslim bigots, and will cite instances where proponents make (subjectively) bigoted statements or crass generalizations. The point is, I think the inclusion of the term "Islamophobia" a good idea, but it must be presented in such a way as to avoid undue weight given to one side or the other. This is a constant challenge with this article and others like it. --Amateria1121 (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I begin to see my misunderstanding; you were accusing me of suggesting guilt by association; I thought you were concurring with me that the basis for the term 'regressive Left' is (nothing but) guilt by association. KindaQuantum (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
You have a legitimate argument to make, I think. But you should actually make it, instead of just asserting it in the article. See WP:ASSERT; to quote: "assert facts, including facts about opinions, but don't assert opinions themselves." I hope you understand that this isn't about bashing your opinions, you've been very courteous. --Amateria1121 (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Another lede edit revert

@Zaheen, I don't object to your recent reversion -- the altered text (don't know whose) was not discussed here, so that's fair enough, I suppose -- but I thought it actually read a little better before the reversion. In other words, I thought the end product of the (un-discussed) changes was fine (though some of the intermediate stages clearly were not). I didn't see anything that obviously breached guidelines. You didn't cite guideline breach as a reason to revert, so I'm asking for my own learning: do you think there were any such breaches, or are you -- perfectly properly -- sticking up for discussion-first over unilateral changes, just because it's a known-contentious lede and that's the best way to avoid grief? Meta-question: is that what "semi-protection" would achieve/enforce? KindaQuantum (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Mostly the latter. I wasn't really thinking in terms of breaches. But I do think that the lede has to be coherent in content and in tone with the rest of the article. Which it already was, thanks to the extensive discussions on this talk page. The latest attempt, even though well-intentioned, kind of broke it. There were several elements about the usage of the term and the user's intention behind the term which imo cannot be proven without original research. Even the scope of the definition was altered significantly. So I reverted it. But given enough reliable sources these elements might make comeback. I will have no objections then. Zaheen (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
As for semi-protection, that might be overkill. But it is true that a lot of anonymous contributions to the lede have been reverted. But almost always with an invitation to talk it out with other longtime contributors of the article. I think it's a good solution. Zaheen (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Characterization of Nawaz as "liberal"

I know Nawaz stood for election for the Liberal Democrat party in 2015. However, in light of historic facts such as Winston Churchill -- no liberal, by any stretch of the imagination -- having not only stood but won for the Liberals (precursor of the Lib Dems), the British Fascist Oswald Mosley having stood and won for the Labour Party, the Italian Fascist Benito Mussolini having been a member of the Communist Party, etc; and also in the light of the current and relevant fact of Nawaz' extensive funding by American far-right groups, I wish to question -- not delete, just challenge -- this characterization. Perhaps this is a matter better moved -- and left -- to his own page? KindaQuantum (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"Nawaz' extensive funding by American far-right groups"[citation needed]
Anyhow, you're conflating liberal ideology ("small l liberal") with Liberal parties ("Big L Liberal"). Parties often do not reflect their names (cf. all communist parties ever), so to say that Nawaz ran as a LibDem, that Churchill was a LibDem precursor, Churchill wasn't a "liberal", and therefore Nawaz mustn't be a liberal either is very very spurious. --Amateria1121 (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Not what I'm saying; I'm saying Nawaz' membership and candidacy do not ipso facto make him a liberal. I think that's quite clear from what I said and how I said it. I clearly am allowing for him being a liberal, with the opportunity to provide supporting citation; do you wish to claim that he incontrovertibly is? As to funding, I gathered from the foregoing discussion that this had been discussed in the deletion process, and assumed that it was a familiar established fact. Here are the citations you request; I hope you will acknowledge that they cast serious doubt over the claim that Nawaz is a small-l liberal: [1] [2] KindaQuantum (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I don't think you were as clear as you maybe intended, but I do take your point. However, I don't think those sources are NPOV. The Guardian piece is an opinion column, and Medium articles are largely self-published. Once again, they seem to be implying guilt by association - but that's beside the point here. It might be best to replace the word "liberal" before his name with "anti-extremism" or "anti-Islamism". --Amateria1121 (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Determining Nawaz's true political compass is difficult. He was a long time member of a radical Islamic group, i.e., not liberal. His "liberal" renaissance is quite recent. In 2015, he allegedly approached both the labour party (leftwing) and the conservative Tory party (center-right) to run as a candidate under their banner, but he got rejected by both, and then chose to run for Liberal Democrats, which imo is not really an ideologically coherent party, where you have free-market libertarians (center-right) and keynesian social democrats (left-wing) oddly cohabiting the same party. Which wing Nawaz adheres to, we don't know.
As far as funding by American far-right groups, that also seems to be true. He got support from neo-con thinktank Gatestone Institute and funding from republican thinktank Bradley Foundation. (Source-This Alternet Article)
In personal life, he married a friend of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who herself was a fellow of the neo-conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, architects of Bush's foreign policy. So if we go by the adage "A man is known by the company he keeps", then Nawaz is currently mostly attached to the (neo-)conservative circle of the US, which is odd for someone who claims to be a "liberal". Zaheen (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I take that as largely supportive of changing or removing "liberal". Thanks Zaheen. I strongly oppose "anti-extremism": too vague, too weasely, too politically contested, too loaded, the antithesis of NPOV. "Anti-Islamism" doesn't immediately strike me as subject to those same objections, but since I rather dislike Islamism myself, I suppose I can't necessarily trust my own intuitions as to NPOV. Gets my vote for now, anyway, in the absence of any convincing reason to demur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KindaQuantum (talk • contribs) 21:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
"Anti-Islamism" is probably our best bet, since it's demonstrably true, and as such there are no real POV concerns. Regardless of what we personally think about Islamism (or Political Islam), Nawaz certainly is a vocal and active opponent of it. You're right that "anti-extremism" is too vague, since it doesn't really specify what type of extremism, though that is what his foundation ostensibly campaigns against, which is why I proposed it. Thanks for the input from both of you. --Amateria1121 (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is another contradiction concerning Maajid's conversion from Islamist extremism to "liberalism" -- 1) According to this 2006 BBC article, Nawaz says his 4-year stay in an Egyptian prison "had strengthened both his faith and belief in political change for Muslim nations." "I have become more convinced of the ideas that I went into prison with" he said. 2) In 2016 in an Australian news outlet article, he says the exact opposite - "Not everyone reacted that way to the brutal conditions we were held in, but it did kind of lead to my own maturity so that by the time I was released, I found that I could no longer subscribe to the ideology." It's smells kind of Ben Carson-ish. :) --Zaheen (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's some more doubt on whether Nawaz is a bona fide liberal or not: "[Nawaz is] friendly with hawkish heads of state: David Cameron tapped him as an adviser on combatting extremism, Tony Blair gushed admiration in a front-cover book blurb, and George W. Bush picked his brain about torture at a backyard barbeque in Dallas. Nawaz has also surrounded himself with a motley crew of illiberal ideologues. Quilliam has received more than a million dollars from a group with close ties to Tea Party conservatives; Ted Cruz’s campaign chairman, Chad Sweet, who advises a domestic spying program of the FBI, sat on Quilliam’s board until 2013; former Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom, who adamantly opposes Palestinian statehood, shared the stage with Nawaz at an event in Toronto last October; and clearinghouses like the Clarion Project and the Gatestone Institute, which finance anti-Muslim activists, are habitually chummy with Nawaz and his comrades." Source -- Zaheen (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, right after his release from the Egyptian prison, in a 2007 interview with BBC's Hard Talk (youtube video at 22:30) Nawaz promoted the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate, which totally contradicts the prison-time liberal awakening story he is hawking now in the media. Very amusing. Zaheen (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't find a single definition of liberal that disqualifies someone from being a liberal simply for taking money from conservative organizations or individuals. By that definition Hilary Clinton is not true liberal for taking money from Trump. That Medium link is a conspiracy theory style article that mainly uses guilt by association as an argument. If we were to rely on such articles for Wikipedia, we should also leave room for the idea that Malala Yousafzai is a secret CIA agent since plenty of those articles exist as well. This is really a no true scottsman fallacy. Nawaz defines himself as a liberal and his work consists of promoting secularism, opposing religious totalitarianism,supporting rights of minorities, queers and women within the Muslim community living in the Western countries. Why his political affiliation is even being questioned is puzzling. Is there a definition of liberal that I am missing? Anaverageguy (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Well that was more or less my argument (but put more forcefully), guilt by association isn't really a legitimate criticism. My "anti-Islamism" label was my attempt to bridge the gap with something we can all agree on, at least for the time being. --Amateria1121 (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
While it's true that a simple "guilt by association" isn't the strongest form of criticism, but it would be quite naïve to believe and gullibly accept everything a political actor says about himself at face value. A politician's (usually secretive and undisclosed) actions and financial dealings with other actors on the ground reveal about his true agenda much more than self-styled labels. Otherwise there wouldn't be investigative journalism, no Watergate, no "Follow the money", etc. IMO there is no problem a priori whatsoever for a journalist to question or insinuate doubt about Nawaz's "liberal" credentials, no matter how much positive spin he tries to put on his redemption story. Cynicism about politicians is par for the course after Vietnam and Watergate. People more than ever before believe that politicans are mostly corrupt and have personal agendas which contradict their carefully crafted public personas. Zaheen (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, since it's Nawaz who casts doubt in a wholesale manner on a section of leftists' true liberal-ness and uses the term "regressive" (a qualification usually reserved in leftist literature for fascist, backward, right-wing politicians), this kind of backlash about his own credentials is to be expected from the people he targets. Nawaz's own "liberalness" cannot be beyond question all the while he accuses others of not being "liberal" enough. It's interesting to witness the evolution of this back-and-forth. Zaheen (talk) 07:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Anaverageguy's list of Nawaz' characterising actions and pronouncements suffers from the besetting sin of this lousy term and much of the discussion of it: it is partial and selective, designed to achieve a preferred and prejudged conclusion, rather than a balanced, comprehensive overview rationally and reasonably derived from evidence. I suppose you might take Nawaz at his own ssessment as a small-l liberal if you leave out the self-serving blacklist of non-violent Muslim and Muslim-contact groups -- including, bizarrely, one within the Metropolitan Police! -- that Nawaz and Husain concocted and had the UK government adopt, but it is almost definitionally the opposite of small-l (or capital-L) liberal activity. [3] [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by KindaQuantum (talk • contribs) 14:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
That brings up an interesting point. If we accept that the term "liberal" is used as a dogwhistle (which it certainly is in many cases), used to convey a conclusion rather than a idea, then could the converse not also be argued? If labeling Nawaz as "liberal" is being used as a way to legitimize his opinions, and by extension the term "Regressive Left", then is denying him that label being used to delegitimize his opinions (and "Regressive Left")?
It seems to me the core question isn't about Nawaz per se though, it's more about whether "Regressive Left" is is criticism from within the political left (i.e. from liberals), or "just another" right-wing epithet. If we agree that Nawaz is perhaps not a "true" liberal - you have some good points, though the term is vague enough so as to make it mean very different things to different people - should that reflect upon the veracity of the term "Regressive Left"? I think that to claim the term is "just another" epithet from the right is to attempt to dismiss it out of hand without addressing it or offering any real criticism, and this was my objection to the previously mentioned See Also links.
My view is that there is no "it" to address or criticise. The term presupposes what it purports to expose. Nawaz has never to my knowledge provided a name-date-place-quote example of what he is complaining of, nor has he ever drawn any distinction with a putative non-"regressive" Left. I have spent some of the last 24 hours trying to get one of his acolytes on FB -- the one who first brought the term to my attention -- to give me an example; he called in others; they proferred nothing. I have also repeatedly challenged two members of the same group to offer a critique of the Khwaja Khusro Tariq article; again, nothing forthcoming. KindaQuantum (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
In the end, though, this article isn't about Nawaz; debates about his political beliefs should be relegated to his article, and we should try to keep this article neutral on that topic, hence why I support sticking with "anti-Islamism activist" instead of "liberal activist". Because even if I don't 100% accept your arguments, the fact remains that your arguments have merit, and that's the important thing. We should minimize the appearance of bias (and use of dogwhistle words) even if we don't agree about the substance. --Amateria1121 (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Very reasonable. I concur. KindaQuantum (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The true irony is that Nawaz actually personifies the concept of a "regressive left": he claims to be a man of the left while his actual expressed political beliefs are extremely conservative and thus regressive. — Red XIV (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is my definition of the Regressive Left.

Please allow me to offer my definition of the Regressive Left. Regressive Left = Liberals who normally will support women's rights, gay rights, equal rights and human rights but will willfully refuse to criticize religious believers (and/or their religious organizations) who are against women's rights, gay rights, equal rights, human rights and those believers who harm or kill other human beings when based on religious belief. Mikewest (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

This actually is more or less Maajid Nawaz's definition except the "willfully refuse" part. Not sure if any leftist/liberal in the West has ever "willfully refused" to criticize some radical religious believers' different extremist actions/beliefs that go against human rights as we know it in the 21st century. Not even Maajid goes that far. Sam Harris also displays surprise at the their tolerance rather than ascribing willful refusal on the Left. The consensus of anti-Regressive Left commentators seems to be that some people on the left "unwittingly tolerate" such views/actions to a certain extent. Even if we agree that this is 100% true (which it isn't), does this kind of "confused", "molly-coddling" attitude from some people on the Left merit the overblown, hostile and somewhat grotesque-sounding epithet "regressive", which is usually reserved in leftist literature to describe far-right fascists who really wants the society to regress, go backwards in time in terms of human rights ? In fact, the word "regressive" is so potent in its negativity and so evocative of fascism that it obfuscates more than it clarifies. It's an unfortunate choice of word which serves only to foster an internecine struggle within the left. The only people who would relish this is, of course, the right-wingers. :) Zaheen (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

All religions are immoral mythologies. Fake. Human-made. Failed sciences. And in my opinion, the urgency of criticizing religious belief is this. We are 300 plus years into the Age of Enlightenment[1] and yet normally moral people are reading immoral outdated religious texts and then some are trying to put a certain amount of these immoral teachings into practice (either at home, with friends, in school, in government, etc.) which have clearly hurt, harmed or used to immorally kill people and the believers feel they are moral, to be immoral, all based on pleasing an invisible friend.

And then many people including the "Regressive Left" unfortunately have bought into the false proposition that "everyone must respect a person's religious belief". The only reason why the religious claim one must respect their religious beliefs is it's the only way they can get respect for believing in an invisible sky daddy. If someone puts on their resume (or CV) that Elvis is their motivation for being a productive worker, per a friend of mine who is a manager at a company, that resume will be thrown away. What if a person said they were "god" on their resume? Would a company hire that person? Probably not. These illustrations show that no one is under any obligation to respect a person's religious belief. Mikewest (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You are arguing from a militant atheist position, which is a minority position and in the bigger scale of current human civilization, an extremist position. "Everyone must respect a person's religious belief" is very much mainstream liberal. According to the UN's "Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief" which was adopted by the UN General Assembly on November 25, 1981, "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of religion....to have a religion or whatever belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching." The militant atheist position, in its seemingly absurd quest to annihilate religion, is guilty of violating this basic human right of having a religion, a human right that was agreed upon by all nations, western or otherwise. Zaheen (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you that there exists a battle between "Enlightenment" values and milennia-old religious values since they are very much incompatible when it comes to certain rights such as gay rights, women's rights, etc. But unfortunately, in the heat of this battle, the defenders of enlightenment values sometimes might go too far and trample the same values they are supposed to hold near and dear, by being overly hostile and treating all religious people as if they are beneath "human dignity". Instead of looking for long-term tolerant co-habitation, which I think is the sane approach to this, the current tendency seems to be outright rejection of the other, which is curiously the attitude taken by the religious fundamentalists who treat non-religious people as not deserving of "human dignity". Zaheen (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


Separate Thought

In order to write about the evolution of the term, it is interesting to look at who are called the Regressive Left on some American university campuses. It seems to me that the term is used against those students/organizations/movements on campus who are principally concerned about creating "safe spaces" for minority students where they are supposed to be "protected" from "hate speech" or racism/bigotry/hostility. But it seems that these well-intentioned people have gone too far in protecting the minorities against such "micro aggression" or micro-acts of bigotry, so much so that they are promoting a militant politically correct atmosphere that, in a paradoxically anti-liberal way, goes against free speech, as they are accusing students, teachers or invited speakers of "racism" or "islamophobia" who probably don't deserve those extreme labels. At times they are suppressing free expression of opposing points of view. This over-sensitivity is being called out as the "regressive left", which, unfortunately, is another extreme label. Outside of "liberal" college campuses, does this phenomenon of "regressive left" exist in the broader American society? Probably not, although this kind of ultra-sensitive, militant PC attitude is probably institutionalized in some European countries like Sweden, etc. The vast majority of the Americans, and westerners in general, whether liberal or conservative, don't practice militant over-the-top political correctness in favor of protecting the minority groups. In fact, the opposite is probably far more true. The problem is that "regressive left" (even though reserved for a handful of militantly politically correct people on the left) is term that can be and probably is being hijacked and used by all kinds of right-wing, centrist and center-left commentators to rhetorically pounce on the far-left and mask their own non-liberal agendas. Zaheen (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you're right that it has a lot to do with university culture (and that extends to the UK, and to a lesser extent, Canada). But I think it also bears mentioning that this...phenomenon, for lack of a better word, is observable in a lot of print and online media. The old axiom "liberal media" may be worn out, but I would say that from what I've read, a lot of media that have left-leaning editorial lines tend to fall into what could be termed "regressive leftism". I'm thinking of outlets like The Guardian, Salon, Vox, etc., outlets that are indisputably left. Really, a large share of popular online media outlets are. So as to your claim that the term doesn't cover a lot of the general population, I agree. But I think it shows itself in a portion of the general media. --Amateria1121 (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Regressive_left/Archive_2&oldid=1137119492"