Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of left-wing organizations in the USA

was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete

This thread has become very long. In order to increase our chances of getting it straight at the end of the discussion period, I've added a Voting Recap table. In addition to making your comments below, please add your name to this table. I've taken a first crack at who is currently voting for what based on my interpretation of the comments below but if I got it wrong or if you change your mind, move your name. Note: Only names go in this recap. Rossami 05:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be anything other than a hate list for American NeoCons. It is not a list of organizations that would consider themselves left wing. The inclusion of Atheists in it is an example of the inclusion of NeoCon hate rather than actual left wing credentials. (page added to VfD by Irate) Darksun
 * Reading the talk page it seems to be a love list, not a hate list. Delete.--Samuel J. Howard 05:41, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd like to respond by noting that the methodology is now explained on the talk page. Contrary to the statements below, it isn't POV but objective and factual. AaronSw 23:39, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I would characterize a sentence beginning "The way I decide..." as subjective... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This page can only ever be POV. Fscking scum sucking neocons would be my POV, but there you go. --Tagishsimon
 * I'm sitting on the fence on this one. Neutrality is an issue, as is labelling organisations left wing when they do not consider themselves that. Perhaps trim it down to political parties and activist groups that label themselves as left wing (or when this fact is self evident). Darksun 19:30, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Parties are already at Left-wing_politics -- Jmabel 00:52, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that defining groups to be definitely "left wing" or "right wing" is inherently POV, unless the groups use the terms for themselves. Some of the sublists might be viable listing articles by themselves (lists of parties, or groups that promote particular issues or positions, e.g.), but having one whole list under this title is POV. It's not really a useful resource in such a form. The list also has some questionable entries- as pointed out on the article's Talk page, some of the groups on the list identify themselves as nonpartisan, and some of them aren't even active organizations at all. For now, I'll vote a weak delete. -FZ 19:45, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Addendum- Peoples' opinions of the US political spectrum or the groups involved aside, the question is whether the article is in any way useful. If it's just a question of inaccurate entries, go edit. That doesn't answer the question of whether we can ever agree on anything to put on this list. I think it's a lost cause- delete. -FZ 20:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * needs POV edit, e.g. the Democratic Party is not left-wing, it's centre-right, cleanup rather than delete though. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 19:49, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. As far as I'm concerned, the Democratic Party is a rightwing organization.  And the American Library Association?!  Please.  RickK 19:52, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Probably because it was librarians who persuaded Michael Moore's publishers to publish Stupid White Men ;-) DJ Clayworth 21:46, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't see the ALA listed, just their Office for Intellectual Freedom.
 * Delete. Worthless. Everybody's definition of left-wing and right-wing differs. Besides, left vs. right is an overly simplistic way of categorizing ideology. Livajo 19:55, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * In that case, we should delete left-wing and right-wing. RadicalSubversiv E 00:08, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * My point is not that generalizations cannot be made that give "left-wing" and "right-wing" valid meaning; my point is that it is too vague to be able to draw a line and say "these organizations are on this side of the line and those are on the other side". Livajo 00:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Habitat for Humanity? Doctors without Borders? Someone needs a fresh supply of tinfoil in their hat. Delete. DJ Clayworth 21:11, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Informative and valuable. All of these Deletes seem to be based on misconceptions that have since been dispelled. AaronSw 23:39, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * This comment is by the main author of the article. -- Jmabel 00:57, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, hesitantly. This is a legitimate topic, but the content needs serious work (see my comment on the talk page). The scope ought to be narrowed to organizations which are obviously left-wing (not vaguely serving of what George Lakoff considers "liberal values"). RadicalSubversiv E 00:08, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * If you can point me to a better summary of liberal and conservative values, I'd be happy to use it. AaronSw 00:25, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * User:AaronSw deleted the "npov" header off the page on the specious grounds that there is no discussion about it on the Talk page. What the h*ll does he think the discussion not only on THAT page and THIS page is all about?  I love his reasoning that "equality" and "reason" are liberal values.  RickK 23:41, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't see any discussion on the talk page mentioning NPOV, although after reading this page I can see how you could read that into it. AaronSw 00:22, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I could imagine a useful article on the topic. This isn't it. I guess I'll go there and edit a bit ot try to improve it, but I won't cry any tears if it is deleted. -- Jmabel 00:07, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm now convinced that either this page is inherently POV or some editors will be so determined to make it so as to make it impossible to maintain in an NPOV manner. -- Jmabel 00:50, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete it a lot: First, "liberal" and "left" are not synonyms, ok?  Second, this list is nonsense.  Third, any list like this must be nonsense.  "The left" is, in the US and Europe, rive gauche:  the left bank.  I.e. it is the Marxist side.  "Liberal," on the other hand, means "toward freedom."  Political liberals in the US, from the time of Emerson on (do some reading, folks), have argued that the status quo can always be made better.  "Conservative" means "maintaining the status quo."  That's why "The Conservative Revolution" of Ronald Reagan was an oxymoron.  This US-only blindness, confusion, and partisan nonsense cannot ever be passed off as true.  Geogre 00:34, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * While disagreeing with most of what Geogre just said, I concur with his objection to conflating "left" and "liberal". Anyone not clear on this should read Liberalism and Liberalism in the United States. -- Jmabel 00:59, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can only think of one objective, verifiable, NPOV basis for such a page, and that would be to list organizations that choose to identify themselves as left-wing. AaronSw's own statement of his "objective and factual methodology" is "The way I decide what organizations go on this page is by looking at the values of the liberal conceptual system (detailed in Moral Politics) and seeing whether an organization: a) supports those values, and b) is not ideologically conservative." That isn't very objective, and the presence of a personal pronoun in the description of the methodology doesn't help matters. BTW including the American Friends Service Committee (the Quaker peace organization) on a list of "left-wing organizations" is very disturbing to me, although I'm sure it has been called much worse (in military conflicts it has a very bad habit of providing humanitarian assistance to both sides.) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:19, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Strikes me as as an enemies list.  Why are books listed?  Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 02:12, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, after much thought. I just cannot stomach the division of people on complex political matters into those who either break their eggs on the big end or the small end.  Jamming together liberal, left, freedom-loving, reason-loving, equality-loving, progressive, and all those other very different things as "left-wing" just doesn't cut it for me.  Antandrus 02:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inherently POV, as "right-wing" and "lef-wing" are very subjective.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 04:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Kill it now. Delete. Kairos 04:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Flamebait. Permanent edit war zone. Potential for usefulness: nil. Maybe a list of organizations classifying themselves as left-wing would be of some use; then again, maybe not, as in the US nowadays few would admit to it. --Yath 06:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree w/ Jmabel & Yath. Lacrimosus 06:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep the list. But the name of the page does not make sense--the "left-wing" part.  In any case, the list of organizations all belong on the same page.  These are the organizations attempting to deal with reality.  I would not call them "left-wing."  Maybe the name of the page should be "List of West-Wing organizations"--you know, the ones on TV that every week find some way to touch your heart even while looking straight-on at reality and at the real threats against everything of value.  And you never know how long they can hold out.  ---Rednblu 08:44, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm. It's hard to tell if you're joking. "These are the organizations attempting to deal with reality." Perhaps you'd like to move it to [List of organizations that will save America]? I'm guessing that such an article would do no better than this one. --Yath 08:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * [List of organizations that will save America] Good, I like that one.  I was trying to preserve the snazz of "left-wing," "blue-wing," "west-wing," if possible. In that regard, I realize from your comment that all the organizations on that list have an idea that there is such a thing as altruism, and they are all working to save the commons. ---Rednblu 17:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ambi 09:06, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. If it isn't self-described, then it's bad mojo. --Fastfission 12:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, for irredeemable edit wars and POV wars, some of which has already started. This will be worse than the surrealism edit wars if kept. -Vina 17:18, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, Delete, Delete, Delete... for every single reason given above. While some organizations might choose to call themselves left-wing or right-wing, these terms are far more often used in a near-derogatory way by opponents of a particular organization. NPOV simply isn't possible here. func(talk) 17:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC
 * Delete, and amens to most of the above sentiments. When I used to be a "liberal", we were against labels anyway. And unless you are willing to make a list of so-called "Right Wing Organizations" (do left and right have any meaning at all anymore? did they ever?), then this list strikes me as subtle spamming of Wikipedia, providing all these groups with free links with no context.  Palladian 04:27, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete if Jmabel, who spent considerable time trying to salvage thinks it's not workable I have to agree, also, while this may be a valuable resource, it is not one that belongs on Wikipedia. Just because it is useful, does not put it in line with our goals, one of which is to present factual information in a neutral non-biased manner. I don't see as this list could ever be consistent with that goal. cohesion [[User_talk:Cohesion|&#9742;]] 04:32, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear: I am not convinced that the concept of such a page is inherently unworkable. However, given that the primary author of the page insists left-wing includes the ACLU, I see no chance of making this work: it will be nothing but a POV battleground. -- Jmabel 05:38, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be possible to consider how each of these political organizations would define themselves, and then develop a system under which heading (progressive, patriotic, liberal, conservative, socialist, communist, anarchist, left, right, mainstream, etc.) an organization could be listed. It's questionable to first name categories, then cram organizations in under these sub-titles. There is no overall coherent Wikipedia system. If the list is deleted, the categorization problem is still not solved. If one category is deleted, then all should be deleted, otherwise lopsidedness would remain. I don't think it would be fair in all cases to list organizations under "right-wing" or "left-wing" when some may consider themselves either "patriotic" or "anarchist", without clear-cut Wikipedia definitions. Whyerd 06:06, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * If it was a List of left wing organisations self-described as such then it would be a keeper. Since it isn't, delete. Fire Star 14:44, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't think its partisan or hateful at all, just honest. -- Crevaner 15:55, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Was it you who gave Old Right the nod or vice versa?--Jirate 18:10, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * KEEP, personally I don't see why it should be deleted. These organizations are left-wing. -- Old Right 16:52, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Just looking at the guy's resume confirms everything you needed to now about jingoism and nationalism, and just how wrong they are.--Jirate 18:07, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV is as invalid a reason for article retention as it is as article content. (e.g. "I think they are liberal, so my POV trumps your POV.") While a non-exhaustive list of "groups generally considered left-wing" or, better yet, "groups that identify as left-wing" inside an article like Left-wing politics might be useful for example purposes, an article dedicated to making personal determinations as to the political leaning of an organization is fundamentally POV. Were that it were a List of groups that identify as left-wing groups, it might be workable, but this is not. Perhaps merge a small set into Left-wing politics, but provide evidence that those groups identify as such (not e.g. "Bill O'Reilly says so"). - KeithTyler 18:54, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * I could get behind merging all of this -- including what I myself deleted under the present title -- into List of civic and political organizations. It's mainly the title that is objectionable. -- Jmabel 19:09, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's no definition of "left-wing" that can encompass the whole spectrum of politics, let alone the whole variety of political issues. Inherently POV since what feels "left-wing" to far-right folk feels "right-of-center" to many others -- and indeed what feels left-wing to the people of a certain nation feel deeply conservative to the people of another. The only way this could be NPOVed would be a issue-by-issue categorization of organizations. "Organizations in favour and against tighter gun control" "Organizations in favour and against same-sex marriage" "Organizations in favour and against NAFTA". So forth. Aris Katsaris 21:33, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete', I suppose. A page that lists socialist political parties in the US in all their forms - Democratic Socialists of America, Socialist Party USA, Communist Party USA, Socialist Workers Party (USA), Workers World Party, and so forth, would perhaps be useful.  This page is just a right wing enemies list. john k 22:45, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Those evil right wingers eh? If you read the comments of the creator of the page you'll see that it is in fact a "love list".--Samuel J. Howard 00:44, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's a fine line.--Jirate 12:41, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter, either. - KeithTyler 19:07, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is quite useless and, in addition, POV. --Sesel 00:02, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.