WikiProject Politics | (Rated Start-class, High-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
WikiProject Islam | (Rated Start-class) | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Find sources: "Regressive left" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library
Find sources: "Regressive liberalism" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library
Contents
- 1 Analysis section needs an overhaul
- 2 Pinging other editors
- 3 Thanks
- 4 Semi Protection
- 5 Boris J
- 6 The Context of "Regressive"
- 7 Pejorative
- 8 original research?
- 9 New Paragraph as a possible secondary source
- 10 Balance post-AfD
- 11 The First Use of the term Regressive Left was not by Maajid Nawaz
- 12 Potential NPOV problems
- 13 Removing Weasel Words in the Lede
- 14 "Regressive Left" usage before Nawaz
- 15 Broken link to "One Law for All"
- 16 Questionable new external links
- 17 Characterization of Nawaz as "liberal"
- 18 Another lede edit revert
- 19 "Controversial and contested"
- 20 Here is my definition of the Regressive Left.
- 21 Alt-right and their view of Regressive left
Analysis section needs an overhaul
The "Analysis" section needs a complete overhaul. It's just a collection of examples where people used the term except for the second last paragraph, which lacks a coherent point or train of thought anyway. Also, all the examples are ones promoting the use of the term. It's not analytical whatsoever.
- Previous unsigned input is a reflection upon a previous version. FeatherPluma (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Pinging other editors
@CAPTAIN RAJU, Zzuuzz, AlexiusHoratius, and Wikiisawesome: Hi! Sorry for bothering you guys -- I was just wondering if you would care to provide your thoughts on this page and the recent content disputes. I noticed that you were listed on either WikiProject UK politics or WikiProject Islam, so I figured you might be interested. Thanks, GABHello! 02:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi GAB, this area is very much out of my wheelhouse but I'll offer what I can:
- the sentence beginning with "New Atheist activist, author and neuroscientist Sam Harris" seems a little too long to me. Perhaps the part about Glenn Greenwald can be broken into its own sentence.
- I'd excise the word "mainly" in the second paragraph, unless the references show that he has applied the term to other groups. (I haven't really read through the references, so he may have; just pointing it out.) Perhaps "has applied" would be preferable?
- the additions (about Quilliam's funding; since removed) seemed off. However true it may be that Quilliam has accepted these donations, I'm not sure it's immediately relevant to the discussion of regressive liberalism. And the use of "ironically" was certainly an issue. /wia /tlk 03:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- I was the person to originally delete the paragraphs for not being neutral, and am against them being restored, even if rewritten, simply because they are Tu Quoques against Nawaz and Quilliam, and not anything to do with the actual term, which is the point of the article. If the editor in question wishes to try to provide a counterpoint to the views of Nawaz and Quilliam, then they are free to do so, but they must adhere to neutrality, and crucially, stick to the relevent pages. 90.205.188.244 (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi,I concur with the above users regarding the deleted paragraph (which I also deleted) The additions were not neutral and were also not relevant to the topic itself on this page.Fatsozappa555 (talk) 10:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The word "mainly" in the second paragraph needs to be replaced with "exclusively" for accuracy/balance provided no sources to the contrary can be found. Also, for balance, I believe it should be included that it is an ad-hominen attack that has been targeted exclusively againt critics of Nawaz and his political allies. Spoonerj2015 (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with this user about the wording "mainly". "Almost exclusively" should be the more appropriate characterization. But apparently it's not possible to make this change without getting my edit reverted on the ground that it "verges on original research". Ironic because using the word "mainly" is just as much original research and doesn't reflect the truth. -Zaheen (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Zaheen: My apologies if I didn't explain my rationale adequately. I reverted because it seemed unduly critical to point out that this wording would apply to all religions, when in fact it was used in the context of Islam by Nawaz. Furthermore, I was not sure how it clarified the meaning or relevance of the phrase. GABHello! 02:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, the definition of the term in the first paragraph (which uses Majid's own quote) does not mention Islam in particular, but refers to "minority groups", presumably minority religious and/or racial groups, which gives the impression that Majid is talking about Left's treatment of all minority religions. To me it sounded too open for interpretation, too broad, not precise enough, threfore unclear. When one reads Maajid's books, articles, etc. or listens to his interviews published so far, it becomes abundantly clear that his focus is not mainly, but almost exclusively on the left's treatment of Islamism, not of other minority groups/religions. I wanted to capture this nuance. I didn't think I was going out of bounds there.
- That being said, we could hypothesise on why he is doing so, but it probably doesn't belong in this particular Wikipedia article yet, since that would be original research by an user. I think once we start seeing more analyitical pieces on the usage of this "popular" term, we could mention them here. -Zaheen (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Zaheen: My apologies if I didn't explain my rationale adequately. I reverted because it seemed unduly critical to point out that this wording would apply to all religions, when in fact it was used in the context of Islam by Nawaz. Furthermore, I was not sure how it clarified the meaning or relevance of the phrase. GABHello! 02:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Again, "application to..." is seperate from supposed definition. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary the section "mainly applies to" is inaccurate and misleading. Reality is that it only ever applies to Muslims or non-Muslims who are charged with sympathising with so-called Islamists. Spoonerj2015 (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. As I said above, Maajid's definition as presented in this article seems to cover the entire range of minority groups and religions, but so far he (and those who share his point of view) has used the terms almost exclusivly for the portion of the left, who, in his opinion, sympathizes with radical Islamists. Let's be honest here. It's quite obvious that it's not a proper "term" per se, because it's not mainstream at all, Maajid just coined it a few years back! It has been picked up very recently (probably starting from the second half of 2015) and heavily used by Sam Harris and his ubiquitous Internet acolytes, scientist Richard Dawkins, comedian Bill Maher and may be a handful of conservative, non-left politicians. To me, if we look beneath the veneer of this apparently clever and sophisticated-sounding term, it's a facile way of name-calling the very same portion of the left who has previously name-called people like Maajid as "Islamophobe" or such. It's a tit for tat thing. You call me "Islamophobe", I'll call you "regressive left". That it's been used as a name-calling device is quite clear even from the quotes presented in this very article. -Zaheen (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Again, "application to..." is seperate from supposed definition. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary the section "mainly applies to" is inaccurate and misleading. Reality is that it only ever applies to Muslims or non-Muslims who are charged with sympathising with so-called Islamists. Spoonerj2015 (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
Additionally, request that Breivik's "cultural-Marxist" link is reinstated in "similar expressions for Islam-favouring left-wing politics" . Every bit as legitimate as other two examples Spoonerj2015 (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose removing "mainly", because, as Zaheen noted, Nawaz' definition does not mention Islam specifically. In his Bigthink video, where this definition comes from, he also says: "And it’s what I call the racism of low expectations: to lower those standards when looking at a brown person if a brown person happens to express a level of misogyny, chauvinism, bigotry, or anti-Semitism and yet hold other white people to universal liberal standards." The terms "brown person" and "white people" are racial, not religious, and do not refer to Islam (although Islam is sometimes mistakenly considered a "race" –especially in the context of accusations of "Islamophobia"– and according to Sarah Haider (13:20), some on the [regressive] left erroneously regard Islam as "the religion of the brown man"). It's not until the third paragraph in the video's transcript that Nawaz actually starts talking about how this applies to the 'regressive left's' attitude towards Muslims. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
With "Nawaz mainly applies to..." "mainly" relates to WHO the definition has actually been applied to; not the definition itself. Nobody has provided a shred of evidence that Nawaz has "applied it to" anyone other than those that have been critical of his theories regarding the radicalization of Muslims. Spoonerj2015 (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure how that's relevant, Maajid Nawaz is not the only one using the term. It applies to those who are using the cloak of "liberalism" to promote illiberal ideas - and that is hardly limited to those who are "critical of his theories." It applies to those who meet the criteria. EyePhoenix (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- I have worked through the comments here. I assume this is the discussion to which the NPOV header tag refers. Without getting unduly snowed under in every aspect I believe the tag can be removed now, and should only be introduced if new substantive issues are clearly articulated in a new discussion. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks FeatherPluma. So we've now pretty much established the article is written neutrally. Now we just need to correct possible instances of SYNTH. I see you've already done some cleaning up, and argued for KEEP, thanks for that as well. A happy 2016 btw. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- I have worked through the comments here. I assume this is the discussion to which the NPOV header tag refers. Without getting unduly snowed under in every aspect I believe the tag can be removed now, and should only be introduced if new substantive issues are clearly articulated in a new discussion. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
-
Thanks
I just wanted to thank Wikipedia editors for restoring this article. When I went to look for this topic (as Google search recommended me to do), I unfortunately saw that it had been deleted just before I got here. I've heard the term used by at least five different people, most of them names that the average person interested in Western politics would recognize as notable philosophers, scientists, professors, pundits, or activists as the case may be for each individual. It had been frustrating not to be able to learn more about this critique of a part of the left, here. So, thanks for restoring this article so I can read it. 24.57.193.111 (talk) 08:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to thank the editors too. This term is used frequently, especially in political social media, so it needs to exist. 174.108.85.50 (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Semi Protection
Given the vandalism problems this page has been plagued with due to people with vested interests attempting to edit/remove the page in line with their own thinking, is it worth requesting semi protection? Mrkingpenguin (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
This page is now semi-protected until the deletion judgement is over
Boris J
Can we please clarify what the thoughts were that the Boris J content should be removed as reflecting "reading comprehension problems, here" (edit summary) ? FeatherPluma (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- In theory, the article is about a thing, not about any time someone used the words "regressive" and "left" next to each other. Someone describing an instance of "left-wingery" as "regressive" doesn't belong here, and I assume it comes about because a previous editor did a Google search desperately looking for properly sourced uses of this term and either didn't realize or didn't care that "regressive left wingery" is not a thing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Roscelese I get your point: you see his use of this phrase as more of an independent random assortment of words rather than pointing to the specific concept we are addressing in the article. You suspect the random association of words merely came from a search. OK, except in the quote he amplifies himself quite explicitly as to what he means by "regressive": "the most negative and regressive Left-wingery, larded with a ghastly finger-wagging political correctness". This overlaps appreciably with the exact usage by Sam Harris (as cited) and by Richard Dawkins [1] and [2], when they make a connection of "regressive" to certain aspects of political correctness and potential shaping of free speech. Unlike you, I think it is quite reasonable reading comprehension to see the final phrase as an amplifier of the preceding phrase, rather than an additive run on. So in my view, the usage is not mere adjacency of words, it's expressing the same concept. I am not going to revert immediately as this is a very small issue. This article is quite obviously a hot political topic apparently. I didn't know that when I pitched in. My own internal clock is running the way it always runs. I suspect we will eventually work this out together; I would prefer to interact with you on this over time and get it right from both viewpoints. Once you have had a chance to carefully reconsider, please let me know your thoughts. Perhaps we could find some form of words that reintroduces this reference without making too much of it, certainly without overemphasis of this brief allusion to the concept. FeatherPluma (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- The problem with this bit, and with the article as a whole, is that Wikipedia requires the use of reliable sources to demonstrate that a topic is notable and does not permit original research. If he were obviously talking about the same thing as these other guys, and reliable sources had covered the issue, then maaaaaaaybe you might have a case for inclusion. But right now what you're saying is "he used a phrase in passing that's superficially similar to a phrase used by a couple of polemical talk show hosts, but referring to something different". And in fact I didn't realize until I opened the source to check that it's not even news, it's an op-ed. I can't believe so many editors are wasting their time on this advocacy article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Roscelese I understand why you took this to AfD. I also agree that this op-ed isn't a secondary source analyzing the concept in a deeply meaningful way. And I think we would both like very much to advance beyond a list of quotes and usage examples. Fair enough. This would take a deeper rewrite, mentioning and referencing the abundant academic literature on the authoritarian left, which interestingly lacks its own article for some reason. This particular term more gently conveys some (modest?) concerns regarding possibly misplaced domestic political correctness, and a consequential "cultural free pass" for literalist Islamism (rather than a "secular" or figurative Islam), in distinction to e.g. Pol Pot and the neoconservative[3] USSR. Conceptually, however, this term is referring to the "soft" end of authoritarian left, and if all that complexity needs to come in, so be it. I do see you see advocacy at play, but that penny hasn't clunked in my cage. Also, in working on the article, I have watched some of these so-called "polemical" talk shows. I suggest to you that labeling these as "polemical" is possibly dismissive misframing. As to the specific BJ usage, I am not saying he was "referring to something different" - on the contrary, my stated opinion is "it's expressing the same concept" (emphasis added). Nonetheless, let's let this particular small component go, noting it's removal is not for "reading comprehension failure" but for something like "op-ed source that does not encyclopedically analyze concept". On the central issue, if the article survives AfD, I will then be interested in your view as to whether we should take it in the direction of a broader treatment of the authoritarian left, or in the interests of specificity and comparative (if admittedly imperfect) sanity, do our best to keep this narrower concept as "clean" as feasible. I am willing to embark on either approach now, but I am also willing to work with you upon AfD closure if you'd prefer (I think that might be better?). FeatherPluma (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- I personally am rather conflicted by this article. On the one hand, I think by standard wiki guidelines this is clearly not a term that is ready for a full article yet. Just read WP:NEO and this article seems to be a textbook definition of a neologism NOT ready for inclusion. That said, I'm really not interested in getting into a protracted battle about wikipedia standards of inclusion, given that so many people want an article.
- Given that situation, I think it best to make a fair article. Right now it is extremely one sided. No mention is made that this is a rather pejorative term used to label ideological opponents, and that those most often labelled do NOT accept it as a label for themselves. As mentioned above, it would ideally be a term that is linked to other contexts than simply the present spat within the atheist/progresive movements, as it smacks of WP:RECENTISM at the moment. I think it is rather incumbent on those who want to include the article in wikipedia to try improving the article along those lines. At the moment this article is something of a travesty against NPOV and RS standards. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Just to add my two cents, FeatherPluma's post pretty much encapsulates my thoughts about the AFD. I'd be happy to take part in such retooling discussions and work, if it comes to it. Regarding the Boris quote, it seems at this point that it's somewhat tangential to the article. Perhaps if the article does get reworked, we can talk about restoring the quote. Amateria1121 (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Roscelese I understand why you took this to AfD. I also agree that this op-ed isn't a secondary source analyzing the concept in a deeply meaningful way. And I think we would both like very much to advance beyond a list of quotes and usage examples. Fair enough. This would take a deeper rewrite, mentioning and referencing the abundant academic literature on the authoritarian left, which interestingly lacks its own article for some reason. This particular term more gently conveys some (modest?) concerns regarding possibly misplaced domestic political correctness, and a consequential "cultural free pass" for literalist Islamism (rather than a "secular" or figurative Islam), in distinction to e.g. Pol Pot and the neoconservative[3] USSR. Conceptually, however, this term is referring to the "soft" end of authoritarian left, and if all that complexity needs to come in, so be it. I do see you see advocacy at play, but that penny hasn't clunked in my cage. Also, in working on the article, I have watched some of these so-called "polemical" talk shows. I suggest to you that labeling these as "polemical" is possibly dismissive misframing. As to the specific BJ usage, I am not saying he was "referring to something different" - on the contrary, my stated opinion is "it's expressing the same concept" (emphasis added). Nonetheless, let's let this particular small component go, noting it's removal is not for "reading comprehension failure" but for something like "op-ed source that does not encyclopedically analyze concept". On the central issue, if the article survives AfD, I will then be interested in your view as to whether we should take it in the direction of a broader treatment of the authoritarian left, or in the interests of specificity and comparative (if admittedly imperfect) sanity, do our best to keep this narrower concept as "clean" as feasible. I am willing to embark on either approach now, but I am also willing to work with you upon AfD closure if you'd prefer (I think that might be better?). FeatherPluma (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- The problem with this bit, and with the article as a whole, is that Wikipedia requires the use of reliable sources to demonstrate that a topic is notable and does not permit original research. If he were obviously talking about the same thing as these other guys, and reliable sources had covered the issue, then maaaaaaaybe you might have a case for inclusion. But right now what you're saying is "he used a phrase in passing that's superficially similar to a phrase used by a couple of polemical talk show hosts, but referring to something different". And in fact I didn't realize until I opened the source to check that it's not even news, it's an op-ed. I can't believe so many editors are wasting their time on this advocacy article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Roscelese I get your point: you see his use of this phrase as more of an independent random assortment of words rather than pointing to the specific concept we are addressing in the article. You suspect the random association of words merely came from a search. OK, except in the quote he amplifies himself quite explicitly as to what he means by "regressive": "the most negative and regressive Left-wingery, larded with a ghastly finger-wagging political correctness". This overlaps appreciably with the exact usage by Sam Harris (as cited) and by Richard Dawkins [1] and [2], when they make a connection of "regressive" to certain aspects of political correctness and potential shaping of free speech. Unlike you, I think it is quite reasonable reading comprehension to see the final phrase as an amplifier of the preceding phrase, rather than an additive run on. So in my view, the usage is not mere adjacency of words, it's expressing the same concept. I am not going to revert immediately as this is a very small issue. This article is quite obviously a hot political topic apparently. I didn't know that when I pitched in. My own internal clock is running the way it always runs. I suspect we will eventually work this out together; I would prefer to interact with you on this over time and get it right from both viewpoints. Once you have had a chance to carefully reconsider, please let me know your thoughts. Perhaps we could find some form of words that reintroduces this reference without making too much of it, certainly without overemphasis of this brief allusion to the concept. FeatherPluma (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Several quick points. First, it strikes me as a consequence of this dialecic, that the essence of my recommendation to keep this article is more capably explained by distinguishing it from JUST a quote farm. The various shows are not randomly independent content that happen by chance to stumble on the term. In what I have looked at since embarking on this, they are in essence media analyses of the concept by prominent notable individuals. The concept is analyzed for its coherence and is used as a springboard to analyze its deductive implications. Now these aren't the typical print sources like the New York Times that we would usually prefer. That needs to be said. It also needs to be said that if someone disagrees with these sources being more than mere polemic rants, I'd be happy to look at the respective media again, "line by line" and discuss it comprehensively. Secondly, obviously if the term is perceived as pejorative (as per Peregrine981's input) then let's find somebody saying this and look at that source for suitability for inclusion. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- One problem is that there just aren't that many sources that truly get into a discussion of what the term really means, which is why I think that the AFD has more merit than the vote count shows. I can't find very much discussion at all specifically about the term in academic or "serious" (ie with established expertise or editorial oversight) journalistic sources. Nawaaz wrote about it, and it has been widely picked up on, but I seriously can't find much discussion about the nuances of what the term means, does and does not include. I haven't been exhaustive, but I have tried to find some basic articles in the main publications that might have articles on this topic. There are indeed a lot of more long format interviews that discuss the ideas around the term, ie. the Rubin Report, Secular Talk, Sam Harris in various fora, etc... But, I'm not so sure how credible these shows are from a wikipedia RS point of view, especially to use as foundational discussion about the definition of a term. The Rubin Report for example is just a one man interview show; no disrespect but there's no editorial oversight there, so I really don't think it is considered encyclopedic content as I understand it. This would mainly be considered a primary source. Relatedly, I can't easily find any RS where those (like Greenwald, Chomsky, etc) who have been labelled with the term respond to it. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- To borrow from my post on the AFD discussion (after all it isn't actually a vote), an important question to consider is whether or not the term "regressive left" presupposes the concept it describes. If it does, then the article will have to deal with the term itself, but this (as we are seeing) is a difficult thing to do, given the relative lack of RS. Sources like the Rubin Report and Sam Harris' podcast should be used sparingly because, as Peregrine981 says, they have no independent editorial overseight. The challenge is the relative paucity of sources that do have such editorial overseight. Mainly they appear to be columns or opinion pieces, so their reliability is indeed questionable.
- However, if the term "regressive left" exists simply as a new label of convenience to describe a broader trend (as I believe it does), then to get reliable sources we might have to look beyond just those sources that use the term. I think this is the approach to take (though I welcome discussion); refocus the article to incorporate more information on the phenomenon, and focus it less on the usage of the term by various media personalities - which is, after all, not very encyclopedic. Amateria1121 (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- One problem is that there just aren't that many sources that truly get into a discussion of what the term really means, which is why I think that the AFD has more merit than the vote count shows. I can't find very much discussion at all specifically about the term in academic or "serious" (ie with established expertise or editorial oversight) journalistic sources. Nawaaz wrote about it, and it has been widely picked up on, but I seriously can't find much discussion about the nuances of what the term means, does and does not include. I haven't been exhaustive, but I have tried to find some basic articles in the main publications that might have articles on this topic. There are indeed a lot of more long format interviews that discuss the ideas around the term, ie. the Rubin Report, Secular Talk, Sam Harris in various fora, etc... But, I'm not so sure how credible these shows are from a wikipedia RS point of view, especially to use as foundational discussion about the definition of a term. The Rubin Report for example is just a one man interview show; no disrespect but there's no editorial oversight there, so I really don't think it is considered encyclopedic content as I understand it. This would mainly be considered a primary source. Relatedly, I can't easily find any RS where those (like Greenwald, Chomsky, etc) who have been labelled with the term respond to it. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Both excellent comments. As I have previously stated, I always understood (and briefly had a touch of flirtatious dalliance) with the reason the article was nominated. Fundamentally, there are several options. The academic one is to heave in all the academic literature on authoritarian left, rename it as such, and turn this into a subsection of that. The other is to work on this specific use. That seems to me far better as an approach that caters to a sensible general reader. I also think that approach would be considerably saner in terms of not embarking on a Sysiphean struggle over many, many bridges too far. But if somebody wants to put forward the merge case I could see why. Personally, I struggle a little bit with the idea that some conventional media RS needs to have deeply dissected and parsed this out absolutely completely to the n'th academic degree. They haven't, but then we and they have a general reader in mind, and that's not how I read the Wikipedia guidelines. I think the threshold is closer to "substantial and substantive presence" rather than "deep think". Obviously I accept that the Washington Times and The Independent articles are somewhat thin, but it seems to me these sources were astute enough to realize something like: "OK, it's a political concept, and the implications are culturally controversial, so let's carry this verified controversy, and not tendentiously parse back and forth like we have a deep think position." I think adding a header pointing to the ascription in the media of the controversial implications (as pushed to their limits, and perhaps well beyond, by Dawkins, who pushes many things maybe) would be a good next step. Also, following up on the idea of thematically incorporating pertinent sources e.g. the Independent's 2013 article on Siding with the Oppressor: The Pro-Islamist Left|Why is the left so blinkered to Islamic extremism? adds pertinent background analysis to the topic. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- Normally, I'd be spending my New Year weekend doing good things but a nasty cold laid me low and I used the time with this effort, and watching numerous videos and finding even some classic print media sources on this theme while luxuriating in a steamy bathtub. Just saying. Maybe the article is a scratch better than when we all started on it. Although to be honest I am going to have to check this claim that the term dates from 2010, and not e.g. 2012. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- I could understand an attempt to move this article to authoritarian left, and that might be better ideally speaking, but it would indeed be a mammoth undertaking and likely not worth the effort. I personally certainly am not in a position to devote the required time needed. So, would agree with FeatherPluma that a more cautious approach building on what exists is best. Agree also with Amateria1121 that we could try to incorporate some information from articles, ie the Independent which are talking about the exact same thing, though not using the term. Care obviously needed not to make it an essay or verge into WP:OR. Would be nice to link to another article on earlier forms of leftist coziness with authoritarianism or theoretical "enemies". My main concerns would be to indeed avoid simply listing quotes from public figures who may have discussed or mentioned the term, which risks overloading the article with trivia. Keeping it a relatively simple article seems appropriate at this point given the paucity of sources. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to contribute much over the coming week or so, but would like to have a go at improving as time allows! Peregrine981 (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
There is already a comprehensive definition which was first coined in 2009. I think Maajids fanbase should accept that there was a pre-existing use of the term regressive left whose scope was more wide ranging as a concept. Maajids use has been to relate it to his specific ideological / political stance.
"The Regressive Left; From Al to Zen - Flaws in the philosophies of the Liberal Left".[1]. MAS used the term to define those that call themselves progressives, who maybe unwittingly, hinder the advancement and growth of not just society but the individual.Fredperry2016 (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The Context of "Regressive"
It seems clear that "regressive left" is, indeed, used in a pejorative sense - and the lede reflects that. Another way to phrase that would be to say that the term "regressive left" is an exonym, used by people who consider themselves to be "classical liberals" (but not neoliberals). I think it bears mentioning that those whom the latter label "regressive" mostly self-identify as "progressive" (i.e. that's their endonym). I think the juxtaposition of the two terms is interesting, and almost certainly intentional on Nawaz's part. This makes me wonder if there are any RS out there that make that comparison. But more importantly, I think the article should make more reference to other political philosophies (see links), so that way the term/label/epithet "regressive left" can be seen in its full context.
Right now, the Origin section focuses on Nawaz's coining of the term, specifically how he used it to refer to Islamo-Leftists, and rightly so. In the Analysis section, however, I think more could be added to contextualize the term on the broader political spectrum, as well retaining the secondary analysis of Nawaz's usage of it. Or maybe a new section would be appropriate. Amateria1121 (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- I have added a new paragraph with a new source. There are more details under "New Paragraph as a possible secondary source" section of this page. It's an Interview with Peter Boghossian and he does define it in broader terms and compares "regressive" to "progressives". Anaverageguy (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Maajid Nawaz did not coin the term regressive left. He brought it to your attention. Facts matter.Fredperry2016 (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Pejorative
It is arguably intrinsic to both / either the linguistic tone of the word "regressive" and the application in political criticism that this is a pejorative. I don't have a huge problem if we collectively want to use the adjectival descriptor, but I am making the edit to remove it presently because the present citation needed tag is not going to be fixable if we take a linearly literalist approach, trying to find the citation that doesn't exist. I think we can work on a form of words that conveys that it is used as a criticism label. FeatherPluma (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Absolutely. It's a political epithet, and should be referred to as such in the lede. Amateria1121 (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- If this pages survives AfD, as others have noted, it certainly needs to be made clearer that this is a term which some liberals use polemically and/or pejoratively against political opponents. It is not an objective classification of political belief or an agreed term in academic taxonomy. I think editors can also make judgments about using simply descriptive terms such as "pejorative" as a matter of style and presentation, without having to source the specific word to a specific source. On top of that, those to whom the label is sometimes attached would also dispute the underlying accusation, ie that they are too tolerant of intolerance and/or lose sight of human rights when other issues come into play. The lead needs to be clear that that is an accusation against these people, not an agreed characteristic of them. N-HH talk/edits 19:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Ironically, if the term actually has any validity at all, it would be to describe the people who champion its use. After all, they're the ones who claim to be liberals yet seem to think that freedom of religion and indeed freedom of thought should only apply to those who agree with them. — Red XIV (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- If this pages survives AfD, as others have noted, it certainly needs to be made clearer that this is a term which some liberals use polemically and/or pejoratively against political opponents. It is not an objective classification of political belief or an agreed term in academic taxonomy. I think editors can also make judgments about using simply descriptive terms such as "pejorative" as a matter of style and presentation, without having to source the specific word to a specific source. On top of that, those to whom the label is sometimes attached would also dispute the underlying accusation, ie that they are too tolerant of intolerance and/or lose sight of human rights when other issues come into play. The lead needs to be clear that that is an accusation against these people, not an agreed characteristic of them. N-HH talk/edits 19:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
For now, rather than going with the "open road, flat out, top speed" use / tone of "pejorative", which may in fact be what we decide in the end, I have strongly tilted the hat to the element of criticism by using the less strident / (NPOV?) "finds fault with". I have the impression that this wording was perhaps a bit more powerful traditionally as a critical term than it is now. I will continue to mull it over, including coming back and re-reviewing the other suggestions again. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- I agree pages don't need to lead readers by the nose, but equally I think they need to be clear in their definitions and explanations from the outset, especially when there is the risk of people being encouraged to believe that this is simply an equivalent to more objective descriptions such as "Radical left" or "Revolutionary left". I would argue that "finds fault with" slightly understates the issue (also, at the risk of being pedantic, it is not the term that finds fault as such, but the people using it). In addition the current first sentence – "The regressive left is a political term that finds fault with a section of left-wing politics that tolerates illiberal principles and ideology" – as noted takes it as read that the people so labelled do "tolerate illiberal principles", which is a matter of some dispute. The wording needs to be clear that it is a) a pejorative, b) used by political opponents and c) based on accusations of tolerating illiberalism. Eg something more like: "Regressive left is a pejorative term sometimes used in political debate to criticise those on the left who are accused of tolerating illiberal practices and ideology ..." N-HH talk/edits 10:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
original research?
I'm concerned that the following passage is WP:Original Research. I don't have time to watch the whole program that is linked, but it seems to be tacking on a related issue to this article, which does not really directly address the specific topic of this article, namely the regressive left. We need to try to stick quite closely to the specific issue of the regressive left without venturing into the broad possibilities of every dispute to do with multiculturalism, immigration and identity politics that are related. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC) "In recent decades, Western society has become more multicultural. When local government authorities, such as school boards, represent a socially conservative, local majority population, consisting of a group that represents more broadly within the nation a minority, political leaders and faith leaders have questioned whether there are or ought to be possible limits of discretion for these local agencies.[23] The Trojan Horse series of revelations disclosed that hard line Islamist governors were pushing secular schools to adopt strict Islamic practices.[24] In some Western nations, such as France, norms of society at large have been partially codified under the legal rubric of separation of state and religion.[23]"
- Agree. I have removed this recently added passage. N-HH talk/edits 10:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- I am happy enough for the specific material to be removed, based on a reasonable (but reaching) argument that the content is possibly tangential to the specific topic, in favour of very close adherence to the core concept. I have watched the whole program (twice), however, and your concerns that the content was WP:Original Research are unfounded. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- I am not trying to remove the content for the sake of removing it, but the above passage doesn't address the topic "regressive left". If I understand it well it is discussing a different phenomenon, that in certain areas where school boards become dominated by "islamists" they start pushing for schools to adopt "strict Islamic practices". That is a different, but related phenomenon, unless you can demonstrate that "leftists" or "regressives", are supporting the move. If such discussion exists in the linked show, I would be happy if you could provide a time marker so that we could more easily review it. Otherwise I'm afraid that it is either OR or SYNTH at least. Apologies that I don't really have time to delve into the whole show to check for myself. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- As is evident in other conversations on this page, the objective reality is that narrow (close to the specific form of words) or wide (encompassing the [precise] topic theme even when the form of words is not utilized) treatment of the topic would each be subjectively reasonable. I accept that redacting this type of content speaks to a decision in favour of an on-point article. 05.50 to 7.34 has Nawaz advocating for liberalism and against liberals tolerating extremism of several types, among which he points to Islamism. Within the show, at timestamps that I will retrieve if it's really necessary (it isn't, so don't waste my time either), is the foundational background that a 1944 law in England requires religious education be part of the curriculum. You are asking for a smoking gun, that spoonfeeds specific support for intolerance by specific people. As a matter of logic, however, your requirement of individual named names is incorrect. It is not OR or SYNTH to assert that in the alternative the burden is met by pointing to the tendency of liberalism to tolerate the intolerable (i.e. it is met by the defining characteristic of the political philosophy, not in this case by specific current day named persons.) This is provided, of course, that this comes from the source, which it does: in this TV debate, the toleration bias of Western society's structures at large is precisely what is discussed, as the underlying principle that has given rise to a (problematic?) specific application example, giving rise to a question of whether the 1944 law is not perhaps ripe for being updated, because its effects are no longer as intended given changes in the cultural milieu. I do not think a series of excerpts will persuade you of this, or even the entire show, because you happen to want a specific type of evidence that is not in the show. Frankly, however, I have already made it perfectly plain that I am happy for the content to be removed provided a strict construction standard is applied evenly. It is unnecessary to your point of preferring a very tight focus, which I have gracefully accepted, as well as needlessly provocative, "at least", to invoke, and now reinvoke, the pejorative of "either OR or SYNTH at least". Your grandmother has sucked eggs, maybe once or twice before. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- I am not trying to remove the content for the sake of removing it, but the above passage doesn't address the topic "regressive left". If I understand it well it is discussing a different phenomenon, that in certain areas where school boards become dominated by "islamists" they start pushing for schools to adopt "strict Islamic practices". That is a different, but related phenomenon, unless you can demonstrate that "leftists" or "regressives", are supporting the move. If such discussion exists in the linked show, I would be happy if you could provide a time marker so that we could more easily review it. Otherwise I'm afraid that it is either OR or SYNTH at least. Apologies that I don't really have time to delve into the whole show to check for myself. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- I am happy enough for the specific material to be removed, based on a reasonable (but reaching) argument that the content is possibly tangential to the specific topic, in favour of very close adherence to the core concept. I have watched the whole program (twice), however, and your concerns that the content was WP:Original Research are unfounded. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think I explained myself well, as I'm not sure what my grandmother has to do with this. I really was not trying to attack your ideas or you in any way, and if that's the impression I gave I apologise. I was simply trying to understand the additional text and discuss why you wanted to include it rather than simply removing it. I can see that it is clearly closely related to the topic at hand, and Nawaz explains himself eloquently there. I simply didn't think that discussing the particularities of educational policies in the UK were strictly related to the topic, and could be seen to constitute an element of synthesis, even though they are indeed discussing issues of tolerance of religious "extremism". However, I wanted to give you a chance to explain the addition, which was certainly a plausible one, with reference to the policies I thought it might contravene. I didn't intend for it to be pejorative at all, simply trying to keep the focus narrow, as that is the precedent I have usually seen applied on wikipedia, and as I see that you also agree to, but didn't seem to at that time. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Peregrine981; Thank you for that nice explanation and discussion. We are on the same page. (Yes, I would conceptually have had a very mild preference for a broader treatment, but upon reflection I do accept that editorial discretion needs to be applied particularly narrowly on this topic.) Take care, FeatherPluma (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
New Paragraph as a possible secondary source
I have added a paragraph in the beginning of Analysis section. The source is a podcast from The Humanist Hour. The whole discussion is about the term and it's relationship to safe spaces on campuses. I omitted the safe space part because it didn't seem relevant to rest of the article, but feel free to add or remove parts in relation Peter Boghossian's extended discussion on what he considers the regressive left. I don't know if this meets the requirements of a secondary source, but it looks like it meets Reliable Sources criteria and is a discussion on the term itself. Anaverageguy (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
-
-
-
- @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)
- 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
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
-
-
-
-
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)
The First Use of the term Regressive Left was not by Maajid Nawaz
I can understand that there are some Maajid Nawaz fans/cultists who do wish to attribute the term Regressive Left to him regardless of the facts, however Regressive Left was first introduced by bloggers Sylvia and MAS in 2009 "The Regressive Left; From Al to Zen - Flaws in the philosophies of the Liberal Left".LINK HERE MAS used the term to define those that call themselves progressives, who maybe unwittingly, hinder the advancement and growth of not just society but the individual.
I'm uncertain as to why anyone would use wikipedia to distort or remove truths or facts.Fredperry2016 (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- This is copy-paste of the reasoning that I left on your talk page : While it's true that the bloggers you cite have mentioned the phrase "regressive left", it has, in my humble opinion, very little to do with how the term/phrase is interpreted currently by many commentators who are mentioned throughout the article. So this little tidbit about some blogger coincidentally coining the same phrase in some random blog entry seems really out of place within the context of the article as it stands now, and frankly, it is not really notable since this particular instance and its definition has never been picked up by any commentator at all. That's why I have removed it for now. Zaheen (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I understand the cult-like following Maajid Nawaz has and the importance of promoting him as some great 'progressive reformer' to those who buy into his particular neo conservative narrow vision. However the original entry is entirely incorrect in its claim that MN first introduced the term. In an honest review of the term there should be an acknowledgement that the concept/idea existed albeit with a broader recognition of the politics of the liberal-progressive left.
Maajid Nawaz has merely taken the term and narrowed its point of action that is particular to his ideology with respect to his contentious views of extremism and islam in order to discredit those that crtique his thinking. Maajid Nawaz's use and current usage is a means of abuse not about furthering debate.
My addition does not detract from acknowledging his appropriation of the term, it adds to the understanding of where the term originated and how it was meant to define a more generalised view of the 'liberal - progressive left'.
Maajid Nawaz's use of the term wholly falls into the original definition of the term. I'm a bit lost as to how you do not recognise this obvious observation. Let's try to be honest rather than spinning the actuality. Fredperry2016 (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, there is no proof that one fateful day, Maajid Nawaz read this particular blog entry by some not-so-well-known bloggers called MAS and Sylvie (who?), and then appropriated the term "regressive left" to mean something different and then narrowed it down in tune with his ideology. How do you know all of this? His definition does not really seem to be based on what is written in that blog entry, which to me seems very vague and can be interpreted in many ways. Moreover, the way the phrase is used right now by other commentators like Sam Harris, Dawkins, Maher, etc. has nothing to do with the blog entry.
- So the question is : Why should we include this piece of information from some obscure, vague blog entry in the lead section of this article which is about a more specific phenomenon? I don't see any reason why. It's simply not coherent in the context of the article. Moreover, that blog entry has zero currency among the commentators who are using the phrase right now. I know you want to keep it for the sake of "honesty" and "integrity", but I think your concern is misplaced. IMO that information just doesn't fit in the article in a coherent manner. We might find a way to keep it somewhere in the article (IMO definitely not in the lead section), or not. But it has to be discussed first.
- One more thing : nobody is a Maajid Nawaz fanboy here. When you create a single-purpose account to make a very specific edit and engage in an edit war (you have reverted 3 times already) in the name of upholding "honesty" and throw insults towards anybody who doesn't agree with you for being a "cult-like promoter", "Maajid Nawaz fanboy", "fanatic", "spinning the actuality", that just looks odd, don't you think? Pardon me, but it seems that you are not here to contribute, discuss respectfully with other editors and contributors who have already been working on it for some time, but to forcefully push a specific piece of information, then when faced with disagreement, you start ranting by giving your personal interpretation of what might have happened and accuse the other editors by calling them names, and then engage in an edit war. That shouldn't be the case in a collaborative encyclopedia. Hopefully other editors who have worked on this article can give some feedback (Pinging @Peregrine981, FeatherPluma, Anaverageguy, Nederlandse Leeuw, and N-HH:). Zaheen (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Zaheen and Fredperry2016: OK, interesting. To move this along, I removed "first" because that is a legitimate criticism, although it did not say "he was the first to use it", it said "he first used it". But OK, it's too close. I also made some other related changes.
- I am not in favor of incorporating the blog. The consensus has been to avoid general usage examples where the two words happen to be in adjacency, and instead narrowly focus on the point of action (concept) of the appropriated use. A chronological, dictionary-style tracing of who used the two word conflation first, or of how (mechanistically) the usage has evolved, would be extremely difficult to source properly. Earlier (and even earlier) usage examples of the two words in adjacency, which no doubt could be unearthed, simply are not relevant.
- FeatherPluma (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Zaheen: Is this page about the term regressive left and its evolution or is it about promoting a specific ideology propagated by a small cabal of individuals?
-
- Whilst I have no objection to the great deal of MN appreciation here, I do believe this specific page that claims to be about the term regressive left should primarily reflect and be about the term.
-
- It does not matter how obscure you might find the original blog, the point is that it already existed and has the same general political definition albeit less targeted to a specific cause.
-
- As an aside MN is known to 'steal' longstanding terms and to then re-appropriate them for his particular bug-bear. As examples: 'Voldemort' 'Jihad' 'Jihadist' 'Islamist' 'Islamism' all have existed prior to MN taking them and redefining them to meet his ideological needs to his particular group of adherents.(Pinging @Zaheen, Peregrine981, FeatherPluma, Anaverageguy, Nederlandse Leeuw, and N-HH:). Fredperry2016 (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- @FeatherPluma and Zaheen: Hi, yes the new approach is far more honest and an improvement. However I have to say that the original use of regressive left is very important if one is to understand its evolution, moreso if it really is about the term and not about MN. If its about MN then it should not exist separately but only as a paragraph/chapter on MN's wiki page.
-
-
-
- Now, the point is that the use by MN falls within the original definition. MN's usage is not something new or novel, merely a very targeted, very specific extension of its use.
-
-
-
- I suggest that a small addition pointing to the origin of regressive left is required as a fair representation of the term in 2009 and further references as to how the term has evolved under MN and possibly others.
-
-
-
- You will surely agree this page is only about the term not specifically about MN. Currently it appears to be more about MN at the moment. Fredperry2016 (talk) 12:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Whatever the merits of the case may be, this blog entry cannot be used in this article. First of all, a blog is almost never accepted as a reliable source by Wikipedia. There are good reasons for this, having to do with traceability and reliability of the information. We have no way of knowing who is really behind this blog posting, when it was really written, if it was changed, etc... Secondly, Wikipedia should rely on secondary sources to report information, not first hand research. We would need an secondary article saying that this blog post used the term first to even consider inclusion. Simply finding a blog post dated earlier than the date MN is reported to have used it and concluding that it was the first usage is original research which is not allowed. Further, as pointed out above, this blog post has really nothing to do with the way that it is currently being used; that is why we should rely on an RS to authoritatively link the two terms in terms of substance, not just as a coincidental use of the same words in a loosely similar way. I'm sorry about this, I can see that you included it as a good faith effort to correct the record, but there are a few rules to follow before including stuff in Wikipedia. I'd encourage you to follow the links I've included here to get some more details. Don't hesitate to ask me if you have questions. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- @Peregrin981: Why would you not want an honest,authentic reporting of the use of the term. It is obviously clear that the blog is 'as is' in its original form. I'm surprised you would dare to suggest otherwise. Why does fact - truth upset you so greatly?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I'm uncertain why asking for integrity and an evolutionary timeline detracts from your obvious ideological stance. Surely the aim is to educate and inform not indoctrinate through falsehoods. Again why would you not add an acknowledgement, it is standard practice in peer reviewed research regardless of claimed 'obscurity' or single source references.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- If the direct blog link cannot be used, there is no reason or bar to not acknowledge on this page that the there is a prior claim to the term and that it had a not too dissimilar definition.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Time to stop being childish and so precious, in the interest of accuracy,fact and integrity. Fredperry2016 (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- @Fredperry2016:It is not "obvious" that a blog post is in its original form. They can be edited after the fact. In any case, that's not really the major problem here. As I said, blogs can usually not be used; I quote from WP:BLOG, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
- This is from a BlogSpot blog from 2009 with a total of 5 entries. Not exactly a titan in the literature of its field. It is simply not acceptable by Wikipedia standards for sourcing, this has nothing to do with suppressing "the truth". You will have to show that the authors are somehow recognized, published authorities in the field, or that this claim has been picked up in a published source. That's all there is to it. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- @Fredperry2016: Please carefully read both helpful responses from Peregrine981. In explicit answer to your stated question, this page not "about the term regressive left and its evolution". It is about the narrowly focused point of action (concept) of the appropriated use. Your input is appreciated as it has led to an improvement in the article's wording and has further highlighted this consensus. Intellectually, your opinion that this is a very targeted, very specific extension is correct. Nonetheless, that valid point does not logically lead to labeling others as "childish" and "precious", or lacking "integrity", when the material you propose is substandard. You have been properly and fairly advised to review reliable source and original research as further discussion depends on demonstrating basic understanding of these principles. Thank you for those components of your input which are intelligent and civil. We warmly welcome you as a new editor. But we expect new editors to familiarize themselves with the guidelines, and consider why these have been formulated by the community. This is fair warning that we value collegiality. I hope you will settle down and enjoy editing encyclopedically. Take care. FeatherPluma (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- @Peregrin981 and FeatherPluma: It is increasingly becoming apparent to me that the term 'regressive left' was long in use prior to MN's appropriation and was being used in a similar manner albeit at different targets. Take your pick:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- There is also a link to its use at the hurry up harry website 2009 (who give support and share an ideology with MN) in the similar manner as MN but which is blocked by wiki
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Since you have accepted the 'appropriation' of the term by MN and others, it is only proper for this page to acknowledge that fact with an addition of a line or two to the rather lengthy piece that is accrediting MN as if the term was not in use by others elsewhere and in a similar political context.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I really don't see the issue here, I'm merely asking for an acknowledgement of the term pre 2012 and how it has been appropriated. I'm at a loss why the impression has to be given that MN somehow came to this term out of nowhere especially since it was already being applied in the circles he is likely to have frequented.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- At present there is no one use of the term regressive left which is clear by a quick search engine query. So it is in fact incorrect to claim that at present MN has the primary context/value. It occurs to me that the 2009 incarnation is in fact at present the majority usage to attack the left.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It has also come to my attention that in the analysis section a reference is made to sam harris and his use in the appropriation of the term. If that is valid then surely so are the wider references and in particular "Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal" - 2007-10 to be found at conservapedia. link here.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Fredperry2016 (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
@Fredperry2016: Thank you for the less strident tone. I most certainly appreciate the intellectual basis of where you are coming from. That said, you will not grasp what is unacceptably subpar with ALL of these items until you read and absorb reliable source and original research. I had a similar reaction to the peculiarities here in my early days, until I digested what these are all about. After WP:RS and WP:OR, you would want to look at WP:SYNTH, WP:CIR and WP:DONTGETIT. But focus on WP:RS and WP:OR first. I encourage you to look at some other good (and bad) articles and make some good edits even if they are non-controversial and "low brow". A very high proportion of articles can benefit from grammar or even spell checking. This is probably the best way to get a broad sense of how things operate here. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- @FeatherPluma: Thank you for your condescending response. The issue remains 'regressive left'. Regressive left was, it appears, in common usage pre MN. That much cannot be disputed and I have presented clear archived references as a point of proof. Further it is very clear that at present the MN specificity is not the prime usage. Any search engine query will present its usage as defined in 2009 and in the terms of the examples I have presented earlier not as presented here.
- The claim has been that MN introduced the term. This is now proven to be incorrect. This claim was the basis of maintaining this page. Further the claim has been to suggest that MN usage is primary use. It has been shown that it is not and as suggested a search engine query will show that it is not.
- I can understand why you wish to discuss points of process rather than proof of origin, common usage and the manner this page is presented, which now increasingly appears to be merely a political enterprise with you acting as gatekeepers to that essentially pro atheist neo conservative islamophobic propaganda.
- It is clear this page in reality should not exist since the basis of it has been refuted in all aspects. Alternatively if it is to exist it should more honestly reflect the term, its origin and its current use. It should not be a platform for self appointed gatekeepers to promote the odious ideology of a like minded cabal.
- I suggest at least some changes to this political narrative to properly reflect the issue and the term. In changing the narrative there is no requirement to be anything but objective and impartial. At present this page is neither of those two Fredperry2016 (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Fredperry2016: I did not intend whatsoever to be condescending and I apologize if my attempts to be helpful to you are poorly implemented. Your opinion is heard. At this time, however, it isn't possible to further accommodate to one-sided disruptive persistence. The legitimate business of this thread is to review the subpar blog you persistently added. Zaheen properly advised you on your Talk page of that option. That work is now done. 3 editors (of different persuasions) have talked it through with you, and additional editors also redacted its addition. When you read WP:RS and WP:OR, you could then come back if you put together properly referenced text that you would like to propose for inclusion, for review by the community of editors. FeatherPluma (talk) 13:56, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I don't see anything wrong with noting that this is (unsurprisingly) controversial. GABHello! 20:08, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
"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:
- Boston Talk Show host Charles Moore in 2002 "The leftist agenda is to preserve a judiciary stacked with left-wing judges willing to use their appointed positions to unflinchingly, and by fiat, enact unpopular and undemocratic laws. ...The regressive left wants judges to act like monarchs by wielding fiat power in violation of the letter and spirit of their oath of office. This is because the left must depend on dictatorial power since they tacitly understand that their regressive agenda would never fly with the electorate." http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0502/0502judnom.htm
- Blog in 2003: http://thewholething.typepad.com/weblog/2003/10/
- Blogger and Author Ari Armstrong in January 2006. http://www.freecolorado.com/bw/011206.html He also used the phrase "regressive 'progressivism' " in November 2008. http://ariarmstrong.com/2008/11/election-blues-and-reviews-iii-tax-hikes-lose/
- Tom Kelly in "Irish News" October 2006 "True to their Marxist roots and now under threat on the regressive Left by the growth of Sinn Féin, Comrade Rabbitte and his other one-time Workers Party cronies are among the most strident denouncers of Gerry and the Peacemakers." http://www.nuzhound.com/articles/irish_news/arts2006/oct2_British_Irish_leaders_crossroads__TKelly.php
- poster "Ben usn (ret)" in november 2006: "Bush is Nixon, and Iraq is Vietnam." Remember when Reagan was Nixon and Granada was Vietnam? ... President Reagan brilliantly outmaneuvered the regressive left, by not allowing them time to ressurect Nixon and Vietnam." http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2006/11/progressive-thought-and-denial-of.html
- poster "Eliezer" in 2007 commenting on an Israeli article: "Hitler knew he could make good Nazis out of Communists, because they were cut from the same cloth so to speak... The "Motherland" & the "Fatherland," as it were. Just as the regressive left, etc., enables the PLO as their proxy, so too do they employ anti-Jewish Russian agents, who exemplify the "beefsteak section" of Hitler's Germany." http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/123692#.VuYPP_krKJA
- The september 2009 article that is discussed above http://theregressiveleft.blogspot.co.uk/
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)
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: [4] [5] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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: [4] [5] KindaQuantum (talk) 18:32, 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. [6] [7] — 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
"Controversial and contested"
So I originally added that line ([8]) at the end of the first paragraph, but now I'm thinking we should try to rework it, not only because of the spate of IP edits, but also because they have a point. It's not a verifiable claim as it's worded now. I'm open to any suggestions for improvements, but I wonder if that would be better dealt with in a criticism section? --Amateria1121 (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. I think the real thing to avoid is having the article become a collection of quotes for or against the term, and labeling people as such. GABHello! 16:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly. --Amateria1121 (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- I strongly support keeping the lede as is. No instance of the term "regressive Left" itself that I've been able to find, or that its users whom I have challenged have been able to provide, has a solid supporting citation referring to a specific utterance by a specific person in a specific forum/publication. It seems perverse to require a higher standard of corroboration for the very conservatively worded definitional reservation that exists than for the slipshod term it qualifies (entirely rightly, in my view), at the point where the reservation most needs to be seen. Obviously a strongly partisan view, but I think in this case well-supported in terms of the encyclopedic standards Wikipedia seeks to adhere to. Now clearly, a single verifiably pre-existing instance anywhere of the use of "regressive Left" in relation to an objectively verifiable referent would go some way to undermine my objection. Two would be enough for me to accept the move of the cautionary sentence to a "Criticisms" section. To be clear, by "objectively verifiable" I mean you can ask and reasonably expect to be able to answer the questions "did the person named say the thing quoted when/where claimed?", "is that person arguably in/on/of 'the Left', on any reasonable definition of that term?" and "is the utterance arguably 'regressive', on any reasonable definition of that term?". What I am mostly seeing is argumentation of the form: "regressive, therefore Left" -- guilt by mere accusation, with the whole Left defined and presupposed as "regressive" and as the sole repository for "regression". Most often, when a supposed "regressive" miscreant can be identified at all, it is a clearly Right-wing institution such as the police or corporate media which has displeased the complainer, yet the "regressive Left" is somehow said to be to blame -- with no explanation other than vague, untestable accusations -- not the visibly proximate Right-wing miscreant. As to whether the meaning and indeed the meaningfulness of the term "regressive Left" are contested: I hope that's taken as read. I would also note that these serial removals are all being done anonymously and unilaterally. Those making them do not avail themselves of this talk page to promote and explain their thinking. It would feel to me very much like giving in to bullying to change something arrived at collegially here in response to such edits. When I had a change reverted I immediately came to the talk page and have tried to conduct myself appropriately since, despite feeling extremely strongly about the subject; I do not just make changes (beyond reverts to un-discussed changes to the lede, in support of what I understood the collegial agreement to be) without discussing them here first. Now, having said all that, I'd still like to know: how do other pages with a subject whose very definition is hotly contested signal that fact? KindaQuantum (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- @GAB I think the page is already the collection of quotes you describe. None of them leads to anything objective as described just above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KindaQuantum (talk • contribs) 17:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- You asked a good question at the end there:
-
How do other pages with a subject whose very definition is hotly contested signal that fact?
- My intent is not to deny the term is controversial, but to provide evidence that supports the claim that it is controversial, and I think the best way to do that is with a bit of restructuring. Though, I will say that the second half of the sentence ("limited use") is the sort of thing that really does need to be backed up with sources.
- Look at the Feminazi article for an example. It's a much shorter article, but there are two basic lessons from it; first, the lede just briefly describes the term and outlines its origin, and second, there are clearly separate "etymology and usage" and "criticism" sections. I think drawing from this format would suit "Regressive Left". If we merge "Concept" and some of the usage examples, and separate out the criticisms into their own section, I think we can better express the contentious nature of the term. As a counter example, look at Social Justice Warrior. The "Pejorative Use" section appears to consist almost entirely primary-source examples of people criticizing the term and its usage, and I think that what this article should avoid.
- Unfortunately, the "Analysis" section in this article has that same problem, not so much putting undue emphasis on one POV (though there is definitely room to improve that), but over-reliance on primary sources without providing a thesis. If there were a separate section for criticism, in that section we could say the term is "controversial and contested", then directly go on to provide supporting examples, eg. people who dismiss the term as a right-wing concoction, or who defend their belief in multiculturalism. In that section we could also address the "limited use" claim, not necessarily by providing sources to prove that (which I think is impossible, because how can you prove how widespread a term is?), but by providing relevant examples of critics who claim that nobody uses the term "regressive left". And in the "Origin and Usage" section, as I said, we could basically keep the "Concept" section and add some primary sources to demonstrate that concept. I hope that kinda makes sense. --Amateria1121 (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- I thought the original "by certain commentators" caveat conveyed the actual situation properly because as it stands in reality, despite lots of efforts by the people who deploy it, the term is neither that controversial nor highly contested yet. Instead it's just ignored or dismissed as an ad hominem attack by its targets. It's mostly used as an empty snarl word, a "gotcha!" word like SJW by some social media users. Apart from Harris, Nawaz, Dawkins, Rubin and Maher, no other high-profile commentator has given any thoughful justification for the term. So it's really about 5 commentators and their horde of one-liner youtube/twitter acolytes who are driving this term's evolution at the moment. By definition, it can't be controversial or contested. Zaheen (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I think the article has now reached a stage where we should be focusing on restructuring its content, as Amateria1121 suggested above. We cannot just endlessly attach quote after quote as they spring up in the media. The article needs a guiding structure which will lead the reader to understand the various viewpoints related to this term. Instead of the chronological and overly descriptive approach taken so far, I think we need to regroup similar arguments, ideas and concepts into solid paragraphs that convey one viewpoint at a time. At the level of arguments/ideas themselves, we need to consolidate them by getting rid of repetitive, unnecessary, parasitical details. Zaheen (talk) 13:33, 26 April 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[2] 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)
Alt-right and their view of Regressive left
I did a little research and found that the phrase "regressive left" is indeed very popular among 4chan /pol/ forum users, who are according to this rationaliwiki article mostly alt-right. There are about 1200 entries for RL link here. So the Buzzfeed article was correct indeed. Globally it seems that the alt-right people are happy that some centrists/center-left people are calling out the far-lefties/SJWs (just like the alt-right albeit in a more sophisticated way) and that the left is breaking up over this. They also seem to have appropriated the term "Regressive Left" in their discussion of SJW far-left. Zaheen (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Do you seriously consider BuzzFeed and RationalWiki reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.153.209 (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, there are no other so-called "reliable" sources talking about this epithet. It's such an alternative media/Net underground phrase. As far as I can see, it's being used by all kinds of net-based anti-SJW warriors against SJW-type people. If anyone wants to understand the term, Buzzfeed and Rationalwiki are some of the few websites talking about it. Zaheen (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, there are no other so-called "reliable" sources talking about this epithet. It's such an alternative media/Net underground phrase. As far as I can see, it's being used by all kinds of net-based anti-SJW warriors against SJW-type people. If anyone wants to understand the term, Buzzfeed and Rationalwiki are some of the few websites talking about it. Zaheen (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)