Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Left and Opposition to War

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. 14 to 12 for delete. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Left and Opposition to War

I've thought about this nomination long and hard, but I've now come to the conclusion that this article should be deleted. While I believe that an article about a topic like this might be desirable, I don't think that this article is what Wikipedia needs. First of all, this article is almost irreparably POV. It is one long rant against what the creator sees as "the Left". That is a second problem with the article. The creator has thrown a large number of very diverse groups on one pile. Anti-war christians, social-democrats, christian-socialists, communists, stalinists, nationalist socialists, marxists, leninists, zapatistas and just about every group I haven't mentioned are all treated as one collective entity, which imo is the wrong approach.

I acknowledge that that is no ground for deletion, but only for clean-up. What can be seen as a ground for deleting this article (although there are no strict guidelines on what constitutes a ground for deletion), is the fact that this article is largely primary/original research, propaganda/advocacy, a personal essay and an opinion on current affairs (from WP:NOT). I believe Wikipedia is not the place for such articles. It remains to be seen whether anything in this article can be cleaned up to conform to Wikipedia standards. But supposing that it is possible, should that be under this title? "The Left" is, as I have said, a collection of some related, some barely related and some unrelated groups and individuals under a header that has often been misused for political purposes (particularly under McCarthyism, when political opponents were often denounced as being "left"). Another term I find troublesome is "opposition." While it is often appropriately used in this article, I think it would be better to replace it with something a bit more neutral, such as "notion" or "view." What I think is needed here, is spreading the issue over several articles, like "Marxist notion of war" or "Marxism and war", "Stalinist notion of war" or "Stalinism and war" and "Leninist notion of war" or "Leninism and war", etc. While I don't think it is necessary to create such articles for every single branch of "the Left", I do think the most important branches of socialism should be separated, as they are separate ideologies. In short: Wikipedia might need an article about this issue, but not with this content under this title. I think it's best to start all over again, instead of having to wait for someone who finds a way to npov this article. The content as it is belongs on a personal website or a blog, but not in an encyclopedia. Aecis ^praatpaal 17:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral. While I suspect this article may be irredemably POV, it looks odd to have simultaneous neutrality, cleanup, and deletion tags. Mediation might be more appropriate. Durova 17:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but give it a really good scrubbing. "Left" and "War" are very broad labels, but they are popular labels. Currently the article is pretty dubious, but I think it has potential. What various strands of the political left have thought about various wars can be described in an NPOV way. The current and historical associations between various left-ish political groups and various pacifistic causes make it a real topic. If the article is still filled with POV garbage in six months, I'd be much more amenable to deletion, but two weeks seems hasty. --William Pietri 19:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Undecided too. It's got me beat: part of me thinks there is the basis a good article in there (although "the left and war" would be better, as many European Communists went to fight in the Spanish civil war, George Orwell being a prominent example. On the other hand, it's far too bogged down in the 9/11 issue (and that is massively too POV). In fifty years time 9/11 will be viewed rather more dispassionately than it is now. Single air raids in World War II killed more people than 9/11 - and more than the "War on Terror" (and just how do you declare war on an adjective?). Really the answer is probably to redirect that section to a "main article" section being a discussion of the anti Gulf war movement - which, in the UK at lest, is absolutely not confined to the political left. And incidentally the American political "left" is not actually terribly "left-wing" anyway. Nor are "liberal" and "left-wing" synonymous. So the bulk of the article is a nightmare, but the start is a good concept. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 19:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Opposition to war in general should be covered in the anti-war article and opposition to individual wars should be covered by articles similar to the ones in anti-war's see also section. -- Kjkolb 20:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It's a rant. The author has drawn a connection through history like it's a conspiracy or something. I don't think lumping all the various things believed by ppl through history by this nebulously defined "left" can be verified. I think the conception itself is too much an opinion. Is the "Left" of 1800 the same "Left" of 1900? of 2000? Might be useful with some serious rethinking. --DanielCD 20:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this could be a list at best. Dsol 20:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The author is using a definition of "Left" that keys in very strongly to the American Conservative zeitgeist as exemplified by William F. Buckley, Rush Limbaugh, and the like. As such, the foundational perspective of the article defies redemption. Any "cleaning up" of this article would involve starting afresh and crafting a wholesale re-write. And since the thing will need to be completely re-written from start to finish in order to make it a presentable Wikipedia article, there's no reason to keep the current one skulking about in the meantime. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 21:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. OK, Extreme Unction is right. It starts out with an assertion that "historically, the Left has been oppposed to most wars", and that does, as stated, define the tone of the article. Haivng gone back and thought about it, this statement is completely indefensible. Not only did the left not exist during the period of most wars, there have been notable occasions where the left has joined in, others where the right has poosed and so on. In fact, as stated, it depends on a definition of "left" which includes anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. Yes, there is the germ of a good idea in there, but as stated, there is practically nothing of this article which would survive the transition process, and in the mean time this is substantially worse than nothing. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 22:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as rewritten; the exclusion of the "war on terror" restores the balance and the article is now encyclopaedic and covers a valid topic. It still needs some work, but is tagged for that. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] [1] AfD? 11:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete because this obviously very debatable. But imagine an article "The Right and Advocacy of War" which pretty much leads to modern Neoconservatives being talked about right alongside Hitler, Mcarthyism and whatnot... this article is about the left wing equivalent of that. --W.marsh 23:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Heh. Excellent point. But personally I feel that article could be valuable as well, especially were it called, per Just zis Guy, "The Right and War". There's a great deal of interesting material in Wikipedia, and I think there's room for cross-cutting articles that serve to draw people in to the complexity of history. Of course, this article still does suck as is, so perhaps I just have too much faith in the garbage-to-gold powers of the Wiki. --William Pietri 01:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Hey, you gotta have faith... in Wiki at least. But I think the wording of the title just leads to problems. Comparing someone to Stalin really isn't much better than comparing someone to Hitler... in my opinion at least. So these blanket "the Left thinks this" and "The Right thinks that" statements just lead to problems. Maybe it's a personal thing but I'll tend to vote towards avoiding lumping articles like that. --W.marsh 05:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It's not really an article on any one subject -the "Left" is too vague and opposition to war in general is too broad a topic. While articles on opposition to specific wars in specific political conditions would be valid, an article that tries to lump all of the "Left" from all countries over all time is hopeless. Swegner 00:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Preaky 04:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There are a number of reasons I do not think this article should be deleted.
• Firstly, everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that this article was created in orrder to make the article on Left-wing politics more NPOV by making a seperate place for all the information on anti-war stuff that was swamping it.
• Secondly, all of the commentators so far seem to be ignoring the first section which is on the first world war and has far less NPOV problems, is well referanced and is not orrginal reasuarch.
• Thirdly, the idea that this article is just the singular rant of a right-wing POV pusher is nonsence the article as can be seen by examination of the articles roots. In the beggining the Left-wing politics article got swamped by a load of right-wing stuff blaming the left for creating an pro-terrorist anti-semitic anti-war movement. Though even at this point there was a lot of counter editing and the article cam a little bit more towards the ballanced side. This stuff then got pushed into its own article (Post-September 11 anti-war movement which is still, despite some editing from people with differnt views, packed with POV and which I was planning to notinate for deletion wonce any information it could possible neutraly claim to cover had been found a better home) and a summery got left on the Left-wing politics page, this summery was still full of POV so I, and others, cleaned it up. After this I felt it shouldn't be linked to the POV page so I delinked it, but it was still to big so I moved it to its own page.
• Fourthly, I also think that those argueing for deletion are focusing on the most poor stuff, i.e. the stuff on america. This is fair enough since most of the stuff is but if you look at the stuff on other places (notably the U.K) it is far more neutral.
• Lastly, I think this article and the summerised section in the left-wing polics are important becasue many left-wing movements have sort to grow and radicalise large sections of the population through anti-war movments the same can not be said of the right, it has not built mass participation pro-war movments and has never sort to sustain and invigertate right wing activists from such a movement.
  

Please give this article a chance. --JK the unwise 12:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, maybe I'm missing something here. If this is the POV crap which was excised from another article, how does that make it NPOV in this context? Either it passes WP:NPOV or it doesn't (and I'd say it doesn't) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 12:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

You are missing something. It was moved from another article, were a summery was left, because it made the artcle POV invertue of dominating the article. That doesn't mean that the artical itself is inherently POV. Insteed of advocating deletion it would be more constructive if people had made any attempts at all to try to sort out the POV problems.--JK the unwise 12:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment; Just to make more exact a comment I made above. What exactly are the un-sort-out-able NPOV problems which the sections on the WWI, WWII and the vitnam war? None seem to have been mentioned so far.--JK the unwise 13:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The un-sort-out-able NPOV problems stem from the article's inescapably American definition of "The Left". The entire article is based on a definition of "The Left" which our international brethren and sistren would find moderately to profoundly laugable, depending on their locale. Dittoheads consider Bill Clinton to be a leftie. Most Europeans would consider him a centrist. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 14:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and start again. There is an association in the minds of some (many?) people who are pro the war in Iraq and the war on people who dislike the United States terror that the opposition is one big left-wing conspiricy, or that all the opposition is left wing. An NPOV article about this is worthy of inclusion imho, but what we currently have is not that. In the UK at least, opposition to the current war came from all shades in the political spectrum; and I don't know enough about other wars to say conclusively, but I would imagine this was also the case. I seem to recall hearing that there was a significant amount of anti-war sentiment amoung the right wing upper classes in Britain before the second world war. Thryduulf 13:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that critics tell the lie that anti-war=left-wing conspiricy. However this article does not say that it just states the undeniable fact that the left has been key to the organisation and iniciation of anti-war movments and that anti-war movments have been key to reinvigoration of the left. A case in point is that the Stop the War Coalition, which organised most of the UK protests, was iniciated by the Socialist Workers Party and lefties around the party, also though it involved left-wing labour party members and many mambers of the public of differnt political stands, no right wing politicion would have joined (nor would have been welcomed). Also the new left-wing party Respect and its election of an MP were only possible because of the radicalisation caused by the anti-war mood. Maby the article could be clearer in saying that the left is made up of lots of differnt strands and that anti-war movemnt extends far beyond the left, nevertheless it is surely worung to deniey that opposition to war has not been a key factor in many left wing movements.--JK the unwise 13:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it asserts that the left has been critical to these movements, but it ignores situations where the left has been enthusiatic (e.g. Spanish Civil War) and it is so disporportionately weighted to the current Gulf War as to swamp whatever valid points might be made re other wars. The article is a lengthy attempt to push the "anti-war = pink commie subversive" line which is prevalent among right-wing US commentators; and to echo a comment made in the piece on the left in politics, the left-wingers who opposed the small number of wars between the growth of the modern political left-wing and the end of the Cold War would count the majority of those "left-wing" anti-war activists as being right wing, because the centre in modern US politics is to the right of the right in many other countries, and far to the right of what is historically considered the centre. The two sides in the US are essentially right and further right, for the pruposes of comparison with previous supposed left-wing anti-war movements. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 13:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: If the article lacks balance, slap an {{NPOV}} template on it, until both sides are presented fairly. If the the article "lumps" too many groups as leftist, then say that not everyone considers, e.g., Christian anti-war groups as leftis. If the article implies that disparate groups are speaking with one voice, then identify the different vocies and distinguish their points of view. Uncle Ed 15:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - I find myself agreeing with Uncle Ed. The article can be rescued, sources can be found, and sections altered to clarify who opposes war from the left, when they do so, why they do so and what consequences this has. Warofdreams talk 17:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem is that there are intrinsic problems with this article. As Swegner said, articles on opposition to specific wars in specific political conditions would be valid, but articles that lump all of the "Left" from all countries over all time are hopeless. The topic deserves an article, but that would have to be with a completely different focus under a completely different title. That would simply be a completely new article. And doing what Ed has proposed, trying to NPOV the article is basically impossible, because the article is incorrect in its essence. Aecis ^praatpaal 17:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't yet see why that would be an inherent problem. The notion of descibing political groups in left/right terms, while a little simpleminded for my tastes, is common. So, unfortunately, is war. The article need not mention all leftist groups and all wars; mentioning major leftist groups and major wars would be sufficient: it need not be exhaustive to be encyclopedic. I agree the title is wrong, though, and favor Guy's suggestion of "The Left and War". --William Pietri 18:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The problem there is that "mentioning major leftist groups and major wars" would lead to a colossal, record-breaking article. I mean, every case has its own specific nuances and shades of grey. Doing justice to those nuances and shades of grey would lead to an unmaintainable monster, while cutting the article to a workable size would do injustice to those nuances and shades of grey. There is a way out of this mess, but I'm not sure how viable and popular that is. We could have one article, The Left and war (or any other plausible title), with summaries of the views of leftist groups and individuals to specific wars. The full nuances, details and sources could be moved to daughter/main articles, such as The Left and World War 1, The Left and the Spanish Civil War, The Left and World War 2, The Left and the Cold War, The Left and the Iraq War, etc. What seems clear from this afd, is that the current content of the article is unanimously disapproved. How do you (plural) feel about blanking the article to remove the current content from direct view and starting over again with a stub, that we cautiously expand case by case? Aecis ^praatpaal 23:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, absolutely. The problem is not with political balance, as UncleEd says, that can be fixed; it's with the concept itself, and the balance between the massive section on the current war (which is opposed by left and right alike in many places) and the much smaller section on all other wars in history. It's a soapbox. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 17:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the very premise is flawed. The most atrocious wars have been led by the communists. Against their own people.  Grue  18:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, possibly rename as The Left and War, and handle times/places where the Left has been pro-war in the same article. And certainly more NPOV would be welcome. Much of the content that people are objecting to has the following history: User:MathKnight wrote what I view as some very partisan anti-left material about a year back in Left-wing politics, basically claiming that there was an alliance between the left and Islamists, and that the contemporary (especially post-September 11) left is anti-semitic. I couldn't disagree more, but worked very hard to (1) broaden the perspective and (2) find decent citation for those parts of his case that could be substantiated. I was doing my damnedest not to be partisan, and to deepen the writing rather than debate it. I may have done all too well at not inserting my POV if everyone reads this as still slanted so far in his direction. It was later factored out of that article. If you want to see the history on how this all came to be, look at the "history" of Left-wing politics and its talk page, roughly July 10 – September 15, 2004. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I admit that the article's got issues, but these can be worked through and we can have a great article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs lots and lots of work. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As described above, this is a POV fork. Take away the POV material, and the article is simply a listing of some groups opposed some wars, for various reasons. ManoaChild 23:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless POV hit piece. --AStanhope 01:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup notable subject. --Revolución (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rename and restrict Make this an article on the left concept of internationalism (the working class from different countries shouldn't fight each other)--(i.e., Left Internationalism and Opposition to War-- and restrict it to the period when this was a major trend in left movements (i.e., when the Soviet Union and China weren't heavy military powers). Possibly also write an article on New Left and War, but this article is no help for that.
• Further Comment: Revolution has taken the step of deleting the stuff relating to the Iraq and Afganistain wars. While I'm not sure thi was the best thing to do it does highlight the fact that no one has at yet given any specific POV problems with the WWI WWII and Vitnam sections. If you have any please come and put them on the talk page.--JK the unwise 15:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup - It is a poor article but it does have merit; therefore cleaning it up would be a better option than totally deleting it. - Solar 00:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - irredeemably POV. Both sides of the political spectrum have been anti-war at various points in time. "The Left" is an unsupportable generalization. An "Anti-war movements" article would be workable. FCYTravis 03:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - What's all the fuss? The article is a ligitimate start and is developing. ther than calling for removal I suggest editors work on other, perhaps contrasting articles. VfD for this article seems inappropriate. It seems more a campapaign to remove a developing article which the nominator finds objectionable rather than any Vfdable issues with a developing article. Calicocat 06:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • As the nominator, I feel the need to respond to this allegation. If you would be so kind as to look into the page's history, you would see why I nominated the article for deletion. You will find an OR POV rant against a generalized group, whose views have been distorted to fit MathKnight's views. The article has been edited and improved since my nominating it. That doesn't change my view though, that the starting point of this article is wrong, that the concepts are wrong, that the title is wrong, and that we need a completely new article, under a new title. Aecis ^praatpaal 09:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This article is inherently POV and OR. General topic might be already, but something would have to be done about overgeneralizing "the Left". Xoloz 15:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete topic/title is inherantly POV and I can't see an essay on this topic not being OR. Overgeneralizing about "the left" "opposition" to "war" is not going make a decent article. "Left" is limited to political labels as used in a single country, and "War" to wars of interest to that country. One could write a paragraph about right wing isolationism (opposition to war) led to Standard Oil refueling U-boats at sea, and contrast that with the WWII paragraph which would show just how myopic this topic is to focus in one corner of two dimensions of over-simplification. This isn't scholarly, it's silly. Loose it. Pete.Hurd 06:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• I've already voted above, and wish to reiterate my suggestion that The Left and war would be more appropriate, but I find it odd that people say this is inherently POV. How is this more inherently POV than the Nazism and socialism section of Nazism in relation to other concepts? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.