Jump to content

Talk:Syriza

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DWaterson (talk | contribs) at 20:51, 30 January 2015 (→Renew requested move, January 2015: Strong support.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Leadership

Please note that Alavanos remains the leader of the Coalition as Tsipras is not an MP. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008 unrest

Wouldn't it be right to add the fact that SYRIZA was the only political party that did not condemn the December 2008 riots? Many times the party and Tsipras expressed feelings of sympathy towards the rioters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The daydreamer (talk • contribs) 16:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Neoliberal reform of the pension and social security systems"

I can't believe that a a party obviously opposed to neoliberalism pushes for a reform like that, even though it might be something like the negative income tax they're for, this paragraph should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.107.143.107 (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colour

While on Wikipedia the colour of Syriza is supposed to be yellow, in the map of the official site of the Ministry of Ιnterior, though, the electoral districts which were won by the Coalition of the Radical Left are coloured with pink. If you search on the web the colour is pink by other sites also, such as by news agencies etc. What is the official colour anyway? I think that yellow may be the colour of Synaspismos only and not the colour of Syriza. I don't know I may be wrong. The thing is I made a map and at first I used pink and then I changed it to yellow according to Template:Coalition of the Left of Movements and Ecology/meta/color. Is there any way to find out for sure? --RoseAphro (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use the color used by the Ministry of Interior (pink). It certainly counts as a reliable source. – Kosm1fent 09:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know and thank you for the reply, but the thing is that in Greek legislative election, 2012 for example, we'll have on the top the Syriza party second with yellow colour and then at the bottom of the box in the map with pink? It's not right, is it? I don't know. --RoseAphro (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's not right, but that can be changed to pink as well. In any case, the use of yellow for the party is unsourced. By the way, some other parties need their colors changed as well. – Kosm1fent 12:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but how can we be sure about the right shade of pink? This shade you chose corresponds to the one on the map of the ministry, and that's good, because it's a reliable source. But still. Is there another source that we can use? Such as official members of the party or official site of the party? Which other parties do you refer to exactly? --RoseAphro (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions

  • I removed the reference to "punning" in Syriza's name: "ριζοσπαστική" is no more a pun than is "radical", even though both words, of course, refer to "roots".
  • I have changed instances of "the SYRIZA" to simply "SYRIZA". Written and broadcast media sources consistently use phrases such as "anti-austerity parties like Syriza", "Greeks [are] ready to give Syriza their vote", "Explanations for Syriza's success" -- without any definite article.
  • I would also propose that "SYRIZA" be changed to "Syriza" throughout, since that is how it is almost always written in English-language sources. -- Picapica (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. – Kosm1fent 12:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. -- Picapica (talk) 05:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing to far-left

There seems to be some controversy over this. The source in question is by professor Featherstone, released in LSE Research Online [1], although a blog text type, it's still a LSE expert text with a Library of Congress classification and entry in the LSE scholar database. There are other scholarly sources too. I replaced the other one with an entry of the quite famous socialist political theorist Alex Callinicos, explicitly stating: "Its much shallower social base has given Synaspismos much greater room for manoeuvre, and its far-left partners in Syriza allow it to project a very radical image when it suits.", from here. Callinicos is also a professor of European Studies at King's College London

The SYRIZA includes moderate socialists, but more far-left communists like Maoists and Trotskyists too. Is it not fair to describe it as "left-wing to far-left" when the socialist scholars describe the situation as such? --94.237.86.108 (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add that it is important to note that the SYZIRA is a coalition of several parties ranging in different positions. It would be good to use sources from 2012 because there have been important political developments in Greece and SYRIZA during the two parliamentary elections, with the crisis certainly enforcing more radical policies on both the right and left. --94.237.86.108 (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SYRIZA isn't just left wing to far-left a better description would be big tent leftist because it has centrist and centre-leftist parts e.g. Union of the Democratic Centre and Unitary Movement.

Far left is more accurate, given that the party has a radical policy agenda, and deliberately represents itself as being outside the mainstream.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it at least includes Far-left, it would be accurate. SYRIZA is primarily composed of Far-left organizations, though it does include more moderate Social Democratic streams, so I am in favour of describing it as Left to Far-left. JamesBay (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that is should only include Left Wing, as Left Wing is open to interpretation. And in the Greek Political Spectrum, the KKE is considered to be Far-Left, PASOK is Centre-Left and SYRIZA is considered Left Wing. Far Left also implies a complete overthrow of the System, SYRIZA seeks radical reform, rather than complete revolution. And seeing that SYRIZA is a Democratic Socialist party that does includes far more Social Democrats, and Socialists than Marxist, Marxist Leninists or Anti-Revisionists.Brendanww2 (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

saw this on twitter - 'I am re-reading Dugin's hacked emails. He was working closely with/advising Syriza ALL throughout 2014. Will post discoveries' - Alexander Dugin ! how left wing is that? to have a pro-Kremlin line and be in coalition with a pro-Kremlin far right party ? [2] - Sayerslle (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, fact is that many reliable sources describe the party as "far-left", including BBC, France 24 and Deutsche Welle,[1][2][3][4][5] but this is reverted because someone has decided it is only "left-wing". The irony is that the only two sources used for left-wing are an "International socialist journal", and the other source in fact say "far Left" and not left-wing(!) if you've read it. Admittedly, a Google-search do show about double hits for left-wing over far-left, but IMO they both seem more than common enough for inclusion of both (116k v 276k). Isn't Wikipedia's policy to reflect mainstream reliable sources? User2534 (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read also the Most party members are Marxists, thus a Marxist party section, which also discusses on ideology. The fact is that it is not enough for a "reliable source" to say that "party A is far-left", but you need to correlate it to the party's actual ideology as well. As of now, the far-left article defines the concept as "Far-left politics or extreme-left politics are left-wing politics that are further to the left than mainstream centre-left politics. The far left seeks equality of outcome and the dismantlement of all forms of social stratification. Far leftists seek to abolish all forms of hierarchy, particularly the inequitable distribution of wealth and power. The far left seeks a society in which everyone is provided equal economic and social opportunities, and no one has excessive wealth or power over others", whereas left-wing is defined as "left-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality. They typically involve concern for those in society who are perceived as disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished." They seem very similar to each other, but there is one key difference, and that is that the far-left "typically believes that inegalitarian systems must be overthrown through revolution in order to establish egalitarian societies". SYRIZA's ideology seems to fit well with most of both ideologies' characteristics, but with the difference that they do not support "revolution" in order to overthrow inegalitarian systems (such as the KKE does; party which, by the way, has denied its support to SYRIZA precisely because of that).
Nowadays, it is very easy for the media to say "hey, this party is against the current establishment; they are far-something!" but they rarely correlate it to the party's actual ideology, and avoid entering into most of the party's programme. This said, if you can find enough reliable sources making that correlation between the definition and characteristics of far-left and the consideration of SYRIZA as far-left, and that correlation can be proven with actual facts, then we could consider far-left as an option. But as of currently, SYRIZA seems to be actually moving more to the center-left of the political spectrum, rather than to the far-left.
Btw, SYRIZA is SYRIZA, not its constituent parties. I say this because some guys tried several times to push forward the strange conception that because a few of the constituent parties of SYRIZA are far-left, then SYRIZA as a whole is far-left. By that premise we could also say that, as some of SYRIZA's constituent parties are center-left, then SYRIZA is center-left. "Left-wing" is also a compromise in this sense, since it encompass both the center-left soul of SYRIZA as well as the far-left one. Impru20 (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

European affiliation

SYRIZA is a member of the European United Left–Nordic Green Left but only Synaspismós is a member of the Party of the European Left and Renewing Communist Ecological Left is an observer but Synaspismós is an obsever in the European Anticapitalist Left but the Anticapitalist Political Group is a member of European Anticapitalist Left thus the page only represents Synaspismós's European Affiliation TURTLOS (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The official website of the Party of the European Left currently lists SYRIZA as a member in its own right.--Autospark (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know but when i orginally made the comment it wasn't TURTLOS (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name, logo, colours

@Philly boy92 for the name, logo and colours of SYRIZA please visit the official http://syriza.gr/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimth (talk • contribs) 17:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC) --Dimth (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 December 2014

Coalition of the Radical Left → SYRIZA – As @Picapica: already stated two years ago, the party is now referred to as "SYRIZA" by media nearly worldwide. Noone talks or writes about the "Coalition of the Radical Left". Plus: now that SYRIZA has become a (more or less) unitary party, it isn't even a coalition anymore, so the full name isn't descriptive anymore either. --Relisted. --Mdann52talk to me! 21:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC) PanchoS (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can't compare those two cases. SYRIZA is a clear case of WP:COMMONNAME (see the FIFA example there), while the other one isn't.
    In seemingly all English-language media, SYRIZA is referred to as "SYRIZA" or even "Syriza", with "Coalition of the Radical Left" usually not being mentioned at all, see here or here. The SPD on the other hand usually goes by "the Social Democrats" or "Social Democratic Party" with "SPD" being given in parentheses. --PanchoS (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, PASOK's arcicle is called the panhellenic socialist movement because that is it's real name in the same way the syriza's is called the coalition of the radical left, they are refered to as pasok and syriza in the media because that is easier to say. Whether or not it is a coalition is not an indication of whether or not we should call it the coalition of the radical left and even if it was SYRIZA is a Greek abreveation of coalition of the radical left so that really doesn't change anything. An example similar to this is the of the Coalition of Left, of Movements and Ecology, Syirza's largest constituent party, which it often referred to as synaspismos which means coalition even though it turned into a political party in the early nineties.
  • Strongly support per PanchoS. Charles Essie (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renew requested move, January 2015

Furthermore, what is being suggested is that the name being changed to "Syriza" instead of "SYRIZA". Remember that it is an acronym, whatever way you want to call them, and that "Syriza" in itself means nothing. It's not like i.e. "Podemos", which is both the party name and acronym, and is an existing word that was used to name the party because it has a strong meaning behind ("we can"). And please, don't compare with Israeli politics because 1. Hebrew language has its own particularities respect to other languages, 2. Acronyms in the form of readable words seem a custom practice for Israeli politics (the parties themselves and Israeli media seem do that, actually), not for Greek politics (SYRIZA refers to itself as "SYRIZA" in the form of an acronym, not in the form of a readable word, just as Greek media does) and 3. Israeli politics are very different to politics of other countries. Impru20 (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with native languages. Like it or not, WP:COMMONNAME is the policy, because it helps readers if we call things by their common names. Rothorpe (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Like it or not" does not seem like a valid argument to me. At the very least, I can understand naming the article as "SYRIZA", never as "Syriza" (Otherwise, I invite you to request moves for "Pasok", "Psoe" and so on, as well). Impru20 (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The argument for moving the article to 'Syriza' is a very weak one indeed, and is only consistent if articles on political parties were generally named after their native-language acronyms.--Autospark (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Impru20: Yes, Hebrew does have its own peculiarities, but you ignored the fact that I mentioned parties from several other countries aside from Israel that are known by their acronyms - the ones listed above are from English and Portuguese-speaking nations.
What everyone seems to be ignoring here is that there is a clear difference between acronyms like UMP or SPD and those in the vein of UNITA and SWAPO. The latter two are spoken (and read) as actual words rather than acronyms, and are treated differently. The same is clearly the case for Syriza. Number 57 17:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: Yes; and the ones you listed from English and Portuguese-speaking nations are written in capital letters (because they are that, acronyms), not lower case. Furthermore, the specific examples you put have some reasoning behind: FRELIMO seems to refer to itself as "Frelimo Party" (so it's not just that some English guy in a newspaper put the name in the media; the party itself refers to itself as such). That said, it should be noted that FRELIMO, MPLA, UNITA, RENAMO, SWANU, ZANU and SWAPO seem to be liberation/military movements later turned into political parties, so they seem to be special cases (as has been said, the exception, not the rule), because military factions are generally known by their acronyms (not to say that they are also named as such by historians), and they just preserve those names from their military time when turned into political parties. The exception, not the rule, as said.
And I'm not ignoring that fact. PASOK and PSOE are also spoken (and read) as actual words (For PASOK see here or here, from the BBC). For the specific case of PSOE, it is spoken and read as an actual word in Spain (outside Spain it is most commonly named as just "Socialist Party [of Spain]". The full name "Spanish Socialist Workers' Party" is rarely used). None of those have their articles named after the party's acronym. And I could bring you other examples of parties being refered to with their acronyms or other colloqual names ("the Tories" for the British Conservative Party, almost all of Spanish parties having acronyms ("PP", "PSOE", "PNV", "UPyD", "CiU"), "VVD" for the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (and other parties of the Netherlands, such as the CDA, or the PVV, which rarely see their full names frequently mentioned in the English media). Etc. Impru20 (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As noted by other editors, PASOK is another case where the article should really be moved based on WP:COMMONNAME. PSOE may be treated as a word in Spanish, but that's not relevant on Spanish Wikipedia, and like you say, "Socialist Party" or similar is more common. I am yet to see a policy-based reason why the current title is acceptable. Number 57 18:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am yet to see a policy-based reason as to why "Syriza" would be prefered over "SYRIZA", as well. The first one isn't even the acronym (if any, it would be SyRizA); the second one is. Furthermore, "Syriza" means "fizzle" in Greek. It would not be a neutral name under WP:POVNAME.
That would be WP:COMMONNAME as well - it's more commonly written in its lower case format, at least in the media I've been reading. But I wouldn't object to SYRIZA if given the choice between that and the current non-compliant title. I can't see how the meaning of the word in Greek is relevant on the English Wikipedia – all that matters is usage in reliable English sources. Number 57 19:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is important because you are giving a specific meaning to a political party's name? A meaning that the party has not given itself? Remember that neutrality is above usage in reliable English sources. "Syriza" being a word having a meaning in the Greek language, with SYRIZA as a Greek party, would obviously be a non-neutral name unless the party itself intends his name having that specific meaning (such as Podemos), independently of how English sources name it. Otherwise, such a change could be identified as an attempt to try to put a label to the party that it has not intended to. Politics being a sensitive topic (as can be seen with the fact of multiple users toying with the parties' ideologies everytime), names which can potentially suggest meanings different than those intended by the parties (even adding a meaning to an acronym which the party has no meaning for) would qualify, at least, as a colloquialism as per WP:POVNAME. Usage in English would matter the most if there wasn't other encyclopedic alternatives, but on this issue, there are. Impru20 (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I have to say I disagree entirely. But there's no point in continuing arguing – let's let the closing admin weigh up the respective strength of the arguments. Number 57 20:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"σύριζα" syriza is not the spelling of any word in Greek; "σύρριζα" syrriza, though homophonous in the koine, is a word, meaning "to/from the root". Alakzi (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this actually translates it. Impru20 (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's wrong. Alakzi (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the acronym would be either "SyRizA" or "SYRIZA" (the later prefered). "Syriza" can't be argued to be the acronym, because it is just a mere word with dubious validity. We know that the party refers to itself (other than by their full name) as "SYRIZA" (which is why the English sources refer to it as such), so, if moved, it should be moved to the name in capital letters. Impru20 (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But "Syriza" is -- by far -- the most common form in English-language sources, for better or worse. Prescribing language use is not part of our mission. Alakzi (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What? And if the English media called them the "Radical Left Party" or other curious name we would refer to them as such? One thing is to see the usage in the English media, but other different one is to disregard entirely the party's stance on its own name, which they always spell on capital letters (see website). Or does the party itself have no say on how to name itself?
WP:ACRONYMTITLE sets that "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject" and that "In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognize the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title." The acronym is "SYRIZA", not "Syriza". And the party itself refers to itself, other than the full name, as "SYRIZA". Furthermore, we are not talking about historians or studies refering to them as "Syriza", but of English media. Are we now putting media above the party's own considerations on how to name itself? Impru20 (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The party's own considerations shouldn't come into it. Apparently Boko Haram don't like being called that, but it doesn't mean it's not the correct article title. Also, the party is not consistent in how it refers to itself - sometimes it does use Syriza. Number 57 21:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The party's own considerations on how to call itself should have some relevance, because it is its name. In the case of Boko Haram you seem to skip that it is done for the evident purpose of seeking simplicity, because of its actual name being "Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'Awati Wal-Jihad". The problem is that you want to turn into a general rule something that is done in a case-by-case basis. Just as DVD uses the acronym on its title name, Compact disc doesn't. Or just as NATO and NASA use the acronyms, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Security Agency or Central Intelligence Agency don't (and please, don't tell me that it's because reliable English sources don't use FBI, NSA or CIA to refer to them, because they actually do). So, please, don't try to turn this into a rule to be applied to everyone.
The doubt presented here, aside from the one whether to change the name or not, is whether to call this party "Syriza" or "SYRIZA", the only difference being that the latter is the official acronym, while the first one isn't, but both of them being the same length, being spelling the same, etc. By putting "SYRIZA" as the article name, it is understood that it is an acronym to something else. By saying "Syriza" it could lead to people thinking that it's actually the name of the party when it is actually an acronym. I can't really see the problem in using an official acronym instead of a word made popular by the English media, when both of them are spelled the same, and even when I've presented you situations of English sources prefering one term but the article being named in another way.
The article you posted on "Syriza" has been copied in SYRIZA's website from an English source (that's why it's spelled "Syriza" and not "SYRIZA"). That said, English sources "sometimes" also refer to SYRIZA as "Coalition of the Radical Left" (in fact, they usually do it at the beginning of their articles in order to explain what the acronym does mean). But as has been exposed, English sources are not what always matter. Impru20 (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I expect when the article is renamed, that the fact it is an acronym will be explained in the first sentence (as it is at present, and as it is in the other articles I linked to above). This fact also doesn't stop the BBC et al referring to it as Syriza. Number 57 22:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's much to be gained or lost by using either Syriza, or SYRIZA. I side with the former, for being more common, but it does incur a cognitive 'load', as you say. It's not a make-or-break point for me, and I'd welcome either over the present title. Alakzi (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't know what you mean with "relevant on Spanish Wikipedia". "Syriza" is not relevant on Greek Wikipedia, either, since they don't use the acronym as the title, but the full name. Impru20 (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The comment about Spanish Wikipedia was in reference to your comment about PSOE being a word in Spanish. How other languages (general usage or Wikipedia) treat party names is not relevant to this discussion – as stated above, all that matters is usage in reliable English sources. Number 57 19:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the point of Spanish Wikipedia and media has been brought up by you. English media refers to PSOE as either "PSOE" or (more frequently), the "Socialist Party of Spain", "Spanish Socialist Party" or "Spanish Socialists". I just commented on the Spanish media to say how even in Spain itself the name "Spanish Socialist Workers' Party" is rarely used in its entirety (due to it being long), but reliable English sources do frequently refer to them with names other than the full name. And, as I pointed above, usage in reliable English sources is not all that matters (neutrality also matters). Impru20 (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused by your response – I never said I didn't bring this up. You said "For the specific case of PSOE, it is spoken and read as an actual word in Spain". I was trying to point out that this is not relevant to the English language Wikipedia, but only relevant to the Spanish language one. How parties are named in the English language media is the relevant factor when determining what the name of the article should be. Number 57 20:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Syriza per WP:COMMONNAME. English language media coverage of the Greek election is calling the winners "Syriza" and not "Coalition of the Radical Left" - if anything I've heard "Radical Coalition of the Left" more than the current article title. It's probably the case that the Pasok article needs moving as well but that should not prevent a move here. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Now that it has won the election, it is becoming known and known as Syriza. TFD (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As noted above, it is the most common nomenclature in English language media. The article should certainly mention its full name in the opening paragraph and infobox, but the title should move to SYRIZA. JamesBay (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose – Per Autospark. As an acronym, the term "Syriza" is meaningless without being written out. In addition, the proposed title isn't English, and includes sounds not commonly found in the English language, such as the terminal "a". That means that it isn't natural to an English speaker. We cannot allow such foreignisms into the encylopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 22:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently, English speakers will pronounce Syriza using the sounds of their own language. Which is what English-speaking reporters have been doing all along. Alakzi (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a joke, right? Are you going to do the move of Viet Minh to League for the Independence of Vietnam, because no article on enwiki should end in -nh? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose - per Autospark. Firstly, living in the UK for five years not once have I heard the name "Syriza" being pronounced correctly. It ranges from anything from "seereetza" to "saireesa", and the only time I have ever read in British media an acknowledgement that "Syriza" is an acronym was yesterday on the BBC. Secondly, the fact that almost entirely English-language media write the acronym as "Syriza" and not "SYRIZA" (in all caps) further reinforces the point that they are, actually, unaware that it is an acronym for a much longer name. Nowhere in Greece do you find it written as "Συριζα" - it is always "ΣΥΡΙΖΑ". Thirdly, "Syriza" is catchy in Greek because it means "from the root" and retains its "revolutionary" connotations even as an acronym, something that is lost in English. The only acceptable abbreviation would be SYRIZA, not "Syriza". -Philly boy92 (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once a word has entered the English language its spelling and pronunciation are at the mercy of English speakers. There are many Greek words in English, and they are not generally pronounced in a Greek way, as I'm sure you've noticed. Rothorpe (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greece and Greek are pretty far removed from how they are pronounced in Greece too. TFD (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SYRIZA is not a word, it is an acronym. Just like FBI is not a word and you would not write it Fbi and pronounce it "fbee". The same applies to GOP - who ever writes it as Gop like they do with "Syriza"? Also, your comment about Greece and Greek is completely irrelevant, the correct way to say "Greece" is Hellas, as is evident by the fact that Greece's official name is Hellenic Republic and not Greek Republic. Greece in Greek is a different word, it's not a matter of pronunciation. --Philly boy92 (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should stop trying to shove what you consider to be correct language use down our throats, ya know? You're attempting to make an editorial decision based on feeling and conjecture. That is unacceptable. Alakzi (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I'm doing is stating my opinion. If you can't handle it, I honestly do not care. The vote will decide which one we chose, not me. I have a right to contribute to this conversation, and I don't need your permission nor your passive-aggressive behaviour. --Philly boy92 (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise if you thought I was being passive-aggressive. Your disagreement appears to boil down to, Syriza is an acronym, and so it shouldn't be written like it is a word -- which, in the absence of further clarification, strikes me as prescriptivism. Alakzi (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ICE and FEMA are acronyms but pronounced "ice" and "feema." There are lots of other examples. TFD (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you telling me this? Alakzi (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most party members are Marxists, thus a Marxist party

References to Syriza as a Marxist party have been repeatedly deleted, most recently here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coalition_of_the_Radical_Left&diff=640226704&oldid=640207268 A reliable source quoting the party's top economic advisor saying "I'm a Marxist, most of us are" was included. How can it be argued that this party, which sprang from a coalition made up mostly of Marxists parties, and which prominent members say is made up mostly of Marxists, is not a Marxist party? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need a reliable third-party source to back up that assertion, and preferably a source that explicitly describes the Coalition of the Radical Left as an organisation is a party of Marxist ideology. An out-of-context quote from a party's advisor taken via a news article is not the same thing.--Autospark (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are called a "neo-Marxist" party in this article: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2012/06/syriza_greece_and_the_euro_the_greek_elections_solved_nothing_the_country_is_still_headed_for_economic_disaster_.html Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another article calling them "neo-Marxists" whatever that is..... http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/29/syriza-leading-polls-future-begun-alexis-tsipras-greece Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Last paragraph of this article: "What’s at stake is clear. If Syriza wins a subsequent election, it will end the austerity imposed by the EU and International monetary fund and call Germany’s bluff. It will be a fragile, inexperienced Marxist government in an EU and Nato member state." http://blogs.channel4.com/paul-mason-blog/signs-economic-recovery-greece-mad-max-government/2715 Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Definition of "neo-Marxist": "Relating to forms of political philosophy which arise from the adaptation of Marxist thought to accommodate or confront modern issues such as the global economy, the capitalist welfare state, and the stability of liberal democracies." http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/neo-Marxist In otherwords, it's modernized Marxism. Which is still Marxism - "the political, economic, and social theories of Karl Marx including the belief that the struggle between social classes is a major force in history and that there should eventually be a society in which there are no classes." Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine about with SYRIZA being described as Neo-Marxist but not just Marxist because it has become a broad term the encompasses ideologies things sort of like Socialism. TURTLOS (talk) 10:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not use news articles and media opinion pieces to categorise a political party. That is bad academic practice - and opens an encyclopaedia up to being based upon invalid sources. Use objective academic/scholarly sources instead please. (Also, please note that neo-Marxism is technically a theory in social sciences, and perhaps a broad umbrella term, not a political ideology as such.)--Autospark (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a relative new party so good luck finding scholarly articles! This is not rocket science, just look at the coalition parties that Syriza was formed from! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_Radical_Left#Former_constituent_parties Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are scholarly articles and sources for parties that as less old than Syriza (founded over a decade ago in 2004), it just requires research. An encyclopaedia requires authoritative sources, certainly for controversial assertions.--Autospark (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On your point about the 17 parties SYRIZA was formed from only 7 of them are Marxist/Communist and of these 7 only 3 have Wikipedia pages. That hardly counts as proof of SYRIZA's Marxist ideology. TURTLOS (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by TURTLOS (talk • contribs) 23:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any party that is described using the words "Marxist" "Trotskyist" "Maoist" "communist" "democratic socialist" or "socialist", or some hyphenated or neo version, is almost certainly a Marxist party, unless it is a utopian socialist party or non-Marxist anarchist party. Here is the list from this article:

  • Active Citizens (Ενεργοί Πολίτες): democratic socialism, patriotism
  • Anticapitalist Political Group (ΑΠΟ): communism, trotskyism
  • Citizens' Association of Riga (Velestinli): patriotism, internationalism, democracy, ecology, social justice[57]
  • Communist Organization of Greece (KOE): maoism, communism
  • Communist Platform of Syriza: Greek section of the International Marxist Tendency, communism, trotskyism[58]
  • Democratic Social Movement (DIKKI): left-wing nationalism, socialism,[59] euroscepticism[60]
  • Ecosocialists of Greece: eco-socialism, left ecology
  • Internationalist Workers' Left (DEA): revolutionary socialism, communism, trotskyism
  • Movement for the United in Action Left (KEDA): communism
  • New Fighter: democratic socialism, social democracy
  • Radical Left Group Roza
  • Radicals (Ριζοσπάστες): democratic socialism, patriotism
  • Red (Κόκκινο): communism, trotskyism
  • Renewing Communist Ecological Left (AKOA): democratic socialism, eurocommunism, green politics
  • Synaspismós (SYN): democratic socialism,[61] eco-socialism,[4] eurocommunism,[62] environmentalism,[61] feminism[61]
  • Union of the Democratic Centre (EDIK): centre-left
  • Unitary Movement: democratic socialism, social democracy

Using my uncontroversial categorization method, 14 or 15 out of 17 appear to be Marxist parties (15 if Radical Left Group Roza is considered Marxist). Remember, Marxism means based on the socialist ideas of Marx, not those of Lenin or Stalin. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By Marxist i meant any form of comunist, if we use the standard u used we would hav to consider moderate parties like the Democratic Left as Marxist. The reason for this is becuase most parties that call themselves democratic socialist and socialist are really reformed and have strayed heavily from marxism, there are 8 proper Marxist parties in SYRIZA (the orignal seven parties that i implied plus ROZA which i forgot about). TURTLOS (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most parties described using the words "democratic socialist" or "socialist" are not Marxist. The Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK) for example is not Marxist, nor are the Social Democrats in Germany, for example. TFD (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Social Democrats in Germany (SDP) don't use the word "socialist" in the name of their party. Can you cite reliable sources to support your assertion that "most parties" described as "democratic socialist or socialist are not Marxist", i.e. they don't believe in taking political power through elections and using it on behalf of the working class? Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"But Marx knew the path to progress would be slow, and that ultimately the best way to re-balance society was through the ballot box. He also believed, however, that the working man had the right to revolt if those in power tried to deny him such political expression -- free speech, free assembly, freedom of the press -- and the vote." http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/29/opinion/gabriel-karl-marx/index.html Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From the same article: "Today, many people know Marx only through the crimes of the former communist countries. But Marx's ideas also helped give birth to mainstream political parties in Western Europe -- Britain's Labour Party, Spain's Socialist Party, France's Socialist Party, and Germany's Social Democratic Party. And yet, for some reason in America, these parties are generally not considered part of Marx's legacy." (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources you need are available in the Wikipedia articles about socialism. I notice you are using the same type of argument at the American Left, that because there are socialists in the Green Party of the United States, that it too is a socialist party. That is a logical fallacy and if you cannot see that, then I do not think this conversation will lead anywhere.
It is unhelpful too that you can made the unsourced statement, "Any party that is described using the word[]..."socialist"...is almost certainly a Marxist party", then asked for sources disproving your claim when it was questioned. You never did answer btw whether you think PASOK is a Marxist party. TFD (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ghostofnemo Your statement is correct that Socialism is heavily intertwined with Marxist politics but most "socialists" are social democrats and social democrats are reformist marxists that have abandoned many marxist ideas (Dictatorship of the proletariat, Historical materialism, Scientific socialism etc.) and have fused many liberal and capitalist ideal into their own philosophy (Social corporatism, Welfare capitalism, Liberal democracy, etc.). This means that the majority of the socialist movement although having marxist roots has become a variant of capitalism. (im not saying that all socialists are capitalist and im not saying socialism is not realted to marxism im am just saying that the majority of people who call themselves socialists are moderate capitalists and thus cannot be true marxists).
Marx did support democracy but he believed that democracy should be as direct as possible in the Dictatorship of the proletariat and believed that bourgeoisie representative democracy was a transitional stage from tyranny to proletariat rule unlike many democratic socialist/social democrats who view liberal democracy as the best form of democracy.
All the parties that you mentioned are social democratic parties that have historically been marxist or had strong marxist factions, none of those parties are proper marxist political movements that don't have very powerfull marxists factions.
Your claim that anarchist parties can't be marxist is also wrong, anarcho-communism and libertarian marxism are anarchist or seemi-anarchist and marxist. (although this last point isn't overly important so don't bother debting it unless you fell that you really really have to) TURTLOS (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The German SDP was "revisionist Marxist" until 1959, but abandoned revisionism with the Godesberg Program. No reliable source would classify them as Marxist today, although they remain members of the Socialist International. Marx btw was not the only father of socialism, there was Lassalle too and arguably he had a greater influence on socialism than Marx. And it has been said of the Labour Party (and their cousins in Canada, Australia and New Zealand) that they owe more to Methodism than to Marxism. TFD (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I never argued that the Green Party of the United States was a socialist party, I said it's part of the American left. OK so most of the editors here feel that Syriza is NOT a Marxist or neo-Marxist party, despite its top economic advisor's claims to the contrary, despite the fact that it has Leninist and socialist parties as part of it's coalition, and despite the fact that numerous reliable sources are calling them "neo-Marxists" or "Marxists". Fine, this is Wikipedia. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because SYRIZA's economic advisor said that SYRIZA is marxist that doesn't necessarily means its Marxist, golden dawn doesn't admit to being neo-nazi but a simple adimission (or lack there of) doesnt mean it isn't. The economic adiviser might have exagerated syriza's marxist elements or had a very broad definition of Marxist. Being socialist doesnt necasarily make a party marxist as many editors having been explaining, socialism actually predates Marxism. There are only six leninist parties in SYRIZA plus ROZA (a non-leninist communist party) 7 and if you count reformist eurocommunists as marxists there are 9, that is 7 or 9 out of 17 parties that means approximately half the parties are marxist, that is in proof of SYRIZA's Marxism. On top of all this you have not provided any sources for your argument except the original source which was not enough information to back up your claim. Now you should have understood why your edit has been refused but instead you just repeat the same claims without properly addressing criticisms, how did you possibly expect that this would cause other editors to agree with you. This is Wikipedia, not politics. TURTLOS (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not provided any sources? Are you serious? I'm simply cutting and pasting from up above in our discussion:

Here are some more:

Those are opinion pieces from the new media, not authoritative third-party sources.--Autospark (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NEWSORG "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)." Only the Slate and Washington Post stories are clearly opinion pieces, and they are both by the same "director of political studies". Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we include the original story: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/23/syriza-john-milios-greece-eurozone we have five news stories and two opinion pieces that call Syriza "Marxist" or "neo-Marxist". Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are taking the wrong approach to research. Instead of forming a conclusion, then seeking sources to support it, try identifying the most reliable sources, then determining what they say. Otherwise you are going to encounter conflict and it is not because they are trying to hide the truth about socialism, UFOs, 9/11 and other topics where you complain about this, but because the weight of reliable sources ignores what you wish to add. It is just editors following the neutrality policy and that is where you should take your complaints. TFD (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because SYRIZA's economic advisor said that SYRIZA is marxist that doesn't necessarily means its Marxist, golden dawn doesn't admit to being neo-nazi but a simple adimission (or lack there of) doesnt mean it isn't. The economic adiviser might have exagerated syriza's marxist elements or had a very broad definition of Marxist. Being socialist doesnt necasarily make a party marxist as many editors having been explaining, socialism actually predates Marxism. There are only six leninist parties in SYRIZA plus ROZA (a non-leninist communist party) 7 and if you count reformist eurocommunists as marxists there are 9, that is 7 or 9 out of 17 parties that means approximately half the parties are marxist, that is in proof of SYRIZA's Marxism. On top of all this you have not provided any sources for your argument except the original source which was not enough information to back up your claim plus some news articles mostly from newspapers with an anti-SYRIZA bias, the only one of the article's doesn't insult, exaggerate, ridicule or fabricate something about SYRIZA. Now you should have understood why your edit has been refused but instead you just repeat the same claims without properly addressing criticisms, how did you possibly expect that this would cause other editors to agree with you. This is Wikipedia, not politics. TURTLOS (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ghostofnemo The reason that i just copied and pasted my previous statement and made some edits on it is because you have ignored 90% of what i said. You have gone on and on about the one mistake that i made without addressing any of my other statements. TURTLOS (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've supplied numerous reliable sources that call Syriza a Marxist or neo-Marxist party. Can you provide any reliable sources that say "Syriza is not a Marxist or neo-Marxist party"? Or that call it something else? More than one or two secondary sources (i.e. not from Syriza or its supporters)? Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Did u even read my response or did u just reply without thinking, i adressed the problems with your sources as have some other editors. Here are some sources that dont call SYRIZA marxist, http://www.academia.edu/5812717/Left-wing_Populism_in_the_European_Periphery_The_Case_of_SYRIZA , http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1970534/Euroskepticism , http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/07/04/gree-j04.html . here are some secindary sources that do not describe SYRIZA as maxist, none pf them are by SYRIZA or SYRIZA backed group, one of them actually critisizes SYRIZA. TURTLOS (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the answers have been supplied and time to move on. TFD (talk) 08:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've provided extremely weak counter sources. Is this really how Wikipedia is supposed to work? Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided no counter sources because you have not provided any sources except your questionable logic that because some members of the party are Marxist the party is Marxist. That is called synthesis, which Wikipedia policy prohibits and if you think that is not how Wikipedia should work, then get the policy changed. TFD (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm posting these links to this talk topic for the third time -
Still waiting for even one RS that says SYRIZA is not and has never been a Marxist party. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for even one RS that says SYRIZA is or ever was a Marxist party. TFD (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All of the seven sources above refer to SYRIZA as a Marxist, neo-Marxist or Euro-communist party. Please stop trolling. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, it isn't enough for a source to say "party X has X ideology" to qualify a party being of a X ideology. Even if there are plenty of sources, if those citations do not discuss political positions nor explain what they mean by "far-left" or how SYRIZA's policy correlates to it, they can't be considered as nothing more than simply rhetorical sources from English media websites. If the term 'Marxist' is used as just an adjective but with little to no correlation to the party's majoritary ideology, program or proposals, specially if done by media articles, then there is no sense in paying them much attention. I could also show you quite a lot of sources saying, i.e. that the People's Party of Spain is something like a neo-francoist and a far-right party, yet here on Wikipedia, we don't give those much relevance.~Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should be second-guessing reliable sources. I can see your point if there is some name-calling or accusations, but most reliable news media sources avoid doing that. Ghostofnemo (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your first source, by Anne Applebaum of all people is an editorial hence fails rs, but even in her obvious hatred of the Left, merely describes them as "neo-marxist", whatever that means. She says they oppose austerity, call one another "comrade" and want to create 100,000 new jobs. Nothing about a proletarian revolution or confiscating the means of production. TFD (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would call The Guardian a WP:RS for calling Syriza a neo-Marxist party; they ought to know how to tell apart the different flavors of the European left. The Slate article is an op-ed piece and therefore right out. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian does not call them marxist, Helena Smith, their Greece correspondent, calls them "neo-marxist". Neo-marxism is part of the New Left, based on the theories of Gramsci and Adorno and emphasizes psychoanalysis, existentialism, structural analysis and feminist therapy, and sees capitalism as monopolistic rather than competitive. No wonder they won the election! TFD (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Since "Coalition of the Radical Left" is very rarely used in English-speaking publications, should we not include "Syriza" in the title? There is nothing even to show this title is a name, let alone a Greek political party.

I might suggest "Syriza (Greek Coalition of the Radical Left)"? Jezza (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syriza alone is what it's called. WP:COMMONNAME. I've attempted to restart the Requested move above. Rothorpe (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you guys make a new section? its already on this page. TURTLOS (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jezzabr: You need to add your comment to the requested move section above. Number 57 12:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Thompson, Wayne C. (2014). Western Europe 2014. p.282. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9781475812305.
  2. ^ Featherstone, Kevin (2012), Greece implodes as protests drown out its European vocation, LSE Research Online
  3. ^ "Greece anti-bailout leader Tsipras made prime minister". BBC News. 26 January 2015.
  4. ^ "Far-left and far-right celebrate Syriza's victory". France 24. 27 January 2015.
  5. ^ "EU wakes up to euro uncertainty following Syriza's victory in Greece". Deutsche Welle. 26 January 2015.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syriza&oldid=644894023"