Talk:Die Linke

Page is biased

We should change the political position for example. It says left-wing, but die linke clearly has roots in marixsm-leninism and opinions that defy mainstream: Exiting of NATO, hatred of capitalism, mass-nationalization of industries such as housing, energy and healthcare. We should change it to «Left-wing to Far-left» so it’s open to interpretation for the user. Saelwack (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay, we really do not need FIVE active discussions about the exact same thing. There is already a recently active thread above dealing with the same topic; leave your thoughts there. Yue🌙 07:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Extremism is defined as being against republican democracy or disrespecting its principles. The far-left, contrary to the far-right, also refuses to participate in the electoral game, giving it less importance (and Die Linke is not far-left). While potentially questionable, none of the things you mentioned are fundamentally signs of extremism. The Labour Party or the French Socialist Party supported these very same positions for much of the 20th century. ~2025-34045-77 (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-51181-59 (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

"Die linke" should be called left wing to far left or at least parts of the left are far left

Die linke and Far left Polnische Pole (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Polnische Pole I agree it should be "left-wing to far-left", but consensus is needed, and consensus leans towards "left-wing", so I can't see it changing. there are reliable sources that use both anyway. Yiplap2 (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

cause Wikipedia is bias Oldfoxy33 (talk) 09:59, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

@Oldfoxy33 Sometimes, but not in this case. It really is a matter of

a) can we find enough sources describing the party as far-left

b) can consensus be attained that we should add it Yiplap2 (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

at least parts of the left are far left The article states that. See the "Ideology and platform" and "Internal factions" sections. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on Should the ideology section of the infobox say that? We could start a RfC to gather more thoughts, given that it could be contentious. Yiplap2 (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

You need to gather more sources, not "thoughts"! Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Should the ideology section of the infobox say that No, "far-left" is not an ideology. But the footnote in "Political position" has: "A broad left-wing party, it has also been described as far-left by several news outlets.". That was the consensus in previous discussions and to me, that's an apt reflection of what reliable sources say about the party. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Logarithmic Graph

The membership table needs to be logarithmic. kencf0618 (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

All topics state favor for "Left Wing to Far Left

There appears to be broad support for including the far-left classification. Multiple independent reliable sources, including peer-reviewed academic sources, explicitly describe Die Linke as far-left. The sourcing concern has therefore been addressed. Robby.is.on appears to be the main/sole editor still objecting, so simply stating that there is “no consensus” does not by itself establish that one does not exist. The remaining objection should be based on specific sourcing or policy concerns rather than the fact that disagreement remains. Funnaile (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Support: 5

Helper201

Saelwack

Yiplap2

Myself

~2026-50891-77

Oppose: 3

Robby.is.on

80.187.81.2

~2025-34045-77

Consensus has passed to be in support of adding "Left wing to far left" to the page. Funnaile (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:46, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Basically in your case, you are the main objector other than some IP users. No matter what is said, you will try have your way.

First it is: get consent in the Talk

then when Talk proves more people are for it you return with: This is not a democracy

Either way, it will stay as new sources have been added by other users that are trustworthy in Wiki's eyes. Funnaile (talk) 05:36, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

That's not how this works, consensus isn't a vote, please read the actual WP:CONSENSUS policy. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 05:41, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I have noticed several editors who were previously uninvolved in this article entering the same dispute in a short period of time. I am concerned there may have been canvassing or coordinated recruitment. I am not alleging this based on the editors' personal identities or political views; my concern is specifically the pattern of participation and whether editors were selectively invited to influence consensus. Could an uninvolved administrator review the relevant contribution histories and notifications under WP:CANVASS? Funnaile (talk) 06:35, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows you to create an RFC.

Please start an RfC

This discussion isn't really going anywhere and is devolving into mere edit-warring in the article. Please start a formal WP:RFC process and get this sorted. Also - one small point to those wanting to put the label "left-wing" in the article - the current labeling democratic socialist actually already implies the party is left-wing, something generally considered uncontroversial. You may be pushing at an open door and not realising your point has already been made, just in a different and more informative way than you want. — The Anome (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

RfC: Political position in the infobox

Should the political position field in the Die Linke infobox describe the party as:

• A: Left-wing
• B: Left-wing to far-left

taking into account the reliable sources available and Wikipedia's policies on due weight and neutral point of view? Funnaile (talk) 07:11, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Background

The infobox currently lists Die Linke as "Left-wing", with a footnote stating that the party has also been described as far-left by several news outlets. The article itself also notes that media outlets and political scientists have used differing descriptions of the party.

Previous talk-page discussions have produced disagreement over whether the infobox should continue to use only "Left-wing" or instead use the range "Left-wing to far-left". Reliable and academic sources describing the party as far-left have been presented, while other reliable sources describe it as left-wing.

Please focus on the quality, independence, recency, and wording of the sources, and on how the range of reliable-source descriptions should be summarized in the infobox. Funnaile (talk) 07:11, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

@Funnaile I support B: as you mention, there are lots of reliable sources classifying the party as both. Yiplap2 (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Support B – Left-wing to far-left. I support option B because reliable sources use both "left-wing" and "far-left"/"radical left" descriptions for Die Linke. In my view, presenting the position as a range reflects that source record more accurately than giving only one end of it.

This is also not a position newly raised by a single editor. In previous discussions on this talk page, several editors independently supported or expressed willingness to accept the "left-wing to far-left" formulation. User:Helper201 stated that they would be willing to compromise on "Left-wing to far-left"; User:Saelwack explicitly proposed that wording; and User:Yiplap2 stated, "I agree it should be 'left-wing to far-left'", while noting that they believed the previous consensus still leaned toward "left-wing".

I do not think this should be decided simply by counting participants. The important question is whether the reliable-source record gives sufficient weight to both descriptions under WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Given the academic and other reliable sources presented in the previous discussions which explicitly describe Die Linke as far-left or radical left, I believe option B is the more appropriate summary of the differing descriptions found in reliable sources. Funnaile (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Additional recent sourcing: The "far-left" description is not confined to older sources. Recent examples include:

• Reuters, 3 September 2026 – describes Die Linke as the "far-left Left Party".
• The New York Times, 6 September 2026 – refers to Die Linke as "the far-left Die Linke".
• Reuters, 18 September 2026 – describes it as the "far-left Left Party".
• Reuters, 20 September 2026 – reports on the victory of the "far-left Left Party".
• The Guardian, 20 September 2026 – describes Die Linke as "far-left".
• The New York Times, 20 September 2026 – describes it as the "far-left Die Linke party".
• AFP, 20 September 2026 – describes Elif Eralp as the candidate of the "far-left Die Linke party".
• Al Jazeera, 20 September 2026 – describes it as "Germany's far-left party Die Linke".
• Le Monde, 21 September 2026 – refers to Die Linke as a "far-left movement" and later as "Germany's far-left party".

There are also recent examples from 2025, including Reuters, The Guardian and Euronews.

These examples demonstrate that "far-left" remains a current classification used repeatedly by independent reliable sources in 2026. In my view, this is relevant to the WP:DUE question raised by this RfC. Funnaile (talk) 07:28, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I should just point out that the label "democratic socialist" already implies that a party is left-wing, so there is no need for another label. @Funnaile: I suggest that you add an option C, for "democratic socialist", the current description. If you do so, I will express my !vote for that option. — The Anome (talk) 07:32, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you on this and believe that Option B would be more realistic and balanced. Given the sources describing both definitions, and considering that the party's political positions clearly align with this. Дмитро Чугай (talk) 07:34, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

There is a another significant factor here that has not been mentioned; this is an article about a European party, and European poltical norms are different to American ones. Die Linke is definitely a "far left" party by American standards, but they are only a "left wing" one by European standards. The English Wikipedia is in English, but it is not the American Wikipedia. Maybe there should be an option D for "radical left"? — The Anome (talk) 07:35, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

The other thing that's being overlooked is that the article already points out the difference between the way news orgs describe it and the way academic literature describes it, right in the infobox's current footnote. It's evident that, outside of journalistic sources, "far-left" is rarely, if ever, used to describe Die Linke. I support status quo, where the news outlets' distinction is brought to attention, but not stated in wikivoice. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 07:45, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I understand the suggestion, but I would prefer to keep the RfC focused on the existing political position field rather than add "democratic socialist" as an alternative.

"Democratic socialism" is already listed separately under ideology, whereas the disputed field concerns where reliable sources place Die Linke on the political spectrum. Wikipedia also commonly treats these as separate concepts in party infoboxes; for example, parties may have ideological descriptions listed separately from a political-position classification such as "far-right" or "left-wing".

The question I am trying to resolve with this RfC is therefore whether the available reliable sourcing supports Left-wing or Left-wing to far-left in the political-position field. I think adding "democratic socialist" as option C would turn the RfC into a somewhat different question about whether the political-position field should effectively be replaced by an ideological description.

If there is interest in removing the political-position field altogether, I think that could be discussed separately, but for this RfC I would prefer to keep the choice focused on how the existing field should summarize the sources. Funnaile (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I think it's a choice between two poor alternatives. Something like "radical democratic socialist" would be better. Die Linke are not intending to re-shape society or abolish democracy. — The Anome (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. I agree that option B best reflects the ambiguity in the current sourcing within the scope of this RfC. Funnaile (talk) 07:47, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

The party is already described as "democratic socialist" in the lead section and the ideology parameter of the infobox. I'm open to altering or adding to that descriptor with "populist", "left-populist", or something similar to that, but certainly opposed to using "far-left" in WP:WIKIVOICE. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 07:48, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I think it should be used in the context "has been described as a left-wing to far-left party", rather than directly in Wikipedia's voice. So something like "is a German democratic socialist party which has been described as left-wing to far-left". Or just say "...is a German democratic socialist party" and "The party has been described as left-wing to far-left" in another sentence. — The Anome (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Since all of these are news articles, are there any academic sources that explicitly cover the period after the split that led to the formation of the BSW and describe the party as "far-left"? As things stand, I support the status quo. Hamborgenaar (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

There are academic sources published after the BSW split which explicitly continue to describe Die Linke as far-left, including research using post-split data:

• Steiner & Hillen (2025), German Politics – Voting for the Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW) from a Policy Space Perspective. The study uses survey data from March and June 2024, after the BSW was founded. In the introduction, it describes Wagenknecht as the former co-leader of the parliamentary group of the "far-left party 'Die Linke'". It also explicitly discusses the split from Die Linke and BSW's subsequent 2024 electoral performance.
• Herold & Otteni (2025), German Politics – Closing the Left-Conservative Gap of Political Representation? Ideological Positions and Democratic Attitudes of 'Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht' (BSW) Supporters in Germany. This uses original survey data from early 2024 and discusses the June and September 2024 elections and the February 2025 federal election. It describes Wagenknecht as a former leading figure of the "far-left party Die Linke".
• Thomeczek (2024), Politische Vierteljahresschrift – Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW): Left-Wing Authoritarian—and Populist? An Empirical Analysis. Published in May 2024 after the BSW's formation, it explicitly contrasts the "far right Alternative for Germany (AfD) and far left Die Linke" and describes Die Linke as Germany's established far-left party. Its main Die Linke dataset runs through 2023, so I would distinguish this from the two 2025 studies above, which use post-split data directly.

So there does appear to be post-split academic literature continuing to use the far-left classification, including two peer-reviewed 2025 studies analysing the new BSW/Die Linke electoral landscape after the split. Funnaile (talk) 07:52, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

None of these sources seem to refer to the period after the split. Hamborgenaar (talk) 07:58, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

More recent academic sources:

• Grub, Yanchenko, Ziemer & Humprecht (2026), German Politics – Swayed by the Kremlin? Psychological, Behavioural, and Electoral Correlates of Agreement with Pro-Russian Strategic Narratives in East Germany. This study uses survey data collected before the 2024 state elections, after the BSW split, explicitly discusses the newly founded BSW, and states: "In Germany, this dynamic can be observed among the AfD on the far right and Die Linke on the far left." This is therefore a direct post-split academic example.
• Wurthmann, Kurz & Wagner (2026), Politische Vierteljahresschrift – Breaking the German Cold War Taboo? The Generational Divide in Evaluating a Coalition Between CDU/CSU and The Left. The paper was published in February 2026 and, in its discussion of the contemporary German party system and then-current coalition debates, refers to "the persistent exclusion of both the far-right AfD and the far-left The Left" from national-level cooperation. Its underlying survey data were collected in 2021, so I would distinguish it from Grub et al., which uses post-split data directly. Funnaile (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

That first source doesn't seem to provide any basis for why they're calling DLP far-left, just a blank assertion with no evidence or citation. No policy analysis or research seems to have been done for that claim to be made and nowhere else in the article is the term even used.

The second source uses the term in barely a passing mention, and as you say, its survey data well precedes the BSW split. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:30, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Those also seem to refer to the party in the period in which Wagenknecht was a member, given that they refer to it in the context of her as the leader. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 07:59, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Just pointing out here that several of these are duplicates as they are from the same publication (Reuters & NYT), and should not be counted separately for the purpose of establishing consensus. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:04, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Additional examples from entirely separate publications during the current Schwerdtner–Pantisano leadership (since June 2026):

• Financial Times, 18 September 2026 – describes Elif Eralp as a leading candidate for "Germany's far-left Die Linke party". The Financial Times is listed at WP:RSP as generally reliable.
• Deutsche Welle, 18 September 2026 – states: "The far-left Left Party is hoping to beat the center-right CDU". Deutsche Welle is also listed at WP:RSP as generally reliable.
• Euractiv, 17 August 2026 – explicitly refers to "the far-left Die Linke party".
• The Irish Times, 20 September 2026 – describes Die Linke in the Berlin election as "a far-left, anti-capitalist party", immediately identifying Elif Eralp as the Left party's lead candidate.
• The Times of Israel, 18 September 2026 – explicitly refers to "Germany's far-left Die Linke party". The Times of Israel is listed at WP:RSP as generally reliable, with additional considerations for coverage relating to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

So even if Reuters, NYT, Guardian, etc. are each counted only once as independent publishers, there are still multiple additional independent publications using the "far-left" classification during the party's current leadership. I agree that the RfC should ultimately assess the quality and weight of these sources under WP:DUE, rather than simply count citations. Funnaile (talk) 08:55, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I think the Deutsche Welle link is particularly significant, as they are a mainstream German source known for reliable reporting. — The Anome (talk) 09:08, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it tells us all that much that some journalists (still) use the label 'far left.' In my opinion, unless there's a recent scholarly analysis concluding that the party in its current form is far left, Option A (Status Quo) should remain in place (for now). As a side note, the German Wikipedia does not classify the party as 'far left,' as far as I can tell. ~2026-50884-14 (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Support B – Left-wing to far-left, per Funnaile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-51101-65 (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

There is a scholarly analysis that is continuously updated, see here. The most recent static version from June 2026 indicates that the current party no longer meets the "far-left" criterion and is instead classified only as a borderline case. Hamborgenaar (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• (bot-summoned, edit conflict) This is complex and not helped at all by appeals to *current* media reporting. In fact, I'd argue that media reporting should almost be completely excluded from sourcing when it comes to assessing the political positions of parties, not least because of WP:RECENTISM, but also WP:BIAS. The reality of any party's position needs to be taken as a whole - not simply the latest set of headlines. I also think we have to be extremely cautious in using non-English sourcing, because without wider textual context and the added difficulty for verification, it's very easy to cherry-pick, mistranslate and misrepresent. I accept that the BSW split is noteworthy, but that was a split to the right, it did not move Die Linke further to the left, it weakened attempts to push the party rightwards. Sources which problematise characterisation of Die Linke as far left. See p.542 of this piece, which maps party positions on a left-right axis; unsurprisingly Die Link is most left on economics, but on "culture" it is evaluated as closer to the centre than the SPD and the Greens, and on "migration" as closer to the centre than the Greens. A further reason to problematise the use of "far-left" is that this description is often used to characterise the party in reference to the SPD (that is, to its left), but it appers far less frequently used to characterise the party's actual politics (ie, the taxonomy in use in this case is not "centre, centre-left, left and far left").

References

tl;dr - Agree, that left-wing is not perfect, left-wing populist is a better description. Nevertheless, status quo until a better alternative is suggested. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm concerned about recentism here. Especially using a bunch of principally American sources commenting on a European election. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-51231-92 (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Strong support B – Left-wing to far-left as there are many, many reliable sources describing this party as far-left. Wikipedia is dictated by what reliable sources say, and when a good amount of them say something, we Wikipedians have to describe it like that. Trying to analyse ourselves whether this party fits the far-left definition is a very, very clear violation of WP:NOR. It doesn't matter if you think Die Linke is far-left or not, determining that yourself is obviously original research which is definitely prohibited on Wikipedia. ~2026-51109-71 (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

No idea where you're seeing "original research" ... I find the sources and arguments provided against describing them as far-left in Wikipedia's voice more convincing than the news sources provided here in support of that characterization. ~2026-51245-72 (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Support status quo per Goldsztajn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-51245-72 (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Support status quo Current phrasing was the result of previous discussions which found that, while some newspapers refer to the party as "far-left", most academic sources don't. Current phrasing reflects WP:BESTSOURCES. This RFC hasn't shown that things have changed. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Changed my opinion to Support status quo per BESTSOURCES. — The Anome (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Support status quo Academic sources mostly describe it as left-wing and as part of the "left party" category of political parties. Far left is a misnomer, because there are parties to the left of left parties, such as Communist parties. News articles should be ignored, per best sources. The authors are reporters who typically have studied journalism as opposed to academic writers who are typically professors of social sciences with PhDs. TFD (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support B - I mean they're basically pinko-commies, right? Seems like plenty of RS to support the "far" designation. NickCT (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

  You are confusing it with the German Communist Party. BTW, could you please avoid the Archie Bunkerisms? It's confrontational and distractive to advertise your position on the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

  Sources very much contradict the "pinko-commies" classification you've provided. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 01:10, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2026

In the section on Russia, in the sentence that partially reads "the party has called the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and the Russian military intervention in Ukraine to be illegal," please change "to be illegal" to "illegal." (One does not call something "to be illegal." Rather, one simply calls it illegal.) ~2026-50983-13 (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2026 (UTC)