text:
Talk:Centre-left politics

Liberal Party
Not that I am a fan, but the Liberal Party of Canada has a social liberal agenda, supports government intervention in areas such as child care, healthcare, and public broadcasting. They might not be as progressive as the NDP, but I think that since the end of the Jean Chretien era anyway centre-left is a term that describes them accurately. I don't overly like the fact that this article exists as in many cases the distinction between centre-left and left of centre can be blured. Take for example the NDP, historically a democratic socialist party, considered by most to be on the Left, opposes globalization and supports an expansion of government services and regulation, yet on the other hand provincially in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario at various times in government has followed a very centrist agenda. Maybe this article should be merged? (Canadianpunk77 03:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

Also to call the Democratic Party U.S.A., "centre-left" is a bit of a stretch. Perhaps if Howard Dean were their presidential candidate? Social policies and economic policies cannot be measured the same way and as far as economic policies are concerned the Democrats favoured fairly conservative fiscal policies at least during the Clinton era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadianpunk77 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger suggestion
This should be merged into Left-Right politics. -- Kaihsu 17:12, 2004 Mar 1 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps Left-wing politics should have a centre-left subsection? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:17, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I disagree completely. Left-Right politics has its place, but I should note that there is also a Left-wing politics page, a Right-wing politics page, and a Centre-right page to go along with this one.  If we attempted to fit everything into the Left-Right politics page, that page would be split due to wiki policy (re: length).  All of these pages relate to each other, and, as such, an effort should be taken to minimize repetition.  However, this does not mean that all left and right related pages should be merged into one specific page. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 02:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

I also think that it should be merged with Left-Right politics the blurring of distinctions between Left and Centre-Left makes the list of "centre-left" political parties on this article misleading and confusing. Take for example the NDP, currently if you look at ideology the BC NDP, Yukon NDP, Alberta New Democrats, Ontario NDP and Maritime parties all have leftwing, democratic socialist agendas while the Saskatchewan and Manitoba NDP's are very firmly planted in the centre. The NDP has gone back and forth from supporting strong government intervention and regulation, not too mention a large social safety net to supporting "competetive" taxation and spending restraint on social programs. The same contrasts exist within the British Labour Party, French Socialist Party, German Social Democrats, Australian Labor Party, even the African National Congress not too mention numerous others. Besides democratic socialists favour a gradual move towards public ownership, should they really be listed as belonging to the centre-left? (Canadianpunk77 03:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

Norway
This just doesn't make any sense. And it is all wrong. Like Norway. The Norwegian Red-Green Coalition and the Labour Party itself are not center-left. They are left-wing.

 * Don't hesitate to make changes. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 23:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

Yeah I also think that the Red Green Coalition should be removed, the Norwegian Labour Party may consider itself to be centre-left, but I highly doubt that the Socialist Left Party would refer to themselves as such! (Canadianpunk77 03:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

USA Parties
I removed the Libertarian Party from the list of center-left parties. While they do uphold many of the same viewpoints about civil liberties, their fiscal policies are completely inconsistent with "center-left" ideology. Many Libertarians also dislike the simplistic notion of a left-right spectrum, which is why they represent themselves on a graph with both a social freedom and a fiscal freedom axis. Therefore, despite their social views, it is likely that Libertarians would take issue with their inclusion on this list. Rob Shepard 10:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I previously signed at the top somehow so I just removed that. Rob Shepard 10:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually Libertarian ideology is the height of simplicity, but I agree that they are an extreme right-wing party and don't belong on the list.Nwe (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They don't belong in the extreme right either. They have far-right factions (such as the Mises Caucus), but this is a minority faction that couldn't even win the 2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries. MagyarNavy1918 (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Socialist Party USA
The Socialist Party USA supports the gradual nationalization of the American economy and creation of a socialist state. That makes them a party of the Left, not the centre-left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.105.238 (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

US Democratic Party mixture of centre left and right
Someone please explain to me how the Republican Party is a mixture of centre right and right-wing but the Democratic Party is so balanced between centre left and centre right. What makes someone right-wing and what makes someone left-wing? And you say Dennis Kucinich is centre left??? I respect your opinion, but I just have a really hard time believing Dennis Kucinich is anything but left-wing. What credible source do you have to support your claim?--Lucky Mitch (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the American political system is skewed towards the right. Many people in the Democratic Party hold decidly centre-right views on key issues (eg. on death penalty, private healthcare, workers' rights, gun ownership, support for American foreign policy, business-influence on political parties), much more mainstream Republicans are likely to hold extreme right-wing views on religion, the markets or foreign policy, while conversely only the rarest examples are likely to hold noticeably centre-left views. Kucinich is obviously centre-left. His policy positions have left-wing connotations (he's not anti-capitalist, opposed to every aspect of American foreign policy by default etc.). His opinions fit with general centre-left, social-democratic values.Nwe 15:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

So in your opinion, what issues/beliefs make someone left-wing and are there any major left-wing politicians in the United States?--Lucky Mitch 02:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already given you some of them above; anti-capitalism is the most important example. There are very few major left-wing politicians in the US, such is the nature of politics in America. Even people like Bernie Sanders or Ralph Nader are centre-left by international standards. For various historical reasons the US has never had a proper socialist political tradition and hence has no real major left-wing politicians. There are plenty of left-wing writers and intellectuals and so, arguably, is Michael Moore; aswell as most of the many Socialist parties and, previosly, the Socialist Party of America. But this is really mostly besides the point. In the context of this discussion the most important fact to remember is that the mainstream policy Democratic Party for most of last 20 yaers has been undeniably centre-right, as are the apparent stalwarts of the current Democratic Party, the Clintons, and is most closely affiliated in terms of ideology with the European Christian Democratic tradition.Nwe 12:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, so you're saying that a left-winger is automatically a socialist? So is a right-winger automatically a facist?--Lucky Mitch 03:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fascism is not the opposite of socialism, you should know that. Socialism is a far more popular and inclusive term than Fascism, to make a complete understatement. No mainstream centre-right party is called the "Fascist Party", as opposed to mainstream centre-left parties, in fact no party in the world calls itself "Fascist". You're unlikely to get 20-50% of populations describing themselves as "Fascists". Most left-wingers are likely to be at least fairly close to socialism (although a lot of self-described socialists are more centre-left). By right-wing we generally mean a strict, ideological adherence to the free-market, as well possibly devout religiosity. Both ideals have a strong thread in the Republican party, Socialism does not have a strong position in the Democratic party, which is closest to the Christian Democrats.Nwe 13:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right I do know that fascism is not the opposite of socialism. I was merely trying to set you up to see if I couldn't catch you on it, but I see you know better. You put up a very persuasive argument. But I still have another question; wouldn't it make more sense to say that the Democratic Party is a mixture of centre and centre left? I mean Rudy Giuliani shares some left-leaning ideals but I don't think that would make him centre left or even centre. I just fail to see how Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or some of the other Democratic politicians of the United States could fit into the centre right position. Forgive me for sounding stubborn; I really am open to what you're saying--Lucky Mitch 16:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. With regards to the centre-right issue. Yes its true that Giuliani, for example, holds some left-leaning views, but, as you say, that isn't his general position. Clinton, and many mainstream democrats, hold fundamental values that mirror an explicit centre-right political position. This is the case with respect to economic and social issues in particular. But also foreign policy, proximity to corporate interests etc. At the half the Congressional Democratic Party, I'd guess, would, if transferred to most other national political, would fit most conveniently into a mainstream centre-right party. They'd be there with the moderate Republicans. Describing the the Democrats as "centre and centre left" would simply be misleading. It would simply imply some sort of particularly moderate leftism as its ideological basis, which is fundamentally untrue.Nwe 17:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments next to party names
Left-wing does not mean the same thing as far left, it includes both the far left and the center-left so right off the bat saying a party is "a mixture between center-left and left-wing" doesn't even make sense. Many of these comments next to the party names are both uncited and highly debateable. Also, a party can only be in one spot on the political spectrum. A party may have some different tendencies but it lands in the general center-left or far left area thus it can only be either center-left or far left not a mixture of any kind.--Lucky Mitch (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Defunct parties
Should defunct parties like the US Natural Law Party remain on the list? levin-bj84 18:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland seperate from United Kingdom?
In the list of parties nationally, why is Northern Ireland seperate from United Kingdom? If you list them as two seperate entities, the UK should be refered to as Great britain. United Kingdom is the name of two kingdoms United - Britain and ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.35.211 (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Isn't necessarily on a national basis, and parties in Northern Ireland are completely different from those in UK, so it makes sense.Nwe (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I concur with the first poster - Northern Ireland is part of the UK - so you should have said '...parties in Northern Ireland are completely different from those in Great Britain' - because the UK is both. Either UK is changed to GB or NI has to be under UK. It makes no sense otherwise. 80.195.146.94 (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland politics is unique from mainland British politics, it's doesn't share the main centre-left party (Labour) as the rest of Great Britain, ditto with the centre-right parties and the centrist 'liberal' party. --92.21.61.190 (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

 * ...then the text should read 'Great Britain' rather than 'United Kingdom.' And that wouldn't be improper or incorrect in any wise, if it be so as ye all say that the parties we have listed under 'United Kingdom' apply not to Northern Ireland: that would necessarily mean that they apply only in Great Britain; and the kingdom's full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The Democratic Party is a Centre-Right Party
I find it laughable that the Democratic Party is considered a centre-left party. Maybe back in the days of FDR but for the most part it's a moderate/liberal Republican party. Most New Democrats are Rockafeller Republicans. Bill Clinton moved the party to the right and today is widely supported by big business and Wall Street. No Centre-left party would've enacted NAFTA, reformed Welfare and staffed their cabinet with Wall Street types. Not gonna happen. And finally the new London mayor, Boris Johnson, a LIBERTARIAN, actually sought out advise from former CLINTON people on economic policy. It turns out that in most nations, the Clintons and the Democratic party are seen as centre-right.

The Democratic Party is a centrist party at most.

Response:

I'd also suggest to stop the soapboxing. Most western left/centre left major parties have become far more economically liberalised. The 'centre' has shifted, centre-left and centre-right are relative. Timeshift (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but how are the Democrats Centre-left? they are well to the right of other Centre-left parties in the world, and on this list. --92.8.29.116 (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you read the Democrats article for starters? They are not "well" to the right of other centre left parties in the world. They are not as left as say a democratic socialist but still "fit" as far as "Centre-left" list goes. Try reading up on some of these left/right articles a bit first before you go reverting all over the place. To remove the Republicans from the Centre-right article was pretty close to vandalism in my opinion. You really need to educate yourself on this whole left/right situation.--Sting  Buzz Me...   00:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Take the WP:SOAPBOXing elsewhere. The US Democrats are a centre-left party. Timeshift (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

In any first world country other than the US, the United States Democratic Party would be classified as a center-right party. All of the other political parties on the list that I'm familiar with are so far to the left of the USDP that including it on the list makes a mockery of grouping parties from various countries together. Even comparing it to the US Green Party, the USDP is a notably conservative party. Simply because political discussion in the US is so limited that, by the standards of US politics, the USDP is a center-left party and the GOP is center-right, does not mean that this is true in comparison to other political parties worldwide. 64.178.115.134 (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you refer to all the wiki articles on various political parties and the left-right spectrum, I find it hard to disagree with this. 89.241.152.119 (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea that the Democratic Party is a center-right party is mostly based on assertions from various anti-capitalists that, since the Democrats are not actively socialist, anti-capitalist and opposed to the United States having literally any foreign policy, anti-American, extremist, or violently revolutionary they must therefore be on the right. This is the case even though the Democrats have a long history since the 1960s of consistently or near consistently supporting LGBT rights, Civil rights, Social Security, New Deal era programs, multilateralism over unilateralism, social justice, opposing the Vietnam and Iraq Wars, supporting moderate during the Cold War, supporing the rights of immigrants, promoting DC and Puerto Rican statehood, and supporting abortion rights against religious reactionaries. Let me give a short example of how unbelievably naive this sentiment of the Democratic Party being "center-right" is:
 * Most European countries have no equivalent of social security, so trying to create a new system that is similar would be seen as radical there. Yet here, protecting social security is such a mainstream position even Trump (at least initially) campaigned on protecting it. We don't have a universal healthcare system, however, which is something most European countries have. Thus, protecting their universal healthcare systems (most of which have been around in Europe as long as Social Security has been in the US, if not longer), is more mainstream. In fact, many factions of the European far-right support increasing funding, or at least actively oppose cutting their healthcare systems, such as Sweden's Sweden Democrats or France's National Rally. But universal healthcare isn't a "right-wing" policy just because it's mainstream in European politics. So just because the Democrats are not all pro-universal healthcare doesn't make them right-leaning.
 * And I'm sorry, but you can't point to two politicians in the center-right Blue Dog Caucus, the smallest caucus within the Democratic Party as compared to the center to center-left New Democrat Coalition and left-wing Congressional Progressive Caucus, and say it represents the entire party. At best that is EXTREMELY DISHONEST. The Congressional Progressive Caucus has 9.6 TIMES as many seats in the United States House of Representatives as the Blue Dog Caucus.
 * This is compared to Never Trump Republicans, many of whom never stated that we did anything wrong during the Cold War, especially under the Nixon and Reagan administrations, still uphold a kind of hard-line fiscal conservatism (or what the kids are calling "neoliberalism" in order to discredit liberalism for some reason), and still support banning abortion. MagyarNavy1918 (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

(australian) Greens centre-left?
I think there is room for a re-think on the greens been placed on the list, certaintly many of there detracters (liberal party) would call them 'dangerous' socialists, is there someone who can confirm this or confirm as to why they make the list cheers --Mdavies 965 (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC) matt
 * Don't take this as a disagreement or agreement (more a comment), but don't the Liberals call Labor dangerous socialists too? Everyone is a dangerous socialist to them. I note the definition of centre-left is "whose views stretch from the centre to the left on the left-right spectrum, excluding far left stances". I wouldn't call the Greens far left. Timeshift (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Its just that the greens although supporting labor tend to hold, to put it simply, a more leftish view however i wouldnt consider myself an expert but the greens tend to hide there more "extreme" policies and gain public intrest from issues such as climate change and social justice--Mdavies 965 (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course the Greens are more left than Labor. Labor are centrists. And for you to say the Greens have "extreme" policies is your point of view, and from my point of view, untrue. Timeshift (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No that is not my view i was merely having a joke —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdavies 965 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're not here to seriously discuss the article, then don't post here at all. Wikipedia is not the place for that. Timeshift (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is that many of the views the greens share (for which i largly agree) would be considered outlandish by the largly conservative public--Mdavies 965 (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's your point of view, and original research. The fact of the matter is the Greens are not far-left, so they do come under the centre-left umbrella, which ranges from the centre to the left under the left-right spectrum. Timeshift (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. The Australian Greens have an almost universally enviro-social agenda and at best exhibit minimal interest or policy that could be considered pro-business, pro-development or pro-anything from the 'other side of the fence'. That would make them fair and squarely left-wing. I don't think they can be considered far- or extremist-left, as perhaps some of the non-political environmental groups in Australia tend to be, but there is no way they can be considered centre-left, especially if you consider Australian Labor centre-left. I've removed the reference on this page.150.101.108.23 (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Original Research
This article appears to be entirely original research. Does anyone have any source that there is a specific ideology or group of political parties called center-left? Mostly when the term center-left is used, it refers to a coaltion between a centrist and a leftist party. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Parties
Why has the list of parties been removed? --Welshsocialist (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No sources. See the AfD.  The Four Deuces (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What about the centre-right page? --Welshsocialist (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Following the AfD an editor re-wrote this article but did not work on Centre-right. Also, use of the term centre-right is more consistent.  The Four Deuces (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of text not supported by sources
I removed text with the notation "remove text not supported by sources or irrelevant" and an editor restored it with the notation "rv - you cant just remove countries like that just because the definition mightn't suit you." Please note that I did not remove the text because I did not like it but because it did not support the claims it was supposed to support. Since this article is about the "center-left". sources used to support the inclusion of parties as center-left should actually say that they are center-left. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Left-of-Centre
There are various sources on this and other websites as well as in mainstream media and society that refer to the term "leftt-of-centre/center". Would it not be a good idea to include a new section in the main article to define the concept? It seems necessary to me because the terms "centre-leftt", "leftt-of-centre" and "left-wing", while sounding similar, describe materially different political positions. For example, in the European Parliament, there is the centre-left Party of European Socialists (PES) group, the left-of-centre European Green Party (EGP) and the left-wing Party of the European Left (EL). Each of these groups ideologies diverge significantly from on another, as such I believe it would be wise if terms used to describe said ideologies left little room for ambiguity. The term "left-of-centre" could also possibly include some of the parties in the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party (ALDE) group as well as parties from elsewhere in the world that subscribe to certain schools of Liberalism. What I would like to see is the political spectrum content on Wikipedia include stand-alone articles for "Left-of-centre politics" as well as "Right-of-centre politics" alongside the established main poltical positions. Though, an alternative, and potentially better solution, seeing as they are both fairly short, could be for the articles Centre-left and Centre-right politics to be expanded and respectively renamed "Centre-left/Left-of-centre politics" and "Centre-right/Right-of-centre politics". If you agree with me, I would appreciate any assistance in this endeavour. MBFCPresident (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate
The following appears wholely inadequate to differentiate itself from other viewpoints. "The centre-left opposes a wide gap between the rich and the poor and supports moderate measures to reduce the economic gap, such as a progressive income tax, laws prohibiting child labour, minimum wage laws, laws regulating working conditions, limits on working hours and laws to ensure the workers' right to organize.[2]"

The centre-right could also be said to also oppose a wide gap between rich and poor and its policies to better shrink it. Witness the much greater income gaps in Blue States than Red, Socialist Countries than Capitalist. Labor laws are supported by many parties of various degrees of right-left as being just. It seems that rather than policies, there must be principles that can be used to describe their relationships. For example, the Far Left advocates for Government ownership of companies and properties. Center-Left believes in private property, heavy regulation of corporations, partial government ownership of land, and a strong presence in morality. The Center Right believes in protecting the rights of individuals by the rule of law and light regulation of industry, and cultural permissiveness. The Far Right advocates for a government strictly occupied by foreign relations (including military) and strong individualism. (Barca 23:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC))

 * Communism isn't center-left MagyarNavy1918 (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is true Barca. MagyarNavy1918 (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

British English
Why is this article in British English? Why does wikipedia seem dominated by British English? 68.96.84.98 (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You can read about it here.  freshacconci  (✉) 00:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

List of anglosphere centre-left parties?
Why is the list of centre-left parties here specific to the Anglosphere? Seems like it places WP:UNDUE weight. Wouldn't it make more sense to include centre-left parties from all over the world or just not have that section at all? ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

 * I think it's done to keep it tidy, otherwise it would be too long of a list. Gorrrillla5 02:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Add nepal in list
Please add Nepali Congress from Nepal as political party under centre left. 49.244.23.223 (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

*Center
Why not use Moden International English, for an International audience? Wikipedia is for everyone, not just that little island or pseudo-continent that still use Victorian-era English. And that's got nothing to do with "American"; it's just the most sensible, modern, and general form of English... 2003:D5:D744:3B00:6D3C:1076:D288:BD07 (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

 * 1.) Because it's policy is to leave it in whichever English variant the article was first written in unless there's a good reason to change it.
 * 2.) Your opinion on what is "sensible" is just that, an opinion. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Green politics
IP editor, would you care to explain why in your edit summary, you claimed that there are no sources supporting the claim you removed? That's hard to believe, given that you removed the sources in that very same edit. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 19:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi. I will repeat similar thing that I already wrote in my edit summary. Please stop to include own views, there are no sources who strictly consider it as one of the main center left ideologies, I repeat one of the main. And even if there is one source, one source for that type of claim is not enough. It needs many reliable sources for that and wide support in sources about. But to it is sometimes described as center-left or have center-left variants that yes as the other related and already listed ideologies. 109.93.236.194 (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Those little numbers next to the text are links to sources. They confirm that green politics is one of the ideologies described as centre-left. They're the same ones that confirm social democracy, so I don't know why you think that the sources are good enough to confirm social democracy but not green politics. It seems that you're removing green politics because it's your personal opinion that it doesn't belong there. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I explained to you, you have to find sources what will clearly say to green politics is one of the main centre-left ideologies along with social democracy, social liberalism and progressivism, and not just related ideology that are sometimes described as centre-left or have centre-left variants for example democratic socialism. That sources I didn't saw and don't see, and seems to you doing some own research but that you should do on own blog not here. I repeat also, we here talk about centre-left just, not left wing or wide left movement, just center-left.109.93.236.194 (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also I will register here, as it seems that "IP editor" label is used for kind of giving less value to editor. 109.93.236.194 (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also it is really easy to find many sources about politics and political parties what clearly make difference between green politics and green political parties and center left and center left political parties for example: .109.93.236.194 (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not a reliable source. It's an article from a university magazine written by a student. I have already found multiple sources. You deleted them from the article. I'm curious why you chose to remove green politics but not social liberalism or social democracy, even though the same sourcing confirms all three of them. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, it is really easy to find many sources about politics and political parties that clearly make difference between green politics and green political parties and center left and center left political parties. Or maybe you think to its just like that accidentally or so. We talk here about the center-left only, and yes green politics is left leaning and left wing, and related to the center-left but not one of the main well-known ideologies what are core tenants of center left politics and center left political parties. Idk what is not clear.109.93.236.194 (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, well I've already found sources that disagree with your claim. You're saying that your opinion of the classification outweighs the sources in the article. It does not. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 21:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Editors should not try to put on back doors some private wishes or to make synthesis of sources to make some point. Check sources better, it is easy to use google you know also. Social democracy is almost always used as a synonym to the center-left. It is one of the main and center tenent ideologies recognized ad center-left. And in mostly all sources, center left parties compete with left wing, far left and green political parties so many sources about that, old and new and all. For eg: . I now even start to question do green politics at all belong here, eventualy as related ideology similar to democratic socialism or as it is now. 109.93.236.194 (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This source simply says that social democracy and green politics are two different ideologies. I don't care that you think green politics isn't a centre-left ideology. The article summarized what the sources say, and you're changing it because you don't like what the sources say. Have you actually read the sources that you removed? They say that social liberalism, social democracy, and green politics are examples of centre-left ideologies. You're inexplicably saying that the sources are not valid for the green politics claim but they suddenly are valid for the other claims, leading me to believe that you're just trying to alter the article based on your personal opinion. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 21:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Some center left and center right parties can eventuality adopt some pro-environment policy positions, but that does not mean green politics become one of the main core ideologies of the center left or center right politics. Someone can maybe think as that, but it must to be said exactly as that into big number of relevant sources, exactly as that. Something as "along social democracy and social liberalism, green politics is the main ideology of center left politics". One source is not enough for that type of claims so it needs various sources. Everything other than that is just a private opinion or someone's wish at least currently. And what is problem, related ideologies are sometimes described as center left, democratic socialism and christian democracy so as it is green politics also.109.93.236.194 (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * These are from the sources that you removed, which are free to access:
 * Cronin, Shoch & Ross (2011): Center-lefts now include a variety of political forces, among them social liberals, social democrats, democratic socialists, progressives, greens, and human rights campaigners.
 * Ostrowski (2023): Often, ideological families, their hybridizations and subcategorizations, are classed as ‘centre-left’ (e.g. social democracy, green ideology, social liberalism, some forms of Christian socialism)
 * Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 21:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Super "ideological families, their hybridizations and subcategorizations" and in one source, "democratic socialists, progressives, greens". Exactly you have two sources what mention other related ideologies that are sometimes described as centre-left or have centre-left variants. As it is normal. But not as one of the main, core ideologies or in a case of social democracy almost as a synonym for.22:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.236.194 (talk)
 * Found so many diffent sources when green is separated from center-left, and social democratic policies and parties etc in various froms and ways. All is easy with google hehe, . Even green's in own, but primary sources where they are against to be labeled in any left right spectrum. Easy to find too. But as I said primary. So anyway, into related ideologies that are sometimes described as centre-left or have centre-left variants (as there are some right wing variants of green politics as green liberals and green conservatives for example) without problem. 109.93.236.194 (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Again checked sources and it totally seems all clear. Democratic socialism, the third way, green politics and Christian democracy are related ideologies to the centre-left, that are sometimes described as centre-left or have centre-left variants, but not the core center left ideologies as it is for example social democracy what is in many sources even used as synonym for. And when there is one section for related ideologies, it fits perfect into. In general, I don't see some big problem about. 109.93.236.194 (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I again see some changes without reason and I don't see to any changed since talk here. Also this “The centre-left is more likely to support environmental policies over the centre-right, but environmentalism is a relatively low priority issue in electoral politics and this is not a consistent trend.” seems kind of totally clear, so I have restored it.109.245.227.244 (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that it'd reasonable to interpret sources that list green politics as part of a small list of center-left ideologies as establishing it as "main", but if it truly bothers you we could just remove the word main and avoid stating so unambiguously - that doesn't require completely removing green politics as an element of center-left politics. The sources do clearly support listing it as a center left ideology (because they list it that way themselves) and likewise support the idea that giving it equal focus to the other ideologies we list would be WP:DUE (because they do so themselves.) Also, I don't think the sources for the other ideologies we list specifically call them the one of the "main" ideologies of the center-left either - the sources we use for social democracy and social liberalism are even exactly the same as the ones we use for green politics, and use the exact same language for each; why remove green politics and not those? So the argument being used for exclusion here is inconsistent (which is a serious problem - WP:DUE weight has to be relative; if we drop one part of the article due to an article due to an argument that applies equally to the rest, then we're not giving due weight to green politics as an aspect of center-left politics.) Let's just avoid using the word "main", it's unnecessary and implies a degree of precision that isn't really present in the sources with regard to any part of center-left politics anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello all! I have decided to join as a registered editor after checking Wiki policies. And it is easier for me. To be related ideology or so it can be, or by that logic we could include Democratic socialism and Third Way and so on also as it is also described sometimes as center left ideology or have center left factions. So related yes but to it is one of the "main" and defining I didn't see any source or so what supports it. To some center left parties are more oriented toward environmentalism, for now is like that, but that would be that only. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources. I know people would say Wikipedia is not a reliable source but it is not a blog.YellowFreedomRose (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the problem: you said "by that logic". But Wikipedia doesn't care about your logic or my logic. You can come up with any argument you want, but none of it counts because we are not reliable sources. You're trying to put your own logic into this article, but you're not allowed to do that. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 02:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, you are one who try to put your own logic and conclusions into this article and better you make your personal blog as this is not place for that. There you can create anything and put anything as the main or not main or so on. But after all this is one encyclopedia and it must only improve and it will.YellowFreedomRose (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Am I also using my own logic by putting social democracy as one of the ideologies? Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 03:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have any internet search engine you can easily check for example to any social democratic party is described as center left. That is kind of sky is blue thing. Really not possible to someone with social democratic views are described as far left, center or right wing. And that is going on for last 100 of years at least. We are here talking about more recent form of some kind of "greening the mainstream". And green politics is more wide, also with parts where some right wing and even far right people find a place with own ways and views also the same goes on for far left people and organizations. YellowFreedomRose (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I just don't see what's extraordinary about describing green politics as center-left. We have plenty of sources listing it that way and nothing really seems to contradict it. For eg. democratic socialism, there's a historical context to consider, and we have specific sources describing that (and how views on it have shifted). There's no such sources contradicting the idea that green politics ought to be listed as center-left. Obviously when you start getting to these more precise left-right definitions they're always going to be a bit hazy (so we can only go with what the sources say); but by the same token, that makes it hard to argue that it's exceptional to categorize green politics as center-left as opposed to eg. left-wing or centrist. --Aquillion (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To be listed as related is more than ok, and that is even too much generous, (could be noted into positions just about environment) with only major connection for now is to some center left parties are more keen to the environment, kind in a way of a political parties with green politics as major ideology, and even that not in a constant way, and to some factions of that politics has been described as center left. And some people who support green parties with green politics as their main ideology sometimes vote for center left options. Green politics is wide and defined different and was also described as left wing and even with some far left tendencies and recently with some forms as are as eco-capitalism and green conservatism. Dem. Socialism is even much more related and has been described as center left by some sources indeed. For now it is like that. Other stuff is just wishes for now. Until there is a majority of sources who puts green politics on the same level as social democracy and progressivism it will be just related and when there is that subsection it is ok totally. YellowFreedomRose (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Please do not make edits that contradict the sources cited in the article. The same sources that support social democracy and social liberalism also support green politics. Reorganising the article based on your own preferences against the cited sources is disruptive. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the sources what btw you posted in one major rewriting of this article, does not says about green politics as the main, defining or synonym ideology in the level of social democracy for example, in the way you interpret it and how you previously wrote to green politics is one of the main center left ideologies and that made me deep check this article. And there was already talk about it and I have checked all sources carefully. It is a question now, when look better, should green politics as a whole be included in related ideologies with bigger content than democratic socialism what is more often described and more closer to center left. All this is already talked about, but you push for your own views and keep by every price to try to "own" this article and how it was after your major rewriting. Even if some stuff are type of sky is blue fact. YellowFreedomRose (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a bit difficult to understand what you're trying to convey, but I find myself disagreeing with you. Regardless, you made a change and someone challenged it, the onus is on you to convince us. Find sources that say that green politics can be right-wing and you can make your change; otherwise it's not going to happen. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Uhu what. The point is to Green politics is wide and defined different. And can't be as a whole considered into center left. My point is that it is related ideology to center left about some issues and I didn't see any source what strictly consider green politics as that among the main center left ideologies or in the same level to social democracy which is used almost as a synonym for center left politics. Can't everything go in the same basket. YellowFreedomRose (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

In my view, green politics is quintessentially a centre-left ideology. I am not sure that it should be mentioned in the lead of this article, but it is surely more relevant than progressivism, that is quite generic and redundant. The fact that there are green variants like green conservatism (centre-right), green liberalism (centre) and eco-socialism (left-wing) makes even more reasonable to think as green politics as a centre-left ideology. --Checco (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

 * I also would place green politics as an ideology of the centre-left, and quite honestly am genuinely puzzled that anyone would consider otherwise. Yes, there are more left-wing variants such as eco-socialism or “deep green” ideology, but those aren’t the mainstream of green political parties, and besides, having ideologies to the left of it doesn’t mean that social democracy isn’t on the centre-left either.--Autospark (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the removal of progressivism from the lead. It's a coherent political movement and philosophy, and reflects cited sources. DFlhb (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , this is the same logic that was criticized above: you're inserting your own original research rather than going by what the sources say. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

While green politics can stay, I strongly object progressivism, which is not a proper political ideology. The Wikipedia article reads "Progressivism holds that it is possible to improve human societies through political action. As a political movement, progressivism seeks to advance the human condition through social reform based on purported advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization. Adherents hold that progressivism has universal application and endeavor to spread this idea to human societies everywhere. Progressivism arose during the Age of Enlightenment out of the belief that civility in Europe was improving due to the application of new empirical knowledge to the governance of society. In modern political discourse, progressivism gets often associated with social liberalism [...]". According to Britannica, progressivism is "in the United States, political and social-reform movement that brought major changes to American politics and government during the first two decades of the 20th century". Thus, progressivism in this article's lead is at best redundant. --Checco (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so it's not appropriate to cite it here. That text from Britannica is about one school of thought in one country at one point in time. The lead should reflect the body, and the body should reflect the cited sources. You might also wish to read Tertiary-source fallacy, which explains why this style of argumentation is inappropriate. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 06:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

 * The fact that neither Britannica nor any source cited in Progressivism describes it as an ideology should make you think. There is no need to read that Wikipedia project page to understand that "progressivism" is not generally described as a distinctive ideology or an ideology per se by sources. --Checco (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

 * I agree that "progressivism" is not a coherent ideology or ideological description, and in my experience seems to most often be used in texts as a synonym for cultural liberalism.--Autospark (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

=Progressive International isn't center-left, its arguably far-left= On the front of the page, there is the logo of Progressive International, a left-wing political international organization. It was created by a variety of very left-wing organizations, such as the isolationist feminist group CodePink, the borderline eco-socialist Sunrise Movement, and the pro-Jeremy Corbyn group Peace and Justice Project, and was founded by the left-wing, pan-European DiEM25 party and The Sanders Institute, pro-Bernie Sanders group founded by his wife, Jane Sanders. While I don't think its far-left, as it isn't particularly revolutionary socialist, Marxist, or anarchist, it is more left-wing compared to many other center-left internationals, such as the social democratic Socialist International or the social liberal and at times social democratic Progressive Alliance. I think either Socialist International or Progressive Alliance would be a better example of a center-left political international. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagyarNavy1918 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Centre-left politics


text:
List of types of malnutrition

List of types of malnutrition or list of nutritional disorders include diseases that results from excessive or inadequate intake of food and nutrients.

Metabolic
Obesity is caused by eating too many calories compared to the amount of exercise the individual is performing, causing a distorted energy balance. It can lead to diseases such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Obesity is a condition in which the natural energy reserve, stored in the fatty tissue of humans and other mammals, is increased to a point where it is associated with certain health conditions or increased mortality.

The low-cost food that is generally affordable to the poor in affluent nations is low in nutritional value and high in fats, sugars and additives. In rich countries, therefore, obesity is often a sign of poverty and malnutrition while in poorer countries obesity is more associated with wealth and good nutrition. Other non-nutritional causes for obesity included: sleep deprivation, stress, lack of exercise, and heredity.

Acute overeating can also be a symptom of an eating disorder.

Goitrogenic foods can cause goitres by interfering with iodine uptake.

Vitamins and micronutrients
Vitamin poisoning is the condition of overly high storage levels of vitamins, which can lead to toxic symptoms. The medical names of the different conditions are derived from the vitamin involved: an excess of vitamin A, for example, is called "hypervitaminosis A".

Iron overload disorders are diseases caused by the overaccumulation of iron in the body. Organs commonly affected are the liver, heart and endocrine glands in the mouth.

Proteins/fats/carbohydrates

 * Protein malnutrition
 * Kwashiorkor
 * Marasmus

Dietary minerals

 * Calcium
 * Osteoporosis
 * Rickets
 * Tetany
 * Iodine deficiency
 * Goiter
 * Selenium deficiency
 * Keshan disease
 * Iron deficiency
 * Iron deficiency anemia
 * Zinc
 * Growth retardation

Dietary vitamins

 * Thiamine (Vitamin B1)
 * Beriberi
 * Niacin (Vitamin B3)
 * Pellagra
 * Cobalamin (Vitamin B12)
 * Vitamin B12 deficiency anemia, and irreversible neurological changes
 * Vitamin C
 * Scurvy
 * Vitamin D
 * Osteoporosis
 * Rickets
 * Vitamin A
 * Night Blindness
 * Vitamin K
 * Haemophilia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: List of types of malnutrition


text:
NESSIE

NESSIE (New European Schemes for Signatures, Integrity and Encryption) was a European research project funded from 2000 to 2003 to identify secure cryptographic primitives. The project was comparable to the NIST AES process and the Japanese Government-sponsored CRYPTREC project, but with notable differences from both. In particular, there is both overlap and disagreement between the selections and recommendations from NESSIE and CRYPTREC (as of the August 2003 draft report). The NESSIE participants include some of the foremost active cryptographers in the world, as does the CRYPTREC project.

NESSIE was intended to identify and evaluate quality cryptographic designs in several categories, and to that end issued a public call for submissions in March 2000. Forty-two were received, and in February 2003 twelve of the submissions were selected. In addition, five algorithms already publicly known, but not explicitly submitted to the project, were chosen as "selectees". The project has publicly announced that "no weaknesses were found in the selected designs".

Selected algorithms
The selected algorithms and their submitters or developers are listed below. The five already publicly known, but not formally submitted to the project, are marked with a "*". Most may be used by anyone for any purpose without needing to seek a patent license from anyone; a license agreement is needed for those marked with a "#", but the licensors of those have committed to "reasonable non-discriminatory license terms for all interested", according to a NESSIE project press release.

None of the six stream ciphers submitted to NESSIE were selected because every one fell to cryptanalysis. This surprising result led to the eSTREAM project.

Block ciphers

 * MISTY1: Mitsubishi Electric
 * AES*: (Advanced Encryption Standard) (NIST, FIPS Pub 197) (aka Rijndael)
 * Camellia: Nippon Telegraph and Telephone and Mitsubishi Electric
 * SHACAL-2: Gemplus

Collision-Resistant Hash Functions

 * WHIRLPOOL: Scopus Tecnologia S.A. and K.U.Leuven
 * SHA-256*, SHA-384* and SHA-512*: NSA, (US FIPS 180-2)

Message Authentication Codes

 * UMAC: Intel Corp, Univ. of Nevada at Reno, IBM Research Laboratory, Technion Institute, and Univ. of California at Davis
 * Two-Track-MAC: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven and debis AG
 * EMAC: Berendschot et al.
 * HMAC*: (ISO/IEC 9797-1);

Asymmetric encryption schemes

 * PSEC-KEM: Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corp
 * RSA-KEM*: RSA key exchange mechanism (draft of ISO/IEC 18033-2)
 * ACE Encrypt#: IBM Zurich Research Laboratory

Digital signature algorithms

 * RSA-PSS: RSA Laboratories
 * ECDSA: Certicom Corp
 * SFLASH: Schlumberger Corp (SFLASH was broken in 2007 and should not be used anymore).

Asymmetric Identification Schemes

 * GPS-auth: Ecole Normale Supérieure, France Télécom, and La Poste

Other entrants
Entrants that did not get past the first stage of the contest include Noekeon, Q, Nimbus, NUSH, Grand Cru, Anubis, Hierocrypt, SC2000, and LILI-128.

Project contractors
The contractors and their representatives in the project were:

 * Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Prime contractor): Bart Preneel, Alex Biryukov, Antoon Bosselaers, Christophe de Cannière, Bart Van Rompay
 * École Normale Supérieure: Jacques Stern, Louis Granboulan, Gwenaëlle Martinet
 * Royal Holloway, University of London: Sean Murphy, Alex Dent, Rachel Shipsey, Christine Swart, Juliette White
 * Siemens AG: Markus Dichtl, Marcus Schafheutle
 * Technion Institute of Technology: Eli Biham, Orr Dunkelman, Vladimir Furman
 * Université catholique de Louvain: Jean-Jacques Quisquater, Mathieu Ciet, Francesco Sica
 * Universitetet i Bergen: Lars Knudsen, Håvard Raddum

title: NESSIE


text:
Patria AMV

The Patria AMV (Armored Modular Vehicle) is an 8×8 multi-role military vehicle produced by the Finnish defence industry company Patria.

The main feature of the AMV is its modular design, which allows the incorporation of different turrets, weapons, sensors, or communications systems on the same carriage. Designs exist for different APC vehicles (armoured personnel carrier) and IFV versions (infantry fighting vehicle), communications versions, ambulances and different fire support versions, armed with large caliber mortar and gun systems.

The vehicle has a very good level of mine protection and can withstand explosions of up to 10 kg TNT. The AMV has protection levels up to 30 mm APFSDS frontal arc. Another important feature is the very good mobility, combining speed, agility, and crew comfort in rough terrain, enabled by the sophisticated but rugged hydropneumatic suspension adjusting each wheel individually.

History
The AMV stems from a 1995 investigation by the Finnish Army HQ into different armored vehicle concepts. In 1996, Patria Vehicles began to develop different concept vehicles and found the 8×8 one to be most suitable as a replacement for the 6×6 Sisu Pasi. The Finnish Defence Forces (FDF) ordered a concept study in 1999, which was ready by 2000. Patria continued to develop the vehicle and the first AMV prototype was ready for testing in November 2001. Two evaluation samples were ordered by the FDF in December 2001, and were delivered in 2003.

Later in 2003, the FDF ordered 24 AMOS-equipped Patria AMVs for delivery 2006–09. The FDF also said that they were looking to order some 100 units, equipped with remote-controlled weapon stations, later placing an order for 62. In December 2002, the Polish Defence Ministry placed an order for 690 vehicles, making Patria the leading manufacturer of IFV in the 15–27 tonne range in Europe. Subsequent deals were made all over Europe, as well as in South Africa and the United Arab Emirates—in many places being locally produced. In 2004, the AMV became the first 4th generation combat vehicle of its kind to enter serial production.

The design was based on experience gained from building the Pasi and on customer feedback on that vehicle. It was entirely designed in 3D virtual environments before construction, and successful testing of the prototype showed that it fulfilled all expectations.

The vehicle was initially designed in 6×6, 8×8 and 10×10 variants, but the 10×10 variant was later dropped.

Patria AMV (first version)
The AMV is offered in three main variants: a basic platform, a high roof platform and a heavy weapon platform.

 * The AMV basic platform includes APC, IFV, C2, ambulance, reconnaissance, mortar carrier, FCV, ATGM and MGS vehicles. The basic platform can also be provided as an extended Basic L platform with increased internal volume.
 * The AMV high roof platform features a larger and higher rear compartment, which allows more space-requiring work to be done inside the vehicle. The AMV SP is suitable for C3, large ambulance and workshop vehicles.
 * The AMV heavy weapon platform features a stronger structure, enabling the fitting of heavy weapon systems e.g. Patria AMOS 120 mm mortar turret or Mobile Gun System.

Patria AMVXP
In 2013 Patria launched a new upgraded version of AMV. In June 2014 Patria announced the name of its next generation 8×8 armoured vehicles, Patria AMVXP, which stands for Extra Payload, Extra Performance and Extra Protection.

Lockheed Patria Havoc AMV (United States)
Patria and Lockheed Martin agreed to cooperate in the competition for the US Marines MPC (Marine Personnel Carrier) program that was set to replace the LAV-25. The USMC planned to obtain 600 MPC vehicles. Patria was to deliver the AMV 8×8 vehicle. Lockheed Martin Systems Integration was responsible for the MPC offer, as well as system integration, survivability systems, the US production line, and networking and logistics. In August 2012, the Marines gave Lockheed a developmental contract for their vehicle, called the Havoc.

For protection against mine attacks, the Havoc would have used a subframe rather than a V-hull. In April 2013, the Havoc successfully completed amphibious testing as part of its evaluation for the MPC program.

The Marine Personnel Carrier was put on hold in June 2013, restarted in February 2014, and then restructured as Phase 1 of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) program, which included the previous MPC competitor entries.

During the summer of 2013, the Havoc successfully completed protection systems testing during a series of blast tests. The vehicle completed all threshold and objective protection system testing, with instrumentation indicating that no disabling injuries would have resulted to any of the three crew members and nine dismounted Marines. Lockheed delivered a report demonstrating the high degree of commonality between the Havoc and other Marine Corps vehicles, aimed at reducing cost, training requirements, and logistics needs.

The Lockheed Havoc AMV completed the Nevada Automotive Test Center's Butte Mountain Trail course in September 2014. Lockheed planned to offer the Havoc in the Marine Corps' ACV Phase 1 program, and give them 16 vehicles to test once a Request for Proposals (RFP) was released in early 2015. In July 2015 partnership between Patria and Lockheed Martin came to an end, and Havoc was not offered to the Amphibious Combat Vehicle program.

Other variants

 * The Slovenian variant "SKOV Svarun" uses a specially designed hydraulic door. The new door features additional carrying space for ammunition, two RPG-type anti-tank weapons and a general purpose machinegun.
 * The South African 'Badger' variant, equipped with an underfloor armour package from Land Mobility Technologies (LMT) and Denel Land Systems's Modular Combat Turret (MCT). Offered in Section, Fire Support, Mortar, Command and Missile sub-variants. Due to various factors, eg mismanagement of the project and involvement by the Guptas brothers and associates, it is yet to enter South African service.
 * Slovak variant "BOV 8x8 VYDRA" it is armed with a 30mm GTS 30 cannon mounted in a TURRA 30 with fire control system and ammunition containers.
 * The UAE variant is slightly lengthened (0.4 m longer) to allow fitting of the more spacious BMP-3 turret and the same number of soldiers as the original AMV model.
 * BAE partnered with Patria to offer the AMV35, a version of the AMV with an E35 turret from the CV9035 to create a combat reconnaissance vehicle for the Australian Army's Land 400 Phase 2 mounted combat reconnaissance requirement.
 * Patria made a AMV featuring the CMI Defense CT-CV 105HP turret. The turret features an autoloader, laser warning system, and capabilities for a barrel launched guided missile.

Service
The Polish Army has ordered 690 vehicles in 2003, including 313 AMVs with the Italian Oto Melara 30 mm Hitfist-30P turret and 377 AMVs in various other configurations to be delivered between 2004 and 2013. Some of the Polish vehicles were deployed in Afghanistan. The Polish vehicles are known as KTO Rosomak ("wolverine") in Polish Army service. In 2013 the Polish army ordered 307 more vehicles, including 122 AMVs and 80 mortars, totaling 997 units making Poland the largest operator by a fair margin. The Vehicles are built in Poland under licence. In 2017 Polish Ministry of Defence said that production of KTO Rosomak is now 100% based in Poland.

The Finnish Army has ordered 24 AMVs fitted with the AMOS mortar system and 62 AMVs fitted with Protector (RWS) remote weapon system for the .50 M2HB QCB heavy machine gun or the GMG grenade machine gun. The standard version is known as XA-360 in Finnish Army service, while the AMOS version is known as XA-361.

In June 2006, the Slovenian Ministry of Defence declared that the Patria AMV would be the new armoured fighting vehicle of the Slovenian Armed Forces. Patria will supply 135 vehicles, some equipped with the NEMO mortar, some with Elbit 30 mm remote controlled weapon station and the rest with Kongsberg Protector turrets. Allegations in the Finnish media that Patria used bribery to secure the Slovenian contract led to a scandal and a criminal investigation in Finland and may have contributed to the defeat of Prime Minister Janez Janša in the 2008 Slovenian parliamentary elections. Due to the financial crisis, the defence budget was cut several times. At first, the contract to supply 135 vehicles should have been amended to have less vehicles with better armament. Later on, the defence ministry suffered from even bigger financial cuts. In 2012, the Defence Minister announced the termination of the contract, by which time 30 vehicles had been received. More armored vehicles and higher calibre weapons are to be bought in the mid-term future.

In May 2007, the South African Denel Land Systems was awarded a contract to build an improved version of the AMV, with a high level of ballistic and mine protection for the South African National Defence Force (SANDF). The AMV will replace South-African Ratels as part of the "Project Hoefyster" (Horseshoe). Five different versions are included: Command, Mortar, Missile, Section and Fire Support vehicles. In November 2013, Denel Land Systems and Patria announced an agreement regarding Patria AMV 8×8 armoured wheeled vehicle serial production and delivery to South Africa. The agreement includes 238 vehicles, with 5 pre-series vehicles delivered during the development phase. In 2023, the SANDF was still in possession of 4 of the 5 original pre-production vehicles, but had not actually accepted them into service. The remainder of the order remained unfilled due to Denel's financial difficulties.

In July 2007, the Croatian Ministry of Defence selected the Patria AMV as the new armoured fighting vehicle of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Croatia in their first international tender in its history. 84 AMVs will be supplied. Initially, the plan called for 84 8×8 vehicles and 42 6×6 vehicles. The Croatian Ministry of Defence has approved the purchase of 84 Patria AMV 8×8 vehicles. The 6×6 configuration idea was scrapped, and the remaining 42 vehicles were decided to be 8×8s. The purchase of the remaining 42 AMVs was made in December 2008. Due to the financial crisis, the contract was slightly amended in April 2010. There was an initial plan of shelving the order by a half, 64 vehicles were mentioned, but it was decided that the total of 126 units would remain on order. In order to somewhat decrease the cost of the deal, the most expensive variants like the NEMO or engineering units will probably be replaced by less costly APC variants. On the other hand, the production will be sped up and all vehicles are to be delivered by the end of 2012.

The government of the Republic of North Macedonia announced in 2006 that it would procure the same type that the Croatian military chooses after test trials in 2007—as this would be a less expensive than conducting trials of their own. The configuration of Patria vehicles that eventually win the competition will be similar to those in Slovenian service, but probably in smaller numbers. Any contract has not been published.

In January 2008, Patria announced that the United Arab Emirates armed forces had ordered the AMV, equipped with the BMP-3 turret. The number of vehicles is yet to be announced.

In January 2008, Patria offered to deliver 30 AMVs within four months of ordering, if the Czech Army chose the AMV as its next APC. The Czech army had earlier chosen the Austrian Steyr Pandur as their next APC, but the Czech government withdrew from the deal at the end of last year, citing Steyr's failure to fulfill the commitments ensuing from the contract.

In August 2010, Patria sold 113 AMVs to Sweden in a deal worth 250 million Euros. The deal included an option for another 113 vehicles in the future.

Combat history

 * War in Afghanistan (2001–2014):
 * The Polish Land Forces contingent, which was a part of the International Security Assistance Force, operated 35 (later raised to 128) KTO Rosomak vehicles (including 5 medevac) in Afghanistan since 2007. The APCs were equipped with additional steel-composite armour. In early 2008, a Polish Rosomak serving in Afghanistan (the version with upgraded armour) was attacked by Taliban rebels. The vehicle was hit with RPG-7 rockets but it managed to fire back and returned to base without any help required. In June 2008, a Rosomak was attacked by Taliban and was hit in its frontal armour with an RPG which did not penetrate the armour. In 2009, the first soldier was reported killed while traveling in a Rosomak after an IED exploded under the vehicle causing it to roll over and crushing the gunner who had been standing in the open turret. Similar explosions caused by mines and IEDs have occurred before though they have failed to inflict casualties.
 * In October 2010, a platoon of Svarun vehicles was sent to Afghanistan to support the Slovenian OMLT.

 * European Union mission in Chad (2008–2009)
 * European Union Force Chad/CAR used 16 KTO Rosomak (including 2 medevac).

 * Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates-led intervention in Yemen (2015–present)
 * United Arab Emirates Army used 8×8 Patria AMVs fitted with remotely operated turrets in an offensive along the west coast of Yemen.

The Polish-made Patria AMVs have been used by the Armed Forces of Ukraine during the Russian invasion of Ukraine since autumn 2023. On 24 September, three vehicles were lost during failed attack by the Ukrainian Armed Forces near Andriivka.
 * Russo-Ukrainian War

Current operators

 * (126 in service, 30 on order): Orders:
 * 84 Patria AMV ordered in 2007 in 3 variants (BOV an APC, BOV-Sn an ambulance, BOV-Log a logistics variant) manufactured in Croatia.
 * 42 Patria AMV ordered in December 2008 in 3 variants (BOV an APC, BOV-Sn an ambulance, BOV-Log a logistics variant) manufactured in Croatia.
 * 30 Patria AMV IFV ordered in March 2023, to be equipped with Elbit UT30MK2 turrets outfitted with Spike LR missiles for €158 million, to be delivered by 2028.
 * 12 additional Patria AMV IFV are expected to fill the Medium Brigade requirements.

 * 🇫🇮 (80): 62 standard APCs equipped with Kongsberg turrets and 18 armoured wheeled mortar carriers equipped with the AMOS mortar system.
 * 🇵🇱 (1197): 1,197 APCs and amphibious AFVs. Manufactured under license at Rosomak S.A, marked as KTO Rosomak (Kołowy Transporter Opancerzony Rosomak, transl. wheeled armored personnel carrier "Wolverine"). All of the ordered vehicles were delivered by 2019. In 2013 the original order for 359 IFVs and 331 base vehicles was increased by 307 units—including 122 IFVs with new turret. In 2013 there were a total of 570 vehicles in service In January 2015, the Polish army placed an order for 200 additional vehicles. This brought the total number of vehicles in operation up to 977.

 * 🇸🇰 Slovakia (76) : In March 2022 the Slovakian Ministry of Defence selected Finland and Patria AMVxp 8x8 as BOV 8x8 programme tender winner. 76 vehicles, new version of Patria AMVXP ordered and being delivered.

 * 🇸🇮 Slovenia (30): 30 vehicles that had already been delivered, due to economic and legal questions.

 * 🇸🇪 (113): Sweden made an order for 113 vehicles, and had an option for the same number of vehicles, but a Swedish court ordered the competition to be re-done. In August 2010 the new competition ended in the same result as the original competition with Sweden ordering 113 vehicles from Patria. The first vehicles were delivered in March 2013.
 * (55): The United Arab Emirates Army ordered an initial evaluation batch of 15 vehicles. These vehicles will be equipped with BMP-3 turrets and have therefore been slightly modified, including a somewhat longer hull. In January 2016, the General Headquarters of the UAE armed forces ordered 40 Patria AMV hulls with the option of 50 more. The vehicles were shipped in June 2016 from Patria's Polish production line. The Patrias are used in Yemen in combat operations.

Future operators

 * (Approximately 810)
 * It was reported in December 2020 that two Patria AMVXP 8×8 vehicles are being sent to Japan from Finland for field tests to participate in the Next Wheeled Armored Vehicle project under the Japanese Ministry of Defense. In December 2021, the MOD started field tests to asertain the vehicle and an unnamed armored vehicle made by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. In December 2022, the Japanese Ministry of Defense awarded a contract for the AMV through Patria Japan. A first batch of 140 is expected. 140 engines were ordered by Japan from Scania for this vehicle. In August 2023, Patria and Japan Steel Works Ltd. (JSW) signed a license agreement on manufacturing for vehicles in Japan. The agreement enables local production in accordance with Japan Ground Self-Defense Force's Wheeled Armored Personnel Carrier (WAPC) programme.

 * (238): 238 units on order. Designated Badger. There will be five versions: a standard infantry carrier, a command car, fire support variant, mortar carrier and tank hunter. Licensed production in South Africa by Denel was scheduled to commence in 2012, but this was delayed to 2017 and subsequently to 2023 due to the company's financial difficulties. As of November 2023, no production Badgers had been delivered. The South African army was in possession of 4 pre-production models supplied by Denel for trials purposes, but these were not formally accepted into service.

 * 🇺🇦 (200)
 * In April 2023, Ukraine ordered 100 vehicles from the Polish production line. The vehicles will be paid by funds allocated by the EU and USA. Later, in an interview, president Zelensky said that there would be 200 vehicles, 100 now, 100 later. The deal would include mortar carriers.

Potential operators

 * (up to 106)
 * The Slovenian Army is looking for up to 106 APC with a budget of €700 million after rejecting the contract for the Boxer. The finalists of the competition are the Piranha V, the Freccia, the Rosomak L and the Patria AMVXP.

 * 🇨🇱 Chile (> 200)
 * The Chilean Army is looking for a successor to its 160 Piraña I 6×6 and 30 Piraña I 8×8. On a long term perspecitve, more than 200 vehicles are expected to be purchased, but in the meantime, a first phase of the replacement includes a tender for 40 8×8 armoured vehicles. The requirement mentions a maximum weight of 38 tons. Among the known competitors are:
 * Altuğ by the Turkish BMC
 * AMV by the Finnish Patria Group
 * Arma by the Turkish Otokar
 * Freccia by the Italian Iveco
 * Pandur II 8×8 by the Czech Excalibur Army

Failed bids

 * BAE Systems Australia and Land 400 bid partner Patria were confirmed as one of two tenders selected to take part in the 12-month Risk Mitigation Activity for the Australian Army's Land 400 Phase 2 combat reconnaissance vehicle program. The other tender was the German-Dutch BOXER IFV. The German BOXER was announced as the winner in March 2018.
 * BAE Systems Australia and Land 400 bid partner Patria were confirmed as one of two tenders selected to take part in the 12-month Risk Mitigation Activity for the Australian Army's Land 400 Phase 2 combat reconnaissance vehicle program. The other tender was the German-Dutch BOXER IFV. The German BOXER was announced as the winner in March 2018.

 * The Patria AMV and more recently (as of 2017) Patria AMVXP is a strong contender for the order in the new Bulgarian project for a new type of wheeled IFV. The project initially called for a total of 238 vehicles in different variants (of them 100 in combat variant, the rest in combat support (reconnaissance, combat engineer etc.) and combat service support variants (MedEvac etc.)). In the end of 2016 the Bulgarian Ministry of Defence re-examined the conditions and out of budget considerations reduced the number of combat vehicles to 90. The requirement that the combat, CS and CSS variants should be of one standard platform was dropped. The new baseline of the project calls for 90 combat vehicles and 108 supporting vehicles for a total cost of 1.22 billion BGN or about €600 million. RfI-letters have been sent to General Dynamics Land Systems – MOWAG (for the Piranha V and the Pandur II), Nexter Systems (for the VBCI), Patria Oy (for the Patria AMV and Patria AMVXP, both have been demonstrated in the country ), Rheinmetall Defence AG (for the Boxer), Textron (a joint offer together with Rheinmetall Defence AG for the Boxer in the combat role and Commando Select assembled in Bulgaria in the combat support and combat service support roles. Textron offered its own 6x6 prototype in the combat role, but due to its still unproven status it is considered the weakest alternative), Iveco-Leonardo Defence System (for the B1 Centauro in the updated 120mm B2 version) and Krauss Maffei Wegman GmbH (also for the Boxer). In the beginning of 2017 the defence minister in the Gerdzhikov caretaker government decided, that RfI-letters should be sent to 7 additional companies. Only Otokar (for the Arma), FNSS (for the Pars) and WMZ (for the KTO Rosomak) were credible contenders. The forerunners in the competition at the end of 2017 were the Piranha V, the Patria AMVXP and the Otokar Arma. Patria Group has expressed willingness to involve Bulgarian defence sector companies as subcontractors in the production not only of eventual Bulgarian vehicles, but also for export markets.
 * An offer made by General Dynamics Land Systems for a cheaper Stryker won the competition and was approved by the parliament in September 2023, 183 vehicles for USD $1.37 billion.
 * An offer made by General Dynamics Land Systems for a cheaper Stryker won the competition and was approved by the parliament in September 2023, 183 vehicles for USD $1.37 billion.

 * 🇨🇿 Czech Republic (199)
 * The Pandur II 8×8 was selected in,2006, and it was in competition against the Patria AMV.

 * 🇵🇹 Portugal (260 planned, 188 produced)
 * The Pandur II 8×8 was selected in,2005 and it was in competition against the Piranha IIIC and the Patria AMV

 * 🇪🇸 Spain
 * In 2015, a program to replace the VEC-M1, the BMR-M1 and part of the M113 fleet was launched by the Spanish Army. The competitors were the Boxer, the Freccia, the Patria AMV, the Piranha V, the SEP and the VBCI.
 * In September 2015, the competition was won by GDELS with the Piranha V. In December 2019, the Spanish Government cancelled the program, and relaunched the competition. In August 2020, the Piranha V of GDELS Santa Barbara Sistemas in collaboration with Indra Sistemas and Sapa Placencia won again the competition for a first batch of 348 vehicles for €1.74 billion. It is known as the Dragon VCR.

Evaluation-only operators

 * The Patria AMV partook in the Amphibious Combat Vehicle trials in the US. Lockheed Martin partnered with Patria offering the AMV under the name Havoc, but ended cooperation with Patria and offered a different vehicle for the program in July 2015. In 2016, LM introduced a new ACV armored vehicle.
 * The Patria AMV partook in the Amphibious Combat Vehicle trials in the US. Lockheed Martin partnered with Patria offering the AMV under the name Havoc, but ended cooperation with Patria and offered a different vehicle for the program in July 2015. In 2016, LM introduced a new ACV armored vehicle.

Museum exhibits

 * Parola Tank Museum, Hattula, 1 APC variant with Kongsberg turret and 1 AMOS mock-up

title: Patria AMV


text:
User:Bad Bob

Test, this is Just a test..

title: User:Bad Bob


text:
Americentrism

Americentrism, also known as American-centrism or US-centrism, is a tendency to assume the culture of the United States is more important than those of other countries or to judge foreign cultures based on American cultural standards. It refers to the practice of viewing the world from an overly US-focused perspective, with an implied belief, either consciously or subconsciously, in the preeminence of American culture.

The term is not to be confused with American exceptionalism, which is the assertion that the United States is qualitatively different from other nations and is often accompanied by the notion that the United States has superiority over every other nation.

History
Scholarship of Americentrism traces the ideological system's origins, historically, to the late 1700s following the established independence of the United States. Americentrism is presented as a shift from Eurocentrism that idolizes the newly founded United States' ideals of freedom and democracy.

Such scholarship itself was initially built on Jim Blaut's 1980s scholarship of Eurocentrism by Geographer Richard Peet whom coined the term in his 2005 journal, From Eurocentrism to Americanism.

In the media
American television networks have been perceived to contain an Americentric bias in the selection of their material.

Another instance of Americentrism is in the high focus companies have on US markets in relation to others. Often, products produced and developed outside the US are still marketed as typically American.

According to the European Commission, internet governance (in particular that related to the NSA) is too Americentric. It criticized the major role of American company ICANN in its administration.

The English Wikipedia has been criticized for having an Americentric systemic bias with regards to its occasional preference towards US English sources, language, and spelling.

Social justice
Critics of Americentrism denote the ideology in fear of misunderstandings between peoples or nations, and in some cases, escalating into severe racial conflicts or even wars. They claim that distorted Americentrism has the potential to foster racism, create chaos, or ignite armed conflicts.

Critics of American policies utilise the term in a negative context to highlight a deliberate, nationalistic ignorance displayed by the American government towards its own faults, warning of the possible distortion of international relations possible by followers of the ideology.

Education
Educators have brought attention to the usage of Americentric views in American educational policy and scholarship. Critics have noted the usage of Americentric views specifically in the United States' public school systems' educational policy in world history. Sources claim that schools in the United States often tend to prioritise the detailed teaching of the history of Europe and the United States in their World History curriculum, while providing only brief coverage of events in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

In terms of scholarship, it has been noted by various observers that the field of psychological research is predominantly influenced by Americans. It has been asserted that Americans hold the highest share as producers of psychological research, with a significant focus on studying Americans themselves. Therefore there have been criticisms of theories and principles derived from such research in if it is universally applicable to all human beings. Jeffrey Arnett, a professor of psychology at Clark University supports the idea, writing of scholarship, to his critique, disregarding the diversity of human experiences and contexts.

title: Americentrism


text:
Worry doll

Worry dolls (also named trouble dolls; Spanish Muñecas quitapenas) are small, mostly hand-made dolls that originate from the highland indigenous people of Guatemala.

Description and material
Worry dolls are mostly hand-made. In Guatemala, they are made of wire, wool and colorful textile leftovers. The dolls are then dressed in traditional Mayan style. The size of the doll can vary between ½ inch and 2.0 inches. In western culture, the dolls are mostly made of pressed paper, adhesive tape, paper and colorful wool. In Guatemala, the dolls can be remarkably larger in size.

Function
In the dolls' original Guatemalan tradition, a local legend about the origin of the Muñeca quitapena refers to a Maya princess named Ixmucane. The princess received a special gift from the sun god which would allow her to solve any problem a human could worry about.

In traditional and modern times, worry dolls are given or lent to brooding, anxious, or sorrowful children. They would tell their doll about their sorrows, fears and worries, then hide the doll under their pillow before going to sleep at night. It is said that the child relinquishes their worries to the dolls during the night and by the next morning, all sorrows are said to have been taken away by the worry doll and they can move forward refreshed the next day.

Worry dolls have also played a role in modern pediatrics and child psychiatry. During a psychological interview with children, some counselors have offered a worry doll to the child as some kind of imaginary, but trustworthy "listener", "allayer" and "contact person". The doll, in turn, will work for psychiatrists, psychologists, educators and parents as some kind of "agent" and "troubleshooter" between child and adult. Today, worry dolls are sold in huge quantity in Guatemala and Mexico. Nuns and poor children sell them to tourists as souvenirs. The dolls are quite popular since they are so small and thus easy to carry around.

title: Worry doll


text:
User talk:Jj frap

If you vandalize pages like you just did, you will be in danger of a ban. Please look at Welcome, newcomers to discover what we're all about. We'd love to have you stay and help us, but if you're going to make trouble, you'll have to leave. Jwrosenzweig 17:30, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Whilst I am completely opposed to the Family First Party, this edit doesn't really match Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Please don't add stuff like that to articles again. —Stormie 03:25, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Godhatescanada.com listed at redirects for discussion
A redirect you created, Godhatescanada.com, has been listed at redirects for discussion, where users will discuss the purpose of the redirect. The link to the discussion is []. Hog Farm (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jj frap


text:
Talk:Daugava

Requested move
Western Dvina is more commonly used name for this river, and in most of its flow it's called Western Dvina (in Belarus and Russia), being called Daugava only in small its part in Latvia.

Please vote!

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~

 * Support Monkbel 21:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose — the most notable city through which it flows is Riga. Gareth Hughes 21:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, and in Riga over 40% of the population speak Russian and call it the Dvina. Satyadasa 07:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

1) In Belarus the river's name is 2) In Russia river flows very small distance of all way to sea. 3) It is most important river of Latvia, but not of Belarus or Russia. 4) Most local Russians in Latvia also call this river Daugava. (Influence of Latvian language). 5) In EU oficial maps this river called Daugava . --Feens 13:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the river is less notable upstream. --Jūzeris | Talk 09:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Dvina appears to be the common usage in English Septentrionalis 18:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Satyadasa 07:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose -
 * Oppose - I am not very sure if Russian population in Latvia calls it "Dvina". --Yyy 13:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for the reasons already pointed out by Feens. --Tail 18:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support because the English name appears to be "Western Dvina" as Mr. Shearer shows below. Tree&Leaf
 * I am a bit confused as to how you have come to this conclusion. Google has 94,500 English pages (-Wikipedia) for "Daugava" and only 758 for "Western Dvina". This does seem to indicate that the name "Daugava" is more popular... --Tail 16:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. Radiant_ >|< 00:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

I don't see the reason why you moved the article here (and removed the most well-known name of the river). Please look at the map: http://www.baltic-region.net/partners/dzd/pdf/basetop.pdf

You will see that less that 1/3 of it is "Daugava". In nearly all languages it is "Dvina". I suggest to revert to where it was. Mikkalai 17:32, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Support --Monkbel 19:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. In many languages the name Daugava (or Düna) is used. --Valentinian 20:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

 * can you note any such languages? --Monkbel 17:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Latvian, for example. --Jūzeris | Talk 09:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Any other examples? Septentrionalis 18:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, in Lithuanian it's Dauguva and I bet in some other Baltic languages like Latgalian or Liv it is similar, but that doesn't matter. In English it's Dvina. Satyadasa 07:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree too. The oficial name of this river in Latvia is Daugava and all inhabitants (independ of a native language) in Latvia call is exactly Daugava. So think, that at least the part of river that locates in Latvia must be called Daugava. --83.99.135.66 20:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I think the name must be Daugava, because in almost all ENGLISH maps the name IS Daugava. For example:
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * ... the name is Daugava or Daugava River

 * Digital1 20:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Google:
 * about 763 English pages for "Western Dvina" -wikipedia. Including:
 * http://www.bartleby.com/61/82/W0098200.html
 * http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9076658
 * about 257 English pages for "Dauguva" -wikipedia (not sure if that was a typo by Satyadasa)
 * about 94,800 English pages for "Daugava" -wikipedia

--Philip Baird Shearer 16:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 49 English pages for "Daugava" site:gov
 * 7 English pages for "Western Dvina" site:gov
 * 65 English pages from eu.int for "Daugava"
 * 1 English pages from eu.int for "Western Dvina"

Livonian (or how you said Liv) is not a Baltic language, it's Finno-Ugric and the name of river Daugava in Livonian is "Vēna" (pronounced with long, narrow e). 78.84.174.186 (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Decision
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved.

Request was:
 * Talk:Daugava — Daugava → Western Dvina – Should be moved to the more commonly used name, which is translation of local river name (its longest part) Monkbel 06:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ryan Norton T 20:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I dispute this closing; 60% should be rough consensus, when half the opposing votes are weak. Septentrionalis 23:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What you call "60% consensus" was a temporary vote tally of 3-2, which was previously 2-2 and has now changed even further. See below for more details. -- Curps 20:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This vote has been a little messy, but, with extra time, the votes are in at 3 for/5 against the move. As consensus for the move hasn't been reached, the page stays where it is. Consensus is only needed to support the motion, failure to reach consensus results in the maintenance of the status quo. As those in favour of the move didn't achieve a majority of the votes, there cannot be a claim that the majority are being overridden. --Gareth Hughes 20:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

copied from the WP:RM PAGE
 * There hasn't been a second round of voting. After the first round was closed as a 2-2 tie (despite your claim of "general approval" ), you relisted the requested move here, and the only thing that happened was that one additional person added a vote to the previous-existing round of voting (which is still on Talk:Daugava), making it 3-2.  Calling this a "60% consensus" sounds a lot grander than it really is. -- Curps 08:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * When I listed this vote after closing on WP:RM, it really was 60% for move (3-2 (with 1 of 2 votes against being weak oppose) after more than 2 weeks of voting!) so it could be called consensus and the page should have been moved. But it stayed and now after vote closing it is 5-5... --Monkbel 19:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

When Ryan Norton closed this vote on the 15 October 2005 (due to WP:RM backlog) the consensus was after the ususal five days of discussion 2 support to 2 opposed and after the extended time 2-3. I believer that Ryan behaved correctly as WP:RM always defaults to the side of not moving and this consensus building was not as clear cut as it could be. However since two of the users, (from a very small pool) who were involved in the initial consensus building wish to re-open the vote and two more people have since expressed an opinion, and are persumably in favour of repoening the vote, I think it does no harm to let the consensus build for another five days and then shut the vote. Philip Baird Shearer 16:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * However I do think the onus is on the person reopening the request to put the move template on the talk page and to copy the new request as worded on the WP:RM page to the top of the Requested moved section in line with the WP:RM three step guidelines so people know what the new proposed name is. Philip Baird Shearer 16:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

LISTEN UP PEOPLE!!! It was NOT 3-2 - if anyone cares to read the discussion, you'll find that there was a person disagreeing there who did not "vote" above, which in most cases would make this 3-3, which is only 50% for the move. Please trust your humble administrators people! Ryan Norton T 21:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * And that's assuming I discounted the other issues involved (comments past deadline etc.) here. Ryan Norton T 21:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Infobox Title
Once you have resolved the issue of the most popular English name for this river, the title of the Infobox should really match the title of the article. If there are other names, different versions of the name(s) in other languages, etc., that's fine, but that belongs in the body of the article. Thank you, —Papayoung ☯ 15:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Väinäjoki
I think this Finno Ugrian name, used by the Livonians, is the original name for the Daugava, as Liivilaht (Bay of Liivi) is for the later (after 1201) version of Riialaht (Bay of Riga). Väinä means slow streaming peaceful river. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.117.147 (talk) 04:53, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Arhangelsk is not anywhere near Daugava
please remove photo from Arhangelsk to relevant article - that about Severnaya Dvina. clearly here's been confusion between Zapadnaya and Severnaya Dvina (one point for official name Daugava - less confusing; peoples around Baltic See definitely call it Daugava). wanted to delete it, but nice photo, might do well in relevant place. 'm afraid i cannot do it nicely, technically.BirgittaMTh (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Etymology
I'm no expert on this, but my thoughts immediately went to old river names from Iranian languages, once spoken in Eastern Europe like Scythian, Sarmatian, Alan, Ossetian and what have you. These people must have lived in the vicinity of the early Balts (whose languages have some archaic features) and there may be an archaic relationship to names that come from "Danu" (water) in old Iranian languages spoken in Eastern Europe. We still have the Danube, Don, Dnjestr, Dnjepr etc. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Usually english version is not a crap, but this is a complete mess. Daugava has nothing to do with Danu and etymology is known: Daug + ava == Many + springs. It is oldest name. Livonian name Vēna means river - simply - there are many names, that are based on this etynology. Slavic & german names for river are based on livonian version, simply because germans and scandinavians met livonians first and this was the name that was written in chronicles. And it is similar to wiki - once there is something written in wiki, it is absolute truth... unless you do proper research.90.195.8.59 (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fluss-lv-Düna.png

title: Talk:Daugava