![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ NikosAstroul ( talk) 15:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Vif12vf (Continuing our discussion from my talk page after being issued a warning of disruption, to my point of view abusively/excessively so, so the tone below will be argumentative) 1) All of the sources used on the infobox are also used in the ideology section and articulated further, which section (I pracically created and expanded the entirety of may I mention) you blanketly and disruptively removed with zero justification along with all new sources. So your argument is wrong. Even if you actually cared about the typicality of not including sources on infobox, you wouldn't undo the entirety of Ideology section, because if you actually paid attention to Wikipedia rules you would know that the infobox is supposed to be a "sum", so to speak, of info already in the article. So your argument on my talk page is not simply wrong, it's void.
2) Anti-establishment is described as "An anti-establishment view or belief is one which stands in opposition to the conventional social, political, and economic principles of a society" as per Wikipedia. Also as I have stated THRICE in my edit justification, the most reputable " Europe Elects" lists CoF as "anti-establishment" in its political orientation NOT Left-wing. If it wanted it to be listed as left-wing it would have had it as such (like other parties there are listed as left-wing) because there is a REASON for this. If you actually read the sources from Jacobin (magazine) you blanketly and with zero explanation removed, you would have known. Unless you are questioning the reputability of Europe Elects AND Jacobin. Are you?
3) If you actually cared about the typicality of what's put in the infobox, you would have provided a source to back up the claim the CoF belongs (solely) in the left wing of the spectrum, which not only you didn't, but you let the "left-wing" itself sitting unsourced in the infobox.
4) The YouTube video is an extension of the Europe Elects sources, in fact you can find the link in their source. Nothing in the rules forbid YouTube videos from getting used if fron reputable sources (prove me otherwise), which shows your lack of understanding of Wikipedia and/or bias.
5) I attempted a compromise by letting the anti-establishment in the infobox and THEN putting a "nominally: left wing" below it by using a source from Kathimerini (major and reputable Greek newspaper) which describes the party as NOMINALLY left wing , and then explains the party also holds nationalists view and right wing supporters, which in and of itself places it out of the Left-Right spectrum (again, smth mentioned much more in detail in the sovereignitism source from Jacobin which I used on the Ideology section)
All in all, your edits have not being justified in the slightest, have zero or barely any explanation, the little explanation given is too vague and doesn't even properly cover the majority of your blanket undoings, you show bias and lack of understanding of sourcing rules and abuse of the warning system.
Despite my harsh criticism, I will put back all info in the Ideology section and return all the unexplained-ly removed sources, but I will leave the info box as such in good faith so we can reach a consensus. I propose the "Anti-establishment" + "Nominally: Left wing" as a compromise that reflects both sides — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikosAstroul ( talk • contribs) 15:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC) -- NikosAstroul ( talk) 16:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Seconding that "anti-establishment", which is a meaningless term anyway, should not be under "Political position", and also noting that "legalism" shouldn't be under "Ideology" either, with a link only to a Wiktionary page that has nothing to do with political ideology per se and a citation from one very ideologically-motivated source using the word "legalism" to describe the party's leader in passing with no context for a broader meaning for the term in this context. Musiceasel ( talk) 18:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
What ideologies and poslitical position(s) should be placed in the infobox? Helper201 ( talk) 00:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
References
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ NikosAstroul ( talk) 15:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Vif12vf (Continuing our discussion from my talk page after being issued a warning of disruption, to my point of view abusively/excessively so, so the tone below will be argumentative) 1) All of the sources used on the infobox are also used in the ideology section and articulated further, which section (I pracically created and expanded the entirety of may I mention) you blanketly and disruptively removed with zero justification along with all new sources. So your argument is wrong. Even if you actually cared about the typicality of not including sources on infobox, you wouldn't undo the entirety of Ideology section, because if you actually paid attention to Wikipedia rules you would know that the infobox is supposed to be a "sum", so to speak, of info already in the article. So your argument on my talk page is not simply wrong, it's void.
2) Anti-establishment is described as "An anti-establishment view or belief is one which stands in opposition to the conventional social, political, and economic principles of a society" as per Wikipedia. Also as I have stated THRICE in my edit justification, the most reputable " Europe Elects" lists CoF as "anti-establishment" in its political orientation NOT Left-wing. If it wanted it to be listed as left-wing it would have had it as such (like other parties there are listed as left-wing) because there is a REASON for this. If you actually read the sources from Jacobin (magazine) you blanketly and with zero explanation removed, you would have known. Unless you are questioning the reputability of Europe Elects AND Jacobin. Are you?
3) If you actually cared about the typicality of what's put in the infobox, you would have provided a source to back up the claim the CoF belongs (solely) in the left wing of the spectrum, which not only you didn't, but you let the "left-wing" itself sitting unsourced in the infobox.
4) The YouTube video is an extension of the Europe Elects sources, in fact you can find the link in their source. Nothing in the rules forbid YouTube videos from getting used if fron reputable sources (prove me otherwise), which shows your lack of understanding of Wikipedia and/or bias.
5) I attempted a compromise by letting the anti-establishment in the infobox and THEN putting a "nominally: left wing" below it by using a source from Kathimerini (major and reputable Greek newspaper) which describes the party as NOMINALLY left wing , and then explains the party also holds nationalists view and right wing supporters, which in and of itself places it out of the Left-Right spectrum (again, smth mentioned much more in detail in the sovereignitism source from Jacobin which I used on the Ideology section)
All in all, your edits have not being justified in the slightest, have zero or barely any explanation, the little explanation given is too vague and doesn't even properly cover the majority of your blanket undoings, you show bias and lack of understanding of sourcing rules and abuse of the warning system.
Despite my harsh criticism, I will put back all info in the Ideology section and return all the unexplained-ly removed sources, but I will leave the info box as such in good faith so we can reach a consensus. I propose the "Anti-establishment" + "Nominally: Left wing" as a compromise that reflects both sides — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikosAstroul ( talk • contribs) 15:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC) -- NikosAstroul ( talk) 16:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Seconding that "anti-establishment", which is a meaningless term anyway, should not be under "Political position", and also noting that "legalism" shouldn't be under "Ideology" either, with a link only to a Wiktionary page that has nothing to do with political ideology per se and a citation from one very ideologically-motivated source using the word "legalism" to describe the party's leader in passing with no context for a broader meaning for the term in this context. Musiceasel ( talk) 18:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
What ideologies and poslitical position(s) should be placed in the infobox? Helper201 ( talk) 00:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
References