This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Basque, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Basque Country, Basque people, Basque language, history and culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BasqueWikipedia:WikiProject BasqueTemplate:WikiProject BasqueBasque articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Helper201 you should stop making these edits without any kind of consensus, because some of these relies on information that may not be correct. Your latest edit says "Please do not re-add this. We should not be adding what are stated to be factions on the respective party's page". Did you know that this "factions" tag on EH Bildu's ideology infobox seems to have been added unilaterally, without any consensus and without any source in May 2021? This also comes into conflict with your earlier edit that "Just because something is cited on the mother party's page does not necessarily mean the regionally connect party is the same. That falls under WP:SYNTH" (so, we don't accept the sourced ideologies of a mother party's page, but we do accept the unsourced claims added by an IP on another page?). That's right, so please elaborate on how a coalition with the same parties and with the same name (just using a different translation) in a regional scale has a different ideology, o provide a source for it.
One of the issues here is that there are lots of political party articles and it's sometimes difficult to keep control of all of them. Ideologies may have been added on election articles (in some cases, these have been in place for nearly a decade) and then some random user may have chosen to change them in the party's article later on, without any consensus or even sourcing. What you are doing, Helper201, is to basically use whatever ideology you see fit from the infobox of that political party, without accounting for the article's history nor seeking any consensus or advice, which means you are basically risking edit warring because you seem focused on adding potentially incorrect information, just on the basis than that's what currently appears on the political party's article infobox. Well, it seems obvious from EH Bildu case that you (and we) have been trolled by some IP users. You need to be able to identify these issues before conducting such wild edits. Thank you. Impru20talk06:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Impru20, with respect you seem to have been adding ideologies without either sources or consensus. I'm trying to in good faith keep to what is most likely to be most accurate. If what you say is true then yes, there is going to be some pitfalls in this method. However, that does not mean replacing ideologies with your own original research. If you see an issue with a certain ideology not being cited either on the respective page or its main page, then sure, remove it, but don't then go and replace it with your own research or something not otherwise cited for that specific party. I'm at no point saying that unsourced ideology claims by anyone are correct or should be retained, I was not aware of that case you mention. Regional variants of parties can differentiate from the mother party, but I have no need to argue for that, as whether you agree with that case or not it still violates WP:SYNTH to say "X is the same as Y", so to speak. In no way are these "wild" edits. I've explained my method and, like I say, if you see anything not cited here or on the party's main page, feel free to remove it, just don't go about replacing it with something else that is also uncited. That's all I ask. Helper201 (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Helper201 With respect to you: for years, I've only added ideologies that were in the party's infoboxes, with a set of criteria (based on a principle of minimal intervention) because of spacing issues: 1) That these were general and descriptive of the party's ideology (i.e. more specific ideologies, such as "Feminism", "Anti-racism/Anti-islamism", etc. were left out, just as very generic ones (such as "Progressivism"), unless there were no other ones); 2) That these were noteworthy for the party in question in the specific election ("Catalan/Basque nationalisms" are relevant for general/regional elections in Spain, as those defend a different national view than the one of the currently-established state; "Spanish nationalism", in the sense that it pertains to the already-established state, is redundant, unless the party does make such nationalism a key component of its ideology (i.e. Vox), in which case we have more descriptive articles covering such ideologies (ultranationalism)). It is not my fault that, in those years, some (mostly IP) users have jumped in and changed those articles' ideologies at leisure (some times with edit-warring involved), most of the times without any source or consensus. So, when you say that if you see anything not cited here or on the party's main page, feel free to remove it, just don't go about replacing it with something else that is also uncited, then that's a critic view of those users unilaterally adding their own original research to those articles. For some reason that I cannot comprehend, you blame me for that (this means you have not cared a little to check those article's historials to see that, indeed, most of the uncited material as been re-added by some random IP user that just felt like that at some point of time).
Secondly, you should learn what a reliable source is. Not all sources are valid to source a party's ideology (i.e. an opinion piece in a media outlet is typically not considered as reliable enough to back a party's ideology. Otherwise, we should probably list Vox as fascist and Podemos as chavist, as you can indeed find sources on the Internet backing up these. Ah, but these must be reliable).
If you see an issue with a certain ideology not being cited either on the respective page or its main page, then sure, remove it, but don't then go and replace it with your own research or something not otherwise cited for that specific party. Please, elaborate on where have I added original research. This is a very serious accusation.
I should also warn you that this edit can be considered as disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. You yourself acknowledge in your edit summary that EH Bildu is a left-wing nationalist/abertzale left party, which is cited elsewhere in the article, and it's also cited in those articles themselves, with Bildu being put as an example of those ideologies (not only that, but those are very obvious facts that can be properly sourced with enough research time, something that you probably know), yet you removed those from the infobox because they were not cited in the infobox, which is absurd (curiously enough, you did not remove Basque independence, which is also uncited in the infobox). I please ask you to not engage in such disruption again to attempt to illustrate a point in a separate discussion. Thank you. Impru20talk10:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Impru20, look I don't want this to turn into a blame game. Yes, the IPs adding uncited stuff it wrong. I think you are being unfair here and are not assuming good faith. I didn't remove uncited claims from Eh Bildu to "disrupt" or "make a point" I did it because it was uncited and thus original research, simple as that. This whole thing might just require a dispute resolution as I'm finding this tiring and never expected such a prolonged back and forth over what I thought we'd be able to amicably and simply clear up between us as fellow editors.
In regards to ideologies added I found plenty of claims on Next Spanish general election which certain parties had ideologies listed that were not cited on their respective pages. I'm pretty sure you were the one to add these and you do dominate the editing on that page. You seem very condescending saying "you should learn what a reliable source is", obviously I'm aware of what reliable sources are and there's nothing here to suggest I'm not. I never said all sources were valid or was trying to justify the validation of any sources at all. I get the point that more detailed checks of what is stated on parties’ own respective pages are needed now before adding them to other pages. All I'm saying is poor sourcing or uncited information is not justification for replacing that with something uncited or what is stated on another languages Wikipedia page, which have different rules than the English language Wikipedia. But again, I didn't come here to criticise you, I came here to try and sort this, not start a fire. I wanted to highlight what's wrong (adding uncited claims, by anyone) and keeping to what is cited. I honestly don't want to go through this much more. I've seen your points regarding checking respective party pages more closely and I respect that point. Helper201 (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no I didn’t acknowledge it’s a left-wing nationalist/abertzale left party. I said these ideologies are mentioned in the main text, but that they are not cited as an ideology of the party. Just because something is in the main text doesn't mean its automatically a party ideology. That clearly falls under WP:SYNTH. A mention of something in the main text says nothing to whether or not a party has that as a political ideology or not. Helper201 (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have always added ideologies that were cited/sourced (or that could be sourced) in the parties' articles. For a second time, it is not my fault that these were vandalized or changed throughout time without any discussion or consensus. You keep accusing me of conducting original research, when what I have done is precisely to keep consistency over a lot of years with the ideology issue based on sources -either present or obtainable- (I however acknowledge my fault in that I may not have kept a proper eye on the parties' articles to check whether their infoboxes were correctly maintained throughout time. Obviously, election articles were kept consistency as opposed to some party articles which were changed. My watchlist is very large, what else can I say).
(...) or what is stated on another languages Wikipedia page, which have different rules than the English language Wikipedia. As a side note here that you will surely agree with me on: a party does not have a different ideology depending on the Wikipedia project it is listed, since Wikipedia rules does not affect this issue. If it is shown to have, then one of the projects may actually be wrong. Impru20talk11:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"For a second time, it is not my fault that these were vandalized or changed throughout time without any discussion or consensus." I never said this was your fault. Its not.
"As a side note here that you will surely agree with me on: a party does not have a different ideology depending on the Wikipedia project it is listed, since Wikipedia rules does not affect this issue." Obviously, that's true. There are other potential issues though. Like the sources deemed acceptable on other language Wikipedia's may not be deemed acceptable on the English language version. Also, sources from other languages are going to present accessibility issues for a lot of people reading the English language Wikipedia to verify etc. It just has potential issues, that's all. I'm also yet to see a general Wikipedia wide consensus on transferring stuff from one language Wikipedia page to another. Helper201 (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
