Talk:Amarillos por Chile

	Chile portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile 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.ChileWikipedia:WikiProject ChileTemplate:WikiProject ChileChile articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Politics

	Politics portal 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

No neutral

As explianed here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bedivere:_Insistence_on_using_spurious_sources_to_brand_political_party_"neoliberal"_and_"conservative", the is an abusive use of opinion pieces to peyoratively brand the party "neoliberal" and "conservative". Dentren | ^Talk 21:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Position

I've removed the position that was changed when the ideology word salad was removed. A non-primary source is a better option. Parties try to portray themselves in a certain light, their opponents try to portray them differently. A reliable third party source should be found to describe the parties politics and position. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Since the Spanish language article has the same issues, I propose the same I did there: some troublesome sources such as La Izquierda Diario could be used to describe the party in combination with other third party sources, in a section dedicated to the ideology. They should not really belong in the infobox. Bedivere (talk) 02:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion pieces like Bárbara Brito's one in La Izquierda Diario are completely partisan and should not be used to state more than what is her personal opinion, but I have dubts her opinion as former vice-president of a student federation is really of encyclopedic relevance at all. Dentren | ^Talk 23:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biased sources can be used if they are attributed, e.g. Bárbara Brito, in an article for La Izquierda Diario, described the party as... But they should be weighted by how reliable the source is, and how authoritative the writer is. From looking at La Izquierda Diario it obviously has a particular point of view, but it doesn't appear to be publishing "Bus on the moon!" stories. As to Bárbara Brito, it seems anyone with some knowledge of Chilean politics will be able to weigh her opinion appropriately. Maybe something such as Bárbara Brito, of the Revolutionary Workers Party, described the party as... would be more appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ActivelyDisinterested, question; is Chiletoday a primary source [1]? Not the best source, but primary? Dentren | ^Talk 07:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my eyes must have been failing me, it's not a primary source. I stand by it's removal though. There's obviously disagreement over the parties position, so a singular source gives a false sense of conformity. It is still best if this is written into a section bof the article were balance can be given to divergent opinions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]