Talk:National Party of Honduras

This article is not neutral

The national Party has been Envolve in Cases Of corruption like teh IHSS and as well Tiburcio Carias was not a president was a dictator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.92.33.243 (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Political position

The political position of the National Party can be defined as centre-right to far-right as consensu has already been reached in the Spanish version of the article by Hondurans with the backing of news articles and a book authored by Honduran academics Efraín Silva and Óscar Acosta called "Las ideas políticas en Honduras:tránsito del siglo XX als XXI" (Political ideas in Honduras: transit from the 20th Century to the 21st) which states on page 397: Es: "Si se tiene en cuenta las desviaciones típicas respecto a la media, el PNH ocupa en el espectro ideológico las posiciones desde 6 a 9,4, esto es, desde un centro-derecha moderadamente cercano al centro hasta la extrema derecha" En: "If you account for the standard deviation from the mean, the PNH falls into de the positions from 6 to 9,4of the ideological spectrum, this is, from a centre-right moderately close to the centre to the far-right."

TheKeeperOfBooks (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)TheKeeperOfBooks

• @TheKeeperOfBooks:, I am happy to resolve any issues on the talk page. Let's start. Consesus on Spanish Wikipedia does not mean consesus here, English Wikipedia is independent of any other Wikipedia, which you seem to have ignored in your comment here. You clearly are bold to say I don't know the topics, which in fact is against WP:GOODFAITH, and especially when your account is new to wikipedia. However I do assume WP:GOODFAITH for you before I will take this to an ANI. So before taking it to an ANI, you will get an explanation of why you are being reverted and how policies work. Your changes do not have an WP:CON, which are neccessary in changing verified content. You are changing and removing a position that is backed up by WP:RS, and that is not allowed. Al Jazzera, AFP describe it as right-wing, which per WP:RSP, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Agence France-Presse and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Al Jazeera counts as fully reliable sources. For the other end, BBC and Reuters describe it as centre-right which as per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#BBC and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Reuters count as fully reliable sources. And finally the Congressional Research Service which counts as reliable describing it as centre-right.CRS report As stated, these sources are per Wikipedia policy WP:RS. Your changes for one, comes from a Spanish book made in 2009 in Spanish, which is considered WP:OLD per the party leaders being different and the other sources being much newer. Secondly, as it is already backed up by WP:RS, per WP:NOENG "However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they're available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page," makes the English sources prioritized. For your second source, ExpedientePublico counts as a WP:OR "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist", not being backed up by any WP:RS or WP:RSP. Per, WP:RSP "Consider also the weight of the claims you are supporting, which should be evaluated alongside the reliability of the sources cited.", removing reliable sources without a consesus in a dispute is considered edit warring. Your other edit was also WP:SYNTH as none of the WP:RS sources ever mentioned factions, this again shows a WP:POV pushing. In conclusion, removing several WP:RS sources to add in your sources without an established consesus and which are not considered WP:RS, will lead to an revert, starting an edit dispute and after I clearly explained the revert to you, you make the comment "about topics of which you are clearly not informed" which violates the Wikipedia:The No Asshole Rule, per, "Whenever approaching an AFD or discussion, don't be an asshole! An asshole is defined in Wiktionary as "A jerk; an inappropriately or objectionably mean, inconsiderate, contemptible, obnoxious, intrusive, or rude person". Ring a bell? Consider that other editors have taken the time to write the article or have bothered to start it and that other editors may have a different opinion than you do. If you do not show that you believe the other editors' are acting in good faith then you considerably increase the chances that the individual may result in calling you an "asshole" for your belligerent, inconsiderate approach and refusal to discuss an article or situation amicably. So, if no WP:RS can be presented, and the dispute you just started cannot be resolved, it will be taken to ANI due to the policies being broken here. Per WP:DR, the editor making any changes which are disputed are should not revert back to their edits, but continue to explain themselves, which you did not do. BastianMAT (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• @BastianMAT:, First "Consesus on Spanish Wikipedia does not mean consesus here, English Wikipedia is independent of any other Wikipedia, which you seem to have ignored in your comment here". Okay, I can concede that. I find it impractical, and ilogical since it's people from my country talking about my country, but I can abide. Second of all, "You clearly are bold to say I don't know the topics, which in fact is against WP:GOODFAITH, and especially when your account is new to wikipedia." I don't have a reason to believe you do. For example, in the article about Congress, you continously placed a governing party under the section of "opposition" for no reason despite there being a source that mentioned it being in government (all in parliamentary context). Also, the age of my account has nothing to do with my knowledge about the topics, like you seem to be implying. Bold of you to assume I don't know topics or follow news from my own country. I find it funny that you're accusing me of violating WP:GOODFAITH while calling me an asshole, too, but we'll get to that later. "Al Jazzera, AFP describe it as right-wing, which per WP:RSP, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Agence France-Presse and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Al Jazeera counts as fully reliable sources. For the other end, BBC and Reuters describe it as centre-right which as per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#BBC and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Reuters count as fully reliable sources." These are not necessarily wrong. A position ranging from centre-right to far-right spans right-wing, correct? And you'll agree that openly militaristic, neoliberal, anticommunist, anti-femminist and anti-LGBT positions are proper of the far-right. "'A jerk; an inappropriately or objectionably mean, inconsiderate, contemptible, OBNOXIOUS, INTRUSIVE, or rude person'. Ring a bell?" Sounds like a certain condescending user I've engaged recently. I try not to be an asshole, but this certain user actually gets on my nerves, making "contributions" that can be inaccurate just because they follow the rules. I understand your position, but the inconsistency in the policies you're trying to implement can be detrimental to the presentation of correct information (as per the example I gave earlier). You can revert the edit if you want, but it'll still be inaccurate. "as none of the WP:RS sources ever mentioned factions, this again shows a WP:POV pushing" This was a genuine mistake I made. TheKeeperOfBooks (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)TheKeeperOfBooks
  • @TheKeeperOfBooks:, alright, remember just as the edits on congress, it always works to talk it out, sometimes we all do mistakes and that is okay, even for me or you, I am certain that you just want to contribute and do your best. I don’t really mind most of the mistakes and I as I previously mentioned, talking it out is better and finding a dispute resolution is better than going to ANI however as per policies, a WP:RS backed up content should not be removed nor changed without a WP:CON and that is why I am going to revert your edit this time around. As previously mentioned these sources have priority being in English, are fully reliable and are also newer, even if you might consider them inaccurate, you have to note that what counts as reliable here describes it like that. WP:INFOBOX also requests that we keep it close, two positions that are far away are not to be used. So as per the WP:INFOBOX and WP:RS the current position is fine. Maybe we got off to a bad start, but follow the policies, if there is a dispute with any editor just explain politely on the article talk page and there surely won’t be a problem! Have a great day! BastianMAT (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)