Talk:Progress Party's Youth

I think this stub needs to be a little more neutral. I consider, for example, the statement "The progress-party's youth organization is clearly more liberal than the progress-party itself is." to be an opinion more than it is a fact. The problem is, I don't know who states this opinion, so its difficult to make it neutral by attributing the opinion to someone. I suggest that someone with the needed knowlegde does something about this. Vrangforestillinger 17:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the current wording is unencyclopediatic. It needs to be backed up by a reference. --Soman 11:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have now backed up the claims that the youth party is more liberal with references to its manifest. I have thus removed the POV notice. PelsJakob 16:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Breivik notability

(NPOV disclaimer: I'm not; I was on Utøya that day.) To me, there are a few reasons why Breivik should be included under "Notable Members"

1. The Progress Party is the major political exponent in Norway of islamophobia, and that was his stated motivation.
2. The Progress Party refers to Labour as "backstabbers" (in formulations ominously close to Dolchstoss), "traitors" and "cultural quislings".
3. He had been voted into positions of power in the organization.
4. His active participation in the FpU web forum, which provide an insight into his radicalization throughout his membership period.

These indisputable facts are politically inconvenient for the Progress Party, but Wikipedia, like the free press, is not bound by their party line. toresbe (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

totally agree.-- mustihussain (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Disagree and cite WP:BLP. The relevance is to Breivik, not to every organization he may have been a member of. Thatsort of material is not encyclopedic in the least here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I could not find any text relevant to this case in the above link. I'm not arguing for putting him as "notable" in every organization he "may have been" a member of. I refer you to the above text where I argue my case. -- toresbe (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Your "indisputable facts" aren;t. Wikipedia requires solid reliable sourcing, not what any editor asserts are "ndisputable facts." Kindly remove the Breivik material as I fear that the "edit war" is on your side. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Please point out any errors to me in these four claims if you can find them. The first claim is self-evidently correct. The third and fourth have been thoroughly sourced in the article. this blog entry from a board member of Oslo FrP includes some of the underlying stuff for the second claim. toresbe (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Um -- do you really think blogs are reliable sources in BLP affected articles? As near as I can tell, this was, and is, COATRACK and is not particularly related to Breivik. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a reliable source in this talk page, for backing up my claim that FrP had been using this rhretoric. I would not use it in the article (it wouldn't make any sense to link that in anyway). Kent Andersen is on the board of Oslo FrP, and the leader of OFrP has been saying many of the same things. - toresbe (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

the link between frp and breivik is being debated among politicians, terror experts and others. it is having repercussions both on frp and its youth wing. this should also be included in the article.-- mustihussain (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope. If and only if Breivik has a real and substantial connection to the article ought he be in it. He is already mentioned in dozens of articles on Wikipedia, so it is not a matter of "censorship" by a few miles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

His connection is IMO strong enough for "Notable persons". -- toresbe (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

And per discussions on WP:BLP/N, Breivik has been improperly COATRACKed into manyother articles which arenot strongly connected to him. It is not his "notability" which is at issue - it is whether the material is sufficiently strongly related to this article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've used "notable" imprecisely. I used it to mean whether the link was notable enough to merit inclusion in this article. And that is what I believe I have argued above. I believe that linking Breivik to Mette-Marit might be coatracking, but this most certainly isn't. - toresbe (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - the case is extremely weak to tar the Progress Party with Breivik's acts which were proerly condemned by that party. The only real use of listing him as a "notable member" (indeed the only "notable member"!) is to connect that party with something it condemned, which is the very definition of COATRACK <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

IMO, the fact that the rest of the article is in terrible shape does not justify an omission. If the single paragraph takes too much of the space, then others with a more favorable view of FpU than mine should take it upon themselves to address this. The man was a party member, although he did not act on behalf of, or in accordance with, FrP management. Wikipedia are not subject to FrPs publicity management. Refusing to obey their party line is not oppression or slander. -- toresbe (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with User:Collect.Does any reliable source describe him as a notable party member?--Shrike (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. They are cited in the paragraph itself. He was the leader of a local ward, a member of the board for a number of years, and participated extensively in their web forums, a participation which is now used by the media and police to attempt to chart his development. -- toresbe (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question does words "notable member" are used becouse I didn't find it.If they not used it would constitute WP:OR.--Shrike (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you actually claiming that unless a Wiki-approved reliable source literally describes him with those exact words as a "notable member", he is not notable – and claiming he is notable is therefore OR? I'm sorry. I can't agree with that. He was voted into not-insignificant positions of power in the organization and he is a very notable individual. Omitting him as a member from the article of this islamophobic organization in Norway is whitewashing an inconvenience. -- toresbe (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

His party affiliation is actually notable for his own bio but he is not notable for being a member of this party simply put.TMCk (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

(od) If and only iff all members who had equal ranks get put in this article would this remotely avoid COATRACK - just attaching a despicable person to a group which is not despicable is improper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not FpU is despicable is NPOV. I'd disagree with your claim that they're not. I agree that the point plays a disproportionate role in the article, but that does not make it less appropriate. If you can find any notable members who aren't ABB, or if we can come up with some better way of mentioning this which is IMO entirely relevant to, but not defining of, an encyclopedic covering of FpU, I'd be all for that. :) -- toresbe (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Calling a person a "notable member" when one is not listing any other members at all is POV in and of itself. Breivik's BLP should contain that which relates to that person directly. This article should contain material which relates to this article directly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Then someone else should list the other notable members; it's not my fault that Breivik is what is bringing an international attention to FpU which previously was near-totally absent. I have no interest in making FpU look good; someone else with such inclinations can take care of that. I agree that the form of the mention or link might be changed, and that the article might be too brief, but I cannot support an omission of the Breivik link from the FpU page - which would taste heavily of white-washing an inconvenience. He was a member, an active social and political participant in the organization - and he was voted in by other members. This is where the difference between FrP and FpU lies: ABB actually was voted into political positions within the organization. -- toresbe (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

agree. in addition, the connection between the anti-islamic rhetoric of frp/fpu and the actions of breivik is being widely discussed by media, experts and politicians, both domestic and foreign [1]. this criticism cannot be swept under the carpet. -- mustihussain (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Breivik did not notably influence FpU. -- Heptor _talk 19:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)