User talk:Monito rapido

February 2024

Hello, I'm AntiDionysius. I noticed that you recently removed content from Peronism without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

what I did was not unexplained. This information is extremely controversial and is partly false. The user who added that did not even agree to its editing on the discussion page, he simply added it by force, first there has to be a debate, as the statutes of Wikipedia itself say, to then add information of that caliber. Bye Monito rapido (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Traditional Unionist Voice article

Hello, Monito rapido. I spotted your changes to the Infobox Political Position tag in this article. You added the far-right category alongside the existing Right-wing one. I've looked at the two sources you gave to support this modification, viz. [1] and [2]. The latter source makes no mention of the Traditional Unionist Voice party other than to label them "hard right" while the former source is from the French newspaper le Monde and is a subscription-only article of which I can only read the first couple of paragraphs and they don't mention the Traditional Unionist Voice party at all. So, I've reverted your edits because I can't see how the sources justify the modification you made. As always, if you think the edit should stand, then let's follow the conventional WP:BRD process and open a thread on the talk page for the Traditional Unionist Voice article. Regards. BrownBowler (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

But hard-right is a synonym of far-right. It is the same. Monito rapido (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, again, Monito rapido. I see you've re-instated your edit. Would you please adhere to the expected WP:BRD etiquette when debating the validity of edits?

I can't accept that you have provided an acceptable source to justify your edit.

There are some basic principles which Wikipedia insist are followed by editors. One of them is that "sources quoted must be reliable sources" and another is that "an opinion must not be quoted as a fact".

The source you quote is an Opinion piece in an Irish online paper called "The Journal". The title if the piece is: "Opinion The DUP in this election began to look like the lost tribe of the British Empire".

Also. the source you quote is an opinion on the Democratic Unionist Party, its subject is not the Traditional Unionist Voice Party which is mentioned only in passing.

So, for the following reasons, I would like to revert your edit:

Firstly, this is an opinion piece (by an Irish comedian and writer called Peter Flanagan). It's presented as an opinion, not as a fact.

Please see Avoid stating opinions as facts

Secondly, editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. The subject at hand in this instance is the Traditional Unionist Voice party and that is not the subject of the source you gave. The Traditional Unionist Voice is mentioned only once, in passing, in the source and the writer gives no evidence to back up his assertion that they're "hard right". Again, it's his opinion, that's all.

Please see Editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

So, if you wish to take this debate further, please create a thread in the Talk page for the Traditional Unionist Voice article and invite me to join via my Talk page (as per WP:BRD etiquette. Then we can debate whether they are far-right or not, based on evidence and fact, not on opinion or preference.

BrownBowler (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The Le Monde reference is not an opinion article, but rather it mentions that the party is hard-right. It is not necessary for the source to explain in detail what they want to assign to the party. If the source says what is assigned, that's it, even if it explains it more or less, the information is there. Monito rapido (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, again, Monito rapido.

As I mentioned in my first reply to you, the Le Monde article requires payment of a subscription to read it, so I've no idea whether the article mentions the Traditional Unionist Voice party or not. What exactly does it say? Please quote exactly what the article says about the Traditional Unionist Voice. BrownBowler (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Here is an analysis of the European extreme right that tells the extreme right party:

https://www.academia.edu/39513010/The_European_and_Russian_Far_Right_as_Political_Actors_Comparative_Approach Monito rapido (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, again, Monito rapido. I see you've re-instated your edit again, this time replacing the Journal.ie source with a source which is an academic paper.

I note that you've again ignored my request to follow the preferred Wikipedia procedure of a Wikipedia Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. Is there a reason why you prefer to simply edit the page directly without discussing your reasoning first? I note that you have been through the same exercise on the Reform UK talk page for instance, so you are clearly aware of the procedure.

I will set up a thread for this discussion on the Talk page for the Traditional Unionist Voice article. Please respect the rules and bear in mind the following guidelines in WP:BRD: "Discuss your bold edit with the person who reverted you. To follow BRD specifically, instead of one of the many alternatives, you must not restore your bold edit, make a different edit to this part of the page, engage in back-and-forth reverting, or start any of the larger dispute resolution processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement."

As regards this new source you provided: I note that one has to be signed up to www.academia.eu in order to read it. Can you reproduce for me, in the Talk page please, the part of the paper which suggests that the Traditional Unionist Voice is a "far-right" party? And can you give me the names of some other parties in Europe which it alleges are "far right"? BrownBowler (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The article provides a list of far-right organizations. Copy as much of the box as you can and I'll show it to you. Organization Germany - Alternative for Germany (Alternative für Deutschland, AfD) - National Democratic Party of Germany (Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands, NPD) - The Blue Party (Die blaue Partei) France - National Rally (before National Front) / Marine Blue Gathering/ Rassemblement national/ Rassemblement bleu Marine, RBM) - France Arise (Debout la France, DLF) - Jeanne Committees (Jean-Marie Le Pen) Great Britain -The UK Independence Party (UKIP) - Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV) - The Brexit Party Netherlands - Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid, PVV) - Forum for Democracy (Forum voor Democratie, FvD) Belgium - Flemish Interest (Vlaams Belang, VB) - National Democratie (Démocratie Nationale) - Parti communautaire national-europeen (PCN) Italy - Northern League/Northern League for the Independence of Padania (Lega Nord, Lega Nord for the Independence of Padania - Brothers of Italy (Fratelli d'Italia, FdI) - Italy for the Italians (Italia agli Italiani, IaI) Austria - Freedom Party of Austria (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs, FPÖ) - Alliance for the Future of Austria (Bündnis Zukunft Österreich; BZÖ) Sweden - Sweden Democrats / Swedish Democrats (Swedish: Sverigedemokraterna, SD) - Alternative for Sweden (Alternativ för Sverige) - Citizens' Coalition (Medborgerlig Samling / Borgerlig Framtid)

It gave more parties but, i haven't copied it yet. Monito rapido (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Monito rapido, thank you. I've now started a thread on the Talk page of the Traditional Unionist Voice article Political Position. Please use this for discussion in future before making edits to the article - the same as you have been doing for Reform UK. In accordance with WP:BRD rules, I am going to revert your edit while we discuss the question. Hopefully, you will co-operate in the spirit intended by the guidelines.BrownBowler (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)