Talk:Freedom Party of Austria

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Freedom Party of Austria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100123091742/http://www.datum.at:80/0406/stories/2091680 to http://www.datum.at/0406/stories/2091680
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111204070753/http://www.spiegel.de/lexikon/54367744.html to http://www.spiegel.de/lexikon/54367744.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Freedom Party of Austria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100123091742/http://www.datum.at:80/0406/stories/2091680 to http://www.datum.at/0406/stories/2091680
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Freedom Party of Austria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1542552,00.html
*Added archive {newarchive} to http://ca.news.yahoo.com/leader-austrian-far-wants-meet-members-us-tea.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Freedom Party of Austria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150815124824/http://orf.at/stories/2254885/2254886/ to http://orf.at/stories/2254885/2254886/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think "populist" should be replaced by "nationalist" or "nativist".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.154.204.109 (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Freedom Party of Austria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110707191431/http://austrianindependent.com/news/Politics/2010-08-24/4297/Minaret_debate_continues_as_Vienna_vote_approaches to http://austrianindependent.com/news/Politics/2010-08-24/4297/Minaret_debate_continues_as_Vienna_vote_approaches
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The info box statement "German nationalism" is sourced with the socialist Anton Pelinka, thus not being a neutral source. Plus it's outdated and describes Haider's FPÖ. I removed it and placed a citation needed instead. Either this or you delete "German nationalism" completely. Currently it's unsourced from a NeuPOV. -- 212.186.7.98 (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pelinka Source 

message: This collocation of terms has been used quite a lot according to another discussion I've been having at AFD. The rationale behind it are that since we can find some sources which say that a subject is far right and others which say right wing, that we can combine them and make a term which reflects the application of both terms.
This is synthesis. The problem is the word "to". In almost no cases where the term right wing to far right is employed on Wikipedia, is this term coupling backed by a source which specifically uses this phrase in a description of the party's position on the political spectrum. The word "to" implies that the specific position lies between points A (Right wing) and B (Far right). In cases where this has not been established by sources, we need to review the use of this terminology to ensure clarity for our readers and accuracy in adhering to source texts.
With this in mind, what would be the best term to use to describe this party in both the info box and the body of the article when referring to sources which describe their position on the political spectrum? 
Edaham (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't all far right parties also right wing? Why don't we just list both, drop the "to" and just have the separate citations after the respective terms? BananaCarrot152 (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because it's a description on a scale of a political party's relative position. The FPÖ contains both right-wing and far-right elements, and both are already substantially sourced. Mélencron (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic, I’ve been having terrible trouble finding a source which gives such a description of a “relative scale”. Could you post one here and then I won’t have to edit the article, which currently appears to contain synthesis. Edaham (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoting from WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Articles in academic journals and published books tend to describe the party as "right-wing" more often than they describe it as "far-right", whereas news sources give a slight edge to "far-right", but far from a disproportionate one. This has been established practice on Wikipedia for... well, years, and it's not a problematic one within any reading of policy. The omission of either term is more POV than to include both. Mélencron (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: cheers,  but that’s not a source. Will open an RfC. Look forward to seeing all your friends again here. Have a great day. Edaham (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think I'm supposed to do, give you a list of thousands of sources? To open another RfC on the exact same topic because you object to right-wing populist parties being described as "right-wing" in some sources is just WP:POINTy to the extreme. I also don't take kindly to your pointed sarcasm. Mélencron (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m not really into politics. I’m into Wikipedia. I’m opposed to synth. Are you supposed to list sources in Wikipedia to back up terms? Is that your question? The answer’s yes. You don’t have to find thousands though. You just have to find one, which says that this group is, “right-wing to far-right”. Otherwise it just looks like a party supporter has come along and muddied the term far right because they don’t want their beloved brethern to be beholden to reliable sources which say that they lie on an extreme end of a political scale. Many thanks and have ‘’another’’ truly lovely day. Edaham (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already quoted WP:UNDUE above, which states that articles should "represent all significant viewpoints ... in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". To omit either term or arbitrarily select either term would clearly be inappropriate (which reliable sources? FPÖ's traditionally classified as a right-wing/national-conservative party in academic sources, whereas English-language news sources are somewhat more likely to use the term "far-right"). Also, for someone claims they're "not really into politics", you seem to spend an awful lot of time on talk pages (only 21% of your edits on Wikipedia are within the mainspace/to articles!) arguing about far-right/alt-right topics in the news – it's probably a better use of your time to spend more time actually writing than to spend so much of your time arguing on talk pages. Mélencron (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably best to stick to commenting on editorial content than how I spend my personal time isn't it? So the take home point from this discussion is that one extremely concerned editor thinks that if enough different sources say two different things then it's OK to combine those two sources to make one term? I don't see eye to eye on that I'm afraid, but fortunately Wikipedia has several resources through which this can be mediated. Edaham (talk) 03:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right-wing to far-right 

message: As I believe the ideology parametre is bloat, I believe it should be slimmed down to the following:
*National conservatism
*Right-wing populism
*Euroscepticism
ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there :) I strongly agree with every you just said. However, I think most users prefer to keep it on various political pages. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Along with User:Autospark, I would restrict the ideologies in the infobox to two: "national conservatism" and "right-wing populism". As I have been arguing virtually everywhere, "Euroscepticism" and "pro-Europeanism" are policies, not ideologies, thus they should never be mentioned in infoboxes. --Checco (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections to this. Vacant0 (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, know this. If you ever look for support for "Euroscepticism" to be removed, just say that I support it and if they ask me, personally, if I do, I'll tell them that I do :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology Bloat 

message: can you add anti-immigration, social conservatism and welfare chauvinism to the party's ideologies, please. I got two sources confirming the latter.
Makers against takers : the socio-economic ideology and policy of the Austrian Freedom Party (uni-konstanz.de)
Wayback Machine (archive.org) 97.97.98.76 (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The Infobox is meant to be a summary, not an exhaustive essay in itself. The article body is more elaboration and detail. Two current-day ideologies is more than enough for any Infobox. Also, anti-immigration, social conservatism and welfare chauvinism are basically components of the broad ideologies already listed in the Infobox.— Autospark (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I understand. I compeletely agree with you Autospark because we want it simple even there is simple wikipedia on infobox. It would make senses on ideology. Don't you want random people advertising getting close to you just to ask you to buy something? 97.97.98.76 (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Ideologies while keeping the historical one.