User talk:Autospark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Social liberal policies[edit]

Thank you for your "thank you" and your recent improvements to many articles that I saw. You seem knowledgable of the subject matter and I was hoping to ask a question. Currently in the infobox for Labor Party (Israel), the party's ideology includes "social democracy" (with which it identifies) as well as Third Way. I have not been able to find a source verifying the latter ideology explicitly. I have, however, found the recently added source that indicates the party's socialism has evolved into "a political program that supports a capitalist economy with strong social welfare programs." Would this mean Third Way or social liberalism? Also, I found this source, that says, "While it retains membership in the Socialist International, it has a social liberal platform." What are your thoughts? --Precision123 (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't categorise the Israeli Labour Party as social-liberal, to be honest. While Third Way type social democracy and social liberalism are very alike and overlap, the Israeli Labour Party's history is that of a social-democratic party rather than a liberal party, as are its international affiliations.--Autospark (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

UK Independence Party[edit]

Please see the discussion at Talk:UK Independence Party#Request for comment about whether academic sources describing the UK Independence Party as far-right are reliable. LordFixit (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Autonomy Liberty Participation Ecology[edit]

Why you have moved Autonomy Freedom Participation Ecology to Autonomy Liberty Participation Ecology? Consensus or not consensus Freedom is is a more appropriate term than Liberty!--Maremmano (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think? I think it's not and, anyway, before moving established articles, you should bring the issue to talks. --Checco (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Do you not reply? Alle the parties with the term "Libertà" have been translated with the term "Freedom" (PdL, SEL etc.). Why this case should be an exception?--Maremmano (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The French word Liberté translates into Liberty accurately enough, there is no consensus to change the article names, which itself would disrupt Wikipedia (many redirects, etc), and I see no pressing need to rename the articles at this time. If Autonomy Freedom Participation Ecology and Autonomy Freedom Democracy are or become widely-used English language translations of the organisation names in third-party sources then there would be a argument that we should alter the article names on Wikipedia, but that would require agreed consensus first.--Autospark (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The french word "Liberté" also translates into "Libertà" and this word has always been translated into "Freedom". This is a question of consistency, some parties are named with Liberty and others parties are named with Freedom! If a page of a party is created with a name, this name becomes immovable?--Maremmano (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
If you don't participate in the discussion I'll can remove te pages--Maremmano (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I've concluded what I have to say - and have no more on the subject - altering names of articles should not be done unilaterally without consensus.--Autospark (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference that cites Wikipedia as a source.[edit]

Hello Autospark,

I have seen that you have cited this page (Jeff Haynes; Anja Hennig (3 July 2013). Religious Actors in the Public Sphere: Means, Objectives, and Effects. Routledge. pp. 17–. ISBN 978-1-136-66171-6. ) in several articles. However it is problematic, because it cites Wikipedia as its source! For understandable reasons, sources that use Wikipedia as a source are not considered reliable. Otherwise we could directly cite Wikipedia articles as a source, as well. In my opinion, it would be best to remove these references. Do you agree?

Kind regards, --RJFF (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I really hadn't noticed… Best remove it then for sake of accuracy.--Autospark (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I have a question about your citation style: You often write "pp. xx–" (i.e. "page xx and the following pages") instead of just "p. xx" (i.e. "only at page xx") when the statement you are referring to is actually only on one page. If I read "pp. xx–", I expect to find further relevant information on the following pages, but sometimes there is not any. I wonder if this is an accident, or if I just read your abbreviations incorrectly? --RJFF (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No answer? --RJFF (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Please compare Template:Cite book: use "page" if the number of a single page in the source that supports the content, use "pages" if a range of pages in the source that supports the content. Thank you. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow reply RJFF! Thanks for the tip. I admit that I use the auto-citation tool a bit too heavily.--Autospark (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand. No offense! --RJFF (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
None taken!--Autospark (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)