Talk:Course of Freedom

Greece Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Social and political Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy

Anti-establishment as political position and the expansion of the Ideology section

@ NikosAstroul (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vif12vf (Continuing our discussion from my talk page after being issued a warning of disruption, to my point of view abusively/excessively so, so the tone below will be argumentative) 1) All of the sources used on the infobox are also used in the ideology section and articulated further, which section (I pracically created and expanded the entirety of may I mention) you blanketly and disruptively removed with zero justification along with all new sources. So your argument is wrong. Even if you actually cared about the typicality of not including sources on infobox, you wouldn't undo the entirety of Ideology section, because if you actually paid attention to Wikipedia rules you would know that the infobox is supposed to be a "sum", so to speak, of info already in the article. So your argument on my talk page is not simply wrong, it's void.

2) Anti-establishment is described as "An anti-establishment view or belief is one which stands in opposition to the conventional social, political, and economic principles of a society" as per Wikipedia. Also as I have stated THRICE in my edit justification, the most reputable "Europe Elects" lists CoF as "anti-establishment" in its political orientation NOT Left-wing. If it wanted it to be listed as left-wing it would have had it as such (like other parties there are listed as left-wing) because there is a REASON for this. If you actually read the sources from Jacobin (magazine) you blanketly and with zero explanation removed, you would have known. Unless you are questioning the reputability of Europe Elects AND Jacobin. Are you?

3) If you actually cared about the typicality of what's put in the infobox, you would have provided a source to back up the claim the CoF belongs (solely) in the left wing of the spectrum, which not only you didn't, but you let the "left-wing" itself sitting unsourced in the infobox.

4) The YouTube video is an extension of the Europe Elects sources, in fact you can find the link in their source. Nothing in the rules forbid YouTube videos from getting used if fron reputable sources (prove me otherwise), which shows your lack of understanding of Wikipedia and/or bias.

5) I attempted a compromise by letting the anti-establishment in the infobox and THEN putting a "nominally: left wing" below it by using a source from Kathimerini (major and reputable Greek newspaper) which describes the party as NOMINALLY left wing , and then explains the party also holds nationalists view and right wing supporters, which in and of itself places it out of the Left-Right spectrum (again, smth mentioned much more in detail in the sovereignitism source from Jacobin which I used on the Ideology section)

All in all, your edits have not being justified in the slightest, have zero or barely any explanation, the little explanation given is too vague and doesn't even properly cover the majority of your blanket undoings, you show bias and lack of understanding of sourcing rules and abuse of the warning system.

Despite my harsh criticism, I will put back all info in the Ideology section and return all the unexplained-ly removed sources, but I will leave the info box as such in good faith so we can reach a consensus. I propose the "Anti-establishment" + "Nominally: Left wing" as a compromise that reflects both sides — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikosAstroul (talk • contribs) 15:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC) --NikosAstroul (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding that "anti-establishment", which is a meaningless term anyway, should not be under "Political position", and also noting that "legalism" shouldn't be under "Ideology" either, with a link only to a Wiktionary page that has nothing to do with political ideology per se and a citation from one very ideologically-motivated source using the word "legalism" to describe the party's leader in passing with no context for a broader meaning for the term in this context. Musiceasel (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have now updated the article to reflect these changes, as well as putting the political position link in its proper location rather than under "Ideology" as previous. By the way, Europe Elects is a pollster that uses only the most glib European Parliament group descriptions to describe parties, even when it contravenes the parties themselves (e.g. listing CDU as blue and AfD as black on their graphs, the reverse of their actual colors, to match European Parliament teleology), and should not be considered a reliable source here either. Musiceasel (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable on the Legalism, I agree and thank you for removing it!

But Europe Elects is one of the most reliable source we have so far. I quote directly its Spread and perception which mentions it being used as electoral analysis and policy studies, and it also has an award section. Of course anti-establishment is really subjective to be called a "meaningless" term, as its wikipage mentions as a political philosophy, so it fits in an Ideology box, and I have kindly returned it there and the bit on the Ideology section. NikosAstroul (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ideologies and political position in the infobox

What ideologies and poslitical position(s) should be placed in the infobox? Helper201 (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

interesting question!! Here in Greece, no one knowns the ideology of this party. The greek article has two ideologies. Write what is says 130.43.66.174 (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek article, from my experience there, is notorious for being biased, edit wars, greek contributors being close-minded and reductive etc that's why it's locked until mid (!) July for a month.

I think the infobox as is, is summing up what is written in the ideology section. The party itself, based on its president's statements and its founding declaration, describes itself as only "anti-establishment" and rejects the labels left-wing and right, although various other sources of course differ, ranging from nominally left, to far-left, to not leftist and to not belonging in the spectrum at all. I've included them all on the Ideology section to be as subjective as possible. The Greek wikipage lists the political position as on the Left, but if you see the source there (use google translate, myself I'm native in Greek) "left" is only on the title and never mentioned on the body and specifically not in the part concerning Course of Freedom (which contradictory mentions Konstantopoulou's statements on "neither left or right") So it's not a very good edit. The greek wikipage infobox on Ideology also lists Euroscepticism (in here it's covered on the anti-EU label based on the BBC source) and "Direct Democracy" based on a source with Zoe Konstantopoulou's public statements calling for it.

On a side note, the party's campaign positions mentioned in the Greek page are pretty much the same with the ones on here, but here we lack some old/less heard-of ones that are yet to be mentioned in an English article/source. On the other hand, the Greek wikipage lacks the positions championed on the founding declaration, that are mentioned here NikosAstroul (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After a year, there appeared enough sources that do explicitly call the party left-wing, hence we have a sufficient consensus. As to the party's labels, it must be noted that self-identification of the party would be a primary source and is not considered as reliable as third-party assessments of the party's ideology. Similar left-wing populist parties also made statements similar to the "neither left nor right" declaration, yet are widely considered left-wing and are described on Wikipedia as such. A case on point is Self-Defence of the Republic of Poland. The party once claimed - "We are neither the left, nor the right, nor the centre, we represent healthy Polish patriotism".^[1] And yet this self-declaration does not compare to the plethora of third-party sources describing the party as left-wing and far-left.

References

^ Pankowski, Rafał (2010). The Populist Radical Right in Poland: The Patriots. Routledge. p. 135. ISBN 978-0-203-85656-7.

Brat Forelli🦊 14:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Pankowski, Rafał (2010). The Populist Radical Right in Poland: The Patriots. Routledge. p. 135. ISBN 978-0-203-85656-7.

[1]