Talk:Niki (Greek political party)

Edit war

GreekNikoss you appear to be engaged in an edit war. Please seek a consensus with other editors here before removing any cited content from the page or making any more contentious changes to this page. Thank you. Helper201 (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not engage in an edit war.A spanish editor acting like he knows better the political scene of Greece from the Greek editors. @PlatonasGR also agrees GreekNikoss (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Patriotism is not an ideology and should not be included since its obviously not neutral Braganza (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Braganza in regards to patriotism. Helper201 (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Helper201

@Helper201 you currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Victory (Greek political party). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Points to note: Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. GreekNikoss (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@89.242.81.250

@89.242.81.250 you currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Victory (Greek political party). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Points to note: Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. AvramidisHellas (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies

@Drmies Wow you just chose a version created from one specific IP instead of a version supported from all the other editors which also is the version which used in the Greek page of this party.( All the Greek editors agreed on this). AvramidisHellas (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Well, it happens; you can discuss that on this talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  From its creation since 4 july the page had a certain version.On 4 july the IP changes completely this version to a version he thinks it's right.

  The version he destroyed its not 'mine' version its the official version which the greek editors ( after hundreds of edits and talks) agreed on.

  You are 16 years on wiki you know what i am saying.Check it.Thanks. AvramidisHellas (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Your perspective on the Greek article is misleading and dishonest, lacking any logical coherence. You, along with other users, have persistently pushed your biased point of view by insisting that the party's sources should be included on Wikipedia and manipulating references to associate it with the right-wing label, despite the fact that the party is widely recognized as a far-right entity. Allow me to enlighten you: Wikipedia does not entertain such baseless arguments and, more importantly, does not provide a platform for strongly partisan views. If you wish to express such opinions, I suggest you start your own blog or utilize platforms like Twitter, which seem to be your preferred mediums for sharing your distorted viewpoints. In this edit, his actions involve the systematic removal of reputable sources such as Al Jazeera, NBC News, and Vice, with the sole purpose of concealing the far-right position on the ideological spectrum, despite lacking any valid justification. This distortion extends to a well-supported section that provides references to highlight the party's homophobia, anti-abortion views, and extreme religious sentiments. The Greek sources he introduces, such as Proto Thema, are notoriously unreliable tabloids. Furthermore, it is important to note his consistent efforts to eliminate sources that openly discuss the party's stance during the Covid-19 pandemic and expose the propaganda propagated by its leader. Last but not least, none of the claims regarding the Greek version of the article are truthful, as the article appears to have been protected for the exact same reason. The user's approach is far from clear, relying solely on the good ol' "trust me bro" as a supposed source. I implore you to take every measure necessary to safeguard the integrity of the article. By the way, it is highly likely that @AvramidisHellas is the same individual as the globally banned @GreekNikoss. 89.242.81.250 (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Claimed Russophilia

Please add source for claimed russophilia. The opposition to arms shipments from the Greek army to Ukrain (the only thing I could find) is NOT sufficient to claim russophilia. Lassner (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Christian right

User:Helper201 First of all only ONE page and that not necessarily credible (it's just a list) makes reference to the Christian right.

All the others simply mention the ultra-orthodox nature of the party. "...Professor Georgiadou explains that the party has a much more pronounced religious character than other conservative groups. "Apparently, Niki maintains relations with monastic communities and religiously motivated organizations, even outside the official Orthodox Church," she says." https://www.dw.com/en/greece-far-right-makes-resurgence/a-66085348

"the ultra-religious Niki party which has a base of support on the fringes of the Greek Orthodox Church https://apnews.com/article/greece-elections-far-right-kasidiaris-politics-3df35659fb5834777e3826650d97b19f

"Niki, a religious party that’s known for opposing Covid-19 vaccine efforts" https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/6/26/23774334/greek-elections-new-democracy-spartans

So, it is best to go by the sources and remove any "label" from the information box. D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that the source for Christian right is "not necessarily credible"? It being a list does not make it unreliable. I'm not a hard advocate that it remains though, I just had a big problem with another editor changing this to "Christian democracy", as that's not what the source stated. I'm not sure of the relevance of listing those other sources. Just because other sources don't label the party in a certain way doesn't discredit those that do label them as something else. Helper201 (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

lists are not ideal sources because they do not analyse their subject matter; besides, there is only one that puts this label on it - and from the fact that it describes this party as the Christian right, it seems to be irrelevant to Greek and European political reality. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

There is zero requirement for sources to "analyse their subject matter" to be used as citations. If it’s a reliable source and it specifically states what's being claimed, then it can be used. The source is not listed on WP:RSP as unreliable. Your claim of it being "irrelevant to Greek and European political reality" is simply your view, unless you can provide a reliable source that counters what this source claims. Though I do take your point it is only one source and therefore should be treated with some caution so as to avoid undue weight. Helper201 (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit war

79.107.42.248 "You are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be", how is that not exactly what you are doing? What have you got against all the multiple reliable sources that explicitly call the party ultraconservative plus all the other cited content you are wiping constantly? Helper201 (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

You created your own version. Sources that criticize the party had already been added. By using only such sources the article loses its objectivity. 79.107.42.248 (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

''The political neutrality of this article is disputed'' is excaclty what im saying 79.107.42.248 (talk) 11:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

"You created your own version". What are you on about? And you've somehow not been doing anything like this by mass removing content cited by several sources? I added information that is explicitly stated by multiple sources. I also added far-right to the lead. A position cited in the infobox by no less than six sources. Adding that the party is ultraconservative is not meant as a criticism. I'm not trying to implement a view but add to the article what multiple reliable sources state. You don't have the right to remove what multiple sources say because you personally disagree with them or think they are criticism. You don't own or get to remove information that's backed up by multiple sources. You aren't even allowing a template on the article when clearly its justified. The article is full of WP:EDITORIALISING like "due to evident corruption among these groups", "Its president places special care on the subject of education, stating that Greece needs children and education", "It states its opposition to mandatory medical procedures" (there's no such thing as "mandatory medical procedures"). And clearly removing very well cited information like ultraconservatism and far-right because you disagree with them is not being neutral either. It is you who is not providing neutrality, otherwise you wouldn't be removing what several reliable sources say. Helper201 (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I repeat that you blaming me not being neutral when i do the excact same thing you do. Finding a source and making a point i want out of it.I disagree with that. 79.107.42.248 (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I removed information backed up by a single source because it was undue weight. You are removing what several sources say without giving any justifiable reason that pertains to Wikipedia's guidelines. Helper201 (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no undue weight between Right/Far-right. The lines are not always clear in these two. Howerver i can suggest a solution.We can leave the infobox as it is now.And add some of the ''characteristics'' your sources mention in the ideology section as info for the reader who wants to knows all the views. 79.107.42.248 (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Having one single source that calls the party right-wing as opposed to six that call the party far-right (and I could provide many more that call the party far-right on top of those) is very, very much undue weight. It’s very clear what the party is when the overwhelming number of sources describe the party as one over the other. You have also wiped out multiple other sourced pieces of information I added with multiple sources, like the party being "ultra-Orthodox" and "ultra-religious". Far-right should be in the lead based off of the overwhelming number of sources it has and right (which is also incorrectly formatted as it is now, along with grammatical errors you've been adding) should not be there. The other information you wiped like ultra-conservatism should also be restored. You’ve also provided no answer to the editorialised wording that is consistent throughout the article. Nor have you given proper justification for removing the neutrality template. Helper201 (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The article exists for more than a year.Nowone ever tried to put the things you mention.And thats for a reason. You are using a term 10 times with different words.(ultra religious,nationalist religious,orthodox believes, Ultra orthodox, christian right).That sounds like provocation.Like you want to empasize in one point.The things you trying to add already exist at the page in a neutral tone.The mention about the religion is enough.Its a Greek political party not a church.And about the Right wing source since there is one it has to be mentioned alongside the Far right ones.Of course the reader can read their Ideology and make his own conclusions but you cant hide a side that you dont agree with. 79.107.42.248 (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

RFC

There are five questions:

1. Should "Right" be placed in the infobox and should it remain in the main body?
2. Should ultraconservatism be restored to the infobox?
3. Should "ultra-Orthodox" and "ultra-religious" be restored to the main text?
4. Should the party be defined as far-right in the lead?
5. Is the wording of the page neutral?

Helper201 (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

1. "Right" should be removed due to undue weight as it is only supported by one single source compared to six for far-right.
2. Yes, backed by multiple sources.
3. Yes, backed by multiple sources.
4. Yes, backed by multiple sources.
5. No

Helper201 (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

It is peculiar on the one hand to complain that the article is pov and on the other hand to remove a new introduction based on academic sources. D.S. Lioness (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• (came from WP:RFC/POL) A simple Google search shows that reliable news sources use the term "far-right" more than "right-wing". Including both does not make sense and it could only confuse readers, considering that "far-right" already implies that the party is on the right-wing spectrum. Also, there does not seem to be any sources that indicate that the far-right description is not applicable to Niki. Thus, because of these reasons, I oppose the inclusion of "Right" in the infobox. I support the options 2, 3, and 4 considering that these claims are also widely backed up by reliable sources. The article also does not look neutral, this is not only evident in the text but also the article history. @Helper201: I will request article protection considering that this seems to be an attempt of whitewashing the party's far-right image (which is a common example of an ideology warrior). --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  why the article is not neutral; where exactly do you see the problem? D.S. Lioness (talk) D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

1. I agree
2. Too many convervatisms prefer national conservatism
3. Yes, there a lot o thinks we can say about this
4. Yes, backed by multiple sources.
5. Yes. The article says what the sources say D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC) After more thought, I came to the conclusion that the article is not neutral. It is focused on how Niki presents her ideology, not how her ideology is commented on by secondary sources, which is the point of Wikipedia.D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Helper201, the ideology section appears to be written based on the party's manifesto, when it should be written using secondary academic sources. See WP:Secondary sources. Kowal2701 (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

There are not secondary academic sources for the party. The sources that cited are from reliable Greek newspapers. Which part do you think looks like party's manifesto? D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry that's my bad, I can't read Greek. Ultimately, this article should not put forward the case for voting Niki. It needs to be purely factual with neutral wording and encompass various POVs. It's natural for an article to have a slight bias towards the topic, but this is far too much.

• Niki has been described as a party that belongs to the broader space of the Right with Orthodox beliefs. needs to say academics have labelled the party far right and why
• According to the party's manifesto, former politicians, government officials and freemasons are not accepted as party members due to evident corruption among these groups. this is incredibly problematic, please see Anti-Masonry and Masonic conspiracy theories. "evident" should be replaced with "alleged"
• limit their right to re-election. sounds authoritarian, this needs another POV
• Its president places special care on the subject of education, stating that Greece needs children and education. this is redundant, every politician will say this. If it is nativist then say that
• It opposes sex education in schools and abortions. The party takes a negative stance on the issue of LGBT adoption and marriage. illiberal positions are usually not worded so charitably on wikipedia, but imo it's fine, another POV needed. It should say it adheres to traditional family values at the start of the sentence
• It states its opposition to mandatory medical procedures, such as the vaccination during Covid-19 and questioning the safety of these vaccines. The party has endorsed vaccine hesitant views during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sounds like they engage in conspiracy theories
• It disagrees with Greece's support for Ukraine regarding Russia's invasion, instead preferring neutrality. The party has been referred to as "pro-Russia" due to his president's disagreement with the exclusion of Russian representatives during the ethnic celebrations of March 25, 2024 and in general with the hostile attitude towards Russia which, according to Natsios, is harmful to the country's interests and foreign policy. this needs another POV
• Regarding Greece's relations with Turkey the party argues that, since Turkey is acting aggressively, Greece should be answering with force. this needs to be rewritten to encompass various POVs

Ultimately this party is deeply religious and culturally conservative and that needs to be stated. (this is a positive thing). It also needs to mention that it is nationalist.

Here's some sources that may provide different POVs, I found them by using Google Scholar:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

Kowal2701 (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your answer. I will do my best to npov. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me know if you're struggling with anything, I think the lead needs to say the party is deeply religious and has ties to the Orthodox church Kowal2701 (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

On that last point, it doesn't need to encompass various POVs, but it needs to be worded neutrally. Maybe "The party argues that it should counter Turkish aggression, [and then a neutral POV]" Kowal2701 (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

That’s a really big improvement regarding the ideology section, well done Kowal2701 (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I wrote only the introduction paragraph. But i want you opinion about the section "party structure". Is it useful? is accordind to policies? P.S. Look article history. There is a constant edit warring. No one can improve anything. D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s a very good and useful section for the reader, I’ve copy edited it a bit and put {clarification needed} because I didn’t understand one sentence. It might need more sources, they can be media sources Kowal2701 (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

If you feel editors aren’t working collaboratively or constructively, I recommend making a topic at WP:Admin noticeboard to draw admins attention to the page, they’re generally very fair and good at what they do. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The introduction is good imo. Per WP:Lead, the uniqueness of the party structure should probably be mentioned/summarised in a sentence Kowal2701 (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Tbh the party structure section doesn’t need more sources, it looks good as is Kowal2701 (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

1. No.
2. Yes
3. Sure
4. Yes
5. Looks pretty neutral to me.

A Socialist Trans Girl 22:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The reference for the right-wing position of the party (El Pais) claims that the party is far-right. Michalis1994 (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

User:L.S. WikiCleaner that is the problem. Please the intro has academic sources - do not remove for inferior sources. D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@D.S. Lioness my friend i don't want to argue. The text you have written, as I mentioned when correcting it, mainly refers to the general result of the Greek elections and the rise of the extreme right.

I am in no way questioning your motives and I understand from your other edits that you are not acting maliciously. (your work on Party Stracture was really good)

In order you to understand what I mean the sources you used (6/7) comment on the general result of the elections and only one on the specific party. In contrast to the previous text where 6/6 sources refer exclusively to this party.

I want to kindly add here that user Michalis1994, in my personal opinion, violates basic rules of Wikipedia when constantly denying my well-intentioned intervention, characterizing it as Vandalism.(?)

Let me know your thoughts on these L.S. WikiCleaner (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. Michalis1994 (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

all the sources are related to the party, since there is a specific reference to it in all of them. Beyond that, it is the recording of the historical phenomena that distinguishes an encyclopaedia from a news site. And this is what the last two sentences point out. Αs far as vandalism is concerned, there is clearly no such thing. The user is fond of pompous expressions that do not match the users' intentions. D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely! Michalis1994 (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

can you be more constructive please Kowal2701 (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Michalis1994 (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@D.S. Lioness@Michalis1994 do you both understand each other’s POV? Can you see how a well meaning person can arrive in both positions? Kowal2701 (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Which two positions? I am afraid i do not understand you. D.S. Lioness (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you see how a well meaning person can come to Michalis’ position (not excusing his behaviour)? Kowal2701 (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m only speculating here, but Michalis might associate the far-right with fascism, a great evil, and views the rise of the far right as a stepping stone on the path back to fascism. As such they want to counter any bias towards far-right parties as what’s on Wikipedia influences people’s opinions Kowal2701 (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Michalis1994 (talk) 09:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha - I think communication is the main component that appears to be really troubling in those interactions. Michalis1994 (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Regardless you still need to be constructive, I know it’s difficult encountering bias you disagree with Kowal2701 (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Still these notes are quite general and mainly describe the general result of the Greek elections rather than the specific political party.I checked that nothing similar has happened in any other political partyThey could be added to ''June 2023 Greek legislative election'' page tho.Or I could modify them so they don't go off topic using some of the sources you added. L.S. WikiCleaner (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

That would be o.k. by me. D.S. Lioness (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Intro + copy pasted party structure

This edit lacks constructiveness and contributes little value. Although it attempts rephrasing and tone adjustment, it introduces numerous grammatical errors. Additionally, the description of the party's structure, seemingly lifted directly from the party's website, is out of place in an encyclopaedia. Overall, the edit is irrelevant and fails to enhance the topic.

Michalis1994 (talk) 09:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Ιntroduction is written with purely academic sources, the only part of the article that has academic sources. Grammatical errors are easily corrected.

Regarding the section on party structure how can users comment on something they don't even see? First you had to ask the community and then proceed with removals. But, of course, you already know that.

However, a user has already replied that the introduction seems right and the relevant section important and necessary. ...It’s a very good and useful section for the reader... and The introduction is good imo. Per WP:Lead, the uniqueness of the party structure should probably be mentioned/summarised in a sentence'/ D.S. Lioness (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

What makes it out of place? Kowal2701 (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The introduction is full of grammatical mistakes that the user keeps reverting. The party structure is copied from the party's website and it does not belong here because Wikipedia is not a directory. Michalis1994 (talk) 10:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your reverts, I think the sentence in the lede is good, although “supportive of the Orthodox Church” can be reworded. The party structure section is due since their structure is innovative, sorry but I don’t understand your opposition to it. Do you think it needs more secondary sources? Kowal2701 (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The second sentence about fat right parties isn’t due I don’t think Kowal2701 (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we should either find secondary sources, reliable please, or remove it. I just reverted myself in good faith. Michalis1994 (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Are there any wording changes you’d make? Generally I think the content of this user’s edits are good, but because their first language isn’t English they often need to be copy edited Kowal2701 (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I have already corrected several mistakes in past edits, but the current edit looks ok. Michalis1994 (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I intend to reshape the section about party structure to make it more like an encyclopedia article and add a reliable source commenting on the topic. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to do that. Find reliable sources and please, careful with the use of English because several other parts of text required attention. Michalis1994 (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's some other pages' party structure sections for inspiration, some may not be appropriate: Conservative Party (UK)#Party structure, Democratic Party (United States)#Structure, Communist Party of the Soviet Union#Organization, Ba'ath Party#Organization, Chinese Communist Party#Organization, Bharatiya Janata Party#Organisation and structure, Awami League#Organization Kowal2701 (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality

@Michalis1994 Everyone in the RFC agreed that the text was neutral. There was no reason to change the content or extend it to a point where it didn't remain neutral.

I understand the way you operate and I'm not targeting you On the contrary, I prefer discussion before arbitrary editing. L.S. WikiCleaner (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Please ensure you provide specific sections and differences before deleting any referenced content going forward. Clearly outline which parts of the text are perceived as biased, and let's seek input from others on this matter. If another deletion occurs, I will need to escalate this issue formally.

Michalis1994 (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

You were warned by an Adminstrator once because you claimed I was vandalizing.Instead of apologizing as requested by the administrator, you left a message on my page calling me a vandal again.

Also from what I can see there are quite a few complaints about the way you edit articles.And some warnings to be more constructive on Talk Pages.

I refer to these not to target you or to accuse you to any Administrator. But to make you realize that the way you operate is authoritarian with the result to lose your right and the patience of those who oppose you is wasted.Please be more constructive. L.S. WikiCleaner (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I will ask you again which parts of the text are not neutral and provide differences.

Michalis1994 (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

After this warning, I recommend that you revert your own edits in good faith and initiate a discussion to explain why you removed the cited content. Any lack of cooperation on your part will likely lead to a block, considering your previous behaviour. The decision is now yours. Michalis1994 (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

As I told you, I have no intention of accusing you anywhere. From what I see, you already did...We continue on our topic. If you are open to listen and possibly changing your mind i am willing to explain the obvious in detail.Which is, why objectivity and neutrality are lost with the changes you made.

If you are convinced that you are right, so that we don't waste time, I better not expand.You can check other editors opinion on RFC. Everyone agrees that the article was neutral. L.S. WikiCleaner (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The Rfc comments are still open. Do you agree, User:Helper201? So, we must wait to finish the discussion, i think. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I've got a lot on my plate at the moment and I've found it hard to keep track of exactly what is being disputed now, so I'll stay out of it unless I have anything to say. Helper201 (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

So, do you want to close the section? D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Can I close it or no? D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Its supposed to be a neutral and uninvolved user that closes discussions. Helper201 (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

1-revert rule now in effect

There's too much edit warring on this article. I've imposed the 1RR restriction, which means one revert per person per 24 hours; I'll include the full text of the restriction below. I've also semi-protected the article. Please talk out any remaining issues without edit warring, and use dispute resolution if no consensus can be reached here. If someone violates 1RR, please ask them to self-revert before reporting to an admin (including me), WP:ANEW, or WP:AE.

1RR:

An editor must not perform more than one reverts on this page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Second reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. Exemptions:

1. Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
2. Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, as long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.
3. Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users.
4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
5. Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider opening a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion instead of relying on this exemption.
6. Removal of content that is clearly illegal under U.S. law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
7. Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
8. Reverting unambiguous spam, where the content would be eligible for page deletion under criterion G11 if it were a standalone page.

Let me know if there are any questions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

A reminder to everyone that this article has the above-mentioned one-revert rule. @L.S. WikiCleaner and Helper201: you both broke the rule sometime in the past few days. Everyone should be more careful, less ready to revert, and more willing to discuss here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

L.S. WikiCleaner "ultraconservatism" is literally only mentioned once in the main body and once in the infobox, therefore this does no hold for its removal from the lead. Lead sections summarise the main info from the main body, as does the infobox, so both the lead and infobox are going to have info "repeated" from the main body of text. Helper201 (talk) 03:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

What i am saying is that it’s pretty clear in the main body and in the infobox that the party is ultra conservative. I feel that by putting it for a 3rd time in the article, you force the reader to focus somewhere specific. L.S. WikiCleaner (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

A I've said, it’s completely normal for the infobox and the lead to repeat information because they are summaries, therefore this removal is completely unjustifiable. Helper201 (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

As you said, the infobox and the lead repeat information from the text.''Ultraconservatism'' which is in the text, is again referred to the infobox and ''ultrareligious'' is again referred to the lead (and i agreed on that).Anything more than that is excessive. L.S. WikiCleaner (talk) 10:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

And as I also said, it’s completely normal for it to do that. This is clearly important info to include as its backed by multiple sources. Helper201 (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)