Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 59: Line 59:
::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Purpose_of_an_infobox
::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Purpose_of_an_infobox
::I am inviting you to be reasonable here. [[User:Hayek79|Hayek79]] ([[User talk:Hayek79|talk]]) 02:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
::I am inviting you to be reasonable here. [[User:Hayek79|Hayek79]] ([[User talk:Hayek79|talk]]) 02:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Acather96}} Invitation to comment. [[User:Hayek79|Hayek79]] ([[User talk:Hayek79|talk]]) 02:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


== ? ==
== ? ==
Line 73: Line 75:
::::::I don't believe you're being constructive at the moment. [[User:Hayek79|Hayek79]] ([[User talk:Hayek79|talk]]) 12:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
::::::I don't believe you're being constructive at the moment. [[User:Hayek79|Hayek79]] ([[User talk:Hayek79|talk]]) 12:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
:::::::The material is sourced. That [[WP:Idontlikeit|you don't like it]] is immaterial. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 15:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
:::::::The material is sourced. That [[WP:Idontlikeit|you don't like it]] is immaterial. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 15:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
::::::::The material needs to be accurate. Does any article you have provided so far demonstrate that AfD is an "anti-feminist" party. [[User:Hayek79|Hayek79]] ([[User talk:Hayek79|talk]]) 02:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
::::::::The material needs to be accurate. Does any article you have provided so far demonstrate that AfD is an "anti-feminist" party? [[User:Hayek79|Hayek79]] ([[User talk:Hayek79|talk]]) 02:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:21, 9 March 2017

What should "Anti-Islam" in the "Ideology" section link to?

Hello, I have temporarily removed the link to the 'Anti-Islam' disambiguation page because I feel like linking to a disambiguated article page is pointless and vague. However, moving forward, should we leave the phrase without a link like it is now? Or should we link it to one of the individual article pages that were on the disambiguation page? If so, it would appear that Alternative for Germany's platform and policies coincides closest to 'Islamophobia,' which is defined as "prejudice against, hatred, or bigotry towards the religion of Islam and Muslims" but that particular phrase is rather controversial in and of itself and I don't want to make that change without some level of consensus from other Wikipedians first. Kamalthebest (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Islamophobia' could be defined as fear of the prejudice, hatred and bigotry exhibited by Islam and Muslims toward non-muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.97.19 (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not usually how that term is used. I believe you are referring to 'Criticism of Islamism,' which is different. It appears someone has disambiguated anyway using the terms I suggested, so I guess it was appropriate anyway. Kamalthebest (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is one thing to criticize Islamism and quite another to advocate for saying nasty things about, and advocating taking nasty action, with respect to people from countries that are predominantly muslim or who are muslim. No. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the point I was making. Kamalthebest (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Far-right"

I'm not certain that two opinion pieces and a Politico article provides enough support for this designation; has this been discussed before? Hayek79 (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mélencron: You are invited to respond here. Hayek79 (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't be a disputed label, unlike the below. Mélencron (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mélencron: Those are probably better references than the three up there at the moment. Hayek79 (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology in infobox

This list is far too long. I would suggest that we remove "antifeminism" at the very least, since this is probably unnecessary and needs to be properly sourced. Hayek79 (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mélencron: You are invited to respond here. An opinion piece isn't enough I'm afraid, the infobox is supposed to provide a brief overview, it's not meant to be an exhaustive list. Hayek79 (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing a 400 word opinion article about the AfD youth organisation in support of designating the AfD ideologically "antifeminist" is obviously not going to pass. I can't be expected to take this seriously. Hayek79 (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mélencron: @Beyond My Ken: This is ridiculous. Can you all please address my concerns here, rather than revert one another's edits and pile up references in the infobox. @Jytdog: Simply declaring that something is "well referenced" without responding to the objections on the talk page about its inclusion:

i. Does not mean that it is well referenced - as I've noted elsewhere, two of the articles only concern a Facebook campaign organised by the youth wing, another is about the views of a member of a state parliament. This isn't enough to justify describing the party as anti-feminist.
ii. Does not mean that this is something that should necessarily feature in the infox box.

Regarding the new references added, one is the same 400 word article about the youth wing, the The Local article is also about the youth wing, another is specifically about the views of a member of the Baden-Württemberg parliament. This is still not enough to designate the party program as "anti-femininist". I don't have time to go through the final article, but so far none of you have addressed my main concern, which is that the list is far too long, and that inclusions such as "anti-feminist" are probably inaccurate, and either way unnecessary. If you desperately want to include this, mention it in the main body of the article or in the article on the youth wing. If you keep reverting changes without attempting to get a consensus here I'll have to contact an administrator. Hayek79 (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This claim is also not mentioned at all in the rest of the article, a further reason for its removal. If you want to claim that the AfD is an anti-feminist party, you'll have to provide a lot more support than what you already have. Hayek79 (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is "too long" discussed in any guideline or policy about infobox fields? Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox is not supposed to list, exhaustively, every ideological commitment of every faction within the party. As I have said, the sources provided are inadequate, and the issue referenced is not discussed in the main body of the article. As for guidelines, there is the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Purpose_of_an_infobox
I am inviting you to be reasonable here. Hayek79 (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Acather96: Invitation to comment. Hayek79 (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

?

User:Mélencron where is your discussion on talk that you mentioned here with respect to your removing sourced content from this article? Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The thread right above yours? Mélencron (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
you need to justify your complete removal of that sourced content. What is your justification? Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's an opinion piece. Mélencron (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
for pete's sake. restoring with a small pile of sources. Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just added one source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: @Jytdog: That you can find a few (mostly opinion) articles which describe organisations or people associated with the party as anti-feminist is:
i. Not a reason for its inclusion necessarily (please read my other comments),
ii. And does not mean that designating AfD an "anti-feminist" party is necessarily accurate
I don't believe you're being constructive at the moment. Hayek79 (talk) 12:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The material is sourced. That you don't like it is immaterial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The material needs to be accurate. Does any article you have provided so far demonstrate that AfD is an "anti-feminist" party? Hayek79 (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply