Talk:Freedom Party of Austria

1543:

description and critical examination of the key positions of F.P.'s program, will find it here. But for users who want to extract basic information after quick reading, the lead section and the info box are of highest interest. Therefore the rules for a Good Article, have to be applyed here as well. Bellatores, you say that it is difficult to label the ideology of the F.P. as it is "broad or floating". I would say, that is typical for a populist party. Therefore it is best fitting to have "right-wing populism" as the ideology tag in the infobox. I do know that you may not like this term and find it inaccurate, unbalanced or polarising. But that is true for any ideology label that only consists of one or two words. It is true for national liberalism, it is true for social democracy, and it is very true for conservatism, as well. Therefore, whatever stands in the "ideology" field of the infobox on any political party will only be a rough categorisation. Who wants to explore the ideology or objectives of it, has to read the whole article, not the infobox. Still, "right-wing populism"

1524:

by the party not declaring a specific centralised ideology, but rather including a certain degree of ideological currents. I believe this is what we're dealing with here, and certainly, national liberalism and national conservatism is the two most notable and identifiable ideological currents in the FPÖ. If the party only seems to identify itself as "freiheitlich", that doesn't mean that the party is simply removed from any kind of ideology. Certainly, some parties have been reliably identified as e.g. "nationalist", although the party does not declare that it is this itself (in the case of, e.g. the French FN). However, this is not the case with the FPÖ, as the only ideology I have seen it refered to is "national liberal". Otherwise, we've only seen "right-wing populism", and that is certainly not adequate in this particular context (we perfectly well can, and should, mention it though, as we do in the lead). –

2813:". 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 Knowledge (XXG) 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. 1494:

conclude from the ideology of one individual (I admit: notable) member to the ideology of the whole party. The same with national conservatism. Mrs. Rosenkranz herself states that she was a national conservative. It does not mean that the party as a whole has to bear that label, too. The conclusion "F.P. has been national liberal in the past, so it still is today" looks like OR to me, as well. If it really is national liberal, it should be very easy to find reliable sources to verify it. But I could not find any. Especially in a Good Article, fundamental Knowledge (XXG) principles like verifiability, NPOV, and no OR should be applied.

435:" The Austrians (former members of the Nazi party) who had lost their voting rights after the war thus benefited from an amnesty in 1948. The creation in 1949 of the League of the Independents (which became the Freedom Party, FPÖ, in 1956) was specifically intended to provide the former Nazis (the so-called Ehemalige) with a voice in the new Republic, and it duly gained 12 per cent of the votes in the parliamentary elections held that same year. " 1645:

include the most defining ideology(ies) of the party. It cannot substitute the description of the ideology in the main text. Therefore, national liberalism which has been defining in the past (pre-1986) should not be in the infobox, it is expressly mentioned in the main text. National conservatism is - as far as I can see - still unsourced. (Please show me the source if I am blind) As to euroscepticism: please see above. Regards --

2743:." 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 Knowledge (XXG) 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. 170: 143: 180: 1390:("In the autumn of 2008, a snap Austrian election took place on 28 September with ground gained by both the FPÖ and the BZÖ. Extreme right parties captured centre stage following this election." ... "While numbers for the two parties individually remain lower than any of the FPÖ returns since 1990, this election clearly suggests dissatisfaction with mainstream parties that advantages the extreme right in Austria.") 21: 299: 278: 991: 909: 884: 856: 846: 820: 806: 792: 718: 684: 112: 309: 1860:

term is relevant. To your second question, as it has become common to include euroscepticism (or in some cases pro-Europeanism) in the infoboxes of political parties, I see no reason why this article should be different. As far I have understood, euroscepticism is also a rather important issue for the FPÖ, in addition to the party being the most significant eurosceptic party in Austria. –

954: 940: 502: 246: 1679:

article, which itself can simply not be tolerated. Both myself and Miacek have discussed and explained perfectly well why things should be as they are, but unfortunately, you will never be satisfied unless this (and other) party is exclusively labelled "right-wing populist". You should be able to see for yourself why this is just plain nonsense. –

1548:

Campbell does at least use "populist". But no reputable scholar uses "national liberalism" on the present-day F.P., no serious publication verifies it. Only the F.P. politicians use it for themselves, because it sounds better than "right-wing populism" in their ears. But that is not neutral at all. Of course, the F.P.

1612:

for parties that were particularly founded as anti-EU parties, which the F.P. is not. Additionally, euroscepticism usually comes along with right-wing extremism. If you disagree, please discuss this, rather than reverting without comment - which is, as you know, considered rude and not accepted. Kindest regards --

2791:

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.

1415:, whose editors Peter H. Merkl and Leonard Weinberg write that "Luther's chapter provides an intriguing glimpse of the nuts and bolts of the development of an extreme right party and of the internal repercussions of entry into governmental responsibility of a rambunctious populist protest movement." -- 1859:

When no good English-language sources can be found for various issues, I don't hesitate to find other-language sources, which I have also done previously in this article. I have also never disputed the fact that media and scholars like to use the term "right-wing populism"; just in which contexts the

1712:

I advise against including euroscepticism, because it is not dominating or defining the ideology of the F.P. It is just one element. Therefore I hold it not important enough for the infobox, the reader can extract it from the main text. Additionally, euroscepticism usually comes along with right-wing

1697:

Bellatores, I would be glad if you could try to avoid being personal, but lead this discussion objectively and politely. I have already informed you that I am not trying to pursue any agenda. Unfortunately, I cannot admit that you have explained your position "perfectly well". To the contrary, I have

1662:

Hello. I would prefer to conduct the edits I proposed, with your approval. Unfortunately, I have the impression that both of you, Bellatores and Miacek, have no particular interest in discussion. I would kindly ask you to talk about your concerns, if you have any objections. I believe that I provided

1523:

I fully recognize that there is a certain problem with specifying "ideology" for this party. But you should consider, that not every party has a clearly identified ideology in the manner of, for instance, social democratic parties. Some parties have a more "broad" or "floating" profile, characterised

1455:

In the german language we can differ between a right-wing populism(this would be a moderate attitude), far right(this would be an extreme form of right-wing populism, which the FPOe is(in my eyes)) and "radical right-wing"(this would be a criminal form of right-wing activism, which the FPOe of course

3066:

Should there be included on this page under "ideology" in the infobox a section like many other political parties have that describes its historical political leanings? There's definitely a case that it has shifted further right since Strache and has lost its liberal factions to LiF and later NEOS.

2827:

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

2790:

I’m not really into politics. I’m into Knowledge (XXG). I’m opposed to synth. Are you supposed to list sources in Knowledge (XXG) 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

2662:

is employed on Knowledge (XXG), 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

1644:

Miacek, I asked you not to revert my edit without discussion. The rollback right is designed to quickly remove vandalism or obviously unfounded edits. It is not designed to push your position where there is no consensus and discussion would be the thing to do. In my opinion, the infobox should only

1611:

Moreover, above I gave a most detailed rationale for removing the ideology tags from the infobox. One more: Euroscepticism is not defining the ideology of the F.P. to an extent that it should be included in the infobox. Only main influences of the ideology should be included here. It is appropriate

1547:

a scholarly category, and it is as opportune to use it, as it is to use national liberalism, or social democracy, or conservatism. That is why all scholarly sources this article uses, label F.P. as right-wing populist. Gingrich does, Meret does, Riedlsperger does, even in the title of his work, and

1433:

The FPOe is the furthest right party we have here in austria and yes it is borderline "far right" and not just "national conservative" and "right-wing populist". Even the german wiki page for the FPOe calls the FPOe "teilweise rechtsradikale und rechtsextreme Partei" which translates to "partly far

1811:

Well, it is your personal opinion to just include one single ideology in the infobox. While this may be appropriate in some cases, most cases require more than just a single ideology to sufficiently describe a party. In fact, there are no limits to how many ideologies that could be included in the

1627:

No, the label “Far-right” is exactly the equivalent of German “rechstextremistisch.” NPD e.g. is “rechtsextremistisch” and it is “far-right” in English. There is no scholarly consensus to label the FPÖ as such, but given the presence of the notion here and there in the media, perhaps just note the

1410:

Luther writes that "The Freedom Party is not (...) a right-wing extremist party." 'Right-wing extremism' and 'far right' are sometimes used synonymously, but they are not necessarily. The article does not say that the FPÖ is "right-wing extremist". Moreover, three years after the article you cite,

1843:

All right. That is straightforward. I can accept this. The source material for "national conservatism" is still a bit slim (one German newspaper article! Usually you don't rely on German newspaper articles, do you? Especially when they use "right-wing populism...") But I cannot complain. One last

1313:

I am not entirely sure it is fair to classify the FPO as a far-right party. Research by Richard Luther (2000) suggests that it is not. In it, he states: "The Freedom Party is not a neo-fascist, neo-nazi or a right-wing extremist party... " taken from Kurt Richard Luther Austria: A democracy under

1678:

When your agenda clearly is POV-pushing against (several) right-wing political parties, I can understand that you don't even recognize the existence of a discussion; given that serious users don't automatically cave in to your personal opinions. You want to remove perfectly fine material in the

1552:

national liberal in the past. But you did research on this party, you must know there was a significant shift in ideology. And to say, some key members of the F.P. still are national liberal, so the party as a whole must be, too, is Original Research. That is not good enough for a good article.

3439:

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

1705:

I am of the opinion that the "ideology" field of the "infobox: political party" should contain the main ideology (maybe two) of the party, and not half a dozen of currents that may have influenced some parts of the party at some time in the past. According to the reliable sources on which this

1493:

The only source I could find in the footnotes that could verify (current) "national liberalism", is the statement of Mölzer in Die Presse. It states that Mölzer sees himself as national liberal, not that the party as a whole is national liberal. So, it is both non-NPOV and Original Research to

1542:

I am still not content with the labels used in the infobox. I am aware that it is more important to have a detailed, balanced and well-sourced analysis of the party's ideology in the article's body. Again, I admit that this was done successful in this article. Anyone who looks for a thorough

743:

The government could continue still after the 2002 election, but increasing internal disagreements led Haider and other leading party members (including the FPÖ part of the government) in 2005 to defect from the FPÖ and form a new party, the Alliance for the Future of Austria (BZÖ).

1200:

There is already an independent scholarly source for it. See the political background subsection under History. (If you are not familiar with Knowledge (XXG), the lead sections usually don't require references if the same information is already referenced in the main text.) –

2928:, 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. -- 1716:

I advise against including national liberalism, because it is not defining the ideology any more. It was the dominant ideology in the past. But nowadays it is only a memory. Therefore I hold it not important enough for the infobox, the reader can extract it from the main

3454:

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?

3112:, I think that the Freedom Party of Austria's shift could be acknowledged in the infobox, as far as redundant ideologies are removed. I would have only "national conservatism", possibly "right-wing populism" and something like "liberalism (historical)" or " 1456:

is not, as they would not be able to line up as an official party with such an attitude; we have a law preventing any radical right-wing ideas from emerging in an official way) so maybe there is an english pendant between right-wing populism and far right?

725:

The FPÖ existed as a third party with only modest support from its foundation until the mid 1980s when it came in government together with the Social Democratic Party (SPÖ), although it had been able to tolerate an SPÖ minority government already in

1607:

Far-right translates to "rechtsaußen" or "rechtsrechts" in Austrian German. "Rechtsextremistisch" would be right-wing extremist. So far-right is the correct label, both in Austrian and, also important in the English wikipedia, international view.

1724:

a scholarly category, and not a political combat term. Why should neutral political scientists, whose works have helped writing and verifying this article, use it? Secondly, it perfectly describes the "broad" and "floating" character of F.P.'s

1077:

Well there have been a few improvements but the same faults in the prose persist throughout, especially in the misuse of "was" for "were" and vice versa. The grammar is very poor. I think you may need to find someone else to copy-edit.

2771:

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

2720:

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.

1405:("National elections held in Austria in 2008 led to significant gains by two far-right parties, the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (Austrian Freedom Party) and the Bündnis Zukunft Österreich (Alliance for Austria's Future)..." 734:

It however also led the SPÖ to breake its cooperation with the party, and later, the adherents of a position closer to classical liberalism within the party broke with Haider and formed the now-marginalized party Liberal Forum

1898:

As the article says, the "liberal national" ideology always supported Austrian Reunification with Deutschland. So, if now the policy is the opposite, they are not liberal nationalists but Zionists (as the visit to Israel has

1583:

Could you please also consider removing the - as far as I can see still unsourced - assertions of national liberalism and national conservatism? I think I have provided enough arguments in my above contributions. Regards --

1327:

I have added a tag to the page. I suggest, owing to the research by Luther (2000), that either the far-right label is removed altogether, or a new section is added to the page outlining the academic debate surrounding that

3207:

that proposal (leaning towards “liberalism (historical)” rather than national liberalism). Removes the non-ideologies and redundant ideologies overloading the Infobox, and gives a mention to the party’s liberal history.—

1004:

is not the place to start work on improvements to articles. Can you get this thoroughly copy-edited in seven days? If so, I will continue the review, otherwise it will fail this nominations. On hold for seven days.

1295:

But is the party far right? The description is "Ideologically, the party is a direct descendant of the German national liberal camp, which dates back to the 1848 revolution". That doesn't sound very far right to

1175:) and others describe the FPÖ as right-extremist. The FPÖ describes itself as a descendant of the national-liberal camp, but I could not find a independent source for this information. --20:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC) 2666:

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?

1780:

Excellent work. I believe this is very helpful. Could you please also clearly state your position on what I have written above, concerning the infobox? I would really like to know your reaction. Kind regards

1097:

Just wanted to note that one user now claimed it was more correct to don't specify size for the Jörg Haider image. I had it at 160px before, and honestly think the new size is inappropriately large. –

1698:

the impression that you have not taken notice of my arguments at all, and that you have not really answered my propositions. To make the discussion easier, I would like to repeat my concerns shortly:

478:

I don't think this is exactly known. It seems that Haider initiated a split to get rid of those who were discontent with the party's position in government and did not want to follow his leadership.

1049:

I have now completed a copyedit of the lead, which was indeed very poor. Please tell me if you think it's ok now, or if it should get more attention. I also removed the possible copyvio images. –

2620:

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

3004:

No, it shouldn't, because it isn't an ideology, and doesn't belong in the Ideology field. The article body can explain a party's policy platform. We are here to write articles, not Infoboxes.--

1314:

threat from the Freedom Party? Throughout the article he suggests that articles suggesting the FPO is inherently a far-right party is polemicist in nature. Perhaps amendments need to be made?

2512: 1732:

I would be very pleased if you could give your view on my arguments on a factual base. I am ready to allow myself to be convinced by your counter-arguments. Really! Respectfully yours --

507: 2706:

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.

1226: 996:

The main problem is the rather poor prose. The article should never have been nominated in this state. It is the responsibility of the nominator to ensure that the article meets the

3148:'s suggestion here is perfectly sound (single historical ideology, clearly marked), and I fully accept it; among other aspects, it would help indicate that the FPÖ originally was the 3090:

I don’t support historical ideologies being listing in Infoboxes. Certainly not in this case. The party’s (partial) liberal history can be explained in the article lede and body.—

32: 2976:

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 :)

1172:. The FPÖ was founded as VdU, a group of former NSDAP-members in the early post-war era. Some Observers say, that the party was right-populist, Heribert Schiedel, Anton Pelinka ( 2891:

Strongly agree, although I would limit it to just National conservatism and Right-wing populism (in that order), as Euroscepticism is a policy outlook, not an ideology as such.

1505:

references. If you think it is poor, you can make it better. And if you think it does not belong to the ideology section, or the lead section, you can put it somewhere else.

1258: 255: 153: 3486: 540: 2564: 2560: 2546: 2401: 2397: 2383: 2273: 2269: 2255: 2131: 2127: 2113: 2003: 1999: 1985: 3506: 412:

a rhetorical question: Do we want this kind of language here? Or would we prefer the straightforward "A considerable percentage of party members were former Nazis." ?

400:" attracted a wide range of adherents from anti-clerical liberals worried about Catholic Austria's potential isolation from the outside world to German nationalists, 260: 1479:

The liberal national ideology consists on the concept of "Greater Germany", Reunification in "Deutsche Land", as the article says. That is the original ideology.--

530: 3511: 2739:: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, 1254: 3284:

I would have one historical ideology—"liberalism". I can live with "national liberalism", while I oppose having both "liberalism" and "national liberalism". --

2663:

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.

512: 236: 365: 3501: 2513:

http://web.archive.org/web/20110707191431/http://austrianindependent.com/news/Politics/2010-08-24/4297/Minaret_debate_continues_as_Vienna_vote_approaches

3526: 3496: 746:

And again. Clearly failing criterion #1 "reasonably well written". Please get this copy-edited by someone with a good command of plain English. The

355: 226: 3414:

can you add anti-immigration, social conservatism and welfare chauvinism to the party's ideologies, please. I got two sources confirming the latter.

1709:

I advise against including national conservatism, because it is not verified. (At least I still cannot see the source. Where is it? Help me, please.)

1501:

reference to reliable sources is more balanced and fits a Good Article better than the statement "The F.P. is a far right, populist political party"

3130:

That's a good point, it's important they remain up-to-date and accurate, while adding historical alignments could be better as a secondary concern.

1191: 331: 2516: 3075:

as well both have "Historical" political leanings separate to show the shift in the party's leanings over time. What are your thoughts about it?

3238:

just in case there's any confusion with the more modern forms of liberalism that are more commonly associated with the term "liberalism" today.

1270: 3531: 3516: 2828:

one term? I don't see eye to eye on that I'm afraid, but fortunately Knowledge (XXG) has several resources through which this can be mediated.

202: 50: 3356:

I improved the ideology section a bit. More should be done, especially on the party's early similarities with the FDP and current posture. --

656: 2464: 1438: 1297: 961: 3312:

Alright fair enough. Personally I feel like it's more accurate to say "National liberalism", but given the both of you seem to agree that

3491: 3481: 3422: 1459:

Long story short: They may not be a radical right-wing party, but I would say it would be proper to label them as a "far right" party.

932: 3521: 2625: 1900: 1480: 1460: 662: 535: 38: 3456: 3425: 1878:

Thank you for your detailed explanation of your standpoint. Now, I can comprehend it very well. All dissent cleared. Kind regards --

965: 558: 90: 812: 747: 193: 148: 1497:

Moreover, in my opinion the sentence "International reputable media habitually denote the Freedom Party of Austria as far right."

2906:

Hi there :) I strongly agree with every you just said. However, I think most users prefer to keep it on various political pages.

1817: 1813: 322: 283: 1820:. All things considered, I think the ideology section of the infobox in this article is currently very good and descriptive. – 1170:"Ideologically the party is a direct descendant of the German national liberal camp, which dates back to the 1848 revolutions." 123: 1844:

question: do you think that euroscepticism is really that important? Thank you for finally working together. Good night. --

1384:

Hale Williams, Michelle (2012), "Downside after the summit: factors in extreme-right party decline in France and Austria",

1266: 2981: 2911: 2882: 2757:

cheers, but that’s not a source. Will open an RfC. Look forward to seeing all your friends again here. Have a great day.

1380:("Threats by the current extreme right were almost exclusively seen in connection with the far-right party, the FPÖ, ...") 3417: 1720:

I assure you, that it is not harmful to let right-wing populism stand alone for the ideology. First, right-wing populism

1019:

Ok follwing copy-editing and deletion of two images, this article passes muster, I am happy to list it. Congratulations!

2644: 2478:

Please check the definitions of populism, nationalism and nativism, as the three terms imply entirely different things.

1444: 1187: 690: 467:

Re: the recent split in the party, what exactly are the issues that caused the split? Right now it's extremely vague.

2091: 1963: 1953: 1230: 594: 3375: 3321: 3275: 3243: 3227: 3194: 3135: 3080: 2349: 1242: 778: 710: 2697: 2563:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2400:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2272:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2130:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2002:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

554: 2977: 2907: 2878: 2624:

instead. Either this or you delete "German nationalism" completely. Currently it's unsourced from a NeuPOV. --

2517:

http://austrianindependent.com/news/Politics/2010-08-24/4297/Minaret_debate_continues_as_Vienna_vote_approaches

2496: 2333: 2191: 2063: 1925: 1301: 3418:

Makers against takers : the socio-economic ideology and policy of the Austrian Freedom Party (uni-konstanz.de)

2692:? Why don't we just list both, drop the "to" and just have the separate citations after the respective terms? 2468: 2225: 1663:

a good deal of arguments for my edits, but alas, I could not notice that you faced up to them. Warm regards --

1250: 129: 2504: 2341: 1904: 1484: 1464: 1183: 2460: 1262: 1179: 3068: 2818: 2781: 2748: 2711: 2629: 1754:

I have now expanded a more in-depth section in the article that briefly discusses the party's ideology. –

3460: 3429: 3371: 3317: 3271: 3239: 3223: 3190: 3169: 3131: 3076: 2643:

This collocation of terms has been used quite a lot according to another discussion I've been having at

2602: 2582:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2570: 2439: 2419:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2407: 2311: 2291:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2279: 2169: 2149:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2137: 2041: 2021:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2009: 1439:

https://www.mkoe.at/recherchen-legen-tiefe-verstrickung-der-fpoe-parteispitze-in-rechtsextremismus-offen

1335: 1143: 1116: 1068: 1024: 1010: 759: 640: 626: 607: 573: 471: 201:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

20: 2503:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2340:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1450: 1329: 1315: 3116:(historical)". Anyway, it is more urgent to remove redundant ideologies than adding anything else. -- 3032:"Bad practice is elsewhere, therefore it must be used here" is not a reasonable or valid argument.-- 2693: 2537: 2374: 2246: 1865: 1825: 1759: 1684: 1574: 1529: 1206: 1102: 1086: 1054: 2864:

As I believe the ideology parametre is bloat, I believe it should be slimmed down to the following:

1553:

Please, find a reliable source to verify the label, or we really have to remove it. Kind regards --

617: 42: 3445: 3303: 3231: 3213: 3184: 3174: 3157: 3113: 3095: 3037: 3009: 2896: 1234: 922: 698: 2806: 2773: 2736: 2567: