1276:
qualification here for that label is nationalism, which is not inherently far-right. The party does not fit the definition of ultranationalism either, nor even right wing populism in its fullest expression, as such would implicate economic nationalism and protectionism. For example, the party stands strongly against protectionism on dairy, which (assuming the right is protectionist as it is in the United States currently) puts it to the left of every other notable
Canadian party's stance on the issue. The matter of how criticisms of immigration are justified is another matter. The party condemns racism and justifies immigration restriction on economic grounds, "rhetoric" aside.
740:
31:
188:
692:
130:(" said it now includes: Canadians frustrated with what they perceive as the curtailment of civil liberties during the pandemic; fundamentalist Christian Conservatives who believe O’Toole abandoned them after becoming a more socially progressive leader; those opposed to a carbon tax; and now, those disappointed with O’Toole’s reversal regarding the Liberal firearm ban.")
212:. While the GOP may have expressed similar sentiments, they have, as of yet, not made it a central policy of theirs (assuming you mean the federal GOP; I'm not bothering to look at every different state GOP), while Bernier and PPC members have actively campaigned at anti-vaccination rallies. You also have the
1304:
I don't agree at all with your view of limiting the Far-right to authoritarian forces. Left communism or anarchism is not authoritarianism, but is classified as Far-left. And marking the political position of the People's Party as "far-right" is an issue that has already been decided through Talk. It
1279:
All but one of the sources that purport to justify the far-right label in this article are commonly known to have a left-wing bias and/or are not
Canadian. They either simply misunderstand its motivations or have an active interest in mischaracterizing movements on the right. Maybe both. In addition,
981:
There is no inconsistency with the lead's definition of far-right politics and the context surrounding the PPC. The party is described as far-right chiefly because of their nativist stances and support for extreme nationalist ideas, figures, and organisations. Everyone is wasting their time with this
263:
Which is why should not be listed; we should really only list proper ideologies, not any policy (Euroscepticism, climate change denial, etc.), which I can see and understand why should be in the infobox, and can and should be discussed in the body and in the lead, but only if, and unless, we actually
1389:
Do the sources need to be from a neutral, unbiased source for political position in articles? I can see that on the sources listed on the article under "far-right", The
Guardian has a political alignment as "centre-left" on its page, The National Observer is "progressive", and The TStar has " social
1366:
Re-read the sources cited. There are six in the lede that support "right right" specifically, with quotes. The sources are very reliable as as well, with The
Guardian, the National Observer, Toronto Star, New York Times, Huffington Post. If anything, since those refs were written the party has moved
1287:
That being said, if someone can find sources that cannot be criticized for neutrality nor ignorance reasons that describe the party as far right, that will be acceptable. Until then, the citations from The
Conversation and Huffington Post will be moved to the sources for the right-wing label and the
1283:
As for the lack of support justifying the fringe labeling, it is well known that Canada is a distinctly left-leaning country (relative to the rest of the world) on a deep cultural level. It comes as no surprise that they wanted no part in the party's libertarianism and nationalism as it comes off as
1275:
is authoritarian. In addition, it is characterized by organicism, anti-democracy, and hierarchical economics that reject capitalism. How is it that we can come to label a party centered around liberty, individualism, democracy, egalitarianism, and capitalism as far-right? It would seem that the only
230:
If the official party stance against passports/mandates was rooted in skepticism of the vaccine, obviously that could be categorized as 'vaccine hesitancy', but it seems more rooted in the issue of civil liberties and government overreach (as is their stance on lockdowns, masks, etc.) And again, can
1347:
The references to “far right” do not support the claim. This characterization seems to be biased. Two references are just cat calls from Singh, one reference refers to “right”, not far right, one is from the US. This should be reevaluated. Many of the party platforms are, in fact, libertarian.
430:
It is not written as clearly as it could be, but Singh is the "first racialized federal party leader" and
Bernier is the "the boss of the country’s newest far-right party", not the other way around. In recent years the use of the term "racialized" has been adopted in the media to mean "non-white",
79:
Currently "The deregistered EDAs will not be able to accept contributions or issue tax receipts, unless they remedy their status" appears in After the 2019 federal election. Would that be better without the comma? Anyway it should be edited to indicate if there'd been any developments by the time
807:
ideologies and tendencies." This is in contradiction to the ideology listed of "right libertarianism" (the opposite of authoritarian), and anyone who is familiar with the party's policies would also agree that they are not "ultranationalist". There are also no sources cited next to the political
473:
There is more to being a far right party than overt racism. The use of the term "far right" is sourced in the article text to multiple, independent and reliable third party sources. There have been numerous attempts by supporters of the party to remove that text as part of a sanitization of the
170:
First of all, the party campaigned against vaccine passports/mandates, not vaccines (Bernier stated a number of times that the party was not against vaccines). Secondly, there are other parties (such as the
Republican Party in the US) who have echoed these sentiments, but have not had 'vaccine
1014:
This is a purely objective and factual observation. Perhaps some of these definitions are wrong, fine. But it is easier to solve this by removing the label causing the contradiction in the first place, then it is to edit the other definitions, as there are many other articles where they would
231:'vaccine hesitancy' be properly categorized as a political ideology? Opposition to passports, mandates, and other Covid-19 restrictions is a component of larger political ideologies (such as 'right-libertarianism', which is listed), but not really an established school of thought unto itself.
666:
This is the only case where the table was taking a floor crossing into account into the table, you don't see that with LPC, CPC, NDPC, BQ, or GPC. I have changed the table to reflect steady much like the GPC shows in 2008 when the floor crosser failed to win their seat. If we want to look at
1094:
The only way to properly win an argument, is to first sum up what the others are saying to make sure you fully understand the argument, which is that reliable sources have labeled the People's Party far-right, thus making it's use justified. The only two people who addressed the link to the
348:
in the body. Unless a
Policies parameter is added to the infobox, which is for key uncontroversial facts, so that non-ideology but nonetheless important for context policies, such as pro-Europeanism, Euroscepticism, climate change denial, and the like, can be put on there, we should not add
778:
As noted, we have many sources labelling the party as "far right" and over time, in the past year, it has became much more "far right". To remove this label at this point in time you would need multiple mainstream and reliable sources that specifically say the party is not "far right". -
509:
The comparison is from one election to the other. If
Bernier had been joined by two others, and would have been the only one elected under the PPC name, The party wouldn't have gained two seats less than in 2015, it would have gained a net seat compared to it, as it didn't exist back
1122:
If I misrepresented your points, let me know. Now if someone could try and understand my point before dismissing it, that would make this talk a bit more civil, and potentially allow us to reach a consensus on what to do. (Perhaps the use of an asterisk with a side note? idk)
966:
The fact that the far right
Knowledge article is in-congruent with Canadian reliable sources doesn't prove that the reliable sources are wrong, what it means is the Knowledge article on far-right needs some expansion to account for use of the term in a Canadian context. -
1215:
before you do. It is important that we include proper sourcing, and strive to be neutral in our articles. If someone disagrees with any part of your edits or proposals, they will likely tell you there. This is not the best space to discuss changes to other articles
1163:
Now we're getting somewhere. I have done some research on the Far-left politics Knowledge article, their intro paragraphs are much more broad, describing it as "There are different definitions of the far-left. Some scholars define it as representing the left of
474:
article. At this point, to remove that, you will need multiple, independent and reliable third party sources that say that the party is "not far right" and that will only allow us to indicate that there is disagreement on the subject among sources. -
1137:
It is not a "strawman", it is a valid observation. Check the article history - there has a been a long parade of party supporters here trying to sanitize the article to make the party look more mainstream and palatable to readers and presumably
1284:
too American. Within Canada's context, where the centre is somewhere between social liberalism and social democracy, the party is far-right, but in the context of actual positioning, it makes very little sense at all to label it as such.
1034:
Perhaps I'm being too pragmatic, however it is small things like this that can tarnish the idea that Knowledge is consistent, independent, and reliable. Discussions like this should not be dismissed, and are part of how Knowledge works.
427:
Jagmeet Singh accused Maxime Bernier of inciting hatred Monday evening, as Canada’s first racialized federal party leader repeatedly squared off against the boss of the country’s newest far-right party at the English-language election
135:("We don’t doubt O’Toole is sincere when he calls on those who haven’t got a shot to get with the program. He’s no anti-vaxxer, unlike Maxime Bernier of the People’s Party who is openly courting the hardline vaccine skeptics."),
874:
say the PPC is "far-right". We aren't even going that far. We say they are "right-wing to far-right", or somewhere in that range. That seems to be correct, based on their views on nationalism, gun-rights, climate change,
1291:
I repeat: do not edit the far-right label until you have unbiased, Canadian sources that label the party itself as far-right—not a group of its perceived supporters, not a donor, and not a candidate's personal views.
1018:
For example: you said "The party is described as far-right chiefly because of their nativist stances and support for extreme nationalist ideas, figures, and organisations." However, the definition clearly states
343:
Because the IP's main point was they do not believe that "'vaccine hesitancy' can really be properly classified as a political ideology", which is correct. Either way, it is already in the lead, and I have added
171:
hesitancy' added to their ideology section. Lastly, I don't believe that 'vaccine hesitancy' can really be properly classified as a political ideology. For these reasons, it should be removed from the infobox.
1002:
You are correct that personal analysis should not be included, and I'm not trying to have a political debate, perhaps I was too subjective in my previous comments. Let me boil down my point to this;
458:
942:
and it does not matter if you disagree with what the preponderance of reliable sources say. Talk pages are for suggestions and grievances based on the website's policies, not political debates or
808:
position labels to prove the position. I find that The term far-right is also often used by the "mainstream", "reliable", and "independent" media to slander people and parties they disagree with.
451:
I don't believe that the People party of Canada, a party that has condemned white supremacy and racism should be labelled as "far right". I propose changing it from "far right" to "right wing".
938:
The other two editors who replied have been overly generous by entertaining your comments up to this point. Your argument is irrelevant; Knowledge only allows the inclusion of content that is
1280:
the cited articles from The Conversation and Huffington Post, do not, in fact, label the party as far-right, but rather claims that it is right-wing and courts the support of the far-right.
982:
discussion because every few weeks a new account or anonymous editor will ask that the far-right label be removed and not give a policy-based reason why, because they do not have one.
830:
In conclusion, I think removal of the label "far-right" is warranted, due to contradictions, over-use of the term, and to prevent confusion of those who are unfamiliar with the party.
889:
I understand that some "reliable" sources have called them "far-right", that's not my point. Language is usually fungible, especially with the one dimensional left right spectrum.
907:
ideologies and tendencies." This is perhaps not the definition the "reliable" sources had in mind, but that is the definition according to Knowledge, thus making it incorrect.
795:
The problem with the label being used on Knowledge, is that when you follow the "far-right" link, the first paragraph describes the term as "particularly in terms of being
827:
ideologies", as using it here cheapens the label and by calling this party far-right, you would have to come up with another more extreme label for actual extreme parties.
462:
396:
as Canada's first racialized federal party leader repeatedly squared off against the boss of the country's newest far-right party at the English-language election debate
667:
disolusion numbers then we would need to change all the tables for every party just so that we can show PPC lose one seat that they never "won" in the first place.
1190:
I think it would perhaps be easier to change the far-right article to better reflect it's more broad use in modern times, then creating a new specified article.
629:
The PPC did have a seat in the House of Commons, during the latter half of the 42nd Parliament, right up to dissolution. Therefore, Walter's edit is accurate.
123:
1288:
statement regarding the far-right label will be qualified, flagged for the requirement of editor consensus before editing, and removed from the infobox.
1305:
is obviously a new edit to delete 'far-right' from infobox, so 'far-right' in infobox must be maintained until the Talk topic you have opened is over.--
1172:." It goes on to describe a variety of positions that are considered far-left by news media. Notably the wording is more general, for example: It says "
1091:
I honestly don't understand why you guy's can't see the problem here, the problem keep's getting dismissed, perhaps I'm not the one with political bias.
588:
The difference we place in such table does show the seats gained or lost from the previous election, not from some situation that happened in between.--
576:
We're placing in the table the changes from last election, in which PPC won zero seats. If we were placing change from dissolution in such table, then
133:
602:
It seems pretty clear to me. The party had one seat going into the election and none afterwards, so that is a loss of one seat. There is nothing in
59:
1141:
Canadian reliable sources are not required to align with Knowledge articles. So as far as that goes, the obvious solution is to remove the link to
668:
586:
would be showing +26, as it had 95 seats before dissolution, and won 121. Again, it is not, it show +22, because it gained 99 seats in 2015.
848:
say and many of them clearly label the party far right. As noted above, its position have become even more so over the last two years. -
1437:
232:
172:
580:
would show 2019 with -20, as it had 177 before dissolution and won 157. It is not, it show -27 because the party won 184 seats in 2015.
750:
that support the change you want to be made. This prose is well sourced. You would have to provide better sources proving otherwise.
1471:
125:("Bernier talked about how vaccine passports should not exist and how other political parties do not support Canadians' freedoms.")
1331:
that they don't agree with. This party may not be as far right as some in the world, but by Canadian standards it is far right. -
1310:
1193:
Thoughts? Should I create an edit request on the far-right politics page? Or is it better to create a new and more specific page?
1103:, who suggested that Canadian context could be required in the article, thus agreeing with me that the context doesn't match. And
1084:
I didn't know that Knowledge's definition should be ignored, and yes I read the whole "far-right" article. But just the fact that
811:
Therefore I think we should be very selective and careful when using the term "far-right", and reserve that label for parties who
17:
128:
406:
s view. In short, it is one thing if Sing called Bernier "Canada's first racialized federal party leader", it is another if the
1031:
The definition fails to apply on the first point in the definition, thus does not apply. (per the definition of "particularly")
755:
1146:
47:
245:
I tend to agree. "Vaccine hesitancy" is not an ideology or even a policy position, which is why I changed the infobox to
1067:
trying to get that removed for political reasons. The reliable sources are straightforward, the wording is justified. -
583:
1306:
1054:
769:
567:
529:
499:
1081:
Just because I noticed a discrepancy, doesn't mean I'm a supporter, and you shouldn't use that as a strawman either.
751:
747:
334:
301:
293:
221:
144:
38:
1207:
You are welcome to make or propose edits to other articles. You should ensure you are familiar with our policies
119:, therefore it should be included in the infobox under the ideology section. The following sources support this:
1491:
1297:
1221:
1198:
1128:
1040:
994:
958:
929:
912:
880:
835:
702:
672:
603:
924:
I find it kind of funny and depressing that classical liberalism can be considered "far-right" in modern times.
723:
The peoples party of Canada is not a "far-right" party and the term "far-right" should be removed for clarity
1441:
236:
176:
1063:
It is clear that the sources are correct, the party is far right. It is also clear that a regular parade of
698:
577:
1475:
1461:
1194:
1124:
1104:
1050:
1036:
925:
908:
831:
765:
563:
525:
495:
312:
1010:
definition, simply contradicts the definitions of the other listed ideologies, and policies of the party.
1265:
415:
354:
330:
320:
297:
273:
217:
140:
1487:
1467:
1395:
1293:
1217:
983:
947:
876:
557:
454:
1495:
1479:
1445:
1429:
1399:
1376:
1357:
1349:
1340:
1314:
1225:
1202:
1158:
1132:
1076:
1058:
1044:
997:
976:
961:
933:
916:
884:
857:
839:
788:
773:
759:
732:
676:
660:
647:
the federal/provincial/territorial elections is this. Do we - A) use the previous election results,
638:
615:
597:
571:
533:
519:
503:
483:
466:
440:
419:
358:
338:
324:
305:
277:
258:
240:
225:
203:
180:
163:
148:
104:
89:
1353:
904:
824:
804:
724:
115:
It is pretty clear based off of the recent election that the PPC campaigned primarily based off of
1142:
1112:
1108:
1096:
863:
728:
81:
1436:
Pro medical choice has nothing to do with anti-vaxx or political spectrum, you are out of line.
593:
515:
1169:
656:
634:
345:
213:
209:
116:
1180:
1165:
900:
820:
800:
411:
350:
316:
269:
85:
329:
I like how I'm shown this, yet the IP who initially made the argument about the GOP isn't.
1425:
1391:
1372:
1336:
1154:
1072:
1049:
Knowledge is not a dictionary definition. Read the whole article, not the first sentence.
972:
853:
784:
611:
562:, both of whom I recognize from editing Canadian political articles and have edited here.
479:
436:
254:
199:
159:
100:
546:
could be brought into the discussion as the editor thanked me for my initial revert. Or
1107:, who suggested that the first paragraph is not a definition, and if I read the whole
349:
non-ideologies to the Ideology parameter, which should be very short and not bloated.
187:
1208:
1184:
1064:
1024:
896:
816:
796:
589:
511:
1111:
article I would find where they match, I did not, and once again, the fact that the
1417:
1328:
1324:
1212:
943:
939:
871:
845:
652:
630:
549:
867:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1421:
1368:
1332:
1150:
1100:
1068:
968:
849:
780:
607:
541:
475:
432:
375:
250:
195:
155:
96:
268:, specifically to list such policies that do not fit the Ideology parameter.
1272:
764:
There are multiple sources that support "far-right", and more can be found.
895:
Knowledge's definition explicitly states "particularly in terms of being
606:
that indicates this is "compared to the results of the last election". -
394:
Jagmeet Singh accused Maxime Bernier of inciting hatred Monday evening,
384:
Jagmeet Singh accused Maxime Bernier of inciting hatred Monday evening
1323:
I agree that this should not be removed. On Knowledge we go with what
1145:. It probably makes more sense to create a new article something like
494:
The table shows lost seats, not losses from the previous election.
1348:
The summary does not reflect the bulk of the text of the article.
95:
An update on that item would be useful, if a ref can be found. -
1149:
or similar to give better background from a Canadian context. -
425:
I think you are misunderstanding the quote in the ref. It says
844:
Thanks for your thoughts, but we are required to reflect what
686:
651:
B) use the dissolution count. When doing up the +/- of seats.
25:
216:
which does include "vaccine hesitancy" under it's ideology.
524:
Please read above. It's not what you claim. You are wrong.
1088:, before a link to a reliable source, implies otherwise.
379:
265:
1327:
say, not the opinions of some editors to ignore some
1367:even further right with its anti-vaxx positions. -
1271:According to our own definition on wikipedia, the
1119:the definition and context required to understand.
643:What we need to decide on these political parties
1183:,..." instead of "particularly in terms of being
410:did; in the latter case, it should be re-added.
264:add another Policies parameter, as I suggested
247:Opposing vaccine passports and vaccine mandates
683:Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2022
388:Canada's first racialized federal party leader
862:Agreed, a "far-right" party need not promote
8:
1465:
452:
1268:claim that requires exceptional sources.
490:Lost seats or loss from previous election
1168:, while others limit it to the left of
1147:History of far-right politics in Canada
1115:article is linked to, suggests that it
459:2604:3D08:1C7E:AA00:B452:3197:C52A:5A37
426:
393:
383:
246:
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
1179:been associated with some forms of
946:. You are wasting your time here.
431:which means Singh, not Bernier. -
24:
18:Talk:People's Party of Canada
738:
690:
186:
29:
208:What you describe is very much
1430:12:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
1400:09:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
1377:18:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
1358:18:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
1065:party supporters shows up here
661:21:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
639:21:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
616:18:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
598:18:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
572:18:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
534:18:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
520:18:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
504:18:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
441:19:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
420:19:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
399:, which I interpret to be the
359:14:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
339:02:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
325:23:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
306:21:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
278:23:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
259:13:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
241:13:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
226:17:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
204:23:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
181:23:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
164:23:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
149:20:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
105:18:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
90:17:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
80:the 2021 election took place.
1:
1464:and the PPC related at all?
484:12:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
467:06:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
1187:," on the far-right article.
789:14:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
774:04:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
760:00:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
733:00:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
584:Conservative Party of Canada
111:Vaccine hesitancy in infobox
717:to reactivate your request.
705:has been answered. Set the
677:19:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
1512:
1486:No, but there is overlap.
1456:Populist Party of Ontario?
1300:) 15:51, 23 May 2020 UTC
1264:The far-right label is an
1226:18:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
1203:17:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
1159:15:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
1133:13:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
1077:12:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
1059:05:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
1045:04:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
998:03:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
977:03:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
962:03:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
934:03:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
917:02:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
885:02:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
868:other types of nationalism
858:01:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
840:01:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
1390:liberalism" on its page.
1006:The label "far-right" by
1496:21:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
1480:20:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
1446:01:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
1341:12:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
1315:06:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
1260:"Far-right" and sourcing
703:People's Party of Canada
578:Liberal Party of Canada
1462:Populist Party Ontario
752:ScottishFinnishRadish
42:of past discussions.
296:is another example.
154:Seems reasonable. -
921:Also on a side note
604:the article section
382:, it does not says
1143:Far-right politics
1023:in terms of being
864:ethnic nationalism
582:In a similar way,
1482:
1470:comment added by
1170:communist parties
944:personal analysis
721:
720:
469:
457:comment added by
408:National Observer
401:National Observer
370:National Observer
346:vaccine hesitancy
214:Free Party Canada
210:vaccine hesitancy
117:vaccine hesitancy
72:
71:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1503:
1181:authoritarianism
1166:social democracy
992:
989:
986:
956:
953:
950:
940:reliably sourced
901:ultranationalist
846:reliable sources
821:ultranationalist
801:ultranationalist
748:reliable sources
742:
741:
712:
708:
694:
693:
687:
561:
553:
545:
405:
378:, in regards to
331:GhostOfDanGurney
298:GhostOfDanGurney
218:GhostOfDanGurney
190:
141:GhostOfDanGurney
68:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1511:
1510:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1458:
1294:MysteryDoctorCA
1262:
1218:Darryl Kerrigan
1195:WatchfulRelic91
1125:WatchfulRelic91
1037:WatchfulRelic91
990:
987:
984:
954:
951:
948:
926:WatchfulRelic91
909:WatchfulRelic91
877:Darryl Kerrigan
832:WatchfulRelic91
746:please provide
739:
710:
706:
691:
685:
669:142.161.249.114
558:CentreLeftRight
555:
547:
539:
492:
449:
447:Far Right label
403:
373:
313:WP:OTHERCONTENT
113:
77:
64:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1509:
1507:
1499:
1498:
1457:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1361:
1360:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1318:
1317:
1261:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1191:
1188:
1139:
1120:
1105:Walter Görlitz
1092:
1089:
1086:it's linked to
1082:
1051:Walter Görlitz
1032:
1016:
1012:
1003:
922:
887:
828:
809:
793:
792:
791:
766:Walter Görlitz
719:
718:
695:
684:
681:
680:
679:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
587:
581:
564:Walter Görlitz
526:Walter Görlitz
496:Walter Görlitz
491:
488:
487:
486:
448:
445:
444:
443:
372:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
280:
167:
166:
137:
136:
131:
126:
112:
109:
108:
107:
76:
73:
70:
69:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1508:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1463:
1455:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1438:23.233.60.111
1435:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1299:
1295:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1274:
1269:
1267:
1259:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1189:
1186:
1185:authoritarian
1182:
1178:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1121:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1099:article were
1098:
1093:
1090:
1087:
1083:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1033:
1030:
1026:
1025:authoritarian
1022:
1017:
1013:
1011:
1009:
1008:"Knowledge's"
1004:
1001:
1000:
999:
996:
993:
980:
979:
978:
974:
970:
965:
964:
963:
960:
957:
945:
941:
937:
936:
935:
931:
927:
923:
920:
919:
918:
914:
910:
906:
903:, and having
902:
898:
897:authoritarian
894:
893:
888:
886:
882:
878:
873:
869:
865:
861:
860:
859:
855:
851:
847:
843:
842:
841:
837:
833:
829:
826:
823:, and having
822:
818:
817:authoritarian
814:
810:
806:
803:, and having
802:
798:
797:authoritarian
794:
790:
786:
782:
777:
776:
775:
771:
767:
763:
762:
761:
757:
753:
749:
745:
737:
736:
735:
734:
730:
726:
716:
713:parameter to
704:
700:
696:
689:
688:
682:
678:
674:
670:
665:
664:
663:
662:
658:
654:
650:
646:
641:
640:
636:
632:
617:
613:
609:
605:
601:
600:
599:
595:
591:
585:
579:
575:
574:
573:
569:
565:
559:
551:
543:
537:
536:
535:
531:
527:
523:
522:
521:
517:
513:
508:
507:
506:
505:
501:
497:
489:
485:
481:
477:
472:
471:
470:
468:
464:
460:
456:
446:
442:
438:
434:
429:
424:
423:
422:
421:
417:
413:
409:
402:
398:
397:
392:
389:
387:
381:
377:
371:
368:
360:
356:
352:
347:
342:
341:
340:
336:
332:
328:
327:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
309:
308:
307:
303:
299:
295:
279:
275:
271:
267:
262:
261:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
243:
242:
238:
234:
233:99.245.40.162
229:
228:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
206:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:Good points,
184:
183:
182:
178:
174:
173:99.245.40.162
169:
168:
165:
161:
157:
153:
152:
151:
150:
146:
142:
134:
132:
129:
127:
124:
122:
121:
120:
118:
110:
106:
102:
98:
94:
93:
92:
91:
87:
83:
74:
67:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1466:— Preceding
1459:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1270:
1263:
1176:
1173:
1116:
1085:
1028:
1021:particularly
1020:
1007:
1005:
891:
890:
866:; there are
812:
743:
722:
714:
699:edit request
648:
644:
642:
628:
493:
453:— Preceding
450:
407:
400:
395:
390:
385:
374:
369:
292:
191:
138:
114:
78:
65:
43:
37:
1472:74.14.82.30
1266:exceptional
412:Davide King
351:Davide King
317:Davide King
270:Davide King
36:This is an
1392:Cable10291
707:|answered=
1350:Dr.bdlink
1273:far-right
1216:though.--
1113:far-right
1109:far-right
1097:far-right
744:Not done:
139:and etc.
66:Archive 2
60:Archive 1
1468:unsigned
1460:Are the
1174:far-left
905:nativist
825:nativist
805:nativist
725:Skater44
538:Perhaps
455:unsigned
75:PPC EDAs
1138:voters.
892:However
870:. Some
653:GoodDay
631:GoodDay
550:GoodDay
510:then.--
428:debate.
39:archive
1209:WP:POV
1015:match.
985:Centre
949:Centre
875:etc.--
82:Mcljlm
1422:Ahunt
1418:WP:RS
1369:Ahunt
1333:Ahunt
1329:WP:RS
1325:WP:RS
1213:WP:RS
1151:Ahunt
1101:Ahunt
1069:Ahunt
991:Right
969:Ahunt
955:Right
872:WP:RS
850:Ahunt
781:Ahunt
711:|ans=
697:This
608:Ahunt
590:Aréat
542:Ahunt
512:Aréat
476:Ahunt
433:Ahunt
376:Ahunt
251:Ahunt
196:Ahunt
192:Fixed
156:Ahunt
97:Ahunt
16:<
1492:talk
1476:talk
1442:talk
1426:talk
1420:. -
1416:See
1396:talk
1373:talk
1354:talk
1337:talk
1311:talk
1307:ě‚은사과
1298:talk
1222:talk
1211:and
1199:talk
1155:talk
1129:talk
1073:talk
1055:talk
1041:talk
988:Left
973:talk
952:Left
930:talk
913:talk
881:talk
854:talk
836:talk
785:talk
770:talk
756:talk
729:talk
673:talk
657:talk
635:talk
612:talk
594:talk
568:talk
530:talk
516:talk
500:talk
480:talk
463:talk
437:talk
416:talk
380:this
355:talk
335:talk
321:talk
311:See
302:talk
294:Here
274:talk
266:here
255:talk
249:. -
237:talk
222:talk
200:talk
177:talk
160:talk
145:talk
101:talk
86:talk
1488:TFD
1177:has
1027:...
813:are
709:or
701:to
645:and
391:but
1494:)
1478:)
1444:)
1428:)
1398:)
1375:)
1356:)
1339:)
1313:)
1224:)
1201:)
1157:)
1131:)
1117:is
1075:)
1057:)
1043:)
975:)
932:)
915:)
899:,
883:)
856:)
838:)
819:,
799:,
787:)
772:)
758:)
731:)
715:no
675:)
659:)
649:or
637:)
614:)
596:)
570:)
554:,
532:)
518:)
502:)
482:)
465:)
439:)
418:)
386:as
357:)
337:)
323:)
315:.
304:)
276:)
257:)
239:)
224:)
202:)
194:-
179:)
162:)
147:)
103:)
88:)
1490:(
1474:(
1440:(
1424:(
1394:(
1371:(
1352:(
1335:(
1309:(
1296:(
1220:(
1197:(
1153:(
1127:(
1071:(
1053:(
1039:(
1029:"
1019:"
995:✉
971:(
959:✉
928:(
911:(
879:(
852:(
834:(
815:"
783:(
768:(
754:(
727:(
671:(
655:(
633:(
610:(
592:(
566:(
560::
556:@
552::
548:@
544::
540:@
528:(
514:(
498:(
478:(
461:(
435:(
414:(
404:'
353:(
333:(
319:(
300:(
272:(
253:(
235:(
220:(
198:(
175:(
158:(
143:(
99:(
84:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
