Talk:Liberal Initiative

Change Page Name

The name of this page should be changed to "Liberal Initiative" only. Because there are two pages with the same name, Liberal Initiative (Portugal) - that should lose the "(Portugal)" part - because the Portuguese Party is a current functional full-working party, and the Liberal Initiative, which is Italian and no longer exists.

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because it is a page about a real Portuguese political party, that has recently elected an MP to the Portuguese parliament. It has been under vandalism attacks since today's morning (18-10-2019) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aftaminas (talk • contribs) 00:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Aftaminas: Are you reverting and contesting your own edit? Is this some sort of joke? @Dannyps: requested the page for speedy deletion through Fast Buttons but promptly reverted the edit, presumably because it was a mistake. You were the one who revert it back to speedy deletion, so there is really nothing to contest here other than your own mistake. - Sarilho1 (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sarilho1: It was indeed a mistake. I don't get Aftaminas's point either. Dannyps (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Changes to political spectrum

Vif12vf please stop your vandalism. I can find dozens of references in portuguese describing Liberal Initiative as center-right, as well as in english. I've chosen 3, in english, to help english readers to as why is Liberal Initiative a center-right party, instead of right-wing

Finding references for centre-right does not in any way prove that they are not also right-wing! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

That may be Vif12vf, but IL having right-wing policies is not the consensus among either portuguese electorate, journalists, analysts or political scientist. While an established, older and larger big-tent party can obviously go from centrim to right-wing, IL is both too young and too small to already have a broad spectrum of political views like you keep on adding/editing/reverting. Besides that, it is very difficult to use american political thinking on european parties and vice versa (refering to the piece saying that IL is like the american Libertarian Party). Right now, IL is a party that has social liberals, classical liberals, a few conservative liberals and even less libertarians, with the classical liberal thinking being the one in charge. In Portugal, being right-wing (as opposed to center-right) means religious conservatism, euroscepticism, justicialism and nativism, not extreme free-market laissez-faire economic policies. IL is none of those things, as you may find with any research online about the policies that has introduced in Parliamente or through what is said regularly about in the news. Aftaminas (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

No real opinion on your dispute here, but it's probably better to work it out on talk. At a quick look, the only inline cite for "right-wing" seems to be [1] - it has "opiniao" in the URL, so I'm guessing it's an opinion piece. Do we have any reliable sources saying the party is ideologically right-wing? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Position of IL on titles

@CGBoas: Following your latest reversion, please explain where in the written sources provided (this one and this one) is it stated that the Liberal Initiative opposes the usage of titles, or where in the referenced one-hour long video does João Cotrim de Figueiredo say that the Liberal Initiative officially opposes the usage of titles. Please note that, in the latter case, it must be clear that it is a party stance, not merely Cotrim's personal opinion. LongLivePortugal (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The party doesn't oppose the usage of titles. Anyone can use titles within or outside the party. It just doesn't encourage the Portuguese peculiar custom and has carefully put this non-obligatory norm in place through its communication platforms, discourse and Member of Parliament. In addition, in striking contrast to other Portuguese parties, it extensively uses the personal pronoun "you" in every outdoor and social media. This is a first in Portuguese politics. Both Cotrim and the liberal party have stressed this internal norm and are widely regarded as promoters of liberal customs like this in striking contrast to the predominant, conservative Portuguese norm that is the end result of decades-long antiliberal conservative regimes under both monarchy and republicanism. The incumbent party leader couldn't be more clear about this topic in the source provided when he says that IL isn't also liberal in the usage of titles but that it is inherently liberal right from the start because it doesn't need to use titles. CGBoas (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@CGBoas: With all due respect, what you are saying sounds a lot like original research. You keep avoiding my questions: where in those sources do you read the things you've just said? LongLivePortugal (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Não te vou explicar o que está explicitado nas 3 referências sobre o tópico que adicionei. Incluindo o que é dito pela boca do presidente do próprio partido num video. Raras são as vezes na Wikipédia em que uma fonte é tão pura e direta. Devias cingir-te ao conservador CHEGA e artigos relacionados nesta enciclopédia. CGBoas (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@CGBoas: It is requested that discussions be conducted in English. I have asked you where in the references provided you read the things you are trying to add. I have read the two written ones and couldn't find anything about titles. And one hour is too long a video for you to direct readers to in order to find the citation mentioned. My conclusion is that the sources you are providing do not support your claim. I have repeatedly asked you to prove me wrong by specifying exactly where you so directly and clearly read that information, which you could have easily done in good faith by now. Why haven't you? Is it because the sources simply don't say that? Sounds like that's the case. So, I ask you for the fourth time: where do you read that, or where in the video does Cotrim say that? Please remember that the burden of proof is on your side. (Finally, as for your suggestion that I should be editing articles of a different political party, please remember that, in Wikipedia, we are free to edit any articles we want, which is why you have no reason to criticise me for what I choose to edit.) LongLivePortugal (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources for Political Aligment

@LongLivePortugal The 2 added sources where from 2 distinct personalities, Raul Vaz and Prof. José Pacheco Pereira , Professor of Political sciences, and Distinguished author on the subject. There's no one else more qualified to make that statement.

Therefore the "specialists" or "recognised experts" requirement is fully met.

Tafinho (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tafinho: At WP:NEWSORG, which you cited, it says: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. [...] Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." If your sole argument to open an exception to this general notion (that opinion articles are not good sources for statements of fact) is that one of the two guys is a professor of Political Science, it comes down quickly when you consider that even Political Science professors can have different opinions on things so subjective as party ideologies. For this kind of information, peer-reviewed papers are the most reliable sources. Furthermore, I do not understand your insistence in adding two more sources to a statement that is already sourced with a stronger reference that hasn't been disputed — in other words, if you do not even intend to add new information but only controversial references to information that is already there, why are you insisting on it? LongLivePortugal (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Autospark

This user, that clearly has ideological motivations for editing this page with unreliable information with no sources, must be prevented from further vandalising this page. 2001:8A0:6A16:8301:5E9:CBFF:1927:7FF5 (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Every now and then this page gets flooded with trolls NotTheRealDiogoFaro (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Bollocks. You and and IP address mate are trolls. I’ve used actual reliable sources here, used Google Books as a source, and it gets reverted because you seem to view en.wiki as some kind of blog hoster to create promotional articles in favour of organisations you may be in support of. Learn how a wiki, and academic referencing, actually works. Ideally also basics in political science.— Autospark (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Watch your language, troll. You have presented exactly ZERO sources to back your very bold statements, the one source you are referencing (that was already here before your vandalism) actually disproves your edits. Your ideological bias is quite clear and any person with a basic understanding of the portuguese languange and the national political landscape would laugh in your face for even claiming that IL is on the same scale as the US Libertarian Party or Milei. I have already notified some portuguese wikipedians to take care of you. 2001:8A0:6A16:8301:5E9:CBFF:1927:7FF5 (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Where did I add any text comparing LI to the American and Argentinian parties you’ve mentioned? Nowhere. I am using academic sources, and a sizeable number explicitly refer to the party as libertarian. That’s how Wikipedia works, it reflects how third-party sources describe an organisation (including a political party), not how that organisation and its supporters wish to present it. Too much of the article in places reads like a promotional, advocatory piece in favour of the party, and I am merely attempting to present the party in an objective manner, as an encyclopaedia should be (how en.wiki was before being flooded with activist users).— Autospark (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The only mention of IL's alledged libertarianism in the Oxford Handbook of Portuguese Politics is this:

"The IL presented mostly an economically libertarian platform-with proposals such as a flat income tax, labour market liberalization, and the privatization of inefficient state-owned enterprises and did well particularly among young and affluent urban voters (traditionally a stronghold of the CDS). Although it should be noted that the IL does not claim to be right-wing, and is aligned at European level with the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party (ALDE), within the Portuguese context it is clearly perceived as being right-of-centre in the political spectrum."

How is this enough to brand IL as a purely libertarian party? Please enlighten me, because we will have to change the ideology of the Free Democratic Party (Germany), the Estonian Reform Party or the Dutch People's Party for Freedom and Democracy if this is solely a "Libertarian" position and not a broad opinion for Liberal parties across the World. Even some EPP parties might be "Libertarian" too if this is your definition for it. 2001:8A0:6A16:8301:5E9:CBFF:1927:7FF5 (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

What? Can you even read English at an acceptable level? Where did I remove any reference to the party being described as "liberal"? Where did I misrepresent those scholarly sources (I didn't)? My aim is to move the article in a more objective direction and read less like a promotional puff piece.— Autospark (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Right back at you, but do keep going, these petty insults will be great to report your account. When there are no more arguments trolls like you like to go back to resort to insulting others. Since you are now editing a reply instead of replying directly, I will do the same. The original article making the bogus claim that IL was a "libertarian party" was from a local tabloid newspaper called "Ericeiraonline". The Oxford Handbook of Portuguese Politics doesn't actually claim that, just that the party manifesto for the 2019 general elections had an economically libertarian leaning (debatable but ok), meanwhile there is a 2022 election manifesto that can bury that claim for good. At this point you should really just accept your own ignorance on this subject and move on, it is getting embarrassing seeing a veteran Wikipedian behaving like a throwaway account troll. 2001:8A0:6A16:8301:5E9:CBFF:1927:7FF5 (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

LOL you just deleted a bunch of credible sources in portuguese because you didn't like them. I am done wasting my time here trying in vain to talk some sense into your thick skull. I will be getting in touch with portuguese wikipedians to deal with you. Bye! 2001:8A0:6A16:8301:5E9:CBFF:1927:7FF5 (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

This Autospark editor is insane. The same person that claims that Podemos doesn't have far-left elements is now defacing an article of a full member of ALDE. You can tell right away Autospark's political field. A shame that Wikipedia allows these ideological trolls to do whatever they please. NotTheRealDiogoFaro (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

LOOOL that lunatic is now removing any reference to Classical liberalism in the Free Democratic Party (Germany). This so funny! NotTheRealDiogoFaro (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Scientific articles are ok, ( https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2005/dec/16/wikipedia.news ) but Wikipedia is vulnerable to ignorance and malice and faces serious problems to be a serious reference tool because leftist propaganda is a serious problem here. ( https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/08/08/wikipedia-has-become-tool-left-battle-control-truth/ ) A. Landmesser (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I have just been called a "brainless alt-right thug harassing a Jewish Wikipedian" for asking for sources and consistency with other articles. This website might as well change its name to Tankiepedia... NotTheRealDiogoFaro (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I really do not understand why User:Autospark, an experienced and knowledgeable long-time contributor to Wikipedia, could be treated this way without any intervention by administrators.

On topic, according to sources and consensus, IL is clearly a liberal party with libertarian instincts. I think that the infobox should feature both "liberalism" and "libertarianism"—and nothing else. Additionally, I would have just "centre-right" as position, leaving "right-wing" out. --Checco (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

"Social liberalism"

Can anyone with a command of Portuguese check the source and verify whether the source's definition of social liberalism is the same as Wikipedia's (Keynsian)? Seems to contradict other stances. --17:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.24.68.61 (talk)

Position

I propose to add far right with the following quality sources. Hidolo (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Gustavo Cardoso is a "quality source"? Funny. DiogoBaptista (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Those sources do not appear to meet WP:RS, and appear to contradict higher quality sources cited on the page.

is incorrectly cited as being published by ISCTE. The DOI link leads to a ResearchGate page (online repository with open submissions) with contains the full text of the article. The editor is an organisation called "OberCom", which which at least some authors appear to be affiliated with. The ISCTE repository page corroborates this information. It also adds that the article has not been peer-reviewed. The authors also don't cite any further sources for the quoted statement. The source appears to be self-published (see WP:RSSELF).

is unclear if the term ultraderecha is exclusively referring to Chega, as the abstract states that the ultraderecha is the third political force in Portugal (a place occupied by Chega). Regardless, the author does not cite any sources for the ideological classification of IL. The only related citation is a Friedman book which the author states as being an influence of the party's ideals. This journal in which the article was published does appear to be an indexed scholarly source. However, the discussion of the party's ideological alignment does not appear to be within the scope of the paper, so this source does not appear to cary much weight within the criteria of WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

Is an article on a foreign media outlet whose author labels the party as "liberal ultraright" as opposed to Chega's "far-right" stance. The author cites no sources for either classification. The ideological placement of a political party is a more academic topic, and so news articles such as this one are less adequate for these matters as per WP:NEWSORG.

As I see it, the argument of the quality of the sources does not seem to hold much water as per the criteria defined in WP:RS. The sources are contradictory of higher-quality, scholarly sources already cited in the article, which place the party outside of the far-end of the political spectrum, as it seems to be consensual among the vast majority of academic and news sources. OpenKNAWLEDGE (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

References