Talk:Conservative People's Party of Estonia

Merger
People's Union of Estonia changed its name and symbolics. Members of Estonian Patriotic Movement joined the party. Ideology has changed a lot, but Conservative People's Party of Estonia is actually the same thing as People's Union of Estonia. Ivo (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing for lack of support over 2.5 years; case isn't clear as it was a merge between two former parties, rather than the continuation of one party. Klbrain (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the truth - the old Collective Farms(Kolkhoz) Chairmen party aka People's Union party was founded on the 29th of September 1994 and was only renamed in 2012(after 1999), because the Russian Patriotic Movement was not even a party, because they did not manage to find 1000 members that was required by the law. So they only changed the old communist party name to "Conservative" Party and lied to the whole public and the media about merging together(which i already said that was impossible, because there only was 1 party). You can use Google translate on this page if you dont believe it - https://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eesti_Konservatiivne_Rahvaerakond#Ajalugu . And here is the official required-by-the-courts report/protocol about the name change from their own website - https://web.archive.org/web/20120513133951/http://ekre.ee/eestimaa-rahvaliidu-21-kongressi-protokoll/ . And here you can read about the old Collective Farms(Kolkhoz) chairmen - http://www.lounaleht.ee/index.php?page=1&id=9434 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.129.107.214 (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The article needs more accuracy, not cherry picking!
Neutrality is required  and selecting information in a negative sense is to reflect a certain handpicked minority viewpoint WP:CHERRYPICKING. By selecting for example two sources to pander a a preferred position, is not precise and adequate ex. to label a party Far-Right and taking advantage of the alarmist frame of reference. Simplistic labelling is not appropriate and misrepresents the idea that WIKIPEDIA articles should fairly represent all significant viewpoints WP:WEIGHT. Editors should take heed of avoiding at all cost the fatal dependence on opinion piece articles from preferred journalists and stating them as facts WP:YESPOV,  WP:NOTOPINION. When a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution -  WP:ASSERT. Also avoid falling in the trap of  WP:SYN i.e. Synthesis of published material that advances a position. Failure to respect the above mentioned, often violates other Wikipedia's policies and guidelines:
 * WP:NPOV (policy): Neutral point of view, by selectively presenting one point of view from a source that actually includes two or more that conflict with each other
 * WP:OR (policy): No original research, by presenting a statement not supported by any source, not even the cited sourcing
 * WP:UNDUE (policy): Not giving undue weight to a view, by omitting information that shows that it is relatively unimportant
 * WP:SOAP: Some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this.
 * WP:PROMOTION : Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment for any political view point, be it nationalist or antinationalist

Activists, like all editors, must understand the fundamental importance of "Five pillars" and must be very careful of not falling in to the partisanship cycle. Value-laden labels WP:LABEL may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources, which not wholeheartedly the spirit this article. So please, no Propaganda & No holy wars and try to imagine yourself in your opponents shoes before using verbally violent epithets, such as; facist, racist, sodomite or Far-right extremist.

By trying to write for the opponent you allow yourself to edit an article from the perspective of a viewpoint opposed to your own. By doing so, you can sharpen and apply your neutral point of view editing skills.

Reflecting a more balance content, when describing the Conservative People's Party of Estonia, is easily observed in a wider sample of articles and in the different WIKIPEDIA language editions. None of them label the party as "Far-right". It would be more in a agreement with widely held estimations of EKRE, that it is a: Nationalist conservative party. I know that for many activists with certain political inclinations the before mentioned simply means; Far-right, Fascist, Racist extremist. I beg to differ, which I also believe reflects the established view of the issue. So let's restrain our political emotions, because at the end of the day Neutrality is the aim of the game. RudiLefkowitz (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

ps. This is how the party views itself:

The Estonian Conservative People’s Party is founded on the continuity of the Republic of Estonia and its Constitution, and it unites people who fight for the nation state, social cohesion and democratic principles.

The activities of the Conservative People’s Party are based on three fundamental values:
 * Endurance of the Estonian values, based on support for the language, culture, education, family, traditions and national economy
 * Participation society of equal opportunities, where open, honest and democratic governance allows all citizens to reach fulfilment and get involved in politics
 * Socially and regionally balanced development and wellbeing that are guaranteed by a fair and strong state by implementing caring and knowledge-based policies and by developing an ecologically sustainable living environment.The Conservative People’s Party with its nearly 7,800 members is the fourth largest party in Estonia. (SOURCE: The Estonian Parliamentary website http://www.riigikogu.ee/en/parliament-of-estonia/factions/conservative-peoples-party-estonia-faction/)

EKRE being accused in extremism or fascism, for Martin Helme, is an insult. He says there’s no evidence of them supporting fascism and the extremism accusations are just that the new political rhetoric is unfamiliar as yet. «The mainstream has become so orthodox, so narrow, that whatever is not immaculately, diligently, fervently more-catholic-than-pope mainstream is immediately labelled extremism,» parries Mr Helme. (http://news.postimees.ee/3127159/ekre-from-club-status-to-parliament-rank )


 * You need to stop removing the political position. You are constantly deleting the information and replacing it with an ideology (which are already included above under "ideology"). An ideology is not a political position on the political spectrum. You need to see the difference between those two. As you do this repeatedly, it becomes a issue of vandalism! Use the talk page before you continue these efforts. Without consensus your version will never be stable. And from what i see above, there appear to be a WP:Conflict of interest on your part. Dnm (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I added sources below: Radical right, as requested on my Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Radical right
Please see the sources that describe the party as right-wing:


 * "right wing radical national organisation" in The Baltic States: The National Self-Determination of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania edited by Graham Smith.


 * "radical right populist party" in Right-Wing Populism in Europe: Politics and Discourse edited by Ruth Wodak, Majid KhosraviNik, Brigitte Mral

And these are just a couple among many link. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There have been 2 parties with that name in Estonia, current one (established 2012) and other in 90s. Many links (including Graham Smith) do not refer to current political party. --Minnekon (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Wodak source does -- it describes the 2012 party. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Center Party's tacit support.
The source mentions "võtta arvesse Keskerakonna veelgi suuremat vaikivat toetust EKRE seisukohtadele". How is that not an accurate summary for the claim "Estonian Center Party has been tacitly supporting EKRE"? I thought Estonian was the native language of. (That the Estonian Center Party is a left-wing populist party is a widely known fact, e.g. ; nevertheless the article here is about EKRE so I'd be willing to compromise and leave it out).Miacek (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Faction’s
Should we add identitarism or even neo nazism due to Ruuben Kaalep and the Blue awakening? 176.72.89.93 (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Christian fundamentalism
Really? I highly doubt that there are any SGP-like parties in an extremely atheist country like Estonia Braganza (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Reducing ideologies to make it simple.
There is too many ideologies even for a most detailed wiki. so, I will make changes and leave these: 174.135.36.220 (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * suppport Braganza (talk) 06:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You actually agree? Great, now we can simplifed the ideologies with our examples I provided. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * wait a bit Braganza (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment remove some categories too when you do it (after some other users gave their comments too): Utopian movements, Christian fundamentalist organizations in Europe, Christian nationalism in Europe, Anti-abortion organizations & Criticism of feminism Braganza (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it, but sometimes I removed references without even realizing it. I am trying to not get banned. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Scrap DD. HE and replace the nationalism and SCON with national conservatism, and I'll agree to it :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * National conservatism
 * Hard Euroscepticism
 * Right-wing ppopulism.
 * Now we can begin to edit. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No to Euroscepticism, as it isn't an ideology, just a policy. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * National conservatism
 * Right-wing populism. ￼
 * Now we can begin to edit, for real this time. also, let remove some categories too. ￼ 174.135.36.220 (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * These are currently the categories:


 * I propose removing, , , , , . ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's begin editing! Still, it is a nationalist party, social conservative, christian nationalism and anti-abortion, let keep those while removing the rest. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think removing those not relating to their ideology would be best. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's begin editing the article, now. for real this time, and to help readers understand and not lose their understanding when reading. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * right-wing populism often includes Christian nationalism, imo "Christian nationalism" should focus on actual Christian right-nationalist parties Braganza (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @ValenciaThunderbolt @Braganza, Let's begin editing the articles to make it simple this time. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * i would leave Category:Nationalist parties in Estonia though Braganza (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Final call? If no, then we can start editing. if yes, then what do we have before editing. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No "yes" or "not yet". @ValenciaThunderbolt, maybe we should start editing the article. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Will do soon :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @ValenciaThunderbolt, ready to edit now? >:), to make the article more simple and understanding. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've got other things to do, so you might best ask someone else, like . ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 08:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bagzana, let begin editing the articles! 174.135.36.220 (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Calling everyone who can edit. We need help here. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Good news @ValenciaThunderbolt and @Braganza. @Pecora11914 and @ Isaidnoway have edited the page to make it simple! 174.135.36.220 (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * alright Braganza (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✋🏿 (Internet Five!). 'Cause we did it! 174.135.36.220 (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * you should create an account btw Braganza (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why? 174.135.36.220 (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * you would appear more reliable Braganza (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)