Talk:Freedom Party of Austria

[Untitled]
From the text:

" [The Austrian Freedom Party] attracted a wide range of adherents from anti-clerical liberals worried about Catholic Austria's potential isolation from the outside world to German nationalists, ''' a minority of whom would have even been sympathetic to some Nazi policies." '''

As always, this is not 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." ?  20:20, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Is A considerable percentage of party members were former Nazis. an assumption or a verified fact? Gugganij 10:00, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * " […] 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. […]"


 * Read the whole article entitled "Brown Stains", by Magali Perrault, Central Europe Review Vol.2, No.15 (April 17, 2000) ( http://www.ce-review.org/00/15/perrault15.html ) and decide yourself.  20:19, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Recent Split
Re: the recent split in the party, what exactly are the issues that caused the split? Right now it's extremely vague. john k 4 July 2005 15:31 (UTC)
 * 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. Martg76 4 July 2005 20:22 (UTC)

Far right
I think it is notable for a neutral article about FPÖ that it is alyways labeled as far-right in mainstream media around the world (CNN, BBC, Spiegel, New York Times, Deutsche Welle, LA Times, Guardian, AFP, Telegraph, Al Jazeera, Reuters, Independent, TIME, MSNBC etc. pp.) I think it is conspicuous and unbalanced not to mention this fact. Do you agree? -- RJFF (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

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 me.203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 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 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? GM1 22:11, 09 April 2014 (GMT)


 * 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 descriptive. GM1  (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It is supported by several sources that are referenced in the infobox:
 * ("Threats by the current extreme right were almost exclusively seen in connection with the far-right party, the FPÖ, ...")
 * ("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.")
 * I could add:
 * ("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)..."
 * 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, Luther published a chapter about the FPÖ in Right-wing Extremism in the Twenty-first Century, 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." --RJFF (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 right". The citations given to support this are:
 * - https://www.mkoe.at/recherchen-legen-tiefe-verstrickung-der-fpoe-parteispitze-in-rechtsextremismus-offen
 * - https://www.mkoe.at/broschuere-lauter-einzelfaelle-die-fpoe-und-der-rechtsextremismus
 * - https://www.marx21.de/fpoe-oesterreich-faschismus-in-friedenszeiten/
 * 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 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?
 * 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. 83.215.233.2 (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 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?
 * 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. 83.215.233.2 (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Ideology
The liberal national ideology consists on the concept of "Greater Germany", Reunification in "Deutsche Land", as the article says. That is the original ideology.--83.34.223.50 (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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 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 Wikipedia principles like verifiability, NPOV, and no OR should be applied.

Moreover, in my opinion the sentence "International reputable media habitually denote the Freedom Party of Austria as far right." with 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" without 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.

Kind regards -- RJFF (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 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 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). – Bellatores (t.) 19:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 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 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" is 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 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. was 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. Please, find a reliable source to verify the label, or we really have to remove it. Kind regards -- RJFF (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, after considering it, I'll agree to also put right-wing populism in the infobox. – Bellatores (t.) 15:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 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 -- RJFF (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

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.

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 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 -- RJFF (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 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 fact in the main text of the article. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 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 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 -- RJFF (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

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 a good deal of arguments for my edits, but alas, I could not notice that you faced up to them. Warm regards --RJFF (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 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 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. – Bellatores (t.) 13:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 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 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:


 * 1) 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 articles is based (Riedlsperger, Meret, Gingrich), the main ideology is right-wing populism.
 * 2) 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.)
 * 3) 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 populism. No need to highlight it.
 * 4) 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 text.
 * 5) I assure you, that it is not harmful to let right-wing populism stand alone for the ideology. First, right-wing populism is 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 ideology.
 * 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 --RJFF (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have now expanded a more in-depth section in the article that briefly discusses the party's ideology. – Bellatores (t.) 19:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 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 --RJFF (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 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 infobox, just look at the extreme cases of the American Republican Party and Democratic Party. All things considered, I think the ideology section of the infobox in this article is currently very good and descriptive. – Bellatores (t.) 20:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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 question: do you think that euroscepticism is really that important? Thank you for finally working together. Good night. --RJFF (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 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 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. – Bellatores (t.) 21:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your detailed explanation of your standpoint. Now, I can comprehend it very well. All dissent cleared. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

AUSTRIAN REUNIFICATION WITH DEUTSCHLAND 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 confirmed)--83.34.223.50 (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it dosen't work

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Freedom Party of Austria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100123091742/http://www.datum.at:80/0406/stories/2091680 to http://www.datum.at/0406/stories/2091680
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111204070753/http://www.spiegel.de/lexikon/54367744.html to http://www.spiegel.de/lexikon/54367744.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Freedom Party of Austria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100123091742/http://www.datum.at:80/0406/stories/2091680 to http://www.datum.at/0406/stories/2091680

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Freedom Party of Austria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1542552,00.html
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://ca.news.yahoo.com/leader-austrian-far-wants-meet-members-us-tea.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Freedom Party of Austria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150815124824/http://orf.at/stories/2254885/2254886/ to http://orf.at/stories/2254885/2254886/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Bias
I think "populist" should be replaced by "nationalist" or "nativist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.154.204.109 (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Please check the definitions of populism, nationalism and nativism, as the three terms imply entirely different things. Sideshow Bob 12:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Freedom Party of Austria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110707191431/http://austrianindependent.com/news/Politics/2010-08-24/4297/Minaret_debate_continues_as_Vienna_vote_approaches to http://austrianindependent.com/news/Politics/2010-08-24/4297/Minaret_debate_continues_as_Vienna_vote_approaches

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Pelinka Source
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 citation needed instead. Either this or you delete "German nationalism" completely. Currently it's unsourced from a NeuPOV. -- 212.186.7.98 (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Right-wing to far-right
This collocation of terms has been used quite a lot according to another discussion I've been having at AFD. The rationale behind it are that since we can find some sources which say that a subject is far right and others which say right wing, that we can combine them and make a term which reflects the application of both terms.

This is synthesis. The problem is the word "to". In almost no cases where the term right wing to far right is employed on Wikipedia, 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 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.

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?

Edaham (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Aren't all far right parties also right wing? Why don't we just list both, drop the "to" and just have the separate citations after the respective terms? BananaCarrot152 (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 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. Mélencron (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 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. Edaham (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Quoting from WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." 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 Wikipedia 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. Mélencron (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * cheers, but that’s not a source. Will open an RfC. Look forward to seeing all your friends again here. Have a great day. Edaham (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 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 WP:POINTy to the extreme. I also don't take kindly to your pointed sarcasm. Mélencron (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m not really into politics. I’m into Wikipedia. I’m opposed to synth. Are you supposed to list sources in Wikipedia 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 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. Edaham (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've already quoted WP:UNDUE above, which states that articles should "represent all significant viewpoints ... in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". 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 Wikipedia 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. Mélencron (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 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 one term? I don't see eye to eye on that I'm afraid, but fortunately Wikipedia has several resources through which this can be mediated. Edaham (talk) 03:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Ideology Bloat
As I believe the ideology parametre is bloat, I believe it should be slimmed down to the following:
 * National conservatism
 * Right-wing populism
 * Euroscepticism

ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

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. Autospark (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi there :) I strongly agree with every you just said. However, I think most users prefer to keep it on various political pages. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Along with User:Autospark, 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. --Checco (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * No objections to this. Vacant0 (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * 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 :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Euroscepticism should be reinstated since its quite an important issue for the party. Zlad! (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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.-- Autospark (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a norm on Wikipedia to include them and therefore should be included here as well. Zlad! (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Bad practice is elsewhere, therefore it must be used here" is not a reasonable or valid argument.-- Autospark (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Historical Ideology and Position
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. The page for the PSL and Likud 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? GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.— Autospark (talk) 11:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * In a rare case of (weak) disagreement with User:Autospark, 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 "national liberalism (historical)". Anyway, it is more urgent to remove redundant ideologies than adding anything else. --Checco (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 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. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not keen on historical ideologies in the Infoboxes generally, but I think Checco'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 de facto Austrian counterpart the German FDP.-- Autospark (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So we're thinking of a slimmed-down ideology section of the infobox saying:
 * National conservatism
 * Right-wing populism
 * Historical:
 * National liberalism
 * Should we wait 24 hours to see if there's any other opinions/input before editing it? GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Fully and wholeheartedly support 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.— Autospark (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, unless there's any objections, I'll amend that now. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC) EDIT: I decided to go with National liberalism over just Liberalism just in case there's any confusion with the more modern forms of liberalism that are more commonly associated with the term "liberalism" today. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with User:Autospark, also on preferring "liberalism" over "national liberalism". --Checco (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Would having both labels be fair or would we prefer to have only one historical label? GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would have one historical ideology—"liberalism". I can live with "national liberalism", while I oppose having both "liberalism" and "national liberalism". --Checco (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Same as above.-- Autospark (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 Liberalism suits better, I've edited it to be as such. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I improved the ideology section a bit. More should be done, especially on the party's early similarities with the FDP and current posture. --Checco (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What would be some ways to improve it in your opinion? GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Look for better sources, add information. User:Autospark is a specialist... --Checco (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Wayback Machine (archive.org) 97.97.98.76 (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * 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 ideologies already listed in the Infobox.— Autospark (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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? 97.97.98.76 (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)