Template:Did you know nominations/Social Encounter Party


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by sst ✈(conjugate) 10:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Social Encounter Party

 * ... that despite being described by its leader as "liberal", the Social Encounter Party supported a constitutional amendment in Baja California to ban same-sex marriage?


 * Reviewed: Palestinian Liberation Front (Abu Nidal Ashqar wing)
 * Comment: All sources in Spanish

5x expanded by Raymie (talk). Self-nominated at 02:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg age and size ok, written neutrally, Earwig's copyvio detector clear, hook cited and faithful to source. good to go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg There seems to be conflicting messages here. The article states the party's ideology is conservative and right-wing in the infobox without any citations, yet apparently the party's leader called it liberal in an interview with CNN (I can't read the news article as it is not in English). As this is the basis for the hook to be interesting, this issue needs clarity.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  06:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Conservative is probably a more accurate descriptor of what the party's line is — they're also against abortion and pornography. They are generally characterized as being Christian in character, which actually led them to run ads saying "we are not a religious party". I think the description of "liberal" is not correct for this party. I'm going to beef up that area a bit to make it a little clearer. Raymie (t • c) 18:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, take a look again. I've added "by its leader" to the hook to clear up the confusion and reinforce that the description is perhaps discordant with their platform. Raymie (t • c) 18:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Are we dealing with your opinion or fact here? There is still no reference for their conservative stance. What's considered "conservative" varies throughout history and throughout the world, so your opinion cannot be used.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  03:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I've found a ref for at least one other description of "conservative" for this party. I'll add it right now. Raymie (t • c) 04:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I noticed that there seems to have been a six year gap (I may be wrong) between the 2008 marriage constitution and a 2014 CNN article which says he states that it was "liberal". Is it possible that the party has changed over time? I would also like you to extract the sentence(s) which backs up the claim for the party to be conservative in this source. I would prefer to translate it that way rather than translate the whole article in Google translate and find the word "conservative" in it. Regards,  Jolly  Ω   Janner  07:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's where you get the conservative part from the source you linked:


 * "El PES, enfocado en la política municipal, aspira a conseguir 500 regidores y que “de ahí se arrastren los diputados”. Por su componente conservador podría copar votos del blanquiazul en 2015." (emphasis mine)


 * Search for "conservador" in this source and this one, as well, and you'll find other characterizations by reputable media sources of this party as being conservative.


 * And yes, the party still does not support gay marriage. That was just this week, in fact. And in this article, "The PES candidate accused various PRD deputies of attacking life because they favored abortion and same-sex marriage". I've added another source about this from 2015, from a different state, to the article. I hope this is satisfactory. Raymie (t • c) 07:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg The hook appears to cooperate with the claim that this is a conservative party, but is claimed to be liberal by its leader and therefore is interesting. Sorry, for the confusion here as originally the translating tool implied that it was a conservative estimate on the number of seats they seem to want to win.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  07:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright. Now I see the issue. You pushing me on the issue actually helped improve the article a good bit, too. Raymie (t • c) 08:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)