Talk:Conservative Party (Norway)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Policy

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Per Wikipedia policy, do not enter unsourced information in public articles, especially when the entered information is not what is stated in the original source. User MUBOTE, I have edited your incorrect interpretation of the document which you did not cite - the party does not "employ" 15,000 members, nor are those people actively involved in recruitment. They are simply active members of the party, with the definition of "active" being unspecified. Please add the relevant source, or I will delete the section on my next pass. - Corporal Tunnel 02:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If you go to the Party website, and click on one of their PDF Files and read it through, it's where I got my info. --Adam Wang 23:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Influential

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"It is currently the third most influential party in Norway after the Norwegian Labour Party and the Progress Party." I don't think "influential" is the right word here. I suppose what is meant is that it is the third largest party in Stortinget. That doesn't necessarily make it the third most influential party. Ahy1 18:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

grammar error etc....

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"It is currently the third most biggest party in Norway after the Norwegian Labour Party and the Progress Party." .......????

as far as I know, Høyre is not at all the third biggest party in norway at all (and I vote for it, so I thought I knew...!) in addition to this, there's a pretty ugly grammar error in there... I don't know how to change this but would there be any possibility of somebody else doing it....?

I'm not going to do a full rewrite here, but I've corrected the "third largest" concern. - Corporal Tunnel 04:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

American terminology?

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Høyre is committed to fiscal right-wing policies, including tax cuts and little government involvement in the economy. Their social policies are much more liberal, however, with the party's program openly supporting gay adoption rights, among other things,"

The terminology in this bit seems to be based on an American view of what can be called "liberal" and "ring wing". Liberalism in Europe in general almost always exists as a combination of social liberalism and a (relative) economic laissez-faire stance with an emphasis on a reduction in bureaucracy and taxes. So being fiscally "right wing" doesn't contradict liberalism in the European or Norwegian sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.84.31.254 (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Name change

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments9 people in discussion

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved.

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was - clearly no consensus to move to Høyre. Keith D (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Are there others, besides me, who think that we should use the Høyre name instead of Conservative Party of Norway for the article title and related categories? The latter is of course used also by the party when communicating in English, but it is generic, and the proper noun Høyre ha a nice sound to it. In comparison, I don't think anyone would propose to call the Likud article anything other than Likud. __meco 09:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, "Conservative" is not a good name for this party. Simply calling it "Right" on the article would be a better one. --ArneHD 19:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The BBC uses Conservative. (I found this result by searching on Solberg, Norway and party.) We should use what English readers will expect (which is Likud for the Likud) instead of inventing our own translation. (I see we include the literal meaning, which is a good thing.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Conservative Party (Norway) might be an improvement on the present name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. (edit conflict) :The Stortinget's own website calls it "Conservative" in English. SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 17:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per links supplied and also per use English. But I do agree that Conservative Party (Norway) would be an acceptable name. Høyre's literal meaning is given, so we don't have to change the name of the article for that reason alone. EJF (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Even they call themselves "The Conservative Party of Norway" in English. Why dont you go to the Norwegian wikipedia and change no:Det republikanske parti to no:Republican Party first, and see how well that goes down. English in en.wiki, Norwegian in no.wiki. What is so complicated about that? "Has a nice sound to it", urgh... Mcmullen writes (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose How would the normal wikipedia user type that into the search? They don't have the "ø" on the keyboard so it would be inconvienient (there's one below when editing pages). Also the present name also provides some information on what it is. Grk1011 (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I would have to disagree with the statement above, however, I will have to oppose this move due to the fact that the party is referred to in English by the status quo. Sure it may be somewhat inaccurate, but so is the official name of North Korea. Dumrovii (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Conservative Party "of Norway"/"(Norway)"?

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there any reason or rationale as to why this article (as well as the Liberal Party of Norway) is used with the style "of Norway" instead of "Conservative Party (Norway)"? In my mind the latter is the obviously more correct of the two, as the "of Norway" form suggests that the party is in Norwegian called "Norges Høyre" or "Norges Konservative Parti". The official Stortinget (paliamentary) webpage for instance use the style without any "of Norway"[1]. I would suggest to move these articles to what I stated above. -TheG (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Liberal conservatism?

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In what meaning is liberal conservatism listed here? As Conservative on moral and social issues, or as more libertarian, promoting individual liberty with economic freedom? Thanks --Novis-M (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

but when did Høyre become a SOCIAL liberal party? i am a party member and my party is a right-wing, conservative, ECONOMIC liberal party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.219.42 (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Originally liberal conservative in your first meaning, but they have been gradually moving towards your second meaning over the last decades. --195.0.221.197 (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ideology in the infobox

Latest comment: 12 years ago19 comments3 people in discussion

There currently appears to be an editor, Bellatores (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which wants to display "Liberal conservatism" as this party's ideology in the infobox (They also appear to be engaged in a few other edit wars on other political topics on Wikipedia, per their user talk and discussion at ANI). The reasons the user backed their edits up with, was a OR synthesis based on a statement in the party's principle programme, and a misunderstanding of what lies in the term "Conservatism". The user wrote the following in their WP:ES: "the party's ideology is not simply "conservatism", which hardly would allow for support for homosexual marriages etc.…" This is not only WP:OR, but also simply plain dead wrong. Per our own article, Conservatism is a "political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society". I have a hard time figuring out what part of that sentence states that conservatism is incompatible with "support for homosexual marriages etc.…". Additionally, there are listed several variants of the philosophy/ideology, among them "liberal conservatism". This variant is not only too ambigious to be used in this article – as it appears to include both the economic liberal and the social liberal (dubbed social conservatism) aspects – but also too specific. There are several different fractions within the party; the Christian social conservatives (Per and Inge Lønning), classic liberals (Nikolai Astrup, Stian Berger Røsland), "Bunads-Høyre" (Hallgrim Berg, Arne Hjeltnes), etc. The best thing is to simply state "Conservatism" as that term covers all the sub-variants. --Eisfbnore ^talk 19:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If you looked twice at the "conflict" I was involved with, you would have noticed that support has been virtually unanimous in my (and others') favour regarding the questionable article created by some user (the same who took me to ANI). Now (on with the real issue), first of all, it is not I who "wants to display "Liberal conservatism" as this party's ideology in the infobox"—it was you who removed a long-standing concensus in this article. Anyway, I could agree that it is appropriate to include conservatism in the infobox, but it would be wrong to leave out liberal conservatism which is also included on similar parties such as the Swedish Moderate Party and the Danish Conservative People's Party. Isolated, the use of conservatism would give a very wrong impression of the party as much "harder and tougher" (and fiscally conservative) than it by far is. (By international standards, of course, this party would be considered liberal, but that is another story.) – Bellatores (t.) 21:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Now, I cannot really see a "long-standing concensus" for having "liberal conservatism" in the infobox, neither here on the talk page nor in the article. It was merely left that way, as nobody seemed to take care of the article. Anyway, such ad Antiquitatem arguments that you are making here are almost always poor arguments. I would also recommend you to take a look at WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. This discussion is about this article, not its sister parties in Sweden or Denmark. Just because something is done in another article, doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so. You say "the use of conservatism would give a very wrong impression of the party as much "harder and tougher" (and fiscally conservative) than it by far is". This isn't about what your feelings or impressions of the party is, but about using reliable sources. And the party doesn't even call itself "liberalkonservativt"! One thing is to be a conservative with some liberal values and attitudes, another is to be a so-called liberal conservative. The infobox should provide basic, summarized information on the subject, whilst the article's body prose should explain and discuss any eventual misunderstandings or interprations. Stating that the party's ideology is both "liberal conservatism" and "conservatism" is almost like saying that Susan likes chocolate and white chocolate. --Eisfbnore ^talk 08:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to just write what parties see themselves as. Do you think we should call the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia "social liberal" since that is what the party officially regards itself as? – Bellatores (t.) 09:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Please stop erecting such straw men. I've never said that we should only use the party itself as a source, but they certainly do point us in the right direction. Do you have a reliable third-party source that labels this party "liberal conservative"? Eisfbnore ^talk 10:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Aftenposten party presentation for the 2007 election [2] "Høyre er et liberalkonservativt parti. Partiet ønsker valgfrihet, mer konkurranseutsetting og skattelette." – Bellatores (t.) 21:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Clever. Now take a look at these: [3][4][5][6][7]. Eisfbnore ^talk 12:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems the sources agree; "...har det danske konservative Folkeparti og det norske Høyre utviklet seg mer i liberal retning..." (SNL), "Norsk konservatisme har – med få unntak – vært liberal-konservativ." (Apollon) The other references you gave (which are more in the nature of personal opinions discussing the direction of the party, rather than appropriate sources for generally accepted facts) also seem to confirm that the party is typically classified as liberal conservative. – Bellatores (t.) 14:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No they don't. The SNL piece states that the party goes in "liberal direction", not that it is "liberal-conservative". This sort of synthesis is completely unacceptable for an encyclopedia. Tha Apollon piece discusses Norwegian Conservatism in general, not political parties. Also note that all three volumes of Høyres Historie (ISBN 8202049946), the most extensive account on the history of the Norwegian Conservative Party ever written, classifies the party simply as "conservative". Eisfbnore ^talk 14:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree that it would be inappropriate to use the SNL as source for any classification here, and I have thus never proposed that, even though you wrongfully claim so in a cheap attempt to discount and dismiss anything I write. (Just as you did when you started off here by referencing to some events utterly irrelevant to this article.) The Aftenposten piece I cited is RS enough itself, and while you may or may not add Conservatism in the infobox, the Liberal conservatism is perfectly sourced. And while you made straw men arguments here yourself by likening the notion of more than one ideology in the infobox to as if "Susan likes chocolate and white chocolate", there is a widespread norm on Wikipedia to include more than one ideology if necessary. – Bellatores (t.) 15:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the SNL article is an RS or not, it does *not* state that the Conservative Party is "liberal conservative"! That's exactly the point: You are synthesizing and combining sentences from reliable sources to justify having "Liberal conservatism" in the infobox. I have a hard time figuring out where my straw men are: I simply pointed out the fact that including both "liberal conservatism" AND "conservatism" in the i-box is not only POV and OR, but also redundant, as the latter ideology covers the former. And that's the benefit with simply having "Conservatism" in the infobox: It covers all the sub-groupings within the party, such as the social conservative "Bunads-Høyre", the free enterprise liberal "Næringslivs-Høyre", and so on. I would consider the phrase "a widespread norm on Wikipedia" a reference to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, unless you can dig up a policy/guideline which states that it should be done that way. Eisfbnore ^talk 17:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

We have a RS for "liberal conservative" now, period. If you have sources for anything else, you can add it if appropriate. – Bellatores (t.) 19:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Now, which source do you consider the most reliable: a "party barometer" from an online newspaper, or a three-volume work on the party written by experienced historians? Eisfbnore ^talk 20:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

These rhetorical techniques you employ, such as attempting to relegate and denounce Norway's largest newspaper to "an online newspaper" is unserious and disruptive rather than helpful. – Bellatores (t.) 16:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice strawman, again. You didn't say anything about the Høyres Historie bit… Eisfbnore ^talk 18:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The sources you use as references for conservatism are both material from the party itself. And regardless, you have no legitimate reason to just delete a non-partisan sourced content (because you personally don't like it) which describes it as liberal conservative. It is too simplistic to just put "conservatism"; and you have no grounds for claiming that there isn't room for more than one ideological current in the infobox. I am inclined to agree that conservatism should stay too, but if we leave out liberal conservatism it is grossly misguiding, and given the sources, POV. – Bellatores (t.) 21:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

…you have no grounds for claiming that there isn't room for more than one ideological current in the infobox – Oh, really? Haven't I already said that including both "liberal conservatism" and "conservatism" in the infobox is almost as ridiculous as saying "Susan likes chocolate and white chocolate"? You want to cite an online opinion poll, whilst I want to cite a book on the party published in no less than three volumes. And when I point out this simple fact, you're using personal attacks ("because you personally don't like it") and straw men arguments to avoid it. Not impressive. Eisfbnore ^talk 01:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That it "is almost as ridiculous as saying "Susan likes chocolate and white chocolate"" is nothing more than your personal opinion. And the source I found has nothing to do with an "online opinion poll". Such nonsense claims makes me reluctant to want to engage further in a discussion with you. You should learn that it is not our job to just weed out sources that are not convenient according to our own liking. If sources says somewhat different things, the only correct procedure is to present them in a neutral manner. If Wikipedians could just go around and remove sources that does not fit our own views, Wikipedia would have no value as a neutral observer and decay into rule by the mob. Don't you agree? – Bellatores (t.) 01:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, a third eye here. :) Eisfbnore, not trying to make any judgements, I don't know enough about it, so a few questions. You seem to agree that "liberal conservatism" is a subset of "conservatism"? Wouldn't that mean that anywhere the party is referred to as "conservative" is in fact entirely consistent with other sources saying "liberal conservative"? ie they're both right? Do you have any sources that show it's some other version of conservatism (including merely a broader one?) Bellatores, do you have any other RS sources referring to the party as "liberal conservative? I suspect we don't have any real clear undisputed definitions of these terms anywhere in the world, so we may be chasing unicorns here ... --Icerat (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conservative Party (Norway). 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20140317021549/http://www.valgresultat.no:80/bz5.html to http://www.valgresultat.no/bz5.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Conservative Party (Norway). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)