Talk:Direct Democracy Cyprus

Uncited ideologies in the infobox

Greetings FellowMellow. I have tried to remove the uncited ideologies from the infobox but you have been restored them, previously without leaving an edit summary as to why. In your last edit you said "it makes absolutely zero sense why other parties have the same ideology and can have them but for here it cannot". That clearly falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF. We have a clear rule against original research and many of these aren't even cited as political ideologies on their respective pages. I would therefore ask, given the clear Wikipedia guidelines I've referenced, that you allow these to be removed from the infobox. Helper201 (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Speaking that there’s a source attached, it wouldn’t make much sense why it would be deleted and the sources that have mentioned, Fidias consistently in the European Parliament calls for reunification of Cyprus, does not want Europe to interfere in war that’s the non-interventionist label. - FellowMellow (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

FellowMellow, again, you are using an argument that falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF, here. None of what is listed in the ideology section of the infobox is cited as an ideology on its respective page. Anti-establishment and Cypriot reunification aren't even cited at all anywhere on this page. Even if they were, that would not make them political ideologies and therefore they should not be placed in an ideology section. Helper201 (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

3O Response: This should be omitted from the infobox and discussed in the body of the article. Given the article's length, the infobox is already bordering on excessive. Nemov (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

FellowMellow, see the above third opinion. Also, as I've said before, direct democracy and e-democracy are not political ideologies, so they don't belong in the ideology section of the infobox. The source for populism fails WP:SYNTH, as nowhere in it does it explicitly call Direct Democracy Cyprus populist. Unless you start to listen and engage in discussion then more outside comment and possibly administrative assistance may have to get involved because you can't just go around enforcing incorrect content and edit warring it back in when the WP:ONUS is on you because the content is disputed and you are the one trying to add it. Helper201 (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Helper201 listen you can threaten me all you like with administrative assistance but I can also report this just as much as you can. Threatening to do this to get your way is truly unacceptable. I actually as a matter of fact participate in the talk page, you prefer the reverts and you have gone to violate the 3RR rule, which also can be reported. Direct democracy and e-democracy are used as ideologies in other election articles. I don’t think you’re actually listening to this specifically and could possibly be misinformed about its usage. This scenario I feel is the same as with Denmark's Alternative. It seems to be more about it being for you as "I don’t like this here". - FellowMellow (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@FellowMellow, @Helper201 I'd remind you both to remain civil and keep the discussion focused on the disagreement. Also, how other articles have done things is interesting, but that doesn't mean is has to be done here. As I've pointed out, this is rather short article and MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says the purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. This content belongs in the body of the article first and then perhaps in the infobox, but as it stands the infobox is already too long for an article this size. Nemov (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Well with all due respect, if there is proper sourcing, then why can’t it be? - FellowMellow (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Because the purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant key facts. If this isn't in the article it shouldn't be in the infobox. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is pretty clear here. Nemov (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

As I said, it is. Please read when you have a moment. 1 FellowMellow (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@FellowMellow You are arguing about cited information that's only included in the infobox. Please read in good faith and reply to the arguments that are being presented. Nemov (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I urge to also please remain civil during this discussion as I sense the responses are becoming a little more hostile. I would appreciate if the responses are cooler. As such I have responded to every point and read in good faith. I urge to also please read in good faith. Thank you. - FellowMellow (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

You failed to respond to me after 30 May until I got a 3rd opinion, FellowMellow. WP:ONUS clearly states, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content." It should be you doing this work, yet it was I who had to start this talk page discussion and the one on The Alternative (Denmark). Yet you are also reinforcing your own disputed edits by reverting them back in whenever they are removed, which is not allowed. Helper201 (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Helper201 I'm comfortable supporting removing the disputed content based on what's been presented in this discussion. I'd be happy to answer any questions if necessary. Thanks. Nemov (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nemov that would be great and very much appreciated, thank you. How would you feel about doing the same with what is disputed on The Alternative (Denmark) as well please? You can view our discussion at Talk:The Alternative (Denmark)#Infobox. Helper201 (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Helper201 I prefer not to get further involved. Nemov (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Wow after all of that, I knew you weren’t negotiating in good faith. Thank you for showing that @Nemov and thank you again for your time. - FellowMellow (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I did not fail to respond, I answered your counters, you not reading them is another thing. However I get it, you won as @Nemov demonstrated bias here. You can take it off. - FellowMellow (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be about fairness and civility, sadly two users did not wish to display it here. - FellowMellow (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2026 (UTC)