Talk:People's Party (Malta)

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
	This article was accepted from this draft on 8 December 2021 by reviewer Devonian Wombat (talk · contribs).

Malta Low‑importance

	Malta portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malta, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malta on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MaltaWikipedia:WikiProject MaltaTemplate:WikiProject MaltaMalta articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Continuity?[edit]

There is not an inch of continuity between Panzavecchia's PP and the contemporary one, they just have the same name. They should have two distinct WP pages (although I wonder whether the newest one is at all relevant for an encyclopedia so far) --Dans (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The two parties incarnations are not the same party, just revived. They are just two parties with the same name. I believe the original PP has enough well-sourced information to warrant it's own WP page. In my opinion the contemporary PP is not yet notable to warrant its own page. There is a lack of sources that mention or discuss the modern party enough to meet notability. 92.251.123.37 (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I personally believe that both articles warrant an article for themselves. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 14:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The new Partit Popolari has not even contested an election. I would at least wait for that, to see if worth including. For now, I feel that inclusion as a paragraph in this page is already generous. --Dans (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Opinion74: kindly discuss your edits here before re-introducing them in the page. --Dans (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More original research 1. @Opinion74: Discuss your further edits here. Vacant0 (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PP hasn't been polled since its foundation and I wouldn't consider it to be notable at the moment, although we should still wait for the election to come, after which we will know if they're notable enough to get their own page. --Vacant0 (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vacant0: neither were MPM and AB but both of them have articles, imo countries with less than 10 active parties should all have articles Braganza (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion74: Page has been split as was suggested.

Splitting proposal[edit]

Support – i would even assume that it wasnt even a reference to the old party Braganza (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Far right?[edit]

Can we actually find some reliable sources that don’t contradict the article to illustrate whether it’s far right or not.

The previous sources were a tabloid article and an opinion piece that stated media sources at reported it to be far right. 2A00:23EE:13D8:E4D9:E54D:ADF:D565:4B6C (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:REF, MaltaToday is certainly a reliable source, and that's what matters here. There is also this source which refers PP as far-right. Vacant0 (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-instated far-right into the article. Vacant0 (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Malta Today has always had a clear bias against these small right-wing parties and disparagingly calling party president Borg 'a Catholic nostalgic'. And Lovin' Malta is definitely not serious journalism, just a cheap tabloid. Mtonna257 (talk) 09:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malta Today was already discussed at RSN and there were no indications that it was unreliable. If you think that there are concerns with these news websites, you should open a discussion at RSN. This is not the place to do it. Vacant0 (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the source is correct, but even so, it does not matter what news media classify them as, what matters is their beliefs and party ideology. If you see their positions (Nationalism, Catholic Conservatism, Anti-Immigration, Radically Anti-Abortion, Contemptuous attitude towards LGBT people, Anti-Vaccine and Narratives about media which echo those of other far-right parties) it would be fair to classify them as far-right. In addition to this they have openly endorsed other far-right political parties outside of Malta (Fidesz, Rassemblement National & Fratelli d'Italia). I don't believe that labeling them far-right is derogatory or misinformation in any way, as those are just their beliefs. Christophervella72 (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does report what third-party reliable sources say and that outweighs what the primary source, in this case the Partit Popolari, says regarding its political position. Brothers of Italy for example denies being far-right while third-party reliable sources describe the party as far-right, so third-party reliable sources outweigh this opinion then. Vacant0 (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. Personally i think that we should leave it as just far-right but this is a minor aspect of the article and there are more important things to focus on. Christophervella72 (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]