text:
Talk:Interstate 65

Exit list
Exits are numbered in a south-to-north direction, in accordance with AASHTO guidelines.

Major junctions
I support (and redid) BMetts's edit to include I-64 and I-71. I'm not sure what constitutes a "major junction"; I'd say it's any one- or two-digit interchange, thus excluding spurs and loops like I-265 and I-465 (listed as "auxiliary route" on those routes' pages), and including I-64 and I-71 (listed as "main route" on those routes' pages). In terms of size, it's a pretty big interchange. And in terms of consistency, it's a "major junction" on I-64's and I-71's pages, so it should be here as well. Let's discuss it here instead of waging an edit war. --Peter 21:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I'll agree they should be added. Interstate 64 carries VPDs exceeding 100,000 in the Louisville metropolitian area, and has connections to major cities, including St. Louis, Lexington, Charleston, Richmond, and the Newport News area. It provides a critical east-west connection. Interstate 71 is a vital connector between Louisville, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland, each with a high metropolitan population.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 00:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I would support this on Interstate 65 in Kentucky (when it comes into existence). The only reason we have the 0's and 5's guideline on the main page is to keep the size of the infobox down. It can be argued that any 2di x 2di interchange is major if it's in a large city. — Rob (  talk  ) 16:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

junction
I've removed I-165 as the southern terminus of the highway. Per the article about I-165, there is no possible way I-65 started at I-165. Contact me on talk for more info. Griffinofwales (talk) Simple English Wikipedia - Come and join! 15:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

There is one and only one reason why mileposts are numbered....
There is one and only one reason why mileposts are numbered from south-to-north on Interstate Highways. This is because the U.S. Federal Highways were already numbered from north to south (!). Suppose that there was an emergency on the highway, and radio communications got garbled. Someone said "Mile marker 300 on g#a#r#b#l#e#d." Well, was that mile marker 300 on I - 65 or mile marker 300 on U.S. Highway 31? Given that this emergency happened in northern Alabama, then it MUST have been on I - 65 and not U.S. 31. Life and limb is at stake! Send the ambulances, fire truck, etc., to I - 65 and not U.S. 31. The numbering system was designed for a reason, and not just according to some group's arbitrary guidelines. Don't say that it was some arbitrary guideline - that's stupid. Likewise for east - west highways. Someone in Tennessee called on the radio and said Someone said "Mile marker 350 on g#a#r#b#l#e#d." Was that on I - 40 or on U.S. 70? Well, in East Tennessee it was on I - 40, but in West Tennessee, it was on U.S. 70. By the way, cellular phone calls get garbled, too. That is just another radio system. Of course, there is going to be a stretch in central Alabama where the mile markers are about the same on both highways. However, the Federal Highway Administration and the State Highway Departments have done the best that they could w/o doing something silly like using four-digit numbers. I am still frequently shocked by people who think that things are done, or things work out, for arbitrary reasons -- when there is really a scientific and/or mathematical reason why they are the way that they are. 98.67.175.254 (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to reply to such an old thread, but your theory is false. U.S. Highways have their mileposts running in the same directions as the Interstates. Case in point: U.S. Route 127 in Michigan is mileposted south to north, as are U.S. Route 23 in Michigan, U.S. Route 31 in Michigan, and U.S. Route 131. And lest you say that Michigan is the only one to do that, then I'll point to U.S. Route 41 in Wisconsin, U.S. Route 101 in California and a number of other examples in the US.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Why not some basic information about I - 65 to be given here?
Why not some basic information about I - 65 to be given here, instead of always fantastical information about factories along the way? For example: 1. What is the highest elevation on I - 65, and where is it? 2. What is the highest elevation on I - 65 in each state, and where are they? 3. What is the lowest elevation on I - 65, and where is it? 4. What was the last stretch of I - 65 to be opened to traffic, and where was it? My guess is either one of these, but I don't know: a) The stretch north of Birmingham in Jefferson County, Ala. b) The stretch south of Birmingham in Jefferson County and Shelby County? 5. Why was the bypass around the southern side of Birmingham given the number I - 459 instead of one of these: I - 265, I - 465, I - 665, I - 259, I - 220, I - 420, or I - 620? After all, the one around southern Louisville is I - 265, even though it goes both east and west of I - 65, but it does not form a beltway. As we should know, there are no such Interstate Highways as I - 665, I - 259, I - 420, or I - 620 anywhere at all -- and there isn't an I - 265 or I - 465 in Alabama. The reuse of these numbers is common. For example: I - 275 in Michigan, Ohio/Kentucky/Indiana, Tennessee, and Florida I - 295 in Maine, Rhode Island/Massachusetts, New York City, New Jersey/Delaware, Washington, D.C., Virginia, and Florida I - 405 in Washington, Oregon, and California 98.67.175.254 (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Pop culture references
The Guns N' Roses song "Dust N' Bones" mentions this highway. Is that appropriate for inclusion in this article? Band members Axl Rose and Izzy Stradlin both grew up in Lafayette, IN. (The Wiki article on Route 66 has an "In popular culture" section.) The song lyrics go: He lost his mind today / He left it out back on the highway / On "65" glasperlenspiel (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Interstate 65


text:
Talk:Interstate 265

Untitled
Parts of this article are very out-of-date.Oren0 08:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

KY 841 and the re-signing coming up
Two things:

I made a map that shows the fact that neither Kentucky nor Indiana has actually signed their connecting section of I-265 yet. This is useful as the article is a conglomeration of what usually would be three articles. The previous map had highlighted the non-I265 KY 841 segment, so I put that back in. I know the wording in the caption is confusing as it mentions KY 841 twice, feel free to fix it.

Furthermore, Indiana has announced that they (and Kentucky) will over the next two years renumber and rename the 2019 addition to I-265. I added a reference and a sentence.

Based on the exit numbers which are on that referenced page, it appears that Kentucky will be rezero-ing everything from the beginning of I-265 at I-65; if I personally suspect they will truncate KY 841 to be the western 10.25 miles of the Snyder Freeway possibly even redesignate it as KY 1934. I have no citations for this, so it it is not in the article.

However, if that happens I think the SR 265 and KY 841 sections/infoboxes should be culled to be a few history paragraphs and give then KY 841 its own page.

Regardless, fixing the map after the renumbering will be easy, manually edit the first version of the geoJSON file which didn't have the western KY 841 and search for all the "stroke" colors and change them to be #cc0000 (aka red) KelleyCook (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

End points
Should the end point be changed from "west end" and "south end", to "counterclockwise (CCW) end" and "clockwise (CW) end"? Since it is neither entirely east-west nor entirely north-south. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Interstate 265


text:
Miles Goodman

Elliott Miles Goodman (August 27, 1948 – August 16, 1996) was an American composer for television and film. He is best remembered for his frequent collaboration with film director Frank Oz, for whom Goodman scored such films as Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988), What About Bob? (1991) and Housesitter (1992). For his score to Oz's Little Shop of Horrors (1986), Goodman was nominated for the Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score.

Early life and education
Goodman was born on August 27, 1948 in Los Angeles. He graduated from Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio, in 1972 with a degree in English. In 1969, he studied Shakespeare in London.

Goodman became interested in film scoring through his cousin, Johnny Mandel, an Oscar-winning film composer. Goodman at first planned to become a director, despite his strong and eclectic taste in jazz and other music. But composing for film intervened in conversations with Mandel. As a result, Goodman returned to Los Angeles and studied music and film scoring with private teachers including Albert Harris.

"He was very eclectic in his musical tastes. Before film scoring he was very attracted to jazz, Brazilian music and theater. He started life as a songwriter," Mandel said. Mandel would serve as a mentor for Goodman.

Career
When Goodman relocated to Hollywood, he met Oscar Castro-Neves, who became his friend and music partner. They worked together for 30 years. "He started from ground zero, (learning) 'This is a middle C,' and became . . . a great musician," said Castro-Neves. "He was a very inspired composer with a great ability to write melodies and a great orchestral talent."

By the mid-1970s, Goodman did his first film projects as composer for such films as Slumber Party '57 (1976).

In 1979, Goodman arranged orchestrations on the Peter Sellers comedy Being There for Mandel. Goodman and Mandel would continue to collaborate with each other over the next few years, most notably to score Sidney Lumet's Oscar-nominated film, The Verdict (1982). He later composed the score for Teen Wolf (1985), starring Michael J. Fox.

He also orchestrated or scored music for Footloose (1984), About Last Night (1986), Little Shop of Horrors (1986), La Bamba (1987), Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988), Problem Child (1990), What About Bob? (1991), Housesitter (1992), Sister Act 2: Back in the Habit (1993), Dunston Checks In (1996), Larger than Life (1996) and 'Til There Was You (1997), the latter two released posthumously. Working so often in films under the genre of comedy manifested Goodman's reputation as the "King of Comedy." Variety praised Goodman's score for Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, calling it "a great, imitative '30s jazzy score." Goodman also composed music for the 1989 Australian film, The Delinquents.

When a friend suggested to Goodman that he try producing records, he conceived an album of contemporary Brazilian music with harmonica great Toots Thielemans titled The Brasil Project.

Goodman and Castro-Neves were also co-producers of a series of well-reviewed jazz albums. They arranged 12 selections for the successful The Billie Holiday Songbook and for Color and Light: Jazz Sketches on Sondheim, which featured jazz artists interpreting the works of Stephen Sondheim. Color and Light: Jazz Sketches of Sondheim was produced by Goodman and Castro-Neves in 1995 and was highly praised. The album was named one of the year's top five albums by Time and reached No. 6 on Billboard's jazz charts. The Billie Holiday Songbook, featuring trumpeter Terence Blanchard, was also a hit with critics and customers.

"Working with Miles Goodman was also a great experience with me," Blanchard said. Blanchard considered Goodman his mentor. According to Blanchard, they met when Goodman hired him to play on the soundtrack for his score to Housesitter. They remained friends until Goodman's death.

Goodman and Blanchard have collaborated with Brazilian vocalist and pianist Ivan Lins. Goodman had also produced the album, A Brazilian Christmas, as well as having produced discs by Vanessa Rubin. Goodman and Castro-Neves had also worked on a project of an audio-only series of classic children's stories narrated over newly composed music with other artists.

He even completed work on several albums that were scheduled for release by 1997 that featured such artists as cellist Yo-Yo Ma, soprano Kathleen Battle and pianist Ottmar Liebert.

According to Frank Oz, Goodman completed and recorded a full score for the film, The Indian in the Cupboard (1995), but it was rejected and replaced by Randy Edelman's score as a result. Oz also claimed to have asked Goodman just before his death to do the music for his subsequent film In & Out (1997).

In January 1996, Goodman and Blanchard were hired to score the romantic comedy, 'Til There Was You (1997), released by Paramount Pictures. Director Scott Winant approved the duo, thinking the comical mastery of Goodman and the jazzy romance of Blanchard would make the perfect combination. Blanchard was even excited about collaborating with his friend and mentor that he rearranged his summer tour of The Heart Speaks around Goodman's ever-busy scoring schedule.

On November 18, 1996, Goodman was posthumously awarded the SOCAN Film Music Award by the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada.

Personal life and death
Goodman died from a heart attack at St. John's Hospital and Medical Center in Santa Monica, California on August 16, 1996.

"There was some heart disease in the family. His father passed away from a heart attack, but he was really healthy and it was entirely unexpected," Dylan Goodman said. He was described as "a wonderful talent" by his cousin, Johnny Mandel. He was also close friends with Frank Oz, who referred to Goodman as "Bud."

"I had nothing but respect for his work," said fellow jazz producer Steve Backer, "He realized that jazz needed a smart contextualization to sell in big numbers, and he and his partner Oscar Castro-Neves had great ideas that revitalized several artists."

Since his death, Antioch College, Goodman's alma mater, has implemented a scholarship fund in his name.

Other credits

 * 1983 Gospel (Documentary)
 * 1987 Oh Happy Day (Video)

title: Miles Goodman


text:
Bogislaw XIV, Duke of Pomerania

Bogislaw XIV (31 March 1580 – 10 March 1637) was the last Duke of Pomerania. He was also the Lutheran administrator of the Prince-Bishopric of Cammin.

Biography
Bogislaw was born in Barth as a member of the House of Griffin. He was the third son of Duke Bogislaw XIII by his first wife Clara of Brunswick-Lüneburg. On the death of his father in 1606, he and his younger brother George II became joint dukes of Rügenwalde (Darłowo). George II died in 1617, and Bogislaw became sole ruler. In 1620 his domain was incorporated into the Duchy of Stettin, which he inherited on the death of his elder brother Francis. Early in 1625 he became ruler of all West Pomerania on the death of the last Duke of Wolgast, Philipp Julius, and on 19 February he was married to Elisabeth (24 September 1580 – 21 December 1653), fifth daughter of John II, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg, by his first wife, Elisabeth of Brunswick-Grubenhagen.

Despite his attempts to avoid becoming embroiled in the Thirty Years' War, Bogislaw in the Capitulation of Franzburg was forced to allow imperial troops commanded by Albrecht von Wallenstein to use his territories as a base in 1627. In turn, his lands became embroiled in the war, with all its disastrous consequences. In the 1630s, many of the local nobility tried to lessen his power, and this problem occupied Bogislaw in the early 1630s, causing a stroke which left him partially paralyzed. In 1634 he abdicated without clear succession resulting in a constitutional power struggle between his relatives and the governing council. With the constitutional issues unresolved, no recognized male issue, and virtually all of Pomerania occupied by Swedish and imperial troops, Bogislaw died in 1637. The conflicts and issues surrounding the personal and constitutional succession and general future of Pomerania as a dukedom were of such gravity and complexity that they resulted in the postponement of the burial of Bogislaw's body for almost 20 years.

The succession to his lands was mainly between George William, Elector of Brandenburg, the heir under a pact between the two families in 1464, and his brother-in-law Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, who had occupied much of Pomerania on entering the Thirty Years' War in 1629. According to Bogislaw' last will, in case of no succession with the House of Pomerania, his lands were to pass to Sweden, not to Brandenburg-Prussia. Both, Sweden and Brandenburg, exploited not only their position as superior military and occupying powers but also the succession conflicts within the House of Pomerania itself. Therefore, when the allocation of territory was decided at the Peace of Westphalia which concluded the war in 1648, Pomerania was carved up and the territories were split between Sweden and Brandenburg. This meant that the Peace of Westphalia marked the end of Pomerania as an autonomous, political entity.

On 25 May 1654, almost seven years after Pomerania had lost her independence and only after Bogislaw's wife Elisabeth of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg had died, could Bogislaw's body finally be put to rest in Stettin.

title: Bogislaw XIV, Duke of Pomerania


text:
Lumi Cavazos

Luz Maria Cavazos (born 21 December 1968) is a Mexican actress. She won Best Actress awards at the Tokyo Film Festival, and Brazil's Festival de Gramado for her portrayal of "Tita" in Like Water for Chocolate. The film received the attention of US film critics and moviegoers, and facilitated her entry into the American film industry. She subsequently relocated to Los Angeles.

Early life and career
Born in Monterrey, Cavazos began her acting career at the age of 15. In 1985, she was a student at Guadalajara's Preparatoria 4 University. She later chose to enroll in the Centro Universitario de Teatro Uniam in 1990. She left her parents and nine siblings to pursue her own interests. She made her film debut in Busi Cortes' 1988 El Secreto de Romalia. She has acted in numerous Mexican films and television series since then, and has also done a fair amount of work in the U.S., appearing in television dramas as well as a singing role in the film Sugar Town. Cavazos is sometimes credited as "Rosita Lumi Cavazos".

She had a featured role in Bottle Rocket, the debut film of director Wes Anderson.

She also played the character Tita for the movie Like Water for Chocolate.

Personal life
She was dating one of her co-stars in the film "Like Water for Chocolate," Marco Leonardi, from 1991 to 1999.

She is married to Joselo Rangel of the band Cafe Tacvba, with whom she has two daughters. They married in July 1999.

Filmography

 * En un bosque de la China (1987)
 * El túnel de la ciencia (1989) (Documentary) .... herself
 * Serpientes y escaleras (1992) .... Rebeca
 * Like Water for Chocolate (1992) .... Tita
 * Mi primer año (1992)
 * Fray Bartolomé de las Casas (1993)
 * Tres Destinos (1993) TV .... Cristina
 * Del otro lado del mar (1994)
 * Manhattan Merengue (1995) (as Rosita Lumi Cavazes)
 * Banditi (1995)
 * Viva San Isidro (1995) .... Antonia
 * Bottle Rocket (1996) .... Inez
 * Land of Milk and Honey (1996) .... Rosie
 * El Vuelo del águila (1996) TV .... Amada Díaz
 * Last Stand at Saber River (1997) TV .... Luz
 * Sístole Diástole (1997) .... La nena
 * Fibra óptica (1998) .... María Ponce
 * Máscara (1999) .... Laura
 * Sugar Town (1999) .... Rocío
 * Entre la tarde y la noche (1999)
 * The Keening (1999) .... Wood Nymph
 * Bless the Child (2000) .... Sister Rosa
 * Atlético San Pancho (2001) .... Rebeca
 * In the Time of the Butterflies (2001) (TV) .... Patria Mirabal
 * Exposed (2003) .... Laura Silvera
 * Entre dos (2003)
 * Tan infinito como el desierto (2004) TV
 * 7 días (2005) .... Sra. Garza
 * La Ley del silencio (2005) TV .... Clemencia
 * Las Buenrostro (2005)
 * Viva High School Musical: Mexico (2008)
 * La Mitad del Mundo (2009).... Juana
 * Rock Mari(2010)
 * 2 Gritos de muerte y libertad(2010)....Josefa de Ortiz Dominguez
 * Once upon a time in Durango(2010)
 * Por Siempre Joan Sebestian (2016).... Cecilia
 * Olimpia- (2018)....Hernan's mother
 * The Promise....(2018)
 * Olimpia (2018)... Hernán's mother
 * This is not Berlin (2019)... Susana
 * The Devils mark(2020)
 * Cecilia (2021)
 * Siempre Madre: Paraiso en pugna (2022)

title: Lumi Cavazos


text:
Talk:Progress Party (Norway)

Far-right designation
I have found some sources that describe the party as far-right. I know this issue might have some multiple diputes. So I'm making this disccussion on the talk page to discuss whether the party is far-right or not. I hope many users join the talk and reveal their input about the issue. Jeff6045 00:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff6045 (talk • contribs)
 * The Progress Party is deeply resented by Norwegian socialist left. It has been described with all sorts of unpleasantries, some subtle and some barely printable. Heptor (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. My sources have no relevant with 'Socialist left'. Here are some sources that describe the party as far-right. Jeff6045 (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As with the above-discussed "populist" label, the labels that are mentioned here are controversial and contentious. The policy of Wikpedia is to avoid the use of such labels unless they are widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution is recommended. The two articles that were brought forward do not represent the depth of the political debate on the topic. They both are articles in the foreign press written by journalists with little connection to Norway; characteristically, they only mention the Progress Party in passing. Conversely, the Progress Party itself has no stated objective of prohibiting migration, and describe their own policy merely as restrictive. An article in Aftenposten by a Torstein Ulserød, a Norwegian jurist, compares the immigration policy of the Progress Party with that of the Centre Party, and finds the differences to be mostly in rhetorics. Heptor (talk) 11:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's well established by reliable sources. // Liftarn (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with Liftarn. English sources overwhelmingly describe the party as either far-right or right-wing populist; in fact far-right appears to be the more common descriptor in English language sources. Whether the party describes itself as far-right is immaterial (no party really does that). Other articles on comparable parties such as Alternative for Germany offer guidance on the best way to phrase the first sentence in this case; Alternative for Germany is described in the first sentence as "a right-wing to far-right political party in Germany", which is exactly what the sources support in the case of the Progress Party too. The edit-warring IP 85.165.169.50, now blocked for persistent edit-warring and "falsely claiming consensus", hasn't offered any reasons for removing these descriptors and the sources. I don't see any consensus for the removal of this material either; the only editors who have participated in discussion since the material was added were Liftarn and myself; there have also been significant developments in the party's political orientation earlier this year with the mentioned "patriotic beacon" resolution outlining a hardline anti-immigrant policy, so older discussions aren't really very relevant to this issue (the perception of AfD has also changed over time). --Egulbrandsen (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * AfD and Frp are miles apart. Frp are more similar to Reform UK than AfD. And Reform does not have a far-right label. Laddmeister (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Also, the claim that the party "describes their own policy merely as restrictive" is irrelevant; Wikipedia is not the website of the Progress Party; I'm sure Alternative for Germany wouldn't agree with our or the media's portrayal of them either. The claim that "the Progress Party itself has no stated objective of prohibiting migration" is patently untrue; its largest and most important chapter by far (the Oslo chapter) and several of its elected MPs have explicitly called for a "total ban" on "non-western immigration" and a referendum over non-western immigration, and the Oslo chapter has adopted a policy aimed at making Norway what they call "a patriotic beacon" based on anti-immigration, climate change denial and "Norway first" politics; some MPs are eager to cooperate with the Sweden Democrats too; these views officially held by the largest chapter of the Progress Party and stated publicly by several of its MPs (as phrased by an MP: "Vi vil være tydelige på at klimaendringene ikke er menneskeskapte og ha total stans i ikke-vestlig innvandring"; ["we must be clear that climate change isn't man-made and that we want a total stop to non-western immigration"]) are clearly as far-right and anti-immigration as humanly possible. A phrase like "right-wing to far-right" takes into account that there are different wings of the party, and that some elements are clearly regarded as far-right, while other politicians may have less extreme (right-wing) views; mentioning far-right only as the second, alternative descriptor, after right-wing, is a very mild treatment of the party, based on precedent set in other articles (AfD etc.) and numerous sources. --Egulbrandsen (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

 * I do notice that there have been sources saying that the national conservatives within the party have slowly been taking over from the libertarians. Ezhao02 (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Taking over would be taking it too far. There was always a tension between the national conservatives and the libertarians within the party. Heptor (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * These nationalists were a minority faction. And most of them have split to join the Norwegian Democrats, who are far to the right of Frp. Laddmeister (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What a NYT journalists writes are not considered as a reliable source. On established political parties you use political scientists as sources. Far-right is the ideology connected to nazism, fascism, ultranationalism, anti-democratic and anti-liberal parties. Progress party is a conservative-liberal party on the right wing. They embrace democracy, classical liberal values and the rule of law. They have nothing in common with far-right parties.
 * Far-right politics Laddmeister (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As a person placed fiercely on the Norwegian left who voted for the Red Party in both of the two last elections, I think I am unlikely to be very biased in favour of the FrP, but I think Egulbrandsen should refrain from adding these labels to the article. Obviously, the FrP doesn't describe themselves as "far-right", but such designations of the party are generally rare in Norway from others as well (including from the left). There is a difference between the FrP and the far-right parties in the rest of Europe. It's more a mix between a traditional right-wing conservative or liberalist party, on the one hand, and a right-wing populist party, on the other hand. The party's actual immigration policy is slightly more restrictive than that of the Conservative, Labour and Centre Party, but actually not by that much. The main difference from those parties is on emphasis and rethoric - the FrP sees a more restrictive immigration policy as one of the most important of its political targets. Many of its politicians are using very typical right-wing populist (yet not openly racist) anti-immigration rethoric. Yet, designating it as far-right is a bit far-fetched. Reports in foreign media is of limited importance as they are far from always accurate, neither on Norwegian politics or on other things. The statements made by the Oslo chapter is not the position of the party as a whole. Designating the party as a whole as extremist based on an analysis of the views of a minority within the party is not something an encyclopedia can do - this would be POV and OR, and hence unacceptable. Furthermore, the Oslo chapter appears to be sort of a "rebel chapter" within the party - this summer, they attempted to stage some sort of "coup" against Siv Jensen, which led several other chapters to demand that the party leadership abolished the Oslo chapter. Its views on climate change has also changed during the last decade, and practically the entire party leadership acknowledges it (although it doesn't appear to be a main issue for the party). Furthermore, I am not certain that environmental questions are appropriate to grade on the right/left spectrum. The far-right designation is also mentioned in the second paragraph of the introduction: "It is often described as populist, right-wing populist and sometimes far-right by academics, political commentators and foriegn media". I think that should be sufficient. If a label like "far-right" should be introduced, it must be backed by a considerable consensus, and it isn't.  --Te og kaker (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What matter is what reliable sources say, not what you think. // Liftarn (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We've been through this discussion many times before, there is no consensus in the sources for the label that you propose. There was an RfC on this, please establish a new consensus. Heptor (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you need to discuss first. Although, since your edits are apparently based on your personal opinions and ideas rather than the sources, I doubt there is much to discuss. When the vast majority of English language sources describe the party as either far-right or right-wing populist, that's the descriptors that we use. Regarding your description of the party as "liberal": Some of its own key politicians, MPs, its largest chapter, its principal founding figure vehemently deny that the party has anything to do with liberalism. It is not commonly regarded as liberal in a scholarly context either. --Egulbrandsen (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you comment on the section above and the references cited therein? Heptor (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This was addressed already in the more recent discussion, and your three sources, not of very high quality, one of them self-published by the party, doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of English reliable sources describe the party as far-right, anti-immigration and/or right-wing populist, not as "liberal." --Egulbrandsen (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How did you arrive to the conclusion that these sources were not of the highest possible quality? As mentioned there, these are articles by a Norwegian professor of public policy from a reputable Norwegian university (titled "Don't call the Progress Party Populist"), an evaluation the leader of a major Norwegian think tank and a few others. You can also check a somewhat dated . Citing a relevant passage Adjectives such as  anti-immigration,  rightwing,  populist,  new  right  are  often  used  to  describe  the  party, and can certainly provide the first few indications of what kind of political party this iss. But [...]. Heptor (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there's also the issue of WP:WEIGHT. The sources denying the "far-right" descriptor are in the minority here. Ezhao02 (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the party is not far-right and it's not even populist right anymore.
 * Source: Professor in political science Anders Todal Jenssen.
 * "The Progress Party has undergone a change of heart. Today's FRP has lost several of the characteristics of far-right populism and should be perceived as a market-liberal right-wing party"
 * https://www.idunn.no/doi/epdf/10.18261/issn.1504-3053-2017-03-02 Laddmeister (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The summary of the linked paper refers to right-wing populism (høyrepopulismens), not "far-right populism"; the article already mentions that the Progress Party's right-wing populism has been disputed. Furthermore, a party does not need to be populist to be far-right, and the far-right descriptor is amply and reliably sourced in . If you have access to the paper (which is paywalled) and not only the six-sentence summary that is available publicly, could you please post the relevant quotes for verification? —  Newslinger  talk   10:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Also an issue of wp:label. Heptor (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Which ideologies should be listed in the infobox?
(see section title for the question I'm addressing here) From what I gather, there is a divide between libertarian members and nationalist/right-wing populist members of FrP. Widfelt writes, "By the early 1990s three factions could be detected. There was a liberal/libertarian wing, a Christian-conservative wing and a populist wing." Later, Widfelt also writes, "Since [1994] the party has, if anything, become less libertarian." Other sources also note this divide within the party. Additionally, at least one source has explicitly argued that the FrP is not "right-libertarian".

With that in mind, there are a few issues I believe need to be addressed:
 * First, there is no clear mention of the (right-wing) populist factions the party. I believe that "populism" or "right-wing populism" should be added to the infobox to make this clearer.
 * Second, how should the ideologies be listed overall? Should both "libertarianism" and "populism" be put under a "factions" header (similar to the infoboxes for the Democratic Party (United States) and the Republican Party (United States)), or is it clear enough to just list "libertarianism" and (right-wing) "populism" without a "factions" label?
 * If we end up deciding to use a "factions" label, should there be a single ideology that would fit under a "majority" label (the label of "majority" wold not strictly be necessary, however) listed in addition to those factions (such as "national liberalism" or an equivalent)?

I look forward to reading your opinions on this topic. Please ask if any part of what I wrote does not make sense. Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Hi Ezhao. Looking at the general policies of the party and the rhethoric they use on norwegian TV, i think it is clear that their policies remain of a national liberal character, with their campaigning and issue related focus being highly right-wing populist in nature. However, much of the factional landscape has changed within the party since the 90s. Since the founding of the more right-wing party The Christians in 2011, much of the christian faction has left FRP to join that party instead, although some religious rhethoric coming from a more populistic perspective have remained. Similarly, most of the generally libertarian faction has left post 2014 after the founding of the Capitalist Party, though some classical liberal and right-libertarian elements remain, including regarding FRP's view on welfare and state interventionism. Lastly though, many disillusioned members have over the years since 2002 left the party to join the Democrats in Norway, and in late 2020, a fair amount of members including most of the Oslo chapter, all with mixed nationalist and economically centrist views left FRP for the Democrats. As the party stands now, it has retained national liberalism and right-wing populism in most aspects, although classical liberalism, right-libertarianism and some conservatism still arguably remains, especially apparently among their youth. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response, . Does that mean that you think "right-wing populism" should be added without a "factions" label? Ezhao02 (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, they have always had that kind of rhethoric, so I would say yes. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Hopefully, we can get some others’ opinions too. Ezhao02 (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ezhao02, I also strongly support adding right-wing populism to the ideology part of the Infobox, and without any "factions" label. Although I support listing it first, before other ideologies. (It is irrelevant that the party itself does not like the "populist" label, incidentally, as we are here to write objective articles based on reliable third-party sources, not act as the party's public relations.)--Autospark (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. As mentioned below, FrP is slightly different from (i.e., more moderate than) other radical right parties, so what would be your opinion on the section Heptor quoted from the article and on potentially adding an explanatory footnote to the infobox? Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Hello, . The article presently states that the progress party is described as populist by some authors, while other authors consider this description to be wrong:

[The progress party] has been described as populist, right-wing populist and sometimes far-right by academics, political commentators and foreign media.[18][19][20][21][22] Other academics say that describing the progress party as populist is wrong;[23][24][25] the term "populist" has itself been criticized as ill-defined[26] and unstable.[27] The party does not label itself as such."
 * Do you propose that this presentation should be amended? In what way? Heptor (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for bring this to our attention. First, I'd like to note that the first part of the sentence (the descriptions for populist/far-right) only cites media sources; I would prefer that these cite academic sources (which shouldn't be too hard to find). To address your point, I think we should look into it a bit more before coming into a conclusion. It's clear that FrP, more so than other parties associated with the radical right (Europe), has controversy over how populist it really is. As such, I would like to look into how many academics dispute the claim of "populist". For example, if a majority of academics describe the party as populist, with a relatively small minority that dispute this claim, then I think that "populism" or "right-wing populism" should be listed in the infobox, potentially with an explanatory footnote (as is done with "social democracy" for Direction – Social Democracy). Ezhao02 (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see that we share an enthusiasm for using academic sources. I will be happy to examine the matter further together with you. First, may I ask you to clarify the terminology that you are using? As noted in Gagnon et al, the term Populism/populist is not well-defined. Worse, it is often abused: in public discourse, it is often thrown in as a general insult, without substance. Other times people really mean something akin to a good old-fashioned demagogue. Perhaps we can include a discussion about why some scholars consider the Progress Party to be populist and some others disagree? Heptor (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would have to do some research to see if a note is warranted. First, I don't think the note about a minority of scholars disputing the term "populist" in general is warranted—I'd say that belongs in the article for right-wing populism, not in the article for the FrP. If there is a greater dispute over the term "right-wing populism" specifically for the FrP (i.e., more scholars dispute the characterization of "right-wing populist" for the FrP than for parties like the RN or AfD), then I believe a note would be warranted in this article.
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like your main disagreement is over using the term "populist". Would you prefer "national conservatism" (i.e., listing both "National conservatism" and "Libertarianism" in the infobox)? Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 * If third-party sources consistently describe FrP as a right-wing populist party, then the article (and the Infobox) should reflect that, as we are here to write objective encyclopaedic articles. Of course the party may reject that label, but then that does not make it different from many other 'populist' parties who also dislike being describe as such.--Autospark (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree with you, but I think 's disagreement isn't about the party itself disputing the description (which, as you rightly point out, doesn't matter) but rather about some scholars disputing it (which does matter). Ezhao02 (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * it looks like you know the policy on neutrality as well as I do. If third-party sources were to consistently describe it as populist, then Wikipedia should as well. The sources I've seen so far are not good, and do very little to demonstrate a consensus in academia. What can we make out of this article in Politico about Christians’ crisis of faith threatening Norwegian government? I think the best thing we can do for this article is to expand the material on party's policy and ideology, how it is described in political research, by the media and by the party itself. The conclusion you ask for will come by itself.  The party itself is also vague on disputing the description. They call themselves "libertarian" on their home page, however Siv Jensen said that she is proud to be a leader of a populist party. This term is so vague that it can really mean anything. What do you mean by it? Is populist a reference to Julius Ceasar and his populares, or to the same old demagoguery that had plagued democracies since the beginning, or perhaps to Adolf Hitler and his use of the said demagoguery in his rise to power? I'd certainly prefer "National conservatism" in the info box, Ezhao02 thanks for asking. Heptor (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the sources currently used aren't very good, but as seen here, there are a good number of sources that do describe the Progress Party as right-wing populist. Ezhao02 (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's find ones that deals with the Progress Party specifically and improve the article? Heptor (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For example, Bjerkem (2016)? Heptor (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, I think that's a good idea. Ezhao02 (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's do it then! Heptor (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's a page from a book that looks at some of the current research, where some scholars (including well-known ones like Cas Mudde) have been hesitant to classify the FrP as populist, while ultimately concluding, "it was surely amongst the mildest versions of right-wing populist parties in Europe." Ezhao02 (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, I added right-wing populism to the infobox with a footnote. Could you let me know whether the footnote is acceptable to you? Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thats a good footnote in my opinion! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This footnote is very subtle, and suggests that Wikipedia supports the position that the Progress Party is right-wing populist. Such summary does not agree with the discussion in the section Progress_Party_(Norway), which describes a variety of opinions in the sources. The situation hasn't changed since the previous RfC. I don't think it would be very extraordinary of me to ask that another RfC be conducted to establish consensus. Heptor (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How would you propose rewriting it? Certainly, the footnote should reflect a summary of the discussion in Progress_Party_(Norway). Ezhao02 (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to add, I don't like how this article has been changed. We should not be writing articles that say "political party X is described as ideology Y, but rejects that, and sees itself as ideology Z" (or similar) in the lede. We should be presenting political parties objectively, but how third-party reliable sources describe them. Otherwise it comes across as unofficial PR.--Autospark (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with your general viewpoint on that. The issue here is not that the party disputes the label "right-wing populism". The issue is that there are academics (not members of the party) who dispute the label. Ezhao02 (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think answered it very well. If a party sees itself as representing ideology Z, but reliable sources agree that ideology Y  fits much better than ideology Z, than we could clearly state in Wikipedia's voice that this party has ideology Y. This is not the case with the subject matter presently discussed. Heptor (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hope you will forgive the delay in response. I think we both understand that it is difficult to find a right way to formulate this footnote. So if I may ask you, why should it be so vital for this article to summarize the position of the progress party in a vaguely defined and vaguely negative word in the info box? Considering the edit history and the talk page, there had hardly been any interest about anything else in this article. Heptor (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response, but thanks for the question. I believe it's important to note "right-wing populism" because FrP is generally associated with that party family, and reliable sources often describe FrP as "right-wing populist". Even though FrP is one of the most moderate parties described as such, which may make the label somewhat more difficult, I believe it important to represent the (quite common) viewpoint that FrP is "right-wing populist". Ezhao02 (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Expanding the section Ideology and political positions
I'm trying to expand the discussion about populist aspects of the progress party in section Ideology and political positions. I'm now comparing definitions of "populism" in Bjerkem (2016) and in Gagnon, Beausoleil (2018). It would be nice to have some examples of specific policies that are considered populist. I do get an impression that the Progress Party is rather skeptical towards what they consider to be the elites, but I struggle top put a finger on any specific policies that can be used as examples. I hope to anchor this discussion in something specific. Is it a good idea? Any suggestions for policies that could be listed? Heptor (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, the Progress Party's immigration policy (or at least the ideas of factions within the party) has been described as "populist". Ezhao02 (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be more correctly described as national-conservative? Heptor (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Do you know which description is more common? Ezhao02 (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They certainly don't describe themself as national-conservative. Citing Siv Jensen, It's fine to be national-conservative and be a member of the Progress Party, as long as one recognizes that the Progress Party is a liberalist people's party. This is a moderation of her earlier position, that those who wish the Progress Party to become national conservative should find themselves another party. The description Right-wing Populist is certainly more common, but it is disputed. Citing the article, The Progress Party is sometimes described as right-wing populist,[126][127][128][129][4] a categorization that is rejected both by the party itself and by other observers including the current Prime Minister Erna Solberg and some academics.[130][131][132][133][134] It has also been described as Europe's most moderate populist party. Heptor (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They are not national-conservative. Single issue positions doesnt define a partys ideology. They're classical-liberals, or conservative-liberals at best. Laddmeister (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Fatherland League De facto predecessor to the Progress Party -Info Box-
From what I read on this article it seems like the Fatherland League (Norway) is the De facto predecessor to the Progress Party (Norway). Because of this I think this should be included in the info box. Keep in mind Defacto isn't the same as by law.

 * @Vif12vf You seem to disagree with this statement. May I get your opinion on the matter?

Zyxrq (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

 * FRP was founded over 30 years after the Fatherland League was banned, by a person who never held a central role in the league as a whole. Aside from this lack of any real connection between the two, they also diverged ideologically. The League was corporatist and ended up favouring a more New Deal-like approach and a more planned economy, whereas FRP is right-libertarian and opposes taxation and social welfare, and supports increased privatization of the public sector. The only real similarities are conservative and anti-communist values, several other parties founded during and after the cold war has held such values, making FRP far from unique. Even de facto would be a rather big stretch. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Vif12vf. There is no connection between the two parties. Laddmeister (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Far-right descriptor
In Special:Diff/1173915485, language has been reintroduced to the article explaining that the Progress Party has also been described as far-right. I agree with this content addition, since the neutral point of view policy requires the article to cover "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", and there was no valid policy-based argument for excluding the far-right descriptor from the article.

I've removed the text describing the Progress Party as "most moderate" in Wikipedia's voice in Special:Diff/1176484626/1178021777, since that language is contradicted by the reliable sources that describe the Progress Party as far-right. —  Newslinger  talk   03:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

 * Perhaps a footnote like on the political position (similar to Swiss People's Party's page) could be added in the future? Perhaps it could be added now too if you feel it could be with the appropriate sources you've found. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with the addition and I've attached the same inline citation to the footnote. —  Newslinger  talk   19:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Why clog up the Infobox (which already has too much listed in the adjacent Ideology field)? The mention of the party’s description as far-right by some sources is already mentioned in the lede and “Ideology and political position” section.— Autospark (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Now that the "Political position" field reads "Right-wing to far-right", I've removed the footnote to simplify the infobox. "Right-wing to far-right" does appear to be the most common way to indicate in the infobox when a political party is described as both right-wing and far-right; see Brothers of Italy, Freedom Party of Austria, and Greek Solution for a few examples. —  Newslinger  talk   18:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s a recent trend, sticking footnotes in Infoboxes when the same information can and should be communicated in the article lede and relevant subsections, and one I think needs to be reversed.— Autospark (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * At least in this article, it seems like footnotes were used as a half-step or equivocation when there were sufficient reliable sources to support a descriptor, but enough editors opposed that descriptor despite the presence of these sources. It doesn't look like we have that issue right now. —  Newslinger  talk   05:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not about rejecting a "descriptor" or not, it's about whether to place it in the Infobox. Infoboxes should be kept as minimal as possible. The far-right descriptor is a perfectly valid one in this case, based on reliable sources – the issue is whether it should be in the Infobox as well as the article body.-- Autospark (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The party is not and have never been far right. The far-right party in Norway is the Norwegian Democrats, who split from Frp because their memberships were suspended. Frp is a market-liberal right wing party. I don't care about journalist labels, but here is an article from a professor of politics in Norway who writes about Frp being a typical right-wing party, and he even disputes the populist-label.
 * https://www.idunn.no/doi/10.18261/issn.1504-3053-2017-03-02 Laddmeister (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The article already mentions that the Progress Party's right-wing populism has been disputed. The academic sources in amply and reliably substantiate that the party "has been described by academics as far-right". The party being right-wing does not contradict it also being far-right, since the far-right is a subset of the right-wing. Since the linked paper is paywalled, are you able to provide relevant quotes for verification? —  Newslinger   talk   08:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. As I commented in another post on this issue:
 * Source: Professor in political science with the University of Oslo: Anders Todal Jenssen.
 * "The Progress Party has undergone a change of heart. Today's FRP has lost several of the characteristics of far-right populism and should be perceived as a market-liberal right-wing party"
 * Laddmeister (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said in the other section, the summary of the linked paper uses the term right-wing populism (høyrepopulismens), not "far-right populism". Are you relying solely on the six-sentence summary that is available for free, or do you have access to the actual paywalled paper? —  Newslinger  talk   10:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have the article. Here is some qotes from the article:
 * START OF QUOTES:
 * "FRP has undergone a change of heart. Today's FRP has lost several of the characteristics of right-wing populism and should be perceived as a market-liberal right-wing party.
 * FRP has always distanced itself from right-wing populist parties with which it has not wanted to be compared. Several researchers have also problematized the FRP's position in the right-wing populist party family. Frps and Høyre's (centre-right conservatives) voters have become more similar both with regard to social characteristics and attitudes.
 * He (Cas Mudde) defines populism as an "ideology which perceives society as divided into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, 'the real people' versus 'the corrupt elite', and which argues that politics should be an expression of the general will, the will of the people »
 * The family of right-wing populist parties has always been heterogeneous, and the Progress Party has often been portrayed as a moderate variant within the category. The question in this article is whether the FRP has undergone a metamorphosis from right-wing populism to market liberalism, that the FRP has left the family of right-wing populist parties and should rather be considered a right-wing party.
 * The party's position in economic policy throughout the 1990s can be described as an original mixture of market liberalism and ambitious welfare goals.
 * If we go back to Jager and Walgrave's (2007: 334) three characteristics of right-wing populism: the description of the people as homogeneous, elite criticism and exclusion of outgroups, with the FRP only the last characteristic remains. Thus, it is obvious that today's FRP can hardly be called right-wing populist."
 * END OF QUOTES
 * Professor Anders Jenssen is clearly adressing the claim that FRP is a populist party. They certainly have their roots in populism, but shouldnt be adressed as such anymore. He doesnt directly adress the far-right claim, since the claim that FRP is a far-right party has long been discarded in norwegian political academics. If you look at the sources in the wiki-page here it's foreign political academics who claims that FRP is a far-right party. Anders Jenssen clearly portaits FRP as a moderate party on the right. They both accept the rules of liberal democracy and embrace civil liberties.
 * So what does Wikipedia tell us about far-right politics?
 * "Far-right politics, or right-wing extremism, is a spectrum of political thought that tends to be radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian, often also including nativist tendencies. The name derives from the left–right political spectrum, with the "far right" considered further from center than the standard political right.
 * Historically, "far-right politics" has been used to describe the experiences of fascism, Nazism, and Falangism. Contemporary definitions now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views.
 * Far-right politics have led to oppression, political violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing, and genocide against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state, national religion, dominant culture, or conservative social institutions."
 * It's very clear that this illiberalism and anti-democratic label does not fit the Frp. They're right wing, but they're clearly not far-right. Laddmeister (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing the quotes and translation. That paper can certainly be cited to bolster the claim that the Progress Party's right-wing populist description has been disputed. However, the paper does not dispute that the Progress Party "has been described by academics as far-right", which is supported by multiple academic sources in . The extent of the Progress Party's populism is orthogonal to the Progress Party's position on the left–right political spectrum. —  Newslinger  talk   10:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the sources in the wiki-article that supports the claim that FRP is a far-right party? One source is Mette Wiggen on the page "Open Democracy". Open Democracy isnt an academic paper, it's a left-wing activism organization ran by several Labour affiliates. Which is fine, but it's not an academic source. Mette Wiggen is an academic in Leeds, but she's also a left wing activist. Which is fine, but it clearly clouds her writings with some anti-right wing bias. Portaiting parties as far-right and far-left is a well known tactic to smear political opponents. The Red Party is Norway are suffering from the same, where people who oppose them call them far-left, while they mostly are considered as a left-wing socialist party. Mette Wiggen has for example a facebook-picture of herself with the label "fucking socialist", which was a socialist-left response in Norway to the leader of Frp who called left wingers "fucking socialists". Clear bias there. https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=2208154385931612&set=a.102836696463402&locale=nb_NO
 * She's also advocating for BDS on her page. Frp is a pro-israel party.
 * In the article quoted she doesnt explain why Frp is a far-right party. She just labels them as that. Thats a very dubious source for such a claim.
 * Next source: Bridge, a georgetown university initiative. Another activist group disguising themselves as academics. No name on the source, but Bridge calls themselves "The Bridge Initiative is a multi-year research project on Islamophobia". Like Wiggen, they dont explain what makes Frp far-right. They just claim that it is. Dubious source. They even use Jacobin as a source. A political socialist activist online newspaper.
 * The other sources are either locked, very dated or/and written by non-norwegian academics on far-right generally, not on Frp specifically. Unless a norwegian political science academic can support the claim that Frp is a far-right party, which they wont, I would dare say that there is no reason why such a slur should be posted on the wiki-page. Again, I've pointed to the reasons why Frp doesnt fit in the far-right. They're not anti-democracy, not anti-civil rights. And they're described as moderate right wing by professor Jenssen. Laddmeister (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've read all of the cited sources. Twist (2019), Niklasson (2018), and Ivarsflaten (2022) are academic sources that are all newer than the Jenssen (2017) paper you quoted. The other cited academic sources include van Spanje (2011), Lazaridis (2015), and Madeley (1990), which cover a wide time span. The nationality of an author is irrelevant to the reliability of their works, but I'll still point out that Herdis Hølleland (Niklasson's co-author) and Elisabeth Ivarsflaten are Norwegian academics. The term far-right is a standard political descriptor that represents a place on the left–right political spectrum, not a slur. Your personal opinion on the party cannot be taken into consideration, per the policy against original research. —  Newslinger  talk   12:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just read the chapter ny Ivarsflaten cited in 2022. She writes here the following:
 * "The Norwegian party system has more than four parties, but we have chosen to focus on the two main traditional parties of the right and left (Høyre and Arbeiderpartiet) and the two main challenger parties on the far right and the far left (Fremskrittspartiet and Sosialistisk Venstreparti). We do so to maintain a parsimonious analysis and facilitate comparisons to other European multiparty systems."
 * The Sosialistisk Venstreparty has never, as far as I know, been accused of being far-left. Because they are not. They are in this comparative analysis using the term "left and right" for the centre-left and centre-right parties, and "far left and far right" for the wing parties. That does not mean that they are indeed far-right or far-left, but they are simplifying this in this context. They even point that out in order to maintain a parsimonious analysis.
 * They continue:
 * "The far right in Norway, the Progress Party, is generally considered in the comparative literature to be less exclusionary than many of its counterpart elsewere in Scandinavia and Europe."
 * They continue to point out that Progress Party has an sceptical attitude towards muslim immigrants, similar to far-right parties in Europe.
 * In this context it's important to understand what comparative politics is. It's about creating labels in order to group parties and differentiate them from each other. The author is a professor in compartative politics. This does not mean that Frp is far-right or that SV is far-left. It's just a method they use here to differentiate the traditional right (Consrervative) from Progress Party. Just like they differentiate traditional left (Labour) from the socialist left party.
 * I have not have time to check the other sources yet. Will do later. Laddmeister (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is a newsarticle where Ivarshagen are asked to define the Progress party. She calls it a populist right-wing party (not far right). She says:
 * "Here the party has played a double game on several occasions, which is common for right-wing populist parties. On the one hand, the FRP appears in the party program with moderate views. On the other side, there will be outcomes that are more far-reaching, such as the so-called sustainability report on immigration, she says."
 * Juvikås, who is a well used source on the progress party on wikipedia says:
 * "Yes, they are right-wing populists. But compared to other such parties in Europe, they are a moderate edition and have stronger elements of liberal-conservative currents, says Jupskås." Laddmeister (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Another article where Ivarshagen calls Frp a moderate right wing party, not far right:
 * "Elisabeth Ivarsflaten, associate professor at the Department of Comparative Politics at the University of Bergen, researches, among other things, the immigration dimension in elections and party formations, but calls it by a different name:
 * - I see the debate about immigration as part of the debate about globalization and internationalisation, says Ivarsflaten, who primarily researches the development of party systems at a European level.
 * According to her, internationalization is one of several major developments since the 1960s, which have helped to form the new layer of parties that have come into being after the "old" dividing line model.
 * - Internationalization has given rise to conflicts about identity, about citizenship and about self-government versus national cooperation, says Ivarsflaten.
 * In some countries this comes in the form of ethnic self-rule parties, such as in Spanish regions, Wales and Scotland, or as ethnic parties without self-rule claims, such as the Turkish party in Hungary. In other countries, it comes as anti-Islamist parties, such as Geert Wilders' party in the Netherlands, or it manifests itself in national conservative parties, such as the Danish People's Party and the EU-sceptic Samlingspartiet in Finland.
 * - The Progress Party in Norway is a moderate version of what is called a nativist approach to citizenship, that those born in a country have the first right to benefits, says Ivarsflaten."
 * https://www.dagensperspektiv.no/nyheter/norge-mangler-rene-innvandringsfiendlige-parter/665370 Laddmeister (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * According to her, internationalization is one of several major developments since the 1960s, which have helped to form the new layer of parties that have come into being after the "old" dividing line model.
 * - Internationalization has given rise to conflicts about identity, about citizenship and about self-government versus national cooperation, says Ivarsflaten.
 * In some countries this comes in the form of ethnic self-rule parties, such as in Spanish regions, Wales and Scotland, or as ethnic parties without self-rule claims, such as the Turkish party in Hungary. In other countries, it comes as anti-Islamist parties, such as Geert Wilders' party in the Netherlands, or it manifests itself in national conservative parties, such as the Danish People's Party and the EU-sceptic Samlingspartiet in Finland.
 * - The Progress Party in Norway is a moderate version of what is called a nativist approach to citizenship, that those born in a country have the first right to benefits, says Ivarsflaten."
 * https://www.dagensperspektiv.no/nyheter/norge-mangler-rene-innvandringsfiendlige-parter/665370 Laddmeister (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy against synthesis states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." It is against this policy to suggest that, because an academic publication is comparing different political parties, the publication somehow does not consider a party far-right even when it explicitly uses the term far-right to describe the party multiple times in a section called "The Limits of the Far Right" that covers "the nature of the ideological appeal of the far right in Europe".Here is additional context from Ivarsflaten (2022) showing that the book is unequivocally describing the Progress Party as a far-right party:

The following are all of the 14 parties Ivarsflaten (2022) described as far-right in the first quoted paragraph and their listed political positions on their Wikipedia articles:

Because the far right is a subset of the right wing, Ivarsflaten describing the Progress Party as a right-wing populist party in a news article does not contradict her describing the party as a far-right party in an academic publication. (By the way, that news article is not linked in your comments.) And again, because a party's degree of populism is independent of that party's position on the left–right political spectrum, the extent to which the Progress Party is populist has no bearing on whether it is far-right. Likewise, the Dagens Perspektiv news article says that Ivarsflaten considers the Progress Party moderately nativist; she does not comment on the Progress Party's political position on the left–right political spectrum. —  Newslinger  talk   22:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC) Edited 06:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

 * I agree with User:Autospark: stuffing infoboxes with ideologies, positions and sources is not a good idea as the infobox serves as a summary of the article, whose sections can gather all the useful, sourced and consensual infos on the party. Also, I think that the "far-right" label is too frequently used: as for "far-left", it should be used only for fringe or authoritarian parties—the Progress Party is neither of them and, yes, it is arguably one of the most moderate parties of its kind. --Checco (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Laddmeister (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Right-wing parties is both an umbrella for different versions of right-wing politics and a specific position between far-right and centre-right. It depends on the context.
 * One of the most renowned european scolars on populism, extremism and far-right politics, Cas Mudde (who himself is a leftist), has written a book about radical right parties in Europe. He claims that Frp is a neoliberal populist party, and not a radical far-right party.
 * "Most usual suspects that are excluded from the populist radical right party family belong to the larger and more diffuse category of populist parties. Two subgroups are most relevant in this respect: social populists and neoliberal populists. The latter category is most closely related to the populist radical right; together they form the loose category of right-wing populism. The core ideology of neoliberal populism, as defined in the previous chapter, is the combination of primarily economic liberalism and populism. A good if somewhat extreme example of a neoliberal populist party is the Norwegian Fremskrittspartiet (FRP), whose status has always been debated within the field."
 * "The party began as an antitax party, morphed into a neoliberal party in the 1980s, and then embraced an opportunistic populism in the 1990s (e.g. Lorenz 2003).9 Notwithstanding the protean nature of the FRP, it is quite clear that nativism does not constitute part of its core ideology.10 Despite its occasional highly xenophobic campaigns, or its more recent defense of welfare chauvinism, the FRP is best classified as a neoliberal populist party."
 * https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/populist-radical-right-parties-in-europe/244D86C50E6D1DC44C86C4D1D313F16D
 * https://bora.uib.no/bora-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2771277/CFW---Master-Thesis---Final-draft.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Laddmeister (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Cas Mudde's The Populist Radical Right: A Reader (2016) is a 660-page analysis of European populist radical-right political parties, and is (to my knowledge) Mudde's most comprehensive work covering this specific area of politics to date. The analysis concludes that the Norwegian Progress Party (abbreviated as "FRPn") is an "extreme right" party (emphasis added):

 * Mudde's earlier work, Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe (2007) – your first link – is nine years older than Mudde (2016) and does not examine the Progress Party's position on the left–right political spectrum in as much detail as Mudde (2016).Your second link, Wergeland (2021), is a masters thesis. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Wergeland (2021) does not appear to have been cited by other academic publications, so it is not a reliable source for this Wikipedia article. —  Newslinger  talk   10:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Edited to correct chapter name, correct authorship, and add page number to citation. 08:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The second link (master thesis) was posted by a mistake. It is not relevant to this discussion. Laddmeister (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * After obtaining a better-formatted version of Mudde (2016), I have to make some corrections. Cas Mudde is listed as the sole editor of The Populist Radical Right: A Reader, but the above quote is from the chapter "The silent counter-revolution: Hypotheses on the emergence of extreme right-wing parties in Europe", which was authored by Piero Ignazi. I've edited my quotation to correct this and add a page number.
 * The second chapter of Mudde (2016), "Party ideology" (by Elisabeth Carter and edited by Mudde), describes the Norwegian Progress Party (abbreviated as "FRPn") as "right-wing extremist". Carter states that FRPn is "somewhat less extreme than that of other right-wing extremist parties", but references another publication by Ignazi to state that FRPn is still in the "extreme right" because FRPn "undermined the [party] system’s legitimacy". Carter places FRPn after the mid-1980s in the category "Neo-liberal xenophobic parties (radically xenophobic; culturist; demand reform of existing system: more democracy, less state)", and places FRPn before the mid-1980s in the category "Neo-liberal populist parties (not xenophobic; not racist; demand reform of existing system: more democracy, less state)".
 * Based on all of the relevant academic assessments cited and presented so far, I believe there is sufficient evidence to describe the Progress Party as "Right-wing to far-right", but insufficient evidence to describe the Progress Party as solely far-right. —  Newslinger  talk   09:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Biased users
Users clearly biased against the progress party should refrain form editing this page. I can see from the versions page that users like Vif12vf, who are open about being a communist far-leftist, are very active on posting claims about Progress Party being far-right. Please keep your biased politics out of political wiki pages. Laddmeister (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Personal attacks are prohibited on Wikipedia; this includes "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". Editors of any political orientation can edit any article as long as they comply with the policies and guidelines. —  Newslinger  talk   08:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors on the page
I cannot edit this page since some user has marked me for edit-warring, even if the edits are both sourced and correct. I cant do anything about that. But. If someone who are not marked for edit-warring can fix some errors, please do.

 * 1) Ketil Solvik-Olsen is not the deputy leader. Terje Søviknes and Hans Andreas Limi are deputy leaders. I've tried correcting this but a certain user keeps reverting it.
 * 2) National conservatism is claimed as the main ideology in the infobox. The party ideology is not national conservatism, and the sources posted does not claim that it is. The sources say that the party leader say "there is also room for people belonging to national conservatism" in the party. Which makes national conservatism a faction, not the party ideology. I've tried correcting this, but a certain user keeps reverting it.
 * 3) Right-wing populism is also claimed in the infobox. This should be marked as disputed. I've pointed and posted to the source for this, by prof. Anders Jenssen. But a certain user keeps reverting this.
 * 4) Anti-immigration. The party is not anti-immigration. They're for a stricter policy on immigration and wants the government to take more control on immigration than what is being done today. Thats not the same. This is an incorrect slur, not backed by credible sources. Like most other errors on this page.

Laddmeister (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

 * The term anti-immigration refers to support for restricting immigration; the term is not a slur, just as anti-abortion and anti-nuclear are also not slurs. The cited reliable sources explicitly describe the Progress Party as anti-immigration. Some sources go even further; as I quoted in the above section, Mudde (2016) describes the Progress Party as one of the European populist "extreme right" parties with "strong xenophobic stances". —  Newslinger  talk   10:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Labour, Centre-Party and Conservative party are also for restricting immigration. Strange why they havent gotten the same label. They all advocate for restricting asylum seekers access to Norway.
 * https://www.bt.no/btmeninger/debatt/i/860QLd/en-liberal-innvandringspolitikk-i-norge-er-ikke-det-beste-for-verdens-flyktninger https://www.minerva.no/asylpolitikk-civita-elisabeth-tangen/en-innvandringsstans-vil-trenge-seg-frem-til-slutt/438726 https://www.arbeiderpartiet.no/politikken/flyktning-og-asylpolitikk/ https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/innvandring-og-integrering/id918/ https://www.dagen.no/nyheter/hoyre-og-frp-onsker-en-strengere-flyktningpolitikk-krf-sterkt-uenig/ https://www.nettavisen.no/norsk-debatt/norsk-innvandringspolitikk-skal-vare-streng/o/5-95-1369345 Laddmeister (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is anti-immigration a significant component of these parties' political ideologies? If reliable sources (particularly academic sources) explicitly describe it that way, then a discussion about the inclusion of the anti-immigration descriptor may be warranted on the talk pages of the respective Wikipedia articles about these parties. —  Newslinger  talk   07:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. But their policy isnt much different from Frp. But I see your point. Laddmeister (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Classical liberal or libertarian
This article cites Jens Rydgren in the book Class Politics and the Radical Right as a source for the party to be labeled as libertarian. I just read the article, and libertarianism isnt mentioned. It's mentioned that the party is classical-liberal, has neo-liberal policies and also support public welfare services. Whoever put this quote in can't have read the book chapter they're citing.

I'm suggesting the citation is moved from libertarian to classical-liberalism. One of the main differences between classical liberalism and libertarianism is the view on public services and welfare. Frp supports welfare and public funded education, health services etc. The sources claiming the party is libertarian/right-libertarian label should be examined more closely. Laddmeister (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Next source examined is the book "Pluralistic Struggles in Gender, Sexuality and Coloniality by severeal swedish authors. They're writing about trans rights in scandinavia. Progress Party is barely mentioned, and referenced to as a "populist right-wing libertarian party". But the ideology and policies of the progress party is not discussed. It's mentioned because a cabinet minister of the progress party said was mentioned after talking about the LGBTQ community. Libertarianism and policies are not mentioned. This can not be used as a source for calling the party libertarian or right-wing libertarian. Laddmeister (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have so far been unable to verify the text written by Witfelt, but I have ordered the book from the university library. If someone have access to the text it would be nice if they could verify if Witfelt actually describes the party as libertarian, and explains why the party fits such a label. Unless this, the text refering to right-libertarianism should be removed from the article. Laddmeister (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Progress Party (Norway)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh cricket problems

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy ]] 16:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Bangladesh cricket problems
Personal essay.-Aranel (" Sarah ") 21:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, but the author should be encouraged to ask neutral content to other articles about Bangladeshi cricket. Osomec 00:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete but I'll have a word with the bloke as he's evidently knowledgeable about cricket and just needs a bit of guidance about how we do things on here. Bangladeshi cricket is an area we're woefully weak on. Sam Vimes 21:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Weak Delete - it is an interesting article but it needs a huge amount of work to make it Wiki-propriate. Eddie.willers 00:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsunyota Kohet

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy ]] 16:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Tsunyota Kohet
Other than his published works, a google search indicates a lack of notability. Also, the article's purpose appears to be for the promotion of a religion. Cheese Sandwich 21:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete one of a series of promotional postings by a single user who has had other material deleted in the past. Also NN. Dlyons493 22:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. --Howcheng 23:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. --GraemeL (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable - Tεx  τ  urε  16:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:Interstate 74

Note:
Parts of I-74 are finished in North Carolina

 * www.upgrade74.com
 * I73 / I74 in NC

Exit list
Exits are numbered from west to east, in accordance with AASHTO guidelines. Other existing parts in NC are also I-73, except along US 74.

This looks useful
--SPUI (T - C) 02:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Renaming article
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways. --MPD01605 (T / C) 17:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

 * There was some talk at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways/Archive2 but nothing was resolved. I'm thinking of splitting this into Interstate 74 (west) and Interstate 74 (east) as proposed, since there is no way that the two pieces of I-74 will be connected in the near future. This isn't like the old days, when Interstates were discontinuous all over the place; Ohio and West Virginia are not going to build I-74 unless something changes majorly.
 * I also created I-73/74 North-South Corridor for general information about the entire I-73 and I-74 corridors. --NE2 00:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The only problem I see is that there isn't substantiative information to warrant an I-74 East article that isn't already part of an article... The thing that keeps me with this is that West Virginia is kind of building some interstate freeway, and plans to, and even has signs up for future routes.  Unless a lot of new information comes up that warrants two separate articles, I-74 should be fine, and individual state articles can make up the rest. --MPD01605 (T / C) 01:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * West Virginia is building a surface road, not a freeway. The road is marked "I-73/74 North-South Corridor", but will not be able to carry Interstate shields unless it is rebuilt. --NE2 05:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor trivial mention
I was watching Poltergeist and towards the end of the movie, they mention I-74 as though it's nearby. As far as I know, the movie takes place in California. Does anyone know if there are any roads named I-74 in Cali? Or is this just the writers taking literary license? Yeah, I know; this is a minor detail, but I figure if there was a road elsewhere named I-74, it may be worth noting.98.215.128.112 (talk) 07:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Interstate 74. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.duke.edu/~rmalme/i74seg16.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100725101324/http://www.duke.edu/~rmalme/prog74.html to http://www.duke.edu/~rmalme/prog74.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Interstate 174 In SC
Should Interstate 174 in SC be coded canceled, not proposed because that interstate is unlikely to happen in SC and it is never list it in auxiliary routes section and it never list it as planned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B014:2542:CC54:396:88B:139 (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Peoria, Illinois - I-474
 * Winston-Salem, North Carolina - I-274 (planned)

 * At one time it was proposed, but it never really left the drawing board and wasn't progressed further. It likely needs to be mentioned, but it wouldn't be considered "cancelled" since it was never approved. Proposed I-274 was approved by AASHTO in 2019, roughly 15 years after first being mentioned, while the Iowa/Illinois I-174 and I-274 should be removed since it was never approved by AASHTO or FHWA. --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but you at least add extra information about I-174 in SC in I-74 Auxiliary Interstate page that I-174 in North Myrtle Beach, SC is proposed, but it’s unlikely going happen and most likely going to get canceled, something like that. Even added to the I-74 aux to I-174 in SC, if it’s possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B014:2542:CC54:396:88B:139 (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You cannot cancel something if it was never on the books to be established to begin with. People talk, they come up with ideas and one was I-174 in South Carolina, but it never went anywhere and there has been no talk of it since. I-174 should be removed from the I-74 Aux template. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Interstate 74


text: Talk:Interstate 275 (Ohio–Indiana–Kentucky)


text:
Talk:Interstate 70

Notoriety
Is it worth it to mention that Herb Baumeister is suspected of committing the I-70 murders? Or is that just too unnecessary to this article?71.156.83.60 (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a tangential detail not relevent to this article. I say delete it. However, if I'm not mistaken it's been deleted and replaced several times.Dave (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

First interstate claims
"The sections of the interstate in Missouri and Kansas have laid claim to be the first interstate in the United States." Would there be a more accurate way to word this? I don't know about Missouri, but in Kansas, there is a sign somewhere west of Topeka specifically claiming a stretch of several miles to be the first interstate in the US; in other words, I don't think Kansas claims the whole state's section of I-70 to be the first, but just those few miles. Against the current (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree this could use some work. I think its worded slightly better at if you want to reconcile this text with that. Dave (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Major Junctions
"Major junctions only; Only 5-8 most major intersections and cities belong here..."

I'm surprised to not see I-71 in Columbus, Ohio here since it's the state's capital, largest city in Ohio, and the intersection is directly connected to the other largest cities. I'm not sure how Dayton and Cambridge won their spots over Columbus on the list. Hopeliz (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The short answer is "national scope" verses "state scope". Agreed, local to Ohio I-71 is probably of more importance, but nationally I-75 is of greater significance, being a Canada to the Gulf through freeway. In the detail article Interstate 70 (Ohio), both are listed. With that said, you could probably make a good case for I-71 replacing I-77 in that list. Dave (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I suprised that Interstate 470 (Ohio–West Virginia) made it onto the major junction list over Interstate 76 (Ohio–New Jersey). I-76 provides access to the Philadelphia metro area and Pittsburgh Metro Area, Pennsylvania's two largest metros. I don't see how Interstate 470 (Ohio–West Virginia), an auxilary route of Interstate 70 is better deserving for a spot on the major junction list than Interstate 76 (Ohio–New Jersey).Spt 04:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2018rebel (talk • contribs)
 * The idea may have been to get West Virginia listed; there is the concept of geographic diversity in addition to the "majorness" of the intersecting road/location.  Imzadi 1979  →   15:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Interstate 70. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070312085507/http://members.aol.com:80/utahhwys/rte070.htm to http://members.aol.com/utahhwys/rte070.htm

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 20:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Eastern Terminus moved in 2014
According to this in 2014, I-70 was truncated to I-695 as of 2014. This is current signage at the junction. It may have once ended at a park-and-ride. But it no longer does. It's not a great source, but if we can find a better one, we can update this article. -- Jayron 32 14:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I-79 interchange as a major junction is missing
I-79 interchange as a major junction is missing and they run multiplexed for a few miles near Washington, PA 2603:301F:319:8400:D11C:3280:FB20:69E7 (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Many years ago, after being criticized for having infoboxes that were too big by others at Wikipedia,the decision was made to only feature the 10 most important interchanges in the infobox. There also is a goal of maintain a regional balance (i.e some in the west, some in the central and some in the east). For more info on that decision, see WP:USRD/STDS. Whomever decided which were the most important 10  must have decided the I-79 interchange didn't make the cut. With that said, as I see it 2-4 need to go from the current "top 10" selection. Ohio is over-represented with 3, so I'd cut one or both of I-71 and I-77. Also I-44 and I-64 are questionable and over-represents Missouri, which is already covered by the obvious choice, I-35. Dave (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Interstate 70


text:
Talk:Don Gorske

Broken Links
Most of the links provided are now broken. RFabian (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

unestablished fact
THe section refering to his diet is pure speculation and adds nothing factual to this article. It is simply a "magazine" article and is for pure ego. No facts were presented. For instance there is no established claim a man must eat 2,000 calories if sedentary. In fact latest research shows one needs about 11 calories per pound to maintain weight. This is far less than 2,000 calories given up in the section. The section was full of opinion and unestablished speculation.

Have also seen that the guy only drinks Seven Up or so, and in Super Size Me his cholesterol is stated as 140.

Using this formula, if he weighs 180, that's 1980 calories -- hardly "far less" than 2000. But where does Gorske say Big Mac's are his **only** source of food? I see the 90% comment, so that still leaves antoher 10%, which this author is completely ignoring. Duckncvr (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

 * The basal metabolic rate of a sedentary man of average height and weight is about 2000 calories. http://www08.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=basal+metabolic+rate. RFabian (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Tagging this article for original research
The article seems to contain a number of speculative claims about the nutritional value of Big Macs that I thought should be backed up by some authority. I have tagged the section, and inserted tags at some statements that I thought should have some authority backing them up. Smerdis of Tlön 18:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

unemployed?
I removed the reference to him being unemployed, due to the fact that the article contradicts this later by saying he's a prison guard. since that can be verified from the movie and unemployment cannot be verified, I removed it.

Whopper bet citation
Don't know the correct way to do citations. I can confirm Gorske himself relates the story about the whopper bet while being interviewed in Supersize Me.

NPOV
It is my opinion that the article, particularly the last part about his hometown being embaressed about him, it almost certainly simply someone's personal view. But I leave it up to someone who could perhaps find a citation. Jmlk17 00:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Been looking for one - the Reporter is not good about keeping online archives. (At the moment, all that's there on Gorske is a mention in a list of bowling scores. His was 634.)  I did find Reporter articles, or largish chunks of them, from Gorske's four major newsworthy moments - the first time anyone realized they had a local character on their hands, his 20,000th Big Mac, his appearance in Super Size Me, and his appearance on "I've Got A Secret" - all of which had the same tone of amused tolerance if not even tacit approval. It is possible that I just haven't found the article in which they mention this poll, of course, but I find it unlikely that it was even conducted, or that most Fond du Lac residents (of which I am one) actually do find Gorske an embarrassment.

I vote to cite sources or take it down, in the interest of basic human courtesy. Jpolodna 02:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

At this point the article looks like it maintains NPOV to me. Ledelste 09:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Same here, so I removed the NPOV tag. ObtuseAngle 19:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Rhetoric
However, nothing is known about the health of his colon, kidneys, gall bladder or liver.

You might as well add "or his brain, or his appendix, or the little finger on his right hand" for all the value this adds to what is supposed to be an impartial encyclopedia article. If nothing is known, there is nothing to be said, so don't mention it. 217.155.20.163 23:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Tone of entry sounds like he's deceased.
While reading this entry, I got the impression that this person is no longer living. Perhaps it needs some rephrasing? --70.167.58.6 (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Calories
I don't want to sound like a metric-nazi, but it's kilocalories (or Calories with a capital C) the article is talking about. 2000 calories is roughly the amount of energy in a mouthful of milk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wouter halswijk (talk • contribs) 13:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's common convention (at least in the US, which is where he lives) for food calories to simply be called calories. Keep in mind that a food calories is not exactly the same as a regular one, since it takes into account how much energy a person can obtain from the food. (Although the size of the measure of energy is the same.) Ariel. (talk) 15:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

McDonald's Corporation Response
Where the response from McDonalds? I know a franchise owner congradulated him and gave him a party for the 25,000 big mac but nothing from McDonald's. AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

How old is he now?
Several sites list his birthday as November 28, 1953 (age 63 as of February 2017) but a few say that's unconfirmed. Anyone know a good reliable source for it? Ala Bahma (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Don Gorske


text:
User talk:Josesierra

Welcome, from Journalist
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! JournalistC./Holla @ me
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Jose Sierra III
Some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Jose Sierra III may not be sufficiently well-known to merit articles of their own. The Wikipedia community welcomes newcomers, and encourages them to become Wikipedians. On Wikipedia, all users are entitled to a user page in which they can describe themselves, and this article's content may be incorporated into that page. However, to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia proper, a subject must be notable. We encourage you to write or improve articles on notable subjects. -- Merope Talk 15:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Josesierra


text:
User talk:Hoorah25

Welcome, from Journalist
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! JournalistC./Holla @ me
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Hoorah25