Talk:JA21

Voter base

The NOS published an article about the demographics of the Dutch 2021 General election. Maybe we could add some information about the voter base. Goalkeeper87 (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Conservatism

The VRT (Flemish public broadcoaster) labels JA21 as a right-wing conservative party. Add Conservatism in the ideology section? Historicus9 (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Right-wing to far-right

My edit has been reverted for the following reason: 'not in source'. This is an erroneous claim.

Note that 'far-right' translates to 'extreemrechts' in Dutch.

I cite from the first source: "Waarom is de extreemrechtse partij JA21 wel opgenomen door Kieskompas en Sylvana Simons’ BIJ1 niet?"

I cite from the second source: "Extreemrechts (PVV, FvD, JA21) staat in de peilingen nu op 24 zetels." - Krmody (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Your first source is questions and answers from random people, and we cant use that. The second one i cant read itShadow4dark (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

That is something different than 'not in source'. I dispute that the first source consists of questions and answers from random people: clearly the questions come from Breedveld, while the answers come from political scientist Krouwel (but that may be beside the point). However, let us look primarily at the second source, since you could not access that one.

I have updated the source to include an archive link: it should be accessible to everyone now.

Also note: "Baudet maakte op 10 januari met partijgenoot Wybren van Haga, een sjoemelende pandjesbaas, zijn opwachting in de talkshow Op1, dat een paar dagen eerder, op een avond dat omroep WNL de uitzending verzorgde, twee vertegenwoordigers van de extreemrechtse splinterpartij JA21 een podium gaf."

Thus, the second source refers twice to JA21 as a far-right party. This is an opiniated article. However, Follow the Money should be considered a reliable source, in light of their editorial control, their reputation for fact-checking, and their level of independence from Dutch politics (WP:BIASED). - Krmody (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

'Far-right' is a very heavy accusation. Follow the Money is a more left-wing platform (https://verenoflood.nu/un-follow-the-money-ftm-is-teveel-veranderd/) and makes this claim without any evidence. Does Eric Smit have any evidence that JA21 is 'extreemrechts' (far-right)? You can call every politician you don't like far-right/far-left without serious argumentation. I do not see any evidence in his opinion article. So the the source is POV and makes a heavy accusation without evidence. Solution --> removal of the 'far-right'-claim Historicus9 (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree Goalkeeper87 (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Good catch, they moved recently more to left and cant be ussed here without addintal sources. Shadow4dark (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Please note WP:BIASED, even if Follow the Money was a more left-wing platform (as described by a more right-wing platform like Veren of Lood, as described by a more left-wing platform like De Kanttekening, etc. etc.), it is a highly reputable platform whose investigative journalism has reached many reputable mainstream news agencies of the Netherlands. I am surprised that you characterize the labelling of a political position as 'far-right' (or 'far-left') as an accusation. I do, however, agree that this label could be seen as controversial; in the light of this confirmed controversy and the recent creation of this party, additional sources for the claim 'right-wing to far-right' would be welcome. I therefore support the status quo (right-wing) as of now (also because additional secondary sources and labels have been added), while standing by the reliability of Follow the Money. - Krmody (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Ofcourse 'far-right' and 'far left' are used in the political debate as accusations/smears. Both words have very negative connotations (nazism/fascism/communism). Again in both newspapers JA21 is accused of being 'radicaal-rechts' (radical right/far-right) without any evidence. Please note that Sarah de Lange cited in NRC Handelsblad holds the Dr. J.M. Joop den Uyl chair, a chair established by the Wiardi Beckman Foundation. The Wiardi Beckman foundation is a think thank of the Partij voor de Arbeid (Dutch Labour Party). The PvdA is a political opponent of JA21 and therefore Sarah de Lange is not an objective source. Andre Krouwel, Dutch political scientist and creator of Kieskompas, characterizes JA21 as a 'right-wing populist party'. By the way you just deleted 'far-left' on the page of Socialist party (Netherlands)[[1]]. So I do not understand that you are suprised that characterizing the labelling of a political position as far-right/far-left is seen as an accusation. It sounds quite hypocrite. Goalkeeper87 (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough point, however, Valk makes this claim too in the NRC article in question. You have deleted this source as well, but have not addressed this in your comment. What are your objections to this source? Tom van der Meer has also characterized JA21 as a 'radical right' party in the election program of the Dutch public broadcaster. - Krmody (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I ask the same question: what is the evidence/argumentation that JA21 is a so called 'radical-right' party? It is important to note that political definitions like radical-right, progressive or conservative are highly subjective. Maybe as a compromise keep Right wing in the infobox as only political position, but add in the text that there is discussion about the political position of JA21. Some characterize JA21 as a radical-right party, some as a conservative-liberal party and some as a right-wing conservative party. Goalkeeper87 (talk) 10:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

You note that political definitions are highly subjective. You follow up by asking for evidence for something you claim yourself is subjective. As far as this is not a contradictio in terminis, subjective evidence requires trust in the source. (How does the RTL article that you provided, provide evidence?) As you note, some sources characterize JA21 as a radical right party, while others do not. I argue that NRC and Het Parool are mainstream Dutch news papers, while NOS is, as the Dutch public broadcaster, a mainstream broadcaster. Similarly, Simon Otjes and Tom van der Meer are recognized experts as political scientists connected to Dutch universities (respectively Leiden University and the University of Amsterdam). In accordance with WP:NPOV, different viewpoints should be fairly represented. Noting that there are multiple mainstream sources that characterize JA21 as 'radical right', this characterization is not an exceptional view. Therefore, 'far-right' (or 'radical right') should be noted alongside 'right-wing', to reflect the views in multiple mainstream sources. - Krmody (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

With the term 'evidence' I mean specifics to substantiate the 'radical-right' claim. In other words can you point a source where exactly is explained which views of JA21 are 'radical-right'? Especially mainstream news papers and 'recognized experts' have to substantiate their claims. I do not see any substantive argumentation of the 'radical-right'-claim. Goalkeeper87 (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Where exactly in your RTL source and the other sources does it explain why JA21 is 'right-wing'? Or 'conservative-liberal'? It doesn't explain it there either. That should not be a problem, because these claims are supported by various reliable sources (mainstream newspapers, see WP:SOURCE). The claim 'radical right' is also made in mainstream newspapers and by recognized experts, and therefore are not exceptional claims that require exceptional sources. Do you dispute that NRC, Het Parool and NOS are mainstream news organizations? Do you dispute that the claim 'radical right' is made in these sources? If the answers to these questions are no, and you do not have any other objections based on Wikipedia Policy, then 'far-right' (or 'radical right') should be included in order to offer a balanced view (WP:NPOV). - Krmody (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

If you consider Right-wing and Radical-right different political categories, an opinion you clearly have, you can logically consider sources that describe JA21 as a right-wing party a refutation of the ‘radical-right’ claim. Because the radical-right claim is more controversial than the right-wing position, I support the proposal of Goalkeeper87 to keep Right-wing in the infobox as only political category but add in the text that some sources consider JA21 ‘radical-right’ and others consider JA21 as a conservative-liberal party. To answer your last question I think a claim that is more controversial ('far-right', the same category as the Nazi Party for example) needs more argumentation than the noncontroversial claim that JA21 is Right-wing or conservative. Historicus9 (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Far-right' (like 'centre-right') is a specific position on the right-wing; notable enough to warrant inclusion alongside right-wing, as you can see in the infoboxes of other parties (for example Forum for Democracy). Something being labelled right-wing, can also be centre-right or far-right. So in that light, it is not a refutation. However, that is not the point. Even if it was a refutation, different reliable sources might disagree on the exact characterization of a political party. In light of WP:NPOV these views should be fairly represented. Controversy to some is not enough of an argument to block inclusion (WP:NOTCENSORED). There are multiple reliable mainstream news organizations that have characterized JA21 as far-right. Politico has characterized JA21 as 'far-right'. As I have mentioned before, NRC has characterized JA21 as 'radical right' (in multiple articles). Het Parool has too, and so has Tom van der Meer during the NOS election program. Do you have any objections to the reliability of these sources, the content of these sources, or any other objections, based on Wikipedia policy? On another note, tweets are, in this context, not considered reliable sources (see WP:RSSELF and WP:SELFPUB). - Krmody (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I have questions about the substantion of the 'radical-right'-claim. What exact views of JA21 are radical-right? I don't read an answer on this question in the sources you linked. Take for example the Politico article you linked: the author (even not a political scientist) names JA21 in the Far-right paragraph without any argumentation. And that is exactly the point I try to make. Claims are made without substance/argumentation. I therefore proposed the solution to keep Right-wing in the infobox as only political category but add in the text that some sources consider JA21 ‘radical-right’, others consider JA21 as a 'conservative-liberal party' and others as a 'centre-right party'. Goalkeeper87 (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree and therefore support the removal of the controversial far-right label. JA21 is labelled a right-wing conservative party by experts of the VRT (Flemish public broadcoaster). Right wing is the best term to describe the political position of JA21. Maybe add Conservatism in ideology section? Historicus9 (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable solution, yes. --Mahuset (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The article in Veren of Lood is not written by a random person. It is written by former Follow the Money-editor Arno Wellens. He left Follow the Money because he concluded that Follow the Money is an ideological biased platform (left-wing and anti-capitalist). His argumentation is based on his own experiences as Follow the Money-editor. Goalkeeper87 (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

According to Trouw (Dutch quality newspaper) JA21 is a conservative-liberal party ('conservatief-liberaal'), therefore not far-right. (https://www.trouw.nl/politiek/waarom-de-strijd-op-rechts-nooit-een-volledig-rechts-kabinet-oplevert~b48ebc6e/) Goalkeeper87 (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This user just deleted 'far left' on other pages [[2]] Shadow4dark (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It's disingenuous to label JA21 ideology as "right-wing to far-right" because of 1 or 2 sources saying it is a far-right party. First of all, there are also sources calling it a conservative-liberal party which is a center-right ideology so you could also say it's "center-right to right-wing" party. But that is not the point. Saying a party is "right-wing to far-right" (or "center-right to right-wing") is not saying that the party has two political standings. It's saying it's "somewhere in between" both ideological standings which is a total different thing and has a very different connotation . So in this case it's nonsensical to say it's between right-wing and far-right when the majority of the respected sources, the original language Wikipedia article and pretty much everyone on the talk page agree that the party is right-wing and not somewhere between right-wing and far-right. Finally it would also be incoherent as for example the Socialist Party is listed as left-wing (and rightfully so) even tough one could nitpick source in order to have it changed to "left-wing to far-left". DasModel1111 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

While you claim that there were 1 or 2 sources, you have removed three sources that labelled JA21 as 'far-right'. Other Dutch and English sources, include: . Note WP:BALANCE (but note that 'right-wing' and 'far-right' are not contradictory). It is not relevant if reliable sources characterized JA21 as 'conservative-liberal', but whether they have characterized them as 'centre-right'. The use of 'to' is not the most relevant issue when it comes to reliability of the sources: even if 'to' is problematic, it could be replaced with 'or'. The Socialist Party is not relevant. Wikipedia is not a reliable source (WP:WINARS). Please explain why these six sources are not reliable. - Krmody (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe add footnote to a new paragraph about their political position dispute? You can add behind right wing "(disputed). see below" Shadow4dark (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

There are currently four citations for "right-wing" and four for "far-right", all from reliable journalistic sources. To primarily label it as "right-wing" and relegate "far-right" to a footnote, when they both appear to have approximately equal support, seems in violation of WP:BALANCE. Erinthecute (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The user who added far right, tried hard to find many possible sources for his claim. Shadow4dark (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Clearly it's a well-substantiated claim. Erinthecute (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Why disputed? just put "Right-wing to Far-right" like other parties, simple Mhatopzz (talk) 2:04, 14 June 2021

Ja21 is not a far right party, and none of the cited sources bring forth any arguments why they would be classified as such. The Dutch Wikipedia does not make any such claims either, and I think this claim should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.219.114.23 (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

If you bothered to look at the actual article, it has 4 sources.[3][4][5][6] PRAXIDICAE💕 21:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

None of these sources give any arguments as to why JA21 should be considered far right. I could find articles claiming that Obama is a communist but that doesn't mean these claims should be copied without examination. 91.219.114.23 (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

"Right answer"

This is a minor issue, but I'm wondering if it would be better to translate Juiste Antwoord as "Correct Answer". "Right" in this case of course evokes an association with right-wing politics, but juist in Dutch has no such association. It just means "correct, right". "Right"s secondary meaning isn't exactly wrong in this case, but is it accurate? The party never used an English name and no English source that discussed it so far seems to have bothered to translate it. Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Good point. I agree. - Krmody (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Centre-right

The claim 'centre-right' is being made by someone of JA21 running for elections. It would be better to include multiple reliable secondary sources in which independent recognized experts characterize JA21 as a 'centre-right' party, when including 'centre-right' in this article's info box. - Krmody (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Historicus9, you mentioned that sources were removed without argumentation. Please find here the argumentation for the reversion. You have discussed here in the past. The argumentation above relates to the claim by a party member of JA21 that you added as a source. The other source you have added did not state JA21 was centre-right. It was a question in which was stated that JA21 was more moderate on select themes than PVV and FvD. It did not state that JA21 was centre-right. Please find reputable sources in which recognized experts refer to JA21 as centre-right, just as there are multiple reliable sources in which recognized experts refer to JA21 as 'right-wing' or 'far-right'. - Krmody (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Political position

Instead of stating that their political position is disputed, can we change it to "Right-wing to far-right"? Vacant0 (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

See above, the sources does not say why the party is "far right" or other arguments about their "far right" actoins. Also the party is new and soon we will get probably better sources. Shadow4dark (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thank you! Vacant0 (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, this party is pretty new, we need to wait until there are enough sources. Marko8726 (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

With regard to your comment which expressed the need for a source that explains why the JA21 would be "far right", I would like to bring attention to this (https://www.rd.nl/artikel/920764-pvv-forum-en-ja21-maken-samen-radicaal-rechts-groter) article from Reformatorisch Dagblad, a daily newspaper with confessional-conservative signature. In this article, political and social scientists, among whom scientists related to the National Voter Survey (Nationaal Kiezersonderzoek), interpret the results of this survey among supporters of parties which they deem 'radical right', including JA21. With regard to the ideology of JA21, FvD and PVV voters, the researchers note that "with regard to integration, mosques and asylum seekers, supporters of PVV, Forum and JA21 hardly differ from each other and strongly distinguish themselves from the rest". The researches then note the following: "In their election programme, JA21 admittedly puts less emphasis on nationalism and immigration than PVV and Forum, and describes itself as a conservative-liberal party, but we do not see these differences among voters. It is therefore not a surprise that, during coalition negotiations, Eerdmans directly emphasized that migration is the spearhead of JA21." The researchers then note that they see something similar with regard to the environment and international co-operation, while noting that in this regard there are small differences between the three parties. The article repeatedly posits that JA21 is a 'radical right' party. What would this mean for the infobox, when noting that, in addition to this article, there are multiple other reliable sources which characterize JA21 as "radical-right" or "far-right"? Krmody (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Notification of discussion involving this article

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Political parties regarding the inclusion of the party flag in the infobox of this article. The thread is Party flags in infoboxes. Thank you. — Ætoms ^[talk] 23:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)