Wikipedia

Talk:National Rally/Archive 3

< Talk:National Rally
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Aemilius Adolphin in topic Political profile
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Colour

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, why is the color fixed for the Front National in the English Wikipedia a dark blue? I know that this is the colour they use themselve, but in Frech journalism, it is normally depicted as grey or even black. Considering that it's a party from the extreme right, shouldn't this be applied also here in Wikipedia? Tortososs (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on National Front (France). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Front (France). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Color

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

It seem an user is trying to change the FN color from dark blue to grey. Has there be any discussion on this important change? --Aréat (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

A discussion has been started on the template page after I asked. Everyone is welcome to give their opinion there as well. Template talk:National Front (France)/meta/color --Aréat (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible name change

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Provided that party members decide to change the party' name (Rassemblement national / National Rally), I suggest that this article will stay and another one will be started, consistently with Union for a Popular Movement and The Republicans (France). Opinions? --Checco (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

For now, it would simply be a name change and I'd be opposed to the creation of a new article – however, if there is a more clear "refoundation" (i.e. in the change of statutes, structure, composition) and a clearly identifiable "break", I might support it – but that might not be something that's apparent for months. If the vote of the adherents tomorrow is an affirmative one, then I'd say the course of action would probably be a RM request soon after (if WP:NAMECHANGES is applicable and media quickly pick up the new name) – it'll leave a lot of redirects behind given that it's been the name used since foundation, but that would be intended behavior and changes to the new name would only be needed on articles applying to the present or future status (i.e., current FN deputies, senators, MEPs, etc.) In the case of meta templates, however, they might need to be separated to avoid retroactive changes to articles before the name change (e.g. the /meta/shortname templates, as there would be a new abbreviation). Mélencron (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
It is a name change like Debout la France. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, which is why I hesitate to support a split. Mélencron (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Like to DLR/DLF, FN and RN have the same logo. Or we could split DLR into DLF. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 1 June 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments10 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

National Front (France) → National Rally (France) – New name. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Checco: please see Debout la France. Also, the FN considers that RN is a name change but the UMP considers LR as a new movement. LR have organized a founding congress, not RN. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Current policy on EU membership

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Although the lead says that the party favours withdrawal of France from the EU, there is nothing in the body regarding current (as opposed to historic) party policy that says this at all, let alone in any detail. Would someone improve? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I think its perhaps worth opening a discussion on this. The party is certainly opposed to the European Union. There are multiple sources that state this. In terms of policy as far as I could find through some brief searches its current polices seem to be an exit from the Euro currency and offering France a referendum on EU membership if it were to get into power. I haven't seen any evidence the party would unilaterally take France out of the EU if elected. However, while I haven't yet seen any sources that directly state this, due to the party's anti-EU stance it seems highly likely in such a referendum the party would support France's withdrawal from the EU.

Here are two sources that should hopefully be useful:

Helper201 (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The party's new name and its youth wing

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Does anyone know (and if so can provide a reliable source) as to whether now the party's name has been changed if the party's youth wing's name has also changed or if it is going to change? Currently its still stated as National Front Youth on Wikipedia. I would assume it will likely be changed to fit with the party's new name although I have no knowledge or sources to provide on the matter. Helper201 (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Saw a piece in Le Figaro mentioning that it would be renamed to "Génération Nation", but I don't know if it is currently official. Mélencron (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Think we can use this source - https://www.ouest-france.fr/politique/front-national/les-jeunes-du-front-national-rebaptisent-leur-mouvement-generation-nation-5759058 - to move the page in the same way this one was moved? I'm going off of Google Translate as I don't speak French but this seems good enough to me. Please feel free to request the move if you think its good enough. Helper201 (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Seems appropriate to submit an RM on the FNJ article, then. Here's the 1 article mentioning the youth movement since the renaming; it seems to be adopted in normal usage. Mélencron (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Do you think you would be able to submit that request please? I'm not all too familiar with the process and don't have too much time on my hands at the moment so you should be able to get it done quicker and easier than myself. Cheers. Helper201 (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Colour

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

In France, far-right parties are represented with black, not blue (which is used normally for right-wing parties). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-Miii (talk • contribs) 16:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

See Template talk:National Front (France)/meta/color where this has been discussed before. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Far-right

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

I wanted to bring in some more sources about National Rally (National Front) being far-right:

  • This one is peer reviewed: (2014) Support for the Far Right in the 2014 European Parliament Elections: A Comparative Perspective
  • This one is not: (December 2016) The “new” discourse of the Front National (FN) under Marine Le Pen: A slight change with a big impact, Quote:

    Conclusion, first paragraph: In this article, we have first described the FN’s new political discourse, which effectively reframes the FN leitmotif immigration and uses populist tactics. While the FN certainly uses a more ‘acceptable’ rhetoric, the party has not become more mainstream. Rather, the FN’s main propositions – be they the national preference, its strong anti-immigration platform or its tough measures on security – have remained essentially the same. What has changed is the populist undertone and character which the FN uses to package its propositions. Among other things, by using welfare chauvinism, charismatic leadership, a simple and emotional rhetoric, and anti-elitism, the FN has become the prototypical right-wing populist party.

    The authors compared the discourse of Jean with Marine's discourse. Front National is qualified as radical right-wing:

    Since Marine Le Pen took over the presidency of the Front National (FN) from her father Jean Marie Le Pen in January 2011, this radical right-wing party has been successful on three fronts [...]

    The same author (Daniel Stockmer) published this book in February 2017: The Front National in France. Basically, the discourse of National Rally has changed a bit, but it is basically the same. It continues to be radical right-wing, that is, far-right. That includes the tactical use of right-wing populism.

E380f876 (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Following up on the above, Le Front National is usually referred to as extremist (parti d'extrême-droite), not just far-right. It would be fair to mention in the summary that the politics have often gone beyond being far-right (e.g. over anti-semitism in the past). In the U.S. in particular, the party tends to be viewed as much milder than it really is. A2pa (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there a difference between far right and extreme right according to sources? – Levivich 19:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Maybe, maybe not. "Right-wing" nominally covers everything to the right of center, but, depending on how its used, implies the further regions (i.e. conservatives don't like to be called "right wing" any more than (American) liberals like to be call "left wing"). Once you get out pretty far at the end of the spectrum, whether you call them "far right" or "extreme right" seems pretty irrelevant, so I generally deal with them as synonyms, but some people prefer one over the other, or perhaps they feel that one is farther to the right than the other. I guess, thinking in terms of ordinary language, "extreme" might be the farthest -- "Look to your right and you'll see the boat. No the far right. No, no the extreme right." Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Will agree that there is very little difference between far and extreme right in common parlance. Both words don't need to be present beside each other. In English, I would say "far right" is more widespread; then again, "extreme" right is closer to the French "extrême droite". Eliaszjm (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
When I was studying the subject (in Australia) the terms extreme right, radical right and far right were essentially interchangeable. They refer to the same group of ideologies. Bacondrum (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • RN are clearly on the far-right I can't understand how this kind of whitewashing has been allowed to pass. Within the article itself I found at least 20 reliable sources that describe RN/NF as far-right, at least 20...and I gave up at that point because it's clearly a bit of a farce to refer to them as anything else in light of the weight of citations. Bacondrum (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

PoV edit(s)

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

An editor is attempting to make changes to the article which appear to me to be PoV. I have explained that the reason both "far-Right" and "Right-wing populism" appear in the lede as descriptors is that reliable sources describe the National Rally as being "far-right" on the political spectrum, and that "right-wing populism" -- as opposed to other kinds of populism -- describes the party's ideology, but the editor continues to revert to their preferred version. I have restored the article to its status quo ante version pending discussion here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

No, you have been inserting far-right into the opening sentence. If you look back past the last week, the long-standing version had neither right-wing, nor far-right in the opening sentence. This is your proposed change and you were the one first asked to come to the talk page to discuss the matter. You also rejected compromises and continued to revert back to your edit, away from the status quo long-standing version. As has been noted multiple times before both right-wing and far-right are cited in the infobox. We can either repeat that the party is right-wing to far-right in the opening paragraph or not mention it. But to label the party either simply right-wing or far-right is disingenuous because it weights in one direction when both are cited. No one including myself is saying the ideology of right-wing populism should be removed in any way. Helper201 (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Please re-examine the edits. At no time did I insert "far right". My first recent edit to the article was my revert of your edit, which altered the description of the party from "far-right" to "right-wing to far-right", watering it down. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
There is an issue with the following sentence in the lede : "Although most political commentators place the RN on the far-right, [quote journalists] other sources suggest that the party's position on the political spectrum has become more difficult to define clearly."[quote scholars]. It should be [quote scholars] ... [quote scholars]. Journalists are not qualified to classify a political party; we should prefer academics as per WP:NEWSORG. Alcaios (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken - That was an insertion on 7 May by PompeyTheGreat without any discussion or consensus. It is not / was not the long-standing version. The long-standing version before a few days ago had neither right-wing, nor far-right in the opening sentence. To add only one of the two cited positions in the opening line weights in favour of one over the other and does not respect neutral editing when there are two cited positions. We can either say they are right-wing to far-right or just mention their ideologies. My intent is not to water down. I would consider it just as unfair or even biased to simply call the party right-wing. Helper201 (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
You seem to be correct. My apologies for the hassle. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The party is clearly on the far-right, there's more than 20 reliable sources in this article that place them firmly on the far-right, some refer to them as the extreme right or some other variation, radical right etc. The debate is farcical, really. Bacondrum (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Books

  • Far-Right Politics in Europe - Jean-Yves Camus and Nicolas Lebourg
  • Politics on the Fringe: The People, Policies, and Organization of the French National Front -Edward G. DeClair
  • The Radical Right in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis - Herbert Kitschelt and Anthony J.McGann
  • The Extreme Right in France: From Pétain to Le Pen - James Shields
  • From Jean-Marie to Marine Le Pen: Electoral Change on the Far Right - Nonna Mayer
  • The French National Front: The Extremist Challenge To Democracy - Harvey G. Simmons
  • Histoire de l'extrême droite en France (History of the Extreme Right in France) - Michel Winock

Bacondrum (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 6 July 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

– Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The other two parties only existed a few years back in the 1960's, and apparently did not make any big impact. ― Hebsen (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Support obvious PT. (t · c) buidhe 10:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Support per nom. Impru20talk 16:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Support per common name. Alcaios (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Right wing populist

Latest comment: 4 years ago57 comments7 people in discussion
No consensus either way, discussion is stale. Will create a more straight forward and neutrally worded rfc Bacondrum (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An editor has been completely removing the label of right-wing from the political position section of the infobox. The claim of right-wing was support by multiple reliable supporting citations that were correctly cited. There was also no consensus on the talk page to completely remove the political position label of right-wing from the infobox. I have actively tried to seek compromise by removing the label of right-wing populist from the opening line. It is also worth noting that on the French language version of the page the party is defined in the infobox as having "catch-all positioning", as well as being "radical right", and "far right", not just simply labelled as only far right. Helper201 (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

They are described as far-right by all the leading academic experts, as far as I can see. Calling this party right wing populist contradicts the leading academics on the subject including:

  • Jean-Yves Camus and Nicolas Lebourg who describe them as far-right in Far-Right Politics in Europe and Jean-Yves Camus describes them as such in a number of his other works on the subject.
  • James Shields who describes them as far-right in his book The Extreme Right in France: From Pétain to Le Pen
  • Michel Winock, who describes them as extreme right in his book Histoire de l'Extrême droite en France
  • Jens Rydgren who describes them as radical right-wing in his book France: The Front National, Ethnonationalism and Populism
  • Nonna Mayer who describes them as far-right in her book From Jean-Marie to Marine Le Pen: Electoral Change on the Far Right
  • Herbert Kitschelt and Anthony McGann describe them as far and radical right ih their book France: The National Front As Prototype of the New Radical Right
  • Edward DeClair describes them as far-right in Politics on the Fringe: The People, Policies, and Organization of the French National Front
  • Cas Mudde describes them as "far-right" in his book The Far Right Today

A brief look through the sources used in the article reveals an overwhelming consensus among not only academics, but news reportage too. Bacondrum (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we can certainly have a reasonable discussion over how the party should be described in the opening line. I can see how describing the party as right-wing populist may seem to be watering down the extremity of the party. However, this is a cited ideology of the party in the infobox (note, ideology, not the same as political position). We could describe the party as right-wing to far-right, as both these positions have multiple supporting citations in the infobox. However, cited information, such as that for the political position of right-wing should not be removed entirely from the infobox or the article (as you did) without prior consensus here on the talk page first. The problem is if we describe the party as either simply right-wing or far-right, we weight in one particular direction. It is important that Wikipedia editors remain as neutral as possible. The party has become more moderate under Marine Le Pen compared to how it was under Jean-Marie Le Pen, for example no longer supporting the death penalty. It would be helpful if you could please date the publication of the sources you have given in this regard. Personally I don't think using any of the listed ideologies in the infobox to describe the party in the opening line does a good job of encompassing the party overall as it exists in its current form. If we were to describe the party in any way in the opening line I'd go for right-wing to far-right, or for the sake of neutrality to stop the constant editing over this we could just simply leave the opening line as " The National Rally (French: Rassemblement national, pronounced [ʁasɑ̃bləmɑ̃ nasjɔnal]; RN), until June 2018 known as the National Front (French: Front national, pronounced [fʁɔ̃ nasjɔnal]; FN), is a political party in France ". Then go on to describe the party's ideology and position in depth in the main body of the page. I find it hard to see how using one political position or one ideology as an all-encompassing descriptor for the party will ever achieve an accepted consensus that won't be constantly edit wared over. Helper201 (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think a reasonable discussion can ignore the WP:WEIGHT of academic sourcing here. As per WP:NEWSORG "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports", but even then the majority of news articles describe them as far-right. At least half a dozen authoritative academic sources describe them as far-right, and thus so should we. Even if we were to ignore the strength of those sources, nine out of ten of the news articles cited also describe them as far-right. For us not to do so would be tendentious obfuscation, completely ignoring what the leading political science and sociology scholars say as well as the bulk of news reports, completely ignoring the vast majority of reliable sources. Bacondrum (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Ignoring the weight of academic sources here would be the very definition of POV editing. Bacondrum (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Helper201 Funny, you accuse others of edit warring, but looking at the history, it is you who has been doing so:

I suggest you self revert, I'd prefer not to take things to ANI. Bacondrum (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

No source describes them as “right to far-right” anyway, so that claim is a synthesis WP:SYNTH Bacondrum (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, I have been restoring back to the long standing version until there is talk page consensus. I have sort to compromise with you and keep things as neutral as possible by removing the label of right-wing populism from the opening line, leaving it without any label. What you state is no justification for removing correctly cited information without any prior discussion. The usage of X position to Y position has been claimed as synth before, but editors did not come to a supporting consensus on this and it is common within Wikipedia infobox's. We can leave it out of the main text but it is common within infobox's and there would need to be a wide consensus to change this due to its prevalence across Wikipedia. Helper201 (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
There has been discussion, Beyond My Ken, PompeyTheGreat, Alcaios, A2pa and myself have all recently disagreed with your stance, as does the sourcing. You have been repeatedly reverting to your preferred version despite several editors disagreeing with you. Edit warring over weeks is still edit warring. Happy to discuss, but you have to stop reverting to your preferred version. Bacondrum (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest you open an RFC on the matter here. Helper201 (talk) 09:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, you can't just sit there and revert all attempts by several different editors to reflect the sources, your view of the sources does not trump all others. I've taken your repeated reversions to ANI. Bacondrum (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
You are the one removing the position of right-wing and the reliable citations that support it to impart only your own view because you believe the weight of one claim outweighs the other, without achieving any consensus here first. Please show me where there is a consensus to entirely remove the position of right-wing and its supporting citations. I have not reverted all attempts. I removed the label of right-wing populist from the opening line for the sake of neutrality. I have clearly attempted compromise until we reach a consensus. You are the one removing the well cited position of right-wing without a consensus. Helper201 (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

An editor involved in this dispute has attempted to request dispute resolution at both Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and Third Opinion. In both cases the request has been denied. So long as the RFC here is pending, neither process is available. Only one form of dispute resolution may be used at one time. Once the RFC has been resolved or expires after 30 days and is closed, other forms of dispute resolution may be requested if needed. Please completely read and follow the instructions for such dispute resolution before filing, however. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC) (DRN and 3O volunteer)

TransporterMan which RFC? Bacondrum (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
The one at the top of this "Right wing populist" section. Both denied DR requests were specifically linked to this section. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I encourage editors to seek consistency, e.g., reconcile statements like the following, from the Political profile section, introductory paragraph: "... the FN too has moved somewhat closer towards the centre-right" with whatever adjective you ultimately choose to use in the infobox and lede.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 15:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Far-right; "Right-wing" as a term can encompass "centre-right", "far-right" and positions inbetween. We should use "right to far-right" a) if most reliable sources just say "right-wing" with a minority saying "far-right"/synonyms or b) if there is resistance or discussion among a substantial segment of reliable sources against saying "far-right"/etc, which makes clear they are not just using "right-wing" in its catch-all sense. In this specific case, "far-right" on its own seems like a fairly agreed upon categorisation based on all the sources I've seen and previous discussions. Further nuances can be discussed in prose where due. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 19:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Far-right If we apply due WP:WEIGHT there is a clear consensus among leading experts in the relevant fields
  • Jean-Yves Camus and Nicolas Lebourg who describe them as far-right in Far-Right Politics in Europe and Jean-Yves Camus describes them as such in a number of his other works on the subject.
  • James Shields who describes them as far-right in his book The Extreme Right in France: From Pétain to Le Pen
  • Michel Winock, who describes them as extreme right in his book Histoire de l'Extrême droite en France
  • Jens Rydgren who describes them as radical right-wing in his book France: The Front National, Ethnonationalism and Populism
  • Nonna Mayer who describes them as far-right in her book From Jean-Marie to Marine Le Pen: Electoral Change on the Far Right
  • Herbert Kitschelt and Anthony McGann describe them as far and radical right ih their book France: The National Front As Prototype of the New Radical Right
  • Edward DeClair describes them as far-right in Politics on the Fringe: The People, Policies, and Organization of the French National Front

These are authoritative academic sources and there is clear consensus among them. Bacondrum (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Right-wing to far-right. Please read WP:WEIGHT, where it states -

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.

By omitting right-wing you are not fairly representing a significant viewpoint. This is not a claim backed up by only one or two sources. The claim when removed had five supporting citations, all from reliable sources, including an academic source published by Princeton University Press. This is also only what was supplied, I'm sure more could be found.:

Helper201 (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Helper201 As per ReconditeRodent: "Right-wing" as a term can encompass "Far-right" they are not mutually exclusive, so omitting the "far" does not mean these sources are contradicting the majority. Also, Those sources are weak compared to academics texts penned by heavy weight academics in the field like Jean-Yves Camus, Nicolas Lebourg, Michel Winock and Nonna Mayer et al. Besides, you didn't read the Princeton press book did you? You just searched "Right-wing National Rally" (the search is in the link). If you read it you'd see that the only academic source you've shared there refers to National Rally as "radical right" on page 2, "radical right" on page 32, "far right populist on page 43, "far-right" and "radical right" on page 149. Perhaps you should let the weight of reliable sources inform you. Bacondrum (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Bacondrum, "Right-wing" as a term can encompass "Far-right", this is WP:OR and not cited nor universally agreed upon. Political party infoboxes on Wikipedia usually use this as a position in of itself. Per WP:WEIGHT, it specifically mentions that all significant viewpoints should be included that can be supported by reliable sources. It does not say that source quality means significant viewpoints can be omitted. This is a claim supported by multiple reliable sources and clearly per what is stated under WEIGHT means it should be included. Just because the source also refers to the party as radical does not mean this contradicts the claim of it being right-wing. Helper201 (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Helper201 That's the most cherry picked reading of WP:WEIGHT I can imagine. You've completely ignored "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" I would happily accept some discussion in the body of the article of varying viewpoints regarding their position, if they were well sourced (preferably academics in the field) but we have six of the most authoritative experts in the field (including none less than Jean-Yves Camus calling them far-right, that absolutely trumps a few news reports and that's what the lede and info box should reflect... Minority views plucked form a couple of news reports do not belong in the article when we have internationally recognised academic experts (and lets be clear, Camus et al are serious heavy weights on the subject). "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery"..."Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view...To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well."
""Right-wing" as a term can encompass "Far-right", this is WP:OR" what a ridiculous claim, they are not mutually exclusive, that much is self evident, or are you are saying the far-right is on the left, not the right? Right is a broad term it covers the entire right, obviously. You've also not addressed the fact that the only academic work you've presented for the minority position explicitly supports the majority view. You should let leading experts like Camus inform your contributions, not your own views. I mean, with the heavy weight sources we have, this debate is plain silly. Bacondrum (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh, you have another problem, you clearly didn't read your news citations either as the two I've read so far describe them explicitly as far-right, oops. At this point it's looking a little like POV pushing. You've presented a number of sources to back your minority claim that sanitises the image of this party, but at least three of them do not support said claim at all. I'll add the quotes below with your sources, you should be reading the sources you present (you clearly haven't) and let them inform your edits, not form an opinion and seek to present it. Given that the cites you provided contradict your claims, can we stop this silly debate? Bacondrum (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I've given Helper201's cites a thorough read to see what they are actually saying and they contradict what Helper201 claims:
  • [4]
"the far-right FN was also left disappointed on Sunday. Although the (FN) managed to increase massively on its previous one elected councilor"
This article describes them as far right twice: "Marine Le Pen, the leader of the far-right National Front and a serious contender in France’s 2017 presidential election" and "At the time, Mr. Verrelle, a former soldier, was a prison director, but he eventually felt compelled to enter politics and joined the far-right National Front"
This one describes them as far right in the headline: "Le Pen Family Drama Splits France’s Far Right National Front Party" and in the first paragraph "PARIS—Marine Le Pen’s quest to transform the far-right National Front party from a fringe movement into a dominant force in European politics is hitting a fundamental obstacle: her own father." Helper201 doesn't appear to have even read the headline. It's all starting to look like tendentious attempts to sanitise the parties image at this point. I'm finding it hard to assume good faith here.
This one describes them as right wing, which is not necessarily exclusive of far-right anyway and besides this isn't much of a source. It's a think tank discussion about support for Putin.
the editor who added this claim clearly searched "Right-wing National Rally" (the search is in the link). If you actually read through the source you'll see that the source refers to National Rally as "radical right" on page 2, "radical right" on page 32, "far right populist" on page 43, "far-right" and "radical right" on page 149.
So 4 of 5 citations provided by Helper201 to back the claim that the party is seen as right rather than far right actually contradict this claim and do in fact describe the party as far-right explicitly. I think there is POV pushing evident here. I don't say that lightly, but the evidence speaks for itself, it would take a deliberate effort to misread these sources in such a manner. If this wasn't deliberately misleading then we are getting into WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED territory - surely one reads the sources one puts forward to cite a claim? Bacondrum (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Radical right or right-wing to far-right but not far-right"—the current scholarly consensus is that the term "far-right" includes two subsets—the radical right and the extreme right, with the extreme right being explicitly antidemocratic, unlike the radical right. The RN under Marine Le Pen has clearly been in the "radical right" category. There needs to be some form of distinction between these two subgroups. I don't care whether this distinction is made by describing the radical right as "right-wing to far-right" and the extreme right as "far-right" (admittedly, this does not follow the scholarly consensus of "far-right" as an all-encompassing term) or by explicitly using the terms "radical right" and "extreme right", but I strongly believe that some distinction must be made. Ezhao02 (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
"the current scholarly consensus is that the term "far-right" includes two subsets—the radical right and the extreme right, with the extreme right being explicitly antidemocratic, unlike the radical right." I've seen no such consensus, in fact I've not even seen that claim made by anyone at all, ever. What do you base this claim on? Bacondrum (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
@Bacondrum: Here's an example of the distinction being made by Cas Mudde. I think he might explain the distinction more in other parts of the book, but here, it says: "the populist radical right is becoming increasingly normalized. To be clear, the extreme right is still mostly rejected…" Mudde is clearly drawing a line between the "populist radical right" and the "extreme right", even though both can be considered far-right. I'd suggest that you check out the page Radical right (Europe); it probably has more information than I can provide right now. You might remember that both Asqueladd and I mentioned it at Talk:Vox (political party)#An accurate description. Ezhao02 (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
From the book you just referred to as evidence we shouldn't describe them as far-right "leaders from prominent far-right parties, like the FN (now National Rally, RN)" SO despite the leading experts in the field all refering to them explicitly as far right, Cas Mudde, Jean-Yves Camus, Nicolas Lebourg, Michel Winock, Nonna Mayer and Herbert Kitschelt, we should ignore the weight of these academic heavy weights and describe them as some random juxtaposition of things that they should be called according to nobody? (the source you provided describes them explicitly as far-right) Please, you should let the academic sources guide you, not your opinion. Having an opinion then cherry picking a source to back it is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Bacondrum (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Please stay civil, Bacondrum. I never said that we should ignore these sources, and I did not cherry-pick a source; there are many others making this same juxtaposition, as you have seen in our discussion at Talk:Vox (political party)#An accurate description. Additionally, I am not saying that Mudde does not describe RN as far-right; in fact, I am saying that he does. However, I am using this source to point out that there is a difference between radical right and extreme right and that this difference should be noted on Wikipedia pages. Ezhao02 (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Please provide sources to back claims. If I seem uncivil its just frustration at a complete absence of reliable sourcing for proposed claims. Opinion is not permitted, POV pushing is not permitted. Where are the sources for these claims. We have one editor claiming to have four sources and all but one contradict the POV they are pushing, you've provided a single source that also explicitly contradicts the claim you are pushing and the latest editor to comment provided no sources to back their claim at all. Again, sorry of that comes off as uncivil, it's just frustration at RS guidelines being completely ignored and POV's being pushed instead. The discussion about content needs to be based on reliable sources, not editors opinions. The academic work of top tier academics in the field like Cas Mudde, Jean-Yves Camus, Nicolas Lebourg, Michel Winock, Nonna Mayer and Herbert Kitschelt are who we reflect, not editors personal opinions. Bacondrum (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC
@Bacondrum: I believe that you have misread what I am saying. My citation was not meant to claim that RN is not far-right (sorry for the double negative there). My point is that these two subgroups (radical right and extreme right) within the far-right exist and have been documented by scholars and that these subgroups should be differentiated. Listing both types of parties (e.g., AfD and NPD in Germany) as "far-right" is technically accurate, but it fails to be clear as possible regarding this difference. I don't care how this difference is shown as long as it is portrayed. That's why I added a note on the Vox page. Ezhao02 (talk) 03:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Ezhao02 I'm glad you acknowledge that "far-right" is technically accurate. Can you acknowledge that is what the weight of sourcing also states, including the weight of academic sources? Sorry if I've come off curt, the sources are very clear and very strong, it's frustrating to have to argue such an obvious and strong case. If there are sources that differentiate RN from say neo-Nazi groups (I assume that is what you mean by extreme right) I'm more than happy to see that reflected in the body of the article. Bacondrum (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
@Bacondrum: Thanks, I believe you understand what I'm saying now. (Neo-fascist groups are extreme right, but they're not the only ones; I'm defining extreme right as "far-right and explicitly anti-democratic".) Yes, "far-right" is technically accurate because of the weight of sourcing. It's fair for you to ask for sources; I will look for some. Ezhao02 (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
@Ezhao02: Thank you, and sorry if I came off as uncivil. Bacondrum (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Why not attach an explanatory note with citations like on the Vox article? I think that works well in terms of explaining their specific position on the far right. Bacondrum (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
@Bacondrum: Thanks for the suggestion. I think there are three main problems with the explanatory note. First, considering the way I originally phrased it ("Vox is considered part of the radical right, a subset of the far-right."), can we expect our readers to understand the distinction, since we didn't even know about this before these discussions? (I didn't know until looking through sources for Vox, and I think it's probably the same for you [please correct me if I'm wrong].) However, this problem also applies to my suggestion to simply state "radical right", so I guess that this doesn't necessarily make a note better or worse. (With the revision I made today, I did say that it wasn't concise enough, but we can work together to see if rewording is possible.) Second, I think that if we did it here and at the Vox page, we would probably do it at the pages for most radical right parties. I feel like we shouldn't be using explanatory footnotes in the pages for all members of a party family? (I don't know if there's a policy on this, and I still think a note would be best regardless.) Third, (this is what worries me most) will readers actually look at the footnote? I honestly don't know for sure about this one; I could just be worrying too much.
Sorry for the long answer; I just don't really know what I think about the note. It's definitely better than nothing, but I wonder if there's a better solution. Ezhao02 (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I personally think simply following the sources and listing their position as far right is the way to go. When I was studying political science no one made the distinction between radical/extreme right etc and the far-right, it was all just categorised as far-right. If you think it's important to make the distinction between neo-Nazi's and the sections of the far-right who've dropped the swastikas and roman salutes, that could be discussed in the body (of course this must reflect reliable sources, not just opinion - reflecting Cas Muddes evaluation of the difference would be perfectly acceptable). Radical/extreme/far...It's six of one, half a dozen of the other to me. Bacondrum (talk) 03:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I guess that for now, the best solution is to have the note and expand on it in the article body. Ezhao02 (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. Bacondrum (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Helper201, since you're the other editor who's very involved in this discussion, could you comment on this potential solution? Ezhao02 (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I definitely think it should be written 'Right-wing to far-right'. Marine Le Pen's National Rally was moderate in many ways, unlike in the days of Jean Marie Le Pen. They are not vehemently opposed to abortion, and are much more liberal than Korea's UFP on sexual minority issues. National Rally's position is that moderate Islam and French values are also compatible in Islam. It is more moderate than Germany's AfD in many social policies.--삭은사과 (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

So, we have six of the leading experts on the subject to cite far-right. What reliable sources are you basing your claim on, keeping in mind that your opinion is irrelevant, reliable sources inform the content. RFC's are not a democracy, we are not asking for opinion, we want reliable sources not opinion. There are serious issues with the sourcing and claims at AFD, that's the next project. Bacondrum (talk) 04:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
your opinion is irrelevant Bacondrum, while this is true, please stay civil. Couldn't you have phrased this in a less combative way? Ezhao02 (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Nope, I'm not being uncivil, just stating facts. No sources is no sources. Sorry if it came off harsh. Bacondrum (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Ezhao02 that your language has come across as uncivil and combative to others as well as myself. Let's just try and talk about this civilly. I don't bear you - nor anyone else here - any ill will and am only trying to make sure the article stays as WP:NEUTRAL as possible and to the facts. What I really had issue with was the way you removed cited material that had long been in place on this article before gaining a consensus on the talk page by removing the cited position of right-wing, which had long been established on this page. A discussion should have been started here regarding removing the position of right-wing and its supporting citations and a consensus established before removal of this cited claim, not after. Helper201 (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, Bacondrum has a point when claiming that the sources used for "right-wing" didn't exactly support the claim well. However, you (Helper201) are correct that what is listed on the page should not have been changed before this discussion was completed. Bacondrum did the same thing at the Vox page. Ezhao02 (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
What we should be doing is relying on reliable sources, not pushing our own POV in a tendentious manner. In a total absence of sources, the claims you are both making are not neutral, they are unsubstantiated and tendentious - call it uncivil, I call it stating obvious facts. Sources people, where are your sources? I've provided six of the worlds leading experts views, you've provided nothing so far (other than sources which contradict your POV, and you would have known they contradicted your POV if you'd read them). Bacondrum (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Helper201 You still haven't addressed the fact that four out of the five sources you cited for your claim actually contradict your claim and explicitly refer to NR/FN as quote "far-right". Do you have any intention of following sources? Bacondrum (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources

As per WP:5P2 "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia."

So lets put our sources on the table rather than squabble about opinion: The following political science focused academic sources describe the NR/FN as far-right or some variation thereof:

  • Jean-Yves Camus and Nicolas Lebourg Far-Right Politics in Europe
  • James Shields The Extreme Right in France: From Pétain to Le Pen
  • Michel Winock Histoire de l'Extrême droite en France
  • Jens Rydgren France: The Front National, Ethnonationalism and Populism
  • Nonna Mayer From Jean-Marie to Marine Le Pen: Electoral Change on the Far Right
  • Herbert Kitschelt and Anthony McGann (Prof. political science) The radical right in Western Europe : a comparative analysis
  • Edward DeClair (Assoc. Prof. of Political Science) Politics on the Fringe: The People, Policies, and Organization of the French National Front
  • Cas Mudde The Far Right Today and The ideology of the extreme right
  • Catherine E. De Vries (Prof. political science) and Sara B. Hobolt Political Entrepreneurs: The Rise of Challenger Parties in Europe
  • Michelle Hale Williams (Prof. political science) A new era for French far right politics? Comparing the FN under two Le Pens and The Impact of Radical Right-Wing Parties in West European Democracies
  • Marta Lorimer (Prof. political science) What do they talk about when they talk about Europe? Euro-ambivalence in far right ideology

The following News articles describe NR/FN as far-right:

Lets stick with the sources, not opinions. Bacondrum (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Right-wing (only after a brief search, will probably add more when I have more time):

This is not about who has more sources. This is about not omitting what multiple reliable sources state. I have never proposed removing the label of far-right, just that right-wing should not be removed. And as Ezhao02 has agreed with you never should have changed the article before a consensus was concluded here, as you have also done on another page. Helper201 (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

you’re going to have to do a hell of a lot better than that to show your claims would be due. Sourcing and due weight. At least one of these new sources is not reliable (Britannica). Most of them are not about NR at all, they just mention them in passing, none refute that they are far-right, all but two are not even about French politics. Three of the outlets explicitly call them far-right in other articles I've listed above. You appear to be cherry picking and pushing your own POV in a tendentious manner, completely ignoring the weight of 11 academics including the most authoritative voices on the subject Camus, Lebourg, Shields, Winock, Rydgren, Mayer, Kitschelt and Mudde et al, and the vast majority (that's an understatement) of news articles. Ignoring the weight of academia here is tendentious, ignoring the weight of news reportage is also tendentious. You are also ignoring the sourcing guidelines "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics". The weight of academic experts like Camus and Mudde et al absolutely flatten half a dozen or so random news articles about Estonia and Putin from a google search. Bacondrum (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
There's also the fact that none of these sources refutes the position "far-right" as ReconditeRodent put it ""Right-wing" as a term can encompass "centre-right", "far-right" and positions inbetween. We should use "right to far-right" a) if most reliable sources just say "right-wing" with a minority saying "far-right"/synonyms or b) if there is resistance or discussion among a substantial segment of reliable sources against saying "far-right"/etc, which makes clear they are not just using "right-wing" in its catch-all sense."

I have come to understand that there are times when “a to b” is due. This is clearly not the case here. Look at the weight of sourcing. Bacondrum (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRITANNICA. The same can be levelled against your sources, they do not refute that the party is right-wing. As I have said numerous times, I am not trying to deny the party is in any way far-right, nor remove this label. Whether they mention the party in passing or not is irrelevant, that is a criterion you have noted the sources down for on account of your own POV. I'm open to and welcome other ways around the matter that compromise or offer some third option or solution between our two views on the matter. To label the party as simply far-right I think is misrepresentative when the party is clearly not as extreme as straight up far-right parties like the Nazi Party or the National Fascist Party, and has moderated some of its policies under Marine Le Pen (such as no longer supporting capital punishment) and is not as extreme as it was under Jean-Marie Le Pen. As I have previously stated it is not even labelled as just straight-up far-right on the French Wikipedia page, where it is also cited by multiple sources as employing catch-all positioning and being radical right. I'm not going to carry on this back and forth between us as it is constantly going over old ground and its clear we are at an impasse. I'll leave it up to third-party's to review and see whether they think there is merit in keeping the right-wing label as well as far-right. Helper201 (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

And lets look at your recent sources:

  • Encyclopædia Britannica

Not a reliable secondary source (tertiary source).

  • POLITICO:

refers to them as far right in several other articles [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64] etc. etc. etc. so while one article in Politico doesn't explicitly refer to NR as far-right, at least ten others do - in the same publication, here we see evidence of the fact that "Right-wing" encompasses "centre-right", "far-right" and positions inbetween, it does not refute the position.

  • The Daily Telegraph:

Also refers to them as far-right [65], [66], [67], [68], [69] etc. etc. etc.

  • RNZ:

Also refers to them as far-right [70]. [71], [72]

  • The Spectator:

Not a reliable secondary source (opinions piece).

  • National Post:

Not a reliable secondary source (opinions piece). But, they also refer to them as far-right in their reportage [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78]

  • Foreign Policy:

Also refers to them as far-right [79], [80], [81], [82] Surely now you can see your claim has no legs? Bacondrum (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The difference is you see right-wing and far-right as an either or matter. I don't think having both of these claims is contradictory. Also having the same source refer to them both ways does not necessarily mean one claim is valid and another is not. There are multiple authors working for each source. There is also nothing wrong with citing encyclopaedias. As WP:BRITANNICA notes, the source has a "strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". WP:RSPRIMARY also clearly states "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopaedias, may be cited." While secondary sources are preferable these are still perfectly acceptable. The majority of the ideologies listed in the infobox fit under what is typical a right-wing political party. The party is not cited as holding any of the core ideologies listed as being under the banner of far-right politics, e.g. it is not neo-fascist, neo-Nazi, or ultranationalist, and there is clearly a distinction between them and a pure far-right party. As I have said please see the French version of the page where there are multiple citations for catch-all and radical right as well. Nor are you accounting for how the party has moderated over time, which puts into question the validity of some of the older sources you list. Some of your sources you have listed are also opinion pieces. As I said we are clearly at an impasse. I do not deny your sources or justification that the party should have far-right included in the infobox or on the page. I just think having right-wing also included is not contradictory and we have multiple supporting citations to say so. Please just let other editors review the situation, give their opinions, and make their own decision about whether we should also include right-wing. Helper201 (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
First Encyclopedia Britannica is a tertiary source, I don't understand why you can't understand that, besides each one of the 12 academic experts who've weighed in are far superior sources. calling a party right wing is so broad as to be meaningless in terms of describing their position. The far-right is a specific position on the right and is how 12 academic experts in the field explicitly describe them (including some of the most renowned experts on this specific subject) and more than 40 reliable news articles presented here also refer to them explicitly as far-right. Calling them right doesn't mean the author doesn't think they are far-right because the far-right is on the right, get it?. If some sources explicitly named a contradictory position on the right, calling them a center-right party for example that would be different, that would indicate some level of debate about their position if reliable sources argued that the party was unfairly characterised as far-right or discussed some doubt about their position it would be different...but even then the sourcing would need to be comparable in weight (ie not a view held by a tiny minority in comparison to 12 academics and the vast majority of news reports) to warrant being presented in the lede and infobox alongside far better sourced claims. Look to the sources not your own opinion. I feel you are pushing what is essentially an unsourced claim in a tendentious manner. Bacondrum (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
@Bacondrum: Please note that Helper201 did admit that Britannica is a tertiary source. Tertiary sources are allowed; secondary sources are just preferred. Also, Helper201, could you comment on the difference between radical right and extreme right and on the potential solution Bacondrum and I have discussed above? (I pinged you above.) Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

  1. ^ "Victory for France's conservatives in local elections". Deutsche Welle. AP, AFP, Reuters. 30 March 2015. Retrieved 28 February 2017.
  2. ^ Erlanger, Steven; de Freytas-Tamura, Kimiko (17 December 2016). "E.U. Faces Its Next Big Test as France's Election Looms". New York Times. Retrieved 28 February 2017.
  3. ^ Meichtry, Stacy; Bisserbe, Noemie (19 August 2015). "Le Pen Family Drama Splits France's Far Right National Front Party". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 28 February 2017.
  4. ^ Taylor, Kyle (24 January 2017). "Europeans favoring right-wing populist parties are more positive on Putin". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 28 February 2017.
  5. ^ Catherine E. De Vries; Sara B. Hobolt (2020). Political Entrepreneurs: The Rise of Challenger Parties in Europe. Princeton, New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press. p. 2. ISBN 978-0691194752.

Ideologies listed in infobox

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Considering the recent addition of many new ideologies to the infobox, I think it is necessary to discuss this now. I don't believe that it is necessary or beneficial to have 13 ideologies listed. However, the question remains: which ideological labels should be retained? I hope we can discuss this further and make the infobox more concise. Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree we don't need to have so many, just the most prominent. I'd say keep:
  • French nationalism
  • Souverainism
  • Protectionism
  • Right-wing populism
  • Anti-immigration
  • Euroscepticism
Ditch the rest, many are subsets of the above ideologies anyways. Bacondrum 01:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
That still seems like a lot to me. Are there any others we could remove? For example, I'm thinking that "anti-immigration" is more of a specific policy position than an overarching ideology, and it's already somewhat covered by "French nationalism" and "right-wing populism". Ezhao02 (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
They first came onto my radar for their anti-immigrant rhetoric, I'd argue that and Euroscepticism are what they are most widely known for. Half a dozen in the ideology section is pretty standard for these types of articles. Are we agreed on removing the others? That would be a good start. And of course we can continue discussing. Bacondrum 23:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
That's a good list. Anti-immigration however isn't an ideology but I agree that we should keep it because RN is most known for their anti-immigration stances. I've started a similar discussion couple days ago on Law and Justice's page. Vacant0 (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Sure, I'll remove the others for now and see if there's anything further to discuss. Ezhao02 (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

​​Is it necessary to list both "French nationalism" and "Souverainism"? The latter seems to be just an extension of the former. Ezhao02 (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer if we list both ideologies but I want to hear Bacondrum's opinion too. Vacant0 (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I think we should keep both, they are distinct features of the party and their rhetoric. Bacondrum 23:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay, then I think the rest of the section looks fine to me. I'd like to invite Autospark to give an opinion, too, if possible. Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Move "relationship to Jewish groups" section out of Controversies?

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

None of the subjects in the paragraph are really controversies and talk more about efforts to gain over Jewish support than anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexouououou (talk • contribs) 02:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As the NR is described as far-right, this is a slightly illogical header. Perhaps "right-wing extremism", or just the name of the group in question? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Ideology parametre

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments3 people in discussion

I think the number of ideologies needs reducing. For starts, "Protectionism" isn't an ideology. Second, there aren't many references for "Anti-immigration" and "Sovereignty" to warrant being in it. These are my proposed ideologies:

  • French nationalism
  • Right-wing populism
  • Eurosceptic

ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree Braganza (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
There may be 'ideology bloat', but reducing to these three is too drastic. Being "anti-immigration" is what the party is probably best known for and its removal would be hard to justify imo. Pincrete (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
it is closely associated with nationalism & right-wing populism though Braganza (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Are you saying NR is closely associated with nationalism & right-wing populism? Which is wholly true. Or that "anti-immigration" is closely associated with nationalism & right-wing populism - which is rather favouring a euphemistic implication over the "elephant in the room", ie the thing most frequently noted about them, that they are "anti-immigration". Souverainism appears to be poorly sourced, it isn't a common term in the Anglosphere and again appears somewhat euphemistic.Pincrete (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
i mean the latter, i could see Protectionism listed but Anti-immigration and Souverainism is pretty unnecessary Braganza (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't see removing anti-immigration getting much support here. Their attitude to immigration is the thing most commented upon - certainly in English language sources. Souverainism is barely used in English sources as a term (though it should be for pro-Brexit politicians!). Pincrete (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I can't see Protectionism being kept, as it is an economic policy, rather than an ideology. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I would be in favour of removing Euroscepticism, but I think most users are in favour of keeping it on various political party pages, as it isn't an ideology, but a position/belief. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
On most political party pages, in my experience, the tendency is for broad political positions to be listed, rather than strict definitions of 'ideology'. Pincrete (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello all In the first para I have changed, "It has opposed the European Union" to "It supports reform of the European Union...". The paragraph is a summary of the NR's current policies and it is confusing and misleading to put one of its past policies in the same paragraph. Its past position on the EU is already adequately covered in the 4th para of the lead. I have also changed some clumsly wording: the NR doesn't have zero tolerance of law and order, it has zero tolerance of breaches of law and order. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

In a law and order context, a zero tolerance policy is already clearly understood to mean "zero tolerance of breaches of law and order". The addition is therefore unnecessary. I haven't looked closely at the other changes, but they APPEAR to be changing our text without updating the sources that supports the text. Also, whatever it claims, NR is widely seen as eurosceptic and there is nothing wrong with us recording the position sources say they HAVE historically taken, rather than their own current presentation of their euroscepticism(what does "It supports reform of the European Union..." even mean? Who doesn't support reform of the European Union? It's a slogan more than a policy, and is says nothing tangible, and is not what independent [[WP:RS|sources) say. I'm sorry but I think we aren't a billboard for NR slogans.Pincrete (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I haven't changed anything in a way that conflicts with the (mostly outdated) sources. I have merely changed the wording slightly for clarity and concision. Zero tolerance of breaches of law and order is a concise summary of what the source says, and is far less confusing than the original wording. The lead already said that the NR is Eurosceptic and I didn't alter this. The positions the party have historically taken are explained in the fourth paragraph. The first paragraph is supposed to be a summary of their current positions. It's a case of logically ordering the presented information within paragraphs which each take up a specific theme. It's odd that you now object to the phrase "the NR supports reform of the European Union" as this was already in the lead and is an accurate summary of the relevant section in the article and is supported by the reliable sources. A major problem with this article is that it has too many outdated sources. Most of the sources in the lead are from 2010-15 and refer to the old National Front rather than the new direction the National rally has taken. The article needs a thorough update and rewrite. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I doubt very much whether independent sources have changed very much about NR, except for acknowledging its rebranding and less divisive policies and image. NR has abandoned its policy commitment to withdrawal from the EU and Eurozone, but beyond that its isn't clear what reforms of the EU it now seeks (greater integration? delegating more powers to Brussels? Increasing the EU's budget?). You appear to want to use NR's own, fairly vacuous, words to describe what it is and seeks, rather than those of neutral independent sources. It is right IMO that the WP article takes a long-term attitude to NR and any political party. If you look at articles about UK parties, they don't change their leads very much because of a new leader or a new set of policies, because parties themselves don't change very much except for periodic 'rebranding'. If it were put more clearly (sourced to independent sources), what NR's position on the EU has been for most of its history, and what reforms of the EU NR actually seeks now, I could see the update as helpful, but simply changing to an evasive slogan isn't IMO. We aren't a billboard for any party.
Your change on 'zero tolerance' isn't wrong, it's simply unnecessary. A 'zero tolerance' police force, school, sports organisation or political party is already understood to mean one that intends to implement all rules strictly, all the time. Political shorthand terms don't always make literal sense. We all understand that a climate change sceptic is someone who doubts that man-made climate change is happening, but a Eurosceptic ISN'T someone who thinks that Europe, the EU, or the Euro, don't exist. For those who may not understand, we link the term.
I become more convinced that your changes are not neutral nor necessary, but will see what others have to say. Pincrete (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Political profile

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hello all Most of this section is way out of date (sources dating from 2007-2015). I have updated some sections with new information and have cut or summarised some information which is no longer current. Given that there is already a section on the history of the party, there is probably scope for cutting some more of the information about the party's past political profile. I will work through the sections in the coming weeks whenever I get the chance. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

What you appear to regard as a fault, I regard as a virtue. I'm not terribly invested in this article and I can't remember how it got onto my watchlist, but WP is an encyclopedia, taking a longer term view of political orgs, not a mouthpiece for the latest piece of PR. An unreasonable amount of the info IMO is sourced to the party itself and/or very recent campaigns. I have occasionaly visited Fr WP, I have always got the impression that that sort of 'promotional', breathless, 'press-release'-y style is more prevalent there. Pincrete (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but a longer term view doesn't suddenly stop in 2015 (or 2007) and present this as the party's current political profile. There is only one source which is sourced to the party itself and all I did was update it from the 2013 party platform to the 2022 party platform. I'm sure you'd agree that an encyclopedia shouldn't wilfully present out of date information as a virtue. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
When I said sourced to the party, I was also thinking of interview content such as "Le Pen stated that there was a difference between “fighting immigration and fighting immigrants” just as there was between respecting religious freedoms and tackling “religious totalitarianism”. She is hardly going to say in the middle of an election that she is intentionally demonising foreigners and Muslims is she? Donald Trump claims to be the least racist person on earth! So what? The info might as well have come from the press office of the NR. Pincrete (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have included the quote from Macron's party leader saying that Le Pen is soft on Islam. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Rally/Archive_3&oldid=1229031729"