Talk:National Front (France)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the National Front (France) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

France Portal

National Front (France) is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Please Sign All Posts -- and learn to use proper indents for ease of reading

Recent debates are almost impossible to read!--Cberlet 12:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

The French article contains the FN logo, can the english version not have it aswell?

~~ Gaiacarra 15:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This article is hopelessly biased against the Front National, condemning it at every possible moment it seems. Is someone familiar with it and not bound by political correctness and bias able to do a rewrite? Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 11:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you point to specific problems that you saw ? Rama 14:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article is excellent NPOV, and more than I would expect for an article of this kind. However I do see a few problems: in "Electoral successes" section, some things are tarnished with quite a wide brush. In Orange the Front National reduced school spending by 50% - why, where was the money redirected to, what else did the party do? In Vitrolles the director of the cinema was fired because he had shown a movie about homosexuality and AIDS. - there has to be more behind this. The election brought the two round voting system into question as well as raising concerns about apathy and the way in which the left had become so divided. Chirac went on to win the presidency in an overwhelming landslide, aided by ubiquitous support in the media and academia, while Le Pen's constituency was either ridiculed or ignored by the French press. The day of the election, France's most popular national newspaper--Le Monde--featured a front page article entitled "Chirac, bien sûr" ("Chirac, of course"). - bringing a voting system into question because you lost, unfair treatment of presidential candidates by media, and breaking of electoral silence are supposed to be bad things, yet the paragraph has positive tone about them. Nikola 20:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I remember they cut school spending in areas with many immigrants. I would guess the money was redirected to the police and the money bonus they wanted for evert french baby born. "We will stop all state aid to immigrants and give the money to the French. Our slogan is: the French first. Unfortunately, there are some grants that we must continue paying to immigrants; but we won't pay a centime more. You'll see how fast they'll get out of here, because they're only here for the money."[1] The director of the cinema was indeed fired for showing a movie about homosexuality and AIDS. My guess is that FN didn't like that gay people was shown as normal people. The FN also removed leftist newspapers and from the libraries.[2] // Liftarn

So the director of the cinema was fired for showing a movie in which gay people were shown as normal people (another movie about homosexuality and AIDS which didn't show gay people as normal people would probably be acceptable to them). I won't edit the article, but you see my point. Nikola 09:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm adding an NPOV flag to this page. Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial could help the article. I'm also adding some images, which I hope will help readers reach their own informed conclusions about this controversial political party. Durova 18:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

What exactly do you think is NPOV ? Rama 08:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, but everybody outside the FN is agreed that this is a far-right party. The FN originates in far-right politics, and has more or less lose ties with everthing that makes the far-right politics, from sovereignists to monarchists and neo-nazis. Only they deny the "Far-right" term for advertisement reasons (making up words like "National Right"). Mentionning "fra-right" is merely calling a spade a spade. Rama 15:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Then by all means cite reputable sources representative of everybody. Wikipedia policy is explicit: it is not the business of editors to assert contested statements as truth. I welcome European substitutions for the quotations I provided. However, it weakens the article to remove references altogether.

Approach this from the point of view of a non-European. How does a reader from some distant region tell the difference between truth and editorial bias? By reading a well-referenced article. From WP:NPOV:

Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

One may be right and still suffer from POV problems. The section on this party's views exhibits selection bias. Their most prominent and controversial stands deserve weight. A representative sampling of their other positions would strengthen the article. Front National has a comprehensive platform that mixes mainstream and non-mainstream positions. They support recycling programs and renewable energies, oppose building construction in flood plains, oppose globalization, support school vouchers, and advocate a constitutional ban on abortions. They would also ban foreign nationals from the teaching profession, abolish compulsory education, privatize non-military universities, and withdraw from NATO. Durova 15:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody said that the FN was "evil" (at least no me), I just say that it is perfectly normal to call them far-right. Note that the references you provided were not removed, I just put them further. I frankly do not think that these sorts of references belong in the intro -- further in the article certainly, but not in the intro (besides, what the US press thinks of the FN is still another problem; a big part of the programme of the FN, seen as far-right in France, would be just mainstream conservatism in the USA now, I think).

If you look at an article of today in Le Monde about the FN [3], you will see that it begins with Les idées de l'extrême droite incarnées par Jean-Marie Le Pen continuent de se banaliser ("Ideas of the the Far-Right wing incarned by Jean-Marie Le Pen further get mainstream"). The rest of the article is about how ideas which were "unacceptable" or "a danger for democracy" are accepted by a growing part of the population (still a minority by far, of course).

Same in L'Express [4], in the CRIF (the union of Jewish representatives in France) [5], Libération [6][7]. Articles by Le Figaro are more difficult to access this way (they bring you back to the main page), but there are also instances which can be found through Google. Rama 16:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

So quote Le Monde instead of inserting the phrase editorially. The party's opinion about itself deserves acknowledgement.

It makes me smile to read your surmises about United States politics. There's no need to fear how this party would appear to a more conservative country. Taboos against overt expressions of bigotry are so strong that a single inept statement typically ends a career. From this side of the Atlantic it's rather fascinating that the FN can continue to produce blatantly anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim campaign posters.

Consider this article from more than just a North American outsider's perspective. French politics is a rather distant topic in Latin America and East Asia. I speak as someone who spent a good part of the last two years in those parts of the world. The impression this article gives is that the party's opponents wrote it. Offer representative media coverage from across the political spectrum. Let Le Pen's own statements condemn himself. Durova 17:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

From this side of the Atlantic it's rather fascinating that the FN can continue to produce blatantly anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim campaign posters.

Are you sure you're not confusing the FN with Bruno Mégret's MNR? The MNR makes anti-Muslim posters, but I don't think I've seen overtly anti-Muslim posters from the FN. As for the FN, it does publish anti-immigration posters. David.Monniaux 17:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I remember posters showing drawings of the cathedral of Strasbourg with a minaret on it, which I think originated from the "mainstream" FN.

The problem with the quotations is that

1) They are in French

2) The won't all last a long time (for instance articles by Le Monde stay online only a few days, which I deplore)

3) one, two, three of four articles are still not a statistically significative sample, and more are a hassle :p

That said, perhaps we could draft a footnote or something like this to made the information available without making the text difficult to read.

Thanks for the insight about US politics; I must say that I have read so conflictual views of the FN in US media that it is hard for me to form a general idea of it. Rama 17:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I know this is a fairly old comment, but I feel I should just point out that we can cite non-internet sources; with a newspaper, cite the article and issue rather than the URL of an online copy. People can find it online if it still exists, and if not can look through back-copies in a library. Fysidiko 20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The star and crescent on the ballot jumps out at me. I could post other official FN posters along the same lines: opposing Turkey's entrance to the EU by showing stars and crescents advancing into Europe, supporting protective tariffs by showing a man wearing a cardboard box stamped "Made in China." This points to a cultural difference: my own country views a failure to recognize and condemn such messages as a form of bigotry in itself. Le Pen wouldn't last a week here: not because of his platform but because of this taboo. Durova 18:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding quotations, translate and cite if you have the time. British or English language editions of other European sources are the next best option. Durova 19:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we should draw a distinction between:

the attitude and general way of campaigning of the FN,
their actual political propositions and program.

The FN's program is, broadly speaking, conservative and even reactionary. However, they have strived to make it palatable to the general public opinion. Some even claim they have the program they show to everybody, and a definitely different tone in their internal communications. It must be pointed out that the FN is not a monolithic block, but a union of several political tendencies, with different outlooks on society.

Since you seem to be from the US and you make frequent references to "my country", I'll compare the FN's program to US political positions. From the FN's program, off the top of my head I can cite:

Justice
- harder, longer sentences, esp. for recidivists (applied in the US; see three-strikes law)
- the death penalty (applied in the US and Japan)
- repression on even petty crime, on the account that tolerating it leads naturally to delinquents ascending to bigger crime (see "broken window policy" in many US locales)
Economy
- removal of workforce regulations preventing firing, esp in small businesses (applied in the UK and the US)
- protectionnism (see anti-NAFTA activism in the US)
Immigration
- forced repatriation of foreign criminals (done in the US, Japan etc.)
- selection of "valuable" immigrants
International
- not yielding too much power to international institutions such as the United NationsU or the European Union (same as George W. Bush and Margaret Thatcher)

The only thing that makes the FN strike out is that they tend to be hostile to immigration from poorer, Muslim countries in general. However, it must be pointed out that in recent years, they have downplayed this part of their message, and have focused on law & order (and what they advocate in that respect is not further right than current US practice).

I would perhaps appreciate some comparisons with, e.g., Australia, where, I reckon, the mainstream right prime minister makes declarations in the same vein. David.Monniaux 09:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: the above, I agree it's intriguing to observe the parallels. Can you cite a respected source for the assertion that this was an attempt to appear mainstream or for speculation that the party has two different agendas? The Front National party platform looks like an outsider's estimate of mainstream United States conservatism. Here are some points where it fails:

1. Withdrawal from NATO: like the ultra-right John Birch Society.

2. Constitutional amendment to ban abortion: far side of the mainstream right.

3. Banning foreign nationals from the teaching profession: not under discussion, offensive if suggested.

4. Shifting funding for environmental research to the private sector: not under discussion, ultra-ultra-right.

5. Raising the birth rate through government programs: not under discussion, offensive if suggested.

6. Government subsidies to stay-at-home mothers: one word - welfare.

7. Death sentence for child pornographers: too far to the right. Capital punishment is for murderers. It's an "eye for an eye" thing.

8. trumps everything else Overt bigotry.

Durova 10:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

"two different agendas" is perhaps not the best way to put it, I would say "two different faces". On one side, the FN tries to be a "government party", a party that you can actually vote for and that poses itself as a possible governemnt (something which the far-left, for instance does not really do); on th other hand, you have all the little provocations by Le Pen ("Durafour crématoire", "inequality of races", etc.) and also compromissions with, say, "some" people (I have seen Dominique Chaboche on film encouraging uniform-wearing, Hitler-saluting neo-nazis in Moskow, for instance).

I am not sure that I have heard the FN suggesting banning foreigners from teaching... but I might have missed it, though. In any case, I doubt that this was in their programme for "serious" politics, like the recent election; might be a componant of the "second face".

Besides I am a little bit surprised (and interested of course) by your comments: the USA is the country where a "Nazi Party" exists and runs for elections (of course it does not make 20% of the electorate, but it is tolerated). Also when I read people like Mark Steyn write things like

there are Muslims and there are Muslims: some blow up Tube trains and some rampage through French streets and some claim Mossad's put something in the chewing gum to make Arab men susceptible to the seduction techniques of Jewesses. Some kill Dutch film-makers and some complain about Piglet coffee mugs on co-workers' desks, and millions of Muslims don't do any of the above but apparently don't feel strongly enough about them to say a word in protest. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1519631/posts]

I find it notable. Unless I am mistaken, Mark Steyn does not seem to be particularly, as you say, "recognized and condemned". Rama 11:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I have not heard the FN advocating withdrawal from NATO, shifting funding for environmental research to the private sector, or putting up a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. Maybe this is stuff they discuss between themselves — but this is not something that they trumpet to the average public. In fact, the National Front are fairly quiet in public about abortion, because it is a sensitive issue — they don't want to risk a big loss if they appear too much opposed to it.

Again, you must understand that the FN comprises several political sensitivities. Some of them (such as Bernard Antony) are the traditional French Catholic right — opposed to abortion, etc. Some are nostalgics from French Algeria. Etc. This may explain some of the incoherence. So, at the same time the FN tries to appeal to mainstream voters with some "palatable" personalities like Marine Le Pen, and at the same time they try to appeal to fringe elements (perhaps because these fringe elements fund them?). There have been several crises inside the FN because of these opposite directions — for instance, Bruno Mégret quit the FN to found another party because he felt that Le Pen's attitude and remarks precluded any hope of the FN governing France. More recently, there have been quarrels between Marine Le Pen, which the hard-liners accuse of making some "FN-light", and others.

In any case, in recent years, the FN has focused on law & order issues. They largely justify their stance on immigration by concerns about law & order — they say that immigration of poor people wrecks havoc to social programs, ends up with unemployed, unintegrated immigrants, which creates delinquence. Contrary to what you imply, they don't trumpet in public that they consider blacks or arabs to be inferior...

If you are interested about such issues, I advise you to get a subscription to Le Canard Enchaîné. They have pages of "little quotes" from politicians.

In any case, portraying the FN voter as somebody who pushes for withdrawal from NATO à la JBS, for the prohibition of abortion, etc. is extremely misleading. David.Monniaux 09:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay in responding. All of the points I cited come from the FN's official website and its party platform. I found the subject interesting reading. No one contends that the typical FN voter submits a ballot with the intention of privatizing the French university system. The point is that this party does have a comprehensive political platform. There's a difference between true single issue parties and parties such as this that stress a narrow range of issues yet have a broader official platform. That distinction is not represented in this article.

The political base of the FN is an interesting subject, one that I would like to see expanded and sourced. It's well known that they poll the highest results in economically depressed regions. The specific political leanings of its adherents would be interesting to follow. Durova 00:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It is important to understand that the FN's growth in the past 10 years can be attributed(partly) to the 'fear' factor; fear of growing immigration problems, of globalization, of expansion of Europe, and the FN responds very firmly and strongly on these issues by in a first step stressing these issues (in a very calculated and clever way), secondly by showing the failure of current and past governments to deal with these difficult issues and thirdly by offering extreme, but simple solutions that have proved themselves in the past (in other countries in other cases). Le Pen and his Party's political base stands either in poor, isolated rural areas of my country, where people see such events as immigration overflow in a very close-minded and disconnected way (ie. rarely travel, little outside human contact); and the other part of his political base stands in VERY industrialized areas where people resent and feel the poverty and violence seen in the outskirts of cities, populated often in huge majorities by Arabs or Africans immigrants.

The important thing to understand is that it is very difficult to write an unbiased article about such a party, and it is questionable whether to write such a thing is right. This is because in the end, Le Pen's policies are violent, promote inequality, and are extreme. Most people voting for the FN are aware of this and it is exactly what they seek -- an extreme way of tackling France's problems.--DragonFly31 18:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying the article shouldn't be biased against racism? WTF is wrong with you? What're you, pro-racist or something? -Alex 12.220.157.93 13:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hem, I do not think that the above IP said anything of the sort. Rama 16:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

No thats what Im saying -- the article SHOULD be biased against racism. This is a very important point -- sorry if I didnt make it clear. --DragonFly31 18:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it might sound shocking to you, but no, it should not. The aim is to present mere facts and let the reader judge for himself; whether racism is a valid theory or not is not ours to judge -- that is as Wikipedia editors -- whatever our opinions on the subject in "real life".

On a more concrete note, and to address your concern, rou will notice that "biased against racism", formulised this way or another, is a recurrent leitmotiv of racists of all obediances; in the mere interest of an anti-racist fight, not letting any grasp to such critics is one of the worst things that can be done to racists. Rama 07:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is a very good point -- but read on. The reason I said this (the fact that the article should be biased against racism), is because I am not just 'biased against racism'; I instinctively believe that racism is wrong and contrary to human life and development. This is an 'indisputable mental belief' for me. I stand by my viewpoint that this encyclopedia should present racism in a negative way (not to say that the viewpoint of a racist shoudnt be presented in a detailed and logical way; for me that viewpoint already is 'slightly negative' and demeaning in itself). Shouldnt this encyclopedia adhere to some international and widely accepted beliefs? If only because it is generally acknoledged by most governments and most countries in the world that it is a crime to act upon racist thoughts and beliefs (in particular racial discrimination). Another question can be raised as to what 'neutrality' is -- since according to Wikipedia's definition of 'neutrality' not one single objective viewpoint exists but many, woudn't it be arguable that taking the most shared and widely believed viewpoint -- in this case, the viewpoint that 'racism is extremely damaging to society' is not only 'widely believed', but generally accepted by Western culture today. Not condemning racism in at least some way is acknowledging it can be a valid viewpoint. We all know, looking at history, how dangerous that can be. Again, in my opinion I believe it is important that the encyclopedia point out in some way that racism is wrong.--DragonFly31 18:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a very important point because it reveals your ignorance about the FN. The Front National is not an openly racist party, racist parties are not allowed in the french constitution. And all the modifications saying the contrary in this article are not neutral. --Elias2 16:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

1) There are NO modifications in the article saying the Front National is racist.

2)Many times has the FN been accused of racism, in France and abroad -- it has narowly escaped conviction of such kinds by the French justice many times.

3) The discussion above was slightly off-subject; it was just a discussion about racism in general.

4) It is also very important to know, about the FN, that the creation of the RPF (a similar, right wing party) can be dated back to Le Pen's comments and "slips" that have led him to bring this image of racism and hate to the FN. Many of the FN's members, growing tired of Le Pen's comments, formed their own party. --DragonFly31 23:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Dubrova, this perhaps doesn't have much to do with Front National, but is rather a personal question. Where is raising the birth rate through government programs not under discussion and offensive if suggested, and why? Please don't think that this is some provocation or something similar, I would genuinely want to know. Nikola 13:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this question before. Obviously France and the United States have different demographics and histories. The example stated that such a policy would not be on the political horizon in the United States (or at least, that it hasn't been since the time of Theodore Roosevelt). The rare times when approaching such a suggestion enters conversation here, conservatives reject it as a waste of government resources, white liberals reject it on ecological grounds (the earth has plenty of human beings already), and other ethnic groups raise a very vocal protest that it would amount to racist social engineering to increase the number of white people and marginalize everyone else. Durova 03:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, all I have to say about conservatives and liberals are that they are a bit crazy with such statements. Of course, if it would be applied only to whites, it would be a form of racism, but you should note that there are countries where there are such programs, but directed at entire population, and it is considered something quite normal. (Actually it is not under discussion and it would be offensive to suggest their termination!) Nikola 10:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

None of these three points of view are unreasonable in their context. The consensus conclusion is that it's easier to open immigration to some of the many people who would like to relocate to the United States than to try to engineer the population through social programs. Durova 03:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

Regarding this talk page, there is some frenchies here (probably left or far-left sympathisers) who are saying this party is the new NSDAP, openly racist, for the deportation of all the immigrants... these users are here to mislead the non-french users and to skew this article. This is not good for the neutrality. --Elias2 16:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

1)In my opinion the article is NPOV; altough the FN itself is not racist, its founder Le Pen has been taken to trial many times on accounts of racism; his famous sentence: "the holocaust is merely a detail of WW II" is clearly on the bordeline of racism.

2) Nowhere in the article is it said that the FN is openly racist -- it merely states facts which logically can lead people to think this. For example, the leaflet adverting the FN's policies in the first picture in the article states: "Immigrants will vote, and you'll abstain (from voting)?" Then logically -- and by looking at their policies -- the FN wishes to stop immigration and DOES wish to increase the number of immigrants being depored. May I remind you that about 12,000 illegal immigrants are being deported in France each year?--DragonFly31 23:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As a bilingual Canadian who has read the FN's platform, Wikipedia's article, and various comments made by Le Pen, the FN is clearly a far-right political party. Wikipedia's article is completely consistent with the FN's platform. Anyone stating otherwise is simply an FN sympathizer. In fact, Le Pen has made several comments which can be easily defined (according to almost every reputable dictionary) as racist and anti-Semitic. That being said, it is absolutely reasonable to define the FN as a far-right party. Everything in the article, as of now, truthfully describes the FN and its platform in a rather neutral voice. There is only one thing that disturbs the neutrality of this article: the "Politcal Platform" section only describes the FN's more extreme policies and ignores the more mainstream ones. 20:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Elias, your comment is nonsense. These users are not misleading anyone. Most of them research the FN platform and draw reasonable conclusions. Just because they do not agree with you, it does not mean that they are far-left sympathizers or that they are trying to skew the article. In fact, you of all people sound sympathetic to a cause. And there is absolutely no reason to insultingly refer to French Wikipedia users as "frenchies". It's childish and inappropriate. 20:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

May I respectfully suggest that this is why it is better to create a well sourced article and make extensive use of Le Pen's words and Front National publications? It is hard to level an accusation of misrepresentation or bias when the material comes from the party and its leader. Durova 03:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

That is an excellent point Durova -- a very good way of insuring NPOV. But, as you've pointed out, when this is done, should it be pointed out that "...in France these (posters) really do constitute mainstream political discourse"... when compared to that of the US? Would that still be NPOV? Or is NPOV different for every country, and therefore that particular sentence not relevant? (to be included in the article itself that is)--DragonFly31 23:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I checked the edit history of the editor who removed it. This was someone who showed a pretty strong POV elsewhere. For example, he (or she?) misspelled the Arabic phrase Allahu akbar in an edit comment about Muslims in the Paris suburbs and implied that this was some sort of aggressive statement. Actually it's just Arabic for "God is great." Durova 01:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Hitler poster

French political posters can be very blunt. This is different from the kind of attack graphics one sometimes finds on the Internet aimed at American politicians because in France these things really do constitute mainstream political discourse. The FN provides images of anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim posters on their official website. This is how the party's opponents respond. I chose this image because it actually compares Hitler's words to a public statement by Le Pen and in this context the imagery is not gratuitous. This reflects a cultural difference between France and the United States. It does the English speaking public no service to sanitize and censor this discourse per North American sensibilities. Durova 03:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Durova, I don't know much about French politcal culture, but what your saying seems to make sense. The Hitler/Le Pen poster is very appropriate when compared to pro-FN posters I've seen online. 03:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing boldly

I've decided to go ahead with something I started last month and abandoned: some NPOV tweaking of the article. Added a little bit to the party platform and adjusted the introduction. The party itself denies that it is far right, so I've used its own description and three counterexamples. Last month I tried something similar and it wasn't successful. With briefer citations from international sources I hope the tone is better this time. Durova 03:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Like last time, I am not all that happy about the mere introduction discussing details about "far-right" or not, especially doing so by citing foreign media. Furthermore, "conservative" is not a valid political notion in France (nobody claims to be "conservative", and hardly anyone will call someone else "conservative"). This is a USA-ism or an anglicism.

I think that if one wishes to go in this vain, a possible introduction might be "The Front National (National Front in English; acronym: FN) is a far-right political party in France. The party was founded in 1972 and is has been headed since its creation by Jean-Marie Le Pen. Denying the label of "far-right" it describes itself either as "neither Right nor Left, just French", or as "the true Right". The FN claims to have ..." Rama 08:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll ne honest -- as a french citizen it is true that the "conservative" image cannot be applied to any political parties in France, except maybe the UMP; but in general it is never used in french politics. Use of the specific word to describe the party is not suited. User Rama's proposed revised version of the intro is better -- but can be critized for possibly not being NPOV... quite a vicious circle -- DragonFly31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to "right" in place of "conservative." There's a difference between an editorial statement that essentially asserts, They're far right but they say they're not, and an introduction that says, This group is controversial. The party says they're mainstream right; X, Y, and Z call them far right. The advantages of going with the latter version are as follows:

It adheres to WP:NPOV.
Readers don't know the editors of this article, but they do know what BBC, CNN, and the UN are.
Pro-FN readers can't complain about editorial POV when there is none. Perhaps some of them will rethink their position if they read a neutral and well referenced article. People tend to dig in their heels when they perceive bias.

As I've stated before, I'm with the majority who think this party is far right. I can't let my personal POV get in the way. If I'm actually correct then the facts will speak for themselves. So I'll provide the facts and keep my opinion on the talk page where it belongs. Durova 22:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Should the following poster from the 2002 French presidential election be included in the article?

Image:Front National.jpg

An anti-le Pen poster from the 2002 presidential election. Translated, the text reads: "I am socially on the left, economically on the right, and most of all a French nationalist." - Jean-Marie le Pen, 2002 "Our National Socialism is the future of Germany. Although this future is resolutely on the right economically, our hearts remain on the left. But overall, we will never forget that we are German." - Adolf Hitler, 1932

Article history discussion:

On the web there is also some pictures comparing Bush and Hitler, is it allowed on his article? No. Same here. History comment by User:Elias2, 17 January 2006.
Restoring deleted image. See discussion on talk. History comment by User:Durova, 24 January 2006.
Del. This image is not NPOV again. History comment by User:Elias2, 3 February 2006.
Restoring the political poster image again. The image's POV is not a reason for deletion. All political posters advance some POV. This article uses a variety in the interests of fairness. History comment by User:Durova, 8 February 2006.
rev. NPOV is a good reason for deletion. Text AND images must be neutral. History comment by User:Elias2, 8 February 2006.

Talk page discussion:

Durova, I don't know much about French politcal culture, but what your saying seems to make sense. The Hitler/Le Pen poster is very appropriate when compared to pro-FN posters I've seen online. 03:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC Responses

Please post comments below. Durova 19:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice way of summarising the discussion Durova *tips hat*. In coming here, my very first reaction is: why? You could fill almost every article, especially on political people or organisations - with anti-posters. I dont really see the added value, especially since the article is trying to convey the party itself rather than its opponents. Certainly, I agree that FN is rather more controversial most, so it might deserve a seperate paragraph on Controversies or the like. Such a paragraph would be well supplemented by the picture above. Lacking that paragraph, it seems kind of arbitrary to include an anti-poster here, but not on Independence Party (Iceland) (to name an article you probably havent read ;-) ). The Minist e r of War ^(Peace) 21:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to seeing images in an article about another political party. Front National attracted international attention when Le Pen became an unexpected runoff candidate for the presidency. There is a substantial difference between the way this party represents itself and the way that even neutral observers represent it. This article uses three images generated by the party, so I looked for a contrast. The juxtaposition of quotes makes this more substantive than the average "anti-poster." Durova 03:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Its also simply a damn good poster, and it deserves to be included. Nonetheless, without actual text containing the international controversy, it seems somewhat out of place - perhaps even slightly POV. If there would be a NPOV paragraph on the controversy, it would fit much better. The Minist e r of War ^(Peace) 08:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Good suggestions. Durova 21:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That is why we must include a section about FN controversies. And as Durova mentioned previously, the article must better sourced to prevent NPOV arguments from erupting in the future. WGee 20:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Just lured here by the RfC page. At the present minute, the image seems to have been deleted, it does not help... I would simply point that Hitler's quotation on the poster was a hoax (see hoaxbuster (in French)), which is in my opinion a very good reason not to include this poster in any article. French Tourist 09:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. That does put a new perspective on things. Yes, I agree the poster is irrelevant if it contains a fraudulent quote. Durova 07:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

What about making a Hoaxbuster about hoaxbuster? I kind of remember this story and I do remember that some claimed that Hitler never said that. But first of all, i do not remember where this rumor - that it was a hoax - came from. Was this hoaxbuster article by Guillaume the one? If it is the case, please read it with attention: "a simple Google search proves that..." This is no historical work. This "bust of a hoax" doesn't prove anything, and has absolutely no scientific value. Google is not a substitute for serious historical works. This being said, it is totally possible Hitler could have said something like that, as fascism & nazism claimed to be beyond the division right wing/left wing. Actually, it is one of the way of recognizing a fascist party: when he claims not to belong to neither the right wing, nor the left wing. See for example Zeev Sternhell, Neither right nor left [8]. Lapaz 18:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References tag

I can see </references> at the end of the article, is this normal? Apokrif 14:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An unsigned, uncommented reference

Somebody (unsigned) posted up the whole of the following article. I deleted it because I couldn't see the purpose of having an article pasted in the Discussion section with no commentary or reason. --82.133.79.7 16:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The London Daily Telegraph: Le Pen and French far Right achieve record popularity Kim Willsher in Paris (Filed: 21/05/2006)

[edit] Title of Article

The title of the article should be National Front (France) not Front National (France). In English Wikipedia, English translations take precedence over native names. For examples see Left Party (Sweden), Sweden Democrats, Socialist Party (France), Union for a Popular Movement, to name a few. However, I will only rename the article with the input of others. -- WGee 03:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] social conservatism / far right / fascism / news paper articles

The party is social conservative, some are even orthodox catholics. Thus the views of le Front National towards abortion, families, homosexuality, death penalty (which are all main-stream issues in the US I might add).

The party, according to historian René Rémond is not a Far right party. This is not my view, this is the view of one of the most 'respected' historian of France (at least according to User:Tazmaniacs). My view would be to remove this category altogether, but this was not the wikipedia consensus some week ago. Intangible 08:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The fascism slogan (who are those voters again? verifiability!) should be added to the criticism section of the article.

The newspaper links are to old articles, plus to some highly biased sites. Politicians come and go quickly, even in the Front National party. That's why I removed them.

Intangible 08:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Point 1: No. The Conservative party, in the UK, are social conservatives. The NF, in France, at their most moderate are arguably social conservatives but in practice, where they run councils etc.., they are far from being 'conservative' but are in fact right wing and very much reactionary. Thus 'social reactionaries' would be a more accurate label. (What is, or is not, an issue in the US is not really relevant to what is or is not an issue in Europe or, more particularly in France. Here, in France, such issues are viewed as the province of reactionary forces and extremists. (It should be noted that the vast majority of the French populace are 'orthodox catholic' but there is no consensus nor, apparently, a desire to ban abortion etc..; Catholicism and indeed Christianity in France is very moderate and by no means the stuff of the bible bashing belt in the US)).

Point 2: Whether or not someone views the FN as facist or right-wing or not is surely an academic point. Pretty much everyone in France does consider them as such. And such is indeed what they are. What point are you trying to make by suggesting that they are not? Granted they warrant an article and an accurate article at that. But to suggest that they are not 'far-right' or whatever is utter nonsense. In terms of policy, in terms of policy in practice and in terms of, shall we say, 'activists', they employ a great deal of Facist ideologgy. Have you ever been here and seen them at work? Perhaps so, in which case you will know what I mean.

Point 3: Not everything has to be verified. Does every dot and comma need verification? Do we verify with quotes the dates of WWII for example? Once again, here in France, it was and is common knowledge that people went to the polls to support Chirac - despite their revile for him - on the slogan 'Vote for the crook not the facist'. However much he (Chirac) was disliked, Le Pen was and is disliked a lot more.

Point 4: I have seen many (many) quotes and links on Wikipedia which refer to old and indeed ancient quotes. Does the relevance of a source lose appeal by virtue of it's being old? If so, what are we to do with something like the Domesday Book (circa 1066); discard it as being an "old article"??? As to bias, I note you wish to keep the link to the FN's own site but not to any of the others. Would you not consider that the FN's own site is also biased - in their favour, of course? A strange logic you apply.

Anything I've missed?

The FN is not reactionary, they do not want to reinstate the Ancien Régime in France (and their policies against the EU, free trade and whatever not, are equally advocated by the French Socialist parties, are they then reactionary too?). The FN is actually quite social conservative in promoting the 'nuclear family'.
I've put forth an argument based the claim René Rémond made, not because some unknown mass in France said so. I'd rather see the party categorized in something like Category:Nationalist parties in France, and described as such to prevent this nonsensical Left-Right argument.
This motto was probably used in Socialist demonstrations, and hence should be part of the criticism section. You cannot claim that voters went to the polls because of this motto, only that people have joined a demonstration that used those banners before the elections.
The link itself is not biased because of the mere fact that this Front National article exists on Wikipedia. Criticism should be entered in a criticism section. Intangible 19:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Your belief that the ideology of the FN is analogous to the that of the Christian Right movement in the US is incorrect. The FN are often considered "reactionary" because they want "a return to more 'traditional' values, including making access to abortion more difficult or even illegal; paying women to stay at home and raise children; refusing "aberrant" cultures such as modern art and gay culture; promoting certain local traditional culture." Also, they propose racist policies such as ending non-white immigration to France and banning foreign nationals from the teaching profession. Thus, they are more than "social conservatives"; they are right-wing ultra-nationalists.

There are several reputable sources that classify the FN as ultra right-wing and xenophobic, yet there are no sources to back up your claim that the FN is a "social conservative" party. Please refrain from inserting original research and deleting all sources critical of the FN. To do so compromises the neutrality and truthfulness of the article.

Also, please update yourself on the FN's policies before making cross-atlantic political comparisons. If you are unable to read their party programme (which is in French), I would advise you not to make such major changes without first fostering a consensus.

--WGee 18:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A return to these afore mentionded traditional values (death penalty, against abortion, against gay marriage etc) in this case is precisely what social conservatism (which is not a US-centric phenomenon) is about, and thus part of FN's political ideology. Far right populism is not a political ideology, populism is just a means, not an end. Dominique Chaboche is dead. CNN, BBC and the UN (or was it the -biased- Glyn Ford!) never state in those cited articles that the Front National is xenophobic or racist. You want me to go on? Intangible 19:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As I have already said, "The NF, in France, at their most moderate are arguably social conservatives but in practice, where they run councils etc.., they are far from being 'conservative' but are in fact right wing and very much reactionary". Believe me, they are not what you perhaps think they are and defining them, as you are trying to, by their more 'moderate' proposals, is only telling half the story. It would be very erroneous to define them, socially speaking, as 'just' conservative. Marcus22 20:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that abortion laws are not made at the municipal level in France, and hence play no 'practical' role in local elections, does not mean that FN has a particular stanch on abortion [9]. Intangible 20:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"Populism is a political philosophy or rhetorical style that holds that the common person's interests are oppressed or hindered by the elite in society, and that the instruments of the state need to be grasped from this self-serving elite and used for the benefit and advancement of the people as a whole." [10] [11] [12] So it seems you are mistaken. Also, nobody is trying to label the FN "reactionary" in the article; we are simply asking you not to re-classify the FN based on you personal whims. It will do you no good to argue that the FN is not far-right when all reputable sources state the contrary. -- WGee 23:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition, Durova has already pointedly explained how the FN differs from the American mainstream right:

1. Withdrawal from NATO: like the ultra-right John Birch Society.

2. Constitutional amendment to ban abortion: far side of the mainstream right.

3. Banning foreign nationals from the teaching profession: not under discussion, offensive if suggested.

4. Shifting funding for environmental research to the private sector: not under discussion, ultra-ultra-right.

5. Raising the birth rate through government programs: not under discussion, offensive if suggested.

6. Government subsidies to stay-at-home mothers: one word - welfare.

7. Death sentence for child pornographers: too far to the right. Capital punishment is for murderers. It's an "eye for an eye" thing.

8. trumps everything else Overt bigotry.

Durova 10:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

But I must reiterate that your argument holds no ground unless you cite reputable sources that state that the FN is not far right. Remember that all far-right parties are necessarily socially conservative: the descriptors "far-right" and "socially conservative" are not mutually exclusive.

--WGee 00:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I already gave one source, namely René Rémond. But this whole citing sources thing is quite pointless, as probably all the authors use different definitions of far right. The mere fact that this term is mentioned does not mean it is immediately defined. Furthermore, there is no clear cut wikipedia definition of the far right either. Actually, it is quite easy to show that many of these 'far right' parties differ enormously, meaning that the term as such cannot be used to classify political parties. Intangible 00:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see what point you are trying to make here: pretty much anyone you'd care to speak to in the streets of France - even, no doubt, some of the supporters of the FN - would readily acknowledge that the FN are a far right party. (Le Pen himself changes his mind as to whether or not they are depending upon the audience he speaks too and the wind direction!!) Likewise, assuming they either knew or cared who the FN were, I imagine most people in the streets of London (or Rome or Stockholm or Madrid....) would also say the same thing: the FN are a far-right party. Few, if any, would be prepared to call them 'conservative' because that is not how conservatives are viewed in Europe...

Do you doubt all of this or are you suggesting that the general public have been misled? Marcus22 09:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I could care less about what they think in the streets of Paris, Milan or Barcelona, they are not the ones editing Wikipedia. For all I know they think the FN is far right because they look like aliens. So this refering to unknown masses does not help: It is unverifiable. See further above. Intangible 12:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for that comment. Exactly what I hoped to get from you. In other words you are of the opinion that what the great majority of people think is irrelevant and you want to impose your own POV on a topic. Hmmm.. perhaps you should start up your own encyclopedia? Check it out because Wikipedia is a place for NPOV.

Over and out. Marcus22 08:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said it it is unverifiable what these people think and mean, has nothing to do with WP:NPOV, but with WP:VERIFY. Intangible 11:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And this still does not explain the references to the CNN, BBC, and UN Chronicle... Intangible 02:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm, the fact that the FN is far-right is verified by every reputable political observer. You and the FN are the only ones disputing that. -- WGee 22:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Posted here for further discussion for those who wish to. The following is Intagible's reasoning as to why the sources in the intro in the article do not state what others claim they state. My own view is that these sources DO indeed refer to the FN, do indeed label them as far-right etc.. etc..

But others may wish to agree/disagree. Marcus22 12:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The UN Chronicle article is written by UK Labour MEP Glyn Ford, not by the UN Chronicle itself, and does nothing to specifically characterize the FN (unless the article's title is supposed to convey this message about the FN, but then the author could have been specific).

From the CNN article (which can hardly be called a CNN statement in itself): "The Haider message -- nationalistic, anti-EU, anti-immigration -- is certainly echoed by extreme right-wing parties in other European countries. The Front National in France..." So it describes the FN as extreme right, nationalistic, anti-EU, anti-immigration. And thus not as racist or xenophobic.

The BBC article calls the FN "far right." It also states: "The extreme right, with its anti-immigrant and in some cases racist policies, has become more respectable. [...] Already before last month that had happened in Austria, Italy, Denmark, Belgium and parts of Germany."

The BBC is not talking about the FN here specifically. Actually it only talks about extreme right parties in Austria, Italy, Denmark, Belgium and parts of Germany.

So even if you want to make the point that newspapers have called the party far right or extreme right (whatever the newspapers actually mean with this description), you cannot characterize the FN as racist or xenophobic by these sources. Intangible 10:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

The article is protected. Please discuss your opinions before unprotecting it. Cheers -- Szvest 23:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

[edit] sources

So there are currently seven sources giving references to claims made in the article.

far right and right-wing:

What newspaper or editors mean with this term cannot be known to us when they do not qualify the term, when they do not operationalize it. That is why I introduced the scare quotes in my latest edits. The observers here are not the CNN, BBC or the UN Chronicle Magazine as organizations, but their journalists, or in the case of the UN Chronicle Magazine, guest writer, and Labour MEP, Glyn Ford (who is clearly not a neutral observer). That is why I reworded that section a small bit too. Intangible 00:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

racist and xenophobic:

The BBC journalist William Horsley does not qualify the FN as racist in his article. He only said that "...the extreme right, with its anti-immigrant and in some cases racist policies, has become more respectable [...] in Austria, Italy, Denmark, Belgium and parts of Germany." So he is not talking about France or the FN here.

The NY Times article states "France's political establishment rushed to condemn the party as xenophobic, racist and even fascist." Stated as such in a newspaper article it cannot be used as reference to back up a claim. It should be specified whom of the 'French political establishment' (other political parties in France I guess) made which statement, statements not to be found in the NY Times article I might add. I proposed creating a critism section in this article (which is pretty much unique for a political party article on Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is not a political blog!), where appropriately quoted statements could be added.

The Stephen Roth Institute report [13] is almost ten years old. If you look at their more recent reports, it will tell you that the French Left is currently the most anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic threat out there in France. The 1997 report only details catholic anti-Semitic wings in the FN of that time, and does not make that claim for the FN as a whole.

The Anti-Defamation League article characterizes Le Pen, not the Front National, in this article. As such this criticism could (possibly) be added in an appropriate section in the Jean-Marie Le Pen article (per WP:LIVING).

The Hindu Times article is an opinion article by some unknown journalist, who only briefly talks about the FN (the article itself is about Jacques Chirac), characterizing the FN as "xenophobic". The article can not be used as reference by Wikipedia standards.

OK, thankyou for listing all of those objections, here are your 7 claims:

you claim, "What newspaper or editors mean with this term cannot be known to us when they do not qualify the term". Far-right is a common enough phrase, generally understood by those with an interest in politics. Please explain to me the difficulties you have in understanding this term when it is used by the press and why others would feel the same as you.

If you look at the far right article on Wikipedia, you will see there is no consensus on its definition, therefore the "scare quotes."

Then I will compromise by happily pointing readers of this article in the direction of the Wiki article you mention. There they can make up their own mind as to whether or not the FN are far right. (I will add in brackets a sentence along the lines of "Of course the term 'far right' has many interpretations see for example the wiki article far right)". Compromise agreed? Yes/No?

The sentence can be removed by simply using scare quotes. Not?

But I am offering you a compromise. The sentence can remain but it will be qualified. (You refer very often to the necessity of things being 'qualified' - so the compromise should appeal). So can I ask you again, do you agree to compromise or not? Yes or No please.

you claim that "The observers here are not the CNN, BBC or the UN Chronicle Magazine as organizations, but their journalists". This strikes me as a very strange claim. Please clarify how the BBC, CNN etc.. are able to report news independently of using journalists.

The organizations of BBC, CNN, etc., are not composed solely of journalist, that why I used the article description in my latest edit. Labour MEP Glyn Ford is not the UN Chronicle Magazine, this should be made explicit in the text.

Oh dear, by your logic no quotes, no source material by any newspaper, news agency or media organisation which uses reporters can be used anywhere in Wikipedia. If I allow this rather odd claim of yours can I trust you to subsequently remove all source material the BBC, CNN, Times, Telegraph, ABC (ad inf.) from every other article on Wikipedia? Yes/No?

No, this is not what I claim. I claim that the BBC, etc., does not solely exist out of journalists (they are large corporations). Thus when referencing an article on the BBC website, you cannot say that this is statement as such by the BBC (which is a corporation).

You are saying then that throughout the whole of Wikipedia the BBC cannot ever be referenced as a source, (likewise CNN, ABC, New York Times etc..) but in each and every case the specific journalist who offers an article must be named as source and not the corporation? Does that not strike you as a little excessive? Should we not assume - as the BBC assumes - that our readers can grasp this much for themselves?

No, you should state something along the lines "in a BBC article," and not "according to the BBC."

you claim "so he is not talking about France or the FN here". The FN and other far right organisations are what the article is about. I claim that not every paragraph needs to specifically list the FN in order for that paragraph to refer to the FN because the article is about them. You claim that the FN must be explicitly referenced in every paragraph of that article in order for a specific paragraph to refer to them. I'm sorry but I think that is nonsense. Can you please evidence how your claim is correct and my claim is not?

To which party does: "and in some cases racist policies", refer? It clearly cannot be all the "extreme right" parties mentioned in the article, since the 'some' qualifier is used.

It is my opinion that one can safely assume that it refers to the FN. Can you prove otherwise? I imagine not. But if you compromise and allow some of the other quotes then I will compromise with you and perhaps remove this one. Compromise agreed? Yes/No.

No reply? I'll ask again. Compromise agreed? Yes/No.

you claim "it should be specified whom of the 'French political establishment' (other political parties in France I guess) made which statement". You then go on to answer your point yourself. So I think we can ignore this.

My 'point' is OR, thus the NY times article should indeed be ignored according to Wikipedia standards.

As I have said, I can ignore this as you have answered it yourself. No need to drag a debate around in circles as you clearly have more valid concerns here.

you claim, "The Stephen Roth Institute report is almost ten years old". Many sources are far older and still valid. Here's a very simple question for you which only requires a Yes or No answer, would you ignore the Domesday book as a source?

Newer reports of the SRI negate the 1997 report of the SRI.

Do they? Then by all means please present them and demonstrate how they "negate" the above.

The SRI does not talk about the Chrétienté-Solidarité anymore in later reports, but all this is besides the main point that I was making, namely that the SRI has only talked about a certain faction of the FN here.

Please present those newer reports and demonstrate how they "negate" the above.

They call the Chrétienté-Solidarité fundamentalist catholics in 2001: "This wing of the party does not see race as the hallmark of identity: it believes that any human being who is, or becomes, a Christian (preferably, a Roman Catholic) deserves to become a French citizen." This is from the 2001 report [14]. I think the SRI is real opportunist organization, but flip-flopping around and saying in 2004 [15]: "The far left, the Green Party and some segments of the anti-globalization movement exhibit strong anti-Zionist and sometimes antisemitic prejudice, especially when they deny the right of the State of Israel to exist." The French Left wasnt the attention of SRI before 2001.

you claim, both "The 1997 report only details catholic anti-Semitic wings in the FN of that time, and does not make that claim for the FN as a whole". And that "The Anti-Defamation League article characterizes Le Pen, not the Front National, in this article". Le Pen is the leader of the FN, is he not? But in your opinion, does he also represent one of those 'wings' you refer to?

Refute the actual claims I made.

I will reiterate the point for you as you have not understood. Is Le Pen, the head of the FN, in fact little more than the head of a "wing" which might be called anti-semitic? (The rest of the FN being firmly against his anti-semitic views). Yes/No?

No, I have understood alright, you seem to think the Chrétienté-Solidarité wing is the FN, which is refuted by the SRI report itself, since they talk about a FN faction.

A straight anwser please. Yes or No?

you claim, "The Hindu Times article is an opinion article by some unknown journalist, who only briefly talks about the FN (the article itself is about Jacques Chirac), characterizing the FN as "xenophobic". The article can not be used as reference by Wikipedia standards". For your information the Hindu - and it's reporters - are both very well respected in India. You admit the article calls the FN xenophobic and yet you still try to deny it is a source. Is this not systemic bias?

By your standard, an opinion article that briefly calls George Walker Bush a "fascist"—without a qualification of "fascist" in the opinion article—can be justly entered into his Wikipedia article. Intangible 19:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not put words in my mouth. I do not use the phrase 'opinion article'. So I certainly am not making any such claim. But I ask you again, as you have not answered, is this not systemic bias to so rubbish a respectable Hindustani newspaper?

It is an opinion article [16], look at the big words 'Opinion'. I do not 'rubbish' The Hindu, I critize the inclusion of this source since it does not expand on the "xenophobic" theme, leaving readers who read the article in complete oblivion what the author means with that.

Big words? Do you mean bold? In any case the "big" words are yours not mine. (Hence the speech marks). Thus I merely quote your words, as I have said, it is not a phrase I use.

But that is an aside.

Systemic bias: I'll make it clearer for you. You yourself admit that the source characterizes the "FN as xenophobic". I am using the source to substantiate the same claim. But you are unhappy. Why? Because the article is written, according to you, by "an unknown journalist". But I ask you, unknown to whom? To you, yes. But therein lies your systemic bias. May I suggest you consider the possibility that the journalist is a well-respected writer and thereby rephrase your criticism?

Now, however, and as elsewhere, you are trying to move the goalposts. Unhappy with the fact that at least some of your claims are refuted - and note I would not for a moment suggest that all of 'your' points are invalid, somewhat unlike your suggestion that each and every single source of 'mine' is invalid - you are trying to alter your arguments like a drowning man clutching at straws. Please stop. From here on, let us instead agree as to which sources you can accept and which you cannot. I will not refer to the FN as "xenophobic" if you permit me to call them "racist according to various sources" and therby quote those sources. (Readers may then make up their own minds). Likewise I will call them "far right" but only with the qualification that they "to many the FN are considered far right but of course the term far right itself is poorly understood". Or words to that effect.

In other words, it is time for you to show willing to compromise in order to end this particular edit war. Agreed? Yes/No. A simple one word answer will suffice. We can then discuss the compromises.

Please respond to each point in turn. It would make for greater clarity. Marcus22 09:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that no references to news articles are needed if there is going to be compromise on using scare quotes, something along the lines of:

The National Front (FN, French: Front National) is a French political party, founded in 1972 by Jean-Marie Le Pen. Although the party describes itself as a "mainstream right" organization, observers in the media and some scholars depict the party as "far right."

Note that the scare quotes work both ways. The references to "racist" and "xenophobic" will be removed then. To remove any taxonomic problems, I suggest removing the FN from the subjective Category:Far right political parties in France and remove the "right-wing populism" from the side-template. It might be better to create a Category:Nationalist political parties in France, what do you think? Intangible 01:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not just a form of right-wing populism, as Betz among other scholars assert, but some go so far as to call it ne-fascist. Why this multi-page campaign to sanitize criticism of European far-right groups, Intangible?--Cberlet 02:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What do I think? Well it's not so bad. Glad to see us reaching this stage at any rate!

But I think I want a slightly stronger version which also includes reference to sources. (We need to include these really in order to justify what is being said or someone else will simply come along and remove the material with a [citation needed] box ).

However, in deference to your viewpoint 1. I'll leave out the names of the sources from the text itself so that we merely see in the article the number of the source. 2. You can have the scare quotes around the key words racist and anti-semtiic and 3. There is an additional qualifier in the phrase "and even, in some cases".

Thus:

So now it's just a question of deciding which sources make up those numbers from 1 to 4. (Or 1 to 3 if you would prefer less?). Which sources would you prefer to see? (At the moment there are 7 referenced). Marcus22 07:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

1. BBC. 2. CNN 3. SRI report 4. ADL

Note that I think those sources 3 and 4 are not a good a reference on the party as such, but leave them in. Intangible 08:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Oop, nearly forgot.

Personally I have no problem with the FN being recategorized as 'Nationalist' parties of France. (Although not all 'Nationalist' parties are 'Far right' - the SNP for example are definitely left wing). But that is not my debate nor my decision to take. I think many others would disagree with you and probably not too many support your view. So why not leave it be? (You have better things to do than get involved in another edit war surely?!)

On the 'right wing populism' - I don't like that tag anyway. They should be listed as a 'far right' party in my view. But, again, I feel you might do better to leave it be. 'Right wing populism' reads, to European eyes anyway, much less harsh than 'far right' so you already have a comparatively watered down tag. Marcus22 07:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well leave the categorization as it is for now. Populism is a political means, not an ideological end in itself (unless you are a real career politician). I am not sure what the qualifier extreme/radicial/right-wing is supposed to bring about in those means, but leave it for now. Intangible 08:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Agreed then. We have both had to give a bit and have both got a bit of what we wanted. Well done! My only concern now is that as soon as the page is unblocked someone else will start to tamper with and change the now settled first paragraph.... Shall we also agree then to revert any such changes back to the paragraph we have agreed upon here? (Unless of course there are some very good grounds not to do so?) I think once we have that, we can ask for unprotect, put in the amended version of the 1st paragraph and then go and have a cup of coffee! Marcus22 07:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll revert any such changes, unless future talk page discussion will create a different consensus on the article or the article's sources. Intangible 15:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

These are all pretty old. I suggest deleting them all, and only include up-to-date links that are not as biased as those currently included, since that constitutes WP:POV. Intangible 00:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense!--Cberlet 02:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sanitation of articles about European New Right

Intangible has embarked on a multi-page campaign to remove text, cites, and links that are critical of various groups and parties involved in what is called the European New Right. The issue is whether or not standard Wiki policies regarding the use of reliable published sources will be followed, or if we are to adopt the claim that any criticism is POV, and therefore violates NPOV and should be deleted. I maintain that this latter claim is nonsense, and reflects an attempt at POV pushing. Certainly these pages need to contain both the criticisms and the denials. But sanitizing the entries and censoring the views of scholars and respected journalists is not acceptable. I would like to discusss this situation here on this page, and not have to run around Wiki having the same debate with Intangible on several pages. Comments?--Cberlet 12:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The FN is not part of the (European) New Right. What Sanitizing? Intangible 14:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The deletion of critical comments and cites on multiple pages from a particular POV is what I call "sanitation." Perhaps you would prefer another word?--Cberlet 17:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have asked you multiple times to defend the inclusion of comments in the Neo-fascism article by some unknown author, saying, among others, "that neo-liberal economics and the George W. Bush administration are pushing the United States closer and closer to fascism." No response came from you, and I probably expect that no such defense will be forthcoming. I have stated that this criticism might only be appropriate for the George Walker Bush or Republican Party articles, and that this should be discussed in the respective (talk pages) of those articles. I can hardly call this "sanitizing," actually, I would call this Wikipedia:Content forking on your part. Intangible 17:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is simply false. See diff: [17]. It is also a red herring. The issue here related to the European far right, and abiding by basic Wiki policy regarding the need to cover a variety of views in an entry; and not to delete criticisms using bogus claims that the material is outdated or wrong or not peer-reviewed--none of which are related to the standard for inclusion in entries on Wikipedia. --Cberlet 21:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[18] is from a later date than when you proposed mediation [19]. So before the mediation you did not provide a rebuttal. Intangible 17:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have only read briefly, but not entered into, any of those other debates here referred to. But, from my own experience, I do feel that Intangible 'doth protest too much'. To find a different fault with each and every single source which suggests a party is 'racist' or 'xenophobic' or 'facistic' etc.. is a tad implausible. He needs to accept that such things do exist and that they are often being properly referenced here on Wikipedia.

However, on the other hand, it must be said, I am close to reaching an agreement on this FN article with the same user. And so - assuming that that agreement is made - I must offer in his defence that where compromise is properly made and agreed upon, he will concede ground and a consensus can be reached. Marcus22 07:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand your position, Marcus22, but seriously, how many times must Wiki editors go through the same combative set of revert wars, page locks, and requests for meditation just to edit one page in an NPOV manner? Especially when Intangible refuses mediation?--Cberlet 15:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries Chip! If the parties are close to reach a concensus than it's fine. I hope that would be done by today. Cheers -- Szvest 15:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

OK. I will attempt to find a way to reach consensus on the other pages. Sigh...--Cberlet 16:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I refused the mediation initiative by User:Cberlet because there was still a Talk page discussion left open by this user, so mediation was not yet possible. I think all comments of User:Cberlet should be removed from this talk page, as it is not relevant to this article's discussion. My responses to his writings can then be removed as well, including this one. Intangible 16:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I dispute the claim above concerning Intangible's refusal of mediation, and object to removing any text.--Cberlet 16:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[20] Maybe you can explain why these political opinions on the Republican Party or George W. Bush / Conservative movement etc. is justified here, so we can all finally know what your argument is. Intangible 17:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

<-------I had been discussing matters on the Neo-Fascism page with Intangible since June 5, well before I proposed mediation. Diff: [21] I have asked Intangible to enter into mediation on another page (Nouvelle Droite). I see no reason to continue this discussion here.--Cberlet 17:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection

The article is free for editing guys. -- Szvest 13:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

[edit] FN is far-right

That the FN is far-right is a fact; all reputable, unbiased sources describe it as such. The FN may claim that is is mainstream right, but that doesn't make it so. To place the opinion of the FN in equal standing with a fact that has been agreed upon by every reputable political observer is to violate Wikipedia's policy regarding WP:NPOV#Undue weight. -- WGee 04:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I can have this discussion with you again, but I won't at this time. Let it sit for some while, until other editors interject. Intangible 04:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved from top of page (by Cberlet):

It's surely only right-wing. There are parties which are far-right and which would liquidate foreigners rather than just expel them. The word for Christian-democrat parties is centre-right or right-of-centre.

[edit] The First Paragraph of the Article

Please note that the first paragraph has been substanitally debated and an agreement has been arrived at. In addition both sides of the debate are now in agreement to revert any future changes to the (soon to be) adopted first paragraph. Thus, for the sake of all our sanity, any edits or changes should not really be made to this paragraph unless there is a significant and obvious reason to do so. (For example a current event or change or leadership etc..). Your help in keeping to this would be most appreciated. 18:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This notice is a clear violation of Wikipedia editing guidelines. Editing is continuous. Reference can (and should) be made to previous editing debates, and new editors notified of lengthy and contentious editing disagreements. But to suggest that two parties can agree to lock down a lead is just wrong. Forget it. Ain't gonna happen.--Cberlet 13:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Mr. Berlet. -- WGee 00:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. You are absolutely right. But let mey give you my reasoning as to why I put it there and leave you to decide: the current first paragraph 'is' a reasonably balanced compromise between the views of both sides of the ongoing debates on this page. (And, believe me, I feel much as you do about facism and all things related to it). But the trouble is, without trying to persuade people to leave alone such a more or less balanced first paragraph the petty wrangling goes on (and on). So the next day I log in to find all references to 'far right' or 'racist' removed... So I reinstate them. Then they are removed again. And so it goes on. Thus, IMO, I think it would be better to try to get the whole article agreed, by both sides, paragraph by paragraph, and then also agree to leave it alone barring changes relating to current events and so forth. Now that may violate Wiki rules, but I'm not one for sticking to the letter of any law. Much better to get agreement even if it means doing things a little quirkily. (Of course I cant impose this view. Nor do I aim to. But I think it needs considering and after consideration we can all take it from there). regards, Marcus22 12:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

But such editing disagreements are basic to Wikipedia, and it is the job of serious editors across the political spectrum to prevent fanatics from rewriting articles to promote a POV for or against a particular group, individual, or topic. There is no such thing as a compromise between just two editors, when an infinite number of editors can edit the page. The solution is to attempt a compromise through discussion--and then if that is not possible--move on to Requests for Comment, help from third parties, mediation, and then if all else fails: arbitration. The larger issue is that Intangible is removing the terms "far right", "racist," "fascist," etc. from dozens of pages. That is what needs to be addressed...not just one page. Would you consider joining in a request for mediation with Intangible?

The problem is that uninitiated readers will not be presented with the truth; they will be coaxed into thinking that the FN might not be far-right. Why are the findings of hundreds of political scientists, academic institutions, and news agencies not elevated above the opinion of the FN's public relations department? Information on Wikipedia is supposed to be derived from most reputable sources, and here we have an academic consensus stating that the FN is far right, yet their conclusions are depicted as no more valid than the opinion of the FN. This is ludicrous. -- WGee 18:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is ludicrous. It is one of the problems with Wikipedia that has yet to be dealt with in an ethical and yet practical matter. What do we do with editors who sanitize articles based on their POV? The current solution requires a huge amount of time and energy to drag people into mediation and then arbitration. I honestly do not know what else to do, and am open to suggestions. But attempting to lock down the wording of a lead is just not practical, and does violate Wiki guideleines.--Cberlet 19:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Marcus, this notice is I think an infringement on Wikipedia's principles, especially since this first paragraph is not neutral.

It is a fact that almost all the mainstream French press, as well as all political commentators outside of the Front and related group, classify the Front as far right. Le Pen disputes that, but in fact Le Pen disputes the whole French political classification, claiming his party is the true right-wing and that the parties that just about everybody else calls right-wing (UMP) are in fact leftist.

Really, this is a bit like some Trotskyite groups that consider they are the only true Left, and classify, say, the Communist Revolutionary League as "a center-right party".

The Front is to the far right of French politics, that's a fact that anyone can witness by seeing the election results (this party is the one with the rightmost position that has any sizable vote). Le Pen regrets that French politics are too "Socialist" and thus that the French right is not really a true right, but regrets do not alter reality.

"Left" and "right" are relative terms pertaining to a political situation (in time and space). For instance, almost all today's French political parties would be considered left-wing according to some 19th century standards, because they are all republican and at that time the Right was monarchist.

To summarize: it is a fact that:

the Front's positions put it at the rightest of the parties that get notable electoral results
almost all the French press, outside of French publications, call the Front "far right"
Le Pen disagrees for political reasons and says that it's not his party that is "far right", it is that French politics in general are too left wing.

David.Monniaux 05:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet, again I agree with you. Except on this point: "there is no such thing as a compromise between just two editors". In fact the debate on the first paragraph was open to anyone to partake in and in the end just the two of us did. So we reached the agreement we reached. It was done by open discussion.

WGee, I agree. But I also think you are underestimating the fact that most people already know that the FN are far right and that "" around words barely makes a difference to their interpretation.

David, regarding the politics of this issue, see above debates, I agree with you. But returning to the point in hand the fact is that others - and not just Intangible - do not share your view and consensus has to be reached.

I suggest we try this approach instead and see if it works: keep the agreed first paragraph and suggest, on this page, changes any of you want to make to it. Together we then work out an agreed first paragraph, which has to take in the concerns of those who feel differently, and then the thing can be changed and left alone. The alternative, to just keep reverting and re-reverting and making slight changes and then having someone else unmake them.. etc.. is daft. Marcus22 09:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Accordingly, I put up a NPOV banner. David.Monniaux 14:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: "on the far right of French politics". This makes it clear that we're not passing an absolute judgment, but we're using the common classification pertaining to France. David.Monniaux 16:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

~~I think that's an appropriate compromise, David.~~ But I disagree with Marcus that we should label the party based on a consensus between Wikipedia editors. Rather, we should label the party based on a consensus of reputable sources. If some editors here disagree with the sources, so be it, but the sources will always take precedence over the opinion of any editor. And so far, Intangible's argument is based only on his/her personal opinions about French politics; he/she has not presented us with a reputable, non-partisan source that states the FN is not far-right. Even if he/she did, it would not negate the findings of multidudes of organizations, both inside and outside of France. -- WGee 18:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I should note, however, that the FN is considered far right everywhere in the West, so it would not be inappropriate to label the party "far right", period. -- WGee 18:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair points. What I mean is that we have to agree a consensus between Wiki editors in order to end the seemingly interminable disputes. I agree it would be better to look for a consensus based upon reputable sources but - as I found out - those sources are then disputed. I guess we now need to hear from the other sides of the debate? Marcus22 18:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not so sure I'm willing to accept that compromise. The FN is considered far right everywhere in the West, not only in France, so it would not be appropriate to label the party "far right", period. Moreover, every political research institute and news agency insists on calling the FN far right, so why can't we? How can Wikipedia hope to gain a reputation comparable to that of those organizations when it refutes the findings of multitudes of respected political scientists? -- WGee 18:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus among academia what the term "far right" should entail. Intangible 19:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What the media say about the FN is useless for classifying the FN; it does not mean a thing what they say, because they nowhere define the term far/extreme right. If you are going to use a "common classification" of the "French extreme right", might I ask which branch of counterrevolutionaries the FN represents? Intangible 19:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This is just bogus. There are reputable scholars that call the FN "Extreme Right," "Far Right" and "neofascist." Please stop this attempt to deny the facts. If you want to add cited material critical of the majority view that is appropriate, but this multi-page campaign of sanitation of terms used by scholars to describe right-wing groups is improper.--Cberlet 20:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This might indeed be a good idea, but this would concern the far right article. Intangible 17:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As I explained to Intangible:

You wrote "Left" and "right" are relative terms pertaining to a political situation (in time and space). If these are relative terms, how can one use them without resorting to WP:OR and WP:POV?

Very simple. As with many other words, use them in the common sense that they are used in the locale and era discussed. If, for instance, one says "constitutional" about France in 1995, then it is implied that this designates, by default, things found in accordance to the Constitution of the French Fifth Republic according to the criteria of the Constitutional Council of France. Of course, there are people that would like to discuss French events according to whether they would be constitutional according to, say, the constitution of the United States of America; in this case, one can always give a longer explanation. Or, there are some people that allege that certain things are unconstitutional despite the Council judging them to be so; in this case, one can always say "according to Foobar, blah blah".

If we did not apply this simple, common sense criterion, then our speech would become utterly cluttered with explicit contextualization. For instance, imagine discussing American institutions. As you probably know, there are a few people that disagree with the appreciation of what is constitutional or not according to US courts; yet, we say "unconstitutional" and not "unconstitutional according to the US District Court of Foobar, US Court of Appeal of Foobie, and to the US Supreme Court, but not according to Mr John Soandso of Whatsthisplace". If we really need to discuss the disagreement of Mr Soandso, we can do it once and for all.

There are some people who disagree that Benedict XVI is the rightful pope; see for instance sedevacantism. Yet, almost everybody else in the world says "the Pope"; and we would clutter Wikipedia unnecessarily if on each and every occasion of the use of the word "Pope" we had to say "Pope according to just about everybody except such or such group".

With respect to France, there is a commonly accepted classification of parties used by the mainstream media and even in official summaries. Some people disagree with it; for instance, Mr Le Pen claims that he is right-wing, not far-right (but previously claimed to be neither left-wing, nor right-wing), and that the other parties are left-wing; some Trotskyite groups claim that just about all mainstream parties are right-wing. We can note these disagreements in the appropriate articles, but it seems excessive to systematically add these reservations after each and every use of the words.

nowhere define the term far/extreme right

Actually, there is some reasonable reason to call the National Front "far right". Jean-Marie Le Pen classifies his party as "right-wing" whereas he classifies other French political parties as "left-wing" or "not true right-wing". So, Le Pen himself places the Front significantly to the right of parties such as UMP. On the other hand, the usual and normal classification that just about everybody in France uses is to call the UMP "right-wing". So, if Le Pen's party is, by Le Pen's own admission, significantly to the right of the UMP, then it is far-right.

Of course, you may disagree with the French's own average assessment that the PS is Left-wing (some left-wingers classify the PS as center-right, after all), and the UMP right-wing. Yet, this is the normal French terminology, and it also coincides with the fact that the PS and the UMP alternate in power and thus one can safely conclude that the "middle ground" is between them. David.Monniaux 21:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This is besides the point I was making, namely that nowhere the term "far/extreme right" is defined; if you are going to say "far right" is not "right-wing" or "left-wing", you would still require a definition for "right-wing" or "left-wing". So let me quote Cas Mudde (1995): "The harmony and clarity that exist in both the scientific world and the media with regard to the labelling of certain parties as right-wing extremist does not appear in the definition of the concept." Intangible 01:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

So what? There are plenty of reputable published cites. Please do not obfuscate what are clear Wikipedia guidelines. --Cberlet 02:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, simple. "Left-wing" and "right-wing" are what the people commonly call by this name in the locale and era considered.

For instance, there are many historical books discussing the "Right" in the times of the Dreyfus affair; it is expected that the reader is savvy enough to understand that these terms refer to the classification of France in that era, as commonly used in that time and space.

I'll give you another example. The word "nobility" does not have a universal definition and characterization. Yet, it often has a precise meaning if the locale and era are known; and if one discusses, say, 18th century France, it is expected that "nobility" means the notion of nobility generally recognized by the French in the 18th century and not, say, Japanese Samurai. David.Monniaux 03:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus among academia what the term "far right" should entail. Intangible 19:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That is neither here nor there. What is pertinent is that they all conclude that the FN is far right; we can therefore logically presume that they use a common definition of the term. -- WGee 04:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This implication is false, one does not have to presume this. Intangible 17:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Intangible, how about my proof that the FN is to the far right of French politics, according to commonly accepted French classifications? David.Monniaux 17:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

One does not have to presume that humans are alive, either, but that doesn't alter reality. You are not going to hinder progress just because the logic does not favour your POV. Either way, it doesn't matter whether they all use the same definition or not; like I said, that's neither here nor there. What is pertinent is that they all conclude that the FN is far right.

Overall, your arguments to obfuscate reality are wearing thin—you have no or very little sources to support your claims, you choose to defy logic, and you are now resorting to tangential debates about semantics (even though David has already given you a succinct lesson on the subject).

-- WGee 18:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

One does not have to presume that humans are alive. Does this mean I am talking to machines here in this discussion? Intangible 19:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

My point was that anybody can refuse to presume anything, no matter how obvious it is. -- WGee 19:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but many presumptions are refuted by logic. Such as saying "I am not alive." Intangible 19:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Is my presumption refuted by logic? -- WGee 20:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Which presumption? The one about the newspaper? That one is refuted because it lacks additional premises which can make your argument consistent and true. Intangible 20:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, my presumption that, since all non-partisan sources say that the FN is far-right, they use a more or less common definition of the term. -- WGee 01:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thus, you introduce an ad hoc premise to your argument. Intangible 03:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't "introduce" anything; I've been saying this all along. Do you dispute my "ad hoc" premise? If so, I invite you to formulate your own premise using reputable sources. -- WGee 04:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

David, please read this: operational definition. If you are going to describe the FN as "far right," you need something to reference to. I haven't seen any such references yet. Intangible 19:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Properties described in this manner must be publicly accessible so that persons other than the definer can independently measure or test for them at will. The described properties are publicly accessible at the far-right article and in various online dictionaries. Moreover, your argument holds no precedent in Wikipedia; all political articles use the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing", and to propose that we refrain from using them in political discourse because there is not a 100% agreement on their meanings is ridiculous. You best present your argument to the political science establishment, not us. -- WGee 20:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Here: Hainsworth, Paul. 2000. "The Front National: From Ascendancy to Fragmentation on the French Extreme Right." In The Politics of the Extreme Right, ed. Paul Hainsworth, 18-31. London: Pinter. I'll go get some more cites tomorrow--on a coffee break now.--Cberlet 20:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, read up and you'll find that this debate is not original. In particular, read the Editing boldly section, where there are two different proposed leads. I'm in favour of the one proposed by Rama. -- WGee 03:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This discussion about semantics is tangential, and Intangible's claims have no precedent in Wikipedia; so to get back on track I've listed several reputable sources below that describe the FN as far-right. I'd now like to know which non-partisan sources state that the FN is not far-right and how you can justify your opposition to the label "far-right" in light of these sources. -- WGee 00:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look back at this talk page, you could already see that a reasonable agreement was made between me and User:Marcus22. I still think it should be better, per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Good_definitions, which concerns the current discussion. If you read closely it says: "A definition aims to describe or delimit the meaning of some term (a word or a phrase) by giving a statement of essential properties or distinguishing characteristics of the concept, entity, or kind of entity, denoted by that term." (Definition)

A good definition is not circular, a one-word synonym or a near synonym, over broad or over narrow, ambiguous, figurative, or obscure. Clearly that is lacking for your "far right." Maybe it best to describe the FN as just a political party, show its program, some history, some election results and some of its mischief, and then call it a day. Intangible 03:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

But "far-right" is not a definition; it's merely an adjective commonly used in political discourse to identify the location of political parties on the political spectrum. These left-right terms are acceptable in political discussion and have been acceptable on Wikipedia for years. That is why I said your argument has no precedent. -- WGee 04:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

An adjective is used to specify something qualitative or quantitative about a noun (the FN). What is specified in this case? Intangible 16:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

User:WGee, I am note sure how I should read this comment [22]? Intangible 02:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I pointed out earlier, though, that it's important to make a distinction between "extreme right" and "far-right". I, along with some scholars, only use the term "extreme right" to refer to neo-Nazi or neo-Fascist organisations, most of which are violent. As you can see in my proposed intro, I'm in favour of calling the FN "far-right" (or "radical right"), in line with most of the sources I procured. Nonetheless, if there are sources that consider the FN an "extreme-right" organisation, they might merit inclusion in the article. -- WGee 02:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

So what is the difference between newspapers calling the FN "extreme right" and newspaper calling the FN "far right"? Clearly you must have an answer to this, because you reject the label "extreme right." Intangible 21:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The term "far-right" denotes ultra-nationalism, an anti-immigrant stance, populism, protectionism, extreme social conservatism or reactionaryism, ardent opposition to multiculturalism, and promotion of ethnic homogeny. Read the far-right article; it is certainly accurate.

But as I've said in the past: Whether or not you feel there is a consensus on the definition of "far-right" is irrelevant; what is pertinent is that all reputable sources classify the FN as far-right or radical right. You have no right to comandeer the article and defy these reputable sources. Your opinion on whether or not the FN is far-right is absolutely irrelevant.

--WGee 01:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

WGee, there is no need to bold your objection to another editor's contributions. It appears that the introduction of "far right" is a topic clearly covered in Wiki's Words to Avoid. Please recall that this was the very argument used to keep the term "far left" out of the description of Hugo Chavez. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. As I read that text, it sounds like it is OK to say "such and such" source describes a party/politican as "far right", followed by what the party/politican says. If you are going to defend the introduction of "far right" here, you must equally allow "far left" as a description of Chavez. Let's not employ a double standard. The same applies to criticism. You have argued against bringing criticism into the Chavez article, relegating it to the Criticism of Hugo Chavez article, while the edit history here shows that you brought criticism back to this article from another article. Sandy 12:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Other Wikipedia articles are not the standard. When dozens of reputable scholars published in academic journals and scholarly books write that Hugo Chavez is "Far-Left" then the term would be appropriate in the lead for that entry. That is not the case.--Cberlet 12:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not refer you to another article: I referred you to Wikipedia's Words to Avoid article. But, with respect to other articles, if WGee supports the introduction of "far right" here, he shouldn't object to the introduction of "far left" to the Chavez article.Sandy 13:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources describing the FN as far-right

Feel free to expand the list.

Mayer, Nonna (2005). "Radical Right Populism in France" (HTML). . The Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society Retrieved on 2006-07-06.
"The rise of the far right in Europe", The Changing Face of Europe, CNN. Retrieved on 2006-07-06.
"French National Front splits", BBC, 1999-01-24. Retrieved on 2006-07-06.
"Germany Seeks to Try French Rightist", The New York Times, 1998-04-04. Retrieved on 2006-07-06.
"The National Front and Anti-Semitism in France", US-France Analysis Series, The Brookings Institution, 2002-07-26. Retrieved on 2006-07-06.
"France's ever-present National Front", France's far right, The Economist, 2004-03-11. Retrieved on 2006-07-06.
. "France Country Report" (HTML). . The Stephen Roth Institute, Tel Aviv University Retrieved on 2006-07-06.
Richburg, Keith B.. "Political Shocker in France", Washington Post Foreign Service, 2002-04-22. Retrieved on 2006-07-06.
Geisser, Vincent (2004). "Intellectual and Ideological Debates on Islamophobia: A 'French Specificity' in Europe?" (PDF). . France-Stanford Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Retrieved on 2006-07-06.
"Far-right politician Le Pen slams French team", Associated Press, 2006-06-28. Retrieved on 2006-07-06.
Chombeau, Christiane. "Les idées du Front national s'imposent dans l'opinion", Le Monde, 2005-10-15. Retrieved on 2006-07-06. (French)
Willsher, Kim. "Le Pen and French far right achieve record popularity", Telegraph.co.uk, 2006-05-21. Retrieved on 2006-07-06.
Minkenberg, Michael. "The Radical Right in a Changing Europe: Tensions and Transitions within and beyond the EU" (PDF). . Europa-Universität Viadrina Frankfurt Retrieved on 2006-07-06.
Givens, Terri E. (2005). Voting Radical Right in Western Europe. Austin: University of Texas. ISBN-13: 9780521851343.
Norris, Pippa (2005). "The 'new cleavage' thesis and the social basis of radical right support." (PDF). . Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government Retrieved on 2006-07-06.
Goldgeie, James. "Europe’s Radical Right", Council of Foreign Relations, 2002-09-09. Retrieved on 2006-07-06.
Guiraudon, Virginie. "The French Political 'Earthquake' and Extreme Right in Europe" (HTML). . Council for European Studies at Columbia University Retrieved on 2006-07-06.
Evans, Jocelyn (2003). "The dynamics of social change in Radical Right-wing Populist party support" (PDF). . University of Salford Retrieved on 2006-07-06.

OK, so where are we now? This was the paragraph agreed by myself and Intangible.

I get the impression that most of you would want to see it changed as follows:

The National Front (FN, French: Front National) is a French political party, founded in 1972 by Jean-Marie Le Pen. Although the party describes itself as a mainstream right organization, observers in the media and scholars frequently depict the party as far right and even, in some cases, as racist and anti-semitic.^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8]

That's the same para but minus (all) the scare quotes and with a slight change to the 'some scholars' bit. (Not sure how to rephrase the 'depict'). Would this do everyone instead?

Marcus22 11:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Rather, I'd prefer something similar to this:

The National Front (French: Front National) is a French, far-right political party founded in 1972 by Jean-Marie Le Pen, who has headed the party since its creation. Denying the label "far-right", the National Front describes itself a "mainstream right" organisation.^{[citation needed]} Some observers state that the party is racist, xenophobic, or anti-Semitic.

--WGee 16:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly NPOV. I concur w/ WGee. -- Szvest 19:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

WGee's solution is better, except that "Some observers" should be replaced by "Observers state..." and referenced with the many examples of it. Have a look at Hamas how this has been done over there. Tazmaniacs 13:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't like WGee's solution. If scholars cannot agree upon the definition of "far right" "extreme right" "racism" or "xenophobia," then certainly too newspapers cannot. If you think there is a better cite to allege the "racism" of FN, please give use it, but that has little to do with the wording of the introduction. Intangible 15:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This is back to square one. The issue is not whether or not Intangible thinks that scholars can't agree. This is not part of any Wikiepdia guideline. However, cites to reputable published sources is a Wikiepdia guideline, and it is being followed.--Cberlet 15:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Article definitions in Wikipedia should not be ambiguous, which is exactly what the non-consensus among scholars is, an ambiguity. Intangible 15:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd. The Wikipedia guideline is to favor the majority view of the reputable published scholars and major reputable popular serials. Then views of notable persons. When there is a dispute, it is mentioned. There is no such guideline about the use of terms by different scholars. If the terms are used differently, this should be mentioned. Intangible is waging a campaign across Wikipedia whereby the term "far right" has been deleted on dozens of pages. When editors grow tired of being walked in circles, please let me know, so we can file an arbitration case.--Cberlet 15:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What guideline? Intangible 15:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet's absolutely right. Both WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY support my proposed introduction. And yes Cberlet, I am quite fed up with Intangible's insistence to comandeer the article based on already debunked reasoning (which has no precedent in Wikipedia and which is not based on any policy). So I do believe an arbitration case is in order—that is, unless Intangible is now willing to accept the opinions of the majority (both here and in academia) and abandon his/her intransigence. -- WGee 16:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No, this has nothing to do with WP:NPOV. Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Good definitions. It says "A good definition is not circular, a one-word synonym or a near synonym, over broad or over narrow, ambiguous, figurative, or obscure." Intangible 16:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

And please read Ambiguity as well. Intangible 16:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

<--------So are we to assume that the lead suggested by WGee is a suitable compromise?--Cberlet 14:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, as a third and neutral party in this debate, i believe so. -- Szvest 15:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

The introduction is ambiguous: "far right political party," and thus should be cut. The rest of the allegations need to be scare quoted. All you are left with is the introduction already present in the article, which User:Marcus22 and I agreed upon a long time ago. Intangible 15:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This is pointless. Intangible keeps walking us in circles, without offering anything new or offering any attempts to contructively find a solution.

How is this introduction not ambiguous? Intangible 18:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

Winston Churchill

I suggest we move forward with the compromise lead proposed by WGee.--Cberlet 17:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It can be easily proven that the FN is a "racist", "xenophobic" and "anti-Semitic" party. Of course, if Intangible deletes sources, it will be difficult to reference it. Tazmaniacs 18:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The simple fact that there are blacks, arabs and jews within the leading members of the FN is enough to cast doubts on the easiness to prove the racist, xenophobic and anti-semitic tendencies of that party. B. Gollnisch (#2 of the FN) is married to a Japanese woman and have had 3 children with her... How many racist leader do you know in this situation ?

Please point the elements in the FN program (?) that imply racism or anti-semitism. That should be the best source to judge of their political categorization.

82.241.221.24 00:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What deletion of sources? Intangible 18:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Front_National_%28France%29&diff=63451700&oldid=63451222 This one, which you just repeated. But I hadn't finished: Le Pen has been condemned for revisionist discourse more than once, and actually deliberately uses it as a strategy. Some FN militants were condemned for murdering an Arab. And their official policy on "national preference" is explicitly racist. Tazmaniacs 18:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

How national preference could be racist ? It makes no sense. Racism imply the belief that some race(s) is/are superior to others. "La préférence natioanle" only imply that the French should be served first in France, sometimes it does not even imply that foreigner can't get advantadges too (but sometimes it does indeed - the goal being of making France less attractive for thirld-world immigrants). A german (a white) is excluded of la "préférence nationale". (BTW when was JMLP condemned for revisionism ?)

82.241.221.24 00:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

as for the Arab thrown in the Seine river the FN had been judged innocent. you seem very biased.

82.241.221.24 12:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you think is being this discussed here for last view week or so? To call that "deletion of sources" is spurious at best, there is a reason why a talk page exists. Intangible 18:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"(a rarity among French right-wing parties, usually affected by sinistrisme (<note>:"At the 1974 presidential election, only one candidate declared himself as belonging to the right-wing: Jean-Marie Le Pen, in 1981, no one." (René Rémond, Les Droites en France, p.391, Aubier, 1982 — new edition of La Droite en France, 1954) <end of note>)," is the passage you deleted, and which might be interesting in the intro. It could be reformulated, but I assume you get the point. Tazmaniacs 18:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed "most scholars". As yet I don't know of one scholar not affiliated with the FN (that is, the only FN scholar I know of is Bruno Gollnisch, teacher of Chinese, else?...) that disputes this claim. Tazmaniacs 18:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Intangible, your argument that the term "far-right" is ambiguous, and should thus not be used, holds no ground. Numerous "good" articles and even a few featured articles use the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing". Moreover, these, what you call "ambiguous", terms have always been valid in political discourse and have significant meaning. To suggest that we not use them in Wikipedia because they don't favour your POV is preposterous. Furthermore, you have chosen to obstruct the findings of reputable sourcess through the use of your fallacious argument, which is absolutely unacceptable. But I'm just repeating myself here, as usual. -- WGee 19:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should quote Mudde again, this time somewhat more lengthy: "Following the electoral successes of parties like the Belgian Vlaams Blok, the French National Front, and the German Republikaner, there is growing unrest and fear in other European countries over the electoral successes of 'like-minded parties'.[...]The question which then presents itself is: What makes parties such as these 'like-minded'? The answer seems evident: right-wing extremism. If we examine the meaning of the term right-wing extremism, however, this answer proves to be insufficient. The harmony and clarity that exist in both the scientific world and the media with regard to the labelling of certain parties as right-wing extremist does not appear in the definition of the concept. As we will see, there are a wide variety of definitions of right-wing extremism. Indeed, most of the authors involved define right-wing extremism as an ideology composed of a combination of several different, and intrinsically complex, features although they differ on the number, type, and combination of features.[...]The question that remains is: What combination of features constitutes right-wing extremism? This question cannot be answered objectively. There is no consensus in the existing literature." (emphasis mine)

I think I have sufficiently proven my claim here. Intangible 19:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You haven't proven anything. We aren't discussing the many types that far right recovers. As you've shown in your deleting frenzy (here and elsewhere), you seem t

[edit] sources for two incidents

One is not sourced, this refers to skinheads who were present at a manifestation of the FN. The other source is a l'Humanité article [23], which says: "Par ailleurs, Me Dominique Tricaud, l’avocat de la famille Bouhoud et de S.O.S.-Racisme, a affirmé vendredi que David Beaune s’était rendu le 18 avril, quelques heures avant le drame, à une réunion du Front national à laquelle participait le secrétaire national de cette formation, Bruno Mégret." Does an utterance made by a lawyer make something automatically factual? Intangible 16:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the murder of Imad Bouhoud is unrelated to the FN? Now that I notice that you read French, I'm sure you can find FN sources which claim this is wrong. If you want to enter into the details of the story, then so be it. You do notice that you're actually helping making this article a better one, do you? Tazmaniacs 16:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the source that could make it relevant to the FN here. Intangible 17:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please make a rational for including these two cased based on some reputable source, otherwise I will remove them per WP:BOLD. Intangible 16:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

L'Humanité is a respectable source, which has the advantage of being freely and easily available. See WP:RS if you have any doubts. Tazmaniacs 15:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not about L'Humanité, but about what is in the sources. The newspaper articles do not support the claims you are making here, so you need either to find other sources that do, or the claims have to be removed. Intangible 16:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sinistrisme

I've added some concerns on that article's talk page. Intangible 19:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it from this article, because the term doesn't seem to be widely used (anymore). Only 164 hits on google. Intangible 15:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Google's hits don't prove anything and it is silly to use them as arguments, in particular in this kind of context. Internet isn't a substitute for library work. Tazmaniacs 15:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Next to its equivocal meaning [24], the term is not used at all in the French language. I found only three articles that mentioned the term in Le Monde (that is, since 1987), and two in l'Humanité (that is, since 1990)... Intangible 16:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The term is used in political sciences, and I don't pretend it to be "common", just to be often used enough and described as such, for ex. by Michel Winock, René Rémond, etc. Tazmaniacs 19:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've put a disputed tag on that article. See all the evidence I've provided on the talk page there. Intangible 14:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Your scepticism on a political and historical phenomenon well known by political scientists in France does not entitle you to remove the term from this page. Take it on on the sinistrisme page as you have done, but I see no reason for you to delete it here, where it explains exactly what one must understand when Le Pen defines himself as "right-wing". In spite of the Rfarbitration against you, you don't seem to consider "behaving", as others users say... Tazmaniacs 13:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Your notion remains WP:OR though. Your synthesis should not be entered into this article. Intangible 12:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intangible Assets

Moved. Intangible was unhappy. Go here --Cberlet 21:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Screwing vs fucking

A detail? Which translation is better, concerning the poster "tu niques la France? alors dégage"? Old translation was "screwed" (see screwing definition and one user changed it to "fuck". Both are similar, which one should we use? See in particular the Jonathan Swift example provided: "Our country landlords, by unmeasurable screwing and racking their tenants, have already reduced the miserable people to a worse condition than the peasants in France." Input? Tazmaniacs 00:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally just ran into this article, and there was no particular political reason why I made the change. I remember seeing that poster in real life, so that's why I thought it was interesting :) Bah, I don't know really. One thing I remember however was that when it was said like that and you ran into it in the street, it seemed really strong you know. The thing is, screwing can also apply to minor stuff like a boss screwing his employees in the sense that he is making them work a lot etc etc. However, with "niquer", it pretty much means really fucking something in a very hard way (even literally), and that was the image that FN wanted to give about immigrants and their relationship to France. Either can work I guess, but I just thought "fucking" conveyed the message of the poster and its original meaning a bit better, that's all. Cheers! Baristarim 01:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The good translation should be: You say "fuck France"... Pull out!
Because the expression "niquer la France" is not a creation of the FN, this is the expresion of the young immigrants who say "(je) nique la France!" (fuck France!). In this poster, the FN is just reusing this popular immigrants expression. Username9 22:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This is no place for voicing such silly un-truths, which either testify of your bad faith or of your ignorance. Tazmaniacs 14:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Defmation League

It is not very constructive to include the point of view of an organization that is a de facto arm of the Israeli government. The opinion of a group which supports war crimes and illegal occupation towards Palestinians is not very interesting. It's baffling how there is an attempt to show bias against National Front while at the same time presenting "Anti-Defamation League" as a somehow objective, neutral force.

So much so that Abraham Foxman, the head of the Anti-Defamation League, one of the ceaseless champions of Zionism in this country,[25]Ploughman

I removed the sentence. There is a wide variety of mainstream, non-controversial sources that accuse the FN of being anti-Semitic. Even more, various FN important figures have been condemned for Holocaust denial, a sure sign of anti-Semitism. Among them, Jean-Marie Le Pen and Bruno Gollnisch. And a quick Google search would easily give examples where Le Pen stigmatized the "Judeo-Masonic conspiracy"... Tazmaniacs 13:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Fnlogo.JPG

Image:Fnlogo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:National Front.gif

Image:National Front.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.