Talk:Christian Democratic Appeal

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christian Democratic Appeal article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

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

Christianity Mid‑importance

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

Conservatism Low‑importance

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

Center-Right or just Center?

The party, while historically on the more conservative side of parliament, has now had the Overton window shift around it to such a degree that is firmly out of the broader right-wing block, in all practicality. Would it not then be more accurate to say it is just Center, or maybe even Center-left? 172.59.187.186 (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources calling them firmly center? Center-left is in any case inaccurate Dajasj (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are and remain (as most religious parties) conservative - which is not necessarily right or left (the Dutch socialist party is e.g. also conservative). They used to be true center but as far as I know never center-left. But in the recent decades they have been definitely been more center-right than true center indeed (and I think there are many sources that would confirm that). Under the new leadership there seems indeed to be the intention to re-orient more towards the center (less right), but whether that has fully been internalised throughout the organisation (and is not only visible with the current party leader) is not very obvious. So yes, some reorientation seems to have started but as Dajasj mentions we need sources that this shift is picked up by reliable secondary analysis as something of substance. Arnoutf (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for ideology and electorate?

Does anyone have good sources for the sections Ideology and Electorate? Particular over longer time? Dajasj (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image abortion

So I found this image which has something to do with abortion and CDA (without simply being protesters in favor of either position). It is a nice way to add images to the political positions section. However, I can't find the book that is being shown in the image. And I am not 100% sure that this book reflects the nuanced position that I have described in the paragraph (CDA wasn't unanimous back then). So if anyone can find some additional context, that would be great. Dajasj (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social conservatism

For future reference, I write this down here. A few sources call CDA "social-conservative", including party leader Bontenbal in 2023. However it does not refer to the definition written down in Social conservatism. Lucardie compares the social conservatism to Communitarianism (and he is reluctant to call CDA social conservative). Bontenbal splits "social conservative" into "Social christian" and "conservative". Both do not align very well with the page Social conservatism. Therefor I have removed mention of the term to avoid confusion. Dajasj (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Highlighting conservative

The lede now highlights again "conservative". However as I note in a later section, the party has not always been conservative and there is still debate whether CDA is actually conservative. The sources provided are all non-Dutch and none of them are from political scientist. I'm not sure whether we should highlight it in this way Dajasj (talk) 06:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have five reliable sources explicitly calling the party conservative. All apart from one from 2017 are within approximately the last five years and two published within the last two years. Therefore, this is clearly a modern take on the party. A party does not always have to have been a certain way for an ideology to be highlighted. While sources from political scientists are preferable, multiple reliable sources saying the same thing is plenty good evidence for highlighting this aspect. Helper201 (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether I find all these sources authoritative on Dutch politics. And I also think it is problematic that there is a focus on recent sources (Wikipedia:Recentism), while you have removed the best source that calls the party centrist. And while it is without a doubt the case that voters are more conservative and it has taken some conservative positions, it is not a conservative party like for example the Conservatives in the UK. As you can read in the article, it has long opposed conservative parties joining the EPP as well. Dajasj (talk) 07:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(And also note that CDA is not mentioned on Conservatism, but that could be fixes) Dajasj (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International media have a tendency to call Christian democratic parties "conservative" to make them more understandable to wider audiences who may not be familiar with the term Christian democracy. Luxorr (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think recentism applies here. It’s not like the sources that call them conservative have sprung up in the last few days, weeks, or even months. On the contrary, we have multiple over the last few years. On the other hand, using a 9-year-old source and a 14-year-old source to refer to the party's current political position is highly problematic (as has been done with the re-addition of centrism). It is cited in the main text that "The party had long been reluctant to call itself conservative,[73] but it has been embraced by Bontenbal in 2023.[74]", so this indicates that these old sources for centrism from 2011 and 2015 could well be outdated when the party was more moderate. The party has undergone multiple leadership changes since 2015, so it’s really not appropriate to be using sources from 2011 and 2015 to indicate how the party is now. Helper201 (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the essay Wikipedia:Recentism correctly, it's about the entire lifespan of a topic. And CDA has not been conservative for its entire existence (if you can truly call it conservative now). But by writing in the introduction that it is conservative, you are suggesting that it has been conservative throughout its history. There is far more room for nuance in the body of the article, while I believe it is sufficient to call CDA Christian Democratic in the introduction. And I agree it is not ideal that I only have older sources, but they are from political scientists and political historians, while the others are from mostly foreign news media. Unfortunately, political scientists don't write a book everyday. (Although parlement.com is updated regularly, so that's not really old, but I'm obviously not sure when they last had a look at it.)

The leadership changes also don't point in one direction. Buma has been more conservative, while its party chair was more progressive. De Jonge was also more left-leaning, while Hoekstra was more right-leaning. The current leader embraces the term conservative, but that isn't really obvious from his political positions in the campaign. It's also: a primary source. It will probably take a few years before we can reliably say something about it.

It's also important to note that being centre-right and being conservative are different things, and having conservative positions is also different from having a conservative ideology. Dajasj (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with nuance and centrism and other ideologies and positions being highlighted as having been consistent with the party in the past. However, the infobox and primary descriptors should reflect how the party currently stands, of which the vast majority of sources that aren't circa ten years old or more refer to them as centre-right and conservative. The lead and infobox should be consistent with this but I also think its fine to say that in the past they have been referred to as centrist. This can be mentioned in the lead and expanded upon in the main body of the page. Helper201 (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any academic sources referring to CDA as a conservative party? Luxorr (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added multiple sources positioning CDA under Bontenbal as centrist, so that should be enough. And there is also this 2022 source which implicitly calls CDA not-conservative (by saying that there are no conservative parties in the Netherlands). Here there is the distinction between having conservative positions or being a conservative party. And for now, most authorative source call CDA christian democratic with conservative positions, but which might be shifting towards conservatism in a more secular world. Dajasj (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luxorr Here you go. Helper201 (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dajasj Sources that don't explicitly state something fall foul of violating WP:SYNTH. Helper201 (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For violating WP:SYNTH, there should be a second source to synthesise. But I checked the source again, and it is actually pretty specific when it comes to CDA and conservatism Dajasj (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It applies to single sources too. To quote the link above, "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". Helper201 (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll just add text in the article stating that CDA is conservative, but that there is no succesful conservative party in the Netherlands ;) Dajasj (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]