Talk:New Zealand First

Party metadata

This New Zealand article has some associated metadata templates to display political party colours and names in election candidate and results tables.

The table below shows the content of these metadata templates.

New Zealand First — political party metadata
Color		Shortname
	#000000	NZ First

Non-white?

Is "non-white" really correct? I'm not from NZ, but I seriously doubt it. I'm guessing these probable racists wouldn't want Russians or French jews coming over either, all of whome are quite clearly white. Even if they are ambivalent about europeans, I bet they'd oppose Turkish immigration.. you may find a non-white Israeli, but you won't find a non-white Turk.

Now if they really do just oppose immigrtion from *specific* places, that should be made more clear, since opposing specific migration patterns usually just means you don't support multi-culturalism but that your also not a racist. But, as it stands, this article basically says this is an abnormally inclusive racist party. JeffBurdges 05:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The party tends to aggravate racial and social tensions in order to appeal to popular support- it's not directly racist as such. The phrase non-white was evidently false as the party's figurehead leader is half-asian, half-maori. The issue as Winston Peters and the party claimed it was that immigration was "out of control" and was "eroding New Zealand's Culture". I edited it closer to NPOV and it's hopefully satisfactory now. --54x 15:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this really needs updating to reflect the party's current situation now I look more deeply into it. Maybe I'll have to find some free time for it- they're now in coalition with Labour. --54x 15:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

NZ First's leader isn't white, he's Maori - although most Maori are perceived as white by non-New Zealanders. Despite Winston Peters' obvious charisma and intellect, NZ-First is not an intellectual party per se. As such Russians or Jews would not really be an issue for NZ-First voters as the party has no cohesive doctrine other than populism. New Zealand doesn't have any substantive history of anti-semitism and it is a nation of immigrants, so the NZ-First party isn't quite comparable to European anti-immigration/nationalist parties. Turks probably wouldn't be much of a problem either because they look much like Greeks or Italians, but just so long as they try to be like "us", don't wear distinguishing clothing or spend too much time at a mosque (preferably not at all). The party strongly plays upon the in-group/out-group dynamic of conservative political psychology.

NZ-First is more of a "sentiment" party - i.e. it panders to people's sentiments and prejudices which Winston Peters then gives a veneer of rationality to. Asians look really different/act really differently and are present in large numbers - so they're more of a threat to your average redneck than a French Jew is. It's basically the same formula that you get anywhere - anti-intellectual populism targetting ethic minorities, criminals/underclass, the "elite" (intellectual or economic), welfare beneficiaries (i.e."bludgers"), blah, blah, blah. Just listen to a typical talk-back radio caller (in any country) and that is NZ-First's target voter: simplistic thinking, self-righteous, slightly paranoid-victim type.

Very roughly speaking, and for the benefit of foreign readers, if you could take the economics of the USA's Democratic Party and splice it onto the social conservatism (minus the religiosity) of the Republican Party - then that would be NZ-First. By European standards NZ-First would be more centre-right than hard-right. It has a "softer" edge -for lack of a better term- than its European counterparts do. Its leader Winston Peters is a former member of NZ's conservatives - The New Zealand National Party. NZ-First's former deputy leader Tau Henare is currently a member of The National Party. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Media criticism

The article presently states:

Much of the New Zealand media[attribution needed] criticised this move [to take the Foreign Minister position] as a withdrawal from Peter's earlier position (outlined in his "Rotorua speech"[1]) that his party would sit on the crossbenches and thus stay out of government, eschewing "the baubles of office".

I think the [attribution needed] can be removed. I doubt that anyone would argue that there wasn't widespread criticism in the media (regardless of whether they think it was deserved). It is not difficult to provide lots of examples, for example NZ Herald, NZ Herald, Scoop (ACT press release), Dominion Post, Sunday Star Times. Not all of these are from the time of Peters' appointment, because it's harder to find stories from 2005, but all refer to the criticism. Would the article gain much if we added all these references to it? It would way overbalance the referencing of the article - that is the only sentence to have a reference now, and adding several more to it is just emphasizing this one moment of Peter's career. Would adding a single reference as an example be sufficient? Or should we reword the sentence to be more specific, saying "X criticised Peters, saying 'blah'[2], and Y joined in with 'blah'[3]..."-gadfium 18:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

One or two references would establish the fact -- I wouldn't worry about unbalancing anything by providing good references. I reacted to the "Much of the media..." formulation, which sounds like weasel-words at the best of times, even when referenced. So I endorse your last suggestion -- we could say something like" "X reacted[1] to Peters' becoming Minister of Foreign Affairs, seeing a change in attitude towards "the baubles of office" since the delivery of the Rotorua speech." -- 60.234.226.62 (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Can you have a go at drafting that?-gadfium 18:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We could say:

Some reaction to Peters' becoming Minister of Foreign Affairs detected a change in his attitude since the "Rotorua speech", which had spoken of sitting on the cross-benches (and thus staying out of government) and eschewing "the baubles of office".

-- 60.234.226.62 (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that's pretty good. Put it in the article.-gadfium 05:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

New MP pages

If anybody is interested in contributing to new MP pages, this collaboration might interest you. Hurry – this must be finished by this Friday. Schwede66 19:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Political Position : Centre?

The New Zealand First Party seems like an center-right or even far-right party.

I agree with this. This party is considered center even though it's policies are right meanwhile the ACT party is considered right while it's policies are more accurately described as center. I'm not sure how all this got so confused when we have pages explaining the differences between left, right & center. GRosado 01:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Could somebody with authority change this please? I feel it's very misleading but if I change somebody may reverse it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.75.182 (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

If is doing a coalition with Labour I kind of doubt is far-right, or it will be a very sui generis far-right party. But its political ideologies as describe in the infobox (nationalism, populism, anti-immigration) does sound far-right. A possibility of course will be, like in other articles, to specify the social position and the economic position (which I guess is more centre-left). Does anyone has more info? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes you will be reverted if you change it. Several reliable sources describe the party as centrist. And there is a general consensus on that description. The reason it is considered a centrist party is because it espouses a mixture of left-wing and right-wing policies:

"It opposes the privatisation of state assets (particularly to overseas buyers) and advocates buying back former state-owned enterprises. This policy aligns it with views generally found on the left of New Zealand politics. On the other hand, it favours reducing taxation and reducing the size of government (policies typical of the New Zealand right) and espouses strongly conservative views on social issues."

References

In terms of economic policies, the party is not aligned with the "right-wing" parties, National and ACT, which favour economic liberalism. --Hazhk (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Well should be notice that if more sources are provide that indicate the party to not be centrist the definition could change or are the very least the infobox should demostrate the different points of view. Wikipedia works on consensus and if there are users that disagree with the current definition they have the right to be heard. I would encourage users who disagree to provide reliable sources otherwise before shuting the discussion ad portas. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm getting sick and tired of progressives calling anti-immigration parties far-right. You're not far-right based on a stance on one issue. They're not even that socially conservative. For example, they support a referendum to fully legalize abortion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.184.167 (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Get tired all you want, Wikipedia is not a forum in any case and ad hominems won't get you anywere. And been socially conservative is not a requirement to be far-right, even Nazism was in favor of abortion in certain cases as several far-right parties in Western Europe are. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a difference between being in favor of legalizing abortion in certain cases and full legalization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.184.167 (talk) 10:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack and abuse removed from above post.-gadfium 18:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, be pro-abortion in any way doesn't pleclude you from been far-right, America is the only country in the world were anti-abortion became a characteristic of the far-right (and even among America's far right there are pro-abortion people), in any case I wasn't saying that NZF was far-right, quite the opposite, I said it was doubtful as is having a coalition with the left but that if an editor wanted to argue about it and present proper references he/she has the right to do it and shouldn't be deny ad portas. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The simple answer is that New Zealand First's position is controversial. Wikipedia should sustain neutrality and accurately reflect the controversy. 49.229.255.251 (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed (and being economically liberal isn't a requirement of being rightwing; the definitions are much more complicated than that). "It's certainly not right to call it a rightwing extremist party, but it is a rightwing party" - NZ-born BBC correspondent speaking on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme 15 March 2019 at 7:12 GMT. 86.186.47.110 (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

A solution could be to revert the position back to "Syncretic", as it seems difficult to define New Zealand First as either left or right given it has positions across the spectrum. There are references listed in the article supporting this.

As we are unable to find sources explicitly referring to the party as "Syncretic", though that seems to be the most accurate definition, it might be best to leave the "position" section blank as is the case with several political parties' pages users have found difficult to define on Wikipiedia (see Australian Labor Party, Democratic Party (United States)) and let the "ideology" section do the talking. This seems to be consistent with the "Ideology and policies" section of the article, which states "Rather than defining the party's precise position on the left–right political spectrum, political commentators simply label New Zealand First as populist." -- Yarrowworks 21:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Wrong. We already have several references (removed without consensus) which explicitly describes the party as “right wing” and “right wing populist”. It doesn’t matter if the party wants to describe itself as centrist, third-party references are what counts.— Autospark (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

NZ First?

Str1977 who does not appear to want to understand the niceties of WP:BRD seems insistent that New Zealand First should be NZ First in the body of the article. Str1977 has given no actual reason for this other than its there alot! I am unsure why it is so important to abbreviate the name in this way, most serious mentions of the party in references appear to always use the full name. Andrewgprout (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, I'm afraid, we have another case of an editor simply reverting without ever stating his objections (a mere "questionable" is cryptic to everybody else) while at the same time assuming to know what another editor is on about. And that even after I twice stated my point. So let's make it clear:

I'm not insistent to call that party "NZ First" in the body of the article. I actually dislike overusing abbreviations. When I first edited this article, it switched back and forth between the full name and the abbreviation. I first replaced the abbreviations with the full name. Later I thought that we can also use the abbreviation, but consistently. So on the name issue I actually favour two alternatives: 1. always use the full name or 2. introduce full name and abbreviation and then use the abbreviation. If others prefer the "always full name" version, I don't mind. Only use it consistently.

The actual point of my edit were the 15 occurences (sometimes three in one paragraph) of "X announced". WP should cover events, not announcements. It is lazy, let's copy news and never look back, kind of writing an article.

Finally, WP:BRD does not dispense those disagreeing with a change from actually making their case. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Political position

“The party's platform is characterised by its strongly restrictive immigration policies, as well as its emphasis on law and order and on popular referenda. New Zealand First takes a centrist position on economic issues, and a social conservative position on social issues.”

Surely that places NZF in the centre-right or right-wing political position. The party isn’t in the centre for sure. Social conservatism, New Zealand nationalism, “law and order” agenda, restricted immigration. It’s clearly right-wing and similar to European right-wing parties such as Law and Justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:E006:ADB:1001:D426:A5FC:B163:1334 (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

They can be right wing one day and left wing the next it's best to just leave them as centre. 122.57.51.114 (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Post 2017 NZ First

Prior to 2017 you could call NZ First a nationalist party, social conservative party or anti immigration party. This is not true anymore and Winston Peters/NZ First has not made anti immigrant statements or done anything nationalist for the past few years because he's part of the labour coalition. These words no longer describe the party so it's misleading to leave them up there. Prior to 2017 sure but not now and not till the 2020 election where they might be these things again. 122.57.51.76 (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Based on what sources?Charles (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted because they are a more of a personal point-of-view rather than verified content. Please also apply good faith towards other editors and don't post bogus warnings on their talk pages. Ajf773 (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for using the talk page rather than just shouting down something you don't like as trolling. Charlesdrakew, it's quite hard for me to prove a negative but according to NZ First's coalition agreement and policies on their own website they aren't anti immigrant they're in fact pro immigrant because of "skills shortages" and Section 8 of . This is not how it was before the 2017 election, their website has changed so their wikipedia article should also reflect those changes and make it clear in the body of the article that they have changed. I can't find anything that would be considered Social Conservative so i removed that as well. Removing Nationalist may be a stretch so if you can provide sources that they are still Nationalist i'll remove that from the edit. 122.57.56.29 (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I would be very careful taking references directly from WP:PRIMARY sources. Has the Leopard changed its spots? My guess is probably not despite what they now say - time will tell. What we need here is significant high quality secondary references confirming and discussing the reality and practicalities of such a change in direction. Your current suggested changes could be considered WP:SYNTHESIS and even if valid the change must be discussed in such a way that the change is discussed in relation to former policies not simply replacing them. I could see something like "the party modified some of its more extremist policies as a part of their coalition agreement with Labour... after the 2017 election...." being entirely acceptable if properly referenced.

And WP:BURDEN is clear that it is you that needs to prove (and reference) the changes you want to make, please keep that in mind. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPGROUP WP:GRAPEVINE Also apply here so we also need to prove that the Leopard hasn't changed its spots. According to i find that highly unlikely though. 122.57.56.29 (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted some changes. There is no consensus for introducing words such as "formerly" into the lead. In fact opposition has been voiced by several contributors. @122.57.56.29: If you don't believe the descriptions are accurate then you should be removing them; however, you can't remove them because you have no sources to reference. Do you have any articles that describe a shift in the part's principles? --Hazhk (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Expand New Zealand First § Foundation

Would be great if someone could expand on the events of the party's foundation. I just expanded the lead of Ian Peters a little (diff), but seeking more info on the Nat -> NZF transition I saw that Ian (nor the other brother, Ron) was not mentioned at all on this article. It would be worth mentioning any other members who followed Winston too, but my knowledge of those events is... sparse. — HTGS (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Party colours

Aréat what sources say they use black and dark blue? Helper201 (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

This one from the parliament come to mind. See the gallery at the bottom.--Aréat (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Well it doesn't actually "say" this is the party's official colour but it’s obviously better than nothing. We still have no sources that state dark blue, nor is it used at all in the party's logo. Dark blue should absolutely be removed from the infobox as its purely original research. Helper201 (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of dark blue. I don't recall ever seeing it used. We could also use the mention (customary) next to black. It is very frequent on wiki pages about party to do so. Do note also that some others NZ party pages such as New Zealand National Party have their logo differ somewhat in shade. But it would be very impractical to change dozen of maps, diagrams and polls graphs over many decades of election everytime the logo slightly change the color used. --Aréat (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to say I was surprised to see the dark blue in the infobox. I think it would be fine to list just black, without sourcing for grey of any sort. Black is how they have always been represented, and although I have no problem with shifting infobox or template colours to grey, I don’t think we can justify saying it out loud without sources. — HTGS (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Political position consensus

As the party is most likely to be included within the new NZ government. I think it would be good that we get a consensus on the political position. I think it would be greatly beneficial to the page for that to be done. There can be various ways we can do it, as the party is not specifically one position clearly. Such as like:

- Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht - a footnote - this party could also be seen as similar to NZ first (populist/left-leaning economics with right-leaning social - and the consensus for that party page is to have a footnote)

- Christian Union (Netherlands) - separate sections for political position (fiscal and social sections - I know this page used to have that as well and I'm unsure to why it was removed)

- Malawi Congress Party - have a "factions" part in political position.

I think having one of these is far better than leaving it blank as of currently. Especially since this party will be in government as mentioned before (plus is a major playmaker in government coalition discussions). ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, firstly the party can’t be compared directly to BSW, as it’s not socialist in nature, and footnotes should be avoided in Infoboxes. Secondly, I’m strongly against the “fiscal and social” split for Infoboxes, as it almost always is based on conjecture and WP:SYNTH in articles I’ve seen. Thirdly, party factions should be described in the article body, using clear references, not the Infobox (and to be honest, NZ First is more of a personality/leader based party than a multifaction big tent party).—Autospark (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

It will be the third time the party is in a coalition, with either the left or the right. It's not a situation which demand a change. The party is a centrist populist one, which allow it to make such alliance. I find the lead portraying it well. It wasn't a good change to remive it from the infobox, though.--Aréat (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It should be added back. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't like the split in the infobox either. I very rarely see it as well. Could NZF be compared to ANO 2011 in Czechia then? A populist centrist party (even though Babis is friends with Orban and goes to CPAC as of lately and is shifting right. And old members have left the party).

Also I do rarely see a factions section within parties infoboxes, so I do think it should be avoided in this case as well (I only see it in huge parties such as the GOP and etc. Or big alliances such as the People's Alliance (Turkey)).

But footnotes are very common and I think it would compliment this page well along side with the current consensus. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I have two opinions: 1) anyone looking to change the ideology should bring a clear list of citations (and quotes from within them) that explain NZF’s political ideology/position. And 2) if there is too much disagreement about ideology in the infobox, that parameter should just be removed. The infobox is only there to summarise the basics in a quick, clear manner; if that cannot be done, then readers will simply have to actually read the prose to find out what NZF stands for. — HTGS (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I think there is a consensus. I was just curious to why it was removed to swiftly. As I thought it was useful. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

First, I get a real sense that people here don't understand how referencing and the political spectrum works. There's nothing preventing the party being categorised as "right-wing" despite being formerly in coalition with the centre-left NZ Labour Party. (FWIW, I'd place NZ First as a conservative party, but more in the style of a postwar, pre-neoliberal conservative party, more open to protectionism and less open to laissez-faire.)--Autospark (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

A paleo- or national-conservative party, indeed! By the way, the NZF is surely a right-wing party. --Checco (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment of the party’s ideology, quite honestly. In the position field I would place “right-wing”.— Autospark (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Great. Now can we see the independent reliable sources that support that position? — HTGS (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

There are already plenty of references in the article body to the party being right-wing.— Autospark (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

We should easily go with "right-wing", per consensus and sources. --Checco (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree the party has policy more right of centre and in the evolving political climate, it has drifted more from centrist. Also remember where NZF grew out of.. the National Party

It's also common to use two sections in describing position e.g

Fiscal: Centre

Social: Right-wing

or "Syncretic" it's pretty common either way but defining position in two parts is more common than leaving it blank when all other NZ political parties are defined. No one thinks it is left, most think it's right based on consensus here. Jamessumnergoodwin (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Its best we leave this out of the infobox and explain things with nuance in the main text, due to the array of cited information on the matter in the main text. Helper201 (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Overwhelming support in the three sections here put preference for position to be "right-wing" and if you're a political analyst (which I am) it's quite obvious that based on party policy and positions, NZF is definitely a centre-right to right-wing party. The 2023 NZ general election really shines a light on where NZF sits in the political climate. Further reference is the party relaunch in 2022, there are countless articles written by credible publications covering activities of NZF and their renewed charge. Right-wing it is. J_S (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

No position or Syncretic, undefinable as it's pure populism with social conservative policies peppered in. Broad Consensus wasn't reached. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 02:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Scroll up, broad consensus clearly reached. J_S (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I did, tentative consensus at best, 3 people loosely supporting it isn't "broad". – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 03:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

7 people in the discussion out of 11 is a majority and the only requirement for changing or defining the position is to have consensus on the talk page which is what has occured. J_S (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Autospark, Checco, and you are the only 3 people actively supporting it, the discussion was also never closed and was months old by the time it was acted upon. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 03:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget ZlatanSweden. There's no-one calling for left wing and what gives you the right to come in and suddenly change it up? J_S (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

"Nobody calling for left-wing" means nothing, not enough people are calling for "right-wing", that's why I came in and reverted it. Zlatan was not actively campaigning for right-wing, just willing to accept what appeared to be consensus, and why do you keep removing "populism"? There was never consensus for its removal. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 04:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I never removed populism? I am reverting your position altering which is just petty. An agreement or "consensus" was ascertained by majority support and Zlatan calls it "conservative" which is close enough. Again.. What gives your 1 opposition to position precedence over a majority of us here.. ? J_S (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I've had a stressful day and I'm overreacting, I get petty and opinionated when I'm emotionally heightened but I shouldn't be starting an edit war over it. I'm sorry, I just felt like this came out of nowhere and it bugged me, but I was wrong. I thought it was a newer change than it was, and it for some reason just really got on my nerves. I need to just take a break and relax for a bit. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 06:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I won't remove nor attempt to remove populism as I agree it's well established as part of the party. J_S (talk) 06:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Retain right-wing for position and nationalism and social conservatism for ideologies. We shouldn't include populism or right-wing populism, as both are well cited we shouldn't weight in favour of one or the other. Helper201 (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Are we happy this discussion can be closed and position put to "right-wing" permanently? J_S (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead, it's consensus – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 02:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Helper201 We shouldn't include populism or right-wing populism, as both are well cited we shouldn't weight in favour of one or the other. Suggesting that because the party has been described as both, we should list neither is a pretty wild take. — HTGS (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

HTGS GlowstoneUnknown Using neither populism nor right-wing populism complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If we use one over the other it’s just going to lead to bickering and edit warring over, "we should use populism", "no, we should use right-wing populism" etc. As editors we should be as neutral as possible and not let our own views determine such things. Both positions are well cited with multiple sources, so it’s not like its heavily weighted in favour of one or the other, if it were then perhaps we could go with one over the other. I still respect having both populism and right-wing populism cited and covered in the ideology section of the main text, just not the infobox. I think this allows for nuance and explanation, rather than the either or approach of the infobox that's only going to lead to conflict an disputes, doesn't allow for nuance and places too much power in the hands of editors, therefore not complying with neutrality. Helper201 (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The infobox and short description both say right-wing though? I don't see how not listing populism is useful to the reader. Between “right-wing populism” and (effectively) “right-wing, populism” I can’t say I would really care.

Side note: it is hard to walk away from reading New Zealand First#Ideology and policies and feel like “right-wing” should be in the infobox on its own. The more responsible approach would be to describe the state of viewpoints in prose, instead of trying to force the simplistic label into the infobox. I don’t see a real consensus for its inclusion at this point either.

Side, side note (and hopefully less controversial): I really dislike that we have “right-wing” in the infobox and SD, but not in the lead. — HTGS (talk) 01:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Classifying NZ First as rightwing is merely an opinion based on some citations, while disregarding other citations that explicitly analyze NZ First's classification of being rightwing, and outright deny it.

It is true nothing stops a party being in a coalition with any other, but a truly rightwing party would not choose to enter a coalition with an ideological opponent... Labour and New Zealand First entered a coalition together because they are not. You just need to recall Peters' 2017 speech, an attack on right and its neo-liberalism. Thinking of NZ First as a conservative party in a much older way, indeed, is a better classification, such as red toryism shown by some leaders of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. But this is not typical rightwing ideology in the modern world, some might call that centre right but certainly not hard rightwing.

Mentions that NZ First formed from National MPs is redundant. Some, though not all, original NZF members left National and joined NZ First because both National and Labour deviated from more leftwing and socialized economic policy. Over the 1993-96 term more MPs from National and Labour joined the party. More recently, the deputy leader of NZF was once considered to be a potential Labour Party leader and as seen at the 2024 NZF AGM, one of three guests speakers was a Union leader and Winston's address had clear attacks on the modern Labour party while praising it as it was in the past. NZ First clearly wants to be a party of the working class, a successor to Old Labour. This again, is not rightwing in the modern sense of the word... nor the old.

The comparison to the German BSW is fine. It opposes globalisation, green politics, immigration, trans rights, "elites", and general "wokeism" of the rest of the progressive left which are identified as urban academia. Economic views include economic interventionism and welfare social benefits, while avoiding taxes on assets and inheritances. They're for fixing old infrastructure and against multinational corporations. Extremely similar to NZ First. "Political scientist Thorsten Holzhauser classifies the party as syncretic, arguing that the party is not a classic left-wing or socialist party but represents, among others, some social-democratic, conservative and even ordoliberal positions." The BSW is considered Left-wing to far-left on Wikipedia. Another comparison may be the Social Democrats in Denmark classified as Centre-left and NZF is not even far off from the Socialist Party in the Netherlands. NZ First's economic position is arguable, but in many aspects there are economic similarities (as well as social) with these three parties.

New Zealand is a different country though and these kind of populist and syncretic ideologies do not have the same place here. Nonetheless academic Professor Todd Donovan still argues NZ First is neither radical nor right-wing. Even on many social issues NZ First is not actively promoting social conservatism, but referenda and direct democracy. The party is rather moderate and unideological. Perhaps if New Zealand First were more radical it would be easier to identify NZ First's political position but being moderate obscures it. Centrism, syncretism, and/or populism are better ideologies for NZ First than rightwing. If this is not recognized, then I would favour removing the Political Position from the infobox entirely, for readers to read more accurate information further on in the page. - 202.36.244.243 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Lead

The lead length is huge after a recent IP edit... and will certainly be uncomfotrable to read for a general reader. There also shouldn't be citations in the lead if it's already covered in the body. I prefer to focus on other articles at the momment, but someone may want to trim the lead to make it easier to read. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 03:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Im sure we can trim it down but i felt that Māori conservatism and anti-co governance should have been mentioned in the lead. 222.152.26.228 (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 03:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, while we're on the subject, can anyone find a citation for "syncretic" for the party's political position? There seems to have been so much debate in recent years about which label fits, so much that there isn't even one in the box. But syncretic would describe the economic nationalism and right wing populism 222.152.26.228 (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Political position in infobox

I am going to remove the political position from the infobox. I see no clear consensus, it is a temptation for endless dispute, and most importantly, the body of the article is not clear on the label of Right-wing. There is no need to include anything in this parameter of the infobox; the infobox is for clear, quick and easy summaries that are uncontroversial and helpful at first glance, not for labels that are openly disputed in the body. — HTGS (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep it as right-wing. The vast majority of sources that call it centrist are very old (i.e. 2004, 2008 and 2012). Only one is from the last 10 years in a source from 2018. See WP:AGEMATTERS. Helper201 (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

To assume good faith, I have to assume you haven’t actually read the article.

Conversely, academic Professor Todd Donovan argued in 2020 that "radical right / right-wing populist" is a misclassification of New Zealand First because it is neither radical nor right-wing.

The point is not that they are centrist, but that their position isn’t clear enough to put it in the infobox. The lead must reflect the body, and at the moment it doesn’t. — HTGS (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

And cited to a 2021 source: New Zealand First takes a broadly centrist and interventionist position on economic issues and a socially conservative position on moral issues. — HTGS (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

That may well be his view, conversely we have five sources that call the party right-wing from the last five years. The professor doesn't from what you noted explicitly call them a centrist party either. You saying they are centrist is your own view and there are multiple recent and reliable sources to the contrary. To the second quote, it violates WP:SYNTH in regards to not calling the party as a whole centrist, its calling its position specifically on economic issues centrist only. I'd invite Autospark to give their thoughts on the matter, since they have thanked me for my edits on this page regarding this situation. Helper201 (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the situation. I do not think the party is centrist. I do not want the infobox to say in any simple way that the party is centrist. But equally, I do not think it is helpful to list the party as simply right-wing. I think the infobox should not list a simple label on the party when sources both past and modern are split on the question. Sythesis, or original research, more accurately describes the decision to pick a left–right label based on your selected sources. — HTGS (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your overall assessment, Helper201. After all, party can be centrist and some issues and right-leaning on other issues, and be considered more the latter rather than wholly centrist. In the case of NZ First, it is a right-leaning populist party which is more open to economic interventionism on certain specific policy issues, rather than a centrist party.— Autospark (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it is too hard to define for it to be included in the infobox. The body can do a better job accurately representing their position. And we go with academic professors over journalists for definitions too. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I will add, as much as personally, I would have the parameter blank, it seems likely that readers will arrive to the page wanting to be told what position the party is, and be confused if they can’t find a simple right, left or centre there, so it may be most sensible to direct them to the relevant section. — HTGS (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and the infobox’s status quo is to have this parameter blank. That was the case up until it was changed in (I think) July this year, following the above discussion where I see no consensus reached. If anyone wants to add a position, at this point it should probably go to an RfC. — HTGS (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

There was consensus to the point that for over 8 months nobody was making a big deal or having a tantrum, Where did you come from all of a sudden? I think the answer is really fucking simple. This is what parties like NZF have on their wiki infobox

Social Right-wing

'Fiscal Centre

There are examples like Al Jama-ah in South Africa, Justicialista Party of Argentina, SODELPA in Fiji.

Or put it as syncretic.. There are many different formats used globally and some may take into account changes over time.

' Rhodesian101 (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

What you suggest would be OR. Having no mention in the infobox is best. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Syncretic Rhodesian101 (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Undeniable that the party is a mixture of conservatism of old pre-1985 National Party and the economics of protectionism which is not strictly left but often has centre-left movements using parts of the philosophy Rhodesian101 (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)