Talk:Party for Freedom

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Party for Freedom 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: 3 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 Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force.

Conservatism Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[2006 Dutch general election#Possible coalitions|majority]] The anchor (#Possible coalitions) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Radical right or far-right

I advocate that the position should be "Right-wing to far-right" in the info box. As far as I remember this is how it was labeled for a long time. I cannot verify whether the supporting citation for "radical right" refers to the party specifically as "radical right" or "far-right", as I do not speak Dutch. However there are many sources that refer to the party as "far-right", I'd wager far more than refer to it as "radical right". Helper201 (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't formed an opinion about the terms, but I would like this edit war to be settled, so we can move on to more constructive editing. Could both "radical right" and "far-right" be mentioned in the infobox, each with the appropriate source references, so readers can judge for themselves? — Editør (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Helper201, Harry-Oscar 1812, Lescandinave, Karma1998, Thanhtâm799, DarkKing Rayleigh, and PatbackT: who are some of the editors involved in the dispute. — Editør (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick thought from me: "radical right" and "far-right" are both correct descriptors, but when referring to political positions, Wikipedia only uses "far-left", "left-wing", "centre-left", "centre", "centre-right", "right-wing", or "far-right"; there does exist a distinction between the terms, including in non-English literature on this topic (e.g. distinguishing the "extreme left" from the "radical left" in France), but for the sake of simplicity and consistency, the terms should be considered synonymous in this case – and there is no shortage of sources describing the PVV as a "far-right" party. Mélencron (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Helper201: A quick search of the source in question shows radicaal recht (Dutch for "radical right") used twice and radicall used 39 times. I don't speak Dutch and can't offer much on the context of its use, but I wanted to add a data point to the discussion. @Mélencron: offers a good point on uniformity for political positions on en.Wikipedia pages. A cursory browse of political parties in Australia, Austria, Canada and France shows that to be true. Though I normally side with using the language of the source, I think it's best to stick with the established standard and keep far-right as the descriptor.

I also want to point out User:Harry-Oscar 1812 has been unilaterally changing or adding political positions and ideologies to a number of related pages without citing a source or leaving an edit summary, and then edit warring to maintain those changes. Examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16].

It may be best to warn and escalate to WP:ANI if you run into the same behavior by User:Harry-Oscar 1812 in the future. -- GS ⋙ ☎ 03:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will no longer use this account anyway, I understand to use citations in the future so that won't be neccessary.Harry-Oscar 1812 (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources call this party "far-right" or "extreme right", sometimes "radical right". The latter two are more of a "European" way but it means the same thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, far-right, left, centre?

Hello, I was always taught that in politics, "right" and "left" are strictly economic positions, and that when discussing a party or person's social positions, the correct terms are "conservative" and "progressive", not "right" or "left". Accordingly, I think the info box does not accurately describe the party. I would suggest something along the lines of "Centre-left, anti-(mass) migration, or even "Centre-left, anti-Islamic" as a more accurate description. I'm loathe to start any edit wars, so I am seeking consensus here. Constructive input welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.226.127 (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

PVV-logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of discussion involving this article

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Political parties regarding the inclusion of the party flag in the infobox of this article. The thread is Party flags in infoboxes. Thank you. — Ætoms ^[talk] 23:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is welfare chauvinism needed in the infobox?

Welfare chauvinism is considered a right-wing populist policy/ideology. So is it really necessary? Additionally with Anti-Islam and Anti-immigration/ Sweden Democrats used to have it but it was eventually removed as it was redundant. Also similarly, SD used to support leaving the EU but now it just supports reforming it. A stance (which is said and source in the page) which the PVV now supports. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove welfare chauvinism and keep Anti-Islam and Anti-immigration as it is their core ideology. Shadow4dark (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadow4dark, we need help with simplifying the Conservative People's Party of Estonia's page. Can you help with the editing to shorten the page?

Talk:Conservative People's Party of Estonia - Wikipedia 174.135.36.220 (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to discuss it in the article body.--Jay942942 (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Islam

I was recently reading Koen Vossens "Rondom Wilders" (2013). It highlights how important anti-Islam for the party. Based on this book, which discusses nationalism and populism as separate pillars of the PVV's ideology, I would argue for its inclusion in the infobox. Ps, Europsceptism on the other hand is sufficiently covered by nationalism. Dajasj (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]