Talk:Progress Party (Norway)

Far-right designation

I have found some sources that describe the party as far-right. I know this issue might have some multiple diputes. So I'm making this disccussion on the talk page to discuss whether the party is far-right or not. I hope many users join the talk and reveal their input about the issue. Jeff6045 00:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff6045 (talk • contribs)

The Progress Party is deeply resented by Norwegian socialist left.[1] It has been described with all sorts of unpleasantries, some subtle and some barely printable. Heptor (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me. My sources have no relevant with 'Socialist left'. Here are some sources that describe the party as far-right.Jeff6045 (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

As with the above-discussed "populist" label, the labels that are mentioned here are controversial and contentious. The policy of Wikpedia is to avoid the use of such labels unless they are widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution is recommended. The two articles that were brought forward do not represent the depth of the political debate on the topic. They both are articles in the foreign press written by journalists with little connection to Norway; characteristically, they only mention the Progress Party in passing. Conversely, the Progress Party itself has no stated objective of prohibiting migration, and describe their own policy merely as restrictive. An article in Aftenposten by a Torstein Ulserød, a Norwegian jurist, compares the immigration policy of the Progress Party with that of the Centre Party, and finds the differences to be mostly in rhetorics. Heptor (talk) 11:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

It's well established by reliable sources. // Liftarn (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Liftarn. English sources overwhelmingly describe the party as either far-right or right-wing populist; in fact far-right appears to be the more common descriptor in English language sources. Whether the party describes itself as far-right is immaterial (no party really does that). Other articles on comparable parties such as Alternative for Germany offer guidance on the best way to phrase the first sentence in this case; Alternative for Germany is described in the first sentence as "a right-wing to far-right political party in Germany", which is exactly what the sources support in the case of the Progress Party too. The edit-warring IP 85.165.169.50, now blocked for persistent edit-warring and "falsely claiming consensus"[2], hasn't offered any reasons for removing these descriptors and the sources. I don't see any consensus for the removal of this material either; the only editors who have participated in discussion since the material was added were Liftarn and myself; there have also been significant developments in the party's political orientation earlier this year with the mentioned "patriotic beacon" resolution outlining a hardline anti-immigrant policy, so older discussions aren't really very relevant to this issue (the perception of AfD has also changed over time). --Egulbrandsen (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

AfD and Frp are miles apart. Frp are more similar to Reform UK than AfD. And Reform does not have a far-right label. Laddmeister (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, the claim that the party "describes their own policy merely as restrictive" is irrelevant; Wikipedia is not the website of the Progress Party; I'm sure Alternative for Germany wouldn't agree with our or the media's portrayal of them either. The claim that "the Progress Party itself has no stated objective of prohibiting migration" is patently untrue; its largest and most important chapter by far (the Oslo chapter) and several of its elected MPs have explicitly called for a "total ban" on "non-western immigration" and a referendum over non-western immigration, and the Oslo chapter has adopted a policy aimed at making Norway what they call "a patriotic beacon" based on anti-immigration, climate change denial and "Norway first" politics; some MPs are eager to cooperate with the Sweden Democrats too; these views officially held by the largest chapter of the Progress Party and stated publicly by several of its MPs (as phrased by an MP: "Vi vil være tydelige på at klimaendringene ikke er menneskeskapte og ha total stans i ikke-vestlig innvandring"; ["we must be clear that climate change isn't man-made and that we want a total stop to non-western immigration"]) are clearly as far-right and anti-immigration as humanly possible. A phrase like "right-wing to far-right" takes into account that there are different wings of the party, and that some elements are clearly regarded as far-right, while other politicians may have less extreme (right-wing) views; mentioning far-right only as the second, alternative descriptor, after right-wing, is a very mild treatment of the party, based on precedent set in other articles (AfD etc.) and numerous sources. --Egulbrandsen (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I do notice that there have been sources saying that the national conservatives within the party have slowly been taking over from the libertarians. Ezhao02 (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Taking over would be taking it too far. There was always a tension between the national conservatives and the libertarians within the party. Heptor (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

These nationalists were a minority faction. And most of them have split to join the Norwegian Democrats, who are far to the right of Frp. Laddmeister (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

What a NYT journalists writes are not considered as a reliable source. On established political parties you use political scientists as sources. Far-right is the ideology connected to nazism, fascism, ultranationalism, anti-democratic and anti-liberal parties. Progress party is a conservative-liberal party on the right wing. They embrace democracy, classical liberal values and the rule of law. They have nothing in common with far-right parties.

Far-right politics Laddmeister (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

As a person placed fiercely on the Norwegian left who voted for the Red Party in both of the two last elections, I think I am unlikely to be very biased in favour of the FrP, but I think Egulbrandsen should refrain from adding these labels to the article. Obviously, the FrP doesn't describe themselves as "far-right", but such designations of the party are generally rare in Norway from others as well (including from the left). There is a difference between the FrP and the far-right parties in the rest of Europe. It's more a mix between a traditional right-wing conservative or liberalist party, on the one hand, and a right-wing populist party, on the other hand. The party's actual immigration policy is slightly more restrictive than that of the Conservative, Labour and Centre Party, but actually not by that much. The main difference from those parties is on emphasis and rethoric - the FrP sees a more restrictive immigration policy as one of the most important of its political targets. Many of its politicians are using very typical right-wing populist (yet not openly racist) anti-immigration rethoric. Yet, designating it as far-right is a bit far-fetched. Reports in foreign media is of limited importance as they are far from always accurate, neither on Norwegian politics or on other things. The statements made by the Oslo chapter is not the position of the party as a whole. Designating the party as a whole as extremist based on an analysis of the views of a minority within the party is not something an encyclopedia can do - this would be POV and OR, and hence unacceptable. Furthermore, the Oslo chapter appears to be sort of a "rebel chapter" within the party - this summer, they attempted to stage some sort of "coup" against Siv Jensen, which led several other chapters to demand that the party leadership abolished the Oslo chapter. Its views on climate change has also changed during the last decade, and practically the entire party leadership acknowledges it (although it doesn't appear to be a main issue for the party). Furthermore, I am not certain that environmental questions are appropriate to grade on the right/left spectrum. The far-right designation is also mentioned in the second paragraph of the introduction: "It is often described as populist, right-wing populist and sometimes far-right by academics, political commentators and foriegn media". I think that should be sufficient. If a label like "far-right" should be introduced, it must be backed by a considerable consensus, and it isn't. --Te og kaker (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

What matter is what reliable sources say, not what you think. // Liftarn (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

We've been through this discussion many times before, there is no consensus in the sources for the label that you propose. There was an RfC on this, please establish a new consensus. Heptor (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

No, you need to discuss first. Although, since your edits are apparently based on your personal opinions and ideas rather than the sources, I doubt there is much to discuss. When the vast majority of English language sources describe the party as either far-right or right-wing populist, that's the descriptors that we use. Regarding your description of the party as "liberal": Some of its own key politicians, MPs, its largest chapter, its principal founding figure vehemently deny that the party has anything to do with liberalism. It is not commonly regarded as liberal in a scholarly context either. --Egulbrandsen (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you comment on the section above and the references cited therein? Heptor (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

This was addressed already in the more recent discussion, and your three sources, not of very high quality, one of them self-published by the party, doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of English reliable sources describe the party as far-right, anti-immigration and/or right-wing populist, not as "liberal." --Egulbrandsen (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

How did you arrive to the conclusion that these sources were not of the highest possible quality? As mentioned there, these are articles by a Norwegian professor of public policy from a reputable Norwegian university (titled "Don't call the Progress Party Populist"), an evaluation the leader of a major Norwegian think tank and a few others. You can also check a somewhat dated Hagelund, Anniken (May 2001). "A Matter of Decency? The Progress Party in Norwegian Immigration Politics". Sussex Migration Working Papers.. Citing a relevant passage Adjectives such as anti-immigration, rightwing, populist, new right are often used to describe the party, and can certainly provide the first few indications of what kind of political party this iss. But [...]. Heptor (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I think there's also the issue of WP:WEIGHT. The sources denying the "far-right" descriptor are in the minority here. Ezhao02 (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

No, the party is not far-right and it's not even populist right anymore.

Source: Professor in political science Anders Todal Jenssen.

"The Progress Party has undergone a change of heart. Today's FRP has lost several of the characteristics of far-right populism and should be perceived as a market-liberal right-wing party"

https://www.idunn.no/doi/epdf/10.18261/issn.1504-3053-2017-03-02 Laddmeister (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The summary of the linked paper refers to right-wing populism (høyrepopulismens), not "far-right populism"; the article already mentions that the Progress Party's right-wing populism has been disputed. Furthermore, a party does not need to be populist to be far-right, and the far-right descriptor is amply and reliably sourced in Special:Permalink/1226422304 § cite note-far-right-16. If you have access to the paper (which is paywalled) and not only the six-sentence summary that is available publicly, could you please post the relevant quotes for verification? — Newslinger talk 10:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Also an issue of wp:label. Heptor (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Far-right descriptor

In Special:Diff/1173915485, language has been reintroduced to the article explaining that the Progress Party has also been described as far-right. I agree with this content addition, since the neutral point of view policy requires the article to cover "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", and there was no valid policy-based argument for excluding the far-right descriptor from the article.

I've removed the text describing the Progress Party as "most moderate" in Wikipedia's voice in Special:Diff/1176484626/1178021777, since that language is contradicted by the reliable sources that describe the Progress Party as far-right. — Newslinger talk 03:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a footnote like on the political position (similar to Swiss People's Party's page) could be added in the future? Perhaps it could be added now too if you feel it could be with the appropriate sources you've found. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the addition and I've attached the same inline citation to the footnote. — Newslinger talk 19:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Why clog up the Infobox (which already has too much listed in the adjacent Ideology field)? The mention of the party’s description as far-right by some sources is already mentioned in the lede and “Ideology and political position” section.— Autospark (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Now that the "Political position" field reads "Right-wing to far-right", I've removed the footnote to simplify the infobox. "Right-wing to far-right" does appear to be the most common way to indicate in the infobox when a political party is described as both right-wing and far-right; see Brothers of Italy, Freedom Party of Austria, and Greek Solution for a few examples. — Newslinger talk 18:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

That’s a recent trend, sticking footnotes in Infoboxes when the same information can and should be communicated in the article lede and relevant subsections, and one I think needs to be reversed.— Autospark (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

At least in this article, it seems like footnotes were used as a half-step or equivocation when there were sufficient reliable sources to support a descriptor, but enough editors opposed that descriptor despite the presence of these sources. It doesn't look like we have that issue right now. — Newslinger talk 05:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not about rejecting a "descriptor" or not, it's about whether to place it in the Infobox. Infoboxes should be kept as minimal as possible. The far-right descriptor is a perfectly valid one in this case, based on reliable sources – the issue is whether it should be in the Infobox as well as the article body.-- Autospark (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The party is not and have never been far right. The far-right party in Norway is the Norwegian Democrats, who split from Frp because their memberships were suspended. Frp is a market-liberal right wing party. I don't care about journalist labels, but here is an article from a professor of politics in Norway who writes about Frp being a typical right-wing party, and he even disputes the populist-label.

https://www.idunn.no/doi/10.18261/issn.1504-3053-2017-03-02 Laddmeister (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The article already mentions that the Progress Party's right-wing populism has been disputed. The academic sources in Special:Permalink/1226422304 § cite note-far-right-16 amply and reliably substantiate that the party "has been described by academics as far-right". The party being right-wing does not contradict it also being far-right, since the far-right is a subset of the right-wing. Since the linked paper is paywalled, are you able to provide relevant quotes for verification? — Newslinger talk 08:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. As I commented in another post on this issue:

Source: Professor in political science with the University of Oslo: Anders Todal Jenssen.

"The Progress Party has undergone a change of heart. Today's FRP has lost several of the characteristics of far-right populism and should be perceived as a market-liberal right-wing party"

Laddmeister (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

As I said in the other section, the summary of the linked paper uses the term right-wing populism (høyrepopulismens), not "far-right populism". Are you relying solely on the six-sentence summary that is available for free, or do you have access to the actual paywalled paper? — Newslinger talk 10:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I have the article. Here is some qotes from the article:

START OF QUOTES:

"FRP has undergone a change of heart. Today's FRP has lost several of the characteristics of right-wing populism and should be perceived as a market-liberal right-wing party.

...

FRP has always distanced itself from right-wing populist parties with which it has not wanted to be compared. Several researchers have also problematized the FRP's position in the right-wing populist party family. Frps and Høyre's (centre-right conservatives) voters have become more similar both with regard to social characteristics and attitudes.

...

He (Cas Mudde) defines populism as an "ideology which perceives society as divided into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, 'the real people' versus 'the corrupt elite', and which argues that politics should be an expression of the general will, the will of the people »

...

The family of right-wing populist parties has always been heterogeneous, and the Progress Party has often been portrayed as a moderate variant within the category. The question in this article is whether the FRP has undergone a metamorphosis from right-wing populism to market liberalism, that the FRP has left the family of right-wing populist parties and should rather be considered a right-wing party.

...

The party's position in economic policy throughout the 1990s can be described as an original mixture of market liberalism and ambitious welfare goals.

...

If we go back to Jager and Walgrave's (2007: 334) three characteristics of right-wing populism: the description of the people as homogeneous, elite criticism and exclusion of outgroups, with the FRP only the last characteristic remains. Thus, it is obvious that today's FRP can hardly be called right-wing populist."

END OF QUOTES

Professor Anders Jenssen is clearly adressing the claim that FRP is a populist party. They certainly have their roots in populism, but shouldnt be adressed as such anymore. He doesnt directly adress the far-right claim, since the claim that FRP is a far-right party has long been discarded in norwegian political academics. If you look at the sources in the wiki-page here it's foreign political academics who claims that FRP is a far-right party. Anders Jenssen clearly portaits FRP as a moderate party on the right. They both accept the rules of liberal democracy and embrace civil liberties.

So what does Wikipedia tell us about far-right politics?

"Far-right politics, or right-wing extremism, is a spectrum of political thought that tends to be radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian, often also including nativist tendencies. The name derives from the left–right political spectrum, with the "far right" considered further from center than the standard political right.

Historically, "far-right politics" has been used to describe the experiences of fascism, Nazism, and Falangism. Contemporary definitions now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views.

Far-right politics have led to oppression, political violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing, and genocide against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state, national religion, dominant culture, or conservative social institutions."

It's very clear that this illiberalism and anti-democratic label does not fit the Frp. They're right wing, but they're clearly not far-right. Laddmeister (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the quotes and translation. That paper can certainly be cited to bolster the claim that the Progress Party's right-wing populist description has been disputed. However, the paper does not dispute that the Progress Party "has been described by academics as far-right", which is supported by multiple academic sources in Special:Permalink/1226422304 § cite note-far-right-16. The extent of the Progress Party's populism is orthogonal to the Progress Party's position on the left–right political spectrum. — Newslinger talk 10:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you looked at the sources in the wiki-article that supports the claim that FRP is a far-right party? One source is Mette Wiggen on the page "Open Democracy". Open Democracy isnt an academic paper, it's a left-wing activism organization ran by several Labour affiliates. Which is fine, but it's not an academic source. Mette Wiggen is an academic in Leeds, but she's also a left wing activist. Which is fine, but it clearly clouds her writings with some anti-right wing bias. Portaiting parties as far-right and far-left is a well known tactic to smear political opponents. The Red Party is Norway are suffering from the same, where people who oppose them call them far-left, while they mostly are considered as a left-wing socialist party. Mette Wiggen has for example a facebook-picture of herself with the label "fucking socialist", which was a socialist-left response in Norway to the leader of Frp who called left wingers "fucking socialists". Clear bias there. https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=2208154385931612&set=a.102836696463402&locale=nb_NO

She's also advocating for BDS on her page. Frp is a pro-israel party.

In the article quoted she doesnt explain why Frp is a far-right party. She just labels them as that. Thats a very dubious source for such a claim.

Next source: Bridge, a georgetown university initiative. Another activist group disguising themselves as academics. No name on the source, but Bridge calls themselves "The Bridge Initiative is a multi-year research project on Islamophobia". Like Wiggen, they dont explain what makes Frp far-right. They just claim that it is. Dubious source. They even use Jacobin as a source. A political socialist activist online newspaper.

The other sources are either locked, very dated or/and written by non-norwegian academics on far-right generally, not on Frp specifically. Unless a norwegian political science academic can support the claim that Frp is a far-right party, which they wont, I would dare say that there is no reason why such a slur should be posted on the wiki-page. Again, I've pointed to the reasons why Frp doesnt fit in the far-right. They're not anti-democracy, not anti-civil rights. And they're described as moderate right wing by professor Jenssen. Laddmeister (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I've read all of the cited sources. Twist (2019), Niklasson (2018), and Ivarsflaten (2022) are academic sources that are all newer than the Jenssen (2017) paper you quoted. The other cited academic sources include van Spanje (2011), Lazaridis (2015), and Madeley (1990), which cover a wide time span. The nationality of an author is irrelevant to the reliability of their works, but I'll still point out that Herdis Hølleland (Niklasson's co-author) and Elisabeth Ivarsflaten are Norwegian academics. The term far-right is a standard political descriptor that represents a place on the left–right political spectrum, not a slur. Your personal opinion on the party cannot be taken into consideration, per the policy against original research. — Newslinger talk 12:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I just read the chapter ny Ivarsflaten cited in 2022. She writes here the following:

"The Norwegian party system has more than four parties, but we have chosen to focus on the two main traditional parties of the right and left (Høyre and Arbeiderpartiet) and the two main challenger parties on the far right and the far left (Fremskrittspartiet and Sosialistisk Venstreparti). We do so to maintain a parsimonious analysis and facilitate comparisons to other European multiparty systems."

The Sosialistisk Venstreparty has never, as far as I know, been accused of being far-left. Because they are not. They are in this comparative analysis using the term "left and right" for the centre-left and centre-right parties, and "far left and far right" for the wing parties. That does not mean that they are indeed far-right or far-left, but they are simplifying this in this context. They even point that out in order to maintain a parsimonious analysis.

They continue:

"The far right in Norway, the Progress Party, is generally considered in the comparative literature to be less exclusionary than many of its counterpart elsewere in Scandinavia and Europe."

They continue to point out that Progress Party has an sceptical attitude towards muslim immigrants, similar to far-right parties in Europe.

In this context it's important to understand what comparative politics is. It's about creating labels in order to group parties and differentiate them from each other. The author is a professor in compartative politics. This does not mean that Frp is far-right or that SV is far-left. It's just a method they use here to differentiate the traditional right (Consrervative) from Progress Party. Just like they differentiate traditional left (Labour) from the socialist left party.

I have not have time to check the other sources yet. Will do later. Laddmeister (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Here is a newsarticle where Ivarshagen are asked to define the Progress party. She calls it a populist right-wing party (not far right). She says:

"Here the party has played a double game on several occasions, which is common for right-wing populist parties. On the one hand, the FRP appears in the party program with moderate views. On the other side, there will be outcomes that are more far-reaching, such as the so-called sustainability report on immigration, she says."

Juvikås, who is a well used source on the progress party on wikipedia says:

"Yes, they are right-wing populists. But compared to other such parties in Europe, they are a moderate edition and have stronger elements of liberal-conservative currents, says Jupskås." Laddmeister (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Another article where Ivarshagen calls Frp a moderate right wing party, not far right:

"Elisabeth Ivarsflaten, associate professor at the Department of Comparative Politics at the University of Bergen, researches, among other things, the immigration dimension in elections and party formations, but calls it by a different name:

- I see the debate about immigration as part of the debate about globalization and internationalisation, says Ivarsflaten, who primarily researches the development of party systems at a European level.

According to her, internationalization is one of several major developments since the 1960s, which have helped to form the new layer of parties that have come into being after the "old" dividing line model.

- Internationalization has given rise to conflicts about identity, about citizenship and about self-government versus national cooperation, says Ivarsflaten.

In some countries this comes in the form of ethnic self-rule parties, such as in Spanish regions, Wales and Scotland, or as ethnic parties without self-rule claims, such as the Turkish party in Hungary. In other countries, it comes as anti-Islamist parties, such as Geert Wilders' party in the Netherlands, or it manifests itself in national conservative parties, such as the Danish People's Party and the EU-sceptic Samlingspartiet in Finland.

- The Progress Party in Norway is a moderate version of what is called a nativist approach to citizenship, that those born in a country have the first right to benefits, says Ivarsflaten."

https://www.dagensperspektiv.no/nyheter/norge-mangler-rene-innvandringsfiendlige-parter/665370 Laddmeister (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy against synthesis states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." It is against this policy to suggest that, because an academic publication is comparing different political parties, the publication somehow does not consider a party far-right even when it explicitly uses the term far-right to describe the party multiple times in a section called "The Limits of the Far Right" that covers "the nature of the ideological appeal of the far right in Europe".

Here is additional context from Ivarsflaten (2022) showing that the book is unequivocally describing the Progress Party as a far-right party:

That said, there is considerable ideological heterogeneity in what is usually considered the far-right party family in Europe. Some of these parties have grown out of regional independence movements (Lega Nord in Italy; Vlaams Belang, formerly Vlaams Blok, in Belgium); others were initially tax protest movements (the Norwegian Progress Party; the Danish Progress Party, now the Danish People’s Party); some were originally agrarian or rural-interest parties (the Swiss People’s Party; the True Finns); yet others started out as EU-protest movements (the UK Independence Party and Alternative für Deutschland); some nativist parties historically had more direct links to extreme right milieus (the French National Front, the Austrian Freedom Party, and the Sweden Democrats); and a considerable number of them are now increasingly dedicated to preventing what they see as the existential threat of Islam (most prominently, the Dutch Freedom Party).

[...]

The far right in Norway, the Progress Party, is generally considered in the comparative literature to be less exclusionary than many of its counterparts elsewhere in Scandinavia and in continental Europe. Detailed case-study analyses have argued that the Norwegian Progress Party contains several factions and that this is an important reason why the party vacillates between more and less exclusionary policies. Notably, this party—unlike some other far-right parties—has activists who are mainly concerned with areas of politics other than immigration and minorities. Still, minority and immigration policies are very important for the party. The Norwegian Election Studies show that voters strongly and consistently associate the Progress Party with exclusionary policies toward immigration and immigrants. In that way, the Progress Party is similar to other far-right parties that have been considered electorally successful.

Ivarsflaten, Elisabeth; Sniderman, Paul M. (January 2022). "A New Framework for the Study of Inclusive Politics". The Struggle for Inclusion: Muslim Minorities and the Democratic Ethos. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226807416.

The following are all of the 14 parties Ivarsflaten (2022) described as far-right in the first quoted paragraph and their listed political positions on their Wikipedia articles:

Parties described in Ivarsflaten (2022) as far-right political parties in Europe

Party	Political position on Wikipedia
Lega Nord	Right-wing to far-right
Vlaams Belang	Right-wing to far-right
Vlaams Blok	Far-right
Progress Party (Norway)	Right-wing to far-right
Progress Party (Denmark)	Far-right
Danish People's Party	Right-wing to far-right
Swiss People's Party	Right-wing (with note stating "The party has also been described as far-right.")
Finns Party (True Finns)	Right-wing to far-right
UK Independence Party	Right-wing to far-right
Alternative for Germany (Alternative für Deutschland)	Far-right
National Rally (French National Front)	Right-wing to far-right
Freedom Party of Austria (Austrian Freedom Party)	Right-wing to far-right
Sweden Democrats	Right-wing to far-right
Party for Freedom (Dutch Freedom Party)	Right-wing to far-right

Because the far right is a subset of the right wing, Ivarsflaten describing the Progress Party as a right-wing populist party in a news article does not contradict her describing the party as a far-right party in an academic publication. (By the way, that news article is not linked in your comments.) And again, because a party's degree of populism is independent of that party's position on the left–right political spectrum, the extent to which the Progress Party is populist has no bearing on whether it is far-right. Likewise, the Dagens Perspektiv news article says that Ivarsflaten considers the Progress Party moderately nativist; she does not comment on the Progress Party's political position on the left–right political spectrum. — Newslinger talk 22:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC) Edited 06:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with User:Autospark: stuffing infoboxes with ideologies, positions and sources is not a good idea as the infobox serves as a summary of the article, whose sections can gather all the useful, sourced and consensual infos on the party. Also, I think that the "far-right" label is too frequently used: as for "far-left", it should be used only for fringe or authoritarian parties—the Progress Party is neither of them and, yes, it is arguably one of the most moderate parties of its kind. --Checco (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Laddmeister (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Right-wing parties is both an umbrella for different versions of right-wing politics and a specific position between far-right and centre-right. It depends on the context.

One of the most renowned european scolars on populism, extremism and far-right politics, Cas Mudde (who himself is a leftist), has written a book about radical right parties in Europe. He claims that Frp is a neoliberal populist party, and not a radical far-right party.

"Most usual suspects that are excluded from the populist radical right party family belong to the larger and more diffuse category of populist parties. Two subgroups are most relevant in this respect: social populists and neoliberal populists. The latter category is most closely related to the populist radical right; together they form the loose category of right-wing populism. The core ideology of neoliberal populism, as defined in the previous chapter, is the combination of primarily economic liberalism and populism. A good if somewhat extreme example of a neoliberal populist party is the Norwegian Fremskrittspartiet (FRP), whose status has always been debated within the field."

"The party began as an antitax party, morphed into a neoliberal party in the 1980s, and then embraced an opportunistic populism in the 1990s (e.g. Lorenz 2003).9 Notwithstanding the protean nature of the FRP, it is quite clear that nativism does not constitute part of its core ideology.10 Despite its occasional highly xenophobic campaigns, or its more recent defense of welfare chauvinism, the FRP is best classified as a neoliberal populist party."

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/populist-radical-right-parties-in-europe/244D86C50E6D1DC44C86C4D1D313F16D

https://bora.uib.no/bora-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2771277/CFW---Master-Thesis---Final-draft.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Laddmeister (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Cas Mudde's The Populist Radical Right: A Reader (2016) is a 660-page analysis of European populist radical-right political parties, and is (to my knowledge) Mudde's most comprehensive work covering this specific area of politics to date. The analysis concludes that the Norwegian Progress Party (abbreviated as "FRPn") is an "extreme right" party (emphasis added):

Conclusion

In this paper we have tried to identify and define more clearly the category of the extreme right party. In so doing we have stated three criteria: spatial, historic-ideological and attitudinal-systemic. The first has been employed as a preliminary screening, in order to identify parties on the extreme right of the left-right continuum. The second criterion applies to the shared ideology inside the ERP family. Having adopted the reference to fascism as the distinctive element, we noted that only a minority of parties located on the extreme right retain a fascist heritage. The third criterion, the presence of antisystem attitudes, enables us to identify those non-fascist parties that belong to the ERP class and not to the conservative one. All of the parties located at far right which show a fascist heritage and/or which manifest antisystem attitude are included in the class of the extreme right. This class is composed by two types, according to the existence of fascist imprint: the old right wing parties (MSI, EPEN, NPD, NF, BNP, FNs, PDC, NPD/BRB/EHI, CP86) and the new right-wing parties (FN, AN/Vigilantes, FPO, FNb, PFN, Vlb, Rep, FRPn, FRP, AP, CD). While some difficulties emerge about the inclusion of a party in one type or the other (in particular CP86 and AP) we are quite confident in the inclusion of FRPn, FRP, FPO and AP in the extreme right class. To the best of our knowledge, their political discourse tends to undermine the legitimacy of the democratic system by discrediting the parliamentary decision-making process, party government and the representative procedure; finally, through their strong xenophobic stances, they undermine one of the keystones of democracy, equality of men.

Ignazi, Piero (14 October 2016). "The silent counter-revolution: Hypotheses on the emergence of extreme right-wing parties in Europe". In Cas; Mudde (eds.). The Populist Radical Right: A Reader. Routledge. p. 329. ISBN 9781138673878.

Mudde's earlier work, Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe (2007) – your first link – is nine years older than Mudde (2016) and does not examine the Progress Party's position on the left–right political spectrum in as much detail as Mudde (2016).

Your second link, Wergeland (2021), is a masters thesis. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Wergeland (2021) does not appear to have been cited by other academic publications, so it is not a reliable source for this Wikipedia article. — Newslinger talk 10:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Edited to correct chapter name, correct authorship, and add page number to citation. 08:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The second link (master thesis) was posted by a mistake. It is not relevant to this discussion. Laddmeister (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

After obtaining a better-formatted version of Mudde (2016), I have to make some corrections. Cas Mudde is listed as the sole editor of The Populist Radical Right: A Reader, but the above quote is from the chapter "The silent counter-revolution: Hypotheses on the emergence of extreme right-wing parties in Europe", which was authored by Piero Ignazi. I've edited my quotation to correct this and add a page number.

The second chapter of Mudde (2016), "Party ideology" (by Elisabeth Carter and edited by Mudde), describes the Norwegian Progress Party (abbreviated as "FRPn") as "right-wing extremist". Carter states that FRPn is "some­what less extreme than that of other right-­wing extrem­ist parties", but references another publication by Ignazi to state that FRPn is still in the "extreme right" because FRPn "under­mined the [party] system’s legit­im­acy". Carter places FRPn after the mid-1980s in the category "Neo-­liberal xeno­phobic parties (radic­ally xeno­phobic; cultur­ist; demand reform of exist­ing system: more demo­cracy, less state)", and places FRPn before the mid-1980s in the category "Neo-­liberal popu­list parties (not xeno­phobic; not racist; demand reform of exist­ing system: more demo­cracy, less state)".

Based on all of the relevant academic assessments cited and presented so far, I believe there is sufficient evidence to describe the Progress Party as "Right-wing to far-right", but insufficient evidence to describe the Progress Party as solely far-right. — Newslinger talk 09:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Biased users

Users clearly biased against the progress party should refrain form editing this page. I can see from the versions page that users like Vif12vf, who are open about being a communist far-leftist, are very active on posting claims about Progress Party being far-right. Please keep your biased politics out of political wiki pages. Laddmeister (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks are prohibited on Wikipedia; this includes "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". Editors of any political orientation can edit any article as long as they comply with the policies and guidelines. — Newslinger talk 08:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors on the page

I cannot edit this page since some user has marked me for edit-warring, even if the edits are both sourced and correct. I cant do anything about that. But. If someone who are not marked for edit-warring can fix some errors, please do.

1. Ketil Solvik-Olsen is not the deputy leader. Terje Søviknes and Hans Andreas Limi are deputy leaders. I've tried correcting this but a certain user keeps reverting it.
2. National conservatism is claimed as the main ideology in the infobox. The party ideology is not national conservatism, and the sources posted does not claim that it is. The sources say that the party leader say "there is also room for people belonging to national conservatism" in the party. Which makes national conservatism a faction, not the party ideology. I've tried correcting this, but a certain user keeps reverting it.
3. Right-wing populism is also claimed in the infobox. This should be marked as disputed. I've pointed and posted to the source for this, by prof. Anders Jenssen. But a certain user keeps reverting this.
4. Anti-immigration. The party is not anti-immigration. They're for a stricter policy on immigration and wants the government to take more control on immigration than what is being done today. Thats not the same. This is an incorrect slur, not backed by credible sources. Like most other errors on this page.

Laddmeister (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The term anti-immigration refers to support for restricting immigration; the term is not a slur, just as anti-abortion and anti-nuclear are also not slurs. The cited reliable sources explicitly describe the Progress Party as anti-immigration. Some sources go even further; as I quoted in the above section, Mudde (2016) describes the Progress Party as one of the European populist "extreme right" parties with "strong xenophobic stances". — Newslinger talk 10:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Labour, Centre-Party and Conservative party are also for restricting immigration. Strange why they havent gotten the same label. They all advocate for restricting asylum seekers access to Norway.

https://www.bt.no/btmeninger/debatt/i/860QLd/en-liberal-innvandringspolitikk-i-norge-er-ikke-det-beste-for-verdens-flyktningerhttps://www.minerva.no/asylpolitikk-civita-elisabeth-tangen/en-innvandringsstans-vil-trenge-seg-frem-til-slutt/438726https://www.arbeiderpartiet.no/politikken/flyktning-og-asylpolitikk/https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/innvandring-og-integrering/id918/https://www.dagen.no/nyheter/hoyre-og-frp-onsker-en-strengere-flyktningpolitikk-krf-sterkt-uenig/https://www.nettavisen.no/norsk-debatt/norsk-innvandringspolitikk-skal-vare-streng/o/5-95-1369345 Laddmeister (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Is anti-immigration a significant component of these parties' political ideologies? If reliable sources (particularly academic sources) explicitly describe it that way, then a discussion about the inclusion of the anti-immigration descriptor may be warranted on the talk pages of the respective Wikipedia articles about these parties. — Newslinger talk 07:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not. But their policy isnt much different from Frp. But I see your point. Laddmeister (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Classical liberal or libertarian

This article cites Jens Rydgren in the book Class Politics and the Radical Right as a source for the party to be labeled as libertarian. I just read the article, and libertarianism isnt mentioned. It's mentioned that the party is classical-liberal, has neo-liberal policies and also support public welfare services. Whoever put this quote in can't have read the book chapter they're citing.

I'm suggesting the citation is moved from libertarian to classical-liberalism. One of the main differences between classical liberalism and libertarianism is the view on public services and welfare. Frp supports welfare and public funded education, health services etc. The sources claiming the party is libertarian/right-libertarian label should be examined more closely. Laddmeister (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Next source examined is the book "Pluralistic Struggles in Gender, Sexuality and Coloniality by severeal swedish authors. They're writing about trans rights in scandinavia. Progress Party is barely mentioned, and referenced to as a "populist right-wing libertarian party". But the ideology and policies of the progress party is not discussed. It's mentioned because a cabinet minister of the progress party said was mentioned after talking about the LGBTQ community. Libertarianism and policies are not mentioned. This can not be used as a source for calling the party libertarian or right-wing libertarian. Laddmeister (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I have so far been unable to verify the text written by Witfelt, but I have ordered the book from the university library. If someone have access to the text it would be nice if they could verify if Witfelt actually describes the party as libertarian, and explains why the party fits such a label. Unless this, the text refering to right-libertarianism should be removed from the article. Laddmeister (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)