Jump to content

Talk:Progress Party (Norway)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Classical Liberalism?

Is the Progress Party really classically liberal? A big component of classical liberalism is free imigration, witch the Progress Party does not believe in. The small Nowegian People's Party seems more genuinly classically liberal. "Economic liberalism" seems more fitting as a label for the Progress Party. -- Darthdyas (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The party support free imigration if no handouts from taxpayers, like in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.122.161.106 (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No they don't, they recently published a text about how non-western immigrants should be treated differently than western immigrants when they are to immigrate to the country. This made it to the front page of several major Norwegian newspapers. It heavily opposes multiculturalism, but particularly if it is to be paid for by the public, even though I doubt they'll ever say it out loud after the 2011 terror attacks, that were aimed at multiculturalism.84.212.195.174 (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, PP principally do support free imigration if no handouts from taxpayers, but under UN law and regulations (Human Rights) and due to Norwegian cold climate PP the party aknowledge Norway's responsibility to offer shelter and warmth and therefor impose certains regulations on imigrations. PPs is very popular among foreign restaurant owners in Norway, so it is totally wrong to say that PP "opposes multiculturalism". PP is the most pro-capitalism party in Norway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.149.170.144 (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Far-right?

There are many reliable sources claiming that the Progress Party is a far-right party, but right now the article says that it is right-wing - which is unsourced. Please do not remove statements when they are cited with several prominent sources. Most Progress Party members are merely economic libertarians (which is a position not usually considered to be far-right), but the party's youth wing was for instace infiltrated by open neo-nazis around the year 2000, making at least some members far-right, even though it might not be a suiting description for a majority of Progress Party members, and certainly not voters. Therefore instead of calling the party simply 'right-wing' or 'far-right' and keep the neverending debate going, I suggest we keep it 'right-wing to far-right' unless you find more sources claiming it is merely right-wing (at least try to find a single one!) 84.212.195.174 (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The far right aspect is already covered by a right-wing populist label which some scholars see as a kind of far-right. Please read that article which mentions the Progress Party. Scholars who believe the Progress Party is a far right party will always place them in the democratic, populist far right wing spectre, so when the party is described as far right it is always that sub-set of far-right that is meant. Nobody would seriously see them as fascists or so, which a link to the Far-right politics article might indicate, a link from the infobox to that article would be be deeply misleading. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it is not far right, but right-wing populist. Suggest removing from the info-box the position in the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: Far-right is a position in a spectrum while right-wing populist is not. Dnm (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
While far right implies a position in the political spectrum the term is used to refer to a specific ideological grouping. TFD (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads up, apparently there has been a "controversy" in Norway where a Socialist Left politician called the FrP "right-wing populist" and the soon-to-be Prime Minister of the Conservative Party demanded an apology, which the leftist politician refused. Article: VG. The question seems to be quite politicized. --Pudeo' 05:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to an article in English. It might be noteworthy that the party rejects the label, but it seems to be the consensus in academic writing and the media. TFD (talk) 06:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"Pro-globalization" & the expelling of members 1994-2001

Needed sources:

"The party also seek a more restrictive immigration policy and tougher integration and law and order measures. In foreign policy it is strongly Atlanticist, and pro-globalization. Long-time chairman Carl I. Hagen was from 1978 to 2006 the undisputed leader of the party, and in many ways personally controlled the ideology and direction of the party; most notably demonstrated by effectively expelling the most radical libertarian faction in 1994, and anti-immigration populists in 2001."

The references used for these sentences don't function or don't say anything about the subject. Pro-globalization don't seem like the progress party I know, and the expelling of libertarian and anti-immigration populists seem like strange actions. The party is anti-immigration and quite libertarian. If you can find any sources about this it had been great. Johnson0101 (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Progress Party (Norway). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Carl I Hagen did not expel "the most radical libertarian faction"

This sentence is factually wrong: "Carl I. Hagen ...in many ways personally controlled the ideology and direction of the party; most notably demonstrated by effectively expelling the most radical libertarian faction in 1994". He did not expel "the most radical libertarian faction". They broke out and started a new party FRIdemokratene (Free Democrats). However, it is true that the anti-immigrant populists was expelled from the party. Or rather, a couple was expelled, another was suspended and left the party, and as a reaction to that other anti-immigrant populists left the party, and joined or started Demokratene (Democrats in Norway) --80.212.105.150 (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Progress Party (Norway). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Progress Party (Norway). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

"Euroscepticism"

I suggest that the term "Euroscepticism" is removed from the ideology list in the infobox. In Norway, only a very small minority of the population supports EU membership. Actually, this is very rarely debated in Norway at all. The FrP, although it decided to oppose EU membership recently, has generally supported further integration into the EU community, including support for the EEC, the Schengen, and Acer. It only recently decided to be against EU membership, and there are multiple opinions about this within the party. Considering the fact that public opinion in Norway is very opposed to full EU membership, we should not put "eurospecticism" as an ideology into the infobox for Norwegian parties only because they don't support full membership. Sp, SV and Rødt could be regarded as eurosceptic parties in Norway. They are opposed not only to EU membership, but also to the EEC and other measures to integrate the country further into the EU. Taking a clear pro-EU stance is unheard of in Norway. Høyre strongly supports EU membership, as did the Ap until recently, but they don't advocate an aggressive pro-EU stance, as a matter of fact they are reluctant to take the debate because they might loose voters, as below 20% of the population supports this. The FrP, like the Ap and Høyre, support as much integration of Norway into the EU as possible without applying for membership. The addition of "Euroscepticism" in the infobox should be removed, as it shows a very high lack of understanding of the Norwegian political landscape. --Te og kaker (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Got sources? // Liftarn (talk)
Euroscepticism isn't an ideology though. And since the party was neutral on the topic before, it's position on EU is hardly a defining characteristic of the party. The position is mentioned in the article, but let's not decorate the ideology listing like a christmas tree. It's the place for a few central and essential tenets that define the party. Heptor (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, I agree with what @Te og kaker: wrote. Putting the "Eurosceptic" label on the Progress Party shows a poor understanding of Norwegian politics. Liftarn, what are you asking sources for? Most of what Te og Kaker wrote is just common knowledge. Are you disputing that there hasn't been much of a public debate on EU membership in Norway recently?Heptor (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Controversial labels

In the info box under ideology, the party is currently labeled as "Anti-immigration" and "Right-wing populist". These labels are controversial[1][2][3], and they are disputed by the party itself and by others. In particular, the "anti-immigration" label is superficial and oversimplified, as the party is pro-EEC[4] (the majority of the immigrants to Norway are from the EU, and they arrive through the EEC agreement[5]). These categorization make the list long and messy, and don't seem to serve other purpose than partisan name-calling. I suggest that the list should be more focused. Heptor (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Vif12vf, 83.92.125.109, let's move the discussion from the edit history ([6], [7], [8]) to the talk page where it belongs. Before reverting again I hope you can read and respond to the above. Heptor (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
As I have told you repeatedly, the source you don't recognise (Wolfram Nordsieck) is used for ideologies of political parties throughout Wikipedia. Check the other political parties in the Storting - apart from the Liberal Party, all of them - from Red to the Conservative Party - have Wolfram Nordsieck as a source for ideology. The same is the case for the Danish Folketing and most parties in the Swedish Riksdag, the German Bundestag and so on. Wolfram Nordsieck seems to be the most common source for ideologies of European political parties on Wikipedia. I see no reason why the Progress Party should be exempt. --Cat Elevator (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
In this case there is a disagreement between sources. This is a very common situation, and the Wikipedia policy is to maintain an impartial tone. The disagreement between the sources is described, but Wikipedia does not in general take sides in disputes. And PS, Nordsieck is probably used because his overview is considered convenient, not necessarily reliable. This is besides the point, other reliable sources did describe the progress party as populist. Nordieck however is a self-published source. His publication does not have a peer or editorial review, and it is not associated with any academic institution. Better sources are available: my previous post mentions an article from a Norwegian think tank (penned by a previous minister of education and research) and an article by a professor of sociology from a recognized institution. There are better sources for the opposite ("your") opinion as well. Heptor (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I can find several sources that say "right-wing populist". I think very few political parties would call themselves (right-wing) populist (I've actually only seen it in an article where the former leader of the Norwegian Frp, Carl I. Hagen, calls his party populist). That would make the label controversial for virtually all right-wing populist parties - nevertheless, it is used for a lot of parties on Wikipedia. Why should the Progress Party be treated any differently?Cat Elevator (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
In case of the Progress Party, the "right-wing populist" label is disputed by other prominent, academic sources, on a variety of grounds. For those other parties you mention, if academic sources agree that they are populist, then the position of the parties themselves can be argued to be a small minority view, so it doesn't need to be given equal prominence per WP:GEVAL. Heptor (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Vif12vf, Jay942942, Cat Elevator. As mentioned in the discussion above, some sources say that the Progress Party is populist, and other sources say that it isn't (respectively, [9][10] and [11][12][13]). You seem to be arguing that Wikipedia should side with former, and state that the Progress Party is populist right in the info box(diff links: [14], [15], [16]). Could you please elaborate on why it should do that? I do have to apologize for somewhat brazen edit summaries in the past, as I had assumed that you simply were not familiar with the references that disputed the information that you were adding. Heptor (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Jay942942, Vif12vf, Jeff6045, Heptor: The label "Right-wing populist" is controversial, but used on Wikipedia for a wide range of political parties throughout the world. I agree with Vif12vf (who wrote it in the edit history) that Heptor seems biased, and even though there is a clear consensus of 4 against 1 for labelling the party right-wing populist, I propose we take a poll on it. --Cat Elevator (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Poll on right-wing populism

Should the Norwegian Progress Party, in accordance with numerous sources and general Wikipedia practice and consensus, be labelled right-wing populist in the ideology section? Jay942942, Vif12vf, Jeff6045, Heptor

Yes - see my elaboration in the Controversial labels discussion. --Cat Elevator (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

No Conflicting information in sources. For example:

  • An op-ed by a Norwegian professor of public policy from a reputable Norwegian university titled "Don't call the Progress Party Populist" [17]
  • An elaborate evaluation by Kristin Clemet, the leader of a major Norwegian think tank (Civita) and a former Minister of Education and Research, concluding that the Progress Party cannot be called populist [18]
  • Analysis of a book by Jan-Werner Müller, a Princeton professor of politology, who recently wrote a book titled "What is populism?", concluding that the Norwegian Progress Party is not populist.[19]
For comparison, the sources that had been so far provided supporting the "populist" label are of relatively low quality. Both [20] and [21] are articles in the foreign press by journalists with little connection to Norway and Norwegian poltics. Heptor (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC

The consensus is against describing Progress Party (Norway) as right-wing populist in the infobox.

Cunard (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Progress Party (Norway) be described as right-wing populist in the info box? Sources seem to have conflicting opinions, per discussion above. Heptor (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Valid point. One of their main goals is that the state should increase spending on the elderly care.[22] That's rather left-wing on the international scale. Heptor (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The term the "populism" is itself vague, according to several sources. For example:
  • [23]: Both “populism” and “populist” have long been considered ill-defined terms
  • [24]: Making precise theoretical determinations about populism as a phenomenon is challenging because the meaning of the term is unstable.
Heptor (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which ideologies should be listed in the infobox?

​​​​(see section title for the question I'm addressing here) From what I gather, there is a divide between libertarian members and nationalist/right-wing populist members of FrP.[1] Widfelt writes, "By the early 1990s three factions could be detected. There was a liberal/libertarian wing, a Christian-conservative wing and a populist wing."[2] Later, Widfelt also writes, "Since [1994] the party has, if anything, become less libertarian."[3] Other sources also note this divide within the party. Additionally, at least one source has explicitly argued that the FrP is not "right-libertarian".[4]

With that in mind, there are a few issues I believe need to be addressed:

  • First, there is no clear mention of the (right-wing) populist factions the party. I believe that "populism" or "right-wing populism" should be added to the infobox to make this clearer.
  • Second, how should the ideologies be listed overall? Should both "libertarianism" and "populism" be put under a "factions" header (similar to the infoboxes for the Democratic Party (United States) and the Republican Party (United States)), or is it clear enough to just list "libertarianism" and (right-wing) "populism" without a "factions" label?
    • If we end up deciding to use a "factions" label, should there be a single ideology that would fit under a "majority" label (the label of "majority" wold not strictly be necessary, however) listed in addition to those factions (such as "national liberalism" or an equivalent)?

I look forward to reading your opinions on this topic. Please ask if any part of what I wrote does not make sense. Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ezhao. Looking at the general policies of the party and the rhethoric they use on norwegian TV, i think it is clear that their policies remain of a national liberal character, with their campaigning and issue related focus being highly right-wing populist in nature. However, much of the factional landscape has changed within the party since the 90s. Since the founding of the more right-wing party The Christians in 2011, much of the christian faction has left FRP to join that party instead, although some religious rhethoric coming from a more populistic perspective have remained. Similarly, most of the generally libertarian faction has left post 2014 after the founding of the Capitalist Party, though some classical liberal and right-libertarian elements remain, including regarding FRP's view on welfare and state interventionism. Lastly though, many disillusioned members have over the years since 2002 left the party to join the Democrats in Norway, and in late 2020, a fair amount of members including most of the Oslo chapter, all with mixed nationalist and economically centrist views left FRP for the Democrats. As the party stands now, it has retained national liberalism and right-wing populism in most aspects, although classical liberalism, right-libertarianism and some conservatism still arguably remains, especially apparently among their youth. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, Vif12vf. Does that mean that you think "right-wing populism" should be added without a "factions" label? Ezhao02 (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
From my perspective, they have always had that kind of rhethoric, so I would say yes. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Hopefully, we can get some others’ opinions too. Ezhao02 (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Ezhao02, I also strongly support adding right-wing populism to the ideology part of the Infobox, and without any "factions" label. Although I support listing it first, before other ideologies. (It is irrelevant that the party itself does not like the "populist" label, incidentally, as we are here to write objective articles based on reliable third-party sources, not act as the party's public relations.)--Autospark (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@Autospark: Thanks for the response. As mentioned below, FrP is slightly different from (i.e., more moderate than) other radical right parties, so what would be your opinion on the section Heptor quoted from the article and on potentially adding an explanatory footnote to the infobox? Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello Vif12vf, Ezhao02. The article presently states that the progress party is described as populist by some authors, while other authors consider this description to be wrong:

[The progress party] has been described as populist, right-wing populist and sometimes far-right by academics, political commentators and foreign media.[18][19][20][21][22] Other academics say that describing the progress party as populist is wrong;[23][24][25] the term "populist" has itself been criticized as ill-defined[26] and unstable.[27] The party does not label itself as such."

Do you propose that this presentation should be amended? In what way? Heptor (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Heptor, thanks for bring this to our attention. First, I'd like to note that the first part of the sentence (the descriptions for populist/far-right) only cites media sources; I would prefer that these cite academic sources (which shouldn't be too hard to find). To address your point, I think we should look into it a bit more before coming into a conclusion. It's clear that FrP, more so than other parties associated with the radical right (Europe), has controversy over how populist it really is. As such, I would like to look into how many academics dispute the claim of "populist". For example, if a majority of academics describe the party as populist, with a relatively small minority that dispute this claim, then I think that "populism" or "right-wing populism" should be listed in the infobox, potentially with an explanatory footnote (as is done with "social democracy" for Direction – Social Democracy). Ezhao02 (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that we share an enthusiasm for using academic sources. I will be happy to examine the matter further together with you. First, may I ask you to clarify the terminology that you are using? As noted in Gagnon et al[5], the term Populism/populist is not well-defined. Worse, it is often abused: in public discourse, it is often thrown in as a general insult, without substance. Other times people really mean something akin to a good old-fashioned demagogue. Perhaps we can include a discussion about why some scholars consider the Progress Party to be populist and some others disagree? Heptor (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
@Heptor: I would have to do some research to see if a note is warranted. First, I don't think the note about a minority of scholars disputing the term "populist" in general is warranted—I'd say that belongs in the article for right-wing populism, not in the article for the FrP. If there is a greater dispute over the term "right-wing populism" specifically for the FrP (i.e., more scholars dispute the characterization of "right-wing populist" for the FrP than for parties like the RN or AfD), then I believe a note would be warranted in this article.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like your main disagreement is over using the term "populist". Would you prefer "national conservatism" (i.e., listing both "National conservatism" and "Libertarianism" in the infobox)? Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


If third-party sources consistently describe FrP as a right-wing populist party, then the article (and the Infobox) should reflect that, as we are here to write objective encyclopaedic articles. Of course the party may reject that label, but then that does not make it different from many other 'populist' parties who also dislike being describe as such.--Autospark (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
@Autospark: I certainly agree with you, but I think Heptor's disagreement isn't about the party itself disputing the description (which, as you rightly point out, doesn't matter) but rather about some scholars disputing it (which does matter). Ezhao02 (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Ezhao02 it looks like you know the policy on neutrality as well as I do. If third-party sources were to consistently describe it as populist, then Wikipedia should as well. The sources I've seen so far are not good, and do very little to demonstrate a consensus in academia. What can we make out of this article in Politico about Christians’ crisis of faith threatening Norwegian government? I think the best thing we can do for this article is to expand the material on party's policy and ideology, how it is described in political research, by the media and by the party itself. The conclusion you ask for will come by itself. The party itself is also vague on disputing the description. They call themselves "libertarian" on their home page, however Siv Jensen said that she is proud to be a leader of a populist party. This term is so vague that it can really mean anything. What do you mean by it? Is populist a reference to Julius Ceasar and his populares, or to the same old demagoguery that had plagued democracies since the beginning, or perhaps to Adolf Hitler and his use of the said demagoguery in his rise to power? I'd certainly prefer "National conservatism" in the info box, Ezhao02 thanks for asking. Heptor (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
​​​@Heptor: I agree that the sources currently used aren't very good, but as seen here, there are a good number of sources that do describe the Progress Party as right-wing populist. Ezhao02 (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Let's find ones that deals with the Progress Party specifically and improve the article? Heptor (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
For example, Bjerkem (2016)?[6] Heptor (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Sure, I think that's a good idea. Ezhao02 (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Let's do it then! Heptor (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's a page[7] from a book that looks at some of the current research, where some scholars (including well-known ones like Cas Mudde) have been hesitant to classify the FrP as populist, while ultimately concluding, "it was surely amongst the mildest versions of right-wing populist parties in Europe." Ezhao02 (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

​​​​​​Hi all, I added right-wing populism to the infobox with a footnote. Could you let me know whether the footnote is acceptable to you? Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thats a good footnote in my opinion! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
This footnote is very subtle, and suggests that Wikipedia supports the position that the Progress Party is right-wing populist. Such summary does not agree with the discussion in the section Progress_Party_(Norway)#Ideology_and_political_positions, which describes a variety of opinions in the sources. The situation hasn't changed since the previous RfC. I don't think it would be very extraordinary of me to ask that another RfC be conducted to establish consensus. Heptor (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@Heptor: How would you propose rewriting it? Certainly, the footnote should reflect a summary of the discussion in Progress_Party_(Norway)#Ideology and political positions. Ezhao02 (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I have to add, I don't like how this article has been changed. We should not be writing articles that say "political party X is described as ideology Y, but rejects that, and sees itself as ideology Z" (or similar) in the lede. We should be presenting political parties objectively, but how third-party reliable sources describe them. Otherwise it comes across as unofficial PR.--Autospark (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@Autospark: I agree with your general viewpoint on that. The issue here is not that the party disputes the label "right-wing populism". The issue is that there are academics (not members of the party) who dispute the label. Ezhao02 (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@Autospark: I think Ezhao02 answered it very well. If a party sees itself as representing ideology Z, but reliable sources agree that ideology Y fits much better than ideology Z, than we could clearly state in Wikipedia's voice that this party has ideology Y. This is not the case with the subject matter presently discussed. Heptor (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ezhao02: Hope you will forgive the delay in response. I think we both understand that it is difficult to find a right way to formulate this footnote. So if I may ask you, why should it be so vital for this article to summarize the position of the progress party in a vaguely defined and vaguely negative word in the info box? Considering the edit history and the talk page, there had hardly been any interest about anything else in this article. Heptor (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Heptor: Sorry for the late response, but thanks for the question. I believe it's important to note "right-wing populism" because FrP is generally associated with that party family, and reliable sources often describe FrP as "right-wing populist". Even though FrP is one of the most moderate parties described as such, which may make the label somewhat more difficult, I believe it important to represent the (quite common) viewpoint that FrP is "right-wing populist". Ezhao02 (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Orange, Richard (16 October 2013). "Populists left out of new Norway government". The Local. Retrieved 11 February 2021.
  2. ^ Widfeldt, Anders (2014). Extreme Right in Scandinavia. Routledge. p. 87. ISBN 9781134502158.
  3. ^ Widfeldt, Anders (2014). Extreme Right in Scandinavia. Routledge. p. 96. ISBN 9781134502158.
  4. ^ Herbert Kitschelt (1997). The Radical Right in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis. University of Michigan Press. pp. 154–155.
  5. ^ Gagnon, Jean-Paul; Beausoleil, Emily; Son, Kyong-Min; Arguelles, Cleve; Chalaye, Pierrick; Johnston, Callum N. (2018-12-01). "What is populism? Who is the populist?". Democratic Theory. 5 (2). Berghahn Books: vi–xxvi. doi:10.3167/dt.2018.050201. ISSN 2332-8894.
  6. ^ Bjerkem, Johan. "The Norwegian Progress Party: an established populist party". European View. doi:10.1007/s12290-016-0404-8.
  7. ^ Bergmann, Eirikur (2017). Nordic Nationalism and Right-Wing Populist Politics: Imperial Relationships and National Sentiments. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 199. ISBN 978-1-137-56703-1.

Fatherland League De facto predecessor to the Progress Party -Info Box-

From what I read on this article it seems like the Fatherland League (Norway) is the De facto predecessor to the Progress Party (Norway). Because of this I think this should be included in the info box. Keep in mind Defacto isn't the same as by law.

@Vif12vf You seem to disagree with this statement. May I get your opinion on the matter?

Zyxrq (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

FRP was founded over 30 years after the Fatherland League was banned, by a person who never held a central role in the league as a whole. Aside from this lack of any real connection between the two, they also diverged ideologically. The League was corporatist and ended up favouring a more New Deal-like approach and a more planned economy, whereas FRP is right-libertarian and opposes taxation and social welfare, and supports increased privatization of the public sector. The only real similarities are conservative and anti-communist values, several other parties founded during and after the cold war has held such values, making FRP far from unique. Even de facto would be a rather big stretch. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Vif12vf. There is no connection between the two parties. Laddmeister (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Expanding the section Ideology and political positions

I'm trying to expand the discussion about populist aspects of the progress party in section Ideology and political positions. I'm now comparing definitions of "populism" in Bjerkem (2016)[1]and in Gagnon, Beausoleil (2018)[2]. It would be nice to have some examples of specific policies that are considered populist. I do get an impression that the Progress Party is rather skeptical towards what they consider to be the elites, but I struggle top put a finger on any specific policies that can be used as examples. I hope to anchor this discussion in something specific. Is it a good idea? Any suggestions for policies that could be listed? Heptor (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Heptor: If I remember correctly, the Progress Party's immigration policy (or at least the ideas of factions within the party) has been described as "populist". Ezhao02 (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more correctly described as national-conservative? Heptor (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps. Do you know which description is more common? Ezhao02 (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
They certainly don't describe themself as national-conservative. Citing Siv Jensen, It's fine to be national-conservative and be a member of the Progress Party, as long as one recognizes that the Progress Party is a liberalist people's party. This is a moderation of her earlier position, that those who wish the Progress Party to become national conservative should find themselves another party.[3] The description Right-wing Populist is certainly more common, but it is disputed. Citing the article, The Progress Party is sometimes described as right-wing populist,[126][127][128][129][4] a categorization that is rejected both by the party itself and by other observers including the current Prime Minister Erna Solberg and some academics.[130][131][132][133][134] It has also been described as Europe's most moderate populist party. Heptor (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
They are not national-conservative. Single issue positions doesnt define a partys ideology. They're classical-liberals, or conservative-liberals at best. Laddmeister (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bjerkem, Johan. "The Norwegian Progress Party: an established populist party". European View. doi:10.1007/s12290-016-0404-8.
  2. ^ Gagnon, Jean-Paul; Beausoleil, Emily; Son, Kyong-Min; Arguelles, Cleve; Chalaye, Pierrick; Johnston, Callum N. (2018-12-01). "What is populism? Who is the populist?". Democratic Theory. 5 (2). Berghahn Books: vi–xxvi. doi:10.3167/dt.2018.050201. ISSN 2332-8894.
  3. ^ "Siv Jensen sier det er greit å kalle seg nasjonalkonservativ i Frp". Aftenposten (in Norwegian). 2021-02-09. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Progress_Party_(Norway)/Archive_3&oldid=1242381064"