Talk:Forum for Democracy/Archive 1

English instead of Dutch article name
Hi!

I noticed that the templates for the infobox in Dutch general election, 2017 did not work and it turns out this is because the name of the article does not match the templates shortname and color. My suggestion is that we move this page to Forum for Democracy (Netherlands) since it English names seems to be standard among (poltical parties). We also add (Netherlands) to avoid confusion with Forum for Democracy (Albania). It seems like it had the English name first and then got changed, but I see no reason why. --—Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

My contributions were reverted
My whole contribution on 'economy' was reverted by, because "The current version is not neutral. The party's position was based on the opinion of the leader, not RS, and it read like an ad: "protecting Dutch companies" (linking to the party's website)."

That's fair criticism and honestly I didn't check the sources, but just copied what was already there from a previous editor, only restructuring the sentence, but why did the entirety of my contribution have to be removed if you could have just removed this one thing or maybe replace "protecting Dutch companies" with the more neutral-sounding "protectionism"?

I would suggest changing it back to what it was after my contribution, but without the part about protecting Dutch companies:

''Forum for Democracy is mostly an economically right-wing party, advocating for a more dynamic economic sector, a smaller government, less regulation, the abolition of taxes on gifts and inheritance, a radical simplification of tax brackets and the abolition of child contribution after the second child, but it is also in favour of more left-wing positions, such as the introduction of a tax free bracket of €20,000 for everyone and a progressive tax system. The party is a proponent of drastic changes in elementary and secondary education, focusing on performance evaluations for teachers. They want to expand the armed forces, expanding the National Reserve Corps and reverting defence budget cuts. In addition, the party has promoted plans to privatise the Dutch public broadcasting organisation, the Nederlandse Publieke Omroep. ''

Also, my change of conservative liberalism to classical liberalism in the sidebar and the addition of environmentalism, also in the sidebar, were both removed with no reasons given. I gave sources and explained my reasons to do these edits in the edit summary. I would like to know why these changes were reverted, because I don't see anything wrong with them. Let me clarify once more:

The source given for the party belonging to 'conservative liberalism' did not call them that, it's a translation error. The sourced called the party 'conservatief-liberaal', which means they are both conservative and liberal, not conservatively liberal. It would have meant they were conservatively liberal if the party was described as 'conservatief liberaal' with a space between the two words instead of a dash. The party belongs to the ideoogies of (national) conservatism as well as classical liberalism, but not to conservative liberalism. I would like to see these named separately.

Also, my addition of the party being environmentalist was removed with no reason. My own explanation to add environmentalism was: "Added 'environmentalism'. Although FvD is sceptical of greenhouse gasses' role in global warming, it strongly advocates for research into Thorium energy, for animal rights and for cleaner oceans.", sourcing their 'Animals' rights & Environment' section on their site. , but looking back at it, I could have also sourced the leader of the Dutch animals' party saying she sees a lot of options in working together with FvD on matters of animals' well-being.

I would like to see these suggestions realised after my clarification or if you don't agree, hear good arguments against these changes. -Freerka (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , you seem to constantly go against two pieces of Wikipedia policy, the one on primary, secondary and tertiary sources and the one on synthesis of published material. Essentially all your sources are from the party's website and/or comments of the party's leader. These sources aren't neutral and independent and should be avoided as much as possible, but you seem to do everything but. The entire text on FvD's economic policy is based solely on primary sources. You also tend to combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources (from WP:SYN). Let me explain that for you. You say the following: (A) the leader of the Party for the Animals sees opportunities to work with the FvD and (B) the Party for the Animals is environmentalist, so (C) FvD is environmentalist. But this logic is not OK, as none of the sources says that C is true, rather, that is a conclusion that you came to yourself. You say that 'conservatief-liberaal' doesn't mean 'conservative liberal' because of the dash, but even the Dutch Wikipedia page on conservative liberalism writes it with a dash (also, you brought no source that supports your theory). I'm fine with the contents of the page, but only if you bring material that has reliable independent sources and does not include your own conclusions. Thank you. --MrClog (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , I don't see how the party's own website isn't a good source for the 'ideology' section of the Wikipedia article. You're trying to tell people what the party's ideology is, so you should ask the party. Secondary and tertiary sources are not as reliable as primary sources in this specific context.


 * I did not combine two sources and your example of me doing that does not properly state what I said. The leader of the Party for the Animals didn't just say she saw opportunities to work together with FvD. She also stated that she wonders if FvD's stances on animal rights and environment come from Paul Cliteur, who used to be a member of the Party for the Animals. This strongly implies she sees these stances as similar to those of the Party for the Animals, meaning the two parties are ideologically very close to eachother when it comes to this specific issue. This was also highlighted in the NOS verkiezingsdebat two months ago that clearly showed the two party leaders agreed on most things concerning animal rights and environment


 * Now I will admit, I was surprised about the 'conservatief-liberaal' thing. I didn't know there was a dash between the two words in Dutch when talking about conservative liberalism, so I'll take back what I said, because I think it's important to admit if you were wrong. I still do believe the source cited didn't really mean to call them conservatively liberal, because it would be absurd to make the claim FvD's ideology is closest to the conservative school of liberalism within liberalism. That said, the source does call them that, even if most likely unintended, so I can't really do anything about that.


 * -Freerka (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , first of all, obviously primary sources are not reliable when it comes to their position; they have a direct incentive to highlight the good stances of their party and hide those that many people may not like (same goes for their position). The sources you gave to claim FvD is environmentalist never said that FvD is environmentalist, that is a conclusion you made without a reliable source that does so too. --MrClog (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , the entire 'ideology' section on VVD's Wikipedia page is written with primary sources from their website and the D66's ideology section doesn't even have any sources. Why can we believe these parties on their word, but can't with FvD? -Freerka (talk) 10:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , in which case these sections also need rework. --MrClog (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , I can't oblige you to do anything, but it would be a great symbol of your political neutrality if you were just as critical towards other parties' pages and went ahead to edit those too then! ;) -Freerka (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have limited time, but I am fine with reworking those as well when I have the time to do so. --MrClog (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

"Climate change denial" stupid left-wing smear
No sane person on any side of the isle disputes an existing climate change. Climate changes occured for billions of years, as long as the earth exists. Some people and parties dispute and question the impact of humans onto the climate and see natural causes like the sun or El Nino as reasons for hot and cold weather periods, that`s something completly different than to deny climate change at all. Get rid of this false term, its inappropriate, insulting and a disgrace to any objective source of information. "Climate change realism" or "disputing man-made climate change" would make way more sense.

62.226.95.49 (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and reliable sources call all forms of denying the scientific opinion on climate change climate change denial, even though FvD doesn't deny the existence of climate change, as human activities being the primary cause of climate change is part of the scientific consensus on climate change. --MrClog (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. Maybe in the biased IPCC world only but the people working there have an agenda. It`s a myth that has been debunked multiple times.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-con-consensus-not-only-there-no-97-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many

80.131.50.200 (talk) 06:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Such discussion should take place at Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change, not here. --MrClog (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The provided Fraser Institute article link doesn't even lead to any page. There is, in fact, an established consensus as cited on the appropriate page. It's very plausible that both unregistered IP users here are just trolls. --Hunter9502 (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Both IP's are from Deutsche Telekom AG, both dial-up pool IP's, so likely the same individual.

European Conservatives and Reformists
Forum for Democracy has formally affiliated to the grouping at a recent meeting of newly-elected ECR MEPs. Culloty82 (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , added. --MrClog (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Not Ultra Conservative
Forum for Democracy is NOT an "Ultra Conservative" party. Even the Dutch page clearly states, it's a "Conservative Liberal" party. This is as unhelpful as calling the Republican Party "Alt-Right", or calling Groenlinks "Communist Extreme Left". Our job is to be neutral and factual. The party is also not Far-Right as it's views https://forumvoordemocratie.nl/standpunten/ are nowhere near anything "Far". Sources used in the claim of "far-Right" is laughable as Joop isn't a trustworthy source, Al Jazeera and the other one are opinion pieces. Stick with facts, not with opinions. Doesn't matter if you personally hate the party or love it, keep it factual.

Gregnator (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , the references for "far-right" are not at all opinion pieces. Just claiming Joop isn't a reliable source is not an argument. Because some sources call the party ultra conservative and some call it conservative liberal, the infobox should mention both. I did change the lead section to simply say "conservative", because there isn't a general consensus among sources that they are ultra-conservative. Has this addressed your concerns? --MrClog (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Far right would indicate "Far" right elements, which it doesn't have The "Far" label is being thrown around too much but I don't want to play the semantics game, so if you want to keep it as "Right-wing OR far right", fine, even though it's not the correct usage of "Far". I would change it to "Conservative Liberal" as it's in the "Liberal" stream of politics and not "Conservative". Right-wing Liberal/Conservative-Liberal is more factually correct. The reason I find it unwise to call it "Far right" is due to the fact that Groenlinks isn't called "Far Left", as Groenlinks would be on the "Far" spectrum due to it's Communist past, and their radical positions on renewable energy (Forceful). If we are going to be neutral, we should be consistent. Gregnator (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * , we do not decide, based upon a party's opinions whether or not a party is far-right (WP:OR), but we base it on what the sources say (WP:RS). --MrClog (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yet, you use English sources that call everyone "Far Right". It's a Dutch party, use Dutch sources. Again, it's NOT a conservative party, and I linked the Institute as source for that, which is a source you already use. EDIT. Even the left wing "Anne Frank Stichting" says FvD is NOT extreme. Gregnator (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , there is no policy that requires us to use Dutch sources. This has all already been discussed thoroughly, so please read the prior discussion on this page. I'm not interested in repeating discussions that already took place. --MrClog (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I have read it, and I saw that made an excellent point. All other pages are used from primary sources, yet with FvD you seem too eager to try to misrepresent them as "Conservative" (Even though sources say otherwise) and "Far" right, (Even though no, to little Dutch sources claim that). There is no policy that requires you to do anything, it just looks like biased work, which I assume is not your intention. You also claimed you were wiling to remove "Far right" in the third opinion section, yet when a third opinion rises up, it gets ignored. Again, the sources you stated for them being "far" right have major flaws in them. Source 20 doesn't back up their claims for it to be "far" right. Source 21, doesn't back up their claims, nor do they present evidence as to why FvD would be "far" right. Source 22 doesn't even claim FvD to be "Far right", it simply said they had encounters with "far right" groups. Nowhere is stated they are "Far Right". Source 23 can't be confirmed or denied as it's behind a pay wall. Gregnator (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , reliable sources do not need to explain why they call a party far-right. See WP:V. The fact that other pages use primary sources in this manner doesn't prove that that is OK. I'm going to start a WP:RFC on the issue of mentioning "far-right". --MrClog (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I can live with an RfC, but in the meanwhile, can you change or allow me to change "Ultra Conservative" to "Conservative Liberal" as it's incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregnator (talk • contribs) 19:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , the article already doesn't mention ultra conservative and it already mentions conservative liberal in the infobox. Let's preserve the status quo until there is an agreement to do otherwise. --MrClog (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC
Should the page on Forum for Democracy say that the party is Right-wing to far-right (option 1) or Right-wing (option 2)? --MrClog (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 1 - per the sources  mentioned on the article page. There are both sources that call the party right-wing and sources that call them far-right. The editors that want to remove far-right argue that the sources should explain why the party is far-right, but no Wikipedia policy supports this idea. Please also see the 3O made by . --MrClog (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 1 out of the two, per the Third Opinion. But would anyone be happy with right-wing (sometimes far-right) or similar as a compromise? ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 19:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , considering many sources also say the party is "leaning" towards the far-right, the fact that option 1 provides a range seems to better match the sources. --MrClog (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 2 - per sources, , , show that they are a "Conservative Liberal" "Right wing" party. Even the source MrClog uses states that calling them "extreme" is too far. Yes, sources should always explain as to how they come to a certain conclusion, this is simply standard journalism practice. Right-Wing Liberalism is in no way "extreme" or "far" as liberalism isn't a political stream that one could consider "Far". As long as there are no sources that come to the conclusion as to why Forum is "Far-Right", the most neutral thing to do is keep it as "Right-Wing". I would refer to the Dutch page of this wiki, as the party is Dutch, and trusting domestic sources about domestic things, is simply the most reliable and logical thing to do. Wikipedia policy suggests "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made." Gregnator (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , can you point to any Wikipedia policy that supports that a source must explain why it considers a party far-right or that it must be a domestic source? Disclaimer: there is no such policy. --MrClog (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, where does the source I use state that calling FvD "extreme" goes too far? I can't find it. --MrClog (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 1 based on the existing sources. Not seeing any valid rationale for why Dutch sources would take precedence; in fact, using a broad range of sources seems better. --Aquillion (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 1 based on current sources. Option 1 also seems to best encompass the spectrum on which the Forum for Democracy seems to have placed itself. I think this sentence from one of the LSE blogs sums it up best: "The FvD, on the other hand, unites the centre-right’s favoured cultural identity and economic policies with far-right racism, authoritarianism and xenophobia in a single party" . Option 1 is also in my view the better choice due to the fact that definitions for right-wing and far-right are oftentimes subsitutive or overlapping, and at other times distinct. As a result, I see Option 1 as best representative of both the sources and the nature of the party. Pilaz (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

POV
After a string of edits today, I am seriously concerned with the neutrality of this article. I cannot fix the issue myself, as I would violate the 3RR rule, so I took it here. Previously, the info box said that the party was "Right-wing to far-right". Both claims were backed up by reliable sources. Now it has been changed to "Centre-right to Right-wing" simply because the leader of the party says they are centrist. This is obviously not a valid reason to remove sourced information. Additionally, the article should use the term "Climate change denial", as this is the term which is also used by the relevant article on Wikipedia. Adding "Environmentalism" based on primary sources is also not how it works. Thank you. --MrClog (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , Should the infobox be for accusations of secretly being more extreme than the party claims to be or be for the official open political position the party takes itself? You sourced Al Jazeera, The Telegraph and Politico (all non-Dutch sources btw) which did not explain why the party should be classified as far-right, but only referred to it as such in their title and went along with it for the rest of the article. Very little (if any) reliable sources from the Netherlands will refer to FvD as a far-right party and most people don't see it as one either (although, admittedly, that's harder to prove with sources). The infobox is for easy, short and objective information on the party, such as their leader, seats in parliament, colour and also position. You can't add accusations by some media to this. That's more fitting for a specific section called something like 'Criticism' or 'Accusations of being far-right'.


 * Now, I will admit the party calling itself a 'middenpartij' is not a great source either. Of course a party benefits from calling itself more moderate and it's probably best to instead go with the general consensus, which is that they're simply 'right-wing'. Not 'centre-right to right-wing' or 'right-wing to far-right', but just 'right-wing'. This is an option most people can agree on, including the party itself. There could be a mention of the party claiming to be centre-right somewhere and there could be a mention of the fact some people and media think that the party is more far-right than it claims to be, but let's leave both these claims out of the sidebar, alright? Is that a good compromise?


 * -Freerka (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , first of all, you constantly imply all my sources were non-Dutch, but that is false, I linked a Dutch report as well. Second of all, can you point me to any policy (and not just your own opinion or "that's just common sense") that says that Dutch sources weigh stronger in this than non-Dutch sources? Third of all, no Wikipedia policy requires the sources to explain why they call FvD far-right. Fourth of all, you say that the 'far-right' mentions are just accusations, but the same could be said about the sources that "accuse" FvD of being right-wing, right? Fifth of all, no, it's not a good compromise, because the sources that call FvD far-right are just as good as those that call them right-wing and they both don't match the party's self-identification, so there's no clear reason why right-wing is better than far-right. It seems more to be based on your own opinion. Thanks. --MrClog (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , Let me tackle this one by one:


 * 1. Yes, one source was Dutch, but that was not a neutral and unbiased one. The Verwey-Jonker institute is named after Hilda Verwey-Jonker, a politician for the Social Democratic Workers' Party and later also for the Labour Party. The Anne Frank Stichting is also widely regarded as an extremely biased organisation with a strong left-wing bias. I say this with great regret, because I think it's very sad Anne Frank's name and the legacy of the Holocaust is abused for political gain, but you cannot use a source from such a biased organisation, even if it is officially regarded as reliable. If you have any standards, you will see through their nonsense and not take it seriously. The accusations made in the report aren't based on anything and Wikipedia should have at least some standards when it comes to this. I know this might not sound like a strong argument, but on a more personal level (instead of Wikipedia policy) anyone with a brain can see this report cannot be taken serious as a justification to label FvD as far-right. Their claims are based on nothing but suspicion and guilt by association.


 * 2. No I can't but if you're describing a Dutch party and can't find a single reliable newspaper from the Netherlands referring to the party as 'far-right', is it fair to still label the party as far-right, because three foreign sources (all very often accused of having left-wing biases too btw) referred to it as such?


 * 3. Isn't that incredibly dangerous policy then? If a newspaper (accidentally) refers to someone with the wrong label, people can now describe that person as that label on Wikipedia, because a reliable source described them as such? I'd expect better arguments, especially for a claim as strong as calling someone far-right. You're throwing the party on the same pile as nazis, fascists and other ethno-nationalistic hate groups. I think stronger arguments are needed to back up such a potentially dangerous claim.


 * 4. No, the party's policy matches the Wikipedia definition of a right wing party, the party describes itself as right-wing and you will find an overwhelming majority of sources referring to the party as just right-wing. It's very rare to see a reliable source refer to FvD as far-right and in the few cases you could find, they were left-leaning foreign newspapers who didn't even explain their choice of calling the party far-right.


 * 5. Right-wing does match the party's self-identification. They variably refer to themselves as both centre and right-wing, but never far-right. In fact, they actively distance themselves from the far-right and have even kicked out members who were associating themselves with some far-right figures (this was actually mentioned in the report by the Anne Frank Stichting you used). This is not just based on my opinion, but on the general consensus. Yes, I do think the party is right-wing and not far-right, but so do most people, sources and the party itself.


 * -Freerka (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , (1) the fact that the Verwey-Jonker Institute is named after a left-wing politician doesn't prove it's unreliable. (2) Please note that Dutch sources shouldn't be given more weight than English ones, but I found another one anyways. (3) If a newspaper per accident labels someone far-right they would retract that. Also, if you disagree with the general Wikipedia policy, please propose to change that and not use this article to change it. (4) The party is both called right-wing and far-right, that's why the infobox says "Right-wing to far-right". (5) But again, the party's self-identification is not what we mention in the infobox. If mister Baudet would say FvD was left-wing, we would obviously not take that over. --MrClog (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , I'm sorry, but are you expecting anyone to take De Groene Amsterdammer serious as an unbiased source? That's insane. It's a left-wing 'opinieblad'. It's purpose is to print left-wing columns. You can't use that as a source on an article about a right-wing party. They have just as much of an interest in making FvD sound worse than it is as FvD has an interest in making itself look better than it is. It's incredibly intellectually dishonest to name a party far-right on their Wikipedia page, because some openly left-wing magazines and some newspapers which are often accused of having a left-wing bias call it far-right. Even if this is technically in accordance with the rules, you rarely see this done anywhere on Wikipedia. Groenlinks isn't called far-left on Wikipedia, even though I could give you multiple right-wing sources who will bring up Groenlinks' association with far-left hate groups and also compare their ideology to the far-left.    But you won't see me editing Groenlinks' article to include them being 'far-left' or even 'antisemitic'. This would be extremely unfair. I want Wikipedia to be neutral and honest. Biased sources don't help in achieving this goal. Of course left wing media will sometimes try to paint a right-wing party as far-right and of course right-wing media will sometimes paint a left-wing party as far-left, those are givens. FvD isn't far-right and Groenlinks isn't far-left. Both parties are much closer to the centre than opinionated journalists on both sides want you to believe and I would be fighting just as hard for 'far-left' to be removed from Groenlinks' page if someone were to add that. It's unfair, ruins intellectual debate and could potentially lead to very dangerous situations for the politicians involved. People don't like extremism in The Netherlands and dishonestly referring to major parties as extremist can inspire someone to take fate into his own hands. This has happened before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freerka (talk • contribs) 20:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , first of all, please do not link me saying FvD should be labelled as "Right-wing to far-right" to the assassination of a politician (who wasn't killed because he was allegedly far-right, but he was killed by an animal rights activist), because that is intellectually dishonest. I would be fine with you adding "far-left" to GreenLeft's entry if you had proper sources. The first two sources you gave simply say GreenLeft was present at a protest where extreme-left groups were present as well. The third one is an opinion article. The fourth one comes from an opinion magazine. The fifth one calls the BDS-movement, and not GL, antisemitic. It seems more like you just searched the words "GroenLinks" and "extreem-links" and copied some links than that you did actual research. Wikipedia is not censored, so if reliable sources call FvD far-right, we do so as well. This discussion is getting tiresome, so I'm going to request a third opinion. Thanks. --MrClog (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , a third opinion is fine, but let me correct one thing: Pim Fortuyn wasn't killed because of animal rights. Volkert van der Graaf said himself he wanted to stop Fortuyn from exploiting Muslims and immigrants as scapegoats and because he targeted the vulnerable sections of society. The climate that inspired this politically motivated murder is very similar to the climate you're contributing to by referring to a mainstream right-wing party as far-right. It demonises the party, disqualifies them for political debate and could very well inspire someone to, like I said before, take fate into his own hands. It's very dangerous to label parties as extremist this easily. You will need much better arguments for an accusation that serious.


 * "The first two sources you gave simply say GreenLeft was present at a protest where extreme-left groups were present as well." One of your sources also used guilt by association to label FvD far-right.


 * "The third one is an opinion article. The fourth one comes from an opinion magazine." So is the Groene Amsterdammer.


 * "The fifth one calls the BDS-movement, and not GL, antisemitic." And it connected GL to the BDS movement because of their open support for them. One of your sources called FvD far-right, because one ex-member of FvD (he has been kicked out) was associating with the far-right NVU. It's actually quite similar. -Freerka (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , the difference is that my sources call FvD far-right. Yours don't call GL far-left, but say they're associated with a far-left group. This is getting tiresome. Let's just wait for the third opinion before continuing this discussion. --MrClog (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Doesn't 'right-wing' also describe a range? It includes anything from centre-right to far-right, but doesn't automatically associate the party with far-right politics. I think simply describing the party as 'right-wing' will be much less controversial. If you haven't noticed, I'm not the first person to correct/question the assertion that the party is far-right. It's a very serious accusation/claim and most Dutch people especially will not agree with it. Although personally I'd place the party closer to the centre (as they have many left wing and even progressive policies too. They're more pragmatic than ideological if you ask me actually), I think simply right-wing is the most generally agreed upon definition of the party's political position. This is something most people will agree on, while simply adding 'to far-right' is bound to anger a huge amount of people and also subconsciously delegitimises the party.


 * Honestly, the far right label should be reserved for authoritarian, racist, ultra nationalistic and ultra reactionary parties. Not for a liberal party that's critical of the EU and mass-immigration. -Freerka (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , we don't censor Wikipedia because its content can anger people, nor is the general opinion considered a reliable source. --MrClog (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * If you still want to remove "far-right", please say so and I will make a request for comments. --MrClog (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding to this debate, there are academic sources backing up the rightwing to farright label. Here, for example,, the party is described as a rightwing populist party (p. 45). This has been similarly argued by Ben Margulies. Similarly, van Holsteyn(2018) speaks of right-wing populism 137.248.1.2 (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

What English Variant?
An IP editor has today made various changes which are fine, but has been changing the English from UK to US English, including the odd looking "euroskeptic" which is a rare compared to "eurosceptic" for understandable reasons. Should we mandate an English variant here? and if so which? Being about a Dutch party, there is no strong national tie to British English, although EU English uses British spellings. Is there any editor consensus on this? Until there is, please don't change any more spellings from UK to US variant. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thierry Baudet (2018).jpg

Abbreviation
Here are relevant links that abbreviate Forum for Democracy as FVD:
 * https://www.fvd.nl/
 * https://www.parlement.com/id/vkbfkzyuqytw/forum_voor_democratie_fvd
 * https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerleden_en_commissies/fracties/fvd

Lois12jd (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox - ideology; March 2021
The ideology section for this article is a mess. Conservatism, National conservatism, Social conservatism and Conservative liberalism can be grouped just into Conservatism, Climate change denial, direct demoracy aren't ideologies and E-democracy is WP:PRIMARY. Political position can be discussed later if needed. Vacant0 (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would personally prefer "national conservatism" over "conservatism", but I think what you have is okay. Ezhao02 (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * National conservatism is alright too in this case. Vacant0 (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes this need be reduced to conservatism. All others are part of conservatism Shadow4dark (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * On a similar topic do others think we should condense Turkish Dutch interests, Moroccan Dutch interests and Dutch Muslim interests on the Denk (political party) page down to just Minority rights or something similar? Helper201 (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * On DENK, we should add that and hide others under Minority rights Shadow4dark (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems accurate to me! But I think it would be better to list "National conservatism" as the party's main ideology, as a combination of "Dutch nationalism" and "Conservatism". &#8213; Ætoms  [talk] 22:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's smart. I'll change it now, Thank you. Vacant0 (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reducing it to National conservatism, Right-wing populism, and Euroscepticism seems reasonable. Erinthecute (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I just checked the source on "National Conservativism", and a) this is not a source on political ideology, and b) it does not actually back up the ideology being national conservative. From what I can tell, that label emerges purely from this Wikipedia debate, but is not based on sources outside of it. A search on academic sites yielded zero results, which is not a good sign. I also checked if I could find any better sources, but all I came across were academic sources saying that the party describes itself as conservative, but is indeed a far right or radical right party. See this summary which classifies FvD as "radical-right populist" as well as this analysis explicitly stating that the party is not Conservative but radical right. I would consider dropping the label National Conservative alltogether because Wikipedia cannot do original research, and existing sources simply do not back it up. --2A02:908:2813:BB40:41D7:7FA0:956A:C845 (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Political shift in the FvD
I could see why, seeing its views at the time, the FvD was classified as "right-wing to far-right" about a year ago. However, seeing recent events (The youth group's statements, Baudet's statements, his re-election as party leader, the exodus from the party from the more moderate elements), I think at this point, it would be fair to file it as simply "far-right." Here are some articles that file Baudet's party as simply far-right from the past few weeks-months: http://dutchnews.nl/news/2020/12/thierry-baudet-wins-popular-vote-to-stay-on-as-leader-of-far-right-fvd/ https://nltimes.nl/2020/12/04/baudet-back-far-right-fvd-leader-11-days-resigning https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2020/12/04/thierry-baudet-blijft-leider-van-het-radicaal-rechtse-forum-voor/ The party has simply shifted right in the past year and become fully far-right in the past month or two. If there are articles written in Wikipedia-level outlets recently which describe the FvD's views as something other than far-right or extreme right, then the current description is correct. However, I don't think those exist because I don't really think the FvD is categorizable as merely right-wing anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.137.28.170 (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree with the above.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of your sources always claims them far right. So i disagree and this is most balanced and neutral stance as per many other sources. Shadow4dark (talk) 06:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This source classifies FvD as fascist. The shift has been clear and strong in the past two years. Andries (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

All the sources cited by "right wing" are from 2018/2019 before the shift too the far right. Especially now that JA21, GO and BVNL have left the party practically the only remaining politicians inside of FvD are easily classified as far right. Plus dutch media has started referring too FvD as far right and Dutch politcal scientists are also saying it should be classified as radical right or far right. https://www.nu.nl/politiek/6168990/politicoloog-ziet-forum-voor-democratie-steeds-verder-radicaliseren.html I think it's time too classify FvD as simply far right. Jax the subhumam (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Change to historical right wing to far right and currently to far right? Similar as this party []Shadow4dark (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes that's good. Jax the subhumam (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Footnote 46
In this version, footnote 46 states the name of the author as 'Joseef Wanders'. The text in the article says 'Joseef Eanders'. I do not have access to 'Het Financieele Dagblad', so I can not check which one is a typo. At least one of the names is a type, and 'Wanders' seems more likely than 'Eanders'. But both names are not shown to me in a Google search. Who can check this out? Thanks, RonnieV (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Russophilia?
The evidence given to label Forum for Democracy as russophile is very thin. There are only 2 newspaper articles cited, both are from march 2022 (7th and 11th of march) and as the titles say: their leader feels ideologically related to Putin, and the other article: the leader doesn't see Putin as the agressor in the Ukraine war/'special operations'. How does that make this political party russophile?

The definition given on this very website: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russophilia

"Russophilia (literally love of Russia or Russians) is admiration and fondness of Russia (including the era of the Soviet Union and/or the Russian Empire), Russian history and Russian culture."

I don´t see anything about feeling ideologically related to the current leader of the Russian Federation being included in that definition, nor do I see anything in that definition about seeing Russia as the agressor or not in a war/conflict (which would be a politicisation of the definition of russophilia and of the article about Forum for Democracy). Let's keep it as objective as possible.

In summary: Feeling ideologically related to Putin ≠ Russophilia. Not seeing Putin as aggressor in Ukraine war ≠ Russophilia. Politics (current) ≠ Russian people, history, culture. Therefore: Forum for Democracy is not russophile and this label should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.112.184.27 (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I have removed it. Dajasj (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Membership numbers
Hi the critical statement is not really accurate anymore, as the 2021' numbers were verified. See this statement. So it should be rewritten, but can perhaps be best left out because the previous numbers are in line with the 2021 numbers. Dajasj (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, the amount of members per party is not verified by the DNPP, or any other organisation. The numbers are declared by the political parties and then reported without external verification. The FvD claims a sustained growth, the largest of any party, that is incongruent with their political results, as pointed out by the sources provided. Since reliable secondary literature exists that is sceptical about the FvD's membership numbers, I believe it can stay with the current wording. Melchior Philips (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the statement mentions that an accountant has verified the membership. I would argue that at least "in the past" should be added to the current wording, as that reflects the current assesment. Dajasj (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, my apologies. I had read the statement but missed the addendum in the footnote that indeed indicates that a notary declaration was included. NOS also reported on this. I will reword it to "in the past," indeed. Melchior Philips (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Fascism
There is a lot of debate in the scientific community if FvD is fascist or not. Is there a way we can add this ideology (adding this I personally think is justified) while still keeping some nuance? Like a tag (I would think of a “factions” think but with something indicating the public and scientific debate). I think this change is important to remind people who don’t know a lot about Dutch politics that FvD isn’t some normal hard line conservative populist party. 89.205.133.62 (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is already consensus about their ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Forum_for_Democracy/Archive_1#Infobox_-_ideology;_March_2021. Later we added far right and your source is a opinion Shadow4dark (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Russia-Ukraine — better source
The article says Baudet took the Russian position on the Russian intervention in the Ukrainian civil conflict. However, the source it gives states that Baudet’s opponents accused him of doing so, not that he actually did it. The insults of opponents don’t count as a proper source, even when they’re reported, without endorsement, by state media. I want to the party YouTube channel and found a video condemning the Russian intervention but saying there’s context strategic to it, which “does not justify” the intervention but does explain it. Hardly an endorsement of the Russian presentation of the war. It seems to me Baudet, in fact, does not support the conflict or the way it has supposedly been presented in Russia but merely wants to find a way to end it as quickly as possible and prevent such things from happening in the future. And not waste his time at parliament in ceremoniously repeating his condemnation as a mere, useless gesture. If you want that section to remain unaltered, I would recommend finding a source that actually backs up the claim, rather than merely noting it has been used as an attack by his opponents, as the current citation does. NatriumGedrogt (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)