Talk:La France Insoumise

Translation/Title
I’m not sure that the title of this article is a very good translation. Unsubmissive is not a common or easily parsed word in English and does not convey the meanings of “disobedient, rebellious, unruly” that insoumis(e) has. Off the top of my head I don’t have a perfect suggestion, but maybe something like “France Unbowed” would be better, if a little poetic. —☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 03:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that "unsubmissive" is not a natural English word, but I would say it's better than "unbowed", personally. Though I can't think of a decent alternative either! Online dictionaries suggest "rebellious".. Jdcooper (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The New York Times uses Rebellious France as the translation. Liam987   talk  08:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I recently discovered that JLM's videos on YouTube also have English subtitles, so I decided to check those (in the absence of English campaign materials), and almost always they maintain the French name ("La France insoumise")      ; otherwise, it's "rebel/unsubdued". Unfortunately when it comes to English media, as in France, Mélenchon receives less press coverage than he probably deserves and there doesn't appear to be any single dominant translation in English (and many of the sources I've consulted simply avoid naming it entirely). I think it's most sensible to defer to the French name. Mélencron (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. I wonder if User:Léodras has an opinion, as the main contributor.. Jdcooper (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have also noticed that The Guardian uses "Unbowed France". It seems that there is no official translation, and I have no idea which one would be the best, as I'm not a native english speaker. All that I can say is that "Unsubmissive France" is more common in Google than others translations, but I don't know why. Léodras (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably because of this Wikipedia article, frankly. Mélencron (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably, yes. But I agree with the original poster that "unsubmissive France" is neither natural English nor the same in feeling as the French original, so I would support a move to the French title. Jdcooper (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I support this to be moved to either more natural English "Unbowed France" (as used by a notable English source such as The Guardian) or (if the original name's feeling is lost with the translation) to leave it just as "La France insoumise" as per WP:NCPP. Impru20 (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I support this too ! Léodras (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Il me semble qu'un bien meilleure traduction serait "Untamed France". Ca conserve les notions couvertes par "insoumise", la négation et il me semble bien l'avoir vu passer dans une ou deux traduction britaniques. Trenien04 (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've read "Indomitable France" as a better translation - this English-language version of France24 discusses: http://www.france24.com/en/20170414-france-politics-presidential-race-unsubmissive-awkward-translations-melenchon-macron-fillon Quee1797 (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Deepl.com suggest using Insubordinated witch i do think represent pretty well the original semantic. --Eric1212 (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems like the best suggestion to me thus far. It preserves the sense of the word and the negation as "in-" (thus also preserving the abbreviation in a way that makes sense in English). Mélencron (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but it seems pretty clear that there is no consensus within English language sources, so we should go with the original title with a note about various translations. Should someone make the move? Jdcooper (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Currently reads "... also known in English as Unbowed France, France Unbowed, Untamed France, France Untamed, Defiant France, Rebellious France, Indomitable France, or Unsubmissive France)" - which seems ridiculous to me. Could we ask a bilingual, native French speaker to suggest the 'best nuance' (in bold) with max. of 1-2 alternatives perhaps? Roy Bateman (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, because that's original research. Those alternatives are listed because they have all been used in the English-language press. However, I do think that if any of them have only been used once or twice, we would be justified in leaving them out.. Jdcooper (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Roy Bateman that it's just absolutely awful to list over half a dozen alternatives in the first sentence of the article. They should be included, but preferably somewhere else in the article, and in a more tidy fashion. Finally, the description of the group's logo does not belong in the first sentence of the lead either. — Μαρκος Δ  21:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * French sources, like France 24, list it as France Unbowed. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 17:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Euroscepticism
Sounds a bit problematic for a party that demands unilateral withdrawal from EU treaties and the EU itself, to be classified as "soft eurosceptic". Shouldn't the FI be listed as a Hard Eurosceptic (or at least Eurosceptic) instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.32.111 (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

They don't demand unilateral withdrawal from EU treaties but their renegotiation... so it would not be unilateral. Whereas this party is definitely not pro-EU, making a difference between them and parties asking for a complete and unilateral withdrawal from the EU is totally relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.53.202.229 (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Tags
Hi User:DGG, you recently added some cleanup tags to this article. I'm certain that, like most articles, it could use some work, but could you give us some idea which parts you were referring to specifically? Jdcooper (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * the entire tone from beginning to end is propaganda for the party's views. It is necessary to say what they are, but the morei mpt part is what the party has done. Surely someone not affilliate with the part has had something to sya.  DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Needs improvement
The article reads like it was poorly translated from French in many places — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.229.184 (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Communist party
You can not use left-wing smears on right-wing conservative parties by calling them "far-right" and allowing left-wing parties to be described by how they view themselves. "Democratic socialism" is an oxymoron like humanitarian Hitler and in the end only the way how the party describes itself. No right-wing parties used the term "far-right" to describe themselves but here you are using the way how OTHER parties view them. Double standard.

Either you are using self-descriptions on both side of the isles or you are one-sided and using wikipedia as a tool to spread left-wing propaganda. 80.131.50.200 (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Democratic socialism being an oxymoron is your opinion, which runs counter to WP:NPOV. The current description of LFI and most far-right parties are cited by sources unrelated to those parties. You aren't going to find any sources that conform to WP:RS that label LFI as communist. I also can't help but notice that you hide behind an unregistered IP rather than an account, which seems to signify that this is in fact a right-wing smear/troll rather than a legitimate attempt at discussion. --Hunter9502 (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Islamo-Leftism
The use of "Islamo-Leftism" on the political description of FI is really problematic. This term is used by the French right to discredit any leftist mouvement, whenever the mouvements contain muslims or not. As Sylvie Tissot, a French sociologist working at Paris-VIII, «L'expression avait évidemment pour but de nous disqualifier, estime-t-elle. A l'époque, le terme désignait un militantisme hétéroclite où l'on retrouvait aussi bien des chrétiens de gauche que des personnes engagées dans la solidarité internationale… D'où, j'imagine, le qualificatif de "gauchistes". », which translates to "The expression was obviously made to disqualify us," she says. "At the time, the term qualified a heteroclit militantism wher you could find leftists christians as well as people engaged in international solidarity... From where, I imagine, the use of "leftism"." (quote from this Libération article). Moreover, this word is widly regarded as a right wing slur, in addition to be the new "judeo-bolchevism" (source in French). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erwan789 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Since LFI consider Hamas a 'resistance movement', have refused to acknowledge it as a terrorist organization, and despite having daily communication attacking israel, consistently omit the liberation of the hostages, there is absolutely not doubt that 'LFI' is indeed islamo-leftist. In internal affair they systematical ignore or minimize victim of violence when the aggressor is a muslim, and support and co-opt riot (notably the ones in july 2022, that costed 900+ millions of euro in insured damage)
 * In the US the video evidence show a clear cut case of justified use of force: in the US when you have a cop on your hood and one on the driver window, weapon drawn, you do not start fleeing _again_ with your car.
 * But that is what LFI used to foment riot under so-called 'police brutality' heading spinkled with accusation of police racism.
 * so yeah 'islamo-leftism' is the least that can be used. Shmget (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Look, you cannot use islamo-leftism for a party which does not want any form of religion into government. Here is a 2021 article detailing how the term is used as a far right whistle, not even rooted in any political reality.
 * Also, this "minimize victim of violence when the aggressor is a muslim" is wildy incorrect. In 2022, after violence and sexual misconduct allegations were made against Taha Bouhafs, the party did not hesitate one day before kicking him out while conducting an investigation, which resulted in the permanent ban of that journalist. If anything, they have a complacent mind against white people, since Adrien Quatennens, accused of the same thing as Bouhafs, was not kicked out and even reconducted in this year's legislative elections, even after being found guilty in front of a court of law.
 * The riots in France were caused by the police killing a teenager. The case is still ongoing as to what happened, but the fact is there. It was a civil and political reaction about the structural and systematical police abuse non-white people get in this country. Here are some articles about it, France24, RFI, even the European Council deems our police too violent. The party never called to violence, that is a pure lie. They have called for solutions, while saying that a violent response was to be expected from the minorities. Erwan789 (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just because your party doesn't like the label, doesn't mean it's false. The right-wing hates the label nationalism, but it is applied because it is true.  Stop trying to use ridiculous contortions of logic to justify how a party that refuses to recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization does not have influence from Islam. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The justification for that was that the military part of Hamas (a wide organization) was not the entire organization, which is extremely flawed logic, but not "islamo-leftism". Nationalism is far-right, since LFI and the far-right are not treated equally in the media (at least in France), that analogy doesn't make sense. Political positioning is determined by political and economical matters as well as cultural ones, claiming LFI must "hate the nation", while the far-right is the opposite, is not supported by sources. Islamo-leftism doesn't sound like something which actually exists, otherwise why not put "wokism" or "cancel culturism" in the info box? 80.209.216.81 (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Political position Left-wing ?
In the political position we have "Left-wing to far-left" but the sources for "Left-wing" talk about the left in general (so including the far-left). In the french page, the position is "Gauche radicale à extrême gauche" so "(Moderate) far-left to far-left". The "Left-wing" should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsandre (talk • contribs) 18:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, a RfC would be needed in order to gain consensus on the English Wiki. Vacant0 (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Although now while looking through your edits, they either seem to be biased or you haven't read WP:REF. My recommendation would be to read that first. --Vacant0 (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The political position should be change. The position is (in french) "gauche radicale", a position in french equivalent to a moderate far-left (Radical left wing), to far-left.
 * Some politologists say that the party is radical left, like:
 * * Gaël Brustier : https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/france/301118/france-insoumise-derriere-la-crise-l-impasse-d-un-mouvement-gazeux, or in Le désordre idéologique, Editions du Cerf, 22 septembre 2017, 235 p. (ISBN 978-2-204-12435-5, https://books.google.fr/books?id=pfiBDwAAQBAJ&q=insoumise+radicale#v=snippet&q=insoumise%20radicale&f=false).
 * * Pierre Martin, Crise mondiale et systèmes partisans, Presses de SciencesPo, 1er novembre 2018, 326 p. (ISBN 978-2-7246-2342-0, https://books.google.fr/books?id=JnF0DwAAQBAJ&q=%22perc%C3%A9e+spectaculaire%22#v=snippet&q=%22perc%C3%A9e%20spectaculaire%22&f=false)
 * * Pascal Perrineau, Le vote disruptif : Les élections présidentielles et législatives de 2017, Presses de Sciences Po, 16 novembre 2017, 448 p. (ISBN 978-2-7246-2167-9, https://books.google.fr/books?id=g4M_DwAAQBAJ&q=%22importante+de+la+gauche+radicale%22#v=snippet&q=%22importante%20de%20la%20gauche%20radicale%22&f=false).
 * or far-left:
 * * Dominique Reynié : https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2017/05/RIMBERT/57489
 * French journalists used to call the party radical left:
 * * https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2017/06/12/la-gauche-radicale-en-position-de-remporter-une-dizaine-de-circonscriptions-seulement_5143273_4355770.html
 * * https://www.lemonde.fr/election-presidentielle-2017/article/2017/03/17/hamon-melenchon-la-gauche-a-deux-voies_5096035_4854003.html
 * * https://www.lemonde.fr/election-presidentielle-2017/article/2017/04/26/presidentielle-melenchon-federe-la-contestation-de-gauche_5117738_4854003.html
 * * https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/politique/la-france-insoumise-le-parti-de-jean-luc-melenchon_1916723.html
 * * https://www.lepoint.fr/politique/melenchon-tribun-insoumis-de-la-gauche-radicale-francaise-23-04-2017-2121822_20.php
 * or far-left:
 * * https://www.ouest-france.fr/europe/grande-bretagne/l-un-d-entre-nous-va-bien-arriver-gagner-les-elections-melenchon-rencontre-le-leader-du-labour-5984081
 * * https://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2018/08/25/2856888-melenchon-veut-mettre-raclee-democratique-macron-elections-europeennes.html
 * * https://www.petitbleu.fr/article/2018/08/30/92702-macron-en-premiere-ligne-face-aux-populistes.html
 * * https://www.bfmtv.com/politique/antisemitisme-que-reproche-t-on-a-la-france-insoumise_AN-201902180104.html
 * * https://www.capital.fr/economie-politique/jean-luc-melenchon-et-marine-le-pen-l-etonnante-ressemblance-de-leurs-programmes-economiques-1204870
 * * https://fr.euronews.com/2019/09/19/proces-de-jean-luc-melenchon-le-chef-de-la-france-insoumise-risque-prison-amende-et-inelig
 * * https://www.francesoir.fr/politique-france/la-france-insoumise-souverainiste-et-nationaliste-se-rapproche-t-elle-du-rn
 * * https://www.20minutes.fr/rennes/2081763-20170608-legislatives-plebiscitee-presidentielles-france-insoumise-nourrit-ambitions-rennes
 * * https://www.sudouest.fr/politique/jean-luc-melenchon/crise-a-la-france-insoumise-la-methode-jean-luc-melenchon-remise-en-question-2582666.php
 * directly or by association.
 * Lsandre (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/7/left-coalition-ahead-of-macron-alliance-far-right-in-france-exit-polls
 * https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-07/melenchon-grabs-spotlight-after-french-left-heads-for-shock-win?embedded-checkout=true
 * https://www.politico.eu/article/france-legislative-election-2024-second-round-front-populaire-jean-luc-melenchon-raphael-glucksmann-shock-victory/
 * Here's a few more reliable sources, these in English. Fair to say that the RS call them far-left. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.politico.eu/article/france-legislative-election-2024-second-round-front-populaire-jean-luc-melenchon-raphael-glucksmann-shock-victory/
 * Here's a few more reliable sources, these in English. Fair to say that the RS call them far-left. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Political Position
Should we update the political position into the infobox to "Radical left to far-left". Lsandre (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The political position should be change. The position is (in french) "gauche radicale", a position in french equivalent to a moderate far-left (Radical left wing), to far-left.

Some politologists say that the party is radical left, like: or far-left:
 * Gaël Brustier : https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/france/301118/france-insoumise-derriere-la-crise-l-impasse-d-un-mouvement-gazeux, or in Le désordre idéologique, Editions du Cerf, 22 septembre 2017, 235 p. (ISBN 978-2-204-12435-5, https://books.google.fr/books?id=pfiBDwAAQBAJ&q=insoumise+radicale#v=snippet&q=insoumise%20radicale&f=false).
 * Pierre Martin, Crise mondiale et systèmes partisans, Presses de SciencesPo, 1er novembre 2018, 326 p. (ISBN 978-2-7246-2342-0, https://books.google.fr/books?id=JnF0DwAAQBAJ&q=%22perc%C3%A9e+spectaculaire%22#v=snippet&q=%22perc%C3%A9e%20spectaculaire%22&f=false)
 * Pascal Perrineau, Le vote disruptif : Les élections présidentielles et législatives de 2017, Presses de Sciences Po, 16 novembre 2017, 448 p. (ISBN 978-2-7246-2167-9, https://books.google.fr/books?id=g4M_DwAAQBAJ&q=%22importante+de+la+gauche+radicale%22#v=snippet&q=%22importante%20de%20la%20gauche%20radicale%22&f=false).
 * Dominique Reynié : https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2017/05/RIMBERT/57489

French journalists used to call the party radical left: or far-left: directly or by association. Lsandre (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2017/06/12/la-gauche-radicale-en-position-de-remporter-une-dizaine-de-circonscriptions-seulement_5143273_4355770.html
 * https://www.lemonde.fr/election-presidentielle-2017/article/2017/03/17/hamon-melenchon-la-gauche-a-deux-voies_5096035_4854003.html
 * https://www.lemonde.fr/election-presidentielle-2017/article/2017/04/26/presidentielle-melenchon-federe-la-contestation-de-gauche_5117738_4854003.html
 * https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/politique/la-france-insoumise-le-parti-de-jean-luc-melenchon_1916723.html
 * https://www.lepoint.fr/politique/melenchon-tribun-insoumis-de-la-gauche-radicale-francaise-23-04-2017-2121822_20.php
 * https://www.ouest-france.fr/europe/grande-bretagne/l-un-d-entre-nous-va-bien-arriver-gagner-les-elections-melenchon-rencontre-le-leader-du-labour-5984081
 * https://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2018/08/25/2856888-melenchon-veut-mettre-raclee-democratique-macron-elections-europeennes.html
 * https://www.petitbleu.fr/article/2018/08/30/92702-macron-en-premiere-ligne-face-aux-populistes.html
 * https://www.bfmtv.com/politique/antisemitisme-que-reproche-t-on-a-la-france-insoumise_AN-201902180104.html
 * https://www.capital.fr/economie-politique/jean-luc-melenchon-et-marine-le-pen-l-etonnante-ressemblance-de-leurs-programmes-economiques-1204870
 * https://fr.euronews.com/2019/09/19/proces-de-jean-luc-melenchon-le-chef-de-la-france-insoumise-risque-prison-amende-et-inelig
 * https://www.francesoir.fr/politique-france/la-france-insoumise-souverainiste-et-nationaliste-se-rapproche-t-elle-du-rn
 * https://www.20minutes.fr/rennes/2081763-20170608-legislatives-plebiscitee-presidentielles-france-insoumise-nourrit-ambitions-rennes
 * https://www.sudouest.fr/politique/jean-luc-melenchon/crise-a-la-france-insoumise-la-methode-jean-luc-melenchon-remise-en-question-2582666.php
 * what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 3,200 bytes, the statement above (from the tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for  to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Should we update the political position into the infobox to "Radical left to far-left". Lsandre (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Then it needs to follow the directly: Legobot won't look for it way down here. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Two another sources from politologist which placing LFI at the far-left:
 * Pierre Vercauteren : https://www.rtbf.be/article/en-france-la-course-aux-legislatives-commence-des-elections-d-une-importance-rarement-connue-depuis-le-suffrage-universel-10981041
 * Michel Hermans : https://www.lecho.be/economie-politique/europe/general/la-grande-union-des-gauches-francaises-prend-forme/10385481.html Lsandre (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * C'est un élément langage je vous renvoie pour preuve que c'est un élément langage sur la vidéos "les extrême" anatomie d'un trompe l'œil réthorique de Clément Viktorovitch également politologue.
 * Législatives 2022 : "les extrêmes", anatomie d’un trompe-l’œil rhétorique (francetvinfo.fr)
 * Cet argument est inapproprié, et même fallacieux. Et pour le démontrer, on est obligé de faire un peu d’histoire politique. Commençons par l’extrême gauche. C’est un terme précis. L’historien Serge Cosseron, auteur du Dictionnaire de l’extrême gauche, rappelle qu’il désigne "les organisation anticapitalistes révolutionnaires, qui se caractérisent par leur rejet des institutions". Typiquement : le Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste et Lutte Ouvrière, qui se sont présentés à l’élection présidentielle, tout en affirmant ne pas vouloir être élus.
 * un mouvement d’extrême gauche ? Réponse : non. Selon aucune définition. C’est un mouvement réformiste, qui souhaite le changement par les urnes. Quant à son programme, il est dans la droite ligne du programme commun défendu par François Mitterrand en 1981. Alors, c’est vrai qu’à l’époque, la droite prétendait qu’il se traduirait par l’arrivée des chars russes dans Paris. Mais avec le recul, plus personne ne le qualifierait d’extrémiste.
 * Une sources suisse SEZAME.org les classes uniquement comme gauche radical uniquement.
 * La version anglaise de Wikipédia, peut-être davantage neutre pour ce qui est de la politique française, encore que, positionne la France insoumise non pas dans "Far left" (extrême gauche) mais dans "Left wing" (gauche radicale), sur le même plan que Génération.s et le Parti communiste français. Dimit40 (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Parti communiste français." for the benefit of US reader: this person is trying to tell you that 'Communism' is not 'far left' but just 'left'. (but has no problem with classifying ~40% of the french electorate as 'extreme right'.
 * To give you an idea on that scale AOC is right of LFI Shmget (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well that person is right, by the Conseil d'Etat. Yeah AOC is right of LFI, because USA politics, when transposed to French politics, are far more to the right. Any comparison is difficult, but come on. That's just fallacious on your part.
 * Per my other message, please read before commenting wrong things. Erwan789 (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, the Communists were the first party in November 1946 and achieved 16 to 28% between 1945 and 1981, they were part of the constitutional mainstream, just like the Communists in Italy, who are not considered far-left. Different countries, different contexts. In Western Europe, Communists contributed to the Resistance against Nazi-Fascism, in the United States there was McCarthyism, and the United States are generally far to the right (there is no true socialist, social-democratic, or labourist party), so that left-wing social democracy is considered far-left when it is just the mainstream left in Western Europe, where in countries like France far-left is reserved to parties to the left of the mainstream Communist party, as does the Ministry of the Interior and the French Council of State, both of which are fairly independent of LFI. Also, were Hitler or the Italian fascists not far-right just because they won 30 to 40% of the votes? The number of the votes or percentage does not necessarily equal centrism or mainstream left-wing/right-wing because extremists have won significant number of votes, too.
 * In fact, in the 19th and 20th centuries, communism was the left-wing, its more radical wing (with reformist socialists being its moderate wing) but left-wing nonetheless rather than far-left, which scholars reserved to further left-wing currents, such as council communism or left communism and anarchism. Since the political centre shifted more towards the right, especially on economics issues since the 1970s and with the fall of Communist regimes in the 1980s, and communism lost its ground on the left as well, it is often seen as far-left, even though it was not always so and in certain countries and context, communism and its mainstream Communist party is still considered left-wing rather than far-left, or at least we still have some sources described it as left-wing and others as far-left. LFI is not even a Communist party, and sources variously describe it as anti-neoliberal, democratic socialist, eco-socialist, souverainist, and left-wing populist. Unlike the far-right, which has clearer grouping (extreme right representing neo-fascism and neo-Nazism, and radical right representing other reactionary or right-wing authoritarian currents, such as radical-right populism) and has a Handbook of the Far-Right, it has been harder for the far-left: some describe as far-left anything to the left of social democracy (too excessive), while others describe it as anything to the left of the mainstream Communist party (perhaps too reductive). Davide King (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe we should remove the mention "to far-left". The Conseil d'Etat, under the French Ministry of Internal Affairs, has classified this party as simply "left". While I agree that political scales vary from country to country, I think we should keep what the government says and not fall into a far right trap. Erwan789 (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Too many sources classify this party as far-left for us to remove that statement - in fact, based on the number of sources that do, I think we should go the opposite direction. BilledMammal (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Putting LFI with the like of the NPA and LO is nonsensical : LFI is not a leninist party by any form. They are revisionists in the purest form : they do not belong with the revolutionary parties. Erwan789 (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is entirely original research. We don't define "far-left" by whether a party wants to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat, nor do we define "far-right" by whether someone wants to build death camps. We rely on secondary sources.
 * The "Conseil d'Etat" thing is an LFI talking point and it's false. The Conseil d'Etat does not classify parties, and does not confirm the Interior Ministry's classifications, it only checks whether there's a "manifest error of assessment". The Conseil d'Etat found no manifest error, but their reasoning was that the Interior Minister did not classify parties individually, but classified the alliance itself (NUPES), as left-wing. The Conseil d'Etat also said that the classification involves "placing the parties not on an ideological spectrum but in relation to each other" (alliances, etc.). So neither the Interior Ministry nor the Conseil d'Etat assessed LFI's classification. Both are irrelevant to Wikipedia anyway. DFlhb (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I would not reduce the French Council of State and the Ministry of Interior, both of which are independent of LFI and are the most important bodies for French administrative justice, to merely "LFI talking point[s]"... Below is an article from Le Monde, one of French newspapers of record and a reliable secondary source that takes these bodies seriously. Is La France Insoumise far left? ... The movement, a member of the New Popular Front, is classified by its opponents as being on the far left of the political spectrum. However, this is not the opinion of the Council of State." And reliable sources disagree, since some describe it as "left-wing" and others as "far-left", the only thing they agree and that is uncontroversial is that LFI is a left-wing party. And for the record, I would not have much of a problem have "Right-wing" for RN too, with a note explaining that scholars consider it part of the radical right that does not reject democracy, although there is a clear difference between LFI and RN, whether we like it or not: the Council of State and the Interior Minister consider LFI to be "left-wing" and RN "far-right". I just dislike "left-wing to far-left" or similar wording, which is ambiguous, and borders on original research and synthesis since there is no source saying it is "left-wing to far-right" but "some describe it as left-wing, others as far-left", and far-left is a subset of left-wing politics. I would just put either "Left-wing" or "Far-left" and have a note about it.  Personally, I would not have issues with putting "Left-wing" or "Right-wing" in similar cases on the opposite end of the spectrum, and use "Far-left" for parties to the left of the mainstream Communist parties and "Far-right" for neo-fascists, while putting a note explaining that certain parties like LFI have also been described as "far-left" or that parties like RN are considered "radical-right (far-right) parties that do not oppose democracy", because it is a less controversial label and because both "far-left" and "far-right" are often used or seen as pejoratives, even when accurate; in fact, the accurate terminology for the parties that are commonly called "far-right" is "radical-right" (e.g. the terminology used by scholars to describe radical right-wing parties that do not oppose democracy), which is still a subset of far-right politics and that is why news media use more "far-right" rather than "radical-right".  I think "Far-right", with the note explaining the "radical-right" term, for RN and LFI "Left-wing", with a note explaining it has also been described as far-left, is accurate and is what is best reflected by reliable sources because, at least in Western Europe, the far-right is seen as worse and more dangerous than the far-left (just look at the attempts of Ensemble and the NFP to unite against RN), and I could be wrong but there is more disagreement about the most accurate position of LFI than there is for RN, for which there is a clearer consensus among reliable sources, especially academic ones, since RN clearly fit the "radical-right populist" grouping while LFI, which is not a Communist party, is not as clear.  For example, Serge Cosseron, a French historian and the author of the Dictionary of the Extreme Left [e.g. the far-left], stated that it designates "revolutionary anti-capitalist organizations, which are characterized by their rejection of institutions". This fits both the New Anticapitalist Party and Lutte Ouvrière. According to Cosseron, LFI is "a reformist movement, which wants change through the ballot box. As for its program, it is in line with the common program defended by François Mitterrand in 1981." One may disagree with the fact there are scholars who define the far-left in this way, while the far-right includes radical-right parties that do not oppose democracy, but Wikipedia's job is to summarize the consensus of reliable sources, and there is a clearer consensus for far-right parties than for far-left ones, whether we like it or not. Davide King (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we would cherry-pick sources and put only one descriptor both in the lead and in the infobox, when reliable sources have used both labels. It's misleading and non-neutral. Plus, your footnote reads as essay-like, which feels... strange.
 * I also want to point out that while Le Monde is a GENREL source, all sources can make mistakes, and that article very clearly misrepresents the primary source they are commenting on. As editors, we have the latitude to take this into account (and as I've always argued, we should). That's different from disputing analyses or interpretations, which would open the door to POV-pushing. But if you want a university professor specializing in electoral law (WP:EXPERTSPS) making the same point about the Conseil d'Etat's decision, I have one: - DFlhb (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The conseil d'état didn't confirm the classification, that is none of its business. The ministry of the interior did however classify LFI (since it was founded) as "left", while National Rally was classed as "far-right". There are many French sources available for this. 80.209.216.81 (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd cite the discussions in Talk:Democratic Party (United States) about positions being specific to a nation, and The Ministry of the Interior is the most important arbiter of parties' political positions in France, so their descriptor should be preferred. – GlowstoneUnknown   (Talk)  05:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Tag rationale per WP:DRIVEBY
The article is, overall, blatantly uncritical and tends to minimize criticism and controversies while presenting LFI’s proposals in a generally positive light. While I am not suggesting that this article receive the standard treatment accorded to certain other political articles, I think a side-by-side comparison with National Rally shows a systematic skew.

I sense it would be worth checking the XTools authorship of this and other articles but I’m going to bed within seconds of finishing this comment.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?
Should the political position of La France Insoumise be described as: Chaotic Enby  (talk · contribs) 20:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A: Left-wing
 * B: Radical left-wing
 * C: Far-left
 * D: Left-wing to far-left
 * E: Left-wing to radical left-wing
 * F: Radical left-wing to far-left


 * Probably best to leave blank, since the field provides no additional information about the party. However, if the field is used, it should be left-wing, since it belongs to the "left parties" group of political parties. The term far left means the part of the left that is unacceptable to the speaker, which is what Macron calls them. TFD (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * True, although the political position is also mentioned in the lead sentence, so it's not just about the infobox: La France Insoumise (FI or LFI: La France Insoumise; pronounced [la fʁɑ̃s ɛ̃sumiz], lit. 'France Unbowed') is a left-wing political party in France. (as currently written) Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 21:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * C, otherwise D. Reading coverage of the current election, sources describe them as far or hard left. BilledMammal (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * D. As the page shows we have multiple sources for left-wing and multiple for far-left. Helper201 (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A with a note like this. I would take scholarly sources over news ones, which especially on the far-left are not always accurate. Far-left is also often used to compare and contrast with the far-right National Rally and thus support an equivalence between the two. Also the far-left label is not supported by the Ministry of the Interior and the French Council of State, the most important body for French administrative justice, both of which consider La France Insoumise to be "left-wing" (just like the French Communist Party) and RN to be "far-right". They consider as "far-left" other left-wing parties, such as Lutte Ouvrière and the New Anticapitalist Party.
 * Unlike the far-right, for which there is a clearer consensus and grouping among scholars (it does not mean there is no disagreement, just that it is clearer among them what it means and its grouping), that is not the same for the far-left; whether one thinks this is biased or not is irrelevant, since we go by what reliable sources (in this case scholarly ones and subject-experts) say. There is no clear consensus among scholars on the far-left and its definition, with some scholars using different definitions but agreeing that there are differences and pluralism within it; some, especially in the media, use "far-left" for anything to the left of social democracy, whole scholars and in France especially, "far-left" is reserved to these to the left of the mainstream Communist party (I think this is what a French dictionary of the far-left did) or to anti-capitalist revolutionary parties. For example, according to political science researcher Christine Pina, what distinguishes the mainstream left from the far-left (where despite the oppositions and differences in militant cultures between Trotskyists, Maoists, and libertarian socialists or anarchists, they all share three common denominators that distinguish them from the mainstream left) is that the far-left proposes a sort of maximum programme. In the words of historian Aurélien Dubuisson (associate researcher at The Sciences Po Centre for History) and sociologist Paolo Stuppia (member of the European Centre for Sociology and Political Science), "[w]hile admitting immediate and transitory requests such as that of a better sharing of added value for the benefit of employees, the 'far-left' defends above all a maximalist programme in which the abolition of the capitalist model (today we also speak of fossil capital) occupies a central place. ... However, none on the left, including La France Insoumise, despite its radical criticisms of economic neoliberalism, defends such a process which would consist in a transformation of positive law to organise, even gradually, the disappearance of capitalist exploitation and the competition paradigm".
 * [3] is still a news source [The Conversation publishes articles from academics who are subject-matter experts. It is generally reliable for subjects in the authors' areas of expertise. Opinions published in The Conversation should be handled with WP:RSOPINION.], I would like that we would rely on academic and scholarly sources rather than "[news] coverage [ WP:BESTSOURCES] of the current election [ WP:RECENTISM], sources describe them as far or hard left", but at least it is written by scholars and discusses the French scholarly consensus or lack thereof.
 * P.S. I really dislike the "to" usage, as that is not what sources say: they do not say the party is "left-wing to far-left" or whatever; some news sources say "left-wing", others say "far-left", so the only thing they agree with is that the party is "left-wing", hence putting "Left-wing" with a note also noting that it has been called "far-left" both in news media and in political discourse to compare it and contrast it with the far-right. What we should be saying is that "Some describe it as 'left-wing', others as 'far-left'", which I think my proposed note accomplish that. Davide King (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding not supported by the Ministry of the Interior and the French Council of State, see this comment by DFlhb. BilledMammal (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is supported by the ministry of the interior, not by the council of state. 80.209.216.81 (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is supported by the ministry of the interior, not by the council of state. 80.209.216.81 (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * C or D on the basis of how they are covered in RS. Looks like left-coded outlets describe them more often as "left-wing", and right-coded outlets describe them as "far-left", "hard left", "radical left" etc. I think the same thing can be seen in reverse with a party like Brothers of Italy. In the article, I think it should be made clear that they are often referred to as far-left/radical left, while minimising the amount that we uses these descriptions in wiki-voice. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * C, D as alt while my subjective experience is that far-left (or less polite/more hostile terms) are almost exclusively used, RS seem to show that a few (often left-wing) sources just refer to them as left wing alone. There is IMO about similar levels of use for both left-wing and the assignment of more extremist labels than Far-left, so I would consider C the best way to reconcile those views, and D is decent if there is insufficient support for C. FortunateSons (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To emphasise why left-wing should be retained and why we should go with option D, here are a number of reliable sources that explicitly call La France Insoumise left-wing:, , , , , , , , and . Plus, there's four other sources cited in the Wikipedia page itself calling the party left-wing. Helper201 (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * B or D (followed by E, strongly opposed to A). Looking at scholarly WP:BESTSOURCES, "radical left" seems to be the dominant term, e.g., . I found a high-value source (Palgrave book) that discusses terminology at length and tells us this is the dominant term, that most scholarly sources coalesced around the term "radical left" for these types of parties instead of (e.g. ‘far left’, ‘extreme left’ and ‘Left’) (the book also looks at LFI in detail). They're different from the "left" in a number of ways which scholars find noteworthy (including sovereignty, economic nationalism, Ukraine-Russia, vigorous populism), so A isn't acceptable (and it lacks specificity and is problematic, according to the Palgrave book). D is also acceptable if we're gonna break it up into two terms, the Palgrave book says both terms are also used by academics, and it captures "radical left" better than saying "left-wing to radical-left" which implies the median isn't "radical left". DFlhb (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)  edited 17:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In a note to the above, here are academic sources that call the party left-wing (on top of all the other sources I've listed above):, , , , , and . Note some call the party "France Unbowed" as this is the literal interpretation of the party's name in English, as stated at the top of the Wikipedia page. Helper201 (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment it seems indisputable that LFI is "further left" than other members of the current left-wing coalition. But both "radical left" and "far left" sometimes have specific meanings, and it is disputed whether LFI meets them.  France24  and al-Jazeera  both use "Hard left".  I am leaning towards D (left-wing to far-left), but await further discussion. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * On economical issues, the PCF (communist party) can be more radical, they still haven't addressed their Stalinist past, and Fabien Roussel (the leader of the communists) has been very ambiguous on many issues. However they surely drifted left from the Third Way 90s party of Robert Hue, and the main reason they are seen as occasionally "responsible" is because they don't get much attention aside from wanting independence from Melenchon and having a socially conservative side since the 1970s/80s.
 * What makes LFI different is its open populism. 80.209.216.81 (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * With how many reliable sources left-wing has (including academic ones) it would be count to WP:BALANCE and WP:NEUTRALITY to remove left-wing. Helper201 (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think some editors here haven't got the full picture. The ministry of the interior (not the Conseil d'état, which had to deal with a complaint from National Rally, and didn't necessarily claim or confirm anything) has indeed always classified LFI as "left", together with the PCF, the Parti Socialiste, and Europe Écologie Les Verts, while the Trotskyist parties NPA and LO are classed as "far-left". These classifications happen notably for "purposes of political analysis". The far-left is traditionally described as to the left of the Communist Party, or as the communist party in the 1970s (when the party was stalinist). While in English media this classification doesn't have many consequences, in French media various news outlets have stopped using the term far-left (extreme gauche, vaguely), with lots of French sources for "left-wing" (in the sense of "traditional left" as opposed to extreme gauche). This is especially interesting in the recent context of elections, where the question of wether LFI deserved equal treatment to National Rally was extremely important for the central bloc, and the answer was not unanimous. French sources matter for this question, considering the fact that the French political echiquier is heavily moved towards the left. 80.209.216.81 (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So option D, used for other left parties in Europe (cf. podemos, previously Syriza), seems to be an accurate description of what sources write. 80.209.216.81 (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 20 minutes, Yahoo, RFI, Le Monde, TF1, which asked a historian who nonetheless argues that «LFI uses confusion», Le nouvel Obs. Here are some sources in French to give you an exemple. All extremely recent. 2003:EE:6F16:4F61:48A8:70CE:A744:5DEF (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A it's to the left of centre-left PS, and to the right of the communist party.
 * A Socialist  Trans Girl  04:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * A (first choice) is obviously correct, nobody would disagree with the French government that LFI is a left-wing party.
 * B (tied for first choice) is also correct, but Wikipedians tend not to like it because it doesn't immediately communicate "good" or "bad" to the reader, but requires further reading of academic sources (Wikipedia apparently has no page for this basic definition in political science).
 * E would be a reasonable compromise if one substituted "or" or a slash for "to", but it still shows Wikipedian inadequacy for the reason mentioned above.
 * D is not wrong in the simplistic one-dimensional spatial sense that LFI is less neoliberal than the last manifestation of the Socialist Party (which is still recovering financially from its <2% showing in the last presidential election). It has the advantage of communicating immediately to readers that the house POV is that the party is "possibly OK to really really bad" so they can just read the google knowledge snippet engine, close their browsers, and know what they should think. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 17:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The other options A B and E are all part of larger and longstanding discussions on Wikipedia, and only particular cases like Die Linke and BSW have adopted it, while Option D is the correct option according to current usage. The term "far-left" has been too many times cited to ignore it completely, and the party is noted as particularly populist and conflictual in the radical left family, so "Left-wing to far-left" seems like a good description (for clarity, I'm the same person as 80.209 etc.) 2003:EE:6F16:4F61:48A8:70CE:A744:5DEF (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that option D correctly captures current journalistic usage, but not current academic usage. I also note that both of the examples you cite are listed as "left-wing" (only) in the infobox (option A) so I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. :/ -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 18:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * indeed, Only option A is being occasionally used in some articles. While significantly less used than in journalistic circles, far-left is occasionally used to describe it by academics. However the real problem is the definition of far-left, with some opting for it to be synonymous with extreme left, while others, such as Luke March, separate the far-left into extreme and radical left, similar to what is done with the far-right (therefore including radical left parties). Option D captures all of this, without taking any sides. Maybe we could add "Left-wing, radical left-wing to far-left". But for simplicity, Option D is the best option. 80.209.216.81 (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A, the Ministry of the Interior's definition is the most important one to use here, and "Far-left" in France has a different connotation, and is largely reserved for Trotskyist parties. I'd not be against B, but it's breaking the formula that tends to be used on English Wikipedia wherein the only commonly used positions are solely described in relation to their distance from the centre without any other qualifications (excluding the rare example of Radical centre occasionally used) i.e. "Centre-left to left-wing", "Centre to Centre-right", "Right-wing to far-right", etc. I strongly oppose using "Far-left" in any form, as in the former footnote it was clarified that "Far-left" is predominantly only used by its critics, and the article needs to not be so biased as to actively use a term that is denied by both the party and the nation's official arbiter of left-right political descriptors. – GlowstoneUnknown   (Talk)  07:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not that simple. I wouldn't call the ministry of the interior the "official arbiter", rather just the minister of the interior is doing these classifications for political analysis of results without forcing people to use their descriptors. It's extremely important to mention the ministry of the interior, but with the recent changes in the French political landscape, things are also extremely uncertain, and classic parties are falling. On the left, La France Insoumise has tried to replace the socialist party as the main force of the left, however if this succeeds or fails is completely unknown. Therefore political classifications are also debated. Option D would be NPOV, but Option A with a note would also be somewhat accurate for now. However there is not really an "official arbiter" to settle this. 80.209.216.81 (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, fair enough, but still, to my knowledge, the Ministry is largely treated as if they have final say on a party or candidate's political position. – GlowstoneUnknown   (Talk)  12:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not quite that. Similar to how Journals are Too quick in labelling the party on the far-left, which political scientists and historians usually don't agree with, journals and other academics are misunderstanding the decision of the Council of state as a Verfassungsschutz verdict about 'extremism', which lawyers usually don't agree with. The ministry of the interior is important, but not that important, and the nature of the decision from Concil of state is not meant to determine this matter. Like DSA or Podemos, the 'party' (of 3 official members, of which the leader of the parliament group and the coordinator) is a 'party' (an association whose status is that of political party) to participate in elections. It's a 'movement' in its own words, composed of various microparties organised together and led by a 'coordinator' (not democratically elected, though that's another controversy). Alright, from here on, it gets complicated. The main party is that of Mélenchon, which is not considered far-left by most political scientists, the party of the left (there is no real main party though. Most members who are also members of a party are from the party of the left, including important figures. Beyond that, 'members', as those currently shown in the infobox, are militants who 'joined' via the website. Members in parliament who got elected under the LFI banner need to simply sign a chart, no need to join a 'traditional' party). Then, there is Independent workers party, a Trotskyist lambertist party (Melenchon has some connections to Trotskyists, he was part of an old Trotskyist movement working in the shadows in the 70s, the lambertists of comrade "Lambert" specifically). Then there are generally many connections to various movements, all that matters is that after getting elected the representatives sign the chart. The movement has only the political program in common. It claims to be of left, radical left (the principal ideological base), to far-left. The NPA, far-left, also wanted to ally with LFI multiple times, which caused a split. The historical direction sort of allied, parts of the militant base split in disapproval of the alliance. We could do it like with Die Linke, with a note to mention the far-left groups, or like with Podemos, with maybe left-wing, radical left-wing to far-left (therefore adding the main group, radical left-wing). However we need to mention all three groups, including far-left. There are objectively standard left-wing, radical left-wing and far-left parties in it.2003:EE:6F16:4FA3:3929:7710:AE6B:3FDC (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Logo of La France Insoumise
After the dissolution of the New Ecological and Social People's Union, the official logo used by La France Insoumise on their website has been updated, but the english wikipedia page has not yet updated. The svg on the French wikipedia is not marked with a compatible licence and cannot be exported to wikipedia common. AaronHot123 (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that the LFI-NUPES logo is already marked for deletion on Commons as possibly exceeding the TOO. Any alternative should be hosted locally on en.wiki under fair use. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 07:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I replaced the logo on the page, but I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure it's free of the licensing issues, I used the old svg file as a base and removed some strokes, generally played around with it in Inkscape until it looked "close enough", but given the file I based it on had some licensing issues, I'm not sure. Any tips? – GlowstoneUnknown   (Talk)  07:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2024
212.30.207.29 (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC) Change The Political Position discription form Left wing to far left to just Left Wing
 * ❌, there is an ongoing RfC above if you wish to participate. Chaotic Enby  (talk · contribs) 07:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)