Talk:National Rally/Archive 2

Fascist
I removed this accusation because in France, "fascist" has no serious sense. It is rather an insult. Barraki (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * sometimes insults fit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.43.149.150 (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

a fascist is just a national socialist which takes care its own people rather than taking care people internationally..

nothing insulting.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.212.122.76 (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

"you are fucking up France"
For information, the IP is wrong, JonnyDr is right. Because it was not written "tu moques" but "tu niques". "Niquer" means exactly the same as "to fuck", and is just as vulgar. Barraki (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

False Accusations of 'Racism', 'Xenophobia' and 'Antisemitism'
Check the link:

http://www.freewebs.com/lepeninfo/defense.htm

National Front has among its members and supporters Black French and French Jews! FN is not a far right party! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DumnyPolak (talk • contribs) 23:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And there are mischlinge and uncle toms. Their "jewish caucus" had one member and he's been dead for four years 70.53.139.123 (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

...Why is a user that refers to black FN supporters as "Uncle toms" allowed to edit this page?

--Savakk (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Electoral system
I just wonder about the electoral system of France as I could not find any information on this. In 1986 the FN got 9.7% of the votes, and 35 Members in the National Assembly. Yet, with the same amount of votes two years later, the party for some reason did merely gain one Member. And with the 1993 election with 13.8% of the votes they did not get one single member. So how come around 15% of the voters not get represented in the National Assembly at all. At the same time parties that receive less votes than the FN seem to get even up to 30 Members. I just find it hard to see how this can happen in a democratic country, as it does not look remarkably democratic at all. Looking at elections the distribution of Members of National Assembly looks rather bizarre comparing it with percentage of votes. -TheG (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The 1986 elections were the only legislative elections held under proportional representation, which is why the FN managed to secure 34 deputies in the assembly. Since then, to stop the FN from having deputies, these elections aren't proportional representation anymore, and I believe a party needs to get over 10% in a determined region or something so they can claim at least deputy. The number of deputies has little to do with overall percentage of votes as some parties with fewer overall votes can get more deputies since they have strongholds in some areas, whereas the FN has very few strongholds. Most small parties demand the proportional representation to be put back into effect, because the smaller parties have a larger disadvantage. Yes, not having the proportional is totally undemocratic, and it was taken away for undemocratic reasons : to hurt the FN. - Munin75 (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect statement
According to the article, "in 2005, Bruno Gollnisch cast doubt on the findings of the post-war tribunals and the official version of the Holocaust.[122]. Both received fines for these incidents.[123][124][125] "

The judgement was cancelled by the highest court, the court of cassation, on June 23, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.151.43 (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyediting of "sending back" quote
I started reading this today with the intention of possibly doing a GA review. I haven't decided whether to do the GA review, but if I don't, I figure I should probably note this anyway.


 * In a standardised pamphlet delivered to all French electors in the 1995 presidential election, Le Pen proposed the "sending back" of "three million non-Europeans" out of France by "humane and dignified means."

I have some concerns about the wording of this sentence: we generally do not speak of "sending back out of France". If we are sending someone back, it is implicit in that sentence that they are here. Given the full context of the article, it can be resolved by simply removing the words "out of France". I'd do it myself, but I figure it might be better to let the editors of the article rewrite this sentence eitehr by simply removing "out of France" or by redrafting it. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"occasionally promoting historical revisionism, specifically related to the Second World War"...that's a rather roundabout and tepid way to refer to holocaust denial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bclogston041 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference problem
An anonymous editor complained about accuracy, and changed the language about LePen calling an issue a point of detail to indicate that LePen referred to gas chambers rather than the Holocaust in general. I reversed the edit, and decided to check the reference to see if the anon.ed. was right. The reference footnote shows "Shields", but there's no other identification that I can see. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Shields footnote refers to the book "Shields, James (2007). The extreme right in France: from Pétain to Le Pen. Routledge." You can find this book under the bibliography section. The specific reference refers to pages 306-308, but only page 306 is available online. Unfortunately, I won't have access to the physical book until a couple months. Nevertheless, I am pretty sure the issue can be found somewhere else. — Filippusson (t.) 09:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Google Book Search shows that the reference is used properly. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually he did apparently say it about the gas chambers in 1987, not the Holocaust. The Holocaust "detail" issue seems to stem from a 2005-interview, in which he apparently did say the Holocaust, only to later qualify/retract his statement, claiming that he really meant the gas chambers. — Filippusson (t.) 17:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ideology needs to be cleared up
It says it right wing socially and left wing economically but the box just says far right. Also, what makes it far right? That should be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed "historical revisionism" paragraph
At the time of me writing this, the following fragment is at the top of the page introduction, just above the Contents:

"Some earlier party officials have historically been subject to controversy for occasionally promoting historical revisionism, specifically related to the Second World War."

Not only does this have nothing to do with the party itself (it mentions the private opinions of some party officials in the past), it also serves no function other than defaming the party, uses weasel words ("some officials", "historically", "occasionally") and is unsourced. I have removed it. If you disagree, feel free to debate it here. Photon man62 (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

the word 'nationalist'?
This is an editing request: can we replace the opening words with "far-right political party" and omit some of the free dealing usages of the word 'nationalist' in the article?

I know, we should be neutral and don't want to be biased against them, but the far right keeps on giving their anti-immigrant nonsense a sincere face by calling them 'nationalist'. One could make the argument that their economic protectionism makes them nationalist, but I think De Gaulle himself would realize that their usage of the word is a rhetorical device.

Also, it might be a wee bit offensive to conflate 'nationalism' with what the National Front is openly pushing. It would be like calling the Golden Dawn 'nationalist', despite the words numerous connection with national liberation struggles and left-wing politics.

I'm not trying to start up a philosophical debate about whether or not their nationalist or not, I just think we should probably replace the opening words with "Far-right political party" and use the word 'nationalist' much less loosely in the article. I don't think wikipedia should normalize those types of views with a respectable name like 'nationalism', and it might just be objectively erroneous to do so. I hope I can get a response! --66.233.55.145 (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, "nationalism" isn't at all a respected name, at least not in Europe. "Patriotism" would be the respectable term. I realize that nationalism USED to be a left wing ideology, since the French revolution, and amongst left wing movements of national liberation, but today it's also associated to these "far right" parties, whom, whether you want it or not, are nationalist. Otherwise, "far right" to me doesn't mean anything anymore because it seems all you need to be called "far right" is to be anti-immigration, it thus has nothing much to do with economic policy or anything else. Parties going from ultra-libertarian (like Geert Wilder's party) to protectionist (like the National Front) are all called far right by the media. But apart from (rightful) criticism of massive immigration they don't have much else in common. De Gaulle would be considered "far right" if he were alive today, as would the late communist leader Georges Marchais, both very critical of immigration.--Munin75 (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * To the original poster, do you even know that "right" and "left" refer to economic policies? The Front National isn't remotely "far right", it is actually "far left", though non-nationalist leftists often abuse the term as a way to insult nationalist and anti-immigration parties they don't like. It makes them look foolish and is a 100% totally inaccurate term, but they insist on abusing the "far right" label for (generally left-wing) parties that they don't like.


 * To do so is thoroughly unencyclopaedic, and since Wikipedia is an online encylopaedia, abuse of the "far right" label should absolutely NOT be allowed. 59.167.194.37 (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I think in Europe communists are far left and anything else outside the mainstream is just deemed far right. That doesnt make much sense but thats how it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It is incredibly clear that 66.233.55.145|66.233.55.145 is of a far left political back ground and that is apparent from his "anti immigrant" comments.

When someone demonstrates their personal stake in an issue, should they be allowed to continue to contribute to that page, knowing their motives?

--Savakk (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

From "...we should be neutral and don't want to be biased against them..." to ..."...their anti-immigrant nonsense..." Given the complete lack of neutrality and the obvious bias to be seen in the disparity of the latter quote, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Wikipedia is plagued by ideologues at various points on the political spectrum on just about every socio-political matter known to man and this is why [I think] it will never be seen as a reliable source within the walls of academia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.182.188.205 (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

English Name
Although "National Front" is obviously the correct translation in English, it's far more common to refer to the party by their French name in the UK media these days. Most of the major UK publications seem to have this in their style guide now, examples here: | Guardian, | BBC, | Telegraph. Others like the Economist seem to use both terms interchangeably. Anecdotally I'd say English speaking academia also leans toward the French name more often than not, particularly in recent years, while French publications that have English versions mostly refer to it as Front National.

I wonder under the circumstances, given the Front National name and the abbreviation FN are used frequently throughout the article as it is, if there is a case for renaming it "Front National" instead of National Front. Certainly as someone who works in European politics in the UK using the term "National Front" - e.g. at an academic conference - tends to feel a bit outdated these days. You see that trend with other newer parties in European politics as well - for instance the BBC often refers to "Die Linke" in Germany (not "The Left") and "Podemos" in Spain (not "We Can"). Ultimately there are still some publications using "National Front" and others using "Front National" so there's a case for both, but I feel if we have to pick one then "Front National" is becoming the more common in publications that regularly deal with European politics and should probably take precedence. Lewdswap (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on National Front (France). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150814145406/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/25/france-national-front-win-european-elections to http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/25/france-national-front-win-european-elections
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150706153814/http://www.frontnational.com/2014/12/lukraine-de-louest-desormais-ouvertement-vassalisee-par-washington/ to http://www.frontnational.com/2014/12/lukraine-de-louest-desormais-ouvertement-vassalisee-par-washington/

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"Far right"
It is clear that since the departure of Marine's father, the party has undergone a significant modernisation and sensitivisation which has pulled them away from the extremes of the right. Some sources even claim they are now centrist, such as that of The Populist Challenge: Political Protest and Ethno-nationalist Mobilization ... By Jens Rydgren (page 143) - it is now CLEAR that the label "far-right" is being used erroneously here in order to let some Wikipaedians have their own agenda with a small army of arbitrary news sources.

By the way, the first link takes to a European news site saying Front National formed a "far right group in the EU Parliament". That does not inherently mean that Front National is far-right itself, and the usage of the link as 'evidence/source' that FN is far-right is preposterous. The Ideology bar will be neutral and taken back to "right wing" where it is supposed to be, as their views are commonly identified with that of a right-wing party rather than a far-right party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.126.221 (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The information in question is well sourced and not exactly controversial. You can try to play semantic games but the sources do call that. Please stop removing sourced information.  Volunteer Marek   16:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

front national will not be labeled as 'far-right' until you go to the conservative party UK wikipedia page and call them pro-slavery fascists with news sources from 1870 london papers. front national changed leadership and is not far right end of story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.126.221 (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * How about mentioning that some still see it as far-right, while others see it for the modern, right wing party that it has (supposedly) become? I can find sources for both very easily. Just an idea. --109.69.249.37 (talk) 10:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Volunteer Marek and many others in many discussions above, there is an abundance of sources that establish that the FN is a far-right party and it is not controversial to say it, just as it is also undeniable that this party has tried to distance itself from this label. Place Clichy (talk) 10:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Seriously? "Per Volunterr Marek"...? Is he the holder of the absolute truth? Jokes aside, I think we should make sure we mention both: some see it far-right, some see it just populist right. --109.69.249.37 (talk) 11:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think that the wording "right to far right", meaning the way it is now, is pretty accurate. Cheers, --109.69.249.37 (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Economy
There are several sources that pass WP:VERIFY that suggest FN's economic policies are not right, but left-wing - or at least centrist - which I believe is worthy of mention. I haven't modified the article as I thought it best to get consensus first.


 * Note this source is already a footnote in the article: https://theconversation.com/the-european-far-right-actually-right-or-left-or-something-altogether-different-6796


 * http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27404016

Additionally I've flagged a few Weasel Words that sound out of place in a neutral encyclopedia. Perhaps someone can re-word. 86.128.123.103 (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair about far
Such usage as "far right" vitiates the integrity of an encyclopaedic entry. It is patently subjectivist and tendentious. Would the FN's adherents so describe themselves? Hardly! The correct and more neutral term would be simply "rightist" or "rightwing." If a majoity of people consider something to be "far right" then the writer has the option of citing it as such - as an opinion. In politics as in topology, farness is always a matter of perspective, and one man's extreme is another's norm, never mind that the "norm" itself is undergoing constant redefinition. Orthotox (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think that how the FN's members describe themselves matters a whit. What matters is reference to reliable sources. Most murderers will tell you that they are innocent, and we ignore them. We should be looking for an accurate term. "Right wing" is vague and covers too wide a range of the spectrum to be useful. "Far-right" is neutral. If we wrote "evil, baby-killing far-right", that would not be neutral. Ground Zero &#124; t 18:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27404016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.131.83 (talk) 07:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * fair, reported as à l'extrême droite in France. There's no "right to far right" here, they are a far right party.Widely referred to as "far right" in European and American news.  Semitransgenic  talk. 22:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Their economic policies are left, their immigration policies are right. The fact that the BBC (widely regarded as a left-wing outlet, if relevant) cannot decide if they are 'far left' or 'far right' as per the link given above suggests that it's not a clear cut issue as you state. As such I'm adding a disputed tag to the term to draw more comments in. 86.180.20.157 (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In the end I felt Dubious was better. Added. 86.180.20.157 (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Are we reading the same article? Abstracts: "the leader of the far-right National Front, Marine Le Pen""; "there is no significant force further to the right". The articles says just what most others are saying: FN is a far-right party, that also incorporates populist leftist elements in its discourse (I certainly wouldn't say policies) in a drive to attract some voters. I do not think this is dubious in any way. Place Clichy (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds like an opinion, rather than a verifiable fact. Their manifesto is available to read by anyone, and there is a lot of discourse over left-wing economic policies. I will try to work this into the article shortly 86.128.123.103 (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Not the view of the "BBC", a POV minority view of a single French correspondent, writing a speculative opinion piece. Quick survey of news items from the last month alone(Nov-Dec 2015), starting with the BBC, demonstrates that "far-right" is overwhelmingly the most common term currently in use. Semitransgenic  talk. 12:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Firstly can you use the correct formatting instead of adding a new line? It makes it easier to read. Secondly, you appear to have removed the 'right to far-right' reference and just replaced it with 'far right', which is also unsourced. Is there a reason why you have done that? There are more mentions of "right wing" in both Google Scholar and Google Docs, than there are to "far right". So by the same token, it should be included. 86.128.123.103 (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * please address the content issues highlighted in the section below. If you have an issue with these findings we can move to solicit further input Semitransgenic  talk. 14:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't really have any further to address, I can see now that on balance many sources claim the FN are 'far right'. I see that you've reverted the original edit (which has been in place long before today) claiming that the FN are 'right to far-right' and just slavishly replaced it with 'far right'. Can you please quantify why it's been removed. It is relevant to this conversation as it was already in place before now. Using your logic, there are as many (actually more) mentions of FN being 'right wing' than there are to them being 'far right'. EG: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?as_ylo=2015&q=%22Front+national%22+%22right+wing%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 86.128.123.103 (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Protected
The article has been fully protected for one week due to an edit war that was reported at WP:AN3. During the protection, you can use edit protect to ask for changes to the article which are supported by consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

What makes them far right?
I don't really understand the definition for far right on Wiki as every European political party that is even remotely anti-globalization/massive immigration is labeled as far right on Wikipedia... the platform of the National Front is nothing like that of the Golden Dawn, or the Swedish Democrats, or even the BNP in Europe. Marine Le Pen would be seen as a feminist in America. Can someone explain to me how/who decides what qualifies as far right?

--Savakk (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Isolationism, Extreme-Conservtism, Nationalism and Anti-Globalization are just some of the things that makes the party a far right party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.225.216 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That does not really seem like an accurate definition of far right. What really needs to be defined is: what is left and what is right. Far-right politics seems to point to what the previous user said. However, in the United States (where most of the English Wikipedia users are from), right is defined as favoring minimizing government. Therefore, the farthest right would be classified as anarchy while the farthest left would be some form communism. From there, it's easy to see how they would stand on any issue. Of course, it seems to be more limited than the definition the previous user provided but it makes much more sense. Why does anyone get to just say the left or right is everything they don't personally like? --2601:E:9580:261:92C9:650A:3395:392C (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of references in the body of the article to the party being far right. I don't want to express an opinion on whether that is correct or not. However in the introduction the party is described as being "economically protectionist, socially conservative, and nationalist" - no reference to far right. And none of these elements is, itself, far right. Either the party is not far right, or the introduction needs amending.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have to agree here, I can't see anything that makes this party far right. Zenostar (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Silly Yanks, if you were informed about them to any limited degree then you would be aware that for the better part of their history they could easily be defined as 'far-right' in broad terms; this is clarified further when one considers the left-leaning history of France (most obviously espoused in the motto of the Republic) and thus popular right-wing causes (limits on immigration, concern for national identity and its preservation, govt. failures etc.) are relatively further from the political 'norm' or centre than in the anglophone west. They have softened their stance considerably in recent history, but their image is constantly shifting in whatever direction populism takes them. Also, the comment about most viewers of the English language version of Wikipedia hailing from the U.S.A. is eminently debatable, particularly in consideration of the disparity in pages printed in the English language when compared with any other (this can be viewed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias,) and is supported further when twinned with the fact that the most common second language is English, thus driving people of all nationalities toward these pages if the ones printed in their own are without an entry or inadequate. 5.81.167.137 (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Savakk: Interesting that you mention the Sweden Democrats. They have received heavy criticism in Sweden for their connections with the National Front, as the National Front is seen as a far-right political party with anti-Semitic roots. /EriFr (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It does not matter that people like Savakk, out of complete ignorance, do not see why the FN is an extreme-right party. Wikipedia must of course label it as far-right / extreme-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seub (talk • contribs) 15:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Front National / National Front name change
I have renamed/moved this page to Front National, because it's the official name from the party, and is much more widely sourced. The French Wikipedia refers to it as 'Front National' as well. I understand some may consider this contentious to do so without consulting here however given the weight of evidence I felt it was a safe change. If anyone disagrees or wishes to revert please feel free to discuss this. Note that there was a discussion above in March 2015 about this topic but no replies. Phatwa (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources:


 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-eu-27577964
 * http://www.frontnational.com/
 * http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/13/front-national-fails-to-win-control-of-target-regions-amid-tactical-voting
 * https://twitter.com/fn_officiel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phatwa (talk • contribs) 13:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not going to comment on the choice of article title, but it is abundantly clear to me that you should not move an actively ediuted article like this one without getting consensus first. If there is a "weight of evidence", then the discussion on the talk page will come to a consensus quickly, so there is no need to pre-empt the discussion by moving the article first then opening the discussion. As you note, some Weill see this as contentious. That is always a good reason to propose first, move later. Ground Zero &#124; t 14:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, there are only 2 users (one of whom is me) who are/were engaging in discussion on the 'dubious' tagged part of this article. A month later and there's no distance made there. Plus, and more importantly, every other Wikipedia page in every other language lists it as "Front National" so I felt there was significance here to move it. I've since reached out to a few users who may wish to comment. Phatwa (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * While it's always more correct to have a meaningful discussion, it is perfectably acceptable to be WP:BOLD, especially if the change isn't overly contentious. And it certainly isn't overly contentious as the arguments go back and forth about what is slightly more common. This doesn't mean 's move was necessarily correct, but that it isn't a big deal. --PanchoS (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Always a fine line between being bold and being disruptive I guess! Phatwa (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 29 December 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus, and therefore the article returns to its original title as there was no consensus in favour of the move. Number  5  7  13:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Front National (France) → National Front (France) – I'm offering this as a procedural filing, and have no opinion. The article was recently moved without a formal move discussion. Somebody should also fix the names of the archives, which are still at the old title. It is easier for admins to sort this out if a consensus is evident. Usually an article remains at the old title (National Front (France)) if the discussion ends with no consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * stay with Front National (France) when tested with "FOO is" + "Marine le Pen" "FN" 169 results vs "NF" 174 results, so the move without a formal move discussion appears to have been correct and should stand. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. The data you've provided seems to point to keeping this page at National Front (France)... RGloucester  — ☎ 19:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm confused too and I intend Iio's comment in favour of moving the article back to "National Front (France)". --Checco (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the point is there's hardly anything in it (169 to 174 in the run I just did) in English sources, so clearly go with the form which is actually correct. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The use of French on the English Wikipedia cannot be correct when a common English form is available. "Front National" is incomprehensible to the English reader, which is why we have WP:UE. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Front National (France) – I'm in favor of keeping it this way because it is a well known and commonly used proper name; as more and more news media seem to be realizing, Anglicizing the term does not help at all. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Front National (France) - Not sure if I'm permitted to have a say in this as I was the one that moved the article without opening a consensus discussion (reasons are listed above if interested). Note that the English Wikipedia article was literally the only one referring to it as "National Front" (including any obvious derivations). If I'm not permitted to comment feel free to remove this. Phatwa (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep National Front (France) – This is the longstanding title, the most common, and the only title that is in English (per WP:UE), as it should on the English Wikipedia. There is no reason to use French word order in English. Indeed, the data provided by In actu oculi above supports "National Front", showing that it is more common, so I'm not sure why he supports "Front National". Indeed, a Google News search shows that "National Front" is many times more common than the French equivalent, used in the likes of the BBC, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and CNN. No data has been provided to contest this. Frankly, the comment by Phatwa above is absurd, as most English news outlets do use "National Front", as shown in the search. I also want to note that this is procedurally out-of-process. The bold move should've been reverted, and then those proposing the move should've had to file an RM, not the other way around. This seems to be a form of gaming the system. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Google (all - not just Google News which you're using) shows a vastly different picture and Front National (France) has about 8x more sources than National Front (France): 1, 2.  Phatwa (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Phatwa no I don't support the use RGloucester is making of the virtually identical search results I posted. We also have WP:FRMOS to consider, that generally where things are equal in English sources (as this is) we go with French. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Noted, in particular the part that says ...names of organisations and institutions (e.g. orchestras, musical ensembles and groups, concert halls, festivals, schools, etc.) should follow official usage (i.e. the spelling, punctuation, etc. used by the organisation's own publications - in this case we can see the official term here. Also note: we use official English versions if and when they have been established by the organisation itself (emphasis own) - have they? I can't find any references. Phatwa (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant, because there mere guideline that is WP:FRMOS cannot override the article titles policy at WP:UE, which specifies a preference for English. Furthermore, this is a political party, not equivalent to an "orchestra, etc." A plain Google search includes many unreliable sources, unlike an news search, and is not representative of usage in reliable sources like The New York Times and the BBC. Indeed, even the English website of France 24 uses "National Front". RGloucester  — ☎ 18:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There aren't any guidelines specifically for political parties so this looks like the best fit. Perhaps contacting the FN directly would be helpful, or would this count as 'original research'? By the way, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the BBC, unless you want to move the "IS" article to "So Called Islamic State" for example; their naming conventions are somewhat odd. Phatwa (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep/support National Front (France) – Per RGloucester. There is no reason why this article should be an exception to the general rule. Moreover, "National Front" is an easy and obvious translation of Front National and, as shown by RGloucester, the party's most common name is clearly "National Front". More important than anything else, the article was moved by Phatwa without consensus: a serious case of "gaming the system". Wouldn't it better and more correct to rollback the previous move and, in case, open an opposite RM? Can we ask an administrator (User:EdJohnston?) to intervene? --Checco (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep National Front (France) - National Front is a simple and uncontroversial translation of the French name, as used in academic sources. Also, there is no significant case for this particular party needing to be an exception to the guideline for using English language names for political parties and article titles on en.wiki.--Autospark (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Far-right descriptor: evidence of usage
Quick survey of news items from the last month alone (Nov-Dec 2015), starting with the BBC, demonstrates that "far-right" is overwhelmingly the most common term currently in use. Semitransgenic talk. 12:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Compared to which other terms? 86.128.123.103 (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * BBC
 * "The triumphant leader of the far-right National Front (FN), Marine Le Pen, says French voters rejected the "old political class"..."


 * BBC
 * "Opinion polls suggest a surge in support for the far-right FN after the migrant crisis and the Paris attacks."


 * BBC
 * "Marion Marechal-Le Pen and France's far-right charm offensive"


 * BBC
 * "Far-right French mayor...Menard became mayor of the economically depressed town in 2014 with the support of the the far-right National Front party."


 * France 24
 * "Sarkozy rejects joining forces with Socialist Party against far right"


 * Guardian
 * "Political analysts say Marine Le Pen’s far-right party will use the national outrage to bolster its support in upcoming regional elections"


 * Guardian
 * "Far-right party poised to win two regions for first time as it reaps electoral advantage from France’s fear of Islamists and migrants"


 * Guardian: Editorial statement Dec 6th 2015
 * "The Guardian view on the French regional elections: the remarkable resilience of the far right"


 * Independent
 * "Paris attacks: Support rising for far-right Front National as immigration backlash continues"


 * Independent
 * "France's far-right Front National wins one in three votes in regional elections following Paris attacks"


 * Independent
 * "Marion Maréchal-Le Pen: The rising star of France's far-right Front National party"


 * Independent: editorial statement Dec 14th 2015
 * "The rise of the far right is not inevitable but it requires clever politics to keep it at bay."


 * Telegraph
 * "Fierce campaign to stop far-right National Front victory in France elections"


 * Telegraph
 * " Far-Right Front National on course to make history in French regional elections"


 * Daily Mail
 * "Marine Le Pen hails 'record-breaking' regional election results as her far-right group"


 * Express
 * "How Paris attacks could boost support for Marine Le Pen’s far-right Front National"


 * International Business Times
 * "French Regional Elections 2015: Paris Attacks Could Boost Far-Right Front National Party And Marine Le Pen"


 * Reuters
 * "Sarkozy battles far-right in French regional vote"


 * Time
 * "French leader of the French Far-right party Front National (FN) Marine Le Pen"


 * New York Times
 * "the most significant political figure in France — some would argue the most powerful — is Marine Le Pen, the leader of the far right."


 * Washington Post
 * "France’s far right reaps political gains as fears of terrorism grow"


 * Huffington Post
 * "France must "annihilate" Islamist radicals and regain control of its borders, the far-right National Front party leader Marine Le Pen said on Saturday after deadly attacks in the French capital."


 * Der Spiegel
 * "Le Pen is in the limelight even more than usual, now that her party, the far-right Front National, stands a good chance of securing the largest number of votes nationwide."


 * Newsweek
 * "The founder of France’s far-right National Front (FN) Jean Marie Le Pen has urged France to reinstate the death penalty and commit convicted terrorists to the guillotine"


 * AFP
 * "Far-right rise on fear and frustration in France's rustbelt north"


 * CNN
 * " Far-right Front National makes big gains in French elections"


 * Economist
 * In France, the counterpart to Mr Trump is the far-right National Front (FN).


 * Overwhelming recent usage of "far right" found via scholar''', by date, most recent first.


 * Overwhelming recent usage of "far right" found via books''' by date, most recent first.

Argument for changing this are subject to WP:RECENT. Until we see a change, across the board, we should stick with the most well documented view. Semitransgenic talk. 12:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * More references to "right wing" than there are to "far right" if using this as a barometer scholar''', by date, most recent first.
 * And here books''' by date, most recent first. I'm not sure if your selective links would pass verifiability above, particularly as the same websites seem to appear more than once eg 3 articles on the BBC website, so I won't do the same to generate similar "right wing" results but if you feel it's necessary please do so. 86.128.123.103 (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * all reputable international news outlets, all WP:RS, you are seeing three different BBC stories, published in the last month, all using the term "far-right". Semitransgenic  talk. 16:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar search, in 2015, hits for "radical right Front National" = 1
 * Google Scholar search, in 2015, hits for "extreme right Front National" = 9
 * Google Scholar search, in 2015, hits for "far right Front National" = 26
 * Google Scholar search, in 2015, for "right wing Front National" = 11 (three of which had the word extremist attached so 8) Semitransgenic talk. 16:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone had removed the 'far right' descriptor so I felt it was best to reword it in a neutral way similar to the way that the French article is worded in its opening paragraph. If there are issues with this please discuss them here. 86.128.123.103 (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally is there any consensus on how many references are too many? It might suggest that 6 references for one point and only 1 reference for the other, implies some sort of weight, even though there are many more references for both available. 86.128.123.103 (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless anyone wishes to suggest otherwise, having 6 sources saying the same thing likely falls under Citation Overkill so have reduced it to 3. 86.128.123.103 (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Additional recent scholarly publications using far-right descriptor:


 * You have already quoted this source above, no need to quote it again. Interesting that the top-voted comment on said article is questioning whether the FN are far-right or not. I don't think this is a clear-cut issue and needs more consensus from a wider pool of Wikipedians, not just repeating the same sources from one person, particularly when said person has a rather, erm, colourful Talk page and a history of edit wars and bans. Someone needs to produce a similar list for the term 'right wing' additionally. 94.195.18.40 (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear anon IP - have a nice day. Semitransgenic  talk. 19:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it normal to have 4 citations from the same website/source, common sense would suggest not? If it is Wikipedia policy to allow this to pass, then fine, but I cannot find any reference to it. Would you be so kind to point me in the right direction? I am fairly new here. In the mean time, I have placed a strikethrough them to discount them; if you wish to revert kindly state why. Also, please assume good faith here, I am simply trying to improve the article. 94.195.18.40 (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * please do not modifyt another editors contribution ot a talk apge as you ahve done here & here. This are seperate URLs for individual items, not duplicates, thank you. Semitransgenic  talk. 20:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying they are duplicate URLs. They are different articles on the same website, i.e. not a different source which is the key point. Logically, this makes no sense to count them as separate, independent citations. When adding sources, even on a Talk page for this purpose, my understanding is that they need to be from different sources. If this is not the case, then kindly clarify as I am happy to be proved wrong. What I'm saying is that you could have just written down all of these (https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=site%3Abbc.co.uk+"front+national"+"far-right") 500+ articles from the BBC with its own bullet point and included them as 500+ 'sources'. In any case, adding so many citations risks citation overkill. Lastly again please try to assume good faith. 94.195.18.40 (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * thank you for your opinion. Can you please read the Talk Page guidelines concerning Talk_page_guidelines? When you have read this information, can you please revert the strikes throughs that you made? Thank you. Semitransgenic  talk. 20:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to, and apologise if this was construed incorrectly. However what is the correct procedure in using multiple citations from the same source? And should they be cleaned up? 94.195.18.40 (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. These are simply examples of usage across multiple publications, with varying political leanings. As far as I'm aware, based on what I see in the guidelines, the above is not problematic. Also, multiple examples from a single outlet demonstrates a general usage trend over time, should there be any doubt. Protracted circular discussions are easily avoided if sources are used to spell things out. Semitransgenic  talk. 21:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It would appear you have changed this again, even though there is no further discussion or consensus on this page since. I've reverted your edit, because your own logic above suggests that most political scholars suggest they are both right-wing and far-right, not one or the other. Additionally, there are various issues with your highly selective and duplicate sources. Until this changes, the edits should stand. Perhaps you should tag this with disputed instead, but carrying on with this charade isn't helping anyone. 94.195.18.40 (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

A personal opinion does not constitute a consensus opinion, misusing sources/misattributing citations as here, is problematic, and needs to be addressed. Please do not remove properly cited content. Thanks. Semitransgenic talk. 23:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure why you feel you are the sole arbiter of this article. Your edit is misleading: "but party representatives reject this view and prefer qualifiers such as right-wing". As per the replies above, this isn't limited to party representatives but there are many verifiable sources that pass WP:V. I already listed various sources from Google Scholar etc, using the same methodology that you used. The fact that you've gone to great lengths to find references to 'far right' but haven't made any apparent attempt to do the same for the term 'right wing' suggests you have an axe to grind. As I don't think this is going to be resolved by itself between us two, and I see you have a penchant for edit wars, I've placed a tag on this part to gather more consensus from other editors, and reverted your earlier edit. The current edit is how this article has been for some time. 86.161.48.241 (talk) 10:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

If Semitransgenic wishes to cite his/her reasons for repeatedly modifying this, then it should go here. Phatwa (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment Per request I am adding a quick list of sources for the term 'right wing', not that the term isn't inclusive of 'far rightism' but this should be discussed further. I'm not sure it's necessary myself, given that other editors can easily create such lists and they are open to massive bias in their selective nature, but I'll do it anyway. Phatwa (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Connexion
 * "[Front National] are the only true authentic right-wing party in France"


 * Science Direct
 * "Sharply distinguish themselves from other right wing partisans"


 * Spiegel
 * "France's right-wing populist party Front National stands to make significant advances..."


 * RT
 * "...spoken against the victory of the right-wing National Front party in the first round ...."


 * Campus
 * "....models right-wing populism..."


 * Sky
 * "Marine Le Pen accuses the UKIP leader of making "defamatory" remarks about her right-wing party "simply for electoral purposes""


 * My 2 cents while this is locked. This article on the Finns Party has a longer, more balanced clarification on the political spectrum that they inhabit; a similar approach could be used in this article: "The party combines left-wing economic policies[16] with conservative social values, socio-cultural authoritarianism, and ethnic nationalism. Several researchers have described the party as fiscally centre-left, socially conservative,[18] a "centre-based populist party" or the "most left-wing of the non-socialist parties", whereas other scholars have described them as radically right-wing populist." Note that I'm not saying that any/all of these specific terms apply to the Front National in the same way, but that a broader description would be better than the current blanket statement. However, not all political party articles on Wikipedia clarify as extensively in the lead as the Finns Party article, so again this needs more feedback from other editors. 94.195.18.40 (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Comparing the Finns Party with Front National isn't particularly helpful as the former are decidedly more moderate in their approach; they are more akin to the UK Independence Party. If we have a lot of (reliable) sources stating "right-wing", and a lot saying "far right", then we include both in the lede (as we are currently doing). That seems fairly straightforward and should be retained unless scholars and media analysts begin to change their descriptors. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm the IP user in question, if it wasn't obvious. Firstly, I wasn't comparing the two, indeed I go as far as to say that above: "Note that I'm not saying that any/all of these specific terms apply to the Front National in the same way,", the point I was trying to make was that it is possible to work in a wider description of a party's political standing, if the will is there. Regardless, I'm fine with your suggestion Midnightblueowl; that was my intention, and that was indeed how this article stood before this recent episode of edit warring occurred. It's apparent to me that both terms apply. It does seem that the user 'Semitransgenic' feels there's some sort of conspiracy against them from the 'radical right', but be assured this is not the case. For what it's worth, I am centre-left politically but take an interest in the rise of right-wing populism. Phatwa (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

←


 * Dear Phatwa, the current "solution" is not a good one. You seem to think that leaving the expression "right to far-right" until "a consensus is reached" is sort of neutral, but it is not. It is not true that most scholars place the FN on the "right to far-right". This description is misleading and simply erroneous. Every single scholar places the FN on the far right, in fact most French political scholars use the expression "extrême droite" (extreme right). In any case, "until a consensus is reached", there is no reason to favor the expression "right to far right" instead of "far right". I understand that there is a debate (supporters of the FN think they are not so "far", obviously), but choosing to freeze "right to far-right" until a consensus is reached (maybe never) is not acceptable in my opinion.Seub (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. Let me address a few of your points. Firstly, the disputed text has existed for (as far as I can tell) many months in the current format - referring to the FN as "right to far-right". It presumably was there when it was given 'Good' article status - although I haven't checked. Intriguingly, it is only in the past few weeks that the 'right wing' descriptor was removed and suddenly became 'contentious' to a specific user. The content of this Talk page going back several months is focussed towards this topic, so it clearly warrants discussion. Secondly, I do actually agree that the reference to "most political scholars" is misleading and the current edit is poor; I have tried to reword this but another user kept reverting it. In my opinion stating that the FN are right to far-right, with sources (not just scholar-based) for both would be a better solution. It sounds to me like you are implying that because most scholars apparently refer to them as 'far right' that this somehow takes precedence over other sources. I don't know if that's official Wikipedia policy, even if it's true, but to give more weight to scholar sources over media sources doesn't sound like a fair representation to me if that were to be the case. If you look above, you will see that there are several articles I linked to that have been recently published questioning if the FN are indeed (dare I say) 'left wing' rather than 'right wing'. These are from reputable sources as well, and I believe that should be reflected in the article. Phatwa (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Just to update this. I've added/amended in an equal number of sources to the lead for both 'right' and 'far-right' using the same sources from a few months ago, before this issue arose. If anyone wishes to discuss or remove or modify then please do comment here first. I've also changed 'scholars' to 'commentators', if this is controversial I'd be happy to revert or discuss further - my reason for doing is so because not all of the given sources are academic. Phatwa (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, if someone wants to remove the dubious-inline tag then I think the current edit is fine and would have no issues with that. For obvious reasons, I won't remove it myself (yet).Phatwa (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Right wing?
I do not consider economic measures such as nationalisations in the program of Front National match correctly under the traditional liberal-right wing spectrum. Should be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.238.87 (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Most "reliable" sources don't know that they are no longer a far-right party, but Wikipedia policies require that we follow them. Xerxes  ( contact ) 03:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It does not matter that people like you two, out of complete ignorance, do not see why the FN is an extreme-right party. Wikipedia must of course label it as far-right / extreme-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seub (talk • contribs) 16:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Far right politicians often have more moderate economic views than politicians on the center right. What truly distinguishes them is their xenophobia.71.244.167.164 (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I think that the suitable label for the ideology of this party should be like this:

Economic: Centre-Left wing Social: Conservative right wing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.24.96.246 (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with user 80.24.96.246. For example, only Le Pen and Hamon (Socialist primary winner) want to repeal the El Khomri Act (Labour Act), setting her to the left of Macron easily (and even Hollande on this issue).

Granted, the leader's positions are not shared by 100% of the party, but I believe it definitely warrants a tag distinguishing Economic and Social views, especially as she is not even moderate economically like other right wing populists, but rather she is solidly centre-left to left wing economically 128.61.47.4 (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree; it's a common myth with right-wing populist parties. As with the PVV, their voting record typically indicates otherwise – voting on alongside other right-wing parties even on major economic issues, rhetoric aside. Mélencron (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a joke. They are not even close to far-right, but if the establishment left (who appears to control everything on Wikipedia now) can apply that label they can perpetually (and unjustly) demonize them as "Nazis" and "fascists." Wikipedia is no longer about facts but a political agenda. After all, it would be hard to get the minions to call National Front "Nazis" if they were accurately protrayed as the center-left party they are (which is ironic considering the actual Nazis were also socialist...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.69.1.119 (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2017‎ (UTC)
 * The talk page is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article, nor is it the place to express your personal opinions about Wikipedia. Discussion on the talk page should only be about improving the article.  Please keep your remarks confines to this, or they will be removes per WP:NOTAFORUM. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

'The' Front National change
I've just removed the opening 'The' term from the lead, to refer to the party, as it didn't seem consistent to refer to them as 'The Front National' and I can't find any sources that refer to them as such, after a cursory look. Most simply refer to them as 'Front National' eg http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/13/front-national-fails-to-win-control-of-target-regions-amid-tactical-voting. I suspect that it might be a carryover from French i.e. "le".Phatwa (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Makes no sense.
 * Both "National Front" (the party's most common name in English sources) and "Front National" are usually preceded by "the".
 * --Checco (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I hope no one thinks I'm being purposely controversial, but it makes perfect sense to refer to them as "Front National" rather than "The Front National" which is what the edit at the time showed. If it's instead being referred to simply as "National Front" then yes, it would make more sense to me to have "the" prefacing it - but porbably only because of the UK party that is similarly named (but isn't related to the French party). I suppose it comes down to common parlance and familiarity Phatwa (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are being purposely controversial but I do think you are wrong. Political parties that have an article in their name keep it in translation. In your first comment up there you link to a Guardian piece... which uses the article.  It says "the FN" throughout the article.  The opening sentence says "France's Front National" in which there can be no article because of the possessive, and the headline skips the article because it's a headline. Mezigue (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Mezigue is completely correct on this, the article is almost always used in native English sources. Other than poorly translated articles in non-native English publications, I can't ever recall seeing the party referred to without the article in English. 82.26.17.69 (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on National Front (France). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150723235259/https://news.vice.com/article/right-wing-national-fronts-marine-le-pen-seeks-to-discipline-her-father-and-party-founder to https://news.vice.com/article/right-wing-national-fronts-marine-le-pen-seeks-to-discipline-her-father-and-party-founder
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150723235259/https://news.vice.com/article/right-wing-national-fronts-marine-le-pen-seeks-to-discipline-her-father-and-party-founder to https://news.vice.com/article/right-wing-national-fronts-marine-le-pen-seeks-to-discipline-her-father-and-party-founder

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

"major force of French nationalism??"
There is this quote in the introduction of the article: "While the party struggled as a marginal force for its first ten years, since 1984 it has been the major force of French nationalism.[24]"

This sentence is clearly biased, since French nationalism can be defined as "the nationalism that asserts that the French are a nation and promotes the cultural unity of the French." (source Wikipedia). Many political parties promote French nationalism, as do many other non-political opinions. Additionally, it seems clear to me that the FN party isn't a major force at all in French nationalism, as it can be argued that they oppose the unity of all French citizens through their rejection of binationals (those who hold both French and foreign passports). --DragonFly31 (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

immigration policy
Can someone add the following? Their current policy is as follows:

"In terms of legal immigration, the objective is to achieve a balance of around 10 000 foreigners per year in our country. This goal is easily attainable and comes in two parts:

a) The drastic reduction of the issued residence permits, by:

- Labor immigration stop (with a few exceptions matching specific skills and little available in France);

- Discontinuation of family reunification;

- The fight against fake students (once this struggle, the logic of the study cycle that he must enter each year about as much foreign students that emerges logic that applies to French students. at the entrance and exit of universities ...);

- Reform of asylum to limit it to a few hundred cases per year (on the model of what practical Japan).

b) The departure of a number of legal aliens already present in France, but whose presence is no longer justified by:

- The return of convicted foreigners (restoring the double-penalty abolished by Nicolas Sarkozy);

- The obligation to leave the territory for foreigners unemployed for over a year;

- Modification of existing residence permits, following the tightening of conditions for obtaining news." http://www.frontnational.com/le-projet-de-marine-le-pen/autorite-de-letat/immigration/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranginaj (talk • contribs) 23:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

One poll?
This dramatic statement is in the introduction "and in December 2016 it was the most popular party among French citizens ages 18-34, according to an Odoxa-Dentsu Consulting poll.[40]" If true, over a number of polls, then that would be quite a surprise and worthy of inclusion in the introduction.

But until that time, until several polls show that to be true, I think that that claim should be deleted. Why? Because it is, after all, highly unlikely that the younger generation are far-right when, typically, they are left wing or environmentalist. One poll is not enough evidence to support this claim. 83.115.123.190 (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The FN are not a 3rd party source
"Most political commentators place the FN on the right[13][14][15][16] to far right[19][20][21][22][dubious – discuss] but party representatives reject this and suggest other ways of looking at the left–right axis.[23]" That is what is says in the intro.

But the FN cannot be allowed to be a 3rd party source on themselves. They can call black white if that is what they want to do, but unless reliable 3d party sources support that, is has no place in the article.

Thus the line that they reject this and see themselves as X ought to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.9.93 (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't be absurd. How a political party presents itself is a key information. Mezigue (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * agree 100%, this is ludicrous, the cite string is also silly, most of the sources support the first half of the sentence, not the second. Needs clarity. Pandroid (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The cite string is necessary because of editors like the 174 IP who just posted to the "Right wing?" thread (now archived), insisting that the National Front is not right-wing, and that the only reason it is labelled as such is because the left-wing controls Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Granted, though, the first four citations are rather terrible, all things considered (TIME, Business Insider, VICE, and IBT), and could do with replacing. Mélencron (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree about TIME. Time is a mainstream magazine, representing mainstream views, and really cannot be mistaken for a leftish source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In general, I'm not at all a fan of using U.S. publications as sources on articles about European politics (aside from the largest papers of record, but even then they sometimes fail; before the Socialist primary, the NYT had an article on the decline of the PS and didn't mention Hamon even once) – their coverage is typically abysmal and comes from an overtly American perspective (if the deluge of articles about Le Pen doesn't already show that). I don't see any major issue with the contents of the TIME reference, so you're free to reinstate it if you so wish. Mélencron (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * No idea what the outcome of the above was, but the original comment seems fair to me. How a political party represents itself is not an independent or reliable source. Pretty obviously a political party with extremist views might well call itself 'centrist' or similar - but that does not make them centrist. The hostility of some of the responses here to a fair and logical point suggest bias on the part of those who have made such comments. This issue needs re-considering. 83.115.123.190 (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Why "National Front"?
Why not just keep the original name of Front National? It's perfectly understandable and makes more sense when we are using the FN abbreviation throughout the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFEA:170:7D62:93EF:8460:F781 (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Direct translation acknowledging adjectival position, primary name in English, and because it's logical ("national front" is a general name). We don't create English-language abbreviations that don't exist: for example, nobody calls the French Socialist Party "SP", or the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party "SSWP", so we maintain the native-language abbreviation because it makes the most sense. (Not to mention that it'd completely ruin the single-letter abbreviation system for names of many political parties in the Nordic countries; "V" becomes "L", "A" becomes "L" as well, "S" becomes "C", etc.) Mélencron (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Assimilation of Muslims
I think the section on immigration should contain some references to assimilation and republican universalism. Under certain interpretations of republican universalism, Muslim immigrants must assimilate into French culture. The French must a single "people" in the sense that citizens have their French identity first, and any other identity second. Some have questioned whether or not French Muslims can truly assimilate into French culture in this way. Many of these questions related to republican universalism have come to the fore with Le Pen's talk about "immigrants" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstevenmarsden (talk • contribs) 15:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Political position not showing
The well cited 'right-wing to far-right' political position in the info box is not currently showing. It seem one or multiple users have been messing about with it. Wondering if anyone can fix this please? Helper201 (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Mélencron (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Synthesis in infoboxes
Is combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources WP:SYNTH? For example, when no source states that a party is "left to far-Left" but we combine multiple sources to reach or imply that conclusion. Bacondrum (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It's the very definition of WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."  We quote what sources say.  If sources say different things, then we look at how reliable those sources are, and whether there is a general consensus among the most reliable of sources.  If some of those sources are WP:FRINGE, then we can discount those, or give them less weight.  What we don't generally do is put all the sources in a blender and then report the results, because no source will have (most likely) said that specific thing, or it might have been said by the least reliable source.  In this case, "right to far-right" is pure SYNTH. Beyond My Ken (talk)
 * Yes, that's my reading of it too. The guidelines seem pretty straight forward and clear. Bacondrum (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I was summoned here by bot. I would suggest you think about withdrawing these two RfCs, both of which have issues in terms of good RfC practice, and launch a new one that simply asks (perhaps with some options) how Nationally Rally (formerly Front National) should be described on the left/right political spectrum. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? Bacondrum (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I would say these are hardly neutrally worded RfCs. For the above, I suggest wording closer to "Should we describe National Rally as "far-right"? And then followup with a list of sources in your support comment. For this RfC: idk what you're trying to achieve here, I suggest you just remove it altogether. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough with the sources question. But I see no problem with asking about issues around synthesis. Bacondrum (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * RfC's are meant to solve a clearly defined issue with a neutrally worded question. This is not that. You asked "is synth synth", without providing any details relevant to this article, or explaining the underlying issue. And the question itself was leading. I think it probably better to just combine that into the discussion of the broader issue of how to describe the party; i.e. if you think something is synth, point it out and discuss it, no RfC necessary. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The question seems simple and legitimate to me, if we are going to make a claim based on multiple sources of which none explicitly make said claim: Is combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by any of the sources WP:SYNTH? Yes or no? Bacondrum (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , a political party cannot be both far left and far right at the same time. Therefore, sourcing either supports labeling them one way or another. One reason that sourcing might not support a particular characterization is that in order to reach that conclusion we have to engage in synthesis. But the two questions here are really getting at one content decision: how to characterize them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Here from the RFC bot, and I have to agree with Barkeep49 and CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓. A discussion of what is synth overall is not for an RFC on this page. A specific question regarding what the infobox should say, with a few options perhaps, in order to correctly address the issue on this particular article would be more appropriate.Tchouppy (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Niether of you have answered the question and it's a fairly straight forward one asked in good faith. If we make a claim based on multiple sources of which none explicitly make said claim: Is combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by any of the sources WP:SYNTH? In other words if we combine multiple sources to make the claim the NF are "right to far-right" is it synth? yes or no? It's not a crazy or hard question. I can't for the life of me see the reasoning behind the objection - perhaps I'm stupid, but it seems like a simple question that does need addressing. Bacondrum (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: No matter what direction the discussion about political affiliations takes, we should not have information in the infobox, about any issue of the article's subject, that is not contained, amply supported of course, in the main text. H:IB is quite explicit: Infoboxes, like the introduction to the article, should primarily contain material already cited elsewhere in the article. -The Gnome (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment:There was another editor a while back that tried to make this claim but achieved no consenus (I will try and find the discussion they were involved in and link it here if I find it). If you look across Wikipedia having X to Y position in the infobox is a common occurrence and is not widely disputed, you are in a tiny minority that is taking issue and do not have any sort of consensus to remove cited claims. I have sort compromise by removing the label of right-wing populist from the opening line to a neutral one that does not define the party in one way or another. The problem is if we only label the party as far-right in the infobox we are purposefully ignoring the cited claims of right-wing. Editors should be as neutral as possible and by sifting out what sources editors like and dislike or agree with and don't agree with is POV editing. Helper201 (talk) 09:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * and if no source in the main text explicitly states what is stated in the info box? Bacondrum (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What conclusion is being implied that the sources don't state? The way it is currently formatted in the infobox is very common across Wikipedia and would need Wikipedia wide consensus to change. Also see - Policies and guidelines. There are no hard rules on Wikipedia. These are guidelines for best practice. Helper201 (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Right to far-right" show me the source that states that. We have a small number of articles that say right wing, at least half a dozen academic experts that say far-right and none that say "right to far-right". So how are we not combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by any of the sources? Bacondrum (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There are sources that say right-wing, which is cited, and those that say far-right, which is cited. Your disagreement seems to come down to the "to". In which case, what do we do? Put it like this in some sort of list format:
 * Right-wing far-right (?)
 * This is not common formatting and this issue has been brought up before and no consensus has been achieved that its synthesis to include "to". The solution is not to remove correctly cited material in favour of one position. Helper201 (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Helper201, you must have misunderstood my comment. I have taken so far no position about the political affiliation of the subject party. I'm simply reminding everyone what's supposed to be included in an infobox. We've had enough warring in Wikipedia about infoboxes and we do not need any more! What H:IB states is the result of a hard and long dialogue across many pages. Trying to belittle it ("There are no hard rules on Wikipedia") would be significantly counter productive.
 * What's more, yours is essentially an objection without a leg to stand on. Political affiliation is very important, as an information item and as such it should be supported by sources and mentioned in the main text of an article about a party! In which case, there can be no argument against including that info in the infobox. And rest assured that having sources that support what we write in an article is indeed a fundamental ("hard") policy in Wikipedia. Try putting up unsupported claims and see how far this gets you, if you must. -The Gnome (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Gnome, I was not responding to your comment. Helper201 (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You were the first to respond, Helper201, and placed your comment directly under mine. Perhaps when the formatting does not make clear who is addressing whose comments we should be naming the party to which we respond. In any case, there seems to be an ongoing ANI case about your alleged edit warring (here) and you should be treading carefully in your involvement in the article. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I assume that this is the content in question:  If so, that's an awful lot to stuff into one infobox parameter - there are eight references. This is what can be done in the infobox:   and in the text you may put something like this:   That way, you present both sides, which doesn't go against WP:SYNTH but respects WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The infobox is meant to quickly sum up key points about the topic. It is totally meaningless to write "see text" in it. ― Hebsen (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. As other have stated, this RFC is badly worded, and frankly more general that this specific article. A better wording would be: Is "right-wing[1][2] to far-right[3][4]" and similar acceptable to have in an infobox for a political party, or is it WP:SYNTH. I would say yes, that is acceptable. It is meant to be understood as "Some sources describe it as right-wing, and some sources describe it as far-right", and I do believe most people understand it that way. This construction is the best way to sum it up that situation, and it is way better to use it than having to pick one political position, when sources are split on the issue. (I have no opinion on how this applies to National Rally.) ― Hebsen (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)