Talk:New Popular Front

Place Publique (A Part of or Not a Part of, That is the Question)
@Braganza @Number 57 @Helper201 @Checco @Direct700 @davide king There seems to be mixed signals as to whether the party has joined the coalition. Despite being named on the document, Raphael Glucksmann has indicated that his party won't be in a coalition tat consists of LFI. To which I ask, what is the current status of the party in this coalition? Do we leave it as is, with it being in the coalition, or do we remove it from the page? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm currently of the opinion to remove it presently, and perhaps add a sentence about it under the New Popular Front for now, and only re-add it if its certainly joined up (as of now it seems like their are signs that it's both a member from the LFI source, and not a member according to Glucksmann himself, rather odd) Bejakyo (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think Background is the better place for this Braganza (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just want to let you know Place Publique has been confirmed as being a part of The New Popular Front. Glucksmann aslo told this morning (French time) he's backing the alliance. 78.114.160.168 (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Article name
Should we follow the French article and rename it the Popular Front (France, 2024)? Rogl94 (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Moot now with the release of their logo and the French article also reverting back to "Nouveau Front populaire". Rogl94 (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Cap21 doesn't seem to be part of the NPF
I see Cap21 listed as a member of the alliance. The sourced used say that. It says that cap21 call for an union between left, center and ecologist forces ("un grand rassemblement de toutes les forces politiques de gauche, du centre et écologistes") but the same text also strongly criticizes "les extrêmes", including the "far-left" (LFI). If you browses Corinne LePage's twitter, cap21's president, you can also see recent tweets showing she's against LFI. So cap21 should be removed. So I think cap21 should be removed from this page. 78.114.160.168 (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Same with regards to the PRG, and in fact neither Cap21 nor the PRG are included on the French page. Lanaerys (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding the PRG, it depends. In some departments they're supporting NPF candidates. In others they don't. Two articles (FR) attesting that:
 * https://www.estrepublicain.fr/elections/2024/06/14/dans-le-doubs-le-parti-radical-de-gauche-soutient-le-nouveau-front-populaire
 * https://www.ladepeche.fr/2024/06/15/legislatives-2024-en-tarn-et-garonne-le-rn-et-lfi-sont-des-dangers-pour-la-democratie-assume-stephane-gonzalez-president-du-prg-12017462.php 78.114.160.168 (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Logos
Should they be removed? WP:NFLISTS discourages use of fair use files when a corresponding article exists, which seems to be the case for most logos listed here. My edit was reverted but it did not address the reason on why I removed it, just stating that the logos do not exist locally. --Min☠︎rax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 02:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Article title
I strongly believe that the article should be moved back to the previous title per WP:COMMONNAME: the name is a direct reference to the Popular Front of the 1930s and as such most English-language sources use the name "New Popular Front" and not "New People's Front." 24.19.232.205 (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Precursors
The section needs a proper introduction to place the NPF in context of several precursor left parties and alliances, and should start with Leon Blum's Popular Front (Front populaire). It should probably include such groups as the the Plural Left (Gauche Plurielle) the Left Front (Front de Gauche), and NUPES (New Ecological and Social People's Union; fr:Nupes). Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Does the NFP really have collective leadership?
Maybe I'm just splitting hairs here, but the way I see it, "collective leadership" means that there's a formal, legal agreement that divides and shares responsibilities amongst several people. From this article, though, I get the impression that it's more like the NFP simply does not have a leader, and its constituent parties are left to promote themselves. Which is why there's some uneasiness and tension over who their PM candidate is or would be, and so on (I would think that in a collective leadership situation, they would have answers for this power-sharing). Am I mistaken here? If so, perhaps there should be more written in the article explaining the specifics of the leadership arrangement. If not, and "collective leadership" is a bit far, maybe we should just leave the leader field (in the infobox) empty? — Kawnhr (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "a formal, legal agreement"? The only place in the collective leadership article I see the word "agreement" is the one example for the Green Party of England and Wales. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In the sense that their leadership situation is written down in a party/alliance's founding documents or statutes, or other things of that nature. For example, the SDP–Liberal Alliance agreed to a joint leadership (weirdly not on its own page, but Social Democratic Party (UK) has "joint", as does this external source); Québec solidaire has a section outlining how the party's constitution breaks up leadership responsibilities amongst several positions. These are not perfect analogues, no, but the point is that there was an agreed-upon leadership structure… and I'm left wondering if the NFP has anything similar, or their agreement stopped at co-ordinating candidates to not compete with one another. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is my non-expert guess at what the words mean:
 * "joint": like a business partnership
 * "collective": like Collective ownership in socialism
 * "common": like Common ownership in communism
 * "Collective" is vague. I think "collective leadership" means they will probably use a meeting not a ballot box to decide on their leader.
 * With regards to, no, says "reaffirmed that any decisions about who would become prime minister would only be made after the elections". The second halves of that section and this article  describe competition for leadership responsibilities. This being a alliance not a party and the fact nobody competing cited any written policy makes me assume this alliance is more informal than bureaucratic.
 * I don't think "we should just leave the leader field (in the infobox) empty" because of consistency with other article and the table on French Wikipedia, and omission implies an unknown leader not intentional distribution of leadership. Also, as seen in the 2022_French_legislative_election the party leader need not be the prime minister, so even if they chose one prime minister, they can still have multiple people or in this case everyone in the party share the leadership, and the article should reflect that. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)