Talk:Progress Party (Norway)/Archive 2

Title translations
There appears to be a difference of views between Gabagool and Eisfbnore regarding the provision of English translations of some citation titles. I am not understanding why we would avoid providing a translation of the title just because the original was in Norwegian. Gabagool, can you explain your objection? hamiltonstone (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I see no need to translate the titles. The reference is to provide information to the reader of how they can access the reference, including providing its name. The translated title does not contribute to this at all, and adds a lot of space in an otherwise crowded reference section. On the other hand, it does seem a bit reckless to go about reverting additions of translated titles. Arsenikk (talk)  22:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above user explains very nicely my reasons for removing those hardly necessary translations, which in addition messes up already somewhat complicated citations. As the publications themselves are also not in English (you need to know the respective languages to read them), I can hardly see the point in having such translations of the titles (the translations in themselves were also rather poor, WP:OR and the editor actually questioned his own translations in "hidden text"). I just can't see why it should be in the article, and I think it deteriorates the article for nothing. -TheG (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is true, the rationale I provided for reverting Gabagool had nothing to do with the text he wrote in his former WP:ES, but merely with his tolerance of others editing "his" article. I do have somewhat of a difficult time figuring out how a translation can be OR. Should I have given citations for my translations? And why couldn't you (TheG) have improved the translations instead of just simply reverting them and labeling them OR. I also cannot see the point in having the  parameter in {cite book} if it shouldn't be used. And for the record, I did merely comment out one single word, since I was not sure if "opinion" should be translated directly.  Eisfbnore  ( talk ) 08:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from such unbased (and rather pathetic) claims that I should somehow want to "own" this article just because a part of your edit was removed. Everyone is allowed to stop disruptive edits, and you edited much more than the translation-stuff. Why on earth should I seek to not allow others to edit the article as you oddly seem to think; you are more than welcome to, for instance, expand the article's sections on political positions such as Economy, Society etc. (or anything else) -TheG (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The  parameter could be useful for titles in other alphabets, I don't know. Here, I do not see why someone would need to know the title, when such a title can not be looked up anywhere in any newspaper in the world. I don't think the title contributes to a better understanding of the topic; it should be understood well enough by reading the article. Precision is also an argument (can't improve it if someone should spread the manner of translating to many articles). Geschichte (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I support the inclusion of translations. I can't see how they could possibly said to "deteriorate" the article - if you're not interested in them, just don't read them. I think they are useful. If I read an article about some political figure or party from, say, Hungary, with references to articles or books in Hungarian, which I don't read, I would still find it useful and interesting to know the title of the articles or books which was quoted. Also, the very fact that the possibility for adding translations is included in the template, shows that Gabagool's viewpoint that they are unnecessary, is not a universally held view. I agree these specific translations left something to be desired, but as a general principle, I find them useful. --Barend (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, and if I'd read an article with foreign-language refs, I would be glad to see translated titles in them, so that I at least could have a clue—or maybe impression ;)— about what the references say and if they are documenting the facts stated in the article. Eisfbnore  ( talk ) 14:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a "|trans_title=" in the cite news template too; why don't you start translating the titles of all 130 news articles in the article too. Consistency is the most important thing regarding the quality in articles, so if you're translating something, you must translate everything, or otherwise leave it alone. -TheG (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would gladely do so, but it doesn't feel like a good idea, when the king of the article most likely will remove it promptly after seeing it... -- Eisfbnore  ( talk ) 17:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Why don't you try to help constructively, rather than continuing with cheap characterisations of other editors who have actually put in a lot of work in this article. -TheG (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I must say that I believe Eisfbnore's started program of publicising OR translations of every source in the article to be highly inappropriate, and I have never seen anything like this anywhere on Wikipedia. -TheG (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Then go ahead and revert. The translations will either be very strict, direct and therefore poor english, or more relaxed, liberal, and as you say: OR. Eisfbnore  ( talk ) 00:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm coming in on this discussion only now, and firstly I must admit I have never realized there is a  field available for the Cite news template, which I very often employ when referencing text added to articles. That said, I strongly suggest that whenever an editor has made the trouble of adding such translations, they ought NEVER to be removed! if it's a bad translation, then address that, but actually removing these translations seems really unconstructive to me. I concede they may not always seem important, but on the other hand, who knows when a researcher will be sifting through the references looking for one specific in-depth article which then can be processed by a translation tool for further studies? __meco (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I have to say thanks for the support, but I did actually remove the translations myself, since all I got for taking the time to do so, was resentments and accusations of being "unconstructive" and the translations of being "inappropriate" by the ki..., eh, nevermind. Eisfbnore  ( talk ) 17:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I absolutely disagree with Gabagool's argument about consistency - "if you're translating something, you must translate everything". One translation in a 100 is better than 0 translations in a 100. Some information is better than no information.
 * As for the term "OR translations" - I find this an utterly meaningless term. A translation can not, by definition be original research. It is the transfering of a piece of information from one language to another. It is not original research.--Barend (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is a mess
I agree with the below statement. I removed the heading that mentioned Anders Behring Breivik as it seems to be politically motivated and holds little relevance to the party as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.104.179 (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what happened to this article over the last few weeks, but amazingly it manages to violate just about every Wikipedia policy currently in existence. Here are two of its main problems:
 * It reads like a promotional brochure justifying and rationalizing the racist, bigoted policies of a far-right political organization. To that end, I've clarified the party's political position by including information from reputable scholars, not statements from the Progress Party itself. The History and Ideology sections will need to be completely rewritten to avoid violating WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:OR.

I'll work on it some more over the weekend to fix any lingering mistakes. UBER ( talk ) 05:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The prose is horrible in several spots and the article needs a thorough copyedit.
 * I've begun to give the article a thorough copyedit and my work will continue into the weekend. Besides the article's obvious bias, it's pretty clear that whoever wrote it does not speak English as a first language, given the innumerable grammatical mistakes I'm finding throughout. It's going to take a lot of work to overhaul this broken article, but we'll get it done. UBER  ( talk ) 05:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not done anything "over the last few weeks", I have actually put a lot of work into this article over months I believe (seeing that it was originally a complete disorganised mess), but please feel free to correct my grammar if there are errors. As for the claimed "obvious bias" is just plainly wrong, and shows that you are not a Norwegian following Norwegian politics on a daily or even recurrent basis. It is obvious you do not objectively know anything about the subject of this article. I have for instance as a matter of fact added numerous controversies within the party to neutrally write about the party, and if I had wanted to "bias" the article I could simply have left such episodes out. And do you seriously think that 9% of immigrant Africans in Norway would vote for a racist/fascist party? (Just to say, it may be correct that some have classified the party as far-right during the 1990s, but you see very well that the MPs who contributed to such a classification was thrown out of the party ten years ago. I think it is from this the misunderstanding originates.) -TheG (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is false to suggest that the Progress Party is facist, while it could be said about their past policies during the 1970s and 80s when their leader Carl I. Hagen made several statements where he wanted to abolish the welfare state. However, by the 1990s the party moderated its position in most of their economic policies.
 * It should be noted that the party is considered right-wing by the Norwegian media, not far-right or facist. The party is not anti-immigratiation, it is however immigrant-skeptic. While its true that the party is playing on people's fear when it comes to immigration, they have also played on people's fear in many other subjects; an example being that they said that the Socialist Left would make Norway a communist country.
 * My last comment is simple, you don't seem to know much about Norwegian politics. However, i agree with you that the article shouldn't contain to much sources from controversial subjects. --TIAYN (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has to provide a global perspective on all articles. What the Norwegian media calls the party should not take precedence over what reputable scholars call it. If political scientists identify the party as far-right, it needs to be reported on Wikipedia. UBER  ( talk ) 19:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And just to further clarify: please don't bring up red herrings. I'm not suggesting we call them fascist. I agree with you that they are not. However, they definitely qualify as far-right on the political spectrum, per numerous scholars and political scientists. UBER  ( talk ) 19:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are borderline trolling here. Please stop immediately if you are not able to be constructive. -TheG (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * From your talk page you also have a long history of both vandalising and blatantly biasing articles. You can thus not be taken seriously, which only become evident here again because of your comments, as well as your complete ignoring of others comments. -TheG (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are numerous political sciences here in Norway which would describe them as right-wing, as said it should be noted that some call them far-right, but the party is seen by the Norwegian public, political sciences, media and the party itself as right-wing. --TIAYN (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at books that discuss the Progress Party they are not normally referred to as "far right". The "far right" in Norway is small and was represented in politics by the National Alliance (Norway).  The Four Deuces (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

We'll get back to this later. For now, the article needs a copyedit badly. UBER ( talk ) 01:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I also question their description as "classical liberal" and "conservative liberal", which are not adequately sourced. While those are aspects of the party's ideology, they are overshadowed by their ideas on immigration and other issues.  The Four Deuces (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * They are "adequately sourced", and must stay. As you see, right-wing populism is the thing that covers what you are suggesting, and is also there at present. So it is all covered, and is the most correct description of the party's ideology. The party is also about much more than merely immigration, despite that it might be the most "exciting" thing for people in other countries to write about. And again, as said the party is the secondly most popular party among immigrants, and this itself should reflect that the party is not like some of you claim. -TheG (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Classical liberalism is sourced to the party's own website, while conservative liberalism is from the European Election Database, which classifies "according to the recognized Manifesto Project dataset. The Manifesto project focuses on quantitative content analyzes of party manifestos from 50 countries covering all free democratic elections since 1945 to measure political positions of all relevant parliamentary parties." In both cases it is based on what the party says rather than independent evaluation.  The descriptions themselves can have different meanings but are generally not seen as the same as populism.  The Four Deuces (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I meant that right-wing populism covers the other things like immigration. -TheG (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Deuces about ideology. We can't source that kind of information to the party itself. Deuces, what do you propose for the party's ideology? UBER  ( talk ) 17:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you think entitles you to just "propose" the ideology of a party out of nowhere? Are you God? -TheG (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Anniken Hagelund in The Progress Party says "right wing populism". Lars Svasand says "right-wing radicalism".  Right wing populism and radical right seem to be the most common terms.  I agree that they are not far right but they are not traditionally liberal either.  The Four Deuces (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * First, Gabagool - earlier you accuse people of "borderline trolling", then you accuse folk, in your last comment of 'just "propos(ing"' a party's ideology, when they were, in fact, doing nothing of the sort. "What do you propose for the party's ideology?" clearly means 'What do you propose as a good description of the party's ideology?' No one is trying to be a god. You should be careful you do not engage in what you accuse others of.AshleyMorton (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * However, on to the topic at hand: FrP's ideology. I have no truly authoritative references to back up my thoughts here, but I definitely agree with "right-wing populism".  Here's some backup - the party's own website is promoting three policies right now - a desire for those employed by churches to have police background checks (promoting a timely matter as a major plank in the platform sounds populist to me), a belief that there should be a change in government after local government elections to be held in 2011 (all opposition parties would say something like that, although taking local government elections, and using them as the foundations for a claim to legitimacy as a national government is definitely a populist "grass roots"-style thing to do.), and a strongly-worded article about how elected politicians should be able to take back control over immigration policy from "topic-specialist jurists".  All three of these are in the "sweet spot" of the world's populist right.  Of course, they're Norwegian, so they're not screaming about Communists, or trying to ban abortion, or something, but they are arguing that their legitimacy comes from their close connection to "real/common people", yet they are not really ideologues, in that their policies do not constantly refer back to any "guiding principles" or core ideas.  Thus, I definitely say "right wing populist".AshleyMorton (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is so wrong! Progress party has never proposed a reduction in public spending, rather the opposite. They want to use much more of Norway's oil whealth and expand the welfare state and at the same time reduce taxes. And the do not want to sell as much state-owned enterprise as the Conservatives. Progress party is no right-wing party. One cant place them on a political left-right scale. Carl I. Hagen is right. The Conservative party is further to the right. I don't know where you who wrote this article come from, but I am a politically active norwegian. Maybe you should listen to us? Hope people in norwegian schools do not trust in wikipedia on these matters for an exam or something..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.181.223 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 June 2010
 * How brain dead can a person get; the Progress Party is the most rightist party in parliament. --TIAYN (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

An who are you to decide this? Read the Progress Party programme, and see for yourself what they would like to spend. Thats not very right-wing, huh? Why is FrP so rightist in your eyes? Well, surely because og tax cuts and privatization. But how does that make it more rightist than the Conservatives, when they want exactly the same, only more in some cases. I am a Young Conservative, and I know what I stand for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.181.223 (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Traditionally the term "the Right" was applied to Norwegian conservatives. However new parties like the Progress Party are called "radical populist".  Do they have anything to do with conservatism or the Right?  The term "right-wing" is now applied to parties like that.  Compare with the United Kingdom where the right-wing party is UKIP and the far right is the British National Party, but the party closest to your own is the Conservative Party, which is normally called "centrist" or "center-right".  TFD (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so a right-wing party does not have to be libertarian on economical stances? I did'nt see it that way. I've allways placed parties from left to right depending what amount of goverment they want, and then my party, the norwegian Conservatives, was placed further to the right than Progress. And fascist are in my eyes nothing else than racist socialists. Of course i would'nt say that Progress is leftist, but in some cases they are. And on economic stances they propose tax cuts like us Conservatives, but would like to disband the Norwegian norm of how much public resources the Government should spend. They've used billions more on their budgets, even more than Socialist Left evere spended, and to me, that's not libertarian, and therefore I did not see that as rightist. But anyway this is confusing. This article contains inncorrect information. F.e; there is nothing about the spending of billions on expansion of the welfare state that FrP propose, rather that the party wants to reduce public spending. They do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.181 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 18 June 2010


 * If you can find sources to back it up, you are free to expand the economic policy secion of this article. While I wrote much of the article, I have not written too much about economics here, for the simple reason that it is not something I know particularly much about. But, as said, it would be very helpful to have the economic section expanded. -TheG (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I will do it, just have to find time for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.181.223 (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Placing parties from left to right depending what amount of goverment they want is a modern concept. In the 19th century the liberals, not the conservatives, advocated minimal government.  In the early 20th century, fascists were considered far right and came to power with support from conservatives in Germany, southern and eastern Europe.  TFD (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Post-shooting revisions
I have attempted numerous times to keep this article as it was written prior to the shooting tragedy in Norway. My account (dallasmayor) has been blocked for trying to preserve this article. Does the Wikipedia crew do nothing to prevent slanted, politically motivated revisions following a tragedy of this magnitude? I encourage the staff to return this article to pre-tragedy status and keep it that way so as to prevent revisionists from twisting this entry to fit their political agenda. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texaspedro (talk • contribs) 06:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Then bring attention to it and work to build a new consensus (after your block expires). Rather than attempting to perform mass reverts, focus on the actual content that you find objectionable. VQuakr (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not very much involved in that, but I must say that I feel the state of the article before the shooting is not a desirable one either. I don't mean that the party is as directly connected to this terrible crime as it is suggested by many now. I mean that the article in its old state seemed to me quite a whitewash - it based its text largely on the party's own documents and press articles. The article reflected more how the party would like to see itself and what it does in everyday politics, but little on what it actually is. Its xenophobic tendencies were just a remark way down the article. In that context it can hardly be a bad thing that there is much more attention on the article now. --Hansbaer (talk) 09:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Daily poll variations are not utile. Collect (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Breivik
His relation to the Progress Party is basically de minimis. Hence not germane here. It may be germane in his BLP where it currently resides. WP:BLP applies in all articles. Collect (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you haven't noticed, the same issue is being pushed over at the Progress Party's Youth article; and in an even more tasteless manner. – Bellatores (t.) 11:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you haven't noticed, there's a discussion on the talk page there, and I'd much prefer it if you participated in the discussion rather than revert-warring and calling my behaviour "tasteless". Some of my most important arguments given there don't apply to the Progress Party which is why I'm not really participating in the discussion here and don't have any strong opinions either way. In general, though, I'm alarmed by a tendency I see in fans of the Progress Party - that they seem to behave as if media around them should function more like Pravda than anything you'd see in the free world, which explains why their Wikipedia pages read like advertisement, and (necessary) criticism or inconvenient facts are removed. -- toresbe (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact is --- Wikipedia does not use "indisputable facts" as a basis for edits. Meanwhile I have absolutely no interest in Norwegian politics, so would appreciate it if you redacted any such imputation above. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * you're not interested in norwegian politics? that explains it. the link between frp and breivik is being debated among politicians, terror experts and others. it is having repercussions both on frp and its youth wing. this should also be included in the article. -- mustihussain (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * mustihussain is correct, the connection to the Progress party is acknowledged by all parts in this: By Breivik himself, by the media, by the Progress Party leadership as well as all other political parties represented in parliament. It's a main point of discussion in Norwegian politics. If you have no interest in/knowledge of Norwegian politics I don't understand why you would edit an article related to this theme. --Johanneswilm (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The Progress Party is not famous for having Breivik as a member, and Breivik is not famous for being a member of the Progress Party. Full stop. Eisfbnore  &bull; talk  12:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * the connection between the anti-islamic rhetoric of frp/fpu and the actions of breivik is being widely discussed by media, experts and politicians, both domestic and foreign . this criticism cannot be swept under the carpet forever.-- mustihussain (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik's past membership
So what exactly are the reasons that there should be no mention of Breivik's past membership in the party? It is an objective, uncontested fact that the party officially admitted. It is also universally accepted that Breivik's actions are significant and political. Prohibiting the mention of Breivik's past membership is unjustifiably biased towards the Progress Party. 140.233.216.99 (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Single members who never made it to the party leadership are hardly of importance for the party itself. A mass murderer does not automatically cast a shadow of any organization he has ever been a member of. I see only one thing which would make it a relevant fact: if this terrible crime had consequences for the party in terms of big internal debates and future election results. --Hansbaer (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So where is the Party manifesto from one of 200s elections? When they just said everything, what Breivik said and done? Just word to word, with "threats" from immigrants, that would do murders in cities? Imagine for e.g. that communist Party of CCCP would write that Stalin never existed, and Beria was only usual member, not worth mentioning... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.75.70.254 (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

FRP has never said anything even remotely equal to Breviks statements in his manifesto. Any comparisons are fallacious.

Ideology; some issues
User RJFF insists on labeling the liberalism/libertarianism a "(self-identification)" in the infobox, without any explanation. Such a use is not seen on any other political party article on Wikipedia, and there has been consensus other places to not use such a style. Anyone familiar with the Norwegian political system, knows that it is not really disputed as part of (even the main) ideology of the party. Another question, however, is whether liberalistisk translates as "libertarianism" or "liberalism"; I really don't know. Since I'm already here, I'd also like to contest user RJFF's insistance on applying "Right-wing populism" in the infobox; something that is not a mainstream opinion among scholars. Note here what a Norwegian scholar says (the Norwegian scholar however do argue that the party is rwp, but as you can see, in contrast to mainstream scholarly opinion) "But more importantly, in the far most extensive work on this party family ["populist radical right parties"] so far by Cas Mudde, FRP is not even among the "borderline cases". (To be sure, the FRP has always been regarded as "doubtful case" (Ignazi 1992) or as a "milder version of the new radical right" (Kitchelt and McGann 1995))." — Filippusson (t.) 19:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Filippusson, this article received GA status on 28 September 2010. On this day, the infobox did not include libertarianism, but it did include populism. Libertarianism was added much later, on 25 July 2011 by User:Michaelm, who also added "far-right" and "neoconservative", what you would presumably call "against GA consenus". Populism (still in the infobox when the article was given GA status) was removed by an IP on 23 January 2011, providing the edit summary "populism is not their ideology - that's what their opponents call them", after another IP had added "(disputed)". So your argument that you defend the GA status by keeping the libertarianism label seems not exactly honest. --RJFF (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am defending the long-standing consensus that was agreed on at some point since GA (if I rember correctly, it was actually I who had added "populism" to the infobox back then, but it was apparently contested by someone else. I'd say that populism is more appropriate to use here than "right-wing populism"). — Filippusson (t.) 21:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I added "(self-identification)", because the libertarianism label seemed not to be supported by any third-party source and therefore seemed to be nothing but the party's self-identification. In other party's infoboxes, there is only the ideology as given in neutral, third-party sources and not the self-identification, therefore the tag "(self-identification)" does not appear. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), it is one of three core content policies. Therefore the reader may assume that every statement in Wikipedia, that is not explicitly marked as a particular party or actor's opinion, is a neutral fact. Of course, ideology classifications are never facts, but still the reader may assume that the ideology is classified by neutral analysts by reference to neutral criteria. If we present a particular party's or actor's opinion (i.e. the self-positionment of the party), we have to mark it is such, because otherwise we create the impression that it is a neutral, non-partisan (or third-party) statement. I'd rather not put the self-identification of any party in the respective infobox at all, but only hold onto statements in third-party sources.


 * If it is indeed undisputed that libertarianism is a part of or even the main ideology of the party, it should really not be a problem to cite third-party sources verifying this. In this case I would not have any objections. My superficial desktop research hasn't found me any. It has however found me plenty of relevant scholarly sources classifying the party as "right-wing populist". I put this label in the infobox, because I had the impression that a significant number of academics dealing with the Progress Party put the party into this category, while libertarianism was only supported by a statement of the party about itself, and conservatism only by a single news source. Should other users know where to find better sources, I will of course accept them. According to my dictionary "liberalistisk" translates to "liberal", while the translation of "libertarian" would be "libertariansk", but as I don't speak this language, I don't know if it is correct. --RJFF (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's another source (that is already in the article); "FrP is a conservative liberal party..." — Filippusson (t.) 21:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The source has the slight flaw that it does not explain why it classifies FrP as conservative liberal and it does not cite its sources, but I am ready to accept it, as it seems to be published by an academic institution. --RJFF (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Btw, I have never claimed that the Progress Party were "radical right", but "right-wing populist". That it is not listed as a "radical right" or "populist radical right" or "radical right-wing populist" party doesn't contradict the sources that consider it "right-wing populist" (without "radical"!) --RJFF (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this sentence from a Bergen student magazine sums it up well; "Some believe it [Frp] is social conservative, some claim it is liberal, others claim they are a populist party." I think it would be best to go with this, and use "Liberalism", "Conservatism" and "Populism" in the infobox, as these are the most widely applied ideologies to the party. Whichever one is more correct or not is an eternal discussion, largely derived from the often somewhat ambiguous nature of the party's policies/rhetoric. — Filippusson (t.) 21:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I would not consider an opinion piece in a student magazine a reliable source to classify the ideology of a political party, namely a major, well-known party, whose ideology is subject of debates. --RJFF (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Infobox
Wikipedia uses infoboxes for convenience only. Material which is covered in the body does not need cites in the infobox as well -- in fact many editors argue against any cites in the infobox. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not the issue. There are no references to reliable, independent sources confirming that the Progress Party is a libertarian or classical liberal party in the articles body, either. Self-identification is not enough. --RJFF (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In short - the fact that the body contains a non-contested claim which is fully-sourced is not enough for you in an infobox where such sourcing is not required in the first place.  Right? Collect (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The only ideology we should include is "right-wing populism" because it is the only one that has consensus support in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not my problem. I don't need refs in the infobox. Just: there is no independent, reliable source to verify that the party is classical liberal or libertarian. Only publications by the party itself label it as such, but it is not by a third party and therefore not a reliable source for the classification of ideology. --RJFF (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is usually possible to find sources to support any description one wants. When Collect finds one will you agree to the inclusion?  TFD (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The body has sources. It is silly to ask for them to be repeated in the infobox, but I added them to assuage that concern.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A party is not A reliable source for its own ideology. Extreme right parties always present a moderate tone in describing themselves.  TFD (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again an editor knows that a party is "extreme right" which is the sort of claim which requires specific reliable sourcing. Cheers.  Ask at RS/N whether the SPS is reliable here for the claim that the party is "libertarian" before making claims of IT IS AN EXTREME RIGHT-WING PARTY! NO MATTER WHAT IT SAYS Collect (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(out) See Appendix A (List of extreme right parties in Western Europe) of Cas Muddle's The ideology of the Extreme Right. "The following list includes political parties which are generally considered to be members of the extreme right party family of Western Europe". It lists the Progress Party. TFD (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And your googlefarming turned up one book which has a list - but that does not change Wikipedia policy on SPS sources being usable for non "self-serving" claims - and I assert that it is up to you to go to RS/N if you feel the source is misused as saying the group "idenitifies" as being libertarian, etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The source says that it is generally considered to be a far right party. Incidentally, consulting a book on the Extreme Right to determine whether a party is considered extreme right is a good practice.  The party's claims about its own ideology btw are self-serving.  Usually the extreme right paints themselves in moderate tones, and it we should not edit articles to reflect the views of extremists.  TFD (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Far right" != "extreme right" !- "radical right." And, as always, I consider labeling of groups by editors here to be of nugatory value - such claims about any positions on a "left right political spectrum" are matters of opinion, and should be stated as such, and attributed as such.   That you here assert that somehow because the SPS is moderate that this in any way validates your opinion that the group is therefore "extreme right" is ludicrous in the "extreme."  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If I have to choose between the academic consensus as explained in a book from the University Press and your ideosyncratic views about ideologies, I believe that policy requires the former. And it is not our role to parrot the views of extreme right parties.  TFD (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not label groups or assert that groups are "extreme anything" at all  - so your snide comment about "ideosyncratic (sic) views" is inane here.  I point out that we abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines - which I assure you is not idiosyncratic on my part  at all.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The party itself is not a reliable source to assess its own ideology. If the party claims to be libertarian, and that is not verified by any independent, academic source (and there is plenty of scholarly literature about the Progress Party), it is neither neutral, nor reliably verifiable to label the party as libertarian. I believe that User:Filippusson who is Norvegian and has promoted this article to GA status, has done very thorough research on this topic. If he hasn't found any source to verify the libertarianism claim, neither in English nor in Norvegian, I have massive doubts they exist. Neither is there a source that would say that the Progress Party is classically liberal. These labels have to be removed because they are not verifiable with independent, reliable sources. --RJFF (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually - it is. See WP:SPS.  The claim made in the lede is that the party self-identifies as being something - which is a statement of fact.   Other articles in Wikipedia use similar wording and sourcing  on many organizations. Cheers - but go to RS/N on this is you wish to assert divine right of editors to remove sourced material. Collect (talk) 12:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The Progress Party has been described as far-right by various independent and recognised sources. However I have not found a single one claiming that it is a right-wing party. Also, please do not revert back to an unsourced "Right-wing" when there are no sources confirming it yet several confirming its position as far right. I will add even more sources to the label as far-right, but people, they were invited to a conference with the FN in France, and Le Pen herself said the Progress Party is their sister party in Norway. The same thing was done by the far-right Sweden Democrats. Kåre Willoch, a Conservative prime minister once called Anders Lange, the party's founder a 'mad man' because of his and his party's policies. Even though the party portrays itself as a moderate and libertarian party it is in fact a far-right party, or at least it has got several far-right members including their previous leader Carl I. Hagen. Regarding the definition of far-right, one could just call it radical right if it's hard for some people to understand it. They have proposed forcing non-western immigrants to follow Norwegian norms, while ignoring westerners, which is racism according to the United Nations 1996 definition of the term. Also the latter is a radical measure, regarded even by Conservatives to be extreme, their neighbours to their left. Regardless of a foreigners view of what a far-right party is, the Progress Party is by Norwegian measure far-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.166.22.77 (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Far right is the most common term and is used throughout Wikipedia to describe similar parties. However, I think the field should be removed.  I do not think it is still in the template.  Should be called far right though in the lead.  TFD (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Islamophobia template
I have removed the Islamophobia template. This has been removed several times previously, but put in by Pravdavoin several times summer. , given that he has reverted fõur separate editors, I would call this slow edit warring by Pravdavoin. Furthermore, adding the infobox is a clear violation of the neutral point of view policy. "Islamophobic" is a disparaging term, and it should only be used on articles where the subject is clearly islamophobic. By adding the template to this article, we are implying that FrP is an islamophobic party, but I have not found any reliable or neutral source that describes FrP as that. To be sure, FrP is a party that has been very critical of immigration in general, and islam in particular, but it is undisputed that FrP endorses freedom of religion, including the right to worship islam. I have removed the template, and I think that there really needs to be consensus for that template to be put back in.

For the record, I am no fan of the Progress Party at all. Sjakkalle (Check!)  16:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia blacklist?
I have tried to find some more sources to the party being right-wing populist, however every time I have tried to add some more references, they have appeared on Wikipedia's blacklist... Why is that, is someone blocking them because they want to hide it or what? 85.167.187.129 (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

frp is a fascist party
the majority of the norwegin population look at fRP a a fascist political party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.113.66.26 (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Only Norwegian socialists regards FRP as fascists. They account for about 4% of the population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.245.244 (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)