Talk:National Front (France)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the National Front (France) article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|National Front (France) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.|
Please Sign All Posts -- and learn to use proper indents for ease of reading
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)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:National Front (France)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer:11:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
Please fix the following disambiguation links: 20 Minutes, Anti-Islamism, Law and order, New World Order, VitrollesDone In a few words, briefly explain what the Restauration Nationale is (to provide a tiny bit of context for those who don't know).Done "However, an increased requirements on support by elected officials had been introduced for the election, which left both Le Pen and Gauchon unable to stand for the election." - I tweaked this sentence, but it's still a bit difficult to understand if the reader is not familiar with the notion that in France, a candidate needs to have the support of a certain number of elected officials. It would be good to reword it further. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Done "the left-wing vote was scattered among exceptionally many leftist parties" - this reads a little unnaturally. It would be good to find another way to say this. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Done Use en dash (–), not a regular dash (-) for number ranges (years, pages etc). Lemurbaby (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Done
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Citations are needed to support all statistics in the article (for example, in infobox for the number of FN seats, and in the election results section). Lemurbaby (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Done
- I would encourage you to include archived urls for your citations, so future readers will be ensured the option of accessing the sources you used for further information. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- The images "200109 Jean-Marie Le Pen 191.jpg" and "200109 Présidentielles 2002 122.jpg" require the verified approval of the creators of the works. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Pass or Fail:
- I will be reviewing this article over the next several days. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Congratulations on a beautifully written and well-researched article. I will be happy to award GA once the above issues have been addressed, and I hope you'll be willing to see this through the FA process as well - it should pass easily. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:21, 5 September 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)
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)
- Google Book Search shows that the reference is used properly. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2011 (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! --188.8.131.52 (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. 184.108.40.206 (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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
It is incredibly clear that 18.104.22.168|22.214.171.124 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?
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 it will never be seen as a reliable source within the walls of academia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2014 (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 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2012 (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?
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 184.108.40.206 (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)
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)