Talk:New Right (Denmark)

Name

How should Nye Borgerlige be translated to English? I translated it to New Civic, but I am sure there is a better English name for it. Kaffe42 (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

This online newspaper says "Nye Borgerlige, which roughly translates to ‘The New Right’ (a spokesperson told The Local that it did not have an official English name)": https://www.thelocal.dk/20161004/meet-denmarks-new-anti-immigration-party — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.0.251 (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, The New Right could also work. There isn't really an English word for the political term 'borgerlig', so until the party come up with an official English name, I think we'll stick with New Civic Party as the name. Thanks though! Kaffe42 (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Foreign mainstream media have started to report on the party recently, and they also use "The New Right", so I think it would be better if this was also used here. http://www.politico.eu/article/meet-denmarks-new-anti-islam-anti-immigration-anti-tax-party-nye-borgerlige-new-right-pernille-vermund/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.181.248.18 (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kaffe42 English doesn't have Borgerlig or Bürgerlich (germ.) over Article have the same problem

bourgeoise=bürgertümlich?

• Fatherland League (Norway): The Fatherland League's goal was a national coalition of all centre-to-right "bourgeoise" (borgerlige) and nationally minded forces [...]
• Free Democratic Party (Germany): [...] citizens in Hamburg established the Party of Free Democrats (PFD) as a bourgeois Left Party and the first Liberal Party in the Western zones.
• Bourgeois Alternative
• National Democratic Party of Germany (East Germany): The SED Board [...] stated that "these politically unclear people" should not vote "cadets" for the bourgeois parties [...] at the next election.
• Deutscher Verband: The Deutscher Verband was a coalition of bourgeois German speaking political parties [...]
• 1927 Free City of Danzig parliamentary election: Bürgerliche Arbeitsgemeinschaft/Bourgeois Working Alliance
• First Marx cabinet: The focus was thus on a new "bourgeois" cabinet based on Zentrum, DVP, DDP and possibly DNVP.

conservative=konservativ

• Conservative Democratic Party of Switzerland (germ.: Bürgerlich..., fr.: bourgeois, it.: Borghese)

civic=staatsbürgerlich, städtisch

• Conservatism in Germany: [...] frequently referred to as belonging to a larger centre-right (bürgerlich, "civic") faction within the German party system
• Civic Alternative (see Bourgeois Alternative)

centrist=zentristisch, Mitte

• Centrist Democrats (Bürgerliche Demokraten)

or even Right=Rechte (rechts) Braganza (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

"Borgerlig" is very hard to translate into English, I'd say "Right" is probably the closest. One thing that should be noted, it's not "Det Nye Borgerlige" but just "Nye Borgerlige" which is "New Right" not "The New Right". (Det Konservative Folkeparti on the other hand is "The Conservative People's Party") Jw2036 (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Political position

After User:Vif12vf has removed my edit twice, I would like to avoid an edit war and seek consensus about removing "far-right" as a political position of the party. Den Store Danske, the most comprehensive contemporary Danish language encyclopaedia writes "The party belongs to the right side of the political spectrum" and under the Purpose and Ideology heading as having a "restrictive immigration policy". https://denstoredanske.lex.dk/Nye_Borgerlige

The Great Norwegian Encyclopedia, one of the most influential Norwegian language encyclopaedias defines it as similariry as such: "Nye Borgerlige is national-conservative and belongs to the right side of the political spectrum". https://snl.no/Nye_Borgerlige

In his book titled Temaer til samfundsfag (Themes for Social Studies) used in Danish gymnatiums, author Kaj Pinholt Jespersen doesn’t come close to describing the party as far-right and mentions that Nye Borgerlige "in particular highlight its strict immigration policy". (page 92). isbn=978-87-7970-505-0

DR, the largest broadcasting cooperation in Denmark does not in any way describe the party as such. https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/webfeature/nyeborgerlige

Nationwide newspaper Kristeligt Dagblad says that the party is critical about immigration and islam. https://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/politik-begyndere/overblik-partierne-i-danmark

I think it should be obvious why these are more im line with Wikipedia:Reliable sources than three foreign media news articles, two of which not having NB as its main theme and one being a breaking breaking news article from 2017. WP:RSBREAKING WP:CONTEXTMATTERS--Marginataen (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

More than 48 hours have now passed since my initial post without a response. If a further 48 hours pass without a response as well, I’ll consider that consent to remove the wording.--Marginataen (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

A further 48 hours have now passed, and the wording is removed.--Marginataen (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi :) I think there is something wrong about how we classify Denark Democrats as right to far-right and this as just "right-wing". If it was up to me, we'd therefore remove far-right from Denmark Democrats, and add far-right her. Kristeligt Dagblad explains them as very critical of immigration, and they have in the past had 3 un-negotiable demands, which for me connects the party to the further out on a political spectrum.

Altinget also compares them to Front National in France and Brothers of Italy, who are both far-right on wikipedia.

I wanted to hear you thoughts about making this chance, so that we won't have edit wars.

Hav en god dag :), Thomediter (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Several reliable Danish sources label New Right the "most right-wing party in Parliament", e.g. DR here and Dagbladet Information here. Information on the Denmark Democrats, which is a younger party, is more scarce, but e.g. the Danish Professor of politology Jørgen Goul Andersen places them closer to the political centre than New Right in this article, which also depicts New Right as the right-most party in Parliament, so I agree that it seems more correct to reverse the labels of the two parties in question. --Økonom (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm gonna take a decision already, as I don't really think there is much to debate. From my point of view it seems clear that there is a wide support for referencing the party as right-wing to far-right. This is visible due to at least Vif12vf, Økonom and myself - all believing that it is the party's position.

In terms of sources, there is a point from Marginataen that several sources describe the party as right-wing instead of far-right. However there are also various sources, as Økonom provided, which described the party as far-right. Therefore instead of classifying the party as just right-wing or just far-right, we classify it as right to far-right.

This supports the sources that have been provided, both the ones describing it as right and also those who does it as far-right.

Obviously, if this edit sparks disagreement, we can take a look at it, and start and RfC as last resort, but as it is right now, it really looks like there is support for right to far-right, and that removing far-right is mostly coming from a single editor, so I'm going with that. Thomediter (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nye Borgerlige, FT-gruppe 2022.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Name

I would like to suggest the articel's name changed into "Nye Borgerlige". Several political parties do not have their names translated. For instance Komeito in Japan or La République En Marche ! in France.--Marginataen (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC) I have tried to change the name but for some reason I couldn't do it without a ---Marginataen (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Marginataen Because you didn't have administrator privileges to delete the existing page at Nye Borgerlige, you couldn't complete the move. I do, and I have completed the move. —C.Fred (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Almost the whole current text has been written by @Marginataen, who has a conflict of interest regarding the party, cf. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Marginataen. The COI seems mirrored in the text in various passages, e.g. in the coverage of the events during the first months of 2023 concerning the election of a new leadership and the role of Mikkel Bjørn. I suggest that the text be revised to reflect a more neutral description of the party's development and to remove the present tendency to recentism, describing some events in exceeding detail. Økonom (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

In the noticeboard Økonon references, it is quite frankly not accurate that I was ruled to have a COI. Rather, I received a six-month edit block from Mikkel Bjørn's page due to promotional editing. This, I pointed out to Økonon in the last comment on the noticeboard, whereafter administrator Bishonen archived it.

I would very much like to discuss the content of the article, but if we cannot be equals in a civilised discussion, I don't think this can be very fruitful. I am not into speculation about his motives but must say that I do not consider Økonom a neutral part in anything that has to do with right-wing politics and wants, if I know him right, to revise," AKA delete half the article. Therefore, I would greatly appreciate it if major revisions were executed by other Wikipedians. These can, of course, be per Økonom’s suggestions :)

On the contentual points: When writing the history heading, the entire lifespan of the party must be taken into account. In this case, we are dealing with a party that is less than eight years old. As the party did not enter Parliament before 2019, it received very limited coverage from 2015 until 2019. Therefore, the period we are working with is very much just four years. The history section should be written with that in mind. Right now, there is i.e., legitimate doubt of weather the NB will even be elected to the Folketing in the up-coming election. If it dies, a thorough deception of the events leading up to it is crucial. Likewise, if it continues for the next 100 years, much of the current article would just be reduced to a few sentences. Time will tell.

Recognising that I was edit blocked from Mikkel Bjørn's page, everything mentioning him should be read critically and revised accordingly. This is especially true of the last two paragraphs under "2022 election and Vermund resignation". Marginataen (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Marginataen, your account of the end of the COI discussion is incorrect. You ignore the concluding comment by Drmies, including "Promotional editing and COI go hand in hand ...what other conclusion can we draw but that there is indeed a conflict of interest? ...if COI editing seems to happen in related articles, that block can be expanded to cover those articles as well."

The problem in the present article apart from the unencyclopedic recentism is the undue weight attached to some of the information. There has been a lot of newspaper coverage of various incidents and pieces of criticism connected with the party during its whole life-time. The present text ignores most of these, but seems to expatiate on negative events following Mikkel Bjørn's leaving the party, framing the description to fit with Bjørn's point of view. The selection of news to include or exclude from the article should not be made by a close connection to one of the protagonists, so a rewrite is advised to create a more neutral article. Økonom (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Økonom, as an outsider I can't really see what you're seeing; I think you need to point at some specific things. Ha, maybe Favonian can be of help here. I did see that you trimmed 12% fat off the article with those redundant citations: I think you can cut more--is that Marginataen who adds those? Marginataen, why? And while I have you, your attempts to avoid answering whether you have a COI or not are becoming humorous, and if specific evidence of POV editing or disruption is presented for this or other articles, you can be sure that your partial block might be extended. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I have now done some revisions based on Økonom's revision of Mikkel Bjørn's page. What do you think about the mention of Bjørn now, @Økonom? I only read the bottom of the noticeboard from 13 June and didn't realise that you, Drmies, had added a comment on 20 June. My bad. If PE goes hand in hand with COI, I have definitely had a COI with regard to Mikkel Bjørn. I don't think anyone would say that I have done PE on this article. It was, i.e., me who added the mention of Vermund's Paki controversy as well as Lars Boje Mathiesen's leadership.

The first four years of the party's existence were basically just a waiting game until the 2019 election happened. Apart from the 2017 local elections, really nothing happened during that period. On the contrary, during 2023, the party went through its first ever change of leadership, with the new leader being expelled just a month later. Now, Vermund is expected to once again become leader in 2023. The point is that sometimes significant events happen quite quickly, which is not simply recentism. To Økonom: Would you please give sources to thoese various incidents and pieces of criticism in order to discuss their notability? Marginataen (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Marginataen, first things first. "I have definitely had a COI with regard to Mikkel Bjørn", you said, and yet you have avoided that question for months: you were asked in May 2023 already, on your talk page, and only now, after being asked, after being partially blocked by Bishonen, after an ANI thread, you answer the question, though without disclosing it properly according to the guidelines that Økonom already pointed you to in May. Honestly, I have totally run out of believe in your good faith, and if we can't trust you on a matter for which you have already been partially blocked, why should we trust you anywhere else in article space? You can answer on your user talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)