Revision as of 20:42, 8 December 2015 editSemitransgenic (talk | contribs)8,184 edits →Far-right descriptor: evidence of usage: +← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:48, 8 December 2015 edit undo94.195.18.40 (talk) →Far-right descriptor: evidence of usageNext edit → | ||
Line 123: | Line 123: | ||
:Compared to which other terms? ] (]) 14:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | :Compared to which other terms? ] (]) 14:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | ||
* | |||
::"The triumphant leader of the '''far-right''' National Front (FN), Marine Le Pen, says French voters rejected the "old political class"..." |
::"The triumphant leader of the '''far-right''' National Front (FN), Marine Le Pen, says French voters rejected the "old political class"..." | ||
* | |||
::"Opinion polls suggest a surge in support for the '''far-right''' FN after the migrant crisis and the Paris attacks." |
::"Opinion polls suggest a surge in support for the '''far-right''' FN after the migrant crisis and the Paris attacks." | ||
* | |||
::"Marion Marechal-Le Pen and France's '''far-right''' charm offensive" |
::"Marion Marechal-Le Pen and France's '''far-right''' charm offensive" | ||
* | * | ||
Line 141: | Line 141: | ||
::"Political analysts say Marine Le Pen’s '''far-right''' party will use the national outrage to bolster its support in upcoming regional elections" | ::"Political analysts say Marine Le Pen’s '''far-right''' party will use the national outrage to bolster its support in upcoming regional elections" | ||
* | |||
::"'''Far-right''' party poised to win two regions for first time as it reaps electoral advantage from France’s fear of Islamists and migrants" |
::"'''Far-right''' party poised to win two regions for first time as it reaps electoral advantage from France’s fear of Islamists and migrants" | ||
* | * | ||
::"Paris attacks: Support rising for '''far-right''' Front National as immigration backlash continues" | ::"Paris attacks: Support rising for '''far-right''' Front National as immigration backlash continues" | ||
* | |||
::"France's '''far-right''' Front National wins one in three votes in regional elections following Paris attacks" |
::"France's '''far-right''' Front National wins one in three votes in regional elections following Paris attacks" | ||
* | |||
::"Marion Maréchal-Le Pen: The rising star of France's '''far-right''' Front National party" |
::"Marion Maréchal-Le Pen: The rising star of France's '''far-right''' Front National party" | ||
* | * | ||
Line 225: | Line 225: | ||
::::::::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. ] (]) 20:13, 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. ] (]) 20:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC) | ||
:::::::::thank you for your opinion. Can you please read the Talk Page guidelines concerning ]? When you have read this information, can you please revert the strikes throughs that you made? Thank you. ] <sub><small>]</small></sub> 20:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC) | :::::::::thank you for your opinion. Can you please read the Talk Page guidelines concerning ]? When you have read this information, can you please revert the strikes throughs that you made? Thank you. ] <sub><small>]</small></sub> 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? ] (]) 20:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Economy == | == Economy == |
Revision as of 20:48, 8 December 2015
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the National Rally article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Template:WikiProject Political parties
|
National Rally 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. | ||||||||||
|
Archives | ||||
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present. |
Untitled
Please Sign All Posts -- and learn to use proper indents for ease of reading
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 Misplaced Pages... 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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/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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages policies require that we follow them. Xerxes 03:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on National Front (France). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
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.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers. —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[REDACTED] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 | 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)
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)
- "The triumphant leader of the far-right National Front (FN), Marine Le Pen, says French voters rejected the "old political class"..."
- "Opinion polls suggest a surge in support for the far-right FN after the migrant crisis and the Paris attacks."
- "Marion Marechal-Le Pen and France's far-right charm offensive"
- "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."
- "Sarkozy rejects joining forces with Socialist Party against far right"
- "Political analysts say Marine Le Pen’s far-right party will use the national outrage to bolster its support in upcoming regional elections"
- "Far-right party poised to win two regions for first time as it reaps electoral advantage from France’s fear of Islamists and migrants"
- "Paris attacks: Support rising for far-right Front National as immigration backlash continues"
- "France's far-right Front National wins one in three votes in regional elections following Paris attacks"
- "Marion Maréchal-Le Pen: The rising star of France's far-right Front National party"
- "Fierce campaign to stop far-right National Front victory in France elections"
" Far-Right Front National on course to make history in French regional elections"
- "Marine Le Pen hails 'record-breaking' regional election results as her far-right group"
- "How Paris attacks could boost support for Marine Le Pen’s far-right Front National"
- "French Regional Elections 2015: Paris Attacks Could Boost Far-Right Front National Party And Marine Le Pen"
- "Sarkozy battles far-right in French regional vote"
- "French leader of the French Far-right party Front National (FN) Marine Le Pen"
- "the most significant political figure in France — some would argue the most powerful — is Marine Le Pen, the leader of the far right."
- "France’s far right reaps political gains as fears of terrorism grow"
- "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."
- "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."
- "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"
- "Far-right rise on fear and frustration in France's rustbelt north"
- " Far-right Front National makes big gains in French elections"
- Overwhelming recent usage of "far right" found via Google scholar, by date, most recent first.
- Overwhelming recent usage of "far right" found via Google 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 Google scholar, by date, most recent first.
- And here Google 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Additional recent scholarly publications using far-right descriptor:
- Arthur Goldhammer (2015). “Explaining the Rise of the Front National: Political Rhetoric or Cultural Insecurity?” French Politics, Culture, & Society, vol. 33, Issue 22 (Summer 2015): 145-147.
- Mondon, A., (2015). The French secular hypocrisy:the extreme right, the Republic and the battle for hegemony. Patterns of Prejudice, 49 (4), pp. 392-413.
- Halikiopoulou, D. and Vlandas, T. (2015), The Rise of the Far Right in Debtor and Creditor European Countries: The Case of European Parliament Elections. The Political Quarterly, 86: 279–288. doi: 10.1111/1467-923X.12168
- Anthony M. Messina (2015). The political and policy impacts of extreme right parties in time and context. Ethnic and Racial Studies 2015; 38: 1355.
- Michelle Hale William (2015). Are radical right-wing parties the black holes in party space? Implications and limitations in impact assessment of radical right-wing parties. Ethnic and Racial Studies 2015; 38: 1329.
- Goodliffe, Gabriel, (2012). The Resurgence of the Radical Right in France : from Boulangisme to the Front National. Cambridge ; New York :Cambridge University Press, 2012.
- Dec 6th 2015 Guardian Editorial comment
- "The Guardian view on the French regional elections: the remarkable resilience of the far right " Semitransgenic talk. 19:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC))
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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#Others.27_comments other's comments? 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 for your opinion. Can you please read the Talk Page guidelines concerning Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments other's comments? 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'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)
- 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)
- Is it normal to have 4 citations from the same website/source, common sense would suggest not? If it is Misplaced Pages 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)
- Dear anon IP - have a nice day. Semitransgenic talk. 19:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
- "The Guardian view on the French regional elections: the remarkable resilience of the far right " Semitransgenic talk. 19:25, 8 December 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
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)
Categories: