Talk:Party for Freedom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Party for Freedom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors:
The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error |
Inappropriate removal of far-right label
It had been agreed above that the party, described as far-right by almost everyone except themselves, would be called “right-wing to far-right” in a compromise solution. Yet, somebody removed the far-right bit. Can it please be re-added? 2A02:14F:17C:13D3:4C65:C746:A86F:51FF (talk) 08:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Where exactly? Because it says so in the infobox Dajasj (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Many, many reliable sources refer to them as such. If there are objections, let me know.
- How the Far-Right Won the Dutch Election—and What Comes Next | TIME
- Dutch election: Geert Wilders records massive shock win in Netherlands | AP News Be-Plants (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- Well it was already in the infobox. The new sentence reads very weird now. And I would argue that right wing populism already indicates being part of the far right. It would also make more sense to call them radical right in the introduction, as another more specific group within the far right. Dajasj (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed the wording was clunky. I removed "nationalist" from the sentence and it now reads much clearer. Nationalism is inherent in right-wing populism & far-right politics, so it was redundant anyways. Be-Plants (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- In addition, I'd argue right-wing populism is not inherently far-right and many other Wikipedia articles use the "right-wing to far-right" label whereas "radical right" isn't generally used as a descriptor in the intro section, so I think this conforms best. Be-Plants (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- The "right-wing to far-right"-label is usually used in the infobox, not the introduction (which was also the case here). For the introduction, far-right is too broad. This is also discussed more detailled on Party_for_Freedom#Ideology, which the introduction should reflect (although I have mostly written that). There is also a distinction between nationalism and populism in that section. Dajasj (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- Well it was already in the infobox. The new sentence reads very weird now. And I would argue that right wing populism already indicates being part of the far right. It would also make more sense to call them radical right in the introduction, as another more specific group within the far right. Dajasj (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Undue weight and bigger picture
Hi @Ardyl, thanks for your contributions to the page! I do have two points however.
First, the PVV has existed for a long time and there has been in the past much debate how to categorize the party. To my knowledge however, the general consensus is that the party is radical right and right wing populist. It creates WP:Undue weight to list all ideologies it shares elements with or has been called in the past. The same for the label "extreme-right", which is also not used by scientific sources. I don't think the average reader is helped by it as well.
Which brings me to another point, I think it is helpful for the reader if we zoom out a bit and focus on the bigger picture in the article. Not everything that has been written in the past or every political position of the party is relevant for the Wikipedia article. So I believe it is best to use reliable sources, preferably scientific, that zoom out a bit. This also helps for the future, because it avoids the article becoming outdated or just a list of random unrelated facts (both are the case for the Dutch Wikipedia article). Dajasj (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Redundancy
Saying "Right Wing" and "Far Right" in the same opening sentence is redundant, but also contradictory. Which one is it? Haskeymorrison (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)