Talk:National Rally

RFC National Rally position

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Looking at reliable sources, how should we describe the political position of Frances National Rally?

• Option 1: Right-wing
• Option 2: Far-right
• Option 3: Right-wing to far-right
• Option 4: Something else altogether ie radical right or extreme right

Bacondrum (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 - based on the weight of academic sources and news reports. far-right is specific and the most widely used term (along with radical and extreme right), right wing covers all positions on the right, it is too broad. No sources I've seen explicitly refute the view that the party is far-right. There's certainly no evidence of their position is being debated in academia, though it should be noted that the party and its supporters have been eager to appear less extreme, to distance themselves from their controversial past. The following are academic sources that describe them as far-right (or extreme/radical right):

Academic sources

Jean-Yves Camus and Nicolas Lebourg Far-Right Politics in Europe James Shields The Extreme Right in France: From Pétain to Le Pen Michel Winock and Jean-Pierre Azéma Histoire de l'Extrême droite en France Jens Rydgren France: The Front National, Ethnonationalism and Populism Nonna Mayer From Jean-Marie to Marine Le Pen: Electoral Change on the Far Right Herbert Kitschelt and Anthony McGann (Prof. political science) The radical right in Western Europe : a comparative analysis The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Edward DeClair (Assoc. Prof. of Political Science) Politics on the Fringe: The People, Policies, and Organization of the French National Front Cas Mudde The Far Right Today and The ideology of the extreme right Catherine E. De Vries (Prof. political science) and Sara B. Hobolt Political Entrepreneurs: The Rise of Challenger Parties in Europe Michelle Hale Williams (Prof. political science) A new era for French far right politics? Comparing the FN under two Le Pens and The Impact of Radical Right-Wing Parties in West European Democracies Marta Lorimer (Prof. political science) What do they talk about when they talk about Europe? Euro-ambivalence in far right ideology Aurelien Mondon The French secular hypocrisy: the extreme right, the Republic and the battle for hegemony Anthony Messina The political and policy impacts of extreme right parties in time and context Harvey G. Simmons (Prof. political science) The French National Front: The Extremist Challenge To Democracy

The following News articles describe NR/FN as far-right:

News sources

Deutsche Welle: [1] New York Times: [2], [3], [4] The Wall Street Journal: [5], [6] CNN: [7] France24: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] etc. etc. etc. Foreign Policy: [14] The Nation: [15] BBC: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] etc. etc. etc. Al Jazeera: [22] Politico: [23] ABC: [24] The Guardian: [25], [26], [27], [28] The Independent: [29] Libération: [30] Washington Post: [31] Time: [32] The Economist: [33], [34], [35], [36] etc. etc. etc. Reuters: [37]

Bacondrum (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 based on a lot of sources, and none which substantively contradict them. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 - extensively supported by reliable sources, and no RS that contest this view. Neutrality^talk 23:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, Option 3, or Option 2 with a note explaining radical/extreme right like at Vox (political party). RN would be placed in the "radical right" subcategory of far-right because it has become more moderate (relative to before) under Marine Le Pen. It's technically accurate to call RN far-right, but it's best to add the additional distinction between the two subgroups (i.e., radical and extreme right) so readers can distinguish RN from neo-Nazi and other extreme right parties. Ezhao02 (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, Option 3 RN is liberal in many ways than Japan's LDP and South Korea's UFP. Nor is the RN a party that seeks blatant extremes such as ultra-nationalism, fascism and traditional conservatism.--삭은사과 (talk) 05:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@삭은사과: I'm not asking you to change your stance, but please note that in scholarly sources, there is a distinction between radical right and extreme right, which are both considered far-right. The radical right is relatively more moderate; the extreme right is explicitly anti-democratic. When you're saying that RN doesn't "seek blatant extremes", you're saying that RN isn't extreme right, but this doesn't mean the party isn't far-right. Instead, it means that the party is part of the radical right. That's why I believe "far-right" should still be included, but I also think we have to differentiate radical right from extreme right. Ezhao02 (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3, or Option 4. We have sources given on the French version of the page for catch-all positioning:

1. https://www.europe1.fr/politique/Departementales-le-FN-en-tete-des-intentions-de-vote-782020
2. https://www.lefigaro.fr/elections/departementales/2015/03/13/01054-20150313ARTFIG00369-fn-l-evolution-sociologique-d-un-parti-attrape-tout.php
3. https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2017/02/16/l-economie-populiste-attrape-tout-de-marine-le-pen_5080505_3232.html
4. https://www.lejdd.fr/Elections/Cantonales-2011/Pour-Jerome-Fourquet-le-FN-est-un-parti-attrape-tout-290949-3223205
5. https://www.lepoint.fr/politique/le-fn-le-parti-attrape-tout-21-11-2011-1398514_20.php

As well as radical right:
A. Gilles Ivaldi, « Le Front national français dans l’espace des droites radicales européennes », Pouvoirs, no 157,‎ 18 avril 2016, p. 115-126 (ISSN 0152-0768, DOI 10.3917/pouv.157.0115, lire en ligne
B. https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/politique/fn/gregoire-kauffmann-le-fn-est-en-train-d-integrer-le-systeme_1548566.html

There are pages on the English Wikipedia for catch-all and radical right (Europe).

In response to Ezhao02 I think that page does a better description of describing radical right than I could. In so far as using the radical right label I'm not particularly sure either way, as I don't recall ever seeing this position used in the infobox in the English version of Wikipedia for political positioning.

There is also the option of having a link in the political position section of the infobox that just links to the political profile section of the article. Therefore offering neutrally and compromise by saying neither right-wing nor far-right and just letting people decide on their own. Helper201 (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment I have no intention of bludgeoning the debate, but I want to point out that Helper201 is misleading us with what appears to be a deliberate use of equivocation. They are misrepresenting what is meant by saying RN is a catch-all political party, when clearly what is actually being argued by other editors is that right-wing is a catch-all term. They've also presented very weak news sourcing, none of which refutes the descriptor "far-right" and the two academic sources explicitly use a far-right descriptor "radical right". This appears to be an attempt to deliberately misrepresent the argument and sources. Bacondrum (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment reply I have no intention of misleading anyone. Catch-all is written in the infobox of the French language Wikipedia page under political position. You are the one making the claim that right-wing is a catch-all term. In no way is this equivocated on the French language Wikipedia version of the page. You have independently come to that conclusion via WP:SYNTHESIS. The source quality is also your opinion (on the Talk:Vox (political party) I raised sources there from books and Pew Research Center which you did not address) and the same can be argued against your sources, none refute that the party falls under the label of right-wing. I'd be interested to see how many editors here really believe there is nothing between the centre-right and the far-right. Helper201 (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

There are a great many positions on the right-wing that are between centre-right and far-right, I know that to be a fact. Are you saying right-wing is a position between centre-right and far-right? And based on which sources do you make this claim? Bacondrum (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"Right-wing" would a better description in the infobox than "somewhere between the center-right and far-right, but we don't know what to call it". (Of course, this doesn't really apply here). Ezhao02 (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Halfway between 3 and 2. EllenCT (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 per my comment in the previous discussion. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 19:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Include far-right. There are plentiful sources stating this. I will let others determine whether it is appropriate to include right-wing or big tent also, I have not really looked at all the words on this talkpage, nor am I well-versed in French politics. I don't think we should include niether extreme right nor radical right. The first redirects to far-right, and the latter seems to me more like an ideology than a position on the political spectrum. ― Hebsen (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• As they are a far-right party the article should say so. If they later changes to a more mainstream position and the available sources back this up we can revisit the issue. // Liftarn (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3, the NR has moderated massively over the last decade, and its rhetoric on issues like Islam is not nearly as radical or provocative as most European 'radical right' parties, including in neighboring countries; it also has abandoned many of its old reactionary social stances. There is a far-right wing of the party, as represented by Marion Marechal, but this wing is not in control of the party. Different media sources describe it as "right-wing" or "far-right". Therefore right-wing to far-right is the best descriptor.--Jay942942 (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 and/or option 3 According to my assumption, plus seeing other users' views and explanation, it might be concluded that both options, i.e. 2 and/or 3 are suitable for it. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2: the majority of sources say at least far right - in the past perhaps extreme right, but they have not become mainstream right.Pincrete (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2; the sources provided seem pretty clear, and nobody seems to have any sources that seriously disagree with or dispute them. The only people suggesting other options seem to basically just be saying "yeah, that's what the sources say, but I think it's...", which isn't a valid argument. --Aquillion (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undeniably far left parties involved in the recent assembly elections do not solely have 'far left' as their stated political stance. The fact that there is no acknowledgment that there is variation in the views of supporters of national rally is in and of itself bias. Gimla1 (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

They are a syncretic party with left wing economics and have a history of having being a party of Third Position members. This means the party is syncretic, not far-right. It is no proof this party have any qualifiers for being far-right. All those accusations are outdated and was partly false even back then. Journalists describing them as far-right because they are anti immigration and associate with some far-right groups, some of which are mislabeled aswell is irellevant. They say themselves they are a party not on the left or right, its members have always been syncretic Third positionists. Their economic policy confirms this and they dont hold any anti-democratic or racist views anymore that would be enough to remove them from syncretic to far-right. If a party themselves are democratic, call themselves not on left and right and their policies match this and the party historically has been full of Third Position members and voters means the party is syncretic. Just because liberal media have a trend of labeling all culturally right-wing syncreticism like Alexander Dugin far-right or even fascists dont mean that is the fact. How the party and its base labels themselves and their policy to match is what decides a parties Position. Ghostangel1 (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

So you're saying that sources that had described the party as far-right up till this day are not valid? Do you have any sources that describe the party as syncretic, third positionist, or left-wing? Vacant0 (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ghostangel1: Are you going to stop edit warring? Vacant0 (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

"far-right" terminology

They are mostly right anyway.

93.206.55.49 (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

They are a syncretic party with left wing economics and have a history of having being a party of Third Position members. This means the party is syncretic, not far-right. It is no proof this party have any qualifiers for being far-right. All those accusations are outdated and was partly false even back then. Ghostangel1 (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Is British Encyclopedia even a good source to label the NP as far-right? Why not rely on direct sources rather than an encyclopedia site? Jimmy Jimbo Johnson the V (talk) 04:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

We aren't reliant on them, there are about 10 sources of various kinds, including BE. Pincrete (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Smear terms in the introduction

"nationalist", "populist", "far-right"

Three negative terms in the first sentence. Even for the left-wing wikipedia a new low. Why is Melanchon and his truly far-left wing party not "socialist", "communist" and "far-left"?? Please get rid of the bias here. 62.226.75.127 (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Melanchon's party is left wing but the far left in France is represented by the parties that do call themselves communists, The RN is definitly Nationalist and far right, this is a fact and not critism, populist here is the only one that can be take as critism The basque savior (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Ideology parametre

I think the number of ideologies needs reducing. For starts, "Protectionism" isn't an ideology. Second, there aren't many references for "Anti-immigration" and "Sovereignty" to warrant being in it. These are my proposed ideologies:

• French nationalism
• Right-wing populism
• Eurosceptic

ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree Braganza (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

There may be 'ideology bloat', but reducing to these three is too drastic. Being "anti-immigration" is what the party is probably best known for and its removal would be hard to justify imo. Pincrete (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

it is closely associated with nationalism & right-wing populism though Braganza (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying NR is closely associated with nationalism & right-wing populism? Which is wholly true. Or that "anti-immigration" is closely associated with nationalism & right-wing populism - which is rather favouring a euphemistic implication over the "elephant in the room", ie the thing most frequently noted about them, that they are "anti-immigration". Souverainism appears to be poorly sourced, it isn't a common term in the Anglosphere and again appears somewhat euphemistic.Pincrete (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

i mean the latter, i could see Protectionism listed but Anti-immigration and Souverainism is pretty unnecessary Braganza (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see removing anti-immigration getting much support here. Their attitude to immigration is the thing most commented upon - certainly in English language sources. Souverainism is barely used in English sources as a term (though it should be for pro-Brexit politicians!). Pincrete (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I can't see Protectionism being kept, as it is an economic policy, rather than an ideology. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I would be in favour of removing Euroscepticism, but I think most users are in favour of keeping it on various political party pages, as it isn't an ideology, but a position/belief. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

On most political party pages, in my experience, the tendency is for broad political positions to be listed, rather than strict definitions of 'ideology'. Pincrete (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

still Far-right?

This had been debated before, but it's been 2 years since the debate and I think Le Pen has moved the party more towards the Centre-Right Crainsaw (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

NB: this has been changed again in this recent edit by @KlayCax: @ diff. The article cited does not support the claim that many academics and media outlets have changed their designation... only that some media outlets have and that one academic is "on the same page" (though he qualifies one of their main projects as anti-constitutional). I have left what the article says, and removed what it does not. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Jean-Yves Camus isn't a member of the press. He's a reputable political scientist who specializes on far-right and nationalist movements in Europe. The article makes it clear that he's not the only one to believe this. I could easily provide similar statements from other mainstream academics, if need be. National Rally certainly isn't the British Tories, Canada's Conservative Party, or Greece's New Democracy, but it's not National Democratic Party of Germany or even Alternative for Germany either.

I suppose the alternative could be right-wing or far-right in the lead. (Some of its members continue to have ties to ethnonationalist groups such as Generation Identity. So I agree that removing far-right entirely is wrong.)

Does right-wing to far right work? KlayCax (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I have a subscription to the centre/centre-right Le Parisien and so I typed "Rassemblement national" into the search engine and found the following in the first two articles from this week that I read:

• Dns (sic) ce contexte, les opposants au parti d’extrême droite ne se sont pas fait prier de rappeler les liens présumés entre la Russie de Vladimir Poutine et le RN. Le Parisien 16 Feb 2024
• Les dirigeants de l’extrême droite s’en étaient tenus au service minimum dans leurs hommages à la mémoire de Robert Badinter, [...] Le Parisien 13 Feb 2024

My objection was to the misrepresentation of the article using the term "many academics and media outlets", which was an exaggeration of what the journalist wrote. You'll note that I did not revert your change to the infobox. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I would support changing to right-wing, right-wing to far-right or any more nuanced position than what is currently in there. The recent disagreements with the AfD as well as the R! split have made the RN's position more evident. There are also many sources describing RN as right-wing.--Jay942942 (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I undid KlayCax's change to "right wing to far-right" the other day after reading that for the Senate race the Conseil d'État had ruled that "extrême droite" was how the party should be designated on electoral lists. Given that the Conseil d'État is an eminently political entity which sits in the Palais Royal and is considered to be obedient to the government, this may (or may not) be an error. I did notice that 60% of the RN voted to add protection for a woman's right to an abortion in the constitution (§), which is a change from their voting pattern in the European Parliament a decade ago. That said, I don't think abortion rights are the litmus test for the far-right... if folks have multiple sources indicating a change... put them in this thread... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

Hello all In the first para I have changed, "It has opposed the European Union" to "It supports reform of the European Union...". The paragraph is a summary of the NR's current policies and it is confusing and misleading to put one of its past policies in the same paragraph. Its past position on the EU is already adequately covered in the 4th para of the lead. I have also changed some clumsly wording: the NR doesn't have zero tolerance of law and order, it has zero tolerance of breaches of law and order. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

In a law and order context, a zero tolerance policy is already clearly understood to mean "zero tolerance of breaches of law and order". The addition is therefore unnecessary. I haven't looked closely at the other changes, but they APPEAR to be changing our text without updating the sources that supports the text. Also, whatever it claims, NR is widely seen as eurosceptic and there is nothing wrong with us recording the position sources say they HAVE historically taken, rather than their own current presentation of their euroscepticism(what does "It supports reform of the European Union..." even mean? Who doesn't support reform of the European Union? It's a slogan more than a policy, and is says nothing tangible, and is not what independent [[WP:RS|sources) say. I'm sorry but I think we aren't a billboard for NR slogans.Pincrete (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I haven't changed anything in a way that conflicts with the (mostly outdated) sources. I have merely changed the wording slightly for clarity and concision. Zero tolerance of breaches of law and order is a concise summary of what the source says, and is far less confusing than the original wording. The lead already said that the NR is Eurosceptic and I didn't alter this. The positions the party have historically taken are explained in the fourth paragraph. The first paragraph is supposed to be a summary of their current positions. It's a case of logically ordering the presented information within paragraphs which each take up a specific theme. It's odd that you now object to the phrase "the NR supports reform of the European Union" as this was already in the lead and is an accurate summary of the relevant section in the article and is supported by the reliable sources. A major problem with this article is that it has too many outdated sources. Most of the sources in the lead are from 2010-15 and refer to the old National Front rather than the new direction the National rally has taken. The article needs a thorough update and rewrite. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I doubt very much whether independent sources have changed very much about NR, except for acknowledging its rebranding and less divisive policies and image. NR has abandoned its policy commitment to withdrawal from the EU and Eurozone, but beyond that its isn't clear what reforms of the EU it now seeks (greater integration? delegating more powers to Brussels? Increasing the EU's budget?). You appear to want to use NR's own, fairly vacuous, words to describe what it is and seeks, rather than those of neutral independent sources. It is right IMO that the WP article takes a long-term attitude to NR and any political party. If you look at articles about UK parties, they don't change their leads very much because of a new leader or a new set of policies, because parties themselves don't change very much except for periodic 'rebranding'. If it were put more clearly (sourced to independent sources), what NR's position on the EU has been for most of its history, and what reforms of the EU NR actually seeks now, I could see the update as helpful, but simply changing to an evasive slogan isn't IMO. We aren't a billboard for any party.

Your change on 'zero tolerance' isn't wrong, it's simply unnecessary. A 'zero tolerance' police force, school, sports organisation or political party is already understood to mean one that intends to implement all rules strictly, all the time. Political shorthand terms don't always make literal sense. We all understand that a climate change sceptic is someone who doubts that man-made climate change is happening, but a Eurosceptic ISN'T someone who thinks that Europe, the EU, or the Euro, don't exist. For those who may not understand, we link the term.

I become more convinced that your changes are not neutral nor necessary, but will see what others have to say. Pincrete (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Political profile

Hello all Most of this section is way out of date (sources dating from 2007-2015). I have updated some sections with new information and have cut or summarised some information which is no longer current. Given that there is already a section on the history of the party, there is probably scope for cutting some more of the information about the party's past political profile. I will work through the sections in the coming weeks whenever I get the chance. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

What you appear to regard as a fault, I regard as a virtue. I'm not terribly invested in this article and I can't remember how it got onto my watchlist, but WP is an encyclopedia, taking a longer term view of political orgs, not a mouthpiece for the latest piece of PR. An unreasonable amount of the info IMO is sourced to the party itself and/or very recent campaigns. I have occasionaly visited Fr WP, I have always got the impression that that sort of 'promotional', breathless, 'press-release'-y style is more prevalent there. Pincrete (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but a longer term view doesn't suddenly stop in 2015 (or 2007) and present this as the party's current political profile. There is only one source which is sourced to the party itself and all I did was update it from the 2013 party platform to the 2022 party platform. I'm sure you'd agree that an encyclopedia shouldn't wilfully present out of date information as a virtue. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

When I said sourced to the party, I was also thinking of interview content such as "Le Pen stated that there was a difference between “fighting immigration and fighting immigrants” just as there was between respecting religious freedoms and tackling “religious totalitarianism”. She is hardly going to say in the middle of an election that she is intentionally demonising foreigners and Muslims is she? Donald Trump claims to be the least racist person on earth! So what? The info might as well have come from the press office of the NR. Pincrete (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have included the quote from Macron's party leader saying that Le Pen is soft on Islam. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)