Talk:Progress Party (Norway)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Classical Liberalism?

Is the Progress Party really classically liberal? A big component of classical liberalism is free imigration, witch the Progress Party does not believe in. The small Nowegian People's Party seems more genuinly classically liberal. "Economic liberalism" seems more fitting as a label for the Progress Party. -- Darthdyas (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The party support free imigration if no handouts from taxpayers, like in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.122.161.106 (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No they don't, they recently published a text about how non-western immigrants should be treated differently than western immigrants when they are to immigrate to the country. This made it to the front page of several major Norwegian newspapers. It heavily opposes multiculturalism, but particularly if it is to be paid for by the public, even though I doubt they'll ever say it out loud after the 2011 terror attacks, that were aimed at multiculturalism.84.212.195.174 (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, PP principally do support free imigration if no handouts from taxpayers, but under UN law and regulations (Human Rights) and due to Norwegian cold climate PP the party aknowledge Norway's responsibility to offer shelter and warmth and therefor impose certains regulations on imigrations. PPs is very popular among foreign restaurant owners in Norway, so it is totally wrong to say that PP "opposes multiculturalism". PP is the most pro-capitalism party in Norway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.149.170.144 (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Far-right?

There are many reliable sources claiming that the Progress Party is a far-right party, but right now the article says that it is right-wing - which is unsourced. Please do not remove statements when they are cited with several prominent sources. Most Progress Party members are merely economic libertarians (which is a position not usually considered to be far-right), but the party's youth wing was for instace infiltrated by open neo-nazis around the year 2000, making at least some members far-right, even though it might not be a suiting description for a majority of Progress Party members, and certainly not voters. Therefore instead of calling the party simply 'right-wing' or 'far-right' and keep the neverending debate going, I suggest we keep it 'right-wing to far-right' unless you find more sources claiming it is merely right-wing (at least try to find a single one!) 84.212.195.174 (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The far right aspect is already covered by a right-wing populist label which some scholars see as a kind of far-right. Please read that article which mentions the Progress Party. Scholars who believe the Progress Party is a far right party will always place them in the democratic, populist far right wing spectre, so when the party is described as far right it is always that sub-set of far-right that is meant. Nobody would seriously see them as fascists or so, which a link to the Far-right politics article might indicate, a link from the infobox to that article would be be deeply misleading. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it is not far right, but right-wing populist. Suggest removing from the info-box the position in the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: Far-right is a position in a spectrum while right-wing populist is not. Dnm (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
While far right implies a position in the political spectrum the term is used to refer to a specific ideological grouping. TFD (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads up, apparently there has been a "controversy" in Norway where a Socialist Left politician called the FrP "right-wing populist" and the soon-to-be Prime Minister of the Conservative Party demanded an apology, which the leftist politician refused. Article: VG. The question seems to be quite politicized. --Pudeo' 05:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to an article in English. It might be noteworthy that the party rejects the label, but it seems to be the consensus in academic writing and the media. TFD (talk) 06:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"Pro-globalization" & the expelling of members 1994-2001

Needed sources:

"The party also seek a more restrictive immigration policy and tougher integration and law and order measures. In foreign policy it is strongly Atlanticist, and pro-globalization. Long-time chairman Carl I. Hagen was from 1978 to 2006 the undisputed leader of the party, and in many ways personally controlled the ideology and direction of the party; most notably demonstrated by effectively expelling the most radical libertarian faction in 1994, and anti-immigration populists in 2001."

The references used for these sentences don't function or don't say anything about the subject. Pro-globalization don't seem like the progress party I know, and the expelling of libertarian and anti-immigration populists seem like strange actions. The party is anti-immigration and quite libertarian. If you can find any sources about this it had been great. Johnson0101 (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Progress Party (Norway). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Carl I Hagen did not expel "the most radical libertarian faction"

This sentence is factually wrong: "Carl I. Hagen ...in many ways personally controlled the ideology and direction of the party; most notably demonstrated by effectively expelling the most radical libertarian faction in 1994". He did not expel "the most radical libertarian faction". They broke out and started a new party FRIdemokratene (Free Democrats). However, it is true that the anti-immigrant populists was expelled from the party. Or rather, a couple was expelled, another was suspended and left the party, and as a reaction to that other anti-immigrant populists left the party, and joined or started Demokratene (Democrats in Norway) --80.212.105.150 (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Progress Party (Norway). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Progress Party (Norway). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

"Euroscepticism"

I suggest that the term "Euroscepticism" is removed from the ideology list in the infobox. In Norway, only a very small minority of the population supports EU membership. Actually, this is very rarely debated in Norway at all. The FrP, although it decided to oppose EU membership recently, has generally supported further integration into the EU community, including support for the EEC, the Schengen, and Acer. It only recently decided to be against EU membership, and there are multiple opinions about this within the party. Considering the fact that public opinion in Norway is very opposed to full EU membership, we should not put "eurospecticism" as an ideology into the infobox for Norwegian parties only because they don't support full membership. Sp, SV and Rødt could be regarded as eurosceptic parties in Norway. They are opposed not only to EU membership, but also to the EEC and other measures to integrate the country further into the EU. Taking a clear pro-EU stance is unheard of in Norway. Høyre strongly supports EU membership, as did the Ap until recently, but they don't advocate an aggressive pro-EU stance, as a matter of fact they are reluctant to take the debate because they might loose voters, as below 20% of the population supports this. The FrP, like the Ap and Høyre, support as much integration of Norway into the EU as possible without applying for membership. The addition of "Euroscepticism" in the infobox should be removed, as it shows a very high lack of understanding of the Norwegian political landscape. --Te og kaker (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Got sources? // Liftarn (talk)
Euroscepticism isn't an ideology though. And since the party was neutral on the topic before, it's position on EU is hardly a defining characteristic of the party. The position is mentioned in the article, but let's not decorate the ideology listing like a christmas tree. It's the place for a few central and essential tenets that define the party. Heptor (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, I agree with what @Te og kaker: wrote. Putting the "Eurosceptic" label on the Progress Party shows a poor understanding of Norwegian politics. Liftarn, what are you asking sources for? Most of what Te og Kaker wrote is just common knowledge. Are you disputing that there hasn't been much of a public debate on EU membership in Norway recently?Heptor (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Controversial labels

In the info box under ideology, the party is currently labeled as "Anti-immigration" and "Right-wing populist". These labels are controversial[1][2][3], and they are disputed by the party itself and by others. In particular, the "anti-immigration" label is superficial and oversimplified, as the party is pro-EEC[4] (the majority of the immigrants to Norway are from the EU, and they arrive through the EEC agreement[5]). These categorization make the list long and messy, and don't seem to serve other purpose than partisan name-calling. I suggest that the list should be more focused. Heptor (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Vif12vf, 83.92.125.109, let's move the discussion from the edit history ([6], [7], [8]) to the talk page where it belongs. Before reverting again I hope you can read and respond to the above. Heptor (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
As I have told you repeatedly, the source you don't recognise (Wolfram Nordsieck) is used for ideologies of political parties throughout Wikipedia. Check the other political parties in the Storting - apart from the Liberal Party, all of them - from Red to the Conservative Party - have Wolfram Nordsieck as a source for ideology. The same is the case for the Danish Folketing and most parties in the Swedish Riksdag, the German Bundestag and so on. Wolfram Nordsieck seems to be the most common source for ideologies of European political parties on Wikipedia. I see no reason why the Progress Party should be exempt. --Cat Elevator (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
In this case there is a disagreement between sources. This is a very common situation, and the Wikipedia policy is to maintain an impartial tone. The disagreement between the sources is described, but Wikipedia does not in general take sides in disputes. And PS, Nordsieck is probably used because his overview is considered convenient, not necessarily reliable. This is besides the point, other reliable sources did describe the progress party as populist. Nordieck however is a self-published source. His publication does not have a peer or editorial review, and it is not associated with any academic institution. Better sources are available: my previous post mentions an article from a Norwegian think tank (penned by a previous minister of education and research) and an article by a professor of sociology from a recognized institution. There are better sources for the opposite ("your") opinion as well. Heptor (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I can find several sources that say "right-wing populist". I think very few political parties would call themselves (right-wing) populist (I've actually only seen it in an article where the former leader of the Norwegian Frp, Carl I. Hagen, calls his party populist). That would make the label controversial for virtually all right-wing populist parties - nevertheless, it is used for a lot of parties on Wikipedia. Why should the Progress Party be treated any differently?Cat Elevator (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
In case of the Progress Party, the "right-wing populist" label is disputed by other prominent, academic sources, on a variety of grounds. For those other parties you mention, if academic sources agree that they are populist, then the position of the parties themselves can be argued to be a small minority view, so it doesn't need to be given equal prominence per WP:GEVAL. Heptor (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Vif12vf, Jay942942, Cat Elevator. As mentioned in the discussion above, some sources say that the Progress Party is populist, and other sources say that it isn't (respectively, [9][10] and [11][12][13]). You seem to be arguing that Wikipedia should side with former, and state that the Progress Party is populist right in the info box(diff links: [14], [15], [16]). Could you please elaborate on why it should do that? I do have to apologize for somewhat brazen edit summaries in the past, as I had assumed that you simply were not familiar with the references that disputed the information that you were adding. Heptor (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Jay942942, Vif12vf, Jeff6045, Heptor: The label "Right-wing populist" is controversial, but used on Wikipedia for a wide range of political parties throughout the world. I agree with Vif12vf (who wrote it in the edit history) that Heptor seems biased, and even though there is a clear consensus of 4 against 1 for labelling the party right-wing populist, I propose we take a poll on it. --Cat Elevator (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Poll on right-wing populism

Should the Norwegian Progress Party, in accordance with numerous sources and general Wikipedia practice and consensus, be labelled right-wing populist in the ideology section? Jay942942, Vif12vf, Jeff6045, Heptor

Yes - see my elaboration in the Controversial labels discussion. --Cat Elevator (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

No Conflicting information in sources. For example:

  • An op-ed by a Norwegian professor of public policy from a reputable Norwegian university titled "Don't call the Progress Party Populist" [17]
  • An elaborate evaluation by Kristin Clemet, the leader of a major Norwegian think tank (Civita) and a former Minister of Education and Research, concluding that the Progress Party cannot be called populist [18]
  • Analysis of a book by Jan-Werner Müller, a Princeton professor of politology, who recently wrote a book titled "What is populism?", concluding that the Norwegian Progress Party is not populist.[19]
For comparison, the sources that had been so far provided supporting the "populist" label are of relatively low quality. Both [20] and [21] are articles in the foreign press by journalists with little connection to Norway and Norwegian poltics. Heptor (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC

The consensus is against describing Progress Party (Norway) as right-wing populist in the infobox.

Cunard (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

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.

Should Progress Party (Norway) be described as right-wing populist in the info box? Sources seem to have conflicting opinions, per discussion above. Heptor (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  • No - Due to conflicting reliable sources listed in the discussion above. Meatsgains(talk) 15:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Simply labelling the party right-wing could be inaccurate. While the party draws from American laissez-faire and Thatcherism, its positions have been complicated by its three-decade ideological accomodation of the Scandinavian welfare-state traditions. Darwin Naz (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Valid point. One of their main goals is that the state should increase spending on the elderly care.[22] That's rather left-wing on the international scale. Heptor (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The term the "populism" is itself vague, according to several sources. For example:
  • [23]: Both “populism” and “populist” have long been considered ill-defined terms
  • [24]: Making precise theoretical determinations about populism as a phenomenon is challenging because the meaning of the term is unstable.
Heptor (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Progress_Party_(Norway)/Archive_3&oldid=1155641593"