Talk:Vox (political party)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Zionism

@ProVVeritas: As it seems, there isn't WP:CONSENSUS to add this ideology in the infobox, much less with the sources provided: several of them are opinion pieces (thus, not neutral pieces of information, as per WP:RSOPINION), including Maestre's one who, in all honesty, can't be considered as a reputed scholarship work on Vox's ideology. As a result, these can't be asserted as facts (i.e. Vox is a Zionist party) but rather, as those authors' opinions (i.e. author X says that Vox is Zionist). The infobox is no place for that. Other sources provided are from very minor sources that can't be arguably considered as WP:RELIABLE any more than any information we ourselves could post in a personal, online blog (see WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:RSSELF). Finally, others do not consider Vox as Zionist, but rather, particular members of the party; this doesn't turn the entire party as Zionist, and such conclusion would be wholly WP:SYNTH. The label has been removed several times from the infobox by a variety of users, so I'd argue that this doesn't have consensus for inclusion. For these reasons, I'm removing this from the infobox until consensus for inclusion may be established; alternatively, you may try to add it in the article's body taking into account the previous notes on the sourcing issue. Impru20^talk 19:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

If we consider that a journalist public opinion is not enough to add an ideology in the infobox then we should delete the other ideological references in the infobox as well because they are mainly based on journalist sources. Until that double standard is corrected I think that there's no justification to delete that label from the infobox. PS, Antonio Maestre is one of the most authoritative political journalist in Spain, he appears regularly in TV and has hundred of thousand of followers on Twitter. ProVVeritas— ProVVeritas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I haven't a black and white opinion in this issue as both of you. Antonio Maestre (as investigative journalist who has taken a great interest in the party) can be a useful source particularly in regards of backing up details about the history of the party (always keeping WP:BALASP in mind, though). There are probably worse sources than him featured in the infobox (some of them backing labels not dealt with in the ideology subsection), but he is not what I would call an ideal voice to define the party, as he is not a scholar and he hasn't been particularly consistent in the matter (and this time the rationale Maestre makes is not very deep: Vox is Zionist because Rocío Monasterio publicly demonstrates so). The rest of the sources (except one) backing up Zionism deal specifically with Rafael Bardají, a Vox board member who is indeed a Zionist (and for what it is worth, pretty much those sources are also links to fringe Neo-Fascist sites), and thus, I have removed them. The source left to comment (Alyssa McMurtry in The JC) does not put Zionism directly, but in the following way "it is not outwardly antisemitic and has voiced its strong support for Israel". This can be more useful information in the article than in the infobox although their (the Vox's) obsession with Soros and "globalism"-centered conspiracy theories with antisemitic undertones may also be added there at some point. Conversely, regarding the rest of labels, I don't think quoting Miguel Urbán and María Eugenia Rodríguez Palop, two current Podemos candidates, as source for the infobox is the best way forward, regardless if their take on the party is worthy to be attributed inline in the article body or not.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

To state that The JC, an openly jewish journal, has ``antisemitic undertones´´ is quaint to say the least. The adjectives used to describe the rest of the sources are in the same line of coherence that to say that a jewish publication is antisemitic. 150.214.205.204 (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

By that sentence I refer to Vox. not to the JC. And yes Alerta Digital (and the likes) are Neo Fascist sites. But that's not even the more pressing issue, but that they deal (in voice) just with Bardají, not the party.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Benjamin Netanyahu has also criticised George Soros publicly, so there's hardly any chance that criticising George Soros is a proof of ``antisemitic undertones´´ of any type.150.214.205.204 (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the point is going over your head. Because that's the least interesting part of what I have wrote. Let me dissect my comment to you again: I've chopped 4 sources down solely dealing with one party member off from the infobox (in addition those sources range from neo fascist to utter-fringe). Do you have a problem with that? Two sources stay so far of which I don't have a strong opinion: they are not ideal but some of the rest aren't either: A Maestre piece and an article of JC. I have tentatively stated that sources could be better off in the article's body rather than in the infobox. Additionally I made a comment of what also may be featured in the article's body in the future. And in case you are wondering, I don't doubt the (most of) Vox leadership support the State of Israel. I am just questioning the notability we can infer from the sources dealing about it so far.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Nothing personal here, but that reference about that to criticise George Soros is a sign of ``antisemitic undertones´´ when even the Prime Minister of the Jewish State criticises George Soros, tells a lot about the cognitive bias of the one who makes that judgment. 150.214.205.204 (talk) 08:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the telling cognitive bias here is you mentally translating "[interest in] Soros and globalism-centered conspiracy theories with antisemitic undertones" (or better put: playing antisemitic tropes) with just "criticising Soros". I'm stopping here, though, as this is not developing into anything productive.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Antonio Maestre is one of the most authoritative political journalist in Spain, he appears regularly in TV and has hundred of thousand of followers on Twitter. I see. Wikipedia does not consider a source reliable just based on how regularly they appear in TV or in how many followers do they have on Twitter (would you consider Eduardo Inda as a reliable source based on the same reasons? Or politicians themselves?). As has been pointed out, Maestre may be a reliable source to describe the party's history or to voice his opinion on the party's ideology in the article's body, but not to establish facts such as that Zionism is one ideology of the party. I'm removing the pointed out sources from Maestre, as well as Rodríguez Palop and Urbán's ones as these are similarly hindered. Impru20^talk 17:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

If Antonio Maestre (he is a journalist an academic and a public figure) is not a reliable source I would like to know then what it is. The other labels in the infobox use sources of far less quality and nobody complains about it, so there's clearly a double standard regarding this issue. I'm readding that source. ProVVeritas (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)— ProVVeritas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm seriously concerned that your only activity in Wikipedia so far seems only focused in adding Zionism and Antonio Maestre's source in this article. Impru20^talk 20:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Antonio Maestre is not a scholar. He has produced scarce peer-reviewed content. The authors below are scholars (and experts in right-wing extremism). Those are used through articles authored by them and published in AgendaPública, a site dedicated to publish analysis (not just opinion) by experts in political science (akin to WaPo's Monkey Cage):

• Beatriz Acha. Professor of Sociology at the Public University of Navarre. PhD at the Autonomous University of Madrid with the thesis Éxito y Fracaso de los Nuevos Partidos de Extrema Derecha en Europa Occidental: el caso de los Republikaner en el Land de Baden-Württemberg directed by José Ramón Montero, expert in the field of right wing extremism and a member of the EREPS (Extreme Right Electorates and Party Success) network.
• Xavier Casals. Phd in Modern History at the University of Barcelona with a thesis dealing with the evolution of Neo-Nazism in Spain. He has published academic production in fields such as the evolution of right wing extremism in Spain after the Transition, about Populism in Spain and about Plataforma per Catalonia.

That's not to say you cannot use Maestre in the entry. But you cannot turn him into something he is not.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Are there any non-Israeli political parties on Wikipedia with 'Zionism' in the infobox? If not, then it should not be in this infobox.--Jay942942 (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It shouldn't. But one single user has been keeping adding it and re-adding it in the infobox. Impru20^talk 14:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Are all the "ideology" buzzwords REALLY necessary?

It comes off more like a leftist running the edit section tightly to control a narrative rather than being factual. Look at any left wing party and there are a couple or up to three ideologies listed but for right leaning parties we always see a mess like we see on this Vox page. Can some non-leftist hack wiki editor properly address the issue? Going from neocon to neolib to Carlist to right wing populism to ultranationalism is pretty insane and reeks of a biased and smug university aged editor from Barca. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.201.226 (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately editors here are very biased towards left-wing, usually anything against their ideology is labeled as "conspiracy theory" this is common on wikipedia where editors demographic is usually composed of jobless leftists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.165.184.115 (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request July 22nd 2019

The ideology section could be expanded to include new (peer-reviewed) academic work on the ideological motivations of the party's voters.

Whilst the party adopts a programmatic stance that is aggressively anti-immigration, echoing the ideological stance of much of the party's counterparts in the rest of Western Europe, there is no empirical evidence to show that the party's supporters are motivated to vote for the party because of these concerns. Specifically, individuals who view immigration as one of the top problems facing the country are no more or less likely to support Vox in comparison to any of the other parties.

Empirical research shows that the main predictor of support for the party is views on Spanish nationalism and devolution, In particular, voters are most likely to support the reduction of the powers of the country's autonomous regions which is largely attributable to the party's tough stance on the Catalan question.

Importantly, the party's voters also differ in substantial ways from the typical voter of far-right parties. Whilst the voters of these parties in contemporary Western Europe tend to come from lower socio-economic backgrounds and form part of the economically "left behind" the reverse is true in the case of Vox whose voters tend to come from the substantially higher end of the income distribution.

• • • Source material for the points made above come from the peer-reviewed journal article in "Research and Politics" available here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053168019851680

Summary (in spanish) available here in the blog edited by Pablo Simon: https://politikon.es/2019/05/23/los-votantes-de-vox-nacionalistas-pero-no-nativistas/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexanderjames1990 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2019

In the "Regional parliaments" section, in the row of "Valencian Community" change the link from the "2015 Valencian regional election" to "2019 Valencian regional election". This is the most recent election in Valencia and the one that the statistics are referring to 89.243.226.225 (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

 Already done see [7] DannyS712 (talk) 02:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Policy about adding sources and new info in the article.

I'm quite perplexed about the reactionary stance that some editors put in when trying to add new information and sources to the article. I hope that they explain here to me why I cannot add the news about Vox supporting gay candidates and even his attendance to gay parades when that info is quite well sourced by mainstream media. ProVVeritas (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Reactionary? Omph. This is about identifying quality sources (analysis of the party) who can give a semblance of this party without requiring synthesis and getting to the significant/relevant viewpoints. Not about picking news churnalism to draw generalisations from stunts cherrypicked by yourself (it's quite telling that you don't use now your "formerly" best-source-forever Antonio Maestre in this matter [8]).. Do you know what is a reliable source vis-à-vis the description of the ideology of a political party? One option is to start with actual scholars devoted to the study of the topic because according to WP:RS "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint". But I understand you may not be ready for that, as you actually seem to consider (as read above) Antonio Maestre as the ultimate source to holistically describe the set of ideas espoused by a political party (rather than as complementary source to underpin individual party memberships and the likes or as source useful for documentalist purposes).--Asqueladd (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC) And I am not even entering deep enough (yet) into the issue of using crappy news about political isolated stunts and propaganda by the party itself to justify content in the "ideology" section. The party ideology =/= stunts they play.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC) And look at how cute it looks now your foul attempt to give undue weight to the "opinion" of a non-independent voice--Asqueladd (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll leave the ad hominem absurdities aside and get to the points of the argument. Since when are sources from newspapers like HuffPost or the Grupo Vocento considered Churnalism? I'll be very grateful if you can show any reference (other than you, of course) labeling those newspapers as Churnalism. In the article there are many sources that are simply newspaper news (not articles of 'scholars devoted to the study of the topic') and nobody is complaining about it, so there is clearly a double standard applied here.To calify 'stunt' what is exposed in the news that I'm trying to publish is a 'synthesis' made by you. If you have any article of any 'scholars devoted to the study of the topic' coming to the same conclusion, it will be great to put all that together in the article to inform all the Wikipedia readers about it, but first it is needed to publish the info and you are persistently censoring it. I see no objetive reason to censor the news that I'm trying to publish.ProVVeritas (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

You randomly call editors "reactionary" and then jump onto adhominem-calling? Lol. Spare me the victimism. There is content of the ideology of the party based primarily on pieces of analysis by authors such as Xavier Casals, Beatriz Acha and Joan Antón-Mellón included in the article. Those are "scholars" whose expertise (their PhDs) is the study of radical right. Instead, you have proven keen to base your "original research" in non scholar, fringe and non-independent views, cherrypicking as it suits you (when it suits you to insert zionism in the infobox Antoño Maestre is the best academic ever, when you try to give WP:UNDUE prominency to the opposition to the mainstream view about the party not being LGBT friendly, but actually homophobe, you mute the view of Antoño Maestre). Particularly, the most glaring of disruptive edition could be you foul attempt to insert the very WP:FRINGE view they are LGBT-friendly (regardless of what you think, they are not considered as such) basing your "original research" in a political stunt by the party (WP:BALASP) and the opinion of a LGBT party member who (furthermore!) has just left the party (2 days another party member vouched for conversion therapies) WP:UNDUE. As far as I am concerned, you are entitled to think that they are the gayest party ever, but the scholar views do not agree with you, and your beliefs do not need to pollute and distort the entry via cherrypicking, synthesis and WP:UNDUE compilation of random news to push your beliefs.--Asqueladd (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

You're again playing ad hominem arguments and not answering the main issues stated ut supra. It's all very simple: I'm trying to put new info on the page based on verified sources (mainstream media like the HuffPost not churnalism as you stated before) and you persistently try to censor it. If you want to add additional info about that topic, nobody is holding you back, you're the one interfering in other's work. The thing that I'm trying to add is far less WP:FRINGE than those news (yes, news, not articles made by scholars with a PhD) that assert that two petty militants of Vox had a neonazi past, you were the one that added that info and nobody censored it, and now you want censor other news far less WP:FRINGE than the one you added. You are clearly applying a double standard here and you're the one pushing your random beliefs here. ProVVeritas (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

What you are doing here is soapboxing. Per Wikipedia:Advocacy: Wikipedia does not indiscriminately collect "true" information, but aims to synthesize such information into an accurate, proportionate representation of the state of human knowledge. Our responsibility is not just to verify material, but to contextualize and weight it appropriately. Insisting on undue prominence for a true but minor or tangential viewpoint is a canonical violation of the neutral point of view.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Now you're just throwing random accusations with no reference to the matter concerned here. If you don't provide any objetive reason for why I cannot add some verified information to the article (while there's far less important info in it, added by you btw) I will proceed to insert that info. ProVVeritas (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

July 2018

-I do not agree with the classification of Vox as a hard euroesceptic party, since they do not suggest to leave the EU, but to change the EU from inside. The president usually states it like "we want the EU, but not this EU".

-I do not agree with the classification of Vox as a right-wing or far right party. They are not criticize the immigration as a whole, they say they would agree with recieving immigrants from countries with similar cultures, like Europe or Latin America. They are just opposed to the muslim immigration.

-I do not agree with the classification of Vox as a right wing populist party. They are not a country promising to reach imposible goals, they do not take advantage on the weak people promising them impossible things... In fact, they are quite realistic party in that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.10.128.140 (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for you insight. The current characterization of the party is far-right AFAIK. Press treats VOX as far-right and their politics are aligned with other european far-right parties. Their members also participate in far-right events of other entities like Somatemps and Fundación Nacional Francisco Franco. Being opposed to muslim immigration is part of the far-right politics. Anyways they are opposed to immigration, not only muslim. From wikipedia article Populism: Populism is a political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against a privileged elite. But it is known that this term can be used as a pejorative. So maybe yes, the adjective should be changed to directly say they use demagogy. Filiprino

As per the euroescepticism, citing Santiabo Abascal gives us a hint: The other measure that has caused me perplexity has been to establish in the Constitution a special procedure for the transfer of sovereignty to the EU. In Vox we are very clear that national sovereignty resides in the Spanish people and that the Constitution is based on the unity of the Spanish nation. Although we are in favor of staying in the EU, we do not want to do it uncritically or from the pro-European papism that Unamuno denounced. Because we are convinced that nation and sovereignty are intimately related concepts.

Abascal clearly states they do not want the EU as it is. Recently he said it again: we do not want to be like Europe. That is euroscepticism: Euroscepticism (also known as EU-scepticism) means criticism of the European Union (EU) and European integration. It can also mean opposition to and total rejection of the EU (anti-EU-ism). (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Good afternoon, fellow Wikipedia editors. From my perspective, this article possesses some highly inaccurate information regarding Vox's political ideology. Let me point out the exact problems I find with this article's information

1. Vox is definitely not a Neo-Francoist political party of any shorts. Some sympathizers of such organization may hold ideological views similar to those of Franco, or even acknowledge themselves as Francoist. However, the party itself does not promote these, although it does tolerate them, and Santiago Abascal himself stated that "revindicating Francoism would be just as revindicating the 2nd (Spanish) Republic. If someone wants to do so in private, we aren't going to expulse him, but it can't be made on behalf of Vox" Vox is usually considered to be either rightist or far-rightist when it comes to the political spectrum, so I would not say that information is outright wrong, but the fact that the ideology of this party is described in a different manner depending on the media from which the information is gathered makes it greatly subjective.

2. Vox is not a "hard eurosceptic" political party. Despite they have expressed in numerous times their opposal to the EU as it is, stating that Vox supports "hard Euroscepticism" would imply that they are advocates of completely leaving the union, while they want to reform it. Most of the media, ranging from ElPeriódico to Xataka recognize that Vox is eurosceptic but does not support directly seceding from the union unlike political parties such as the UKIP or the National Front (a posture generally known by the name of soft Euroscepticism). I would recommend, therefore, for "hard Euroscepticism" to be changed to "sof Euroscepticism" to clarify Vox's position in regards to the EU.

With all that being said, I believe that the best way to avoid further issues concerning Vox's ideology would be to eliminate the "Ideology" section from Vox's infobox due to the impartial, ambiguous nature surrounding Vox's political positions as it has already been done in the Spanish version of this page. Thanks for your attention. --JalapeñoLOL (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

1. In the same article Abascal states that he is against Historical Memory Law and abandoning the Valley of the Fallen. That means he is against removing francoist symbols or finding the common pits and identify the corpses in them. Javier Ortega, president of Vox, stated that during Francoism people was shot, but with love, not hate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C337ZMKR3w0. Francisco Franco National Foundation agrees with what Vox says in terms of history, nationalism and sovereignty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=511Rc8U9nwI.

2. Vox rejects EU intervention in State Sovereignty. I do not know if it is soft or hard euroscepticism. But it is euroscepticism for sure.

Vox is far-right, francoist and eurosceptical. Filiprino (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Good evening, Filiprino. I see your point in regards to Vox's ideology, but I would like to tell you why the information above is, from my point of view, insufficient to describe Vox as a Post-Francoist political party.

1. The fact that they support such policies does not make Vox inherently Neo-Francoist. The label "Post-Francoist" implies that Vox is supportive of re-establishing the Francoist dictatorship (or re-establishing Francoist legislation), and that is not at all true based on the general policies they advocate for. Yes, Vox opposes the Historical Memory Law and abandoning the Valley of the Fallen. But actions conducted by dictators and/or individuals of doubtful reputation being justified by democratic political parties is something not unheard of. I will give you some particular examples:

- 1. Pablo Iglesias, president of the left-leaning (yet pro-democracy) political party Podemos has several times praised dictators such as Vladimir Lenin, who he described as a "Bolshevik genius capable of turning the impossible in something real" (https://elpais.com/politica/2017/07/26/actualidad/1501059673_006149.html) or Fidel Castro, who was labeled by him as a referring of dignity and sovereign resistance" (http://ecodiario.eleconomista.es/politica-eD/noticias/7987103/11/16/Muere-Fidel-Castro-Pablo-Iglesias-le-recuerda-como-referente-de-la-dignidad-latinoamericana-y-la-resistencia-soberana.html). Yet, describing Podemos as a Stalinist-Leninist or Castrist political party would make no sense due to the policies they support being different from those these men applied.

- 2. Vladimir Putin, president of the Russian Federation stated the following in regards to the Soviet Union: "Anyone who doesn't regret the passing of the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who wants it restored has no brains" (https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/vladimir_putin_131453). He did also approve of Lenin continuing to be in his mausoleum of the Red Square (https://www.rt.com/politics/398319-putin-promised-to-keep-lenin/). Yet, Putin's political party is considered to be right-leaning, and not at all Neo-Leninist (http://www.themontrealreview.com/2009/The-Ideology-of-Vladimir-Putin-Regime.php) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Russia) because of the policies he has put into practice.

2. The ideology of a political group or individual is not affected by any of its endorsements. The Francisco Franco Foundation may have expressed its support for Vox, but we should only take this into consideration to determine Vox's ideology if it was the other way around (Vox supporting the Francisco Franco Foundation).

Thanks for your attention. --JalapeñoLOL (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

1. They support reenacting Francoist legislation. Immigration, homofobia, etc.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCro2WYc4Zc You have completely ignored the video of Javier Ortega praising the shooting of innocents. We are not talking about Pablo Iglesias.

2. We are not talking about Vladimir Putin.

3. If far-right is aligned with your ideas it means your ideas are far-right. It's a bidirectional implication.

Bye. Filiprino (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Right-wing to far-right

@Asturkian: Why you think is better to say right-wing to far-right? That's subjective. WP:RS state it is far-right. Just look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C337ZMKR3w0. And of course the sources. E380f876 (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Far-right

@User:E380f876 This is the same discussion like Brothers of Italy, Freedom Party of Austria, Sweden Democrats, Slovak National Party, Danish People's Party, Front National, Vlaams Belang, Freedom and Direct Democracy, Swiss People's Party, Law and Justice, Fremskrittspartiet, Conservative People's Party of Estonia, Party for Freedom and Alternative for Germany and CNBC said:

[...]  during a demonstration organised by the Spanish right-wing party Vox [...]

The Olive Press said:

Many of the hardcore conservatives have already fled to Vox, a more traditional right wing party [...]

Slate said:

“Spain first!” roars Santiago Abascal, the leader of a far-right party called Vox.

,but Slate said also:

People hold Spanish flags and a banner during a demonstration organized by the Spanish right-wing party Vox [...]

Braganza (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(I was writing this before the edit conflict with Braganza) There are several sources in the article (El Mundo, El Confidencial, La Sexta #2 (the right of PP does not mean directly the far-right), #26 O'Leary at Reuters...) that describe the party as "right-wing" or "conservative". Asturkian (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Braganza:, @Asturkian: You are not providing accessible references for those quotes. What are the tendencies of Olive Press and Slate? El Mundo, El Confidencial, La Sexta? Anyways, the political party supports Francoist regime [9]. That makes them a political party which is chauvinist and reactionary. Islamophobia is also present in their talk. All of that is far-right. As per WP:RS it is far-right. In fact, "El Mundo" talks about "populist right-wing"[10] which is also far-right. E380f876 (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

And what are the tendencies of ElDiario, Público and others? If there was a consensus on other parties in Europe to be denominated "right to far-right", in this case it also must be as that. And about the vid with the stupidness of Ortega-Smith (he says "remembering sad events, people that were shot in a war") is not enough for me for concluding this discussion. Asturkian (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Asturkian: You have not answered to my questions. You have just commited two logical fallacies by ignoring my arguments: fallacy of incomplete comparison (ignoring "El Mundo" talking about right-wing populism -far-right-) and fallacy of moving the goalposts by saying the video is not enough for you. This is not about convincing you, facts talk by themselves. No greater evidence as you try to demand is needed. E380f876 (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Braganza: This is not the same discussion. This is about Vox. All newspapers explicitly write right-wing populism, which is far-right, and far-right which is obviously far-right. Obvious fallacy of moving the goalposts, because you are trying to demand greater evidence. The Slate article talks about far-right and right-wing populism (both far-right) when referring to Vox. When they use in the photograph right-wing, it is clear they mean far-right populism, which is far-right. You are using a fallacy of incomplete comparison (by ignoring all other mentions to Vox) and moving the goalposts (by demanding full press recognition), and I am not using an association fallacy (I am not implying in general that right-wing is the same as far-right because they have some common properties). The subject is the same in the article. Slate uses far-right, right-wing and right-wing populism in the same article due to style matters. Moreover, a majority of the press treats it as far-right (it is not an argumentum ad populum, it's majority of press, not people or common knowledge). Additionally, Vox speech is far-right, just this video serves as an example, showing their support of Franco's regime: [11]. Facts speak by themselves. E380f876 (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You are talking about subjectivity and the association you do of "right-wing populism = far-right" is completely subjective. Asturkian (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not subjective.[12][13] The context of Vox is far-right, using right-wing populism do describe Vox is considered a synonym of far-right. Otherwise it would be a fallacy of incomplete comparison. E380f876 (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I added the following radiography of the far-right in Catalonia as source for the article [14]. Democracia Nacional, Falange Española de las JONS (FE de las JONS), Plataforma per Catalunya (PxC), Somatemps, Vox, SOMCAT and MIC are described. I'll remove "right-wing" from the introductory text of this article, as VOX is equivalent to PxC, DN and FE de las JONS. They are all considered far-right, even in Wikipedia. Widely considered as far-right. E380f876 (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC) User @Braganza: mentioned Front National. Well, that is also far-right. Peer reviewed scientific article: [15]. E380f876 (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Braganza: You keep adding more talk pages. That does not change anything. Those discussion do not have anything to do with Vox. Sources matter. E380f876 (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@E380f876: El País a center-left newspaper from Spain said: the right-wing Vox party and The Local said also: right-wing political party, Vox Braganza (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Braganza: El país is not center-left. It can be considered a bad newspaper. They even published Tabarnia things (an out-blown twitter trending topic) in the front-page. Anyways, I'll give you a link of El País treating Vox as far-right: [16]. And one link from thelocal treating Vox as far-right: [17]. They use right-wing ambiguously. E380f876 (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

and Der Standard a left-liberal newspaper from Austria said: Namhafte Politiker aus dem Lager der Konservativen haben sich VOX angeschlossen. Sie [...] vertreten auch sonst allerlei ultrakonservative Ansichten. (Well-known politicians from the conservative camp have joined VOX. They also represent otherwise all sorts of ultra-conservative views.) Braganza (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Braganza: What do you want to say? Ultra-conservative is far-right. People from the conservative camps joins far-right parties. Not a surprise. People's Party of Spain agglutinates a really wide spectrum of right-wing, including far-right. These new parties try to get the far-right people and vote spectrum of People's Party. E380f876 (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

1st: the Telepolis said: Mit Vox ist eine neue rechte Partei entstanden. and the Handelsblatt said: Die neue konservativ-katholische Partei Vox and 2nd I think we can stand it now (your edit) we can leave it Braganza (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I think that the problem of labeling VOX a a solely far right wing party is because it is a right wing populist party but many are confusing to be populist right wing with being far right wing. Populist politics is not the same as far-wing politics. I think VOX is populist right wing to far right but NOT ONLY far right party, which would make associate this party with fascism or nazi ideology, which is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.24.96.246 (talk) 11:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

One scholarly source claims that Vox is a populist right-wing party although not an extreme (far) right party, and why Spain is actually inhospitable to the emergence of such kind of parties unlike in other European countries. This scholarly source must be included in the article and not censored/excluded. --168.235.134.215 (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Extreme right and far right is not the same. Far right is the family encompassing both the extreme right and the radical right subsets. A party not qualifying as extreme right does not mean it is not far right (the source rebuts nothing whatsoever, in any case, that is your interpretation) as it may belong to the radical right. The article deals about the notion of Spain as inhospitable place to the emergence of such kind of parties unlike in other European countries precisely because the article was published in February 2017, and until 2019 Vox did not have parliamentary representation. The idea that the source is being censored/excluded is ridiculous, what happens is the use you intend to confer it involves WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and disregards the taxonomy academia uses vis-à-vis right wing politics, conflating extreme right with far right, when far right also include radical right (not to say that right wing politics also include the far-right). You could use that source to back up the right wing populism label in the "ideology" parametre of the infobox (although the populist bit is actually what it is (somewhat) discussed/nuanced in academia with somewhat contrasting views).--Asqueladd (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The scholarly source speaks of Vox in these terms:

"Only recently, in 2013, has a right-wing populist party with no echoes of the Francoist period almost been able to obtain some success in Spain. This new party, Vox, could be described as the first attempt to form a modern right-wing populist party in Spain, aimed at disgruntled Partido Popular voters. Political dissatisfaction created by the economic crisis has mostly been channelled through Podemos, a populist leftist party, born from the street protests of the so-called 15-M movement. This group is still defining itself, balancing between a traditional leftist profile and a more catch-all approach. It could be labelled as populist but it is neither rightist, nor anti-European nor anti-globalisation and most certainly not xenophobic or anti-immigration."

Of course all sources like this one, both journalistic and academic, claiming that Vox is not far-right have been removed from the article and only sources that favor the far-right POV have been included. I called that censorship, do you have any better word? --168.235.134.215 (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

My bad. Reading again the scholarly source I have come across that the quoted text that's bold in my previous comment is actually referring to Podemos, a populist-to-far-left Spanish party, and not to Vox (the right-wing party this article is describing). This is evident when the source claims "This group is still defining itself, balancing between a traditional leftist profile and a more catch-all approach. It could be labelled as populist but it is neither rightist [...]" which cannot be talking of Vox, which is definitely a right-wing party. --168.235.134.215 (talk) 08:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Separate section for views?

Right now the "history" section includes their political platforms. Seems like that's probably deserving of a separate section from history, although it may need more substance and sourcing. Thoughts? ModerateMike729 (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Struck comment from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 13:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

cite bundle lead

I've bundled the cites for one of the words in the lead. It had nine citations. This is common when sourcing controversial adjectives in politics articles as any one source does not show the scope of usage in the media. Whilst lead citations are not prohibited and are encouraged for controversial pieces of information (MOS:LEADCITE), it's also good to improve readability (WP:OVERKILL). If this bundle caused any citation issues in the body, please consider re-adding them to the body as unique/independent citations to maintain the bundle in the lead. Please consider bundling any other pieces of text, which are attributed to more than three sources and prune where necessary. Thanks Edaham (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

national conservatism

Considering that national conservatism usually does not defend de-regulation and privatization, and that most of its supporters tend to support mixed economy, traditionally with center-left economical policies, I think that VOX should not appear in the list of parties who are defined as national conservatism not in this articke neither in the one refering to the aforementioned ideology.

Thank you

Breizhcatalonia1993 (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

While it's true that many national conservative parties do not defend de-regulation and privatization, several do - they aren't mutually exclusive. The Freedom Party of Austria, Social Liberal Party, Slovenian Democratic Party, Vlaams Belang, Progress Party, Swiss People's Party, Alternative for Germany, Likud and CDS – People's Party are all examples of national conservative parties that espouse those two policies.--Jay942942 (talk) 11:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Pro-Zionism

Is there any need to have this in the infobox? It is well sourced so I chose not to remove it, but I have not seen anything like this in infoboxes elsewhere on Wikipedia.--Jay942942 (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

It is there due to an anon edit warring. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

And also note that it mostly used own-party sources (primary sources) or entries from made-up and/or amateur websites and blogs (not reliable sources), so I won't say that was particularly "well sourced". I've however restored the sources that were removed for "right-wing" as well as the "far-right" position, as reliable sources do indeed back these. Impru20^talk 11:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Number of regional MPs

The infobox says Vox has 13 regional MPs, without citing a source. As of now, the party only has representation in the Parliament of Andalucía, with 12 (not 13) MPs. Another user corrected this, but the edit was undone. Where is this number coming from? Why was it reverted to a wrong value? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Racresmol (talk • contribs) 18:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

12 MPs in Andalusia + 1 MP in Extremadura (one PP regional MP left the party and joined Vox in September 2018, source). Impru20^talk 18:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

2015 Andalusian regional elections

I suggest to add the results of the 2015 Andalusian regional elections to the section of Elections to Regional Parliaments.

VOX results: votes: 18,422, percentage: 0.47%, seats: 0/109, position: #9.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptwsm17 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not manageable in terms of size and space to list all regional election results for a single party in a single article. Vox did also contest other regional elections and will presumably contest the 2019 ones, and the next ones after that. Parties in some other countries solve this by either creating specific articles for the party's regional branches (but only if they are notable, which I think can't be argued for Vox), or by listing the latest regional results (this is done for some Italian or German parties, for example). As of now, the latest approach has been chosen. Impru20^talk 14:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it pretty standard on wiki to have a list of all the national election, and only the latest for the regional ones. Let's stick to this practice.--Aréat (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

New section: 2018 Andalusian regional elections

I would like to add information regarding events from late 2018 and early 2019. Thanks. BoazBen84 (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

A new section called "2018 Andalusian regional election" should be added. I think that event has changed a few things within the party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoazBen84 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I would add the results, which is very factual. This is what I would add:

"On December 2, 2018 elections were held to the Parliament of Andalusia, the most populous autonomous community in Spain. Against all odds, Vox obtained :12 seats and nearly 11% of the votes. Their entry in parliament resulted in the first minority for left-wing parties in Andalusia in almost 37 years. :Since January 2019 the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party of Andalusia (PSOE–A) is not in power for the first time in history." Any grammar mistakes should be corrected if you find some.

Then, there are articles regarding the controversy with the office polling. That would make a second paragraph.

https://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/2018-12-05/cis-tezanos-vox-andalucia-psoe-a_1687966/

https://elpais.com/politica/2018/11/14/actualidad/1542194003_055562.html

https://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/2019-01-27/jose-felix-tezanos-cis-cumbre-expertos-encuestas_1775638/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoazBen84 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.  Spintendo  07:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Could someone alter the status after the regional election from "opposition" to "confidence agreement" Bergmanucsd (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)bergmanucsd

No, because there is not a confidence agreement. PP and Vox signed an investiture agreement only, but Vox is not required to provide confidence and supply support at a constant basis~throughout the legislature. Impru20^talk 05:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Then the page on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Andalusia should be amended that VOX is in opposition

Done. Impru20^talk 06:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2019

Please remove "neo-Franquismo" from the ideology list in the infobox. It is not cited. Also, it is not in English. 79.74.177.171 (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done by Wallachia Wallonia. Hiàn (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2019

Vox is a far-right party. Your description to the right of the page is incorrect. Please change so that readers are properly informed. 202.9.74.4 (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Can you provide a Reliable Source? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"Ultra-Nationalism"? Really?

What kind of left-wingers are abusing wikipedia as a tool to demoninze a political opponent? Even "nationalist" would be over the top, but "ultra-nationalism" sounds and looks like utter socialist smear here. 91.22.158.183 (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This term seems excessive, I would support its removal.--Jay942942 (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, it seems excessive. I too would support its removal. --HistoricallyAccurate (talk)

You are of course entitled to your opinion. Wikipedia is entitled to sources authored by quality authors, who indeed highlight ultranationalism as a core feature of their ideology.--Asqueladd (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

By "sources authored by quality authors" you mean opinion pieces whose authors are related to Catalan Separatism and Left Wing/Bolshevik elements? If

that, you obviusly dont have any clue of what quality sources or authors mean. --HISPREX (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2019

Is this consensus to remove Ultranationalism from the ideology section? Victor Salvini (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Vox is ultra-nationalist and totalitarian do not be bulky wants imposing a nationalism central and end with them the term Catalan existe since 1117 whilst Spanish since 1714, or the Spains plural is meant also to Portugal was not a country but a territory with the same monarchy

It is the same as the Turkish nationalism of Erdogan on the Kurds, the same European council on request on several occasions to protect the Catalans, their language, culture and history, differentiated from the rest of Spain and recognized by the constitution itself--85.56.94.248 (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

As a right-winger, I can state that VOX follows Franquism, and they declared so, which is indeed, an ultranationalist ideology, so, yeah. --2800:A4:3081:2900:3D42:A6F2:CCC3:4A0F (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

vox altorreal murcia

. in the meeting in january they spoke about spain first and spanish people first.they dont want to segregate .. they only want euros to go to tax payers first and citizens.. then after to nonspanish citizens..mentioned citizens not people. because all colours and religions can be spanish citizens legally.. they spoke of PRIDE in being spanish.. not a german idea of cleansing but simply to hold up the flag and talk about it a bit.to make deals in the world market that see spain as number one.. no more mr nice guy no more naive. hard negociations on world trade. i didnt see them as elitist or classist.. just running spain as a business.. where we are all share holders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.32.211.192 (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Neoconservatism?

What neoconservative policies does Vox espouse? Does the party endorse a foreign policy based on democracy promotion? It seems like the sources are either discussing a specific Spanish meaning of the term (in which case the article about the American ideology shouldn’t be hyperlinked) or just referring to neoconservatism inaccurately as a catch-all term for right-wing ideology.--Jay942942 (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Neoconservatism in Spain was roughly born with the endorsement of JM Aznar to the intervention in Iraq. For a general overview of what a Spanish neocon is you can read this, a review of a book written by (selfdescribed) neocons of the GEES think tank (of which the already mentioned Bardají was a prominent member) presenting Spanish neoconservatism. The notion of neo conservatism in Spain is linked to Philo-USA stances (a relative novelty in Spanish conservatism), Atlanticism, Interventionism, Zionism, links to ultraconservative lobbies and will to fight Cultural wars. If you have further curiosity of neoconservatism in Spain aside from the mentioned essay ¿qué piensan los neocons españoles? you can read the (more critical) Spanish Neocon book freely available online. And for the purposes directly related to this entry, that is, a source providing an elaborated rationale on why Vox is neocon, you'll need to wait.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional information. Firstly, do the views of Bardají represent that of Vox as a party or just a faction within the party? I noticed on his Spanish language WP page, it is noted that Bardají expressed strong opposition to the 2011 Libya intervention, a stance contrary to that of the American neoconservatives. Is there a justification for the formation for a new article titled Neoconservatism in Spain similar to Neoconservatism in Japan, to reflect the different nature of the Spanish ideology to the American one? --Jay942942 (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

A philo-USA leaning (a-la-Bolsonaro, with also a similar veiled/contained support to military intervention in Venezuela) of the party can probably be sourced (seemingly the Zionist bit above too), but I am not sure that solves the issue at all. It is not farfetched, but I am skeptical that we can infer enough notability for the label with the context provided by the current sources. If you want to question the inclusion in the infobox, I would question the context of the source from which the label is based on. So far sources with an holistic treatment of the party ideology mostly highlight (palingenetic) ultranationalism, antifeminism and extreme forms of economic liberalism. Regarding the prospect of a new entry for Neoconservatism in Spain, I think there may be enough sources to pull a stub at the very least.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

VOX comparison with Front National

It should be noted that VOX is not in fact similar to the French party Front National of Le Pen. The reason is in the economic section, Le Pen is protectionist, and lefty VOX is liberal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.24.96.246 (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

"Lefty Vox"? Good lord... In economic terms. the author positively compares Vox to the Jean Marie Le Pen's FN of the 1980s, not to the current one. That is, quoting the National Front entry, this particular FN: "(Jean Marie Le Pen) instead made an unambiguous commitment to popular capitalism, and started espousing an extremely market liberal and anti-statist program. Issues included lower taxes, reducing state intervention, reducing the size of the public sector, privatisation, and scaling back government bureaucracy. Some scholars have even considered that the FN's 1978 program may be regarded as "Reaganite before Reagan"--Asqueladd 18:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

We are not talking about Jean Marie Le Pen or the FN of the 1980s, we are talking about VOX, that simile it´s a nonsense. If you want to define the ideology of VOX, please, refer to VOX, not to the FN of the 80s. Ridiculous. --HISPREX (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2019.

Is Vox neoliberal?

I don't think it's appropriate to describe Vox as a "neoliberal" party, as using the word "neoliberalism" to describe just economic liberalism (even if liberalism is lacking in other areas) is pejorative, and if the word "neoliberal" is used in a non-pejorative way then Vox is certainly not neoliberal. --Boskoigic (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to your opinion. Wikipedia is entitled to sources authored by quality authors.--Asqueladd (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

This party is authoritarian populist far right; that's the opposite of neoliberal. Benjamin (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Ask Bolsonaro (or Pinochet).--Asqueladd (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The party is authoritarian, opposite of the whole spectrum of libertarianism (leftist or right liberalism), thus, it's not even appliabe to neoliberalism, or liberalism, it's illogical and arbitrary to compare political leaders that have not a single bit of things in common, and join them in the same bag, if you allow me to be arbitrary, as you, then, Pinochet was authright, probably nationalist, and Abascal is fundamentalist, with Bolsonaro being traditionalist, so yeah.--2800:A4:3081:2900:3D42:A6F2:CCC3:4A0F (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Neoconservatism in Spain

Here's the Neoconservatism in Spain article that I created, it may be possible to develop it based on the Spanish articles calling Vox "neocon". It would help solve the conflict over the term. It's fine to label Vox as neocon, if it's made clear that it is distinct from American neoconservatism, which is what people understand when the word "neocon" is used.Vhstef (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Designation as a Zionist party.

Support for Israel does not mean the party is ideologically "Zionist". For example, the US Republican party is heavily supportive of Israel, and yet is not described as "Zionist" in their page's party infobox.

Furthermore, as far as I know, there are no parties outside of Israel that are designated as Zionist. Designation as Zionist should be reserved for parties who want to implement "Zionist" policies in their country, something which simply does not exist outside of Israel. Therefore, Vox's designation as a Zionist party does not make sense. If you want to include their support for Israel in the article, do it in a section, outside the infobox. Gibzit (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

You could also argue that the Democratic Party is majority Zionist by the same logic. It should be discussed in the article, but it probably shouldn't be in the infobox. Nuke (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Thatcher

There is a section in this article stating Vox is economically liberal and morally authoritarian "like Thatcher". Thatcher voted in favour of LGBT marriage and abortion, so I would like to put forward the suggestion to add a section stating that scholarly consensus on Thatcher's moral authoritarianism is scant at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boddika (talk • contribs) 17:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

JFYI. On 2 June 2019, user ProVVeritas twisted the source (that mentioned Thatcher in the context of economic policies), and merged the canonical examples of far right the author mentions in the moral authoritarian context with Thatcher and Reagan, doing bad synth here [18].--Asqueladd (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

To include Catalan Regional Elections too?

The article has a list of "Regional parliaments" where Catalonia is currently missing. It's missing because Vox chose not to attend the elections, but a reader might not understand this without any information about it.

The article itself has the following information about it:

> After the Catalan referendum of 2017 and the start of a Spanish constitutional crisis, Vox opted to not participate in the Catalan regional elections of 2017.[38] After the Catalan declaration of independence, the party sued the Parliament of Catalonia and several independentist politicians.[39]

Would be useful to get this information into the list somehow, as it would give a better and more fulfilling view of Box in the regional parliaments.

83.35.239.117 (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no information on Catalonia in the table because there is no information as of yet to show. No electoral performance, no results. Just as happens for Galicia, for the same reason. We do not list non-existant electoral performances. Impru20^talk 19:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The absolute state of the ideology section

I’ve seen some crazy ideology sections, but this one takes the cake: Neoconservatism AND neoliberalism? How about they’re one or the other? No mention of social conservatism despite them very clearly being anti LGBT, pro life, etc? Centralism? I’ve never seen that in an ideology section before Overall, the ideology section desperately needs amending Victor Salvini (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I do not think the section "desperately needs amending". I should advice you too against blanking content backed up by quality sources just because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT--Asqueladd (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, wrong talk section. Secondly, you’re accusing me of something right off the bat and violating WP:AGF Victor Salvini (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

That's bad... so what do we do? Do I reset the conversation and meanwhile you vow not to blank content backed up by quality sources under iffy rationales?--Asqueladd (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Santiago Abascal discursando em frente a apoiadores, em fevereiro de 2019.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Vox stance on immigration

@User:TheSWGrievousfan Ok, maybe you are not biased against Vox. However, the edit of ideology section you made, adding "anti-mass immigration" claim, and a link to "anti-islam" article, has a clear negative sentiment against Vox for most readers. I won't debate "anti-islam", that's true; but I won't agree with "anti-mass immigration" vs. "anti illegal immigration", as the second one has for most readers a positive sentiment, and is the actual party position: (i) they are asked about their stances in almost every interview, and they are always very clear that Vox supports legal immigration in accordance to Spanish laws, and is against the illigal immigration; (ii) the sources you cited in that regard do not rely on facts, and the Tweets you cited you probably misunderstood because of language or context: one literally says "against massive illegal immigration", second one true says just "against massive immigration", but that is a tweet about massive illegal immigration via southern maritime border of Spain. I guess I'll outline their position, including their opponent critics of it, in a dedicated sub-section of ideology section. Birdofpreyru (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I mean, i think the party does criticise "mass immigration" to some extent and some party members have done it (like leader Abascal https://mobile.twitter.com/vox_es/status/1396814724340256774 and member De Meer https://mobile.twitter.com/MeerRocio/status/1323310632557514753 ). However I get what you mean and I could easily compromise. Greetings. TheSWGrievousfan (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Add Blaverism to its ideology

Vox openly defend that Valencian and Catalan are not the same language. They want to defund the Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua, which is in charge of regulating Valencian and acknowledges it is part of the Catalan language, and it wants to enforce the Normes del Puig, which reject Catalan standardization.

Sources:

https://www.voxespana.es/noticias/vox-firma-en-villamarchante-un-manifiesto-en-apoyo-a-la-identidad-valenciana-del-reino-de-valencia-20171118

https://www.abc.es/espana/comunidad-valenciana/abci-cinco-condiciones-para-apoyar-cambio-gobierno-generalitat-valenciana-201901091914_noticia.html

https://valencianews.es/portada/jose-maria-llanos-valenciano-el-de-las-normas-del-puig-no-hay-otro/

https://www.lasprovincias.es/politica/pide-escritos-corts-20191012235613-ntvo.html

https://www.lasprovincias.es/politica/vox-programa-comunidad-valenciana-20190206133309-nt.html

https://www.elmundo.es/comunidad-valenciana/2019/06/13/5d02842efdddffbd828b45c1.html Cremaet1238 (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Where? If you mean the infobox... do you have an actual secondary source presenting the full set of ideas of the party as "blaverist" outside the scope of Valencia? Take in mind that for most people who don't think the Valencian region is the end of all things, any "blaverist" stance may just be a regional manifestation of their Spanish (ultra)nationalism. I mean, if an article about the party organization in Valencia (or Alicante, or Castelló) were to exist and you had sources labelling those organizations as blaverist, please, go ahead, but we are dealing with the article (and the infobox) for the whole party, not for their relations with Valencia. That's not to say that it cannot be included as such in the ideology section of the body of the article, but the links you are providing are news reports that you are using as "proof" (en:WP:SYNTH) rather than actual analysis by a secondary source adressing the "blaverism" thing in Valencia.-Asqueladd (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

Some statements about VOX party in the article are clearly tendentious. Here is good example: "Ideology: Vox has been described as a Far-right party within the subset of the radical-right family." The verb "has been described" is misleading because pretends to lay chair by non identifying the subject and not explicitly mentioning who described VOX in that way, even though there is a citation note. In fact, this is a subjective opinion from Carles Ferreira published in the Revista Española de Ciencia Política (2019) which is not an authorized voice nor a primary source of information from the VOX party. This is the https://www.voxespana.es/espana/programa-electoral-voxVOX Ideology as VOX defines itself, which, on the contrary, is a primary source of information. This is the right way to build a trustful encyclopedia, not by citing opinions from third parties who can differ from how VOX party defines itself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ASHHSA (talk • contribs)

We are not here to describe Vox in the way Vox describes itself, but precisely following the way quality third-party secondary sources describe Vox in their analysis instead. If you think the latter is "tendentious", possible inline attribution refinement notwithstanding, you are here in for a rude awakening. If you actually want to start a serious discussion on due and undue weight and you think you have a more authoritative source (as in scholarly peer-reviewed and holistically in topic) than the one you happened to mention, please provide it. Cheers.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Weight

Can we have a discussion on due weight vis-á-vis the position? This party is described as "Far-right" (i.e.: in scholar terms the overarching sum of the radical right and the extreme right) by pretty much every notable political scientist who has cared to give their take about it (of those who specify further, a number of them would state "radical right" while another number of them, probably less and in a more informal context, would opt for "extreme right"). In addition, although it is possibly not that important, media also regularly describes the party as such. There is some WP:UNDUEness being played in the current version of the article, favouring a false "equidistance".--Asqueladd (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Alexanderjames1990: Could you take notice at what you source? When Stuart J. Turnbull-Dugarte,José Rama and Andrés Santana state that "It is clear that VOX belongs to the radical right" citing "Mudde (2019)", they draw from the understanding of radical right of Cas Mudde (shared by many others, as it is the current mainstream scholar understanding) in his 2019 work The Far Right Today, which is the "radical right" being a subset of "far right" along the "extreme right". ("Referring to “far-right” politics, Cas Mudde subsumes both the “radical” and the “extreme” right"). All in all, your recent edits look like a concocted attempt to pit "far right" against "populism" ("it is populist so it is not far right" o something like that) which is 1) not the take of the cited sources 2) bad original research as only possibly the prospect of being "extreme right" (not generic "far right") could entail a conflict with a populist nature in the views of Mudde 3) the understanding of populism as a "core feature" of the party (in opposition to, for example, being an "auxiliary" or "secondary" element of the party) has been somewhat disputed or nuanced by several authors, including (IIRC) Anduiza, Acha or Ferreira.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I am removing this source off from the lead too. The only passage possibly attempting to convey the label might be a decontextualized quote by Pepe Fernández Albertos in a journalistic report (authored by Guy Hedgecoe), and no context is provided for the quote in the report (not to say the rest of the article is plenty of "in-voice" statements actually describing the party as "extrema derecha"). I certainly don't come up with the understanding Albertos is placing the party in the political spectrum. If we play that "game" of "cut-out quotes" here is another "cut-out quote" by the same Fernández Albertos in another report: "Vox has not come here to break the left-right axis; as it is actually located at the one of the far ends [of the spectrum], and that eases a right wing accord". "Vox no ha venido a romper el eje izquierda-derecha, sino que se ubica en un extremo, lo que facilita el acuerdo de las derechas”, explica."[19].--Asqueladd (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Before claims of academic and media consensus, you should take a minute to read the far right page, you are defending as the only true definition of Vox. Namely it defines "today far-right politics includes neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views". IMHO it is clearly has little to do with Vox discourse according to whatever sources you refer to, and they should be defined as a regular right, not extremist one. Though, as the topic is clearly polarizing, and related to current events, the neutral approach is to write just that: some defend it is far right, some defend it is not extreme right. That's it, no need for political activism here, trying to defend that Vox only can be mentioned with a tag Vox = extremism. Birdofpreyru (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

"Before claims of academic and media consensus, you should take a minute to read the far right". You should know that is not an argument because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. An up-to-date source on understanding the far right (the fourth wave of postwar far-right politics to which this party belongs) is The Far Right Today by Cas Mudde (2019). "trying to defend that Vox only can be mentioned with a tag Vox = extremism" You are sorely mistaken (or are just deliberatedly pulling a strawman fallacy). Vox is not (generally) described here as an extreme-right party but as a far-right party. The far right (a subset of right-wing politics) is comprised by the extreme right plus the radical right. Care to stick to WP:BRD?--Asqueladd (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I am asking here for a very basic neutrality and consistency. You advocate that the only correct way to define Vox in the article header is to write "Vox is far-right", and from the header of that other article we read "Far-right politics, also referred to as the extreme right or right-wing extremism...", continuing with what I quoted earlier. Thus, if you insist this is the only way to put it, you are insisting to write in the header "Vox is extreme right, or right-wing extremists". Don't play the argument "People say A is B, so we write, citing Wiki article about B, and we ignore the fact that article B says stuff which is clearly not applicable to A, because it is Wikipedia and probably article B is wrong". In that case, you should fix the "far right" article. Birdofpreyru (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Portugal

First of all, this shouldn't be in the criticism section, because it's not like anyone of any note has criticised Vox for tweeting an outline of the Iberian Peninsula and calling it Spain. But this looks like soft news - a political party uploading the wrong map - rather than actual policy. Is there any record of anyone in Vox ever saying that Portugal is Spanish, as they have said about Gibraltar? Note that the Portuguese source calls this a "gaffe", is it really any different to world maps without New Zealand? Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I haven’t heard of this until but I thought I’d give my mind since no one else has commented. I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill based on the actual image and the text of the wiki page. The image of Spain in the Tweet is crudely drawn and could easily be argued that Portugal is not in there, additionally making the tie in to the Falange appears to be completely POV and unsourced (unless the Spanish news article says something about p it). Overall I say we remove this segment Nigel Abe (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

anyone here? If not, I’m going to remove the Portugal bit. Nigel Abe (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

An accurate description

This is reads oddly, I don't think we should be saying "The party is described variously as right-wing, right-wing populist, populist radical right and/or far-right." Which one is it? The party is described as far-right or extreme-right in the vast majority of sources. Looking over the citations fairly quickly, all of these describe them as such, and I'm sure I've missed a few:

• https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/spains-far-right-eyes-role-as-kingmaker-in-april-elections-7znlb6mx5
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/26/can-spains-elections-sunday-deliver-functioning-government
• http://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/2017-03-18/alivio-musulmanes-espana-no-victoria-wilders_1349649/
• https://www.elperiodico.com/es/politica/20180819/extrema-derecha-catalunya-6970471
• https://www.thelocal.es/20171015/spains-far-right-gains-visibility-in-catalonia-crisis
• https://www.eldiario.es/politica/Vox-derecha-extrema-prospera-juzgados_0_718828397.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/world/europe/spain-catalonia-carles-puigdemont-extradition.html
• http://www.publico.es/politica/afiliacion-partido-ultraderechista-vox-aumenta-20-40-dias.html
• https://www.politico.eu/article/spain-politics-far-right-podemos-rajoy-pp-populism-vox/
• http://www.dw.com/en/spain-proves-sterile-ground-for-far-right-parties/a-39057276
• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/09/far-right-andalucia-seville-vox-party-shockwave-spanish-politics
• https://www.governmenteuropa.eu/spanish-far-right-rise/91007/
• https://www.theguardian.com/global/commentisfree/2019/nov/12/nativism-is-driving-the-far-right-surge-in-europe-and-it-is-here-to-stay?

Bacondrum (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

​​​​​​​ Pinging other users who have been involved on this talk page or who may otherwise be interested. Ezhao02 (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

​​Pinging more editors who may be interested. Ezhao02 (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the original wording was "right-wing, right-wing populist and far-right", but it was changed by the end of June to its current wording. I agree that it currently looks chaotic and that the only source added for "populist radical right" actually says "populist radical right-wing party" (thus, it'd be just a different way of spelling "right-wing" or "right-wing populist"). I'll revert the wording to its previous stable version if no one objects. Impru20^talk 12:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bacondrum:. As it is developed in Talk:Vox (political party)#Weight, there has been a problem of the shoehorning of bad quality sources with even worse contextual fit (product no doubt of some desperate search in google), some of them have been removed for that reason (that is, featuring problems of failed verification and improper synthesis galore) and not even entering the elephant in the room: WP:UNDUE. The only way forward is a level-up in sourcing, selecting quality scholar sources for the lead actually analyzing the position of the party. Quality scholar sources happen to consider this organization pretty much unanimously to fall within the "far-right" spectrum. (Less relevant) press reports overwhelmingly do it too, yet, you know, cherrypicking is a Wikipedia sport.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I don't know if Wikipedia has sufficiently stringent rules for claims relating to contemporary politics, the articles are almost always a mess of tendentiousness. I'm going to go ahead and change the description, I can't see any reason for ignoring the vast majority of reliable sources. Bacondrum (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to list only "far-right". In my opinion, that should be reserved for the most extreme parties, like Kotlebists – People's Party Our Slovakia, Golden Dawn, and Jobbik (pre-ideology shift). I think right-wing should be maintained, and I am sure there are going to be reliable sources describing it as such. Ezhao02 (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

"In my opinion, that should be reserved for the most extreme parties" Why? Far right = Extreme right + radical right. "I am sure there are going to be reliable sources describing it as such" Possibly, but also possibly failing short to comply to WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:UNDUE. PS: By the way, a trim from irrelevant journalistic sources for the "far right" label is due too.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

At the end of the day, the far-right is on the right, but the far-right is a specific position that many sources describe Vox as. We should go with the majority of RS's not our opinion or a few that fail to describe them as the majority do and certainly don't refute or even dispute the majority of reliable sources. Doing so would be tendentious obfuscation of a claim made in the majority or reliable sources and in particular, the strongest sources ie academic sources. Bacondrum (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the Spanish language article describes them specifically as extreme right (extrema derecha, which is the Spanish equivalent of the English term far-right) and nothing else. I assume this reflects the sourcing. Bacondrum (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

My reasoning is that we should still distinguish Vox from neo-Nazi parties. Listing it only as far-right would fail to make it clear that Vox is less extreme as those parties. Of course, you're right that we need to find academic sources regardless. Ezhao02 (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Ezhao02 No one has described them as neo-Nazi's, no one has suggested we describe them as such. The sources describe them as far-right, and thus so should we. We don't assert a position then hunt for sources, we read reliable sources then reflect what they say. Follow reliable sources. They are described by the overwhelming majority of RS's as far-right. Bacondrum (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I know you didn't suggest that we describe Vox as neo-Nazi. I was making the point that virtually nobody calls Vox neo-Nazi, and it should be differentiated from other parties that are truly neo-Nazi or similar. Again, yes, we need to follow reliable sources first. Ezhao02 (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't get what you mean, why are we discussing neo-Nazis? – Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (User talk:Bacondrum) 02:58, 5 August 2020

Sorry, I guess I've been super unclear. Basically, neo-Nazi parties are clearly far-right and should be listed as only far-right. We should distinguish parties like Vox from those kinds of parties, which is why "right-wing to far-right" is a better description than solely putting "far-right", as long as this is actually supported by reliable sources. I hope that explains what I'm saying. Ezhao02 (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Far-right does not apply exclusively to neo-Nazis. We should follow reliable sources and apply WP:WEIGHT which clearly and firmly leans towards far-right. Bacondrum (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I just checked the Spanish page, and it also says "right-wing to far-right" ("Derecha a extrema derecha"), not"extreme right and nothing else." Ezhao02 (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

True, my mistake. Bacondrum (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

At the end of the day how are they right to far-right, they only want to kick out immigrants on the weekend? They only go ultra nationalist on Tuesdays? These are weaselly descriptors, the party position is what it is, it doesn't change depending on the year, month, week or day. Bacondrum (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

While usage in journalistic (and informal) terms is quite random and inconsistent, at the end, in recent scholar terms, when taxonomy is concerned, "extreme right" translates to "extrema derecha" and "far right" to "ultraderecha", although it is true "extrema derecha" is sometimes used in a less restrictive sense than in English. The article in :es:wiki is stuck, and btw, it displays a wrong use of sources in the lead since more than a year ago (just to provide you a grasp of how stuck it is), stating "extrema derecha" when cited sources state "ultraderecha". Precautions about translations and inconsistent use of labels is one of the reasons to limit the use of sources in this issue to scholars actually going to the issue of the taxonomy of the party (differentiating labels), instead of your classic "google search" around press reports, no matter how newspaper-of-record they are.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree we should go with scholarly sources as per rs guidelines. Particularly as the subject is contentious. I can see no argument for describing them as merely right-wing, that puts them in with traditional mainstream conservatives which they clearly are not. Bacondrum (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bacondrum:Yes, Vox is clearly not a mainstream conservative party. However, the fact is that most mainstream conservative parties are described as center-right (the PP is described as center-right to right-wing). I'd just say the political spectrum is a bit weird here. (I'm just bring this up for the sake of bringing it up; this is slightly off-topic). Ezhao02 (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I have a source for now: [20]. To be clear, this article describes Vox as "far-right populist". However, later in the text, it states, "…the questions in the various analyses which exist by other scholars on the nature of Vox have been published in the daily press and so far revolve around the matter of whether it should be categorised as a right-wing party, a far-right party, or as on the radical-right, and also whether its language might be considered (or not) neo-fascist." For me, this raises two questions. First (this one is about my own reading comprehension), is this saying that there is scholarly dispute over whether Vox is right-wing or explicitly far-right? Second, (this will probably be important when looking at other sources) is far-right different from radical right? I've always assumed that these two terms are virtually identical, but this quote seems to imply otherwise (unless I'm reading this incorrectly). Let's use this as a starting point while looking at other sources. Ezhao02 (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

thanks, interesting read. That paper refers to them explicitly as far right. They analyse media description, but they are explicit in their own description. Radical right, far-right extreme-right describe the same ideological groupings. At least when I was studying they were used interchangeably. So almost all the sources refer to them as far-right or some variation there of. “Right to far-right” is not used in any sources, this would be WP:SYNTH and WP:OR Bacondrum (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I checked a translated version of one of the sources that article cites (this one), and that source said that scholars, starting in the 1990s, differentiated between the radical right and the extreme right, with the latter more anti-democratic. That source also seems to say that far-right is a blanket term that includes both. (Note: extrema derecha for "extreme right", derecha radical for "radical right", and ultraderecha for "far-right") It should also be noted that while this source is published in the media (El País), it seems like it's written by a scholar, which is why the first source I cited said, "…the various analyses which exist by other scholars on the nature of Vox have been published in the daily press". Ezhao02 (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

None of the mentioned analyses in that article (Anduiza 2018; Acha 2019a, 2019b), discuss the party as "right wing". The more relevant pieces concerning the taxonomy (as in "directly addressing the issue", and as in signed by the "more relevant author in the scope of far right politics") are the two analyses signed by Acha (one of them is already cited in the Wikipedia article). They basically come to say that Vox is ultraderechista (far-right), suggesting a tentative placement in the derecha radical (radical right) subset of the former, stating that they are not "Neo-Fascists" (which she seemingly conflates with extrema derecha, "extreme right").--Asqueladd (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

In my absolutely personal opinion, they must be described as "right-wing party", but I recognize as all left-wing media (Público, Eldiario.es, elperiodico, El País, etc.) always describe them as far-right, and that can not be shown as an "absolutely true opinion". Others describe them as right, populist right or far-right. I think it must be comparated with parties as Hungarian Fidesz. Actual far-right parties in Spain (Phalanx, MSR, National Democracy, New Force, National Alliance, etc.) are different than Vox and use to criticize them as a "very soft". BTW, I only answer as someone "pinged" me. I only write my opinion and I am not going to discuss more in this talk page, so I don't want to receive more pings. Asturkian (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

"Phalanx, MSR, National Democracy, New Force, National Alliance, etc.)" Those are mostly extreme right parties, a subset of far right. "I only write my opinion and I am not going to discuss more in this talk page" Well, don't expect Wikipedia takes your personal opinion (casting doubt on scholar sources based on an wrong interpretation of terminology, no less) as something of value in the matter.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I concur with Asqueladd and this is not a forum. Bacondrum (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Considering that scholars distinguish between "radical right" and "extreme right", I believe that Wikipedia should do so too. In my experience, radical right parties are generally described as "right-wing to far-right" on Wikipedia and extreme right parties as solely "far-right". I'm fine with this current description, but we could change it (perhaps by using the actual terms "radical right" and "extreme right") to follow the scholarly sources better. Any thoughts on this proposal? I think that this change would require an RfC or something else, since it would be preferable to change this on all similar pages if we decide to do so. Ezhao02 (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

We always preference academic sources, so specifically which scholars in what journal do we see distinguish between "radical right" and "extreme right"? Certainly when I was studying political science no distinction was made, the terms were used interchangeably. If we say right to far-right we are saying they may be anything from mainstream Centre-right to Far-right, these are obviously wildly divergent ideologies with very little in common. There's also the issue of WP:SYNTH, we are merging sources to make a claim not explicitly made by any source. And, there's also an issue of WP:WEIGHT that should be applied to sourcing rather than creating a novel synthesis. Bacondrum (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: The source I provided above (link #20) distinguishes between radical right and extreme right, as shown in the quote above. Both are considered subsets of the far-right. Acha 2019a, linked to in the source I provided above, states: "Following largely the scientific usage established in Germany, many experts from the 1990s onwards differentiated between the extreme right and the radical right , pointing to the former as more dangerous and openly contrary to constitutional principles." (I used Google Translate here.). As Asqueladd mentioned, Acha tentatively places Vox on the radical right but not the extreme right. Ezhao02 (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bacondrum:. The Far Right Today (2019) by Cas Mudde, is somewhat state-of-the-art, it is written in English (not unimportant at all), and the nuances are developed. As for the rest. About RfC and whatnot? That's ridiculous. Whatever should be featured here should be exclusively on the merit of sources dealing with the topic that we can discuss here. There is no cosmic balance to maintain. Whether if "far right" and/or "radical right" and/or "extreme right" is justified here is a matter of the WP:WEIGHT and WP:VER of the authoritative sources dealing with the subject of the article.--Asqueladd (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Asqueladd:Yes, I concur with everything you've said there. A single El Pais article does not override the wider view in academia. Bacondrum (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Bacondrum? Beatriz Acha is a scholar on far-right movements, and pretty much state what academia currently state.--Asqueladd (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I was agreeing with you. Bacondrum (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, it may be a good return for this already somewhat long thread if we can agree in identifying relevant sources while chopping down irrelevant sources. Regarding the recent revert, one detail that Ezhao02 may have overlooked is that if the placement in the radical right may be somewhat tentative/argumentative, the location in the far-right (obviously) is not. It's straightforward.--Asqueladd (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Beatriz Acha and Cas Mudde are certainly authorities on the subject. Looking at the sources the party is clearly on the far right. Bacondrum (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

One potential problem is that the far-right politics article equates that description with the extreme right. Both the radical right and the extreme right should be considered subsets of the far-right. I think that article needs to be changed too. Ezhao02 (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

That article could use some refurbishing, yes. Besides some problems along the lines mentioned above, the geographical conceptualization is—as pretty much always in Wikipedia when it comes to get to regional/country level specifics in a general topic—rather dumb (based on disconnected pieces best served in the individual articles for each country rather than on the connections in far-right developments in different places). But we should not worry about that in this page talk.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that's fair. Ezhao02 (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of which far-right sub set they belong to, there is a consensus in reliable sources that the party is far-right. That much is clear. Bacondrum (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but I still think we should distinguish between the subsets of far-right whenever possible. Ezhao02 (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It is already distinguished in the ideology section. So there's that. As for the rest, I don't know. There is no tension in any bit vis-à-vis the treatment of scholars (either in infobox or lead), with the possible exception of the "populism" thing (some mention it, while others put the importance of any "populist" core into quarantine, seeing it as something secondary at best). In the other hand, I am not sure of the notability/weight non-expert sources such as news reports in El Mundo, RTVE, La Razón, Axios, Yahoo News or Reuters confer to some of the other labels. Anti-islam is at least backed up by Field and Rodríguez Teruel, who despite not being experts in the Far-right, are political scientists with an expertise in the intricacies of Spanish politics (either governments or party system).--Asqueladd (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The weight of sourcing is very clear. They are described universally as far right by academics and almost universally by the vast majority of news media outlets. Bacondrum (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The "populist" thing is interesting, since the statement "Unlike other European radical right parties, its discourse relies relatively less in populism and more on nationalism." is cited in the article. Ezhao02 (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

We should apply WP:WEIGHT to all claims, giving preference to academic sources, reflecting what the majority of academic sources say. Bacondrum (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

In this case in regard of populism (understood as the thin ideology consisting of the worldview of "pure" people against "corrupted" elites, with politics being an expression of the "will" of the former, and blah blah blah, I suppose) scholars are torn between labelling the party a "populist radical right" party (Turnbull-Dugarte, Rama & Santana 2020), or stating that the populist bit is not that important/central to the party (Anduiza) or secondary to other ideological elements such as nationalism (Ferreira).--Asqueladd (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

As long as we have reliable citations that support the claim of right-wing, I think this should be kept in the opening sentence and in the infobox along with far-right. The party is clearly not as far-right as purely far-right parties like National Democracy or Spanish Alternative, and does not follow Nazi or fascist ideologies. Helper201 (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Helper201: I think that the argument the others are making is that we may be conflating the terms "far-right" and "extreme right". The argument that scholars seem to use today is that the far-right has two subsets: radical right and extreme right. Unlike the radical right, the extreme right is more anti-democratic, openly advocating dictatorship. Vox clearly falls into the category of "radical right". However, I think that it is extremely important to distinguish these two subsets (I think you'll agree with me on this), since the fact that we are/were not aware this scholarly distinction means that readers might not be either. Ezhao02 (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ezhao02:, if you mean there is ambiguity over whether we use the term far-right, extreme right or radical right, I have no problem with using either one of these. I'm in no way saying the party does not in some respect fall under any of these categories. However, I think at least in some respect it also falls under the definition of simply right-wing and should not be labelled as simply an extreme or radical party without any sort of standard right-wing element. I'm not advocating removing any of these terms or any information from the article at all, just that the position of right-wing should also be retained if it has supporting citations from reliable sources. To simply say the party is as extreme as just being purely and only far-right, extreme right or radical right I think waters down the true extremity of these terms. Helper201 (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I think "radical right" is equivalent to "right-wing to far-right". Although radical-rightist parties are relatively extreme, they still work within the democratic system (this would be the standard right-wing element). Extreme-rightist parties, on the other hand, are, well, truly extreme. Ezhao02 (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Basically, I'm saying that I believe we have to make it clear that this party does not fall into the category of "extreme right". I did add a note to the infobox, but I honestly do not believe that a note is enough. I'm totally fine with using "right-wing to far-right" as the form of distinction between the two subsets; however, it seems like the other editors here believe that doing so would be a case of adding undue weight (which I believe is a valid argument). Ezhao02 (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT should be applied to sources. the majority of academic sources describe them as far-right. The term far-right is not exclusive of right. If we have a source that claims they are different to the extreme right then that would make sense in the body. Bacondrum (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

For starters the "right to far right" is WP:SYNTH. This has already been raised in several instances, IIRC. It is also used here and there to bypass WP:WEIGHT. It does not only bypass WP:WEIGHT, but most mendaciously, it actually does it via the shoehorning of the WP:OR distortion of sources (editors seeing rebuttals of whatnot where there are none) at odds with what academia considers that "extreme right", "far right". "right wing populist" and "radical right" are (not the same thing but—most of them— not exclusive).--Asqueladd (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

spot on Asqueladd. It’d be different if there were several academic sources that were arguing they are a center right party, unfairly described as far-right. That’s not what is happening. A few sources calling them right doesn’t mean they are arguing they are not far-right. The far right is on the right, they are not mutually exclusive. Bacondrum (talk)

Using one position to another has never received a consensus of being synth. It has been discussed before at length but this conclusion has never been reached. It would take quite a wide consensus to agree upon this due to its prevalence across Wikipedia. Helper201 (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, looking through the debates there's a consensus to apply due weight and only present "a to b" if the sourcing is evenly weighted. ie: A couple of news stories do not weight up against experts like Cas Mudde or Jean-Yves Camus. Besides, you have shown a tendency towards misrepresenting and cherry picking sources in this subject area and relating directly to such claims. Bacondrum (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

168.235.134.215 ongoing discussion here. Please provide sources to back any claims you think should be made in the article. Cheers. Bacondrum (talk) 06:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bacondrum, just wanted to let you know that pinging IP addresses doesn't seem to work. Ezhao02 (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ezhao02 Bacondrum (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Notes

As well as those that were removed we have multiple other sources for right-wing:

News sources

Bloomberg - [21]
The Daily Telegraph - [22]
Washington Post - [23]
Reuters - [24]
BBC News - [25]
Politico - [26] (a source that refers to another party in the same article as far-right, therefore distinguishing a difference in the two labels).
Sky News - [27] (calls the Citizens Party centre-right, but Vox right-wing, therefore acknowledging a difference in the two).

Books

City, State: Comparative Constitutionalism and the Megacity by Ran Hirschl. - [28] P.42.
Leaders, Factions and the Game of Intra-Party Politics by Andrea Ceron. - [29]

Other

Pew Reaserch Center - [30]

Therefore, I think we should restore the positioning of right-wing to far-right (of which cited information should not be removed prior to talk page consensus).

Helper201 (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The same sources explicitly describe them as far right in other articles. Clearly demonstrating that the cover all "right-wing" does not exclude nor refute the more commonly used descriptor "far-right":

Bloomberg - [31], [32]

The Daily Telegraph - [33], [34], [35], [36] etc.

Washington Post - [37], [38], [39], [40] etc. etc. etc.

Reuters - [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56] etc. etc. etc.

BBC News - [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69] etc. etc. etc.

Politico - the article above refers to them as "extremist right wing" which is as far right as one can get, so Helper is misrepresenting the source: [70], [71], [72] [73] etc. etc. etc.

Sky News - A partisan right-wing outlet that I hesitate to call reliable...but they call the party far right too: [74], [75] etc.

And then there's all these:

The Times - [76]

Politico - [77]

El Confidential - [78]

El Periodico - [79]

The Local - [80]

El Dario - [81]

New York Times - [82]

Publico - [83]

Deutsche Welle - [84]

The Guardian - [85], [86] and there's plenty more where they came from.

And lets not forget the academic sources Helper is completely ignoring:

Cas Mudde (2019). The Far Right Today pages 40, 41, 174.

Carles Ferreira (2019). Vox como representante de la derecha radical en España: un estudio sobre su ideología [Vox as Representative of the Radical Right in Spain: A study of its Ideology]. pages 73–98.

Robert Gould, (2019). Vox España and Alternative für Deutschland: Propagating the Crisis of National Identity Page 64.

Pablo Ribera Payá and José Ignacio Díaz Martínez (2020). The end of the Spanish exception: the far right in the Spanish Parliament.

Based on the due weight of academic sources and news reports. far-right is how the overwhelming majority of news and academic sources describe them, it 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 and thus essentially meaningless. 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 moderate. Helper201 is deliberately ignoring the weight of sourcing, especially academic sources, cherry picking news oulets and deliberately and completely ignoring way the subject more widely reported on by those outlets. Bacondrum (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

That's just not a convincing argument. Again you are arguing for a poorly sourced catch all term vs one that may not suit you if you were a supporter of this party, but is backed by the overwhelming majority of news reportage and academics. Once due weight is applied your argument clearly has no legs. Bacondrum (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It is your view that is a catch term. This is not always the case, nor backed by hard evidence. Some do use it as a position in of itself to indicate a standard position on the right between the centre-right and the far-right. To argue there is nothing between centre-right and far-right seems quite absurd imo. There are clearly enough sources here for right-wing to be included. As said before, if the claim of right-wing was in some way directly contradictory to also including far-right, then yes, weight would be applied and far-right would be more justified. However, as I have previously stated, I see no reason why both positions cannot be stated, as is common practice. Just because a party is to some extent right-wing does not directly contradict any far-right claims. To me you seem intent on ignoring multiple reliable sources. Helper201 (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Although I agree with Helper201 that it's perfectly acceptable to list Vox as "right-wing to far-right", we have different reasons for being okay with this. I do agree that the weight of sources leans in favor of "far-right" and not "right-wing". However, for me, this is about a distinction between the two subsets of the far-right, the radical right and the extreme right. I think that "right-wing to far-right" is a valid way to display this distinction, but I understand that others may not agree. Any other form of distinction is fine with me (like the current note) is also fine with me. Ezhao02 (talk) 00:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Extreme right = far-right, radical right = far-right, right-wing = cover all term for the entire right of politics...'nuff said. This is a silly debate. Bacondrum (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Show me comparable sources that describe them say "center-right" or "libertarian right" and I'll be happy support changing the article to reflect that as "Centre-right to far-right", but right to far-right means nothing, it's a non-sequitur - the far-right is right-wing. Bacondrum (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, radical right ⊂ far-right and extreme right ⊂ far-right, but radical right ≠ extreme right. Ezhao02 (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Lol, I'm glad we can agree on something. Can we agree that right wing is a catch all term? As I've said, if sufficient reliable sources described another position like "center-right" or disputed the parties position on the far-right I'd be happy to reflect that, but this right to far-right is a tautology and not supported by sourcing. Bacondrum (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: I think that it depends on context, honestly. Sometimes, "right-wing" does refer to anywhere from the political center to the far-right (e.g., "Conservatives in the United States are right-wing."). However, I do agree with Helper201 that there is something between center-right and far-right; we use the term "right-wing" to refer to this sometimes. This makes finding sources very difficult sometimes—when we look at sources, we have to make sure they're using "right-wing" in this second sense if we want to say something like "right-wing to far-right" (i.e., that they are distinguishing between "right-wing" and "far-right" and between "right-wing" and "center-right"), as you have correctly pointed out. Ezhao02 (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a novel interpretation and opinion. The fact remains that sources overwhelmingly describe them as far-right (or variations of ie radical or extreme) and most importantly leading academic experts in the field unanimously describe them as such. Leading academic experts in the field are the ones we should look to, ignoring the highest quality sources available in favour of a handful of media reports that do not even refute the academic sources (most of these sources actually concur in other articles, as demonstrated above) is nothing short of tendentious editing, at best it is uncited opinion. Bacondrum (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

From our own right wing article: "According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, in liberal democracies, the political right opposes socialism and social democracy. Right-wing parties include conservatives, Christian democrats, classical liberals, nationalists; and on the far-right, fascists." and the citation: The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics (3rd ed.). p. 465. As you can see it is a catch all and not the false equivocation of Catch all (political party) that Helper201 has used to deliberately misrepresent the argument elsewhere. Bacondrum (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"Right-wing" can be a catch-all term (it usually is), but it is sometimes used differently. Ezhao02 (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Have you got an example/sources of it "sometimes used differently"? I'm honestly interested, I am happy to admit being wrong if evidence is produced. In total absence of evidence it is just an opinion. Bacondrum (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: Thanks for asking. This book differentiates between "centre-right' and "right[-wing]" (and between "centre-left" and "left[-wing]") in all of its figures showing the left–right political spectrum. There are quite a few other sources I've seen that differentiate between center-right and right-wing. I do remember seeing sources that differentiate between far-right and right-wing, although I can't think of one off the top of my head. Ezhao02 (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, do you have a page number? Bacondrum (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I believed I linked to the page (220). Does the link not work for you? Ezhao02 (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Nah, just took me to the book, but I've found it now, thanks. Not real clear what they are saying the position is. Basically looks like everything right of the centre-right is being grouped together and same on the left. I don't know that this is a clear position being described but rather a catch all that includes everything other than the centre-right. Bacondrum (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: Yeah, they do group everything right of the center-right. I'm just using this source to show that they are distinguishing between center-right and right[-wing], while in the first meaning of right-wing I described above, the term "right-wing" would cover anything from the center to the far-right.

Here's a source that differentiates between all three (center-right, right-wing, and far-right). Ezhao02 (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again. I don't know that this is differentiating though. It's just a list of parties and they call one right wing, nationalist. I"m not convinced, no definition as to what is right wing has been offered other than a catch-all. I think its a poor source too. Bacondrum (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I do agree that ti's a rather poor source. If I remember or find anything else, I'll put it here. Ezhao02 (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. I think if we take WP:BESTSOURCES into account, and we should be focused on the academic consensus anyway, there is a firm academic consensus that they are far-right. We should discuss extreme/radical right sub sets and thier precise position on the far-right in the body or include a note. I'm staunchly against the false balance of "right-wing to far-right" I see it as tendentious white washing in contravention of the vast majority of reliable soiurces and in particular the best sources, academic sources. I think right-wing should not be used as it is not well sourced, what sourcing we have is low quality in comparison to academic sources (as per guidelines) and could at the very least be interpreted as playing down the far-right nature of this group in a non NPOV manner. Bacondrum (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hm, I think I'm understanding the issues surrounding this a bit more. Both sides seem to view the other as whitewashing. Your side views "right-wing to far-right" as "playing down the far-right nature" of radical right parties. However, the other side views "far-right" (when used here) as whitewashing the far-right nature of extreme right parties (ultimately, I think that this is why some distinction is necessary). Ezhao02 (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I haven't got a side, I do my best to edit objectively. I'm looking at the academic consensus and reject false balance as per guidelines. The issue for me is that some editors are asking us to ignoring the academic consensus in a tendentious manner, arguing for WP:FALSEBALANCE based on novel interpretations of flimsy sourcing. Bacondrum (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

If you need evidence of the tendentious nature of these attempts to describe the party as merely right or centre-right just look at the recent edits by user:Aristotle the Stagirite who even tried to change the titles of published sources, as though changing the name here would magically change the title of the sources. Calling them right or centre-right is tendentious POV pushing and deliberately ignores the academic consensus. Bacondrum (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see the books I listed and the source from Pew Research Center, none of which have been addressed. Among the multiple news articles that I also listed some do specifically call other parties centre-right or far-right within the same article, while specifically calling Vox right-wing, therefore clearly denoting a difference (specifically the Sky News and Politico sources). Helper201 (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC

It's been addressed, all your news outlets have explicitly refered to them as far-right in other articles. The Pew research gives nothing more than a passing mention in a study about Putin that does not refute the academic consensus. A passing mention in a book on mega-cities that does not refute the academic consensus and describes them as ultra-nationalist (a far-right ideology), another book that barely mentions them and does not refute the broader consenus. The academic consensus is firm and explicit - academic consensus massively outweighs random articles and cherry picked use of a catch all term. Your sources just don't make your claim due, you are pushing a catch all term, and you keep coming back with random flimsy sources from google search to support this highly dubious claim. Bacondrum (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

So I just went and looked at the Pew research center and in other papers they explicitly describes Vox as far-right. Your claim is looking silly and tendentious.

• https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/04/5-facts-about-public-opinion-in-spain-as-its-election-nears/

"Supporters of the far-right Vox tend to have less confidence that voting to gives them a say; only 71% of Spaniards with a favorable opinion of the party believe in the power of the vote. By contrast, those who favor the governing PSOE tend to have more faith in voting; roughly nine-in-ten (88%) believe voting gives them a say." Bacondrum (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Center-right to right wing?

I'm not totally sure where the idea of placing Vox in the "center-right" ideology came from, but the vast majority of sources, and even other discussion threads here, placed it as "right to far-right", so it probable would need a change

--JulenBengoitia (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Far-right?

Thread retitled from "Vox is not far-right".

Although Spanish and international mainstream media use to call them far-right, there are a lot of things in their political program and their speeches that contradicts that and has nothing to do with other European far-right parties (Let's make clear I don't support any of them). In my opinion, the most accurate description should be right-wing to far-right, as in the Spanish Wikipedia page. Also, the note "Vox is considered part of the radical right, a subset of the far-right that is juxtaposed with the extreme right, an anti-democratic subset of the far-right" is absolutely inadequate and should be changed or removed. Vox is not a neo-nazi group, though they have conservative proposals, and saying that the third main Spanish party is anti-democratic is totally out of place.--Viktaur (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing at the talk page, Viktaur. Could you please check out the section #An accurate description on this same page?

I think you might be misunderstanding the note. This note is saying that Vox is radical right (and thus not anti-democratic), not extreme right. Neo-Nazi groups fall under the banner of the extreme right. If you think this note doesn't make sense, could you please help rewrite it? Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I think that was redundant and inaccurate since Vox is in the ECR group and not in the most radical one in the European Parliament (which is Identity and Democracy)--Viktaur (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The ECR is a group with a lot of variation, though, with liberal conservatives, Christian democrats, Christian rightists, and radical rightists all in the same group. It's hard to use Vox's European affiliation to argue that it can't be considered radical right, especially when it has been described as such in scholarly articles. Ezhao02 (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

We base claims in reliable sources. There is an academic and news media consensus. According to reliable academic and news sources VOX is firmly on the far-right. What we think of them as editors is irrelevant, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources not our opinion or original research. The article does not describe them as a neo-nazi group. Bacondrum (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

right wing describes a broad range of views, it is not a specific position. Bacondrum (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyone who says Vox is not far right is either uninformed, delusional or is a vox supporter on wikipedia trying to white-wash their image. Vox is literally the very definition (at times behaving almost like a parody) of the far-right. Even the right wing party PP refers to them as far right, let alone everyone else. They are complete outliers in the Spanish political spectrum. Php2000 (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Instead of calling names to other, you'd do better arguing why the sources that claim that Vox is a right-wing althoug not far-right party are being excluded from this article. Ajñavidya (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, since the introduction of the article says that VOX is far right categorically (by experts) I would challenge that view demonstrating that several demoscopic studies show that VOX voters are more moderate in the spectrum even than those of the far left UP (which is NOT labelled as far left but as left wing in the introduction of the article). Here some sources: https://elpais.com/politica/2019/07/30/actualidad/1564499209_543441.html https://www.epdata.es/datos/derechas-izquierdas-asi-califican-espanoles-pp-psoe-podemos-ciudadanos-vox/253 In the last one, VOX voters rank themselves 7 as PP voters. 81.43.178.160 (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Using such a self-defined scale would count as the use of an unreliable primary source. Ezhao02 (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Nope. The sources cited above might be not the best, and not describing the logic behind the study 100% correct and convincing, but the studies of positioning of a party's voters at the left-to-right ideology scale are legit thing, and the conclusion that voters of Vox are not much further to right than those of PP, and not that much extreme as those of UP is not new. E.g., here El Pais (which is considered a left-biased newspaper) shows similar charts & conclusions based on CIS study: https://elpais.com/politica/2019/07/30/actualidad/1564499209_543441.html , and I am sure if you dig, you'll find academic publications with similar conclusions. Birdofpreyru (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Birdofpreyru: I'm not sure you understood what I mean. These studies rely on how voters perceive themselves, and while such studies may be helpful for scholars seeking to categorize the parties, it is not up to Wikipedia editors to interpret/analyze the results—that would be improper synthesis. While I trust the results of the study, it would be incorrect to conclude a certain political position of the party itself from its voters' perceptions of themselves, especially if certain voters may be afraid of being perceived as extremists if they rate themselves a certain way on the scale. Ezhao02 (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm saying: once it is a published academic study in a reasonable journal, if authors say these data show (or don't) voters' positioning, it is not WP:OR and fits into wiki. I am pretty sure one can find such study here. Birdofpreyru (talk) 09:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be best to just write 'Right-wing to far-right' for Vox.--Storm598 (talk) 10:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that these data show what voters think their positioning is, not necessarily what their actual positioning is. Using the study to say, "Vox voters have rated themselves similarly to PP voters on a scale of 1–10 from left to right," would not be WP:OR (and thus be perfectly acceptable), but using the study to say that the party is the same as the PP would be WP:SYNTH. Ezhao02 (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious issue with interpreting poll data (a primary source) as has been noted by Ezhao02, the premise is also fundamentally fallacious. Someone positioning themselves as firmly on the left/right does not automatically make them "far left/right", it can just mean they don't view themselves as holding any centrist/opposite-wing beliefs. A better measure would be asking voters about specific far-right beliefs and then assessing how high they scored on average, or at least whether they self-identify as "far-right", however, stigma may skew the results in the latter hypothetical case (as it might have in the case of the results in question). It is also questionable whether voters are competent in accurately self-assessing their position on the political spectrum. They may also wish to label themselves as closer to the centre than they actually are if they believe their beliefs are "common sense" or "the right ones" etc.

"[...] I would challenge that view demonstrating that several demoscopic studies show that VOX voters are more moderate in the spectrum even than those of the far left UP [...]" This argument additionally assumes that position on the political spectrum is symmetrical and totally comparable, even though it is not clear to me it is even comparable among parties on the same side of the spectrum (e.g. the PP & Vox comparison). Just to illustrate: fascism is regarded as a far-right ideology even though it can be regarded as also containing some left-wing/progressive elements, and Marxist-Leninist ideologies are regarded as far-left even though they may be regarded as containing some right-wing/conservative elements. Staunch Christian conservatives could therefore be regarded as more consistently right-wing than fascists, and democratic socialists could be regarded as more consistently left-wing than communists, even though fascism and communism are still defined by their most extreme ideological elements and thus fit under the far-right/left designations. Fascism/communism could therefore be positioned as closer to the centre than both staunchly leftist and rightist ideologies when measuring how purely left-wing/right-wing either ideology is.

But in any case, we are assessing the political position of the party here, and not that of its voters. The former could only be suggested by the later but not defined by it, and it is conceivable that e.g. a right-wing party has significant far-right support even though it does not espouse far-right beliefs and policies.

I would also like to point out that - as far as I understand - the second source (epdata.es) appears not to have even polled Vox voters, but instead statistically inferred the results:

   Posición de Vox Los barómetros del CIS no preguntan por Vox pero cruzando la intención de voto en las próximas elecciones con el lugar en que se sitúa cada entrevistado en el espectro ideológico se puede obener la posición en que se encuentran los simpatizantes de cada partido. Para obtener este gráfico se ha realizado una media ponderada de todas las personas que dan a conocer a quién tienen intención de votar en las próximas elecciones y se han autoubicado en la escala ideológica.

Both epdata and El Pais seem to rely on CIS for the poll data, so there's a chance that the Vox figures are inferred in both cases.

I would just also like to take issue with the statement "[...] El Pais (which is considered a left-biased newspaper) [...]" as it appears to insinuate that El Pais either falsifies the results or uses statistical methods that skew poll results to make them more unfavourable for the right. Either the poll results are legit, or they are likely to be methodologically unsound/tampered with and should therefore be dismissed outright. The editorial position of the publication is otherwise irrelevant here since we're discussing raw figures and not the publication's interpretation of said results which may be affected by the editorial position.

And "[...] and I am sure if you dig, you'll find academic publications with similar conclusions [...]": So why doesn't the editor present the more reliable academic sources instead? This seems like the argumentative approach of "I'm correct, trust me. Even if this source doesn't actually prove it definitively, there are definitely other better sources out there that do. Haven't found them yet? Well, search harder."

And also "I'm saying: once it is a published academic study in a reasonable journal, if authors say these data show (or don't) voters' positioning, it is not WP:OR and fits into wiki. I am pretty sure one can find such study here." Is Birdofpreyru suggesting that the poll data is a reliable secondary source (an "academic study in a reasonable journal") just because it was published in a newspaper instead of on a spreadsheet on the pollster's website?

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

"far-right"`???

By the standards of whom? A communist?

80.131.54.185 (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

There are quite a few academic sources provided in the section above and in the infobox. Ezhao02 (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Those These so-called "academic sources" are not reliable not unbiased, they are just far-right activists.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.123.9.117 (talk • contribs)

It does not follow. What sources do you mean by "those"/"these". Who are supposed to be far-right activists?--Asqueladd (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@User:Grandpallama: Regarding the passage you removed, saying it was a speculation that RS might be wrong, namely (it is a quote taken from Wiki's far-right article):

It should be noted, that according to some experts, the modern definition of far-right politics is ambiguos as the concept is generally used by political adversaries to "disqualify and stigmatize all forms of partisan nationalism by reducing them to the historical experiments of Italian Fascism and German National Socialism.

I would say it is not a speculaton regarding a particular source, but a relevant context note, in particular taking into account (1) the amount of fighting regarding calling Vox "far-right" or not; (2) that most reliable sources do not specify what exactly they mean by "far-right"; (3) as this quote from scholars says, and it matches my view, the "far-right" label is ambigous and often used to stigmatize a political opponent. And the reason I want to include it is not to speculate whether the particular source is right or wrong regarding "far-right" qualification, but reminding the reader in beginning of "Ideology" section about general problems surrounding "far-right" label. And I am totally fine with text saying "Source (author) A says Vox is far-right", as long as there is no attempts attach "far-right" label to every mention of Vox, nor word it as the "far-right" quailification is the ultimate truth. Birdofpreyru (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It's an article about Vox, not about far-right ideologies, and the source (at the far-right article) is not speaking about Vox. Ergo, placing it in this article implies that this consideration should be taken by the reader, as if Wikipedia is warning readers; we are making connections that the sources are not directly making themselves. That is a textbook example of original research. Grandpallama (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

What you are defending is a textbook example of placing formal rules above a common sense, aiming for what the quote in question warns about. You want to ensure that "far-right" label is attached to every mention of Vox, and you come up with formal excuses for that. Providing a relevant context from reliable source is not an original research. Birdofpreyru (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

What I am doing is following Wikipedia policy. Straight from WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. Grandpallama (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Attitude towards LGBT

Hey, @Jay Hodec and Alcismo: I just checked you edits of the section, and they look fair to me, though I'd suggest you to expand the point on Vox opposition to the same-sex marriage. The referenced same-sex marriage page starts with the definition of two same-sex persons "entering into in a civil or religious ceremony". So, I believe, without any additional clarfication it reads like Vox opposes any form of union between same-sex persons. I am not following much on that part of their discourse, but I have an impression that they only oppose the religious (Catholic) same-sex marriage, which goes against the conservative Catholic doctrine, but they are supportive / don't mind the civil union, while they say it should not be called marriage, although should effectively give the same legal rights for same-sex couples. I probably got something wrong in that regard, but just sharing my current impression, in case it might be helpful.

@Birdofpreyru: Hi. In a 2019 interview, the leader of the party (speaking on behalf of the party ("El líder de Vox afirma que su partido [...]")) says that the party opposes marriage between same-sex couples because "[marriage] is an institution that has historically united a man and a woman" and "We do not consider that a relation between two men or two women is marriage." Note that he makes no distinction between a church wedding and official matrimony that is recognised by the state (nor is that really relevant since marriage recognised by a religious institution (which is a matter of a particular religious institution) is entirely a separate issue from marriage recognised by the state (which is a matter of law)). He goes on to say that he support civil unions (which are not the same as marriage (religious or legal)), saying: "Sí, una unión civil que necesita ser regulada. Creo que es bueno que las personas se unan, que dos hermanas viudas, o dos amigos viudos puedan hacerse una unión civil para cuidarse unos a otros o legar."[87]

In 2018, el Diario reported that Vox supports legislative protections of the "natural family" and has always opposed marriage equality.[88]

As a final note, I must mention that Spanish politics isn't my strong suit, and that my knowledge of the Spanish language is rudimentary, so there very well may be more to the issue that I'm not aware of ...

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Is Xavier Casals an authoritative source?

It occured to me, that much of Vox criticism in terms like "the warlike ultranationalism" in this article comes with reference to Xavier Casals' opinion, who is a professor of history, focused on far-right movements.

To me that looks quite biased per se, especially when not supported by facts. I guess to qualify for warlike ultranationalism some should call for extrajudicial executions / genocide of some groups of people, or for some similar crazyness. Never heard / saw any factual evidences of that related to Vox, and if you look carefully, even their most controversal points in the nutshell are civilized suggestions of legislature changes you might not like, but nothing remotely close to some extremes.

On the other hand, I briefly googled who is Xavier Casals, and could not find much. Sure, it looks he is a professor and wrote a bunch of works on the far-right; but his citation (h-index) looks quite low (just 12 according to Google.Scholar), and relatively few mentions of him in Internet make me question how authoritative he is. Also, judging by titles of his works, which are almost all "ultra-right", "extreme-right", "neo-fascism in Spain" and so on during about 30 years looks he totally obsessed with ulta-far-nazi-right. It makes me feel as he turned it into his profession, he is probably not much interested in neutral evaluation of Vox, as considering it super-ultra-extreme-right fuels well his professional work, while finding it a regular right party leaves him much less to write about.

Curious what others think in this regard? And I'd suggest to clean-up the article from catchy ultra-extereme labels based solely on Casals opinion, unless they can be supported by facts of extreme actions by Vox? It looks fair to me to keep the wording that a variety of source consider Vox far-right, but saying they represent "warlike ultranationalism and unconditionalism" that's does not look fair at all. Birdofpreyru (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Not going to comment about the reliability of the cited academic, but just a few thoughts ... I don't know if being an expert in a particular field is disqualifying due to bias from being to caught up in the field. By this logic, scholars that dedicated themselves to studying communism wouldn't be reliable sources, either.

I think analysis of a party's politics and policies is OK without specific examples as long as it is from a reputable, notable source and reasonably concise. It's even more acceptable if the statements are presented as opinion and attributed to a specific author.

The "warlike" bit may perhaps be better translated as "bellicose" (although the Spanish dictionary doesn't appear to support this more metaphorical meaning).

I'm not sure the currently cited source meets Wikipedia:Reliable sources criteria, though; it'd be better to dig up and cite this guy's scholarly work instead ...

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess, I worded it badly. Not saying being an expert in a field is disqualifying due to bias, asking whether the guy is really a recognized expert, or self-proclaimed expert? What looks to me as "bias per se" in his case is that he is seemingly assigns those catchy ultra- extreme- labels lightly, without much argumentation. Not sure I am much interested to dig deep into Casals' work. I found his blog, and a list of his articles related to Vox there. The most relevant by the title seemed to be this one "EL ULTRANACIONALISMO DE VOX. CINCO CLAVES PARA COMPRENDER “LA ESPAÑA VIVA”

I read it just by diagonal, but it looks like it just starts with the axiom that Vox is the current ultranationalist force in Spain, and then goes on with poorly sourced discussion around it, which does not looks quite rigoursly academic. I'd say this wikipedia article in its current form does better to investigate different aspects of Vox ideology, and events surrounding them, based on news publications in sources from different sides of political spectra, than the guy in that article of his. I'd expect from an expert doing it in the way similar to how it is done in this wiki article, but on a much larger scale. Sure, he might prooved everything in his previous works, but a brief look at few other materials in his list gives me an impression that his line of thought is just "Since the end of XIX the extreme ultranationalism was always present in Spanish policitcs, and it always will be. So one should just look around and decide, who is the ultranationalist of the day. Now Vox looks the closest candidate, compared to other major right forces, PP and Cs, so Vox is the ultra." Though, as I told already, at least for me if there is no facts of violence, or calls to violence, that is not ultra extreme. Birdofpreyru (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Opposition in all regional parliaments?

Vox does not belong to the opposition in all regional parliaments. They provide confidence and supply to the governments of Madrid, Murcia and Andalusia

Not sure about all regions, but in a few interviews / articles I saw following the latest Andalusian elections, Vox position themselves as Opposition in Andalusia, and the PP government does not need support of Vox there anyway, thus I changed to "Opposition" the status in the table. -- Birdofpreyru (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)