Jump to content

Talk:Forum for Democracy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Forum for Democracy/Archive 1) (bot
Line 67: Line 67:
: Hi {{ping|Dajasj}}, the amount of members per party is not verified by the DNPP, or any other organisation. The numbers are declared by the political parties and then reported without external verification. The FvD claims a sustained growth, the largest of any party, that is incongruent with their political results, as pointed out by the sources provided. Since reliable secondary literature exists that is sceptical about the FvD's membership numbers, I believe it can stay with the current wording. [[User:Melchior Philips|Melchior Philips]] ([[User talk:Melchior Philips|talk]]) 15:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
: Hi {{ping|Dajasj}}, the amount of members per party is not verified by the DNPP, or any other organisation. The numbers are declared by the political parties and then reported without external verification. The FvD claims a sustained growth, the largest of any party, that is incongruent with their political results, as pointed out by the sources provided. Since reliable secondary literature exists that is sceptical about the FvD's membership numbers, I believe it can stay with the current wording. [[User:Melchior Philips|Melchior Philips]] ([[User talk:Melchior Philips|talk]]) 15:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
::Well, the statement mentions that an accountant has verified the membership. I would argue that at least "in the past" should be added to the current wording, as that reflects the current assesment. [[User:Dajasj|Dajasj]] ([[User talk:Dajasj|talk]]) 15:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
::Well, the statement mentions that an accountant has verified the membership. I would argue that at least "in the past" should be added to the current wording, as that reflects the current assesment. [[User:Dajasj|Dajasj]] ([[User talk:Dajasj|talk]]) 15:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
:::Ah, my apologies. I had read the statement but missed the addendum in the footnote that indeed indicates that a notary declaration was included. [https://nos.nl/artikel/2418680-aantal-leden-politieke-partijen-vorig-jaar-met-15-procent-gegroeid NOS] also reported on this. I will reword it to "in the past," indeed. [[User:Melchior Philips|Melchior Philips]] ([[User talk:Melchior Philips|talk]]) 14:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:18, 7 April 2022

Political shift in the FvD

I could see why, seeing its views at the time, the FvD was classified as "right-wing to far-right" about a year ago. However, seeing recent events (The youth group's statements, Baudet's statements, his re-election as party leader, the exodus from the party from the more moderate elements), I think at this point, it would be fair to file it as simply "far-right." Here are some articles that file Baudet's party as simply far-right from the past few weeks-months: http://dutchnews.nl/news/2020/12/thierry-baudet-wins-popular-vote-to-stay-on-as-leader-of-far-right-fvd/ https://nltimes.nl/2020/12/04/baudet-back-far-right-fvd-leader-11-days-resigning https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2020/12/04/thierry-baudet-blijft-leider-van-het-radicaal-rechtse-forum-voor/ The party has simply shifted right in the past year and become fully far-right in the past month or two. If there are articles written in Wikipedia-level outlets recently which describe the FvD's views as something other than far-right or extreme right, then the current description is correct. However, I don't think those exist because I don't really think the FvD is categorizable as merely right-wing anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.137.28.170 (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with the above.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your sources always claims them far right. So i disagree and this is most balanced and neutral stance as per many other sources. Shadow4dark (talk) 06:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This source classifies FvD as fascist. The shift has been clear and strong in the past two years. Andries (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources cited by "right wing" are from 2018/2019 before the shift too the far right. Especially now that JA21, GO and BVNL have left the party practically the only remaining politicians inside of FvD are easily classified as far right. Plus dutch media has started referring too FvD as far right and Dutch politcal scientists are also saying it should be classified as radical right or far right. https://www.nu.nl/politiek/6168990/politicoloog-ziet-forum-voor-democratie-steeds-verder-radicaliseren.html I think it's time too classify FvD as simply far right. Jax the subhumam (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change to historical right wing to far right and currently to far right? Similar as this party [[1]]Shadow4dark (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's good. Jax the subhumam (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 46

In this version, footnote 46 states the name of the author as 'Joseef Wanders'. The text in the article says 'Joseef Eanders'. I do not have access to 'Het Financieele Dagblad', so I can not check which one is a typo. At least one of the names is a type, and 'Wanders' seems more likely than 'Eanders'. But both names are not shown to me in a Google search. Who can check this out? Thanks, RonnieV (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russophilia?

The evidence given to label Forum for Democracy as russophile is very thin. There are only 2 newspaper articles cited, both are from march 2022 (7th and 11th of march) and as the titles say: their leader feels ideologically related to Putin, and the other article: the leader doesn't see Putin as the agressor in the Ukraine war/'special operations'. How does that make this political party russophile?


The definition given on this very website: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russophilia

"Russophilia (literally love of Russia or Russians) is admiration and fondness of Russia (including the era of the Soviet Union and/or the Russian Empire), Russian history and Russian culture."


I don´t see anything about feeling ideologically related to the current leader of the Russian Federation being included in that definition, nor do I see anything in that definition about seeing Russia as the agressor or not in a war/conflict (which would be a politicisation of the definition of russophilia and of the article about Forum for Democracy). Let's keep it as objective as possible.


In summary: Feeling ideologically related to Putin ≠ Russophilia. Not seeing Putin as aggressor in Ukraine war ≠ Russophilia. Politics (current) ≠ Russian people, history, culture. Therefore: Forum for Democracy is not russophile and this label should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.112.184.27 (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I have removed it. Dajasj (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Membership numbers

Hi @Melchior Philips: the critical statement is not really accurate anymore, as the 2021' numbers were verified. See this statement. So it should be rewritten, but can perhaps be best left out because the previous numbers are in line with the 2021 numbers. Dajasj (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dajasj:, the amount of members per party is not verified by the DNPP, or any other organisation. The numbers are declared by the political parties and then reported without external verification. The FvD claims a sustained growth, the largest of any party, that is incongruent with their political results, as pointed out by the sources provided. Since reliable secondary literature exists that is sceptical about the FvD's membership numbers, I believe it can stay with the current wording. Melchior Philips (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the statement mentions that an accountant has verified the membership. I would argue that at least "in the past" should be added to the current wording, as that reflects the current assesment. Dajasj (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my apologies. I had read the statement but missed the addendum in the footnote that indeed indicates that a notary declaration was included. NOS also reported on this. I will reword it to "in the past," indeed. Melchior Philips (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]