Talk:National Rally

Right-wing or far-right, yet again

@The basque savior: We have a sentence in the lead that says "However, some media outlets have started to refer to the party as "right-wing" or "nationalist right" instead, arguing that it has substantially moderated from its years under Jean-Marie Le Pen." Your removal of right wing from the infobox is unwarranted and highly disruptive --FMSky (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:Fringe, we do not take the opinion of a small minority, all the relevent institutions it's in call it far right, such as the European Parliament or the French National Assembly The basque savior (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Its not fringe when I have cited at least 10 sources --FMSky (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

One of which I just read (The Times)... it says that for the first time ever, they were allowed to play football with the other MPs. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Many of these sources were referring to the party as being Far right, and it is hard to know if when they used "right wing", they meant to call them a more moderate right wing party, or simply refer to them as on the right of the political spectrum, considering that it's very much the common agreed opinion, and the one of the institutions it partakes in, it seems more likely to be the second option. The basque savior (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Many of these sources were referring to the party as being Far right Yes thats why we are saying "right-wing to far-right". --FMSky (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Content will be reinstated shortly, there's simply no reason to ignore both the lead statement and dozens of sources. Your personal opinion isnt relevant --FMSky (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

You definitely do *not* have consensus to restore the football article as a reference for political alignment. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The other 9 sources will do then --FMSky (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Yours isn't either, my opinion in based on the the institutions it partakes it, very much more important then a foreign newpaper talking about the assembly's annual football match, beyond that, the party is undoubtedly on the right wing of the political spectrum, however this doesn't make it "right wing to far right" sources vaguely referring to it as "right wing" doesn't make it either, you can find sources doing the same thing for undoutedly far right parties The basque savior (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

And. . . here we go again with you completely ignoring the other 9 sources. I'm putting the right wing back up, and if you reject it, then sure, take it down again. Just refute all nine sources, first. 140.141.132.88 (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Seven of your nine sources call the RN a far right party and use the term "right wing" to avoid repetition of the more precise label. The eighth has absolutely no validity whatsoever as a reference for political alignment as it does not go into any detail about any policy matters, but is a four-line brief about what it calls "anti-fascist" demonstrations: (§). The ninth (§) is not primarily an article about the RN's political position and has only a passing mention of the party. It is interesting that the one (and only) French article in the pile (‘Macron helped advance the far right’: French centrist parties veer rightward to maintain power §) says the following about a debate between Le Pen & Darmanin: "It was a debate intended to define the differences between the government and the far right. Instead, it revealed a number of similarities." The government policy of maximizing the RN's media exposure by organizing such debates exclusively with the RN (cf. the Bardella-Attal debate on the nightly news which is more recent than your article) has been criticized as a way of sidelining the (center-)right's main ideological opponents (numerically speaking) in the lower house of parliament (the NUPES, whose union the dissolution revitalized). That said, if you want to call a populist party calling for massively increased government spending (including their call to reduce the retirement age to 60: §) a bog-standard right-wing party, I'm not going to fight with you, despite the *thousands* of articles in mainstream media which use the epithet "far right". -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 04:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Btw the IP who posted above wasnt me (even though I fully agree with his reasoning).

But another argument everyone seems to be ignoring is that we literally have a statement in the lead saying that various sources explicitly refer to the pary as right wing: "However, some media outlets have started to refer to the party as "right-wing" or "nationalist right" instead, arguing that it has substantially moderated from its years under Jean-Marie Le Pen." FMSky (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

That is very much a fringe view, as even the source contradicts those statements. The basque savior (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Outdenting for readability on mobile. Indeed, this misquotation was introduced in this edit (the same editor who introduced misinformation claiming to be making "manual of style" changes above). The actual quote is other outlets have updated their vocabulary to “right-wing populist” or “nationalist right.”. (source) I will change this truncated quote, remove the 7 references in the infobox claiming to support "right wing" when in fact they say "far right", and remove the two references that mention the RN either only in passing or without discussing their political alignment in any way. I will add this reference to the infobox and use the terms explicitly given in the accurate citation. Hope that will satisfy everyone. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 11:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

An RFC should clear things up — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMSky (talk • contribs)

Providing one single substantive article in the mainstream press explicitly saying that the RN is *not* a far-right party would be much more persuasive than your ref-stack of passing references (most of which explicitly disagree with what you are trying to demonstrate). Something like this article (§), but without the "and why you shouldn't be fooled" subtitle... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 04:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: We had a quasi-consensus until "Helper201" decided to ruin it all https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=National_Rally&diff=prev&oldid=1229248376 -- thoughts? --FMSky (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks. We don't use terms like "Nationalist right" or "populist right wing" in the political position of the infobox. We use: far-left, left-wing, centre-left, centre, radical centre, centre-right, right-wing and far-right. For National Rally its either going to be right-wing to far-right or simply far-right. I haven't looked at how consistently sources refer to the party as the former for a while so I'd need to check that before giving a view. Though we certainly shouldn't be placing labels like "Nationalist right" or "populist right wing" in the political position section of the infobox. Helper201 (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I've wasted enough time on this. Good luck! -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Would you be fine with "right-wing to far-right" though ?--FMSky (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of ref-stacks. Thanks for agreeing to pull that (at least for the time being). As for the wiki-text, I was going to leave it and just add the ref :6 for "right wing", but decided to use the exact wording at the last minute. In my ideal word, convenient one-liner labels would be removed entirely. There's no such label as far center for the austerity extremists after all. That said, I doubt there will be consensus for zapping the "positioning on a dubious single axis" field :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd be fine with "Right-wing to far-right" if both are properly and adequately cited. Not sure why this was reverted in the first place since right-wing seemed to have multiple sources and far-right already does. Helper201 (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

This works as a citation, @Helper201:. (The article is critical of Le Pen. However, it quotes many political scientists who state that the party has non-far right wings).

They've absorbed various members of The Republicans as well. KlayCax (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

So do we have a consensus on right-wing to far-right, or will that edit keep getting reverted? 132.147.194.184 (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Because this gentleman started an edit war over it https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_basque_savior — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMSky (talk • contribs)

Actually the introduction of "right-wing" had been boldly made and rejected months ago. A better article than the politico one will obviously be needed to support the claim since you will not find the term "right-wing" in the article except to refer to an Italian party or in the term "right-wing populism" which was removed as inappropriate. Note A after "far right" is sufficient as an explanation of the attempts to clean up their image. Until mainstream press actually follows the lead of the PR office of the RN, we should continue using what the RS do. Otherwise, feel free to start another RfC.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 12:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

None of the sources actually affirmed that the party weren't far right, many of the sources were actually referring to the party as far right, later using the term right wing, this was also the descrption on the article for years prior, I simply reverted back to it's previous version, the party in itself is recognized as far right by both the European Parlement and the French National Assembly, the institutions that this party takes part in. The basque savior (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like FMSky has been on a mission to add "right wing" in the past few weeks (at least a half dozen reverts looking through the page history), and that a couple of IPs in the vicinity of Central Illinois / Northern Missouri have simultaneously become experts on French politics in this thread. FMSky says that it is only coincidence that the Peoria IP reinstated the list of 7 sources calling the party "far right" FMSky had added as evidence of the party not being "far right". -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not American, that IP isn't me. Go ahead an do an IP check if you want --FMSky (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. I hope you'll stop with the edit-warring now that the diffs have been compiled. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

No, since thats not actually true and isn't what the sources say, the only source that actually tries to see if the party is right wing or far right, affirms the latter, as such, I don't think that it's fair to give that much credit to the fringe idea and put it in the infobox. The basque savior (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

While the national press agency, Agence France-Presse, and the daily newspaper of record, continue to describe the National Rally as “far right,” other outlets have updated their vocabulary to 'right-wing populist' or 'nationalist right.' https://www.politico.eu/article/marine-le-pen-turned-respectable-france-presidential-election/ --FMSky (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Already covered in footnote A which leads to Radical right (Europe). -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

That note says something completely different. --FMSky (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit slow, could you tell me what it says that is different? (NB: I have rollover activated on my account, so I can read the first paragraphs of the en.wp entry which mention the nationalist right and the populist right and refer to the fact (as does KlayCax's Politico article) that political science types say one main thing distinguishing the RN from fascism is a belief in democracy). Here's another politico article talking about the RN as "far right" and "radical right": (§) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Right, @SashiRolls:. It's clear that the sources vary. "Right-wing to far-right" is exactly what we use for Fidesz in Hungary; Law and Justice is described as "right-wing" in Poland. Both of which have far more of an explicit opposition to liberal democratic norms. It's not a radical idea to call the Generation Identity faction far-right and The Republicans faction right-wing. RFC's should be avoided if possible and I don't see the issue with the label.

• Right-wing to far-right for National Rally/proposed "Union of the Right"
• Center-right to center for Macron's faction
• Left-wing to far-left for Communist, Socialist, and Ecological alliance. (New Ecological and Social People's Union/New Popular Front)

Seems right to me + validated by many reliable sources. KlayCax (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Those outlets are Unnamed and unsourced, we have no idea about their reliability, Especially considering how far right some news outlet in France can be, Cnews or Valeurs Actuelles aren't exactly reliable, especially about that. The rest of the article mentions political scientists, some that refute the notion of Le Pen wanting a return to fascism while not necessary contesting the allegations of it being far right, the article also concludes by affirming that it is in fact far right, it appears that the sources are overwhelmingly in favor of it being a far right party. I feel like the footnote is good enought, putting it on the infobox is very missleading. The basque savior (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely no one here is advocating for far-right to be removed. The label would be: "Right-wing to far-right".

The exact same label we use for Viktor Orban's party Fidesz in Hungary. On almost every issue, National Rally is similar or to the left of Fidesz. KlayCax (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This article isn't based on what other editors did for the Fidesz, and the party's history is very different, there is no historical moderate wing for the National rally as it was cofounded by SS members, unlike Fidesz, that started off as a liberal party turning to the far right, and it's hard to say how right wing the National Rally will be if it rules, you can't compare it to a party that actively has full controll over a government, Le Pen is obviously going to say everything and it's contrary to get votes, it doesn't change the party political alignment.

The sources agree with me on this, considering that the National Rally is nearly always called far right, while sometime right wing is used, it's very to avoid repetition and only the Politico article only vaguely mentions that "some outlet" now say it's simply right wing, but we have no evidence of the credibility of the outlets. The basque savior (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Unless there is TP consensus for a change from the status quo—far right, with footnote linking to radical right (Europe)—something like the following would be OK with me as language for an RfC revisiting the 2020 consensus:

What words should appear in the "political position" line of the infobox?

1. far right
2. right-wing to far right
3. radical right to far right
4. the "political position" line should be removed

For completeness, it would be well to note in the RfC proposal that National Front (France) redirects to this page. Based on the sources presented so far on this page my vote would be 1, 3, or 4. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 04:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you present any sources that say that RN is a "right-wing to far right" and "radical right to far right" party? There only seem to be sources that describe the party as a "right-wing", "radical right", and "far-right" party, but not "right-wing to far right" or "radical right to far right". Thanks. Vacant0 (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

You know that there has never been a Wikipedia-wide consensus that we need sources to state the "to" between political positions. There's nothing to say we can't have more than one cited political position in the infobox. The use of "to" between positions would need a Wikipedia-wide consensus against as its use is so widespread across so many pages. To require sources to have the "to" would mean a total revamp of how the political position section works across Wikipedia and would lead to an awful lot of bickering and to and fro over "should we include position X that is cited over position Y which is also cited". Helper201 (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

In the previous RfC this source was given which says that "radical right" is the academic term for the modern version of the 1930s "extreme / far right". (L)e mouvement lepéniste peut être à juste titre considéré comme le modèle prototypique de la « nouvelle » droite radicale populiste paneuropéenne, variante contemporaine de l’extrême droite traditionnelle. The authors cite Cas Mudde, Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 41, where you can see that it is written that:

At first, the FN was not much more than a confederation of extreme and radical right groupuscules under the leadership of veteran radical right politician Jean-Marie Le Pen.

Since this entry does double duty as the entry about both the National Rally and the National Front, this Cambridge U. ref should probably give you a good idea about how we can describe both. I have yet to see an in-depth study that refers to the party as a generic right-wing party. It's true that a rising percentage of journalistic briefs (perhaps as many as 0.5% ?) make passing mentions using only "right-wing" without using "far right" in the same article (or modifying right-wing with nationalist or populist). Given that the name includes and has always included "national" that's hardly surprising... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

References

I've found a handful or so of good sources specifically calling the party right-wing without also calling them far-right. However, as you say this seems like a very small minority, as do the number of sources calling them "radical right" from what I've seen. Therefore, we should probably just maintain far-right. Unless a good number of sources can be found for right-wing or radical right that is at least somewhat more substantial than a handful to not make the position not WP:UNDUE, due to the abundance of sources calling National Rally far-right in comparison to right-wing or radical right. That's my take anyway. Helper201 (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This is indeed true and is an alarming problem on Wikipedia because in 99% of cases where "position to position" is written, the sources do not actually say this. Having "to" between two position presents the party as taking a broad position between these two positions. This in some cases might be true, but we'd need sources for that then. I'll stick to RN now because, after all, this is its talk page, I do not think that this case could apply here, because we still have fresh sources, whether news or academic, calling the party "far-right". Being far-right/extreme-right/ultra-right clearly means on the extreme end of the "right-wing", being centre-right clearly means closer to the centre of the "right-wing" spectrum. Adding right-wing here could create confusion, or could even whitewash the party's image, only because there are sources that call the party right-wing. I'll just say that if we would want to change RN's position to something else, we would actually need sources that its position has actually changed, or moderated, and that it is no longer far-right. Jobbik is a perfect example for this. There are no sources that explicitly say that RN has shifted from its far-right image, thus there is nothing that we should change. These sources that call RN "right-wing" are not anything new, you can find these sources even from the 1970s and 80s, when the party was also called neo-fascist, which did not cross to the 21st century, like the former did. IMO, we will continue seeing new discussions opening about this, like in the years before, though it'll always ultimately lead to this, until the party actually changes its position. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

RFC: What words should appear in the "political position" line of the infobox?

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

---

How should the modern National Rally be described in the infobox?

• Option #1: Right-wing to far right
• Option #2: Right-wing ONLY
• Option #3: Far-right ONLY
• Option #4: Radical right to far-right
• Option #5: Hard right to far-right
• Option #6: The political position line should be removed.
• Option #7: Other option not listed.

Looking to establish consensus. Thank you! KlayCax (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Strongly Option #3

It is not only described by multiple encyclopedia and news articles as "far-right",

"French opposition parties made hurried deals Tuesday to try to block a landslide victory for Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally in Sunday’s second round of legislative elections," (AP)

but is described specifically as a "representing [...] a neofascist movement", "the fringe neofascist party", "a fringe neofascist group", and as of "neofascist origins". Neo-fascism is a specific far-right ideology.

"representing a uniquely French twist on western Europe’s maturing neofascist movement." (Britannica)

"She has transformed the fringe neofascist party founded by her father into a mainstream political force with a shot at winning a majority and naming the next prime minister." (WP)

"which had hoped that Sunday would mark the final step in its transformation from a fringe neofascist group into a mainstream political force." (WP)

"neofascist origins." (CNN)

1101 (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: First-past-the-post isn't how most Wikipedia RFCs are handled. The default is to have at least three separate options ("Support", "Neutral", "Oppose") for each alternative when choosing between discrete categories.

The good news is there's a reasonable interpretation of the votes here, because they're single-peaked. Votes for "right-wing" probably prefer "right-wing to far-right" to "far-right", and vice versa for votes supporting "far-right". i.e. we can compare all votes for #2 to votes for #1+#3, and also votes for #2+#1 vs. #3, in a one-on-one comparison. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

What? It is my understanding that some people want right-wing to far-right, a very small minority wants right-wing only (meaning "droite" or 'moderate right' in French) and a huge majority wants far-right (extrême-droite) only. The French wikipedia has far-right only too, it's not that crazy you know. 80.187.72.156 (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you accidentally replied to the wrong person, or else didn't read my comment; I said nothing at all about which position people should take, just making a point about the RfC format. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

(Note: I have left a RfC notice on the following related WikiProjects: Conservatism, France, Politics, and Political parties) --Vacant0 (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 3 is the most logical, it's what the party id described by the vast majority of sources, (even when it's called right wing, it's generally to avoid repetition) and it's their position in the two main institutions it partakes in, the european Parliament and the French National Assembly, beyond that, even alleging that the party moderated it's views and was now a simple right wing party (definitly not the consensus) it doesn't change that historically it was far right The basque savior (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: per the article on Politico 1 While the national press agency, Agence France-Presse, and the daily newspaper of record, continue to describe the National Rally as “far right,” other outlets have updated their vocabulary to 'right-wing populist' or 'nationalist right.' There's also already a statement in the lead saying some media outlets have started to refer to the party as "right-wing populist" or "nationalist right" instead, arguing that it has substantially moderated from its years under Jean-Marie Le Pen. so just to avoid contradiction this should be the option--FMSky (talk) 07:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  @FMSky But that doesn't say it's right wing as opposed to far-right. Parties can be right-wing populist, nationalist right, and still be far-right (infact, the far-right is almost always if not just always nationalist, and is very often populist). So that doesn't say anything about it not being far-right. A Socialist Trans Girl 04:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  It seems that you agree that the party can reasonably be described as both right-wing and far-right, so why not both? JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Is this addressed towards me or FMSky? A Socialist Trans Girl 04:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  It seems like you are saying that the party can be accurately described as "right-wing" as in "right-wing populist," but that far-right also incorporates this, is that correct? JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  The party is far-right; a party being right-wing populist doesn't mean it's specifically right-wing (as opposed to centre-right or far-right). There is no "centre-right populism" nor "far-right populism", right-wing populism is a specific type of 'Populism' which far-right parties often are. There's not many sources describing it as right-wing as opposed to far-right. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 There are no sources that describe the party as "Right-wing to far right", "Radical right to far-right" or "Hard right to far-right" therefore if we would choose one of these three options, we would only misrepresent the actual sources that are used for "right-wing", "far-right", "radical right", and "hard right". Also, "hard right" is usually used as a synonym for "far-right", therefore having the fifth option would not make sense at all. Having "to" between two positions presents the party as taking a broad position between these two positions. This in some cases might be true, but we'd need sources for that. In the case of RN, this is not true. Being described as "far-right" clearly says that the party is on the far end of the right-wing political spectrum. While there are sources for the party being right-wing, what would the addition of right-wing add? It could create confusion, that the party has moderated and abandoned its far-right image, which has not happened, considering that we have fresh sources still calling the party far-right (some peer-reviewed scholarly articles that were published this year: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6), or could even whitewash the party's image, considering that most of RN's policies have not changed. These sources that have called RN "right-wing" aren't actually anything new, you can easily find sources even from the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, when the party was also called neo-fascist! I truly do not see a reason to change its position from "far-right" to "right-wing" or anything else when it actually has not changed. If RN actually moderates and abandons the far-right the same way like Jobbik did then we could talk about changing the position, but for now, it should stay like this, in my opinion. The Politico source that FMSky provided is great, I find these line from that article to be considered when choosing your option: “If you take Marine Le Pen’s comments … there is no doubt for me that she belongs to the far right,” Cécile Alduy, a language specialist and researcher who has written books about Le Pen’s language, told business daily Les Echos., But she has never gone so far as to repudiate her father’s legacy completely, for example by publicly denouncing the racism, antisemitism and xenophobia of her party’s earlier years., Le Pen may not be the political ogre her father was, but she does still embody a form of politics that is far more radical and transgressive than she’d like it to appear.. Thanks! --Vacant0 (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  So you are telling me that the party, which was once lead by a former SS member, and has now kicked out this person and is lead, in large part, by a man of mixed Italian and Algerian origin, would not have had to moderate its actual ideals in order to do this?

  Even if they didn't change one bit, then it would be clear that the Overton Window has changed, with them not even being the most right-wing party with representation and having >35% of the vote concentrated in their party and parties to their right. Political positions are inherently relative to other positions, and who votes for who.

  Consequently, since they have moderated their image they are no longer far-right, and even if they hadn't, we still wouldn't be justified in calling National Rally far-right. 172.56.17.54 (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I would lean towards Option 1, since this party has significantly moderated its positions in recent years under the leadership of Marine Le Pen, but I am in doubt since I could not find sources describing RN simply as a right-wing party. Can anyone provide sources for this stance?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Out of the sources mentionned below, only 3 (2,3 and 7) mention the National Rally as simply "right wing" all of the others call it "far right" and only uses "right wing" to avoid repetition, you can probably find some sources that do the same thing with any other far right party. None of them attempt to analyse the actual political position of it and certanly aren't trying to make a statement about it, if we had no other sources about it's political position, beyond that, the party is nearly always called Far right in any source about it, and the actual institutions it partakes it, the National Assembly and the European Parliament consider it far right, it also has historically been far right, so alleging that it's "right wing to far right" is giving undue weight to passing statement by some journalists. The basque savior (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  not to quibble but you'll find ... putting the spendthrift far right within reach of power" in the very first sentence of #2. 🧐 -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Here — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMSky (talk • contribs)

Not all sources are unambiguous in this regard, however I reiterate my preference for Option 1.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 as per 2020 consensus, as well as the discussion above which indicates that "radical right" is an academic (non-pejorative) synonym for "far right". I would recommend serious comparison of FMSky's journalistic references (almost all of which call the party "far right") with those academic sources provided by Vacant0 above (as well as those provided in the discussion above since the last RfC). Insofar as the FN/RN is considered by experts to be the "prototype" of pan-European radical right (nationalist & populist) parties, it would be WP:UNDUE to change the infobox to reflect a tiny minority of passing mentions in journalistic briefs that are (in one case above) four sentences long and in most cases are used only for stylistic variation. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 very clearly, since it has been its universal descriptor for decades in every reliable French media outlet ("extrême droite"), and the variation in English is almost exclusively stylistic as mentioned above. The fact that the party is strategically engaging in rebranding efforts is irrelevant to their well documented ideological alignment and political positions. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 14:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Agree Option 3 is how the party is described in English and the translation of how it is described in French. Newystats (talk) 06:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Strongly Option 2

The link that Wikipedia has to "far-right politics" has an image of people marching with a Nazi flag, and refrences to political violence. Traditionally, examples of the far right have pointed to parties like The Nationalists in France, or Die Heimat in Germany. "Far-right" is meant, clearly, to refer to fringe parties, and not to what now constitutes that main right-wing party in France. Thus Far-right, and its implications, are so far divorced from the reality of National Rally's rhetoric that it would be downright silly to claim that it is somehow represented by this. 172.56.17.54 (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

1. We do as sources say, and all sources call it far right
2. The far right politics article uses a picture of the nazis because thats the most famous exemple of the far right
3. The National Front is undoubtedly a descendent of the Vichy French and of the nazis, as the party was founded by SS members
4. The Party adopts far right rethoric, beyond all the fascist stuff that Jean Marie Le Pen used to say, like calling the holocaust a point of detail, repeatedly, or critising the supposed jewish dominance of the Media, there is still to this day contreversies about its links to far right militias and also the extremism of it's representatives, such as the mayor of Cholet who said that Hitler didn't kill enough people

Clear the National Rally is an exemple of a fringe far right party that stops being fringe and getting closer to power. The basque savior (talk) 06:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Granted, using the past of a party to talk about its current ideology would mean we should list the American Democrats as far-right for supporting slavery. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The current ideology of the RN, like its past ideology, is far-right and may even be described as "fringe" or, more recently, as "once fringe".

Motivated in part by the deadly Islamic extremist attacks at home and at a Florida gay nightclub, a growing bloc of traditionally left-leaning gay voters has embraced far-right French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen, leader of the once-fringe National Front party. (AP)

Courting LGBT voters, “pinkwashing” the far-right, has been a delicate dance for Le Pen. (AP)

Former soldier Jean-Marie Le Pen founds the National Front, a fringe far-right party comprised of veterans from the Algerian war and French collaborators from the Vichy regime. (Reuters)

France's Far Right National Front Gains Ground Ahead Of Elections (NPR)

The leader of a once-fringe party shadowed by its defense of World War II-era Nazi collaboration is just one round of ballots away from a backflip into the center of her nation’s political life. (Washington Post)

Simply becoming mainstreamed in France doesn't mean that a political party can't be far-right. It is possible for a far-left or far-right party to become mainstream in a country's political system, isn't it? I'm sure other far-right movements have been mainstream before, e.g. the Nazi Party was a mainstream, far-right, fascist party in Germany from the '30s until the end of World War II. 1101 (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 - (coming from WP:RFC/A) Per overwhelming and consistent usage by reliable sources as provided above. Fieari (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 because it is how the RN continues to be described by the overwhelming majority of French media sources. On the governmental side, the Conseil d'État rejected the RN's appeal to not be labeled as far-right in March 2024, and the Ministry of the Interior has officially assigned the appellation of "union of the far-right" to the Ciotti/RN-invested candidates. Quoting a French political scientist from an article published today on this question (copy/paste translations below via DeepL):

"There's also no dispute at LFI about republican values. There is an interpretation, which can sometimes be surprising. On the other hand, at the RN, there are challenges from Marine le Pen and some of its members. That it is classified as far-right is not an aberration in view of its history and its current program, which is not in the republican field."

What else separates the RN from being classified as a right-wing party? "It's the reference to parliamentarianism, anti-Semitism, racism, xenophobia, and on that point of view, as well as on a certain number of republican values of freedom and equality, the RN has to prove itself." The Rassemblement National may appear to be softening its program, or even blurring the trail of its intentions, but the shadow of the FN still hangs over it.

This article also makes the case as to why the party should still be considered far-right:

Firstly, the abolition of droit du sol (in favor of droit du sang). In short, a child born in France to foreign parents will no longer be considered French. Jordan Bardella has made this a priority. This principle, which became a republican foundation in 1889, has been in force since the 16th century. This abolition of the droit du sol, an obsession with identity for decades, has always been part of Jean-Marie Le Pen's Front National program.

Another RN flagship measure: national preference in the allocation of social housing or so-called non-contributory social benefits, such as family allowances. Such a measure is unconstitutional, and therefore requires a revision of the Constitution: the immigration law proved the point. At issue is the constitutional principle of equality, enshrined in Article 6 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man. We're talking here about a legacy of the French Revolution, a republican pillar that the RN would like to do away with.

This certain conception of the rule of law can also be found in the systematic questioning of the Constitutional Council. And its sole aim is to remove the legal obstacles to the establishment of state xenophobia. Which is exactly the matrix of a far-right movement: an organicist vision of society. In other words, a uniform nation perceived as a living being, biologically threatened by foreign bodies.

This vision is supported by other very clear markers. The promotion of a security state, in which police officers enjoy a "presumption of self-defense", is one. Others include contempt for the elites and the trade unions, and the end of funding for family planning. So many signs that Jordan Bardella remains the president of a far-right party. And that the implementation of his project would provoke a veritable earthquake.

Here's another two recent interviews with French political scientists who identify the party as "far-right":

• Félicien Faury in Télérama (12 June 2024)
• Tristan Boursier in Sud Ouest (21 June 2024)

From the French national broadcaster today (23 June 2024):

Around Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella, a small circle of advisors try to anticipate the arrival of the far-right party in power. ...

Also described as "far-right" recently in the following national (as opposed to local) media:

• Le Monde (22 June 2024)
• Le Parisien (17 June 2024)
• Les Echos (20 June 2024)
• Libération (23 June 2024)
• 20 Minutes (21 June 2024)
• L'Opinion via AFP (24 June 2024)
• Le Point (10 June 2024)
• L'Express (23 June 2024)
• Challenges (23 June 2024)
• TF1 (12 June 2024)
• Radio France (14 June 2024)
• Public Sénat (10 June 2024)
• France Bleu (11 June 2024)
• Even the Bolloré-controlled Europe 1 (10 June 2024) – which generally covers the RN extremely favorably compared to other French news media – still recently described them as a "far-right party" (even though, according to employees, they're not allowed to do so) and for those not familiar with him, here's a Nieman Lab profile which describes his media empire as the "Fox News of France"

24.19.232.205 (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

References

• Option 3 because it is how the RN continues to be described by the overwhelming majority of French media sources. as shown above and because any hyphenated option would in fact be WP:SYNTH, since There are no sources that describe the party as "Right-wing to far right", "Radical right to far-right" or "Hard right to far-right".Pincrete (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 Michalis1994 (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, both descriptors have been used in sources and the RN's agenda in 2024 isn't really any more radical than the Ciotti wing of LR. Using both terms is a good compromise, similar to what was reached on other talk pages with similar discussions.--Jay942942 (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 3 per sources given, but I'm personally dismayed that far-right as a term is being diluted Kowal2701 (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option #3: I think far-right is the most accurate and neutral term to use in the article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option #3. It is generally agreed that it is far-right. It should be noted that options 4 and 5 do not make much sense, as the political spectrum being used goes "Far left, left-wing, centre-left, centre, centre-right, right-wing, and far-right", and Radical right and Hard right are not on it. Given the party's strong far-rightness, I believe it should be far-right. A Socialist Trans Girl 22:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

My previous explanation was kinda shit, so I shall elaborate upon it.

I will go over all the sources for far-right, and all those as right-wing (as opposed to right-wing).

• Sources describing National Rally as far-right (69 sources (nice)): [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69]
• Sources describing National Rally as right wing, rather than far-right (8 sources): ⦍1⦎⦍2⦎⦍3⦎⦍4⦎⦍5⦎⦍6⦎⦍7⦎⦍8⦎

Now, lets evaluate the 8 sources which say that National Rally is right wing as opposed to far-right.

1. A right-wing unreliable source which has been found liable for lying about politics in court
2. A conservative american editorial
3. A conservative american tabloid
4. Russian state owned media
5. Russian state owned media
6. Russian state owned media
7. Russian state owned media
8. Russian state owned media

Quite clearly, there is absolutely no validity to it being right-wing and not far-right, and I am absolutely perplexed as to how some editors support option 1. A Socialist Trans Girl 08:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/france-national-rally-party-marine-le-pen-election-b1167515.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/07/01/marine-le-pen-national-rally-leader-redefined-party-french/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-07-04/france-election-marine-le-pen-betrays-her-past-to-widen-national-rally-s-appeal

https://kbindependent.org/2024/07/01/frances-right-wing-gets-initial-win-what-happens-in-runoff/

RS JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Not that it wouldn't be far-right, but it may incorportate elements of both the far-right and right-wing. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The bloomberg one describes it as far-right. The country has been shaken by the prospect of the far-right takeover, as the National Rally leader flirts with the center ground.

The Telegraph is a Conservative paper which is biased when it comes to politics.

That KB independent article describes it as far-right 7 times.

That the standard article describes it as far-right, saying Even though National Rally has toned itself down recently, it is still regarded as a far-Right party whose rise to power would significantly alter Europe.

To find the right wing ones, I searched "National rally" "right-wing" -"far-right". A Socialist Trans Girl 22:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The Telegraph IS a reliable source, I suggest you look at the list of sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources.

And being far-right doesn't mean, that the party can't be right-wing. We can write "right-wing to far-right" in the infobox, like here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlaams_Belang 62.217.185.86 (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

You have said what I am trying to say better than I have. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

If a small minority of sources define them as right wing it might be undue to represent that on par with the far-right label. Right wing to far right means the party is in between right wing and far right, which sources don't support Kowal2701 (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I've read RSP. You'll note it says "Some editors believe that The Daily Telegraph is biased or opinionated for politics." I'm some editors. Where I come from it is often referred to as "the Tory-graph" because of its longstanding reputation for political bias.

Anyway: "Right-wing to far-right" implies, correctly, that far-right and more mainstream right-wing are two separate things. The overwhelming majority of sources say far-right and do not describe it as more moderate "right-wing". Including the latter would therefore be false balance. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

This is an actually reasonable objection to the "right-wing to far-right," and I am willing to accept this. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@62.217.185.86 I did look at the perennial source list. That's where I saw that it's biased/opinionated on the matter of politics. A Socialist Trans Girl 04:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@62.217.185.86 This is where we must distinguish between two types of the description 'right-wing'. The first meaning that it is to the right of centre on the political spectrum. The second is that it is positioned between the centre-right and the far-right. In the first sense, RN is right of centre; this is why not all sources saying the party is right-wing are implying that it is between the centre-right and far-right.

In the second sense, reliable sources do not describe it that way.

Regardless, one biased/opinionated source does not overweigh 69 opposing sources. That would be undue. A Socialist Trans Girl 05:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 for the reasons above. We've had this discussion before, and there's been no significant change to the consensus since then. AnOpenBook (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
• Closure: it would be appreciated if someone who has not participated could formally close this. Discussion has died out and the conclusion is obvious, but it is apparently still best to ask a non-participant to close an RfC. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  You can WP:Request closure Kowal2701 (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's a bit of a Catch-22 actually. The instructions say not to ask at that page if the result is obvious, but not to close an RfC if you have participated.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Personally I think you're fine to close it, it's only if you were the nominator really imo Kowal2701 (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  My reading of the policy is that an uninvolved editor is better, especially in contentious cases, but that when there is extremely clear consensus, you don't necessarily need one. So I'd say fire ahead. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  That said, the person who created the RfC can withdraw (but not close) it. This is one possible solution. I would note that should @KlayCax: decide to withdraw the nomination per WP:SNOW they should so without any comment other than that there is a strong consensus not to change the status quo. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 12:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  @SashiRolls Agreed. Sources overwhelmingly support option 3 and not much more discussion is to be had A Socialist Trans Girl 03:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Islam

There is no reason to remove well-sourced material like this[70]. The National Rally has proposed restrictions on Muslims various times, these have been well documented in reliable secondary sources.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

"Revert" cannot be a valid reason when removing content that is backed up by reliable sources. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and I think the Public Broadcasting Service is generally accepted as a good source, if that's the removal you're referring to. 1101 (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Far right when the party has substantially moderated under Marine's leadership?

I could understand it being considered far-right when Jean-Marie Le Pen was in charge, but now? I think simply "right-wing" would work, perhaps "syncretic" due to RN's support for certain progressive policies such as abortion and gay marriage. 80.102.106.180 (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say about topics, and the overwhelming majority of those refer to the RN as far-right. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

So just being tougher on immigration than the Center-Right parties (LR in this case) is enough to be fair right? 85.48.189.110 (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not just about Immigration, it's also about their antisemtism, racism, and islamophobia... The basque savior (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Le Pen is not against homosexuality, the welfare state, secularism or any fundamental left wing policy except for wanting a stricter immigration policy 90.166.195.71 (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@The basque savior First, It's actually not about that because that was historically and is not present day. Being anti-immigration is not fundamentally racist or islamophobic. But more importantly, It's not about what we as Wikipedia editors would define as far right. It's what the media says that goes and everyone is using the term "far right" to describe RN. Alexysun (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, this isn't about how I or any other Wikipedia user would define far right. It is about reflecting what reliable sources say. Merely the first page of Google News indicates to me that the BBC, New York Times, Al Jazeera, Sky News, Euronews, Politico, the Guardian, the Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, the Financial Times, France 24, Foreign Policy, the Times of Israel, RFI, Time Magazine, CNBC, ABC, NPR, DW and the Moscow Times, among others, all call this party far-right. So Wikipedia is going to as well. AntiDionysius (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

IP user, I definitely agree, but unfortunately that is what the media calls RN. Alexysun (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: This entire analysis is a blatant attempt to distort reality by individuals who shamelessly seek to deceive. Marine Le Pen's arbitrary decision to label herself as centre-right is laughable and does nothing to erase her past or her party's deep-rooted connections to neo-Nazi ideologies, rabid Islamophobia, a vehemently anti-immigration stance, and relentless antisemitism that champions illiberal democracy. These characteristics, enshrined in the party's manifesto, indisputably classify it as far-right—a fact backed by reliable sources. The party's nature will not change unless it undergoes a radical and genuine ideological transformation. Until that highly unlikely day, any comments downplaying this reality should be outright dismissed and not given the dignity of debate. The consensus is crystal clear, the sources are irrefutable, and any contrary assertions are nothing more than desperate attempts by deluded party supporters to warp the truth. It is infuriating to see such transparent dishonesty being peddled, and it must be called out for the deceitful propaganda it truly is. Michalis1994 (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Detoxifying/whitewashing an image, does not moderate political views, kids. Michalis1994 (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that anyone seriously would contend that the party is center-right. There may be enough of a moderate element to call it "right-wing to far-right," however.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/france-national-rally-party-marine-le-pen-election-b1167515.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/07/01/marine-le-pen-national-rally-leader-redefined-party-french/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-07-04/france-election-marine-le-pen-betrays-her-past-to-widen-national-rally-s-appeal

There's some sources which seem to be fairly unbiased which paint it in a more "right-wing" light. There is no doubt some serious attempts at whitewashing on the part of Le Pen. However, there clearly have been some legitimate change in their ideology since it was a fascist movement, and this should be reflected here. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The Telegraph is not unbiased. And as I said above the BBC, New York Times, Al Jazeera, Sky News, Euronews, Politico, the Guardian, the Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, the Financial Times, France 24, Foreign Policy, the Times of Israel, RFI, Time Magazine, CNBC, ABC, NPR, DW and the Moscow Times, among others, all call this party far-right. That's fairly overwhelming consensus. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

https://kbindependent.org/2024/07/01/frances-right-wing-gets-initial-win-what-happens-in-runoff/

Here's one more source. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

No genuine change has occurred. The only change was when she expelled her father and declared the end of extremism in her party. This does not alter the fact that she remains far-right. Michalis1994 (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

If you truly believe that the ideology of National Rally has not changed at all from when it was run by a former SS-member who was blatantly fascist, then I can't help you. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Incredible argumentation. Solid, very thoroughly discussed. Thank you Oprah! Michalis1994 (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You are making the argument that no matter what outward appearance or actions the party takes, it is still fascist at its core. This is not an argument with evidence to back it, as any evidence regarding whether the party has moderated consists of observation of their appearance and actions. Therefore, your argument is instead a statement of faith made regardless of evidence, which thus cannot be disproved with evidence, so I won't even try. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Mate, candidates are actually resigning over using Nazi symbolism. Are you alright? That loss must have really rattled you! Michalis1994 (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not French, and have no skin in this game. Yet again, these are instances where these candidates have been rejected and removed over this. The latter would not have happened in the National Rally of 15 years ago. Yet you point to instances of scandal that do not represent the party, and you do this in such a way that, by your logic, the German CDU would be far-right because half the people at the Potsdam meeting were from the CDU. Yet that is different for some reason, not because it truly is different, but because you want it to be. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You either haven't read history or you are not familiar with the National Rally, so I will let you to it, sport. Michalis1994 (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Don't use personal attacks and insults. Otherwise you'll be reported for disruptive behavior 62.217.185.86 (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The fact that the former fascist party National Rally openly started a campaign of "dediabolization" while the party structures are still intact, and around 80-100 candidates are found to have questionable declarations, plus the fact that it was allied to the AfD, considered far-right by the official German standards (ie "fascism" or almost), and it has no problems allying with former Reconquête members (even more far-right), prove the party is far-right. The party promotes the Great Replacement conspiracy theory, wants to stop binationals from holding positions of responsibility, privatize public TV (while their supporter Bolloré owns several media, and weirdly every time he buys something it become pro-NR, what a coincidence! Cnews (largest news channel), JDD, Canal +), and there has been an explosion of openly racist commentary from the 10-15 percent voter base in the week between two rounds.

In addition to this, the ministry of the interior (not necessarily the conseil d'état, as some have claimed, that’s different), which does these classifications notably for "purposes of political analysis", does classify both Reconquête and National Rally as "far-right" in elections. 80.209.216.81 (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

For reference, the conseil d'état ruling is sourced in the infobox. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Wait, that might be journals misunderstanding, or not, I'm not sure anymore honestly. The thing that's certain is the classification for elections by the ministry of interior. 80.209.216.81 (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it, the CdE ruled that there is nothing illegal about the Interior Ministry's classification, which is not the same as saying the CdE classified the NR as far-right. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 07:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

How many seats does the political party really hold in the French National Assembly?

(1) The philosophy of the timing of the edit to be made: Should we count the number of seats they won, even if just minutes ago? Or is the RN NOT yet officially occupying the number of seats it won? Shouldn't we wait for the number to be made official and the transition of power to occur before changing the number? According to the BBC, "We're now getting a much clearer picture of how many actual seats the parties have won. Based on a calculation by French newspaper Le Monde, which uses government polling data, we’ve come up with this chart." (French election results 2024: Projections show surprise lead for left alliance - BBC News)

That doesn't sound very definitive to me. Why don't we wait for the count to finish instead of editing an article based on projections? I am considering undoing the edit as a temporary fix until we have a definitive source on the count

(2) The precise number and the question of allies to the party: Is it really 143 (National Rally: Difference between revisions) as was written in the recent edit and the info-graphic from the BBC, or is it rather 142 (How the Far-Right National Rally Did in France’s Elections - The New York Times) as written the recent NYT article?

The BBC figure states, "It shows the New Popular Front leftist alliance as the biggest group in the new National Assembly, followed by President Macron’s centrist Ensemble party and, in third place, the far-right National Rally and its allies [emphasis mine]." So should the count including an ally be in the page for the RN, or should the RN's own page only include the count for its own party? Perhaps we should include a phrase like "National Rally + allies" in order to indicate the addition of allies to the RN to the count, in accordance with the BBC image? Thanks. 1101 (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

At the very least, a citation next to the number may help to clarify its source. 1101 (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

"Convicted holocaust denier" contention

So there's this sentence: "Holocaust denier Jean-Marie Le Pen founded the party and was its leader until his resignation in 2011." Someone added the adjective "Holocaust denier" on election day. Now whether or not that adjective is true, just based on the timing of that addition I would argue that this edit was not made with a neutral point of view, but rather trying to influence readers. Alexysun (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

He is a holocaust denier though. And a convicted one! Not sure what the non-neutral POV is? Michalis1994 (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Jean Marie Le Pen? “He is a convicted Holocaust denier”

—James McAuley for the Washington Post. (He holds a PhD in French history from the University of Oxford, where he was a Marshall Scholar.) 1101 (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

What's more likely is that far-right neofascist extremists are making a concerted effort to edit Wikipedia to deny their own party, movement, and leaders' Holocaust denial. “‘This is what Holocaust deniers are trying to do: They take a lie and dress it up as an opinion to be debated.’” 1101 (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

“PARIS (JTA) — A French court upheld the Holocaust denial conviction of the far-right activist Jean-Marie Le Pen, while a different tribunal acquitted another prominent racist of hate incitement charges.”

“I was a twenty-eight-year-old reporter, and Jewish, about to visit the home of Jean-Marie Le Pen, one of the country’s most notorious Holocaust deniers and far-right agitators.”

“ST. CLOUD, France — He is a convicted Holocaust denier but also the patriarch of the party that could soon triumph in France's presidential election.”

“PARIS — For years, Jean-Marie Le Pen — the convicted Holocaust denier and aging patriarch of the French and European far right — has floated the idea of a memoir, although the project was always withdrawn as soon as it was announced.” 1101 (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Today I see that this is being fought about again. I personally do not think it would be appropriate to introduce a person for the first time into an entry as "convicted holocaust denier" unless this is the thing they are most known for. Such "poisoning of the well" is not persuasive and usually has the unintended effect of making the reader suspicious of the authors' motives. I would suggest letting the facts do the talking without pushing secondary facts in front of primary ones (Le Pen is primarily known as the founder of the party). There is plenty of space in the entry for newer articles to be added about those convictions... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, it is a fact and I think a notable one. Michalis1994 (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's already mentioned at least twice in the article. I think it's more important to note in the lead that it was created by Ordre Nouveau as its political arm, the year before the government banned the latter for its violent street actions. FWIW, FMSky is right that he wasn't convicted yet in 1972. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

He wasnt a convicted holocaust denier when he founded the party in 1972 (his conviction came in 1999), so its completely nonsensical to have this there--FMSky (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It was only recently added by a drive-by user on 8 July https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=National_Rally&diff=1233291850&oldid=1233290321 without consensus. Accordingly, it will be removed until a consensus is found --FMSky (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)