Talk:National Alliance (Latvia)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130826115542/http://uudisvoog.postimees.ee/?DATE=20130826&ID=318889 to http://uudisvoog.postimees.ee/?DATE=20130826&ID=318889

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not a far-right party

So let's see the sources:

• https://euobserver.com/eu-political/144990 in a news article on Slovakia pasingly mentions party's election results "The far-right National Alliance, which uses neo-Nazi symbols, climbed two points to 16 percent in third place." There is no analysis of their ideology, they don't even explain what neo-Nazi symbols they are refering to. Supposing they mean the traditional ornaments in their logo, unlike in some other countries where traditionak symbols and even national flags are only used by extremists, in Latvia traditional ornaments and other national symbols are popular to use by everyone for whatever.
• https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/world/europe/latvian-prime-minister-resigns-after-less-than-two-years.html also a news article that claims party is far right with no supporting evidence.
• https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204059804577229323458664002 this one is behind paywall, but given the subject matter presumably it is a news article reporting that the party took stance held by 74% of voters see 2012 Latvian constitutional referendum
• The only reference that discusses ideology is "Auers, Daunis; Kasekamp, Andres (2013). Comparing Radical-Right Populism in Estonia and Latvia. Right-Wing Populism in Europe: Politics and Discourse. London/New York: Bloomsbury. pp. 235–248." Googling it brings it up and it only says that National Power Unity is far right, which is a different, fringe party.

The issue here is not that not enough references have been added that randomly claim that party is far right based on whatever superficial narative the media was into at the time, but rather that the party actually is not far right extremists, they're moderate nationalists, there is no need to try and find references that fit an idea, Wikipedia should reflect the reality, at the very least these sources should say what views they consider far right ~~Xil (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I see that despite one person being keen to revert and call for discussion, no discussion is actually occuring. Therefore I am removing claims that the party is far right, which is not really substantiated by sources. There is a large difference between party being nationalist conservative and extremism. They are not extremists. ~~Xil (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I see that I've again been reverted, whitout any interest in the discussion. I stumbled on a rare case that proves a negative - Latvian national media platform has published a guide [1] foreign journalists listing common blunders in election coverage, including that this party is not far-right. So I'll be restoring my edits again ~~Xil (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This does seem to be a case of WP:FALSEBALANCE and in part WP:PARTISAN. For the handful of years old sources alleging far-right/radical right ideology, there are plenty of recent reputable mainstream sources from across the world describing the party's ideology as either just "right-wing" (such as Foreign Policy Research Institute, Xinhua, The Guardian, Special Broadcasting Service etc.) or even "centre-right" (such as Deutsche Welle, Atlantic Council, Associated Press, republished by many other news outlets, including the very same Washington Post that 11 years ago labelled the party as "far-right"). Only two of the added sources actually attempt to somewhat analyze the party's ideology beyond a passing mention and the "far right" label: Auers and Kasekamp's 2013 "Comparing Radical-Right Populism in Estonia and Latvia", which does indeed describe National Alliance as "radical-right populist" and Ijabs' 2018 Parliamentary Elections in Latvia, whom I wouldn't exactly consider impartial given that he was elected in the European Parliament representing the liberal Development/For! just 6 months later. And as @Xil: already pointed out, Public Broadcasting of Latvia published an article a few days ago refuting claims of the party's far-right ideology.

As for the "populist" label, Latvian political scientist Ilze Balcere in her 2014 article "Populism in the Manifestos of Latvian Political Parties: Increasingly used but Ineffective?" hasn't singled out the party as particularly populistic, giving it a populism score of 0% for its 2010 manifesto and a populism score of 21.95% for its 2011 manifesto, close or lower than that of some of the "non-populist" parties, such as Unity (18.18%; 2011), Zatlers' Reform Party (17.94%; 2011) and ForHRUL (24.07%; 2010). It is also worth pointing out that the co-author of Elections in Latvia: status quo for minorities remains" Aleksejs Dimitrovs has previously co-chaired the Latvian Human Rights Committee, whose chairpersons and other key people include and have included the party's political opponents from the now Latvian Russian Union, so I have doubts about his impartiality as well. Most recently, the minority and largely outdated and disproven claims of far-right ideology have been pushed by an anonymous IP address with little to no other edits and the user @Davide King: that so far has avoided participating in this discussion, while simultaneously restoring the very sources whose reliability Xil questioned. –Turaids (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

All those sources are reliable and I don't buy the "they don't explain the label" argument; most sources do it like that, it doesn't mean they aren't reliable for the label. A much better argument is whether the party has really moderated and if more recent sources don't use the 'far-right' label. Besides, their positions we currently post look in line with European radical-right parties, especially on immigration, and have used the "Cultural Marxism, postmodernistic multiculturalism" far-right troope, so if they have moderated, we aren't reporting in their positions. Ironically, the same Latvian source confirm that international reliable sources indeed use the 'far-right' label. While it may be an useful source for the country's politics, it's not the be-all-end-all and doesn't triumph plenty of reliable sources using the 'far-right' label just because they're "foreign". We don't even say it's far-right, just that it has also been placed on that extreme, which is true. If we want to improve the article, we must reflect reliable sources showing it has moderated, we don't do this by removing sourced content as has been done under guise justifications. Davide King (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have completely missed my main point. I didn't really say that all of the sources are unreliable, only the ones from Ijabs and Dimitrovs because of their apparent links to other politicians or political parties. What I am saying is that it's a minority and mostly outdated view that's either directly or indirectly contradicted by a multitude of other mainstream sources, including many recent ones. Continuing to stuff the "far-right" label in the infobox is definitely a WP:FALSEBALANCE, because of the handful of sources that have called them "far-right" there are numerous sources that don't. And the same goes for the "populist" label in the lead section and infobox. We can and definitely should mention somewhere in the Ideology and policies section the several reliable scholars and news outlets that have called the party "far-right"/"populist" followed by the opposing sources (LSM and Balcere), but the lead section and infobox is not for that. All parties consist of different factions with varying degrees of views, but summarizing a party's political position as ranging from centre-right to far-right in an attempt to include every single minority opinion is painting it with the broadest brush possible and doesn't really say anything. –Turaids (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Dimitrovs wasn't the sole author and he was published in an academic journal, that's all that matters. As for Ijabs, he's clearly not the only one who says the party is radical right or far right; what matters is that they're both supported by other sources. I agree that it doesn't make sense the "Centre-right to far-right" classification but that's because I don't see how this is a centre-right party; perhaps it is now, but it's not reflected in the body. Either way, when sources disagree, we provide both of them, provided that they're also generally equally reliable, we don't chose one as you did with just 'Right-wing' or even 'Centre-right'. The lead is supposed to summarize the body, and the scholars and news outlets are a part of the body. Davide King (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I see no 'centre-right':

• https://www.radicalrightanalysis.com/tag/latvian-national-alliance/
• https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/right-wing-populism-in-europe-politics-and-discourse/ch16-comparing-radical-right-populism-in-estonia-and-latvia
• https://www.fpri.org/article/2022/10/new-unitys-new-partners-coalition-building-after-latvias-2022-elections/
• http://umu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:1472235
• https://populism-europe.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Working-Paper-7.pdf
• https://populism-europe.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Petsinis-CARR.pdf

Davide King (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure you understand how Wikipedia and summarizing works. Wikipedia doesn't care what you or I think the party's ideology is, which is why the bulk of your first reply where you attempt to analyze the party's ideology is irrelvant. And when it comes to summarizing, we do, in fact, select what to include in the lead section and the infobox and what not to include, but not on some arbitrary whim like you try to make it sound as. The references I've provided describe the party as "center right" regardless of how you personally see things, which is why "center right" goes in the lead section and the infobox. And contrary to you, it's not me saying the "far right" label is inaccurate, it's the Latvian public broadcaster. The political alliance Harmony Centre had the far left Socialist Party in its ranks and yet no one has tried putting "far left" as the alliance's political position. –Turaids (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)