Talk:Vox (political party)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Ideology

Hey folks, I guess my last edit of Ideology section may make some of you nervous :) I removed some sentenses from the first few paragraph, as they all were cited from the same Ferreira's work, which I used to write a new stand-alone paragraph summing up why Ferreira comes to the conclusion that Vox is far-right, and what nuances he sees in that regard. If somebody feels that I removed something which is not in that paragraph, I guess, feel free to expand it, although it might be a better idea to add them to the separate sub-sections we have below, and keep the overview summary of Ferreira PoV brief.

I would also just removed the now second paragraph of Ideology, namely this: Starting with a focus in economically liberal stances and recentralization proposals, the focus of their message shifted towards stances compatible with European right-wing populism,[75] endorsing discourses against Islam and illegal immigration,[75][76] as well as criticism of multiculturalism.[77] Their view of European Union is that of a Euroscepticism, arguing that Spain should make no sovereignty concessions to the EU, because they consider Spanish sovereignty to reside in the Spanish nation alone.[15][78] They propose to eliminate Spain's autonomous communities.[79] In addition, they seek the return of Gibraltar to full Spanish sovereignty.[80], as it feels like all points in this paragraph are now covered in the ideology sub-sections below. Just wanna check, if anybody has strong feelings about it? Birdofpreyru (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, one thing keeps me curious and puzzled after reading the Ferreira's article. Looking at the Table 2, where he sums up his views on ideologic nuances of "radical right" (derecha radical), "far right" (extrema derecha), and "conservativism", it seems that he implies that the decisive characteristic of "far-right" is to be anti-democratic (which quite matches my views); and then in his analysis he says that Vox is clearly non-violent, and fully democratic party (which also matches my views, and which is the reason I am quite opposing labeling Vox as "far-right"); and then in his summary he still calls Vox "far-right", although not autocratic, nor anti-democratic. Anybody can clarify what am I missing here? Has I overlooked some logic link in the body of article? Is anything lost in translation (like he does not translate "far-right" <> "extrema derecha")? Birdofpreyru (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Birdofpreyru: Responding to your side note, I suspect that Ferreira might not consider "far-right" equivalent to "extrema derecha" (I haven't yet looked at the source though, so I'm not 100% sure). I know that there are some academics who distinguish between radical right (Europe), extreme right, and far-right, where the definitions of "radical right" and "extreme right" match what you have stated, but "far-right" can encompass both (i.e., the phrase "far-right parties" would refer to both parties of the radical right and parties of the extreme right). However, this definition isn't consistent among academics, so I would be a little careful with that. Ezhao02 (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any of this could be easily avoided if we had actual sources commenting what those authors have said. If we say A says or thinks this, citing it to A themselves rather than to independent, secondary reliable source B, we are always risking engaging in original research and presenting undue views, no matter that we paraphrase them correctly. Such authors are secondary sources about the subject but become primary source when we are discussing their own views and interpretation. The whole reason there are so many disputes is because most of the time we are using their own work as a cite for what they said rather than relying on what independent, secondary/tertiary sources have summarized for us. No article is going to be good if we do this. Said this, Ezhao02 is correct that the far right encompasses both radical right ('democratic') and extreme right (anti-democratic). The same is done for the far left (radical and extreme), for which there are even more issues, since the far right can be identified with fascism, radical right-wing populism, reactionarism, and the like, while there is not a clear agreement on where it begins and ends (is it anything to the left of social democracy, or anything to the left of the mainstream Communist party?). This is complicated by the fact "its main parties are no longer extreme, but present themselves as defending the values and policies that social democrats have allegedly abandoned." Davide King (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:OVERKILL. If we were to split hairs regarding the ideology (whether it is radical right, extreme right, etc.), we are missing the apparent general consensus among scholars that Vox is a far-right.--WMrapids (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@WMrapids: There is also general consensus that neo-Nazism is far-right, and apparently Vox is not a neo-Nazi party. Thus, radical vs. extreme right, etc. is not hair splitting, but a necessity to distinguish very different flavours of far-right, as long as left-wing propaganda insists to label as far-right everybody who does not agree with "progressive" ideas. Birdofpreyru (talk)
@Birdofpreyru: Please recognize that I was discussing a consensus among scholars and not "left-wing propaganda", so we don't need to throw in a red herring. One of the main disputes that has remained with this article is whether or not to describe the party as "far-right" or not. Going into the details is important and these analyses on what "type" of far-right are necessary, but it is also important to settle the main dispute first before diving into the details. As said before, there appears to be a consensus from scholars that Vox is far-right. When it comes to more detailed definitions from an appropriate source, it is obvious that we would just attribute their material if it were to be in the article.--WMrapids (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WMrapids, I agree :-) As for the other user's "There is also general consensus that neo-Nazism is far-right, and apparently Vox is not a neo-Nazi party." That's indeed a red herring, as 'far-right' is clearly not limited to neo-Nazism, and as I wrote above there're distinction between radical right and extreme right. I agree that 'far-right', with the note explaining the 'radical right' label, is reflected by academic sources. Davide King (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's indeed a red herring, as 'far-right' is clearly not limited to neo-Nazism < this is a demagogy, and the real red herring. As Wiki's article has to say regarding Far right politics in its second paragraph: Historically used to describe the experiences of Fascism, Nazism, and Falangism, far-right politics now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, National Bolshevism (culturally only) and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and/or reactionary views. I stand to my words: this is the sentiment you are trying to attach to Vox, or other right wing party when fighting to label it as far-right rather than right-wing (which technically includes far-right as well). It will help further discussion if you clarify, which of this you consider is the major factor to call Vox as far-right? Is it authoritarian? Ultra-nationalist? Chauvinist? Xenophobic? Theocratic? Racist? Homophobic? Transphobic? Reactionary? Which of this is supported by an academic consensus? Birdofpreyru (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what 'I' think, what matters is what reliable sources say. "Vox is considered part of the radical right, a subset of the far-right that does not oppose democracy." Davide King (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And those "reliable" sources you like happened to be Carles Ferreira and Xavier Casals, both academics in public Catalan institutes. I wonder, what would happened with their public research grants and positions in those universities if they wouldn't defend the point that Vox is ultra-far-radical-right, and say they are a regular conservative right party :D Birdofpreyru (talk) 07:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we reduce the size of ideologies in the infobox? It looks really bloated at the moment. --Vacant0 (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-immigration should certainly be restored. It was cited in the infobox with 6 reliable supporting citations explicitly supporting this claim, which is easily more than enough. The argument against by
WP:SYNTH. They just say the party is anti-immigration. Very few, if any, independent and reliable sources would use the term "anti-illegal immigration" when describing the party's ideologies. We go by what reliable sources explicitly state, which is clearly simply "anti-immigration". Helper201 (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The nature of article's infobox (and the lead) suggest that claims there are so evident from the main body of the article / have so widespread consensus, that they may be present in the infobox lead even without citations, as the article itself makes them apparent. That is not the case with "anti-immigration" claim, and that's why cite bombing was necessary to attempt to stick it to the infobox. Also, there are other reliable sources, given in the body of article, which do not consider the party "anti-immigration", thus there is no consensus on that, and thus it does not belong to the infobox.
Regarding 6 reliable supporting citations supporting this claim (see this version of the article just befor my edit). Four of them are from 2018-19: I'd say they are just outdated, especially considering significant development and rise of Vox to the prominence from 2019 and after. Out of two sources post 2019: one is this [1], which has exactly one passing mention of Vox as anti-immigration party, in a caption for an illustration. Does not look a solid source to place the claim to the infobox. The other source from 2022 is this one [2]. As per
WP:RSOPINION in mind. Regarding Vox idelogy, that article says the xenophobic and anti-immigration Vox, so... do you suggest to add xenophobia into the infobox as well? I see little chance such edit will gain consensus, and as "anti-immigration" is a part of the same opinion... that source is not good imho for landing that into the infobox either. -- Birdofpreyru (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I'd say that the ideology section in the infobox should be rather shortened to just a few ideologies that accurately describe the party, like something that has been done on Alternative for Germany and Law and Justice for example. Vacant0 (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but good luck to get consensus for that :) I'd say, out of the currently listed ideology we should keep just "unitarism" (now written as "centralism", but it links to political_unitarism), national conservatism, and right-wing populism. I'd very like to see ultranationalism removed. As per its definition: ultranationalism or extreme nationalism is an extreme form of nationalism in which a country asserts or maintains detrimental hegemony, supremacy, or control over other countries (usually through coercion) to pursue its interests that does not sound as a defining ideology of Vox for me. Birdofpreyru (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll first read a couple of academic papers regarding the party, and then I'll propose a RfC probably next month. Vacant0 (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case, are you aware there are Andalusian elections this weekend (June 19)? It is a big deal in Spanish politics, Vox is naturally one of main contenders, and potentially the key to the next government, and depending on the outcomes it may trigger lots of fresh press about Vox starting next week. Birdofpreyru (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the election. We'll wait if we have to, there's no need to rush. Vacant0 (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
original reaserch. In regards to the Al Jazeera source, one mention or a hundred makes no difference and nor does where the claim is placed in the article. The Conversation is listed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
as a verified reliable source. There is nothing to indicate that this article itself is an opinion piece / an opinion article. If you want more sources from 2019 onwards that explicitly and specifically call the party as being "anti-immigration" then here are more:
Helper201 (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me, every source which does bother to explain why they consider Vox "anti-immigration" party, tells the same story, I already mentioned above: Vox calls to deport illegal immigrants, and immigrants sentenced for criminal offences in Spain, and they (sources) consider it is enough to call them "anti-immigrant". Ok, I guess, it is the right of a source to define "anti-immigration" in that way. Then there are source which just say "Vox is anti-immigrant" without specifying what exactly they mean by it... it is already a misdirection, as without sidenotes it reads as the party is against any kind of the immigration. And the suggestion to put on a very visible spot in Wikipedia article on Vox, the "anti-immigration" label, linked to a very generic article Opposition to immigration, without sidenotes about what exactly it refers to, looks like the same kind of misdirection to me. -- Birdofpreyru (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're just placing your own views and criteria on to this now. We go simply by what reliable sources explicitly state, of which the number of reliable sources saying explicitly the same thing is clearly abundant. The main text can be used to expand upon what reliable third-party sources say about their specific stance on immigration but it’s clearly evidenced enough for inclusion in the infobox. Helper201 (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vacant0, indeed. I'd say we should reduce it to 'Right-wing populism', as that seems to be consensus among scholars; if there're scholars who disagree, we may keep 'Conservatism', 'National conservatism', or whatever ideology they place it, without bloating the infobox. But it looks like a classical radical right party. Instead, we should use all those sources and labels (some of them are more political positions than proper ideologies) from the infobox and move them to the lead to make it better and introduce the topic while summarizing the body, which is what I believe the lead is supposed to do and in this article is lacking. Davide King (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I've forgot about this article. Disputes have occurred since the last time I commented. I think it's time to shorten the infobox by removing fairly undue ideologies. I've already did a research and the following ideologies seem to be widely supported by scholars:
Rest of the labels should be moved to the text where they belong; the lede should also include a brief overview of its ideology. Vacant0 (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, my preference is for right-wing populism and national conservatism in that order, although if the weight of preference and evidence is for Spanish nationalism instead of the latter, I’d accept is as a compromise (although I consider specific terms like [country name] nationalism much less useful for international comparison purposes). I oppose the use of standard "conservatism" – we must be aware that numerous sources explicitly refer to the party as being Neo-fascist, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.--Autospark (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, the party should be described primarily as national-conservative, thus "national conservatism" is OK. This said, I am not opposed to "conservatism", "nationalism" and "right-wing populism". What I strongly oppose is "Spanish nationalism", as it is better to have general ideologies in the infoboxes. --Checco (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

Ok, as @Tom63552 does not want to listen to reasons in revert comments, I have posted Uw-3rr warning to his talk page, and if he does not reconsider and self-revert shortly, I propose to post a report on him to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and ask for the article protection, as he already violated 3RR rule. Birdofpreyru (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As @
WP:NPOV
version of the article lead myself. Please, don't change it without prior discussion.
Let me explain. While it is true that some (left-wing) sources claim Vox is an ultranationalist party (usually as a passing mention, without explaining why and what exactly they claim), other (right-wing) sources do not describe the party as ultranationalist.
As the ultranationalism article explains: Ultranationalism or extreme nationalism is an extreme form of nationalism in which a country asserts or maintains detrimental hegemony, supremacy, or other forms of control over other nations (usually through violent coercion) to pursue its specific interests.. That is akin of what Russia and many Russian parties does with Ukraine and its neighbours (without being labeled as ultranationalist in their articles), and it is what Vox does not do, to my best knowledge, although their political opponents are trying hard to stick that label to them.
In the body of
WP:NPOV
, that's why the current version of the article is not acceptable.
On a side note, the citation given by Tom63552 is just an opinion piece in NYT, thus it is even not
WP:RS. Birdofpreyru (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Another user just reverted your edit. You could file this for
WP:3RR. I would also recommend you to bring up Diegn5 to the discussion, these accounts might be owned by a single user. I would also keep my promise, and start a RfC by the end of this month in order to end the edit warring. Vacant0 (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I filed request for semi-protection of the page, and also a notice to WP:ANI. Though, while I was on doing that, it seems Drmies already jumped in, restored the long-standing version, and blocked Tom & Co accounts.
Looking forward to RfC, Vacant0 :) Birdofpreyru (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should get paid for this. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of accounts. Vacant0 (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable female figures under social issues.

In my view, the list of female figures in the party should be removed for three main reasons:

1. It doesnt belong under a social issues section, unless the spanish political system is more backward than I thought and there is opposition to/backlash to female politicians, in that case I think it should have its own section and be provided context

2. It attempts to refute attributed criticism of vox in wikivoice, if we could find spanish conservatives rebutting anti-feminist claims using the existance of female vox politicians than that would be a worthy inclusion.

3. It actually makes the article less neutral than more, neutrality doesnt mean rebutting criticism or presenting it as invalid, it means the exact opposite.

@Birdofpreyru

Googleguy007 (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see this list as a part of characterisation of Vox's stance on (anti-)feminism. If we remove it, this part of "Social Issues" section reads like: Vox is anti-feminist, wants to cancel pro-feminist laws, undermine feminist struggle, prohibit abortion... definitely a party where a woman's role is to wash socks for male politicians, and give birth to future leaders. Despite this demonisation of Vox, women make it to the very top of Vox's hierarchy, stay there, and take part in their governance. Thus, I definitely oppose just removing it. In theory, I don't mind replacing it by some alternative material supporting the same pov that Vox is not anti-feminist; but until somebody does it, the list looks good to me, with additional benefits of giving links to articles about relevant politicians (I believe, it is very good an article about party gives references to related personas).
I disagree with your point (3). Neutrality means that if we touch a sensitive point on some subject, we should give both strongest arguments supporting, and refuting this point (sure, both should be true facts); thus, allowing the reader to have a full information, on the point, rather than trying to censor the information and mislead the reader to a selected opionion on the subject somebody likes. That's unless we write about something scientifically proven. If we talk about Vox stance on feminism, I believe Vox position pro/against some laws - this is the fact we should write about; and presense/absense/influence of females in the party - that's the fact; the rest already goes into the speculation territory (like different authors / public figures writing articles regularly calling Vox anti-feminist, or others saying they are not - you can cherry-pick both opinions and spend ages fighting over whos opionion is worth or worthless). Birdofpreyru (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to NPOV; neutrality "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." wikipedia can and does cover criticism of groups or people without then rebutting that criticism, the article isnt saying that vox is anti-feminist, it is saying that people say that vox is anti-feminist and its innapropriate editorial bias to then try to rebut that. Googleguy007 (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other people say that Vox truly defends women in Spain. If you find and cite such sources, many ppl will try to revert on the basis that's what vox supporters say, and here are many activists around assuming that only negative opinions on right-wing parties are true. Once again, presence of women at the top of Vox leadership nobody can say is fake, cause its fact, and it says a lot about degree of antifeminism in Vox ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Birdofpreyru (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, whether or not you agree with the attributed criticism the proper response would be to provide an attributed reponse, not vaguely disputing it in Wikivoice. Im going to remove the list and you can feel free to add an attributed response or start an RFC if you feel strongly about its inclusion Googleguy007 (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand why are you so rushing to remove the list? On your place is I'd wait to hear what other editors watching this page have to say on the question. This list was here for a while, thus long standing thing, perhaps you should do an Rfc to remove it. Birdofpreyru (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I am removing the list is that it has no place in a wikipedia article, I dont know whats so hard for you to grasp, Wikipedia should not try to rebut criticism in wikivoice. The list is placed where it is with the explicit goal of rebutting criticism in wikivoice. Googleguy007 (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Birdofpreyru I completely agree with Googleguy007. This information constitutes original research explicitly intended to rebut information from secondary sources as you yourself say; this is grounds for removal in itself. Furthermore, Spain has instituted electoral gender quotas, and female political leaders can hold anti-feminist views (or may even simply disagree with a prevailing majority position of a political party), so it's not even clear what point is being made here.
-J Jay Hodec (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: If we follow Birdofpreyru's line of argumentation to it's logical conclusion, then we would also have to include anti-feminist remarks made by female Vox politicians, e.g. De Meer's statement that female Vox members and supporters aren't feminists and that feminists aren't real women.[3]
Jay Hodec (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well... that's not what she stated, you either don't understand Spanish well, or you like creative cherry-picking of a selected sentence from a notice, the way completely changing the message ))) also... the first time I hear about electoral gender quotas in Spain ... that is 15 years living in Spain, following the news and politics, and knowing about lots of crazy benefits of considering yourself a female, never heard of electoral quotas, regarding the Parliament at least. Birdofpreyru (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should pay more attention then Googleguy007 (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ogh... I see, this barbarity happened even before I got into Spain, and isn't mentioned much in news these days. Thanks for sharing. Indeed, this changes my perspective on the virtue of being / having female politician in Spain, and I don't object removing the listfrom that section anymore. Birdofpreyru (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Birdofpreyru Have you seen the clip or did just read the text? From the clip:

"[...] porque las madres de Vox, las militantes de Vox, las profesionales de Vox, las votantes de Vox, no somos ni machistas ni feministas. Somos mujeres. Y ustedes, sin embargo, ustedes las feministas no son mujeres. [...]"

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, had a look at the video. Same as the text. If you don't put "..." in the middle of a message as you like, her discourse in nutshell was "as some of your feminist icon told, one isn't born a woman, one should grew (mentally) into a woman; so women of Vox have done, and you feminists have not yet". Birdofpreyru (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Birdofpreyru So are we in agreement that she clearly said Vox members and supporters are not feminists but (real) women, and that feminists meanwhile aren't (real) women?
Jay Hodec (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever heard of irony? Birdofpreyru (talk) 08:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Birdofpreyru Is she or is she not saying that she does not consider herself and other women of Vox to be feminists, and speaks critically of "ustedes las feministas" (i.e. she's anti-feminist)? Yes or no?
Jay Hodec (talk) 09:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither. You are taking her brief ironic remark in a very particular discourse completely out of context, misrepresenting its message, and trying to pass it as her definitive point-of-view on the place of women in society. Anyway
WP:NOTAFORUM. If you are so keen to expand the section on Vox stance on feminism and women rights, you are welcome to explore other source, interviews, and program statements of Vox in this regard, and use it to improve the article. Birdofpreyru (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Birdofpreyru I do not wish to "expand the section", I just wish to show that even one of the "women of Vox" previously mentioned in the section as proof that Vox is not anti-feminist clearly engaged in anti-feminist rhetoric, which is further proof that the party is anti-feminist. But apparently saying "we are not feminists" is some sort of irony I fail to grasp. But how's this for some context:

"El feminismo es asesino de la vida, de la belleza y del amor."[4]

And from the broadside against feminism written by her party collegue which she lauds in this post:

"Mientras que la mujer da vida, el feminismo la quita. Mientras que la mujer ama, el feminismo suscita enemistad con el varon. Mientras que la mujer crea, el feminismo destruye, destruye a la propria mujer porque le roba su identidad."

[5]
And just a taste more: "Como dice Milo Yiannopoulos, el feminismo es cancer."[6] Et cetera. Et cetera.
It's beyond doubt that there has been anti-feminist rhetoric expressed in the party. You don't have to ponder secondary sources or retreat into "some say", nuance or other balancing acts. Just look at what Vox politicians themselves say - the "women of Vox" themselves seemingly being the most vocal opponents of feminism.
Jay Hodec (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right wing?

Can we please find better sources than a

WP:RSEDITORIAL and expatriate newsblogs to describe the party as "right-wing". The majority of sources (especially in academia) simply describe Vox as far-right. WMrapids (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Majority of scholars do describe Vox as far-right, sometimes even as radical right(-wing) which is mentioned in the infobox. Vacant0 (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some media as COPE or Periodista Digital claim Vox is right-wing (Wikipedia in spanish). National conservative parties are considered right-wing, not far right. 83.58.179.240 (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is explicitly mentioned, with good sources cited, that a significant segment of the party is most inspired by mainstays of the right such as the Tories or Reagan, I am changing the "far-right" description to "center-right to far-right" in order to accurately reflect the broad and only now coalescing ideology of the party. 172.59.201.151 (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing the number of Ideologies

I think there is an issue of bloat here, as there is quite a number of ideologies in the infobox. I propose reducing them to the following:

  • Spanish nationalism
  • Conservatism
  • Centralism

ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the discussion above, this was already discussed and I've pointed out that nationalism and right-wing populism are the most common ideologies used by scholars. This was never implemented though. Vacant0 (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't see it. I'll implement it. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that infobox disputes did occur since October 2022 and nobody has left their opinion about it (until now), you could
boldly change the infobox. Keep in mind that if someone contests your change, discuss it here instead of edit-warring. Vacant0 (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Just did, so we'll see. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support reducing it down to
centralism” is a policy or at best a component of an ideology rather than a political ideology.—Autospark (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with User:Autospark. Please check also my comment above, at Talk:Vox (political party)#Ideology. --Checco (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pan-Hispanism

The Party follow pan-hispanism. 2003:DD:4F38:3585:808:16DD:9218:978C (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should right-wing be included in the infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There seems to be a rough consensus to label Vox as right-wing, but a much clearer consensus to identify the party as either right wing or far right. While it is still debated whether the party is far right, most editors seem to agree on far right. Much of the opposition seems to wish to deem it as "far right" as opposed to "right wing". I have not seen a strong enough argument on the side of placing Vox as a far right party, and given both this as well as a majority of editors preferring "right wing", I see a rough consensus here for this option. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [reply]

After a further review as requested by @Vacant0: and my own admittedly better review of the discussion, it does seem like that a better conclusion would be to label this as No consensus. The argument made between the quality and quantity of sources seems to be very close. While a slight edge I will give to Helper201's sources in terms of strength due to wide mention, the slightness does not affect consensus as presented here. It may be necessary, if the discussion is to be resumed, to narrow this down to a "far right" vs "right wing" debacle. The status quo prior to this debate should be restored, which according to revision 1162034452 from late June 2023, lists the party as far-right in the infobox. Apologies for the previously bad close. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should right-wing be included in the infobox? Helper201 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes We have many reliable sources that call the party right-wing:
Note, I'm not saying this should replace far-right. I'm saying that right-wing should also be included alongside it i.e. "Right-wing to far-right". Helper201 (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - does far right not imply right wing?
Couruu (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Far-right implies parades with torches, physical attacks on policial opponents, sending those who disagree to concentration camps - all the stuff Vox is famous to do every day =D Birdofpreyru (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. Stereotypically, sure it does, but Wikipedia doesn't deal in stereotypes. Couruu (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure, just do not try to count how many times fascism, nazism, and stuff are mentioned in the intro of Far-right politics article :) Birdofpreyru (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Here we go again, I still consider Vox is just "right-wing", so at the very least it should be tagged in the infobox as "right-wing to far-right", ideally just "right-wing". The sources are biased in this aspect in the sence that those who talk about Vox adequately they just call it "Vox" and go on with the news; while those who tend towards anti-right-wing propaganda follow a simple rule "don't mention Vox without adding 'far-right' or 'ultra-right' or 'extremists from' prefix in front". That's how you end up with lots of mentions of Vox as "far-right" vs not so many mentions of Vox as just "right-wing", spelled explicitly. Birdofpreyru (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No (bot-summoned). Overwhelmingly and consistently referred to as a party on the far-right, including by all of the mainstream media sources above. BBC frequently refers to Vox as far right, The Economist speaks of Vox as hard-right, far-right, "a Spanish-style Tea Party". The Times refers to Vox as hard-right, ultra-nationalist, ultra-conservative, radical right. Washington Post: "Vox isn't part of Europe's right-wing populist wave", "far-right", "ultra-nationalist". Bloomberg: far-right, ultra-right, radical right-wing. Sky: far-right, "Spain's conservative Popular Party and the far-right Vox". Also, FWIW, in the text In Politics of Polarisation, I found at least two references in a Google Books search where Vox is referred to as a "radical right wing party". Regards Goldsztajn (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In "Affective Polarisation" a Google Books search shows Vox referred to as "pulling the political debate to the extreme right" (page not given), "the radical right party Vox" (p.1995), "polarising impact of radical parties" (p.1986), "radical right-wing party" (p.1949). This source cannot be used to justify terming Vox simply right-wing. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because other authors from the same publications use the term "far-right" doesn't mean that right-wing can thus be excluded. Also, radical does not necessarily equate to extreme or the equivalent of "far", that's
WP:SYNTH. Helper201 (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I don't think this is a case of undue weight. Just myself alone I've provided 18 sources that call the party right-wing. This is more than the article currently has for far-right and more than you've provided here. I'd agree if say for example only a couple of sources called the party right-wing, but this isn't the case and there are plenty. Also, radical does not necessarily or always equate to meaning extreme. To infer as such is
WP:SYNTH. I've provided academic sources within the sources I listed too, so there is both a large volume of sources that call the party right-wing and multiple quality academic sources that also do so. Helper201 (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes Jack4576 (talk) 06:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No— it's already included in the lead paragraph, the infobox is already cluttered looking, and it also includes their ideology, I just really don't see the point. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you missed that "Political position: Far-right" is currently included into the Infobox? The question is thus, whether it should be changed into "Political position: Right-wing to Far-right" (as it stayed for sometime, but eventually somebody comes and removes the right-wing piece, following the mantra that Vox should be labeled solely as far-ultra-extremist). Alternatively, should we take your vote as supporting to remove "Political position: Far-right" from the Infobox altogether? It is already included into the lead that a bunch of ppl consider Vox far-right, so what's the point to have it in the Infobox then? Birdofpreyru (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, like I said, the infobox is so cluttered looking, it's easy to miss. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Right wing" is still in the lead, per existing consensus. Prior to my revert to the status quo consensus, the term "right-wing" was supported by a specific, and lengthy, bundle of cites intended to support "far-right". Since those sources do not support "right-wing" broadly, it is not appropriate to attach them to this statement. Any changes should be based on sources. To put it another way, the previous change to add "right-wing" to the lead misrepresented the specific attached sources, so was unacceptable per multiple policies. If other sources do specifically support "right wing" in contrast to "far-right" (such as "centre right" or "mainstream right-win" or similar) than those sources could also be cited and maybe bundled as needed. Too add this without sources is just editorializing or
WP:OR. Grayfell (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
For what it's worth, I do not think the list of cited sources at the top of this section is sufficient. Having browsed a few, too many of them are either passing mentions or are specifically tying this into 'far-right', 'radical right', etc. Like it or not, "far-right" is a subset of right-wing, so to use these sources to imply a spectrum would be
WP:SYNTH. They are not saying it's on a spectrum from right-wing to far-right, they are just saying it's somewhere on the farther end of the right-wing spectrum... so "far-right". Grayfell (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I fundamentally disagree. We have plenty of sources calling the party simply "right-wing". Editors don't get to select sources they don't think are good enough and omit them due to some of them giving the subject a passing mention. Helper201 (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its clearly not the case for which you have insinuated in the lead to imply that it’s only the party that refers to itself as right-wing and not third-party or independent sources. This change, however you want to swing it, was never agreed upon and there's no consensus for it. Helper201 (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree or not, the cite bundle was specifically added to support "far right" and not "right-wing to far right". To add citations to something they do not support is an unacceptable misrepresentation of those sources.
this core issue. Whatever wording you end up with will need to be directly supported by sources. Grayfell (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
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.

Religion?

Can we get any sources on that? Because they don't explicitly say anything about religion (in their party platform for example) I think this should be removed if a source cannot be found. 178.139.6.79 (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few: [9] [10] [11]. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vox_(political_party)&oldid=1210824053"