Talk:Danish People's Party/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

this article needs to be clarified in the aspect of what is 'right wing'. Thomas1917 15:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Adding NPOV

"Throughout the history of the Danish People's Party, its leaders have sought popularity through controversial polarising stances that have resonated with the electorate but shaken the established political order:"

Such quotes as well as the entire section of Popularity of DPP seems like advertising. As earlier stated in the article: "Despite some public and media ridicule, the party's popularity has grown since its inception, taking 25 seats in the 179-member Folketinget in the 2007 parliamentary election (13.8% of the vote, remaining the third largest party in Denmark.)"

So Danish public ridicule what they vote into power? The article seems like a PR exercise especially the 'Popularity of DPP' section. We don't have a separate section explaining the popularity of Brad Pitt and his looks. The article is written as if DPP was some iconoclastic hero against the big bad world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.17.92 (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Right wing party?

The Danish People's Party now claims to be a middle party. Is there any way to objectively define parties in the left/right spectrum?

They belong in the same camp as the Sweden Democrats, British National Party, Vlaams Belang et.c. The ideology is euronationalism and/or ethnopluralism. // Liftarn
It is difficult to position it correctly of the left-right spectrum. On the nationalist scale, they're clearly right wing. They've secured tougher laws on immigration, now they want to repatriate criminal foreigners. On the social scale, they promise better welfare services to everyone, without wondering where the money shall come from. They pretty much see themselves as "the Social Democrats 30 years ago" (this is my own interpretation.) --Valentinian 20:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
If one were to characterise objectively on a left/right spectrum, the most obvious choice would be to differentiate between economical policy and other policy. As far as economical policy goes, DPP is arguably in the center of Danish politics, with a heavy defence of retirement cheques and other rights for the elderly and several attempts to increase hospital fundings, and to a much lesser degree fighting for increased funding for youth, education and unemployed. As far as other policy goes, they're for increased penalties for any kind of crime, against large-scale immigration (maybe against any immigration at all), against EU, and to some extent pro-protectionism, which on the "other" scale would place them very far right. --Jakob mark 14:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, arguably, the party does not have a common economical policy; many of their municipality council members have actually voted for decreasing wellfare, according to [1]. As long as we only operate with a one dimensional political scale, they are right wing, in my opinion. Ghent 13:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
What about calling them conservative? That would also discribe their opinion on gays and similar matters. Ghent 20:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
National conservatists, maybe? As far as gays go, they're pretty liberal, though - at least seen in an international context. They have a strong conservative angle inasmuch as they tend to be against most recent changes in Danish politics (they're against a number of UN resolutions, they're against further developing of the EU and high numbers of immigrants is a relatively new thing in Denmark too). But nationalism is their most predominant characteristic. --Jakob mark 21:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
A suggestion could be not to label the party in the heading of the article, but put four or five lines in about right-wing vs. center party in the "politics" paragraph, stating that the party itself claims to be center (and what they base this on), but most people consider them to be right wing (and what most base this on). --Jakob mark 21:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I like that idea. If it's explained in the politics part though, then I think we can put right-wing/nationalist in the introducing paragraph, just to give "outsiders" an idea what their politics are about though. Ghent 21:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like the right way to go. Valentinian (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
You might also take into account that on march 10th the party’s foreign affairs speaker, Søren Espersen, who is also a member of parlament, announced that the party will publish deliberately provocative newspaper ads about islam - allegedly in order to “check for a tendecy of self-censoring” in danish newspapers. For these “arsonists”, the 139 people who lost their life following the publication of the Muhammad caricatures are still not enough. (Sources (in german language): [2], [3], [4]). Túrelio 07:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
They have abandoned that idea (link in Danish) [5] --Hekatombe 07:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
That's really good news, but IMHO it doesn't change anything in the attitude of this party or at least of Mr. Espersen. Túrelio 11:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
DPP is very good at getting publicity, so you could understand Mr. Espersen's statement either as a serious suggestion or as a media-stunt. But I would say that he is usally very blunt and it is therefore possible that he meant it. --Hekatombe 12:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Hekatombe, as you live in Danmark, might I ask you, how did the general public - beyond DF-fans and extreme left - react to this campaign announcement by Espersen? Túrelio 13:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
There wasn't any reaction from the general public, but that could be explained by the fact that DPP retracted Espersen statement on the very same day. However a few politician did criticised DPP. The critic came from Enhedslisten (A small socialistic parti, the furthest left you can get in the Danish Parliament), Det Radikale Venstre (The radicals are moderates), and Conservative People's Party (Denmark) (Which is currently forming the Danish goverment with Venstre (Denmark).) And in general the critics said that such a campaign would only serve as a provocation and it wouldn't be constructive (neither domestic nor abroad)
You should also know, that in todays Berlingske Tidende, DPP says they haven't dropped the idea to creating a campaign whos purpose would be to "test the freedom of speech and its limits". They just need time (a few months) to think about it, so that they can launch a campaign which would be "funny, intelligent, and challenging" and they distances them self from the word "provocating". --Hekatombe 17:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reaction-info and the clarification about the ad campaign. For the sake of Danmark and the rest of the world, let's hope that this hatchet stays buried. Túrelio 19:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

According to BBC[6] they are far-right. // Liftarn

Far right is, as the article states, usually used as a pejorative term by others, and therefore it wouldn't be very encyclopaedic to write. Further, it would miss the fact that they are succsesfully stealing voters mainly from the social democrats. National conservative is more descriptive. Populist right wing captures their policy quite well IMO, as would any combination of conservative, right wing and populist. --Jakob mark 16:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
If the article about far right is implying the correct English usage of the word, they would have to be far right in the reactionary nationalism sense of the word, and they don't live up to the vague definition given in Far right#Usage, since they are very much in the political mainstream in Denmark. If we look in Far right#Terminology, we've got something. It is, in brief, a word journalists use when they can't classify something within conventional left/right considerations. So, basically, we're just stating that journalists at BBC had a hard time labelling them, which is not very interesting for the article. I'll delete the mention of far right, unless good reasons are stated to keep it. --Jakob mark 09:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The party is clearly not as far-right as the political parties usually labelled as such (e.g. Die Republikaner) in Germany. Besides, I agree that it is a pejorative term. We shouldn't label all left-wing parties as "Communists" either. I've reverted the edit. Valentinian (talk) 10:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The BBC is NOT an authrity on politics! Please do not try to add "far-right" and reference to the article again. Ghent 15:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

BBC is indeed an authority on the subject. // Liftarn

Let me rephrase: BBC is not the only authority, and other less-biased sources deny that they are far-right. Ghent 17:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

BBC is well known for being unbiased, but there are others such as The Guardian[7], Nick Ryan[8], UNHCR[9], Daily Times[10] and so on... // Liftarn

BBC unbiased? Give me a break. Just because it isn't like the daily mail, doesn't mean they are unbiased. --41.150.117.148 (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a party combining nationalism and socialism, essentially nationalsocialist, except you can't call them that for obvious historical reasons. So it is usually "far right", "populist" or simply "nationalist". Carewolf 18:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The DPP is an extreme, right wing political party. Members of the party (politicians at national and EU level) have compared Muslims to rats, cancer cells, etc. While these and other comments have only on occassion been deemed to fit within the term "racist" as determined by the Danish legal system, they do consitute as hate crimes [11]. --Globetrotterdk (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globetrotterdk (talk • contribs) 11:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to come up with evidence for your claim of course. Which for some reason you deemed not necessary. --41.150.117.148 (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The DPP has today declared itself today to be an anti-muslim party. [12] That must surely place the DPP in the category of an extremist party, when seen in connection with the quotes from party members and the graphic representations that the party uses in it's campaigns. The pictures can be seen at the following URL. [13] --Globetrotterdk (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

working link [14] -Wormcast (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Is the American Republican Party also a far-right party? Dozens of politicians from there also have a record of anti-Islamic statements, just look at the likes of Steve King, Louie Gohmert, Allen West, Adam Hasner, Joe Walsh, Trent Franks, Mike McCaul, Michele Bachmann, Peter King (a moderate and a frontbencher, not even at the fringe of the party) and John Bolton (Bush appointee and so also part of the party establishment). The DPP seems to blend traditional European nationalism domestically with hawkish, American-style foreign policy influence (as opposed to the more usual isolationist approach of parties like the FN and FPO), much like the PVV and Die Freiheit. This really makes it a stones throw from the Republicans, who at worst are described as "right-wing". --109.157.22.207 (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say that they are left wing, maybe even far left. In fact they want to increase public spending. They are clearly to the left of the Social Democrats, maybe even to the left of the Socialist Peoples Party. It makes absolutely no sense to place them on the political right. They are strongly interventionist in terms of economics.--Vitzque (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Removed addition about their immigration policy

I've removed the following from the article:

[...] resulting in what has been described as Europe's strictest immigration laws. All asylum on humanitarian grounds was denied. Acceptable grounds for asylum was restricted to to the bare minimum required under the Geneva Convention]] for Refugees. Also all social benefits for refugees were cut by 30% to 40% during their first seven years in the country. They also enacted new rules that forbade Danish citizens bringing a foreign spouse into the country unless both partners were aged 24 or over, passed a solvency test showing the Dane had not claimed social security for 12 months and had to lodge a bond of 53,000 kroner (about 9300 USD). These new rules had the effect that while about 13,000 family reunification permits were granted in 2001, the number had fallen to less than 5,000 by 2003. Danes based in Copenhagen that have foreign spouses have been moving to Malmö in Sweden at a rate of about 60 couples a month. The keep working in Denmark by commuting across the Oresund Bridge that has gotten the nickname "the love bridge". These changes have drawn critizism from the Swedish government, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Council of Europe's human rights commissioner. In a response Pia Kjaersgaard said "If they want to turn Stockholm, Gothenburg or Malmoe into a Scandinavian Beirut, with clan wars, honour killings and gang rapes, let them do it. We can always put a barrier on the Oeresund Bridge.".[15]

Is it just me, or does it seem a bit POV? (Can we find anything about their reasoning for supporting those changes in the immigration law)

And even though it is based on a BBC article then the statement that "All asylum on humanitarian grounds was denied" Statistical overview 2004 (Page 5). One other thing, instead of adding this to "history" shouldn't we make a section which is called "Immigration Politic" (which, to me, seems to be their one of their biggest political issues) where we make their political stand on immigration clear? (And which laws they have supported) --Hekatombe 19:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the description of Danish immigration laws as the strictest in Europe can't be claimed to be POV, that's pretty clear. The "start aid" (as the 30-40% cut of social benefits far some reason is named) is also described pretty precise. The 24-year rule is also objectively described. And the statstics, from 13,000 to 5,000, and the dubbing of "the love bridge" and so on are precise. The ending quote from Pia Kjærsgaard is, in the nature of quotes, of course POV. But the description of Danish immigration policy is spot on, I'm afraid. We might not like to read this about our country's policy, but I don't get what would be POV in the article. How about keeping the wording you cut out, and just nuance the reasoning behind? The additions could touch upon the Danish welfare policy and the fact that social benefits for immigrants are still among the highest social benefits given anywhere, that the 24 year law is meant to prevent forced marriages (and maybe arranged marriages altogether?) and other such clarifications? --Jakob mark 01:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I quess that I am beginning to be paranoid :) (And please note that the only fact that I am disputing is that you can not get asylum on humanitarian grounds,) But I still think it should be under "Politics". --Hekatombe 01:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The placement and wording could be changed, but the fact remains that the section should be included. Not doing so would be censorship. I've added it under "Politics" instead. // Liftarn

I agree that it should be mention (especially since the immigration issue seems to be the issue that formed DPP and because it is properly their most important issue). What I do not like about the article in its present form is that, to me, it looks as if DPP's (and to some extent Venstre, Konservative aka VKO) immigration politic is only explained from those who opposes it. While it is important to include the critic it is also important to include their (DPP) reasoning, which is not a part of the current article. I saw this as being a Non-NPOV, and therefore I removed it (and not because of censorship). I'll properly have some spare time this weekend, so I might come with a suggestion as to what should be added to tthis article (with sources). I'll post it here before I'll change the article. --Hekatombe 19:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that their compromises gained with the current administration can be equated with their policy, since the actual policy is a result of what DPP could convince the government of (they are not a part of the government), so their actual policy would probably be even more restrictive. I suggest the following paragraph (I suggest it on these pages since this page could easily lead to editing wars - besides my English grammar is not too good):
Political results
Danish People's Party has been an active part in creating what have been described as Europe's strictest immigration laws. Acceptable grounds for asylum was restricted to the bare minimum required under the Geneva Convention for Refugees. Social benefits for refugees were cut to 30% to 40% during their first seven years in the country - the so-called "start aid". The actual benefits are still comparably high in international context, though.
Together with the Danish government, Danish People's Party have enacted new rules as an attempt to fight forced marriage. The new rules forbade Danish citizens bringing a foreign spouse into the country unless both partners were aged 24 or over, passed a solvency test showing the Dane had not claimed social security for 12 months and had to lodge a bond of 53,000 kroner (about 9300 USD). These new rules had the effect that while about 13,000 family reunification permits were granted in 2001, the number had fallen to less than 5,000 by 2003. Danes based in Copenhagen that have foreign spouses have been moving to Malmö in Sweden at a rate of about 60 couples a month. The keep working in Denmark by commuting across the Oresund Bridge that has gotten the nickname "the love bridge".
Whether this policy have aided the regulation of forced marriages or not and whether the consequences of the law are more wide-ranging than wanted is still debated.
These changes have drawn critizism from the Swedish government, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Council of Europe's human rights commissioner. In a response Pia Kjaersgaard said "If they want to turn Stockholm, Gothenburg or Malmoe into a Scandinavian Beirut, with clan wars, honour killings and gang rapes, let them do it. We can always put a barrier on the Oeresund Bridge.".
This was written very fast, so feel free to edit away in the text and maybe throw in a few links --Jakob mark 21:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks good (I'll try to see if I can find some sources and perhaps add something about "Tilknytningskravet".). --Hekatombe 12:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Against EU?

As far as I know, the party don't want to relinquish EU membership as such, rather they want a rollback to pre-Maastricht EU (I guess that would be a rollback to EC membership, so in that sense, they are against the EU). Their policy is not clear-cut, reading their policy paper on EU is slightly confusing, but a few major points would be: "If a European constitution above single countries' constitutions is passed, DPP wish for an emmidiate withdrawal from EU" - given that that's not passed yet, I'd say that they're not actively working for a relinquish. "DPP is for a European cooperation in several paces. That would make trade policy, environmental policy and technical cooperation the central content of the EU, whilst the member states freely can decide whether to join other obligatory cooperation" - again, one could say that they're not really anti-EU, but want to majorly reduce the part EU plays. --Jakob mark 16:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC). Both quotes are from DPPs policy homepage [16], own very poor translation.

I'd say that they are indeed Anti-EU, but just realise that it's not realistic for Denmark to pull out of EU. Therefore, they fight to diminish the power of EU and give as much power as possible to the individual contries, thereby making the EU useless. Polkaface (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

They are a Eurosceptic party. You can hear from things they have said and the fact they are a member of Europe of Freedom and Democracy. So they are a Eurosceptic/Anti-EU party, but they don't talk very much about it. Not like the Sweden Democrats do. [17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finni123 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

I don't want to make this into an edit war, so I'm going to post here.

I see that the accusations of rascisms bit is undocumented, so until a reference is found, it should be left out. However, magtenspris.dk is not undocumented/POV. It puts DPP in a bad light, but it's the truth according to Enhedslisten, making it reference. Therefore, I'll put it back in until reliable references have proven the opposite.Ghent 08:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

We pretty much agree. I reacted to the first part of the edit (I only realized later that it also dealt with this issue). Valentinian (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The fact that Kærsgaard sued someone for calling her her remarks racist, and lost in the Danish Supreme court (after having initially won at the lower courts, but on appeal), would somewhat back up the claim that she has been called a racist. Not only that, we also have the court's word for her saying racist things, though not in the legal sense. Text of the ruling (in Danish)
Before the court's ruling, Politiken wrote a long article about why Kærsgaard should be considered a racist in the dictory sense of the word, rather than the legal sense of the word.
Luise Frevert and Mogens Camre have both been accused of violating §226b (the racism paragraph), and four members of the leadership of the yourth party of Dansk Folkeparti (Dansk Folkepartis Ungdom) have been found guilty of violating §266b TV2 Hvor går grænsen? (in Danish) --Kristjan Wager 09:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
How about putting a paragraph in about whether DPP are racist? I don't think it will be possible to say that they are or aren't, but the discussion certainly is relevant. The Danish court took into consideration that "racist" was more of a curseword than of real significance, so the Danish Supreme Court verdict was also about semantics and the lingual development in Denmark. But the verdict does say that Danes have the right to call DPP, or at least Pia Kærsgaard, racist. On the other hand, the party has gone a long way to get rid of their far right wing, though, and tried to distance themselves from their racist image. Calling them racist would not be very encyclopaedic, but we could put up the facts about the two court rules, and let people decide for themselves? --Jakob mark 09:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Currently the article says "the party leader, Pia Kjærsgaard, has been accused of racism" and that's true. // Liftarn

True.
It would also be quite correct to state that one of the party's MPs, Messerschmidt, has been found guilty of violating $266, as has one of their (former?) regional leaders, Michael Rex (leader of Storstrøms Amt). Both of them have thus not only been accused of racism in the common use, but have actually been found guilty of it in the Danish legal sense.
If we want to debate DPP and racism, this is certainly relevant, right? --Kristjan Wager 19:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is trying too hard to be balanced. I think that for several reasons: 1) There isn't any mentioning of the court rulings I mentioned above.
2) There is no mentioning of the fact that Kjærsgaard participated in the World Anti-Communist League convention in 1988.
3) There is no mentioning of the top-down leadership in the party, as amply reported in the Danish newspapers, especially around the time when Inge Refshauge and Ole Donner (one of the co-founders) left the party, and Mogens Andreasen was excluded.
4) There is no mentioning of the fact that DPP has connections to rightwinged organizations like Den Danske Forening (which Søren Krarup is a former leader of), Frit Forum (which Mogens Camre is the current leader off) and Dansk Forum (the link between DPP is a bit harder to describe, but can be read about here (in Danish).

I don't think we necessarily have to mention all of these things (and especially 2 could probably be left out without any problems), but at least some of it should be mentioned. --Kristjan Wager 19:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The discussion about racism

While DPP is definitely not racist by the traditional meaning of the word or by any race-biological logic, if any exists, people has claimed that they did not support the racist views of Pia Kjærsgaard (Chairman of DPP) and that according to the new definition of the word racism by the Danish Language Council (Dansk Sprognævn) it is correct to call the policy of DPP for racist - and have won their cases at the court. The new definition is broader than the traditional race-biological definition and states that racism is now also understood as discriminating or oppressive actions or policy against groups defined by religion, nationality, color, language, culture etc. But I personally still believe that it is rather problematic to call DPP as such for a racist organisation, although prominent members lige MP Søren Krarup has definitely publicised clearly anti-semitic views in his books and during interviews - but mainly or only related to his fierce attacks on Georg Brandes and the liberal and cultural movements that was inspired by him. Mr. Søren Krarup has directly explained that one of the reasons for Georg Brandes' rape of the Danish culture was his "Jewish blod". But at the same time there is no doubt that DPP has absolutely noting against the Danish jewish society of today and that DPP is very positive towards Israel - and that they are seeing Israels conflict with the palestinian people in the context of their own understanding of moslems and Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carsten Levin (talk • contribs) 23:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Blunt"-discussion from User_talk:Karl_Meier

Since the part about whether DPP are blunt or not has been deleted and re-inserted a number of the times, I thought it might be for the best to move the discussion to here. --Jakob mark 21:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

--- snip ---

Karl, if you want to avoid having your edits reverted on the Danish People's Party page, you might want to actually participate in the discussion pages - for instance, I have no idea why you consider "blunt arguments" to be POV. I can see that your edit on the cutback issue make sense, the vidence seems far less conclusional than Enhedslisten would like to make it seem. I'm sure we can both contribute to making the article better, but since the DPP article quite easily can become an edit war, I urge you to argue for your points on the discussion page instead of just reinserting. --Jakob mark 08:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think members of DPP would describe their arguments as "blunt", and to call them that is about as POV as it can get. -- Karl Meier 06:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
What DPP would call themselves is not really the concern. What they are is, however, a concern, and when you say things like Muslims on "a lower level of civilisation" bringing "primitive and atrocious traditions" (Pia Kjærsgaard [18]) and that Islam is something that should "be fought, ..., like the Nazism and the Communism" (Jesper Langballe in Folketinget, May 5 2002), you are blunt. Ghent 17:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
That is your opinion. If you can find a noteable source that make that criticism against DPP, then you can add it to the article. -- Karl Meier 15:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
According to your dictionary-link, 2nd meaning of "blunt" is "Abrupt and often disconcertingly frank in speech", and it would be very hard not to agree that that is the case when regarding DPP. Being blunt in that sense can be seen as a compliment, even. Besides, the 1st and 3rd usages are not related to speech, and the 4th (lacking in feeling, insensitive) could be applied to DPP without much trouble - I translated the following quotes from Danish:
  • "All the countries in the west are infiltrated by the Muslims - some of them speak to us nicely, while they wait to become enough to kill us" (Mogens Camre, 2001)
  • "It has been mentioned that 9/11 became the cause for a 'clash of civilizations'. I don't agree. A clash of civilizations would require two civilizations, and that is not the case. There is only one civilization, and that is ours" (Pia Kjærsgaard, 2001)
  • "He wanted to gloat over his colleagues. He wanted to credit himself as a pakistani. With his egocentric, contrary and self-promoting demonstration right in front of the queen, he became able to blow his nose in the country, that gave him birth right and a membership of the parliament. He really hates Denmark" (Søren Espersen, 2004, about Kamal Qureshi who wore a shervani at a party with the queen).
If you have strong arguments against these statements being "lacking in feeling, insensitive", please feel free to share them. --Jakob mark 18:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
My main problem with "your" version is that it is that I believe that it is against NPOV. As already mentioned I hardly believe that the members of DPP would describe their arguments as "insensitive, lacking in feeling" and what not. To present such a claim (true or not) as a fact is controversial, and in my opinion to choose a side against DPP in this a discussion. Also. I strongly believe that we have to keep the language that we use in the article as neutral as possible, especially in articles such as this. If you could find a noteable source that critizise them and describe their arguments as "blunt", then I wouldn't mind that it is included, eventhough I also believe that we have to be careful and make sure that the article remain balanced. Most recently it seems like there is a few editors that add nothing but criticism to the article, and these parts of the article is gowing a lot. Some of the stuff seems to be more-or-less redundant, and to make it balanced maybe some of it could be removed. Another thing is, what is it that you object to in my version? "The party has been part of controversy, especially because of their critical position towards (Muslim) immigration and immigrants." -- Karl Meier 15:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I find "critical position towards immigration and immigrants" to be extremely weak, and something I would ascribe to all Danish political parties, except maybe Enhedslisten (and the Social Liberalists prior to Naser Khader's Democratic Muslims). However, I'm certain that there is an acceptable blend somewhere in between the very loud "blunt" statement and the too quiet "critical position". Mainly, I noticed that this thing kept coming in and being removed, so I thought I would start a debate about it - I haven't been involved in writing the article in any significant way, so I don't have a very strong opinion on the matter. --Jakob mark 15:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it could be said about most major parties, but nevertheless I find it somehow accurate, because it is in fact what they usually being critizised for. This being said though, I wouldn't mind that we clarify things a bit more, and mention that their position on (Muslim) immigrants and immigration is considered to be more critical than most other major political parties in Denmark. -- Karl Meier 16:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The quotes

About those quotes I found to illustrate that "blunt" was the best word:

I have not given any thought to whether they should be included in the article, but if they should, I think someone should check my translation (which was done very fast, just to underscore the "blunt" point). Especially the one about Kamal Qureshi is very loosely translated. The quotes are all found on [19]. As far as the source goes, it is a page affiliated with the Minority Party, but all the references to papers and speeches seem to be precise.--Jakob mark 17:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems very much like some carefully selected quotes, that has been added to this article for a very specific reason, and I have to doubt that this reason is to improve or create a neutral DPP article. Another thing is that our articles in not a place for a collection of quotes. That's what we got the Wikiquote project for. -- Karl Meier 19:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
On reflection, I agree that the quotes shouldn't be included in the article as it stands now. The quotes *were* carefully selected by me to underscore the "blunt" point and I did not even try to give a nuanced view of DPP. If this article should include quotes at all, it could be the one that lead to Messerschmidt being found guilty of violating §266. As far as I remember, it was a poster that lead to his verdict? --Jakob mark 20:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it was the poster that lead him, and the other leading members of DDP Youth, to be convicted. Another quote that might be appropriate is the one that Camre used, which lead to the Danish police asking for his immunity to be revoked by the European Parliament (which was denied). That is not a trivial matter.
On a more general issue, I don't particularly find this article NPOV, since it is, in my opinion, trying too hard to be so. A major part of DPP's image and focus is on anti-immigration, and preferably the exclusion of Muslims from Denmark, and this is only somewhat clear from the article. Also a number of high-ranking members have, or have had, ties to more extremist right-winged organizations, yet it's not mentioned in the article at all. Especially Den Danske Forening should be mentioned - Krarups is one of the founders of that organization after all. --Kristjan Wager 08:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, said poster does not seem to exist any more. It was a poster (also brought as an add in a magazine) with the text: "Mass rapes, cruel violence, insecurity, forced marriages, female oppression, gang crimes: That is what a multiethnic society has to offer us." The add includes a picture of three young blond girls, subtitled "Denmark today" and next to them three hooded, bloodstained men showing the Koran, subtitled "Denmark in 10 years".
Four members of Danish People's Party's Youth's leadership, including the current MP Morten Messerschmidt, were each given suspended jail sentences of 14 days in May 2003 for violating §266, since it was deemed as "propaganda" (which increases the sentence), because of said poster.
I suppose that will be kind of hard to include in the article, given that the poster is removed from available sources. I guess the Camre one would be more appropriate. --Jakob mark 22:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The quote that lead to the attempt to revoke Camre's immunity was: "Muslims infiltrate all the countries in the West, while they wait to become enough to get rid of us" - quite similar to the one that is reinserted to the article. --Jakob mark 22:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Both the poster and the Camre quote are touched upon in this report from the Danish TV-Channel TV2: [20]. The poster is more thoroughly described here: [21].

Now you see 'em - now you don't

Guys, this quote thing is going out of hand. They're inserted, they're removed, they'll be reinserted, probably later on today. Let's discuss it properly, instead of just keeping removing and reinserting.

My suggestion is simply to vote about it. The paragraph in question is this:

== Quotes ==

- {{wikiquote}}

  • "All the countries in the West are infiltrated by the Muslims - some of them speak to us nicely, while they wait to become enough to kill us" (Mogens Camre, 2001)
  • "It has been mentioned that 9/11 became the cause for a 'clash of civilizations'. I don't agree. Because a clash of civilizations would require that there were two civilizations, and that is not the case. There is only one civilization, and that is ours" (Pia Kjærsgaard, 2001)
  • "The Social Security Act is passé, because it was appropriate for a Danish family tradition and work ethics and not for Muslims for whom it is decent to be economically supported by others, while the wife gives birth to a whole lot of children. The children benefit cheque is abused, since a foreigner gains record earnings due to a small dozen of children. Mass rapes punishments must be changed, because the problem only has arrived with the many acts of vandalism by the anti-social second generation immigrants." (Pia Kjærsgaard's weekly letter (February 25, 2002))

With the updated last quote my personal vote is for. The attack on another politician is removed (which I felt was misleading to put in the article, since it could equally well underscore how politicians speak to each other), and the quotes now in the article are ones that give more information to why the party has been considered controversial.

In favor of quotes

  • --Jakob mark 10:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC) (reasoning given above)
  • Just some quotes to show the "blunt argments" mentioned. Keep most of the quotes on Wikiquote. // Liftarn 16:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
If this vote end with a decision to keep this "quotes" section, then I'll make sure to replace most of them to ensure that the section is balanced. It will not stay there to serve some silly anti-DPP POV agenda. -- Karl Meier 21:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
IMO, the quotes are accurate and illustrate why there has been controversy about DPP, without taking any extreme quotes from obscure members of DPP. The poster that resulted in Morten Messerschmidt and other members of DPP-youth being found guilty of racism is not included, neither are Søren Espersen, Louise Frevert/Ebbe Talleruphuus or Kenneth Kristensen. These quotes are by no means the most extremist found within DPP. Said quotes illustrate why DPP has been accused of being racist and how Pia Kjærsgaard could lose a libel suit. Quotes about, say, DPP policy on senior citizens would not contribute to the article or clarify any elements of the article. So, if you would care to state why you find them POV (and even anti-DPP) and share with us what quotes you would prefer, a consensus might still be possible? Just stating that something is POV and anti or pro whatever is not really bringing us anywhere when you don't provide any argumentation. --Jakob mark 00:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The quotes obviously make them look more controversial than they actually are, and is as you yourself mentioned hand-picked out of context, by a ridicules anti-DPP site, that has even published a so-called 'declaration of war' against DPP. Their purpose on that (and now this) site is very transparent, and if the section is to be balanced, then we should add some islam-apologetic quotes by notable members of DPP. Also, the reason that Kjærsgaard lost the libel suit was not because of something she or anything else had said, but because the judge used a very, very broad definition of the word "racism".
You mention that it wouldn't clarify any parts of the article to add quotes about their position on topics such as senior citizens. Why is that? Why should hand picked quotes from a anti-DPP site re individual members position on islam and immigration, be more interesting than qoutes that to clarify their position on other questions? -- Karl Meier 17:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The quote I really felt was picked out of context and not quoted in good style was the Søren Espersen quote, which could be interpretated as purely party political, given that it was about Kamal Quereshi and not about general politics. Removing that quote did a lot to improve the NPOV status of the quotes IMO. I am all for the idea of printing islam-apologietic quotes by notable members of DPP, quotes I'd still like to see first, though. The libel suit did indeed include a somewhat broader definition of 'racism' than was used in Denmark in the earlier half of the 20th century, but the judge included a lot of quotes to underscore this.
DPP is not a very interesting party outside the Danish borders when other subjects than immigration are touched upon. Their thoughts on immigration are pretty extraordinary for a popular party in this day and age, while their thoughts on anything else are not really new. Their political results are quite impressive when considering immigration, but pretty meager when considering anything else. But by all means, I do think the article needs some description of why the party is popular in Denmark; it would have to be a part of the article before it is a part of the quotes, I would think, though. I do feel that this article somewhat gives the impression that 15% of the Danish population (or however many votes DPP gets) are actively racist, and that is obviously not so. So I still believe in a consensus. --Jakob mark 14:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Against the quotes

  • For reasons already mentioned on this talkpage. -- Karl Meier 15:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This is probably not the correct way to solve the problem in wikipedia, but for now, I don't have any better ideas. --Jakob mark 10:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Section about DPP popularity

I have this idea for a new section, but I can't get it straight right now, so I'll just put it here for your devastating critique. Please feel free to comment any contexts and state whether anything like this should be included in the article. While this is not written in other encyclopaedias, I don't think it falls under original research, since it mainly presents generalizations and analysis based on easily available data.

== The popularity of DPP ==

The DPP have been surrounded by controversy ever since the party was originally founded. However, starting with a modest ammount of votes, the party has grown at every single election since then [should be quite easy to source]. While the immigration policy is of course of importance to the party, there are other issues that add to the popularity of the party:

* The ideological novelty

As the only party in Denmark, DPP includes conservative ideas about law and order and longer punishments for crimes, especially violence crimes, with a defence of the elder's benefits and other social benefits [source]. Unlike other parties that are economically left wing in Denmark, DPP combine this leftism with a strong conservatism in non-economical policy [can't easily be sourced].

* The EU policy

In Denmark, only two parties have been against all new EU treaties throughout their existence. Those parties are DPP and Enhedslisten [source]. Denmark has, par tradition, voted about every single treaty since becoming members [interesting history, that it would be nice to source], so the popular discussion of EU has been widespread, and the results of the votes have all been very close to 50% [source]. Since Enhedslisten is the party furthest on the left in Denmark, DPP has had a wide appeal by combining EU-criticism with non-leftist issues.

* The common man

While most political parties in Denmark were lead by men who are a part of the educational elite (economists and political scientists, mainly), DPP was founded by Pia Kjærsgaard, a woman trained as caretaker for the elders. This has given the party a reputation of communicating their messages in an understandable way.

Well, not excactly nobel prize quality, I know - which is one reason why I didn't put it in the article. But should something along these lines be in the article, and are some paragraphs grossly wrong (besides that they're probably grossly misspelled and so on)? --Jakob mark 15:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Balancing and context

I have made some changes to the article in order to make contents more balanced and make citations more accurate. The following doens't follow the order of appearance in the article:

  • "Pro-conscription": irrelevant, since all major parties are pro-conscription; this issue is not widely debated in Denmark, though political youth associations may speak out against conscription from time to time. Conscription includes a lottery system and only one in four young men are actually draughted.
  • Ideology: Is best described as national conservative and social conservative, which, in the view of the party, are two sides of the same since they believe the welfare state may only be maintained by limiting immigration. On the other hand they are not far from the patriotically inclined social democratism of the Nordic countries two generations ago. They have used the slogan: "Real social democrats vote for DPP". According to opinion polls, the greater part of their voters are indeed former social democrats.
  • Coalition support: Important enough to be mentioned in the introduction.
  • Info box: "Populism" really is little of a description, and mainly something you call people you don't like, be they right or left or centrist. I think neutral terms should be used here. A word as "populism" should be followed by a critical analysis, which there is ample room for in the article itself. (And then, of course, maybe all parties are populist today, or opportunist, but this discussion belongs somewhere else). However, since the party is so widely criticised, maybe rightfully, I put "alleged populism" here.
  • Policies: Corrected from 'politics'. More detailed list of issues. Added the government's aim with certain policies, bringing it into context.
  • Citations needed: "resulting in what has been described as Europe's strictest immigration laws". Source please. May it be that the sudden change from a liberal to a strict immigration policy provided for this view on Denmarks stance, whereas some countries (Finland, Switzerland) infact have had a strict policy all the time?
  • Swedish government: now the former government.
  • More generally: A detailed description of the government's policy should not be in this article, but in one about the cabinet Anders Fogh Rasmussen. After all, the DPP only supports the government, they are not coalition partners, and the immigration policy is that of the coalition parties as well, and to a large extent supported by the Social Democrats.
  • Alleged "Feudal rule" within the party: Completely out of context. Feudalism is a medieval system of knights and serfdom etc. and not the proper word here. However, the centralised leadership of the party is well-known. I added something about the latest "purge" of alleged extremists in August 2006.
  • Quotes: I searched for the quote "a war against terror is a war against Islam", as said by Pia Kjærsgaard, but I couldn't find it (in Danish) either on google or on the Parliament's website. So I have estimated it can't be based on a citation and deleted it. I added some more quotes, and put those already present in a larger context. They are thoroughly translated from the original sources (Danish Parliament's website etc.).
  • Language and style: The article had some Danisms, which I tried to correct.I am a Dane myself, so feel free to re-correct language flaws. It seems to have been edited by an angry Dane at some earlier stage. (Indeed much of what is known about this party and of our government abroad was originally brought forward by indignated Danes who turned to the foreign press when the Danish public turn a deaf ear to them.) Also, I adapted paragraph sectioning to a better standard, though there is still some real Wiki-standard clean-up needed.

--Sasper 16:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Add to Controversy

Opinion polls showed a sharp rise in favor of the anti-immigrant Dansk Folkeparti (Danish People’s Party -- DPP) and its party leader Pia Kjaersgaard. Accordingly, the party could obtain 15 percent of the vote (26 parliamentary seats) in the national elections scheduled for 2002, compared to 7.4 percent in the March 1998 election. The party generates a climate of anti-immigrant hatred by suggesting, for example, that Muslims are appropriating apartments that should go to homeless Danes. The party also opposes the establishment of mosques and Muslim cemeteries. After a heated debate both in parliament and in the media in October, the party proposed the deportation of entire Muslim families if one family member was involved in a criminal offense. The party’s representative in the European Parliament, Mogens Camre, was until 1999 a member of the Social Democrat Party, but was expelled after protests over his racist outbursts (see ASW 1998/9). Since his arrival in Brussels, however, Camre has been relatively subdued, in keeping with Kjaersgaard's attempts to prevent her party from drifting into open racism. (During the year she ejected 19 members associated with the Danish Forum -- see below.)

In one of the harshest personal attacks ever in Danish politics, Peter Duetoft, vice-president of the Center Democrats compared Kjaersgaard to Hitler: “Hitler and Pia Kjaersgaard are of one piece. I do not say that she is a Nazi, but she has the same attitude, dividing people into Unter-Menschen and Uber-menschen, as Hitler did,” Duetoft said to the Danish mainstream newspaper Jyllands-Posten (30 January 2000).

---from Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism

--71.227.191.140 23:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Contrversy-section

The "controversy-section" on this article about a political party is a bit to specific and irrelevant to this exact article. The appropriate place to add such controversies would be in the articles about the specific persons, since they didn't really represent the party itself officially. Please look here if anyone want to create articles about the persons and include the info there. A more general description of statements of party politicians would of course be appropriate.[22] -TheG (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the constant controversies initiated by Danish People's Party leading members such as Langballe, Krarup, Kjærsgård, Messerschmidt, Espersen, et al are part of a concerted political strategy and are highly relevant to any history, discussion or understanding of DF. When these leaders speak, they are indeed representing the party officially. And it would not be possible for outside observer to understand the context of DF within Danish politics without an understanding of these controversies. By removing the earlier 'controversy' portions you are defacto demonstrating a personal political bias. The article as it stands right now seems to be written by DF sympathisers who are downplaying its extremist nature for foreign consumption. No more censorship, please.

Gabagool you have again been very active editing additions to the Danish People's Party (english) page. But your edits seem to have a political agenda, namely to eliminate any mention of the highly contentious nature of DF, which involves - weekly, if not daily- taking an extreme standpoint on the immigrant / Muslim issue as a means to polarize the Danish electorate. By constantly editing out sourced references to these controversies - which are the ESSENCE of the party's political strategy & hence its success, and without reference to which it would be impossible for an outsider to understand Danish politics - you are revealing your personal political bias. No more censorship please. (07:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC))

The section in question is this:

The primary political strategy of the party has been to polarize by engaging in anti-immigrant and specifically anti-Muslim controversies which have resonated with the electorate and repeatedly forced the established parties to follow the DPP lead. For example, Danish People's Party leaders have openly declared the party "anti-Muslim" [1]. ; have stated that Muslims "kill their daughters ...and turn a blind eye to their uncles raping them" [2]; and demanded that Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya television channels be blocked from transmitting within Denmark[3]

The first section does not say who has diagnosed this supposed "primary political strategy". And then we have some cherry picked "extreme-sounding" quotes from Jesper Langballe, a specific member of the party, and totally without the context in which they were stated (they are apparently in reference to honor killings, in which these comments are in reference to, are very real). Pia, however, as the article states, said the statements were too general. This is not quality, folks. Secondly, the Berlingske.dk article does not state that the party "demands" to have it blocked. Instead, they made an attempt at getting said stations blocked based off of laws regarding "hate" broadcasting. Enough with the hyperboles. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://politiken.dk/politik/article508382.ece
  2. ^ http://www.berlingske.dk/nyheder/df-er-muslimer-slaar-deres-doetre-ihjel
  3. ^ http://www.berlingske.dk/politik/pia-k.-vil-blokere-arabisk-tv

Not really Christian Right

I can see there is a reference to the claim, that the Christian Right has influenced DPP, but its only a master thesis, so not a "solid" academical reference. I think the mentioning of the CR is misleading to British and especially American readers. Tidehverv is (very) right wing regarding Danish nationalism, but they are not Christian Right in the US sense. Regarding Christianity the DPP considers it to be an important part of Danish culture, but they are not anti-abortion, anti-feminist or anti-gay. They have objected to forcing the established Danish church to marry gays, but its not clear that this is based on religious ground and not a populist anti government intervention in the business of the Church and local communities approach. Their voters are - apart from the far left Unity List voters - the least frequent church goers among Danish voters. DPP primarily uses Christianity as synonomous to "European and non-Muslim".--Orakologen (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I checked your comment - I think you have a point.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't see why we should assume "Christian right" to refer to the US definition of Christian right instead of to the Danish Christian right. In Denmark there is basically no Christians to the right of Tidehverv and Tidehverv is a huge influence on DF.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The US definition is the de facto international definition. In Denmark organizations like Inner Mission and Lutheran Mission are CR in the traditional sense. Whereas Tidehverv has a very strange ideology, which doesnt fit well into the concept of CR and isnt easy to explain. As a minimum you would need to clarify what is meant by CR in this context. Also Tidehverv doesnt have "a huge influence" on DF regarding religion per se. Its Tidehvervs views on human rights, international cooperation, humanitarian aid and nationality that has influenced DF.--Orakologen (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that there is a de facto international definition. In fact Tidehverv's and Inner Mission's roles as Christian Right is historically prior to the American definition which only emerged in the 1970s. And how can you say that Tidehverv doesn't have a huge influence on DFs stance on religion when their spokespersons in church related issues have been Tidehverv members since the beginning of the party. And furthermore Tidehvervs views on human rights etc. are theologically founded, which exactly shows how deeply Christian right DF is to the degree that it even dictates its international policies. Now: We need a good source describing the party as Christian right to include it and I don't know if we have one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
1.Given the US cultural dominance in the world, and especially the English speaking part of it, their definition is the de facto international definition for most people. Thats a fact we have to take into consideration. 2. Its irrelevant that Tidehverv is older than the US term CR. What matters is how things are perceived today. 3. By religion I meant moral issues, sorry for being inaccurate. Church issues are not a big deal in the politics of a country like DK. 4. You are right that Tidehvervs views on international relations etc. are based on their theological thinking, but the question remains if CR is a good description of those views? The term is too narrowly understood by most people to be useful in this context.--Orakologen (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

How about Christian Nationalist? Its not perfect, but less misleading than CR. The basic problem is that Tidehverv is such a strange ideology. They are really hard to describe objectively.--Orakologen (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Whatever we are going to call them we need to get it from a reliable source.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

A source wont solve the problem. You can always find another source saying something different. Which is why I would prefer to omit the entire CR-thing all together. Simonsen is a light weight, academically speking, anyway.--Orakologen (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

A source is a prerequisite for any piece of information or description being added to wikipedia. And having sources saying various things is not a problem, that is a beginning of a discussion about which sources to include and how. That is how wikipedia works. Personal musings about whether we consider a particular description is apt is not productive. If you have particular issues with using Simonsen as a source you should make that argument, for example by presenting evidence for his "light weight" status, or by presenting weightier sources that contradict him.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

A master thesis is not a quality source since writing one doesnt make you an expert on the subject. I dont have to present a weightier source to make that argument. The problem with not allowing "personal musings" is that you sometimes overlook common sense. In this case that CR has a specifc meaning to most English speakers.--Orakologen (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I do agree that Simonsen is a light weight source, I hadn't realized he was only basing it on an MA thesis. But yes you do need a weightier source to contradict him since your "common sense" is "nonsense" to me. It seems entirely reasonable to say as does Simonsen that DF has differed from other European Right Wing Populist movements because it had a close alliance with a (notice that he says "a" and not "the") Christian Right. To me it is in fact so commonsensical that I do think a contradictory source of equal or great weight should be produces in order to remove it. The point about american readers being likely to assume that the Danish Christian Right is exactly the same as theirs is made irrelevant by the link to Tidehverv.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • These sources, [23][24], both argue that the alliance with Tidehverv was a significant factor in the trajectory of development of DF policies. They do not say "Christian Right".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I have always agreed with you that Tidehverv influenced (and still influences) their policy, (see my earlier posts). Thats not controversial. I see that you have removed CR so thats fine. For the record its not just in regard to US readers that I think CR is misleading and my approach to wiki articles is that you should be able to read them without necessarily clicking on links (such as the one to Tidehverv).--Orakologen (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The party's political position

I'd like to hear opinions again on the party's position in the political spectrum. There is a similar thread above that had been dormant for some years. I think we have to make clear, whether it is (still) correct to label the party as far-right. It's now the second most popular party in Denmark and it was semi-government party some time ago.

Is there still a consensus to label it as 'far-right'? The rule of thumb would be that far-right in scholarly, not tabloid understanding, would include parties that are reactionary, ultranationalist or even neo-Nazi/neofascist. Only opposing mass immigration or even Islam is not a reason to describe a party as far-right. Yes, this is frequently being done by sensationalist media, but is not a must for an encyclopedia. I have limited knowledge of Danish politics, so I'd especially appreciate views by Danish users. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It is supported by reliable sources. Not sensationalist tabloids, but scholarly ones. So it stays. The cited books are from 2011 and 2012. If you claim that DF's position has changed as significantly during the last two years that the sources are outdated, you have to prove this massive change with reliable sources, not your feeling. --RJFF (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Obviously, there is no consensus to label the party as 'far-right', otherwise we would not write 'right-wing to far-right', but plain 'far-right'. Btw, the cited sources are not "cherry-picked" or unrepresentative. It is easy to find more, e.g.:
  • Vad Jønsson, Heidi; Petersen, Klaus (2012). Denmark: A National Welfare State Meets the World. Palgrave Macmillan. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
But yes, I would also like to ask Danish users to join the discussion, to see how this question is discussed in Danish-language sources, which I cannot read. --RJFF (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

So 26.6 % of Danes are "far-right"? Perhaps we have to try find sources that describe their voter base and form a section on it, as it would seem quite unbelievable that the whole party or that many voters are far-right. --Pudeo' 19:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I think a more accurate label would be right-wing populist, nationalist, or national-socialist or national-conservative. IN the Danish wikipedia it is labeled a "nationalist and social conservative party". I think this is pretty accurate though there is no obvoius source for it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Danish People's Party. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 12:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Danish People's Party. 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:

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) 13:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Center or right

Regardless of whether or not a poll should be given equal weight to the opinions of academics, "Danes think A but ~some foreign~ academics think B" is not going to be an acceptable way of presenting the information. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Ideology: Center-right

thats a political position and not an ideology. confusing. should probably be removed? Statefree (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Shortname DPP or DF

This article uses DPP as the shortname for the party thoughtout the entire article, and not DF, as it is often called in Denmark. However, Socialist People's Party uses SF thoughtout its article, and this seems to be consistent with several french parties. I suggest that we consider which one is most appropriate. What is prevailing in english sources? ― Heb the best (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

DKexit policy?

At Withdrawal from the European Union#Advocates in other countries for withdrawal, the DPP is listed as a party that proposes that Denmark leave the EU. I can't see from this article whether or not that is true. Would someone please clarify this article if possible and then update the Withdrawal article? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Scandinavian Beirut

Currently there is a subheader of Policies titled Controversies, with the text

The changes to Denmark's immigration laws drew criticism from the former social democratic government of Sweden, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the Council of Europe's human rights commissioner. In a response to the criticism from the Swedish government, Pia Kjærsgaard said: "If they want to turn Stockholm, Gothenburg or Malmö into a Scandinavian Beirut, with clan wars, honour killings and gang rapes, let them do it. We can always put a barrier on the Øresund Bridge."[12]

While it's a pithy little quote, this seems misplaced. It doesn't clarify their policies -- it's already well established elsewhere in the article that the DPP favour strict immigration laws -- and I don't see how the above exchange of opinions amounts to a "controversy".__Gamren (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Ultranationalism in infobox?

I am not sure whether this is an appropriate infobox descriptor for the party. Ultranationalism seems a more relevant descriptor for Hard Line, or even The New Right. DF is probably the most moderate nationalist movement in Denmark. Also, unlike other European nationalist movements that are described as "ultranationalist", it has no background in or connections to fascism or authoritarian regimes. It frequently cooperates with the mainstream parties, and has supported several centre-right Danish governments. I am aware that Wikipedia works using sources, but would also note the sources are from 2003 and 2006, fairly early on in the DF's history. It is perhaps not so relevant today.--Jay942942 (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Well argued - I fully agree. I will remove it ― Hebsen (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Danish_People%27s_Party/Archive_1&oldid=1123814694"