Talk:Finns Party/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Fennoman movement

I would suggest, that everyone spending the Easter weekend in developing the concept lacking totally in the New York Times and the Economist and the Financial Times would read the idea behind the Finnish national idea: Fennoman movement. After reading this, it is understandable, why mainly the supporters of the Swedish People's Party and the professors supporting it have contiminated the Swedish press mainly owner by Bonniers. The British press works only to may the peripheries pay more than their share for rescuing tax-payers money in Britain and also the investor's responsibility of the credits. 84.248.36.214 (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that anyone interested in exploring any possible affinities between the True Finn party and the earlier Fennoman movement produce some sources in support of their arguments.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The sources are available: Veikko Vennamo. Every Finn knows the succession from the very first two Agrarian parties established in 1906 and which joined 1908. This is however too difficult for an English writer to read and understand. Also the agricultural politics of Finland from Land reform 1918 and Lex Kallio 1922 to the reforms of 1940 and 1944 due to the flow of the Karelian refugees is not written in English. Compiling all that for the reporter of the Financial Times or the Economist would take time and yet it would be not understandable and unacceptable as the development went to the direction, that would have been impossible for the UK and in the UK due to the dence population and possibility to utilised the external sources of land in Africa, New Zealand and Australia. 84.248.36.214 (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

If you have sources, and provide direct referencing in the article, you are perfectly free to use Finnish-language sources in the article. The only point is that you and your Finnish countrymen likely have to find such sources yourself, since most of us here do not understand Finnish. I would propose to create a "Background" subsection under History, and add there about the Fennoman movement, as well as a short narrative of the Finnish Rural Party. If you want to contribute with writing about this using sources (including Finnish ones), it would be greatly appreciated. (If you think the article doesn't provide enough about particular issues, you can only help by editing yourself. Constant complaining without actually doing anything is not very constructive.) – Bellatores (t.) 11:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you think, that we should bother much more to provide the backgrounds for the ignorant, that the branded Economist, NYT or FT bothers to do? Varsijousi (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to note that Fennomans were liberal/radical/civic cultural nationalists (university thing those days). But then the conservatives won with Finnish Party against the Young Finnish Party. And after that Finnish nationalism has been conservative. True Finns seem to have only one new thing (in Fenland anyway), popularism. The Swedish party is identical to True Finns, conservative/etno-nepotist remnant of the past, whatever they claim. xoxo to censors <3 Kyz2 (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Name change the Finns

The article must be moved to the name The Finns. User:Bastin reverted this move, because "Revert - third-party sources still call them 'True Finns'. Unless and until they change, Wikipedia doesn't change. And that's definitely not how we move articles on Wikipedia." Thath's no rationale for keeping it True Finns, they just made it official. Every party has decided its own English name. Why 3rd party sources call it still "True Finns"? Because they're out-dated. --Pudeo' 17:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

They're not 'outdated', Pudeo. News sources are still calling the party the 'True Finns' today. Except for two from YLE, which seems to have not yet decided which name to use! Per WP:UCN, Wikipedia uses the name that's most commonly used by reliable third-party sources. Which, in this context, means newspapers. Thus, even if you think all the newspapers are wrong and think they've ignored the latest party press release notifying them of the change of name, Wikipedia does what newspapers do. Bastin 18:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I am just speculating, but im pretty sure that they wont be able to use the name "The Finns" for a long time. I think some language official will have something to say about this new name and its legality in Finland. Jontts (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether it's legal or not is not for us Wikipedia users to decide. In Helsingin Sanomat paper version on 22 August they did interview officials from the Ministry of Justice and the Organisation Register, who pretty much said that the English translations of the parties' names is not an issue that they deal with. But we shall see. --128.214.200.97 (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course it isn't. As I said, I am just speculating. Jontts (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hufvudstadsbladet has an article today that says the Patent and Register Board has not been contacted about adding an English language name for the party. So, the name is not yet official. See:http://hbl.fi/nyheter/2011-08-22/namnet-finns-vacker-debatt (in Swedish). 144.82.90.200 (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually none of the Finnish parties have an English name mentioned in the official Party Register[1] (only domestic languages are used there) — so if we take that to be the sole criterium for an official status, that would mean that none of the Finnish parties have an official English name. However, 'True Finns' was until now treated like an official name because it was used by the party in English language contexts, although it was never mentioned in any rules of the party. In any case it is the official decision of the party executive/board that the new translation should be used.[2] --89.27.103.116 (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This name change is a really peculiar issue. Not only is "The Finns" quite an unusual name, as noted by YLE today (it is not a translation of the party's de jure official Finnish or Swedish name, and conflicts with the established English term for Finnish people in general). I can't find anything about this change on their web page. Their party by-laws only list the Finnish and Swedish name. Nevertheless, Wikipedia does not reflect such changes unless they are adopted by main stream 3rd party sources. Quote: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." --hydrox (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Translations of parties' names are not always literal: for example the Norwegian party Venstre is translated as 'Liberal Party', when the literal translation would be 'Left'. So it's normal for translations to put connotation above literal meaning. Calling the Norwegian Liberal Party by it's literal translation 'Left' would be misleading, as it is not a leftist party. In a similar way Timo Soini has argued that 'The Finns' captures the positive, ordinary connotation of the Finnish name. After all, the prefix perus is used, when something is ordinary, ie. elementary or of fundamental nature. Perhaps the international media will use the name by adding the word 'party' in it in order to avoid confusion. Regarding the party's web page, we must note that the party doesn't even have an English language section there. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, Jaako, back in 2006, the Perussuomalaiset used to have a webpage in English also, but it was quite clear that they could have done with some help writing grammatical sentences in English. It probably detracted from their credibility internationally, particular when the party's then less spin-doctored focus more explicitly centered on overpaying border guards to protect Finland from the rampant hoardes clammering to get in. 174.126.201.0 (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, as of today, in the page of the Elections website of the Finnish Ministry of Justice, the English name is still True Finns (s. List of Registered Parties) --Rutja76 (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It also says, quote: "names in english are unofficial translations".[3]. It also translates Vasemmistoliitto as 'Left-Wing Alliance', but in Wikipedia the translation 'Left Alliance' is used everywhere. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does what newspapers do". Really? So why is Pripyat in Wikipedia "Prypiat"? You hardly ever see newspapers report about "Prypiat", but "Pripyat". Just saying. Quote: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. <= Clearly that is not the case with Pripyat even after a vote, so why is this article different? --86.60.222.33 (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Other stuff exists. What does a town in Ukraine have to do with this article? --hydrox (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

When Timo Soini was interviewed on Fox Business Network they used the name Finns Party.[4] --89.27.103.116 (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw that. Let's still wait until more sources pick up the new name. So far we have FOX News and YLE, as far as I know. --hydrox (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I added a poll table below of reliable source name usage of the party. Editors, please be proactive in adding new English-language sources you are aware of. --hydrox (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Update January 2012: As you can see from the table below, it seems that international coverage of the first round of the 2012 presidential election has been predominantly using the name "The Finns Party", or some variation thereof. I found especially noteworthy the International Edition of Helsingin Sanomat, Finland's leading newspaper, switching to "The Finns Party" (take one exception) under this election. These facts alone would suggest changing the English Wikipedia article to The Finns Party was appropriate, but we will probably have even more conclusive results after the second round, that will conclude on 5 February. --hydrox (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Survey: Naming across sources

Recent name usage across reliable sources.
Additions are welcome.

Publication	Name(s) used since Aug. 21, 2011	References	Remarks
YLE News in English	The Finns Party The Finns' Party Finns Party Finns' Party	[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]	Capitalization of "Party" and "The" (where present) remains incoherent. "The" is sometimes part of the name, sometimes not. Only disuse of "True Finns" is coherent.
Helsingin Sanomat Int'l Edition	True Finns (-2011) The Finns Party (2012-)	The Finns Party: [11] [12] [13] [14] True Finns: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]	The name change was reported, but not adopted until the 2012 election.
Helsinki Times	Finns party	[25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]	Usage has been entirely coherent since October: "the" never capitalized where present, never part of the name and "party" never capitalized.
Ministry of Justice	True Finns	[40]	The page has not been updated since the party announced the new English name.
BBC	True Finns	[41]
The Guardian	True Finns	[42]	Recent piece uses the term in the same piece as quoting Soini using the term 'the Finns Party'.
Fox Business Network	The Finns Party	[43]	Single TV appearance.
Daily Mail	Finns party	[44]	Used in a Mail Online blog.
Associated Press	True Finns	[45]	2012 election coverage
Reuters	The Finns Party	[46]	2012 election coverage. Notes previous name in the same article.
AFP	The Finns Party	[47]	2012 election coverage
CNN	True Finns	[48]	2012 election coverage
The Wall Street Journal	The Finns party	[49]	2012 election coverage.
Bloomberg	"The Finns" party	[50] [51] [52]	2012 election coverage
Chicago Tribune	The Finns Party	[53]	2012 election coverage. Notes previous name.
Russia Today	Finns party	[54]	2012 election coverage. Summary telegraph.
Huffington Post	True Finns	[55]	2012 election coverage
Euronews	The Finns Party	[56] [57]	2012 election coverage

Contraversy

User talk:174.126.201.0 Please stop removing sourced information from the article True Finns. This Ilta-Sanomat article[1] clearly puts Stubb's statement in context: the headline is "An attack from abroad - Stubb defends Soini". The initial remover, user OldSquiffyBat, claimed that the characterization of Soini as a nice guy was unrelated to to other text, which deals with accusations made toward the party. That article proves that the characterization is directly related to it: Stubb calls Soini a nice guy in the context of defending him from those charges. Another matter is that user OldSquiffyBat was clearly politically motivated in his edit, of which his edit summary bears witness: he calls the party's supporters by disparaging names (calling them "neo-nazis", despite the fact that the party's leader is pro-Israel and the party's MPs voted in favor of a Jewish Speaker of Parliament as their first action in the new parliament). So, to sum up: the announced basis for removal was that the "nice guy" characterization was not related to the charges made by media and other politicians. The article of Ilta-Sanomat proves that it was directly related to it. --62.78.234.31 (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

OldSquiffyBat's rationale that "the fair and reasonable guy" quote has nothing to do with immigration policy is valid and I agree with him. Inclusion of these tabloid sources is not consensus.

174.126.201.0 (talk) 06:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I already answered you on your discussion page. Ilta-Sanomat article directly links the statement to the accusations made toward the party. Of course we can remove also the accusations of xenophobia entirely: they aren't really related to the party's immigration policies, but are merely allegations by others. OldSquiffyBat is a politically motivated editor: his edit summary confirms his motives are political and partisan. Addition: Ilta-Sanomat is Finland's second largest newspaper and there is no doubt about it's credibility. Being published in tabloid format means nothing: papers such as Hufvudstadsbladet are published in tabloid as well. --62.78.234.31 (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Your answer did not resolve the contaversy. 174.126.201.0 (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 174.126.201.0 (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It did. But I'm fine with the current version of the article, with the xenophobia allegations removed. Had they remained, it would have been important to present all sides of the issue, and that includes other politicians defending the party from the allegations. Stubb's characterization could be included in the section titled "Timo Soini" as well. --62.78.234.31 (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Statements of individuals belong in their articles / Activities of the party

Statements made by individual representatives of the party can be mentioned in the respective articles of those individuals (if deemed important enough in the first place). This article is not the place for that; this article deals with the official policies of the party. Making an entire section of random comments of individual members is totally out of proportion, and it also qualifies as recentism: they are not significant on a 10-year time span. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"Your conduct in the article True Finns borders on vandalism. It is you, who is edit warring instead of discussing: I have started a new section on the article's talk page, yet you have not responded. Comments of individuals, if the comments are deemed important enough to warrant a mention at all, belong in their respective articles. Their place is not in the party article, as that article is meant for the official policies of the party, and those comments are not the statements of the party. The fact that Eerola and Turunen don't currently have articles is no excuse for your action, since you can start those articles by yourself. Your action is directly in breach of Wikipedia policy. You don't see the various comments made by individual US Republican freshmen gathered into a section in the article concerning the Republican Party either; instead they are mentioned in the articles of the respective individuals. Your comments are also in breach of the policy against recentism, which states that details must be noteworthy even 10 years from now. If you wish to respond, please do so in the article's talk page. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)"

To accuse me of vandalism falls short of the respect appropriate to another serious wikipedian. My discussions on this page are extremely lengthy. Those looking for the official party policies from one perspective only may refer to the Perussuomalaiset website. If this is what this page is to be then an overly authoritarin bias is apparent. The content, which is that of another contributor, is sourced and encyclopaedic. The best developed pages are long and well-structured, and well-written from multiple improvements to different peoples' text, for which brevity and exclusion of encyclopaedic information is no substitute. Wikipedia has a policy against burden. If you refer to the wikipedia policy on recentism, please give some consideration to the advice not to assume that wikipedians are crystal ball gazers as to what will be noteworthy in 10 years. My suggestion is to let the dust settle on the events and text to see where others, and the course of history, go with it.

~~

According to your IP's edit history this is your first contribution to this talk page. You are burdening this page with trivial information on individual members, which is not the purpose of the article concentrating on the party itself. You can mention those comments in the articles of the respective MPs (and Halla-aho's comments already are, so why are you duplicating the mention here?). That, if any, is the place for those comments. Regarding Wikipedia policy and precendent, see the article on the US Republican politician Joe Walsh for example. He has had lots of controversies and those are gathered in his article as a section of multiple paragraphs. His comments are not gathered into the article Republican Party. About the policy against recentism, I quote this from the Wikipedia policy page: "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?" Those are the questions users are advised to make when editing. It is obvious a) that the comments you added are not made by the party (and thus the section's headline "International statements" is simply a lie in the context of the party article), b) they are not relevant to the party on a ten year time span, and c) they are burdening the article with trivial information and throw the article out of balance. Again, Halla-aho's comments are already covered in his article, and you are free to create articles for all MPs of the party. The comments can be mentioned there, as long as they are put into the right context (for example, the comments were considered to be dark humour, and not meant seriously). Finally, I'd like to point out that the section you are trying to reinsert was initially inserted by user Watti, who has been banned from Finnish Wikipedia on the grounds of politically motivated edits, especially regarding this party. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This is quite recentist trivia. I mean, just Greece and North Korea. Who has chosen these two topics to be exlusively included as such? They should be merged into the articles of the MPs indeed as suggested. --Pudeo' 06:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest to let others develop this section rather than delete it. The information, which many readers would be interested in, is not obscuring any other section.174.126.207.178 (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The information can be developed in the articles of the respective MPs. For example the section concerning Halla-aho's comments is already included in the article Jussi Halla-aho almost word to word. Why do you want to duplicate it here? It burdens the article with information that is trivial with respect to the party as a whole and it does obscure the integrity of the article as it suggests that these comments are as important as the sections concerning the party's history or official policies. Go read the article Republican Party (United States). Do you see there sections about individual comments made by freshmen representatives? No, the information there is all based on the official stances of the Republican party and its leadership. Controversies regarding individuals are dealt with in the articles of those individuals: see Joe Walsh, for one. His controversies are dealt with in his own article, not in the article of the Republican Party. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I sense there is little point in reiterating the above arguments that remain an unresolved contraversy, other than to further clarify that it is indeed a burden to expect me to develop these other wiki pages. Your mind is made up, yet this does not represent the entire readership. The section has been changed from 'international statements' to 'statements of individual members' and historical content removed. There thus seems to be a concerted revisionist effort to adapt the material until there is grounds to remove it. The structure of the article is visible for all to see and what is needed is content, not the deletion of sourced content. My suggestion is to not further interfere with it yourself and wait to see how the dust settles on the text and the events to see where others go with developing the article.

The material is sourced and about what influential people in that party have said and done in front of the press and the Finnish parliament

. 134.129.66.182 (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You failed to respond to any of my arguments. 1) According to established Wikipedia policy comments made by individual members are dealt with in the articles of those individuals, not in the article of the party. I have proved this by reference to a lengthy article of a well known political party. And, as previously stated, the Halla-aho section already is included in his article, so it is essentially spam to post the same section to multiple places. 2) These comments are both recentist and trivial with regard to the party as a whole. These are not statements made by the party. Thus they are irrelevant burden here and obscure the article's integrity. 3) It is not Wikipedia policy that any sourced information can be added anywhere, if it is not relevant to the article. For example, you can't write about rugby rules in an article concerning the rules of baseball, not even with sources. Neither can you make false generalisations to a large party from individual comments (which in this case were satirical in any case). That kind of generalisation also counts as original research. The articles of Wikipedia are supposed to have cohesion, so that an article concerning the party handles with issues related to the party as a whole and its leadership, while the articles concerning individuals handle the personal comments of those persons. 4) The initial addition of that section was made by a user who was banned in the Finnish Wikipedia for politically motivated edits, especially related to this party. Having that section in this article is not neutral, as its purpose is essentially to mislead the reader about the party's international stances.

"it is indeed a burden to expect me to develop these other wiki pages" That is irrelevant. This isn't about you. The quality of this article can not be dependent on your personal leisure.

"My suggestion is to not further interfere with it yourself" I'm going to give that advice to you. It is obvious that you are hellbent on having this recentist and irrelevant trivia here out of political motivations. My concern is to keep this article neutral, and that includes removing irrelevant, biased and wrongly placed content. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I regret that I have found it hard to find the time to address each of your points in turn, as I do in what ensues. Each of your points is italicised and how the points could be addressed is detailed in the intervening text.

Policy on individuals and parties 1) According to established Wikipedia policy comments made by individual members are dealt with in the articles of those individuals, not in the article of the party. I have proved this by reference to a lengthy article of a well known political party. And, as previously stated, the Halla-aho section already is included in his article, so it is essentially spam to post the same section to multiple places. The policy seems not to have been made explicit in any transparent way by wikipedia. I do not understand how your argument can be proved via argument by analogy. The section seems to have been inappropriately restyled to reflect individuals by someone with a biased agenda to remove the sourced content from the article. It is misleading to focus the developing section on the individuals. My recommendation is to revert the section's original heading to "international statements".

Recentism, trivia, and burden 2) These comments are both recentist and trivial with regard to the party as a whole. These are not statements made by the party. Thus they are irrelevant burden here and obscure the article's integrity. The information is structured into a separate section that does not obscure any other section and thus it does not burden the reader. It is contraversial that the information is trivial as there are a number of contributors who have retained this section who also represent a readership who may be interested in this encyclopaedic content. The recentism issue has been tended to above. Essentially, we cannot pretend to be crystal ball gazers, as is described in wikipedia policy on recentism. So I think we can agree to let the dust settle on the text, maintaining that section blanking of sourced material is contraversial. This is the route to the development of unbiased material about the activities of the party (cf. a translation of their manifesto, as is the main focus of the article at present).

Original research 3) It is not Wikipedia policy that any sourced information can be added anywhere, if it is not relevant to the article. For example, you can't write about rugby rules in an article concerning the rules of baseball, not even with sources. Neither can you make false generalisations to a large party from individual comments (which in this case were satirical in any case). That kind of generalisation also counts as original research. The articles of Wikipedia are supposed to have cohesion, so that an article concerning the party handles with issues related to the party as a whole and its leadership, while the articles concerning individuals handle the personal comments of those persons. The sourced material is not original research and it can only be an elaborate chain of inference that defines sourced material as such. I am unaware of any satire. My suggestion is to retain the names of the influential people in the party who made statements in front of the press and parliament as enclylopaedic content.

Banned user 4) The initial addition of that section was made by a user who was banned in the Finnish Wikipedia for politically motivated edits, especially related to this party. Having that section in this article is not neutral, as its purpose is essentially to mislead the reader about the party's international stance. The banned user had been banned. I am unaware of the user's other contributions or status. It happens that this particular content is encyclopaedic so I suggest that it is retained.

Burden on other contributors "it is indeed a burden to expect me to develop these other wiki pages" That is irrelevant. This isn't about you. The quality of this article can not be dependent on your personal leisure. It falls short of the respect appropriate for a fellow wikipedian to place a burden upon their voluntary time contributed. I am unsure if this is something that can be addressed in the article.

174.126.207.178 (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"My recommendation is to revert the section's original heading to "international statements"" Response: That would be simpy a lie. That would imply that the "statements" were made by the party and that they were official party policy, which of course is not the case. According to Wikipedia policy articles must have cohesion. An article about a political party does not deal with every random comment made by the party's individual member. The policies applied here are those in favour of relevance and neutrality and those against recentism and original research (it is your original research to elevate these particular comments to important stature). Those party articles that are in a good state do not dwell on the issues of a few comments made by individuals and scandalized by the press.

"The information is structured into a separate section that does not obscure any other section and thus it does not burden the reader." Response: All sections of the article are meant to be equally important. Having these comments in a section of its own implies that they are as important as the party's history or policies. Any section with irrelevant information is a burden.

"It is contraversial that the information is trivial as there are a number of contributors who have retained this section" Response: No, only one user has done so beside your self.

"The recentism issue has been tended to above." Response: I have above proved without a doubt that the additions are recentist and user Pudeo has seconded this. There are no indications that these comments would be important 10 years from now, considering that the Finnish media stopped writing about them a long time ago. It is not the policy of Wikipedia to allow random trivia to remain on an article for 10 years and review its importance only then.

"The sourced material is not original research" Response: You are engaging in original research in picking precisely these two comments among thousands of comments made by party MPs and then portraying them as "representative" of the party's international stances (as you claimed under the original title of the section). Claiming that a few satirical comments made by individual members are actually international policies of the party is definitely original research.

"I am unaware of any satire." Response: Halla-aho did not mean his comment to be a serious proposal, while the North Korea comments of Turunen and Eerola were meant as humorous and interpreted as such. This is mentioned with sources in the current version.

"It happens that this particular content is encyclopaedic" Response: No, this content is political propaganda directed against the party. Do you honestly think you would find that in an actual printed encyclopaedia?

"It falls short of the respect appropriate for a fellow wikipedian to place a burden upon their voluntary time contributed." Response: I do not concern myself with your time spending. Irrelevant information does not become relevant by the argument that you do not have time to move it elsewhere. The Halla-aho comments don't even have to be moved, since they already are included in the article regarding him. I may create the articles of Turunen and Eerola myself in the near future if no one else does it. After those articles have been created, you can move the mentions of their comments in those articles, if you want to. There is no reason to keep them here. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

We have already compromised on the current state of this section that it seems you would now wish to blank. The entire content of responses to your points is not addressed in your responses. The contraversy thus continues.174.126.207.178 (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have responded to your so called arguments, but it seems that you are not willing or not able to continue the discussion. I interpret that you have thus given up on the discussion. As the section in question continues to be in a scandalous state, I will take action to remedy it shortly. That means removing content which is in direct breach of Wikipedia policy. Edit: now both Turunen and Eerola have their own articles. Use those articles if you want to, but the trivia in question does not belong in this article. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 08:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not correct. I am willing to participate in a respectful discussion, so please I ask you to not go jumping to any conclusions. It seems you would wish to delete material that we have already compromised on. The proposed action of section blanking remains contraversial and your responses to my responses to your points, still do not address the entirity of each response. That is, there is a bias on what you have chosen to consider before arriving at a contraversial plan of action. In the interim of our discussion, others have been improving the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.66.182 (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The only acceptable compromise is that the information in question is mentioned in the articles of the individuals. This is already the case with the Halla-aho comment. And now that articles exist for Turunen and Eerola as well, there is nothing stopping you from using those articles. I truly don't understand, why you are so reluctant to accept that. You must admit that if there is a logical place for a comment made by MP Turunen, for example, that place is is the article concerning himself. Having those comments here gives the wrong impression that they are official policies of the party. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The foregoing discussion had abandoned valid arguments, seizing upon issues that you take exception to, so even you ignore your own points. I'd suggest to read the foregoing and address all aspects of the discussion in your rationale.134.129.66.182 (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That is false. I have made several valid arguments and you have declined to reply to them properly. As mentioned, now there are articles for all the individual MPs in question. Use those articles if you want to. Don't ruin this one. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Please consider reviewing each point in the order they appear and addressing them in their entirity in an unselective manner. Then is the time to move forward with considering new arguments in their entirity. 174.126.207.178 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC).

This discussion has obviously ended a long time ago. You haven't brought anything new to it and you have failed to respond to my arguments. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The inference that the discussion has come to a conclusion is not valid, as you can see I am still prepared to discuss. All that is asked is that each prior point is addressed in its entirity before introducing new points. This would be a logical and respectful cooperation. 174.126.207.178 (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion has ended, as you have refused to respond to my detailed arguments. Now you are just bittering in a childish way. Please stop your edit-warring, as it is detremental to the condition of this article. If you continue on this path, I must consider you a politically motivated vandal. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

From what I understand, it seems you are not willing to consider each point in its entirety as it appears in the discussion above before introducing new points. To consider each point in its entirety would be the way to conduct a discussion properly. A selectivity is apparent here that comes across as a biased point of view. The problem is that the discussion has not begun properly, not that it has ended. It falls short of the respect appropriate to another serious wikipedian to accuse them of vandalism. Disrespectful terms such as "childish" have now entered the discourse. I am going to remind you that one of the five pillars is "Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner." If the only allowable content for this page is the content of the True Finn manifesto, or "the official policies of the party", then the content of the page must surely be biased toward one political point of view. I'd suggest to be a little less authoritarian about the content of the article and let some others develop the content so that the article becomes more encyclopaedic than the True Finn manifesto. This is the route to a better article. If there must be a war, I assure you that it is not in my mind: I am prepared to discuss in full each point in a logical order and not dismiss everything you write as invalid. I'd suggest that you start at the start and work your way down to the end contemplating carefully the validity of each point and how it can be addressed in the article. I'd suggest to consider every point and only rebut a minority of the points of the other's rationale. If you can do this "properly" (to use your term) then I may capitulate.174.126.207.178 (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Again you have written a reply that does nothing to further the discussion. What you are currently doing is merely "metadiscussion": you are discussing about discussing. Meanwhile I have addressed several of your arguments with detail, and you have not responded to them. There is no ongoing discussion as long as you keep ignoring all arguments presented. I shall copy paste my previous arguments below, as you are yet to address them in any proper way:

"My recommendation is to revert the section's original heading to "international statements"" Response: That would be simpy a lie. That would imply that the "statements" were made by the party and that they were official party policy, which of course is not the case. According to Wikipedia policy articles must have cohesion. An article about a political party does not deal with every random comment made by the party's individual member. The policies applied here are those in favour of relevance and neutrality and those against recentism and original research (it is your original research to elevate these particular comments to important stature). Those party articles that are in a good state do not dwell on the issues of a few comments made by individuals and scandalized by the press.

"The information is structured into a separate section that does not obscure any other section and thus it does not burden the reader." Response: All sections of the article are meant to be equally important. Having these comments in a section of its own implies that they are as important as the party's history or policies. Any section with irrelevant information is a burden.

"It is contraversial that the information is trivial as there are a number of contributors who have retained this section" Response: No, only one user has done so beside your self.

"The recentism issue has been tended to above." Response: I have above proved without a doubt that the additions are recentist and user Pudeo has seconded this. There are no indications that these comments would be important 10 years from now, considering that the Finnish media stopped writing about them a long time ago. It is not the policy of Wikipedia to allow random trivia to remain on an article for 10 years and review its importance only then.

"The sourced material is not original research" Response: You are engaging in original research in picking precisely these two comments among thousands of comments made by party MPs and then portraying them as "representative" of the party's international stances (as you claimed under the original title of the section). Claiming that a few satirical comments made by individual members are actually international policies of the party is definitely original research.

"I am unaware of any satire." Response: Halla-aho did not mean his comment to be a serious proposal, while the North Korea comments of Turunen and Eerola were meant as humorous and interpreted as such. This is mentioned with sources in the current version.

"It happens that this particular content is encyclopaedic" Response: No, this content is political propaganda directed against the party. Do you honestly think you would find that in an actual printed encyclopaedia?

"It falls short of the respect appropriate for a fellow wikipedian to place a burden upon their voluntary time contributed." Response: I do not concern myself with your time spending. Irrelevant information does not become relevant by the argument that you do not have time to move it elsewhere. The Halla-aho comments don't even have to be moved, since they already are included in the article regarding him. Now there are articles for Turunen and Eerola as well. You may move the mentions of their comments in those articles, if you want to. There is no reason to keep them here. Their comments are not related to the party as a whole. You wanting to make the false claim that those comments represent policies of the party proves that you have political motivations and that you are not abiding by the neutral point of view policy. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, ok, I am honoured to have been told that I am conducting metadiscussion. Let’s take it from the start in a logical manner so we can reap the inferential advantages of taking each point in turn, with information that belongs together staying together. This is rather streamlined, so please feel welcome to add such that we can settle upon a compromise.

Recentism Making an entire section of random comments of individual members is totally out of proportion, and it also qualifies as recentism: they are not significant on a 10-year time span… Your comments are also in breach of the policy against recentism, which states that details must be noteworthy even 10 years from now. If you wish to respond, please do so in the article's talk page. …I have above proved without a doubt that the additions are recentist and user Pudeo has seconded this. There are no indications that these comments would be important 10 years from now, considering that the Finnish media stopped writing about them a long time ago. It is not the policy of Wikipedia to allow random trivia to remain on an article for 10 years and review its importance only then… I quote this from the Wikipedia policy page: "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?" Those are the questions users are advised to make when editing.

If you refer to the wikipedia policy on recentism, please give some consideration to the advice not to assume that wikipedians are crystal ball gazers as to what will be noteworthy in 10 years. That is, you proof without doubt seems not to be demonstrable. I’d be more in favor of the inclusion of more material about what the activities of influential members of the party in this article, rather than exclusion of material that the readership could be interested in.

This article deals with the official policies of the party. Statements made by individual representatives of the party can be mentioned in the respective articles of those individuals (if deemed important enough in the first place). This article is not the place for that; this article deals with the official policies of the party. Comments of individuals, if the comments are deemed important enough to warrant a mention at all, belong in their respective articles. Their place is not in the party article, as that article is meant for the official policies of the party, and those comments are not the statements of the party. The fact that Eerola and Turunen don't currently have articles is no excuse for your action, since you can start those articles by yourself.

This approach is overly authoritarian and biased if it is to only to permit a translation of the True Finn manifesto. Here there is a concern that the present article is developing a biased point of view. The suggested resolution is to include more material about the activities of influential members of the party, rather than exclude information.

Original research and Individual members You are engaging in original research in picking precisely these two comments among thousands of comments made by party MPs and then portraying them as "representative" of the party's international stances (as you claimed under the original title of the section). Claiming that a few satirical comments made by individual members are actually international policies of the party is definitely original research… Comments of individuals, if the comments are deemed important enough to warrant a mention at all, belong in their respective articles. Their place is not in the party article, as that article is meant for the official policies of the party, and those comments are not the statements of the party. The fact that Eerola and Turunen don't currently have articles is no excuse for your action, since you can start those articles by yourself..

I do not think it is valid in any simple way to identify sourced information as original research. A resolution would be to include more about the activities of influential members of the party.

Policy on individuals and parties 1) According to established Wikipedia policy comments made by individual members are dealt with in the articles of those individuals, not in the article of the party. I have proved this by reference to a lengthy article of a well known political party. And, as previously stated, the Halla-aho section already is included in his article, so it is essentially spam to post the same section to multiple places.

The policy seems not to have been made explicit in any transparent way by wikipedia. I would be interested to understand your proof, which appears to be an argument by analogy as is definitively invalid.

Trivia According to your IP's edit history this is your first contribution to this talk page. You are burdening this page with trivial information on individual members… they are burdening the article with trivial information and throw the article out of balance… Why do you want to duplicate it here? It burdens the article with information that is trivial with respect to the party as a whole and it does obscure the integrity of the article as it suggests that these comments are as important as the sections concerning the party's history or official policies… This is quite recentist trivia… You are burdening this page with trivial information on individual members, which is not the purpose of the article concentrating on the party itself… It is not the policy of Wikipedia to allow random trivia to remain on an article for 10 years and review its importance only then. Use those articles if you want to, but the trivia in question does not belong in this article. This is quite recentist trivia. I mean, just Greece and North Korea.

The purpose of an article is for those who would wish to find out more about something, they can read it, not as an instrument to make accessible the True Finn manifesto. If they have not heard of the individual MPs then they may never come across the information that they may find useful or interesting. Please see individual members.

Vandalism Your conduct in the article True Finns borders on vandalism. It is you, who is edit warring instead of discussing: I have started a new section on the article's talk page, yet you have not responded… The discussion has ended, as you have refused to respond to my detailed arguments. Now you are just bittering in a childish way. Please stop your edit-warring, as it is detremental to the condition of this article. If you continue on this path, I must consider you a politically motivated vandal.

Please see respect.

Encyclopaedic content "It happens that this particular content is encyclopaedic" No, this content is political propaganda directed against the party. Do you honestly think you would find that in an actual printed encyclopaedia? The content is sourced and encyclopaedic about events that in fact happened (cf. propaganda).

Brevity and exclusion of encyclopaedic information is no substitute.

Respect. I do not concern myself with your time spending… Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner... I mean, just Greece and North Korea… Go read the article Republican Party (use of imperative)… Again you have written a reply that does nothing to further the discussion. .. I have responded to your so called arguments …That would be simpy a lie… That is irrelevant. This isn't about you. The quality of this article can not be dependent on your personal leisure.

Wikipedia policy: "Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner."

Argument by analogy Go read the article Republican Party (United States). Do you see there sections about individual comments made by freshmen representatives? No, the information there is all based on the official stances of the Republican party and its leadership. Controversies regarding individuals are dealt with in the articles of those individuals: see Joe Walsh, for one. His controversies are dealt with in his own article, not in the article of the Republican Party.

Arguments cannot be proven by analogy.

The best developed pages are long and well-structured, and well-written from multiple improvements to different peoples' text. This is not possible when the material has been moved to another article. There is much to be said for analysis into separate sections as part of a meaningful synthesis in an article. Compromise. We have already compromised on the current state of this section that it seems you would now wish to blank. Title "My recommendation is to revert the section's original heading to "international statements"That would be simpy a lie. That would imply that the "statements" were made by the party and that they were official party policy, which of course is not the case. According to Wikipedia policy articles must have cohesion. An article about a political party does not deal with every random comment made by the party's individual member. The policies applied here are those in favour of relevance and neutrality and those against recentism and original research (it is your original research to elevate these particular comments to important stature). Those party articles that are in a good state do not dwell on the issues of a few comments made by individuals and scandalized by the press.

To resolve, I will retitle the section “Activities of the party.” This would encourage inclusion of what multiple members of the party do in parliament and elsewhere in public life.

Satire."I am unaware of any satire." Halla-aho did not mean his comment to be a serious proposal, while the North Korea comments of Turunen and Eerola were meant as humorous and interpreted as such. This is mentioned with sources in the current version.

Then let us retain the sourced material. 134.129.66.182 (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"not to assume that wikipedians are crystal ball gazers as to what will be noteworthy in 10 years" Response: As I mentioned, there is no reason to assume that those comments would be noteworthy years from now, since even the Finnish media stopped writing about them a long time ago. It is not the policy to write any random trivia and wait a decade to see, if it's become noteworthy.

"This approach is overly authoritarian and biased if it is to only to permit a translation of the True Finn manifesto. Here there is a concern that the present article is developing a biased point of view. The suggested resolution is to include more material about the activities of influential members of the party, rather than exclude information." Response: Including random, satirical comments from individual members is not a solution to anything. That tells nothing of the party's policy. Individuals' views should be dealt with in their own articles. This is the case in all well written Wikipedia articles of political parties. If you want to include views of outside observers regarding the party, you may do so, providing that those observers are not biased themselves, for example representatives of competing parties. But the comments of individuals belong in the articles of those individuals, if anywhere.

"I do not think it is valid in any simple way to identify sourced information as original research" Response: Claiming that a couple of random comments picked from an ocean of political and satirical comments are representative of the entire party's policies is original research. Nowhere in those sources is it claimed that the comments are made in the name of the party as a whole rather than merely as an individual. That is purely your own interpretation.

"I would be interested to understand your proof, which appears to be an argument by analogy as is definitively invalid." Response: Wikipedia requires that articles have internal cohesion. You can't ramble about rugby in an article about baseball. And you can't scandalize comments made by individuals in an article that is not about those individuals. All good party articles adhere to this. Maybe you should try adding a controversial comment made by a Republican freshman into the GOP article, make it a section of its own. You would be reverted very quickly.

"The purpose of an article is for those who would wish to find out more about something, they can read it, not as an instrument to make accessible the True Finn manifesto." Response: The purpose of this article is to give the reader a general view of the party. If the reader wants to read more about individual MPs, they are listed at the end of the article with links. They are there for a reason. Or do you really think that it would be feasible or sensible to have 39 biographies of all individual MPs of the party in this same article, plus the biographies of the former MPs as well? You wouldn't write everything there is to know about an individual battle in World War II to the WWII article either, would you? Of course not; the war had countless of individual battles. Any sensible person would provide the WWII article with a link to the article about that individual battle, and in that separate article that battle can be dealt with in detail without overburdening the main article. And that is exactly what is done.

"Brevity and exclusion of encyclopaedic information is no substitute." Response: Taking comments out of context and then presenting them as representative of the whole is not encyclopaedic content. Especially since the comments in question were made satirically, not seriously, as I have previously mentioned with sources.

"Arguments cannot be proven by analogy" Response: They certainly are in Wikipedia. A good party article does not include content which you are pushing, which has been proven.

"To resolve, I will retitle the section “Activities of the party.” This would encourage inclusion of what multiple members of the party do in parliament and elsewhere in public life." Response: Not satisfied with this, as it's the same content with only a slightly different headline. It still implies that those comments are part of the party's official activities. The real activities of the party, that are representative of the party as a whole, certainly can be mentioned (such as events organized by the party or the content of the party's magazine etc.). But random comments made in a light, satirical tone by individual members are not representative of the "party's activities".

Finally, I would like to remind you that articles now exist for all three individuals mentioned: Jussi Halla-aho, Juho Eerola, Kaj Turunen. I truly do not understand, how you can honestly think that an individual's comments don't belong in the article concerning that very individual. And if and when they are mentioned in those articles, there is no reason to duplicate them elsewhere. I honestly don't understand, why you can't just use those articles, if you are so insistent on writing about these comments. It is Wikipedia policy to write to the article, with the greatest relevance, not to that with the largest following. It is obvious without a doubt that if there is a place for comments made by individual X, that place is the article concerning that individual. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The same thing applies to Halla-aho's sentence: the information is already included in the article Jussi Halla-aho, and it is obvious that that article is the correct place for information concerning Halla-aho himself. When that information is included in the relevant article, there is no reason to spam the same thing elsewhere word for word. Besides the blog writing in question does not directly deal with immigration issues (it deals with double standards within the judicial system) and thus there is no reason to write about it under a section that is about the party's immigration policy. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought it wouldn't take you long. By the same token, all information about Timo Soini would only be in the Timo Soini article. Tenacity and ignorance to arguments are not a substitute for reason and evidence. 174.126.207.178 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Timo Soini is the chairman of the party and has been so for 15 years. Halla-aho has not. And even here we don't deal with Soini's personal life (if there are such mentions, they can be moved to the Soini article). --89.27.36.41 (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This concerns public life. Supreme court Finnish oral hearings are public and are historically significant as they tend to concern appeals for very serios offences, or cases that defy the precedent. There may be a few offenders who get there as they are not reasonable enough to accept the decision of the hovioikeus. The MP in question is the chair of the administration committee responsible for immigration, which this section concerns. I mean there's even Soini's favorite football team in there because this article has been reduced to a fansite. This immigration-relevant information is more germane to the content of the article. I'll not get into Hallo-aho losing his temper with the media when he was called about being an inspiration for Anders Behring Breivik's manifesto.

1) There was no oral hearing in the Supreme Court stage. There were oral hearings on lower stages, but not in the Supreme Court in this case. And this article doesn't deal with "public life" in general, it deals with the party. The public life of Jussi Halla-aho is dealt with in the article on Jussi Halla-aho.

2) He is the chair of the said committee, but the blog writing in question does not directly deal with immigration, nor was he in that position at the time of the writing (2008) of the text in question. The section in this article deals with the immigration policy of the party, not the actions of the Administration Committee of the Finnish parliament (which includes MPs from all parties). Thus this case is not related to the party's immigration policy. Claiming so is original research on your part.

3) The mention about Soini being a fan of Milwall can and should be moved to the Soini article. Go ahead and do that.

4) Breivik is in no way related to this article. But since you went there, it should be noted that Breivik merely quoted another Norwegian blogger, who happened to mention Halla-aho among many other persons. Breivik did not himself reference Halla-aho in any way.

5) As a conclusion, the logical place for the information concerning Halla-aho's trial is the article on Halla-aho himself. That should be clear to everyone, surely to you as well? And that article does include said information. When that is the case, it is unnecessary to duplicate the information verbatim to other articles, to which it is considerably less relevant. The article on the US Democratic Party does not include mentions of the trial of John Edwards, although he has been a prominent politician of the party. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jaakko Siivonen,To address each of your points in turn:

1) There was no oral hearing in the Supreme Court stage. There were oral hearings on lower stages, but not in the Supreme Court in this case. And this article doesn't deal with "public life" in general, it deals with the party. The public life of Jussi Halla-aho is dealt with in the article on Jussi Halla-aho.

Well ok, in this case I think there was no oral hearing. That is, here I concede slightly, I suggest you try listening to reason and evidence yourself. However, when the supreme court has an oral hearing, it is public. Given the nature of the offence and conviction in the highest court, it is relevant to his role as chair of the administration committee. This relevance can only be described as original research by someone with a higher capacity for invention.

2) He is the chair of the said committee, but the blog writing in question does not directly deal with immigration, nor was he in that position at the time of the writing (2008) of the text in question. The section in this article deals with the immigration policy of the party, not the actions of the Administration Committee of the Finnish parliament (which includes MPs from all parties). Thus this case is not related to the party's immigration policy. Claiming so is original research on your part.

I think you are highly original about my powers of induction when it comes to political analyis to the extent that your stock accusations are becoming rather hackneyed. That is while his offence predated his appointment, as you say correctly, he was in that position at the time of the substantiation of his conviction in the highest court of the land.

3) The mention about Soini being a fan of Milwall can and should be moved to the Soini article. Go ahead and do that.

I regret that I must decline this request that I be your servant.

4) Breivik is in no way related to this article. But since you went there, it should be noted that Breivik merely quoted another Norwegian blogger, who happened to mention Halla-aho among many other persons. Breivik did not himself reference Halla-aho in any way.

You seem to be some kind of expert on Breivik who takes a strong interest in giving the True Finns a whiter-than-white image, at the expense of excluding encyclopaedic information. I regard this as slightly unhealthy.

5) As a conclusion, the logical place for the information concerning Halla-aho's trial is the article on Halla-aho himself. That should be clear to everyone, surely to you as well? And that article does include said information. When that is the case, it is unnecessary to duplicate the information verbatim to other articles, to which it is considerably less relevant. The article on the US Democratic Party does not include mentions of the trial of John Edwards, although he has been a prominent politician of the party. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing logical about argument by analogy. My limited capacity for induction makes it impossible for me to grasp your argument.

To constructively move on, I suggest to retain the encyclopaedic material on Hallo-aho's conviction in the section on immigration. You will probably proceed with tenacity unilaterally deleting the encyclopeadic information - provided by user Watti I believe and developed by myself - without consensual agreement, but please understand that this is not a very scholarly or democratic approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.126.207.178 (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

"his role as chair of the administration committee" Logic dictates that Halla-aho's role as a parliamentarian be addressed in the article Jussi Halla-aho. We can't deal with every single MP of the party here. That's why we have articles for the individual politicians. And as mentioned Halla-aho's trial is already dealt with in said article: there's an entire section about it there.

"I regret that I must decline this request that I be your servant." If you are not willing to improve the article, you have no right to complain about its status on this talk page, and thus I have no responsibility to take you seriously or continue this discussion. So be it.

"I regard this as slightly unhealthy." I really don't care what you think about me. You have the choice to engage either in proper discussion or continue on your line of edit warring, spamming and personal insults. It seems that you have chosen the latter path and thus I am under no obligation to continue this so called discussion. That is especially so, as you have not provided any decent counter-arguments, and thus my original arguments stand. What you call "argument by analogy" is in fact how Wikipedia policy is built; by precedents in good articles. You have forfeited the discussion by failing to provide proper arguments and by resorting to ad hominem. This discussion is over. I refer to my original arguments. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, I guess you are not feeling very powerful today. It get's better Jaakko.174.126.207.178 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You will refrain from all comments not directly related to the development of this article. As it reads in the template in beginning of this talk page: "Please limit discussion to improvement of this article". --89.27.36.41 (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Jaakko, I'm not going to be dictated to. You work by a process that rubbishs all arguments that are not your own, so you can keep the article a fansite. It's not a very interesting or constructive discussion. I think it may make you feel powerful. The wikart framework gives you a system of rules to mark your territory and take your biased self out on people. For instance, accusing anyone with a different perspective on what an article should contain of vandalism. This is not a scholarly process that improves the article.174.126.207.178 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

This is clearly notable here due to the MP's leadership role in the party. Despite assertions above, it's not at all unprecedented on WP, see for example National Democratic Party of Germany. a13ean (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You wrote "A MP of the party responsible for immigration found guilty for a related offense? notable here, walls of text on the talk nonwithstanding"[58]

1) The verdict is not related to immigration. Not even the Supreme Court claims so in its verdict. Nor does the reference given claim that it is related to immigration, and thus claiming so in the article is original research, which is forbidden. The blog text in question was related to the issue of double standards within the judicial system.

2) The information is currently under the section regarding the official immigration policy of the party. The reference given does not claim that the verdict is related to the party's immigration policy. Thus claiming so in the article is original research. To say that a chairman of a parliamentary committee holds a notable-enough leadership role in the party to warrant a mention here is original research as well, as it does not say so in the reference given.

3) Are you saying that every single verdict given to a politician should be mentioned in the article on the party? You don't think that the article on the person in question would be more relevant? If you look at the article on the US Democratic Party, you'll see that the trial of John Edwards is not mentioned there, despite Edwards being a prominent politician of that party. Instead the information is dealt with in detail in the article on Edwards himself. I think this is logical. Do you disagree? Regarding the article to which you linked, the only case there that deals with judicial proceedings against an individual, is related to the party's chairman. That is not the case here.

4) When the information is already included in the most relevant article, do you approve of spamming it to other articles verbatim?

5) That information was originally added to the article by user Watti Renew. That user has been banned from the Finnish language Wikipedia on the grounds of his politically motivated vandalism, especially regarding this party. So the addition certainly was not done in good faith.

6) If the information stays this way, I will add the following sentence into the article on the National Coalition Party for the sake of consistency: "In 2011 the National Coalition Party's parliamentary group elected Jan Vapaavuori, a convicted violent offender, thief and drunk driver, to lead the parliamentary group." --89.27.36.41 (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed; fixed; nope; nope to the first one; cool; have fun but it will probably be reverted as non-neutral language.

On a related note, I've transwikified the controversies section that was lost in the original transwikification process. Any of these incidents alone would probably not be notable enough, but as allegations of racism and the like have always dogged the party, and since these allegations have been discussed by numerous reliable sources, they are notable here. a13ean (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Why don't the articles on the US Republican Party and US Democratic Party have separate sections on controversies, although both have seen their fair share of controversies? Doesn't seem very neutral to single out one party this way. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Both parties are too large and diverse with a lot more important things in their history, so not everything is going to be wrapped into the main article. The way this article currently stands is typical for smaller parties though, see for example The_Left_(Germany)#Controversies. a13ean (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The content is not "contraversy". It is encyclopaedic fact that is notable about the party and belongs in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.126.207.178 (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't become true no matter how many times you spam it into this talk. --128.214.69.94 (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It really lacks social skills to call someone's contribution to a discussion "spam". Spam I understand is either a sort of low-quality canned meat or an e-mail advert typically offering to extend someone's penis. This service I regret I cannot provide you.

A fact such as a conviction cannot be contraversial or false. A similar section is entitled "True Finns and Allegations of Racism" in the Finnish version of the page.

The Finnish Wikipedia's article is a mess, it has had multiple edit wars and experienced lots of vandalism. It should not be considered an example on how to write a good article. P.S. How hard can it be to sign one's own reply? --89.27.36.41 (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

So you think there are times when arguments by analogy are valid - I thought you said this is how things work, at least from your point of view of what wikipedia is - but now it seems there are times where argument by analogy does not work. Hmmm, your desire for a fansite seems to have argued yourself in a circle. Predictably you are about to disagee...2001:4930:66:0:14D3:E00E:2130:E101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's wise to take example from a good article and unwise to take example from a bad article. How hard can that be to understand? --89.27.36.41 (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm really struggling, I think it might require some mere "original research" and "POV" to understand that.174.126.207.178 (talk)

"Far-right" not appliable

Instead of just quoting some news article title, let's see what the political scientists have to say about it. Just two days ago an article on the political spectrum of the True Finns was released in Helsingin Sanomat [59]. Political sociologist PhD Tuomas Ylä-Anttila from the University of Helsinki describes the True Finns as "centre-left conservative party" as do many references currently present in this article. "Far-right" is not what the political scientists will say – to me it's just ridiculous that people keep changing it to that based on some news site article title written by a journalist.--Pudeo' 18:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree with you. There are many credible references that call the party socially conservative. Conservatism is by definition centre-right, not far-right. Many researchers also call the party's economic policy left-leaning (even the Schumann reference says so). A party that is left-leaning in any way is hardly far-right. The consensus of the Finnish political scientists is that the party is populist and socially conservative, but not far-right. According to the Wikipedia's policy on due weight, the mainstream consensus should not be usurped by a minority stance. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, but the far-right claims are from sources like a The Telegraph journalist writing on the far-right in Europe, without analyzing the True Finns itself. Such sources are very weak in comparision with political scientists who actually research these things in universities. But I changed the line to say that some foreign media commentators have characterized it as "far-right" because that's what those sources are about. --Pudeo' 19:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

RJFF said the following in his edit summary: "no ref for "centre-right" and on the basis of that removed the centre-left fiscal position. Well, he removed the following sources:

• PhD Political sociologist Tuomas Ylä-Anttila of the University of Helsinki [60] "centre-left conservative party"
• Head of research of Taloustutkimus Juha Rahkonen [61] "most left-wing of the non-socialist parties; a centre-left party, not right-wing".

+A new one: YLE study: [62]: "True Finns are 5.4 on the 0–10 scale (far-left – far-right). The average Finnish voter is 5.5"

This discussion isn't even taking place in the Finnish Wikipedia, because everyone knows the True Finns is not a far-right party; there they are mostly talking how many controversies are relevant to be listed. In media, the right-wing of the True Finns party is sometimes called "halla-aholaiset" in comparision to the main line "soinilaiset". You seem not to be aware of this, but it's understandable because there is so little information available in English. --Pudeo' 13:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Before my removal, the position parameter said:

• Fiscal: Centre-left
• Social: Centre-right (conservative)

As far as I could see, there was a number of sources to verify "conservative", but none for "centre-right" (please correct me, if I've overlooked one). It would be WP:synthesis to conclude that "conservative" would automatically mean "centre-right". But if I'd only removed "centre-right", it would have been

• Fiscal: Centre-left
• Social: conservative

Conservatism, however, is a political ideology, not a position in the political spectrum. Therefore, it is in the wrong parameter. Moreover, different sources obviously contradict each other in classifying PS's position in the political spectrum, ranging from left-wing (or centre-left) over centrist to far-right. Therefore I decided that it is probably too complicated to place PS in the unidimensional left-right spectrum and that the position parameter of the infobox should best be left empty. It is better to write in the article's prose: who places this party at which position of the political spectrum.

David Art, whom I cited (before this reference has been removed without stating any rationale) is indeed a scholar (professor of political science) and not a media commentator. By the way, there is no rule on English Wikipedia to prefer Finnish over English-language sources (actually, the opposite is true, see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources). English-language sources are as valid and valuable as Finnish ones.

If some sources claim the party is centre-left, some say centrist, and some say right-wing or ever far-right, the most reasonable thing to do, in my view, is to leave the parameter empty. --RJFF (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with your lead too, although "socio-cultural authoritarianism" is something I've never even seen discussed. Actually an article on David Arter and the True Finns was published in my university's newspaper just this week – I'll get my hands again on it but not all his views are generally accepted. Per political spectrum, left-centre conservative is one, just describing it in more detail just like "libertarian right". I don't think there's much objection that it couldn't include another word other than "left" or "right". You're wrong about different sources indicating different results though, most sources from Finnish researchers indicate centre-left. Just because different views exist, it doesn't mean they should be given exactly the same weight as the mainstream view.

There is no rule to prefer Finnish sources, but it's pretty clear most political researchers that research Finnish political parties write in Finnish. The Finnish discussion in Finnish, David Arter is a rare case: he has been studying Finnish politics for 50 years, but he quite isn't part of the domestic academic discussion that happens to be in Finnish. Of course non-Finnish academics should referred to too, but are you sure "better to write who places this party at which position of the political spectrum" does not apply to Arter? Since most political scientists say the True Finns is centre-left conservative party with a right-wing anti-immigration faction, shouldn't actually Arter's view be presented as a side-view as to avoid weasel-words. --Pudeo' 15:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

What about "centre-based populist party", and "the party has been called the most centrist of the Finnish political parties"? Obviously there is no consensus to classify PS as centre-left. There are sources for centre-left, for centre and for radical right-wing (Mr. Arter's thorough study of PS's ideology in English). It is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide which view is correct or preferrable. I still suggest to leave the position parameter empty in this case. Obviously there are parties which cannot be easily placed in the left-right spectrum. --RJFF (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought "centre-based populist party" is pretty much the same as "centre-left conservative", no one's doubting the populist nature of PS, really. It's quite centrist in fiscal terms but more accurately leftist in comparision with the average voter. But centre-left conservative is a pretty good consensus description, that's why I prefer it – it's very close to centrist populist too, both terms can be used. The problem with "right-wing radical" is that it's ignoring completely the fiscal and general PS view (5.4/10) so it doesn't really fit, and generally that view isn't shared by any Finnish researcher. The Finnish researchers say there is a right-wing anti-immigration faction led by Jussi Halla-aho. In the Helsingin Sanomat newspiece, PS leader Timo Soini is economically more left-wing than the average Finnish Social Democrat, so we can't really ignore the fiscal position. The biggest newspaper in Finland published an article called "Soini is leading a left-wing party" after the last parliamentary elections [63]. Go figure. --Pudeo' 15:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Even among political scientists, I see lots of labels thrown around to describe PS. "Nationalistic" and in particular that Halme "adopt[ed] elements of a radical right-wing rhetoric" in his campaign. PS meets the criteria for being both "far-right" and "anti-immigration" in this paper. In addition to Arter's own views, he references several other researchers at the start of his article who make similar characterizations. Not all similar characterizations from from outside Finland either. This paper makes explicit the difference between their fiscal and social positions: "[PS]combines left-wing economic policies with traditional right-wing social values". What I don't see is many English language sources describing them as "center right". If the appropriateness of mentioning this type of characterization is still in question, I suggest we take it to WP:RS/N. a13ean (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Tony Halme was a MP in 2003 and passed away in 2010 so I don't see his case very relevant here. Of course the PS is nationalist, that's what this article has always said. Indeed being critical of immigration is another characteristic, but in the Finnish academic climate being critical of immigration does not automatically mean "far-right" it seems. As I said, the anti-immigration wing (Jussi Halla-aho) is a phenomenon generally not considered part of the PS main line, but they're likely to symphatize with it. Political scientist PhD Erkki Railo from the University of Turku and Centre for Parliament Studies specifically answered those foreign papers with that "the True Finns are populist, not far-right" [64]. --Pudeo' 18:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll also add that atleast I'm perfectly fine with mentioning those views which regard the PS as "far-right", I'm only against portraying it as the mainstream view because it isn't, based on the comments of the leading political scientists. --Pudeo' 18:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I still don't see any evidence that these views are not mainstream, or that Erkki Railo's are. Our criteria here are how reliable sources describe them, not just some academic sources in Finland, and the use of the "some foreign scholars and media commentators" phrasing clearly falls under WP:WEASEL. Let's line up all the relevant sources and take it to WP:RS/N (or WP:NPOV/N if you prefer) since this seems unlikely to be resolved here among ~3 editors. a13ean (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't? Ah well, there must be a big language barrier. But in that case, pile only the sources which say it explicitly as "far-right; no one was doubting the nationalist/populist part so you don't have to bring that up. Anyway, what do you want to resolve? I'm fine with the current status of the article, and so seems to be RJFF (as he wrote it), unless he wants to remove the political position from the template. --Pudeo' 19:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, it seems you made some sort of an error when you wrote that Tapio Raunio's article Hesitant Voters, Committed Elite:Explaining the Lack of Eurosceptic Parties in Finland would support the far-right claims. I downloaded it, and it only describes True Finns as "populist, agrarian, right-wing, Eurosceptic". --Pudeo' 19:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I included that one to illustrate that it's not only foreigners who describe them as right-wing. Currently the article says only that "some foreign scholars and media commentators have described them as radically right-wing populist ..." and that "central aspects of their manifesto[22] have gained support from right-wing voters as well" rather than clearly stating that they are commonly identified as right-wing. a13ean (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

And posted to RS/N. a13ean (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Their social views are commonly called conservative and conservatism is usually understood as a right-wing ideology (but not far-right), but their economic views are equally often called left by political scientists, for example:[65][66]. Even David Arter writes in his article: "In short, when viewed in traditional socio-economic terms, the PS' populism has been ‘left-leaning’ or at least ‘centre-left-inclined’ in its concern to tackle fundamental social inequalities", and he cites several Finnish political scientists who have called the party's economic policy left-leaning. The party is difficult to place on the traditional left-right-axis, which has also been pointed out by Finnish researchers. It should be noted that the political scientists don't usually count them among the "bourgeois parties" (porvaripuolueet), which is a term used of the traditional right-wing parties (National Coalition Party, Christian Democrats, Swedish People's Party). --89.27.36.41 (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"I still don't see any evidence that these views are not mainstream" There are virtually no Finnish political scientists that share the view that the party in general were far-right. Practically all references given to the political scientists who are most familiar with Finnish politics use other labels like conservative or centrist or centre-left. Populism and nationalism do not equal far-right.

"Our criteria here are how reliable sources describe them, not just some academic sources in Finland" Uhm, who would you consider more reliable on the topic of Finnish politics than those political scientists who are fulltime researchers of Finnish politics? The Centre for Parliament Studies is a respected institution solely dedicated to Finnish parliamentary politics. It is by definition mainstream, and so are the departments of political science in the largest universities of Finland. It is natural that most of the expertice on Finnish politics is centered in Finland, just like most of the expertice on Danish politics is centered in Denmark etc.. About 98 percent of the credible research centred on Finnish political parties is made in Finland in Finnish, of understandable reasons. We can't ignore the majority of research just because some users don't know the language. And it's not like Finnish were some tiny language spoken only by a handful – there are literally thousands of Wikipedia users, who can personally verify the sources even if you can't. Besides, just because some user is not able to read the source himself doesn't make the source invalid: for example it would be entirely OK for me to reference a book that isn't available in the libraries or bookshops of your country. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

No one disputes that their fiscal policy is center-left or something similar. As for what views are mainstream, you're trying to prove something by saying that sources don't exist. We've seen reliable sources which call it both ways. You're always welcome to provide more Finnish language sources that say they are center-right (especially with the suggestions at WP:NOTENG), but you can't just assert that none call them right-wing. As for what are reliable sources, I see no reason to not also include the views of mainstream news organizations like the BBC, Der Spiegel, etc, plus all the academics cited, just because there might be even more sources which are Finnish. a13ean (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you actually read the Joost van Spanje article you referenced earlier or did you just look at the title? I just looked through it and here's an interesting quote: "This means that it [True Finns] is usually lumped into the category of ‘mainstream’ (not anti-immigration) parties." There you have it: straight from the mouth of an author you yourself have referenced. While van Spanje himself attempts to argue that the party shouldn't be counted into the mainstream, he directly recognises that it is usually considered mainstream, i.e. it is mainstream to consider it mainstream. I think there is the answer to you regarding the mainstream views. He is directly saying that the party is usually not considered extreme. By the way, van Spanje never calls the party far-right, though he does call it anti-immigration. His study concerns 30 European parties and he makes it clear that they are not all monolithic. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

"Centre-left conservative" is internationally not a usual term to describe a position in the political spectrum. To many it may appear as a paradox, because conservatism is usually associated with centre-right or right-wing. "Centre-left", on the other hand, does not only imply communitarian or social democratic socio-economic and fiscal policies (which PS advocates), but also progressive socio-cultural policies (which PS opposes, being a socially conservative and authoritarian party). I don't know if the term is only used in its socio-economic sense in Finland, but this is the English-language Wikipedia, and the international (or English-language) use of the term should be taken into account. --RJFF (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That's true, but in the Finnish political spectrum the economical questions always have been the most important, so parties have been ordered based on that. It has caused problems with the Green party too. The left-right–axis has its flaws. I'd even say it could be good to remove the whole line from Template:Infobox political party, Republican and Democratic US parties don't use it. In the Parliament, the True Finns are seated in-between the Centre and Greens. --Pudeo' 13:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Then why do you resist against removing it in this case where it is so problematic? --RJFF (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Because that's where the True Finns fit in two extensive studies (all parliamentary candidates in 2011 [67], all municipality election candidates 2012 [68]) plus two political scientists commenting those results. That's also their parliamentary seating position. Are you sure you just don't like throwing "far-right" labels here and there? --Pudeo' 15:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to throw "far-right" labels. I want to remove (not replace) the position line, because different relevant, reliable studies on PS contradict each other, and because PS is very different from a centre-left party in the international sense (which may be different from the Finnish one). If neither one of us is able to convince the other, we should consider starting an RfC to let a larger group of users join the discussion. But I am surprised that you admit that "the left-right–axis has its flaws" and that it might be preferrable to remove the position parameter from the infobox template, but you insist on keeping it in this case (which is one of the tougher parties to be placed on the axis, unlike Social Democrats or Conservatives that are "typical" centre-left or centre-right parties). --RJFF (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to remove it, if the view is then reflected in the lead. I'm also removing the far-right part because that gives undue weight to The Telegraph journalist Louise Armitstead. As it turned out, even van Spanje's said they're only anti-immigrant not far-right. However, the right-wing populism has to be described too. Are you okay with the new edition? --Pudeo' 16:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am. Good that we've come to an agreement. --RJFF (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I misread that article the first time as that they met conditions for both terms, rather than two conditions for the anti-immigrant term. At any rate I don't think anyone is arguing for "far-right" even though it is also used some, since "right-wing" is more commonly used and less charged of a term. a13ean (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully it's okay with the IP editor too. Yes, what's right-wing populism with this is nationalism and anti-immigration themes, but in comparision to Progress Party (Norway) for example they're not for economic liberalism. I think the current lead is pretty good with reflecting that.--Pudeo' 16:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with the lead and infobox as they are now, yes. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda - Lost in translation

Non-content related discussion hatted per WP:NOTAFORUM. a13ean (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have lived in Finland for over a decade, and would like to caution Wikipedia readers. This article is written in the English language, a language that is culturally framed by historical Western European constructs. Finns have an almost universally good grasp of English, however in conversations this obscures the deep cultural differences between Finland and Western Europe and that overwean basic semantic concepts. In this instance, a party which:- "combines left-wing economic policies with conservative social values, socio-cultural authoritarianism, and ethnic nationalism." would be labelled, in English, an extreme right wing party. Some Finns may not like this label. They might even think that winning a label-war offers the hope of changing external perceptions of the party, but this idea is mistaken. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". The concept of a rigid grammar (syntax and vocabulary) is in my opinion something fundamentally alien to the English language, while it is actually the heart of modern written Finnish, itself a nationalist enterprise. The English label: "extreme right-wing", seems to me to be unarguably semantically correct within European English (Finns must use whatever Finnish label they choose). This toxic combination of "left wing policies, conservative social values, socio-cultural authoritarianism, and ethnic nationalism" would seem to me to be a reasoned summary of the Nazi party's position. From the entry here on wiki: Hitler responded that Nazism was not exclusively for any class, and indicated that it favoured neither the left nor the right, but preserved "pure" elements from both "camps", stating: "From the camp of bourgeois tradition, it takes national resolve, and from the materialism of the Marxist dogma, living, creative Socialism" Soi-cultural authoritarianism and ethnic nationalism are features of the Nazi party that do not need to be restated. It therefore seems irrational, within an English semantic context and from English predicates, to argue that PS is not in fact an extreme right-wing party. Attempts to soften this fact should be strongly resisted by editors, who might instead indicate how the classifications and self perception vary. LookingGlass (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Read the discussions above. The consensus of mainstream political scientists is that the party is not an extreme right-wing party. Your opinions are merely original research. Your comparison to the Nazis is particularly outrageous and insulting. Consider the fact that the very first thing the True Finns' MPs did in the current parliament after the 2011 election was to vote in favour of a Jewish Speaker of Parliament (Ben Zyskowicz), and ask yourself whether that is something the Nazis would do. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)