Talk:Socialist Left Party (Norway)

POV

The chapter removed was directly translated from the article about SV on Norwegian Wikipedia. It is written in a more objective manner than the similar chapter in the article about the Norwegian Progress Party on English Wikipedia. Why is critisism of the Progress Party allowed while critisism of the Socialist Left Party is removed?

Because the Progress Party is a terrible, terrible party... Just kidding, everyone deserves to have non-POV articles. Even them.--Misha bb (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that user Soman will not allow any critisism of the Socialist Left Party, and will remove at will anything he or she doesn't like. This article is not objective.

--Varyag 12:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a flaw here. If you consider that there are POV problems in another article, those problems are not solved by introducing POV in this one. If there is a problem at the Progress Party article, then you may address that problem there. Also, translation from one wiki to another doesn't make a text immune from removals or rewrites.

Moreover, I think that there is a misunderstanding on what the function of 'criticism' chapters should be. IMHO, one should be highly restrictive about introducing such chapters in articles relating to political parties. Political parties are, by their nature, in contradiction with each other. All parties have critics and people who don't agree with their policies. If one can make a case that a particular party is particularily exposed to criticism, then that can be mentioned. I do not see such a situation here.

It is better to write about what the standpoints of the parties are, that is usually far easier to verify than the notablity of criticism. For example it is better to write 'SV supports the struggle for an independent Palestinian state' or that 'the Progress Party favour restrictive migration legislation', having implicitly understood that opponents of those policies will thus be in opposition to the party on those issues. --Soman 17:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously there is a POV problem in the article about the Progress Party, which is a complete mess and would be better off deleted, but this is already labeled accordingly. But there is also a POV problem in this article. The Socialist Left Party have, as the Progress Party, a lot of wildcards who have made controversial statements more than once, as well as political issues which have raised serious questions. Whether or not you want to have a separate chapter called "critisism", critisism still have its place, even in a lexical context. The biggest POV problem with this article is your sensorship.

--Varyag 20:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have re-established the chapter you removed since your opinion about critisism of political parties is not a valid reason for your actions. Your are of course free to express such opinions on the discussion page, but I will report you for vandalism if you remove the chapter again. Wikipedia is not your personal political blog. --Varyag 14:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You are not really answering any of the positions in my previous, and I think that the opinions stated in my previous talk page posting still holds. The 'Criticism' chapter which was introduced was full of weasel wordings, like 'perceived by many', formulated in a way that leads the reader to understand that this party would be more controversial than other parties, which would constitute a serious POV problem. Btw, good luck with your vandalism report. --Soman 10:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You didn't make any position, you just erased everything you didn't like. The chapter I introduced is more objective and less leading than the Norwegian version, which is not disputed, but if you still had objections you should have changed the actual wording into something more to your liking. Not just erase everything.

The article which you have written is misleading, it leads the reader to the conclusion that SV is not a more controversial party than other parties. The article reads like an ad for the party and is anything but objective. But instead of using your childlike methods of just removing anything I don't agree with, I decided to introduce a chapter with critisism to make the article more objective. It's not neutral, but at least both sides is heard.

Your behaviour doesn't do you any credit. And as any perceptive reader can read both the discussion page and see the history of the article it's your shame, not mine. --Varyag 14:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A do not edit the Norwegian version. This is English wikipedia, and I'm not taking any stands regarding the Norwegian iw. I cannot find any material in the so-called 'Criticism' chapter that holds any serious test. Let us procede by talking about the actual text:

SV have been critisized on several issues, amongst other things for their foreign policy

Duh...? A national political parties have been critisized on several issues. Which political party with more than a year of existence hasn't been 'critisized on several issues'?

[1] SV is criticized by a former US gov official. I think the reply by the SV Party Secretary pretty much sums up the context of the criticism: 'That individual American politicians and others would like to avoid a government in Norway that is critical to American foreign policy cannot surprise anyone. ('At enkelte amerikanske politikere og andre helst vil unngå en regjering i Norge som er kritisk til amerikansk utenrikspolitikk kan ikke overraske noen')

[2] is misquoted beyond limits. SV is not 'accused of populism' in that article, on the contrary the article carries the headline 'Populism - A healthy sign', saying that populism is democratic. It mentions that Erik Solheim was accused of populism in 1989-1991, but that the interviewee in the article does not consider that to be a correct description. Regardless, Solheim and SV are by no means synonymous.

[3] concerns criticism from the Christian Democrats and Right-Wing against the SV school minister. The article doesn't mention SV in any way, except that the minister belongs to the party. The article does not give any characterization of the party, and cannot be used as a reference in that way.

[4] is hardly a mainstream source, it is quite obviously a reference with a clear POV agenda. The wording "perceived by many" is a classic weasel wording, and the link gives no backing to such a claim. In any case the text in the article doesn't give backing to the the sentence. SV is not criticized in the article, reference is not made to the party except by identified one participant panelist (Jacobsen) as a SV representative and that SV has initiated a boycott campaign against Israeli goods. Two passages in the articles mentions reactions to statements by Jacobsen's and SV's policy ("som fikk mange av tilhørerne til å reagere på Jacobsens sammenligning." and "Tilhørere i salen ville gjerne høre hvordan partene kan boikotte et demokratisk land, mens det samtidig rammer palestinske jordbruksarbeidere."/"Rødner var uenig i resonnementet".) We can thus conclude that out of an audience of about 50 people (according to the article itself) at a meeting organized by a pro-Israeli organization, 'many' were sceptical towards the stance of SV and that the representative of the host organization declared that he 'didn't agree' with SV.

[5] doesn't qualify as a reputable source by any means. It (a blog?) does criticize the immigration policy of SV. It does on the grounds that, amongst other things, that policy will lead to increase in gang-rapes.

[6] doesn't back up claim in text. It mentions that a SV-connected website has had a link to the Hizbollah website, and that webmaster of the site doesn't see any problem with that. No criticism of the party is presented in the article.

[7] doesn't contain criticism of SV. Rather it deals with SV and Ap members critizising the Ap Foreign Affairs minister.

The entire passage from "SV members of parliament...food, schooling and health care" doesn't present any criticism as such. It rather deals with a highly selective description of disparate occurances involving the party or party members. The function of the passage is to lead the reader to dislike the party, based on a perceived common Western understanding of good and bad. As such it is POV, and does not belong in a 'criticism' chapter.

--Soman 16:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC) With these passages removed, what would remain? --Soman 16:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the POV tag, since this discussion seems to be dead. I also read through the disputed section, which seemed to consist of quotations from multiple sources that often were not notable. I think the article should have a criticism section, but using sources such as political analysts etc.Labongo 10:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Other

I think "independent socialists" means individual independent socialists rather than a specific party. Have amended accordingly. 90.195.30.2 18:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SV-logo.png

Image:SV-logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

recent edit

Recently this edit was made [8], claiming this party's ideology to be "social democracy" which couldnt be farther from the truth. Also, the article originally said an "internal faction" was "marxist", not the whole party. See Conservative Party (UK) for more of such an example. There on internal faction is "Liberal conservatism" based on what leader David Cameron has declared himself. Likewise in this, just its the deputy leader and MP (if a party has a self-declared marxist as deputy leader, there must by definition exist such an internal faction). -GabaG (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Found sources to back up my claims. Euroscepticism is not an ideology, read the article. --TIAYN (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to get more into established Wikipedia standards.

• You have for instance completly missed the point of what WP:RS is actually saying (see WP:RS#Self-published and questionable sources, under Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves"), just look at which source is used on well-established articles such as Labour Party (UK) for democratic socialism.
• About euroscepticism, it is regular to include it in the ideology section, just look at Conservative Party (UK), United Kingdom Independence Party, British National Party and more.
• Otherwise, I think your sources for the alleged social democracy is also highly questionable as they rely on views by individual persons/organizations with a clear agenda, again see WP:RS#Self-published and questionable sources under Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves, point 2. RS "so long as: [...] it does not involve claims about third parties". The only source that this does not apply to (6) rather involves what voters identify as, which has no real relevance towards the party itself (it could be implemented to the article itself though of course) But I will wait and see if other editors have some thoughts on that. -TheG (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Many of your so-called well-establish use sources from the media which calls them that and that, see what sources the Labour Party article uses. Second, it seems you are letting your persinal opinion in the way, as you said earlier "unsourced nonesence" when i added social democracy. Your personal opinion is in the way.

We should create a section entitled "ideology" or "ideology and beliefs" and add references quotes and how the media percieves them, and only list Democratic socialism on the infobox. --TIAYN (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Remember, everything that is written is an opinion, such as the book you used to reference one ideologic belief in the Progress Party article, and the two references you've used in the Centre party article. --TIAYN (talk) 08:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What has "unsourced nonsense" got to do with "personal opinion"? Also, for the Progress Party it was not a "book", but a scientific dissertation published by the University of Bergen, along with sources where the party state what they perceive themselves as. I think you need to calm a bit down, and stop your crusade of messing up articles in this manner. If you can't see the difference between personal/biased opinions and objective sourcing, I think you should try to learn this before you edit more. -TheG (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

When did i go on a crusade? When did i find bias opinions? When did i start too attack you? I'm actually trying to come up with a solution here, you're not. So stop accusing me, if you want to improve the article fine, but don't attack me because of your opinions. --TIAYN (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do you have to come up with false claims, such as that I apparently have accused you of "attacking" me. When did I do that? And when have you been "attacked" because of my "opinions"? Anyways, please stop going personal - and talk about the issues instead. If someone is having opinions here it must be you since you are the only one that are trying to add questionable things to the article. Since you ask, if you want to see where you found biased opinions just go see the refs for "social democracy" - where you have added sourcing from opinions by a Labour Party politician, libertarian political organization Free Democrats, labour unions, irrelevant voter base survey etc. -TheG (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You are like talking to a wall, you know that? --TIAYN (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

...this is ridiculous, go on, the article is yours, congratulations. Hope you are able to "come up with a solution". -TheG (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

When did i say i could? --TIAYN (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Created ideology section, will solve alot of our problems. --TIAYN (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request:

I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian, I have removed your WP:3O request [9], since it appears that the dispute has been resolved by being abandoned by one of the disputants. Should it resume, please feel free to re-list it at WP:30.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 04:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Socialist Left Party (Norway)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Overall, I find the article rather short. The article has a number of issues related to balance and length. In particular, it suffers from recentism, in that almost as much space is devoted to the past five years as the first 30. While I can agree that SV has had a lot of power and this can be considered the "golden age" and therefore can have more information per year than other periods, I would like to see a substantial lengthening of the pre-2005 history section. The article also tends to have a lot of "history" information mixed in with the ideology. Instead of listing the party leaders, why not just including it in the history section as prose. There should also be a section about 'organization', including such things as membership, chapters etc. Doesn't have to be long, and could include a number of current dispositions. For instance, there is in the main section no mention of who is in the party leadership, the parliamentary leader or membership figures. There are also two nice maps showing the geographical spread of the votes during the last election.

I thought this article was suppose to be about the current party, thats the main reason why i actually bothered to create the History of the Socialist Left Party page. --TIAYN (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying the article should be dominated by the past, but Wikipedia has a clear approach where the past is just as important as the present. The history article is looking good, and you can get away with a shorter history section because of it. Still, it is important to discuss SV in a historical context—and no, the article is not about the 'current' party as such, but about the party (for its full history). Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 Working --TIAYN (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Should i expand the history section more or? --TIAYN (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Some comments:

•  Done Asylum, domestic, foreign, NOK, public school and radical are all disambiguation links.
•  Done The entire second paragraph of the lead reads a bit awkward. What does "officially committed" mean? Does it mean it has official policy to follow this, but does not? What does "has met with varying support" mean? What does "reasoning behind this" refer to (behind what?) I don't know if 'education' can be called a 'principal', what SV generally wants is increased resources to the education sector.
•  Done I don't quite see the need to put socialism in quotation marks; it is a vague enough term that all you achieve is (I presume) unintentionally discrediting the party.
•  Done Ref four should be attributed to Heikki Holmås, not the website.
•  Done Again, by stating that Lysbakken believes something, you are actually again discrediting him. Instead, state that he 'states' or similar. Belief is normally something related to religion.
•  Done The quote from Lysbakken doesn't really make sense. Perhaps it is the translation; what is the original? It is often a good idea when translating quotes to include the original (in the ref or in a comment) so the accuracy of the translation can be double checked.
•  Done It seems like a lot of article space is spent on Lysbakken's personal orientation. While a brief mention of this is fine, elaboration is most appropriate on his article.
•  Done Quite often you'll begin a sentence with a noun and follow it with a comma. I don't know why you do this, as it doesn't make grammatical sense in either English nor Norwegian.
•  Done I don't know how many times Halvorsen is linked, but once is sufficient.
•  Done The 'aftermath of the 2009 election' is unnecessary dramatical. Just use 'after the 2009 election'.
•  Done Økonomi, when used in the lieu of økonomi og adminstrasjon does not translate to economics. Instead, it translates as business, management or business administration. The English term 'economics' translates to samfunnsøkonomi.
•  Done Is SV's policy regarding private schools really "believing they are of no use." I would have though there was a slightly more refined argument; I have heard arguments against private schools, and they are more complex than as so. For instance, private schools increase differences in the population, they will selectively disregard weak (and more expensive) students, thus financially skimming the market for the cheapest students to educate. Also, if private schools develop into elite schools, then there will be a financial hindrance for parents to send their students to the best schools. Please find those arguments that are presented at the core by SV.
•  Done Instead of forcing image sizes, use the syntax |upright.
•  Done The context of the caption in Halvorsen's image is out of context, and makes no sense.
•  Done The paragraph about the Klassekampen feminism survey needs to be completely rewritten. As it runs now, it makes no sense.
•  Done Throughout the article, the term "currently" is used. This should be avoided, instead using "since 2005" or whatever year is appropriate. Simiar with "recent".
•  Done Don't say 'X is leader of the Foo Ministry', say 'X is Minister of Foo'.
•  Working Avoid ending a sentence and starting the next with the same word, such as with Holand.
•  Done You've actually written that the party felt that the ethnic cleansing of Kristin Halvorsen had to stop.
•  Done Include a link to the Kosovo War; rephrase if necessary to include it. Also note that a lot of the military action was aimed at Serbia, not Kosovo.
•  Done While the events in SV about Kosovo are correct, I find the article is a bit POV in its presentation of the conflict. It was at the time very one-sided in the Norwegian press, and this article seems to represent both the view of Halvorsen and NATO. The reason is that their arguments are presented along with their alignment, while the "pacifist" side is only presented with their alignment. Surely they had some arguments to support their opinion.
•  Done Why do you keep forcing image sizes? Do you think you know better than the reader what size they want to display?
•  Done When writing only a month and year, don't put a comma in between.
•  Done Don't link to Afghanistan, link to the article on the war.
•  Done Take a look at WP:OVERLINK. In general, any one wikilink should only be done at first occurrence in the whole article.
•  Done Slogans are lower-case.
• I've lost count of how many times (often in rapid succession) the article mentions that Halvorsen is party leader.
•  Done What is a cash budget?
•  Done In the last sentence of the first paragraph of the 'parliamentary elections', it is unclear what party is being talked about.
•  Done Two of the external links are covered in the navbox.

Are you talking about the See also section?

Yes.

•  Done In both instances, 'further information' should be replaced with {{main}}.

I am placing the article on hold. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow....--TIAYN (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

History looks fine.

• I like the party-leader table; pragmatic, innovative and space-saving solution :)
• Don't underestimate Wikipedia: both Friheten and Orientering have articles, so link to them.
• I would presume SV was in favor of 'economic equality', not 'inequality'.
• 'Centre' is a disambig page, should link to centrism.
• Not "he's", but "his".
• Not 'department for', but 'ministry of'.
• I presume you're writing British English, so I converted a few American spellings.
• There were four disambiguation pages (environmental, Helga Pedersen, centre and NOK).

Congratulations with a good article. Hope to see more articles at GAN soon :) Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for passing my GA nom. ;P --TIAYN (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Socialist Left Party (Norway). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110629140320/http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/politikk/article463570.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/politikk/article463570.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Socialist Left Party (Norway). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020163952/http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/ud/dok/nou-er/2012/nou-2012-2/13/2/2.html?id=669542 to http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/ud/dok/nou-er/2012/nou-2012-2/13/2/2.html?id=669542
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226192203/http://www.dagsavisen.no:80/innenriks/article400435.ece to http://www.dagsavisen.no/innenriks/article400435.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101126182827/http://www.sv.no:80/Forside/Partiet/Partiets-organer to http://www.sv.no/Forside/Partiet/Partiets-organer
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100324040842/http://www.sv.no:80/SV-der-du-bor to http://www.sv.no/SV-der-du-bor
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717034047/http://www.nytid.no/arkiv/artikler/20050331/den_storste_utfordringen/ to http://www.nytid.no/arkiv/artikler/20050331/den_storste_utfordringen/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091020072143/http://www.aftenposten.no:80/nyheter/iriks/politikk/article3325486.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/politikk/article3325486.ece

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Socialist Left Party (Norway). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722015603/http://www.frifagbevegelse.no/dagens_kommentar/article4521257.ece to http://www.frifagbevegelse.no/dagens_kommentar/article4521257.ece
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dagsavisen.no/innenriks/article400435.ece
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sv.no/Forside/Partiet/Partiets-organer
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127223736/http://www.sv.no/Forside/Partiet/Partiets-organer/Landsmote-2009 to http://www.sv.no/Forside/Partiet/Partiets-organer/Landsmote-2009
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sv.no/SV-der-du-bor
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/politikk/article3325486.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100702145822/http://home.online.no/~b-aardal/k_f_valg.pdf to http://home.online.no/~b-aardal/k_f_valg.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)