Talk:Freedom Alliance (Finland)

Sourcing and weasel words

Vague and unattributed expressions like "can be described as" are weasel words that don't belong in Wikipedia. If Freedom Alliance "can be described as" Hard Eurosceptic, individualist or whatever, provide a reliable source where someone has actually done so. Merely providing a definition for Hard Euroscepticism doesn't prove that Freedom Alliance is Hard Eurosceptic. Claiming that it does is WP:OR. Jah77 (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

okay, but the Freedom Alliance was literally described as individualist in the source so i dont get your point, also for the party being Hard Eurosceptic isn't something you need a source for, you can compare the values of the party with the definition, in the same way you dont need to prove that a party that supports seizing private property doesent need to be proven via source to be communist, this logic can be applied to the freedom party. Its common sense. IkuTurisas (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

You just pretty much disproved your own point: it is entirely possible to support seizing private property without being a communist. Wikipedia doesn't interpret or conjecture; it reports what reliable sources have said. If the Freedom Alliance is indeed Hard Eurosceptic, it shouldn't be that hard to find a source that says so, or at least a reference to a plank in the party platform or somesuch that supports the argument. Without an explicit link between the party and the ideology, we're still talking about original research. Jah77 (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

"it shouldn't be that hard to find a source that says so, or at least a reference to a plank in the party platform or somesuch that supports the argument." of course, if you look at the ideology of the party in relation to foreign policy, and the fact that it wishes to leave the European Union makes it Hard Eurosceptic, in general Soft Eurosceptic parties wish to limit the powers of the EU, while Hard Eurosceptics wish to leave it. For reference as examples look at: European Conservatives and Reformists, Popular Republican Union (2007), The Left in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL and Law and Justice and the Sweden Democrats. IkuTurisas (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not the reader's (or editor's) task to "look at the ideology of the party" and compare it with this or that definition to determine what the party's ideology is. I'm still waiting for a direct reference related to Freedom Alliance, not generic dictionary definitions for hard or soft Euroscepticism. Why the insistence on slapping such labels, anyway? The article already describes the party's stance on the EU ("the party advocates for Finland to leave the European Union and condemns the EU as being anti-democratic, globalist and elitist"), so why not leave it at that and let readers draw their own conclusions? Jah77 (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

"so why not leave it at that and let readers draw their own conclusions?", of course the reader can draw their own conclusion, thats not the point of the discussion is it, or have we been arguing about different thing? There's nothing wrong with using words to describe something, is there now, or am i misinformed? also the purpose of these labels is to give the reader a word to shortly describe these things and to make it simple for those who know the term to know what the party is about. Also needing a source for something like the party being Eurosceptic when it already says in their party page that they are vehemently opposed to the EU in every way, you wouldn't need a source for someone simply defining something but in a shorter term. IkuTurisas (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Your earlier reference to seizing private property = communism demonstrates why it's a very dangerous and slippery slope to claim that A+B=C because "common sense" says so. Common sense is another weasel word expression, alongside "can be described as", "it has been said that", "it is generally believed that", etc.

Like I said before, Wikipedia doesn't interpret or conjecture. Wikipedia doesn't decide what "common sense" does or doesn't dictate. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say. And I'm still not sure why you insist on the inclusion of a specific (debatable) term, when the article already makes it clear where the party stands on the EU.

As far as I'm concerned, the issue is not whether VL is Hard Eurosceptic or not. I have an issue with the idea that characterizations of parties or other entities in WP are based on individual users' subjective assessments or interpretations of their policies. Perhaps the Freedom Alliance is indeed Hard Eurosceptic. But for the purposes of an encyclopedia, we need something a bit more tangible than "I think the party's platform qualifies as Hard Eurosceptic" to qualify it. Jah77 (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

okay, if you have a problem with it you can simply remove the Hard Eurosceptic bit and change it to just Eurosceptic, if you what you have a problem with is the "Hard" or "Soft" difference, or just as a whole describing it as Eurosceptic? IkuTurisas (talk) 11:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd rather remove it as redundant, since the rest of the sentence sums up the party's EU policy pretty well, and it would also get rid of the vague and unattributed "can be described" bit. Jah77 (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

POV

There have been attempts to introduce a POV to the article by claiming that Freedom Alliance has been "accused of" - as opposed to "described as" - Russophilic. This is non-neutral language, as it implies that Russophilia is "bad" or "wrong"; "accusation" by definition means that the accused is supposedly doing something they shouldn't be doing. That is obviously a subjective opinion - people like Johan Bäckman, Janus Putkonen or Ano Turtiainen would almost certainly embrace the label. Jah77 (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Currently Freedom Alliance has nothing to do with those people you've mentioned and I doubt that FA even wants to do anything with them. Describing somebody doing something they don't really want or like to do, and denying to be affiliated with it would be labelled as "accusing". 91.156.31.114 (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources don't "accuse" the party of anything. They state the simple matter of fact that Freedom Alliance has made pro-Russian statements. And where, by the way, have they explicitly denied being pro-Russian? Smells like an attempt at self-victimization. Jah77 (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, stating something from someone that isn't true according to them (plus denying this) is the the synonym for accusation, if the target believes that these statements are wrong. These sources are simply cherry picking few random statements and comes up with some sort of conclusion with this, probably just to push their own false agenda and to ridicule their opponents. This cherry-picking fact alone proves that these sources might be unreliable related to this issue.

These sources are from FA party's 1st and 2nd chairmen and also from Yle:

https://ossitiihonen.com/2022/03/02/ei-venajaa-ukrainaan-ei-natoa-suomeen/

https://vapaudenliitto.fi/ajatuksiani-pakotepolitiikasta/

https://yle.fi/a/3-12398273

All of these sources are already been used on this Wikipedia article. Also, there are dozens of more tweets/articles from the head of the party that are saying these same things. So it's almost crystal clear that the party is strictly against of what Russia is currently doing, and therefore it can't be described as being "russophilic". Of course there might be some lower party-members that are not agreeing with them, but even if that's true, their statements can't really go above the head of the party. 91.156.31.114 (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

And as far as your edit summary is concerned, the sources are considered reliable on Wikipedia. You can't arbitrarily dismiss them as "low-key" or "politically affiliated" just because they don't fit your agenda. Jah77 (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I can say the same thing for you, just because you are believing these cherry-picked statements from the sources that are probably more common with your own political agenda, doesn't mean that these statements or sources are more reliable. For example, go read the both Wikipedia articles about these magazines, by popularity they are both low-key (compared to other news magazine) while Demokraatti-magazine is being funded and affiliated by other political parties, therefore not having a neutral agenda of it's own. This fact alone makes the reliability of this source questionable. 91.156.31.114 (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

But my final suggestion is to not waste any more time with arguing, so if you are ok with some other sentence that will be fine for me. For example: "Some media sources have claimed Freedom Alliance of being pro-russian", while keeping the current sources, and perhaps adding some comments from the party program. Or give me some other suggestion that would be okey for both of us. 91.156.31.114 (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

What is or isn't considered a reliable source on Wikipedia is based on general consensus, not your opinion or mine, or whom either of us believes. If you're going to argue that Demokraatti and/or Voima are not reliable sources, that is something that goes far beyond the scope of an individual article. (And if you do some research on Wikipedia's policy on RS, you'll find that political affiliation doesn't necessarily disqualify the reliability of a source.)

But I do agree that there must be a satisfactory solution to this. So my question is: Do you have a reliable source where Freedom Alliance has explicitly denied being Russophilic or pro-Russian? If not, talking about "accusing" makes no sense if the party itself hasn't objected to the label, in which case the original wording "has been described as" is accurate. If they have denied it, then I would suggest something like "Freedom Alliance has been described as Russophilic, a label the party (or whoever made such a statement) has rejected." Jah77 (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Any source that might be affiliated with political bias (to one way or another) should be treated with extreme cautious (not necessarily remove them), because there is a danger that the source would provide false information, fe. anybody would probably would agree that MV-lehti or Russia Today would not be reliable sources to use because of this. However in this case I never wanted to delete the sources (Voima, Demokraatti), but just to inform that specifically these sources are claiming this. And it's not just because of their political views, but due to the obvious card stacking -technique, which ignores lots of other data.

2nd vice-chair person has said this about the Party's politics: https://vapaudenliitto.fi/ajatuksiani-pakotepolitiikasta/ (read the last section from the first paragraph). It says that because they are not promoting Russia's interests with their politics and are also condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and that their politics have been misunderstood. There is no a direct mention of "russophilia/pro-russian", but I think it's clear from this that they are not supporting Russia and are denying any other claims.

The source has already been used before in this article. And if you look the revision history from march, the same source has been used to describe something very similar what I'm suggesting right now.

So my suggestion is this: I'm okey with the words "claim" (or even "describe", but only if there is clear mention of which sources are saying this, and then adding the party's own comment after it). Then there would be no need to use the word "accuse". Suggestions are following:

1. Freedom Alliance has been claimed of being Pro-Russian/Russophilic

2. Some media outlets have described Freedom Alliance of being Pro-Russian/Russophilic, although the party has rejected/denied this

Tell me which one is better, or if neither is, tell me what to change. 91.156.31.114 (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It's always good to be cautious about political bias, but that doesn't mean that all politically affiliated media are equally unreliable. Online fake news media sites such as MV-lehti can hardly be compared to nationally published newspapers like Demokraatti or Aamulehti.

The latter wording is almost identical to what I suggested earlier. "Freedom Alliance has been described as Russophilic (or pro-Russian), although the party's vice chair has rejected the label." Good enough? Jah77 (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Changed the wording to the above. Jah77 (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)