Talk:People's Party (Iceland)

Iceland Low‑importance

	Iceland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iceland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IcelandWikipedia:WikiProject IcelandTemplate:WikiProject IcelandIceland
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 20 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is no consensus on which article should be the primary topic. Either way, there should be a hatnote added to both articles to simplify navigation, as the present situation is potentially confusing. (non-admin closure) Brad v 15:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People's Party (Iceland, 2016) → People's Party (Iceland) – There hasn't been a party named the People's Party before in Iceland, the only reason for the current destination of the redirect page (Social Democratic Party (Iceland)) is because the literal translation of the SDP's Icelandic name is "People's Party", and it is unlikely a non-Icelandic speaker would search for a defunct political party's page based on the literal translation of that party's name from Icelandic. It is better to not have years in the title of political party pages unless it's absolutely necessary. Nevermore27 (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that better? Years provide easy identification. The People's Party was one of the three most significant Icelandic parties in the 20th century and the most important one on the left, while this party is most likely a fluke that will be dead within a couple of year.--Batmacumba (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See, but the thing is People's Party isn't actually the name of the previous party. This current party is named the People's Party. That's easy identification enough. Nevermore27 (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the People's Party is the proper English translation of Alþýðuflokkurinn and its known as such in academic literature. And its the central party in the Icelandic labor movement from which all the other left wing parties descend. Its a lot more important than some x-factor contestant getting 3.5%% for a micro party. Anyway, you didn't answer what was so problematic about adding a year to the name that it should be avoided "unless it's absolutely necessary".--Batmacumba (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it was the "proper" English translation, it would be its English name. But it's not. It's the literal translation. There's a difference. Nevermore27 (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"If it was the "proper" English translation, it would be its English name" is nonsense, plenty of parties in other countries have official English names that are quite different from their translated names. Besides you can not conclude the People's Party isn't the proper English translation based on what Wikipedia has chosen to call the party, it is the translation used in academic literature and must therefore be considered the proper (or established, if you prefer that term) one. A literal translation would be the Common People's Party, not merely the People's Party (Icelandic has several words for people with different connotations and the two parties do not use the same one). Alþýðu refers to the common people (who work with their hands) and was chosen by the Icelandic labour movement as their preferred term rather than a more narrow word for labourer or worker. Anyway, for the second time you didn't answer what is so problematic about adding a year to the name that it should be avoided "unless it's absolutely necessary". That is the whole premise for your request and you should address that.--Batmacumba (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "what Wikipedia chosen to call the party", and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. It's the name of the party used in English-language publications going back decades. And I feel like my point on the year is self-explanatory: If there has only been one party officially named the "People's Party" (which is the case), then the year shouldn't be included in the title. Nevermore27 (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Historical Dictionary of Iceland - Page 210: "The Alþýðuflokkur (People's Party), or the Social Democratic Party, was founded in March 1916", it's clear from the brackets that that is literal not official, but given the relative importance of the bigger party and the recent one, sorry, People's Party (Iceland) would be unhelpful and ambiguous. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On p. 300 of his "The History of Iceland" Gunnar Karlsson chooses the Labour Party to translate Alþýðuflokkur, parallel to the Icelandic Confederation of Labour, which is the official translation for Alþýðusamband Íslands (ASÍ), the organization that founded the party. But I think he is an exception, and the tradition for translating alþýðu as people (rather than labourers, working people or common people) in the party name is strong.--Batmacumba (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Needless disambiguation given that the alternative is not at a People's Party title. This can easily dealt with by a hatnote. Number 57 16:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But People's Party (Iceland) is already in use as a redirect https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Party_(Iceland)&redirect=no How would a hat note change that? There is also the issue of whether its even sensible to have the old party under its current name, or it should be moved to the more correct People's Party (Iceland).--Batmacumba (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure why it being in use as a redirect is an issue – this article would be moved over it, and anyone who happened to end up at People's Party (Iceland) looking for the Social Democrats would see a hatnote directing them that way (given that the redirect has only had 11 hits in the last year, it doesn't seem that many people will be in that situation). I also very much doubt that moving the Social Democrat article to the People's Party title would be a good idea or possible given WP:COMMONNAME. Number 5 7 17:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it just seems unnecessary to move the article given that the current name works well and signals its a new party. Another factor is that given the historical significance of Alþýðuflokkurinn it is likely to be used as a party name by Social Democrats in the future. Jon Gnarr had plans about reuniting the Icelandic centre-left as Alþýðuflokkurinn before he quit politics, and given that SDA is in deep crisis and will likely need to be reorganized and rebranded in order to survive going back to being Alþýðuflokkurinn has been mentioned as an obvious alternative. Its simply a name that in an Icelandic context is associated with the Social Democrats. I am still lacking a reason for why its worth reserving such a historically significant name for a micro party that isn't even represented in the Althing and will likely be gone in a couple of years, that seems out of proportion to me.--Batmacumba (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that happens, then we'll have another discussion, but it's not relevant here. Ultimately the issue is that the proposed move is only to where a barely-used redirect is at present. Number 5 7 18:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree, but regardless this doesn't address why it would be necessary to move the article in the first place. I see nothing wrong with the current name other than some idiosyncratic dislike of using founding years to separate parties with similar names. Secondly, it hasn't been established that the People's Party is even the name Flokkur Folksins want to use in English (they are too new to be known under any particular name). It was just the most obvious one, so I put the article under that (knowing that you guys dislike using native names). This is a premature discussion.--Batmacumba (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: are you disagreeing that "People's Party" in books refers to the older party? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I'm not sure why you'd suggest that. I'm saying that party is not at a "People's Party" title on Wikipedia, so it's not necessary to hold the "People's Party (Iceland)" title for it when it could be used for this party. Number 5 7 09:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If People's Party wasn't the set-in-stone English name for Flokkur Folksins, why didn't you create this page under Flokkur Folksins? That's what you did with Viðreisn and stalwartly opposed any move to an English name until one was legitimized (not trying to re-litigate those events, I agree that you had the right idea), so why wouldn't that logic apply now? Nevermore27 (talk) 07:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have listened to the arguments, but I still think the enormous difference in significance between the two parties, the use of People's Party in literature and the insecurity about what will be the permanent English name of Flokkur Fólksins count against a move. A possible compromise could be Party of the People for Flokkur Fólksins as there is no established English common name yet and it would retain the order of the elements in the name. As I expect Flokkur Fólksins to implode within the next couple of years there may never be a common name in English for this party. --Batmacumba (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I see sources such as this and this and this which mention it as the "People's Party". Other sources such as this mention both names. Considering that the other party has existed for a number of years, People's Party (Iceland) should continue to redirect to Social Democratic Party (Iceland). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of your sources referred to the party without also referring to it primarily as the Social Democratic Party. It was acknowledged in the original move request that the literal translation of Alþýðuflokkurinn is "people's party" but that it far from the primary name used for it in English-language sources. Nevermore27 (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Perhaps We Can Add "Humanism" as an Ideology?

Perhaps we can add "Humanism" as their ideology? These folks care for the disabled.

Best Wishes,

184.22.230.63 (talk) 07:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I think most humanists would agree that disability rights are a humanist value, they're not an exclusively humanist value. Humanism is not the same as "humanitarian" and the simple fact that disability rights is a part of the party's platform, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's coming from a humanist ideological perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margretarson (talk • contribs) 23:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Her Old Comments About Immigrants

I don't have any source(s) to back this up.

Premise: [a] The part about her old negative-comments about refugees is not 100%-accurate. [b] We should be more sceptical towards unfavourable-claims regarding her comments about refugees.

[1] Does Inga Sæland have health problems?

[2] Can health problems make a person's life harsh?

[3] Can a harsh life mean one has trouble articulating, particularly about heated topics, under stress?

Conclusion:--

[4a] The part about her comments about refugees is not 100%-accurate.

[4b] We should be more sceptical towards unfavourable-claims regarding her comments about refugees.

Best Wishes,

184.22.248.42 (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Premises 1-3 are unrelated to the conclusion, and the conclusion is restating premises a and b. If the part in the article about her previous negative comments about refugees isn't 100% accurate, the article should ideally elaborate on the nuance of her and her party's position. If you do not have any sources to back this up, then from an Wikipedia standpoint, you do not have a case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margretarson (talk • contribs) 23:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I claim protection from The Shadow (South London). Inga Sæland is a Saint! Wikipedia hates disabled-people! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Prc1UfuokY) 49.228.72.141 (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Police

    I realise that I am-not qualified to deal with-matter, so-and-so. I swear, by Ilmatèër and Lincoln, to stand down, and let the appropriate-Police take-over. ✌️⚖️🛡️☦️⛨ 49.228.72.141 (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone hacked my account.

"When all means for solving a conflict or problem are exhausted, only then placing your hand to the sword is imperative. (22)" ~ Guru Gobind Singh in Zafarnama verse 22

I don't start fights. I finish them. Thephoenix 1689 (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Political position

The current political position label in the infobox is very confusing and doesn't make a lot of sense, I propose either replacing it with Syncretic or removing it entirely. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]