This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Finland 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.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland articles
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 articles
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
