Talk:Socialist Left Party (Norway)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Norway Portal This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)