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.
The party's official name is The Finns Party and it's known as such. Article's name needs to be changed. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
THe only reason why no The Finns Party is used as a name is because the True Finns defined it as their own English translation. But I don't feel like a party can just choose how you translate them in another language. --Finn-Pauls (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
No, there have been others outside the party who have used the name 'The Finns Party'. For example:  --188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
The reason the party chose to specifically define its English language name was precisely because the term "True Finns" was (and is) utterly eroneous. "Perussuomalaiset" could be reasonably translated as "Basic Finns" or "Uncomplicated Finns" or similar. Nowhere in the Finnish language name is there meaning similar to "True". "True Finns" implies a racialistic or ethnic focus which is not present in the party's Finnish language name. In fact, I suspect the use of "True Finns" is a deliberate attempt by political opponents of the party to characterize it as fundamentally racist. (Whether the party is or is not racist is quite a different matter.) It is this deliberate misrepresentation which lead Perussuomalaiset to officially sanction its English language name - in order to bypass a politically motivated and biased misrepresentation of its name by others.
Your suspicion that the name 'True Finns' is made up by the party's opponents is false. It was used by the party itself as an English language translation up until the 2011 election, see for example this English language brief on the election programme, published on the party's website: http://perussuomalaiset.fi/getfile.php?file=1935 The new translation was adopted later that year. I myself think the article, and all other articles where the party is mentioned, ought to use the new translation, since it has been used by international media as well in increasing amount (a few links above). But previous attempts to use 'The Finns party' as a primary name have been reverted, so a wider consensus should probably be built first. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
User RJFF made this request on the Policies section. The thing is, that section of the article is about the party's official stances. No third party can determine what the party's offial policies are: that can be done only by the party itself. In a similar way you wouldn't need to ask for third party sources for the statement that the party's headquarters is located on Yrjönkatu in Helsinki. The article has other sections which include third party views, including the article's intro. The party's actions can be interpreted by others, but people outside the party can not decide what the official policies of the party are. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't see anything that contradicts what I wrote. You can include third parties' views of the True Finns, but the third parties can not decide what is written on the True Finns' official programmes. The section does not include original research on the subject, but instead it only states what the party's official views are. Views of third parties are already included in the article - Wikipedia doesn't demand that they be included in every single sentence. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Update: I have now added independent third-party sources (major Finnish news outlets), which verify the content of the section. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The self-presentation of the party is not of interest to an encyclopedia, like Wikipedia. Only third parties' views are. The party has its own website to present itself. There is no need to echo this self-presentation in a Wikipedia article. --RJFF (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
So you would have the party's opponents slander the party as much as they want without giving the party's own view? That's not NPOV. In any case, the policy section is now supported by third-party sources. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Neither promotion nor slander of the party should be represented in the article. Why should third parties necessarily be "the party's opponents" who "slander the party"? How about independent researchers? --RJFF (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Let's try to avoid giving undue weight to Sofi Oksanen, who is no expert but rather only a commentator among many others. Her opinions on the issue represent a fringe view, since even though there were many critics of the program most of the critics didn't make the outlandish accusations she did about the party. Furthermore, the HS article which was cited has a note at the end, in which Oksanen, reached for comment, said that part of the initial interview's content had been lost in translation (the interview had been in an Italian paper). This reduces its credibility as a source. And let's also remember that polling indicated that 51 percent of Finns gave their support to the party's stance on art subsidies, and so it would be strange to describe it as a scandalous policy. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Reasonable enough. Interesting that the comments of the senile lawyer bint are included on this page. Fail to see the relevance to the article. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Policies section still reads like a manifesto; every subsection ends with some poll purporting to prove everyone in Finland supports the party's position. Unencyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
False, there is only one poll mentioned in that section, where the general population was asked on the party's policy, and it's inclusion is justified on the basis that the criticism of the said policy is also mentioned. Furthermore, every subsection of the policy section is backed by third party sources. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived 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: Move. We appear to have consensus that the proposed name is more common in more recent sources than "True Finns" and that "The" is unnecessary per WP:THE. Cúchullaint/c 21:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Support Sounds reasonable. --Երևանցիtalk 01:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. There was a time when 'True Finns' was the most common name used in English. But not any more. Hence, we should make reference to it and redirect from the other name (and combinations thereof) to this, but that's it (I think the current format is pretty much perfect). Bastin 00:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
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.