Talk:Finns Party/Archive 1

Prologue
I thought this was fairly interesting http://sixteenvolts.blogspot.com/2005/12/party-for-rest-of-us.html#links Rast 00:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Perussuomalaiset logo.jpg
Image:Perussuomalaiset logo.jpg 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 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You can email to Timo Soini, timo.soini at eduskunta.fi and ask about the logo. He is an MP and really do understand plain English. 84.248.36.214 (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Centre Left?
Why does this article describe the party as "Centre-left"? This makes almost no sense to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.237.249 (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

True Finns and Libertas
I've removed Libertas from the True Finns European affiliation. Please note the following:


 * Timo Soini signed Libertas's request for recognition as a political party at European level.
 * Timo Soini is a member of Libertas.eu as an individual.
 * Timo Soini's membership as an individual did not create a membership for True Finns as a party.
 * Timo Soini is not a MEP.
 * True Finns specifically did not contend the 2009 European parliament elections under a Libertas banner.
 * Libertas did not claim any candidates from Finland as Libertas candidates.

What do you need to take from this?
 * No True Finn MEP has affiliated to Libertas as an individual.
 * True Finns have not affiliated to Libertas as a party.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

'True' Finns
Should it be The Finns now? (http://www.kauppalehti.fi/5/i/talous/uutiset/etusivu/uutinen.jsp?oid=20110888147) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.95.208.189 (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Surely 'Basic Finns' is a better translation. They are not Varsinaissuomalaiset.88.193.200.140 (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The word Basic Finns is a literal translation, but it delivers in English the idea, that a Finn should basicly be a True Finn and then grow to Social Democrate or a supporter of the National Coalition party, an adult and mature Federalist. The translatin is risky in English. 84.248.36.214 (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Ordinary Finns" would be even better but "True Finns" is the one used by the media and the party itself.--Ap4k (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We use the official english name, which is True Finns. --128.214.69.202 (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If the party itself has an official English name, Wikipedia has to use it, even if the name is not an accurate translation (which it is not, as has been noted above.) J I P  &#124; Talk 20:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * False. We use the name that most English-language reliable sources use.  That is, well-respected, independent, third-party English-language sources.  If the True Finns were to translate their name differently to the way the BBC, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Times, and Reuters translated it, we wouldn't use it. Bastin 10:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not? The library of Congres does the right thing, no matter, what the market forces say. 84.248.36.214 (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC) An Englishman can not understand, that Perussuomalaiset, translated the True Finns means actually the ordinary normal Finns. The translation would be less frightening, if it corresponded the idea in Finnish. Perusuomalainen means on the level of idea something like like a common Finn just like a common man, or woman (Finnish language do no have masculine or feminine forms at all). The translation True Finn is more aggressive than Perussuomalainen. It may be even hostile for some liberals. 84.248.36.214 (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Gosh, how silly of me to think that we spoke English on English Wikipedia. The media use 'True Finns'.  Academics use 'True Finns'.  Other encyclopaedia use 'True Finns'.  Therefore, Wikipedia does. Bastin 19:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * However, the chosen translation is false, and misleading.

http://mymemory.translated.net/t/Finnish/English/perus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.0.219.73 (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Perussuomalaiset => True Finns => Tosisuomalaiset. Whan True Finns is translated back to Finnish from True Finns the result is NOT Perussuomalaiset, but Tosisuomalaiset, The Real Finns. The chosen translation approach produces slightlty too aggressive English form and when translated back to Finnish it is even bold. 84.248.36.214 (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the fake tories, who mislead the English electorate by claiming, that they are eurosceptic, wants Finns to pay the lossess of the German, British, French and Dutch backs, so that the countries governing the bank inspection were not as responsible as they are. The Financial Times and The Economist are one of the worst. Only the British arrogance and illiteracy in Ugric languages makes this possible. The bankers want to milk the European union peripherial countries in the name of the suffering EU countries like Greek, Portugal and Ireland. The speaker of the Parliament, Sauli Niinistö has said that the mechanism is unjust as the peripherial countries has to pay too much for supporting the banks of the central countries. The media strategy is obvious. The True Finns, the Social Democratic Party and the National Coalition Party is forced to the Federalistic arrangements, which in the future liquidates the right to vote for the budgest in the member countries because of the stability mechanism or the European union comission. 84.248.36.214 (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this really an official name? The party doesn't even have an English version of their website, nor a en english logo! (Tomakaze (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC))
 * The English language section of the Parliament of Finland's website uses the name True Finns. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There are two official languages in Finland: Sweden and Finnish. No higher education diploma is possible without having a tested command of Swedish and Finnish. All the Finns and 95% of the Finnish Swedes do understand Finnish. The Finnish language is the only language needed in political debate in Finland with the excetion of Åland, where not all the people understand Finnish. 84.248.36.214 (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The swedish name Sannfinländerna is official name, and translates directly to True Finns 193.167.107.251 (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The True Finns is a good translation as it refers to the Fennomanic movement in the 1860's which demanded that the administration should also understand Finnish like 90% of the population. The written language was Swedish in the university of Helsinki. This Finnish cultural movemment developed it banks, newspapers, insurance companies and parties like National Coalition party, Centre Party etc. also the earlier forms of the True Finns, which is the True Centrist movement of Finland. The True Finns means also something like the Genuine Finns, which means that the market forces, sosialism and postmodernism has not ruined all the democracy and the national agricultural and industrial policies yet. If you really would like to know of the matter I would suggest you to email Mr Sampo Terho, who is as a chairman of the traditional Suomalaisuuden Liitto specialised in the matter. http://www.sampoterho.net/ His cellular phone is +358 50 538 1674 and email sampo.terho at gmail.com . Good luck! 84.248.36.214 (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * To conclude this wp:nor, as True Finns have already been adopted by the larger English language media and is unlikely to be reviewed.Kyz2 (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The True Finns does not mean, that all the other Finns except for the True Finns were false Finns or less Finns. Finland is a republic and has been clearly since 1919, when the Economist did not believe it. The idea of translation is related to the national idea of getting and preserving the independence. The same kind of ideas have the Norwegians and also German farmers in Switzerland. No imperial Englishman since Gladstone can understand the idea of Minor Country in the Great Britain. The True Finns means more or less the Genuine Finns, not by blood, but by the ideals. 84.248.36.214 (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The party's official English name is now The Finns. TheShockTilt (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The party's name is, officially, in English, "The Finns." Let's stop being ridiculous about this. http://www.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/2011082114237407_uu.shtml --  lowgenius  --   My Talk Page 09:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Can we FINALLY agree to rename the article to its real name The Finns?

Language Problems
I wonder if the phrase "Limiting the state financial support to cultural activity that doesn't promote Finnish identity" goes wrong - I understand that as limiting the resources in such a manner that only stuff that doesn't promote Finnish identity will be supported. The expression is "Limiting something to". It should be "Limiting the state financial support to cultural activitiES that promote Finnish identity". That's the correct statement. Anyone? 91.153.112.98 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC).

Tone
The tone, particularly of the lead, appears to be inappropriate, reading more like a pro-party newspaper feature than an encyclopedia article. Someone with a contextual knowledge of Finnish politics should be able to tome it down a little.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the trouble in this is, one can't certainly say where the context may be found. Probably the only unifying aspect here is the anti-EU/anti-immigration sentiment apparent in the leading politicians speeches. They have a political program up somewhere, but I don't know if it's printed in English and I for one don't want to translate it. 85.76.101.37 (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The New York Times, Economist, BBC and Financial Times have not been able to develope the context, but yet the writers have a lot of opinions to be respected. An hour or two hours is not much for a foreigner to adopt the concept of the agricultural, local government, regional industrial etc. policies of the peripherial country they never have been earlier. They just ''fly to Helsinki and have a mink for lunch, write and fly away. 84.248.36.214 (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC) So all we get on the bases of the realiable third party sources like Basti put it, is that the True Finns are Tea-party Nazies. Could anyone explain in plain English, what do the editors of the New York Times and Financial Times together mean? 84.248.36.214 (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And yet they're still considered to be reliable sources and you're not. How strange. Bastin 19:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Who considers and why? The reporting of the Finnish general elections is like the London based writers had commented the elections of Belarus, Georgia, Zimbabwe of the other places where either the plantages or BP are in the front of the serious challenges. Now due to the praised newspapers, no one knows, the there is a Tea party or Nazis negotiating of forming the government. 84.248.36.214 (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Financial Times?
How ironic is it that "Financial Times" apparently likens the True Finns, an economically left-wing party, to the American Tea Party, an economically right-wing anti-tax movement. I really question if such a dubious comparison is appropriate for the article's lead. – Bellatores (t.) 16:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I noticed this, too, a couple of days ago, but didn't remove it since I have no in depth knowledge of Finnish politics, yet it's obviously unsuitable comparison (just shows how simplistic a message some media outlets wanna produce).Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Bastin will keep the articles imbalanced, so I would recommend to check the cencored versions. His furious moderating is like Caucasian. 84.248.36.214 (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The Financial Times does not want any negotiation for the EMU mechanism as it wants to milk as much money as possible for the support of the British tax-payers and the banks on the first place. This has been critisized also by Sauli Niinistö and Jutta Urpilainen, the chairwoman of pro-EU Social Democratic Party of Finland. The European Socialist party member parties are forbidden to cooperate with fascists, nazies and racists like they do now when negotiating of forming the cabinet with the True Finns and the National Coalition party. 84.248.36.214 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It must be awful to have to abide by Wikipedia policy. Verify your statements using reliable sources, or they will be deleted.  I find the FT's comparison to the Tea Party bizarrely ignorant, but it's not the only newspaper in the UK.  If you'd like to find what the Times or the Telegraph (the two newspapers of record) say about them, be my guest.  Or check the Economist, Wall Street Journal, NY Times, or Washington Post.  But don't put your own POV up without any source, preferably an English-language one, backing it up.
 * For the record, I'm a Eurosceptic - I want the EU disbanded and oppose any bailout. Which, huh, probably means I'm not pushing this 'anti-bailout is fascism' line that you seem to be implying I am.  I'm simply abiding by Wikipedia policy and making sure that this high-profile article doesn't have statements that are not referenced. Bastin 19:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is not much to do with ignorance based on the faith and the holy writings of the branded writers. All that you can do is to waste two weeks to encourage for understanding. The main goals is achieved as some people already understand, that there is a problmen related to the Nazi and Tea party concepts. Blind cencoring is not verifying, it is unverification. 84.248.36.214 (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

BBC selectively sourced
Isn't the BBC article selectively sourced? The "Brain, wit and charisma" gets mentioned but there isn't anything about the accusations of xenophobia. Munci (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is very selectively sourced. Much of the article needs to be rewritten.  Now that there is a huge range of English-language sources available, there is no excuse not to completely rebalance the article to a neutral position that reflects the balance in reliable sources. Bastin 10:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * BBC knows very well the matters how they are as also the ex-worker Risto Uimonen gives the statements both to Helsingin Sanomat and Yleisradio. BBC is already downplaying its reporting. Perhaps ODIHR will have something to say about the media process. 84.248.36.214 (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Suspections of xenophobia" section
IMO the "Suspections of xenophobia" section has grown completely out of proportions. I don't really think such a section is appropriate for the article at all, but it should at least be shortened heavily, or better written into the article in a more neutral manner. For instance, a short narrative could be included in the section on political positions. – Bellatores (t.) 15:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is also very badly written (there is for example no such word as "suspection") and contain no sources. It cannot be included in that form.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There can not be truthful English or Swedish sources in these weeks concerning the True Finns as the idea is to show that the True Finns are just like NSDAP, Hamas etc. and the British, Dutch, French and German banks should pay they share for EMU. 84.248.36.214 (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You might find some sources, if you did not had to rely only on the English sources. 84.248.36.214 (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is the responsibility of the one who includes material to make sure it is sourced, you can source it to non-english language sources, although English language sources are preferred if they exist.·Maunus· ƛ · 16:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's ridiculous that a third of the article could be dedicated to the subject, especially as much of it has been original research of one editor. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The ration between the chapters is organic and changes during the process of writing. Now the article is crippled and gives no answers to the left-wing, right-wing and Nazi issues. 84.248.36.214 (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no need to even mention any "nazi issues"... We don't need to bring here all the crap that individual commentators say. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It is strange how much the Economist, the Financial Times worry nationalism, etc. as if they were instructed from the European union comission to make the peripheries pay more thant their share. 84.248.36.214 (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not a discussion forum. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree. You should not discuss, but talk. Refer "Talk:True Finns", so let's talk then. 84.248.36.214 (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * About improving the article in accordance with wikipedia policies. Not about the general topic of True Finns, or generalities of the Finnish political debate.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The point is that all talk should be related to the development of the article. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a concensuc related to FT and NYT. It is almost impossible that the [True Finns]] could be the same time both Nazis according to the British opinion and the Tea Party like NYT likes to put it. It is sad, that people do not see, that in order to write something readable one should not have only a random collection of the writing of the occasinal writers, but a theory and concept based on the voting statistics since 1907 and the major political reforms in Finland since 1918. 84.248.36.214 (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? The current version of the article makes no mention of neither nazis nor the Tea Party. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Re putting "accusations of xenophobia section" under Politics. That may be an ok idea. Another one is to put it under "Controversies" like at UKIP. Munci (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Under politics/policies is better than under "controversies", as such criticism sections must be avoided.--Sum (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This version is clearly not neutral. You are just linking to an article written by you, the very definition of original research. The fact that some Italian paper might call the party racist or anti-immigrant is not enough to label it as such on the Wikipedia, as there are plenty of sources that say that the party is not that. Even the incumbent Prime Minister of Finland, representing a competing party, has said that the True Finns are not a racist party. Besides, as already stated, that whole section is totally overgrown in relation to the size of the article. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of references by 89.27.103.116
89.27.103.116 is disrupting the article by removing well referenced material, claiming that there is consensus for such removal. It's worth reminding the appropriate and constructive behaviour in these cases, that is when one is disputing content that is verifiable and cites its sources, should only add inline/section tags without deleting the content.--Sum (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * One news paper article is not enough to label the party as racist. Also, note that the editor is merely linking to an article entirely written by himself ie. he is conducting original research. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The section that you are blaking cites four articles from the BBC, Financial Times and Il Fatto Quotidiano, all Reliable sources.--Sum (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As i follow the Finnish media, I can inform you that it has been revealed that the BBC article was written (Ilta-Sanomat 21.4.2011 screenshot) by Jan Sundberg, a Finnish professor who also just happens to be a member of a competing political party, the Swedish People's Party (SFP) (source: ). His views have spread quickly to the international media, but in Finland this has been criticized. It is obvious that claims about party A made by a member of party B do not qualify as neutral sources. I can provide several references from the Finnish media, which say that the party is not racist. For example this: a Finnish researcher of populism states in the country's largest newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat, that racism is not among the views of party leader Soini. Or this: during the electoral campaign the incumbent Prime Minister of Finland, who is from the Centre Party, herself defended the True Finns from accusations made by the foreign media, saying that the party is not racist and that it can not be directly compared with some other European populist parties. The incumbent Foreign Minister, who is from the National Coalition Party, has also said that the True Finns should not be demonised in the way they according to him have been in the foreign media (he mentions the Financial Times among the foreign papers that he has had to correct regarding their conceptions). --89.27.103.116 (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You can add those counter references to the section, if they are reliable, and include their arguments against the BBC article. But you can't delete a section that is supported by multiple reliable sources.--Sum (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The thing is that even with counter references we would still have half of the article dedicated to this issue. That would make the article very unbalanced and also non-neutral, as it would be implying that "xenophobia" were somehow a central issue. According to Wikipedia policies issues ought to be handled with the right balance. Making half of the article be about alleged racism, especially as it is only alleged, would not meet this standard. The image of the party has been distorted in the foreign press - and this is not just my opinion, it is also the opinion of the incumbent Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, as referenced above, who both represent competing liberal parties. The understanding of Finnish politics is (quite naturally) deeper in the Finnish press than in foreign publications, and I would thus give greater preference for the reliable Finnish sources. For example, I bet that the journalists of the Italian paper previously mentioned had not even heard of the party before the election. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * highly dubious to call them racist. (opposing swedish as a primary lang. in schools is not racist, theyre all scandinvaian) although saying X/Y of the international media called them so may be a better caveat. they support welfare (socialist) and they support finns first (nationalist) =- national socialist/?Lihaas (talk) 02:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of confusion about a center left party's extreme right stance on immigration
Hello, I have been attempting to include a section on the extreme right nature of part 9 of the True Finn manifesto, as this is a key aspect of the agenda and falls outside the scope of a center left party. I have referenced the Finnish media (YLE), and directly the manifesto and quoted The Guardian directly. The Guardian, a British broadsheet newspaper, is quite clear that there is support from the extreme right. I don't think we need to go to the lengths of raising prominent True Finn MP Jussi Halla-Aho's membership of Suomen Sisu to clarify this is not original research. It is unfortunate that the Guardian translated Perussuomalaisten as Basic Finnish, so please understand that this is not vandalism on their part or my part. Indeed, the time taken to revert, does not reflect the time taken to read the referenced material to determine if it is encyclopaedic, which it is. To meet the consensus, in the revision, I will change this to true Finn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.38.29 (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There is nothing "extreme right" about a country deciding on its own immigration policy. Even the Guardian article does not call that extreme right, it only says, quote "while at the same time gathering support on the right". The addition of "extreme" was your addition and original research. Your personal opinions of Suomen Sisu are original research as well. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

To clear this up, none of this is original research. I will return to this later with another reference for this discussion from the Guardian that describes the True Finns as far right. At this stage, there is no need to get into Suomen Sisu in the article, but it would not be hard to find references that would place SS on the far right. There is some rather revisionist Suomenkuva going on here that does not want to share with the world that their popular nationalist party has some far right aspects to their manifesto, by international standards such as the Geneva Convention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Positivity1 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think the Geneva Convention says anything on the True Finns party... Your POV-pushing is original research, andsynthesis against the neutral point of view policy. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There were no Nuremberg trials against the True Finns. That time the True Finns shared the sama party with Urho Kekkonen, who was once upon time the chairman of Suomalaisuuden Liitto. :-). Varsijousi (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Geneva Convention guarantees the right to asylum, without conditions, cf. Part 9 of the referenced True Finn manifesto.

It might not be necessary to call that far right, but it does not stretch the definition of far right or extreme right in any way. Please be aware that this is not synthesis as the discrepancy with the Geneva convention is explicity stated in the Guardian article that is already referenced in the context of the True Finn parliamentary manifesto 2011, the relevant aspect of which the Guardian translates explicity. To clarify, this is not original research but encyclopaedic. I will return with a reference from the Guardian for discussion that describes the True Finns as far right. This is not POV-pushing nor original research, but encylopaedic.

It would be a neutral point of view that the True Finns have some far right aspects to their manifesto and have considerable far right support, as is justifiable on the basis of multiple sources. However, to compromise, the terms "extreme right" and "far right", now, are not mentioned within the article.

Ole hyvä, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/15/eurosceptic-true-finns-contender-finnish-election


 * First of all, the Geneva Convention sets certain criteria for gaining a refugee status (namely personal, political or religious persecution). Over 90 per cent of the asylum seekers in Finland do not meet those criteria. The TF manifesto does not say anything regarding the Geneva Convention. Besides, a country having the right to decide on its own policies does not conflict with accepting international agreements, as accepting or not accepting those agreements are up to individual countries as well. Second, the Guardian journalist might have his own opinions and interpretations, but they sure differ from the opinions of Finnish political analysts, who do not call the party far-right (even the Finnish Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, who represent competing parties, have defended the party from such accusations, calling them misconceptions of the foreign media). Third, it is original research and synthesis on your part to call the stance that a country should be able to decide on its own policies "far-right" - such a claim does not even appear in any sources provided by you. Please don't use Wikipedia as a platform for advancing your own political views. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no original research of point of view beyond the information given here: 1. The Geneva Convention guarantees the right to asylum, *without conditions* 2. The True Finn manifesto Part 9, cited, states, "[True] Finnish immigration policy should be based on the fact that the Finns should always be able to decide for themselves the *conditions* under which a foreigner can come to our country and reside in our country" 3. The Geneva Convention guarantees the right to asylum, without conditions, cf. Part 9 of the referenced True Finn manifesto. 4. A broadsheet newspaper has decribed the True Finns as far right, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/15/eurosceptic-true-finns-contender-finnish-election

I'm have dropped the term extreme right from the article, even though this is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Positivity1 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read on Wikipedia's policy on synthesis. It is not allowed to refer to several sources and then make one's own conclusion of them. And still: one foreign paper's opinion does not matter, when it is not shared with the leading experts on Finnish politics. And the Geneva Convention does not say that asylum should be granted, if the criteria are not met... On the contrary, it defines a refugee, entitled to seek asylum in the following way: "A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion". Over 90 per cent of asylum seekers in Finland do not meet those criteria and thus are not classed as refugees even at this moment. You obviously have strong personal opinions on the matter, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is not meant to be a platform for them. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

89.27.103.116 Please accept my sincerest apologies if I have inadvertently interfered with your contribution in restoring material. I am not using wikipedia as a political platform nor am I conducting synthesis: The Guardian is a reliable source with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Yes, you are correct there are criteria, without conditions. I would be interested in your opinion of who the leading experts on Finnish politics are, their methods, and what their analysis says, though would not wish to burden you in any way. I am just trying to get the facts across. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Positivity1 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * For example these political analysts do not consider TF as an extreme or far-right party. Listen also to this quite detailed analysis of the party's roots and ideology; it has no mention of the party being far-right. Also, note that the liberal Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb is defending the TF's leader Soini, saying that the foreign media have been mislead in demonising him. Stubb sure doesn't seem to consider TF as a far-right party. And he also criticizes the foreign media's misconceptions. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Why the miscoceptions are not presented to the Englishmen and Swedes, which have enjoyed a lot of typical media hysteria? Varsijousi (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the references. I read them through in the hope of finding something from the leading experts on Finnish politics. I found Laura Parkkinen who is a postgraduate student in contemporary history at Turku University who is doing research on what she brackets as Le Pen and Soini, etc. The HS article is no doubt good for her CV, but I was hoping for something from someone with an established reputation such as a full professor. Ok, the True Finns do not have neo nazi origins, yet the immigration aspect of their manifesto is far right. Stubb has come to the True Finns defence, and this is said in the article, ok, but as a politician in the country his agenda is open to question and may not be regarded as a neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Positivity1 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no source that claims that the immigration policy is far-right, even the Guardian does not directly claim that; nowhere is the quoted section of the electoral program called far-right. And certainly no credible Finnish source claims that. Stubb is a liberal politician. Why would he be defending a "far-right" party? --89.27.103.116 (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hauskaa Vappua!

Stubb, foreign minister who lost to Soini on the bailouts debate. I am not Stubb, so cannot explain his motives, but being involved in Finnish politics does not give him a neutral point of view.

There is a saying, "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." There is also such a thing as Suomenkuva and there's a global economy in which Finland must be involved as the perussuomalaiset take on numerous influential positions.

There is no source that there is no source that the immigration policy is far-right. Indeed, there is at least one source that describes the True Finns "opposition to immigration" as "far right" from political scientist Anders Hellstroem. http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/global-filipino/world/03/29/11/nordic-far-right-seeps-political-mainstream

There is a saying, "You can put lipstick on pig. It's still a pig". Far right is far right, and with respect to immigration this is what Anders Hellstroem says the True Finns are. http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/global-filipino/world/03/29/11/nordic-far-right-seeps-political-mainstream —Preceding unsigned comment added by Positivity1 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Topical, about what are far right aspects of the True Finn manifesto - not directly on the immigration issue, though this is mentioned - is also this article from the Finnish broadsheet Helsingin Sanomat regarding freedom of expression and the views of Finnish writer Sofi Oksanen: http://www.hs.fi/kulttuuri/artikkeli/Sofi%20Oksanen%20rinnastaa%20perussuomalaiset%20Hitleriin/1135265705398 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Positivity1 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Do note that the very abs-cbnnews-article that you provided continues with the statement: "At the same time, however, since they are all represented in parliament, "all are established. They are part of the mainstream," he says. The far-right label, which signals extremism, is therefore not completely accurate." So you were reading it a bit selectively. Sofi Oksanen is not a political analyst. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much to 89.27.103.116 for reading the abs-cbnnews article. There is no confusion in the remarks above concerning the topical Helsingin Sanomat article that Sofi Oksanen is a poltical analyst. 89.27.103.116 is correct that Sofi Oksanen is not a political analyst, but is a renowned Finnish writer who is competant to comment upon the funding the arts, who is actively involved in public debate. A Finnish broadsheet, Helsingin Sanomat, has published her comments.

The whole abs-cbnnews article is referenced andAs a solution, to adopt a Neutral point of view what I propose is that we include in the lead of the article that the party rejects the far right label, though has been decribed as far right within a one sentence summary referencing all the sources we have discussed here. This seems to be the Consensus that has emerged with Civility from our discussion. 89.27.103.116's point that I did not reproduce the entire article is taken, well. Please note it is the abs-cbnnews article that says, "The far-right label, which signals extremism, is therefore not completely accurate". That is, the political scientist, Anders Hellstroem, does not say this, as 89.27.103.116 has misunderstood. Political scientist, Anders Hellstroem, uses the term far right. The abs-cbnnews article begins, "elections in Finland could see the rise of yet another Northern European anti-immigrant, nationalist rightwing party that flatly rejects the far-right label while using populist rhetoric".

With respect, 89.27.103.116 seems to align very closely with the point of view of the perussuomalaiset on rejecting the far right label. As a solution, to adopt a Neutral point of view what I propose is that we include in the lead of the article that the party rejects the far right label, though has been decribed as far right within a one sentence summary referencing all the sources we have discussed here. This seems to be the Consensus that has emerged with Civility from our discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Positivity1 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Positivity1 (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Positivity1 (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Positivity1 (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC) 71.38.38.29 (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is clear from the article's context that the journalist was referring to Hellström, although not quoting him directly. Besides, you sure were quick to accept the interpretations of the Guardian journalist, although he was no political analyst. Including claims of a far-right character based on the false assumtions of individual analysts would not be neutral, as that claim has been repudiated by several other analysts. Sofi Oksanen does not have any more authority than any other citizen commenting on politics; she obviously hasn't even read the party's program, as she is in fact constructing a straw man argument. She has also admitted to being a supporter of the Green League, a competing party, so she is far from being neutral on the issue. With respect, user Positivity1 seems to align very closely with the point of view of those parties that have positioned themselves as opponents of PS. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 04:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If having a point of view means voting behaviour, I have never voted in a Finnish election so have a neutral point of view. Further, nor am I a member of any political party, nor do I support any of the Finnish political parties. Sofi Oksanen's role in public debate has a place, and she certainly has the expertise to comment on funding in the arts. If there were a straw man argument, I did not notice her knock it down.

Without quotation marks it cannot be claimed that "The far-right label, which signals extremism, is therefore not completely accurate" was something that Anders Hellstroem said. The article does not even say "Anders Hellstoem said that the far-right label, which signals extremism, is therefore not completely accurate". Therefore this claim is 89.27.103.116's Synthesis and the journalist's inference and application of the far right term. With respect to immigration and several other aspects of the party's agenda, the political scientist Anders Hellstroem applys the term "far right" to the True Finns.

I have listened to 89.27.103.116's arguments and read more. What comes out of this is that the True Finns deny the far right label. Whilst an influential member of the True Finns, Professor Jussi Niinistö, admits to having made what he regards as youthful mistakes of being a member of the White Culture Front and writing in their magazine - those who wish to read about this are welcome to search for this in the Finnish newspaper Uusi Suomi, a reference that would not find it's way into this article as it concerns an individual member - there are sources that the party does not have clear neonazi origins.

As a solution, to adopt a Neutral point of view, what I propose is that we include in the lead of the article that the party rejects the far right label, though has been decribed as far right within a one sentence summary referencing all the sources we have discussed here. This does not mean saying the True Finns are far right in the article but saying the True Finns have been described as far right and the party rejects that label. This seems to be the Consensus that has emerged with Civility from our discussion. I think that we all agree on this. Positivity1 (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Positivity1 (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC) 134.129.66.182 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC) As I take it everyone who would wish to comment has done so, our discussion has now reached a consensual conclusion and I will add said sentence to the lead in the next few days.Positivity1 (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I haven't seen anyone else but you wanting to include a notion of a far-right character... Biased and inaccurate claims based on the misconceptions of a few foreign journalists do not belong in the article, especially not in the lead. --128.214.69.54 (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with 128.214.69.54 and can see that Positivity1 presents the consensus arrived at with 89.27.103.116 without bias. It seems that 128.214.69.54 has not read the discussion or the cited sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.104.80.77 (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

24.104.80.77 (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Ok, so 89.27.103.116 seems to tacitly agree, or a least does not disagree, that "the True Finns have been described as far right and the party rejects that label" following a lengthy reasoned discussion, and 24.104.80.77 also agrees that this is the Consensus. It seems that 128.214.69.54 has misunderstood, assuming that we were just talking about a few journalists. Rather, this consensus does not mean saying the True Finns are far right, and that "the True Finns have been described as far right and the party rejects that label" is significant enough to warrant inclusion in the lead.Positivity1 (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Positivity1 (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A consensus has not been reached. Multiple Finnish political analysts have stated that the party is not far-right or extreme. Even the politicians of other, competing parties have criticized foreign misconceptions of the party. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Good to hear from you 89.27.103.116. I think we have been through this already. But ok, please which part do you disagree with: 1) the True Finns have been described as far right 2) the party flatly rejects the far right label. Why?Positivity1 (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) The party has been described as far-right only by a few misled foreign writers, mainly journalists, who are not very familiar with Finnish politics, 2) not only the party,but also many politicians of other, competing parties have rejected this accusation, and so have many Finnish political analysts. In other words: those who know the party also know that it is not far-right. (Even the Finnish Social Democrats were willing to cooperate with the party.) There certainly is no consensus among any analysts that the party is "far-right" and so it would be very misleading to say that the party "has been described as far-right", as the passive form alone implies that this were some generally accepted fact, which it is not. As a bonus to you: a study of the True Finns' supporters indicated that they are quite centrist - on a scale, where 1 is extreme left and 10 is extreme right, the True Finns are placed at 5.4 (the average for all Finns is 5.5). I'd say that's not even near being "far-right"... --89.27.103.116 (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

On point 1, we have already established that there are sources published in the Finnish broadsheet Helsingin Sanomat and political scientist Anders Hellstoem who have described the party as far right. I would say Anders Hellstoem is a qualified political scientist rather than a misled foreign writer. The fact that some of these sources where written by "foreign writers" does not make them incompetant. You might ask yourself whether the use of the decription far right is defensible when an individual member of the True Finns who is an elected True Finn MP says, "the country's borders are awash with niggers whose Finnish vocabulary is limited to "asylum"." (Teuvo Hakkarinen, True Finn MP, interview with YLE, April, 2011).

One individual member of the True Finns Timo Soini, "rapped him on the knuckles" for this but Hakkarinen was not asked to step down as you might expect from the leader of a centre-left party. It is not compelling that the "far right" description is the misconceived view of a lunatic fringe of incompetant "foreign" political scientists and journalists. In any case, even if you reject the label, the term "far right" has been used with respect to the True Finns.

On point 2, the single (cf. multiple) political analyst mentioned was Laura Parkkinen who is a postgraduate student in contemporary history at Turku University who is doing research on what she brackets as Le Pen and Soini, etc. This "bonus" study indeed appears in the lead in the Finnish wikipedia article; the Finnish speaking consensus is that the issue warrants treatment in the lead. However, this study you mention describes how voters for the True Finns rate themselves, which is not without bias.

To resolve, I'd suggest to extend the sentence to be put in the lead "the True Finns have been described as far right, yet the party, True Finn voters, and some experts flatly reject the far right label." I think we can agree on this.Positivity1 (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Positivity1 (talk) 05:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Positivity1 (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Anders Hellström is Swedish. Finnish political analysts have generally not described the party far-right. I have given other examples besides Parkkinen as well. I don't know what Helsingin Sanomat article you are referring to, but this HS article clearly does not claim that the TF were somehow far-right. You might also ask yourself, why were liberal and social democratic parties willing to cooperate with the TF (until Soini himself broke from the negotiations because of the EU issues) - would they be willing to cooperate with an extreme party? As for Hakkarainen: he did not say "nigger", he said "negro" and he was only repeating what he had heard from a friend. Also, I have not seen sources calling Hakkarainen far-right, so calling him that would be original research. As for the study: I'd say that it says a lot that the party's supporters view themselves as centrist. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear 89.27.103.116, There are a lot of reasons why a party might feign an alliance with the True Finns as the new government is formed. For instance, they may have needed the True Finns, but they would rather get on without them. I notice parties doing so are now forming a coalition government without them. Yes, the study says that the party's followers view themselves as centrist - and they are the party with the largest blue collar following - poorer voters, that is, those who might benefit fom the improvements in the welfare state promised in the True Finn manifesto. There is a literature written by Mary Kaldor on how those in desperate situations need a scapegoat for their problems that leads to the rise of nationalism and preference for the ingroup over the outgroup: Accordingly, foreigners are to blame for their hardship. Kaldor's work has quite something to comment on the origins of war. The judgements of these voters in the study are subjective and not necessarily how others view them.

I suggest you consider reading our entire discussion again, should you have missed who has termed the True Finns as far right. It would be misguided to think that Finns are the only people with a right to knowledge about Finnish politics.

So what if Anders Hellström is Swedish? He is more qualified than Laura Parkkinen. That you say there are multiple pure-bred Finns who might disagree - I have yet to see any with a serious academic reputation - does not make source written by foreigners in some way less valid.

I've heard the term "vitun neekeri" enough in the streets of Finland - oft coarticulated in a drunken slur - to understand the meaning to be, "fucking nigger", which on a good day could translate to "fucking negro" maybe. Before you call this original research, google translate takes the pairing of words "vitun neekeri" as fucking nigger. Or did True Finn MP Teuvo Hakkarinen use the word "nekru" meaning nigger? ~

So if you must insist there is still a contraversy, please, how would you suggest to resolve this? I have really tried to do so with civility and hope you can settle this now. 71.38.38.29 (talk) 71.38.38.29 (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC) 71.38.38.29 (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I know Anders Hellström does not speak Finnish. That means he hasn't read any of the True Finns programs (newest, all programs), as they are all in Finnish. One is not qualified to comment on the party as an analyst if one has not even read the party's political programs. Also, I think it says a lot that you have not been able to provide any neutral (non-party-affiliated) Finnish political analysts, who claim that the party is "extreme-right". I have provided several analysts and studies that say that the party is not. Regarding the word neekeri: when Teuvo Hakkarainen was attending grammar school in the late 1960s the word neekeri was the standard term for a black person, used on school books (an example from a spelling book approximately from that era). --89.27.103.116 (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't find it convincing that a qualified political scientist would base their claims on inadequate translation and am not convinced either way if Anders Hellström speaks Finnish or not, nor am I convinced of the relevance of this fact: Finnish is a very ruleful language that is readily translated either by machine or professional translator. If you doubt this, take the documents you mention and apply google translate to them. More compelling than a Finnnish "political analyst" is a professional analysis from someone who does not have a right to vote in Finnish elections, Anders Hellström, who has said that in certain respects the True Finns are far right. I do think that you really are clutching at straws with a spelling book from the 1960s, when the extant meaning of neekeri is nigger. That the "country is awash with negros whose only word of Finnish is asylum", would hardly be any more a statement of a centre-left politician. That our attempts to resolve the issue need to be drawn out by such feeble arguments is hard to sympathise with. So how would you rephrase the asertion to be placed in the article, "the True Finns have been described as far right, yet the party, True Finn voters, and some experts flatly reject the far right label."? Please, without burdeniong yourself, I respectfully ask focus on this real question for the article, or otherwise accept this to be the consensus.

I take it that everyone who would like to comment further has already done so. Positivity1 (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I will give it a few days and then we can write the consensus, "the True Finns have been described as far right, yet the party, True Finn voters, and some experts flatly reject the far right label.", in the lead, as what it is. 134.129.66.182 (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Positivity1 (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus. You are the only user demanding a mention of some far-right description. 1) I have sent e-mail to Anders Hellström, asking whether he has read the programs or not, 2) In the article in question it also says that the parties mentioned "all are established. They are part of the mainstream" (direct quote from Hellström - by definition 'mainstream' and 'extreme' are opposites of each other) and "The far-right label, which signals extremism, is therefore not completely accurate" (probably indirect quote, I asked about this from Hellström in my e-mail). I just sent the e-mail to him, so naturally I haven't yet received a reply, but at this stage I presume that he is generalizing all populist parties into the same bracket, something which can not be done even according to the outgoing Finnish Prime Minister. In any case we are speaking about one analyst. 3) Regarding Hakkarainen: he himself has stated that he used the word neekeri because he learnt it in school in a time when it was a neutral word (and I have proven that old spelling books used the word). In my Finnish-English dictionary the word's primary translation is "negro". Hakkarainen has said that in the future he will avoid the word. Also consider the fact that the TF parliamentary group gave Hakkarainen a caveat (a slight punishment), saying that an MP must act with dignity. 4) The party's parliamentary group has recently also given a proclamation condemning all racism. Is that something a "far-right" party would do? --89.27.103.116 (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not demanding anything, but I would suggest to include in the article the facts that, "the True Finns have been described as far right, yet the party, True Finn voters, and some experts flatly reject the far right label." Note that above there was someone who agreed with this consensus and you, 89.27.103.116, are the only person opposing this and I recognise a tenacious revisionist style of editing out such pieces of information, so, alas, we must see eye-to-eye. I do not see a better sentence that has emerged from this discussion. If you must insist on causing a contraversy, it would be better to resolve it by listening, in the way that I have listened to you, to arrive at this position,"the True Finns have been described as far right, yet the party, True Finn voters, and some experts flatly reject the far right label.". On 1) I am a little bit at a loss as to why you think you are so important to warrant Hellstrom's unpaid reply. In the unlikely event you get a reply, I would be interested in what he says. 2) Radicalism is being mainstreamed. This is an observation of Hellstrom's work. Again, the outgoing Finnish prime minister, is biased, and has political agendas where the Perussuomalaiset might suit her purposes. Please... 3) Hakkarainen clearly really meant nigger and got a rap on the knuckles, where he would have been asked to resign were he a member of a genuinely center-left party. The reality is that neekeri means nigger as sourced above. In fact, he just said it again. I do wonder if his brain has processed much since struggling with the spelling book at school 4) The party may be being spin-doctored but is clearly embodied by those with a history of racism such as Hakkarinen and Halla-aho, yes I know, multiple individual racist members who want to send as many Somalis back to their own country as possible. Please don't start, this tittle tattle seems to be going nowhere, without burdening yourself, please just improve the sentence... Positivity1 (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) I did in fact receive a reply from Hellström. This is what he said: commenting on the True Finns he has relied only on secondary sources, and has not read the party's political programs himself. He has done most of his research on the Sweden Democrats. On the political positions he said that the TF (as other populist parties) have become part of the mainstream, which means that using the term 'extreme' would be problematic. Concerning the right/left-cleavage he notes that in economic terms the TF and the SD do not fit in the classical definition of right-wing economic politics, but in socio-cultural terms they can be termed as right-wing. This is already stated in the article, including the info-box. If you want to verify this you can either contact Hellström yourself or provide an e-mail address to which I can forward the content of his reply. 2) If 'radical' is 'mainstream', then it is by definition not radical. The outgoing Prime Minister is biased, yes, but one would expect her to be biased against the True Finns. After all she represents a competing party and she made the statement during the electoral campaign, when it certainly was not in her interest to flatter another party. 3) Your interpretation is merely original research. The fact is that according to dictionaries the translation of neekeri is primarily 'negro', not 'nigger', and the word was taught in schools in the time Hakkarainen was young. And yes, according to a newspaper he did say it again, but he himself has stated that he didn't mean to say it. Expelling a fresh MP because of a few politically incorrect statements due to inexperience would be unreasonable in any party. You don't get expelled from the first offence. The fact is that the party has reprimanded him and he has promised to watch his language in the future. 4) Hakkarainen is not racist and neither is Halla-aho - in fact Finnish courts have twice found Halla-aho not guilty on the charge of incitement. So your opinion is only your opinion, nothing more. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, hey, if Jussi Hallo-aho is not considered racist by the mainstream then maybe radicalism is being mainstreamed or is it that the mainstream is becoming radicalised? Oxymoronic isn't it; as are the True Finns. Either that or he has a very clever lawyer. My sense is you think the affairs in which politicians deal are rather simpler than they are. Albeit an opposition party, the other parties need to maintain good relations with them to stop the True Finns doing too much harm in their inexperience. I believe you are aware that you are way out of line accusing me of mere independent research, or somewhat deluded. Next thing we know the word nigger - as in vitun neekeri- won't be racist. Thus black is white and white is black, radical is mainstream and mainstream is radical. With his permission, I would be very interested to read Hellstrom's email. Please would you send it to truepositivity1@gmail.com? Positivity1 (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have now forwarded Hellström's email to you. Regarding Hakkarainen: well he didn't say "vitun neekeri", now did he? He said "neekeriukko", which he has said he will avoid in the future. Nor was he saying it to someone's face, but he was in fact repeating what he had heard from a friend of his. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the email Jaakko, it was a quite sophisticated response and if read through simplistic selective googles, you might come out of it with the idea that True Finns are not far right. I guess the thread is that as soon as party gets enough support to become involved in parliamentary affairs, then there is a problem with calling them extremist, even if they are racists or immigration-critical or pure as the driven snow, whiter than white, or whatever you want to call. I guess you mean to tell me is that Hakkarinen means a different nigger from  fucking nigger, i.e., "vitun neekeri", than when he uses the term nigger bloke, i.e., "neekeriukko". I suggest you approach a Somali in the street and address him as such to find out what it really means. You'll find he has more than mastered the meaning of the term long before that for asylum. The Helsinki Times has it right on both occassions, he meant "nigger" and is trying to get away with it twice.

The name "True Finns" has been changed to "The Finns" see http://www.hs.fi/politiikka/artikkeli/Perussuomalaiset+otti+k%C3%A4ytt%C3%B6%C3%B6n+englanninkielisen+nimen/1135268708128 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.58.60 (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)