Talk:Together (Estonian political party)

Oleg Ivanov has some funding in crypto
Earlier, Oleg Ivanov tried to hype a coin named DOGBOSS, and the creator (with whom Oleg Ivanov was meet before, as he says so by himself) of this coin is a russian who is living in Africa and organizing from their different ponzi and rug pool schemes for russian propaganda regime. 82.131.55.60 (talk) 07:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

"Pro-peace"
has repeatedly added the assertion that this political party is "pro-peace," supported only by the party's own website. I contend that reliable secondary sources would be needed to support the inclusion of this "ideology". This "pro-peace" label should not be re-added to the article without first obtaining consensus for such an addition here. Tammbeck talk  12:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * And i contend that I am the only one who took the time to add sources to justify a description of the ideology of the party. The "Pro-Russia" description doesn't have any sources to back it up, and seems to be based mainly upon the anti-NATO declarations of the founder, yet it doesn't seem to be questioned by Tammbeck or by other contibutors of this page until now. The fact that this party has in its political program several central points around the idea of non-interventionism and peace is what justify this addition of mine. What "reliable" secondary sources are seem also to be defined in a quite arbitrary manner by past contributors of this page, Tammbeck included. Snarcky1996 (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article is not fully sourced and it is tagged as such. This is not a reason to avoid discussion of unreliable sourcing of some of the content. In a nutshell, you clearly have faith in your primary sourcing for "pro-peace" and I disagree. The website of the party is blatantly self-promotional and non-neutral, and the claim of pacifism is not matched by the rhetoric quoted elsewhere on the Wikipedia page. I don't know what you mean that I have tried to define what reliable secondary sources are. This is not the case.


 * Let's look towards a possible resolution. I would have no problem with the article stating "The party states its main goal is to ensure peace in Estonia and harmony in relations between peoples" or something like that. That is an accurate representation of your source and is not in wikivoice. Alternatively I suggest we ask for a neutral third opinion which I would agree to abide by. Tammbeck  talk  09:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tammbeck That could be a good resolution yes, however I insist that it is appropriate to mention its opposition to war in the ideology description, since the program of a party, any party, and more generally how said party defines itself, is what defines in large part the ideology of said party, even if the program is a "primary source".
 * Because that's what an ideology is: a set of beliefs of an organisation or an individual, and a list of stated principles and objectives. Therefore, if a party dedicate a large part of its program to it, then it does define what its ideology is. You may believe they are lying, and you may be right about that, that they will not do what they state they will do in their program if they have the chance, but that sort of speculation is not relevent to define their ideology, since ideology is a declaration of principles before anything else.
 * As to: "the claim of pacifism is not matched by the rhetoric quoted elsewhere on the Wikipedia page", I think that's wrong, since the rhetoric in question on this page, no matter how crude, does not call to war anywhere. It is vehemently anti-NATO, anti-American, and anti-Western in general, and may be sympathetic to Russia to the point of denialism, yes, but not hawkish or calling for war in any way. Granted, it is maybe more appropriate to describe it as, and to have the link redirecting to, Anti-war movement, wich is more specific and correspond better to the stances of the party, rather than Pacifism, it is indeed more accurate, since its focus seems to be primarily the current war.
 * Lastly, I have no objections if you want to call a third neutral party. Snarcky1996 (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I've edited the ideology in line with your input. I don't think we will need a neutral arbiter as we seem to have come to a satisfactory compromise. Tammbeck  talk  19:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I accept that compromise, thank you. Snarcky1996 (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)