Wikipedia

Talk:Sweden Democrats/Archive 3

< Talk:Sweden Democrats
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Los Perros pueden Cocinar in topic 'Far-right'
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Edit warring over lead section

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've mentioned the current edit warring over the article's lead section on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible edit war on Sweden Democrats, as this doesn't seem like it's about to end any time soon. Constantly reverting the page to the editor's preferred version, that is. Instead of reverting over and over again, we should discuss what the sources say here. Personally, I think it is important to note that accepting how the party describes itself as accurate is undeniably POV, and third party sources aren't just preferable, they are essential. Objections were made to citing Rydgren, which is fair enough, but this version by Dnm included multiple citations for each statement AND also mentioned how the party describes itself. I find it extremely unreasonable to still object to this. — Swedishpenguin | Talk 20:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Usage of the term 'far-right'

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Is this appropriate? As far as I know, the Left Party isn't referred to as "far-left". This is rank bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.5.77.60 (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

We use the terminology used in sources. Parties like the Sweden Democrats are consistently classified as far right. Can you provide a different name for this category? TFD (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Funny how none of the sources can be directly verified because they're all books. The source's title talking about right wing parties and then extreme parties sure as heck doesn't make it seem reliable. Baracuda1337 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no requirement for sources to be online. You can find all these sources in a reference library. Reliable sources use the terms right wing and extreme. If you think that invalidates them, then please provide a reliable source that says theses are nonsense terms. TFD (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Social conservatism

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Given that the lede describes them as "social conservative" maybe the infobox should, too? Harfarhs (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The lead does not describe them as "social conservative", it says that is how they describe themselves. Furthermore it is confusing, because social conservatism has a different meaning in Sweden than it usually does in the English-speaking world, particularly the U.S. TFD (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps in that case you would care to post a link of some kind about the Swedish sort, so that we can all make up our own minds rather than relying on your special knowledge? :) Harfarhs (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not my "special knowledge", it's what the sources used in the article say. TFD (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Very helpful, I don't think. Remind me never to bother conversing with you again. Harfarhs (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Social conservatism is the parties MAIN IDEOLOGY. It is incomprehensible that this is not included in the article. The party describes itself as a social conservative party with a nationalist ethos. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.11.59.155 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 24 September 2014

That fact that they have started to describe themselves as "social conservatives" is not proof that they are any more than someone in a hospital claiming to be Jesus is proof of his claim. We need to follow Wikipedia policy for reliable sources. We do mention however that they claim to be social conservatives. TFD (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Your analogy troubles me. Could you clarify your position on self referential primary sources in this context? I've interpreted your statement as an assertion that the SD is an inherently unreliable, even delusional, source on what it is the SD believes. GraniteSand (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves...so long as: 1.the material is neither unduly self-serving...4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity...." TFD (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
No need to quote drop, I've clearly read the material I linked to; I was asking you to explain your reasoning. On what basis do you challenge the statement's veracity and authenticity? What is it about the statement you find to be unduly self serving? GraniteSand (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources say it is a right-wing populist party, and earlier was clearly far right. (You can look through previous dicussions in the threads above.) TFD (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable sources asserting that these are mutually exclusive terms? I'm also still not clear on your basis for challenging the SPS's veracity, authenticity or composition as inherently self-serving. The target seems to be moving. GraniteSand (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Not "far right"!

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As someone who fled the Islamic Revolution and opposes the Islamization of the West, I find the article to be biased against the Swedish Democrats. Drawing a caricature of the Muslim prophet does not make a political party "far right". The S.D. are not calling for "racial purification" or anti-gay violence; and those hack writers who label the S.D. as "far right" need to read their manifesto first. The S.D. are, in fact, ideologically very similiar to the SDP politician Thilo Sarrazin and many ex-Muslims such as myself, Dr. Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maryam Namazie. I suggest that S.D. should be described as a "right-wing populist" party and not "far right". AtheistIranian (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You have the right to have your opinion, but we use what reliable sources say. // Liftarn (talk)

Poor article : SD Bias throughout

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just skimmed through this article. It is pretty obviously biased towards the Swedish Democrats. Their main 'dog whistle' policies are given plenty of coverage. Yet there is no analysis of their EU position, none of their economic policies, none of their defence policies...... the list goes on. Either coverage (and criticism) of those other policies need to be included or else the long paragraphs on immigration need to be substantially reduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.49.151.154 (talk • contribs)

They're consitently called "far-right" throughout the article. It's not biased in SD's favour. – SmiddleTC@ 07:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Fascism

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Now also described as fascists by Vice[1] and The Algemeiner[2]. // Liftarn (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The Danish People Party - connection question

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a "citation needed" , for the link between Danish People Party and SD's success in southern Sweden. People could see Pia Kjærsgård on television (Danish television reaches cities like Malmö and Helsingborg, both terrestial and by analogue cablenets.) She gave answers to questions that were unheared of before, and similar to today's SD. Hence I have to ask what the "citation needed" refers to, more specifically Boeing720 (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Far right

Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

I note that they are called Far right in the English-speaking media, eg [3] as well as the recent scholarly literature. This needs to be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

We need to be clear whether they are far right or right-wing populist. Note that a similar search for "Tea Party" returns far more searches, but that does not mean they have the same ideology as the American Nazi Party. Do you know if there is a consensus in academic writing that they are far right? BTW we had the same objections for the BNP and EDL and were able to provide academic sources. TFD (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about consensus, but I'm seeing more sources calling them far right than populist, and statements such as "contempora RRP parties (including the Sweden Democrats), a political family l\ is as close to the nationalistic far right as it is to populism. " [4] or in Twenty-first century populism: the spectre of Western European democracy "The main task facing the Sweden Democrats, however, has been not to appear overly extreme or too closely associated with openly anti-democratic groups. As we have seen, the party has its roots in the extra-parliamentary far Right and, ." I've no objection to saying they are also described as right wing populist. What we can't do is use only their own description, as we can see when editors try to call the English Defence League a Human Rights organisation which is how it describes itself. Dougweller (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Your source is describing right-wing populist parties in general (called RRP in the book). The source also says "While the British National Front was one of the larger sources of inspiration during the latter half of the 1980s, its (sic) French Front National made a profound impression on the ideological and strategic direction taken by the Swedem Democrats during the 1990s...." (p. 109). I do not know where they would be mapped but we can certainly report what this source says about them. TFD (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Did you look at the news links in my first post above? Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but I cannot tell how they are using the term "far right". It is often newspaper shorthand. "Tea Party"+"far right" also returns hits.[5] Some editors who reject the label "far right" to describe the BNP and EDL use searches to show that the UAF is "left-wing". You might want to look at Google scholar. Here is a link to The radical right in Sweden which may help in determining how they are described. TFD (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not up to us to interpret what sources mean, merely to report what they say. Sources describe the SD as far right and as populist. If reliable sources enlarge on this we can add this in the article. Dougweller (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
We do not say a group is far right unless there is consensus that it is. Also, we should not use undefined terms in articles. You would agree that we would not describe Sarah Palin as "far right" because some sources call her that. It is important to distinguish between violent racist groups such as the KKK, skinheads and neo-nazis and more mainstream nativist, intolerant groups such as UKIP and the Tea Party. Let's examine the sources and see where they place this group. There were obviously far right elements involved in the history of the party but they may or may not have transformed. What do the sources say? TFD (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


We can however say that they are referred to as far right - that can be confirmed in multiple sources. We certainly cannot leave their own description of themselves as the only description. Dougweller (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I have read through literature about the SD and this description in an article by Jens Rydgren that is cited in the WP article seems typical: "...the party has its roots in the extra-parliamentary far right, and for the first half of the 1990s there was no clear distinction between the Sweden`Democrats and different skinhead and Nazi organizations, and an overlap of membership was not uncommon.... the party did not explicitly renounce Nazism until 1999/2000.... In 2003, the party took a further step towards ridding itself of the stigma of extremism....there is much to suggest that the party is still seriously hurt by its extremist image amongst a large portion of the electorate.Not only are these changes comparatively new (and will probably only have a full effect, if all, in the future), there are also clear signs that not everyone has taken them to heart...." (p. 28)[6] So while the party developed out of the far right, has far right elements and is still perceived by some as far right, It has attempted to migrate to the less extreme right, but there is no agreement that it has been successful. But definitely their own self-description is unacceptable. TFD (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You might want to check Swedish general election, 2010 for neutrality as well. TFD (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

They are definitely far right, but have removed the traditional neo nazi anti-Semitism that Jews consider such a threat to Israel and Zionism. This is why it is promoted so strongly by zionist interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnordel (talk • contribs) 08:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't agree. SD is a typical one question party. (Anti immigration) In matters of welfare distribution they are sooner "to the left". I'm talking about the party as of today - not 25 years ago. The Left Party (Swedish Vänsterpartiet) was a Moscow-faithful Communist Party until Communism fell in the former USSR , in 1991. But that's forgotten today, so I think we have to avoid judging SD as "far right" soley due to what they were a long time ago. Today The Left Party is accepted as "clean", and the same could be said about SD in most parts of Sweden south of Stockholm. Since Sweden is a very centralized country (especially given its large surface), 90% of Swedish media is owned by Stockholm based cooperations. The national television, SVT, is based in Stockholm. Just like the only commercial TV-channel with news, TV4. And still as of now, SD are not concidered "clean" in the capital city. Hence I feel international sources are called for here. Boeing720 (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Please note that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not conspiracy theories. // Liftarn (talk)


I also have a question about the political postion of the Sweden Democrats. On their Wikipedia page it says that their political position is Right-wing to far-right. Now it is true that some people who are sitting in the Rikdag can have views that can differ from the official views that the Sweden Democrats have and even the party leader Jimmie Åkesson said that he has different views than the official politics of the Sweden Democrats.[1] (In Swedish with no subtitles)At 10 minutes and 9 seconds (10:09) in an interview, Åkesson states that he doesn't always have the same opinions as to the Sweden Democrats (as a whole party). It does seem odd because there is no source on this, and actual Alt-right and Neo-Nazi political parties are put in the same political position as the SD e.g. National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD) and Nordic Resistance Movement (NMR). Shouldn't they be placed in the Alt-right category and not far-right? And the political party Alternative for Sweden (AfS) is also placed in the same category as the Sweden Democrats despite the fact that AfS was founded by old Sweden Democrat party members that got kicked out of the party for having views that were seen as too extreme by SD. --Los Perros pueden Cocinar (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Condense references

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can we condense the references in the lead? I mean create one single footnote backing each statement (e.g. that it is a right-wing party) and this single footnote include the 4-5 references currently in use. This could improve the visual style of the article while maintaining content and references intact. —Lappspira (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sweden Democrats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.Themidget17 (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Sweden Democrats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 18 external links on Sweden Democrats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Settle the orientation discussion

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The Swedish Democrats have positioned themselves as a contrarian catch all in many topical issues in Sweden. As has been substantiated in past posts, some prominent MPs could be considered centrists, while others are farther to the right than the average opposition. Would defining them as center right- far right be acceptable? Pietrus69 (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I dont know why it included those random citations, the last of which is a broken link. Pietrus69 (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Pietrus69: The party's political position shall be defined by party policies not individual representatives political positions. The party is in every sense a far-right party pThe party's political position shall be defined by party policies not individual representatives political positions. The party is in every sense a far-right party when it comes to political policies. Party is further to the right than the traditional right-wing opposition. Dnm (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Rooths in Swedish fascism

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The part about the rooths in Swedish fascism, and the source has been deleted twice in three days. Even ethnopluralism was deleted. The sources are valid, and if any doubt is left please use google translate and read about the partys history here and check the used sources. So, let the fact be there. It is a part of their history and we shall not be a part of white washing it. Adville (talk) 11:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

English version non pov and way too long

Latest comment: 6 years ago28 comments4 people in discussion

Why is it only the English version that alludes to the party being nazis in the opening? this surely is a scandalous claim. Criticism of the party can go the relevant section and not the opening. I understand that many people wish to denigrate the party but can't you refrain from doing that here and use social media instead.

Is no one going to help cut down the size of the opening either? it could be condensed considerably. See french or Russian versians for inspiration. 120.156.156.84 (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Why do you just want to cit away their history and origin? It is well sourced. Svwp had a while srticle about their history, as you know. Short about yhe history belongs in the opening. Adville (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
According to your editing, this for example on svwp, I think it is best you start discuss and stop POV-editing. You have also got warnings on your talk page. Adville (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
warnings from someone who also has warnings. Their political beliefs are none of my concern. The opening suggests they are currently white supremacists and nazis. Whilst I recognise their history and some members originally espousing such deplorable views it is clear they have totally rejected such train of thoughts for a long time now. It should be included in the party's history, or at least explained that the party have sincerely attempted to distance themselves from such beliefs.

120.156.156.84 (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

also the intro is still undeniably far too long winded.

120.156.156.84 (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed let's condense intro? Alexandre8 (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I have now vindenswd the intro some. More could be condensed (it is too much about every election in the intro, compared with other articles about Swedish parties. History should be there, if you compare with Moderaterna, Socialdemokraterna and Vänsterpartiet. Adville (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Does every election need to be in the intro? Can't it be modified to say something along the lines of "the party polled fairly unsuccessfully until the 2006 election where it made a break through and gained x number of seats, from which it has continued to garner support, achieving stronger results in both 2010 and 2014, where it achieved x and x number of seats respectively. "? Alexandre8 (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, Alexandre8, I missed this before I started to cut the intro. If you do something like that it is ok, else it looks like they just want to show how good they are. I have tried to make it more like articles about other Swedish parties now. Feel free to shorten more about the elections. Adville (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Adville thank you for working on this! A little dedication goes a long way and the introduction is much smoother. I like what you have done. I changed the English a little bit just because there were a few stylistic mistakes. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks :-) Of course you shall correct my language if I do mistakes! I wanted to shorten the parts not neccesary in the intro so the once trying to hide the history because of "the long intro" could not use that argument. Adville (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The election result should be shortened alot. It is way to undo tight at the moment, and are unnecessary. The history is much more important to the reader. When it comes to the election result, the only thing that really needs to be in the introduction is the last election and maybe just saying when the party got into the parliament first time. Dnm (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
[[User:Dnm|Dnm] Are you referring to the election results in the introduction or in the main body? I think Adville did a good job shortening the introduction and it seems about the right length now? with regards to the election results, its a box with all election peformances which is standard for all political parties. Maybe you wrote this before adville condensed so perhaps that's why I'm confused Alexandre8 (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Some-many-nothing

I see the discussion about the intro and the external description of Sd. It is true it was written "some" before, but my guess is that that word was written by the same person who added all the pro-Sd election-text. If you look after external sources you'll see most of them follow the sources already added (no need to put 100 sources there...). Therefor I have to agree with Dnm about the word many. However no word is good too, as the reader self can see the sources. Adville (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

THank you for input (User talk:Adville) I have changed it back to what is was before, except removed "some". I think this is the most neutral way of dealing with pov on eitherside and it reads smoothly. I think it goes without saying that sources will be political experts and analysts and the reader can review sources themselves if need be. thoughts? Alexandre8 (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
No it does not, and therefore I undid your edit. It is not neutral to hide facts like that. Your edit makes it sound like it is statements that has no authority behind it, and according to me it makes it POV. Dnm (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
It seems that Alexandre8 thinks he owns this article. He can make edits to it but no body else can. How depressing. Dnm (talk) 07:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Please keep your feelings and ad hominems to yourself. I am following guidelines and have removed SOME (which was the original, before you changed it without consensus, to help appease neutrality. I do no own any article, what a childish thing to say Alexandre8 (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I have tied to explain to the reader who thinks that about SD, and you are reverting me by saying it is more neutral to not say anything. And now you are starting to threatening me on my discussion page about edit waring, when you're the one reverting others, in this case, clarifications, and in doing so you are making statments seem without authority, and you call this NPOV. I have researched the Swedish Democrats at a university so i know what i am doing and saying in this matter, but you can continue to own this article and do what you want. Have a nice day. Dnm (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales himself has said original research itself is not admissible in articles so you own experience with the party is irrelevant. I am not attacking you, don't make spurious claims. I am not defending the SD or attacking them either . I am reverting, as per policy, changes to the POV of the article without consensus. I am reverting NEW material. You can spin this any way you like but I have no added any new material. If you like we can go back to the original (which I personally don't like anyway ) and say "Some". I am also very glad to say that the disagreeable roots of the SD are clear for all to see in the introduction, so please do not accuse me of pushing their side. In the future why don't we work together to write a more condensed and higher quality article. THank you. Alexandre8 (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
It is unpleasant, right? Maybe you should think twice about accusing other of pushing agendas next time then? And yes, you are "attacking" me, and have done that four times now: First you indirectly called my edit POV, second time you said that I should stop "pushing agendas" (just confirms the first "attack"), third time you where discredit me by using ad hominem-argument, and now you are saying that i am using original research.
About the original research: I do not use any original research. I have never done that on Wikipedia (and i have around 40 000 edits to show it). I just pointed out that I know what I'm doing and talking about when it comes to the Sweden Democrats. I have a lot of source material I can present (hundreds of them, with different authority ofc), etc. But it is obviously unwelcome here. So, have a nice day. Dnm (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Alexandre8: I have tosay that I first agreed with Dnm about writing "experts", when you erased it. However I looked at Breitbart, known right extrem, and saw the same as you said: Nothing about experts. As you know both me and Dnm are from Sweden. There we have been working a lot with POV in right extrem pages, many of them related to Sd. When doing that it is not enought with 20 sources from renomed papers, you need research from universities (and if it is too old, like 2-3 years old the try to refute it by saying it is old...). When having 50 kb discussions about one word you get a little bit "damaged", and coming here were it seems to be another kind of climate is different! Dnm and I misunderstood you first, but now I agree with you. Experts is not needed to write. Adville (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Adville Thank you for your input on this. I appreciate you evaluating the pros and cons of the edit. There is NPOV is all political articles, therefore it is of course impossible to write a completely neutral article. I disagree strongly with Dnm that I attacked him, although I sympathise with his frustration when edits repeatedly get reverted. I used to make edits as well without seeing the talk page, but through trial and error it is always worth getting the opinion of other editors before making changes to POV. I was not aware that you two were friends either, but glad that you have discussed it. Alexandre8 (talk) 11:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I think it is always best to be open that we know eachother... and having discussed a milion times on svwp the frustration can come sometimes on wrong person. Hope this is solved now! Best regards, Adville (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for honesty. tack! Alexandre8 (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Worked in SS

Another thing about the intro is this: "The party had its roots in Swedish fascism" Actually one of the fonders were working close to Heinrich Himmler when he was in working in the headquarter of SS during WWII... He was called "the most dangerous Swedish nazist" during the 40:ths and never regretted the SS-time... se source and use google translate. (there are better sources, like a new book about the dark history, but this was one of the first google-hits). Shouldn't this also be in the intro, instead of just "rooths..."? Adville (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

His own article on svwp, sv:Gustaf Ekström (ingenjör). Adville (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Just because I don't want to jump to conclusions in haste, I'm going to admit I don't have time until tomorrow evening to review this. Just for the time being, to me "to have roots" in English implies a foundation based within that certain ideology, so the introduction more or less already covers that. It may we worth squeezing it in somewhere to the history of the party, although that section is already pretty long. for the moment though I haven't got time to formulate an opinion. Perhaps other editors can review this too? Alexandre8 (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Anti-immigration

Latest comment: 6 years ago36 comments8 people in discussion

SD is not anti-immigration [1] the source which they use is not really reliable since it's funded by the Russian government and etc but that's a topic for another day. Anyways [2] sweden democrats are not anti-immigration the source is from their website where they clearly say that they are not against immigration. Here is [3] the leader saying that they are not against immigration. It's silly to lie about a party saying they are something which they are not. 1 https://www.rt.com/news/367187-sweden-democrats-second-popular-poll/ 2 https://sd.se/var-politik/invandringspolitik/ 3 https://www.thelocal.se/20170618/sweden-democrats-leader-kesson-i-support-immigration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC) I will delete the 'anti-immigration' in 24h if no one objects Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ks0stm, Flyer22 Reborn, and Mélencron: I assume you all have the page on your watch lists, but nonetheless I'm pinging you because you'd either applied the most recent protection to the page or had reverted changes by this user in the past and because of the short time limit mentioned above. —C.Fred (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I do object. I agree that Russia Today isn't the best source, but there are lots and lots of other sources, some of them in the article. Even the Local article you use as a source calls the party anti-immigration. There often is a some difference between what any political party says and how it's described by outside sources based on their politics and their statements at other times. If that's the case, we go with what the preponderance of sources say. Please note also that "anti-immigration" covers a broad spectrum of positions, see Opposition to immigration to which anti-immigration redirects. Some of these can allow some limited immigration, which is what mr. Åkesson seems to argue for. Sjö (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I put this page on my watchlist after reverting. I'm not sure how long I'll watch this article, but I'll help combat the disruption in the meantime. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22: How about you actually tell me how they are anti-immigration? They are clearly not it's on their own page and the leader has said so. I will however wait 48 hours to remove the anti-immigration policy. But i doubt anyone will actually debate this instead of just mindlessly reverting. Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


Well, Jack1234567891011121314151617, you state on your user page that you speak fluent Swedish. May I suggest you read the Swedish article about this party and look at the sources. Then you'll see (as I am sure you already know) This sentence "Utifrån en analys av partiets invandrarpolitik år 2012 kom den statliga utredningen "Utredningen om ett effektivare arbete mot främlingsfientlighet" fram till att det är att betrakta som ett främlingsfientligt parti som ger uttryck för en etnopluralistisk hållning." with a source from the Swedish SOU (article). For english speaking readers, "Främlingsfientligt parti" means "a xenophobic party". When you are aware of this and all the other sources in that article I think it is pov to try to change the english article and erase things that are well-sourced hoping that non-Swedish-speaking editors will think you are right. Hope you are aware they can use google translate and understand the sources from svwp too (or ask an admin on svwp what the sources says, like me or Sjö. This has not happened, I saw the discussion myself, but please follow the sources and stop whitewash the article just because it is an election to the church in Septembre in Sweden. Adville (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Far right parties typically cloak their positions in political correctness, but we accept what reliable observers say, rather than what they say about themselves. In fact we do that with all political groups, it's just that the far right is the most egregious. There is no likelihood that the party's immigration policy would result in a net immigration inflow. In fact the sort of white people who have moved to Sweden in the past would be unlikely to move there if it had a far right government. TFD (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Adville: Well first of all i'm not swedish nor religions so i could give a damn about the church elections and i had to google what 'whitewash' meant and my question is, Why did you have to bring race into this? Also by saying i'm trying to whitewash you are saying there is such a thing as 'white culture' there is western culture not white culture culture has nothing to do with race is that hard to understand? I'm sorry i did not get what you meant with the Utredningen_om_ett_effektivare_arbete_mot_främlingsfientlighet article? It's about working against xenophobia ok?
@Sjö: But if a party talks about what it wants implemented as policies then surely that's what should be written on wikipedia not what a newspaper says? I'm guessing you were referring to 'Opposition to immigration ranges from opposition to any immigration to ones nation to calls for varying kinds of immigration REFORMS that further restrict immigration and may go hand in hand with measures to fight causes of flight.' on the Opposition_to_immigration page but if the reform is to not have open border then that's not really anti-immigration. On https://sd.se/valmanifest/en-invandringspolitik-som-beframjar-sammanhallning/ they state that they want a blue card model Blue_Card_(European_Union)(so is the eu anti immigration :DD) and the requirements for a eu blue card are 'Acquisition of Blue Card has the following requirements. The applicant must have a work contract or binding job offer[14][15] with a salary of at least 1.5 times the average gross annual salary paid in the Member State. A Blue Card acquirer must present a valid travel document (and in specific cases a valid residence permit or a national long-term visa) and documents proving the relevant higher professional qualification.' Healthy immigration is not anti-immigration, if they were anti immigration they would close the borders not take control of them. I would also like to add that Sverigedemokraterna does not state that they are anti immigratin.
user:Jack1234567891011121314151617.ease sign when you write. Write under the existing text. You write on your talk page you know perfect Swedish, which means either you are Swedish or Finnish and I then assume you have read the Swedish article about this party. If you do you also will se the article on Swedish language wikiedia about that the study, but here you go sv:Utredningen om ett effektivare arbete mot främlingsfientlighet. To white wash an article means to "clean it" from word and frases that in your eyes are bad for the subject... That is very common that some people try to do that all the time about right wing extremism. It has nothing to do with race! (it is ok you did not understand the expression, you are not a native speaker in English). Because we have an election now in Sweden (as you know) the white wash is more frequent, obviously even here. Read the Swedish article again and then let this be. The sources are here and there, but you understans Swedish better) Adville (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Adville: I read Utredningen_om_ett_effektivare_arbete_mot_främlingsfientlighet but i can't figure out what it has to do with SD. I noticed that on Sweden_Democrats#Immigration they use the parties website as a source so why not use it when they state that they don't oppose immigration. Where did you get your definition of white wash btw just curious. Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Adville: I do not question the fact that the source in this case (the SOU) came to that conclusion, but it is at least worth mentioning that it was directed by a politician (Bengt Westerberg, a former leader of the liberal party) and several members of the advisory group have similar political backgrounds. Diplofot (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Diplofot:. Why? He charge for the money, not the scientific work. And then you mention the advisory group, scientists, they use to be called ledtid och communitys on svwp... like all scientists looking at right won extremism. Why mention that. You do not mention everyone scientists political, or thought political, backround in everyone source. Its a way some tried to underminera the reliability of this source any that is pov. Adville (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Adville:I'm sorry, I don't completely understand what you are saying. Anyhow, I already mentioned it so there it is. And yes, of course I wish to undermine their credibility - rightfully so, in my opinion. Their work is flawed because of their POV. Diplofot (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
There are many examples where stated policy and actual policies have been different. Hitler (I know we normally shouldn't mention him but we are talking about the far right) did not say he intended to kill the remaining Jews of Europe, Southern Democrats, including Klansmen, did not say they supported racial inequality but used the term separate but equal and on the other extreme, the Soviet Communists put many policies such as freedom of speech, worship, assembly and the press into the constitution. And George Bush said he was opposed to interventionist wars and bailing out failed banks and industries. Even ordinary criminals say that they believe in helping people and often deny any crimes of which they may have been accused. TFD (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, the issue with the Sweden Democrats is that their official policies do not seem particularly extreme, or even rightwing. They say that they want to preserve the welfare state, take care of the poverty-stricken elderly, balance the budget by not importing enormous amounts of uneducated economic migrants, etcetera. None of this seems particularly upsetting. However, they have a background in Nazism just 20-25 years ago. That makes them highly suspicious. David A (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Experts see it as coded language or dog-whistle politics. They use acceptable terms but mean the same thing. TFD (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
(Why am I not getting a ping when jack writes "@Adville"?) That link was to show what the source to the statment about Sd came from. New english term for me, but yes, they have dog-whistle politics. Adville (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

But if a party states their raw policies that is what should be on wikipedia, not a newspapers pov. Also the 'hitler didn't say he was gonna kill the jews' argument does not change anything. If Hitler in 1938 said he was not going to kill the jews then on wikipedia it should have said 'Hitler has no plans of killing jews' you can't make predictions so you should write what the party says they want to do

@Adville: Also still where did you get your definition of whitewash or did you make it up? Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk) 10:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Now I got the ping!
First:Whitewashing is not new. See this article: Whitewashing (censorship).
Second:In Swedish language wikipedia (as here) we always write both what the party says about itself and what researchers and papers, but the external opinion first. This is because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place to advertice their propaganda. And that is what you see here. Adville (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Adville: Yeah then it should not be in the template it should only be in the beginning where it says it has been described as x and y. You should have what SD says they are on the template not a biased newspapers pov

Hmm, the pinging is strange. Did not work now. However: No! First the external description so people knows what they are reading about, then the partys own propaganda. If these two things doesn't match (like it does on most parties) then it is either bad sources (it is not here, we have tons of them), the party has resently changed path (nope, still the same) or the party uses what DAvid wrote "dog-whistle politics" and I Whitewashing. Trust me, I have read tons of sources about this party, and also looked in their own archive (where I suppose they do not put up exactly everything...), and they are not changed (even if they say after every scandal "oh, that was just a person and not the party who did it"). I am from the party leader Åkessons home town Sölvesborg and therefor it is for my own sake best to kno a lot about this. It is a small town you see where everyone almost knows eachother. Adville (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
@Adville:Technically speaking, the site sdarkivet.se is not run by the party. AFAIK it is run by a few former members who were expelled a couple of years ago. Still, I'd say it's reliable since they post much of the old party documentation "as is". Diplofot (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Adville: Yeah but personal opinions don't matter on wikipedia there should be the policies that the party says they want offically unless you get some secret recording of Åkesson saying i hate immigrants Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not personal opinion but political analysis by experts. Huge diference. Now you know. Let it be. Adville (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Adville: Many political experts say they are not anti-immigration, on wikipedia what they state are their policies should be written not a biased pov Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Many does not matter if you do not have sources... And it should be reliable sources. For example is Breitbart not reliable to say sd is not anti-immigration... No good sources no discussion... Best regards

Adville (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC) @Adville: how about a source that it exactly what the party says? I have one if you are interested

Put it here on thetalk page and we can look. That is the best way. Adville (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@Adville: Sure sd.se/var-politik/ Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Serious? External experts? Are you trollong or kidding? Adville (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Adville: But you shouldn't use a experts views because they might be biased to the left or the right. You should use exactly what the party says Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Didn't you understand what we were writing above at all? Read again, please. Adville (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Adville: You made claims without sources and refused to accept a neutral pov? Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Like I said above, there are lots and lots of sources describing SD as anti-immigration and some are in the article. And SD is not a neutral source. Parties, like companies, are not considered neutral about themselves on Wikipedia. That's because there is a tendency that they want to present themselves in the most favorable light possible, and not always in a way that is consistent with their actions. That is especially true when they are controversial, and the reason that we at Wikipedia don't see the article subject as the best source for how they should be described in the article. Sjö (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
To sjö: that is slready explained several times for him. Nu use to proceed discuss. He has the answers in this section. Adville (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Adville: i must have missed them it would be nice if you could source them again. @Sjö: Yeah but the individuals might be saying they are one thing because they are biased so it's probably best to write the policies the party says they want instead of using invented ones. Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The rules are the rules, as we said several Times. Adville (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Adville: What rules :D making up stuff about a party with a russian propaganda outlet as source? Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC) I mean is this really how wikipedia runs? If someone says they are a atheist but they go to church, wikipedia will say they are christian. This actually happened lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Like you've been told elsewhere, read WP:RS. Sjö (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

'Far-right'

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

'however the party has been described as far-right,[12]' No SD is not far-right it's center-right both sources www.economist.com/node/18398641?story_id=18398641 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/14/sweden-democrats-flex-muscles-anti-immigrant-kristianstad Don't clarify how it is far-right and are obviously biased. Politcal scientist thinks it's centrist https://www.thelocal.se/20161010/just-how-far-right-are-the-sweden-democrats More proof that it's center-right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_Democrats — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakn12345 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The Guardian article you link to says they are far right and says it is not only because of their history, but their current positions. So it is true that "some" sources describe it as far right, and the articles lists a number of other descriptions. Normally we should use academic sources for these descriptions, because newspaper reporters are not experts at party classifications. But the source used in the article is academic. TFD (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Or go to svwp and vheck for more sources. It is still far-right, just as Deuces says, and the question comes up from new users very often.. And will vome even more often now with two elections ahead (church election in autumn and next year riksdag election.). Adville (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

If anyone is actually interested in discussing sweden democrats views then please do.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk • contribs)

Agree with the Swedish democrats not being far-right. Just because it's EU sceptic does not mean a party has to be far-right. Pretty much every eu-sceptic party is classified as far-right in which case, the CSSD is far-right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.135.75.17 (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Nobody says they are far-right only based on their euroscepticism. And your statement that "much every eu-sceptic party is classified as far-right" is extremely misinformed. You need only read Euroscepticism to find a number of left and center parties and politicians that are against EU or EU integration. Your argument is a straw man. Sjö (talk) 07:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I also have a question about the political postion of the Sweden Democrats. On their Wikipedia page it says that their political position is Right-wing to far-right. Now it is true that some people who are sitting in the Rikdag can have views that can differ from the official views that the Sweden Democrats have and even the party leader Jimmie Åkesson said that he has different views than the official politics of the Sweden Democrats.[2] (In Swedish with no subtitles)At 10 minutes and 9 seconds (10:09) in an interview, Åkesson states that he doesn't always have the same opinions as to the Sweden Democrats (as a whole party). It does seem odd because there is no source on this, and actual Alt-right and Neo-Nazi political parties are put in the same political position as the SD e.g. National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD) and Nordic Resistance Movement (NMR). Shouldn't they be placed in the Alt-right category and not far-right? And the political party Alternative for Sweden (AfS) is also placed in the same category as the Sweden Democrats despite the fact that AfS was founded by old Sweden Democrat party members that got kicked out of the party for having views that were seen as too extreme by SD. --Los Perros pueden Cocinar (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sweden Democrats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sweden Democrats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Politically motivated edits

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

So what we have going on with this article is a series of politically motivated edits. The intent seems to be to make it generally more favorable to the party in question and hide or remove uncomfortable facts. Special attention has been taken to the top paragraphs, removing vital information such as the party history and its roots, replacing it instead with favorable tidbits and conjecture about the party's future success.

Adding information about the party's success is relevant. Hiding uncomfortable facts is not. Tossing in conjecture about future voting results is a wild misuse of the Wikipedia platform for political purposes.

This page will need a close eye kept on its edits until September 10th, the day after the Swedish election. -- Snubblarn (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and the user in question has been reverting good-faith edits as "vandalism". Please keep an eye out on this.//Hannibal (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
WP:RFP? Abzol 12:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abzol (talk • contribs)
I also don't think the first paragraphs should focus on election campaign material for 2018. We're supposed to write an encyclopedia, giving an overview of the subject in a way that's not time sensitive. /Julle (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Nor should we spend a lot of time speculating about what will happen in the election, especially not in the opening paragraphs that are to give a core understanding of the subject – our role is to wait, see what happens, and then neutrally describe it. /Julle (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
User:GenoV84, it seems like you are trying to make the opening paragraphs focus on the 2018 election. This is not how we typically write about political parties. The lead section should be a relatively stable introduction to the core parts of a subject. The Sweden Democrats have been part of the Swedish political landscape for decades and will continue to be so; 2018 is another election and we do not yet know what it means for them. Not that it can't change with time, of course, as the subject evolves, but this is not the place to get into detail about an event that will happen a few days from now and about which we do not yet know the outcome or what that will lead to. /Julle (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Troll factory at work?

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The latest attempts to portray the subject of the article as extreme right and neo-nazi have all been made by IPs geolocating to Brazil (to be precise Brasilia, the capital of Brazil where the embassies are, using IPs from two different ISPs), where hardly anyone would know about the Sweden Democrats, and even fewer would give a sh*t about what they're described as being, IPs that have also been doing the same on articles about other European political parties, and also on List of far-right political parties. Which gives me the impression that there's a troll factory at work here, trying to influence the upcoming Swedish elections (this coming September), so please keep an eye on edits here. Personally I don't care what they're described as being, but I very much dislike underhanded attempts to influence politics in other countries. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

This objectively is an extreme right party with ties to neo-Nazism. 207.98.196.125 (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a blog, so we do not put labels on anyone or anything unless it's supported by reliable sources. Period. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
What evidence or sources do you have for that claim? Originating from extremist parties is not the same as being one; political positions of specific people and parties change over time. Geolodus (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Remove economic nationalism as ideology

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Sweden Democrats does not embrace economic nationalism as an ideology. Nowhere in any policy programmes is economic nationalism mentioned. Other political parties in Sweden has described the Sweden Democrats as protectionists, which is incorrect, since there are no such policies. However such policies may have been current before their time in the Swedish Parliament. For now, economic nationalism nor protectionism is embraced by the party. Therefore it is reasonable to remove that ideology from the facts box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kursen (talk • contribs) 22:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Colours

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I have seen no reason why dark blue is being removed from the colours list in the infobox and when reverted no reason has been given. If light blue is going to be included I don't see why dark blue shouldn't also be included, as it is used in the party's logo and advertising boards. Helper201 (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Helper201, I agree that blue is prominently used as a background color for SD. However, I am not sure this warrants its inclusion as a color in the infobox. See other party infoboxes, which generally have one color, even if the party uses multiple. Personally I think it would confuse more than enlighten to list three colors for the party. I would be fine with listing just yellow, which is how they are most cited in the media and which seems to be in line with other party pages. It is also possible that I am wrong; I would be interested to hear other frequent editors of this page chime in. MaximumIdeas (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi MaximumIdeas. I'm interested why you think including dark blue is not appropriate, yet you have left light blue in the infobox. I have seen mixed results when it comes to other parties, some use one colour, some multiple. A lot of parties only primarily use one colour. This does not seem the case with the SD in my view. I don't see how this would confuse people adding more colours. We could compromise and have a Primary: header and under that put yellow, then underneath have a Secondary header where we place light blue and dark blue. However this is not typical. I would advocate for listing all three colours (yellow, light blue and dark blue). At the very least if we are going to go about this the way you propose we should eliminate light blue and just have yellow, as it seems to go against your argument. Helper201 (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Just yellow is fine with me; I was just attempting to revert to the stable version. I also think your "primary"/"secondary" solution is reasonable. No objection to implementing either of those. MaximumIdeas (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

It is generally agreed that SD has never been a Nazi party

Latest comment: 4 years ago27 comments4 people in discussion

This claim is not really supported by the sources. // Liftarn (talk) 11:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Liftarn, the source says: "Sverigedemokraterna är inte ett nazistiskt parti, det har det aldrig varit." In English, this translates to "The Sweden Democrats are not a Nazi Party; it never has been." However, the source then goes into ways the party has been (more loosely) linked to such ideologies, such as playing music that is associated with the right wing. You will see that the text in the Wikipedia section very carefully matches the source. Does this satisfy you regarding the present text? Thank you. MaximumIdeas (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
As it is it actually says the oposite of what the source says. The source says there have been close connections between SD and nazism, but the texts gives the impression of the oposite. // Liftarn (talk) 06:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the text follows the sources closely. "...although various connections have existed through some of its former members" tells the reader about the connections, don't you think that's enough? Sjö (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
It actually gives the oposite impression compared to what the sources actually says. "generally agreed" is unsourced. So it would be more correct to present what the sources say as "While SD may not have been an openly nazi pary it always have had close connections with nazism". // Liftarn (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
That suggests IMO that they were nazi party, but not openly so. That is contradicted by the sources. Looking at the sources, I would even suggest removing "it is generally agreed (also by the Swedish Committee Against Antisemitism and by Expo) that" and stating outright in Wikipedia's voice that SD never was a nazi party.Sjö (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, they were founded by nazis in an effort to make nazism politically viable so you could say that. We have two sorces that kind of, if you don't look too closeley say that SD wan't a nazi party. That isn't even enough to state that it's "generally agreed". I suggest rephrasing it to show what the sources actually say. // Liftarn (talk) 11:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source for SD being "founded by nazis in an effort to make nazism politically viable", or is that just "common knowledge", i.e. OR? - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
That it was founded by nazis is easily sourced (several of them are already in the article)[7][8][9][10] As for the rest it can also be sourced.[11][12][13] // Liftarn (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I checked your "sources" and found that neither "Kvällsposten" nor "Svenska Dagbladet" say what you say, "Expo" says "Sverigedemokraterna är inte ett nazistiskt parti, det har det aldrig varit", "Nyheter24" clearly states that the page you linked to is someone's personal opinion, not an article written by, or supported by, them, the page on "svt.se" (Kulturnyheterna) is just a blurb about a book, and "diva-portal.se" is a student paper from Linnéuniversitetet, meaning that none of it can be used as a source for what you want to add to the article. So stop wasting other editors' time here. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you should check what the sources say. For instance [14] says "ett främlingsfientligt parti med rötter djupt bland skånska nazister. Där är den skånska historien tydlig, enligt flera experter i Kvällspostens granskning." ("a xenophobic party with roots deep among Scanian Nazis. Their history in Skåne is clear, according to several experts in Kvällsposten's review.") and "Among the founders were people from the often violent organization Keep Sweden Swedish (BSS) - with roots in Nazi and fascist movements." and "In the board were former skins and veterans from groups such as the Nazi Nordic National Party and the fascist New Sweden movement". // Liftarn (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I strongly suggest you read up on Wikipedia policies, such as verifiability, original research and synthesis of published sources. None of the sources say that SD were "founded by nazis in an effort to make nazism politically viable", or even anything close to that, and thus cannot be used as sources for such a claim! - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Oer perhaps take a look at what Expo says instead.[15] "SD was founded by veterans of Swedish Nazism and fascism". // Liftarn (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Since when can a publication that was founded by people from the extreme left be regarded as a reliable neutral source for claims about a party that is on the opposite end of the political spectrum? And even if we could use that it wouldn't support the changes in the article you want to make. Note: I support neither the left nor the right when it comes to politics, but I do believe in writing a properly sourced neutral encyclopaedia... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Expo has repeatedly been found to be a reliable source on Wikipedia. // Liftarn (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Which part of "none of the sources, your most recent link included, says that SD were "founded by nazis in an effort to make nazism politically viable", or even anything close to that, and thus cannot be used as sources for such a claim" was it that you didn't understand? - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Which part of me asking you to actually read what the sources say is so hard to do? We have several reliable sources saying that SD indeed was founded by nazis (both old SS and neo-nazis) and that they have and still have close connections with openly nazist groups. As for the intention "in an effort to make nazism politically viable" that may be harder to source as it's not something you express in public, but for instance [16] speaks of the shift of focus between BSS and SD, "Bildandet av SD markerade en politisk förändring i rörelsen. Det gamla BSS hade försökt bygga en gatu- och kampanjorganisation. SD sneglade istället mot den rumsrena och framgångsrika fascism i slips och kavaj som representerades av Jean-Marie le Pen." // Liftarn (talk) 07:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
What you're trying to do is a combination of "synthesis of reliable sources" (taking one bit from one source and another bit from another source) and "original research" (making an own interpretation of what the sources say), which is expressly NOT allowed by the rules here. So stop. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 07:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
No, I think you need to read up on what it actually says. // Liftarn (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I know what it says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Which means that the rules here expressly forbid what you're trying to do: combining material from multiple sources, and adding a bit of "creative interpretation" to that. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 08:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I think it's bad form of accusing me of that. We have several reliable sources saying that SD was founded by nazis so that could certainly go into the article. We also have sources that the intention was to create a unblemished for of fascism. Having two different facts, both supported by reliable sources is not WP:SYNTH. It is perfecly allowed to have more than one fact in an article. // Liftarn (talk) 09:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, trying to support your claim that SD was "founded by nazis in an effort to make nazism politically viable" by combining multiple sources, each of them supporting only a small piece of the claim, if even that, but none of them supporting the full claim, is exactly what is meant by WP:SYNTH. And since none of the sources even hints at SD being founded "in an effort to make nazism politically viable", that part of your claim is your own interpretation of what the sources may have meant, that is WP:OR. The only thing that is supported by your sources is in fact that there were former Nazis among those who originally founded SD some 30 years ago. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 09:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll revise the suggested text to be "SD was founded by nazis" and "SD tried to move avay from the street fighting organisation of BSS and was inspired by the succesfull fascism represented by Jean-Marie le Pen". // Liftarn (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Only if those claims are fully supported by the sources you provide, that is say exacty what you want to add, with no elaboration or interpretation made by you. Including a reliable source expressly saying that Le Pen and his party were fascists. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Tom's position on synth and that such statements need to be sourced. Sjö (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, as the source says "framgångsrika fascism i slips och kavaj som representerades av Jean-Marie le Pen", "successful fascism in the tie and suit represented by Jean-Marie le Pen". // Liftarn (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Thomas.W and talk regarding synth. The current wording follows the current reputable sources very precisely -- it is good as-is. MaximumIdeas (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Removing Emerich Roth's view

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed that the views of Holocaust survivor Emerich Roth have been removed with a bogus reason.[17] // Liftarn (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  • As I wrote in a section above: "That edit hasn't even been discussed here, so there's definitely no consensus for it, the source is also of dubious value, since it's just an opinion piece, presenting the personal opinion of the two non-expert people who wrote it (as clearly stated on the page linked to: "Detta är åsiktstext i form av en debattartikel. Åsikterna är skribentens egna och inte Nyheter24:s"). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ "PARTITEMPEN X Jimmie Åkesson (Sverigedemokraterna)". 2018-04-25. Retrieved 2020-07-13.
  2. ^ "PARTITEMPEN X Jimmie Åkesson (Sverigedemokraterna)". 2018-04-25. Retrieved 2020-07-13.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweden_Democrats/Archive_3&oldid=1137213962"