Talk:Sweden Democrats/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Sweden Democrats. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Emerich Roth

Thomas.W and Sjö, Liftarn is saying he has consensus here to add "(but this is disputed by Holocaust survivor Emerich Roth[34])" to this section, which he did. I do not see any such consensus here, but he is certain there is. I believe adding this (which simply goes to an opinion article with no primary sourcing) amounts to "hearsay". Can you weigh in on whether you were part of a consensus to add that, so we can get this straightened out? Thank you! MaximumIdeas (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@MaximumIdeas: 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 16:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

It hasn't been discussed before, but Emerich Roth is a notable author and lecturer on the subject. It is not presented as fact, but as his view on the subject and thus an opinion article written by himself is enough source for that. // Liftarn (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Liftarn: You have been reverted at least five times by now, by multiple editors, so you CANNOT add it again without the express support of other editors here (see WP:BRD). Period! - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Knee jerk revers done without checking the facts. // Liftarn (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I *have* checked the facts, your source is an opinion piece, expressing only the opinion of the writers (neither of whom is a recognised expert in the field, making it a self-published source, and not reliable for what you want to use it for). So stop. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

You have the right to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Emerich Roth has received several rewards for his work on informing about racism and abuse, including His Majesty the King's medal 8th size in blue ribbon in 1998, Stockholm city's Nelson Mandela award in 2008, Karin and Ernst August Bångs commemorative award in 1997 and the Raoul Wallenberg award in 2015. Olof Palme Prize in 2017. // Liftarn (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Which of course does not qualify him as an expert on political parties. And the link (Emerich Roth) is to an article about him that you just wrote yourself, an article that seems to be quite a bit undersourced (see my message on the talk page of that article...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

It qualifies him to give opinions on nazism. // Liftarn (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't qualify him as an expert on political parties, which, since multiple reliable sources expressly say that the Sweden Democrats are not Nazis, means that Emerich's personal, non-expert, opinion does not carry enough weight to even be mentioned in the article (see WP:UNDUE). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so we have established that he indeed is an expert on the subject. Fine. We have two sourcses that indirectly imply that SD are not nazis and one expert who says they are. Ergo: there is a dispute in the matter. // Liftarn (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

No, we have NOT established that Roth is an expert on the subject we're discussing, quite the opposite (don't try any tricks here, you're not smart enough to fool anyone, at least not me...). Multiple reliable sources clearly state that the Sweden Democrats aren't nazis, and that's what we go by, since none of the "sources" you have presented (note to passers-by: see this previous discussion) have a) said what you claimed they said, and b) been reliable for what you've tried to use them for. Your editing is now bordering on both disruptive editing and tendentious editing, so stop. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

We're talking about nazism and you did agree he is an expert on the subject.[1] The problem is that we have two very weak sources and that is quite frankly not enough to prove a negative, especially since it's contested. // Liftarn (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

We're not discussing nazism in general, we're discussing your repeated attempts to claim that the Sweden Democrats have been a "Nazi party" (sourced to an opinion piece, the personal opinion of a non-expert, claiming that SD still are a Nazi party, quote: "Vi har således gjort vad tyskarna gjorde i Tyskland 1933, valt in ett nazistiskt parti i parlamentet"), in spite of existing sources in the article saying they have never been a Nazi party. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

An opinion piece can be a reliable source for the opinion of the author but not for a statement of fact. The opinion piece is far from enough to outbalance the two strong sources. In particular Heléne Lööw's source, since she is a published and well-known historian specialising in nazism in Sweden. When she says that SD is not a nazi party, you would need a very strong source to let the article say something else. I think that the inclusion of Emerich Roth's piece is undue. Sjö (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Liftarn: Please don't misrepresent Thomas.W's edit. It's disingenuous since the edit is there for anyone to see, and also somewhat disruptive. One can't take the answer "Yes" to a question about having the right to express opinions to mean that Roth is also an expert. You seem to have stopped reading Thomas-W's answer when you came to "Yes, but". Sjö (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Lööw what she actually writes is "Sverigedemokraterna är dock inga omedelbara arvtagare till nationalsocialisterna" ("However, the Swedish Democrats are not immediate successors to the National Socialists") so to use that as a source for the claim is dubious. Daniel Poohl only mentions it in passing while the content of the article is actually the opposite. // Liftarn (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

This seems like a proper time to re-use one of your own old sources: Expo.se. Quote: "Sverigedemokraterna är inte ett nazistiskt parti, det har det aldrig varit" ("The Sweden Democrats aren't a Nazi party, and never have been"). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so different sources says different things thus we can't state anything in Wikipedia's voice. Also it may be interesting to note the point of the article is "Partiet säger sig ha gjort upp med sina rasistiska rötter. Men det är inte sant. De ljuger om den.". (The party claims to have done away with its racist roots. But it is not true. They lie about it.) // Liftarn (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

When sources differ we have to evaluate the sources. We have an opinion piece from a non-expert against two articles that aren't opnion pieces, one of which is written by AFAIK the most respected expert on Swedish nazism. It's clear to me that Roth's article carries almost no weight at all in comparison. Sjö (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I suggest we either rewrite the section to represent what the soucres actually say or remove it. // Liftarn (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

You just won't give up, will you? First trying to change the text to conform with your views, i.e. the direct opposite to what reliable sources say, and now, when things don't go your way here, trying to remove that section altogether, in order to mislead readers. That section should stay in the article, and stay the way it is. "Racist roots" does not equal nazism, BTW, other than perhaps in your personal opinion, which carries no weight here... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to make the article consisten with waht the sources say instead of trying to pervert them to say the opposite of what they actually say. // Liftarn (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

No, you're not, what you're doing is repeatedly trying to make the article say that the Sweden Democrats are Nazis, in spite of the mainstream view among reliable sources, even Expo, being that they're not Nazis, and never have been. And you're trying all tricks in the book, and then some, to get your way, from adding text where only small separate snippets of the text was supported by sources, but not the claim as a whole (that is SYNTH and OR, as can be seen in the previous discussion), to edit warring to get changes into the article, while falsely claiming that your changes were supported by a consensus on the talk page, in spite of not even having been discussed here. And as can be seen in this discussion you even deliberately misrepresent what others have said here, to make it look as if there's a consensus supporting your view. Editing that is totally unacceptable, and will lead to you being brought to WP:ANI with requests for a block or a topic ban from anything and everything even remotely related to Swedish politics unless you stop. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Despite your personal feelings the mainstream view is that SD are racists, fascists and possibly nazis. That is what the article should say instead of bastardising what the sources say in an attempt to whitewash the party. // Liftarn (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Stop moving the goalposts. We're currently discussing if the SD are or have been nazis, not whether they are something else. It's far from the truth that the mainstream view is that the SD is a nazist party. If it is, you would have no problem finding lots and lots of reliable sources to support the position.Sjö (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Liftarn: It may be the "mainstream view" among people you associate with, but it isn't the mainstream view among reliable sources, which is what we care about here, on the English language Wikipedia. And you don't know sh*te about what my personal feelings on this subject are, or even if I care at all, so don't try to bring that into it. All I do is make sure people abide by the rules here, whether they want to or not. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources does not support the view that SD is a nazi party, but they do not support the view that they aren't either. // Liftarn (talk) 10:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect, there are two reliable sources in the article saying they aren't. Please stop ignoring or misrepresenting statements that don't support your preconceived ideas about the Sweden Democrats. Sjö (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand that there is so in your head, but perhaps we should take it to RSN instead and get an unbiased view. // Liftarn (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we should, if nothing else for the entertainment value of seeing you argue that Expo is an unreliable source when you usually say that it is reliable, e.g. at Talk:Nyheter Idag or Talk:Sweden Democrats/Archive 3. Sjö (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh it is. But to prove a negative when there are conflicting sources is en entierly diffent thing. // Liftarn (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

You obviously still don't get it, or don't want to understand it: Expo is a respected and reliable source that can be used as reference for the Sweden Democrats not being a Nazi party, while Emmerich Roth expressing his personal opinion can't be used as a reference for a claim that the Sweden Democrats are Nazis, since personal opinions by people who aren't recognized experts in the field can't be used as references (the page at Nyheter24 clearly states that it's just Roth's personal opinion, and that he's speaking only for himself, not for Nyheter24). So there's nothing to discuss at RSN. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Anti-Islam

@Sjö: The InfoBox currently links to Anti-Islam, which is a dab page. Please see WP:INTDAB which explains policy, i.e., links to disambiguation pages from mainspace are typically errors. To fix this, we either need to unlink altogether or link to an article. I linked to Islamaphobia because it is the article that best fits the meaning here. The other articles in the dab page are less apt. The Sweden Democrats are anti-Muslimists. It makes sense to link to Anti-Islam and that in turn redirects to Islamaphobia. I am not the one redirecting Anti-Muslimism to Islamaphobia; it already redirected there.

Please read the Islamaphobia article. It says:

There are a number of other possible terms which are also used in order to refer to negative feelings and attitudes towards Islam and Muslims, such as anti-Muslimism, intolerance against Muslims, anti-Muslim prejudice, anti-Muslim bigotry, hatred of Muslims, anti-Islamism...

This is why these terms redirect to this article. You may believe that the term anti-Islam should not be referred to as "Islamaphobia". That's a debate to be had at the Islamaphobia article, not here.

The current reference is old (2011). I am replacing it with a more recent reference. Newsweek is a legitimate source: Newsweek article that indicates Sweden Democrats are "anti-Muslim".

...the Sweden Democrats, an anti-Muslim, Euroskeptic party with roots in white supremacist and neo-Nazi factions...

Coastside (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The source for "Anti Islam" speaks of "motstånd mot islam" which is roughly "resistance" or "opposition" to Islam. "Opposition to Islam" on Wikipedia redirects to Criticism of Islam. The Criticism of Islam of Islam page has a directly relevant section on "Criticism of Muslim immigrants and immigration," in particular in a European context. So it is very relevant and I believe it should redirect there. "Islamophobia" also falls under Wikipedia's "words to watch" as "words that may introduce bias". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch In this case, redirecting to there would clearly negatively pre-judge the Sweden Democrats' views on the subject, when it is not Wiki's role to pre-judge them as right or wrong. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@MaximumIdeas: Both articles apply to a certain degree. How about linking to Anti-Islam? Given their nationalism, their views are directly mostly to Muslim immigrants, so this is probably appropriate.Coastside (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Coastside: Good idea. I think that works well. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@MaximumIdeas:

Done I added a section anchor and created a redirect for Opposition to Muslim immigration to it. I used that for the Anti-Islam link in the infobox. Finally I updated the source since the Newsweek article is more recent by seven years.Coastside (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

An editor recently again changed "Anti-Islam" to "Opposition to Muslim immigration" under ideology in the info-box and added "Conservatism."[2] The reality is that they oppose Muslim immigration because they are anti-Islam.

Also, while the term conservative is often used as a euphemism for far right, it more correctly refers to parties such as the Swedish Moderate Party.

TFD (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Verification of Rydgren source

This statement: "The SD continued to use Keep Sweden Swedish as their official slogan until the late 1990s." was added to the Early years (1988–1995) section and attributed to the Rydgren, 2006 citation. I also reverted an edit changing the party ideology from Nationalism to Ultranationalism. That was also attributed to the pre-existing citation Rydgren, 2006, pages 108-113. Could anyone with access to this source verify this, please? lovkal (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Reverted monarchism edit

Pinging @Herkullinekana:. I reverted your addition of Monarchism to the ideology part of the infobox since it's hardly a relevant topic. Sure, they support upholding the monarchy, but so does at least half of the Riksdag. We list the most notable ideologies and beliefs of a party or organization in the infobox, and there is currently zero debate surrounding the status of the Swedish monarchy on the national level. I will instead be adding a paragraph indidcating their support of the monarchy under the Ideology and political positions section. lovkal (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Sweden Democrats

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Sweden Democrats's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "svt":

From 2014 Swedish general election: Larsson, Jeanette; Eriksson, Hedvig (4 December 2009). "De kan bli Miljöpartiets nya språkrör" (in Swedish). Sveriges Television. Retrieved 22 April 2011.
From Lund Cathedral: "Lund – Uret i domkyrkan slutar slå" [The clock in the cathedral ceases to strike]. Sveriges television. 12 October 2009. Retrieved 19 April 2020.
From Paula Bieler: "Paula Bieler, Sverigedemokraterna - Kandidat till EU-valet 2014 | SVT.se". svt.se. Archived from the original on May 15, 2014. Retrieved 2014-05-27.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

The Neutrality tag was inserted in 2018 without any specification on the Talk site. Since no one knows what is supposed to be breach of NPOV, its impossible to make any corrections and subsequently remove the tag. Its at best a fly-by tag, at worse a deliberate attempt to discredit the article. Therefore I suggest that we remove the tag. If someone has any specific claims to breach of NPOV, it should be specified on the talk page. Creuzbourg (talk) 10:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Far-right

I 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Los Perros pueden Cocinar (talk • contribs) 14:37, July 13, 2020 (UTC)

You'll need a Reliable Source that makes that claim. 50.111.58.135 (talk) 07:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

References

^ "PARTITEMPEN X Jimmie Åkesson (Sverigedemokraterna)". 2018-04-25. Retrieved 2020-07-13.

Anti-Islam, WP:CON

Anti-Islam was recently removed from the infobox after being in place for at least two years, then when I added it removed again with a reference to WP:CON. I believe that the sources I added are WP:RS and sufficient, but i can also link to these [3] [4] ~~[5]~~[6]. I also believe that Anti-Islam should be mentioned in the body of the article. Sjö (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, then it was in the infobox for two years with a weak generally unreliable source. I am not opposed to it being in the infobox or the body of the article if it is reliably sourced, two of those links you just posted here are the same link and it all seems to draw from the same source (Brookings Institute) which I can't comment on much but seems reliable at first glance. Either way strong claims need strong sources, if those exist I don't see the problem from a Wikipedia standpoint. --TylerBurden (talk) 09:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

My mistake not checking that i copied properly, I added the intended link and struck the duplicate. And you can see that both the Bridge and The Dynamic link their sources. Brookings is only one of many sources in the articles, so that does not disqualify the other sources.Sjö (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

If it is backed up by reliable sources, I don’t see any problem of that being mentioned in body and ideology. However, it is worth noting for the infobox, several editors have in the last months claimed per WP:INFOBOX, none essential stances / ideologies should be in the lead & body, and not in infobox. Plus another argument in talk pages have been that they are covered up by anti-immigration/nationalism and becomes sort of reductant. Several of these articles where a WP:CON was reached to remove them is for example Alternative for Germany, Finns Party, National Rally (when it comes to immigration/islam). Well, if there is a strong argument that anti-islam is one of SD’s main features/ideology, I see a reason of why it could be in infobox. BastianMAT (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Not far-right anymore?

I wonder why you guys don't label the Sweden Democrats as "right wing to far-right" anymore? The party hasn't changed since they entered the Riksdag back in 2010. They still use alternative media as their main sources on their arguments, they are still hostile towards public service and journalists and if you compare them with the UK Independence Party or Alternative for Germany you might see they're identical.

Are you saying that the Sweden Democrats are comparable to actual far right parties like Nordic Resistance Movement and Alternative for Sweden (you know, the guys who split off from SD because they had gotten too ″soft″? Adding a bunch of international sources who have their own political definitions that differ from Sweden's to label a party ″far right″ because it takes a harder stance on immigration than other Riksdag parties again seems, dishonest. --TylerBurden (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Never said they're comparable to the Nordic Resistance Movement or Alternative for Sweden. I think there's a clear difference between being just far-right and being right-wing to far right and I still think that Sweden Democrats are comparable to the UK Independence Party, Fidesz or spanish Vox. A true democratic right-wing party would never act hostile towards journalists, spread far-right conspiracies, use insults as part of their political campaign or threaten to do changes in public service and the Sweden Democrats still does all that. You guys used international sources to prove they're right wing so by your logic that might be dishonest as well. LGLMZ (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Who is ″you guys″? You talk as if you have been involved in the discussions when you just arrived trying to push through this edit, you need to be clearer about who you are talking to and about who has done what, because you are just throwing these things around when the reply in question wasn't even in response to you, but to an IP editor that didn't sign their comment. Either way by labelling them ″to far right″ in the infobox you are essentially saying that they are far right, that some sources label them that is included in the lead and that is enough, the infobox is meant to be more objective. Using Expo as a source is also ridiculous as they are anything but a neutral/unbiased source. Like I said, that sources like the Guardian etc have described them as such is in the lead. The fact you personally think that they are comparable to those parties means very little, and making a bunch of unsourced claims about them isn't helpful to the discussion either. TylerBurden (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Well. I guess I'm talking to you then. And now I wonder... can you prove that SD are a true, democratic and clean right-wing party? Can you? Despite what the guardian and other sources used in this page say? I bet you can't. Recently their leader showed intentions to demolish entire residential areas in the ghetto making a lot of people homeless (https://www.svd.se/a/G39GMl/sd-forslag-om-rivning-kritiseras) and he could't even choose between Joe Biden or Vladimir Putin (https://omni.se/sdledaren-vill-inte-valja-mellan-biden-och-putin/a/qWrPAE). Is that worthy of a true democrat!? Of course it's not! Here you have another scandal (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/20/far-right-sweden-democrats-axe-mep-kristina-winberg-amid-harassment-claims), a little more (https://www.riksdagssvar.se/skandaler-inom-sverigedemokraterna/). But I guess it doesn't matter how many sources i share. None of them would be valid to you. Right? LGLMZ (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

This is very forum-y and I think you are showing your bias with these emotional outbursts, none of these warrants labelling the party as far right. You don't even quote the source right. It says that they want to rebuild highly criminal infested areas, and do not ″exclude″ demolishing. But it is important to note that they said rebuild as first priority, which you chose to completely ignore for whatever reason, probably because it doesn't fit your agenda. With Putin and Biden, he said he would not want either of them as his Prime Minister, is that not a fair opinion? He is not saying that one of them is better than the other, just that he doesn't like either of them. So an unconfirmed sexual assault that may or may not have happened is one of your arguments that the Sweden Democrats are far right? Then you link to a list of individuals saying stupid things and being kicked out of the party, also no idea how this works as an argument. Your deleted comment comparing them to Nazis makes your distaste for them obvious, and you are free to express that in a personal blog or whatever you choose, but misrepresenting them as far right in the infobox is not the way to go, neither is having outbursts in a Wikipedia talk page. TylerBurden (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

So. If the Sweden Democrats are not considered to be a far-right party. Then why do you think it will be so controversial when the traditional right starts budget collaborations with them? And why do the traditional right not even consider to let them be a part of the government? And yes, the leader said that he want to demolish entire residential areas in highly criminal infested areas to probably replace them with expensive condominiums no ordinary people can afford, so he's literally planning to make a lot of people homeless. Speaking of Putin and Biden, no matter the political position. You're choosing between a democrat and a dictator and a democratic party leader (leftist, centrist or right-winger) would obviously choose Biden. If you can't decide who is the best or the least bad to be your Prime Minister between a democrat and a dictator, then you're probably an extremist. Maybe sexual assaults are not proof of a party to be far-right. But pointing at journalists as enemies of the nation and public service as a threat against the nation is a stronger proof. Here's another well known scandal (https://skma.se/2018/06/bjorn-soder-pastar-att-judar-ar-inte-svenskar-mattias-karlssons-ser-kulturmarxister-och-kosmopoliter-bakom-kritiken/) and this guys still represents the party. Google for yourself and then you'll see I'm not misrepresenting anything. The Sweden Democrats have roots in fascism and white nationalism and they're still a "right-wing to far-right" party. If you thing I'm wrong then prove it if you can. 81.229.108.103 (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

We should definitely restore "Right-wing to far-right" in my view. There are plenty of reliable sources published within the last 2 years that still refer to the party as far-right, for example:

I agree that they are not comparable to the Nordic Resistance Movement or Alternative for Sweden in so far as not being as extreme. This is partly why the position of right-wing should be kept (and mainly just because it can be cited with reliable sources). Helper201 (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Well I suppose that is the narrative, I don't think it is correct at all, but I am also not a dictator. If the consensus is to use to far-right, then that is the consensus. TylerBurden (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Eurosceptic vs soft eurosceptic

Hi all, I see the Sweden Democrats is listed as a soft eurosceptic party under Ideology. Although the SD no longer includes "Swexit" as a policy, I would argue the party would still be considered a eurosceptic movement as their policy brief and manifesto on their website continues to oppose Swedish membership of the Eurozone, any EU expansion and combined budgets, and states that Sweden should reconsider its membership if the EU cannot be reformed. I propose re-editing it to say ideologically the party is Eurosceptic rather than "soft" eurosceptic, but wanted to highlight this here first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MWD115 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, you made the edit yourself one minute after posting this. I think it is a fair change though, SD quite clearly declare themselves as eurosceptic, seeking radical reform for the EU. TylerBurden (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I was hovering over the edit but posted this here to show it wasn't warring edit. I agree, SD supports reform foremost but also takes a tad more hardline stance on the EU compared to "soft eurosceptic" parties (for example the Flemish N-VA) which don't entirely reject the EU and eurozone, and SD supports some EU cooperation but still campaigns on protecting Swedish identity, fiscal independence against the EU, and indicates it would hold a vote or a more radical policy should reform efforts fail. I will also add a citation to an article in The Local in which Jimmie Akesson says he isn't anti-European but won't rule out a Swexit referendum policy if reform fails. MWD115 (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Prominent members

Mr Sten Andersson, former parlament member for Moderat party and later member of Swedendemocrats, died in august 2010. RGDS Alexmcfire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmcfire (talk • contribs) 16:34, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Far right claim could be used by russian disinformation

I think the claim that the sweden democrats are a far right party could be appropriated by russian media to claim sweden which is about to join nato has a far right and nazi goverment 86.115.121.186 (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

We cannot falsify facts just because they can be misused. TFD (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Russian disinformation campaigns have already been targeting Sweden since the intention to join NATO was made public, no sensible person takes them seriously. The article also doesn't objectively describe the party as far-right, but mentions that some sources have called them so. TylerBurden (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Difference between the English and Swedish Wikipedia page

I was just wondering on why the English Wikipedia page is different to the Swedish Wikipedia page regarding this party.

I’m mainly referring to the info-box. The Swedish page has the political position split into 2 sections, “socio-economic: center to the right” and “sociocultural: authoritarian right”. While the English one isn’t split at all.

The other confusing part I found is that the English page already expresses this in 3rd paragraph with this sentence “The Sweden Democrats support a mixed market economy combining ideas from the centre-left and centre-right”. So shouldn’t the info-box be almost the exact same as the Swedish page? Something like:

Socio-economic:

Big tent

Sociocultural:

Right-wing

Or perhaps something similar.

Also, maybe taking some (Swedish) sources from that Wikipedia page could be a good as well for this page. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

We should remove the "political position" field. Although in this case, the party is far right, in most cases where any party belongs in the political spectrum is subjective. There is no contradiction btw for right-wing parties to hold positions typically favored by the center or left and vice versa. Successful parties consider both their ideology and the circumstances when choosing policy. `TFD (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand. Then I think then it would be suitable to have 2 sections that I've seen with other political party Wikipedia pages. Such as with the Nationalist Party in the Philippines. One section with "Claimed" and the other with "Traditional spectrum". Both with tagged with sources/references to support both claims. I just think that would overall be better in fulfilling both claims of the party being this or that. As I'm not trying to push my opinion onto this page. I would just like both opinions to be expressed into the info box, which is where most people glance upon when viewing this page (especially after the victory the party has had after the 2022 election). ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

As I said, we should not have the field, precisely in order to avoid disputes like this one. Far right for example has two definitions: to the right of established right-wing parties and on the farthest right of the left-right spectrum. Right-wing populist parties for example usually meet only the first definition. TFD (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Got it. Either remove the field completely like you said. Or perhaps add a content note, like what Alternative for Germany has on its political position info box to avoid confusion with other Far-right parties who oppose democracy and etc. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Because the far-right label is disputed, even among reliable sources, I would agree with removing the infobox entry. Infoboxes are great for straightforward facts, not disputed definitions. TylerBurden (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I 100% agree. I believe the Alternative for Germany Wikipedia page had this same issue a while back, and I think the way they handled it at the end was well done. Just keeping it simple with "Right-wing populism" as the ideology (they used to have 8+ ideologies which were all disputed). And just having "Far-right" (with a detailed and straight forward content note), rather than "centre-right to right-wing" one month, then changing it to "right-wing to far-right" the next, then changing it again to "right-wing", then reverting it again.

The Finns Party (who are part of the Right-wing "Nordic Freedom" affiliation the Sweden Democrats are in), also have a fairly simple info-box like how Alternative of Germany have it, with just 2 ideologies and "Right-wing" in their info-box. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

If you insist on putting something in the info-box, most editors will want to see far right. I wouldn't look to other articles for a precedent, because they can be changed. TFD (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

True. Though the Finns Party info-box (ideology and position) hasn't changed for almost a year. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Many right-populist parties, and indeed fascism itself, was pragmatic on economics, so a party being economic interventionist doesn't make it any less far-right, especially when it supports the welfare state only as welfare chauvinism rather than universalistic like social democrats; as we write at Conservatism, "some conservatives advocate for greater economic intervention, while others advocate for a more laissez faire free-market economic system." Right-wing populists are still described as radical-right or far-right because that's their positions, per TFD. "Europe's nationalists rebrand, and win" could be useful. Davide King (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand. Now that I look at it again, the fact that "fiscal conservatism", "laissez-faire" or "economical liberalism" isn't in the ideology section should directly answer the party's (SD's) fiscal/economic ideology, and makes my edit idea/request pretty much redundant.

Perhaps adding welfare chauvinism into the ideology section would be a good idea? Similarly to how some parties within the welfare chauvinism have it within their ideology info-box (Freedom Party of Austria and Party for Freedom). ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I think with all those parties, we should list 'Right-wing populism' in the infobox, as that's their main ideology and is how they're commonly classified by academics. Anything else, from anti-immigration to anti-Islam, Eurospecticism to welfare chauvinism, and the like, which are better seen as political positions than proper ideologies (despite the -ism), should simply be moved with the sources to the lead where they can be listed without bloating the infobx, and in the body, where they can be further discussed and contextualized. Davide King (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

[1] "PARTITEMPEN X Jimmie Åkesson (Sverigedemokraterna)". 2018-04-25. Retrieved 2020-07-13.

[1]