Talk:Sweden Democrats/Archive 1

Public Persecution

Something should be added about the public persecution of the party eg. the defacto berufsverbot that exists toward its members.

Yes, perhaps something should be added about their conspiracy theories if we can find a reliable source. // Liftarn

Weasel phrases

Lots of "Weasel phrases" here..."according to some"? Who, in particular? — David Remahl 08:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Every political party represented in the parliament thinks they are xenophobic and several have also called them racistic. // Liftarn

Xenophobic AND racist according to:

English language links:

The Stephen Roth Institute [1], Dr Nicholas Aylott, Department of Political Science, Umeå University Magnus Linton, Eurozine [2], CNN [3].

Swedish language links:

Tommy Funebo, a former leader of the Sweden Democrats [4] [5], Two other "prominent" former members [6], The Church of Sweden [7].

All the political parties in the Parliament; Moderate Party [8], Christian Democrats [9], Liberal People's Party [10], Centre Party [11], Social Democratic Party [12], Green Party [13] and the Left Party [14].

The four leading daily newspapers in Sweden; (rightwing) SvD [15], (centrist) DN [16], (leftwing) Aftonbladet [17] and (centre-right) Expressen [18].

--Tsaddik Dervish 02:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Please don't stray from the verifiable truth

Several times, I and other editors have removed the parenthesized text from the following sentence, just to have it restored a short while thereafter, even when we have used explanatory edit notes: "A key point in the party's economic policy is the claim that the so called "multicultural experiment" costs the Swedish government approximately 267 billion Swedish kronor (2000) every year (actual cost in 2003: 6.8 billion)." The problem is that the claim is not supported by the ref, from which I quote the relevant part: "Det direkta kostnaderna för flyktingmottagandet och integrationspolitiken är således ca 6.8 miljarder kronor." ('The direct costs for the reception of asylum seekers and integration policies are thus approximately 6.8 billion kronor.') I don't think I need to argue for my position; the fact that the source does not back up the claim is plain to see. brtkrbzhnv 18:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw a interview on Swedish televsion once with the source (economical professor, or something...) SD were giving, and he apparently claimed that the numbers were used out of context or distorted for propagandistic purposes. Hopefully someone else knows more about this. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 16:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Cultural nationalism"

An editor has added "cultural nationalism" to the description of the group, using this site as the source: [19] However I can't find where in that site the group is called "cultural nationalist". Could the editor who added it please quote the passage that is being referenced? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the article says: Like most of these parties, the Sweden Democrats is a pronounced culturalist party, whose program is based on ethno-nationalism and xenophobia.. "Culture" is very much emphasized by the Sweden Democrats. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 17:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

But where are they called a "cultural nationalist" party? Is that your own opinion, or is there a source that uses the term in reference to this group? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Social Democracy of the Swedish Democrats

Not only is it made clear in their Party's Principal Programme that can be found on their official website in which they declare inspiration from the social democratic concept of the "people's home", or folkhemmet as it is called in Sweden, which is the welfare state as created by the Social Democrats, but furthermore, but they have on several other ocassions defended a large public sector. Using their principal programme as a reference, I am now adding Social Democracy to the ideology of the Swedish Democrats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.121.39 (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't see how their principal programme proves that they are Social Democrats. I quote it here:

Sverigedemokraterna är ett demokratiskt, nationalistiskt parti. Vi har idémässigt låtit oss inspireras av såväl det förra sekelskiftets svenska nationalkonservatism som delar av den socialdemokratiska folkhemstanken. Syftet är att kombinera principen om grundläggande social rättvisa med traditionella värdekonservativa idéer. Partiet låter sig av den anledningen inte enkelt placeras in på den klassiska vänster-högerskalan.

My school English translation:

The Sweden Democrats is a democratic, nationalist party. Our ideology has been inspired by both the last turn of century's Swedish national conservatism and the Social Democratic thought about "folkhemmet". The goal is to combine the princip about basic social justice with traditional social conservative ideas. Because of that reason the party cannot easily be placed on the traditional left-right scale.

Yes, I do know that many see them as Social Democrats with a nationalistic and immigrant sceptic twist. But if we are going to include Social Democracy as an ideology then we need stronger sources. Therefore, I will remove this ideology. J-C V (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

I'd like to ask User:MiszaBot I to being automated archiving of this talk page, is this ok with everybody? Plrk (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Schönhuber meeting

The source for the Schönhuber meeting points to the main page of Expo. The article mentioned doesn't say anything about Hancock being anything other than a participant at the meeting. Also, I'll change the source to point directly to the correct article. Lorkonius (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What various papers and foundations say about SD

I checked the sources for the claims of the Sd being anti-immigrant and xenophobic respectively, and the given sources say different things. I moved around the text accordingly. Nothing was erased. Lorkonius (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The Security Police

I tried to access the Police report cited in the first part of the article, but it seems to be removed (it was a report from back in 2002, after all). I removed the erroneus link and replaced it with "citation needed." Note: I don't doubt the claim as such, just the source. Lorkonius (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried Google cache and the Wayback Archive? I don't like the idea of removing sources just because they drop off the web. // Liftarn (talk)

No, I haven't. However, if you would like to search for it you should feel free to. Also, shouldn't SÄPO have published another report by now? Lorkonius (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick googline and didn't find anything. The report seems to be available[20], but it may be a temporary URL. // Liftarn (talk)

Inconsistent information on the webshite shutdown

This article simply states: "The publication attracted the attention of the Swedish government. The government informed internet service provider Levonline about the party's publications. Subsequently, Levonline shut down the party’s web page."

The article on Laila Freivalds states: "Most journalists suggest that the turning point came after Göran Persson, the Prime Minister of Sweden during this time, publicly criticized the civil servant who suggested to the Internet host that they close the website, only to find out that he had acted with the approval of Freivalds. The Prime Minister then lost confidence in his Foreign Minister and probably suggested that she resign. This theory requires Freivalds to have lied to the cabinet, something many have found unlikely."

I believe the exact extent of the government involvement would be of interest to a reader of this article, and that there's a material difference between one article presenting a "The government informs, the ISP shuts down" situation, and another presenting a "The government suggests to the ISP that they shut down" situation. It would be nice with some more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.137.3 (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Center-right dubious

The claim that SD is center-right is highly dubious: While it is true that their take on migration, nationalism, etc., is usually branded with a "far-right", most of their other policies places them as center-left.

Generally, I feel that the left-right scale is completely inadequate in describing political parties, and that it should be avoided. Notably, the far-right is not an extrapolation of the "ordinary" right, but on an orthogonal dimension. 88.77.182.69 (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Muhammed cartoons

I dont know the swedish translation exactly but "The cartoon showed Mohammed from behind holding a mirror in front of his face. However, instead of any facial features, the mirror showed only a blank head. The cartoon was captioned "Mohammed's Face" (Muhammeds ansikte in Swedish)." Does it mean the mirror was empty? Not sure what is meant by "blank head" but it could be construed as defamation to either the party or muslims depending on the way its said. Reading it as showing a "blank head = Mohammed's face" or "empty mirror = not showing the face" (ie- respectful of islamic sympathies.

I was wondering if someone could clarify this.(Lihaas (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)).

3RR warning

60.240.241.57 and Miacek, you both need to read WP:AN3RR right now. Bishonen | talk 11:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC).

Bishonen, you know as well as I do that no scholarly source or just RS would define the party as fascist at the moment. I have already reported the matter for page protection, till the fuss is over. I am not here to push any POV, but to avoid them all. Unlike some lobbyists. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 11:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

None of that makes any difference; you'll be blocked if you violate 3RR, whether you're right or not. I suggest you open an RFC on this page instead of keeping on reverting. Bishonen | talk 13:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC).

the supposed sources are just random pages this highly opinionated anon got by a google search. This one e.g. tells little about the real subject.
Fortunately I see that the changes have been reverted now by another user. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Searchlight's sole purpose is to be anti-fascist, and I am not sure if it can be considered a truly reliable or unbiased source. They are obviously going to hold strong views on a nationalist party. The SD are often labelled as "far-right" by the media, but "fascist"? Aside from maybe a few blogs, this term has not often been used to describe the party. Hayden120 (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As politically motivated POV pushers have no real sources to back up their claims, it seems that every concoction goes for them. A quick look at the user page (let alone username) reveals, what kind of NPOV edits we can assume from these users to the topic at hand. It's all right if they discuss their anarchist and 'revolutionary communist' fantasies on special sites like Anarchopedia. But putting words into others' mouth or using fringe sources of far-left political opponents is just shameless POV pushing (the Guardian article linked does not call the current party fascist, as the user's edits would imply, and even if some article did, a single source with the SD mentioned passing by is unsuitable for generalizations). No RfC is needed here, just enforcement of guidelines like WP:V and WP:FRINGE. You can't really find a consensus with political lobbyists and smear campaigners. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 14:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont know the fight over here but Bishonen seems to have something in for the party per the election page.

And you are? Sign your posts, please, and read WP:BATTLE. Attacks like yours are no kind of behaviour on Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC).

Minor wording change

subsection "The Sweden Democrats' response to the controversy" should be "The Sweden Democrats' response" as the section is already labeled "controversy"

Also "Despite this increase compared with 2004 (+ 2.14 %), the party failed to get any seat in the european Parliament." should be "Despite an increase of 2.14%, compared with the 2004 elections, the party failed to get any seat in the European Parliament."

Ie- you dont need to say increase and have a + sign. And european needs to be capitalised. The rest is just wording.(Lihaas (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)).

Since those are harmless corrections, I have inserted them by your request. Bishonen | talk 21:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC).

Thanks, but just notivces an error in both the old version and mine too. "Despite an increase of 2.14%, compared with the 2004 elections, the party failed to get any seats in the European Parliament." Seat should be plural(Lihaas (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)).

Update election

Could the admin who protected this page please update this page and infobox with info from the 2010 general election? -TheG (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps wait with templates etc. till the final results are available, but let it be entered, that the Democrats definitely passed the threshold and entered the parliament?Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree the article should be updated with the election results. I knew nothing about this party or Swedish politics until I read the "In the News" summary on the main page (currently at the top of the column) and clicked on the Sweden Democrats link to learn more. Imagine my surprise to find out that this link from the main page leads to what is now an out-of-date article that talks about how the Sweden Democrats "could" do in the election, when they have already done it. And the article cannot be updated because it is fully protected, apparently because of edit-warring over the single word "fascist" in the infobox. (Which, just from reading the article, seems like it should not be there for POV reasons; the text could cover the accusations of fascism, if properly sourced, and the party's response.) It also appears that the edit-warring was taking place right before the election and possibly while the polls were open; now that the election is over, there might be less motivation to edit-war. So I think the protection can come off, if only to allow the article to be updated. Or, if the admins still want to wait 2 more days, I don't think Wikipedia will be permanently damaged. People will be able to see the protection template and figure out why the article is out of date. Neutron (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

popular in Skåne

There should be a note about how the party is significantly more popular in the south near Denmark than elsewhere.Bdell555 (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

But with what source and more importantly why? Looking at the map (and global trends of such parties), i have my own reasons that add up across the board as to why the north is less popular and the south more. Although what are the demographics of the northern most province in 2006 [21]? that might be interesting.(Lihaas (talk) 04:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)).

It being near Denmark has nothing to do with it. Look at where the mass immigration and ghettos are, and it should give you a better picture as to why it looks like that. Nymf _hideliho! 11:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What?Lihaas (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that people in Malmö and around that area is going to vote SD. They have seen the damage our immigration politics have done first hand, whereas the people in Norrbotten have little to no interaction with immigrants, and as such does not see it as a problem. It is not a coincidence that SD was formed in Skåne. Nymf _hideliho! 13:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes but there are massive numbers of immigrants in Stockholm neighbourhoods like Rinkeby and Tensta and the SD is not especially popular in Stockholm. I am Canadian but I lived in Skåne for almost a year and, anecdotally, I think there is a connection to the Dansk Folkeparti. Not a few Danish women could not bring their Muslim boyfriends into Denmark because of Denmark's restrictive immigration policies (largely due to the DF's political influence) and so the couples would move to the other side of Öresund Bridge and you'd see them around Malmö. The Danes, in other words, moved out to Skåne a spectacle they didn't like, and in turn those in Skåne are the first Swedes to have to deal with the situation. Also, many Danish politicians, not just Pia Kjærsgaard but "mainstream" conservative-moderates, spoke out against how the Sverigedemokraterna were treated during the campaign. It is almost as if the Danes see the SDs as their baby. The bottom line is that while the Sweden Democrats are considered fringe in most of Sweden, their policies are relatively mainstream in Denmark, and because of the cultural connections between Skåne and Denmark the Sweden Democrats are perceived as more mainstream in Skåne than the rest of Sweden. Whatever the case, sources that offer an explanation for the regional distribution of the SD vote should be looked for.Bdell555 (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually the concentrations follow the same pattern as in the 1930s (but with the simmlar parties that existed back then of course). // Liftarn (talk)

Bdell has many good points. In a (Norwegian) article from 2006, Sten Andersson (a former MP for the Moderates, and leader of SD in Skåne who died in August this year) said that "The proximity to Denmark, and the debate one have had on immigration there, has been important for our position. All people from Skåne can see the Danish TV channels, and we feel close to them".[22] In 2009, the party's press spokesman Jonas Åkerlund held a long tradition of smaller opposition parties in Skåne and the proximity to Denmark as part of the answer. He also thought that many believed it has become better in Denmark, which they connected to the Dansk Folkeparti.[23] -TheG (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Islam

Could an admin please make an edit to include a section within ideology covering the SD's views on Islam. Thsi seems to be an important campaigning point for them.

Something along the lines of:

SD has described Islam as the biggest threat to Swedens' national security since the Second World War.

Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 21:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

But they have not done that. That headline was set by Aftonbladet. 83.254.192.84 (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The party leader wrote exactly that: [24] Dendlai (talk) 07:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Nah. His argumentation might imply that they are a threat to the national security, but only indirectly if social and cultural cohesion is seen as a part of it. I read him as if Islam is a threat to the "Swedish culture". Steinberger (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"Right-wing"

This is somewhat connected to the above discussion. In the first paragrapgh the Sweden Democrats were described as a right-wing party. I chose to delete that. One should be careful with calling a party left/right-wing, especially when it cannot easily be placed on the right-left scale. And it seems like it is not done on the articles about the other Swedish political parties. J-C V (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct, they should be called "far right" instead. // Liftarn (talk)

No, that is not what your predecessor said. He wanted to remove the left/right classification. You want to keep it. I removed it again. Axt (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. SD is obviously Right-wing. You aren't deleting the Left wing from the Left party, aren't you? Being as anti-immigrant as the SD means... RIGHT. WING. Marzillius —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.205.91 (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you tel me one leftest nationalist leader that wasn't xenophobic?

--OxAO (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Seen from an international perspective, SD aren't all that anti-immigrant. The rhetoric is sometimes extreme, but when it comes to actual politics their stated goal is to bring immigration down to a level more in line with neighboring countries. I don't really see how this would make them "right wing". - Alltat (talk) 06:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ideology

I've been trying to bring into the article some information on the main ideology of the party, this by quoting their current statute of principles/program of principles (principprogram) which can be found and read, in swedish, on the partys website (http://sverigedemokraterna.se/vara-asikter/principprogram/). Since this program is the main ideological document of the party, it should be the best source regarding this subject. The program was written in 2003 and revised in 2005 (the only change that was made in 2005 was that they added their support for the UN declaration of human rights) and is as I wrote CURRENTLY USED as the partys main ideological document. The only english translation of this document that can be found online is a shorted version published by the swedish professor of Political Sociology Jens Rydgren, and it is this one i've been trying to use as my reference (http://hsf.bgu.ac.il/europe/index.aspx?pgid=pg_127842651505941456). Every sentence in the quote can be found in the program, in swedish though, at the Swedish Democrat's website.

I think this quote is relevant and I'm getting really annoyed by the person who's been repeatingly deleting the information. If you don't like the translation, find a better one! The information is still relevant for the subject. (The document from 2007 the person has been refering to in his/her edits is not a ideological programme, it is an action programme regarding one specific issue.) --83.226.248.42 (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel sincerely sorry if I annoyed you and I am very pleased to discuss with you. Since english is not my natural language, I need time to write correctly (I check often the words in my dictionnary). However, I was very surprised that you pasted long portions of a text written by Jens Rydgren in 2003. Did you read this : « Please do not copy and paste from copyrighted websites – only public domain resources can be copied without permission. » ? Sorry, but I will remove again this outdated text since it is a mere paste. Did you read enterely this article before you added this long quote ?. If you had read it from A to Z, you would have seen that your reference « Radical Right-wing Populism in Sweden and Denmark » was already quoted THREE TIMES in three different sections (History, immigration with a short quote in 2002 of Torbjörn Kastell, former SD secretary, controversies). While reading the article, people can acceed to this reference at three different times !

Your reference is dated from 2003 during the former leadership of Mikael Jansson. Jimmie Åkesson is SD chairman since 7 May 2005. So I will keep only your own sentence with the SD reference (Principprogram). I am not a person but a regular user (Jeromemoreno with a talk page where you are welcome to discuss). I began to take part to this article since 24 July 2010. Did you read some of my edits in the historic file ? I spent many hours trying to improve the general presentation and the content with reliable references.--Jérôme MORENO HERRERO 20:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The quote is from a programme that's still in use by the party today! It's the main ideological document of the party and it was written by the same person who is the chairman of the party today, Jimmie Åkesson. Of this you can read here: http://sverigedemokraterna.se/vart-parti/jimmie-akesson-sverigedemokraternas-partiledare/. It doesn't matter if it was written in 2003 if they still have'nt come upp with a new one! This are the one they're using NOW. I did read your previous edits, and I can't understand why you reject the partys own programme as a reliable source?

If the length of the quote is the problem, I'll shorten and rewrite it. What does it matter if the reference is used in another section of the article when I want to use it to post relevant information about the partys ideology, where it belongs?

I'm sorry then, I'll refer to you as a user. --83.226.248.42 (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I added again the citation <"autogenerated19"/>

Ideology: Populism

I've tried adding the ideology "populism" to the article using several sources (http://www.ystadsallehanda.se/insandare/article1245609/Maumlrklig-populistisk-och-felaktig-politik.html, http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/analys-sifo-sds-medvind-kan-locka-till-populism_3802885.svd), some even used in the article already(http://hsf.bgu.ac.il/europe/index.aspx?pgid=pg_127842651505941456). However, people constantly undo this without any explaination why the sources aren't good. If it is good enough for certain claims, how come it is not in this case?

The term "populism" is controversial, but looking at Wikipedias own article on right-wing populism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_populism) and comparing it with this page, the similarity is pretty obvious. Furthermore, I have already used several sources where they are called "populist". If noone can have a valid argument against labeling Sweden Democrats "populist", I see no reason to undo my changes yet again.

Best Regards Simon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.58.107 (talk • contribs)

Hello Simon. Obviously an "insändare" cannot be used as a source (see WP:RS), and the SvD article does not refer to them as a populistic party. Would you be as kind as to point out where you think they do? Nymf _hideliho! 23:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"Erfarenheten visar att populistiska partier påverkar den politiska kartan" it clearly states in beginning, an indirect referal to Sweden Democrats as "populist". The letter to the editor is not a valid source alone, however, it strengthens my claim of them being refered to as populist. Finally, please explain to me how a source can be valid for some claims, but not for others? Any argument against labeling them populist would be welcome too.

/Simon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.58.107 (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Indirect claims won't do. See WP:NOR. You are not allowed to draw conclusions. As for sources showing or claiming the opposite, please see WP:BURDEN. The burden of evidence is on you, the person adding the material. About the Israeli source, I cannot comment on that, as I am not the one who removed it. Nymf _hideliho! 23:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Nationalencyklopedin calls them conservative nationalists, with a mixture of populism and xenophobia in their article.

Sverigedemokraterna, SD, politiskt parti, bildat 1988, med uttalad strävan att vara ett nationellt inriktat parti. Sverigedemokraterna har dock mest uppmärksammats för en aggressiv hållning mot invandrare och har framstått som ett mellanting mellan ett populistiskt och främlingsfientligt parti.^{the long version}

That is a trustworthy source, and we should also describe them in the same way. Unfortunately this article will never be good because of all the pro Sd POV-pushing. P. S. Burton (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a rather bold statement claiming that we are POV pushing just because we are critical of various sources. And that small NE notice is just words that aren't backed up by any specific facts. It's easy to claim that they are xeonophobic or populistic, but what exactly is xenophobic? There are 9 million people in Sweden, or so, that claims that SD is a racist party. That still doesn't make it true.

Also, if I am allowed to nitpick the wording of that source, it doesn't say that they are xenophobic or populistic, but that they have been potrayed as such. Big difference. Nymf _hideliho! 17:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"Framstå" does not mean "portrayed", "appear" would be a better translation in this context. P. S. Burton (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Still rather vague, though, and not definite. Nymf _hideliho! 23:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, please. No, you don't get to remove reliably sourced content because you complain that the source is "just words." Are you serious? Nymf, your attitude is a fine example of why this article is a POV mess. Please respect WP:NPOV, Wikipedia's most central policy. To the people who find themselves reverted by POV-pushers: take it to WP:ANI for some admin attention. Bishonen | talk 10:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

Sweden Democrats/History

Is it useful to write again the history of the Sweden Democrats' early period in the same manner than in the Swedish article ? About this early period, some citations and sources are very partial, controversial like Expo, a trosko-marxist magazine or the former trotskyst writer Stieg Larsson. I think better and more useful to find neutral and well balanced citations and academic sources. The sources from the far-left as well those from far-right are biased with controversial views. I think more appopriate to keep the text like it was until these last days. If we write again the early period (1988-1995), we shoud write again ALL the history from 1988 to 2010. 14:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Jérôme MORENO HERRERO--Jérôme MORENO HERRERO 14:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No they are not a Trotsky-Marxist magazine. They are a foundation that works with the anti-racist issues in Sweden (just as the Swedish government agency Forum för levande historia (Living History Forum, or something like that in english)). Expo is considered by the extreme right as a left-wing extremist Web site, but this is only due to that Expo examines the extreme right. On the Swedish Wikipedia project Expo deemed to be a valid, credible source (with few exceptions for Sweden Democrats, and other xenophobic / racist groups who dont like the source). Expo isnt the only source user:Jeromemoreno is censoring. The article, as it looks now, are nothing but POV. 109.225.77.105 (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the the discussion at Talk:Expo (magazine) have already proved that Expo is a good source. P. S. Burton (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Excessive info on elections

To me, all the info about figures and numbers relating to especially the 2010 election in the article seems wildly excessive. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog that seeks to reveal every single (uninteresting) detail about the election, be it election results in every single municipalities and counties, or every voter group. I can't imagine that this excessive info helps any purpose; instead it complicates and messes up the article to reduce it to some unintelligeble jibberish. -TheG (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. I propose replacing the section with simple tables showing the election results, as in the article at the Swedish Wikipedia. /Caelus sv (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Title of article

I dont understand why the title of this article is "Sweden Democrats". That makes, quite simply, no grammatical sense in english. Compound words from Germanic languages, such as "Sverigedemokraterna" are normally translated using possessive: Sweden's Democrats, or my preference in this particular case, an adjectival form: "Swedish Democrats", which—after looking through this discussion page—seems to be a very popular way of referring to the Sverigedemokraterna.

Unfortunately, the party itself uses the swedish name when referring to themselves in English, so we can't use their translation as a guideline. So i strongly think that all references to Sweden Democrats on wikipedia should be replaced by Swedish Democrats. – Vikingviolinist (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using a compound word like "Sweden Democrats" in English. Native speakers of English often refer to the "Wisconsin Republicans" or "Chicago Bears" (an American football team.) Remember that English is Germanic language, too.

If the party itself wishes to translate its name as "Sweden Democrats" then it ought to be translated that way. Many immigrants to America change their names when they enter the United States and Americans respect those decisions. By the way, I am an American, and have no interest in Swedish politics, so I believe that my assessment of this linguistic controversy is objective. Powerman95 (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a football team. Compound words like "Sverigedemokraterna" (that being noun+noun) are often translated into English as adjective+noun, or alternatively possessive noun+noun, for example the article on Folkpartiet refers to "Folkpartiet" (people+party) as People's Party. Likewise, "Kristdemokraterna" isn't translated as Christ Democrats, but rather Christian Democrats. Also, my point was that the party itself has no official policy on translating their name. The English media itself also refers to it as the "Swedish Democrats" at times (eg. Deutsche Welle English, Irish Examiner, Bloomberg, the Telegraph) and as such, I'm going to add "Swedish Democrats" to the title of the article. — VikingViolinist | Talk 00:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction

In one section, the article says that the party has 'managed to attract some Muslim voters in Södertälje by appealing to their hostility to homosexuality'. In another, it says that 'party leader Jimmie Åkesson expresses concern over that the increasing Islamization of Sweden will eventually lead to the rights of sexual minorities being violated'. I'm sure there's no way those two statements are compatible! Bastin 19:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Tha conflicting statements are typical of the logic of right-wing extremism. TFD (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It's contradicting because that part of the article was wrong and now removed. The interview linked as a source did not support anything in that sentence.

1. It doesn't talk about voters at all [regarding muslims]. So the claim about muslim voters are totally out of the blue.

2. The interviewed person say "We are ABOUT to get our FIRST muslim member". Being active in SD and knowing the interviewed person well, I know he never joined, so not even that had any substance. An interviewed local member predicting getting 'one' muslim member doesn't seem to be justifying anything in a wikipedia article about a party in a national parlament.

3. That muslim about-to-be-member was not even from Södertälje and there's nothing in the article that say so either. The person who added it in the wiki article just assumed so. Assuming doesn't belong in wikipeda.

4. The party is not hostile against homosexuals and there is nothing in that article that justify saying that either. The interviewed person is religious and is against the church having gay marriage as not being possible in reference to the Bible. Most countries on the planet does not support gay marriage (actually only 9 other countries do)*, so saying the party would be hostile against gays for being against that (which is stated in the article) is not a very scientific approach at all. The party have homosexual members and their support among homosexuals is more or less the same as in the rest of the swedish population. According to a suvey in a gay magazine it's even considerably higher.**

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Country-wide_recognition —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adulruna (talk • contribs) 23:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • http://www.qx.se/poll.php?id=3308&random=3726d4105bfc86a47fed6c6dacd3f73b&vote=0

Israeldemokraterna (Israel democrats)

Im surprised to see that there is very little about the SD's zionist connections. It is run after all by hardcore israel supporters Kent and Ted Ekeroth. After all, they don't oppose immigration per say, but MUSLIM immigration that could have political ramifications for Sweden's relations to Israel. It is part of the new European conservative, nativist, right-wing movements that have been hijacked to serve the zionist interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnordel (talk • contribs) 08:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Far right and nationalism

How are they "far right" and "nationalistic" if they accept homosexuality, multiculturalism and are pro-Israel? They totally changed their platform and announced that they will abandon calling themselves nationalist, Linus Bylund went even further and said that "being Swedish is a feeling in one's heart" and thus from November 2011 they will totally abandon anti-immigration and anti-multiculturalism views. Most of the NATIONALSITS quit the party and have joined the Svenskarnas Parti, SvP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.227.150 (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

They do not accept multiculturalism, and they do for sure have a problem with homosexuality. However, their views on Israel are in line with "mainstream" right-wing extremism in Western Europe. Their focus is on Muslims, while in Eastern Europe Jews still are the focus of political propaganda. The party is "far right" and its "nationalistic", however on their last congress they stressed the ideology of social conservatism. Danieldnm (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Expo

This article uses Expo as a primary source for statements about SD while Expo also runs an anti-SD propaganda website ( http://www.sverigedemokraterna.de/ ). This is an obvious conflict of interest and they are not a reliable source. --83.227.39.146 (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

As the statements citing Expo as a source are of factual and not of evaluating or analysing nature, and most of them are supported by another source, each, I don't see a big problem. You might let it be checked at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, though. --RJFF (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If claims are supported by another source, then use that source instead. A political organization that's actively campaigning against a political party (including offering shirts depicting the party's logo being thrown into a garbage bin) is a horrible source for information on that party. - Alltat (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The reliabilty and the neutrality of a source have nothing to do with each other. All our sources must be reliable and we must be neutral. As it turns out, all reliable sources provide negative views of far right groups. TFD (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Expo is a foundation that specializes in monitoring nationalist, racist, anti-democratic, anti-semitic and far-right movements and organisations. The Foundation's work is considered to be of high quality, why it is often quoted in mainstream media (from the left to the right). Expos journalists are often asked to comment on these issues. In the scientific community, Expo is considered to have good credibility. However, Expo continues to be questioned as a left extremist organization by right-wing extremists. As a matter of fact, any type of criticism directed at these anti-democratic movements are regarded as left-wing extremism by the movements and its supporters, and therefore not neutral to use as a source. In my opinion, Expo is a very good source, especially as a primary source (because it usually gets quoted in the media). Regards, Dnm (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Immigration section

Is there a reason that such a small portion of this section has ANY source? 68.227.166.94 (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Economic policies

The section "Ideology and political positions" currently says nothing about the party's economic policies. It's kind of weird that the section has a whole sub-section about few remarks regarding the Saami, but no mention at all about fiscal policies. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This problem remains. Economic policy is at the heart of the actions of parliaments. The article is a failure as long as it does not have information on the party's economic stances. --128.214.69.224 (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Bias

The article seems to be biased in favour of the party in question. Could someone make it less biased please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.12.191 (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely biased: there are no viewpoint from alternates factions. Alcides (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"The Sweden Democrats are critical of the special rights and privileges given to the indigenous Sami people of northern Sweden. " This is VERY biased, as it describes Sami rights as "special" and as "privileges". This is generally considered to NOT be the accepted vocabulary when speaking about indigenous peoples and minorities in objective texts, as it presents a certain view of those rights. These words would be acceptable if the sentence said, for example: "SD are critical of what they say are special rights and privileges given to" etc.

In its current form, the quoted sentence does not give an accurate view of the situation and thus can cause harm by spreading questionable information to those unfamiliar with the context. Which is the exact opposite of what Wikipedia is supposed to do.

I suggest a change that would make it clear that these are slanted words representing a certain opinion (that the Sami are privileged), and not an Objective Holy Truth. It seems like a minor grammatical change, but it means a lot since this is English wiki so most readers don't know much about indigenous peoples situation.--109.196.118.133 (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree! I'm certainly not unbiased myself, but I think I still can be neutral enough to say that this is biased and not NPOV. If I get the time I'll try to edit the article. Udd (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Leadership

The backgrounds of the SD leadership needs to be included, namely Kent Ekeroth, ted Ekeroth, Isak Nygren and Göran Rosenberg. People have a right to know what interests are behind this so called 'nationalist party' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.102.182 (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

A disgrace for Wikipedia's neutrality

This is a serious disgrace to Wikipedia's terms of being neutral. Here I read a lot of angry left-wingers who can't put aside their emotional feelings and does everything to make this party sound more extreme than it actually is. If SD should be called far-right, then the Left party should be called far-left. I can honestly say that I hate the Swedish Left party, but I would be seriously offended if they were put as far-left. It sends a wrong message to the people.

SD is not an extremist party and its not a Nazi party either. They welcome everyone from any nationality with any skin colour into their party and their country, as long as those people adapt the Swedish culture. That's not being far-right, that's just Conservatism. Big difference there. Wikipedia is not your place to spread whatever propaganda message you can here leftys! This is a place for neutral information where people can find information about things from a non-propagandic source. If you hate SD so much, write a blog about it, join the far-left organisation AFA, I don't care, but at least leave Wikipedia out of this! This is not your place to go and spread your propaganda hate about SD. This is a place for neutral information.

I beg you, author of this article to seriously reconsider having them labeled as far-right. Its a broke to Wikipedia's neutrality and you're putting a seriously mistrust in this entire page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.206.239 (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The SD is called far right because that is the consensus in academic sources, as well as how they are described in the press and by their opponents across the political spectrum. If they were conservatives, then presumably they would join the Swedish Conservative party. TFD (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That's plain misinformation. The Moderate Party doesn't even mention conservatism in their latest statement of principles. It's a social liberal party with a libertarian steak. Just because it was conservative during the days when the Left Party of Sweden were loyal to Stalin and wanted to expel all refugees from Estonia, doesn't mean it is that now.

The article is a disgrace for wikipedia's neutrality. Even when the SD:s sister parties in Finland and Denmark are labelled national conservative, even when the not-so-neutral left-wing Expo magazine that wikipedia apparently considers an unbiased source recognizes the SD as a conservative party (source: http://expo.se/2011/sds-ideologiska-namnbyte-andrar-inte-politiken_4532.html), wikipedia refuses to recognize this. Why the bias?

Zealous Zeth (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The source does not say that the SD is conservative, but that the party wants to be seen as "social conservative", because they "combine the value of conservatism with the Social Democratic welfare state heritage." That is what the Moderate Party does, yet you call them "social liberal". It does not matter how other articles describe parties, but "national conservatism" implies extremism as well. TFD (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you understand Swedish? Then I'd ask you to read the article again. Especially these sentences:

"Han säger även att Sverigedemokraternas idéprogram är att betrakta som konservativt.

– I det stora hela är det ett riktigt klassiskt konservativt program. Det är verkligen tillbaka till 1800-talet i de grundläggande värderingarna. Det är anmärkningsvärt konservativt, säger han."

I'd also definitely ask you to read up on the Moderate Party. It's not a social conservative party in meaningful sense. Read their own programme. I'd recommend this article for you: http://traditionochfason.wordpress.com/2011/09/24/moderat-adjo-till-konservatismen/

If national conservatism is extremism is a matter of debate, and I have no intention of participating in such a debate here. It is obvious that it's a very suitable term to use for the Sweden Democrats, but it seems that the authors refutes any attempt of labelling the SD as conservative (apart from being nationalist as well) because they are biased and wants to lump the SD together with fascists like the BNP, even though the SD is a quite meek party even by ordinary right-wing populist standards, rejecting ethnic nationalism for cultural nationalism and pursing a zero-tolerance policy on racism and extremism. Zealous Zeth (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong in labelling the party as socially conservative.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 05:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

In English social conservative means right wing on cultural issues, while in Scandinavia it means left-wing on economic issues. Also, sources describe them as "far right", not social conservative. TFD (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Your point being what? They are a social conservative party by both of those definitions (I take it than you meant to write "social conservatism that is left-wing on economic issues"). There is no conflict between being socially conservative and being nationalist. The sources are pretty clear on that the SD is a conservative party, "far-right" or not.

Zealous Zeth (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a distinction between conservative parties, such as Sweden's moderate's and the UK conservatives and far right parties, even though the far right may call themselves liberals, conservatives or whatever. Show me a book about political parties that groups them with the conservative parties. My point about semantics is that the Swedish term "socialkonservativt" does not translate into English as "social conservative", which has a very different meaning. TFD (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• A very tired argument that has been doing the rounds of Wikipedia for many years on many far-right articles: to sum up, (and for those who do not get the satire, why are you editing an English language version of Wikipedia?) merely calling yourself a Bunny Rabbit does not make you a Bunny Rabbit. 2.10.138.23 (talk) 09:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

POV tag

An editor has added a POV tag to the the section "In parliament (2010–present)". The tag says, "Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page." However the editor has added no discussion and therefore I will remove the tag. TFD (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The editor's motivation where to be found in the POV-tag: "The last paragraph is somewhat POVish. The most recent surveys shows that the rise of the Sweden Democrats has slowed or even reversed. That one poll shows a differently trend should not be highlighted as a fact for anything." Maybe you should have looked at it, and moved it here if the editor was wrong about the placement. It would have been far constructive than just erasing the tag. Regards, Dnm (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It is up to you to explain your objections here. The POV tag you posted asked editors to discuss the issue here. You are now saying that the SD has sunk in the polls. So what? Does the article say they are high in the polls? Was their vote in the last election 1/10th of 1 percent or 30 percent? You need to explain yourself here and not expect other editors to mind read. TFD (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Your position is only a technical one. The data was cherry picking and biased in its context, thus the data in its context gave a false picture of reality and the general trends. It was POV, and by removing the tag (like you did this time) you are letting POV be facts in articles. POV undermine Wikipedia's reputation as a credible encyclopedia. However, the paragraph is now gone, through the agency of others. It was the right thing to do. Regards, Dnm (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

There are clear cut guidelines for when tag is meant to be used. If you think the data is biased, how about countering with actual sources and a proper discussion, rather than slapping a pointless tag which tells us nothing at all? Nymf _{talk to me} 16:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If you do not believe that POV should be noted, if the editor who discovers POV is unable to fix it on his own or for other reasons do not fix it, we have a problem. From my point of view, it do seem like a great obstacle in the work for a higher quality in the encyclopedia due to your inflexible stance. The tag was not pointless. The removal of the tag was an act of defending POV. Dnm (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Party description

There are a couple of editors who keeps pushing certain things, especially what they perceive to be the ideology of SD. Dnm have been doing a number of reverts, often citing sourcing problems, which is a rather odd thing if we actually take a look at the sources.

In this edit, Dnm claims something along the lines of "journalists are not scientists". The source in question states that SD is now officially labeled a "social conservative party", as per proper votes in the party.

Looking at other edits by Dnm (especially in pages on the other side of the political spectrum), it seems that it is actually okay using the party program as a reference for ideologies.

Oddly enough, dubious sources are apparently okay whenever they blacken the party.

Edits like these are becoming quite a nuisance, and is stunting the article. How do we get past this? Nymf _{talk to me} 16:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

We should go with the academic consensus in describing the party rather than to their own pronouncements or the odd descriptions of them by a journalist. TFD (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. We should always go with academic sources when there are such.

However, I feel the focus you have on me as a user is quite disturbing, Nymf. Dnm (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Dnm, you just happened to be the person who most recently edited the page when I made this post. I am sure the other editors who claim to be NPOV in regard to this article have made tons of edits which contradicts that assertion as well. Nymf _{talk to me} 19:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

POV

I'm calling POV on this one. As a result of a few author's strange obsession of describing the party as close to fascist, a party with a zero tolerance on racism were ethnic nationalism is considered an ideological deviation, the fact that the SD is the only party in parliament that describes itself as conservative, and the only one that holds traditional social conservative positions (scepticism of abortion, only party against gay marriage, seeing the nuclear family and the civil society as the basics of human civilization, etc.) is being hidden, thus neglecting the reader's understanding of the Swedish political scene for the sake of simple bigotry.

The fact that SD is a socially conservative party isn't a fact that even biased left-wing paper Expo that’s used as a “neutral” source in this article denies. I bring up my old article again, source: http://expo.se/2011/sds-ideologiska-namnbyte-andrar-inte-politiken_4532.html, were political scientist Anders Sannerstedt said this:

“On the whole, it is a true classic conservative program. It's really back to the 1800s in the core values. It is remarkably conservative, he says.”

Andreas Johansson Heinö, who works for neoliberal think-tank Timbro also doesn’t deny this:

http://andreasjohanssonheino.blogspot.se/2011/11/ta-sverigedemokraternas.html

“Take the Sweden Democrat's Social Conservatism serious”

I don't think anybody would ever lump the SD together with the Brittish Tories or any other liberal conservative, centre-right members of the IDU, EPP etc. But that doesn't matter. The point is that the SD is a social conservative party (in both the English and the Scandinavian meaning), probably the only party in the Riksdag who would be considered as such from an international perspective, and this isn't shown clearly enough here. Note how there doesn't seem to be a problem with describing the SD's Nordic sister parties, the Danish People's Party and the True Finns as conservative, social conservative or national conservative etc. Or, in case of the DPP, labelling the party as “right-wing to far-right”, to get some neutrality.

Zealous Zeth (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to mention how absurdly biased the "Ideology and political positions section" is. The party programme is not based on "nationalism" alone but on social conservatism and cultural nationalism, which is an entirely different matter, and is important to note, since cultural, non-ethnic nationalism would possibly not even be considered nationalism by a majority of European nationalist parties. What the party programme states is obviously not a matter of what you or someone else thinks of the party, since it's a product of the party.

Arnstad is an extremist, and isn't even an expert on the matter but a simple journalist, whose views are completely outside the vast majority of political scientists. Using him as a source is clearly POV. Here Andreas Johansson Heinö, who I mentioned before, refutes all such claims by him:

http://andreasjohanssonheino.blogspot.se/2013/04/arnstad-fascismen-och-forskningen.html

Zealous Zeth (talk) 08:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Your reasoning shows more than clearly your position on the issue of SD and it's not a matter of creating a neutral article. You discredit credible, authoritative and independent sources, and advocating that the party should be free to define it self. It is not a trustworthy position, and it would lower the reliable of Wikipedia articles if it would apply throughout the project. Why, someone might ask? The answer is simple: Parties are not neutral about their own position in any respect, and that is more so the truth for parties on the outer flanks.

My stance is that the POV template can be removed immediately. The article has credible and authoritative sources. Dnm (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. I'd really have to second what Dnm said... — SwedishPenguin | Talk 12:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree and have removed the POV tag. --RJFF (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No, we are not done with this issue. It you who discredit credible, authoritative and independent sources, and I am not advocating that the party should be free to define it self. Lumping the SD together with parties like the BNP by quoting a far-left, non authoritative "historian" who also believes that the Norwegian Progress Party, which isn't even recognized as right-wing populist here, is "the worlds largest fascist party". (source= http://www.dn.se/nyheter/chattarkiv/chatt-med-henrik-arnstad-om-fascism/). This article is a complete disgrace to Wikipedia's objectivity, and if we cannot find common ground, we have to bring this up with the Wikipedia administration.

Zealous Zeth (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid we will not agree on this with the attitude you have to the sources used. Maybe you should turn to the administration right away?

And to respond to the rest: Arnstad is not used as a main source of anything essential. Expo is regarded as a credible source in Sweden, and the analyzes are every so often consistent with the academic research. As for the Progress Party it is regarded as right-wing populist. There are lots of sources for that as well. If Wikipedia does not say that it is a right-wing populist party it should be changed, so that it says that. However, each article shall be assessed and entered separately. Dnm (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not know why Mr. Johansson Heinö's blog entries should be considered "credible, authoritative and independent sources". Usually we do not regard blogs as reliable sources at all. Essentially, you only deplore the citation of Mr. Arnstad, which is only referenced by a single sentence, but claim that the whole article were unbalanced. Would the article be balanced without the sentence about Arnstad's opinion? In this case, let's delete it and have an article that is accepted by everyone as balanced. --RJFF (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

As for blog posts the guideline on self-published sources says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Heinö is a political scientists at University of Göteborg who has published a book on the intersection immigration/diversity/politics and he is frequently used in media as an expert commentator on the Sweden Democrats. So, I would consider a blog post from him to be credible; however a blog post may be less relevant that a published piece as it is less likely to gather attention, criticism etc. from other experts. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see why it would be controversial to lump SD and BNP together since they used the same torch as their symbol for many years (just different flags in the flames). -- Achird (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem with Mr. Arnstad's claim is that he is far outside the views of the established political scientists, and the inclusion of his views in this article is misleading and show of bias.

If you seek sources from credible, authoritative and independent sources, like books from the same anti-SD experts that are linked to in this article, I have quite a few to show:

These sources explicitly mention the SD as "radical right", not far-right. I propose a change for objectivity's sake:

http://books.google.se/books?id=sRY_XLdRrfEC&pg=PA108&dq=h%C3%B6gerradikal+sd&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=N8KwUe6nCYfNswaQrIGIAg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=h%C3%B6gerradikal%20sd&f=false

https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/17865/1/gupea_2077_17865_1.pdf

http://www.ordfront.se/Ordfrontmagasin/Artiklar%202010/Sverigedemokraterna%20sa%20funkar%20de%205_10.aspx

http://books.google.se/books?id=cpQZdAJbvkEC&pg=PT162&dq=konservativt+SD&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=W8OwUYi-IcWrtAayjoDoCw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA

These sources describes the party as national conservative. I propose an inclusion of that in the ideological description, and see no reason to why not:

http://andreasjohanssonheino.blogspot.se/2011/11/ta-sverigedemokraternas.html

http://expo.se/2011/sds-ideologiska-namnbyte-andrar-inte-politiken_4532.html

http://books.google.se/books?id=cpQZdAJbvkEC&pg=PT162&dq=konservativt+SD&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=W8OwUYi-IcWrtAayjoDoCw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA

vhttp://books.google.se/books?id=YM9iPj94SVMC&pg=PA406&dq=konservativt+SD&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=W8OwUYi-IcWrtAayjoDoCw&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=konservativt%20SD&f=false

To make the artivle more objective, I'd also propose to change the second sentence to that the SD describes itself as "social conservative and and cultural nationalist". Read the very article you linked too yourselves:

http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/sd-ska-bli-socialkonservativt_6636776.svd

As for SD:s previous logo, that's just a myth (the tories also used a torch with the colours of the UK, btw), but this is not the right place to debate that. A party that has a zero-tolerance on racism and ethnic nationalism cannot be lumped together with fascists and racists.

Zealous Zeth (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Far right

An IP removed the source for "far right" and changed it to "right-wing." The explanation was "(This is ridiculous. SD's policies (libertaria described here contradict obviously with the definition of "far-right" given in its respective article)."[25]

Statements in the article are supposed to be based on what sources say, per reliable sources. We cannot use a definition obtained in one place and information from another place to determine how to describe the party, per synthesis. TFD (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Xenophobic

Generally, exceptional claims need exceptional sources. Claiming the party to be fascist or xenophobic is an exceptional strong claim for which sources of the highest quality and in sufficient number are required . The odd commentary or random newspaper falls short of this standard, particularly when it comes from the opposite side of the political spectrum. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

If you would have bothered to check the sources (several are now added) it is the Swedish Broadcasting Commission that have concluded that "xenophobic" is an unbiased term that correctly describe the party. Also the first source is Svenska Dagbladet that is liberal conservative, i.e. the same part of the political spectrum that SD claims to be. // Liftarn (talk)

I question whether this description should be included in the very first sentence of the article. Other articles generally describe political parties by their ideology; for example, "centre-left, social-democratic party". Xenophobia is not the party's official or even de facto ideology. The party's policies may be described as xenophobic - and I would support the includsion of "the party's policies have been described as "xenophobic", elsewhere in the article. -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 13:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Xenphobia is their de facto ideology since they have moved away from outright racism. // Liftarn (talk)

I can understand the position of the users who do not consider xenophobia an actual ideology (unlike liberalism, socialism, conservatism etc.) Our WP article on xenophobia does not define it as an ideology either. It is rather a mindset or an attitude. However, I agree that it should be noted that SD's policies and rhetoric are characterised by xenophobia (given that several reliable sources support this statement.) --RJFF (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The book by the political sociologist Jens Rydgren clearly state that the SD is a Xenophobic and racist party, on Ethno pluralist grounds (at least it is his conclusion after an analysis of the party's programs). He has writen lots of scientific articles stating the same thing, and has been internationally published. If that is a credible sources of the highest quality, that would do. There are lots more books by scientists and journalists stating the same thing. What more does Gun Powder Ma demand?

In my book the SD is stil a racist party. Everything in their on programs points at tread of cultural and biological racism. However, I think we should start the article with the fact that it is a far-right nationalist party. It says more about the party, in a neutral way then the epithet Xenophobic. The facts of the party's xenophobic / racist ideology can be accounted for later. Dnm (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

In general, a Phobia is a psychiatric disorder, not an ideology. I think a politcal party should be defined in politcal and not psychiatric terms. AadaamS (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You are making it to easy Adams. In this sense it is not a matter of a psychiatric disorder, but the hostility against immigrants. The Swedish word "främligsfientlighet" means hostility toward immigrants, and do not necessarily indwelt by a fear of immigrants, but often a fear of what is or may get lost with too many immigrants or immigrants at all. One could argue that this sense is an intrinsic psychological factor which is based on the fear of the unknown. However, it is not interesting in this article. Dnm (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest to write "SD's ideology is generally racist and hostile to immigration and foreign cultures". It's long winded but accurate. Yes, the word "xenophobia" sounds quite cool and all but if the Swedish word främlingsfientlighet has changed to sometimes mean specifically immigrants, it is no longer accurate to translate it with the English xenophobia, which automatically does not carry the sense of hostility to immigrants specifically, it means hostility towards any stranger, foreigner or anything foreign. A stranger isn't automatically an immigrant and an immigrant isn't automatically a stranger.

As for the "not interesting" part, it has to be an irrational fear to qualify as a proper phobia. AadaamS (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Anti-immigration policy is merely a method of carrying out xenophobic objectives. The xenophobe does not like foreigners and immigration control is seen as a way to keep them out. So is the restriction of rights of minorities inside the country, including the Sami, who are not an immigrant group. But xenophobes have never objected to allowing people like them into their country. Incidentally "xenophobia" is not a medical condition, hence does not need to meet the clinical term for a phobia. TFD (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

There are other reasons for opposing immigration policies though, like economical reasons and issues related integration, not just xenophobia. But I'm not suprised there are NPOV issues given that editors here have such a black-and-white view of politics. --Pudeo' 14:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There may be other reasons, but it does not alter the fact that the Sweden Democrats are considered xenophobic. TFD (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It would indeed seem that the literal "anti-immigrant" would be a far better translation for "främligsfientlighet" instead of xenophobic. --Pudeo' 01:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

"främligsfientlighet" means xenophobia in Swedish. It literally means hostility to strangers, not just opposition to immigration. TFD (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Might be, though the word xenofobi is used as such. But most importantly I just noticed that the sources used are quite weird. Title: "Resumé: Kallade SD för främlingsfientliga – frias av Granskningsnämnden"; the articles are about that SD was called anti-immigrant and someone from SD lodged a complaint. The broadcasting commission said that it was O.K. to call them that, but obviously did not conclude whether that is the most accurate description. Instead of sources like these, we'd better use original sources that call them främligsfientlighet, not some broadcasting commission complaint reviews. --Pudeo' 01:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I went through the sources (actually the three used are the same newspiece in three different sites). The original author behind the främlingsfientlig -description was journalist Lotta Bromé of P4 Extra radio channel. Come on, that's not a proper source. --Pudeo' 02:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I moved the xenophobic part under "Ideology and political positions": In 2013, a Sveriges Radio journalist called the party xenophobic, which resulted in a complaint lodged to the broadcasting regulator. The Swedish Broadcasting Commission determined that this description was acceptable to use.[44]. It's a pretty big distortion to use some broadcasting commission decision as a source like it was used before. For the lede to say that SD is xenophobic we need to have a better source than one SR journalist. I have nothing against such inclusion, if such sources exist. --Pudeo' 02:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually the broadcasting commission came to the conclusion that "xenophobic" is an unbiased description of the party, i.e. they did an NPOV check. As such it is a very strong source. // Liftarn (talk)

If the information was removed it should be reverted. Dnm (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

"Right-wing"

Well the people have spoken and they put the Swedish democrats in the center. http://www.forskning.se/nyheterfakta/nyheter/pressmeddelanden/nyopinionsundersokningsverigedemokraternaarettmittenparti.5.1fcdf482138244d18755fa.html. But politically motivated people and media will try to put the far-right label on the party to scare voters away.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.103.108 (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC) 

There is no consensus that the Sweden Democrats should be classified as a "right-wing" or "conservative" party. Sure, there are some people (usually on the left) who describe them as that, while others describe their policies as more left-wing oriented. The party itself describes its ideology as "democratic nationalist" and its position as "in the middle" on the political spectrum. Arguments could be made for both classifications, but to present any of it as a fact in the article is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. /Slarre 20:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There are several reliable sources saying they are "far right". // Liftarn

The term "far right" is a highly subjective and pejorative term without any established global definition. Such terms should definitely be avoided in an encyclopedia striving for neutrality (see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Hard.2C_far_.28left.2Fright.29_.5Bin_politics.2Freligion.5D). That newspapers and others use the term is not a reason why Wikipedia should, which generally has a higher demand for neutrality than those types of sources. /Slarre 23:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If the overwhelming majority of reliable, scholarly sources say that the SD is far-right, we have a duty to report that; see WP:NPOV#Undue weight. That you consider the labels "left-wing" and "right-wing" invalid is irrelevant; all that matters are the opinions of reliable sources. -- WGee 21:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I doubt if newspapers of televisions might be a "scholarly sources", and I agree with Slarre that serious encyclopedia should be neutral, and avoid pejorative terms like "far right" in its articles. Furthermore, I think that the term Radicalism shouldn't be linked only to far-right, as it is used in this article. "Radicalism may refer to Extremism, in politics belonging to radical left, far left or far right varieties", citing Wikipedia itself. Ammon86 17:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that some sources use a term does not necessarily make it a neutral one. For the same reason that we don't use pejorative words such as "dictator" to label people like Augusto Pinochet or "terrorist" as a label in the article Osama bin Laden. In this case, the party itself strongly denies the label "far right", and among many political commentators in Sweden this is also a matter of great controversy. To assert this label as being the absolute truth is far from NPOV, I think you understand that too. I also personally strongly dislike this party, which I consider both xenophobic and racist, but that doesn't mean we should sacrifice the rules of NPOV. As Jimmy Wales said, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". /Slarre 21:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that WP:NPOV is absolute, but it seems that you have forgotten about WP:NPOV#Undue weight, which suggests that, if there is a consensus among reliable sources that the SD is far-right, the article should reflect that consensus. In order to satisfy WP:NPOV, the article must also mention the SD's description of itself, something that is done in the second sentence of the introduction. You cannot remove sourced information merely because you personally disagree with it; that is disruptive. The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources describe the SD as "far-right," and the article names the most reputable ones. -- WGee 04:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no "consensus" among "reliable sources" that SD is "far right". There are some sources who use that label, but there is certainly no "consensus". The fact remains that this is a highly pejorative and subjective term which is strongly denied by the party itself and by many others, and as such shouldn't be used. /Slarre 04:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I challenge you to find one source – of similar repute to the BBC, CNN, the Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society, and the Stephen Roth Institute – that categorizes the SD in such a way that precludes its being far-right; then dare to tell me that there is no consensus. Moreover, the party actually describes itself as "ethno-nationalist", so there was absolutely no reason for you to remove that term from the infobox so carelessly. -- WGee 05:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, nowadays most Swedish media and other observers don't use the term "far right" for the Sweden Democrats, probobly out of an ambition of neutrality. If the term is too controversial even for the tabloids, then I don't see why Wikipedia should use it, especially when it's stated as an absolute fact (see my post below). The term "ethno-nationalist" still needs a source. This term (or any variant of it) give no hits on SD's official website or in their party programme. Could you please provide an up-to-date source for this claim? /Slarre 23:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

SD is 'far-right' in the sense that term is used in Western mainstream media and public debate. Whether that term is a scholarily correct can be debated, but this is an inherent problematic of all 'left-right' distinctions. I support a wording in the intro that includes both the labellings far-right, xenophobic etc as well as the self-identifications of the party. However, I think that the term 'reputable observers' should be reworded, perhaps to 'mainstream observers' or something similar. --Soman 12:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed "reputable" to "notable." -- WGee 16:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that criticism is not appropriate in the intro, as this is not done (in most cases) in the intro of other "controversial" parties (especially not those on the far left). this fits better in the "Ideology" section. However, if the labellings mentioned should anyhow be used, it must be presented in such a way that it corresponds to the NPOV-policy - it should not be stated as a fact, as it is currently done, but rather that it is the opinion of an outside observer, eg: "xxx has labeled SD as xenophobic, far-right, etc.". Currently it is only the labellings "anti-immigrant and xenophobic" that are stated in a neutral way, while "far right" is presented as some sort of indisputable fact. /Slarre 23:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The way this article is written betrays painfully obvious political views of its author(s). We, as wikipedians, shouldn't be side of any political conflict, or show our sympathies or aversions towards any political party when editing articles in Wikipedia, which is, I remind you WGee, an encyclopedia, not a tool of political propaganda. One of the fundamental human rigths is Freedom of speech, which means among others that everyone should have a possibility to present his opinion, and that others have possibility to hear it. Regardless of what we think about Sweden Democrats, everyone should have this possibility to hear opinions and facts about their ideology and programme from different points of view. You, Wgee, with your policy of constant deletion of everything which is incompatible with your views, behave like Gestapo officer, doing everything to be sure that opinions of other persons wouldn't be heard. "We are nationalist democrats and dissociate ourselves from all forms of totalitarianism and racism." This sentence is from website of Sweden Democrats, which I putted as a reference to confirm that they describe themselves in this way, and that is why I wrote that their ideology is "Democratic nationalism". I understand that it is higly controversial issue, so I think that the best solution would be to present both opinions - from Sweden Democrats themselves and from their political opponents. Ammon86 07:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The question is if they are a reliable source about themselves in this issue. // Liftarn

The question is if we perceive people reading our articles as complete idiots, or as persons with ability of critical thinking, who can make judgements on their own. If there are two (or more) contrary opinions about their ideology, our task is to present them, and give possibility to check their references to others, to that readers may assess whether Sweden Democrats are reliable source about themselves or not. Even a criminal in court has a right to defend and to present his point of view, so let us give them the same right to present their own stance, especially with regard to the fact that they are legally functioning political party... Ammon86 10:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop your personal attacks. First, the Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society, as well as several other reputable sources, describes the SD's ideology as "ethno-nationalism," so you were unjustified in replacing that term with your neologism "democratic nationalism." Second, our task is not to give equal weight to all differing viewpoints, but rather to discuss differing viewpoints according to their prevalence among reliable sources—see WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Thus, since most reliable sources describe the SD as far-right, we must use that term to describe the party. -- WGee 19:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

WGee, it's obvious that you haven't understood the basic principles of WP:NPOV. The intro of the policy clearly states:

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."

The section "Undue weight" is not about presenting viewpoints, even those held by a majority of reliable sources, as undisputable facts. "Undue weight" doesn't conflict in any way with the other parts of the policy. As the way "far right" is being presented in the intro, as an undisputable fact, it's obviously a clear violation of WP:NPOV.

I am not against using the word "far right" at all in the article, but it has to be presented in a neutral way: "The Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society [and others] have labeled SD as "far right"." not "SD is far right" (see WP:NPOV#Attributing and substantiating biased statements). Furthermore, it could be discussed if media observers such as CNN or The Local really are authoritative sources on this issue.

Also, you haven't yet answered my question above, in what source does SD describe themselves as "ethno-nationalist"? /Slarre 20:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Click on the footnote next to the term ethno-nationalism; that's why it's there. Moreover, since nobody has presented any secondary sources that contradict the mainstream belief that the SD is far-right, there are currently no differing viewpoints to discuss (the party itself is not a reliable source because of an obvious conflict of interest—see WP:ATT). Finally, the Arbitration Committee has said that "Wikipedia is not censored. The words used in ordinary English usage to describe a subject may be used in Wikipedia" [26]. Far-right is one of those words, as evidenced by innumerable news reports which reflect popular parlance. Also note that the user against whom this arbitration case was filed was placed on probation for removing the factual descriptor far-right from the articles of several European far-right parties, such as the French National Front. -- WGee 04:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, WP:NPOV#Undue weight says, "Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Cross-checking of reliable sources indicates that the opinion that the Sweden Democrats are not far-right is a "tiny-minority" viewpoint, and thus need not be considered. -- WGee 04:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You still don't get it. Viewpoints that are controversial or could be disputed needs to be attributed and not presented as facts. Of course we shouldn't present SD's own label of themselves ("democratic nationalist") as a fact without attribution either.

The footnote next to ethno-nationalism leds to a secondary source. You claim above that SD "describes itself as "ethno-nationalist"", do you now admit that this is wrong? /Slarre 21:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The party's description of itself is neither here nor there. The fact remains that there is no controversy among reliable sources that the SD far-right, unless you can demonstrate otherwise. And if there is only one prevalent opinion on an issue, it may be presented as a fact. For example, would we say, "Everyone except members of the Flat Earth Society believes that Earth is globular"? No, we would simply say, "Earth is globular." Similarly, instead of saying, "All notable observers describe the SD as far-right," we would simply say, "The SD is far-right." In sum, the opinion that the SD is far-right need not be attributed to a particular source because it is shared by virtually all sources pertaining to the SD (in other words, it is uncontroversial). If you disagree, please demonstrate otherwise using reliable sources. -- WGee 02:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The labeling 'far-right' ("högerextremt" in Swedish) for these kind of parties is indeed a strongly polemical and controversial issue. This labeling implies that racism and xenophobia somehow is the most "extreme" form of right-wing ideology, something which is disputed by many conservatives and liberals in Sweden, including the renowned author Johan Norberg[27] (now a senior fellow at the Cato Institute), the journalist and author Göran Skytte[28], the Liberal Member of Parliament Mauricio Rojas[29], the Centre Party Member of Parliament Fredrick Federley[30], and the current chief of staff of the Prime Minister Johan Forssell[31], just to name a few. These often point out to the fact that SD in its rethorics and political platform has a lot more in common with the centre-left parties (mainly the Social Democrats) compared with the centre-right parties, and that the party has its strongest voter base among traditionally social democratic voters.

Swedish media nowadays rarely use the word 'far-right' when referring to SD, which is proof good as any of the word's polemical and controversial nature. Nationalencyklopedin, the main national encyclopedia in Sweden, does not use the term far-right in its article on SD.

So no, there is definitely not "one prevalent opinion" on this issue. /Slarre 23:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"This labeling implies that racism and xenophobia somehow is the most "extreme" form of right-wing ideology, something which is disputed by many conservatives and liberals in Sweden . . ." Stay focused on the topic at hand. This is not a dispute about the implications of the term far-right; this is a dispute about whether or not the overwhelming majority of reliable sources use the term far-right to describe the SD. You say that "These [sources] often point out to the fact that SD in its rethorics and political platform has a lot more in common with the centre-left parties (mainly the Social Democrats) compared with the centre-right parties, and that the party has its strongest voter base among traditionally social democratic voters." That may indeed be true; however, it is not incompatible with being far-right, since most European radical right-wing populist parties appeal mainly to working-class voters and usually advocate dirigisme or corporatism (cf. fascism). In other words, the characteristics you described above are in fact characteristics of the European radical right. What sets the ERR apart from the left is its ultra-nationalism, xenophobic social policies with racist overtones, and quasi-fascist methods of propaganda. -- WGee 02:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the topic at hand. The major reason that the designation 'right-wing' for SD and other xenophobic groups is for this same reason. As I have now shown, the designation that SD is 'far-right' has been disputed by several reputable sources (not including the party itself), thus it can't be stated as an undisputed fact. It's as simple as that. I will soon put forward a proposal for a more neutral intro text. /Slarre 21:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to use Swedish secondary sources (the party, being the subject of this article, is an inherently biased, and hence unreliable, primary source), then I need you to translate the relevant text for us non-Swedes so that we can verify the sources. Otherwise, I am unable to determine whether or not the sources you provided actually classify the SD in a way that precludes their being far-right. Moreover, feel free to propose a "neutral" version, but make sure that you propose it on the talk page first, since there is currently no consensus to alter the lead. The version that I am defending has been approved by a consensus of editors, and thus a consensus is required to alter it. -- WGee 23:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

need to face the facts Wikipidia shouldn't be into finger pointing. if a group says they are not right wing then who is wikipeda to judge?

--OxAO (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)