Talk:Sweden Democrats

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sweden Democrats article.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions;
  • Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue.
  • During any such changes, please be careful to cite reputable sources supporting them, and when submitting your edit, please include an accurate and concise description in the "Edit summary" field-box.
  • After making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page.

(This message should only be placed on talk pages, please.)

Contents

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] POV

The article states that the party is considered xenophobic and racist. However, it practically doesn't state the party's specific political views or proposed policies that have caused such opinions.

See the links above. "SD propaganda focuses on /../ Anti-immigrant rhetoric claiming that immigrants are behind most violent crime and that Muslim fundamentalism is a threat to Swedish culture as well as to the Swedish judicial system. Conspiracy theories alleging that mainstream democratic organizations, media and politicians are “betraying” or “selling out” the nation to a foreign “army of occupation” – the immigrants."[19], "the single surviving xenophobic party with a nation-wide organization and the potential to expand its electoral base /../ While the SD, the inheritor of the racist campaign group Keep Sweden Swedish of the 1980s, is not a Nazi organization, a large section of the party leadership as well as its rank and file is made up of those previously or simultaneously active in neo-Nazi groups /../ Its political platform calls for repatriation of immigrants"[20] // Liftarn

[edit] SVD in the Riksdag?

Last time I checked the SVD (Sverigedeomkraterna) were NOT represented in the Swedish Riksdag.

- No. And I hope not that they enter the RIksdag either. But, there's a fair chance that they might considering some opnion polls etc. The first paragraph of the text is more like a personal opinion about their chances, it gives a non-objective impression. It seems better to have a neutral setting, neither mentioning that chances for that is good, nor bad. Time will tell. /Alstergren

[edit] Alstergren and Liftarn, bring the disagreements to the talk page

Reverting and counter-reverting won't lead anywhere. --Ezeu 00:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Alstergren may be just another Lizzie sockpuppet, but OK, I'll add a description of the major issues. // Liftarn
- What the hell is a "Lizzie sockpuppet"? Personally, I get the impression that you're fairly biased when making your entries. I certainly think that the whole SD insert needs some structuring and a more objective approach. We should be able to do this though if we're all reasonable. /Alstergren

[edit] Recent Addition

The relevant, widely-supported opinions of the organizations and persons Tsaddik Dervish listed cannot be ignored. Thus, I have mentioned their allegations in the article. WGee 03:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Issues

[edit] Introduction

Allready in the introduction there is a dubious claim "is the main party representing the Swedish nationalist movement". Says who? The party has never received widespread support and even if it has for each consecutive election received an increased voter support, is has actually lost some of their seats.

- Well, it seems to me like that they are the only openly nationalistic party that have received a substantial amount of votes etc. lately. However, I’m not sure that the party program uses the word “nationalistic movement”, if not, that line should probably go. /Alstergren
Looking through the party program in more detail, it seems reasonable to call it "nationalistic." There are some pretty explicit statements to nationalistic principles in there.


Currently, the party has about 1.800 members.

"Currently" is a bad choise, give the date instead. Also, who claims those figures? Source?

- Well, that number is from the parties homepage. I can try to make a reference to it. /Alstergren

Then it should say so, like "As of 2006 the party claims to have 1800 members.". // Liftarn

- Well, "claims" is dubious word. You wouldn't write, "the Moderate Party claims to have...". It's not a number that raises eyebrows either, I see no reason why not to trust the numbers given by SD here. /Alstergren
"says it has"? // Liftarn
- I looked at the Swedish Wikipedia article about SD. The number of members doesn't seem to be entirely clear, there they had the number pinpointed to 1 764 on December 5th 2005, but the reference was to a party source. ("medan den senaste sammanställningen 5 december 2005 stannade på 1 764 medlemmar")/Alstergren

The part about the youth leage defecting and becoming SUNS was cut and was replaced with the statement that a previous youth league "was later disbanded".

- Well, the party did disband that youth league and forced the member into the main party if they wanted to continue their party memberships. Simply put, the main party disbanded that youth league because they didn't want to have a Nazi youth league. I would imagine that most parties would do that. Alstergren
The broke off, but who did what in what order is disputed. // Liftarn
- All I know about the incident is what is stated on the official websites. Any other aspect could then, as a suggestion, be covered under the page of SUNS. It's not a major historical event for SD, more so for SUNS in that case. /Alstergren
Their youth organisation breaking loose and declairimg themselves nazis is not a major event? I'd say that's quite significant. // Liftarn
Haha! Well, in a sense you're right. But when was this, back in 1993? It couldn't have been a very large party back then, and besides back then they were way, way, way out on the far right. I mean, it might just as well have been the mother party who had declared themselves to be Neo-Nazis. But now, if they rearranged their youth league because of this incident, good for them. It's still there on the page with a reference to SUNS. However, if it's disputed what actually happened, that should be mentioned in the article. DO you have any sources? /Alstergren


The information that Front National gave SEK 500 000 to finance the printing of the Sweden Democrats' brochures was cut.

- A footnote is needed for this one. /Alstergren
Stieg Larsson and Mikael Ekman Sverigedemokraterna: den nationella rörelsen, page 317, ISBN ISBN 9173248770. Also some online sources are available [21] [22] [23] and according to SD's own website [24] (altough thay claim they were not given cash, but that FN printed 250 000 of their their brochures at no cost). // Liftarn
Cool./Alstergren
I can confirm the last part, since I was on the party board at the time.Jocke i Tierp 14:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political History

"Due to its origin and politics"

"and politics" was cut. The critique is not only based on their neo-nazi past, but their current politics.

In September 1991 SD held a meeting in Stockholm. Among the invited speakers was the SS veteran Franz Schönhuber, then leader of Die Republikaner. Also Anthony Hancock, a world leading publisher of anti-semitic propaganda spoke at the meeting. [1].

The entire section was cut. Why?

In September 1992 a delegation from Sverigedemokraterna visited David Irving in London. Combat 18 was in charge of the security during the meeting.[1].

The entire section was cut. Why?

In 1996 Tina Hallgren-Bengtsson left the party. She was the representative for SD in Höör, but at the same time she was active in Nationalsocialistisk front.[2]

The entire section was cut. Why?

Robert Vesterlund was active in SD between 1993 and 1995 and he was also the leader of the youth organisation.

The entire section was cut. Why?

In 1998 the party banned the wearing of uniforms during meetings and started distance themselves from nazism. Two of their candidates for Malmö was earlier members of nazi organisations, one in Nysvenska rörelsen and the other in Nationalsocialistisk front[2]. One of the leaders of SD in Helsingborg played in a white power band that had played during the party days of Nationalsocialistisk front in August 1998[2]. During the elections 1991 and 1994 SD had candidates in Stockholm, Mölndal, Malmö, Sigtuna and Hedemora who earlier had been active in nazi organisations.[2].

The entire section was cut. Why?

The party secretary Tommy Funebo left the party at the new year 2004, and went public in describing the party as infested by nazis, only differing from them for tactical reasons; being without a party program, they are only united in their hatred towards foreigners. The party leader at the time, Mikael Jansson, reacted by calling Funebo a destructive liar.[25]

The entire section was cut. Why?

For the 2004 election to the European Parliament the party received 200 000 SEK from the belgian anti-semite Bernard Mengal.[26][27]

The entire section was cut. Why?

Regarding the Mohammad cartoons they party first withdraw the cartoons themselves, but later claim they go their site shut down by SÄPO. See [28], [29] and [30] (they should probably be archived before the SD webmaster removes them to destroy the evidence).

- I don't see your conspiracy theory here. The site was, after all, shut-down. /Alstergren

It was indeed shut down by their ISP, but it's interesting to note that they first backed down, then later used that air site was shut down as a publicity stunt. Also see [31] where the incident about SD backing down before getting their site shut down is mentioned ("Mindre än fem timmar senare kovände partiet och förklarade att man inte kommer att fullfölja karikatyrtävlingen av hänsyn till landsmän i utlandet.") // Liftarn

- These sections wasn't cut, they were organized in a more clear way (i.e. moved to a separate page, se my note below). If a page contains such individual criticism etc., it should be structured in an orderly way. Or, alternatively, structured under separte political sections headlines, like "1980's", "1990's" etc. to give a view over the political development. We can all agree that SD has a pretty troubeling political history, but so has man yother parties. The 1930's for example, wasn't a pretty time in a number of Swedish parties histories. However, if SD wants to clean up their act, good for them. But then Wikipedia should reflect today's fact and not weave in historical facts all over the text. That just gives an unstructured history of the party. Also, there should be more sources reagrding these things. /Alstergren
Buried in a separate article rather. I don't think SD is so much interested in claining up as they are covering up. And just for the record it was indeed structered. It listed everything in chronological order. // Liftarn

[edit] Basic Political Ideas

Here many clarifications was cut.

The party has declared that it consider the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights as fundamental for its politics. However thay have items on their aganda that runs contrary to human rights such as a ban on the building of mosques and repatriation of non-nordic immigrants. In a Dagens Nyheter interview Torbjörn Kastell said that he wanted to demolish all mosques and that no special food would be served in schools.[3]


- That last individual critique isn't directly connected to the issue. It should be put under a "critique" heading, not under the official party policy headline since demolishing mosques etc. isn't in the party program. /Alstergren
It is indeed highy connected to the issue since SD says they are for human rights, but reject freedom of religion. // Liftarn
You have to distinguish between one single person's comment and the party program. It works like that for all parties./Alstergren
It's like shooting at a moving target. As soon as some critique is founded on SD's party program they change the program (but not their views). Anyway, he's not just a random member. // Liftarn
In its social policies the party stresses the needs of ethnic Swedish families.

"ethnic" was removed.

- Yes it was. I skimmed through their political program etc. on the homepage. The word "ethnic" is never mentioned in regard with family polcies. Overall, the "political view" heading should be lokked through since I edited down the post containing these issues from the party propaganda that was put under the SD heading about a week ago. But it would be unfair and not tru to put in the word "ethnic" since it's not an official policy. Unless there's a statement from the party about it, it must go. /Alstergren

No, they donät use the word "ethnic", but they talk a lot about "the Swedish people" (i.e. not "Swedish citizens"). For instance they say it's a must to have "en hög grad av etnisk och kulturell likhet bland befolkningen" (a high level of ethnig and cultural simmilarity among the opulation). // Liftarn

Well, I think you are a bit biased here. I don't think we should start interpret party programs. If one is to present, shortly, a party program it seems reasonable to just write down what it says. The last part you quoted seems to have more to do with their immigration policy rather than there family policy. Again, if the word "ethnic" is not in the program, it seems quite strange to call it the party's official view in Wikipedia./Alstergren

[edit] Foreign and Defense Policy

"While decreasing international cooperation." was cut.

[edit] Immigration Policy

"The party earlier called for a ban on non-nordic adoptions, but has since removed the demand." was cut.

- Then you'll have to provide a source. I believe that this is the case as well, but I haven't found a source. /Alstergren
It shouldn't be too hard. It was very much debate about it. They are by the way still negative to non-Nordic adoptions, examples "barn så långt det är möjligt skall få växa upp under goda förhållanden med sitt eget folk i sitt eget land", "Det nuvarande statliga adoptionsstödet skall slopas vid utländska adoptioner" [32] I found some references "Ända tills för tre år sedan krävde Sverigedemokraterna i sitt partiprogram att samtliga utomeuropeiska invandrare som anlänt efter 1970 skulle kastas ut ur Sverige. Däremot gällde detta krav inte invandrare från de nordiska länderna." and "I sitt nuvarande partiprogram kräver Sverigedemokraterna att alla utomeuropeiska adoptioner förbjuds. Dock ska man få fortsätta adoptera barn från Europa och de nordiska länderna."[33] "Tills för bara något år sedan motsatte sig Sverigedemokraterna, i sitt program, adoptioner av utomeuropeiska barn"[34] "Kopplingen mellan abortönskemål och adoptionsbehov bör utredas för att komma till rätta med onaturliga inslag i befolkningspolitiken."[35] "Inför valet 2002 var det frågan om utomeuropeiska adoptioner som fördes fram mot partiet. Omedelbart efter valet höll partiet ett extrainkallat riksårsmöte där bara en enda ändring av principprogrammet genomfördes: kravet om ett stopp mot utomeuropeiska adoptioner plockades bort."[36] and so on...[37] // Liftarn

[edit] External links

Several links were removed:

// Liftarn

- The links to Expo etc. isn't relevent unless used as a source footnote. It's better to make a heading named "Expo" and under that heading discuss what Expo is etc. Expo can be perfectly inserted in the text as I did by linking the name to the Expo article. An entry about a party should have links to party sites etc. and not to other parties and organizations that criticise the party (even though the critique may be well founded). /Alstergren

[edit] Unacceptable Edits

First of all, how can you argue that the Sweden Democrats is not the main nationalist party of Sweden? All of the parites that received more votes than the Sweden Democrats in the 2002 general election do not declare themselves nationalist, nor are they considered nationalist by any respectable authority. So it is not dubious, at all, to declare the Sweden Democrats Sweden's main nationalist political party; it is simply a matter of common sense.

Secondly, you removed the link to Critique of the Sweden Democrats. That article is 100% relevant to this article, and it must be included somewhere in the article. This sneaky edit demonstrates your personal bias.

Moreover, why do you find it necessary to supress the section "Allegations of Racism and Xenophobia"? These are not the allegations of random fools, these are the allegations of all 7 political parties with representation in Swedish parliament. And because Sweden is a representative democracy, these are also the viewpoints of the overwhelming majority of Swedes. It is extremely important for readers to be informed of these high-profile allegations. Critique of a political party (especially a controversial one) is almost always included in the party's article. To exclude them is absolutely unnacceptable.


The rest of your edits are largely OK. WGee 19:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

- Sure, but then the critique should be well structured, which it wasn't in the main article. I made this entry and structrued the critique in an orderly fashion. Few other party listing contain express critique made by other parties etc., but if it is, it's structured in an orderly way. I found that the SD article has generally benn unstructured. Instead, I would think that the best way to deal with a party is to present facts regarding the party program, its leaders, election results etc. Any statements made by random fools within the party should not be weaved into the text like it was, especially considering that the party actually tried to polich its image and get rid of some of their morons. /Alstergren

WGee, the party claims to be the main nationalist party of Sweden. However, so does nationaldemokraterna. And also the Moderate Party are nationalist (in some way) and they are far larger. So the claim of "main nationalist party" is not obvious. // Liftarn

- Liftarn, that's a ridiculous statement. The main reason why I would call SD a "nationalistic" party is due to the fact that they are against Swedish membership in the EU. This and other political views as maintaining Sweden as an independent, nation state (references to culture, the monarchy etc.) should make them nationalistic. The Left Party and the Green Party is also against membership in the EU (at least in the EU as it has developed today), but they wouldn't be called nationalistic since they argue for other forms of international co-operation that would limit the national sovereignty. The other main parties, from the Social Democrats to the Moderate Party are pro-EU, thus, that alone would make them non-nationalistic. /Alstergren
I agree entirely with Alstergren on this one; out of all the parties that received more than 1% of the vote in the 2002 general election, the SD is the only one that can clearly be declared nationalistic. And I do understand that the critque must be well-structured, but I simply didn't have the time to arrange an appropriate critique section. I thank you, Alstergren, for doing that job for me. Also, although most other articles do not include critique from other politcal parties per se, they do include critique from broad social movements, which are represented by politcal parties. Plus, the Sweden Democrats is quite the controversial party, so it might be appropriate to include some extraordinary critque. WGee 04:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it seems reasonable. I didn't think that what I did (when creating a new page) would be considered so controversial. I blame that on me being to eager as a new Wikipedia user. However, the way it's structured now seems fair to me. As I wrote above, if the party wants to polish their image, fine with me. Then the most objective things seems (to me) to present the party's official views in an orderly fashion, and then have a separate critique section.Alstergren
Hmmmm. I'm not so sure we need to list examples of allegations in the article; the links are there to direct the reader to such allegations. For now I'm going to remove the heading "Examples of Such Allegations". If you disagree with me, feel free to put the heading back. WGee 04:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I couldn't really distinguish between general incidents and particular allegations, most of the events listed seemed to fit better under a political incidents heading. However, sooner or later I guess something might pop up and the heading might be put in use. Alstergren

[edit] Suggestion(s) to Improve the Article Not Relating to Neutrality

In the "Ideology" section, could somebody include information about the SD's economic policies? I know there's a link to the party's election platform, but most English Wikipedia users (including me) can't read Swedish. Thanks. WGee 05:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I copied, pasted and translated some basic concepts from the party's program. Not that interesting though. The concept of "lowering taxes and increase welfare" is always an easy solution to a difficult problem. Alstergren


[edit] Party Leaders

Ok, anyone got some info about SD's party leader/leaders between 1988-1992? The part is not accounted for under the heading "Party Leaders."Alstergren

[edit] Kidnapping

Some members (including those with seats in local municipalities) have left the party and sometimes SD have reacted. For instance in 1995 the party organizer Lars Emanuelsson and board member Henrik Ehnmark kidnapped Freddy Fjällklint who had defected to Hembygdspartiet. In 1997 the SD members were sentenced to three and one month inprisonment.[38] // Liftarn

I don't really se the relevance about this information in connection to Wikipedia. I don't think that it would be appropriate to name these three individuals in the main article (the three doesn't seem to be very high-ranking in the party, if they are still members at all anymore) and state that they have been sentenced for a crime. After all, Wikipedia is on the internet (a public space) and it doesn't matter that the information is true; it may still be deemed a criminal offense in Sweden to name individual criminals on the internet. Thus, if either you or I Liftarn, would insert this information on Wikipedia, we might be penalized as Swedish citizens (the criminal act of slander/defamation is under Swedish law not dependent on territorial posting, i.e. since we have a sufficient contact to Sweden, it doesn't matter if we post the information on a server located outside of Sweden). //Alstergren
Also, now when I began to work on the footnotes in the main article (I'll have to polish a little more on them), I removed the name "Tina Hallgren" and instead put in a "female member of the party". In short, I felt that it is not really necessary to print her name in Wikipedia since this occured more a decade ago, today she's not a public person and, while she was a party official, she had a minor post. //Alstergren
This little piece of SD history is of little relevance to the article, or anyone. With sentences of 1 and 3 months, this crime is relatively frivilous and unworthy of mention. WGee 18:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it is an indication that SD is not "a normal democratic party" as they often claim. // Liftarn

[edit] Merging

I would like to merge SD-Kuriren and Critique of the Sweden Democrats into this article. Much of Critique seems to be in the main article already and the SD-Kuriren article is a sub-stub. // Liftarn

I agree. However, since I moved everything back into the main article regarding this page Critique of the Sweden Democrats (please correct me if I'm wrong), why don't we just as well let this headline R.I.P.? I was just fixing some sources that doesn't work in the main article about SD (they probably don't work due to my re-arrangement so I feel that I should do that), and with that it seems to me like this page might just as well go away. It seems useless to merge when the information is the same and the main article has better footnotes. //Alstergren
Go ahead and add the info about the newspaper, but all of the significant critique from "Critique of the Sweden Democrats" has already been nicely fitted into the article. WGee 18:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Tha articles are now replaced with redirects. // Liftarn

[edit] Critic against this article.

Normally I hold the English wikipedia in high regard compared to the Swedish Wiki. But in this subject I must say the situation is reversed. In Swedish we have a huge bias to the left in media and politics because the “baby boomers” generation (the ones born in the 1940’) are exceptional large, and almost all of them who have an academic background also have a history of flower power, and reading “The Little Red Book” by Mao, having secret meeting where death list’s were written about who to kill when the revolution took place. I know this in some regards is true in many countries, but not on such a huge scale as in Sweden. For example I found the Swedish WIKI page about Palestine completely propagandistic and spend days basically translating the English Palestine Page to Swedish. This led to an edit-war. It took me long time to get them to accept that the war 1948 was by the Arab states against Israel (they only wanted to say “war started”) and that the Arab leaders wanted this to be an ethnic cleansing of the land was impossible for them to accept, and is still to this day omitted. Why the Arabs attacked is just plain censored out. I just describe this to give a background to why Swedes are so bias on some subjects.

The Sweden Democrats does something that is even worse than being pro-Israel. They criticize the Swedish immigration policy. A taboo. Sweden have the highest degree of self-censorship of all western countries. What in other countries is regarded as normal information that should be on the table when discussing these matters are in Sweden banned from the public eye. Such things as the cost for the immigration, and the crime rate in various ethnic groups. That this discussion is suppressed in Sweden have been reported in many international magazines including New York Times . There is little doubt in anybody who know of this matters that the Swedish Democrats would make the 4% needed with a huge margin if the suppressed debate about the cost and problems with immigration surfaced. Sweden have more than 20% if its population today of immigrants or children of immigrants to a cost of almost astonishing 15% of GNP and a crime rate that have exploded from one of the lowest in west Europe to one of the highest. Things that are common in Sweden today as gang-rape and youth of ethnic groups mugging primarily Swedish youth simply did not exist before the immigration started of. But in Sweden there is an taboo to even suggest that culture can have any impact on criminal behavior. An taboo that was severely damaged when the debate regarding honor killing was brought to attention when a well known social democratic woman with Kurdish background was killed by her father.

So this is why I react strongly against the bias in this article. It look like enemies of the Sweden Democrats have written the whole article, these baby boomers – the ex hippies that rule Sweden’s public debates and control almost all media. There is many relevant facts that is not there.

For example:

Around 1995 the party begun to clean out all who have racist or Nazi ties. In 2001 the last major group that was left from the BSS (Keep Sweden Swedish ) time left by them self’s and formed the national democrats. Today the policy against any ex members of racists or Nazis groups are harder than in any other Swedish party. Not even If they denounce their former beliefs can they have any higher positions in the party.

The party is very close to the “Danish People's Party”, with does not have an inch of the criticism in Wiki that this page have.

There should also be noted that the true racists and Nazi parties of Sweden attacks the Swedish Democrats for being “Zionists and Jew-lovers”.

Expo that have published so much about the Swedish Democrats need a lot of criticism them self. They have strong links to the Swedish organization AFA (anti fascist front) an extreme leftist organization with among other things have carried out many attacks on the Swedish Democrats meetings with teargas, smashing cars an people with iron pipes and so on. Defectors from EXPO have told that they gather information about Sweden Democrats meetings that are not public and give this to AFA so they can carry out these attacks.

There should also be noted that EXPO have strong links with some of the most powerful journalists in Sweden including TT witch almost have monopoly as Sweden’s only news agency. An agency that have been criticized among other things for forging translations of other news agency’s telegrams where people working for Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups becomes translated to “activists” and “freedom fighters”. Lebanon is a “port” to Syria and a natural part of Syria, the Hariri assassination was an Israeli operation and so on.

Basically Sweden have a tradition of defending different totalitarian systems. During the second world war it was Nazi Germany, during the cold war it was Communism, and now its Islam – and the Swedish immigration policy that is in many ways is linked with Islam because most of our immigrants now comes from there and its with this group we have most problems.

It might sound very far-fetched but the basic of this strange behavior is based on anti capitalists reasons. The enemy of our enemy becomes our friend. The enemy is capitalism and therefore US. Israel is ally of US and therefore also the enemy – and weaker, so maybe we can hurt them and that way hurt US. The Arabs and Islam is also enemies of both US and Israel, so they are our friends. This is why the same leftist media and political power have this agenda. This is how Sweden’s immigration politic is liked to the question about the middle east. This is why the Swedish Democrats get treated so very harsh and un-democratic. Because the baby-boomers regards the immigration of Muslims and the rise of Islam in Sweden and the rest of the world as something important in the struggle against capitalism. So the Swedish Democrats are of course an blasphemy.

This is why only the Swedish government of all democratic countries in the world closed down a website (the Swedish Democrats) for publishing Muhammad cartoons. As an interesting fact – the site closed was not the one having this one picture. That site (the youth site) was on a Danish Server and out of reach…


First of all, I am Canadian, not Swedish, nor am I a hippie or a member of the "communist" baby-boom generation. Nonetheless, I have played a significant role in guiding the direction of this article, so don't make offensive generalizations. Secondly, you have failed to verify any of your claims, so your "criticism" is essentailly meaningless conjecture. Need I remind you that this section is not a venue for politcal rants? WGee 06:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


Well i will go into tha facts, just wanted to give some background first. I compared this page with other pages of other swedish partys. Like "V", the Swedish ex communist party. The amount of critic text was 85 word of 2806, or 3%. The figures for the Swedish "Christian Democrats" are also around 3%. For the swedish democrats its 993 out of 2820. Thats 35%. This is hardly NPOV, more like double standards... And the allegations from EXPO stands without response - i can and will show how much of that is uncorrect.

81.231.226.14 13:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I respond by saying that a word count is essentially meaningless. The reason for the high word count is that this article actually explains the reasons for the allegations of racism/xenophobia, making the article much more informative. We must make a distinction between undue criticism and relevant criticism, not between too much criticism or too little. Also, you cannot compare the article for the Sweden Democrats to articles for more mainstream parties. The Sweden Democrats are much more controversial than the Christian Democrats, for instance; thus, their criticism section is rightfully more explanatory. So, if we compare this article to the one for the British National Party, which is more appropriate under the circumstances, we can see that there is a suitable level of critique. WGee 19:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 :: About BNP "its constitution states that all members must be of "British or closely kindred native European stock." The BNP is opposed to mixed-race relationships on the stated ground that ethnic differences must be preserved". Well I am a member of this party, the Swedish Democrats, and my ex wife is Romanian/gipsy, so my son is not exactly "true blood". My present girlfriend lives in Asia. There actually was one higher member who criticized another for having adoptive children, that this was "multiethnic". He was immediately thrown out the party. The official statement was that its not acceptable to have a “race based” definition of “ethnicity”. The definition of “ethnicity” in Sweden Democrats is based on culture, not on DNA. You don’t have to look Swedish or speak without an accent (but u must of course know the language). What’s important is that you are loyal to the country and basic democratic values, to be regarded as Swedish. The exact official definition is “those who are regarded by themselves and others as Swedish is Swedish”. One can argue, why then at all make the distinction between ethnic and cultural, well in most cases there is no significant difference – but the roots are of course stronger if our ancestors comes from the same culture. If you have parents from different countries, u are lucky to have roots I two cultures, as my son does – and U to If I read your presentation right. Also, the BNP is accused of Anti Semitism. Well, we are not. The party’s in Sweden that are truly right winged accuse us regularly for being “Zionists” and “Jew-Lowers”, and there is some truth in that. I regard myself self as quite Pro-Israel, and my subjective view is that most Sweden democrats does the same, even if this is not a major subject for us. So its very wrong to compare SD to BNP. The Danish Peoples Party is much closer. And “xenophobia” is medical psychiatric condition. The word used against us in Sweden is “främlingsfientlig” or in English “foreign-hostile”, which describes an attitude, not a disease. The allegation of “racism” are also something that You should look into. “Racism” has another meaning in Swedish than English. Today many Swedish speak about the “new racism” (including Expo) witch is based in culture, not race. The so called “culture-racism”. Its this we are accused of – not to sort people by their genetics. So when U translate the “new” Swedish word “rasism” to the English word “racism” its two different things. Wikipedia have a huge page on “racism”, and this definition is not there – so change the word to “cultural-racism” or something.

And this is the English wikipedia, not the Swedish. The view here should be from an international point of view. From a Swedish point of View, the Swedish Democrats is of course controversial. But from a normal European point of view, there is nothing out of the ordinary. All these so called “controversial” opinions of SD are quite normal in other European political discussions. SD is no more controversial than Ayyan Hirsi Ali (who indeed is controversial in Sweden). From an international point of view, the mainstream Swedish view of these things should be regarded as significantly more extreme than SD’s.

The essence I would like to describe as this. That there is a strong connection between culture and crime, is from a European perspective NOT controversial, even if u yourself don’t agree with it. In Sweden this connection is extreme controversial.

xenophobic and/or racist and/or extreme right by wing all seven of the political parties currently represented in the Swedish parliament

I checked this list refereces ( I did not check the left partys).

Christian democrats: The Swedish democrats IS NOT MENTIONED

Centre party “Right Winged”, nothing else

Moderate Party Link doesn’t work

Peoples Party Främlingsfientliga (foreign-hostile). nothing else

Where did u get this list? From Expo?

Not a single accusation for racism or xenofobia.


Ok, I checked the newspaper links to.

SVD Främlingsfientliga (foreign-hostile). Nothing about racism or xenophobia

DN Främlingsfientliga (foreign-hostile). This is a telegram from a news-agency (TT), not editorial material from the newspaper!. Nothing about racism or xenophobia

Expressen Right Winged. Again, not editorial material. It’s a quotation from a politician. This is hardly a statement from the newspaper. And nothing about racism or xenophobia.

Aftonbladet. This is an article about a book published by Expo, and what allegations Expo have against the Swedish democrats. Not the newspapers official view on the subject.

Again, where did u get this “information”? I strongly suspect that someone is using you for propagandistic reasons.

According to Expressen[39] Maud Olofsson said to Rapport (TV news) "Det är en känd taktik från olika högerextrema rörelser att parasitera på demokratiska partiers trovärdighet och arrangemang" (It is a known tactic for different far right movements to..."). In Aftonbladet[40] SD's ideology is called "slipsfascism" (tie fascism). The DN article[41] is indeed a telegram from TT and SD is called "främlingsfientliga" (xenophobic). SvD[42] calls SD "främlingsfientliga" (xenophobic). The Leftist Party[43] calls SD "rasistiska partier" (racistic parties). The Green Party[44] "det rasistiska sverigedemokraterna" (the racistic sweden democrats). Folkpartiet[45] "Rasisterna försöker vinna mark i Sverige. Mycket tyder på att Sverigedemokraterna och andra antihumanistiska partier..." (The racists try to gain ground in Sweden. Much indicates that the Sweden Democrats and other anti-human paries..."). Socialdemokraterna[46] "Strategi mot främlingsfientlighet, sverigedemokraterna och andra rasistiska rörelser" (Strategy agains xenophobia, sweden democrats and other racist movements) // Liftarn
Utterly ridiculous. The Sweden Democrats and the BNP are both VERY controversial throughout all of Europe. In fact, they are not even included in maintstream politcal discussions. Even internationally their beliefs are controversial. This is especially true in Canada (where I'm from) and the US, where immigrants are valued, respected, welcomed, and treated with the utmost dignity. To say that Europe accepts the beliefs of the Sweden Democrats and the BNP is absolutely ignorant of reality. The BNP are politcal outcasts in Britain, and the same can be said about the Sweden Democrats in Sweden. It is not the norm in Europe to preach racism, as both parties do.
Moreover, I will not be bound by your literal interpretation of words. In political discourse (and English in general), xenophobia is described as a dislike of foreigners (of which racism is a form), not a disease. Therefore, "foreign-hostile" is synonomous with "xenophobia" in English Wikipedia. Moreover, culture is inherently connected to one's race and vice-versa, so Wikipedia shall make no distinction between racism and "cultural racism"--a politcal buzzword which makes no sense, mind you. "Cultural Racism" is understood as nothing more than another word for "white supremacy" in the English-speaking world, which is a form of racism. English Wikipedia will not use definitions of Swedish politcal terms.
It should be noted that I don't speak Swedish or understand it at all. It is very difficult for me to trust your translation of Swedish words, considering you are a member of the BNP and Swedish Democrats with considerable bias. Before I change anything, I will have to run it through someone less prone to bias.
WGee 18:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Obviously you did not read what I wrote. I am NOT a member of BNP, nor will I ever be. If Wikipedia‘s page about them is correct, they are truly a racist party. Again you state that the Swedish democrats are similar to BNP. I showed you how big the difference truly is. Please go back and read that part again. So how controversial BNP is should have no bearing what so ever on the Swedish Democrats. As I told u repeatedly, the closest party to SD is Danish Peoples Party. As controversial they are in a European or international view, as controversial should you regard SD. No more and no less.

I admit that I am a member of SD, and that does of course implicit some bias, but I have enough integrity to do my best to be as NPOV as I can. Please read the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_of_Racism and u will see that “cultural racism” is not a listed form of racism. It’s only those to the extreme left that uses this term, witch obviously includes you. And, as I mentioned before – not a single party in Sweden or newspaper did describe SD as racist in any of the references I checked. I did spend several hours today trying to find any allegations of racism against SD from any other party’s then the ones to the left. I found none, including your references. So you should change that part to “criticism from the left”.

Xenophobia is a decease according to wikipedia, if you don’t believe me, look it up. It is not the same as “främlingsfientlig” even thou its sometimes used as that propagandistically – as you do. Are you perhaps writing some report for your school or something similar about this? That could explain why you so hard defend this very not NPOV position you have taken. Furthermore, you have the opinion that SD preaches racism. Well that shows how bias you are, and how unfit you are for writing on this subject. I don’t care if you have a leftist view and think Jesus was a soldier with a Kalashnikov in Che Guevara style, as long as you leave that view of things outside wikipedia.

You also state that "white supremacy" is equal to “cultural racism”. Well, that’s your opinion but hardly NPOV. There are many cultures of other origin than “white” that are one the same or higher level when it comes to values such as humanism, respect for others and democracy– like the Buddhists country’s. You have a very value-relative view of things. A warmonger culture can’t be as peaceful as a peaceful culture. So of course different cultures have different impact on how people treat each other. The Swedish culture is also a very tolerant culture, and we try to give everybody a chance. We have a saying in Sweden “take the custom to where you go”. Because of this we are highly regarded as immigrants all over the world. Those who come to us are equally welcomed, if they themselves follow the same rule. Some groups do, like people from west or Buddhist countries. Some groups have bigger problems, and obviously problems to adopt to the values we hold high. In some immigration groups we have a crime rate regarding rape, murder and battering that are 300-400 per cent higher than average. Perhaps you think this is a racist view, but then you also must accuse Mauricio José Rojas Mullor for being a racist. He is the spokesperson for integration in the Swedish Peoples part, and have in Sweden’s biggest newspaper Aftonbladet wrote about this and stated that the “cultural background” is the reason for this. Nobody called him racist, but people from the left called him “damn pig” for saying this. SweHomer 22:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I HAVE read what you wrote; I simply miswrote about you being a member of the BNP. Still, I don't agree with your claim that the BNP and Sweden Democrats are unsimilar. Even though the BNP is neo-fascist and the Sweden Democrats are not (according to you), it does not mean that the two parties have nothing in common. From what I have read, they are both far-right nationalistic parties that oppose immigration.
To the "foreign-hostile/xenophobia issue". According to Wikipedia, "the term [xenophobia] is typically used to describe fear or dislike of foreigners. . ." Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines xenophobia as: "fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign". If one hates or dislikes foreigners, is he/she not hostile against them? Therefore, "foreign-hostile" is synonomous with "xenophobia" according to this widely respected source. The word is not just used to denote a diagnosed medical condition.
According to the UN, racist discrimination is: "...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life." Hence, white supremacy and "cultural racism" are just different forms of racist discrimination. Some SD policies fit this definition, which is why I said the party preaches racism. So it's not my personal view, it's the UN's.
Your main problem seems to be about the the allegations of racism and/or xenophobia and/or extremism made by the political parties and newspapers, and if they were even made. You also seem to want to wipe out the whole criticism section, but that is unnacceptable for sa party with such controversial beliefs by Western standards. But I will make SOME changes based on what you've said and subsequently remove the non-NPOV banner.
WGee 05:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I WOULD make some of the other changes you requested, but for the fact that I can't trust how accurately you translated the Swedish words given their context. For example, the Swedish word for "Right-Winged" might be commonly used to denote right-wing extremism. Of course I don't know, but it's a possiblity (something I discovered when frequently translating French), especially since you are the only one to dispute the meaning of the word. So I kept all the links that refer to the party as "Right-Winged". I also kept all the links that you alledge refer to the SD as "foreign-hostile", as that is utterly and completely synonomous with "xenophobia" in the English language, particularly when one considers the word's context. I will be more than willing to remove these alleged fallacies come a second opinion. There are two Swedish Wikipedians I'm aware of who I'll ask to read the sources, and if they disagree with you, you can argue with them. Rest assured I don't know them; I have simply argued with them before.

WGee 05:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, lets give it some time. Rightwing extremism - yes u are correct on that one. About Xenophobia (I quote Wiki) "denotes a phobic attitude toward strangers or of the unknown", the other definition is listed under "The second form of xenophobia ". It’s quite clear that the basic meaning of the word is "phobic", a mental decease. The later is probably originally a propagandistic use of that, in order to demonize those who have this opinion. A way to say it’s something mentally wrong to have this view of things. The “främlingsfientlig” (foreign hostile) does not implicit any mental diagnose. About BNP, SD and Danish Peoples Party. I am very annoyed about this. Do you have any substantial arguments to why you regard SD close to BNP but not to DPP, or do you say that all three are close?

The only similarities I can think only of is this u say – political outcasts. But in Sweden the official view is that DPP and SD have the same politic. The BNP I never heard of until I found this page. Let me assure u, the DPP would receive exactly the same treatment In Sweden as SD does.

And you also should be aware of that the Swedish situation is much different from the Canadian. We have twice as many immigrants, and much more of them comes from clan-culture. I checked the Canadian immigrant statistic. All your major groups are those that we in Sweden have no problems with. We have the highest percentages of Muslims in any western country. If I lived in Canada, I would probably be a member of a liberal party – not a nationalistic.

In case you are interested in the Swedish situation i give u a few links.

Fox News: Swedes Reach Muslim Breaking Point http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139614,00.html

Click on the video link “Swedes Struggle With Immigrants”

(this one maybe can be called bias, but the facts are well documented) http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003131.php

From NewYork Times http://silvers.progressiveislam.org/index.php/Islam_on_the_Outskirts_of_the_Welfare_State

SweHomer 17:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, regarding BNP.

I have a friend in the party (SD). He is of Muslim origin, and do not speak perfect Swedish. He is a respected member of the party and I am sure he can write a few words here if I ask him. That might perhaps convict U that there is indeed a big difference between SD and BNP. He can not use his own name, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali he has a death warrant on him because he has left Islam. I am sure you agree he would not be welcomed in the BNP. SweHomer 20:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. I (along with most people in the English-speaking world, and even the other Swedes who have edited this article) believe the word "xenophobia" has evolved into a non-medical term, just like many other words have evolved. You obviously don't, most likely because this term has been used to negatively describe your party. We'll never agree on that. But yes, we will give this some time.
On a different note, your comments about Sweden having twice as many immigrants as Canada is incorrect. Canada has 5,448,480 immigrants (people born outside of Canada) accoording to the 2001 census out of an estimated population of 32,000,000. So our pop. consists 17% of immigrants. According to Wikipedia [47], only 13.4% of the Swedish population is foreign-born as of 2002--nowhere near 5,000,000. You have to understand that Canada has historically been (and is currently) much more open to immigrants than virtually any other country, and we have an official policy of multi-culturalism. Our high levels are immigration are never debated.
However, you are right about Sweden having a higher percentage of Arabs. But that point is only relevant to people who believe that some cultures are inherently more violent or more prone to crime than others (as you seem to believe). The UN classifies this as racist discrimination, as do I. Therefore, when speaking of immigration, I do not and will not make distinctions based on ethnicity.
From speaking to you, I gather that the Sweden Democrats wish to only permit immigrants who are willing and able to assimilate into Swedish culture. You and the SD oppose multi-culturalism because it has apparantly not worked in Sweden, whereas I don't, for it has worked in Canada. I believe the high crime rate among Arabs is due to the fact that many live in poverty because of racist discrimination in the workplace. Meanwhile, you and the SD believe the high crime rate is because the Arab culture is a violent, amoral one which is incompatible with Swedish values.
High crime rates among immigrants (Arabs in particular) are widely believed to have caused the rise of far-right parties across Europe, which pledge to combat crime by stopping would-be criminals (i.e certain groups of immigrants) from entering the country. I think the key to combating crime amongst immigrants in Europe is to abolish the racist attitudes of many European citizens. Then immigrants will be better able to gain employment and less likely to live in poverty, which has been shown to result in higher crime rates. Because Canada has actively encouraged immigration since its inception, most Canadians accept immigrants and their culture and have abolished outdated racist attitudes. That is why in Canada we see less problems with integrating immigrants into society.
Through assimilation and immigration reduction, you wish to lessen crime, poverty, and finincial waste. However, by doing this you are contributing to the racist paradigm which you claim you don't support. Instead, you should work towards abolishing the racist attitudes of many Swedes, which I reason has caused this problem. The situation in Canada has demonstrated that multi-culturalism can work, so long as people abandon racism. The problem is not that some cultures are more violent or prone to crime than others, as you imply. The problem is that racism that has prevented immigrants from being employed on equal ground, thereby increasing poverty, thereby increasing crime. Racism is the barrier to integration, not cultural differences. I hope you can understand and respect my view, whether you agree with it or not. WGee 01:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Essentially, I believe that assimilation is racist, as it implies that one's culture is superior to another's. You may call me a leftist for that, and that's true I suppose. But my main problem with the SD is how it wishes to achieve total assimilation; that is still unclear to me. Do you wish to end immigration completely? Do you wish to end immigration from certain cultures deemed unfit to assimilate? Or do you want to enforce Swedish Christian values through social institutions? WGee 01:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

SD is also compared to BNP[48], but more often to FN. Perhaps because BNP is rather unknown in Sweden. // Liftarn

[edit] Critic : Page 2

About Culture:

We Swedes were once the Vikings who made a colony of Russia among others. An extreme violent culture, with a strong clan-based view of things. To NOT take revenge if you, our your family was offended was a crime. If this happened more than tree times, you would become “Fredlös”, or an outlaw and any man can raise he’s hand and kill u. The clan system was so strong that when the Mongols repeatedly tried to invade Garðaríki (Our name for Russia at that time) a messenger was send to allies in/with the clan in Sweden or Norway and an armada of Viking ships came to help defend Garðaríki. Until Christianity ended the Clan-culture we were military more or less undefeated in Europe. With Christianity the Viking world fell together in individual countries that no longer helped each other. The era was over. With your relative view of culture this is not progress. If Swedes, Danes, and Norwegians again would turn to the Viking ways, that would be fine for you. Well, the Viking culture was among other things very racist – and the rise of Islam here would be dealt with quickly. But you could not criticize that – because culture and ethnicity are so close linked that it would be offensive against us. You have to be tolerant to the intolerant.

Don’t you se the logic inconsistency in your position? You speak about a “structured racism” in the Swedish society. I disagree, but let us for the discussion assume you are right. That we indeed have this racist structure. Then this means that the Swedish culture is racist. This means that you accept that a culture can be racist. You also say that this should be changed. That the racist thinking of our culture should be changed. Then you have stated that one culture can be better than another. That a non-racist culture is better than a racist one.

That the tolerant Canadian culture is better than the extreme racist Viking culture. I agree. This also means (in your view) that the criminality among Arabs in Sweden is nothing but a natural reaction to the racism the Swedish culture practice.

If this can be true, then logic demands that the opposite also can be true. That the racist culture is not the Swedish but the Arabic, and that the Swedish only react to this by becoming more nationalistic. Well, with of this cultures are closest to the Viking culture? Does not Arab culture have many things in common with the racist Viking-clan system, view of honor and so on?

The only defense you can have now is that in the “leftist” way of thinking, only a white culture can be racist. That, my friend is true racism. SweHomer 11:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You wrote "Essentially, I believe that assimilation is racist, as it implies that one's culture is superior to another's".

Well, what is culture? It’s a set of standards or values. Like democracy or fascism. And I do think that democracy is superior to fascism, but when it comes to culture its hard to be so categorical.

You wrote “achieve total assimilation; that is still unclear to me. Do you wish to end immigration completely?

The answer is a strong NO. The so called “natural” immigration is essential to keep. Guest students , skilled workers, and if someone find a pretty man or woman and want to marry that person, of course that should be possible. Some refugees should of course also be welcomed. Today we take around 3 500 per year de facto refugees. The problem is the other 50 000 – 80 000 that comes every year neither to work, study or as refugees – but for our well fare system.

About assimilation. It’s not what you think it is. Everybody don’t have to join our Swedish Mid-summer dance (and I never will do that myself). And I will be happy if I can be invited to celebrate the Chinese new year her in Sweden. But when cultures clash, there is no “middle way”, then its our way or the high way. Integration means for me to meet in the middle. I give u a few examples. To speak with very high voices, in the classroom, or on the bus and so on. We Swedes does not, for us it’s a very rude thing to do. And there shall be no middle way, we shall not raise our voices some, and they lower their some. The view of “respect”. In Sweden respect is something you “earn”. You can not “demand” respect. Here to there can’t be any “middle way”. The official view of “integration” have taken some bizarre expressions. In some schools the national hymn has been banned on the last day before summer, and so on. This is integration, not assimilation. So assimilation does not mean to annihilate other cultures, just that our culture must be respected as the dominant one, when there is a clash.

I heard many Arabs say “we are many here in Sweden now, you also must adjust to our way – not only us to your way”. I never herd any Chinese say the same. And I don’t think any Swedish immigrants ever had said that to the country’s we have immigrated to.


Here I think you can see one major difference between western and Arabic/Muslim culture. To adjust oneself to the new culture is for us natural, we don’t question it. For Arabs it’s just something temporary, out of necessity. Respect for power, nothing else. And as soon as their numbers increase the balance of power shift and they can start to push back. Our reaction will of course be, well if power is the only thing u respect – then power is what we try to achieve. And liberal persons like my self will be pushed into nationalism out of necessity.

Basically the Arab/Muslim culture is extremely assimilating. Anybody who leaves Islam is banned from the family, and according even to moderate Muslims should be killed. Islam is both a political doctrine and a religion. For me Islam is the third global totalitarian system rising after Nazism and Communism. But its stronger than the two others who only was based on theory. Islam also have roots in both culture and religion. So Yes, I think we must assimilate or be assimilated. I regret it, but that’s the only two choices we have. As Pim Fortuyn or Theo van Gogh showed us, and was killed for. You can not be tolerant to the intolerant. SweHomer 12:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Quit babbling and get to the point. This is not a forum for debate. What exactly do you want to change regarding the article? // Liftarn
Well, Liftarn is right. This philosophical arguement has gotten severely out of control, and it is time to start focussing wholly on the article. Back to the question of neutrality. . . WGee 16:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why non-NPOV?

Why, specifically, do certain people believe this article is biased? State all claims in a structured, concise way. Repeat claims if necessary, for clarification. WGee 16:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Its obvious that this article represent the Swedish extreme left view of SD. People on Expo (extreme leftists) or people with the same agenda are behind this propagandistic article.
(1) This section:
"The Sweden Democrats are considered xenophobic and/or racist and/or extreme right-wing by "
I gone though the list. Only the Left party calls SD racists, and none of the newspapers. This way to “stock” allegations can be nothing but propagandistic.
(2) The critic is 30% of the article. So is no other party treated, even if they have a similar politics, like the Danish peoples party or Pim Fortuyn List. Make a separate article then, and link to it. I can make as detailed a list about the Left Party and its connections to Soviet.
(3) The links to DPP should be explained. Like the list of allegations DPP raised to The Nordic Ministry Counsel regarding undemocratic treatment of SD.
(4) xenophobic is not the same as “främlingsfientlig”. The words xenophobic basic meaning is phobia, a medical term (according to WIKI). If You don’t agree – then change the Wiki definition first – then use it.
(5) The reason why SD is so controversial in Sweden. Its not because SD’s politics is more extreme than for example DPP, but because the debate is suppressed in Sweden regarding immigration in general and the link between culture and crime in particular, compared to other European countries. This must be explained in the article, or the reader can get the impression that Sweden Democrats in a European/International perspective is much more controversial that it in fact is.
(6) The use of EXPO as a source. Expo is closely linked to AFA, an organization that admit it uses battering political foes with iron pipes, torching their building and so on. To use such a source is close to using Nazis as reference in Wiki to describe the “Left” party.
To give some information about how extreme EXPO/AFA is i insert this:
Tobias Hübinette, founder of EXPO and a central person in AFA did this statement in the Swedish magazine Creol 1996
“To have the feeling or even opinion that the white race is inferior on all possible levels is natural according to their history and present actions. Let the white race’s West world perish in blood and suffering. Long live the multicultural multiethnic and class free ecologic society. Long live the anarchy. “
About AFA from 2005, this was reported in many Swedish newspapers:
The night to Monday a dinner party for Swedish Democrats outside Växjö was attacked by members of AFA. The participants were attacked with teargas, iron pipes, knifes and axes. Eighteen Swedish democrats were hurt in the attack. One female spokesperson for the Youth league who suffer from asthmatics got so severe problems she had to go with ambulance to the closest hospital. The house and several cars got severely destroyed.


SweHomer 17:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
"this article represent the Swedish extreme left view of SD" No, it accuratley describes SD. All information is sourced and preseted in a neutral way.
"People on Expo (extreme leftists)" Expo is in no way "extreme leftists". If it was I don't think the Moderate Party would support them.
(1) The list has been reviewed and SD are indeed called those things.
(2) The ammount of criticism is relevant to the controvery the party has caused.
(3) In what way?
(4) Yes, it is.
(5) Utterly false. If you can find something to back it up (for instance a web page) it would be possible to add something like "According to SD the party is controversial because..."
(6) Expo is not linked to AFA.
And that quote belongs in far right conspiracy theories. If you have a source then please produce it. As far as I know no evidence for that he ever sayd/wrote that has been produced. // Liftarn


My response to SweHomer.
(1) The allegations are now specific, concise, and verified.
(2) The "Controversy" section simply tells the reader why the SD is controversial. The section is appropriate in size given the controversy the party has generated. Also, Sweden is a representative democracy. The parites that made the allegations represent about 68% of the Swedish population as of 2002. The opinion of 68% of Swedes must not be silenced or diminished, especailly according to Wikipedia's NPOV policy.
(3) How?
(4) Yes, it is, even according to Swedish Wikipedia.[49] And if we were to go by your sketchy translation, "foreign-hostile" would still equal "xenophobia" in English. It is nothing to do with propaganda, and everything to do with English linguistics. If you don't like it, stay in Swedish Wikipedia.
(5) Verify that claim, then it could be included in the article in a neutral voice, like Liftarn said.
(6) Prove it.
The rest of the stuff about Expo sounds like nothing more than wacko conspiracy theories. You haven't even given a source. It is currently impossible to take your claims seriously and they will be disregarded. WGee 19:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


(5) The reason why SD is so controversial in Sweden

An article in EXPO! Where among other the following is stated:

Is 98 % of the Somalis in Sweden unemployed and is laying on an madras chewing Kat? Of course not, but if they where – should Swedish Television then dare to report it? … A college jumped to the roof and the accusation of racism against me came of course a letter from the post office. The person stated, that if so where the case, it must to any cost be silenced…. http://www.expo.se/index_1.php?pg=http%3A//www.expo.se/www/1_1303.html

Not an article, but an editorial. // Liftarn

About Fadime Sahindal, a Kurdish woman murdered by her father for choosing boyfriend herself. Written in Sweden’s biggest newspaper Aftonbladet (this IS editorial, page 2).

Fadime Sahindal gave us something even greater and more important than a collective national manifestation of sorrow and anger against oppression and violence against women’s who only wants to themselves choose their own path in life. Her death have broken down taboos in the Swedish debate that might open for a debate about the most forbidden. This, that we in the name of tolerance suppress because its questions cultures and can be branded as ethnic and religious intolerance or racism.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/ledare/story/0,2789,129677,00.html

Also an editorial and it only talks about how it's politically incorrect to question cultures and that it may be seen as racism. What SD does is only remotley related. // Liftarn

Weekly standard:

The difference between the Swedes and the Danes is that the Swedes have suppressed all debate on immigration, while the Danes insist on carrying on an open and frank discussion.

(6) Links bteween Expo, AFA and Swedish Media

The most known links is of course Tobias Hübinette and Peter Karlsson who both have been arrested and convicted several times for participating in AFA actions. Both have worked for Expo and both have very good connections with powerful journalists at both Sweden’s biggest newspaper Aftonbladet and the Swedish televison.

This is a list of articles Peter Karlsson have been a contributor to in Aftonbladet and other Swedish magazines:

Aftonbladet - 990621 - Så många nazister gör lumpen Aftonbladet - 990501 - Nazister: Vi tar på oss ansvaret Aftonbladet - 990425 - Nynazister tar över 1 maj Aftonbladet - 980812 - Listan som avslöjar nazisterna Aftonbladet - 980121 - Danskt bolag ska sälja våldsvideon Aftonbladet - 980106 - Nynazisternas miljonindustri Aftonbladet - 970328 - Nazistledaren på flykt Aftonbladet - 970327 - Combat 18 hos svenska nazister Arbetaren - nr 42 -98 - Här produceras nazimusiken Arbetaren - nr 41 -98 - Polisen byter strategi mot nazism Arbetaren - nr 40 -98 - Så hjälpte svensk polis kända högerextremisterÖ Arbetaren - nr 20 -98 - Nazistlokal stängd efter attack Arbetaren - nr 1/2 -98 - Och nu då? Drar polisen sig tillbaka? Arbetaren - nr 37 -97 - NSF - En länk mellan Sveriges nazister Arbetaren - nr 25 -97 - Dom mot vitmaktmusik Arbetaren - nr 22 -97 - Grabbarna på Valhalla Arbetaren - nr 16 -97 - Imperiets uppgång och fall ochÖ Arbetet Nyheterna - 970722 - Nazirocken tillåts sprida rasistpropaganda Blekinge Läns Tidning - 971018 - NSF länkar samman Sveriges nazister Dagens Nyheter - 980322 - USA stoppar svenskÖ Dagens Nyheter - 970327 - Snaran dras åt kring nazirock Expo - nr 4/5 -97 - Heroes - Bandet som försöker tvätta bort naziststämpeln Expo - nr 6 -96 - Sverige - störst i världen på nazirock Expressen - 990510 - Nazisternas hemliga fabrik Södermanlands Nyheter - 990109 - Nazister höll fest i IFK:s klubbstuga

Hübinette works or have worked as a researcher for TV 4.

Peter Karlsson is a psedonym, hes true name is Anders Carlqvist. Here is another site in Sweden (wiki style) that links him with both AFA and EXPO. He is convicted among other thigns for assulting both male and female polis officers in Sweden, the female police was so hurt that she got mental problems and hade to leave her work as police.

http://susning.nu/Anders_Carlqvist

(1) The list.

Ok, one at a time. The link for DN is a telegram from a news-agency (TT), how on earth can that represent DN's view?


Its quite a large possibility that “liftarn” himself also is associated with both Expo and AFA. SweHomer 21:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


You seem very paranoid. None of us are associated with Expo! I am from Canada and have not heard of the organization until I came across this article! What a bunch of far-right conspiracy garbage.
About the Expo article: your translation of it is just about impossible to understand. "A college jumped to the roof"? That makes utterly no sense. Take more time and translate it properly.
But you claim the SD is controversial just because of one article in Expo? Ludicrous! It is stated in the article why the SD is controversial. It is because of its ideology, which is believed to be racist, xenophobic, and/or fascist by most Swedes and even the Church of Sweden, of which the vast majority of Swedes are members. Please, your argument is nothing more than an idiotic conspiracy. It is totally ignorant of reality. Expo through its infinite power and domination of the media is preventing the SD from acheiving fame? That's laughable. SD is controversial because its values are contrary to mainstream Swedish values, evidently.
You're using that Swedish wiki-style article as a source to prove the link between Expo and AFA? That is a joke. I don't know exactly what the article says, and I probably wouldn't believe it anyway. The article could have been written based on the opinions of any random fool, for it contains no sources at all. YOU could have even created that article.
As for the Aftonbladet article, I'd be willing to include the opinion of the newspaper in the article. WGee 23:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


Also, you best read the article again. It says that TT considers the party xenophobic, not DN. Of course, the link still directs to the same article. WGee 23:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


There. I added a section about your claim that the SD is not THAT controversial on an international level. You still can't prove your ludicrous claim Expo is an "extremist" organization. WGee 00:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please considering rephrasing that since it's about a related matter (that it may be seen as not PC to question entire cultures). When they transformed themselves to a street fighting organisation for racist skinheads into a political party SD styled themselves after Front National so I think SD can be considered controversial just like FN, even on an international scale. // Liftarn

(4) xenophobic. "främligsfientlig "should be "anti-immigration". That’s what major international media uses for parties like DPP on a regular bases.

"jumped to the roof " or "went to the roof" or "exploded". Ok, it was to exact translated.

The expo article was to show the self-censorship that is common in Sweden, nothing else.

What about the article in weekly standard? Any comments?


Swedish METRO about Peter Karlsson

http://www.metro.se/site/metro/discuss/?entry_id=11385&reply_id=55008


…Then there are journalist who also have used violence. Peter Karlsson on Expo is the most classical example…

Its not clearly written, but the violence was in several AFA attacks. I find many more sources about this including references to articles where he admit being a member of AFA and Expo. But all of this articles are to old to be on the net. I get back with this if I find anything.

But its quite clear that the same journalists that have done most of the writing about the “extreme right” and Radio Islam (witch I don’t mind – just don’t put SD in that bunch) also are working in both Expo and AFA.

The reason for this, that several major Swedish media actually let people who they know are convicted criminals work for them, is that the powerful journalists in charge of the media themselves are old revolutionary’s, and have a soft spot for this.

About TT

Its not so easy. The allegation is in the headline. So its not in the actual TT telegram. The headline is added “on the fly”, often in last minute by someone other than the actual journalist writing the story. So this can hardly be regarded as a statement from either TT or DN.

About Aftonbladet on Taboo. Pls put in the link there.

SweHomer 01:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The Metro link is to an on-line response to an editorial. Hardly a reliable source. // Liftarn
Translating a word REQUIRES INTERPRETATION. In that Expo exerpt, you failed to interpret anything, and instead converted everything into English word-for-word. That is why it was nearly impossible for a native English-speaker to understand. For example: the French "fruits de mer" means "seafood" in English. But if you were to take each word individually and translate it literally, you would get "product of the sea". "Seafood" and "product of the sea" are essentially the same thing, but "seafood" is more appropraite in English. Same with "xenophobia" and "foreign-hostile", the former being the appropriate English term. That is what I mean when I say it is not to do with opinion but basic English linguistics.
And I still don't completely understand the translated exerpt from the Expo article, but I guess that isn't all that important. You say it's to prove the extent of self-sensorship in Sweden. But political correctness in the media is common throughout the entire world; it is not exclusive to Sweden. Therefore, that is largely irrelevant.
I think your attempt to portray the extremism of Expo and its jounalists is really a waste of time. Even if some jounalists were left-wing extremists at some point in their lives, it does not make the reporting of Expo as a whole irrelevant. Your time is best spent focussing on the alleged biased in the article rather than trying to slur the sources of the article. And again, your allegations about Expo and its journalists are totally outlandish and unverifiable.
About the Weekly Standard article: it basically alleges the same thing as the other article: that debate about immigration is unacceptable in Sweden but welcomed in the rest of the world. I first want to say that this is not true, as anti-immigrant parties in other European countries are still controversial, even those with relatively high levels of support like the Norwegian Progress Party. But regardless of that, I am willing to add that allegation to the "SD Response" section, possibly in lieu of the less concise Aftonbladet article. Just provide a link.
And about the DN article: the WHOLE article is directly from TT. Otherwise, the article would say something like, "TT says..." in the body. It says "From TT" and the bottom of the page. Also, if it were not directly quoted from TT, the article would have an editor's name at the bottom of the page, like all the other articles on the site.
WGee 06:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The Sweden Democrat's response to the controversy

Well, i will get some help creating the response. As much space that is given to our enemies ruddiculas accusations- as much we can have to answer. The response is of coures notting you can edit. I will do that - and u can have the rest of the article.

About the TT article. You dont know how media works in Sweden, just lissen an learn. Dont tell me how it works. The headline of the article is not created by the same person who writes the article. The same goes for telegrams. Check it up with your swedish "connections".

[edit] Dagens Nyheter

  • "De främlingsfientliga partierna gick framåt vid omvalet i Orsa. Sverigedemokraterna ökade med 14 röster och fick med nationaldemokraterna två röster mer än folkpartiet." (The xenophobic parties advanced at the reelection in Orsa. The Sweden Democrats increased by 14 votes and got with the National Democrats more than the Liberal party.) [50]
  • "Extremparti i Skåne får stärkt ställning. Sverigedemokraterna hade stora framgångar i kommunalvalet och de främlingsfientliga krafterna har stärkt sin ställning i Skåne." (Extremist party in Scania gets stronger position. The Sweden Democrats had major sucesses in the municipal elections and the xenophobic forces has strenghtened their position in Scania.) [51]
  • "Extremhögern ställer upp i valet i de flesta av kommunerna i Stockholms län. Sverigedemokraterna och nationaldemokraterna..." (The far right runs in the election in most minicipalities in Stockholm county. The Sweden Democrats and the National Democrats...) [52]
  • "Framgången i årets val ger högerextrema Sverigedemokraterna pengar och..." (The progress in this years election give the far right Sweden Democrats money and...) [53]
  • "Tidigare var det framför allt Sverigedemokraterna och andra extrema partier som ville sluta ta emot flyktingar." (Earlier it was mostly the Sweden Democrats and other extremist parties that wanted to stop accepting refugees.) [54]

[edit] The answer to the allagatinons

If u let that stay we can remover NPOV. Of course the english can need some cleaning up - and some links can be added.

SweHomer 13:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "liftarn". He is probably the same person that uses the name "rapvatten" in the swedish diskussionpage about this suject. The same "rapvatten" is also writing in "socialist.nu" regarding illigal actions and fysikal atacks on Swedish Democrats.

En regarding EXPO. Many editors on the swedish page argue that Expo is not valid as a source for WIKI, because they get money from the swedish government with the explicit named purpuse of "stopping" the Swedish Democrats. This makes them both POV and undemocratic.

All your statements are false. I am not identical with Rapvatten. I use the same user name on the Swedish Wikiedia as I do here. By the way, ad hominem attacks are useless. Regarding Expo there is a single anonymous person (you?) claiming those things. // Liftarn

DONT change the response-page. You do not represent SD. The respons-page for AFA/EXPO can be yours. And of course AFA and EXPO is here, its their job. If they were not here they would be neglacting theit duties, they get paid with my taxmoney to be here. And as USUAL you wont show your true identity.SweHomer 16:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is an encyclopedia not a debate forum or a place for political propaganda. If you add irrelevant, unsourced nonsense to the page it will be removed. If you have any facts you want to add it's another issue, but so far you havenät been able to produce any information not already in the article. // Liftarn

The title is: The Sweden Democrat's response to the controversy

So it’s not your business to censor this. Read the WIKI rules regarding “both sides should be presented”. But then, I’m sure you know those rules very well and you just don’t care. Your modus operandi is exactly as “rapvatten” in the Swedish discussion. Any trick is good as long as it works. Because in the end, there is only power that counts. The normal mentality of all psychopaths following this or that totalitarian doctrine. That people have other values and beliefs than me I can live with, but dishonest and manipulating mentality is pure evil. SweHomer 17:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not about censorship. It's about verifiable facts. That both sides should be presented is not the same thing as allowing any random person writing whatever they like in the article. Also: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Liftarn


This "answer" is totally 100% unnacceptable. It doesn not correspond with NPOV policy in any way shape or form. This response section is now not even written from a NPOV, and it presents your personal opinions as facts. This is not a venue for right-wing political rants and conspiracy theories. Your edits will be delted immediately until you can present sensible repsonses in a NPOV. If you deliberately and consistently reduce the quality of the article through your political rants you could be banned. You are doing nothing more than advertising the party and propagating your conspiracies. I have witnessed such rants on this page before, and it looks to be the work of you. THIS IS NOT A VENUE FOR YOUR PERSONAL VIEW ON THE WORLD. WGee 19:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More regarding "främlingsfientliga"

Ekot (main Swedish news on radio produced by Swedish television and TT). Have a policy document, that most media in Sweden follows.

Regarding Swedish Democrats…

The term “foreign hostile” shall be used in Ekots transmissions. They shall not be called “rightwing populist”, “right extreme”, “immigration critic” or anything else. This is government public service…. [55]

Or to be exaxt "Det finns flera små politiska partier med budskap som skulle kunna beskrivas som främlingsfientligt. Exempel är Sverigedemokraterna och Nationaldemokraterna" (There are several small political parties with a message that could be described as xenophobic. Examples are Sweden Democrats and National Democrats.) (see sv:Främlingsfientlighet or Xenophobia where it says "The term is typically used to describe fear or dislike of foreigners") // Liftarn
SweHomer, you have ruined your credibility. Consistently your translations are revealed as severely misleading and, occassionally, just plain wrong.. WGee 19:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It was regarding The Swedish Democrats, i did not just translate it all. That it also concerned other parties was for me obsolete, this is about SD. The translation i did is accurate, liftarn just translated another part.

And now I am 100% sure liftarn is EXPO/AFA. Well I have moved this to the next level and requested an attorney (or what it calls). I have NOT removed your allegations, no matter hove wage they are, and how much it looks like slander in a tabloid magazine. Guilt by mass of associations. Well, I let it stand – but shall not deny me the right to respond to this critic. If you choose to make such a massive critic, the answer will be in the same fashion. My English is far from perfect, BUT if u accept EXPO as a source then You also must accept SD- Kuriren as one. If You have complaints about links missing, bring them in here – as I have done. Do not cut. And also – to mix facts with opinion is to deceive. To openly state, this is an opinion is fair and correct. That’s what I have done, and then it should be in order. But this way of manipulating “facts” to give things a false meaning is something typical Swedish that I don’t want to see in the English Wiki.

And its obvious that both of you have an extreme-left view of this, but I thought that one of u was at least did try not be POV. I would not want to write about the Swedish communist party, Afa or Expo, and then – try to censor the response. This is just so much against WIKI ‘s NPOV it can be. And yes, I will not attack the person, that was wrong.


-- However, the party's message is similar to that of the far-right French National Front, which has generated considerable controversy throughout France and Europe for its allegedly racist and xenphobic policies.

(1) Prove it (2) Do not put it under response, somwhere else pls. SweHomer 20:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


An attorney? Is that a joke? Have fun with that. It's laughable and frivilous. Once again, I will remove your political rants from the article. Did you not read what I said earlier? Everything you write is unsourced first of all, and it is nothing more than YOUR PERSONAL VIEW ON POLITICS. We are not hear to enlighten readers about what SweHomer thinks. Your edits will be deleted, and I will request that your IP address be banned from English Wikipedia unless you stop threatening the integrity of the encyclopedia with your personal opinions. WGee

Advocate, is the proper word. In Swedish its the same thing. Wiki have a system for that. I am happy to bring this to a higher level, and thats what im doing. And do i again have to remind u that im writing under the title "The Sweden Democrat's response to the controversy". I can prove that everyting i write here indeed is the opinions of the Swedish Democrats, regarding this issues. I am contantly adding links, but this work is interupted by your censorship. Exactly what is it that you want sources for? Pls, make a list and we will see. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SweHomer (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia:No legal threats // Liftarn

You are presenting everything you say as a fact and using Wikipedia to advertize you personal beliefs. Understand this: the article is not a place for the SD and its supporters to rant about conspiracies and their views on the world. What you are doing is trying to persuade users that Expo=bad and Sweden Democrats=good. This is not what we do on Wikipedia; everything must conform with NPOV policy. You are really disrupting Wikipedia and you are degrading the quality of the encyclopedia. You have also broken the three-revert rule and are in danger of being banned or blocked. WGee 21:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and complete your section. Then I will use it to prove how you are violating the principles and policies of Wikipedia and encyclopedias in general. After seeing it, the administrators I've notified may be more inclined to ban you. WGee 21:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:SweHomer: Hijacking and Destroying the Article

You're doing nothing more than writing an essay, using sources to help back up your arguement. For the last time, this is an encyclopedia. It is not a place to prove the truthfulness of your conspiracies! You are violating Wikipedia's WP:POINT guideline. You also know that what you are writing is blatantly non-NPOV yet you are doing it anyway. You must stop this immediately. For example, you write: "This is of course what EXPO/AFA wants. To grow, and to get their revolution they need enemies and destabilization." Says who? You? This is nothing more than one of your wacko conspiracies, even the language indicates that. This has now turned into a case of vandalism, as you are deliberately violating Wikipedia policies to prove your personal beliefs. WGee 22:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

WGee, please calm down. You are now making personal attacks. (example-wacko conspiracies) This is not helping the situation. If the article says something you disagree or is wrong for a few hours, the article will not be destroyed. Could eveyone involved take a break from editing for the next 24 hours and let tensions calm down? --FloNight talk 23:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I apologise for my hot-headedness. SweHomer, I ask that you discuss your edits before making them, or at least justify them afterwards. I understand that you would like to develop a more thorough response to the allegations, but doing so unilaterally will evidently not work. WGee 00:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem WeeGee!

I think we can sort this out.

Well, regarding AFA , just look at their homepage, where they admit to be Anarchistic and to do use illegal methods in their work. The reference to the article in the magazine Creole also states that a revolution by creating chaos is what one of their key persons want. So I think its well sourced. The links between AFA and EXPO are also well documented. So when you use such dubious sources for your allegations against the Swedish Democrats it must be balanced by also informing just how extreme and not NPOV these organizations are. To understand why a mainstream national party like the Swedish Democrats is treated so very different in Sweden compared to how similar parties are treated in England or Denmark (Conservative Party or Danish People’s Party) one must also understand the uniqueness of the Swedish situation. Before I intervened and started to balance the article, the amount of slander was completely disproportionate compared to how controversial the party is in an international perspective. It’s only by understanding how much different the Swedish perspective is, that one can understand why such an amount of slandering is regularly produced in the Swedish debate. That in Sweden there actually exist a factory created with taxpayers money for creating slander and allegations mainly against the Swedish Democrats. This is a construction that doesn’t exist in any other western democracy. The reason for this construction is obvious. To demonize the Swedish Democrats and make them seen far more extreme then they in fact are. You yourself are an example of the success of this strategy. You rate them as extreme as British BNP, not because anything in their official policy – but based on this slander. And because of this you want to include all this slander in the article.

If you created an organization like Expo in any country they can of course create slander and allegations against any political party, depending on how you aim such an organization. The immigration - industry of Sweden consumes almost 15% of our GNP, why should it not create an instrument for propaganda to keep its wheels turning? Its not conspiracy theories, its logic and common sense.


SweHomer 01:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I would like you to prove your claim that Expo was created and is being funded by the government. But even if Expo is funded by the government, it does not mean its reporting is biased; for example, the BBC is funded AND controlled by the British government, yet they are renowned for their impartial reporting.
Moreover, the links between AFA and Expo are not clear at all. In that Aftonbladet article, Expo is not even mentioned. You have failed to provide any concrete evidence of this alleged connection.
And do not say that sources should be impartial and then use the Sweden Democrats newspaper as a source. That is the epitome of hypocrisy.
Furthermore, I likened the SD to the French National Front and the BNP because their policies (which I have read from their sites) are similar, not because of media reports. I'm willing to bet that you have not read both of their platforms yourself. You seem to believe that everyone has been brainwashed and is controlled by the media.
When I compared the SD and FN in the article, I did so based on the studies of several independent politcal observers, such as the Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society.[56].
You have a right to prepare a response to the controversy, but it must be from a neutral point of view. Right now, the whole section looks to be nothing more than a personal essay of yours. It has no place in an encyclopedia. You must always state which organization or person made the claim to ensure that opinions are not presented as facts. You said yourself: "To openly state, this is an opinion is fair and correct." But you have not done so anywhere in your edits. Things are not to be written from the view of you or the Sweden Democrats; things are to be written from a "neutral point of view". That is the quintessence of the policy.
WGee 05:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

According to an SD conspiracy theory there is exists a "terror campaign" against the party organised by "communist sects" funded by Civildepartementet. (Note: Civildepartementet ceased to exist in 1996) [57] // Liftarn

[edit] Signing talk page comments

Please sign talk page comments with four ~ . This puts a your user name and date. thanks --FloNight talk 13:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another angle and more

There is another angle of this that I think we should cover. When so many allegations are raised as it is in this case, we both probably agree that it should be balanced by a response – by the SD’s view on these allegations. The other way should be to remove the “critic” section completely and create an article like those on “national front” or the UK conservative party who both are without any critical sections. But I think neither of us wants that.

So, a response is in place. And this response should represent SD’s view of the allegations. Then in this case an opinion becomes the fact to be described. To understand how SD view this allegations one must understand how these things looks from SD perspective. The subjective view of SD becomes the fact. One does not have to agree about this view, but the view should be explained.

I give you one example. Flat Earth Society is an article in wikipedia. If your interpretation of the Wiki rules should be applied, such an article could not be created. Because in order to create this article, the reasons for believing in a flat earth had to be stated. – and they can not be NPOV because the earth is not flat. Here the not NPOV thinking of Flat Earth Society must be included in Wiki, that’s the subject for the article. But as long as Wiki states, this is how “they” see this, its is still NPOV. If Wiki stated that this theory was NPOV and true, first then would it be not NPOV.

So an opinion can be 100% NPOV as long as it’s clear for the reader that this is the opinion that is explained. If you change that opinion in order to make the opinion more NPOV, you are in fact doing the opposite. Then you are describing an opinion that in fact this organization doesn’t have. And if you interpret ate this opinion into how you view it, then you remove the readers possibility to form he’s or hers own opinion about this. As a journalist you can do that. But Wiki is an encyclopedia and has another approach. To comment a given opinion is another matter. This I think is proper. So I really don’t think it matters if I can or not can prove to you that AFA and EXPO are tightly connected. That they are connected is SD’s official view on the matter, and therefore it must be included.

And, please, don’t take any cheap point now and compare SD’s view with Flat Earth Society.

And maybe this can be something to look into:

[[58]]

This WIKI policy states regarding “Attribute assertions”:

“Identify the possible bias of the source (including organizational, financing, and/or personal ties with interested parties).”

You are doing the opposite. You are creating allegations by aggregating attribute assertions and do not look into the possible bias of the attribute assertions. So my critic against you must be that you have a journalistic approach, not an encyclopedia approach. As a journalist it’s your job to be bias, and argue for a certain subjective view of the subject. As a Wikipedia’n you should do the opposite. Try to identify and remove the bias. The EXPO technique is to use its massive influence on Swedish media on what attribute assertions is used, and then aggregate the result of their own work to prove their point. They are in fact quoting themselves when they create allegations.

Many of the sources that expo, and you quote are:

(1) Articles that is written by people working for Expo doing freelance journalistic. (2) Document from political parties quoting Expo publications.

NPOV, no bias? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SweHomer (talk • contribs).


You said: "The subjective view of SD becomes the fact." No no no no. That is absolutely incorrect. The NPOV policy is here to prevent that from happening. The whole point of the policy is that a particular view must not be portrayed as fact anywhere in the article; it must remain nothing more than opinion.
But of course WeGee, that’s exactly what I wrote. It should not be presented as a fact, but as an opinion. In that way the fact is that the opinion is. Please don’t extract a few words out of it’s context and give it a new meaning. SweHomer 12:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Remember, the policy is called "neutral" point of view. NPOV is not acheived by writing a Sweden Democrats essay here and a Left Party essay there. I ask that you read the Wikipedia:NPOV article and then read the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial article, too.

Also, you claim there is too much of the "leftist" view of the party, but please read the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight article. "Please be clear that the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views in a controversy." (that quote is from the Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles - please read that article, it's quite helpful in this situation). Most politcal observers, news agencies, and politcal parties representing more than 68% of Swedes say that the SD is xenophobic and extremist and racist. The guidline states that biased assertations are fine, as long as you state who made those assertations. It also states that news reports from mainstream organizations (i.e. from CNN, which I have included) and independent scholarly works can be cited as facts.

WGee 06:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


Maybe an adminisrator could intervene and help clarify Wikipedia policies for SweHomer. I mean that sincerely because it would be very helpful in this dispute. WGee 06:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

SweHomer and WGee, this article needs to have lots of editors looking at it and offering suggestions. How much weight a particular pov gets needs to be addressed by verifying reliable sources. --FloNight talk 11:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles

Describe the controversy

An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy.

And again, 'Liftarn' have erased my contributions. And he also deleted your part “According to an editorial in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet, it is a taboo to debate immigration policy in Sweden…”SweHomer 12:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I removed it because the editoriad does not support the claim. The claim is "it is a taboo to debate immigration policy in Sweden" but the editorial[59] says only that it's not PC to criticize a specific culture or labe it as is crimminal (it's a bit unclear exactly what she refers to). // Liftarn
SweHomer, I see that. This wholesale removal and re-insertion needs to stop by everyone involved. Edit warring is not acceptable. We need to focus on reaching consensus by examining the text and verifying it with reliable sources. --FloNight talk 12:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Good luck... // Liftarn

WGee, regarding : "Please be clear that the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views in a controversy.". Of course, what People in Alaska thinks about SD is irrelevant. But SD's own View is of course central do describe when You describe SD. Again:

An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:SweHomer (talk • contribs).
Yes, please describe their views (not your views) and please provide sources for every claim you make. // Liftarn

[edit] Citation needed

The section "The Sweden Democrat's response to the controversy" is riddled with wild and unsourced claims. I have tagged them, but they are so many I list my specific problems with them here.

"According to an editorial in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet, it is a taboo to debate immigration policy in Sweden."

No, it doesn't. What it talks about it that it's non PC to come with claims like "gypsies steal", "jews are greedy", "africans are lazy" and (in this case) "middle easterns are crimminals".

"Supporters of the party say that SD policies would be much better received in a number of other European countries where this taboo does not exist."

Unsourced.

"The party claims that it is no more extreme than the anti-immigrant Danish People's Party"

Where do they claim that?

"The allegations against the Swedish Democrats has to be viewed from the very unique Swedish situation"

In what way is it unique? Source?

"The cleaning up"

Have they cleaned up? Source?

"and ousting of racist and Nazis element started 1995"

Again no source given.

"was essential finished year 2000"

Was it? Says who?

"After Year 2000 there have been almost no allegations of that kind."

According to who? Source?

"Today there is no more political extremist in SD than in other parties."

According to who? Source?

"In Sweden there is a very strong consensus between the established parties and media to suppress all debate on immigration"

Is it? Source?

"nowhere in the western world is the situation as grave as in Sweden"

Is it? According to who?

"The established parties and media have together created the organization EXPO"

Have they? Source? At to the Expo website[60] they say "Expo saknar kopplingar till specifika partier och politiska grupper" (Expo has no connections to specific parties and political groups).

"Perhaps a noble initiative"

Argumentative. Should be cut.

"the persons in Expo have such a leftwing extreme view of things"

Again, a serious allegation with no source whatsoever.

"SD who is a normal nationalistic and Democratic Party"

Is it? According to who?

"Almost all allegations against SD in both media and from the established parties have the same source - Expo."

According to who? Source?

"People who either is working for Expo, or have been working there also works as journalists"

Not impossible, but still needs to be sourced.

"Expo also has a darker side called AFA (Anti Fascist Front)."

Again, a serious allegation with no source whatsoever.

"This is an autonomic/anarchy extreme left wing organization, working in “secret”, always wearing masks and communicating over internet using encrypted messages."

According to who? Source?

"They have carried out numerous attacks on SD using acid, teargas, knifes, axes and so on."

Not impossible, but still needs to be sourced.

"at least two co-workers at Expo have been arrested and convicted several times for participating in these actions"

A source is given, but it does not support the claim.

"A defector from Expo have exposed in SD-Kuriren (the Swedish democrats newspaper) that EXPO is run by senior ex revolutionary journalists and younger activists who either is members of AFA or close to them"

A link is given, but it is from SD's own magazine (needs a reliable source) and only credits "Johan" (fake name). Not very reliable.

"In what other western country can a government give money to an organization that is created for the specific purpose of create opinion against another democratic party in political opposition?"

Unsourced and argumentative. Should be cut.

"Since when can the taxpayers money in any country be used propagandistically against the ruling parties political adversary’s?"

Unsourced and argumentative. Should be cut.

"The situation is so grave in Sweden that Søren Espersen of The Danish People's Party, took this up in Nordic Council and asked the Swedish government why they didn’t condemn these attacks, and why people have been fired from government jobs only for being members of SD"

A link is given, but it is from SD's own magazine (needs a reliable source).

"The result of this “special” situation in Sweden is in fact a hijacking of democracy and of free speech"

Argumentative. Should be cut.

"It’s very hard for any immigration critic party to reach 4% and be represented in the parliament."

Duh! But it still needs to be sourced.

"The demonizing works."

Is it because the poor racists are demonized or is it simple because people don't share their views? Sources, sources, sources...

"The immigration policy is not formed by the democratic process."

Extraordinary claim that thus need extraordinary evidence.

"The moral elite of the political and media establishment handles this themselves without any public debate."

This conspiracy theory needs to be sourced.

"Racism and Nazism reach record levels in Sweden /../ people turn in frustration to extremism"

Not as far as I know. Any source?

"In Denmark or Norway there are very few Nazis"

Source?

"because parties like the Sweden Democrats can work open and free there."

Or because they were occupied during WW2. Anyway, it still needs a source.

"This is of course what EXPO/AFA wants."

Where do they say that?

"to get their revolution they need enemies and destabilization"

This conspiracy theory also needs to be sourced.

"As Tobias Hübinette, founder of EXPO and a central person in AFA so elegant described it"

And this claim is ofcourse also unsourced.

With that it's not much left of the text. // Liftarn


Thank-you Liftarn for taking the time to specifically point out the flaws in the article. And SweHomer, when it says describe "their views", that must be done in a neutral, honest way with sources. We must describe their views according to reality, not according to the party's pamphlets which try so hard to demonize any sort of politcal opposition. And we have done that in the "Ideology" section, if you care to read it. So all of SD's views on politics ARE represented. But if we basically cut and paste the party's self-righteous platform, the quality of Wikipedia as an honest information source is degraded.
In the Allegations section, we just state the allegations that have been made against the party in a neutral way. The reader then compares the allegations to the party's platform to find out if they're accurate. The whole point of a controversial article like this is to let the reader decide for him or herself. That is explicitly stated in Wikipedia's guideline for controversial articles, if you'd care to read it again. You want to do the contrary. You want to try to prove to the reader that the allegations aren't accurate. We never say anywhere in the article that the allegations ARE true. Like I said, the readers decide that for themselves.
I vote for the "Response" section to be deleted. This article is not a venue for debate. It must only present facts to the reader, then let the reader create his or her own inferences. I'm pretty sure the Wiki Guideline was clear about that. If the allegations aren't true, then the party's platform will demonstrate that. WGee 18:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually we now have two response sections. "The Sweden Democrat's response to the controversy" and "Response to the Controversy". If anything in the section SweHomer wrote can be substantiated (I dubt it) it should be able to put that into the response section. // Liftarn


I agree. If he can somehow verify his claims, they could be included in the response section. But I am now questioning the necessity of a "Response" section, even though I am the one who originally created it, in response to SweHomer's complaints.

First of all, the claim that the SD's policies are not extreme on an international level holds no ground against the allegations. For instance, one of them was made by CNN, a US-based agency. Another was made by the Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society, which is a pan-European organization.

Moreover, the place to allege the extremism of Expo is in the Expo article, not this one. And of course, it must be backed up by relevant sources, which it is not.

WGee 21:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war and article

User:Liftarn didn't revert more than three times in twenty-four hours, so doesn't get blocked — but his behaviour has been (at best) no better than User:SweHomer's. Adding {{fact}} every line isn't good practice either; it simply makes the article look a mess. I've removed it, and added a general {{verify}} template instead. Please resolve your differences here, unless you want to see the article protected against editing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is only over a single section so I have tagged that section. As you can see from above it is entierly unsourced, contains some extraordinary claims and is very argumentative. // Liftarn
As the whole article is tagged, there's no need to tag a specific section too. If it were only that section, then you'd need to remove the general tags as well as adding the specific ones (I'm not clear that that section is the only problem, though). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell that section is the only one in dispute. // Liftarn

No, that’s not true. The difference is that I am not deleting but instead discussing what I don’t like about the rest of the article. And I want you to behave in the same manner.SweHomer 15:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of Recent Edits

OK, I made some significant changes. SweHomer, please discuss whether you approve of them here. I ask that you do not simply revert without discussing. I hope that you will be more pleased with this version, as I have removed several Expo allegations. Also, several SD statements are included in the article, so people can truly know what they stand for. WGee 22:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the allegations section, fixed grammar, spelling, formatting, etc, altered the response section to more accurately counter the controversy. I now hope we can remove the NPOV dispute banner.
WGee 23:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I basically modelled the article after the one for the National Front, so there should be no complaints hopefully. I tried very hard to satisfy all of your demands, SweHomer. Believe me, I wouldn't have made these changes unless I believed that you would support them. But if you don't, I once again ask that you discuss what you want to change first. The last thing I want is another edit war.

I have an incling that you might disagree with the controversy section, so I'll address that now....

In the controversy section, there is basically a list of historic occurances. No allegations are made, and it allows the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. Some readers might think the SD is fascist, etc. based on its history, while some may view its history as irrelevant based on the SD response at the bottom. That is what we want. The response is basically what SD writes on its website, and it suggests that the SD has changed significantly from its troubled past, which is one of the points you were trying to make in the response section. So I don't expect any complaints there.

I didn't include the stuff about immigration debate being suppressed exclusively in Sweden because that has nothing to do with the SD's troubled past and controversies. And it's now irrelevant, as there are many international sources in the article that still characterize the SD as extreme, not just domestic ones.

The other point you were trying to make was about Expo being extremist. These allegations (provided they're sourced and written in NPOV) belong in the Expo article. If Expo did or does have extremist connections, though, it does not mean that its news reporting is not true. Expo's reporting is held to the same slander and libel laws as other media organizations. You should also note that I didn't include any Expo editorials as sources, only two news reports.

I have tried to address your concerns in the most neutral way possible, and I think I've done a great job. I hope you will appreciate this and listen to the reasoning behind my edits.

WGee 06:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copy-editing

I've been trying to clean up the English and the Wikipedia style of the article (despite having had my earlier work reverted), but some phrases have defeated me. For example, what does this mean: "a white power band that had played during the party days of Nationalsocialistisk Front in August 1998"? Could anyone help? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be "a white power band that played during the party days of Nationalsocialistisk Front in August 1998". I'm not sure about the word "party days", perhaps "party rally" would be better I see that that's how the German word "parteitags" is translated in Wikipedia. // Liftarn
Perhaps it should read 'Party Days' to denote that its a specific event. --Soman 12:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Just "rally" is enough (we already know that it's a party); I'll make the change. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a political rally. Perhaps "convention" would be a better term. // Liftarn
Ya sorry about leaving some mistakes in. I tried to get everything, but apparantly I didn't. WGee 15:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there anything more that needs copy-editing now? WGee 18:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fabricating 3 times revert rule to “win” the Edit war

When I first entered this discussion I was very careful not to start cutting and replacing what I did not like, and there was much! I got a very strong impression of bias, of not NPOV of using the technique of aggregating slander from bias sources in order to prove a point. The same method political Journalists use to throw dirt on their target.

So, trying to follow wikipedia’n guidelines I argued on the talk page and contributed with describing the Swedish democrats position under the title “Swedish democrats respond to the allegations”. The Wiki guidelines firmly states that both sides on a controversial subject should be presented. The argument that “minority views have no place” is used very wrong. The Swedish Democrats view of the matter is of course central in a page about them.

After a small edit war the administrator FloNight intervened. She helped me and WGee to agree that my contributions should stay, and be discussed – not deleted. She also told the user ‘liftarn’ to behave in the same way. Regardless of this, they kept deleting my contributions and when I reinserted them they reported med for breaking the “three times revert rule”. Because they themselves took turns in deleting my work, there were fewer deletions from their side per person. But total of course there was always one more. This is hardly how the tree-time revert rule is supposed to be used.

So now I want to get back to the agreement between me WGee and FloNight. I will reinsert and start to edit my contribution. And I hope its obvious that two persons with a clear bias agenda, a very “leftist” way of seeing this subject not are the ones to write under the title “Swedish democrats respond to the allegations”. It would be as having a trial where the prosecutor also handles the defense. SweHomer 16:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The section that you tried to insert was couched in very PoV terms, and lacked citations; don't add it and then improve it — improve it and then add it.--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did that. I took away some parts and changed other parts. But of course when an opinion is described it can not be sourced in the same way as other material. For example, in the article abut Pim Fortuyn he is quoted for describing media and established political parties as “Siamese Twins”. There is no source to prove that this is a fact, that they are Siamese Twins but its he’s opinion and therefore presented.SweHomer 16:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


Mel Etitis is right. Make your section NPOV first, then add it. Right now, it is not. Also, what problems did you have in the "Response" section? It addressed the controversy very well. I already explained my reasons for removing your piece. Your piece does not address the controversy. If you look at the FN article for example, there is no such section. SD views are already included in the article, including SD quotes. That is fair enough
Your section is still not from a NPOV. The improvements you made were very minor, and you still lack sources for almost all of your allegations. And, once again, you are presenting your personal opinions as fact. You say an opinion can't be sourced like other info, but it can. Right at the bottom of the edit page, it says: "content must be verifiable" i.e. from published sources, etc. It must be sourced for us to know that its not your personal opinion. Your section is still unnacceptable on an encylopedia. So far, it doesn't seem like anybody supports your section but you. You are going to have to compromise, just like I have.
I ask administrators and other experienced editors to insert their opinion on my edits. I think we should also conduct a straw poll just to see where people stand.
WGee 17:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, we can do that - BUT then let ME argument for my side if the conflict. Dont let them decide from arguments that you yourself create unlatearly. I will make one more effort and then insert my material. PLEASE regard what Mel Etitis wrote. "improve it and then add it". Thats exacly what i will do one more time. By deleting my work u have this time acted against the advice from TWO administators.

[edit] The Sweden Democrats' response to the controversy

Ok WGee, I made some changes. I think you were right about the material being to argumentative. I am sure that there is more you have opinions on it, and I will listen and try to cooperate. I hope this edit war now can be ended and that we can help each other in creating a NPOV article.SweHomer 16:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to make any changes in the article please discuss them here in the talk page first. // Liftarn

[edit] Regarding “Controversy surrounding the Sweden Democrats”

That the Swedish Democrats have a troublesome past is not a controversy, because the Swedish Democrats admits this. They states that they cleaned up the party from extremists in the years 1995-2000. So the allegations from that time prior to year 2000 should be deleted or put under another headline. Perhaps under “ties no extremism in past time”. But better I think is to just state that such things have existed and that SD agrees on this.

About “At the national meeting in 2004 several Gothenburg members had a background in the National Democrats. The head of the election committee also had a priminent position in Nordic Reich Party.[44]”

“Reine Wikström” is this person. The “head of the election committee”. I’m sure the person who entered this information is fully aware of that Reine Wikström also got expelled from the party. Why did you not enter this information? Hardly an NPOV approach.SweHomer 17:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The list is in chronological order so I don't really see the need to put in arbitrary limit. I have no information regarding the current status or this person. Do you have any? But I'll add that he was asked to resign.[61] // Liftarn
These problems regarding people like Reine Wikström have nothing to do with neutrality; they are simply minor editing concerns that we can easily fix. Nobody is doing anything on purpose; remember to assume good faith. You still should include a source that says the person left or was expelled from the party in order for it to be included in the article. WGee 17:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


OK, nevermind, sources are all included now. WGee 18:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone added the Centre Party as one of the sources in the first paragraph, but what I was tring to do there was include only independent political observers, much like the FN article. WGee 19:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok i asked Flonight to help me edit my contribution futher. Hope you can accept that.SweHomer 21:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How the work on this page shall be done

Wgee. Your work under

Basic political ideas Foreign policy Economic policy Immigration policy

I regard as very bad sourced and not NPOV. The sourcing is so bad that I have no way of verifying them. I regard my work as much more NPOV. Do you want me to delete these parts and then tell you that you must have an OK from me before you can insert them again, as you do with my work?

If you insist that you do not regard yourself as my superior or as an administrator to this page and that you don’t claim ownership, then stop acting in that way. Honor your agreement with Flonight and let me work with this page in the same way you do. Why don’t you follow the advice from the administrator?SweHomer 19:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i spend a few hours rewriting it. Im far from finished, I will make some restructure of it. Please come with critic, and PLEASE DONT DELETE.SweHomer 20:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


How, exactly, is the info badly sourced? Look at the two links at the top of the section. One is SD's website, the other is an indepedent scholarly organization, whose publications, according to Wiki's guideline for controversial articles, are ideal sources. Please refer once again to Wiki's guidline for controversial articles: [62]

The quotes are from the Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society, who quoted the SD's manifestos. So it's a secondary source and very appropriate. I haven't the slightest clue how quotes from the SD can be considered not NPOV. There is no commentary at all. What better way to show the SD's view than to provide quotes from the party?

What do you mean when you say the info is badly sourced? Are you alleging that the Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society cannot be trusted? Or do you simply have trouble finding the location of the information within the sources? Also, I would like you to elaborate on your opinion that the section is not NPOV.
WGee 20:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok WGee, I asked FloNight to help me edit futher. I hope thats OK for U. SweHomer 21:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed my concerns or answered any of my questions. The least you can do is justify your edits against my agruements.

But this time I really will let you finish without interruption, provided you only alter the Response section. I made my edits thinking that you would approve of them, for the most part; evidently, that was not the case. When you finish that section, I think it would be wise to conduct a straw poll.

---WGee 21:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, WGee - i cant find your arguments. Have u done a list after i rewrote it? And lol, give me some time. I was banned 24 hours.SweHomer 22:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw Poll Regarding the Neutrality of the Article

I once again propose that we take a straw poll regarding this edit conflict to help build a consensus. Does anyone else agree? If so, discuss the nature of the poll (e.g., the question being asked) ---WGee 21:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, before conducting the poll, we would have to make sure that all editors are done any major tasks. ---WGee 21:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but first i want to rewrite my part with help of Flonight. SweHomer 22:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critic about sorces

Ok

Ideology

The link to (24) says nothing about on ethno-nationalism. But ok – this is fine.

Basic political ideas Ok, this is still valid. The critic was that there is no link.

Foreign policy The Sweden Democrats believes that … cultural imperialism (mainly from the USA), and globalisation are the greatest threats to the unique Swedish culture. No source.

National and social justice. No source.

Economic policy. No source.

(but I think above its correct)

About: However, nearly all observers characterize the Sweden Democrats as far-right, xenophobic, and racist, including CNN [1], BBC [2], the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia [3], the Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society [4], and the Stephen Roth Institute [5]

The CNN link don’t accuse SD of xenophobia or racism. The BBC link only uses “anti-immigrant”

the Stephen Roth Institute, do not don’t accuse SD of xenophobia or racism. Its most about anti-Semitism, something SD never been accused of.

the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia [3] This is work from EXPO FOUNDATION by Stieg Larsson, and old Maoist. How Bias can it be?

The Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society Papers This is done by Jens Rydgren, a well known leftist in Sweden and critic about the SD.

So the claim “nearly all observers characterize” falls. You proved that MAJOR observers like BBC and CNN don’t regar SD as either Xenophobic or racist. Your only sources are Swedish! It proves my point very well, thank u.

Perhaps you should change this into: most international observers regards SD as anti-immigrant, but some Swedish observers regards them as xenophobic and racist.SweHomer 22:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The 2002 election campaign Party officials stressed during the campaign that the Sweden Democrats is a democratic party that opposes all forms xenophobia and racism. However, despite this official image, party members were accused of exactly such views by journalists and representatives of other political parties--Sources?

Also, party officials were attacked by individual thugs -- AFA have on their hompage admitted thay were responsible for several of theese atacks. I get back with souces. SweHomer 22:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


All of that stuff is sourced. It all comes from the two sources at the top of the section, if you'd care to read them. Just go to the pages, use your browser's "find" function, and input a sentence or so. The wording is very similar, and you should find the stuff no problem. You obviously haven't looked at the sources thoroughly enough. I could insert the sources after each policy section, but that's just unnecessary clutter.
As for the intro, I modelled it after the one in the FN article. There seems to be no problems with the intro in that article.
"However, nearly all observers characterize the Sweden Democrats as far-right, xenophobic, and racist" That's 100% true. Only the party itself denies these labels, not independent observers. Find one credible, well-established, independent observer (eg. a scholarly organization or mainstream news organization) that says the SD is not those things, then tell me the sentence isn't true. The opinions of "major", reputable observers are all that count here. What kind of encyclopedia would this be if we included the opinions of any obscure organization? Sources must be reliable. And while CNN and BBC do not say the party is xenphobic and racist, the other independent, mainstream sources do, so the wording is definitely appropriate and NPOV.
"Your only sources are Swedish!": Swedish organizations are reputable sources, too. Please stop the baseless attacks against the sources in use. All you've done so far is try to slur the reputation of every organization that considers the SD racist or xenophobic, without success.
The SD's view is represented accurately in the intro and compared to the views of observers, so I don't see the justification for your complaints. The readers can decide on their own who they want to believe, which is the whole point of NPOV policy.
Furthermore, BBC says the SD is "far-right"; read the heading in bold. CNN calls it "extreme right-wing". The Stephen Roth Institute says "islamophobia is disseminated primarily by the more 'respectable' Sweden Democrats". Islamophobia is a Euro-centric term used to describe a type of xenophobia directed at Muslims.

WGee 00:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait a bit... the Stephen Roth Institute do call SD xenophobic: "Developments on the far right have left the Sverigedemokraterna (Sweden Democrats – SD) the single surviving xenophobic party, with a nation-wide organization and potential to expand its electoral base /../ Although the SD was formed and led for many years by activists schooled in traditional neo-Nazi organizations" (emphasis added)[63] It also gives more infprmation on the split that led to the creation of the National Democrats: "After Steen and Paulsson were expelled from the SD and formed the ND, they managed to recruit a substantial part of the SD youth organization as well as a number of veteran activists in the Stockholm area. They have also attracted a steady flow of hardcore neo-Nazi activists, who view the new party as a prospective “respectable” cover." also: "While the SD, successor to the racist campaign group “Keep Sweden Swedish” of the 1980s, is not a Nazi organization, many in the party leadership, as well as among the rank and file, were previously or are currently active in neo-Nazi groups"[64] another (but Swedish) source is Sveriges Radio who say (emphasis added): "Sweden’s far right extremist party the Sweden Democrats have"[65] "the unabashedly racist Sweden Democrats"[66] And an interesting collection...[67] // Liftarn

[edit] Do not start edit warring

Please do not start with the edit war today. Do not remove or re-insert text without discussion leading to consensus. You have been asked nicely by myself and Mel. --FloNight talk 13:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Sweden Democrats/Response section.

I started a place where editors can edit and discuss the response section. Talk:Sweden Democrats/Response section. I think this is better than working on it in the article. Everyone can discuss it and agree on the changes. Then SweHomer can put it in the article.

SweHomer, if you agree, move your text to the page. regards, FloNight talk 22:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, I'm not an administrator. I'm an active editor trying solve problems before an administrator needs to step in and block. If I disagreed with Mel Etitis giving a 3RR block, I would have sent an email saying so. Instead, I completely agree with it since SweHomer was warned not to revert any other editor by Splash. I also think all the editors on this article were being a little rude and stubborn. This tends to happen during editing disputes. Nobody is acting really horrible, though. This makes me hopeful that you'll can work it out. FloNight talk 22:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that is fine as long as the text also can stay on the page. As I have showed, under "Critic about sources" there is indeed much bias and wrongful accusations there, and some defense is in place. The alternative is in that case is to also move the sections:

“Controversy surrounding the Sweden Democrats”~

and

“However, nearly all observers characterize the Sweden Democrats as far-right, xenophobic, and racist, including CNN [1], BBC [2], the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia [3], the Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society [4], and the Stephen Roth Institute [5]. Although the party has never received widespread support, it has for each consecutive election received an increased number of votes. It is the most popular far-right party in Sweden as of 2002."

to another location until they are fixed. Clearly my contribution can be no worse than these two sections.SweHomer 22:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"Ok, that is fine as long as the text also can stay on the page" — no, it's in English that is in urgent need of serious correction, and it contains unsourced and PoV claims. FloNight is making a sensible offer that you would be wise to accept. If the material doesn't go to Talk:Sweden Democrats/Response section., it's simply going to continue being removed as you add it. Which do you think is the better option for you? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well look at what I wrote under "Critic about sorces" where they refere to CNN and BBC for characterize SD as Racist and Xenophobic, neither was true. They state that "nearly all observers characterize the Sweden Democrats as far-right, xenophobic, and racist" - when in fact they only can find Swedish sources for that. Of the 6 sources only 2 were correct SweHomer 00:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

CNN: "...is certainly echoed by extreme right-wing parties in other European countries. The Front National in France, the Vlaams Block in Belgium, The National Alliance in Italy, The Danish People's Party, The British National Party, The Sverigedemokraterna (Sweden Democrats)", BBC: "a far-right political party", European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia: "the xenophobic party the Sweden Democrats (SD)", Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society: "the Sweden Democrats have accordingly embedded into their political message not only cultural racism but biological racism as well.", Stephen Roth Institute: "Mikael Jansson, the party chairman since 1995, has invested considerable effort into cleansing the fascist image of the party" (you may have a pont here, but it's listed under the heading "Antisemitism and Racism"). // Liftarn

What is unsourced? Its one of the most sourced part of the page. Did you read the latest version? And how can you judge this if you dont understand Swedish?SweHomer 00:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Basicly everything you claim is unsourced. See the section above called "Citation needed" for a list. // Liftarn

[edit] BRITISH HELSINKI HUMAN RIGHTS GROUP

The Swedish Democrats complain that their attempts to place advertisements have been boycotted by the news media. According to the Swedish Democrats some media refuse their materials point blank, while others invoke their need to show solidarity with an informal media “blackout” of the “extremists”. Private media may have the right to pick and choose whom they permit to advertise, but when nationwide public organisations like Swebus choose to provide a platform for some but not other legal parties then the fairness of the campaign may be drawn into doubt.

Something to add? All sources provided so far from liftarn and WGee have all been negative to SD (except when you quote SD itself).

http://www.oscewatch.org/CountryReport.asp?ChapterID=239&CountryID=51&ReportID=83&keyword=

SweHomer 23:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That SD complains should be no news, but I have added it to the article. // Liftarn

[edit] NPoV

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is essential reading. It should be clear that an article can't tell the reader, for example, that something has to be seen in a certain way. Please, SweHomer, if you want to add all this material, place it here first so that it can be discussed and improved before being added. As for the other editors (one of whom promised not to touch the article for a while, and on the same day made 44 edits to it), please leave it for a while. Too many people here seem to be treating the article as their own — it's nobody's, it's Wikipedia's. If the tussles don't stop, the article will probably be protected, and it will be protected in whatever state the protecting admin finds it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I had it. I give up for now. If you only move the part they question and not the part I question its clearly bias. I never met an academic at the age 50 who liked jazz that was not a leftist, and I meet a few. This is the second time you rule against me, and I can see no other reason than that you are sympathetic to their leftist propagandistic agenda.

So treat us equally and also move the stuff I question out for editing, or I quit this. SweHomer 23:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I really hate to say it: but these are the kind of personal accusations Liftarn was talking about. These personal attacks are unnacceptable. WGee 00:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

To suspect someone of being bias or “leftist” is hardly a personal attack. I am bias myself, and to the right. If I feel I have been treated wrong I must have the right to express that, and also explain why think it is so. When you accuse me of being not NPOV, then I don’t regard that as a personal attack neither should Mel Etitis. I question he’s neutrality - that’s all. SweHomer 01:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, if you insist. But from first glance it does seem rather personal; I mean, you cite his age and personal interests. WGee 01:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The age suggest he is a babbyboomer, thats all. Born 1940-49. The "leftist" generation. And this with Jazz, i dont know why - but exactly all persons i know who like jazz is also leftsists. This in only trivia, and my personal little thery - does it have to do with the connection to USA and the black movment in mid century there?SweHomer 02:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Lol I got curious and checked with Google. There are a lot of pages about Jazz and leftists. Here is one

“Attempts to categorize the politics of avant jazz fall into two categories. Both end up saying that the music is inherently connected to leftist politics”[68]SweHomer 02:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm Canadian. As such, I'm not thoroughly knowledgeable about American history, but I do have a comprehensive understanding of the Civil Rights Movement. Nonetheless, you best ask someone else about your Jazz theory at another time, someone dedicated to the subject. Right now, we must stay on task and focus on the article. ---WGee 04:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Informal RfC

I received a request to visit this page and act as an informal mediator. I hope all the editors here are willing to accept an outsider's observations. I'm a North American with no stake in Swedish politics. My only related editing has been some contributions at Front National (France). I had studied the party as a side issue while preparing Joan of Arc for featured article candidacy. The first thing I suggest to all involved is to shift focus toward technical aspects of encyclopedic editing. The editors at another controversial page Answers in Genesis found that was a successful way to sidestep political differences and collaborate toward a better article. Wikipedia:No angry mastodons suggests ways to defuse disputes without resorting to formal procedures.

Most of this article appears to be well referenced and NPOV, with a few significant exceptions. The introduction names several negative descriptions and cites notable reports. I'd trim that list of terms to "far right" and "anti-immigrant." Few of the associated citations mention xenophobia and (unless I missed something) none of them call it racist. "Racism" is an emotionally charged term that requires cautious use. Xenophobia and racism might find a place in the body of the article, preferably as part of a direct quote from some authoritative source, and with adequate space for a response by the party's defenders.

Regarding "The Sweden Democrats' response to the controversy," the recent edit history swings between two extremes, neither one of which hits the right note. The charges in this article are heavy ones and the party's response deserves more than a single paragraph. However, the contribution from SweHomer depends almost entirely on Swedish language sources and is unencyclopedic in tone. If English sources are scarce, I suggest translating a few relevant passages along with a link to the original material. The section would benefit from a heavier reliance on reputable sources (either party officials, notable supporters of the party, or favorable newspaper articles). WP:NPOV cautions against giving undue weight: defense of this party is a minority view and the article should reflect that. Regards, Durova 00:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

All right, I shall try to rewrite it. Thanks for stepping in. I will translate all sources to English and compact it. About “or favorable newspaper articles”, none exists in Sweden for the reasons I given before "the Swedes have suppressed all debate on immigration": Weekly Standard. Its only in Danish (Jyllandsposten) or American media (FoxNews, The Weekly Standard) I found such.
Also please look at the allegations massed up. They are clearly put in the article to “prove” that SD has strong links to Nazism and extremism. But the fact is that this was cleaned up 1995-2000, and after year 2000 only one or two minor allegations was raised. So I think its irrelevant to have them there, its an encyclopedia – not slander journalism. SweHomer 01:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
If the best sources for a sub-topic are already in English then by all means use them. I'd caution against assigning intent to other editors: in my own country the former Ku Klux Klan ties of David Duke are reported in mainstream news as relevant background. Regarding the links to Nazism, was there a subsequent change in party leadership? Have the party's leaders ever made a public statement denouncing Nazis or neo-Nazism? Best wishes, Durova 03:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Mikael Jansson served as a party leader between 1995 and 2005. He did the "clening up". 2005 Jimmie Åkesson took over, only 24 years old. He belongs to what’s called "the new thinkers" (im sure there is a better word in English). Today its two groups in the party. The new thinkers and the old “bunker fraction”.

The new thinkers have now a strong control over the party, and they are mostly newcomers to the party and have background in other “normal” parties. The “bunker fraction” has lost all positions in the leadership, but a few of them still holds some positions in the “mid level”, and they are constantly pushed out and/or resigns. The “bunker fraction” likes to use the word “ethnic” a lot. I would not be surprised if the new manifesto created right now (there is a big party meeting) will contain very few or no reference to this word.

There have been numerous statements denouncing Nazis or neo-Nazism. I try to get some links. The policy since year 2000 is that anyone who wants to be elected and work for the party at the national level first must fill in a document where they states what other political organizations they have been members in. If any of those is Nazi, neo-Nazi or racist – they are stopped. On the local level this system now is implemented but this is not finished yet. That’s why there were one or two incidents after year 2000 where people with dubious past got elected. But that “backdoor” is now being closed. Today SD is the only party in Sweden where no person can have an official position if they have a past membership in any dubious organization, even if they condemn what they have previously believed in. As ordinary members they can be members of the party, if it was a short time, and they are young and they denounce this. SD’s focus is not “other” nationalistic voters but the mainstream voters. Critic from Nazis and neo-Nazis is welcomed, and they criticize SD a lot for being “democratic”, for being a part of the “establishment”, for being Zionists. This is good for SD when the media in same time call them Nazis. Nazi-Zionists, lol? (David Duke homepage calls SD for Zionists).

So the (true) extreme right try to get SD members, witch SD likes – so they can get rid of those people. And SD tries to recruit from the mainstream. So the party is going mainstream and accelerates in that direction at a higher speed than before now after Åkesson took over. Danish People’s Party is the model, and SD is almost there now. So I think the demonizing that is done against SD is 100% unjustified, but – it’s the only way to stop SD. By branding the party as something it’s not.SweHomer 04:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

SweHomer, I encourage you to cite reputable sources or offical party statements that dissociate the current SD from their controversial past. That is exactly what I was looking to do in the response section, but being unable to read Swedish, I couldn't really find anything. But please make sure that you use the "Response" section on this talk page to create your work, so we can build a consensus and ensure NPOV. Remember, the "Response" section in the article is there to respond only to the reports in the controversy section. If the stuff you write does not directly address the news reports, it should not be included in the section, in my opinion.
The news reports basically indicate that the SD is or was entangled in anti-Semetism and Nazism. Therefore, when writing stuff for the "Response" section, keep in mind the following question:
Why should the Sweden Democrats no longer be considered a neo-Nazi, anti-Semetic, or fascist organization?
This will ensure that the section is concise and directly addresses the news reports. You're other section, for the most part, did not directly address the reports and was very winded. For instance, the claim that immigration debate is suppressed in Sweden has nothing to do with the fact that the SD had or has links to Nazism or fascism. Remember, all content must be verifiable, derived from reliable sources, and written from a NPOV.
WGee 05:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
"neo-Nazi, anti-Semetic, or fascist organization", who calls them that? Not even expo does. They only claim that in the past a few such persons were members in the party, or did i miss something?SweHomer 12:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad this discussion is taking a more productive direction. If SweHomer can back up these statements with sources then it looks like the makings of a very interesting defense section. If all of this is verifiable then it suggests another issue: why would a new generation of leadership "clean up" a political party with such a tainted past, rather than build a new organization? Perhaps both sides of this debate should take a close look at the political platform. It looks like there have been changes over the last decade. How has the party's position shifted and where are they now? Specifically, in what ways do they remain controversial? Durova 06:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


I ask that you read the reports in the "Controversy" secton again. They indicate that the SD is or was entangled in Nazism and fascism (i.e. SD had members involved with fascist or Neo-Nazi parties). I already mentioned that. ---WGee

Why would a new generation of leadership "clean up" a political party with such a tainted past, rather than build a new organization? It's an interesting question with a seemingly obvious answer: the party has not abondoned its original tenets. When reading the response section, which distances the SD from its neo-fascist past, readers will think about this question and come to the same logical conclusion I have, I expect. I think the response section should state whether or not the SD has abondoned ALL of its original values.
How has the party's position shifted and where are they now? The "controversy" section in comparison to the "response" section should indicate how much the party has changed, if it has. That should really be the central focus of the section.
Specifically, in what ways do they remain controversial? To answer this question I hope to have more recent reports in the controversy section. Since the party is currently described as far right and xenophobic and still attracts media attention, it is obviously controversial at the moment, and readers should know why.
WGee 15:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not start edit war

Please do not start with the edit war today. Do not remove or re-insert text without discussion leading to consensus. You have been asked nicely by myself and Mel. --FloNight talk 13:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Case of evidently bias propagandistically used.

I have a huge problem with two editors that using wikipedia propagandistically. I tried to argue with them, but they insist their information is NPOV and correct, witch I here will prove is totally false. The bias is so grave that it hardly can be a matter of “mistake” or “interpretation”.

Here is the bias part (regarding Swedish Democrats):

However, nearly all observers characterize the Sweden Democrats as far-right, xenophobic, and racist, including CNN [69], BBC [70], the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia [71], the Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society [72], The Centre Party [73], and the Stephen Roth Institute [74].

So they claim that nearly all these sources regards Swedish Democrats as far-right, xenophobic, and racist.

Lets go through the list of 6 sources:

  • (1) CNN:Neither of the words xenophobic or racist is used in the whole article.
  • (2) BBC
Only the word “anti-immigrant” is used.
  • (3) European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia
Here the words are used. But the source is the Swedish Expo, a foundation who gets money from Sweden Democrats political opponents. Hardly a NPOV source. The sources Expo in turn uses are their own publications that focus almost entirely on events that are 10 to 15 years old.
  • (4) the Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society.
Again the source is Swedish. A well known Swedish leftist “Jens Rydgren” wrote this. But in this case the words “racist” and xenophobic are used.
  • (5) The Centre Party.
Neither of the words xenophobic or racist is used in the whole article. Only the words “extreme right”.
  • (6) The Stephen Roth Institute.
The word “Anti-immigrant” is used and fascism in this way “Mikael Jansson, the party chairman since 1995, has invested considerable effort into cleansing the fascist image of the party”.

So of six sources only two use the words xenophobic or racist. And both this sources are Swedish, and one of them is officially getting money from Sweden Democrats political opponents.

When I give this information to the editors responsible I only get this answer:

…Just go to the pages, use your browser's "find" function, and input a sentence or so. The wording is very similar, and you should find the stuff no problem. You obviously haven't looked at the sources thoroughly enough…

Well, I have done just that. Please help me out.

To brand Sweden democrats as racist and Xenophobic is a unique Swedish phenomena, you won’t find that in any larger international news, they are treated exactly like Danish People’s part – as anti-immigrant or right winged. No more. To use Swedish sources in international publications is misleading. It gives the false impression that this view of the matter is international, when in fact it’s clearly only national.

I have spent perhaps 100 hours augmenting with these to editors, with minimal success. I have to constantly get other people involved in order to correct even the slightest POV. This is only one of many such matters. I fully understand that one shall avoid accusations of motive. But there must be a limit to this. If such a limit does exist it must have been broken with a good margin in this case. Please help out so this article can be NPOV. And please tell me what do when an editor evidently is bias and refuses to stop that behavior.SweHomer 17:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

SweHomer, you are doing this the right way by bring up your ideas on the talk page for discussion. Now that other editors are involved we will look at it. Please be patient and assume good faith that we will make the article NPOV. It takes time to discuss this and work it out. --FloNight talk 17:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

His claims are refuted above, but here they are again (emphasis added): CNN: "...is certainly echoed by extreme right-wing parties in other European countries. The Front National in France, the Vlaams Block in Belgium, The National Alliance in Italy, The Danish People's Party, The British National Party, The Sverigedemokraterna (Sweden Democrats)", BBC: "a far-right political party", European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia: "the xenophobic party the Sweden Democrats (SD)", Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society: "the Sweden Democrats have accordingly embedded into their political message not only cultural racism but biological racism as well.", Stephen Roth Institute: "Mikael Jansson, the party chairman since 1995, has invested considerable effort into cleansing the fascist image of the party" (you may have a pont here, but it's listed under the heading "Antisemitism and Racism"). But you are right that it should say "or" rather than "and". I have fixed that. // Liftarn

However, nearly all observers characterize the Sweden Democrats as far-right, xenophobic, and racist, including CNN [64], BBC [65], the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia [66], the Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society [67], The Centre Party [68], and the Stephen Roth Institute [69].
My first impression: Based on the sources the above text is too strong, I think. Let's get some other opinions, okay? FloNight talk 18:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The complaint is valid: this introduction presents those citations in a way that suggests every term is supported by every source. What they agree on is that it's far right and anti-immigrant. The stronger terms "xenophobic" and "racist" should be associated with a specific citation, preferably in the body of the article where there is space for greater discussion. "Controversial" would be a fair adjective for the introduction. Durova 19:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I moved the original opening paragraph and my temporary version of opening text to Talk:Sweden Democrats/Response section.. Work on re-writing it there. Do not do any revert in the main article, okay. Work together and come to an agreement. I'll help and others will, too. --FloNight talk 19:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] “Liftarns” propagandistic methods

  • “Liftarns” propagandistic method number one:
Lets say I find 30 articles about Bill Gates. All 30 characterize him as promiscuous. One states that’s he is gay, and one that he is a necrophilia. Then with liftarn’s technique I write this:
However, nearly all observers characterize Bill Gates as promiscuous, gay or necrophilia.
The methods purpose in obvious. To give the reader the impression that all these sources are coherent regarding Bill Gates, when in fact they are not.
  • Liftarns” propagandistic method number two:
From the sources given one relevant conclusion is obvious. That not Swedish sources uses terms such as “anti-imigrant”, “right winged” or “far right winged” and that Swedish sources uses harder words, as “xenophobic” and “racist”.
So a variant of method one is used. To mix Swedish sources with international sources in order to make the reader believe that there is a coherency, when the fact is the opposite. That there is a significant difference between how Swedish sources and international sources describes them. And this is of course relevant to the article and should be included.
  • Liftarns” propagandistic method number three:
From one source the he finds the words “fascism”, “anti-Semitism” and “racism” – and of course also SD. So he connect the tree. But lets look closer. The word “fascism” is not used to say SD is, or was fascist – only to state that they have taken actions against fascism. And what about “anti-Semitism” and “racism”. Well this part is only included in the name of this organization. the “Stephen Roth Institute for the study of contemporary Anti-Semitism and racism.”
This method could be used in another way. If a letter was sent from this organization to Expo, then according to Liftarn’s method number three, Expo is accused of racist and Anti-Semitism.
Further there are other things that could be bettered. This whole “labeling” thing is vital for the article and should have its own part where this was sorted out in an NPOV way. Also no notice is the difference between how CNN describes SD, CNN is leftist, that’s well known. BBC is more neutral, and BBC only uses “anti-immigrant”. This indicates that leftist media is harder on SD than neutral. Also, Jyllandsposten have written about SD a few times. And guess what! They are only called their name. No label of any kind.
Now, this is not one ore two isolated incidents. This is the pattern that ‘Liftarn’ is using on a regularly base. Mistakes or new on wikipedia? No, I think not. I am sure he don’t uses this methods on other pages he have been working with here on Wikipedia. But this is exactly the same methods Expo use against SD in Sweden. Coincidence? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SweHomer (talk • contribs).

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Liftarn 21:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Liftarn, i checked the "example" page under "No personal attacks". To bring up the question if bias is not there. I dont think this can be regarded as "personal attacks".SweHomer 21:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
SweHomer, please stop the accusations. There is no place for that in this discussion. You must WP:AGF. --FloNight talk 20:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, FloNight, let me ask you this. Does there exist a limit to how much systematic bias one must accept, before accusing someone for this, or is there no such limit what so ever? I am not sure about Wiki policy about this. The reason for me to keep stating this is to force him to break this pattern, so the work don’t have to be so time-consuming and slow. From day one until now I have seen no change in he’s behavior. But ok, i give it some time and wait for an improvment.SweHomer 21:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

SweHomer, could you please stop making baseless allegations against the sources? These sources are not going to be removed because of your unfounded theories. You only slur sources that give a disfavourable view of SD, and here's the evidence. You say that CNN is left-wing and BBC is neutral, solely because CNN uses a word you don't like. Maybe you'd change your mind if I told you that "far-right" (what BBC calls the SD) is used interchangably with "extreme right" (CNN demonstrated this in its article; at the beginning it used "far-right" and later in the article "extreme right" was used). ----WGee 20:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you a question that have noting to do with our personal political opinions. The example I described above, regarding Bill Gates. Is that in your opinion a NPOV approach? Lets take “Liberation Theology” that you are found of as an example.

I fond many sources that label this as a “leftist” movement. But also a few that connects it to terror and rape. Is it ok if I go into this page and add this (national front style):

However, nearly all observers characterize Liberation Theology as leftist, terrorist or rapist movement.

Is that fine for you WGee?SweHomer 21:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


BBC sources: "the far-right Sweden Democrats"[75] and "far-right anti-immigration"[76] // Liftarn 21:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Liftarn! You are using a statistic argument. Now you proved that BBC sometimes labels SD as "anti imigrant" and somtimes as "far right". To be objecitve you can not only use those sources that are most negative to SD. Jyllandsposten, Denmarks biggest newspaper dont label SD at all, and they have written more about SD than any other foriegn media. Why dont you include that? Because you think Jyllandsposten is bias?SweHomer 22:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
First off, read my proposed edit down below. I am for using the word most, among other things. I wouldn't mind if you used the sentence, "Most observers believe Liberation Theology is a component of left-wing politics." That is true, is it not? So what do you disagree with in my new proposed edit, now that that is settled? ---WGee 22:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, if Jyllandsposten doesn't label the SD at all, then why is it even relevant? And Jyllands-Posten is biased; they say so themselves. From the Wiki article on the paper: "The paper officially supported the Conservative People's Party until 1938. Since then, it has considered itself an independent liberal-conservative ("borgerlig") newspaper.[2]" Then read the section "Stance on immigration." WGee 22:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

SweHomer, Liftarn has a good point. Please refrain from "propagandistic" and other terms that characterize other editors' motives in a negative light. If you think some element is POV, just specify what and why. That makes it a lot easier to create a better article. The editors here are reasonably responsive to the citations you provide. Let's focus on the material rather than the personalities. Durova 22:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok SweHomer 22:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of Introduction/Proposed Edits

Please do not move this to the other page, as these comments should be viewed alongside the entire discussion and it is clear that nobody is going to the Talk:Sweden Democrats/Response section.. This is a vital part of the discussion and should be placed in maximum visibility. WGee 21:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


ORIGINAL OPENING Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna) (SD), founded in 1988 by Leif Zeilon, is a Swedish far right political party. The party describes itself as a nationalist movement and dissociates itself from all forms of totalitarianism and racism. However, nearly all observers characterize the Sweden Democrats as far-right, xenophobic, or racist, including CNN [77], BBC [78], the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia [79], the Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society [80], The Centre Party [81], and the Stephen Roth Institute [82]. Although the party has never received widespread support, it has for each consecutive election received an increased number of votes. It is the most popular far-right party in Sweden as of 2002.

DRAFT OPENING Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna) (SD), founded in 1988 by Leif Zeilon, is a Swedish far right political party. The party describes itself as a nationalist movement and dissociates itself from all forms of totalitarianism and racism. However, the party's main platform issue is anti-immigration as reported by CNN [83]and the BBC. [84] The Sweden Democrats also adopt sociocultural right-wing authoritarian positions on issues related to family policy and law and order. Although the party has never received widespread support, it has for each consecutive election received an increased number of votes. It is the most popular far-right party in Sweden as of 2002 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FloNight (talk • contribs).


I disagree with the third sentence. I believe it should read:
However, most observers characterize the Sweden Democrats as far-right and anti-immigration, including CNN [85], the BBC [86], the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia [87], the Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society [88], and the Stephen Roth Institute [89].
The reality is that most observers characterize the SD in this way. I think we should be as honest as possible. I agree that "nearly all" is extreme, but "many" suggests to the reader that these opinions aren't that of the majority, which isn't the case. In the Swedish election, the SD received 1.4% of the vote. Based on that, it is only logical that most observers (and most people) consider the SD as far-right (i.e. outside of mainstream right-wing politics). Also, the SD's platform (in English) is very critical of immigrants and it bears all the hallmarks of your standard Euronationalist, anti-immigration party. Based on crude research and the SD's platform, it is only fair to say that most observers consider the SD anti-immigration. Anybody who opposes the word "most" should have the burden of proof, in my opinion.
Also, the other reputable sources must stay. It is imperative that we include research papers from academic organizations so readers do not just think these are the opinions of media outlets. The academic organizations are very well-established and authoritative, and they give more information as to why the SD is far-right. It won't hurt to include the same sources in an "Alleged Xenophobia and Racism" section.
BBC and CNN say that the party is "anti-immigration". There's no need to say "the party's main platform issue is anti-immigration." These agencies all state explicitly that the party is "anti-immigration" in itself. It's a way of describing a party as a whole, much like the word "socialist".
Any input?
WGee 21:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)~
Yes, if you stay with "anti-immigrant", the "however" can be deleted. That’s not a dispute, SD agrees on this. About "most observers" - this is a statistical argument. Then you can not only use those sources that claims this. You must first prove the statistical significance. Perhaps the majority of big newspapers labels them otherwise and these are the exceptions. If you refer to a pattern, you must prove this pattern.
About “main platform issue is anti-immigration”. I don’t agree – it should stay. This is relevant information and should be included. Its true.
About “the other reputable sources”, I prefer well known sources that everyone know of. Like BBC, CNN and so on. It is not possible for the reader to be critic about possible bias when you use a source no one ever heard of.SweHomer 22:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, you have the burden of proof on this one. So far, nothing suggests that most observers don't believe this, but we plenty of evidence sugesting that most observers do believe this. You have not presented even one paper from an academic organization or one mainstream news report that says the SD is not far right and anti-immigrant; meanwhile, I and others have already presented several.

Also, the only sources that hold ground in this article and on Wikipedia are reputable and well-established ones. All of my sources are well-established and reputable. The reliablity of sources does not depend on TV ratings.

---WGee 22:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"the burden of proof " is on the editor that wants to enter the material. But we can see what Flonight and Durova thinks. And no one will write about the “not rightwing Swedish Democrats”, so that is hardly a valid argument. But Jyllandsposten have 4 articles about SD where they have no label what so ever.

You write that “plenty of evidence suggesting that most observers do believe this”. You have only showed that some observers believe this. Where is your source to that this list really is “most observers”? Again, you make an statistic argument and present no statistic.

Further, one of your sources is Expo. This article in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet [90] shows that the same person who have worked for Expo also have worked as Journalists on Aftonbladet, and have been a member of AFA who have carried out numerous violent attacks on SD members and party meetings. I have (as I showed you before) many more sources for this.

Perhaps we should write something about this? The story of Expo-AFA-Aftonbladet is indeed central to this subject. People working for Sweden’s biggest newspaper and writing about SD is at the same time working for both AFA and Expo. Very interesting indeed.SweHomer 23:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Although the original introduction had some problems, it did cite enough respected third party references to justify a phrase like, "most other reputable sources." It would be good to list more than just two in the new version. Unless SweHomer has mainstream news reports to the contrary, this looks like it should stand. Durova 23:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. There is nothing to suggest that the sentence is not true, but there are several sources that suggest the sentence is true. Therefore, SweHomer bears the burden of proof. However, I personally don't see a need to make a distinction between reliable and unreliable sources because, according to Wikipedia, all sources must be reliable, particularly with regard to a controversial issue such as this. ---WGee 00:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I mean sources that satisfy WP:V, as opposed to the blogosphere, etc. Durova 02:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

If Durova agrees, then the "principle" of this stands. The source "Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society" is in fact an EXPO article - so i think that one not shall be used. I will do some statistic on this "label" stuff. And i beleive its rekevant that the harder accusations all have Swedish sources, this should not be "hidden" under a other organisations name. If you agree on using these sources (that includes Durova and Flonight) then their true identity should be given. Expo and Jens Rydgren. And again - dont move the stuff to article BEFORE there is a concencus. REMOVE it until whe have this.SweHomer 13:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok, that makes more sense. Maybe the word "non-partisan" should be included to describe the observers. WGee 05:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Then you obiosly must remove Expos work.SweHomer 13:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Flonight wrote this: " Do not remove or re-insert text without discussion leading to consensus. You have been asked nicely by myself and Mel."

So WGee, perhaps you missed to read this? Well, now I show it to you, we all can make mistakes so I be helpful and assist you in correcting this mistake you have done. And I will of course not accuse you for breaking any rules; it was just an unfortunate mistake from your side. Ok?SweHomer 11:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is anti-immigrant racist or xenophobic?

Here's a theme that was dropped a bit earlier. It's a touchy issue where I live (a few miles from the Mexican border) and appears to be equally touchy in Sweden. Here, some people consider all opposition to open immigration the same thing as bigotry. Certainly there are some cases where this holds true. Yet there is also a consensus that far more people want to live here than the country can accommodate. So there's an uneasy balance. People trickle in any way they can and if they stay long enough their situation tends to get legalized. I wouldn't call this a good solution, it's just what the public has settled for. Every year people die in the desert trying to cross the border.

What I'm driving at, and what I'd like both sides to articulate, is whether it's possible to separate stricter immigration limits from prejudice. If this misses the point then please correct me, but it seems to be very near the heart of the dispute. Provide references, please. Durova 09:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

A quote from a speech during the 2002 election campaign sums up the SD position quite well: "Even more often it happens that dark skinned youths rob and knock down helpless elderly on their way home with their meagre pensions. Our youn boys - blonde, blue eyed - are humiliated and robbed on their cell phones. A new phenomena in Sweden's history is the gang rapes of our girls.". Or from their own website[91] "Recent legislation has made the Swedish population second class citizens in its own country, open to discrimination on behalf of newly arrived immigrants." and "en alltför stor invandring på ett allvarligt sätt har kommit att hota den svenska nationella identiteten." ("a too large immigration have come to threaten the Swedish national identity")[92] and "Sverigedemokraterna strävar på lång sikt efter ett homogent samhälle./../ Sverigedemokraterna vill istället på sikt återskapa Sverige som en svensk nation, där svenskarnas intressen sätts i främsta rummet. /../ " ("The Sweden Democrats' long term aim is a homogeneous society. /../ The Sweden Democrats want in the long run to recreate Sweden as a Swedish nation, where the needs of Swedes are top priority.")[93]. The SD propaganda often links ethnicity and crime, examples "A mentally handicapped woman was held locked in for 24 hours in an appartment in the immigrant rich suburb Akalla to the north of Stockholm"[94], "Limhamn have for a long time been relativley spared from the crimminal immigrant gang's ravages, but during later times a large number of youths have become the victim of the anti-Swede robbers."[95]. By the way SD denies being racists due to that they discriminate based on ethnicity and culture, not race.[96] // Liftarn 09:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This speach u quote, do you have any source? Much of what you quote indicates racism against the Swedes, and that SD it criticizing this racism. Can you explain how that supports your claim?SweHomer 12:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ofourse I have a source. It's from a Dagens Nyheter article. http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1042&a=59907 I don't see that SD criticize any racism, but they indeed talk about "svenskfientliga", but there is no evidence for racism being the motive behind the robbery. // Liftarn

According to a professor in political science they also are anti-democratic.[97]. In an Expressen article they are again called xenophobic ("främlingsfientliga" in Swedish)[98]. Interesting article by the way. It contains a quote from the SD representative in Askersund when he called a local rasio station to give his views on the songs played: "Ooaaaaa... blue negro... stop playing that damn blue negro... ooaaaa, damn negro bastards that burps and bellow like calves. Can't you stop that damn nonsense... the Swedish people, I don't want to hear that crap. Get it?" . Expressen also gives a review of the party history[99]. Also a defector told some interesting things[100]. // Liftarn

Good stuff liftarn, the best you produced so far. I reacted with disgust when I read this. I will verify this speech (should not take long). Kenneth Sandberg (who held this speech) is one of the most popular persons in the “bunker fraction”. He recently had to leave the central board of SD, with created some protests from the “bunker fraction”. He is also nr 15 on the list for candidates to the parliament (of 15). So I would guess that he’s influence in decreasing. And let me tell you that when it comes to the “bunker fraction” there is some truth to this with double agenda. I heard quite a few rumors about that. The situation was so intense when Åkesson was running for president 2005, that most of us “new thinkers” where going to leave the party and start a new one, if Åkesson where not elected. But now the “new thinkers” are firmly in power. SweHomer 14:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

These are damaging quotes. They place the burden of proof on SweHomer to verify the existence of two factions and the ascendancy of the less radical faction. Also, they raise the question of why he wasn't expelled from the party. Durova 15:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I added some futher down. I will check this up with the qutations. SweHomer 16:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree totally with Durova, and I think these quotes should be included in the "Controversy" section. In the response section, it will be possible to allege the predominance of the "new thinkers" in the party.

[edit] Can LIFTARN and WGEE please recpect the advice from FloNight.

Again you are taking turns in reverting. Can you please stop this and restore text to the version FloNight put it in?

"Do not remove or re-insert text without discussion leading to consensus. You have been asked nicely by myself and Mel."

I put this in the "talk" page of everyone, so there can me no further accidents. These to reverts were of course not done on purpose, you both just missed to read what Flonight wroteSweHomer 11:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do not remove any text. // Liftarn

What about restore the text to the version FloNight put it in?SweHomer 13:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why would a new generation of leadership

Question: Why would a new generation of leadership "clean up" a political party with such a tainted past, rather than build a new organization?

WGee: It's an interesting question with a seemingly obvious answer: the party has not abondoned its original tenets. When reading the response section, which distances the SD from its neo-fascist past, readers will think about this question and come to the same logical conclusion I have, I expect. I think the response section should state whether or not the SD has abondoned ALL of its original values.

SweHomer: Good stuff! Now we are perhaps getting somewhere. WGee’s theory could only be valid if the people associated with this tainted past were still there, and in power. It would seem strange to leave the party in order to create this “deception”. But I liked he’s answer, it explains a lot about why WGee is taking the position he does, and it also indicates honesty – that he don’t work with a hidden agenda. Very good. Today SD on the national level have a new policy since year 2000. To get elected and to get a higher position in the national organization of the party u must fill in a document where you state what other parties you previously have been a member in. If any of them is more extreme than SD they are stopped. On the “right” scale this means that only the now dead “new democracy” is acceptable.

This system is first now implemented on the local organizations, the back door is now closing, and those two incidents with persons with tainted past getting into the party since year 2000 were at this local level. The party today are divided in two fractions. The “new thinkers” who is strongest in south Sweden (where SD also get most votes). And the old so called (by expo) “bunker fraction”. When Åkesson was elected president 2004, this was when the “new thinkers” officially took over the party. The “bunker fraction” have only a few positions in mid level and they are constantly pushed out of the party or resigns. You can categorize the “bunker fraction” as those who use the word “ethnic” a lot, and the NewThinkers prefer the word culture. There is a big party meeting right now and I suspect that the manifesto will be rewritten and the word “ethnic” will be used very little or not at all. So my answer is that the “bunker fraction’s” time is over. But I give this to WGee. In this bunker fraction this hidden agenda does exist to some degree. But their days are over. The party is moving mainstream and their focus is less and less nationalistic, and more on people like me – who in fact are not so nationalistic, but wants action against the mass immigration and islamization of not only Sweden but all of Europe. We who don’t want our children to live Eurabia. We who think that the integration is one sided, that there is a process of western values changing to accommodate the Muslims, but not the same from their side. The Muhammad drawings are an example of this.

In my personal view, the conflict is not national but global. It’s a cold war between MacWorld (the democratic global word) and MacJihad. Between civilization and tribalization.

But enough OT. The reason why there was no “fresh start” is because there were a better alternative. It has taken SD forever to be established, and a new party would have to start from zero. Another ten years lost. BUT it was close, very close. When Åkesson got elected 2004 many of us “NewThinkers” openly stated that if he not gets elected, then we would leave the party and start a new one.

We need sources for this. Durova 15:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.expo.se/index_1.php?pg=http%3A//www.expo.se/www/1_1068.html

This article from Expo is not dated, but it apears to be from late 2003 or early in 2004. It descibes how the "newthinkers" is trying to get in power, whitch until now is hold by the "bunker fraction". The source is a defector from SD.

http://www.expo.se/index_1.php?pg=http%3A//www.expo.se/www/1_1068.html

Futher about "newthinkers", here called "south sweden fraction".

http://www.arbetaren.se/2004/42/recension1.html

That the "newthinkers" have joined the party AFTER 1998, witch means they have no connection to the tainted past. A very importent fact.

http://sverigedemokraterna.blogspot.com/2005/10/jsw-dag-2-vrsta-inbrdesstriderna.html

http://sydsvenskan.se/sverige/article124712.ece

Jimmy Windeskog says he reacted negativly when a dark skinned adoped Swedish person whas on a election broshoyre... - how much is theese persons really against muliculture?

And he adds: - If the parti council is behind this, its no longer a nationalistic party, only a imigration critic party.

After this Jimmy Windeskog was expelled from the party.

http://www.sverigedemokraterna.net/publikationer/sdu2005kyrkoval.pdf

Here is the broshoure with the "dark skinned person".

Futher, i want to add that a new member that is very active is Iranian, a defector from Islam. SweHomer 16:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC and possible page protection

As none of the editors involved in this squabble is prepared to hold back, to compromise, or to listen to FloNight's good advice, more needs to be don. My first step is to list this article at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, in order to get more editors involved. The next step, if that gets us nowehere, will be to get the page protected against any editing until the dispute is resolved. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. It is only ‘liftarn’ and ‘WGee’ that is ignoring Flonight’s advice.I have not on any single occasion changed the content from the form that FloNight put it there in. This is something only Liftarn and WGee are responsible of. Would i first ignore Flonights advice and the create the passage "Can LIFTARN and WGEE please recpect the advice from FloNight." Not a very logical behavior...

I have questioned your neutrality before, and please don’t be offended – but perhaps there is another administrator available that both parts can trust. I would prefer that such a judgment as “As none of the editors involved in this squabble is prepared to hold back, to compromise, or to listen to FloNight's good advice” would be done by Flonight or Durova, who follows this most closley. We are making progress, even if is at a slow pace.

The only real problem now existing is that ‘liftarn’ and ‘WGee’ keeps editing the page against FloNight's good advice. If that can be stopped, then I don’t see the problem. And if we get stuck, and cant reach a consensus on a subject– then I will accept Flonight or Durova’s recommendation. If WGee and Liftar’n also agree on this, then neither part can stop the progress.

Let me propose two rules:

(1) No one edit the page without clear consensus from the other part.

(2) If no consensus is reached, then Flonight and Durova takes action and do the edit them self.

Liftarn and WGee can you agree on this?SweHomer 16:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

One alternative of course is that all edits is done by FloNight and Durova, and that me, liftarn and WGee only comes with suggestions. I have no problem with that, I don’t demand ownership.SweHomer 17:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Mel Etitis, I don't think it would be an appropriate course of action to protect the article. It appears to me that FloNight unilaterally edited the introduction, without building a consensus herself. If we are going to make rules, there can be no double standards. I don't think it's fair to criticize everybody but FloNight for editing the article. And it is clear to me that people have compromised and that progress has been and is being made. There is no edit war in progress at the moment, so I see no need to even think about such drastic action.
I do not agree with your second rule, SweHomer. Although I'm sure Durova and FloNight are reasonable editors, we should not give only two people the authority to make changes in the article, not yet, at least. I already had disagreements with FloNight's edits to the intro.
WGee 17:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Mel was responding to a comment I left him. I left him a comment telling him that I used his name when I reminded you to reach consensus before putting text in the article. If I quote another user I try to do that to make sure I'm not misrepresenting them.
Today when I signed on I saw that all three of you had been disruptive: 1. inserted text in the article without clear consensus or removed the text without consensus. 2. made personal attacks or accused each other of making personal attacks with tags. 3. made spamish comments on user talk pages.
There was some good discussion mixed in with the disruption. The good discussion is the reason that I will stay involved and help you all. But you need to try and be less disruptive. The Rfc is a good idea. Hopefully it will bring alot of others with good ideas. --FloNight talk 17:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok Flonight so please tell me what the proper action from me should is when we have an agreement to not unilaterally change anything, and also you have given us this advice. To revert is obviously wrong, but what then is right?SweHomer 18:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that RfC is a good idea. There's a fair amount of compromise going on here, but also some negative dialogue on the talk page and a bit of edit warring. BTW you all deserve to be proud of that positive element. If you pursue that path you'll have a very good article in the end. Durova 18:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Unfortunately someone have written on the RfC request that its probably a waste of time to get involved. Not so very helpfoul.SweHomer 22:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] damaging quotes

Björn Lennartsson, in Askersund was responible for this with "blunegros". He got expelled 2003, and this to was on the local level - he was a newcomer SweHomer 17:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the Intro?

What specific problems are there with the intro, as of now? ---WGee 17:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all that you made it unilaterally without consensus from either me, Flonight or Durova, the other reasons I have already stated above (before you changed it), but I can repeat them.

(1)I don’t like that you are using Expo as a source, I have provided tons of evidence on how controversial and bias they are. But if you get OK from Flonight or Durova then I accept it.

(2) If you get an agreement to use Expo as a source, then this should be clear to the reader that this source is indeed Expo. Now Expo is hiding under the name “the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia”. The conflict between SD and Expo is extremely relevant to this whole article.

(3) For objectivity I prefer that you use sources outside of Sweden, but if you use Swedish sources this must be clear to the reader. The difference in bias is already well proven.

(4) “The party's main platform issue is anti-immigration, should not be deleted. It’s both true and relevant.

(5) The “however” should not be used regarding “anti-immigration”, this is not disputed. SD agrees on this.

And finally, if you state that you agree to rule number “(1) No one edit the page without clear consensus from the other part.”. Show that practically and change it back to FloNights verison.SweHomer 18:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I really can't comment on the objectivity of Expo. I defer to other editors on that topic. Durova 18:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I understand that you donät like using Expo as a source as they have so much damagin material on SD. However, there is no dubting that Expo presents relevant and correct facts. CNN lists SD as "extreme right-wing" and BBC as "far-right". // Liftarn

So, get an OK from Durova or Flonight - and thats fine. But use Expos as the source, when the source is ExpoSweHomer 19:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


1) You have never proven or verified that Expo is biased or controversial; you have only presented personal theories that link Expo to far-left organizations. Like Liftarn said, many well-known observers agree with Expo's findings, so are you saying organizations like the BBC are biased as well?
2) Based on point (1), there is no reason to treat Expo differently than other sources. Also, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia commissioned that report on racist violence. The organization relies on nonpartisan national agencies and research organizations to give country-specific reports. Moreover, the alleged conflict between Expo and the SD is not relevant to the article; so far, it is only a theory of yours that has not been proven or verified.
3) There should be no discrimination against Swedish sources. You have never proven that Swedish sources are biased against the SD for cultural reasons.
4) By describing the party as "anti-immigrant", we are indicating that the party's platform revolves around opposition to immigration. We should keep verbosity to a minimum, especially in an ecyclopedia.
5) If you say the party agrees with the term "anti-immigrant", then you should provide sources. Although you are a member of the SD, some other members or party officials might disagree with you.
WGee 19:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
(1) The link between Expo and Afa is well sourced. Both Tobias Hübinette and Anders Carlqvist (alias Peter Karlsson ) are well known persons in Sweden and are connected to both AFA and Expo.
2 If you dont think Expo have anything to hide, then lets use their name when you source them. I dont see the problem.
3 I dont want to dicriminate them. I only want that swedish sources should be presented as just that. The harder labeling on SD comes all from just Swedish sources. There is a significant difference that is relevant and should be told.

But ok, use this source until I have done more reasearch, can we compromise that you can use it, and that you label it as Expo? [[User:SweHomer|SweHomer SweHomer 22:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


I will respectfully reject this compromise; I've already made my reasons clear. WGee 23:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

A vast majority of the critic against SD comes from Expo. The political parties often quotes Expo publications in their material about SD. Newspapers and media in Sweden either quotes Expo or uses persons from Expo as free-lance Journalists or researchers. I don’t think there ever has been a major journalistic work on SD in Sweden without Expos involvement. So Expo has in fact a monopoly situation regarding the media coverage of SD, and a huge impact on the political parties view of SD.

Right now Sweden’s biggest and most important daily newspaper “DN” (the Daily News) is publishing a series of SD stories, one article per day. As researcher they use Anders Carlqvist who works under the pseudonym Peter Karlsson. He is well known in Sweden because he got his car blown up and he’s son hurt by a car bomb put there by Swedish Nazis. According to Sweden’s biggest tabloid “Aftonbladet” this was done because of he was identified as one of the leaders for AFA (Anti-Fascist-Front). AFA is an extreme anarchistic left wing organization using violence as method for political achievements. They have on their homepage claimed responsibility for several attacks on SD including a attacking a SD dinner party with teargas, then waiting outside with knifes, irons sticks and axes. Hurting several people, one female member had to go to hospital because she is asthmatic and the teargas put her life at risk. They also smashed several cars and the place that was rented. Anders Carlqvist/Peter Karlsson also works or have worked for Expo, Just as Thobias Hybernotte he is involved in both organizations.

The founder of Expo is the Journalist Stieg Larsson who has a past as in a communist party (SP Trotsky ideology). According to the Swedish Newspaper Contra Stieg Larsson also was a KGB “influential” agent during the cold war. But this I only have one source for. But yes, there is a slight problem abuts Expos NPOV.

I can sum the problem in two points.

  • 1. In Sweden there is in fact only one source on SD, Expo. Hopefully WGee agrees on this one.
  • 2. Expo has a strong extreme-left bias. Both from senior members, who is linked to traditional communism and from younger members who is linked to anarchism.

So from my obvious bias I want it to be evident for the reader that in fact 98% of the critic comes from only one source. But in this case it’s also the NPOV way. And I think it would be very POV to use republished Expo material. It could be interpreted as a way to mislead the reader in to believing there are many independent sources when there in fact is only one. This could further give the reader the suspicion that this is done for propagandistic reasons, to “bring SD down”, not to make an NPOV article.

But I guess this question is a principal one. Something to make a straw poll with. Comments?

I don't think we should give any validity to an unfounded claim by removing the source. But with regards to SweHomer's compromise, I have changed my mind. In order to help resolve the dispute, I will agree to label the source as "Expo", as I don't think it will make any difference to the average reader. Since everyone seems to be onboard, I'll go ahead and make the change.
WGee 03:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. When the source is EMCR it should say so. And your conspiracy theories is still unfounded. // Liftarn

It dosent really matter, if i can prove it (but i can). The monopoly situation is still there.SweHomer 08:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Expo is the leading watchdog organisation in Sweden, but that doesn't make it a "monopoly". // Liftarn

The Intro again

Now its like this: The party describes itself as a nationalist movement and dissociates itself from all forms of totalitarianism and racism. However, most nonpartisan observers characterize the Sweden Democrats as far-right and anti-immigrant,

I have a problem with this. The “however”. Even if SD is both far right and anti-immigrant, then does this contradict that they are NOT against totalitarianism and racism? I think the however should be deleted. Comments? SweHomer 21:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ignoring this comment and moving on

It appears to me that FloNight unilaterally edited the introduction, without building a consensus herself. If we are going to make rules, there can be no double standards. I don't think it's fair to criticize everybody but FloNight for editing the article.

WGee, might want to re-think this complaint. I think it will be obvious to any impartial observer that I'm not trying to control the content of the article. FloNight talk 19:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my complaint. I did not say or mean to imply that you are controlling the content of the article. My complaint was that there was no discussion of your edits before they were implemented, yet you insist that SweHomer, Liftarn, and I not make any changes to the article without consensus. Quite hypocritical, in my opinion. ---WGee 20:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes there was. She followed Durovas suggestionsSweHomer 22:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Durova was not fully satisfied with the edits; he said that there should be more than two sources. I don't think any concrete agreement was reached. WGee 23:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you think so highly of me. I do think it's appropriate to use more than two links there, especially since you already have several more good ones. Durova 00:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

lol, your opinion seems quite relevant these days. ---WGee 00:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia: pleasant leisure activity

SweHomer, Wgee, and Liftarn, editing Wikipedia is suppose to be a pleasant leisure activity. Working on this article is no longer enjoyable; so, I am going to stop doing it. Hope you can work out your differences. FloNight talk 21:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats very bad news, but I sure can understand you. Both me, WGee and Liftarn stand far from eachother, and I think its vital that we have more than one neutral editor that can assist us. Also I think its important that theese neutral editors act with some authority, and that we respect this. I have learned a lot from you, and i hope i will improve my Wiki behavior. Thanks SweHomer 22:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encouragement

One of the best experiences at Wikipedia happens among editors with deep differences. People don't have to agree about a topic to collaborate on a great article. All it takes is mutual respect and a willingness to abide by referenced sources and site policy. If you think you're right, dig up the very best evidence you can find and put that in the article. Let the other side's best evidence be a challenge to raise your own standards and always bear the big picture in mind: we're here to provide information for nonspecialists.

Some good dialogue has started since I joined your talk page. There have also been mistakes, but that's natural, and the brightest spot is that everyone here has been willing to look at the other side's evidence. Keep at it. You've found the right path. And when someone gets a little carried away, offer them a graceful retreat. I'll keep checking in. Cheers, Durova 02:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you for those encouraging words; you seem like quite a calm and well-conducted person. I mean that sincerely. Maybe it would be more obvious if I added a smiley-face, so here: :) WGee 04:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sweden democrats reports the newspaper “Expressen” to the Press Ombudsman.

March 18, 2006 SDKuriren

In the Saturday edition of “Expressen a number of articles regarding the Swedish Democrats was published. The Parties President Jimmie Åkesson have reacted strong against the content of the articles and informs that the party reports Expressen to the Press Ombudsman.

“-The articles in today’s edition is the worst case of [Goebbels] Journalism during my eleven years in politic. Half-truths are mixed with pure lies without any opportunity for any spokesman from the party to response. The articles are illustrated with a photo on mad Nazis who lacks any connection to party and the research is done by a person with documented connections militant left extremism and that according to the police have been involved in violent attacks against the Swedish Democrats. Its frightening that they treat the largest party outside the parliament in this way. Its obvious that “Expressen” have violated several of the press ethic rules, and because of this we now reports them, Jimmy Åkesson finish.[[101]]SweHomer 14:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure this is upsetting for members of the party. However, political parties spend a lot of time in the news. Is this the sort of item that belongs in an encyclopedia article? Durova 16:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No, my point was that again the militant extremleft Peter Karlsson who works for Expo and AFA writes about SD - and in a "bourgeous" newspaper. You have worked with NF page. Is there a common situation there, or is it as I suspect, a unique Swedish situation? SweHomer 16:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This is mere commentary from the SD. I agree with Durova; it really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. WGee 17:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of Swedish is limited to German cognates so I'm over my head with that article. It does come from the SD party? I'd rather see that criticism come from a neutral third party. Yet that path seems tangential to this encyclopedia article. It would rise to encyclopedic value if SD had sued a newspaper successfully over coverage, or if some journalist had to resign from a job for fabricating a story. Durova 23:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The source is SD's own paper, but I have added a bit about it under the The Sweden Democrats' response to the controversy section. // Liftarn

[edit] Please help me

After spending more than 100 hours on this page the result is:

80% or more in the talk page is done by me. Not a single letter of my work is in the actual article. If I do the edit I want to do, the opponents immediately revert it. If I change it back they again change it until I become blocked for 3 time revert rule. They take turns in this so I will always get blocked first.

Since I started to work with the page my opponents have done hundreds of edits, unilaterally without my consent, and without consent from the neutral editors. Even when I got a single agreement with one of them the other refused and this was blocked. I can’t edit, I cant get consensus – the situation is almost as if I were not here. What am I to do? Give up? I spend much more time than my opponents do together and I follow all rules, still my influence on the page is almost zero and their close to 100%. What am I doing wrong? SweHomer 19:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

How about concentrating on an expansion for the party's defense? Durova 00:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but i have a lot of critic about the allegatins, so to not waist time i thougt that part should be done first. But maybe you are right.SweHomer 01:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually there have been several changes since you entered into the debate. For instance the new "The Sweden Democrats' response to the controversy" section. But you should really spend more time looking for sources than attacking people and organisations. // Liftarn 10:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sweden’s government shall reply to questions of attacks against the Swedish Democrats

This is from Danish Peoples Party, Sören Espersen meber of the Nordic Council


Christiansborg Saturday 19 march

“Letter to the press”

Sweden’s government shall reply to questions of attacks against the Swedish Democrats

As a member of the Nordic Council requires Danish Peoples Parties spokesman in foreign matters (bad translation I know) Sören Espersen that the Swedish government reveals their stand regarding a list of attacks against members of the party Sweden Democrats. He transfers through the Nordic council three very concrete questions, and a list of the attacks of the alleged attacks is included below.

I hope the allegations about these attacks is shown to be inconclusive – otherwise Sweden as a nation have a democratic problem, that Denmark as neighbor country, member of the European Nation is forced to adjust itself to, says Sören Espersen and that informs that he got the troublesome list of the attacks of they years 2002-2004 send from the Swedish party.

I don’t know so much about the Swedish Democrats politics or party program, but i have understood that it's a fully legal party that acknowledges the democratic rules.

I understand further that the party during a longer time have been represented (elected) in many local areas (kommuner, small parts of Sweden) where they everywhere have acted according to the democratic principles. So much worse than it is that there apparently is (hets = people trying to create anger against something) against the party. During the summer – and into the next session for the Nordic council in October is Sören Espersen preparing another list of questions to Sweden’s government, that all are related to the to the shortcomings of democracy in Sweden.

So i am working in this time on a critic report about the election system of Sweden, that i fear is a danger against the individual voter on the election day. The three questions:

  • 1.Will Sweden’s government confirm or deny the accuracy of each and every single point in the list of attacks on the Swedish Democrats in the list included.
  • 2.Will Sweden’s government confirm, that the Swedish Democrats in the future is ensured their democratic rights and protection from attacks and foul play that have been a matter to the legal system.
  • 3.Will Sweden’s government confirm, that a teacher in Blekinge, Rickard Jomshof, got expelled from hes work for the reason that he is a member of The Swedish Democrats. If this is confirmed, does the Swedish government accept this reason for fire him.

The List:

(1):2002, 25 March. Kenneth Sandbergs house in Kävlinge is surrounded by autonomist (=anarchists?) and he receives threats.

(2):2002, 09 April. A meeting for the Swedish democrats in Trelleborg is interrupted by autonomist.

(3):2002, 09 July Hundreds of autonomist blocks a SD meeting in Medborgerhuset, Stockholm. Several mebers is attacked and beaten, among them the female member Gun Kullberg goes to the ground.

(4):2002, 08 Jun In Lund masked left extremists attacks a meeting by SD’s youths

(5):2002 13 Jun Kenneth Sandberg i Kävlinge get hes windows smashed by rocks and autonomist screams treats.

(6):2002, 22 July SD’s official in Jönköping, Janne Ljungberg gets by the phone treats to his life. “Die u damn racist”. This continues all night.

(7):2002, 24 July In Helsingborg on of SD members gets a stone thrown trough he’s window in hes home.

(8):2002, 25 July. On internet higher members of SD get their names and addresses listed with word to encourage people to attack them.

(9):2002, 17 August A meeting in Lund get attacked by masked persons.

(10):2002, 07 September A meeting in Malmö was stopped by leftwing extremists. The police was there and stopped the meeting, because they could not guarantee the safety if the precipitants

(11):2003 27 February 30 autonomist destroys a meeting in Medborgarhuset i Södermalm, Stockholm

(12):2003 19 April In Lidköping a group in the left, the syndikalitists tries to murder e Swedish Democrat delivering flyers. He was hit with a stone in he’s head so he went down and after that he was kicked in the head and also jumped on hes head. In the hospital the doctors stated that it was close that he got killed.

(13):2003, 09 July the president Mikael Jansson is attacked and beaten to the ground by four masked men a few hours after a meeting in Visby. Another member is attacked with a base boll bat. When he is at the ground kicking starts and the bat is again used. The police arrested the people doing this.

(14):2003 26 July In a meeting in Nyköping a group if left extremists attacks. Wallets phones get stolen, and members are spitted on.

(15):2003 28 july In Lidköping a car that belong to a prominent member get he’s car painted with a Nazi cross and the word SD.

(16):2003 10 October In the night to Friday arson was attempted against a SD member in Örebro. First a letter was thrown in with the words, “Hate SD” and a torch in fire was thrown in afterwards. Had he not been awake when this happened, he would have perished in the flames.

(17):2004, 29 July Sweden Democrats second highest Johan Rinderheim who lives in Nynäshamn get attacked by to young bandits with political motives. First calling him Nazi pig then beating him to the ground.


Danish Peoples Party, Sören EspersenSweHomer 01:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

And let me add. The response from the Swedish Government was only some general statements regarding their official view on democracy. The questions was not answered and the Swedish Democrats not mentioned in the reply.

And none of this attacks was not reported in media. There was a media black out (as far as i know). SweHomer 01:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

In the response section, you would be wise to simply include information that distances the SD from its neo-Nazi past. This statement is a criticism of the Swedish government, not a defence of the party's image. It does not directly respond to the news reports which link the SD to neo-Nazism, so I don't see its relevance.
The letter merely indicates that the SD is a conroversial and despised fringe party that is supported by the Danish People's Party. It seems like you are trying to draw sympathy to the SD, alleging that the Social Democrats are oppressing the SD; however, I can assure you that a statement from the far-right and controversial Danish People's Party evokes no sympathy.
WGee 05:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Information that is relevant to the subject should be included. We can not censor anything to prevent readers from getting sympathetic or unsympathetic. I think the story about Sören Espersen should have its own heading. And, as the Wiki rules are – it’s not our job to form reader’s opinions. We must trust the reader to himself make his own judgments. This is the western free world where individualism is valued high. Not a communist dictatorship where those who are more “informed” helps those not so “informed” to think “right”. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SweHomer (talk • contribs).

We have a source from Søren Espersen's homepage.[102] He's a member of Dansk Folkeparti. But, SweHomer what exactly do you want included in the article? That SD demonstrations have been interrupted and attacked and that a DF member objects to that? // Liftarn

The Nordic Council and the Nordic Council of Ministers is a cooperation forum for the Parliaments and governments of the Nordic countries. It was established following World War II and its first concrete results was the introduction in 1952 of a common labour market, social security, and free movement across borders without passports for the countries' citizens.

So that this matter is brouht to such high level is a matter of significanse.

Here is the link to the official document [[103]]

The answer came from Jens Orback, Swedish minister for Democracy.

This story, just like the story of the Muhammad drawings should have its own place in the article. Its a significant event regarding SDSweHomer 14:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

So just because a random person wrote to the nordic counsil it's important? // Liftarn
Søren Espersen is the spokesman for Danish Peoples’s party regarding foreign affairs and a member of the Nordic Council. Søren Espersen is hardly a random person. This was brought to the highest level and was answered by the Swedish minister for Democracy. This was reported in Danish Media, but in Sweden there was a total media black-out despite the obvious news value of this event.SweHomer 15:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Honesty about bias would be appreciated

In order to be transparent and so that myself and everybody else can adjust to my bias, I have stated my political views on this very controversial subject. To do so strongly indicates that I really want an NPOV article as result of this work. If I had hidden my real views it would have indicated a propagandistic agenda. I would appreciate if my opponents did the same. Liftarn have on the Swedish page revealed that he knows a lot about the inner workings of AFA, an anarchistic organization working in secret, using violence against political opponents wearing masks. Information he hardly could have had if he not was associated with this organization. He also uses the address - as he’s homepage. “-”. AFA is an organization that regularly attacks the Swedish Democrats members and meetings and claims responsibility after each attack on their homepage. And I can of course prove all this and more, but I don’t expect Liftarn to insist on this, or am I wrong -?

So now we have a situation where one of the editors either is involved or have close links to an archaistic organization that on a regular base uses criminal methods against the organization he now is editing. Could this be a Wiki record of bias?

The information I have found will of course stay in my hands. I would not dream about using your methods. SweHomer 17:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Harassment under Posting of personal information. You are ofcourse wrong on som many different levels it's hard to know where to start. I don't deny that I have quite good knowledge of the Swedish far right. // Liftarn

I will of curse not put any personal information here or anywhere else. But do you deny that you under your true name uses the “-” as your homepage? I saved the page to my computer, and I have already seen that you now are cleaning up your tracks, but I don’t think you have such access that you can delete all connection’s between your name and this link. Then you must erase quite a few messages on several servers.

Don't miss - at: -

Have you not included this two lines in messages posted at "you know where". SweHomer 18:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Just want to add, Swedish Democrats have never used political violence against its opponents. But AFA does, and their Nazi enemies in Sweden do to, they have created an organization called Anti-AFA. Both this organizations tries to find the identity of each others members, and their addresses. People on both sides have been assaulted, and one AFA member was killed with a car bomb.SweHomer 18:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I can just with mild amusement notice that you have now started using thinly veiled threats instead of trying to provide some sources. By the way, there are indeed examples of Sweden Democrats using violence against not only people of different political ideologies, but also agains members of the press and other persons[104]. It not without risks.[105] // Liftarn
The first one is about a female member who obviously has some private problems. The story is about she is getting angry buying a cookie, lol. Hardly a pattern is this. The second one is about telephone calls in the night after a fight of posters. Its hard to say that SD members is behind this. It appears as the “other side” used some very dirty tricks against them, with SD revealed with posters – so people got angry and reacted. SweHomer 19:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Both of you, please end this topic of discussion. Absolutely nothing good will come from it. --FloNight talk 18:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

All I want is for Liftarn to admit that he is sympathetic to AFA and anarchism. That he like me firmly states he’s bias. That’s all . SweHomer 18:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Just because you discuss your bias doesn't mean he needs to discuss whatever bias he might have. FloNight is right. The focus should be on the article, not the editors. Durova 01:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
SweHomer, are you an investigative journalist out to write a smear column for SD-Kurrien or are you a Wikipedian concerned with the quality of this article? Your political motivations are becoming more and more evident as this discussion progresses. ---WGee 02:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

WGee, that's a counterproductive statement. Durova 04:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Both of you think about taking a break from editing this article. Come back when you don't have the urge to address the above topic. Discussions about user's off Wikipedia life and beliefs are almost never productive toward building consensus. --FloNight talk 18:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this is finished now, but I do believe when there is a clear bias regarding a controversial subject, the NPOV way is to be open and transparent about this – then consensus can be achieved. SweHomer 20:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea to take a break. When you start getting death threats it simply isn't an enjoyable passtime any more. If you need any translation help just let me know. // Liftarn

[edit] Something about POV got lost....

There was entrence from a new editor (welcome) about something that was not POV. The headline apperantly got lost. I dident fuly read it, but who ever put it there, put it back? SweHomer 19:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethno – nationalists or culture nationalists?

Ethno – nationalists or culture nationalists?

This is a hard one In the old party program the word “ethnic” was used about 50 times. In the current only 1 time. There are some official statements regarding this:

http://www.sdkuriren.se/blog/index.php/kinnunen/2005/10/28/laskunnigheten_ar_inte_den_basta

Where Kinnunen (leader youth organization) states that SD are mainly culture-nationalists. But there is this “mainly”. People from the “bunker” fraction don’t openly admit they are ethno-nationalists, they avoid the subject but that I think tells It all.

My suggestion is “culture nationalists” with some etno-nationalistic influence. For the balance is clearly on the “culture” side. Alternative to state that they are both.

According to the Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society, the SD advocates "ethno-nationalism" or ethnic nationalism. Your/The party's claim otherwise is nothing more than an attempt to make the SD seem more appealing to the morally-inclined voter. According to Wiki:
Ethnic groups are also usually united by common cultural, behavioural, linguistic, or religious practices. In this sense, an ethnic group is a cultural community.
Culture is innately and intimately connected to ethnicity. Thus, the argument that the SD is not racist or "ethno-nationalist" because it discriminates based on culture is ludicrous. Also, we cannot assume that the SD has recently dropped all of its ethnically-defined beliefs simply because they no longer use the word "ethnic" in their party programme. Wikipedia is not a mirror of SD's manifesto; it is an encyclopedia that must objectively define the goals and ideology of the party, whether explicitly stated or not. In other words, Wikipedia is not the SD's public relations department.
WGee 02:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps that information is prior to 2004? I got involved at 2003, and I remember having a hard time with this "ethnic" view. Today I have not. The bunker was in power until 2004, when Åkesson took over. Today its only a few from the bunker that "carefouly" hints they have this view.

This is a dicey issue. I've seen similar points raised on occasion by American conservatives who were not associated with any extremist organization. Usually it gets condemned quite aggressively in terms that preclude debate such as, "ludicrous," "racist," and "manifesto." I don't defend the concept in question. Yet I don't like this manner discourse any more than I like to hear a liberal viewpoint condemned as "communist" or "feminazi." Durova 05:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yap. According to Wiki both kinds of nationalism exist, and "culture-racism" does not. I am lot lying here WGee. I did tell you that in my opinion the "bunker fraktion" are etno-nationalists. But they lost power 2004. The newthinkers are cultural-nationalists, and in power. If this changes, and the bunker gets back into power then SD will become etno-nationalists (and i will leave the party), but while the newthinkers are in power SD is culture-nationalists.
And this with racism i dont really understand. Thats nationalism is the same as racism? I know that view exist, but thats a very leftist minority view. The majority view is that nationalism and racism are different things. SweHomer 06:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I think i want to extend this. I my opinion there is such a thing as "constructive cultures" and "destructive cultures". That indeed some cultures are better than others, not in an objective way - but in a subjective view. And my subjective view is that I favor democracy. So cultures such as Western, Hindu and Buddhist are from a democratic perspective better, because they are more compatible with democracy. Cultures with strong clan values, and weak individualism such as most Islamic countries have is not so compatible with democracy, so therefore in my view inferior.
I know that you don’t agree. Furthermore in your view this is racist thinking. But, that’s a minority view. The majority view is that this opinion of mine (right or wrong – doesn’t matter) is NOT racist. Then it doesn’t matter how many scientific institutes that share this minority view you can quote. It still is a minority view, the majority view is that such an opinion is NOT racist, even if it’s wrong. Comments?SweHomer 06:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I am aware that "cultural nationalism" exists, but I will ask you to find sources that back up your claim that this is the ideology of the SD. Also, I did not mean to suggest that racism is the same as nationalism, but I will tell you that nationalism involves some degree of racism &endash this is mentioned in Wikipedia article on nationalism.

Recent legislation has made the Swedish population second class citizens in its own country, open to discrimination on behalf of newly arrived immigrants. [106]

That doesn't sound "cultural nationalist" to me; it sounds anti-immigrant, ethno-nationalist, and radically populist, similar to the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the BNP (a party which advocates racial segregation above all else).

WGee 22:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steering back on course

Remember we're here to write an encyclopedia. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss how to edit one article. We can take it for granted that everyone here already has firm beliefs that aren't going to change. What matters to everyone equally is the POV flag. Search engines recognize that flag and give this page a lower search ranking. The only way to rectify that is to work together and make the article neutral. Durova 07:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The POV flag on this article lowers its results on search engines.

Ok, i suggest the following:

(1) Dont use Expo as "nonpartisan". Remove that, there is anyway many sorces. (2) Take away the "however". In a majority view, there is no contradiction between "far-right and anti-immigrant" vesus "nationalist movement and dissociates itself from all forms of totalitarianism and racism".


To be anti-immigrant or far-right does not make SD racist or totalitarian, in a majority view.SweHomer 09:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EXPO a reputable source?

From EXPO on the Swedish WIKI Page

On a conference in Södertälje (Stockholm) 1985 the organization RSR vas founded (Stop The Racism). RSR was an umbrella organization for different ant-racist organizations in Sweden….The organization had a newspaper called “Stop the racism” that later changed name to “EXPO”, the persons who did this was Tobias Hübinette and Andreas Rosenlund. Hübinette was according to unconfirmed but persistent sources a member of AFA at this time and was according to confirmed sources convicted for slandering and ofredande (to stalking or something similar)

// On the talk page there is references to convictions of Hübinette for AFA related crimes. This is removed by editor Rapvatten who can be linked to Anarchistic organizations such as AFA.

On the AFA’s homepage AFA’s background in “Stop The Racism” is stated. Both Expo and AFA was once the same organization. Further AFA writes “The organization (Stop The Racism) linked different immigrations-groups with leftist organizations in a broad rainbow coalition.

On Hübinette’s Curriculum vitae http://www.tobiashubinette.se/cv.pdf he states that he is the founder of Expo and worked there 1995-1997.

Researchers or journalists?

Expo claims to be a research institute but also to be a propagandistic organization. A little confusing. From their homepage:

“The Expo Foundation is working with publicistic (help me translate) and opinion forming matters (Propagandistic). “

Of the expos ten persons in their staff:

1. “Responisble” Editor. 1. Boss editor 1. Helper 1. Project responsible (project raxen) 1. Web editor 1 publicity secretary 3 Reporters 1 reporter foreign matters

Only 2 with no clear journalistic title

Futher Expo’s claims to cooperate with the German organization “AntiFa Infoblatt”, with by the German government annual report in such matters (författningsskyddet ) described as “a group that under the cover of anti racism is doing anarchistic and Marxist – Leninist violence.

In England they work with “Searchlight” a similar organization. EXPO has links to both organizations on their homepage. (source the newspaper Contra) http://www.contra.nu/aktiviteter_expo2.html)

Contra further labels Expo as working with “Campaign Journalism”.

Can this be a reputable source, with an NPOV view?SweHomer 17:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

One can wonder why a movement like AFA that wants to end democracy and get anarchism trough revolution is so persistent in promoting multiculturalism. The most logical answer is that they see multiculturalism as a way to destabilize the democratic world, and by that way create a situation where they can take over. If this is the case, they make exactly the same analyze as those they oppose…SweHomer 21:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time out

This is straying far from the central subject. If you'd like to write an article about Expo then go ahead. I suggested leaving it out of the article because you dispute it and because the text in question is already well supported by other references. If the consensus leaves it in then a fair response would be to find some conservative third party source and cite that in the party's defense. Durova 19:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if we all can agree that EXPO is not a source of such quality that it meets wiki standard Im fully satisfied. And my English is not that good, sometimes im not 100% i understand you Durova SweHomer 19:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I really don't know if it is or not. But the other editors seem to agree that it is. So I offered you two alternative approaches. Durova 20:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, i do some changes. I it would be as using Saddam Hussein as source for an atricle about Bush, using Expo here. One other link dont work either so i take it off, we can put it back when this is fixed.SweHomer 21:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
"right-wing authoritarian positions" on sociocultural issues related to family policy and law and order??? Where did this come from. Im sure SD is not more to the right in this matter than the Swedish Moderaterna or Poeoples party. Conservative, is perhaps more proper.SweHomer 22:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
This came from FloNight. WGee 00:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"The POV flag on this article lowers its results on search engines.

Ok, i suggest the following:

(1) Dont use Expo as "nonpartisan". Remove that, there is anyway many sorces. (2) Take away the "however". In a majority view, there is no contradiction between "far-right and anti-immigrant" vesus "nationalist movement and dissociates itself from all forms of totalitarianism and racism".

To be anti-immigrant or far-right does not make SD racist or totalitarian, in a majority view.SweHomer 09:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)"


I am against removing the reference to the Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society, as is Liftarn evidently. So I suggest you take up Durova's second offer: find a right-wing source that speaks favourably of the SD and cite that in "Response" section. I will, however, change the word "nonpartisan" to "reputable".

The word "however" has been absent from the introduction for some time now.

Since your complaints have been addressed, I will remove the NPOV dispute banner.

WGee 00:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll

I think using EXPO as source is a central matter for this dispute. So lets get some Wiki practice by making a staw poll regarding this. I think I have enough to prove that Expo wont meet Wikis standards, but i could be wrong. So lets test, ok?SweHomer 01:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sneaky sneaky

Please don't remove any of the references in the introduction until a consensus is reached. ---WGee 05:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was also put there without consensus. Hmmm, Euronationalism. What is that? Ok - I wont remove it but the NPOV goes back. Where is your source to Euronationalism, and is that source dated after 2004? Regarding EXPO i can accept when they report pure facts, that can be confirmed. But their conclusions are an extreme leftist view, a minority view. For Expo criticism of immigration is the same as racism and Xenophobia. Why they don’t label, Denmark and Finland as Xenophobic and racist countries I don’t get. SD want Sweden to have the same immigration policy as these two countries. SweHomer 13:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (On expos report)

DISCLAIMER: This study has been compiled by the National Focal Point of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC). The opinions expressed by the author/s do not necessarily reflect the opinion or position of the EUMC. No mention of any authority, organisation, company or individual shall imply any approval as to their standing and capability on the part of the EUMC. This study is provided by the National Focal Point as information guide only, and in particular does not constitute legal advice. Quite clear...

I also called the Monitoring Centre and told them about this report and that it labeld SD as xenophobic. The person i spoke to would look into this closer. I understood that EXPO is supposed to only collect information, and not to label organisations or such.SweHomer 14:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

SweHomer 13:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think this is the appropriate place to discuss one source's credibility in so much depth. Another editor informed me that Expo has its own Wikipedia page. That's really the place to take up this issue. The consensus has decided to quote Expo in this article. You already have my suggestions for how to balance that, if you think it needs balancing. Durova 18:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The DISCLAIMER states that "No mention of any authority, organisation, company or individual shall imply any approval as to their standing and capability on the part of the EUMC". I will now mail this webpage to EUMC and tell them that they are used as a source for labeling SD as Far-Right, Anti-Imigrant and Xenophibic. I can accept Expo as source, but not under EUMC's name, and after my telephonecall to them today im quite sure they agree. I get back in this issue when i get an answer from EUMC. SweHomer 18:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course you can take that action, but it's very tangential to writing an encyclopedia. Durova 21:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"tangential"? Durova, ok i looked it up. But i dont understand, do you both insist on using EUMC as source even after i found the disclaimer? SweHomer 21:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't insist on using it, nor do I insist on leaving it out. I don't edit this article. I'm just saying that the consensus has decided to include it, and that "reputable" has a different meaning from "unbiased." Durova 15:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I have read the disclaimer and I have noted the word "necessarily", but I am willing to label that source "Expo". However, like Durova, I don't think it is very relevant to the article, and you would best be focussing your time on more progressive tasks.
On a different note, you asked if I have a source that describes the party as Euronationalst. Well, I don't have one, and I was not the one to make that classification in the first place, though it is certainly accurate.
According to Wiki: "Euronationalism refers to a populist far right political movement which asserts a that Europe's culturally distinct nationalist movements have common interests, and asserts the acceptance of their local views within a wider audience."
It is already well established that most observers classify the SD as far-right, and the Centre for the European Study of Politics and Society says that the SD is populist, specifically "radical right-wing populist. Also, the SD states on its website that it has connections to several other European nationalist parties. Thus, Euronationalism is a logical description of the party's ideology and we do not need a particular source to define it as such. However, I think we should add "right-wing populism" for clarification.
WGee 04:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, wikipedia is not a place for "original research". So the work from WGee to link this and no sources and a mickeymose word nooone ever heard of. Scrap it.

And regarding your "new" classifications. You only have 2 sources. Expo and Mr.Rydgren. SweHomer 11:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

And populism sorry but no. I wich it was more true, but its not. Its on the other way. They keep some stupid policys that If you incist - give one example of a policy created only to get votes, and with no realistic way of finacing. Its just a label flung out of habit. The populist parties in Sweden are to the left. They promise "gold and green forests" as we say in sweden, without any possibility to finace that. SweHomer 13:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, but deductive reasoning is not "original research"; you have horribly misinterpreted the policy. Also, the classification of populism is verified by a reputable source; therefore, it should be included in the article.
WGee 01:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, give me the link and I check it out. I am currently checking out SD economic politic. The old program from 2002 was changed a few weeks ago. It was criticized for being to much to the left, similar to the V party, left if the Social Democrats. The new program is more to the right, close to the Moderate party. The change is probably because the “NewThinkers” are in power. The “Bunker Fraction” are on economic issues more on the left. So whatever source you have it must be regarding the old progam. But the old have been critizied for populism. Leftwing populism. SweHomer 02:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disclaimer

Well WGee you did not read so carefully. The word “necessarily” is regarding opinions in general. The next line in the text adresses organisations in particular. Its quite clear. This report is in EUMC raxen file. Raxen is created to collect information – so its not an official EUMC report, its just a source for data input for the raxen database. This informations is then processed by the EUMC – and then a EUMC report is created.

From the EUMC homepage: “RAXEN is one of the central tools for the EUMC to achieve its goal in providing the European Union and its Member States with objective, reliable and comparable data”.

It’s a nice tool. I am now using it to prove that Sweden has much more racism and Nazism then all out neighbor countries – because the debate in Sweden is suppressed and the Swedish Democrats are so wrongful demonized. To show that the work from the “leftist” is what really creates Nazism, and racism. That SD indeed is the cure, not the decease. So thank you for showing me this instrument. SweHomer 13:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

OT - but perhaps of interest. According to RAXEN Denmark who has just the politic SD wants has an average of 88 crimes per year of racist/xenophobic nature. Sweden has 2 297. That’s a difference of more than twenty times. I will ask the Swedish Democrats public relations department to send you a finders fee for putting me on the right track WGee. Thanx SweHomer 18:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

SweHomer, I am very close to giving up on mediating this page. I have asked you repeatedly to stay on topic, yet three hours after my most recent request you post this. This really is not the action of someone who values my opinion. I have other ways to spend my editing time: a featured list candidate in progress, a featured article to get ready for the main page, and a task force to run. I suggest you review WP:NOT#Not a soapbox and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct for a glimpse of where this is headed. Durova 20:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the level of racism in Sweden and Denmark. According to the Eurobarometer, 16% of Danes find the presence of people of another nationality disturbing, but only 11% of Swedes. Both are quite low compared to Germany (38%) and Belgium (20%).[107] // Liftarn 13:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Focus!

Ok, I focus harder on the page. The last two post were surely OT, especially the last one. Ok here is some new input.

1. I think its quite clear now that EUMC can not be used as a source for the EXPO article. The logical consequence of this is that the link can’t be their either. Readers who are not familiar with the inner workings of EUMC will of course get the wrong impression and believe that this indeed is a statement from EUMC when they see that the link goes to their page. I have not yet received answer to my mail – but I am quite sure they will say the same.

2. There are three significant years regarding SD. 1995 when Jansson took over. 2000 when Jansson’s cleaning up period was finished, and 2004 when Åkesson and the NewThinkers got in power. I understand that the page mainly shall reflect SD as of today. If we should expand the article to cover SD’s different policies over different eras it’s another matter. But to use material that describe SD under Jansson’s period 2000-2004 to describe SD as it is today I think is not proper. It would be as describing US policy today under Bush according to Clintons politics.

Euronatinalism. I think this is confusing and a minority view. Its not a widely recognised political concept. My Microsoft Word don’t have it in its vocabulary. I get very few hits on Google with it and it has two meanings, of whom neither really fits. The most used one (in major media) is to describe the movement of Europe into one state. The European nation as one country. The English Tory and Mr. Blair is sometimes accused of Euronatinalism. I found this on the talk page for Euronatinalism:

” Euronationals is also generally used to describe those that want further integration of Europe, that is european nationalists that see Europe as their homeland, their nation, not their respected country of orgin.” Most of the editors there questions this term.

The other definition, not used in any major media (as far is I can see) is to describe some far right political parties like the BNP and parties connected to them. There have been some connections and similarities between SD and BNP, but that was in past, under Jansson. Now we are in the Åkesson era, and the party has changed significantly.

Regarding The 2002 election campaign

“Also, party officials were attacked by individual thugs”. No, AFA have officially claimed responsibility for several of these attacks. This should be rewritten.

Regarding The Mohammed cartoon debate

“Levonline shut down the party’s web page.”. No. They only shut down some of the links to the party’s web page. The actual page was on another server outside of Sweden, and other links were working. The picture was on the youth organsiatins server, and not affected at all.

Perhaps rewrite this?

Ideology, again "ethno-nationalism”. And the source is based on the period prior to 2004.

Immigration policy, fine

Controversy surrounding the Sweden Democrats

The tainted past is no controversy. I have linked to that page before where Sweden democrats admits this problem. The new thinker now in power have joined the party after 1998 this I have source for also. The allegations after 2000 I think are valid. But events prior to 2000 will give wrong impression on readers who are not familiar with the big changes in the party, and I think would be regarded as a propagandistic use of wikipedia. Not an NPOV approach.

Some missing information:

2004 election to the European Parliament, the party received 200,000 SEK from the Belgian anti-Semite Bernard Mengal

Åkesson said in Swedish Television that this information about Bernard Mengal was not known when the money was received, and that SD in the future will not accept money from him.

On 22 March 2003, the SD candidate in Helsingborg was arrested by the police.

He was expelled for this. Should be included.

The Sweden Democrats' response to the controversy

I get back to this when we are done with the rest, I cant make a defence when I don’t know what do defend against.

Additions.

The Nordic Consuil story, and the human right report. I get back on this, there are a few things. SweHomer 04:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we agree that EUMC can neither be used as name or source regarding EXPO's article?SweHomer 14:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm at school, so I don't have all that much time to respond to your concerns. First off, you must verify your claims. If they are verified. I might help you add some of them to the article.
1. The EUMC source should remian but it should be described as the opinion of Expo; regardless, both organizations are reputable, impartial observers, so changing the name won't make much of a difference to anyone except members of the SD.
2. I have addressed your this claim numerous times: find sources for your allegations, then they can be included in the Response section. I've stressed repeatedly that the purpose of the response section is to tell the reader why the SD is disconnected to its recent past.
Also, that source you cited referred to Euronationals, not Euronationalists. It may not appear it, but the terms are fundamentally different, as you found out. However, I do understand that "Euronationalism" is not a very widely used term, so am am willing to change the identification to "Nationalism/Radical Right-Wing Populism". I have two sources for this.
And as for the links between the SD and BNP... It says right on the SD's website that they maintain links to other European nationalist parties. I don't know for sure if this includes the BNP, but there's nothing to suggest that it doesn't.
The rest of the stuff that I haven't addressed needs to be sourced.
WGee 16:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"impartial observers, so changing the name won't make much of a difference to anyone except members of the SD."

I accept EUMC as a reputable and impartial observer. But they have as far as I know never made any official statement regarding SD. And no, i don’t think members of SD care at all if its Expo or EUMC as source on the page, and I don’t see any public relations difference either. My stand is purely as Wikipedia’n. EUMC have asked Expo to describe xenophobic violence in Sweden, as input to their database. This report then is included on the website for transparency, with a disclaimer. In order for others to be able to track the whole cycle from input to report. So it does not in anyway represent EUMC's view - just as the disclaimer states. Its exactly like this page. The talk page. Input to create the actual article. Information in this talk page does not necessarily reflect Wikipedia’n view on the subject. I have never seen any article where the source is linked to a Wikipedia Talk Page. And the Raxen input files are their exact equivalent of a Wikipedia Talk Page.SweHomer 19:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand your stance on the issue, which is why I suggested we refer to the source as Expo. Also, do you have any problems with labelling the SD's ideology as Nationalism/Radical Right-Wing Populism? ---WGee 21:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Nationalism, Yes – sure. Radical Right-Wing Populism?
It depends on how you define “Radical Right-Wing Populism”. For me the immigration issue is one thing and “Radical Right-Wing Populism” is another. But perhaps you have another definition? For me this issue is not connected to the immigration policy, but to the economic policy. SD’s economic policy have until recent been close to the “V” party (ex communists) or the Social Democrats but now have taken a leap frog jump to the right and landed close to the “Moderate” party – witch is to the right – but not more to the right than them. In family matters SD is close to the “Christian” party. But this really depends if you connect this issue to immigration or other policy. SweHomer 03:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
You should read Wikipedia's article on populism to learn more about the philosophy. I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make in the comment above, but populism is not exclusive to left-wing politics; in fact, it is a common component of the anti-immigrant far-right. For example, according to Wikipedia:
"Populism incorporates anti-regime politics, and sometimes nationalism, racism or religious fundamentalism. Many populists appeal to a specific region of a country or to a specific social class, such as the working class, middle class, or farmers... Populism has taken left-wing, right-wing, and even centrist forms."
The SD's ideology resembles radical paleoconservatism; however, since the term is US-specific, it should not be used in this article. Euronationalism is an appropriate definition of the SD's ideology, so is radical right-wing populism.
WGee 06:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

About Euronationalism http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4151

This and some more articles in media uses Euronationalism to describe the EU becoming one country. The other definiton af Euronationalism i could not find in any major media. Only some small leftists reacsearchinstitutes use the other form.

About Populism "the common person's interests are oppressed or hindered by the elite in society..."

Yes, you are right. The Swedish definition is a bit different. SweHomer 02:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

About Euronationalism From EU's WebSite on http://europa.eu.int/comm/libraries

Countering the view that nationalism could be superseded by regionalism and globalism - possibly even by a 'Euronationalism' - is a firm believer in the power of nationalist sentiment, British sociologist Anthony D. Smith. In his 1995 book, Nations and Nationalism in a Global Era, Smith argues that "we can hardly imagine that a European economic and political union, or a European federation, will abolish or erode the deeply ingrained historic identities and cultures of the very diverse peoples of Europe". Moreover, "to pool sovereignties is not the same thing as fusing culture or amalgamating identities, and the creation of a European 'super-state' is not the same as a 'super-nation' of Europe".19 In an earlier (1991) work, he argues that without a 'European consciousness' which would enable the transfer of allegiance from the nation-state to the EU, 'Euronationalism' (or 'supernationalism') would be impossible...

This is an official EU document from their central library. So i think this use of the word is the more common. The other use i found in anarchist pages etc. SweHomer 03:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This is all about socialism as practised in the 20th century versus socialism in theory. When comparing Nazism and socialism, it is important to discuss the similarities in practice, but it is equally important to discuss their differences in theory and in principle. This is discussed in the talk pages of socialism and Fascism and ideology.

[edit] Why are they regarded as a right wing party

  • How come that this political party is regarded as extreme right?
  • How come that this political party is regarded right wing at all?

I see this political party as a nationalistic copy of the social democrats without the historical luggage and without the communist ties. (they even oppose the EU membership)

What is worse is that many Swedes consider nazis to be some kind of extreme right.

In what way is a "national socialist" a lesser socialist that a "socialist" except that he is a nationalist as well.
(We know that boths these terms are just words without meaning and we know that both of them are equally corrupt systems, that have killed millions of people)

In sweden everything that is not sanctioned by the left, is right.
(If you add a little bit of nationalism on that, it would be "extreme right", although it would not apply to any accepted leftist party with nationalistic views).

As a matter of fact, i find the entire left-right scale to be wrong.

In sweden there are two kinds of political parties today:

  • Those that want the government to control peoples lifes as much as possible.
  • Those that want the government to keep their hands out off peoples lifes as much as possible.

I cannot see how the Sweden Democrats fit in the later category.

Grugel 17:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't agree with the left-right politcal scale, but it is obviously widely supported, and your bipartite generalization of political parties is no alternative. Moreover, I would advise you to do further research on Nazism and Socialism, and the political spectrum in general. Perhaps you should also read the Sweden Democrats' manifesto and compare it to the Social Democratic Party's. ---WGee 04:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I am not in ANY way implying that the Sweden Democrats have anything to do with Nazism, but they are a victim to misunderstandings in the Swedish political spectrum (delibirate misunderstandings in many cases).

There are indeed many differences between Nazism and Socialism in rhetoric and symbols, but apart from that i see them as essentially the same.

  • Both of them are collective ideologies with no regard for the individual, and both of them build upon central planning.
  • Both of them corrupted the individuals in their societies. (made people suspicious of each other, children could turn in their parents should they have the wrong political views etc.)
  • Both of them used brutal force to crack down on any opposition.
  • Both of them promoted party members ahead of non-party members.

How is that right wing in any way?

The policital spectrum is not some science that should be accepted wholeheartedly, and i among many other question it.
And of course the policital spectrum varies from country to country.

(Seen the reaction from an American when they heard that Clinton was far-right according to Swedish standards??)

On the other hand, I find the spectrum as most people tend to see it now (particularly in Sweden), quite absurd, when Nazis are put to the right, not because of any nazi policies that coincide with what we see as right, but by creating guilt-by-association, when there is not a shred of association.

I the left-right scale in Sweden being abused. Grugel 19:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I definitely disagree with you, but I'm going to refer you to the Fascism and ideology page, which was essentially created for and by those who believe that socialism and Nazism are intertwined. Maybe you can air out your opinions on that article's talk page, where it would be much more appropriate. --WGee 07:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, you are citing only the Nazi's economic policies and ignoring their social policies. If you look at their racist, nationalist, totalitarian, militaristic policies, I'm sure you will realize why Nazism is extreme right-wing. And I'm sure you're going to cite Stalin's Soviet Union to counter what I just said, but things like that are discussed on the Fascism and ideology page, and even the socialism page. You should also note that the communist states of the last century are not even considered to be truly socialist by many academics. ---WGee 07:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


It would sound absurd to me to list the similarities between socialism and the nazi regime in the way you have done, Grugel. It is more than absurd, it is simply stupid, because neither you nor I have the knowledge to compare the both and critize. To be honest, I as a member of the French Socialist Party (which is in opposition to communist parties or even the socialist ideal), even feel insulted because to discuss something like this you would have to do much more research and go into much more detail. You can't say the things you're saying because there are so many socialist parties and ideals, and within them many branches. HOWEVER we can classify parties and ideals according to their policies to a scale which can be approximatly correct. Lastly it is a well known fact that the extreme left and extreme right have many similarities. This does not necessarily mean we can classify them in the same category, as both also have radical differences. DragonFly31 17:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is all about socialism as practised in the 20th century versus socialism in theory. When comparing Nazism and socialism, it is important to discuss their arguable similarities in practice, but it is equally important to discuss their differences in theory and in principle. This is discussed in the talk pages of socialism and Fascism and ideology. ---WGee 01:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move the article to Sverigedemokraterna?

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Organizations (such as political parties): "Name your pages with the English translation and place the original native name on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form."

I argue that "Sverigedemokraterna" is more used than "Sweden Democrats" in English. A google search on "Sverigedemokraterna" on web pages in the English language yields more than ten times more hits than "Sweden Democrats" does [108] [109] . I get the numbers 9 740 vs. 695, not sure if or how my location affects that. The precise numbers should anyhow be taken with a grain of salt since some of those hits are from pages in Swedish mistakenly labelled as English; some of them appear high up in the list but if you scroll down, the picture is quite different. Undoubtedly, most of those 9000+ hits on "Sverigedemokraterna" really are in English.

Moreover, the party itself does not translate its name on their own web page: [110] " Our party, Sverigedemokraterna (SD), is the largest..." etc. // Habj 09:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

But Wikipedia:Naming conventions also says that ". . .article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." It would be very difficult for those who don't speak Swedish to type that awkward name in the search box, nevermind link to it as though it were a "second nature". And at least four reputable English sources—the Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society, the Stephen Roth Institute, the Expo Foundation, and the BBC—refer to the party primarily in English; those 9,000 other sources that use the party's Swedish name are probably not notable enough to merit consideration. (Note that Expo is a Swedish organization, which should give its translation some legitimacy.) Because the party is obscure in the English-speaking world in the first place, niether name can be said to be "common". Thus, we might as well retain the article's current name, for the benefit of the Anglophones that comprise the bulk of English Wikipedia, and per notable English sources. -- WGee 05:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This discussion page is full of crap!

I say crap, not to use an offensive word, though this article if full of offensive ideals. The Sverigedemokraterna is a Nazi party, a Swedish version. The ideas of the party are absolutly ilogical and the members of the party are unable to be face a debate. The ideas of race are scientifically false. Pure race (the idea of pure and strong race) is genetically incompatible. An homogeneous country would only deteriorate the DNA. Look at the statistics and you´ll see that the highest rate of "Down Syndrome" comes from small isolated towns that haven't mixed with people of othe races. (Source: Book: Genes, Peoples and Languages, of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza; Profesor of Genetics in Standford University) There are hundreds of sources and I doubt any of you supporters of this article are intelectually qualified to understand the texts. Wiki is supposed to be an Encyclopedia and it is being use for political propaganda. And the arguments in this page are absolutly ridiculous. Is like many of you are trying to re-invent the wheel. Arguments about the difference with Nazis and Socialist to try to justify the ideals of this NAZI Svensk party. Who is anyone trying to fool? Just try to call it anything you want, ethno-nationalism, socialism or what ever; The Sverigedemokraterna are a racist party and this type of idiolagy is incompatible with the reality of the world today, of Sweden and of Swedes. They blame foreigners for Swedens economical problem; how have they proved that? what arguments have they made? Answer: non, no rational explanation. That is why all of the political parties don't take them serious. I can go on writing forever but it is just a waste of time. All of you that really believe this racial superior crap, really do got to get a job or do something usefull for a change. By the way, the great majority of the voters and party members are unemployed and uneducated. If you live in Sweden, you know this for a fact.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/w/e/Talk%7ESweden_Democrats_188d.html"