Talk:Christian Democrats (Sweden)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Sweden The article on Christian Democrats (Sweden) is supported by WikiProject Sweden, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Political parties, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of political parties-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to "featured" and "good article" standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. [View this template]
Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..

Contents

[edit] Gay rights controversy

Okay let's get this straightened out instead of just reverting the edits a million times..

Here's what I wrote: Their conservative politics regarding gay rights, as well as certain anti-gay statements made by high profile party members, have caused strong criticism from gay rights advocates..

Here's what Itake wrote: Their conservative politics regarding family policy and their consistent defence of the child's right to both a mother and a father, as well as certain statements made by high profile party members, have caused strong criticism from self-proclaimed gay rights advocates.

1. Their so-called "defence" of "family values" includes conservative politics on gay rights. "Defence" is POV.

2. "Self proclaimed gay rights advocates", as opposed to what? Non-self-proclaimed gay rights advocates? Are there gay rights advocates who don't proclaim themselves to be gay rights advocates? I don't see how adding "self proclaimed" makes it more NPOV.

3. There have been many anti-gay statements made by party members. You asked for references, I provided, but you didn't like that website... Fine... Go ahead and prove those dozens of quotes were fabricated...

4. I'd say the fact that the website in question exists and is well known proves that the party has been much criticised.

I obviously think my version of the above passage is more NPOV, but I'll try better.

Some aspects of their conservative family politics - especially their oppositiom of gay marriage and gay adoption, as well as certain anti-gay statements made by some high profile party members - have caused strong criticism from gay rights advocates.

I'm adding that for now. If that's not NPOV enough for you I think we need a third opinion. (Entheta 18:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC))

[edit] My opinion

The problem is quite simple. Your entire passage is saturated with your own POV.

1. "Gay rights" in itself is a subjective term, and actually a POV. One of the main arguments used in the debate on these issues by KD politicians is the belief that no human has the "right" to another human. Thus, its not in any way about "gay rights". If its even remotely about rights, its about childrens rights. And in my opinion, the opinion of the party should be reflected on the site not your own opinion.

2. There are those generally accepted to be gay-rights activists, and those who belive themselves to be that but the general public disagrees.

3. Whats "anti-gay" and not is also a subject of your own personal views. I can agree that many statements were "pro-hetro", but none by any high-ranking members that were "anti-gay".

4. The site is not well-known, and the fact that it exists proves nothing except the fact that some people really don't like the KD party.

Or, as his site makes clear: http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/3795/

He's anti-religious in general (and violently anti-Christianity), and that might well be the reason behind his dislike for the party. Which makes him and his "works" violently biased.

And you should make a difference between the party in regional and national politics, and the party in church politics because it is essentially two different elections.Itake 19:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


1. Yeah I've heard their rethorics about "children's rights" a million times. But their arguments are never anything more than "because", since they avoid using religious views as arguments.
2. I'm not sure which "general public" you mean. It seems to me that somebody who is for gay rights and regard themselves as a gay rights activist, that would make them one.
3. I found several anti-gay quotes there. Doesn't "riksdagsledamot" qualify as high ranking member? (Tuve Skånberg, Per Landgren, etc. Chatrine Pålsson used Fred Phelps as a reference - how anti-gay isn't that?).
I'm not refering to church politics. That's none of my concern. I'm refering to national politics.
Like I said, I tried to rewrite the passage to make it as NPOV as possible. Are you okay with it or do we need to find someone completely unbiased to break the tie and/or rewrite it further? (Entheta 20:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC))

1. I fail to see your point. What more then "because" is needed? The studies used to back up their arguments do show that they are right, that children are at the best with a mother and a father. You don't need to involve religion into the argument. I'm beginning to think you actually know very little about this.

2. That would make the KD party gay rights activists. Which is why my edit included "self-proclaimed" do differ between the two.

3. Like I just told you, what is regarded as anti-gay and not anti-gay is so much a matter of your own POV that none of that should be included. No anti-gay statements, unless you belive the established truth to be anti-gay. Neither is using Fred Phelps as a source inherintly "anti-gay". Agreeing with Phelp's views is definently anti-gay by any standard, but she didn't agree with Phelp's views. She simply used the same numbers he uses. Further I do not belive the site is grounds for a wikipedia-class judging. The site is obviously biased because its made by someone who considers religious people to be "freaks" and is openly anti-Christian (even by his own standards apparently). The site only includes part of the texts he quote, which doesn't provide for a factual basis either since he doesn't show us the the entire picture. More then likely, thats also done one purpose.


Church politics is the politics that decide gay marriages.

And no, I'm not happy with your edit. And I'm not happy with the arguments used to justify your edit either. If you cannot do a better job justifying your biased edit, I'm going to revert it back to mine.


1. If they actually had any legitimate such studies to refer to, that would be an argument but I've never heard them use any legitimate studies to back up their opinions. I have, however, seen several examples of studies that show that children who grow up with same-sex parents develop just the same way that other children do.
2. Obviously, someone who works against gay rights and can't go five minutes without making anti-gay remarks is not a gay rights advocate.
3. What established truth? Fred Phelps' statistics are hardly established facts. They are anti-gay propaganda. Refering to them to back up ones anti-gay opinions like Pålsson did means she either doesn't care about whether they're true or not, or she is gullible or stupid enough to believe that statistics from someone who picket gay people's funerals and make websites like "God hates fags" are true.
Well, using quotes rather than publishing entire texts is rather more practical and a common thing to do, and he does use references so whoever wants to can find the original articles.
Fine, then add a tag for disputed neutrality of the article or whatever we need to do to get someone else to read it and fix it. (Entheta 16:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC))

Simply by reading your latest statements its all too obvious that you want this article to consist of your own biased and negative view of the KD party and nothing else. I'm going to revert it back to my edit. If you don't like that, then bring in someone that knows what they are talking about.

1. For someone who claimed to represent the general public opinion in Sweden, you seem to know very little about Swedish politics. Besides the KD party, a number of organisations are against gay adoptions. Including Save the children Sweden, BRIS, the organisation of child psychologists and many other organisations that actually work with children on a daily basis. These, and the studies they have used to adopt that position, is the only defence needed. They have legitimate studies, infact THAT is common knowledge that children are at the best in a family with both a mother and a father.

2. By who's definition? Yours, already shown to be biased and uninformed. Can you provide something substantial to show that they are anti-gay? No, you can't. Nothing but your own opinion on the subject. Wikipedia is not a playground for your own opinions.

3. So are we now to adopt an officiall stance on wikipedia to call everyone that would be "gullable and stupid" anti-gay? She can use whatever statistics she wants, it doesn't make her more or less anti-gay. Again, she never openly stated that she SUPPORTS fred-phelps, she simply used his stats. I don't support the soviet union, but I use facts they have stored in their archives. Does that make me a commie?

4. Original articles almost a decade old. Like I said, its very obvious the site isn't a neutral criticising site. Its a site to express the opinions of someone who hates religion, hates christianity and hates the KD party.Itake 11:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Everybody knows"/public opinion

I'm getting REAL tired of hearing those two sentences. Who do you think you are? Do you actually think you are representative for the entire Swedish population? How many schools have you been to, and how many of them have you been to talking about politics? Go to any school and ask the leftists kids about the KD, and they will without doubt tell you that the KD party is anti-gay, anti-females and anti-everyreligionbutchristianity. Go ask the general population of the schoool, and they won't tell you that KD is anti-all that.Itake 12:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Your defence of KD does not correspond to my experiences of the party. I recall a school debate in Mora in 1998 when the KDU representative (Zakarias Isaksson) tried to show (using explicit sign-language) the difference between "working-love" and "non-working love". Needless to say, the reaction from pupils was, to say the least, negative.
Try finding one school in Sweden, expect the indoctrination centres of Livets ord, where the "general population" would in any way defend KD on these issues. Good luck. --Soman 12:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Your experience does not correspond to my experience. And if the above is the only experience you have, I have alot more experience. I have asked countless students what they know about the KD party and usually they either don't know anything, or "know" that its a christian party. None, save the organised leftist students, would start talking about gay rights. Infact, I've asked students if they have not heard about KD and gay rights, and they say "No, I haven't". Defending KD is entirely another point, try finding a school in Sweden except the indoctrinated leftist-schools where anyone would defend the VP party's view on democracy. Good Luck. Itake 12:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Which "indoctrinated leftist-schools"? --Soman 13:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
http://www.aftonbladet.se/special/ungtval/resultat/skolaforskola.htm Itake 13:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
You're missing the point (or doing weird interpretations). I was obviously referring to schools run by Livets ord or similar outfits, not schools where there is a high votage for KD. How does high % for the left make a school "indoctrinated"? --Soman 13:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm refering to schools run by leftist-organisations, like the "Womens college" (I'm not sure about the name, but its something like that).Itake 13:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some comments in general

I urge that the passage about gay rights and critizism from the gay rights movement stays in the article. However, the article needs to be expanded as a whole. A much more detailed history, focusing of the emergence of KDS, its march from obscurity and fringe evangelism to mainstream politics, needs to be added. --Soman 12:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I can fill in some more detailed facts about Christian Democracy in Sweden.Itake 12:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Passage on "Rädda Barnen"

the argument about RB irrelevant in the context as RB and KD approach the issue from different angles (the latter's argument has it roots in religious conservatism). the political roles of RB and KD are also very different. KD is a political party, and as such, is target to far more criticism than a NGO. --Soman 13:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, I advise you not to talk about stuff you obviously don't know anything about. RB and KD use the very same angel, which is why it is very relevant. They use the angle that is the childrens POV, as I tried to include earlier. The status of KD as a political party is also irrelevant because RB recevies practically no criticism at all for their stance. That has its root in the fact that no one in their right mind would like to criticise RB because it has such as good reputation in Sweden. In other words, "gay right" groups attack only the organisations that are benefical to attack, which further shows to question their status as "gay rights" groups.Itake 13:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
To claim to represent the 'Childrens POV' is completly POV. Also, do you think gay rights don't critizice RB at all? Don't you think there is any lobby work on behalf of the gay rights groups towards RB, so that RB change its stand? That lobbying is, for obvious reasons, different than the open rejection of KD's policies as a political party. --Soman 13:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Just as POV as claiming to work for gay rights, yes. Exactly as POV. You're point being?

No, I don't think they criticise RB openly at all. I've seen no such criticism, like I've seen no such criticism against BRIS or the child psychologists. There'a a large difference between lobbying and openly criticising an organisation. They can apply the latter method to both RB and KD, but they choose not too. Itake 14:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuals and Children are somewhat different social categories. I have no objection to describing RB as a 'Childrens rights organization'. RB is an organization that works for the interest of children. RFSL (and similar organizations) organize homosexuals. There is a difference there, between organizing for a group or organizing a group. In a situation were there would have been 3-4 different gay rights organizations making contradictory statements on a particular issue, then it would be POV to claim that just one of them represented 'gay rights'. --Soman 14:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
There's a difference between organising a group and organising for a group. BRIS, for example, organises a group. Also against gay adoptions, doesn't recevie any criticism.

There are 3-4 different gay rights organisations making contradictory statements on a particular issue. Every party in the riksdag say they work for the rights of minorities, including homosexuals. And before you tell me your own opinion again, I don't want to know which you belive are right or wrong.

Really, it seems to me here you don't really know what you are talking about. You're trying to make despare excuses to justify a passage that would be nothing but negative biased rants about the KD party. You're not doing very good.

[edit] Article from Nya Dagen

"Utan oss hade regeringen föreslagit en partnerskapslag" Av SÖREN SEHLBERG Utan kds i regeringen hade de övriga borgerliga partierna lagt en proposition om re- gistrerat partnerskap för homosexuella. Det hävdar kds-ledare och går därmed emot uppgifterna om att tre regeringspartier är emot registrerat partnerskap. - Om kds inte blockerat en partnerskapslag tror jag inte propositionen hade blockerats i regeringen, säger Alf Svensson. Du vill alltså slå fast att kds är det enda homogena partiet som säger nej till registrerat partnerskap? - Som jag uppfattar det, ja. Fri röstning Trots att centerns och moderaternas företrädare i utskottet tagit ställning mot registrerat partnerskap, kommer partierna enligt Alf Svensson påbjuda fri röstning. Nej till en partnerskapslag kommer inte vara en partiståndpunkt. Som Dagen skrev häromdagen har kds fått ett eget dalauppror i partnerskapsfrågan. Kds daladistrikt vill att de tre kds-statsråden omedelbart agerar kraftfullt i regeringen och undanvärjer en partnerskapslag och i stället samlar regeringen kring en lag för hushållsgemenskaper. - Nu ställs det på sin spets vilken etik och människosyn som ska vara grunden för familjelagstiftningen i det här landet, säger Lennart Sacrédeus, vice ordförande i daladistriktet. Det räcker inte med att stå upp för familjen och säga nej till en partnerskapslag. - Vi kräver att kds också når resultat och inte hamnar på förlorarsidan, säger Sacrédeus. Eget dalauppror Kds i Dalarna är upprörda över att folkpartiet vid sidan om regeringen gör gemensam sak med socialdemokraterna i riksdagens lagutskott och där beslutar lägga fram ett lagförslag på riksdagens bord. Eftersom socialdemokraterna, folkpartiet och vänsterpartiet har majoritet i riksdagen, går ett förslag från lagutskottet om registrerat partnerskap igenom utan regeringens medverkan. Om folkpartiet ändå väljer att göra upp med oppositionen måste de ta konsekvensen och lämna regeringen, anser kds-arna i Dalarna. Men den argumentationen har kds-ledaren inte mycket till övers för. Håller ihop - Den typen av krav är lite ungdomsförbundsmässiga. Om den här lagstiftningen går igenom, så får vi en partnerskapslag. Det förändras inte genom att vi försöker putta ut varandra ur regeringen, säger Alf Svensson som lagt sig vinn om att göra vad han kan för att regeringen ska hålla ihop mandatperioden ut. - Vår inställning i partnerskapsfrågan är solklar, och det har jag har presenterat i partiledar- och regeringskretsen. Och kds har blockerat en proposition. Mer kan jag inte göra, säger Alf Svensson. Har centern, moderaterna och kds accepterat att folkpartiet går vid sidan om regeringen och gör upp med socialdemokraterna och vänsterpartiet i utskottet och föreslår en partnerskapslag? - Spelar ingen roll om vi accepterar eller inte, möjligheten står till buds för utskottet att väcka en fråga, säger Alf Svensson.

[edit] Response to Listing on WP:3O

Hello everyone. I noticed the request for a third opinion and decided to offer mine. I would preface these comments by noting that I am not Swedish and therefore have no preference amongst Swedish political parties.

The opinion request was with regard to the section of this article titled "Criticism." Let me first say that it is the nature of politics to have sides in disagreement, and therefore any political party will face certain criticisms. I also think that it is useful to highlight and discuss those criticisms in an effective and completely neutral fashion.

I feel that the current wording of the criticism section achieves this objective. It is useful to note these objections and their motivations. Further, the external link to a critical site provides additional, off-site explanation.

I am reticent to condemn the individual(s) removing the criticisms section at this time, preferring to allow them to respond to my comments. I think that it would be helpful for both sides if they could list no less than three reasons in support of there position. I'll start a list below to that end. Soltak | Talk 22:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Keep

  1. In the interest of being "fair and balanced" it's useful to highlight criticisms.


[edit] Remove

  1. Their voter base is discussed elsewhere, so it's obvious who would be opposed to them. Why discuss it further?

Thank you for coming here so we can have some kind of 3party view on this. And Entheta, there is no criticism listing on the Swedish left party article.


[edit] Keep

  1. I agree that we should highlight and discuss criticism against the party. The problem is that only 1 of the major swedish political parties have a "criticism" additition to their page. I tried to add to one of the other parties, but the same user who repeatedly pressed for criticism on this page refused to allow me to post criticism on other parties. POV? Yes please.
I would agree that if a criticism section is added to one article, it would be important to see that all articles on major political parties include such a section. Could you direct me to the article in question? Again, in an effort to avoid jumping to conclusions on my part, it would be helpful if the individual who advocated against inclusion in that article would explain why. Soltak | Talk 23:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I did not remove the criticism from the Left Party (Sweden) article. I believe you and User:Soman, who was defending me in the discussion above, had some disagreement on that article but I have never been involved in it. I'm all for adding criticism to that party and other parties as well, provided the wording itself is NPOV, like I tried in the above discussion to do to the criticism section in this article, where I, however, was unable to meet a compromise with you. (Entheta 23:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC))
I thought you knew Soman. Anyways, like said I am okay with criticism additions if the other major parties get it aswell. The party in question is the: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Party_%28Sweden%29 where I tried to add criticism before but it was all deleted by Soman with the sole reason he thought I was "exporting" this POV conflict to the left party. Itake 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't know him. He joined the above discussion against you for a while and largely took it over. I wrote a note on his talk page thanking him for it. Besides that I've never talked to him. (Entheta 07:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Remove

  1. How can the article state that they are against gay rights when the party itself, and its supporters, disagree? As I proved with the link I posted, the party has an exstensive program against homophobia and other forms of discrimination and the party works actively in Swedish politics to combat all kinds of discrimination. That some users apparently feel that the party is inherintly against gays is not a reason to list on LBGT rights opposition together with Nazi's.
It would be helpful to know the party's stance on a couple of issues. Are they opposed to or in favor of the following: gay adoption and gay marriage? Soltak | Talk 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The article doesn't state that they are against gay rights. The article states that Some aspects of their conservative family politics, especially their opposition to gay adoption and gender-neutral marriage legislation have caused strong criticism from gay rights advocates., and I do believe that to be an undisputed fact. Your only objections to the facts in these statements have been that you have a different idea of what "gay rights" means, and I don't think that's relevant. If you want to dispute and discuss the definition of "gay rights", I suggest you to do that in that article's talk page. (Entheta 23:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC))
Err, no. You included it in the "Anti-LBGTG" category, and that does definently state that they are against gay rights not to matter including in the same field as the Nazi's. The Christian Democratic Party is opposed to gay adoption, and gay marriage isn't decided by the party because the church in Sweden is separate from the state.
Well okay, about the category, I guess that's a matter of dispute. Their non-gay (or as you and the party would call it, "pro-family") politics are factual, as is the statement from the article above. I know that the party goes to great lengths in their rethorics to tell people how open minded and gay friendly they are, but it's not in line with the attitude of many of their members, including many important members, such as Alf Svensson

and "riksdag"-members. (Entheta 07:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC))

Now you are once againg leaving the realm of facts and entering the realm of politics. If you want to debate politics, we can do that. I'm all up for it. But if you want to argue about facts, don't talk about some of the christian democratic party's members and their "mood" or "attitude". I do not belive Alf Svensson is against gay people, neither does Alf Svensson since then he would logically not be a member of a party that works against discrimination. I belive Alf Svensson is a strong opponent of gay adoptions, but I don't belive that being against gay adoptions makes you anti-LBGTG rights. I don't belive anyone has a right to any other human being, be it children or adult. See where the politics come in?Itake 11:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not here to discuss politics. I'm not going to speculate on his opinions, but I have provided sources for anti gay remarks by party members, including him. I can't help it if you don't like the website in question or its webmaster. (Entheta 11:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC))
Again you go to the realm of politics with "anti-gay" remarks. I'm not going to read the whole site because frankly the blatant bias hurts my eyes, but from what I've read its not anti-gay remarks. There's nothing anti-gay with Per Ihlar criticising the "gay-lobby" if he feels their policies are contraproductive to gay rights and welfare in general. The next one doesn't seem to have to do with gays at all, its just the pageowners crazy anti-christianity feelings that show. Not to mention its one of many factual errors, the judicial laws and such governing human rights in Europe are definently sprung from christianity just like laws in the arab world come from Islam. The next one, the first one concerning Alf Svensson, is not anti-gay either. Being anti-aids does not necessarily mean you are anti-gay. And this time the pageowner makes it clear that the criticism is purely his own opinion and speculations, using words like "possibly". Give me a link to a statement made by the RFSL or similar against the christian democrats, and then we're talking.Itake 13:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
You seem paranoid about people's "vendetta's against christianity", (like some people seem to be paranoid about the "gay lobby", aka. the "homo sex mafia"). If you would dare read the website and not just the two first quotes, you would find anti gay statements. For Soltak and other non-Swedish speaking readers of this discussion, let me translate a few: "Homosexuality is destructive and should not be endorsed by society.", (Erling Wälivaara, member of the Riksdag) 1996, "That one continues to be homosexual might be a sign of lack of insight" (Frida Hugosson). "...It's historically not unusual that with homosexuality often follow pedophilia and pederasty" (Riksdag-member Per Landgren), "It's a sign of a culture in decline and descent, like ancient Rome or the orgies of the Third Reich." (Tuve Skånberg, riksdag-member). There's also an example of riksdag member Chatrine Pålsson presenting "research" by Fred Phelps to back up her arguments.
Also [1]. (Entheta 13:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC))
Some more references to criticism against KD in bona fide newspapers: [2] [3] (Entheta 13:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC))
Great, links to criticism. That's reason enough to keep the criticism addition of the article, but not to group in the LBGTG rights opposition category.
No, I'm not paranoid. I've read what the user of that page thinks about christianity and christians in general. And frankly, it scares me. Like said before in this discussion, I did not dispute the fact that some christian democrats spoke ill about gay people and that site listed some of those quotes. The above serving as good examples, even though I disagree that using research by fred phelps or mentioning connections between homosexuality and phedofilia makes you anti-gay. But the above doesn't prove anything. Do you want me to find quotes of social democrats making racist statements?

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valstugereportaget

It includes moderate party politicians too. Should we therefore include in the articles of the party that they are racist parties? No, we shouldn't. Point proven. Itake 14:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. What is and what is not gay rights is also very POV, something the gay rights article itself doesn't even make clear.
It would probably be more useful to cite individual organizations, rather than simply saying "gay rights advocates" in the article. Soltak | Talk 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, but when I tried to do that by involving Rädda Barnen as an example it was yet again deleted by Soman who thought I tried to reveal "the hidden agenda of the gay movement" or some other sillyideaItake 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. All my attempts to highlight any dubious parts of the criticism to spur a discussion on it have just been deleted, leaving the POV saturated criticism the article has now.
The last time we had this conflict, I started the discussion above on this talk page. I tried to discuss it with you but we couldn't agree, so that's why I think we need this third opinion. There's no point in you and I reverting this back and forth for all eternity. (Entheta 23:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC))
  1. The off-site link is a joke. Posted by some guy who has a personal vendetta against christians and the christian democratic party, the site's content can hardly be taken as facts.
In what way is it a joke? It's a collection of quotes, and they provide references for those quotes. (Entheta 23:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC))

Itake 23:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

No they don't provide references, they provide what would be reference but there's no way of checking it cause its all ages old. Itake 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Go to the library and I'm sure you'll be able to find "ages old" newspapers from 2003 and even the 1980s. (Entheta 07:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC))
Radio broadcasts too? Not to mention the site allows no room for any response to the criticism, and the quotes are often cut out of context or the man who runs the page only includes certain parts of the quotes. In other parts he tries twist the meaning of what the christian democrat in question said from the start. The guy who runs the site thinks of christians as "mindless freaks". All in all, its completely NPOV and saturated with his own beliefs. Its link really shouldn't be included in this article, no more then you would link to "http://supak.com/bush.htm" in the republican party article.Itake 11:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
You can probably get old radio broadcasts from the radio station in question. I haven't studied the Bush website in question closely. As far as I can see it looks like it could be linked to from the George W. Bush article as an example of criticism against him, just like I think the KD-critical site can be in this case. (Entheta 11:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Response from Entheta

[edit] Keep

  1. Because it is of interest, and the criticism they get from gay rights supporters is one of the things they are most well-known for - in Sweden, perhaps not so internationally, and therefore I think it's of interesters to the readers of this article.
  2. There is no reason to censor this kind of information. I think the section is written in an NPOV way, only referencing an opinion that their critics have. If someone wants to refer to the party's counteropinion or how they defend themselves against the criticism - go ahead and do it, if they can do it in an NPOV as well.
  3. See also my responses to Itake's arguments above.

(Entheta 23:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC))

I heard you the last time you said thats what they are famous for, and I vehemently disagree. I've discussed this issue with many people both leftists and rightists. And its my general conclusion that only people inclined to support leftist views have that "anti-gay" view of the christian democratic party. The rest, even to my own suprise, haven't heard of all that criticism you are talking about. And like I said, I tried to respond to the criticism but Soman deleted it. Itake 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further Comments from Soltak

The issue of what constitutes a gay rights advocate appears to be in question. The fact that some people/organizations who describe themselves as such object to certain Christian Democratic stances does not. Therefore, at least relative to this point, I think it would be beneficial to rewrite the criticism section to instead mention specific prominent individuals or activist groups (in America we'd call them Special Interest Groups) that disagree with the Christian Democrats on issues like gay marriage and gay adoption. For example, if I were to write a criticism section for the Republican Party (United States) dealing with the issue of abortion, rather than saying "Due to their opposition to abortion, the Republican party is frequently criticized by pro-choice activists." I would instead say "Due to their opposition to abortion, the Republican party is frequently criticized by groups such as Planned Parenthood and the National Organization of Women." It is therefore demonstrated that those groups are critical of the Republican Party without having to label them in any potentially controversial fashion. Soltak | Talk 00:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes that may be a good idea. Although it's not just organisations such as (RFSL) who criticise this party. Lots of average "gay friendly" - so to speak - people in general criticise them too. (Entheta 01:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC))
The same is true for my example above. Many average people who self-identify as pro-choice are critical of the Republican Party. Due to their relative non-notability, their criticism tends to be limited to letters to the editor and not voting for Republican candidates. They may also choose to participate in organizations that are pro-choice. In that case, mentioning the organization also mentions all of its members. Soltak | Talk 01:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for including RFSL and RFSU and whatever, if there is a response to the criticism and actual links or similar to back up the criticism. Eg, links to statements made by the RFSL or similar. Itake 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes of course it's true for both. And I don't think you should underestimate the importance of "the man in the street"'s opinions, because RFSL is nto the only ones who are criticising the Christian democrats, and pro-choice group members are not the only ones that are pro choice or critical of the Republicans. I know that many christian groups like to refer to "the gay lobby" as a conspiracy against them. I'm not part of any "gay lobby", I'm not a member of the RFSL but I live in Sweden and I am opposed to the Christian Democrats (as well as much of Christianity in general, which they funnily enough say they have nothing to do with). (Entheta 07:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC))
"The man in the street's" opinion is not something factual that you can refer, unless that opinion has been researched by some poll or similar. And until then, it remains your own view Itake 11:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
That I would have to agree with. Unless you can find a poll that shows a certain number of average people in direct opposition to Christian Democratic positions, it's not appropriate to include that. Soltak | Talk 17:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The rewriting of the criticism section is satisfactory to me with one exception. I don't think that the final sentence noting that RFSL doesn't criticize other NGO's is really necessary. The criticism to stated ("Some aspects of their conservative family politics, especially their opposition to gay adoption, as well as some publicized anti-gay remarks made by party members, have caused strong criticism from groups such as the RFSL."), and responded to ("Christian Democrats respond that their opposition to gay adoptions is because several prominent child-rights organizations such as Save the Children Sweden and The Child's Right in Society (BRIS) and the Swedish Organization of child psychologists are against gay adoptions." The standards of WP:NPOV are then met. Stating that RFSL doesn't criticize Save the Children Sweden isn't particularly helpful as they are primarily (correct me if I'm wrong) a lobbying group. To turn to my example above, Planned Parenthood doesn't tend to criticize groups like Right to Life, instead just focusing on the politicians it disagrees with. Soltak | Talk 17:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] recent edit

Two notes on my recent edit. 1. I changed the gather of KDS to Christian Democratic Unity. I know thats not a very exact translation, but more correct than 'Coalition'. Actually the correct generic correspondent would be the French 'Rassemblement', but 'Gathering' or 'Rally' doesn't have the exact same significance in English. 2. The claim that the 1964 rally was the biggest one in modern Swedish history needs to be backed up by source. There are several other manifestations that are claimed to have been the biggest. --Soman 16:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voter Base

Valforskningsprogrammet, Väljarbeteende

Some comments on the article:
  • In the column "Electoral behaviour and church going" (page 76) for 2002 elections KD gets the following score
    • At least once a month: 40% (strongest party in the group, (s) second with 28%)
    • Few times a year: 10% (less than all other alliance partners)
    • Once a year: 8%
    • Never: 4%
  • KD gets 12% in rural areas, 7% in metropolitian ares (pg. 77-78)
  • KD get 10% amongst both high education and middle education, 8% amongst low education
  • Strongest professional sector is farmers 24%, good results amongst white collar employees (10-12%). Lowest amongst "other workers" (5%) and students (6%).
  • No difference between public and private sector (9% in both)
  • Voting spreads evenly amongst different income groups. Get 11% amongst lowest paided 35% of population, 8% amongst the middle section of the population, and 10% amongsts the richest 15%.
  • KD gets 4% amongst LO affiliates, 10% amongst TCO affiliates, and 9% amongst SACO affiliates, 13% amongst non-union.
  • KD gets 10% amongst married/cohabitant and widows/widowers. 8% amongst single.
  • KD gets 8% amongst first-time voters, 7% amongst 22-30 years, 16% amongst 71-80 years.

--Soman 08:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I had not seen this post. If this, or the document on the link states that young families vote for them, please point out to me where, as I fail to see it myself. As far as I can see on the link, they had 9,3 percent of the overall votes (p. 3), and 10 percent of the votes among house oweners parents (p. 160). (Entheta 23:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC))
Thats it right there, 10%. Itake 00:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Which is about the same as the 9,3% overall. Compared to 24% among farmers. (Entheta 00:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC))
Farmers should probably be added too, but I'm not sure. I've heard of senior citizens and families with children being important voters for KD, and I know why (focus on issues that relate to said voter groups) but I've never heard of a large share amongst farmers before. I'd like to check into it some more before I put farmers there aswell. Itake 00:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Under the header Criticism, the paragraph states:

Some aspects of their conservative family politics, especially their opposition to gay adoption and gay marriage, as well as some publicized anti-gay remarks made by party members, have caused strong criticism from groups such as the RFSL (Gay Rights organization). Christian Democrats respond that their own opposition to gay adoption is because several prominent child-rights organizations such as Save the Children Sweden, The Child's Right in Society (BRIS), and the Swedish Organization of Child Psychologists are opposed to gay adoption.

While opposition to gay marriage is mentioned in the beginning, no Christian Democratic response to it is formulated, although a lot of namedropping is done to respond to the point of adoption by homosexual couples. A response should be written; and I think I am way too POV to write it. Jobjörn 12:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, someone might want to check the talk page of RFSL too. Jobjörn 12:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism shouldn't even have its own section on political parties. A stance similar to the one proposed for Left Party (Sweden) should be taken, and criticism should be removed from both. Itake 15:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Whatever, mate. Just answer it, or delete the entire section (I supposed that would bring you into a vicious edit war, so don't). Write something about churches deciding or whatever. You're the christian democrat, I'll tend to the SAC article... You might delete only the part about gay marriage, leaving the rest, in the meantime - although wouldn't that go against your inclusionist policies? Ah, whatever, I'll do it then. Jobjörn 22:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Talking to yourself is wasting valuable wikipedia space...Itake 01:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Protestant political parties

User:Soman removed the protestant political party category from this article. Although he's right that the Christian Democrats are open to other religions, the category does not exclude this, it merely seeks to include all parties with strong historical links to protestant churches, cf. the catholic political parties category. Furthermore, I recategorized the party from the Christian Democratic category. Now it lacks all links to that category, so I'm reinserting it. -- C mon 19:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I still object. Sweden is a country that is largely (ableit very secularized) protestant. The 'protestant' origin of KD is not in any way a communal marker in Swedish politics, as there is no political party representing any other community. --Soman 20:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you just wrote: What do you mean by 'communal marker'? and by that no political party represents another community? -- C mon 21:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
KD, as the article states, has a very specific origin that isn't tied to general protestantism. There's no reason to replace the right category, that of christian democratic parties, with another one. Itake 22:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I mean that the Swedis scenario is completly different than that of Netherlands or N. Ireland. In those two places different Christian identities (prot/cath/calvinist, etc.) are not only religious identities but also communal political identities on which political parties and movements have been founded. In Sweden the demarcations have been very different, rather political parties have been divided on intra-protestant lines, i.e. state-church (moderates, centre) and free churches (liberals, christian democrats). --Soman 07:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The category is made in analogy to the category:catholic political parties, which also encompasses catholic political parties from different backgrounds (i.e. those representing an emancipating minority, or the majority of voters). Furthermore the article is quite clear that the KD has its background in minority churches and 'free churches', small protestant churches. That there is a difference in background of the different European protestant political parties, shouldn't be an inhibition to include them in this category, but a reason to: it shows the diversity in protestant political parties.
I'm going to throw one final argument to this in several handbooks on political parties, such as Ware, A. "Political Parties and Party Systems" (1996) pp.36-37, a categorization of the ideologies of political parties is made: here he, referencing to work of Klaus von Beyme specifically separates the parties with a protestant background (such as the scandinavian christian democrats, and other northern European Christian Democrats) from parties with catholic background (such as most of the European christian democratic parties). The classification I made is based on academic literature .
BTW could we please wait for the discussion to end, before we revert my edits? -- C mon 07:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I do think (which I've stated before) that it is notable that the Scandinavian Christian Democracy has a different political histry than its continental counterpart. It should be mentioned, preferably in the article text, that the Swedish Christian Democrats emerged from a religious dissident tendency (the free churches) whereas the continental Christian Democracy emerged as the political wing of the religious establishment. The categorization is, however, a wrong method. KD is, in the formal sense, a secular party (with Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish and Muslim members). If it is included, several other political parties (like the Liberals, Centre Party, Moderates, Social Democrats, etc.) could be included. --Soman 10:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I think there is one thing you should note: most protestant CDs have a different background than catholic CDs. In the Netherlands each protestant party (ARP, CHU, SGP, GPV, RPF and HGS) were founded on basis of dissent against the 'established' Dutch reformed church, for instance, the same is true for other Scandinavian CDs. So as a category these protestant political parties form a consistent whole. But I don't think I'm able to convince either of you, so maybe we should seek other means to resolve this dispute. -- C mon 11:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I have reincluded the article in the category, because I found an external reference for inclusion: According to P. Freston ( (2004) Protestant Political Parties Aldershot (Ashgate) pp.38-41 ) the Christian Democrats of Sweden can be characterized as a protestant political party because: 1) it has strong support from Lutheran pietists and pentecostals; 2) it's founders included baptist pastors 3) it has (had) strong links with non-conformist and pentecostal churches in Sweden. If you dispute this, please use verifiable external sources. C mon 10:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I still feel that the labeling is incorrect. It makes reference to certain period in the history of the party, whereas the sitution today is quite different. Differentiation between protestant and non-protestant CDs is somewhat irrelevant in Swedish politics (as non-protestant christian denominations are marginal), and introduction of Catholic and Orthodox members into the party has been uncomplicated. More important is the divisions within protestantism, between the old official church and the non-conformist sectors. If support amongst protestants makes you a protestant party, then all swedish parliamentary parties are also protestant parties. --Soman 11:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide any external references for your feelings and intuitions? C mon 11:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I would say that my arguments can be divided into four parts, with different ways of referencing:
1. The opinion that Protestant-non-Protestant divide is irrelevant in Swedish politics in of course an opinion. Since the non-protestant Christian denominations are so small in Sweden, political life is not divided into protestants and non-protestants. There are no Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. parties in Sweden. The only criteria by which inclusion into the category 'protestant parties' could be relevant in the Swedish scenario is if the party was explictly a religious party. (kd) is not, as it is a secular party. One could argue that it is a Christian parties, since its platform is based on 'Christian values', but it is by no means specifically protestant.
2. The change in the character of (kd), from being the political arm of a religious revival movement to a mainstream party is welldocumented. I can try to provide some links to this later.
3. Regarding inclusion of non-protestants into the party, i would suggest starting with a google search on Assyrians and the party. ([4]) One could see [5] and [6] regarding Assyrians standing as candidates for the party in the elections.
4. Regarding electoral behaviour on basis of religion, one could see the 2002 report from the Electoral Studies Programme at Göteborg University ([7]). It does confirm that (kd) has a significant influence amongst followers of 'free churches' (53% of free church voters vote for (kd)) as opposed to 9% amongst followers of the Church of Sweden. However, no indications is given towards any differentation between protestants and non-protestants. The text also concludes that religious affiliation is of less political importance than in other European countries.

--Soman 15:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Soman, I have two reasons for not agreeing with your argument
First, it is based on hearsay, your intuitions, feelings, personal experiences, as I understood wikipedia it's about external verifiable facts. Give me handbook on Swedish parties, an article in a scientific journal etc. that proves your position. That categorizes the CD differently. Now we only have my reference, which backs up my story I'm open for other proof.
Second, that the proof you supply does not back up your point: assyrian candidates can be protestant; I find 50% support from free protestant churches a convincing argument to my position.
My claim is that if you follow the criteria of Freston, which are history, support base, program and naming, one can conclude that the CD should be categorized accordingly as he does in his book. C mon 22:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
To Itake, it's not about official, it's about scientific classification based on external verifiable sources, which I have provided. C mon 20:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Not really, you created that template yourself, the only reason the classification applies is because you created the criteria for classification yourself. Fact is that the party is not a religious party, thus it should not be placed in any category named "Protestant Political Parties" together with parties like the "Party of Bible-abiding Christians", something that is officially (and widely recognised) as a religious party. And most importantly, any such label should NOT replace the Christian Democratic one, because Kristdemokraterna is definently more Christian Democratic then protestant. Itake 20:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I did not make the criteria by my self, I just copied them from Freston's book (external, verifiable, etc). Furthermore the categories (which are distinct from templates) are not mutually exclusive we could categorize it as christian democrat and protestant. Could you live with that? C mon 20:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
No. Does Freston's Book list Kristdemokraterna as a "Protestant Political Party?" Itake 21:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, to the extent that it discusses protestant political parties worldwide and includes the KD in his discussion, as a prime example of a protestant political party. C mon 21:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion is to take this discussion a more general level, namely how to deal with the Category:Political parties by religion subcats in general. My proposal is that we initatiate a discussion at Category talk:Political parties by religion about what should be reasonable criteria for inclusion. Is it enough that a party has considerable support amongst a certain group to be included or should the categorized party have an explict religious affiliation? How to deal with parties representing religious communities, as opposed to religious causes? (like Jewish Communist Party (Poalei Zion) and All India Muslim League (Secular)). --Soman 12:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

including 'predominance of protestants in members, politicians and voters' in the definition of a 'protestant political party', becomes an automatic redundancy in Swedish party politics. All Swedish parliamentary parties have predominantely protestant voting support, and possibly with the exception of the Left Party, all parliamentary parties have predominance of protestants in their leaderships and memberships. Any assertion that the free evangelical churches would be more protestant than the Lutheran Church of Sweden would be inherently POV. One could note that whereas KD has defended a secular setup in the sense of separation of church and state, a party like the Centre Party has (not sure if they stopped recently or not) defended that Sweden should have Lutheranism as the official state religion. --Soman 12:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

For me the simple issue remains original resource versus external verifiable sources. If Preston (and others, like Klaus von Beyme) classify the KD as protestant, than for me that is enough. If it is accepted in political science, than our private opinions do not matter, as we are writing an encyclopedia and not a diary. C mon 13:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I would claim WP:IAR here - common sense has to apply, too. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to refer back to [8]. It does state that religious divisions play less political importance in Sweden than in other European country. Notably, a detailed study like this pays no attention at all to differentiations between protestant and non-protestants, although it does mention differences in voting patters between Church of Sweden adherents and Free Church adherents. That can be taken as an indication of which divisions are relevant in the Swedish context. --Soman 14:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I can see the IAR-point, but for me it is common sense to class a christian-democratic party in a protestant country as protestant. Furthermore Soman does your author say that the KD is not a protestant political party? If it does not, it is just guess work. Meanwhile I found yet another source in Alan Wheare's handbook Political Parties (pp.36-37) the different species of christian-democratic parties are discussed, he differentiates between protestant political parties (in Scandinavia and smaller parties in the Netherlands and Switzerland) and catholic or mixed christian-democratic political parties. The KD are classed as protestant. C mon 15:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I note the sentence "For me the simple issue remains original resource versus external verifiable sources." User C mon seems to think of this as an exact science. It is not. the "external verifiable source" he quotes is the personal opinion of one author. The objections which Soman raise are obviously valid, and also based on facts. I support the suggestion to move this discussion to some higher level, as the problem is exactly the same for the other Scandinavian christian democratic parties. --Barend 15:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I defenitely agree with C mon: this party is defenitely a Protestant political party and thus there is no reason for removing it from the Protestant political parties Category. --Checco 16:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The party should be part both of Category:Christian Democratic parties and of Category:Protestant political parties. --Checco 16:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bondevik?

Kjell Magne Bondevik was not leader of the Norwegian KFP in 1964, I don't think, unless it's a different Bondevik... Ak13 02:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

In 1964, Kjell Magne Bondevik was 17 years old. However, his uncle, Kjell Bondevik, was a government minister, although not leader of the Norwegian christian democrats. I must assume it is he who is actually meant, though. --Barend 15:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political Programme and Ideology

Is there anybody who could write more about these things? There are no informations in english on Christian Democrats website, so could somebody translate it at least in shortened form, and put into this article? It's sad that far-right parties like Sweden Democrats have such rich articles in Wikipedia, and mainstream centre-right parties like Moderate Party or Christian Democrats have so poor PP&I sections... Ammon86 18:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Kristdemokraterna.svg

Image:Kristdemokraterna.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)