Talk:Sweden Democrats/Response section.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a place to edit and discuss the changes that SweHomer wants to make to Sweden Democrats. --FloNight ^talk 21:56, 16 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 [1], BBC [2], the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia [3], the Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society [4], The Centre Party [5], and the Stephen Roth Institute [6]. 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 [7]and the BBC. [8] 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

I believe the sentence in question should read:

However, most observers characterize the Sweden Democrats as far-right and anti-immigration, including CNN [70], the BBC [71], the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia [72], the Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society [73], and the Stephen Roth Institute [74].

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. WGee 20:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good to reinsert the other sources and retain the phrasing "nearly all." The only part from the original introduction that really needed altering was "xenophobic" and "racist." The other changes look good, as long as they've been verified. This is moving in the right direction. Durova 22:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I wrote it so that is why it is more neutral. It's merely a filler opening paragraph, not wanting to leave the article without one. It is accurate and sourced so we can leave what is there, if we like it.

I don't think the opening paragraph needs to repeat itself. It already says once that it is far-right. I'm not sure we about the nearly all in the opening, either. It seems overkill. The academic organizations should be in the article but I'm not sure that that we need four sources in the opening. Again it seems overkill. --FloNight ^talk 22:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)