Talk:Swedish Social Democratic Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Sweden The article on Swedish Social Democratic Party 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.
High This article has been rated as high-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..

In connection with Eisenhower's speech, it should be stated that Sweden has never had a very high suicide rate. He also claimed that Swedes were overly promiscuous, which is also statistically false. Both of these conceptions are very widespread as a result of Eisenhower's speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.106.24 (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Partial like heck!

When I look at this page I see it greatly partial. There seems to be something about the socialist movement that makes them act like their world view is the world view. And have no restraints regarding pushing their agendas in anyway. This page clearly shows that in my opinion. Specially as it get edited consistently to make the party look like it's the clear choise and only party like Sweden was a dictatorship. Really freightening if you ask me. Can we get some consensus in this. Try to make this article more neutral? Maybe some kind of restriction, some kind of crew that can clean the article? Some voting regarding this?

Also could we try to standarise the political pages of parties in Sweden. The layout for this page seems to be quite old compared to the other ones... Issues I would like to point out is the seperation of state and party.

  • In the article one is lead to belive that the party is the state like it was a dictatoship in Sweden.
  • "ter economic recessions in the 1970s, the party continued to cover up deficits in the economy by supporting purchases of the Swedish currency and borrowing money abroad" - like I said... The party is not the state!
  • Term served as prime minister is also not appropiate for a party... There are other more relevant information like positiones within the party but this is like the party is the state and that it's obvious choise.
  • The voter base is severely outdated.

I find this in total to be much concerning for this article and much more appropiated for China communist party or perhaps the party should be regarded in the same way?

The only problem is, if I start edit these... my edits get reverted intensly and I like now need to fight for making edits. Lord Metroid 18:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You have a point, and I have reverted part of your edits, because I think that you were removing relevant information (the fact that the Social Democrats have ruled Sweden 40 of the last 50 years deserves some effects, such as the fact that nearly all the party leaders were Prime Ministers being mentioned).
Maybe we can work on a new version together, and first implement the changes is on a user page, like User:Lordmetroid/Swedish Social Democratic Party in order to make a new version with consent of the other editors, which then replaces the current version in one radical revision (As I have tried at politics of the Netherlands).
What do you think? C mon 19:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea... I invite anyone that like to tackle a revision of this article thru mthe page in the above link, linking to a sandbox under my userpage. Lord Metroid 06:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant information

Rather then listing former ministers comming from the party and has in my point of view no realrelevance of information regarding the party. Party leaders is more suited. Different ministers of the Swedish Administration should be written in it's own subpage. Neutral of any party because the state is not the party. The party acts thru the state but not vice-versa.--Lord Metroid 06:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

To Swedish Social Democratic Party

[edit] Support

  1. Support. Swedish Social Democratic Party is the party's official name used on their own website as well as the one most frequently used in English. The naming conventions declares that the most commonly used English version of the name should be used for the article. A Google test shows 768 hits for Swedish Social Democratic Party while Social Democratic Workers' Party of Sweden only gives 68. The form also has the support of several other important institutions, such as the Swedish Government Offices, Socialist Intarnational, U.S. Department of State etc. /Jebur 20:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support.The term that should be used is the most commonly-used. Seeing how there's 10 times as many hits on Google for "Swedish Social Democratic Party", and that's what they call themselves, in English, then that's what should be used. The naming conventions says, "Only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form." In this case, the literal translation is rarely used. Nathyn 04:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support. And strongly so. Swedish Social Democratic Party is both the name officially used by the party itself, the most frequently used English translation and a form supported by important international institutions. I find it impossible to use any other name without violating Wikipedia policy. I would recommend those in opposition to challenge the policy, over at naming conventions, rather than opposing this specific move, which is just an implementation of those principles. (This, however, is simply a discussion on where the article should be placed. To also mention of what the formal Swedish name actually means in a literal transltion may still be considered encyclopedic, i.e. something along the lines of "(In literal translation: Social Democratic Workers' Party of Sweden) / Alarm 12:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. Strongly support. I'm finding this systematic bias on Swedish naming issues quite disturbing. They very seldom seem to adhere to either the principles of noteriety or even to official naming (!). This is just as silly as Swedish Confederation of Trade Unions or Nylandia. We are not here to impose our private opinions of "correct" translation of terms, but to describe those that are commonly used by other people. If we start using our own terms, we're basically creating neologisms, which is contrary to what we stand for. Peter Isotalo 14:39, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Strong support, per Jebur.--Bishonen | talk 21:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I also fail to see how the people that run the Swedish Social Democratic Party could make a "grave error", in translating their name. I mean, they're Swedish as well, and it's their party. Just use their translation, with a redirect from the less-common (and longer) literal translation. Nathyn 17:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Oppose. Swedish Social Democratic Party is an incorrect translation. "Workers'" is an important qualifier, and its omission is a grave error, whatever frequently the wrong name is being used. Mikkalai 19:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. In this case I would prefer the literal translation and a redirect from the Swedish Social Democratic Party. Agree with Mikkalai. Electionworld 21:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Swedish Social Democratic Party would still work as a re-direct. --Soman 13:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Comment: With that argument, we can do away with Wikipedia:Requested moves, and the whole move feature altogether, and just settle with creating re-directs from the correct name according to Wikipedia policy to the place where someone once chose to start the article, however misspelt or erroneous the placement is. / Alarm 14:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  1. Oppose - agree with the above. violet/riga (t) 19:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC) retracting my objection. violet/riga (t) 17:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Agree with which one? Two votes are motivated by going against both official usage and our own naming policies and one isn't even relevant, as Alarm has pointed out.
Peter Isotalo 08:13, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Decision

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 19:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The article was moved without consensus before the poll was held. See comment below.
Peter Isotalo 22:29, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Why was there a "decision" made so fast when the discussion here is still going on? And seeing as violet/riga voted against, I find this kinda biased. Now there's even a majority for moving it back. /Jebur 09:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 17:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

While I voted against the proposed move, the actual translation would be "Swedish Social Democratic Workers' Party" (161 google hits), and indeed the party itself at their website translates name "arbeiterpartei" as simply "party". IMO a good idea would be to send a question to them for explanations why "workers" are omitted in english. Mikkalai 21:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Without wanting to engage in any type of political debate, it might be because the Swedish social democrats aren't all that radical anymore.
But what do you hope to accomplish by mailing them? They're not going to change their name because we ask them to, and since it's used even in official documents we're really pushing it here. I would encourage you to vote encyclopedic, not ideological.
Peter Isotalo 08:11, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
I would also like to clarify that even though their official name is "Sveriges socialdemokratiska arbetareparti", that term is very rarely used nowadays. Instead they are usually referred to as simply Socialdemokraterna ("the Social Democrats"). The term "workers" is just an old relic. /Jebur 09:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
The Swedes posting here are right, in saying that the party mistranslated it. If they were the "Swedish Social Democratic Party", it would be: Sveriges (Swedish) socialdemokratiska (Social Democratic) Parti (Party).
Instead, it's: Sveriges socialdemokratiska arbetareparti. "Arbetare" means "worker." So, they are right in ::saying that the party has mistranslated it.
However, if that's how the party wants to translate it, let them. It's our right to use the most common and "expected" translation, not the most correct, as was clarified in the naming convention.
To quote the policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English):
Some cases are less clear-cut. There is a trend in part of the modern news media and maps to use native names of places and people, even if there is a long-accepted English name. For example, American newspapers generally refer to the Olympics in "Torino" even though most English texts still call the city "Turin". However newspapers in other parts of the English speaking world never do this and still say Turin. One should use judgment in such cases as to what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article. However, whichever is chosen, one should place a redirect at the other title.
So, use the most common and the most expected, not the most "correct." Nathyn 10:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
This nice logic applies only to a case when a significant body of usage exists. In the case when one (more correct) term is used 211 times, while another (less correct) one 423 times, I would not consider that the second term is so more commonly used as to overcome the correctness of the first one. Mikkalai 18:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Besides this really odd interpretation of the policies, I just noticed that this poll should actually be about keeping the article under the old title, since Mikkalai moved it here without asking for consensus first [1]. All things considered, it seems very un-wiki that a proper request for a move back would result in an unsupported move being confirmed as being according to consensus. Unless we're trying to start a tradition of bureaucratic trickery, Mikkalai's move should be reverted and only after that should the poll be held.
Peter Isotalo 22:24, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, you didn't happen to notice the whole history. The page has been sitting under the "SDWPoS" title since 2004. I first moved it to "SSDP" title, then noticed the discussion and moved it back. It is seen in the deletion history of the "SSDP" page, visible to admins (I don't know whether it is visible to non-admins). Oh, it is also visible in "My contributions" history: after both moves I replaced the remaining redirects, first in one way, then in the opposite one.
Pleading not guilty. Mikkalai 16:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


I agree completely. Post a survey on Wikipedia to get more people here, too. If it doesn't work, then get an admin again. I don't understand what we're arguing about it, because it seems obvious.

  • The U.S. government calls them "Social Democratic" (not workers)

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2880.htm

  • They call themselves "Social Democratic" (not workers)

http://www.socialdemokraterna.se/sapdesign.nsf/main?openagent&Layout=Undersida&docid=91255832A5549575C1256BB800353363

  • There's 768 hits on Google for the name. THAT is common! Certainly more common than 68! More than 10 times common!
  • The main basis for making it "workers" is correctness. Correctness is not necessary. Only most common, which it is. Seeing how all of the major government organizations use that English name, that's what they call themselves, and there's almost 800 hits for it, THAT is a "commonly accepted" term. Nathyn 06:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that it would still be unsolved whether 'Arbetareparti' should be translated as 'Workers Party' or 'Labour Party'. --Soman 10:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
The best translation is "Workers' Party" or "Worker Party", but English doesn't have compound nouns like the ones found in Swedish, so there's no one translation that could be considered The One and Only.
On a side note, I should add that the compound arbetareparti sounds overly stylized or even archaic and is not used in modern dictionaries. Most, if not all, Swedes today would say arbetarparti.
Peter Isotalo 11:59, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moved back to Swedish Social Democratic Party

I should disclose that I asked Violet/Riga to look again at this page, in view of the arguments that have been added to it after she voted, and to consider whether to move it back to Swedish Social Democratic Party. I didn't do this to try to bypass the vote taking place, but merely because I thought Swedish Social Democratic Party a more appropriate title for the article during the voting, per Peter Isotalo's argument. Violet has apparently now looked, reconsidered her vote, and moved the page. Now there are 5 votes for Swedish Social Democratic Party and 3 for Social Democratic Workers' Party of Sweden. I don't know if that means we're done, or if more people need to weigh in. My own view is that it's farfetched to be voting at all on whether Socialdemokraterna get to decide their own English name or not. Socialdemokraterna has decided, I'm sure after a lot of arguefying amongst themselves (since Swedish organizations take their anglophone identity seriously), on an English name that reflects their modern identity and approximates the name that's actually used in common parlance in Sweden (as opposed to in legal documents). To insist that Wikipedia knows better and must instead use a literal translation of Socialdemokraterna's historical and legal name Socialdemokratiska arbetarepartiet, is just, well, I'd call it high-handed. We get to rename them...? How come? As Nathyn says, it's their party.--Bishonen | talk 14:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The ballots stated "Arbetarepartiet-Socialdemokraterna"[[2]] directly translated to "Workersparty-Socialdemocrats" and that is what they are registered as at the electoral office hence shouldn't it say that name?

[edit] Lost its place as leading party?

The article says:

When this did not work any longer in the early 90's, the party was blamed for irresponsibility and between 1991-1994 lost its place as leading party of Sweden.

But Elections_in_Sweden states that the party had 37.6% of the votes in 1991 voted Social Democrats, whereas the second party, the Moderate Party, had only 21.9%. What is meant by 'lost its place as leading party'? I replaced leading by governing. If this is incorrect, please explain what is. Gerrit CUTEDH 11:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good point. In 1991, four right/center parties formed a coalition government with a total of 46.6 % of votes, with Carl Bildt , from Moderaterna , as prime mininster. So the social democrats lost their place as governing party of Sweden. So you are correct in the change. --Fred-Chess 12:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Since 1996

I'd like to see the following passage changed: "Since 1996, the working-class profile of the Party has weakened. They have privatized many state companies, such as the phone, postal service and hospitals, to allow for greater competition.". 1. 1996 was hardly the decisive moment. The shift towards the right emerged much earlier, in mid or late 1980s. 2. There are signs of the party having (at least in rhetoric) turned somewhat to the left (partly to challenge the Left Party intrusions into its traditional votebank). The last party congress saw some clear demarcations towards liberalization policies. --Soman 14:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logotype

The image page of Image:Swedish_Social_Democratic_Party.png states that it is the official logo of the Swedish Social Democratic Party. Socialdemokraterna, however, says otherwise. It appears that the official logo of 2006 is the button with the rose, as stated at [[3]], where you can also download different versions of said button. It is also very clear in their graphic manual: [[4]] Unfortunately I am unable to find any of said information available in english. Now, the question is: 1) Should the current Image:Swedish_Social_Democratic_Party.png be replaced with the button, or 2) should the the button be uploaded and replaced only on the SAP article, or 3) should we leave it be and ignore the button? Sincerely, Jobjörn 11:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] == Modern times ==

The section Voter base tells us:

The Swedish Social Democratic Party has received between 40%-50% of the votes in all elections of "modern times" (between 1940 and 1988). Being so dominating, its voters come from many different backgrounds. A few important groups can be identified. One of them is those who are immigrants; another is the blue-collar workers. People employed in the public sector also tend to vote for the Social Democrats. Quite a few leftist intellectuals vote for the party as well.
One would suppose modern times are... now? Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 20:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
30% to 40% is more like it according to the last three polls! --Lord Metroid 09:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Founded 1888 or 1889?

The introduction gives 1888; the info box gives '89. A-giau 12:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The Swedish wikipedia gives the date as 23 april 1889, but they dont cite a source. --Vikingviolinist 22:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corruption

I want to have the numerous scandals associated with the party on this page. And this article [[5]] containing an under-cover investigation has some really interesting points on how the party's powerhunger has consumed everything they stand for.

Well, if the information is relevant, and not just common contempt for politicians in general, you could include a section. I skimmed through the article you were given, but it didn't appear to contain that much of corruption of power to me, mainly bad strategy. 惑乱 分からん 13:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

This article need a lot more on the Party's 120 year long history as Swedens largest politcal party... Bronks 12:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Monitoring

I deleted, in my last edit, the bulk of the chapter 'Political impact'. The material deleted consisted on an POV essay, trying to grade the performance of the party in government, which is not the purpose of wikipedia. It is not the task of wikipedians to jugde which political parties are good or bad, since should judgements would by nature depend on the viewpoint of the individual editor.

This article deals with a party with over 100 years of history, and more than 70 years of history of governance. To summarize that the lasting legacy of the party on Swedish politics is foreign debt is not only POV, but also completly detached from real life and politics in Sweden. --Soman 17:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Adds some other points as well. The section mentions social policies and positive developments of 1990s. I'm curently working with other issues but will certainly join in one day. Constanz - Talk 17:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
What this article would need is a history chapter. I'm starting a temp page for writing a history chapter at User:Soman/temp/SAP history. I myself don't have to much time at my hand either at the moment, but we could invite some of the other editors concerned with related subjects. However, I'll start by translating the outline from the swedish page. --Soman 17:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a short comment more, the neutrality issue is far more complicated than what the chapter says. Sweden does participate in several multilateral military operations and trainings, and the actual military neutrality (both present and Cold War) is contested by sectors of Swedish politics. --Soman 17:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure your deletions will be reverted soon so that I needn't touch the article. --Constanz - Talk 17:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what Soman is up to. You apparently think POV is: "In recent times they have become strong supporters of feminism, equality of all kinds, and in strong opposition to all forms of discrimination and racism."
How do you reason? Because I don't even know which Point Of View this section would take. e
Fred-Chess 20:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
That is in a way a separate issue. In my opinion, it read like a wording from a party leaflet. Also, the wording 'in recent times' is a bit problematic. In my on viewpoint, i wouldn't say that the strive for social equality by the party has increased in 'recent times'. Also, I question that the party would be 'strong supporters' of feminism.
I think it is fair to state the following in an intro: 1. it is a party with its roots in the labour movement, 2) the party is generally seem as the architect of the Swedish welfare model, 3) social equality, welfare, employment remains key issues to the party. --Soman 20:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I have no problem with that. But could you then move this particular sentence somewhere more apropriate? / Fred-Chess 20:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


The current article states (under "Political Impact"): "The change in per capita GDP over a period of years portrays the economy in a somewhat less favourable light: in 1970, Sweden had the second biggest GDP per capita (current US dollars), only behind that of the US, but by 1993, a time when the economy was in deep crisis, Sweden had lost its position." This implies that there is a (direct) causal relationship between the SAP's political actions and the shrinking per-capita GDP. That is highly problematic! I'd recommend deleting that passage or placing it under a different heading (such as "Political and Economic Challenges to Social Democracy").

From here on, citations, facts and references shall be made while writing for the article. This is just lousy work and it's really a bad article full of speculatory or what-could-seem as speculatory information. even a minority party's article such as Pirate Party have a better article. It's a real shame considering just how top-imortant this article is. Lord Metroid 10:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to be a bit problematic in some respects (like many other articles in our dear free encyclopedia). “Decline in per capita GDP after the 1970s portrays the Swedish economy in a dimming light” - what should this passage stand for? The GDP couldn't possibly decline, but for some years perhaps (as well as post-1989 years, which, however, isn't exactly the period this sentence refers to). E.J. 19:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right. That "dimming light" stuff makes little sense. What do you suggest? When I started adding information and editing this section, it included this sentence: "The change in per capita GDP over a period of years portrays the economy in a somewhat less favourable light: in 1970, Sweden had the second biggest GDP per capita (current US dollars), only behind that of the US, but by 1993, a time when the economy was in deep crisis, Sweden had lost its position." It was not cited. Just sitting there as it was, it was potentially quite misleading: it made the economic decline look completely like the SAP's responsibility, and it compared very selected observations in time without context. Since this is a Wiki, I have tried not to delete this sentence, as I've hoped the author of this sentence would come back and clarify his/her intentions and add citation. Instead I have tried to add context and rephrase it somewhat. I'm not exactly sure what to do with it. It could be deleted, I guess. I'll try to rephrase again... Here is how I have rephrased it: "The economic crisis in the 1990s has been widely cited in the Anglo-American press as a social democratic failure." I think that's what the original author was on about. Or you could give rephrasing a shot if you think you know what was intended.

I have been trying to build up the "Political Impact" section, so that it could include a little history. I wanted to be sure it allowed people to follow a discussion on the changing thrust of the Social Democratic Party over time. This is controversial. I didn't want to overstate the changing political tensions that the party has balanced over time, and so I tried to cleave as closely as possible to the balance of the large literature on the topic and include quotes to let folks' words convey fundamental positions. This is demanding, but I assume that over time it will work out as a Wiki entry.

I am obviously limited by my American perspective, so maybe a Swedish Social Democrat (or two) who needs little breaks from her/his doctoral thesis could add information and even new sections. Folks from other countries could expand on Swedish Social Democratic Party influences in their countries, regions and parties. The "Voter Base" section needs to be elaborated upon; use Statistika Centralbyrån or the SVT exit polls. The historical relationship between the SAP and the union (especially the LO) and employers' confederations needs to be clarified. Can anyone write on the environmental policies/legacy of the SAP? Someone mentioned above that there could be a section for political wonks, such as a time line (a la the Vänsterpartiet site) of strategic errors, corruption incidents, 2006 anticommunist jabs at Lars Ohly and earlier the persecution of communists in the unions, and the "mini-Watergate" Liberal Party computer break-in at the SAP in 2006. I would think that would take the contributions of insiders.

When you tag the site as needing major revision, please leave suggestions. Tak.Blanche Poubelle 02:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The continued expansion of the article is strongly encouraged. But everyone should use a more neutral kind of wording. “As capitalist class warfare became amplified by the global neoliberal movement, the Social Democratic Party backed away from the progressive Meidner reform.” - this 'class warfare' represents Marxian point of view, which is far from being neutral or up to date. Come on, it's in Soviet history books where one expects to meet phrases like 'amplifying class warfare' ('in the decaying West' etc). I'm not sure who has added this particular notion, but it's the most striking example of disputable neutrality in the article at hand. Erik Jesse 17:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying your concern, Erik Jesse. OK. Done. Although I originally included the mention of the changing tides of class conflict because managing class conflict is a fundamental theme in social democratic (and liberal and fascist and feudal) political history, and many policy changes are uninterpretable without acknowledging the consequences of conflicting class interests and initiatives, I have altered the offending phrase. The "class warfare" language has been removed from reference to the capitalist confederation's defection from the 1938 Saltsjöbaden Agreement, Swedish capital defecting from Sweden with the rise of the EU, and the global rise of neoliberal political-economic hegemony as embodied in anti-inflationary bias, censorship of Marxist analysis, etc. Blanche Poubelle 18:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks for improvements and replies. I have to say, though, that I'm not happy with such diffs. No offense, but please note that Wikipedia is neither a blog nor a soapbox. So could you please keep your judgments like “when you cease confusing your own liberal political preferences with objectivity or necessity” to yourself? The point whether I am a liberal (be it in American or European sense) or a socialist or a conservative is irrelevant. What makes difference is that an encyclopedia should represent general, conventional viewpoints (I agree that objectivity would be too high a goal). (One of the problems with Wikipedia is, that we often have (esp. regarding articles treating modern history) too many provocative opinions and too few sources). Whether 'class warfare' is amplifying or not concludes from sources. Marxist sources say one thing, adherents of the neo-classical school another and the post-Keynesians still other. Wikipedia is definitely not a place where one should prove, which POV is the correct one. One may wish to argue, that such and such a view being merely 'fashionable' in today's world doesn't make it more objective than others – but this is a personal judgement and has no merit in an encyclopedia. At best, we can reflect all views, while avoiding undue weight to marginal ones. I hope this suffices.Erik Jesse 07:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
PS. If one wishes to say something about one's personal points of view or interests, starting a user page might be a good idea;-) Erik Jesse 07:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The use of multiple, peer-reviewed, authoritative sources and the citation of sources on this page is better than most of Wikipedia. It's better than most corporately-produced encyclopedias. It's very near professional-academic grade, except in the case of some accurate but as-yet-uncited sentences for which I can only claim responsibility for not deleting. That would be a good task for you, Erik, to find the remaining citations, since their original authors do not appear to be returning. Do you do research? Blanche Poubelle 16:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You're absolutely right when you emphasise, that this article is now better-sourced than most of Wikipedia (accuracy of which is still dubious). I initially thought about doing some research myself on SSDP topic, but postponed it due to navigation problems (I can't access the university proxy in summer) and because... I'm lazy. Will see in the future. There's one thing I also wished to note: the article is getting rather bulky. It would make sense to introduce subheadings in order to ease reading it (cf. [6]). In fact, if you're interested, consider starting new articles that would cover some specific topics in depth. Erik Jesse 08:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
And again, regarding your initial, rather unpleasant response, which you once again later deleted (against the rules, of course) My own contributions on political topics are easy to figure out. Please note again, that I have no political agenda, that I intend to push here, my concern was/is, that loaded language reduces the plausibility of an article, every article. You fixed those things here, so that's OK. That was the same problem you faced here. Perhaps you should, before starting with different kinds of personal assaults, look into the mirror first? Erik Jesse 08:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that breaking up the "Political Impact and History" section into subsections is an appropriate thing to do. I can't do it in the immediate future. As well, Eero Carroll (2004) has a very short piece that should be used to check and refine the cobbled characterization of economic and policy outcomes in fairly-recent SAP history: Carroll, Eero. 2004. “International Organizations and Welfare States at Odds? The Case of Sweden.” Pp. 75-88 in The OECD and European Welfare States, edited by Klaus Armingeon and Michelle Beyer. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. And this source should most probably be used, either to check facts and characterizations, or to add information: Misgeld, Klaus, Karl Molin, and Klas Åmark, eds. 1988. Creating Social Democracy: A Century of the Social Democratic Labor Party in Sweden. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Blanche Poubelle 16:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Areas to Expand

A discrete section on "Political Impact" could use some expansion, by folks with perspectives from other countries besides Sweden and the US, eg. Baltic, other Nordic, African countries, etc.

Ideology:

Has anyone read this article?

Blythe, Mark. 2001. “The Transformation of the Swedish Model: Economic Ideas, Distributional Conflict, and Institutional Change.” World Politics 54 (1): 1-26.

If so, can it be incorporated? It brings in information about ideological changes in Sweden over time. I assume there is a focus on the SAP. Blanche Poubelle 16:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)