Talk:2010 Swedish general election

Pirate Party

I just want to point out that when you start adding the Pirate Party to the list, make sure it's the right PURPLE, found on the party's own wiki guidelines rather than the black some Swedish media have used. --81.152.75.132 (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Reports of alleged irregularities

I have removed the section 'Reports of alleged irregularities' as not NPOV. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a section detailing such reports but the one that exists is merely a list of irregularities alleged against a single party-the Social Democrats. In the context (less than a week before the election) this would not seem to be balanced and fair to me, and faced with the choice between removing it, or adding irregularities alleged against other parties (and there are such allegations), it would seem best to simply dispense with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.233.193.106 (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with this at all, removing the info is against the NPOV policy if anything, and dangerously close to censorship. If you have reliable sources for allegations against other parties, then add those to the article immediately, as it is very serious and the information should be as easily accessible as possible. Proximity to the election doesn't matter as long as everything is adequately sourced. Smetanahue (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, although I do not see how removing the section is against the NPOV policy. If the purpose is to maintain a neutral point of view as regards the upcoming election, then it would seem inconsistent with this that the article contains a section ennumerating allegations against only one party. I advocate removing it not because I am in favour of censorship but because the alternative is to balance these allegations with allegations about other parties. I think in the context (the election being so close) that this could easily lead to a mud-slinging match, trying to balance one misdemeanour with another and I don't personally think it would contribute much to the article as a whole. That's my two cents anyway 90.233.146.176 (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any links to articles about the accusations made against other parties? Sounds interesting no matter what. Anyway, a neutral point of view doesn't necessarily mean an equal amount of positive or negative content for each side. If there are irregularities committed by one side, then that is notable no matter whether the other side has done anything similar or not. I don't see any particular risk of mud fights either, but even if that happens, the best solution is to discuss and find consensus for how it should be written. It would be desirable to develop the article further by for example including the response from S to the allegations; and probably to cut some unnecessary details; but surpressing relevant, properly sourced information because it only concerns one (and in this case very major) party is not NPOV. Smetanahue (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, given that the election is coming up very soon, and that both of the coalitions contesting it are making all sorts of allegations against each other (as parties do in election campaigns), I think it is clear that laying emphasis on the allegations made against one, even if they are major, party is not NPOV, unless it can be verified that the social democrats actually attract more allegations or commit more irregularities (which it is impossible to do). I could scour the internet looking for articles making allegations against the alliance parties to balance it out but that would seem kind of silly. I still maintain that rather than doing this the article is better without it. Maybe some discussion of the issues facing the parties in the lead up to the election would be helpful, but then again you could say that about the mass-media's approach to it aswell.90.233.136.149 (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Smetanahue. I'd also be interested to see links to the allegations against the other parties that you are talking about. It's also interesting that you seem to think that all these allegations are made by political opponents, which is clearly not the case as you can see if you read the sources. /Caelus sv (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

To begin with, the sources referred to are almost all political opponents of the social democrats; Expressen, Uppsala Nya Tidning, Svenska Dagbladet and Dagens Nyheter are all, to my knowledge, liberal and centre-right newspapers which are biased towards the ‘allians’. It is not so much that I doubt the veracity of the allegations but the emphasis being laid on one party’s misconduct is suspect to me and the stories in themselves are part of a wider trend amongst sections of the Swedish media generally to attack the red-green parties in what seems to be an underhand manner that involves little discussion of the election issues themselves. The ‘scandal’ about the ‘voting school’ in Vivalla is a good example. There is really very little controversial about it. The social democrats spokesperson himself (quoted in one of the articles cited in the wikipedia article) said that people were given no illusion that it was a politically neutral event and they openly admit trying to convince people to vote for them (which is what all parties are doing at this stage). It has been simply taken up by some journalists to try and portray the social democrats as being dishonest. Like I said before, I think it would be better to keep the article clear of all this. As an example of a similarly serious allegation which is equally unworthy of inclusion in the article would be something like Aftonbladet’s speculations that the Moderates are preparing to make a deal with the far-right ‘Sweden Democrats’ party. http://www.aftonbladet.se/debatt/debattamnen/politik/article7755867.ab I am aware that Aftonbladet is just as non-neutral a source as the newspapers used for sources in the original article. The allegations from the other side against the allians parties tend to centre around issues like youth unemployment and participation in the Afghanistan war rather than these kind of cheap shots. If we are going to start putting this stuff on wikipedia, why not add today’s ‘scandal’ about the teenager being offered wine at a social democrat party function or a stripper at the left party’s meeting? I could write all this in the article itself but I think that would be rather turgid and unnecessary, as this kind of smear campaigning seems to have become an unfortunate part of modern political campaigning. It does not, however, have to mean that Wikipedia must follow suit.90.233.174.172 (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither Expressen, Uppsala Nya Tidning, Svenska Dagbladet nor Dagens Nyheter are "liberal" or "centre-right" newspapers, except for on the editorial pages. If you think that they're biased against the red-green opposition then that's just your personal opinion. Many other people would say the opposite, that they're rather left wing-biased, but that's not really relevant for this discussion. Most people consider them, at least the latter three, as reliable and thrustworthy. They're re also used as sources in many other articles here on Wikipedia. Reports about irregularities is fully relevant to an article about an election. I think Smetanahue explains it good above: "a neutral point of view doesn't necessarily mean an equal amount of positive or negative content for each side. If there are irregularities committed by one side, then that is notable no matter whether the other side has done anything similar or not". The risk of "mud fights" is not a valid reason to remove relevant information. /Caelus sv (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The newspapers concerned are liberal and centre-right on more than just their edictorial pages. I would have thought that didn't even need pointing out, but ultimately-yes-it is a matter of opinion, just as saying that they are not biased towards the right is your opinion. Fair enough. Under most circumstances, I would consider them as reliable sources of information for a wikipedia, but not in these circumstances (again, an opinion, just as your opinion is that they are reliable). The bottom line here is that you have an article about an upcoming election with a section detailing allegations against only one party. That cannot be NPOV and pretending that the section serves some kind of useful informative purpose is disingenuous.90.233.130.96 (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the meaning of NPOV. Once again: "a neutral point of view doesn't necessarily mean an equal amount of positive or negative content for each side. If there are irregularities committed by one side, then that is notable no matter whether the other side has done anything similar or not". If you have reports of allegations against other parties, as you've claimed several times that you have, then I'd welcome you very much to add those to the article. /Caelus sv (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought it was fairly clear by now that I have no intention of filling the article up with allegations against other parties. I have stated several times that I don't think it would benefit from it. The citation you have given above has been offered as if it were an official wikipedia definition of NPOV when it is simply Smetanahue's interpretation of it. I would in fact agree with it broadly. That is partly why I don't advocate simply balancing negative content about the Social Democrats with negative content involving other parties. You're not seriously suggesting that I couldn't find negative content or opinions about the other parties? I could write a long section about allegations against the alliance parties of selling off national assets, trying to solidify class and income divisions, participating in a genocide in Afghanistan, islamophobia...you get the picture. But I think the article is better kept focused on the election itself. The Swedish language version of the article is a model in this respect. It outlines the parties and alliances, opinion polls, preparations for the election itself. Maybe the period after the election would be a suitable time to add to the article information about issues that proved decisive in the result. To be honest I don't know why it doesn't have one of those 'current event' notices above it. I don't know how to add it myself.90.233.194.151 (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Having thought a bit more about this for a few days, I now agree that it shouldn't be in the article until anyone has been found guilty. We should be able to trust the Swedish judicial system here, there have been similar cases in previous elections which have led to convictions. But I also want to point out that there is a significant difference in allegations directly related to the election process, and allegations of supposed bad politics. The former belong here if substantial, while the latter don't. Smetanahue (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A problem with potentially contentious material sourced to Swedish-language only sources is that editors who have not been following the campaign in the Swedish media do not know if the material is being given WP:UNDUE weight or not. If it is clear from the source that the material is being taken from a summary review of the campaign, that would argue for inclusion. But absent that, if there are general neutrality concerns (of which weighting is a specific concern), the source should ideally be an authoritative source writing for international English speakers. This minimizes editor discretion by allowing Wikipedia to take a follower's role: if Der Spiegel or the Economist found something noteworthy (in this article's case, the SD's campaign) we follow that editorial discretion to make a note of it as well. The latest Reuters headline I see is "Swedish govt seen re-elected, far-right to get seats", which suggests the SD's getting seats is noteworthy. I suggest this is the sort of sourcing that is desirable for inclusion.Bdell555 (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sweden Democrats/Party Positions

There has been a trend of adding information to this article about the positions taken by some members of the Sweden Democrats. Information about the positions of SD members is best added to the Sweden Democrats page, and does not fit what is supposed to be an unbiased account of the general election. Keeping that information on this page would be like adding information about Mona Sahlin's "Toblerone Affair" to this page; not relevant enough to be included on this page.

This page also needs a summary of each alliance bloc's campaign planks. Tallanto (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, i totally agree with your suggestion (hence an expand tag for swedes or those more versed in swedish politics).

Per the removal: Why not? It is part of the electoral process for this elections. As is the various campaigning, not long-standing policy of the party (that stuff would be seperate and for this article), what happens on the campaign trail and lead up to this election IS in fact pertinent here. How is it biased? No one is stopping addition of campaigning/platforms from other parties, this is wholly sourced to WP:RS. per [1] "inappropriate to describe policies here" campaign platforms and rhetoric are for the election page.

I dont know about the affair and whether it had any relevance to this election, if any RS think it did then it should be mentioned.

As an aside Bdell555's, edits were horribly written and WP:Crystal Ball, and POV, and hence reverted. As was the IP's edits that removed info and aded synthesis/Crystal Ball.

(for other editors though who dont want to discuss: Improvement is not a reason for removal. --> for all the editors who say "POV it only mentions one party" KINDLY READ THE NOTE AND ADD OTHERS sources/parties TOO. IMPROVE IS NOT GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL WP:CENSORSHIP)Lihaas (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Just with regards to the "Sweden Democrats" section of the article, I quite agree that there should be a section about this subject in this article, but it appears that all of the sentences and references combined paint a POV picture that the SD are being unfairly treated. It talks of how their rallies were disrupted but does not discuss why people wanted to disrupt the rallies in the first place, for example. Witty Lama 10:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree we should put the other side view in there. If you have cited for them could you (and feel free to be WP:Bold) add that in there too.

Other parties' campaign should be added in too. I removed them (per the discussion below) to accomodate as this page will be highly viewed, but no one wants to discuss its removal. if thats the case then consensus cant wait forever and it will be promptly re-inserted.Lihaas (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

War

"If the Alliance is re-elected, it would be the first time since the war that Sweden has re-elected a centre-right government that has served a full term." <-- Which war? I'm assuming WW2, but it should be stated explicitly... /Grillo (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done (also dont be afrain to be WP:Bold)Lihaas (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources

• "The strange death of social-democratic Sweden". The Economist. September 16, 2010.
• Rising, Malin (September 19, 2010). "Sweden's center-right govt seeks re-election, far-right party seeks 1st seats in Parliament". Los Angeles Times (Associated Press). {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)
• "Sweden votes in general elections". Al Jazeera.net. September 19, 2010. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)

Dont know who added this, but feel free to be WP:Bold and add it wherever you think it should go.Lihaas (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverting my removal of the silly sections

Lihaas has now reverted my removal of the silly sections "Campaign" and "Controversy", which deal with the Sweden Democrats exclusively. Pretty short "list of parties", isn't it...? In the edit summary, he/she refers us to this talk page for an explanation, but hasn't posted anything here... no surprises there. So I suppose you're planning to make the article more proportional by putting in the other parties and their platforms, Lihaas? It would have been more sensible, not to mention more NPOV, to leave it stubbified until you get round to writing a bit of useful content, but whatever. I'm not about to revert you; I don't really care if the SD makes itself look ridiculous. Bishonen | talk 16:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC).

Hasnt posted anything here? Have you read it? Please refer to the ongoing conversation above to see why.

You'll find one person has made use of the tags and added a counter point with a source instead of removing it.Lihaas (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I missed your post above, sorry! Mind you, I was looking for something rather more relevant. Do you really think having one political party in an article about the "general election" is "improvement"? That just doesn't make sense to me. Wikipedia articles in mainspace are supposed to have some basic—at least minimal—organisation. I've written articles as unbalanced as this one, on occasion; but I keep them in my userspace until they're fit for mainspace. This article was OK as a stub; now it's just a mess. Bishonen | talk 20:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC).

okay, take it off for now. But to discuss the issue, i specifically did not say it was okay to have 1 party, i added an expand tag and called for more to the section. To reiterate again to improve the section (meaning add more to it, not it being an improvement already, maybe i didnt clear myself out), which is what the tag is for, doesnt mean one should take it all out. But i can see the result is out now hordes of people will be at this page so well remove it for now pending the discussion and the addition.

can someone from sweden or the swedish wikipedia add stuff to this page for the other parties' campgain/platform in the election?

[2] is this good for now? pending discussion. Lihaas (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

template

I dont know what "Övriga partier" is, so someone else needs to add that. It also seems the following did not run: Feminist Initiative, Pirate Party. Swedish Senior Citizen Interest Party. June List, Health Care Party, National Democrats, Unity, National Socialist Front (lost to SD?), New Future, Socialist Justice Party and People's Will. but someone will have to confirm that.

And what is "Ogiltiga röster - övriga" and "Valdeltagande"? "Antal röstberättigade" seems to be the total

Also, the details missing on the template need to be filled.(Lihaas (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)).

I can translate the terms mentioned above to English:

• "Övriga partier": other parties
• "Ogiltiga röster - övriga": invalid votes - others
• "Valdeltagande": participants in the election
• "Antal röstberättigade": number of eligible voters

JIP | Talk 05:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- but what is "adjustment seats"/"permanent seats" ratio?Lihaas (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record: "valdeltagande" is translated "percentage/level of participation in the election", while "participants in the election" would have been "valdeltagare". Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Controversy section

"Critics of Sweden Democrats (SD) have tried various measures to prevent the party from gaining ground. Mainstream parties have tried to keep the SD out of the political debate, while political activists disrupted rallies and vandalised campaign posters. Some SD party members had allegedly been attacked. (there were reports that the attacks could have been staged)TV4 refused to air a SD campaign video, which was then uploaded to Youtube and viewed more than 600,000 times, showing a Swedish pensioner being overtaken by burqa-clad women in collecting welfare. However, these attempts were seen as counterproductive in that it gave the SD a chance to portray itself as a victim of censorship."

I have a few problems with the controversy section at present, particularly imprecise language. Firstly what have the mainstream parties done to "keep the SD out of the political debate"? Instances should be stated and sourced. Some vagueness and weasel wording including "political activists", which political activists/groups? It may be common for news agencies to use imprecise terms but Wikipedia shouldn't, it doesn't help the reader establish the scope of what is being discussed. And again this should be sourced. The claim about reports of attacks being staged cites a Swedish article but the English text here doesn't make clear where the reports are coming from, is this being given undue weight? "The attempts were seen as counterproductive", again, by whom? The use of the word "portray" can imply "acting/falsehood" and be interpreted as a value judgement especially as it is not clearly shown who is making this claim.

In summary I think the section should take heed of Wikipedia:W2W

ChiZeroOne (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I see improvements have been made as I was typing, but there's still some issues from above outstanding. ChiZeroOne (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I translated the Swedish article, and its references. The Swedish article is being improved now. Previously, this section was extremely biased, leading off with the staged attack. I live in Sweden and there were many, many reports of Sweden Democrats having their rallies disrupted by noise, by the blowing of the horns from the World Cup in South Africa, and other noise making devices. It would be good to translate the section about Danish politics and the Danish support for SD but I don't have time. Specifically, about the weasal words "political activists", these are mainly youth associated with the Young Left and even more left wing organizations (who, imho, believe that politics consists of acting act the communist part of the fall of the Weimar Republic, in assaulting racists!). Jan Guillou wrote an article about these activists in Aftonbladet a year or two back. Thanks! MVH, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Per the above request, I named the names of leftwing organizations (Anti-Fascist action and Young Left) that were cited as violent in the WP article on SD (which is protected from editing, btw, and is controversial!), citing the sources in the SD article (without verifying them). Jan Guillou's article (in Aftonbladet?) could also be cited. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, at least this is getting more specific and easier to verify. The references should be checked though, the one about the activists doesn't appear to link to an actual article. I would warn as well while it is clear this was a notable issue in the election, this article will quickly come under accusations of undue weight to the controversy section given no substantial discussions of the main parties and their campaigns as yet. ChiZeroOne (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is a great need to expand the coverage, particularly of the established parties and their programs: Swedish TV reported that the top issue of voters was "Schools"; 50% of LO members in the last election had disliked the SAP policies, and it would be important to find new data on this question. (I just felt an obligation to update the article to be neutral in tone, which is why I translated the Swedish material.) Sahlin's characterization of the campaign as really bad and her statements about needing renewal (in her speech last night) should be noted also.Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the expansion (but dont have the sources, most of which is in swedish), i spent all day yesterday asking for them but people just removed the campaign section instead of improving it.

Per the original request in this section: was the danish support for SD general or pertaining to this election? if the former then with cites it should be added; mainstream parties have kept SD out of tv debates per the source; the counterproductive reading could be attributed to the media as its sourced to news page, though i disagree with the word "portray" as a value judgement it is well-sourced analysis that gives this interpration, i dont think theyre affirming anything about SD being oppressed or parlaying as such.Lihaas (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The "counterproductive" line may well be sourced but the wording does not specifically state who is "saying" this. It is in ordinary prose implying this a judgement Wikipedia is making, not whoever the source is quoting. ChiZeroOne (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"it was read as..." or "it was read in the media as..."?Lihaas (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Third party?

Hi everyone, what does "third party" mean in the information template? Why is SD there? The third largest party in the preliminary results are the Greens (MP). The third largest party from the previous election was Folkpartiet(?). -- 90.229.236.112 (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we'd better sort this out quick. Yes technically the third party are the Greens, but they are in an alliance, and their figures are already represented combined with Mona Sahlin's party. Looking back at previous elections it seems as though since the alliances properly formed for the 2006 election, the consensus has been to represent only a combined figure for said alliances in the infobox, am I right? So the "alliances" represented should be "The Alliance", "Red-Greens" and the independant SD's.

Now someone has put the Greens in without changing the other figures the infobox it is incorrect and contradicts the article on the previous election. Either way it should be consistent. ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the third party to the SD. Having Greens as third party double counts votes and seats and proves confusing for readers. Third position changed to the next largest non Coalition which is SD. --115.70.80.120 (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, it might be seen as a bit misleading to list alliances in the infobox when the heading clearly says "First party", "Second party" etc. It's also not formally correct to say that Fredrik Reinfeldt is the "leader" of the Alliance or that Mona Sahlin is the leader of the Red-Greens, since none of these alliances have any formal "leaders" or use any similiar titles. Just my two cents. /Caelus sv (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Listing SD as third party is even more misleading. 85.225.12.118 (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Caleus cv, and Red-Greens (Sweden) states "The Red-Greens [...] is the name of a cooperation of red-green political parties [...] It consists of the three parties [...] The parties, which will face the voters as three separate parties in the 2010 general election". Either remove the Third party column; or replace the SD with the Greens and add rows for alliance stats in addition to party stats; or rename the columns to First alliance, Second alliance, Sixth party. -- Jeandré, 2010-09-21t04:37z

The format with Greens as #3 is unacceptable since it double counts votes and seats. There are only two ways to correctly represent this. The first is to list the top x parties (not alliances), ie. SDP, Moderate Party, Green Party, Liberal People's Party, and so on. The second is to list the two alliances and following with any non alliance parties. Duplicating votes and/or seats is confusing for readers and inherently misleading. --115.70.80.120 (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(Written at the same time as that above) This template absolutely doesn't work. At the moment, we are counting the greens twice -- once in the 43% vote listed for the redgreens and once for the greens as third party. We could use a first, second, third fraction table -- listing all leaders and all parties of each fraction please. However, the template does not seem to allow this easily -- -- Sverdrup (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the infobox wording does restrict what can be done. The problem is how best to represent Sweden's electoral system. I should point out there appears to be a very similar situation in a previous election, Swedish_general_election,_1991. How this was represented conforms to the formula that only "alliances" are shown, including independant parties if elected to parliament. However given that many of the smaller parties in parliament are somewhat important in themselves there could be a case for changing the format to having individual parties represented. That does raise new problems in itself however; there is no obvious cut-off on how many should be represented, all eight would get very messy. So if the individual party route is to be taken I think the best way is to just have the biggest 2 represented (and only their own parties figures in the infobox) who usually head parliament, and have no others.

May I say to anyone who may decide to put the Greens in third, fine, but if you are going to do so change the other parties infoboxes so it reflects their own parties votes and not those of their alliance. Otherwise it is most misleading of all! ChiZeroOne (talk) 08:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I Agree. I changed into making it alliances, and my change was auto-merged with yours! So now it displays only two alliances. I have not been able to coerce the template into allowing a listing of the parties per alliance! -- -- Sverdrup (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiments of Chi and Sverdrup. Any method of representation which does not double count votes and/or seats is sufficient. The current presentation fulfils this, several other ways also are available but ultimately that is less relevant. --115.70.80.120 (talk) 08:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The current edit [3] seems like an accomodation but 6 parties makes the whole too large (perhaps decrease the picture size) and increases the whitespace with clashes between the infobox and the opinion polls.

Also the "politics of sweden" template is now pushed down to a random section coing out of nowhere, precedence has this near the top. I tried moving controversies to above the opinions but then a picture comes in the way after the politics bar. Perhaps take out one picture. (the voters?)Lihaas (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This infobox format is obviously not intended for countries with more than two parties competing for power. It works for the US and France, but here it seems to be primarily a way to point out that SD got into parliament. Cramming everything up to 6-8 parties isn't doable. We need to come up with a workable alterantive or ditch the whole thing altogether and let people read the in-article tables instead.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Precisely, which I why I said above that it would get messy if people stick to "oh look, the top says party so we must do it by party" format. The only way to make that work is if only the two historically significant parties (i.e their leaders usually become the prime minister) are included. This still for me seems a bit of a problem with regards to the Swedish system for one simple reason, the single party with the most votes isn't necessarily going to be the government or it's leader lead it. This is best represented by the alliance system, and as I said this has been used for a similar situation in the 1991 election. Frankly I don't know why people are panicking about the infobox saying "party", they obviously haven't read the article lead which quite clearly explains the situation so I don't think it's necessary to be so literal. ChiZeroOne (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think its fair to take out the 4-6 parties. Initially the controversy was over the first 3 parties, which was a problem because the 3rd party was already in the alliance of one of the first 2 and hence should the alliances be represented of parties?

i've actually gone and confused myself now ;)...but i wouldnt have beef with only 2 parties.

Also, i agree the winner wont necessarily be in power, so until a govt forms i think we should leave the soc-dems as the leader, and then if the moderates govern move them to "first" even though they were the loser. Or at any rate we can come back in a few weeks and discuss a controversy SHOULD it arise.Lihaas (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I think if the party format remains the natural cut-off is just the 2 historically significant parties, if you add any others there's no sensible reason why all of them shouldn't since they got very similar votes. In theory it might work to place the big two in order of most votes and wait until the government is formed, but I can imagine a lot of less attentive editors edit-warring over which should come first in the meantime. Still think the alliance solution is better, ha.

Also I love the fact a rollbacker just undid someone's legitimate edit that got rid of the party spam! *sigh* ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

well if consensus determines this we stick to it and warn editors/lock the page or whathaveyou. But i do agree, all these editors yesterday kept reverting without discussion, it made mine seem like 3RR.

Also, you mean my edit? the other editor remove one spam true, but the other ip also added the CD in for no reason. Ironic it came just as i read the anti-SD rallies...are they now on wikipedia?

Have we agreed on the move to keep only 2 parties? and then sawap them if the outcome changes for government formation?Lihaas (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Main page "In the news"

On the Wikipedia main page, it says:

In the Swedish general election, the centre-right Alliance wins a plurality, while the nationalist Sweden Democrats hold the balance of power.

If we had two likely scenarios - (1) SD supporting the Alliance so that they form a government, or (2) SD supporting some other group (the Social Democrats AND everyone else, actually), so that THEY form a government - then the statement about Sweden Democrats holding a balance of power would make sense. But both scenarios seem unlikely, which I've tried to point out on the main page talk-page - to no avail. If YOU agree, please try your hand convincing the main page editors!--Nø (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

ITN's become complete rot, i dont how it even got on there?

Also asked to firm up some criteria there instead of flowing with the tide each time. Man needs law and order.Lihaas (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect this page is probably better for avail on the ITN template, Nø. Incidentally, note my post at the end there: it doesn't say nationalist Sweden Democrats on the Main page any more, I've changed it to far-right Sweden Democrats. (Read my post if you want to see my argument.) Bishonen | talk 17:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC).

That is even worse and blatant synthesis. Not a single source quoted on this page says that.Lihaas (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a problem of this page, and a sign it reflects mainly the POV of SD. In case anybody had managed not to notice. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC).

One can still hold the balance of power even if one cannot be part of the government or even play kingmaker, in that on any given vote the SD could decide the vote one way or the other. Everyone else in the Parliament can refuse to even give them the time of day, but they still get to vote.Bdell555 (talk) 02:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That it true, but only if no coalition with an absolute majority (not including SD) is formed. Thus, it is at best one of several possible scenarios, and should not be stated as a fact on the main page.--Nø (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"Others" figures in opinion poll table

The "others" column in the opinion poll table is missing figures for the last three rows. However, wouldn't it be possible to simply subtract the sum of all other parties than "others" from 100% and use that figure? After all, every vote is for someone, and if it isn't for any named party, then it's a vote for "others". JIP | Talk 14:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, didnt even notice (how many must be reading all of it?). I think if in the other criteria the numbers add up to 100% it would be fine to add it, or then just put "-" as in the results table fror vacant columnsLihaas (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done yet...

Hmm... doesn't the fact that quite a lot of votes remain to be counted deserve mentioning? Depending on what district the votes were cast in, and of course what party the votes support, we might yet end up with a majority goverment. These votes (by mail, from Swedes living abroad, and so on) number more than ever this year - so many that they might not be all counted until Thursday according to the officials... just a thought. --Osquar F (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Source? and then be WP:BoldLihaas (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

To be fair the banner clearly states this is a current event and the lead points out these are preliminary results. You could add more detail, but to be honest it will be changed soon anyway once all the votes are counted. ChiZeroOne (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Photograph sizes.

The fact that the photographs of the six party leaders are different sizes keeps bothering me. I realise this can't be helped as it is because they have different aspect ratios. Could this be remedied by editing the photographs by cutting bits away from them? JIP | Talk 19:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Either you could do it (play around), or ask the Help desk (i forget the exact place that deals with image requests)(Lihaas (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)).

Busy. -- Jeandré, 2010-09-22t13:04z

 Done. -- Jeandré, 2010-09-22t13:18z

That looks much better, thanks! JIP | Talk 10:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

reduce number of polls

Now that the election is over I think the number of polls listed could be significantly slimmed. 19 is far more than necessary, and they are bang in the middle of the article. It could easily be cut to the 2006 results, a poll from 2007, from 2008, from early 2009, and then July, August, and September. In other words 5 or 6.Bdell555 (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea. 192.12.88.50 (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure of this. Info cant be removed "now that the election was over" if its notability was there before it is still there.

But do you propose removing (or keeping if that easier?)Lihaas (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Article being hijacked

This article seems to have been hijacked by right-wing extremists. Every section is about just one party - the Swedish "Democrats". Massively OTT coverage and not an accurate reflection on the whole campaign or policies or anything else really. Trouble is, if you try to tone it down or change it, the Gestapo quickly pop-up and change it back. Wembwandt (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm, actually the last section mentions the anaylsis and reaction for the Moderats, Soc Dems, and SD. The reactions section mentions protests on SD because that is what got the most notable reaction (particularly in the int'l press), and the controversy section (which would be a negative to SD not "hijacked by right-wing") mentions the SD for the same reason. If there was another controversy (something above said somethign about Mona Sahlin?) then be WP:Bold and add it instead.Lihaas (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Reinfeldt's "feelgood image"

I may well be looking in the wrong place, but I can't find anything in the source supporting the idea that Reinfeldt "was seen to have a 'feel good' image that appealed to middle class voters in metropolitan regions." (I'm sure you'd like to have my original research on the subject: I mostly hang out with middle class people in metropolitan regions and I have never met anybody who saw Reinfeldt as anything other than a wintry accountant type, long on competence but short on charm.) Where at The Local is the feelgood thing, please? Bishonen | talk 22:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC).

"In addition, polls suggested that Reinfeldt himself was perceived by the public as the best prime ministerial candidate in a campaign of personalities that felt almost presidential. His “feel good” image appealed in particular to middle class voters in metropolitan regions." --> it appears the "ref name" tag to the source was repeated though, see the ref list there is another "local" link.

 DoneLihaas (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Re-elected

Was the government really re-elected, as the introduction says? I mean it's is still somewhat unclear what type of government will be formed because the Alliance do not have a majority of the mandates. And I think they could be voted down. And another possibility is they could form a majority government with the Green Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.158.164 (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

We can always take it out if proven false. right now a reliable source backs it.Lihaas (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, it is too early to say that a centre-right government will be in power after the election, though anything else is very impropable. The source did not actually support the way it was put in the article, and I have revised the lead-in to reflect the actual state of affairs: "Negotiaions for the new government are ongoing, and it seems likely that the centre-right coalition will form a minority government with Reinfeldt renewing his office." --hydrox (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Analysis

Looking at the charts during the summer the Soc Dems/Greens suddeny fell and the Moderates/SD rose. What accounts for this? Something must have happened/been said over the summer that changed peoples minds. Was it the issue mention in "analysis" already or something else?Lihaas (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

In "Valet med Nordegren" (Swedish National Radio P1) Sören Holmgren noted that 1) the crisis in the euro-zone and elsewhere abroad resurfaced at the beginning of the summer and 2) the red-green publicized their manifesto, putting the attention to tax issues in the debate. Both where good for the sitting government. The debate was around these economical issues all summer, only the last week the debate was around the sick leave and other issues benefiting the red-greens - as it had been in the autumn of 2009. This is most likely a correct analysis, but radio is not the greatest of sources. Steinberger (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, shouldn't we add this to the campaign section?

Also, the new map on the results page shows more Red/Green support in the Swedish hinterland...are their policies more rural friendly? Agro-subsidies or some such thing? I would think the urban south would be more friendly.(Lihaas (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)).

I suspect it's more like the 'wealthier hub' vs 'periphery' issue. The right-wingers generally seem to have done better in the South (and Mid-Sweden), with some exceptions though: check the galleries for historical trends [4], [5]. In contrast, communists / Left Party - have done very well in the far North [6]. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 21:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the idea that CounterPunch was described as a problematic source. This is a rather lazy way to debunk something. If you want to make that claim, identify what in my article is wrong. It is rather easy to debunk someone by questioning where they publish things. CounterPunch publishes U.S. senators, former U.S. nominees for President, leading intellectuals, etc. so kindly drop the inuendo about sources. I find Wikipedia very politicized. First, people criticize what I have written because no source is listed. Second, when that fails, they start debunking the source. From now on, I will cite everything with even more precision, but note, you can waste time because someone will re-edit your stuff even after you have done that.--Jonathan M Feldman —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanMFeldman (talk • contribs) 23:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC) If none of this rings a bell, try this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/technology/19iht-wiki.1.7167084.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanMFeldman (talk • contribs) 23:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Swedish_general_election.2C_2010. --hydrox (talk) 05:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – A case of WP:SPS

After a long-running dialogue the user admitted to being the anonymous IP who originally contributed the material in question. All in all, this seems to be a case of stubbornly holding to self-published sources. Edit where questionable material was first posted. --hydrox (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

What did the admins advise?(Lihaas (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)).

Not admin input in the discussion. --hydrox (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A rejoinder to the above: You should note that your view of this matter being "a case of stubbornly holding to self-published sources" is totally inaccuate and totally subjective, i.e. not objective using your own definition of the term. I do not publish Counterpunch, i.e. it is published by Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn. So you don't know what you are talking about when you describe my article as "self-published." I contest your premises and you have given a rather superficial interpretation of what I wrote to you, i.e. this matter has seems kind of Kafkaesque. I kindly suggest or ask that you get an administrator to examine the entire correspondence, because you have papered over the whole issue of media bias in newspapers. JonathanMFeldman (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Jonathan FeldmanJonathanMFeldman (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I still see no controversy here. I do not object if you want an admin's opinion. However, I wish you would actually read through those relevant official Wikipedia policies that I have linked to, as in to understand your own position and why I had pefectly valid reasons to remove the paragraph in question. This way we can also avoid wasting anyone's time on this matter anymore. Thanks for your understanding, --hydrox (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

And, just for the record, I think you are breaching another Wikipedia policy with your constant refusal to understand or read through anything that I have written or pointed to. Your previous comments illustrate that you believe Wikipedia is edited by paid corporate proxies^[7] and that you are "only engaging [...] as a kind of test of what Wikipedia really represents"^[8]. This is an act of disturbing Wikipedia to prove a point. For a guy who links to the famous three-year-old NY Times attack article on Wikipedia and gets upset for the deletion of his own interpreptation of the election result from an article, I would suggest you check your personal biases. How are you authoritative on this matter? It is quite funny when a guy claiming media bias in a democratic election reads the NY Times like the Bible, and does not care to research how Wikipedia operates before playing an online marthyr. In general, it is forbidden to link to your own work in Wikipedia, as I have said already numerous times. But, as you are apparently too busy thinking the removal of your interpreptation was "ideological filtering"^[9], you just can't read through that relevant, short policy, and postulate a real argument based on the guideline. This would be as simple as arguing you are an established expert on this field, and have had numerous publications in renowned political science journals to support your claim. The argument would be over right there. You reassuring comments on my talk page are of nil value without actual verifiable references, as anyone can claim to be anything on the Internet. No offense intended.

To illustrate the point why Wikipedia is suspicious to self-published sources (SPS), let's take an example. I am a hardcore believer in the flat Earth theory. I am absolutely convinced of the fact, and that anyone who believes the contrary are just brainwashed, or say, "ideologically filtered". There are several journals that would accept my research on the matter. I just pay it to be published, come here and edit my views to the article Earth. Voila, the Earth just became flat, and no one can change it because I also post reassuring comments claiming that I am an expert on the field. You see my point? --hydrox (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Politics of sweden template

Was just moved down in an edit, i was thinking (somewhere above i believe) that it should be as near the top as possible, in the interests of consistency on such pages. On here that would be below the infobox. It seems buring too low to be worthwhile here.(Lihaas (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)).

I moved it a bit down because the election maps and diagrams are of higher importance in my mind to this article. We have to consider people who have a low display resolution. The article is currently very filled with block-elements on the right side, and it's quite common to have these kind of category/navibox templates near or at the end of the article. --hydrox (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Article quality

I think this article needs a nomination for peer review, its at least a B-class article and certainly not start-class.(Lihaas (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)).

Who will you use for the "peer review"? A political scientist? That might be problematic, because often such persons really don't understand the "politics of scarcity" created by failed economic development policies. Also, they don't always understand how discourse shapes opinion, but rather see "public opinion" as an independent variable. Please note the following, of all the books on the Swedish Welfare State, hardly even one mentions the Swedish military economy and the tradeoffs generated by that? Why is that? A very interesting question. It has something to do with recycling politically convenient opinions in my view and other myths.--Jonathan M. Feldman —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanMFeldman (talk • contribs) 23:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Wo, hang in there, WP:Peer review is for the quality of the article, not the content.

Are you new? On wikipedia, and the premise that it is an "open encyclopaedia," we do these things in house, per the WikiProject labels above.Lihaas (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct, and the scale to be used at least for WPSweden-related articles is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sweden/Assessment#Quality_scale. With its length, coverage, fair amount of referencing, and illustrations, it definitely comes up to C-class. But since it has a number of "citation needed" and other quality templates, I don't think it is B-class. Tomas e (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Media reaction

A section as such can be added so as not to reflect bias on just a few. See [10] which is an example of summation. + [11](Lihaas (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)).

Unexplaied edits

I reverted the recent ones because the first has an unxplained insertion of brackets seat numbers (and not for everyone at that)[12] and the other [13] is not an inherently bad edit, i just felt it was unnecessarily expanding and give weight to one particulay anaylsis where his explanation is already given. I dont have a problem with the changes per se, it was after all another person's addition/change i copy edited.Lihaas (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wembwandt's edits and comments

Wembwandt has accused other editors of being fascist sympathizers, etc. I request that Wembwandt immedaitely apologize and pledge to abide by Wikipedia guidelines for talk and editing, and otherwise face summary blocking by an administrator. I don't have time to list Wembwandt's violations on the appropriate bulletin boards, and I ask others to do so ASAP. Thanks, 15:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It's never appropriate to order somebody to apologise, least of all on threat of blocking. Please sign your posts on talkpages as that is really necessary for clarity of discussion. (Type four tildes, not five). Bishonen | talk 18:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Please refer to the Wikipedia policy on attacking other editors. The standard template to alert the offending editor includes phrasing that blocking can result from personal attacks: The standard template appears on Wembwandt's talk page, where I placed it. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC) 20:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

[Surprised, Bishonen re-reads her own post. No, it's still about not ordering people to apologise. Perhaps Kiefer.Wolfowitz is replying to something else. ] Being an administrator of the project, I'm fairly familiar with Wikipedia policy, thanks. Personal attacks lead to blocks only in extreme cases. (Please refer to Wikipedia:No personal attacks.) I don't see Wembwandt doing anything extreme so far. His removals of text seem very reasonable to me; this is supposed to be a neutral, balanced account of the Swedish 2010 general election, not a propaganda piece for the Sweden Democrats. There is far too much emphasis on that party, even though of course it does have a certain special interest as getting into the Riksdag for the first time. Some of Wembwandt's edit summaries are unnecessarily rude, however. Wembwandt, please use the talkpage rather than merely the edit summaries to explain your edits; the edit summary space is just too small for nuanced discussion. And don't call names, please! The essence of the various policies about civility can be summed up as "Comment on the content, not on the contributor." Bishonen | talk 22:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Editor Bishonen seems to have misread my "request" that editor Wembwendt apologize for attacking other editors ("fascist sympathizer", "neo-nazis", etc.), with the notice that such attacks "can" result in banning. I request that editor Bishonen review the English distinctions between "request" and "order" and between "can" and "must" and then to strike-through the distortive summary of my comment, to demonstrate good faith.

Your opinion about the reasonableness of Wembwendt's edits don't gain my confidence. Wembwendt introduced the heading "Attacks fabricated" (plural) to describe the unique incident discussed in this article. Again, perhaps a misreading was involved, or perhaps a review of the English distinction between singularity and plurality is in order.

It seems that your claimed expertise is inconsisent with actual banning practice (and indeed your recent practice of warning an editor about banning for upsetting other editors and being rude) and with the previously mentioned template (and associated documentation). Your use of the phrase "only" is a third example where a review of English would seem useful. (Your recent banning-warning was for rudeness and citing a Talk-Page where the editor writes "Blah-blah-blah" etc.; you think that "blah-blah-blah" warrant a banning warning and that "fascist sympathiser" doesn't? A review of 20th century political history could be added to the English remediation then.)

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Bishonen, you seem to read Swedish, so perhaps you suffer the Swedish problem of misusing singular and plural verbs in English and so failed to notice editor Wembwendt's plural fabrication of "fabrications". I cannot find excuses for your other mistakes.

Bishonen, you have no excuse for enabling Wembwendt's disruptive editing and calling the removal of translations from Swedish wikipedia "balanced in [your] opinion". When you call this article "a propaganda piece for Sweden Democrats", you lose all credibility. You can restore some by apologizing and improving the article instead of cheering a disruptive editor.

When you make errors, Bishionen, you should apologize. (I trust that I don't need to cite Wikipeida policy for that point of simple decency and maturity.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I now read that Wembwendt had earlier charged that this article has been "hijacked by right-wing extremists" who edit like "the gestapo". Enough is enough. I'm asking for somebody to ban Wembwendt from this page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I commented previously on the Wembwandt edits on User talk:Wembwandt:

Basically the dispute is about three passages:

1. Firstly one where the readers are presented an example of SD policies. It is relevant because this party was new in the election and it is fair to present the readers with an example of their policies. The said policy is sourced and is presented in a neutral light - not endorsed nor discredited.
2. Second passage where it is claimed that SD received sharp opposition from the media and established parties. Although this statement is unsourced, it can be easily deduced from the surrounding references. As unequal representation by the media is a common violation in pseudo-democratic elections, it is relevant for the article. The statement could be presented with more neutral phrasing.
3. The third passage is about SD having its rallies disrupted by their political opponents. This is again a breach of the democratic process and relevant for an election article. Material is very well-sourced and presented as neutrally as you can say that malicious opponents of the party have disrupted its constitutional functions.

I see no reason why any of these passages should be entirely removed. I suggest a compromise where the second passage is rephrased more neutrally, but no material is removed.

I hope he would answer to at least these points before engaging in further censoring. I would also like to know why you removed the entire Sweden Democrats section? They were obviously one of the most talked-about subjects in the election, and thus obviously merit a subsection under "Controversy". Note that l If you feel POV, answer is not to remove sourced facts, but to change article wording or add new sourced material so that WP:DUE is achieved, not to censor material that many people feel relevant to the subject matter. --hydrox (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We have previously been through discussion on this page about such edits (namely SD), and come to consensus. If he wants to change the onus is on him to get further consensus before changing what was agreed to. Deletion is not an excuse for improvement either, each mention is duly cited to RS and removal thereof would be WP:Censorship. If there is extra coverage of SD it is for 2 reasons: 1. SD were in fact the most controversial and globally notable part of the election (hence acceptable), 2. other parties' coverage/campaign as either not been caught by editors or not been duly cited somewhere (i would think its the former), and thus should be for the editor who feels otherwise. That doesnt mean the RS sourced info should be removed to "balance." Balance is not a result of censorship.Lihaas (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

A comment, as I was asked. With respect to WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, if the editors complaining spent half as much time actually improving the article with expanded content on other issues/parties (which there is a dire lack of) rather than deleting well-sourced content that does exist, then there would be no POV "problem" to begin with. I noted this a month ago, [14], and yet none of those complaining about POV have addressed this. Instead of quoting the above perhaps it would be wise to read another policy, WP:EDIT, and particularly its subsection WP:PRESERVE. As far as I can tell you are not arguing that the content is badly written or not well sourced, just that there is "too much". I disagree, if one was to write a good article on this subject then the coverage would appear quite right, it is abundantly clear from a quick glance that the problem is far too little information about everything else. That is no reason to remove the present information, it simply shows that there is a lot more work needed on the article. I should point out that most English-language sources on the election will disproportionately discuss the SD's anyway which is probably part of the reason for the current state, not Nazis under the bed.

As to Wembwandt's comments it appears that this user is forgetting a key part of Wikipedia, Assume Good Faith, and that other abuses are proceeding from there. No matter whether one thinks editors are abusing policies or guidelines, it will not be looked upon favourably if you break others in a crusade to "put things right". Indeed, it's blatantly hypocritical. ChiZeroOne (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts notice

Hello, 2010 Swedish general election. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Controversial ostracism of Sweden Democrats

The article's subheading "Sweden Democrats" was vague, and may have given many readers (even editors) the impression that the article was focused on the Sweden Democrats. I hope that the new heading is an improvement.

I also introduced subheadings. The first subheading "Violence and unrest during the election" is the translation of Swedish Wikipedia proposed by Google Translator.

Please note that I promoted the account of an alleged attack-fabrication by an SD politician to its own subheading. Would someone check Swedish Wikipedia and update this story. (It is improper to claim that there were multiple fabrications, unless such fabrications are documented. Swedish WP does not discuss another.)

Thank, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think "Violence" as a subsection of "cotnroversy" would be fine, its what we use on other such election article.

I reworded the titles because their length made the navbox unsightly.

Also dont see why we have to cater the whims of such editors who dont want to contribute constructively. WP: Vandalism: "Repetitively and intentionally making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia will result in a block or permanent ban."Lihaas (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Those seemed to be good edits: Swedish WP need not always have the best titles! I didn't intend to cater to particular user, but rather to try to group related material together (somewhat subjectively of course). Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Al Jaz sources

I reinserted this becasue Al Jazeera is considered a RS on wikipedia. Though perhaps an alternative to removal would be to add the requsite caveats.

Criticizing or noting the lack of attributed source would seem like original research/POV. Please read the article and find the quote (some were not!). Those quotes were not attributed to anybody, so are not reliable. (Look at a NYT article and try to find an unattributed fact, by comparison.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I tried to follow your suggestion, and to clarify that the text was from Al-Jazeera (without doinig OR/POV and saying that AJ failed to cite anybody or anything for those points.). Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Also this worsened the section title as the older one already said it was "alleged" now it becomes redundant to say "alleged" and "possible fabricated"Lihaas (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It is nice to discuss improving the article rather than edit-warring!  :-)

Reading the Al-Jazeera article, one finds that Al Jazeera does not attribute the cited fact(s) to any person or source, so those parts of the article are substandard (i.e. below the level of acceptable professional journalism, at least for U.S. standards of journalism). Please look at the AJ piece, and do what you think is best according to the spirit of WP guidelines on reliable sources. (This problem deserves thought, imho.)

Your subtitle improvement allows the allegation to apply to the attack and to the self-inflicted charge, which seems reasonable. Thanks for your consideration. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I think Al-Jazeera are reliable. If not, it is possible to find sources to back up Al-Jazeeras claim even if they not where attributed in their article. First, it is a uncontroversial fact that both blocks pledged not to seek support from SD because they find them xenophobic, running contrary to their "view of man" (människosyn) and similar. Second, for the characterization of SD running contrary to the Sweish tradition of tolerance there is a couple of op-eds in Hallandsposten (http://hallandsposten.se/asikter/ledare/1.925833-invandring-ar-nodvandig-och-svenskar-ar-toleranta) and Dagens Nyheter (http://www.dn.se/ledare/kolumner/blagul-tolerans-1.1147623) where research is cited to show that Swedes are tolerant towards immigration - contrary to the viewpoints of SD. Third, the quote on second world war comes from Jimmy Åkesson's op-ed in Aftonbladet (http://www.aftonbladet.se/debatt/article5978707.ab). Steinberger (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Steinberger: You would improve the article by using both the quote from Al-Jazeera and from the Åkesson op-ed. AJ alone would be unreliable, because of its failure to follow accepted reporting practices and attribute the statement. Åkesson alone might be synthesis or OR. Please use both! That was a good suggestion. I can incorporate this source and adjust the section this evening (in Sweden). Thanks again! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It is uncontroversial that both blocks didn't want to work with SD, I agree. In this article, the WP quote from AJ was presented as though it was from a comminquée or news conference, when it was the reporter's synthesis (without documentation or attribution) --- this was unaccaptably misleading, imho. I tried to reword it, followinig another editor's suggestions. Please help with finding reliable sources (with attributed sources and not only the reporter's opinions).

I would agree that both blocks called SD xenophobic or hostile to immigration, but it is POV to state that as fact, as you do here (in a friendly, informal discussion). There are some nice polls of nice Swedes, but Persson was running a de facto brake on immigration, legally, so much so that the immigration bureau had parties when asylum cases were denied; there is little support for maintaining the status quo, of Sweden (especially Malmö) continuing to have 50% or more of all Iraqi refugees in Europe ---isn't that also true? About Swedish tolerance toward immigration, that is not the same as lack of discrimination, where Sweden has 40% unemployment of immigrant youth, which is double the level of Blair's "New Labour" (after Layard's programs): There is widespread agreement that there are major problems with immigration policy, but (for good and bad reasons) it was considered impolite to discuss them until SD's emergence (and still is considered playing into the SD's rhetoric, in the view of some pomo political commentators). Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Many Swedes believe that SD is no less tolerant and democratic than the Vänsterparti. SD apparently kicks out any open nazis, while even so-called "reform" members of VP display pictures of Lenin: e.g. Jonas Sjöstedt had a picture of Lenin in his office at the European Parliament, which was visible in interviews on SVT. Lars Ohly called himself a communist until a few years ago and (like a majority of the steering committee of VP) was a member of the Swedish-Cuban association, which apologizes for Castro's dictatorship. Göran Hägglund and others made such comments that SD and VP were like "plague and cholera", which were widely reported. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera is a television channel and on the television news they usually don't attribute things. Their article, largely a transcript, is not misleading. I find it quite accurate indeed. Because, even if it is an opinion that SD are xenophobic and it would be POV to present it as a fact, it was not the case here. It is, indeed, a fact that other parties call SD xenophobic. You know, opinions can be made into facts by attributing them.

I also find it outside the mark to confuse general criticism towards the integration policy for hostility towards immigration as you do. Sure, there is a common agreement that the integration policy is faulty, but the integration policy have never been discussed in 30-seconds slots in broadcast media where nuances can't be made justice anyway. This was true already before SD. But the integration policy have been discussed under more qualified circumstances, and still is. And I doubt that political commentators have said otherwise.

And I can't see what the Left has to do with this. Steinberger (talk) 09:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The left has nothing to do with this. It is controversial to assert that the "Left Party" is a democratic, humane party while the SD is not. As I mentioned, Göran Hägglund stated that both were unworthy of participation in government. The same was true for Tag Erlander, decades ago, when he excluded only the "Communist/Left Party" from Hapsund discussions. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The SD frames itself as criticizing immigration policy not immigrants and notes that it has a large number of immigrant members & voters, c. 15% if I remember discussions of the election correctly. I believe that the SD joins the Liberals and perhaps the Center in advocating arbetskraftinvandrining (sic.), that is increased immigration of high-skilled labor able to contribute to the Swedish economy without driving down wages; the SAP and LO are opposed to such immigration. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

At least the government under Göran Persson allowed for immigration of high-skilled labourers to fill shortages on the job market. And SAP is positive towards labour immigration [15] contrary to what you say. The Reinfeldt government have continued on that track and done some reforms. The reforms have gone further then what LO wanted, at least in some details, but they have not allowed for unfettered immigration of low-skilled labourers that would in to drive down wages that LO warned about. Contrary to what you say, LO is also positive towards labour immigration. [16] However, one difference between the "ordinary parties" and SD is that that the former does not have any reservation on where the immigrants come from, if they are from Europe or not. [17] Another is that SD already thinks that, already at this level, the labour immigration is too big. [18] Steinberger (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the references. You are correct in your statements here, and I am glad that you corrected or qualified my previous statements. Thanks again. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Aftonbladet headline

I translated Åkesson's quote, which stated "Muslim majority" (and not "Muslim immigration") as the biggest threat to Sweden (sic., shudder). The Aftonbladet headline had "Muslim immigration", but this need not be Åkesson's headline (but an Aftonbladet's editor's attempt to sell more tabloid-papers). In the USA, the headlines are often written by editors and not by the writers, which is a common problem. Editor Steinberger seems very well informed about Swedish newspapers generally and Aftonbladet particularly: Dear Steinberger, is it certain that Åkesson wrote that headline (with the "Muslim immigration")?

Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thats fine if sourced, if not it is editorial opinion of wikipedia editors just the same., and thus synthesis.Lihaas (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are correct, the headline is most certainly set by the debate editor at Aftonbladet. But, "Muslim immigration" is doubtlessly what he meant, or at least the larger part of it, so it is not a misrepresentation if that is what you think. What Åkesson writes about are "current trends" leading towards this "Muslim majority" and it is hard so see any other reason for Muslim population growth other then immigration and possibly high nativity. Omitting the smaller, latter cause for population growth we have "Muslim immigration" left. (First generation immigrants might have a high nativity and their children, the second generation, are popularly also called immigrants even if they are born in Sweden. But they in turn have historically had the same nativity as ethnic Swedes, scholars have observed, so it can't be a reason for long term growth.) Steinberger (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC) PS. Nowhere in his article Åkesson say anything about prospects for "a Muslim majority in Sweden", he speak of certain "larger European cities, including Malmö".

Dear Steinberger, Thank you for your direct answer about editorial policy. I think that WP must use the "Muslim majority" rather than "Muslim immigration", because that's how Åkesson's paragraph reads. (My agreement with your analysis is irrelevant, of course.)

Mathematically, Muslim immigration can continue but if the rate is slow enough, the Muslim immigration need not increase (if the birth-rates were the same): For example, the sequence $1-1/n$ increases an infinite number of times, but never exceeds 1. Thus, Åkesson's statement against a Muslim majority need not imply that he is opposed to Muslim immigration (as the Aftonbladet editor(s) apparently wrote, unfairly). (Again, my personal opinion about Åkesson's real agenda is irrelevant.)

Thanks again for your help and informative answer. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please look again, editor Steinberger, because he does use the phrase "Muslim majority": I quote Åkesson:

"många av Europas större städer, inklusive Malmö, med största sannolikhet har en muslimsk majoritet.

Den mångkulturella samhällseliten ser kanske denna framtid som en färgglad intressant förändring av ett Sverige och Europa som man allt som oftast förnekar ens någonsin har varit ”svenskt” eller ”europeiskt”.

Som sverigedemokrat ser jag detta som vårt största utländska hot sedan andra världskriget [ . . .]."

Well, currently the immigration rate is so big that the Muslim share increases. It is not nativity that drives it. That is the current trend. And it is this current trend he speaks of and extrapolates. It is a fair summarization Aftonbladet does when they say he speaks of "Muslim immigration". Second, I have not said that he did not say "Muslim majority", he did. But he did not say "Muslim majority in Sweden". Steinberger (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right. Maybe it should say, "probability of a Muslim majority in some of the largest Swedish cities"? Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to reiterate you 2 seems to speak swedish, i dont...so while im unaware of the technicalities the objective side in me says whichever phrase is chosen i would like to see its translation cited either directly or through translation to affirm it is not the synthesis of editors. Yall do understand my point right?(Lihaas (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)).

No. Muslim immigration is a good summarization given in a reliable source. If that is no good, we should not forget the dependent clause where he say, "given the present phase" (om nuvarande takt håller i sig so possibly "with sustained present phase"). So Åkesson, does not necessarily think that it will go so far as to a Muslim majority in some Swedish cities. The talk of a "Muslim majority" is clearly more of a rhetorical device to point to a, in his opinion, worrisome trend. A trend of immigration and high birthrates. Steinberger (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Below is my fast translation of relevant parts of Åkessons article. Steinberger (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

"Såhär långt tvingas man dock konstatera att islam har påverkat det svenska samhället i betydligt högre utsträckning än det svenska samhället har påverkat islam. Massinvandringen från muslimska länder tillsammans med de relativt höga födelsetalen inom den muslimska befolkningsgruppen talar för att denna utveckling kommer att fortsätta om inte en politisk kursändring sker. [...] Frågan är hur det ser det ut om ytterligare några decennier, när den muslimska befolkningen, om nuvarande takt håller i sig, har flerdubblats i storlek och många av Europas större städer, inklusive Malmö, med största sannolikhet har en muslimsk majoritet. [...] Som sverigedemokrat ser jag detta som vårt största utländska hot sedan andra världskriget och jag lovar att göra allt som står i min makt för att vända trenden när vi går till val nästa år."

"This far, one is forced to conclude that Islam has influenced the Swedish society more than the Swedish society has influenced Islam. The mass immigration from Muslim countries together with the relatively high birthrate within the Muslim subpopulation indicate that this development will continue unless there be a political change-in-course. [...] The question is how it will be in the decades to come, when the Muslim population (if the current phase continues) has redoubled its size [perhaps many times] and many of Europe's largest cities, including Malmö, with [the] greatest probability shall have a Muslim majority. [...] As a Sweden Democrat I see this as our biggest foreign threat since the Second World War and I promise to do eveything in my power to reverse this trend when we go to the elections next year."

I made slight alterations (mainly typos or subject-verb agreement) that don't change the meaning to Steinberger's quick translation.

To avoid edit warring, I won't revert or edit Steinberger's latest edit(s). It would be good for other editors to help Steinberger and myself reach consensus. Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest take it to WP:30 but it would be hard for non-Swedish speakers. Does the Swedish wikipedia have a 3O you could use?

Whatever the outcome could yall quote the relevant text in either references or a notes section?Lihaas (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't use any formal dispute-resolution procedure. Wikipedia still hasn't responded to my complaint about Wembwandt's calling us nazis, etc., so I think only heated or deadlocked disputes should be listed. I can live with Steinberger's summary, although I think somebody else can come up with an even better phrasing. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No Swedish Wikipedia don't have any formal dispute resolution process. Only informal processes that can be initiated via jungle drums, administrative noticeboards or the village pump. But as long as any discussion moves forward, I can't see any reason for any third opinion. ... So, Wolfowitz, what is wrong with "Muslim population growth"? I read you as it would be something faulty with it. I chose it as some kind of compromise. It is broader and thus more accurate then Muslim immigration and more definitively more accurate then Muslim majority without Åkessons qualifiers. Steinberger (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Steinberger, I am beginning to feel annoyed with your constantly being correct, and also budging when others have a point, which makes it impossible not to take your remarks with the greatest seriousness! ;-) I confess that I have great faith in my gut, and something tells me that that is not "le mot just", and I don't like half a quote and saying that Åkesson wrote something that isn't a very close paraphrase of what he wrote. I agree that it's fair, but I don't think it's yet perfect.

I did translations on election day as a public service, because it was an important international election. I only returned when I saw the neo-nazi and fascist-sympathizer charges repeated here for weaks, and the only administrator response being a gentle chiding (added very late) and then followed up with a cutesy smiley face. I think that you and others have helped to improve this article to where it is pretty good, now. And the discussion page is free of attacks and there is no edit-warring. Things have improved a lot. Best regards/Mvh, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Second that, this is definately one of the better election pages (uk being another), even better than the overloaded us election pages. I now use this as my model on other election pages like iraq, kyrgyzstan, bahrain (poor attempts at this, mind you), and hungary (which was quite decent, and had the same SD/Jobbik "controversy," if you must)Lihaas (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this section does need to be changed, to "a Muslim Majority is the biggest threat..." since the quote is indeed made up by Aftonbladet and does not accurately summarize what Åkesson said since he doesn't say that immigration of Muslims itself is a problem but when they become a majority. Even if it would summarize what he said i still think it schould be changed since it is in fact not a quote by Åkesson but one attributed to him, the article schouldnt say he wrote it because he did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.150.251.60 (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Edited false quote

"The SD Party's leader wrote that Muslim population growth "is the biggest foreign threat to Sweden since the Second World War.""

Has been erased, the quote is not by the party-leader but a title to the article chosen by the newspaper Aftonbladet, the quote is not found in the article by Jimmie Åkesson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.150.251.60 (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please respond to the discussion above, where I and editor Steinberger agreed on a translation of Åkesson's article, for the benefit of readers who do not read Swedish. The quoted predicate is certainly an accurate translation of Åkesson's phrase from the article, while the beginning subject is our best attempt to summarize what Åkesson wrote. Please suggest a better and intelligible subject here on the talk page, rather than edit-warring. We have tried in good faith to achieve consensus, and reached a workable compromise, despite having rather obvious and systematic disagreements on other pages on Swedish politics. As the editor who has raised your concerns before, in the previous talk section, I hope that you will listen to me and cooperate by suggesting a better translation. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Alleged attacks, possibly fabricated

I took a few minutes to read Swedish Radio's page, which was referenced, and then followed its links to SydSvenskan, which has more coverage. The Forensic doctor rated the evidence as suggesting fabrication, suggesting 9 out of 10 on an ordinal scale for certainty that the attack was self-inflicted. There was some investigation, but the police dropped the investigation. The police could find no suspects, despite a lot of effort in the time following the report. I would suggest dropping that section, because it's just noise, with no reliable information. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the section, since it didn't have anything worthy of an encyclopedia article, imho. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Archive: Alleged attack

One reported attack against a Sweden Democrat politician may have been fabricated. Examining one SD politician who reported being attacked, a forensic medical doctor reported that the evidence suggested that SD politician's wounds were likely to have been self-inflicted, although the doctor noted that certainty would require actually viewing any self-inflicted injury (or any attack). The SD politician has been questioned by the police for possibly falsely reporting a crime, but the police have closed any further investigation.

Discussion

I digress. the fact that it was fabricated as you say is even more important to the tactics thereof. perhaps remove a section as it is with undue weight, but move the content to some other section (the campaign can use expanding here AND it is part of waht SD used. Perhaps a sub-heading using the ";" mark.Lihaas (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sweden has an innocent until proven guilty policy, as does many other countries. Because the police failed to continue the investigation and no prosecutor even bothered to file charges, any suggestion that the politician (who is named in the links) did fabricate or stage the attacks would seem to risk violating WP policies about statements on living persons, wouldn't it? (IMHO, it is doubtful that any encyclopedia would contain information on the alleged staging of an alleged attack, but this is a matter of judgment, of course.) Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Its sourced to RS. Perhaps we can add requisite caveats about claims and police reports and/or remove the name of the person?Lihaas (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be original research? (The event was limited and bizarre, but such things happen in election campaigns: I could tell you stories . . . .) Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Not with RS. in fact the more the merrier to cite the electoral campaign. Still dont see how its OR, the caveats are more out of accomodation to editor grievance and then the necessity to cite to the word.Lihaas (talk) 02:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that the updated version (shown above) is okay, even though I question its WP notability (versus a current events article on the latest Swedish election). Some of the corrections reflect things from Sydsvenskan, which may not be in the SR article. I won't have time to provide correct citations, I caution. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that way. Its not perfect and can be approved, but that doesnt mean to remove it altogether.Lihaas (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Aftonbladet Social-democrat?

I don't see anything on the talk page about this connection. Can someone to where this would be? Munci (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)