Talk:Sweden Democrats

Bias

The article seems to be biased in favour of the party in question. Could someone make it less biased please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.12.191 (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely biased: there are no viewpoint from alternates factions. Alcides (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"The Sweden Democrats are critical of the special rights and privileges given to the indigenous Sami people of northern Sweden. " This is VERY biased, as it describes Sami rights as "special" and as "privileges". This is generally considered to NOT be the accepted vocabulary when speaking about indigenous peoples and minorities in objective texts, as it presents a certain view of those rights. These words would be acceptable if the sentence said, for example: "SD are critical of what they say are special rights and privileges given to" etc.

In its current form, the quoted sentence does not give an accurate view of the situation and thus can cause harm by spreading questionable information to those unfamiliar with the context. Which is the exact opposite of what Wikipedia is supposed to do.

I suggest a change that would make it clear that these are slanted words representing a certain opinion (that the Sami are privileged), and not an Objective Holy Truth. It seems like a minor grammatical change, but it means a lot since this is English wiki so most readers don't know much about indigenous peoples situation.--109.196.118.133 (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Mere smear and hate campaign against SD and ND

The mainstream media and anti-democrats are bashing and smearing against SD and ND even both of them have legitimate concern about Sweden.Having mere concern about their country and their country's people is not hatred against foreigners or phobia against them.All parties in Sweden can be called as "Nazi" parties or other smear words if they extend the defination of word Nazi or other smear words any way they like.

Majority of all the countries in the world have severe restriction against immigration of foreigners and many have decreased the number of foreigners living in their countries considerably.So the parties in the governments or other types of governments of those countries can be called "Nazi".They can be smeared with other smear words.That does not make them so.It is mere hate campaign against both SD and ND.

Nitrogen1234 (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
No, you can't simply "decrease the number of foreigners" living in ANY country, and wishing to do that is ridiculous. The only way to do that would be to either kill them, sterilize them or expel them , and contrary to what you said, NO civilised countries are doing that atm.
Don't confuse reducing new immigration, which many countries do, with 'lowering the number' of foreign persons, because that is a whole different thing and now YOU are making the SD look like Nazis.--109.196.118.133 (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This discussion page is full of crap!

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

You are contradicting yourself.First you say that races do not exist.Then you say pure races cannot exist.

Deterioration of DNA does not occur because of same race marrriages.Deterioration of the DNA occurs when people who have blood relation marry or mate each other.i.e When the people who are genetically related to each other marry, then it may cause the deterioration of DNA.For example if one marries his or her sister,brother,mother's brother,father's sister or brother etc.So the idea of pure race is not wrong.Also Sweden having a population of 8 million do not get deterioration of DNA.

I agree with you entirely, but please don't use this discussion page as a soapbox. -- WGee 09:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Total BS propaganda and lies. Sverigedemokaterna want to implement an immigration policy like the one Finland have. And there has NEVER been any mention of race in their party program. No SD representative have ever lost a debate when they have been allowed to take part. A population of 8 million people do not get deterioration of DNA. Infact, Swedes have fewer cases of Downs then other peoples even though Sweden had very few immigrants before the 1960. Their economical program can be read at their webpage if you are confused about it. SD members often get fired from their jobs due to anti-democratic people like you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.11.163.180 (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed i have been reading up on the party and I can find no refrence of Race anyplace in their party line and never did. They also never have been associated with the NAZI's. This is sounds like out right slander

--OxAO (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Then you couldn't have been looking very hard. For instance the founder and leader Anders Klarström (from 1992 to 1995) was a card carrying nazi. // Liftarn (talk)

Even the moderate party had Nazis before 1945.But that does not make party Nazi after 1945.

"Right-wing"

There is no consensus that the Sweden Democrats should be classified as a "right-wing" or "conservative" party. Sure, there are some people (usually on the left) who describe them as that, while others describe their policies as more left-wing oriented. The party itself describes its ideology as "democratic nationalist" and its position as "in the middle" on the political spectrum. Arguments could be made for both classifications, but to present any of it as a fact in the article is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. /Slarre 20:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There are several reliable sources saying they are "far right". // Liftarn

The term "far right" is a highly subjective and pejorative term without any established global definition. Such terms should definitely be avoided in an encyclopedia striving for neutrality (see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Hard.2C_far_.28left.2Fright.29_.5Bin_politics.2Freligion.5D). That newspapers and others use the term is not a reason why Wikipedia should, which generally has a higher demand for neutrality than those types of sources. /Slarre 23:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If the overwhelming majority of reliable, scholarly sources say that the SD is far-right, we have a duty to report that; see WP:NPOV#Undue weight. That you consider the labels "left-wing" and "right-wing" invalid is irrelevant; all that matters are the opinions of reliable sources. -- WGee 21:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I doubt if newspapers of televisions might be a "scholarly sources", and I agree with Slarre that serious encyclopedia should be neutral, and avoid pejorative terms like "far right" in its articles. Furthermore, I think that the term Radicalism shouldn't be linked only to far-right, as it is used in this article. "Radicalism may refer to Extremism, in politics belonging to radical left, far left or far right varieties", citing Wikipedia itself. Ammon86 17:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that some sources use a term does not necessarily make it a neutral one. For the same reason that we don't use pejorative words such as "dictator" to label people like Augusto Pinochet or "terrorist" as a label in the article Osama bin Laden. In this case, the party itself strongly denies the label "far right", and among many political commentators in Sweden this is also a matter of great controversy. To assert this label as being the absolute truth is far from NPOV, I think you understand that too. I also personally strongly dislike this party, which I consider both xenophobic and racist, but that doesn't mean we should sacrifice the rules of NPOV. As Jimmy Wales said, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". /Slarre 21:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that WP:NPOV is absolute, but it seems that you have forgotten about WP:NPOV#Undue weight, which suggests that, if there is a consensus among reliable sources that the SD is far-right, the article should reflect that consensus. In order to satisfy WP:NPOV, the article must also mention the SD's description of itself, something that is done in the second sentence of the introduction. You cannot remove sourced information merely because you personally disagree with it; that is disruptive. The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources describe the SD as "far-right," and the article names the most reputable ones. -- WGee 04:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no "consensus" among "reliable sources" that SD is "far right". There are some sources who use that label, but there is certainly no "consensus". The fact remains that this is a highly pejorative and subjective term which is strongly denied by the party itself and by many others, and as such shouldn't be used. /Slarre 04:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I challenge you to find one source – of similar repute to the BBC, CNN, the Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society, and the Stephen Roth Institute – that categorizes the SD in such a way that precludes its being far-right; then dare to tell me that there is no consensus. Moreover, the party actually describes itself as "ethno-nationalist", so there was absolutely no reason for you to remove that term from the infobox so carelessly. -- WGee 05:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, nowadays most Swedish media and other observers don't use the term "far right" for the Sweden Democrats, probobly out of an ambition of neutrality. If the term is too controversial even for the tabloids, then I don't see why Wikipedia should use it, especially when it's stated as an absolute fact (see my post below). The term "ethno-nationalist" still needs a source. This term (or any variant of it) give no hits on SD's official website or in their party programme. Could you please provide an up-to-date source for this claim? /Slarre 23:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

SD is 'far-right' in the sense that term is used in Western mainstream media and public debate. Whether that term is a scholarily correct can be debated, but this is an inherent problematic of all 'left-right' distinctions. I support a wording in the intro that includes both the labellings far-right, xenophobic etc as well as the self-identifications of the party. However, I think that the term 'reputable observers' should be reworded, perhaps to 'mainstream observers' or something similar. --Soman 12:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed "reputable" to "notable." -- WGee 16:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that criticism is not appropriate in the intro, as this is not done (in most cases) in the intro of other "controversial" parties (especially not those on the far left). this fits better in the "Ideology" section. However, if the labellings mentioned should anyhow be used, it must be presented in such a way that it corresponds to the NPOV-policy - it should not be stated as a fact, as it is currently done, but rather that it is the opinion of an outside observer, eg: "xxx has labeled SD as xenophobic, far-right, etc.". Currently it is only the labellings "anti-immigrant and xenophobic" that are stated in a neutral way, while "far right" is presented as some sort of indisputable fact. /Slarre 23:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The way this article is written betrays painfully obvious political views of its author(s). We, as wikipedians, shouldn't be side of any political conflict, or show our sympathies or aversions towards any political party when editing articles in Wikipedia, which is, I remind you WGee, an encyclopedia, not a tool of political propaganda. One of the fundamental human rigths is Freedom of speech, which means among others that everyone should have a possibility to present his opinion, and that others have possibility to hear it. Regardless of what we think about Sweden Democrats, everyone should have this possibility to hear opinions and facts about their ideology and programme from different points of view. You, Wgee, with your policy of constant deletion of everything which is incompatible with your views, behave like Gestapo officer, doing everything to be sure that opinions of other persons wouldn't be heard. "We are nationalist democrats and dissociate ourselves from all forms of totalitarianism and racism." This sentence is from website of Sweden Democrats, which I putted as a reference to confirm that they describe themselves in this way, and that is why I wrote that their ideology is "Democratic nationalism". I understand that it is higly controversial issue, so I think that the best solution would be to present both opinions - from Sweden Democrats themselves and from their political opponents. Ammon86 07:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The question is if they are a reliable source about themselves in this issue. // Liftarn

The question is if we perceive people reading our articles as complete idiots, or as persons with ability of critical thinking, who can make judgements on their own. If there are two (or more) contrary opinions about their ideology, our task is to present them, and give possibility to check their references to others, to that readers may assess whether Sweden Democrats are reliable source about themselves or not. Even a criminal in court has a right to defend and to present his point of view, so let us give them the same right to present their own stance, especially with regard to the fact that they are legally functioning political party... Ammon86 10:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop your personal attacks. First, the Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society, as well as several other reputable sources, describes the SD's ideology as "ethno-nationalism," so you were unjustified in replacing that term with your neologism "democratic nationalism." Second, our task is not to give equal weight to all differing viewpoints, but rather to discuss differing viewpoints according to their prevalence among reliable sources—see WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Thus, since most reliable sources describe the SD as far-right, we must use that term to describe the party. -- WGee 19:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

WGee, it's obvious that you haven't understood the basic principles of WP:NPOV. The intro of the policy clearly states:

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."

The section "Undue weight" is not about presenting viewpoints, even those held by a majority of reliable sources, as undisputable facts. "Undue weight" doesn't conflict in any way with the other parts of the policy. As the way "far right" is being presented in the intro, as an undisputable fact, it's obviously a clear violation of WP:NPOV.

I am not against using the word "far right" at all in the article, but it has to be presented in a neutral way: "The Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society [and others] have labeled SD as "far right"." not "SD is far right" (see WP:NPOV#Attributing and substantiating biased statements). Furthermore, it could be discussed if media observers such as CNN or The Local really are authoritative sources on this issue.

Also, you haven't yet answered my question above, in what source does SD describe themselves as "ethno-nationalist"? /Slarre 20:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Click on the footnote next to the term ethno-nationalism; that's why it's there. Moreover, since nobody has presented any secondary sources that contradict the mainstream belief that the SD is far-right, there are currently no differing viewpoints to discuss (the party itself is not a reliable source because of an obvious conflict of interest—see WP:ATT). Finally, the Arbitration Committee has said that "Wikipedia is not censored. The words used in ordinary English usage to describe a subject may be used in Wikipedia" [1]. Far-right is one of those words, as evidenced by innumerable news reports which reflect popular parlance. Also note that the user against whom this arbitration case was filed was placed on probation for removing the factual descriptor far-right from the articles of several European far-right parties, such as the French National Front. -- WGee 04:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, WP:NPOV#Undue weight says, "Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Cross-checking of reliable sources indicates that the opinion that the Sweden Democrats are not far-right is a "tiny-minority" viewpoint, and thus need not be considered. -- WGee 04:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You still don't get it. Viewpoints that are controversial or could be disputed needs to be attributed and not presented as facts. Of course we shouldn't present SD's own label of themselves ("democratic nationalist") as a fact without attribution either.

The footnote next to ethno-nationalism leds to a secondary source. You claim above that SD "describes itself as "ethno-nationalist"", do you now admit that this is wrong? /Slarre 21:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The party's description of itself is neither here nor there. The fact remains that there is no controversy among reliable sources that the SD far-right, unless you can demonstrate otherwise. And if there is only one prevalent opinion on an issue, it may be presented as a fact. For example, would we say, "Everyone except members of the Flat Earth Society believes that Earth is globular"? No, we would simply say, "Earth is globular." Similarly, instead of saying, "All notable observers describe the SD as far-right," we would simply say, "The SD is far-right." In sum, the opinion that the SD is far-right need not be attributed to a particular source because it is shared by virtually all sources pertaining to the SD (in other words, it is uncontroversial). If you disagree, please demonstrate otherwise using reliable sources. -- WGee 02:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The labeling 'far-right' ("högerextremt" in Swedish) for these kind of parties is indeed a strongly polemical and controversial issue. This labeling implies that racism and xenophobia somehow is the most "extreme" form of right-wing ideology, something which is disputed by many conservatives and liberals in Sweden, including the renowned author Johan Norberg[2] (now a senior fellow at the Cato Institute), the journalist and author Göran Skytte[3], the Liberal Member of Parliament Mauricio Rojas[4], the Centre Party Member of Parliament Fredrick Federley[5], and the current chief of staff of the Prime Minister Johan Forssell[6], just to name a few. These often point out to the fact that SD in its rethorics and political platform has a lot more in common with the centre-left parties (mainly the Social Democrats) compared with the centre-right parties, and that the party has its strongest voter base among traditionally social democratic voters.

Swedish media nowadays rarely use the word 'far-right' when referring to SD, which is proof good as any of the word's polemical and controversial nature. Nationalencyklopedin, the main national encyclopedia in Sweden, does not use the term far-right in its article on SD.

So no, there is definitely not "one prevalent opinion" on this issue. /Slarre 23:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"This labeling implies that racism and xenophobia somehow is the most "extreme" form of right-wing ideology, something which is disputed by many conservatives and liberals in Sweden . . ." Stay focused on the topic at hand. This is not a dispute about the implications of the term far-right; this is a dispute about whether or not the overwhelming majority of reliable sources use the term far-right to describe the SD. You say that "These [sources] often point out to the fact that SD in its rethorics and political platform has a lot more in common with the centre-left parties (mainly the Social Democrats) compared with the centre-right parties, and that the party has its strongest voter base among traditionally social democratic voters." That may indeed be true; however, it is not incompatible with being far-right, since most European radical right-wing populist parties appeal mainly to working-class voters and usually advocate dirigisme or corporatism (cf. fascism). In other words, the characteristics you described above are in fact characteristics of the European radical right. What sets the ERR apart from the left is its ultra-nationalism, xenophobic social policies with racist overtones, and quasi-fascist methods of propaganda. -- WGee 02:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the topic at hand. The major reason that the designation 'right-wing' for SD and other xenophobic groups is for this same reason. As I have now shown, the designation that SD is 'far-right' has been disputed by several reputable sources (not including the party itself), thus it can't be stated as an undisputed fact. It's as simple as that. I will soon put forward a proposal for a more neutral intro text. /Slarre 21:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to use Swedish secondary sources (the party, being the subject of this article, is an inherently biased, and hence unreliable, primary source), then I need you to translate the relevant text for us non-Swedes so that we can verify the sources. Otherwise, I am unable to determine whether or not the sources you provided actually classify the SD in a way that precludes their being far-right. Moreover, feel free to propose a "neutral" version, but make sure that you propose it on the talk page first, since there is currently no consensus to alter the lead. The version that I am defending has been approved by a consensus of editors, and thus a consensus is required to alter it. -- WGee 23:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

need to face the facts Wikipidia shouldn't be into finger pointing. if a group says they are not right wing then who is wikipeda to judge?

--OxAO (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

They want free distribution for the Triumph of the Will!

These guys are somehow related to the big "Pirate Bay" movie-sharing website via a shady businessman named Carl Lundstrom. This should be mentioned in the article. 82.131.210.162 10:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Got a source for that? // Liftarn

Besides, I don't think "TotW" is banned in Sweden, anyway. It's also released on DVD and freely available at Internet Archive. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 16:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't stray from the verifiable truth

Several times, I and other editors have removed the parenthesized text from the following sentence, just to have it restored a short while thereafter, even when we have used explanatory edit notes: "A key point in the party's economic policy is the claim that the so called "multicultural experiment" costs the Swedish government approximately 267 billion Swedish kronor (2000) every year (actual cost in 2003: 6.8 billion)." The problem is that the claim is not supported by the ref, from which I quote the relevant part: "Det direkta kostnaderna för flyktingmottagandet och integrationspolitiken är således ca 6.8 miljarder kronor." ('The direct costs for the reception of asylum seekers and integration policies are thus approximately 6.8 billion kronor.') I don't think I need to argue for my position; the fact that the source does not back up the claim is plain to see. brtkrbzhnv 18:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw a interview on Swedish televsion once with the source (economical professor, or something...) SD were giving, and he apparently claimed that the numbers were used out of context or distorted for propagandistic purposes. Hopefully someone else knows more about this. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 16:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Cultural nationalism"

An editor has added "cultural nationalism" to the description of the group, using this site as the source: [7] However I can't find where in that site the group is called "cultural nationalist". Could the editor who added it please quote the passage that is being referenced? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the article says: Like most of these parties, the Sweden Democrats is a pronounced culturalist party, whose program is based on ethno-nationalism and xenophobia.. "Culture" is very much emphasized by the Sweden Democrats. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 17:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

But where are they called a "cultural nationalist" party? Is that your own opinion, or is there a source that uses the term in reference to this group? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Social Democracy of the Swedish Democrats

Not only is it made clear in their Party's Principal Programme that can be found on their official website in which they declare inspiration from the social democratic concept of the "people's home", or folkhemmet as it is called in Sweden, which is the welfare state as created by the Social Democrats, but furthermore, but they have on several other ocassions defended a large public sector. Using their principal programme as a reference, I am now adding Social Democracy to the ideology of the Swedish Democrats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.121.39 (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't see how their principal programme proves that they are Social Democrats. I quote it here:

Sverigedemokraterna är ett demokratiskt, nationalistiskt parti. Vi har idémässigt låtit oss inspireras av såväl det förra sekelskiftets svenska nationalkonservatism som delar av den socialdemokratiska folkhemstanken. Syftet är att kombinera principen om grundläggande social rättvisa med traditionella värdekonservativa idéer. Partiet låter sig av den anledningen inte enkelt placeras in på den klassiska vänster-högerskalan.

My school English translation:

The Sweden Democrats is a democratic, nationalist party. Our ideology has been inspired by both the last turn of century's Swedish national conservatism and the Social Democratic thought about "folkhemmet". The goal is to combine the princip about basic social justice with traditional social conservative ideas. Because of that reason the party cannot easily be placed on the traditional left-right scale.

Yes, I do know that many see them as Social Democrats with a nationalistic and immigrant sceptic twist. But if we are going to include Social Democracy as an ideology then we need stronger sources. Therefore, I will remove this ideology. J-C V (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"Right-wing"

This is somewhat connected to the above discussion. In the first paragrapgh the Sweden Democrats were described as a right-wing party. I chose to delete that. One should be careful with calling a party left/right-wing, especially when it cannot easily be placed on the right-left scale. And it seems like it is not done on the articles about the other Swedish political parties. J-C V (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct, they should be called "far right" instead. // Liftarn (talk)

No, that is not what your predecessor said. He wanted to remove the left/right classification. You want to keep it. I removed it again. Axt (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. SD is obviously Right-wing. You aren't deleting the Left wing from the Left party, aren't you? Being as anti-immigrant as the SD means... RIGHT. WING. Marzillius —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.205.91 (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you tel me one leftest nationalist leader that wasn't xenophobic?

--OxAO (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Seen from an international perspective, SD aren't all that anti-immigrant. The rhetoric is sometimes extreme, but when it comes to actual politics their stated goal is to bring immigration down to a level more in line with neighboring countries. I don't really see how this would make them "right wing". - Alltat (talk) 06:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

I'd like to ask User:MiszaBot I to being automated archiving of this talk page, is this ok with everybody? Plrk (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Title of article

I dont understand why the title of this article is "Sweden Democrats". That makes, quite simply, no grammatical sense in english. Compound words from Germanic languages, such as "Sverigedemokraterna" are normally translated using possessive: Sweden's Democrats, or my preference in this particular case, an adjectival form: "Swedish Democrats", which—after looking through this discussion page—seems to be a very popular way of referring to the Sverigedemokraterna.

Unfortunately, the party itself uses the swedish name when referring to themselves in English, so we can't use their translation as a guideline. So i strongly think that all references to Sweden Democrats on wikipedia should be replaced by Swedish Democrats. – Vikingviolinist (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using a compound word like "Sweden Democrats" in English. Native speakers of English often refer to the "Wisconsin Republicans" or "Chicago Bears" (an American football team.) Remember that English is Germanic language, too.

If the party itself wishes to translate its name as "Sweden Democrats" then it ought to be translated that way. Many immigrants to America change their names when they enter the United States and Americans respect those decisions. By the way, I am an American, and have no interest in Swedish politics, so I believe that my assessment of this linguistic controversy is objective. Powerman95 (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a football team. Compound words like "Sverigedemokraterna" (that being noun+noun) are often translated into English as adjective+noun, or alternatively possessive noun+noun, for example the article on Folkpartiet refers to "Folkpartiet" (people+party) as People's Party. Likewise, "Kristdemokraterna" isn't translated as Christ Democrats, but rather Christian Democrats. Also, my point was that the party itself has no official policy on translating their name. The English media itself also refers to it as the "Swedish Democrats" at times (eg. Deutsche Welle English, Irish Examiner, Bloomberg, the Telegraph) and as such, I'm going to add "Swedish Democrats" to the title of the article. — VikingViolinist | Talk 00:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The Schönhuber meeting

The source for the Schönhuber meeting points to the main page of Expo. The article mentioned doesn't say anything about Hancock being anything other than a participant at the meeting. Also, I'll change the source to point directly to the correct article. Lorkonius (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The Security Police

I tried to access the Police report cited in the first part of the article, but it seems to be removed (it was a report from back in 2002, after all). I removed the erroneus link and replaced it with "citation needed." Note: I don't doubt the claim as such, just the source. Lorkonius (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried Google cache and the Wayback Archive? I don't like the idea of removing sources just because they drop off the web. // Liftarn (talk)

No, I haven't. However, if you would like to search for it you should feel free to. Also, shouldn't SÄPO have published another report by now? Lorkonius (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick googline and didn't find anything. The report seems to be available[8], but it may be a temporary URL. // Liftarn (talk)

What various papers and foundations say about SD

I checked the sources for the claims of the Sd being anti-immigrant and xenophobic respectively, and the given sources say different things. I moved around the text accordingly. Nothing was erased. Lorkonius (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent information on the webshite shutdown

This article simply states: "The publication attracted the attention of the Swedish government. The government informed internet service provider Levonline about the party's publications. Subsequently, Levonline shut down the party’s web page."

The article on Laila Freivalds states: "Most journalists suggest that the turning point came after Göran Persson, the Prime Minister of Sweden during this time, publicly criticized the civil servant who suggested to the Internet host that they close the website, only to find out that he had acted with the approval of Freivalds. The Prime Minister then lost confidence in his Foreign Minister and probably suggested that she resign. This theory requires Freivalds to have lied to the cabinet, something many have found unlikely."

I believe the exact extent of the government involvement would be of interest to a reader of this article, and that there's a material difference between one article presenting a "The government informs, the ISP shuts down" situation, and another presenting a "The government suggests to the ISP that they shut down" situation. It would be nice with some more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.137.3 (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Center-right dubious

The claim that SD is center-right is highly dubious: While it is true that their take on migration, nationalism, etc., is usually branded with a "far-right", most of their other policies places them as center-left.

Generally, I feel that the left-right scale is completely inadequate in describing political parties, and that it should be avoided. Notably, the far-right is not an extrapolation of the "ordinary" right, but on an orthogonal dimension. 88.77.182.69 (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning

60.240.241.57 and Miacek, you both need to read WP:AN3RR right now. Bishonen | talk 11:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC).

Bishonen, you know as well as I do that no scholarly source or just RS would define the party as fascist at the moment. I have already reported the matter for page protection, till the fuss is over. I am not here to push any POV, but to avoid them all. Unlike some lobbyists. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 11:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

None of that makes any difference; you'll be blocked if you violate 3RR, whether you're right or not. I suggest you open an RFC on this page instead of keeping on reverting. Bishonen | talk 13:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC).

the supposed sources are just random pages this highly opinionated anon got by a google search. This one e.g. tells little about the real subject.
Fortunately I see that the changes have been reverted now by another user. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Searchlight's sole purpose is to be anti-fascist, and I am not sure if it can be considered a truly reliable or unbiased source. They are obviously going to hold strong views on a nationalist party. The SD are often labelled as "far-right" by the media, but "fascist"? Aside from maybe a few blogs, this term has not often been used to describe the party. Hayden120 (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As politically motivated POV pushers have no real sources to back up their claims, it seems that every concoction goes for them. A quick look at the user page (let alone username) reveals, what kind of NPOV edits we can assume from these users to the topic at hand. It's all right if they discuss their anarchist and 'revolutionary communist' fantasies on special sites like Anarchopedia. But putting words into others' mouth or using fringe sources of far-left political opponents is just shameless POV pushing (the Guardian article linked does not call the current party fascist, as the user's edits would imply, and even if some article did, a single source with the SD mentioned passing by is unsuitable for generalizations). No RfC is needed here, just enforcement of guidelines like WP:V and WP:FRINGE. You can't really find a consensus with political lobbyists and smear campaigners. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 14:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont know the fight over here but Bishonen seems to have something in for the party per the election page.

And you are? Sign your posts, please, and read WP:BATTLE. Attacks like yours are no kind of behaviour on Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC).

Muhammed cartoons

I dont know the swedish translation exactly but "The cartoon showed Mohammed from behind holding a mirror in front of his face. However, instead of any facial features, the mirror showed only a blank head. The cartoon was captioned "Mohammed's Face" (Muhammeds ansikte in Swedish)." Does it mean the mirror was empty? Not sure what is meant by "blank head" but it could be construed as defamation to either the party or muslims depending on the way its said. Reading it as showing a "blank head = Mohammed's face" or "empty mirror = not showing the face" (ie- respectful of islamic sympathies.

I was wondering if someone could clarify this.(Lihaas (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)).

Minor wording change

subsection "The Sweden Democrats' response to the controversy" should be "The Sweden Democrats' response" as the section is already labeled "controversy"

Also "Despite this increase compared with 2004 (+ 2.14 %), the party failed to get any seat in the european Parliament." should be "Despite an increase of 2.14%, compared with the 2004 elections, the party failed to get any seat in the European Parliament."

Ie- you dont need to say increase and have a + sign. And european needs to be capitalised. The rest is just wording.(Lihaas (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)).

Since those are harmless corrections, I have inserted them by your request. Bishonen | talk 21:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC).

Thanks, but just notivces an error in both the old version and mine too. "Despite an increase of 2.14%, compared with the 2004 elections, the party failed to get any seats in the European Parliament." Seat should be plural(Lihaas (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)).

Islam

Could an admin please make an edit to include a section within ideology covering the SD's views on Islam. Thsi seems to be an important campaigning point for them.

Something along the lines of:

SD has described Islam as the biggest threat to Swedens' national security since the Second World War.

Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 21:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

But they have not done that. That headline was set by Aftonbladet. 83.254.192.84 (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The party leader wrote exactly that: [9] Dendlai (talk) 07:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Nah. His argumentation might imply that they are a threat to the national security, but only indirectly if social and cultural cohesion is seen as a part of it. I read him as if Islam is a threat to the "Swedish culture". Steinberger (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

popular in Skåne

There should be a note about how the party is significantly more popular in the south near Denmark than elsewhere.Bdell555 (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

But with what source and more importantly why? Looking at the map (and global trends of such parties), i have my own reasons that add up across the board as to why the north is less popular and the south more. Although what are the demographics of the northern most province in 2006 [10]? that might be interesting.(Lihaas (talk) 04:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)).

It being near Denmark has nothing to do with it. Look at where the mass immigration and ghettos are, and it should give you a better picture as to why it looks like that. Nymf _hideliho! 11:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What?Lihaas (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that people in Malmö and around that area is going to vote SD. They have seen the damage our immigration politics have done first hand, whereas the people in Norrbotten have little to no interaction with immigrants, and as such does not see it as a problem. It is not a coincidence that SD was formed in Skåne. Nymf _hideliho! 13:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes but there are massive numbers of immigrants in Stockholm neighbourhoods like Rinkeby and Tensta and the SD is not especially popular in Stockholm. I am Canadian but I lived in Skåne for almost a year and, anecdotally, I think there is a connection to the Dansk Folkeparti. Not a few Danish women could not bring their Muslim boyfriends into Denmark because of Denmark's restrictive immigration policies (largely due to the DF's political influence) and so the couples would move to the other side of Öresund Bridge and you'd see them around Malmö. The Danes, in other words, moved out to Skåne a spectacle they didn't like, and in turn those in Skåne are the first Swedes to have to deal with the situation. Also, many Danish politicians, not just Pia Kjærsgaard but "mainstream" conservative-moderates, spoke out against how the Sverigedemokraterna were treated during the campaign. It is almost as if the Danes see the SDs as their baby. The bottom line is that while the Sweden Democrats are considered fringe in most of Sweden, their policies are relatively mainstream in Denmark, and because of the cultural connections between Skåne and Denmark the Sweden Democrats are perceived as more mainstream in Skåne than the rest of Sweden. Whatever the case, sources that offer an explanation for the regional distribution of the SD vote should be looked for.Bdell555 (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually the concentrations follow the same pattern as in the 1930s (but with the simmlar parties that existed back then of course). // Liftarn (talk)

Bdell has many good points. In a (Norwegian) article from 2006, Sten Andersson (a former MP for the Moderates, and leader of SD in Skåne who died in August this year) said that "The proximity to Denmark, and the debate one have had on immigration there, has been important for our position. All people from Skåne can see the Danish TV channels, and we feel close to them".[11] In 2009, the party's press spokesman Jonas Åkerlund held a long tradition of smaller opposition parties in Skåne and the proximity to Denmark as part of the answer. He also thought that many believed it has become better in Denmark, which they connected to the Dansk Folkeparti.[12] -TheG (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Update election

Could the admin who protected this page please update this page and infobox with info from the 2010 general election? -TheG (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps wait with templates etc. till the final results are available, but let it be entered, that the Democrats definitely passed the threshold and entered the parliament?Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree the article should be updated with the election results. I knew nothing about this party or Swedish politics until I read the "In the News" summary on the main page (currently at the top of the column) and clicked on the Sweden Democrats link to learn more. Imagine my surprise to find out that this link from the main page leads to what is now an out-of-date article that talks about how the Sweden Democrats "could" do in the election, when they have already done it. And the article cannot be updated because it is fully protected, apparently because of edit-warring over the single word "fascist" in the infobox. (Which, just from reading the article, seems like it should not be there for POV reasons; the text could cover the accusations of fascism, if properly sourced, and the party's response.) It also appears that the edit-warring was taking place right before the election and possibly while the polls were open; now that the election is over, there might be less motivation to edit-war. So I think the protection can come off, if only to allow the article to be updated. Or, if the admins still want to wait 2 more days, I don't think Wikipedia will be permanently damaged. People will be able to see the protection template and figure out why the article is out of date. Neutron (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Prominent members

Mr Sten Andersson, former parlament member for Moderat party and later member of Swedendemocrats, died in august 2010. RGDS Alexmcfire

Ideology: Populism

I've tried adding the ideology "populism" to the article using several sources (http://www.ystadsallehanda.se/insandare/article1245609/Maumlrklig-populistisk-och-felaktig-politik.html, http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/analys-sifo-sds-medvind-kan-locka-till-populism_3802885.svd), some even used in the article already(http://hsf.bgu.ac.il/europe/index.aspx?pgid=pg_127842651505941456). However, people constantly undo this without any explaination why the sources aren't good. If it is good enough for certain claims, how come it is not in this case?

The term "populism" is controversial, but looking at Wikipedias own article on right-wing populism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_populism) and comparing it with this page, the similarity is pretty obvious. Furthermore, I have already used several sources where they are called "populist". If noone can have a valid argument against labeling Sweden Democrats "populist", I see no reason to undo my changes yet again.

Best Regards Simon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.58.107 (talk • contribs)

Hello Simon. Obviously an "insändare" cannot be used as a source (see WP:RS), and the SvD article does not refer to them as a populistic party. Would you be as kind as to point out where you think they do? Nymf _hideliho! 23:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"Erfarenheten visar att populistiska partier påverkar den politiska kartan" it clearly states in beginning, an indirect referal to Sweden Democrats as "populist". The letter to the editor is not a valid source alone, however, it strengthens my claim of them being refered to as populist. Finally, please explain to me how a source can be valid for some claims, but not for others? Any argument against labeling them populist would be welcome too.

/Simon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.58.107 (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Indirect claims won't do. See WP:NOR. You are not allowed to draw conclusions. As for sources showing or claiming the opposite, please see WP:BURDEN. The burden of evidence is on you, the person adding the material. About the Israeli source, I cannot comment on that, as I am not the one who removed it. Nymf _hideliho! 23:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Nationalencyklopedin calls them conservative nationalists, with a mixture of populism and xenophobia in their article.

Sverigedemokraterna, SD, politiskt parti, bildat 1988, med uttalad strävan att vara ett nationellt inriktat parti. Sverigedemokraterna har dock mest uppmärksammats för en aggressiv hållning mot invandrare och har framstått som ett mellanting mellan ett populistiskt och främlingsfientligt parti.^{the long version}

That is a trustworthy source, and we should also describe them in the same way. Unfortunately this article will never be good because of all the pro Sd POV-pushing. P. S. Burton (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a rather bold statement claiming that we are POV pushing just because we are critical of various sources. And that small NE notice is just words that aren't backed up by any specific facts. It's easy to claim that they are xeonophobic or populistic, but what exactly is xenophobic? There are 9 million people in Sweden, or so, that claims that SD is a racist party. That still doesn't make it true.

Also, if I am allowed to nitpick the wording of that source, it doesn't say that they are xenophobic or populistic, but that they have been potrayed as such. Big difference. Nymf _hideliho! 17:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"Framstå" does not mean "portrayed", "appear" would be a better translation in this context. P. S. Burton (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Still rather vague, though, and not definite. Nymf _hideliho! 23:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, please. No, you don't get to remove reliably sourced content because you complain that the source is "just words." Are you serious? Nymf, your attitude is a fine example of why this article is a POV mess. Please respect WP:NPOV, Wikipedia's most central policy. To the people who find themselves reverted by POV-pushers: take it to WP:ANI for some admin attention. Bishonen | talk 10:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

Ideology

I've been trying to bring into the article some information on the main ideology of the party, this by quoting their current statute of principles/program of principles (principprogram) which can be found and read, in swedish, on the partys website (http://sverigedemokraterna.se/vara-asikter/principprogram/). Since this program is the main ideological document of the party, it should be the best source regarding this subject. The program was written in 2003 and revised in 2005 (the only change that was made in 2005 was that they added their support for the UN declaration of human rights) and is as I wrote CURRENTLY USED as the partys main ideological document. The only english translation of this document that can be found online is a shorted version published by the swedish professor of Political Sociology Jens Rydgren, and it is this one i've been trying to use as my reference (http://hsf.bgu.ac.il/europe/index.aspx?pgid=pg_127842651505941456). Every sentence in the quote can be found in the program, in swedish though, at the Swedish Democrat's website.

I think this quote is relevant and I'm getting really annoyed by the person who's been repeatingly deleting the information. If you don't like the translation, find a better one! The information is still relevant for the subject. (The document from 2007 the person has been refering to in his/her edits is not a ideological programme, it is an action programme regarding one specific issue.) --83.226.248.42 (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel sincerely sorry if I annoyed you and I am very pleased to discuss with you. Since english is not my natural language, I need time to write correctly (I check often the words in my dictionnary). However, I was very surprised that you pasted long portions of a text written by Jens Rydgren in 2003. Did you read this : « Please do not copy and paste from copyrighted websites – only public domain resources can be copied without permission. » ? Sorry, but I will remove again this outdated text since it is a mere paste. Did you read enterely this article before you added this long quote ?. If you had read it from A to Z, you would have seen that your reference « Radical Right-wing Populism in Sweden and Denmark » was already quoted THREE TIMES in three different sections (History, immigration with a short quote in 2002 of Torbjörn Kastell, former SD secretary, controversies). While reading the article, people can acceed to this reference at three different times !

Your reference is dated from 2003 during the former leadership of Mikael Jansson. Jimmie Åkesson is SD chairman since 7 May 2005. So I will keep only your own sentence with the SD reference (Principprogram). I am not a person but a regular user (Jeromemoreno with a talk page where you are welcome to discuss). I began to take part to this article since 24 July 2010. Did you read some of my edits in the historic file ? I spent many hours trying to improve the general presentation and the content with reliable references.--Jérôme MORENO HERRERO 20:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The quote is from a programme that's still in use by the party today! It's the main ideological document of the party and it was written by the same person who is the chairman of the party today, Jimmie Åkesson. Of this you can read here: http://sverigedemokraterna.se/vart-parti/jimmie-akesson-sverigedemokraternas-partiledare/. It doesn't matter if it was written in 2003 if they still have'nt come upp with a new one! This are the one they're using NOW. I did read your previous edits, and I can't understand why you reject the partys own programme as a reliable source?

If the length of the quote is the problem, I'll shorten and rewrite it. What does it matter if the reference is used in another section of the article when I want to use it to post relevant information about the partys ideology, where it belongs?

I'm sorry then, I'll refer to you as a user. --83.226.248.42 (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I added again the citation <"autogenerated19"/>

Sweden Democrats/History

Is it useful to write again the history of the Sweden Democrats' early period in the same manner than in the Swedish article ? About this early period, some citations and sources are very partial, controversial like Expo, a trosko-marxist magazine or the former trotskyst writer Stieg Larsson. I think better and more useful to find neutral and well balanced citations and academic sources. The sources from the far-left as well those from far-right are biased with controversial views. I think more appopriate to keep the text like it was until these last days. If we write again the early period (1988-1995), we shoud write again ALL the history from 1988 to 2010. 14:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Jérôme MORENO HERRERO--Jérôme MORENO HERRERO 14:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No they are not a Trotsky-Marxist magazine. They are a foundation that works with the anti-racist issues in Sweden (just as the Swedish government agency Forum för levande historia (Living History Forum, or something like that in english)). Expo is considered by the extreme right as a left-wing extremist Web site, but this is only due to that Expo examines the extreme right. On the Swedish Wikipedia project Expo deemed to be a valid, credible source (with few exceptions for Sweden Democrats, and other xenophobic / racist groups who dont like the source). Expo isnt the only source user:Jeromemoreno is censoring. The article, as it looks now, are nothing but POV. 109.225.77.105 (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the the discussion at Talk:Expo (magazine) have already proved that Expo is a good source. P. S. Burton (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Excessive info on elections

To me, all the info about figures and numbers relating to especially the 2010 election in the article seems wildly excessive. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog that seeks to reveal every single (uninteresting) detail about the election, be it election results in every single municipalities and counties, or every voter group. I can't imagine that this excessive info helps any purpose; instead it complicates and messes up the article to reduce it to some unintelligeble jibberish. -TheG (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. I propose replacing the section with simple tables showing the election results, as in the article at the Swedish Wikipedia. /Caelus sv (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Far right

I note that they are called Far right in the English-speaking media, eg [13] as well as the recent scholarly literature. This needs to be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

We need to be clear whether they are far right or right-wing populist. Note that a similar search for "Tea Party" returns far more searches, but that does not mean they have the same ideology as the American Nazi Party. Do you know if there is a consensus in academic writing that they are far right? BTW we had the same objections for the BNP and EDL and were able to provide academic sources. TFD (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about consensus, but I'm seeing more sources calling them far right than populist, and statements such as "contempora RRP parties (including the Sweden Democrats), a political family l\ is as close to the nationalistic far right as it is to populism. " [14] or in Twenty-first century populism: the spectre of Western European democracy "The main task facing the Sweden Democrats, however, has been not to appear overly extreme or too closely associated with openly anti-democratic groups. As we have seen, the party has its roots in the extra-parliamentary far Right and, ." I've no objection to saying they are also described as right wing populist. What we can't do is use only their own description, as we can see when editors try to call the English Defence League a Human Rights organisation which is how it describes itself. Dougweller (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Your source is describing right-wing populist parties in general (called RRP in the book). The source also says "While the British National Front was one of the larger sources of inspiration during the latter half of the 1980s, its (sic) French Front National made a profound impression on the ideological and strategic direction taken by the Swedem Democrats during the 1990s...." (p. 109). I do not know where they would be mapped but we can certainly report what this source says about them. TFD (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you look at the news links in my first post above? Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I cannot tell how they are using the term "far right". It is often newspaper shorthand. "Tea Party"+"far right" also returns hits.[15] Some editors who reject the label "far right" to describe the BNP and EDL use searches to show that the UAF is "left-wing". You might want to look at Google scholar. Here is a link to The radical right in Sweden which may help in determining how they are described. TFD (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not up to us to interpret what sources mean, merely to report what they say. Sources describe the SD as far right and as populist. If reliable sources enlarge on this we can add this in the article. Dougweller (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

We do not say a group is far right unless there is consensus that it is. Also, we should not use undefined terms in articles. You would agree that we would not describe Sarah Palin as "far right" because some sources call her that. It is important to distinguish between violent racist groups such as the KKK, skinheads and neo-nazis and more mainstream nativist, intolerant groups such as UKIP and the Tea Party. Let's examine the sources and see where they place this group. There were obviously far right elements involved in the history of the party but they may or may not have transformed. What do the sources say? TFD (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

We can however say that they are referred to as far right - that can be confirmed in multiple sources. We certainly cannot leave their own description of themselves as the only description. Dougweller (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I have read through literature about the SD and this description in an article by Jens Rydgren that is cited in the WP article seems typical: "...the party has its roots in the extra-parliamentary far right, and for the first half of the 1990s there was no clear distinction between the Sweden`Democrats and different skinhead and Nazi organizations, and an overlap of membership was not uncommon.... the party did not explicitly renounce Nazism until 1999/2000.... In 2003, the party took a further step towards ridding itself of the stigma of extremism....there is much to suggest that the party is still seriously hurt by its extremist image amongst a large portion of the electorate.Not only are these changes comparatively new (and will probably only have a full effect, if all, in the future), there are also clear signs that not everyone has taken them to heart...." (p. 28)[16] So while the party developed out of the far right, has far right elements and is still perceived by some as far right, It has attempted to migrate to the less extreme right, but there is no agreement that it has been successful. But definitely their own self-description is unacceptable. TFD (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You might want to check Swedish general election, 2010 for neutrality as well. TFD (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

They are definitely far right, but have removed the traditional neo nazi anti-Semitism that Jews consider such a threat to Israel and Zionism. This is why it is promoted so strongly by zionist interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnordel (talk • contribs) 08:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction

In one section, the article says that the party has 'managed to attract some Muslim voters in Södertälje by appealing to their hostility to homosexuality'. In another, it says that 'party leader Jimmie Åkesson expresses concern over that the increasing Islamization of Sweden will eventually lead to the rights of sexual minorities being violated'. I'm sure there's no way those two statements are compatible! Bastin 19:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Tha conflicting statements are typical of the logic of right-wing extremism. TFD (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It's contradicting because that part of the article was wrong and now removed. The interview linked as a source did not support anything in that sentence.

1. It doesn't talk about voters at all [regarding muslims]. So the claim about muslim voters are totally out of the blue.

2. The interviewed person say "We are ABOUT to get our FIRST muslim member". Being active in SD and knowing the interviewed person well, I know he never joined, so not even that had any substance. An interviewed local member predicting getting 'one' muslim member doesn't seem to be justifying anything in a wikipedia article about a party in a national parlament.

3. That muslim about-to-be-member was not even from Södertälje and there's nothing in the article that say so either. The person who added it in the wiki article just assumed so. Assuming doesn't belong in wikipeda.

4. The party is not hostile against homosexuals and there is nothing in that article that justify saying that either. The interviewed person is religious and is against the church having gay marriage as not being possible in reference to the Bible. Most countries on the planet does not support gay marriage (actually only 9 other countries do)*, so saying the party would be hostile against gays for being against that (which is stated in the article) is not a very scientific approach at all. The party have homosexual members and their support among homosexuals is more or less the same as in the rest of the swedish population. According to a suvey in a gay magazine it's even considerably higher.**

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Country-wide_recognition —Preceding
  • http://www.qx.se/poll.php?id=3308&random=3726d4105bfc86a47fed6c6dacd3f73b&vote=0

unsigned comment added by Adulruna (talk • contribs) 23:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Israeldemokraterna (Israel democrats)

Im surprised to see that there is very little about the SD's zionist connections. It is run after all by hardcore israel supporters Kent and Ted Ekeroth. After all, they don't oppose immigration per say, but MUSLIM immigration that could have political ramifications for Sweden's relations to Israel. It is part of the new European conservative, nativist, right-wing movements that have been hijacked to serve the zionist interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnordel (talk • contribs) 08:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Far right and nationalism

How are they "far right" and "nationalistic" if they accept homosexuality, multiculturalism and are pro-Israel? They totally changed their platform and announced that they will abandon calling themselves nationalist, Linus Bylund went even further and said that "being Swedish is a feeling in one's heart" and thus from November 2011 they will totally abandon anti-immigration and anti-multiculturalism views. Most of the NATIONALSITS quit the party and have joined the Svenskarnas Parti, SvP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.227.150 (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

They do not accept multiculturalism, and they do for sure have a problem with homosexuality. However, their views on Israel are in line with "mainstream" right-wing extremism in Western Europe. Their focus is on Muslims, while in Eastern Europe Jews still are the focus of political propaganda. The party is "far right" and its "nationalistic", however on their last congress they stressed the ideology of social conservatism. Danieldnm (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Economic policies

The section "Ideology and political positions" currently says nothing about the party's economic policies. It's kind of weird that the section has a whole sub-section about few remarks regarding the Saami, but no mention at all about fiscal policies. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)