Talk:Liberals (Sweden)/Archive 1

(fp), South Africa and Israel
In an odd way the paragraph on the pro-Israeli stance of the party is removed and labelled as racist. However, the original wording is factually correct. (fp) did join hands with other parties in supporting the South Africa-boycott campaign. (fp) and its youth organization took part in the united movement which was in many ways led by the political left and pro-left solidarity organizations. The anti-Apartheid stance was taken in spite of the general pro-West agenda of the party.

On the Israel/Palestine-conflict the party has taken a opposite stand. Its position is coherent with pro-West/pro-US policies, and puts the party on a diamterically opposite platform as to the antiimperialist tendencies together with which the party had cooperated with in the anti-Apartheid struggle of the 1980s. --Soman 11:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The latter part of your talk uncovers your obvious PsOV:  and puts the party on a diamterically opposite platform as to the antiimperialist tendencies.


 * Should then every opponent of White supremacist regimes consequently oppose that more or less democratic Israel (who disputes this?) and unconditionally support Palestinian struggle, which has much to do with terrorism and medieval ways of thinking, as represented by its leading force today, Hamas?--Constanz - Talk 16:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The rubbish I removed was added by an anon user months ago. Should have been checked long time ago. It is surely POV issue, if a South Afr racism opponent should also support Hamas or PLO.--Constanz - Talk 16:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There are several points of convergence between the SA/Palestine issues. Both white SA and Israel were/are considered as part of the civilized, western world whereas their opponents belong to the uncivilized dark forces. SA was then considered as a part of the 'democratic world' and ANC were communist terrorists. Your own argumentation (talking aboy 'medieval ways of thinking') is very much in line with this. There is no coincidence that the same forces (conservative parties in the western) that supported (or remain neutral towards) apartheid are generally the same as those that today support Israel.


 * Not exactly, after all, SAR was expelled from the UN, unlike Israel. Also, we cannot say that Israel is/was a racist regime, especially when we compare position of Arabs in Isarel to that of the Jews have/had in the Arab countries. As for similarities between anti-SA and anti-Israel fighters... indeed, as the graph on the infamous 'Zionism resolution' vote record shows, the totalitarian commie regimes were (in addition to Arab theocracies) on the vanguard of opponents of both (rather different) regimes. --Constanz - Talk 15:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

At the same time those political forces that supported the SA liberation struggle are generally the same as those supporting the struggle of the Palestinian people (which is not the same as neither PLO nor Hamas).


 * Yes, there is PFLP as well.--Constanz - Talk 15:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The interesting detail about (fp) is the to study its role in different political scenarios. In the 1970s, when the general political tide was leaning towards the left, the party took some radical positions in foreign policy (i think, i'll check it up, that they oppose the Vietnam war at some point). The (fp) of today has definately moved towards the right since then. --Soman 10:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Scandals?
I think its a good idea to keep the 'scandals' section to an absolute minimum. We are at the final stage of an election campaign in Sweden, and only after some time will it be possible to make an overall analysis of the issue. In fact i'd prefer changing the chapter to '2006 elections', with a shorter reference to the issue. Otherwise we might fall in the trap of Recentism, giving unproportial importance to a single issue for an article on a party with many decades of history. --Soman 11:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Monarchism gone
There's been a debate over at sv-WP on why FP has been categorised as a "monarchist party". I've decided to remove that category, and for the benefit of English-speaking readers, let me briefly explain why. WP defines monarchism as: "Monarchism is the advocacy of the establishment, preservation, or restoration of a monarchy as a form of government in a nation. A monarchist is an individual who supports this form of government out of principle, independent from the person, the Monarch." The official position of FP (in my translation), to be found at is:

"Folkpartiet supports the so-called Torekov Compromise, which constitutes the foundation of our current constitution. This means that Sweden is to remain a monarchy, but that the monarch only has representative tasks. Sweden's official representatives at state visits abroad shall of course not express themselves in a way which can be interpreted as a support for disctatorships. This goes both for political representatives as well as the head of state. The head of state (the King) shall not make any kind of statements on political issues whatsoever.

Folkpartiet wants to: Keep the current compromise on Sweden's form of government."

Now, in what way does this constitute "advocacy" of the preservation of a monarchy? (Just merely self-reporting one's views does not constitute advocacy, FTR.) In what way is this suppose for "this form of government out of principle"? It is clear that there is no principled defence of the monarchy. Indeed, I would say that the loudest FP voices in the constitutional debate are those who want to introduce a republic, among which several MPs and a relatively large minority of the party.

With the term "monarchism" one seems to want to capture some kind of ideological position. There is nothing ideological in FP's defence of the monarchy. One could add that the Social Democrats, who also support the Torekov Compromise, would then also have to labelled monarchists, which is, I would contend, wrong. So I've removed the categorisation. David ekstrand (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Party Name
Changed name to the name officially used on their webpage. Gunnar Larsson 22:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I believe "The Liberal Party of Sweden" is what they use internationally, although the web page says "Folkpartiet" throughout the English information.

"the party was a strong opponent of Communism and Nazism during the 19th century." I think that correct sentence would be "the party was a strong opponent of Communism and Nazism during the 20th century."

I have edited the section on the party's immigration policy in Voter Base, to make it more accurate and NPOV. It is difficult to see how calls for a language test of citizenship is evidence of a right-wing populist stance, given that such a requirement is rather common worldwide, particularly in countries that encourage immigration (e.g. US, Canada). If the party's immigration policy is to be mentioned, it is only fair to mention that it remains the most pro-immigration party in Sweden, and has publicly distanced itself from anti-immigration campaigns. Flagboy 14:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Puzzled that despite what is said above, this article is still using "Liberal People's Party". The Party itself clearly uses "The Liberal Party of Sweden". See here and here  --JohnTheSupercargo (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Party leader duration
Seems to me it's a bit of redundant info to list the party leaders' duration since there are both start and end dates provided. I think that list should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.248.188 (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one external links on Liberals (Sweden). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120712081248/http://www.thelocal.se/41924/20120709/ to http://www.thelocal.se/41924/20120709/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060925021327/http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=4775&date=20060904 to http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=4775&date=20060904
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060925024042/http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=4781&date=20060904 to http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=4781&date=20060904
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060925031158/http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=4793&date=20060905 to http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=4793&date=20060905
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060925023831/http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=4797&date=20060905 to http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=4797&date=20060905
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070505223527/http://www.sr.se:80/cgi-bin/ekot/artikel.asp?Artikel=1336437 to http://www.sr.se/cgi-bin/ekot/artikel.asp?Artikel=1336437
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070210013413/http://www.riksdagen.se:80/templates/R_SubStartPage____12080.aspx to http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_SubStartPage____12080.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberals (Sweden). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717000433/http://www.scb.se/Pages/List____292050.aspx to http://www.scb.se/Pages/List____292050.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Ideology
I believe that 'social liberalism' and 'classical liberalism' should be erased from the infobox. It is a liberal party that is in a "conservative" position in progressive Swedish political standards. The social liberalism they advocate is more conservative than the Centre Party. Therefore, the liberal ideology that defines this party is 'conservative liberalism'.--Storm598 (talk) 06:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, just remove them all from the Infobox, and list solely "liberalism". That is enough.--Autospark (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. Then I'll just leave "Liberalism" in the information box.--Storm598 (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Excellent work, Storm598, thanks!—Autospark (talk) 11:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)