Talk:Sweden Democrats

Left wing smear straw man terminology "nationalist"
Why not objective and name them "patriotic-conservative"??

Why do we allow left-wingers to frame parties in a negative way they dont like?? 93.206.57.177 (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * By "left-wingers," I assume you mean people who write about politics for academic publishers and mainstream news sources. We use their writings as sources rather than writings by far right extremists because the publications they write for are considered reliable. If you object to this policy, you need to get it changed rather than arguing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 03:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The mainstream news sources have a massive left-wing bias and are for example in the USA rejected by the majority of voters.
 * CNN, Washington Post, MSNBC, CBS, PBS, NBC, ABC have a left-wing tilt and are considered biased and left-wing propaganda by nearly all Republicans.
 * According to the latest Gallup poll only a third of american voters trust mainstream news.
 * That`s your key problem: Your alleged "mainstream news sources" and "academic publishers" are NOT credible. Just listen to Jordan Peterson talking about the left-wing echo chambers he considers to be universities. 93.206.54.48 (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So we should listen to Jordan Peterson and Republicans on Facebook instead, those are the true reliable sources? TylerBurden (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you think nationalism is something negative then that seems to more be a personal issue, because nationalism is an ideology. TylerBurden (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You do not call the left-wingers in swedish politics "far-left", "socialist" or "communist". Why do you have to frame parties you dont like in a negative way? SD would not consider themselves "nationalist", rather patriotic and conservative. 93.206.54.48 (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you making it personal? I do not personally think that SD is "far-right" either, but what I think and you think doesn't matter when it comes to the article content because it is based on what reliable sources say. You need to read WP:DUE, also WP:NOTFORUM while you're at it because this kind of rhetoric isn't going to do anything to improve the article at all. TylerBurden (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * See their website: The Young Swedes "is a democratic socially conservative youth association with a nationalist outlook." How is it a smear to call them what they call themselves? TFD (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * They use the term themselves in their party statutes from 2021, in the first sentence (translated by me): “Sweden Democrats is a socially conservative party with a nationalist ethos”. Using it in the article is in no way employing “left wing smear straw man terminology”, and definitely has a place in the article. Hale-Borz (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Nationalist" is not a smear term. That is an accurate reflection of their party stance. 12.117.195.74 (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am also on the right, yet I would not contest that this is an accurate statement of the party's ideology; one which does not necessarily have a negative connotation, either. This discussion should be closed. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Ideology parametre
I believe that the number of ideologies should reduced to a couple or few. I think the following should be in the parametre:
 * Swedish nationalism
 * Right-wing populism

ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. The ideology list for the Sweden Democrats page should be reduced to a similar amount like other Nordic right-wing/far-right parties. Like the:
 * - Danish People's Party*
 * - Finns Party*
 * - Denmark Democrats
 * - New Right (Denmark)
 * (*) Part of the Nordic affiliation of Nordic Freedom which the Sweden Democrats are a part of
 * Also somewhat recently, every other party in Swedish Parliament got a reduction in ideologies. Such as the Moderate Party which used to have ideologies such as Green Conservatism, Left Party used to have Republicanism, and so on. Not sure why the Sweden Democrats didn't got this treatment as well. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ideologies need reliable sources. Doug Weller  talk 13:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not denying that. Was just mentioning how other Swedish political parties got a reduction in ideologies in their info-boxes to make them more of condensed and easier to read. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I'm more in favour of the references being in the "Ideology" section of a page. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an improvement. I would prefer each party be given one ideology unless it is has factions with distinct ideologies, although I cannot think of any, except briefly following mergers. TFD (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think two or three ideologies is okay. After that, I'm against. Maybe in place of these ideologies, they should be the ones with the most references? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 10:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why have multiple ideologies and if you do, why stop at 2 or 3? TFD (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Simple reason is bloat. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See what Pippa Norris said about rw populist parties: "standard reference works use alternate typologies and diverse labels categorising parties as 'far' or 'extreme' right, 'new right', 'anti-immigrant' or 'neofascist', 'antiestablishment', 'national populist', 'protest', 'ethnic', 'authoritarian', 'antigovernment', 'antiparty', 'ultranationalist', 'right-libertarian' and so on"."
 * Essentially, using several terms that mean the same thing is already bloat. TFD (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That may be the case, but we are only talking about having two ideologies. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do the Sweden Democrats have two different ideologies? If so, can you name one leader who is Swedish nationalist but not a rw populist and one who is the opposite? TFD (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you mentioning leaders? I'm simply refining down from the current ideologies listed, which have references. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with this change, though SD seems to be mainly associated with right-wing populism (see 206 scholarly sources). I'd exclude nationalism considering this sentence that can be found here: "Nationalism can be combined with diverse political goals and ideologies such as conservatism (national conservatism and right-wing populism) or socialism (left-wing nationalism)." Vacant0 (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Shall we all agree that only "Right-wing populism" shall be in the parametre then? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would prefer national conservatism & right-wing populism Braganza (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That may be, but not many sources use "national conservatism", if at all. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Since the Sweden democrats abide by multiple ideologies it would be unwise to remove them only because you don’t like how the page looks. It would be wise if you try and stick to distributing information to the public rather than suggesting removing information because of your personal dissent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furgesson (talk • contribs) 08:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * This comment doesn't seem to align very well with WP:AGF, people are free to post suggestions whether or not you agree with them. TylerBurden (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Presently the party's ideology just says "right-wing populist" without a citation. While I agree the SD contains right-wing populist ideas, I believe it should be expanded (but not too bloated) to include the fact the party self-identifies ideologically as nationalist and social conservative, and this is backed up by academics, political scientists and commentators who refer to the SD as such. Previously the ideology was expanded with citations but these were removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:4080:1316:85D0:E52D:96C:A6BD:33E4 (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources for "right-wing to far-right?"
I don't contest this description in the slightest, but I would like to note that there probably should be a source for that. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi! In the Ideology and political positions section, the statement that reads "Nevertheless, the party is often described as being right-wing to far-right" has references. ~ lovkal (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The sources, however, do not say "right-wing to far-right". The Times source is dead and BBC does not mention SD, I cannot confirm what it says on EUObserver. Nevertheless, there are no sources that call the party as such, you will only find sources that either call the party right-wing or far-right. There is no "right-wing to far-right". Far-right already implies that the party is on the far end of the right-wing. Vacant 0  (talk &bull; contribs) 21:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You know that there has never been a Wikipedia-wide consensus that we need sources to state the "to" between political positions. There's nothing to say we can't have more than one cited political position in the infobox. The use of "to" between positions would need a Wikipedia-wide consensus against as its use is so widespread across so many pages. To require sources to have the "to" would mean a total revamp of how the political position section works across Wikipedia and would lead to an awful lot of bickering and to and fro over "should we include position X that is cited over position Y which is also cited". Helper201 (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedia-wide consensus is not needed because this is applicable in some cases (see New Popular Front Ref2 which states "from the far-left to the center-left"), thus "to" is valid in some usage because this source says that the coalition members span from the left that is closer to the centre to the left that is on the far end of the left-wing spectrum. We only have to follow what sources say and sources do not say "Right-wing to far-right" for SD. Vacant 0  (talk &bull; contribs) 14:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The difference is NPF is a coalition, whereas the "to" descriptor is used consistently throughout political party pages (i.e. not coalitions). It is not your right to enforce this self-appointed arbitrary ruling without consensus for it. Helper201 (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a ubiquitous thing when some sources say right-wing and others say far-right to say "right-wing to far-right." If you say "far-right" exclusively, it very much implies that there is not a more moderate wing.  I thus agree with the current consensus, and "right-wing to far-right" is the most accurate description.  However, whichever sources are used to that end should be cited in the infobox. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But there are no sources that say "right-wing to far-right". This simply falls under WP:SYNTH. I also have the right to challenge anything that is not backed up by reliable sources, such as the "right-wing to far-right" claim. Vacant 0  (talk &bull; contribs) 09:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, there's never been any consensus that the word "to" can't be used, there's synth and then there's this. It’s just a ridiculous level of requirement that has been discussed before and there's never been a consensus for excluding this simple bridging word between two cited claims. As I also mentioned, its use is extremely common across Wikipedia and few editors bring up a problem with it and it is not helpful to selectively go around arguing against it rather than forming a Wikipedia-wide consensus on the matter. It would cause and is causing problems to go around selectively making this case on specific articles when plenty of parties have more than one position that can be cited by a large number of sources. At which point you're just going to have the opinions of editors take president by allowing them to decide which of the two very well cited positions to include and what not to. We shouldn't be granting the power to Wikipedian’s to selectively decide what to include and what not when there can be more than one very well cited position. It’s just going to lead to opinions and people's political biases overriding and omitting cited content to not allow more than one position. To put it simply, it causes far mor problems than it fixes to go around arguing and selectively trying to remove "to" or not allow more than one position. You could, as another option, just list each position, as that get rids of the "to" argument, though it doesn't look great and I don't think there's any need for it. Helper201 (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I see your concerns and respect your opinion, but my opinion will remain the same. If we end up changing the consensus, I think it should be done in a case-by-case basis. I don't see it as a priority for myself, though. To answer the original question to this thread, there are no sources for "right-wing to far-right" but only for "right-wing" and "far-right". Sources are located in the "Ideology and political positions" section. Vacant 0  (talk &bull; contribs) 21:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately these concerns have already come to fruition. For example, I presented eighteen - yes, 18 - reliable sources on Talk:Vox (political party) for right-wing, including multiple academic sources, and yet weight of other editors opinions was enough to conclude no consensus and remain solely at far-right. This is clearly the views of editors taking president over a huge array of sources, of which what they say is not able to be represented, and flies in the face of WP:BALANCE and WP:NEUTRALITY. Helper201 (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The SD or SD?
The article often contains "The SD" as a short form of "The Sweden Democrats", but sometimes just says "SD". But which one is correct? I personally think just SD sounds better, but maybe that's just because I'm influenced by Swedish where "SD = Sverigedemokraterna = The Sweden Democrats". Paditor (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The SD in English sounds better in my view. Helper201 (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)