Talk:Swiss People's Party

Untitled
"Some believed ..." "most of the foreign residents in Switzerland are criminals, murderers and rapists." "symbolizing the criminal alien invader" "Some felt ..."

All weasel words and POV. All deleted. Jamiem 10:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is there still a neutrality disputed banner on this page? How could the article possibly be any more NPOV/flat/demurring?? Blueguitar411 18:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ideology
Instead of really illustrating the ideology of the SVP, this section deals with two current headline hitting debates. It should be renamed in "Debates 2007" or something like that - otherwise it's completly useless. --62.203.7.33 16:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Members of the Swiss Federal Council
According to the SVP's website Samuel Schmid is a "former" council and the new council is not even mentioned. Should the two still be listed or maybe removed as it seems to be the "official" policy of SVP now. Santoki (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Both Councillors are members of the SVP as a party, even though they are not officially members of the SVP parliamentary group anymore. Note that the SVP's website is not a third party source, and thus not an ideal source (see WP:SOURCES). Schutz (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool.
People are getting over WW2, thank god!58.107.183.15 (talk) 10:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Things aren't as simple
Merrymouse re-added quite a lot of content that was previously removed by Schutz as "too much detail, not directly connected to the party, and slightly POV"; the source Merrymouse gives is a Financial Times article which, however, doesn't reflect wholly how the voting out of Blocher is seen in Switzerland. "There therefore now exists in Swiss government a situation which seems to represent the collapse, at least temporarily, of the Concordance system which has been in operation since the Second World War, and to represent a sea-change in the nature of Swiss parliamentary relations, from one based on consensus and trust to one based more on confrontation." - well, there are on the other hand Swiss politicians who said quite the opposite, that the system of a consensus-based Federal Council could be strengthened by the removal of the disruptive element that Blocher brought into the Council, if the SVP after their initial anger finally should accept Widmer-Schlumpf as one of their Federal Council members. Widmer-Schlumpf and Schmid are still members of the party although excluded from the parliamentary group of which as members of the Federal Council they never were real members anyway (but they are excluded from the meetings now). There is talk of excluding them also from the party itself; however, this seems to be difficult because usually only the respective cantonal party (in their case Bern and Graubünden) can exclude members, it probably can't be done from the level of the national party. In Switzerland, party members are members of their respective cantonal party, which in turn is a member of the national party. And the cantonal parties of Schmid and Widmer-Schlumpf aren't going to exclude them; therefore there is even talk about excluding the Bern and Graubünden SVP from the Swiss SVP entirely. I will try to add something to reflect this in the article, but will have to cite German-language sources. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox.
This is what it looked like when I first landed on the page: Political ideology Conservatism, National conservatism, Economic liberalism, Agrarianism, Isolationism, Nationalism Right-wing populism.

Note the singular of Political ideology.--Pan Miacek (t) 14:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have done some work on re-formating different political party infoboxes and I have a firm belieb, that in most (if not all) cases, 1-2 ideologies would be enough. We should not include a party's stance on certain issues as one of the (official) ideologies. According to WP:V, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Sorry, Nsk92, but a newspaper article or two do not reflect any clear-cut consensus. If I understood correctly (the text is not fully available on the linked page), Washington Post just mentions the party's 'tax-slashing, anti-immigrant' positions. Such conjectural things belong to the main text, but not to the infobox. --Pan Miacek (t) 14:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Anti-immigration is a form of political ideology, and we even have an article about it, namely nativism. There are lots of reliable sources that characterize the party's position as anti-immigration, I just picked a random one. See a googlenews search for lots more, e.g. from Seattle Times, called "Swiss reward anti-immigrant People's Party". These are not "conjectural things" but terms commonly used by numerous reliable sources to describe the party. They belong in the article and the infobox; the details of the anti-immigrant stance of the party can be discussed in the article itself. If you are still not convinced, we can do a third-opinion request or even an RfC. Nsk92 (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've started working on the article; you can freely request whatever you like. I'm translating some stuff from de wiki, as the article there is much larger and has some scholarly sources, too. PS. QED: “e.g. from Seattle Times, called "Swiss reward anti-immigrant People's Party".” - a random piece you found from an American newspaper will not serve as a reliable source. There are surely many newspapers, say, in German media, that still call the party a centrist-conservative alliance of farmers and artisans. Otherwise, we may soon reach something like this: :O.     --Pan Miacek (t) 15:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, since when is Seattle Times not a reliable source? And once again, this was just an example to illustrate that the party is commonly described by newspapers as being anti-immigration. In fact, their anti-immigration stance is probably the single most defining issue this party is known for, both nationally and internationally. It is more informative than most of the other terms and belongs in the infobox. I'll take this to WP:3O but please stop making significant changes to the article until this dispute is resolved. Nsk92 (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think this dispute about some utterances in the infobox should prevent users from improving this article. Seattle Times is just a newspaper, just like the ones that a certain user found here. You must either prove that there is a consensus in the public or some academic consensus that the defining characteristic of the SVP is really this anti-immigration ideology, or just add your newspaper coverage into the main text. It is definitely easy to prove that the party's ideology is conservative, but other notions are not so easy to source. Besides, I would appreciate your comment on my parallel (perhaps an unmerited one?) to 'United Russia dispute'. --Pan Miacek (t) 16:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with the particulars of the United Russia dispute and do not have any opinion about it. But I do have an opinion about this article. I claim that there is in fact a consensus among traditional news-sources in describing the Swiss National Party as an anti-immigration one. Seattle Times article was just an example, but there are lots more . As I said, since the party's anti-immigration stance is a defining feature of its platform and of its notability, it belongs in the infobox. If you do need academic articles arguing the same point regarding this party, here is an example. Nsk92 (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And here is another example, also from an a academic article, taken from this googlebooks search. Nsk92 (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The infobox should reflect the contents of the article. Anti-immigration as an ideology should be covered there, preferably by using academic sources. Your article to Seattle Times is useless in this respect: by now, I have read it through. It just mentions one time the word anti-immigration and explains (without any depth of analysis) that SVP won the election on a platform that promised reduction in immigration and tough punishments against immigrant criminals. But google.books is a way forward, I agree. --Pan Miacek (t) 17:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * One more thing: I believe that the word 'anti-immigration' is in most cases you referred to just an epithet (a derogatory one, some people might want to argue): 'the anti-immigrant SVP', 'the far-left Die Linke' etc. I did maintain Right-wing populism in the article, as this is not so controversial. Opposition to further immigration can be viewed within the wider framework of the above mentioned ideology (which, controversial as it may be, is at least an ideology).--Pan Miacek (t) 17:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Anti-immigration is not an ideology. I think we can leave as many ideologies as we want, but definitely Conservatism, National conservatism, Economic liberalism and Agrarianism are correct, while I would not add Isolationism, Nationalism and Right-wing populism, which are very controversial for me. I think that the best set of ideologies is: Conservatism, National conservatism and Economic liberalism. If someone wants we could easily add Nativism. Newspapers can help but most of the times they are not a reliable source. --Checco (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not wish to argue semantics and dictionary definitions of "ideology" here. I think the purpose of the infobox is to summarize the most relevant information about the party, including its core political beliefs, of which opposition to immigration is certainly one, in fact probably the most important one (and the one the party is most known for). While the term "ideology" may not be the best one, a note on the anti-immigration aspect of the party's platform certainly belongs in the infobox, IMO. Nsk92 (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with nativism would be that it has few hits on books.google.com, so I doubt if there is a consensus (but might be). I would leave out Economic liberalism, however: SVP still has some protectionist aspirations and namely the FDP is the main representative of the Swiss economic liberalism, market liberalism or whatever we call it (cf. e.g. (it's in German, but probably understandable).--Pan Miacek (t) 19:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, I think it is a mistake to concentrate too narrowly on the definition of the word "ideology" but to think about the basic purpose of having an infobox in the first place. To me an infobox should summarize the most important facts about whatever subject the article is on (in this case a political party). It seems rather incongruous to me that there is a place in the infobox to mention that the party's color is dark green but there is no place to mention that anti-immigration stance is a defining feature of the party's platform. Nsk92 (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree on the fact that the purpose of the infobox is to summarize the most relevant information about the party, including its core political beliefs (read: ideology). Anyway I don't think that "anti-immigration" is an ideology, while nativism is. I would personally leave only "conservatism" and "national conservatism" (the two ideologies on which we all agree), while I would leave out "right-wing populism". I would add also "economic liberalism", but I understand Miacek's concerns, even if I would say that a sort of protectionism characterizes most Swiss parties, including the Liberals. --Checco (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Nsk92 has asked me to comment. I agree with several of the people above that, while the SVP is indeed anti-immigration (not against immigration per se, they say, just against immigration by what they think are the wrong sort of people, i.e., most would-be immigrants), that is a policy stance of theirs and not an ideology. (I also wouldn't overestimate a North American newspaper's capacity for the analysis of Swiss politics.) Accordingly, although it may well be what they're well known for abroad, it shouldn't be in the infobox. I think national conservatism is the best single description of their ideology. Economic liberalism doesn't really belong; the party's instincts are essentially protectionist, despite Christoph Blocher's supply-side politics, and remain so with respect to agriculture.  Sandstein  22:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 22:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we leave only "conservatism" and "national conservatism"? --Checco (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support this. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 09:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the problem with right-wing populism? It is an ideology, isn't it? Nsk92 (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've no objection to including both national conservatism (a subset of conservatism, which does not require additional mention) and right-wing populism.  Sandstein   13:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I simply wouldn't use "right-wing populism": it is an ideology, but I don't think it's appropriate for SVP. --Checco (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

someone please add this
http://www.20min.ch/news/zuerich/story/30665073


 * this story has little to do with the SVP. Seems to be some random skinheads who razored "SVP" in a petty crime. Also the pictures of the injuries are in serious doubt of how real the crime even was... I don't see why something the SVP had nothing to do with should be an aspect of their profile as a political party. Example: I could easily go write "Bill Clinton" on somebodies forehead and kick them in the stomach; would it be included on Bill Clinton's wikipedia page?Cold polymer (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Also the pictures of the injuries are in serious doubt of how real the crime even was... " That is merely the (racist?) opinion of the Swiss media and public in general (until now, I hope). To raise beforehand these kinds of doubts over the victim of such a serious crime is despicable and, moreover, should not be done here, as this space is not a forum. RafaAzevedo msg 10:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't call it a petty crime. Pictures of the brazilian woman are in the cover of every single brazilian newspaper today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.142.58.19 (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The terrible story has not to do directly with the SVP. I strongly oppose its inclusion into the article, especially if we want it to be neutral and encyclopedic. This is not a blog and not a newspaper, that'a Wikipedia article. Moreover it is an article about the SVP, not about the personal actions of some supporters of the party, who don't represent the party itself. --Checco (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The silence of the party about such a horrific incident, as well as that of the Swiss media and public (who are accusing the victim itself, for no reason whatsoever), is very significant of a change of atmosphere in the country after the party ascended to power. RafaAzevedo msg 12:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Even this is not an argument for including the episode in the article. Wikipedia is not a blog and we should not connect episodes to a party, as we would do in a blog. The SVP is defintely responsible for the atmosphere the country is living, but that's my personal opinion and I would not ever include it in the article. --Checco (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to include this new piece. There were some random neo-Nazis who razored the combination of letters SVP, which might have been meant to denote the Swiss People's Party and might not have been, too. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 13:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I can understand the outrage over such an attack. But, even though I do not like this party at all, I think this is not at all relevant to the article. You seem to know very little about Switzerland. I live there, and I can assure you that the SVP, while being right-conservative, is by no means a right-extremist party. Nor is the party "in power" in any way, it simply is one of four parties in our coalition government, more or less unchanged since 1959.
 * As for the media and public reaction, all I can say is that we do not understand why we do not let the police investigate first before attacking it and the whole country. This is a Rechtsstaat, after all, and the police is quite independent from politics.
 * As for not believing the victim, well, we cannot really decide what happened up to now. But when I heard the story, I too, like many Swiss, found it absolutely shocking, but at the same time very strange. I cannot come to the conclusion that the story is not genuine, but not only do I not remember anything comparable happen in Switzerland, many other aspects remembered me of similar events in Germany which turned out to have been staged. Now, some minutes ago, the forensic investigators reported that the woman was not pregnant at the time when she was injured. So really, let's wait before putting anything of this into the article. -- 131.152.41.32 (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * hoax? http://www.blick.ch/news/schweiz/zuerich/ritz-artikel-112095 I don't read swiss but my swiss friend told me this says the pregnancy was made up and the cuts look extremely silly for an "attack" if you all have not seen them. I think maybe the reason info on such an attack is scarce outside of brazil is because of doubt it's even for real. that's aside from the SVP itself having nothing to do with the crime... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.212.19 (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt you or anyone else will ever be able to read "swiss", since such a language does not exist. As for the cuts looking "silly", you certainly wouldn't think so if they had been made in you or someone close to you. RafaAzevedo msg 13:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, but even this has nothing to do with the article. I think we should stop discussing now. There is no consensus to insert the story as it is not at all relevant to it. --Checco (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for the sake of closure, the woman lied about the whole thing, it was a hoax. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/02/13/20090213SwissAttack13-ON.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.213.197 (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * it's not a "hoax", it's a private tragedy. Either way, it has nothing to do with the party. If the Paula Oliveira incident should develop a notability of its own as an international incident between Switzerland and Brazil, it can have its own article. The fact that the woman chose to incise the letters "SVP" in her skin speaks volumes about the party's reputation among the resident foreigners in Switzerland, but it isn't directly relevant to this article. --dab (𒁳) 18:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Case closed... it WAS a hoax after all. She confessed.
 * it was obvious the injuries were self-inflicted from day one. The Swiss authorities reognized this, and treated the case disretely and in the interest of the patient. They did not even leak it to the Swiss press. It was the Brazilian boulevard media and Brazilian diplomacy who turned this into a pathetic showdown. This is not what I call a "hoax". The woman is ill, she isn't a prankster. It is pathetic enough what the Brazilian blogosphere did with this before she confessed, but the continued harping on this even after the confession is simple vandalism. --dab (𒁳) 10:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, during those days, sort of 'inclusion war' was waged here in wiki, entering this story into the article at hand. I wonder if User RafaAzevedo and his supporters here have changed the mind, yet... -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 10:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits by an IP
Yesterday and the day before an IP edited the article and later on my friend Miacek reverted all his/her edits, telling that the new text needed references. It is true that there was a problem of sources and the article chronically deserve to be sourced, but as almost everything the IP added or changed was correct, I will revert Miacek's revert. We could probably put all the "fact" tags where are needed and ask the IP and other users to improve the article, but I don't think that a total rollback is the right thing to do, especially when most of the infos he/she included are correct, verifiable and probably taken from the article in de.Wiki. I hope that Miacek will agree with me. --Checco (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What was done the other day is that the entire article was modified, modelled and re-edited based on the same article on the Swiss People's Party in German-language, de.wikipedia. Please don't take me wrongly, as I'm a Swiss citizen from Zurich, understand the German text on the Swiss People's Party clearly, and have tried to translate the english article on the Swiss People's Party. Thank you, Checco, for your cooperation in terms of helping this article to be sourced. Nonetheless, just because someone else's genuine factual information-containing edit lacked references and sources, it isn't justified to delete the edit entirely. If you know German and read the introduction, some parts (overview) section of the history section, and the "Policies" section on both the english and german articles about the Swiss People's Party, you will find out that they have been translated. It's difficult for me to get english sources and references for the english article on the SVP. However, the IP address's edit is verifiable from the article in de.Wiki. Again, Checco, thank you for your help in trying to further reference and source this article. I also hope that Miacek would cooperate in terms of inserting "fact tags" where needed, and also in terms of further trying to reference and source this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.37.181 (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to you for your translating work. Can you translate and create also the articles about the Party of Farmers, Traders and Independents and the Democratic Party, the two constituent parties of the SVP, redlinked at the top of the article? Thank you so much... --Checco (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Far-right
Describing the party as "conservative" is a cop-out, and incompatible with WP:NPOV. For example, a Google News search gives more than twice as many results for "far-right-swiss-people's-party" as for "conservative-swiss-people's-party." Actually, the most results by far come from "right-wing-swiss-people's-party." Maybe "right-wing" is an acceptable compromise? 69.159.62.160 (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Journalists headlining reports on the party as "far right" does not make it far right. The criteria for description as far right or far left should be a little more objective than that.203.184.41.226 (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The SVP is a conservative party
The SVP is about as far right as are the British conservatives or the Republicans in the US. All share have a history of expressing disquiet with Muslims, asylum seekers, illegal immigrants, general morality and the like. And all claim to be economically liberal and in support of "family values" and rewarding "hard work".

It is simply stupid to refer to the SVP as "far right" based on some google counts which more reflect general ignorance in the Anglo-phone world (of which I am a member).

"Far right" is understood to means the BNP, Front National, Haider, extremist/racist groups in the US, neo-Nazis, and the like. Whatever your political sympathies, it is simply ludicrous to attempt to categorize the SVP with these groups and if the SVP qualifies as "far right" then so does the British Conservatives and the US Republicans. Nobody with any appreciation of NPOV would attempt to lump all these parties together.

80.219.172.216 (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for presenting your reasoned personal opinions, however, this discussion is about how reliable published sources characterize the SVP, not about whether you or I agree with those characterizations. If you have actual evidence that the "ignorance in the Anglo-phone world" is not shared by sources in other languages, then by all means present it.
 * I notice you've ignored the suggestion to call the SVP "right-wing" rather than "conservative." Please comment on that, as it seems the most reasonable way forward. 69.159.62.160 (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry it's not about personal opinions. It's about actual policies and political categorization.


 * You need to be very careful when referring to "reliable published sources" when it comes to politics as the published works in this field are dominated by newspapers and newspaper columnists/opinionists and the like. This is not like an article on some obscure aspect of astrophysics or other academic field where a general consensus can often be observed or at least acknowledged.  It is fair to use newspapers and magazines as sources of facts but not as authorities on contentious categories particularly political ones.


 * The fundamental issue is that terms like "left wing" or "right wing" have no generally accepted definition or meaning these days and are almost exclusively used as terms of denigration and so are pretty much subjective by definition; no mainstream political party in the US or UK (or Australia, Ireland, etc.) would describe themselves as "right wing" or "left wing" - generally it is only their opponents who do so.


 * Describing the SVP in such terms is highly misleading to readers given that they - while loony enough occasionally - are basically an old-fashioned conservative party albeit a strident one. If there are any actual facts about their policies which support their inclusion in the category of being "far right" or even "right wing" (in the sense currently accepted in the English speaking world), I'd be interested in hearing them.  Neither would I consider it useful to start quoting from German language newspapers (even if my German was up to it) as literal translation from German is simply not going to do anything to establish the nuances implied in English by describing a party as "left wing" or "right wing". Jimg (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You present an interesting argument against the reliability of newspaper and magazine sources, as opposed to academic sources, for the purpose of citing value-laden and emotionally charged political terms. The argument is worth engaging. However, I will not be engaging it, because it does not bear on the discussion. The fact is that a general academic consensus can be observed that the SVP is a right-wing party.


 * I've refrained from quoting a very large number of other sources which simply mention in passing that the SVP is "right-wing," "far-right," "extreme right," or what have you. When academic sources do discuss the SVP as "conservative," it is nearly always with some kind of modifier - "populist national-conservative" for instance.


 * I still favor "right-wing," but, as you say that the term is more emotive than descriptive, I would accept "populist, national conservative" instead. 74.14.71.144 (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fair. (I have to admire anyone who can back up their point with references.)  I can't really disagree with any of what you've written.  "Populist, national conservative" seems more reasonable to me, not only because of emotive aspect of the term "right-wing" but also because it ("right-wing") feels relative and it's meaning seems to depend on the national context.  Jimg (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If the SVP are "conservative", I would like to know what it is they are trying to conserve. Certainly not the Swiss system of democracy, seeing they have made a fair effort of dismantling it. The SVP are, in fact, a neoliberal party, advocating anything-goes markets for the rich kids, but they like to obscure this line of approach by making populist noises appealing to lower class xenophobia. This sort of two-pronged approach to taking over has worked amazingly well for more than ten years, but it was bound to collapse sooner or later. As in, "you can't fool all of the people all of the time". I suppose this makes them a neoliberal right-wing populist party. --dab (𒁳) 16:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As for "I would like to know what it is they are trying to conserve. Certainly not the Swiss system of democracy, seeing they have made a fair effort of dismantling it." They probably seek to conserve a 'Swiss Switzerland' (or how is left of this), plus 'christlich-europäische Tradition' (I think CDU politicians use this catch-word). I doubt, however, that they want to dismantle Swiss democracy, rather, they see are likely to be wary of an inner 'Wühlarbeit' of that system ;-)-- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We're trying to have an adult discussion here. You want to rant about rich-kids or question the etymology of a political term like "conservative" there are plenty of messageboards where you'll can enjoy such arguments.  So you don't like the SVP; I'm not particularly fond of them either as a matter of fact but if you think a sentence like "The SVP advocate anything-goes markets for the rich kids, but they like to obscure this line of approach by making populist noises appealing to lower class xenophobia." belongs anywhere in a wikipedia article, you are completely mistaken. Jimg (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

indeed. I think it is a matter of taste which of our posts qualifies as a "rant". The question was, is the SVP "conservative", "neoliberal" or "far-right". The correct answer is, all of the above. They have effectively absorbed all of Switzerland's parliamentary far right extremism. This doesn't make the SVP a "far-right party", but its spectrum still includes such parliamentary right extremism as we do have in Switzerland. The label "far-right" is applied routinely by major publications such as the New York Times and The Guardian. This may not be a neutral or objective outlook, but it is nevertheless notable. --dab (𒁳) 13:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a big difference between right wing and conservative. Right wing can be radical - such as the Naxi's - while left wing can be conservative - such as many established communist parties. American neocons are right wing rather than conservative. The British conservative party is conservative, although the Thatcher years represented a turn to the right. The SPP, like most farmers parties, is inherently conservative. Not right wing.203.184.41.226 (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

2009 Minaret referendum
Can someone well-versed in this make a section about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.9.129 (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"Greater Switzerland"
This is indeed WP:UNDUE, and probably shows more about the general disorientation and decline within the SVP than anything actually related to "foreign policy". To have the article state that
 * While the proposal was met with ridicule in the German embassy in Bern, a poll conducted by the Swiss weekly Weltwoche showed that 63% of Germans, Italians and Austrians in the border regions were in favour of joining Switzerland.

is also misleading, as the Weltwoche is for all practical purposes simply an SVP propaganda tool, and anything "revealed" in the Weltwoche can simply be taken as part of SVP strategy. It would be more instructive to show how sources unrelated to the SVP reacted to this, but then this is just a silly season item anyway. Apart from the SVP clowning around, discussion of "border regions willing to join Switzerland" as a serious topic should go to Alemannic separatism. --dab (𒁳) 12:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

SVP far right?
I live in Switzerland and I never heard any newspaper portraying the party as far right. Could you please explain me how this can be considered as such? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.207.85 (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

"National conservative"
The party is not conservative! It's a nationalist, liberal and feminist party which tries to be a catch-all party. Anti-feminists and masculists are not allowed to be members of it. --212.186.0.108 (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC) E.g., the masculist René Kuhn became expelled. --212.186.0.108 (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Not even one of the Swiss newspapers, or any other media, would agreee with you; not even their own paper, the "Weltwoche". "The exception confirms the rule". -- ZH8000 (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course not. They're right-wing populist and won't admit that they aren't conservative in truth. But why do you cite newspapers? We need neutral sources (and I've given you one). You seem to be out of arguments and simply defend the SVP or hide their real face. Why? The party is national liberal and feminist. --212.186.0.108 (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Aw, as I see another user already attempted to change it. Well, there are also two sources which state the SVP is national liberal. Simply look and stop your edit war! --P. Romanus (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The given citation says exactely the opposite of your totally unfounded, if not ridiculous claims. Skenderovic, 2009, p. 124: "... and prefers to use terms such as 'national-conservative' or 'conservative-right' in defining the SVP. In particular, 'national-conservative' has gained prominance among the definitions used in Swiss research on the SVP". qed. – So, now stop your obvious lame game for the sake of the seriousness of the encyclopedia. Everybody will thank you for this. -- ZH8000 (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Right - wing
I live in Switzerland and I never heard any newspaper portraying the party as far right. Could you please explain me how this can be considered as such? I think that some users are changing the terminonlgy withouth knowing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.207.85 (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Pull your head out of the sand and read real news from time to time, your monumental ignorance is not notable to the standards of this encyclopedia. Fact is far right parties are always trying to present themselves as somehow moderate, I challenge you to present to me a single far right neo-fascist party in Europe where idiots on the discussion forum aren't desperately trying to argue that it's not really right wing at all even though it wants to hang every brown person from a tree. It's truly pathetic and you're a fool if you don't think what you're doing is as obvious as daylight.2601:140:8900:1765:2442:A37F:BD70:882 (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Another loon. Sumorsǣte (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sumorsǣte. Also, Wikipedia is not the place for political commentary. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Good grief, ZH8000, do I have to go through line by line and word by word what's wrong with the edits by the anonymous editor?? Seriously?! The edits are clearly the wording of a deranged or brainwashed hater and have no factual basis and are clearly biased to a very narrow (and as I said, deranged/brainwashed) point of view. Sumorsǣte (talk) 08:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, it might not be so obvious if you don't follow Swiss politics, which I do (from a 'general' perspective) — I'll briefly go through the first two parts of the edits to demonstrate: it is not immigration per se that the party is opposed to, it is 'mass' immigration (ie the freedom of movement which Switzerland has with the rest of Europe through its bilateral relationship with the EU); it is not that "residents" are proposed to be able to be deported (citizens who are resident cannot be deported, in any circumstance, for example) but specifically foreign residents who have committed certain crimes (ie as it is now, but lowering the level of seriousness of the crimes, etc). Sumorsǣte (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that the original wording was neutral and of a higher quality, and that the wording added by the IP was POV. Also, specifically regarding the SVP's stance on mass migration, it's not opposed to all immigration, as seen in the fact that it opposed a November 2014 referendum to limit immigration to CH to 0.2% of the population every year. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, nice try there thinking we wouldn't notice the sly editing. Sumorsǣte (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to voice support for the OP. In Switerland's French part, I've never heard the party being described as far-right (at least by mainstream media), i.e. extrême-droite in French. The difference between the SVP and other similar parties in Europe (National Front, FPÖ, Vlaams Belang, etc.) is that it does not come from a radical/nationalist background. — Orgyn (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In WWII "sections of party officials and farmers voiced sympathy with, or failed to distance themselves from the emerging fascist movements". 92.18.127.206 (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Swiss People's Party. 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/20151019115107/http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-polls_election-2015-results-in-graphics/41612374 to http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-polls_election-2015-results-in-graphics/41612374
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141104192233/http://www.slatkine.com/fr/editions-slatkine/68201-book-07210607-9782832106075.html to http://www.slatkine.com/fr/editions-slatkine/68201-book-07210607-9782832106075.html

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) 10:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

"Far-right"
How can an ALDE party be "far-right"? --85.249.41.164 (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * True, the vast majority of sources label the SVP as "right-wing," rather than "far-right," and many of the latter are only passing mentions. I recommend we add a note similar to what appears here, where "right-wing" is the main descriptor, but there's still a note at the bottom of the infobox stating that some sources have described the SVP as "far-right." --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Reduction of Ideologies
I propose the follow shall only be in the ideology parametre in the infobox:
 * Agrarianism
 * National conservatism
 * Economic liberalism
 * Right-wing populism
 * Euroscepticism

ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Footnote removed
SantiagoFrancoRamos did so, because apparently Reuters et al. is leftist... a ton of sources have that description, that I've just compiled (although a lot of others also omit 'far', which is why I suppose both should be included... but I'm certainly not saying they're necessarily biased). Also, due to the footnote being deleted there's a broken link to it in the infobox, but the edit couldn't be undone, so if most agree Reuters isn't leftist... 92.18.127.206 (talk) 09:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

1990'sguy, why remove the descriptors again? By all means restore the footnotes, but the descriptors shouldn't be hidden in the lede and infobox... why, otherwise? Just because it was a previous iteration doesn't seem a good enough reason... if there's a ton of refs that refer to it as 'Y', then it should be labelled as 'Y' in the lede and infobox, not merely relegated down below... 92.18.127.206 (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The descriptors are still in the article. Per several discussions above, "far-right" can be in the article, but as a footnote. Based on those discussions, this is partially because that descriptor isn't used in domestic Swiss media, but only some international outlets. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Why did you agree with someone who merely used an insult? 92.18.127.206 (talk) 06:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Reducing Ideologies
I forgot about this page when it comes to reducing the amount of ideologies in the infobox. I propose that there should only be the following:
 * Agrarianism
 * National conservatism
 * Right-wing populism

I'm calling on, , , and  for your opinions. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I surely oppose "agrarianism" (no longer a leading feature of the party). I would prefer to have just "conservatism", but I do not oppose "national conservatism" (my favoured option) and "right-wing populism", especially if one of the two is accompanied by "economic liberalism". --Checco (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I recommend removing "agrarianism" and keeping "economic liberalism" and "Euroscepticism," along with the other two mentioned above. Economic liberalism is a prominent aspect of the SVP's current ideology, and it's not synonymous or mutually inclusive with national conservatism or right-wing populism. Also, in Europe, a party's position on the EU is particularly prominent/important. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Euroscepticism, as it isn't an ideology, but rather a stance. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * What about a compromise solution, including "national conservatism", "economic populism" and, possibly, "right-wing populism"? I also think that the first two ideologies are essential, while concluding that "agrarianism" and "Euroscepticism" should not be incluced. Surely, "Euroscepticism" is not an ideology, but rather a stance (it is time to achieve consensus on the issue and remove it and pro-Europeanism from all party infoboxes—see Talk:Pro-Europeanism). --Checco (talk) 07:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree to "national conservatism" and "right-wing populism". ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I can accept your compromise of "national conservatism", "economic populism" and "right-wing populism." I can see your point about "Euroscepticism," though I still prefer its inclusion. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Before mine was reverted as to require a chat, here is my edits to make it simple:
 * Swiss nationalism
 * Social conservatism
 * Economic liberalism
 * Agrarianism
 * Right-wing populism
 * Anti-Islam
 * Euroscepticism
 * 174.135.36.220 (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Way too many. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Still? oh, wait. Euroscepticism is a stance, not an ideologies. I can still that you do not think that it is agrarianist party, plus all anti-religion or immigration is now with Swiss nationalism.
 * Swiss nationalism
 * Social conservatism
 * Economic liberalism
 * Right-wing populism
 * 174.135.36.220 (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Replace nationalism and social conservatism with national conservatism and I'll agree :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure!! I can do that even if it is social conservatism and that how you simplified ideologies in a template. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Right :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is Party for Freedom from Netherlands a social conservative Party? 174.135.36.220 (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure. It mostly espouses anti-Islam, so if it did, it gets lost in the media interest in its anti-Islam message. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * While Geert was pro-LGBT (suprisingly for a far-right politican), he said he is against "wokeness." 174.135.36.220 (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems he's pro LGB, without the T. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We did it! we simple the ideologies! For Conservative People's Party of Estonia, here is my simple ideologies:
 * Direct democracy
 * Estonian nationalism
 * Right-wing populism
 * Social conservatism
 * Hard Euroscepticism
 * 174.135.36.220 (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Check the talk page of said party I mentioned. ￼
 * Talk:Conservative People's Party of Estonia - Wikipedia 174.135.36.220 (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just replied to it. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We have to simplifies the articles ideologies too.
 * Alliance for the Union of Romanians - Wikipedia
 * Replying on Talk:Alliance for the Union of Romanians - Wikipedia 174.135.36.220 (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)