Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
If the article is moved, it most be moved to Left Party (Sweden). Swedish Left Party would be directly incorrect. Left Party (Sweden) would be acceptable along the lines of Wikipedia naming conventions. --Soman10:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
The discussion on Talk:Left Party (Germany) went on the same line, so I instead suggest a move to Left Party (Sweden). The reason is that the current ___location "Left Party" would indicate the Swedish Party is the only "main" Left Party. Fred-Chess22:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Well it is true that a small group, a part of the Gnesta local unit splitted from the party in 2004. However, it appears quite bizarre if it is the only split mentioned. The Left has had suffered numerous major splits (1919, 1921, 1924, 1929, 1953, 1967 and 1977), and the Gnesta group leaving is clearly the least significative of all of these. Even one month after their split, the Gnesta local branch was reconstituted and now has more members than before the split.--Soman 12:55, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This is a very interesting brief article, it tells me all sorts of things about Sweden that I didn't know!
The article states that the party split in 1929 and the anti-Comintern faction continued using the name SKP; it implies that the pro-Moscow faction also used this name. But then it doesn;t tell us which party it is talking about afterwards, or what happened to the other one. It would be interesting to know this, and would make the article somewhat clearer as well. Palmiro | Talk22:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Yes it does, although the text might need some clarifications. The non-ComIntern faction turned into the Socialist Party,. for which there is a wikilink to a separate article. --Soman22:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Soman's attempt to conceal the truth
Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Anyone living in Sweden would know that there's almost daily an article about the problems in the left party that are a large part to due the undemocratic history of the party. This alone makes the passages that talk about that history very relevant.
As for Soman's comments about Israel, he must not know what he is talking about. A handfull of right-wingers? Only last week the entire Swedish riksdag (except the left party of course) criticised the left party because one of its high-profile members told people she "understood" Iran's desire to wipe The State of Israel off the map.
http://www.liberalerna.net/nyhetsbrev/start/issue.asp?NewsletterIssueID=282
For the privatisation parts, Soman really should read VP's own party manifesto
For the other parts, he should read about VP's history:
but the provided links give no backing for your edits. In which article does it say that the party was founded after SAPs rejection of the Russian revolution? Where are the proofs on financing of the "building" (although it was already built when SKP bought it) of Kungsg. 84? As to the Israel issue, one press statement from an opponent party is hardly to say that the party is often criticized. The fact that opposing political parties critize each other can hardly be news. --Soman15:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
No, that is factually incorrect. The Left and the Greens have an arrangement with the Social Democrats. This arrangement includes major parts of government politics, but exclude other (like foreign policy, EU, immigration, etc.). The limitations of this agreement is made mainly on the will of the Soc Dems, who so far has refused wider cooperation with the two parties. --Soman08:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
recent edit
Latest comment: 19 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion
I recently removed a the following passage by user Itake (who has a grave POV history):
"Organisations such as Vägval Vänster criticise the internal democracy of the party, claiming the party leadership suppresses those who want a broader left party. Organisations such as Amnesty International criticise the party for their support of the dictatorship on Cuba. A tv-documentary called "Uppdrag granskning" revealed that the left party had in the past worked as a puppet for the communist party of the Soviet Union. They had tried to implement the soviet agenda in Sweden and they recevied money from the soviet union. They also invited delegates from the communist dictatorships to attent their congress, and sent birthday greetings to Kim Il-sung. The party chairman Lars Ohly was earlier criticised for his membership in the Castro-supporting organisation SVEK, but has since left the organisation."'
The motivations are the following:
The passage is badly written, and severly unstructured
Vägval Vänster needs to be explained more about what is etc., and a context of the ongoing discussions inside the Party
There is no source backing up the claim taht AI has critized the party on the Cuba issue. A google-search on site:amnesty.se + Kuba + Vänsterpartiet does not give any results.
"Uppdrag Granskning" did not "reveal" anything about the Party. It was a documentary that, in a biased way, discussed issues relating to certain aspects of the history of the Party. It did not reveal a any new facts of importance of the party. In fact, a major part of its research material came from publications written and published by the Party and its youth league following 1990. The international relations of the party have always been well documented.
UG did not provide any actual information on that the party would have received money from teh Soviet Union, only insinuating it.
To call the Swedish-Cuban Friendship Society as "Castro-supporting organisation" is of course POV. To use the abbreviation SVEK (Swedish for 'betrayal') is also POV.
Thats not a reason to remove the passage. Edit, yes, but not remove.
Same as above
They did after members of the party criticised AI because AI listed the people imprisoned on Cuba as prisoners that had been imprisoned for their political beliefs.
No, it was a documentary that was sent on state-run television. It was a documentary that was reported for being POV, put before trial, and cleared. Your objections are clearly unfounded. The party's very deep ties with the soviet union and international communism needs to be highlighted because one of the major issues for the party today is those ties.
UG had backings for all its claims.
Heh, no its not. Why? Because SVEK themselves use the abbrivation SVEK. Because this is the ENGLISH wikipedia, because SVEK themselves expressingly support Castro. Thats why.
Further, I do not have a grave POV history. You have a grave POV history, and this criticism passage is staying if I so have to dedicate every awake moment to editing on wikipedia.
unsigned comment by Itake.
There can well be a 'Criticism' section. But it needs to be balanced, wellwritten and factually correct. The text inserted by you was neither
Actually such arguments would better fit in the history section, expanding it on issues relating to the period 2004-2005. VVV is an internal fraction, not and outside commentary.
Provide source.
Cleared by whom? That something passes 'Granskningsnämnden' doesn't make it unbiased per se. The links with the international communist movement is explained in the history chapter. Perhaps the article could need a separate chapter on international relations of the party.
Interestingly they didn't refer to them in the film itself. There are articles written about this issue, but based on insinuating assumptions and up to now conclusive evidence has not been established. Wikipedia is a dictionary.
Provide source that the organisation uses the abbreviation SVEK. The organisation supports Cuba.
Err, yes it does. Thats exactly what it does, thats exactly what said department is for. Making sure the documentaries stay unbiased and facually correct.
The comments concerning the Swedish-Cuban Friendship Association are complety unbased. The article in Amnesty Press doesn't even mention the Left Party at all. The article mentions the name of an individual party member (alternative member of the party board), and concludes that she holds a different opinion than Amnesty. Neither the party nor any individual member has been denounced by Amnesty. --Soman15:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
I see how you are budging, even if its only one piece at a time. But we'll get there, dont' worry.
The comments concerning the Swedish-Cuban friendship association are not unbased. The organisation does support Castro, and they do support the current political situation on Cuba. That situation is not democracy. The SVEK organisation draws the majority of its members from the left party, it is relevant. Eva Björklund is a very important and public member of both the left party and SVEK, and she but one of many such members. Like said, the chairman himself was recently a member and his membership was so criticised he actually left SVEK. Relevant? Yes. The article clearly, (just look at the title) states that Eva Björklun, SVEK and its other left party members belive Amnesty Inrtnetional is lying. That is denouncing. SVEK itselfs belives Amnesty International collaborates with the US against Cuba, also denouncing. In return, Amnesty International has denounced those claims. Relevant? Yes.Itake16:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
But Amnesty has never criticized the Left Party, right? If they did, wouldn't they also mention the party? Its little like the following: I suppose (based on my personal prejudicies) there is a great deal of NRA affiliates in the leadership of the US Republican Party, although the positions of NRA and the Republicans are not mechanically the same. Say that an anti-gun lobby group launches criticism against a leading NRA member, who also happens to be affiliated to the Republican Party (or even holding some sort of position in the party). Is that then the exact same thing as criticizing the Republican Party? Btw, the congress of the Left Party last week voted no to a proposal in favour of supporting Cuba. --Soman18:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
I didn't state they criticised the party itself either, I stated they criticised several high-up members. Come on now, we both see where this is going. You've got no viable defence to your continious edits, just accept the criticism and move on. The congress voted no in favour of a resolution what would have described the situation in Cuba as democracy. The members of SVEK that are also members of the VP did not leave the party, they didn't stop their support of Cuba. The leader of the youth-wing will probably travel to the world youth festival next year too, even if its hosted in NORTH KOREA like last year. So yes, the criticism should still stay there because its important for people to know that this is a party with a very, very questionable view on democracy and human rights.Itake09:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
This is just getting more loony for each turn. The article in Amnesty Press is 1) a magazine article, not a press statement. It explains different opinions of different people and institutions in Swedish politics about the Cuba issue. It confirms that there exist a difference of opinion between AI and Swedish-Cuban Friendship Society. It does not, and this should be understood for anyone with a proper understanding of Swedish language, constitute an act of denouncing (which would have been expressed in an official AI press statement). 2) The sole Left Party member mentioned in this article is Eva Björklund, who is an alternate member of the party board. Her party membership is not referred to in the article. The argument that AI "criticised several high-up members" is a gross falsification. Moreover, no international youth festival held be held in the coming year and when it is going to be held its highly unlikely that it would be held in North Korea. Neither the party nor the youth league has had any relations to North Korea since 1989/1990. Your statements repeatedly shows an overall lack of factual knowledge about the history of the communist movement, a lack that you happily substitute with mere prejudice. --Soman11:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
A magazine article by their official paper is good enough. If you feel there's to little fact to backup the statement about amnesty international, then remove it. I don't care, as long as the other parts stay. As for the international youth festival, are you denying that former youth-organisation leader Tove Fraurud visited the international youth festival in north korea(when the next one is to be held really doesnt' matter)? This same Tove Frarud who belives Cuba is more democratic then the United States. 1989/1990 is not very long ago, and definently worthwile to mention in the article. We are talking about a party who send happy birthday greetings to a massmurderer and a dictator. This isn't some isolated incidents, the party has a very long history of fraternising with some of the worst people/organisations ever to exist on the face of this planet. VERY worthwhile to mention. I'd say your statements repeteadly show that in reality you know aswell as I do that I'm right. Which is why you have started to accept the things I've stated, even if its not so much at a time. Face it Soman, I've got factual backup for my claims. You don't. Itake12:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
You are really making things easy for me. Tove Fraurud, who btw is no longer the president of the youth wing, visited the world festival of youth and students in VENEZUELA (learn geography) 2005. The festival was held in Pyonyang in 1989, in which KU, SSU, CUF, etc. participated (i know for sure MUF did not take part, unsure about LUF and KDU). Another point, is it mentioned that your party (KD) sat in the same international organization as the butchers in Rwanda?
In order to reach som understanding, I propose that International relations be made a separate chapter in the article. Criticism raised on the issues of the international relation may be mentioned in the 'Criticism' chapter, but the main information about which parties the party had relation to should be discussed separtely. --Soman12:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Notice the "former youth-organisation leader" part? I might have got the date wrong, but the organisation did visit North Korea. And I seriously doubt LUF, MUF or KDU was there. My party preferences or the christian democratic party at all isn't what we are supposed to discuss here. Its painfully obvious when you state things like that this is is nothing more then a personal crisis for you, and that you are very, very biased. Though, if you want to discuss the KD party, feel free to by said talk page. I can help you dispell any crazy myths about the party you might belive. And again, the part about Tove Fraurud is really not relevant anyways. The party send happy birthday greetings to North Korea, enough to tie it with the Korean Worker's Party. As for the forced nationalisation, did you read your own party manifesto? Are you not aware that your party wishes to nationalize parts of the energy, media and banking sectors? Your attempts to portray the left party as a happy little friendly socialist party is really failing.Itake15:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes, you got the date wrong with about 17 years. The party had relations, in fact good and cordial relations, with the WPK in the 1980s. But a conscious decision was taken to break that relation, as part of an overall re-evaulation of the international policy of the party. Those people in the youth league today has never had any relation to North Korea. As per the right-wing youth leagues and the festivals, FPU (now LUF) participated in various festivals. Maria Leisner participated as a LUF delegate in the Havanna festival in 1978. MUF on the other hand always boycotted the festival movement. KDU at that time was a minor force, I'm not sure whether it participated in the National Youth Council that sent delegations to the festivals. Moreover, the birthday greetings are a peripheral issue in international relations. Its more relevant, to discuss participation at congresses and delegations to sent and received. I again refer to Left Party (Sweden)/temp to continue build-up on an chapter on the history of the international relations of the party there. Finally, for this time, you contradict yourself. You claim that it is of importance to point out my political preferences as biased whereas you don't like to have your own mentioned. --Soman16:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Again, festivals and the like don't really matter as they are international events of a nature that is atleast somewhat neutral. Personally I'd rather shoot myself in my left foot then participate in any event hosted by the North Korean goverment, but thats just me. Political preferences like I said don't really matter, though I can trace your obvious bias to your political preferences. Mine doesn't matter because I'm not the biased one.
Document
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 19 years ago15 comments2 people in discussion
User:itake has again started attempting to insert POV language into the article.
He has repeatedly used the the wording that the Left Party had been an extension of CPSU. Now he started claiming that the party "took orders directly" from CPSU. That passage is highly misleading. Can Itake explain how VPK protests against Soviet interventions in Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan were done on the orders of Moscow.
"was involved with" is a strange wording, that implies a negative connotation. VPK had fraternal relations with various CPs, both state-bearing and non-state-bearing. There's no specific reason if a single party should be mentioned to mention WPK (with whom the relation was rather brief).
"Uppdrag Granskning that made the partys relationship with communist dictatorships public." is a direct error. UG's main source was the publications of the party. All international relations of the party have been openly presented by the party (read VPK-Information for detailed info on each delegation sent and received during 1970s and 1980s). The only "new" information presented by that documentary was individual anecdotes.
Itake keeps referring to the Swedish-Cuban Friedship Association as "SVEK" (swedish for "Betrayal"). Needless to say, that is a POV wording.
"The party is frequently criticised for their stance towards Israel" is factually incorrect. If you read opinion polls on the attitude of the Swedish population towards the Israel-Palestine conflict, the political line of (v) largely corresponds to the mainstream opinions. Rather, the party recieves a lot of support for its principled stand on demanding the right of a Palestinian state, and it is the Social Democratic government that is acting in a diverging manner compared to the opinions of their grassroots.
"and the party's youth organisation has funded terrorist movements in the middle-east". A few years back Ung Vänster gave a 2000 Swedish krona donation to PFLP. A symbolic gesture, to challenge new terror laws passed by the EU.
The party took orders from the soviets, thats a fact. It states so in this article, it was revealed in the documentary by SVT, and it has been admitted by the party itself aswell.
"Implies a negative connation". Yes of course, being involved with massmurderers, dictators and the likes is a NEGATIVE thing. You Soman, you are trying to cover up the truth. The truth that almost the entire population of Sweden already knows, the truth that should definently be revealed to anyone reading this article. It shouldn't perforate the entire article, but that is why it is under the CRITICISM part.
No its not a direct error. Noone knew about it because noone cared. When SVT went public (as in MAINSTREAM public) with it, people started caring.
No, its not factually incorrect. They are frequently critised because they have done everything from condoning terrorist actions, to openly support terrorist actions, to supporting the destruction of the state of Israel. This is what they get criticised for (again, which is why its under the CRITICISM part).
They funded a terrorist organisation, end of story. If you want to write a part where the criticism is met, do so. But don't try and cover up the truth. Itake17:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
1. You still haven't answered on the issues of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. Moreover, UG did not provide any revelation in this. It speculated around what were the causes of the non-adoption of the "Democracy Manifest" at one VPK congress. There was however no actual proof that the 'threat' from the CPSU delegation was the decisive factor to the congress' decision not to adopt the manifest.
2. You tend to quite clearly show your own POV intentions. If you think that there is such a thing as something objectively negative in politics, you cannot be NPOV. Moreover, the current text hardly covers up the fact that the history of international relations of the party is contriversial in mainstream media, see "During the past years such criticism has focused largely on issues relating to the history of the party and the relations that the party conducted with the state-bearing parties of the Socialist Bloc. Those debates were largely spurred by a documentary broadcast on Swedish TV in 2004 called Uppdrag Granskning."
3. So you do admit you were wrong? (using the phrase "revealed") The text as its stand acknowledges that UG spurred the debates about the subject.
4. A criticism that rarely gets major force. The ones maintaining this line is generally Livets Ord followers and their likes. (träffad?) Please state substantiate when the Left Party has been met with this criticism.
5. "a terrorist organisation" (in singular, not plural as your text read). It is my standpoint that the "criticism" section should be streamlined to the mainstream criticism, and not that of fringe factions of swedish politics. --Soman21:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
1 There isn't an issue about Czechoslovakia or Afghanistan. Fact is, the part was a member of the comintern. The comintern was an exstension of the soviet communist party. Fact is, the party headquarters was bought from money recevied from the soviet union[2].
No proof? I'm not even going to debate silly points like that. Delegates from the soviet union attend the meeting. A democracy-manifest is presented. Delegates from the soviet union threaten to leave should the manifest be accepted. The manifest is not accepted.
Perphaps lack of light isn't the decisive factor of darkness? Yeez...
2 The current text is more then adequate, and not POV satured by sentences like "In difference to several other major political forces in Sweden, the Left Party does not posses any major media outlets of its own" or "Criticism against the party is continuously raised in the mainstream media". Insinuations anyone?
3 No, it was REVEALED to the public with said show. Before that, the public was unaware.
4 I'm not going to dignify your petty insults with a remark, wheter they be in Swedish or English.
EDIT: No wait, I am going to dignify it with a response: Your Mother
For an example of such criticism, take the recent example of a a high-ranking left party member who said she "understood" the Iranian leaders desire to wipe Israel off the map. In return, she was condemned by every single party in the swedish riksdag.
5 Sure, terrorist organisation. My bad.
A while ago you refused to even have a criticism section. Before that you refused any criticism at all. You are slowly loosing, Soman, on point after point. And I will continue point after point, until the article reflects ALL sides of the left party. Not just your own POV bias. Itake22:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Note at [3] that Itake admits having resorted to profanities, using offensive language against me.
1. 1. Itake does not want to talk about Afghanistan and Czechoslovakia. I suppose that makes sense. If he would do so, his own argumentation would fall. If VPK was merely a subsidary of CPSU, how come they took diametrically opposing view on what ought to be the most crucial moments of Soviet foreign policy in the post-war era?
1. 2. ComIntern was a transnational organization. SKP was a section of ComIntern. So was CPSU. Formalities apart, SKP had its own organizational structures. SKP was obligied to adhere to recommendations from ComIntern, but so was CPSU. To claim that ComIntern was merely an extension of Soviet foreign policy is ahistorical. ComIntern was an organization in which different views were present, and in which political lines were changed after discussions. At times Stalin stood at the losing end of debates. Do study differences of how (v)/VPK on one hand and KPML(r) describe the history of the communist movement at the time, and you'll see that the history isn't as black and white as you try to proclaim.
1. 3. The link provided is a press release from the Liberal Party. In brief it mixes generalized assumptions with mere speculations, paying lipservice to a single report by an individual historian. The claim you make regarding the party office is actually (if read the statement in full) not backed up by any passage in the text. Also, the text is politically inconstistent. The party bought Syninge in order to abolish the depency of using similar facilities in the GDR. Hardly something in the interest of SED.
1. 4. Regarding the "Democracy Manifest" you are still speculating. Were you there, or are you just guessing? Perhaps there were other factors at place, far more mundane than geopolitics? Who wrote the manifest? What was the standing of those individuals inside the party? Was the manifest seen as an attempt to fractionalize the party?
2. Well, you're sort of the master of insinuations, so i'd suppose you'd be the expert of the subject. Do you seriously believe that there is no relation between media ownership and the material published? For example, do you see any difference in how Dagen and major evening tabloid reported about Knutby?
3. Well, shouldn't it also then be mentioned that the main material for UG came from (v):s own publication, "Lik i Garderoben?". Note that UG is already mentioned in the text. The wording "revealed" is at best unnecessary, but moreover misleading.
5. Every party in the riksdag? isn't (v) represented in the riksdag? moreover, this was criticism directed to a single MP, based upon an intentional misinterpretation what was actually said. I can understand quite a few horrible things, without actually condoning them or wishing them to happen. But in politics, there's rarely space for discussion. --Soman23:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Note the history of this talk page, where Soman consistently backs down from his POV edits, point after point. His POV bias should have been very, very obvious by now. He has consistenly refused any attempt by any editor besides himself to change the POV content of the article.
1. I wasn't a part of the inner circles of the CPSU, I don't know. What I do know is that they took orders from the CPSU. Obviously not on every issue, but contrary to any other major political party in Sweden of that time, they took orders from the CPSU.
2. Pft, please. Don't give me that. All members of the ComIntern had to abide by the decisions of the executive committe in Moscow. Even the article, probably POV edited by you aswell, state that the organisation was under control of the CPSU.
3. Read the entire article, with sources[4]. It doesn't matter who published it, because it has got sources to back up its claims with.
4. Yes, as much speculation as your claim of a "relation between media ownership and the material published". Perhaps there are other factors in place, ey?
5. You could create an article about the show in question, and there you can write about where the material to the show came from.
6. You must be a sad, sad person with little to no friends to consistently point out small errors in spelling or phrase construction...moreover, it doesn't matter wheter its individual members or not. They are a part of the party, they represent the party, and this sort of criticism gets out all the time against different members of the party. Itake12:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Itake on the other hand has constantly upheld the glorious path of political neutrality, and always
1. The problem is that you make a generalized statement. In this case you have to differentiate between different periods of the history of the party. 1919-1943 the party was a section of the ComIntern. This is, however, not something that is widely criticized. It is a historical fact. The criticism directed towards the party is usually more concentrated around the later phase of the Cold War (like UG), a period in which the party had a quite different relation with CPSU. If a text on the criticism of the international relations of the party is included in the criticism section, then that must also be reflected.
2. I refer you to study the different versions of the history of the communist movement, say the publications of VPK and KPML(r). Obviously there are different evaluations on the ComIntern period.
3. I did read the entire article. You have to learn a few basic rules of how political demagoguery works. The article have sources (one historian), but the actual references made does not precisely substantiate the its headline claims. Rather the headline claims (concerning the purchase of party property) is based upon general insinuations.
4. If there are other factor, then you are free to state them.
5. ?
6. I recall hering an anecdote about stones and glasshouses at some point. Anyone studying the history at Christian Democrats (Sweden) will easily read your own POV positions, constantly wanting to remove criticism against the party. You've embarked on conspiracy theories as to why the gay rights movement is opposed to KD, and removed even rather neutral wordings on the party's backing amongst religious sectors.
1. Yes it is widely criticised. The party even had the security police tagging them during that time, because it was so criticised. Its part of their communist history, which is widely criticsed.
2. I'm sure there are, but it doesn't change the fact that they were members.
3. Oh of course. Its all a big conspiracy to frame the Left Party! Ah, how could I miss that. So obvious. If YOU can't bring any facts that says otherwise, then I'm going to keep with my facts.
4. Oui, they are targeted for mainstream criticism because they are bad.
5. Create an article about the show in question (Uppdrag Granskning) and there you can dispute the sources or whatever.
6. Nope. Unlike you, I don't do the POV dance. If you would take some time to read up on stuff before you go arguing, you would see that the matter on the Christian Democrats (Sweden) has been settled a long time ago, in a way that was agreed to by all parties. If you want to whine and rant about the CD party aswell, do it on the correct talk page. Then we can do it there, and I can win again. Itake14:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
1. That actually amounts to historical revisionism. The persecution of the party on behalf of the state was hardly a result of criticism against it.
2. ? you don't answer the question
3. No, read through the document again and state where it actually claims that the party property was bought with Soviet money.
4. That comment sort of disqualifies you from the process of making an improving an article. If you're sole intention with the editing of this article is to show that the party in question "are bad", then it will be difficult for you to contribute in any meaningfull way.
5. You're just repeating the same phrase. I actually don't see what passage your former comment refered to.
6. See Itake's answer on nr. 4, and judge if he doing the "POV dance". --Soman13:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
1. No, it was a result of them being so warm and fussy that noone though they would ever do anything bad. Please... Itake14:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
4. Well lucky us that we do not have a man so satured with his own commie POV to make judgements on who can and who can't make edits to an article on wikipedia. Your only purpose, as can be seen so far, is to remove any and all criticism on the left party from the article. No doubt then, that should disqualify you. 14:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
1. You could at least have attributed it to the general Col War scenario.
2. I think we lost the thread on this one. The point at stake is that different wings of the communist traditions evaluate the ComIntern period differently, pointing to that there might be alternative ways of interpretation.
3. Please provide a quote.
4. Somehow I think you've misunderstood the concept of an open encyclopedia. People of very different backgrounds and opinions come together to build up a database for global usage. No matter what opinions I personally have, I must be able to write about groups and individuals that I dislike without resorting to ranting or selective POV editing. If your view-point in editing this article is that the party in question is objectively 'bad', then your possiblities of actually contributing to wikipedia in a meaningful way is rather limited.
5. Was a questioning the sources of UG? I was just pointing out that the main material of UG had been public for decades, and supplied by the party itself.
Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Constanz is reinserting removed material, which has been criticized on the talk page, without motivating the passages. In brief:
The passage that the party 'took direct orders' is hilarious, considering the party's stance on Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan and Poland.
'involved with' is POV wording.
'notorious', well is an easy one
'SVEK' is a derogatory naming for the Swedish-Cuban Friendship Association
International relations of the party has been public for decades
The assertment that Özkürt's statement would be anti-semitic is, of course, highly POV. Note that the 'reference' is the newsservice of an opposing political party.
the 'reference' is the newsservice of an opposing political party. -- oh really? Some decades ago the commmies, being told of the Soviet crimes, also noted, that the criticism comes from opponents of Communism, why take these seriously...--Constanz - Talk14:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately you didn't grasp may point, which was that I'd expect you not to use this kind of 'brilliant' logic here in an encyclopedia.--Constanz - Talk05:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
There is obvious difference in using an academic article or a press statement from a political party as a source. Not that the academic article is 100% neutral nor that a political press release per se is lies. What is more disturbing is that you only answer a supplimentary comment. The main question was that asserting Özkürt's statement as antisemitic is, of course, POV. --Soman08:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Özkürt approved Ahmadinejad's statement, which of course can be regarded as either anti-semitic, anti-Zionist or, on the other hand, as anti-imperialist, from the corresponding POV's. I personally think guys who claim Israel should be destroyed suit in the first category.
You and your Vänsterpartiet friends probably maintain Ahmadinejad expressed 'progressive anti-imperialist' views in support of the 'just cause' of the palestinian liberation movement and so on and so forth (we've heard such rubbish enough, i think)--Constanz - Talk10:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Removal of text
Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
In addition to readding deleted material, Constanz also inserted the following passage:
"More typically for Western communist parties, VP permanently condemned Israel's actions against Palestinians and avowed support for the Palestinian people's liberation movement. In addition to this, right-wing dictatorships in the Latin America and US foreign policies were subjected to harsh criticism. Unfortunately the Swedish communists failed to see massive repressions and human right violations much nearer to Sweden than Palestine, Chile or Salvador, e.g on the other side of the Baltic Sea. Swedish left-wing human right watchers never acknowledged any of the crimes allegedly committed in the USSR, or the 'Empire of Evil', as mr Reagan, one of Communism's foes would say."
Faults/POV include:
VP is an abbreviation never used. 1967-1991 the party was known as VPK, after 1991 as V or (v).
"Unfortunately" is argumentative
"Swedish left-wing human right watchers never acknowledged any of the crimes allegedly committed in the USSR" is not substantied. Moreover its unclear whom the text refers to. The party in question or the Human Rights movement in general?
As you might have noticed, i used the following statement: Swedish left-wing human right watchers never acknowledged -- it is clear that I refer to commies, all subsections and sects included, plus other 'left socialists' , those leftists who used to whitewash Moscow acts. Not substanted? weren't there then any crimes in this 'wide and great' country, oversea neighbour of Sweden? a country whose human right violations were known to anyone, except appearantly Swedish and other commies, prctically always ready to believe, whatever lies Moscow told.--Constanz - Talk14:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
1. I refuse to distinguish between small and capital lEtters. Its an imperialist-funded conspiracy.
2. The issue of substantiation referred to the statement that the Swedish left never protested against human rights abuses in the USSR. Even the hardline SKA protested against human rights abuses in the USSR by the end of the 1950s. --Soman14:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Oh, really? Could you be more specific? Did they translate Solzhenitsyn into Swedish and promote it? Did they condemn 1949 deportations from Baltic states? Or, let us say, supported the Baltic Appeal 1979, which demanded an end to Soviet occuppation and publishing MRP secret protocols by the USSR?--Constanz - Talk14:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Note for discussion
Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
A parliamentary motion, signed by Sermin Özükürt and other from the Left Party, on the Human Rights situation in Iran: [5] Motion demands investigations to murders committed by Iranian regime in Sweden, condemns human rights abuses against Kurds, calls elections in Iran fraudlent, criticizes lack of functioning judicial system, etc. --Soman11:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Another nice note is the Young Left's comments on a TV-show about two years ago, when they said attacks by Iraqi terrorists on red cross personnel were "justified". Itake14:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The article at liberalerna.net that Constanz links to appears to be down at the moment. I reckon that its the same as the text availible at [6]
The discussion concerns a debate in EU-committee of the Swedish parliament on October 28. The entire protocol is availible here. Costanz is free to identify which parts of Özürküt's statements that are anti-semitic, or even anti-zionist.
Intervention 61 by SÖ deals with budget issues of the EU.
Intervention 87 by SÖ deals with relations to Russia
I believe that it is intervention 95 that is refered to in the press statement of the liberals. Here's the text in full:
"Jag tänkte kommentera handelsavtalet med Iran, och sedan har jag en kort fråga.
Vi vet att handelsavtalet är för att ha en kontakt med Iran utan att isolera landet, just för att bevaka utvecklingen inom området för mänskliga rättigheter. Men där finns det ett dilemma. Så länge kriget i Irak pågår och brott mot mänskliga rättigheter pågår är det inte så svårt att ha förståelse för Irans agerande med tanke på den dubbelmoral som EU:s vissa medlemsländer visar gentemot världen. Där finns ett dilemma som EU borde ta itu med.
Där har jag en fråga. Den här dubbelmoralen och att man tar upp mänskliga rättigheter när det just passar själva landets intressen gör att EU:s centrala länders förtroendekapital i den delen av världen har förbrukats. Det vet vi, det är ingen hemlighet, det är ett faktum.
Jag vill gärna höra lite mer reflexion kring detta, för att ha lite mer trovärdig politik när det gäller mänskliga rättigheter från europeiska länders sida."
translated
"I would comment the trade agreement with Iran, and then I have a short question.
We know that the trade agreement is to have contact with Iran without isolating the country, just to supervise the development in the area of human rights. But there is a dilemma. As long as the war in Iraq continues and crimes against human rights perist it not difficult to have understanding for Iran's behaviour considering the double standards that some of the EU member states show towards the rest of the wordl. There is a dilema that the EU should adress.
As long as the war in Iraq continues and crimes against human rights perist -- that's a leftpartisan moving in right direction, US crimes, that's a theme they remember well from cold war days -- and continue exploiting.--Constanz - Talk14:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Here I have a question. This double standards and to bring up human rights just when it suits the proper interests of the country contributes to that the confidence capital of the central [in political sense, not geographic, my comment] countries in this part of the world has been finished. We know this, it is not a secret, its a fact.
I would like to hear more reflexion about this, to have a more credible politics towards human rights on behalf of European countries."
In intervention 96 Foreign Minister Laila Freivalds responds. She refers to the ongoing process with IAEA. She also mentions the comments of the Iranian president on Israel, and concludes by saying that it is unacceptable to have understanding for Iran's actions, including its proclamations.
In intervention 97 Liberal MP Carl B Hamilton (who is the author of the document Constanz linked to) says that he's shocked over the position of the Left Party on this matter, and calls it disgraceful.
In intervention 98 Özürküt responds to the two previous comments:
"Jag kan bara säga att jag inte sade att uttalandet var acceptabelt från Irans sida. Jag försökte problematisera nyliberalismens syn på mänskliga rättigheter och dubbelheten i det hela. Det är ingen hemlighet.
När det gäller uttalandet och Israel finns det en gemensam punkt där. De båda länderna känner sig osäkra inom sina territoriella gränser. Många arabländer har inte godkänt Israels närvaro i världen.
Det finns en gemensam punkt i problematiken när det gäller Iran och Israel. Israel känner sig otryggt och tar därför till aggressiva metoder. Iran känner sig just nu otryggt i och med att det finns en risk för ett anfall mot landet. De länderna har mycket mer gemensamt än vad vi har gemensamt med dem."
translated:
"I can only say that I didn't say that the statement was acceptable on Iran's behalf. I tried to problematize the view of neoliberalism on human rights and the overall double standards. It is not a secret.
view of neoliberalism on human rights yes, yes, right direction (ddo not mention any wrongdoings by the main non-liberal countries concerned here, Iran and Saddam's Iraq)!--Constanz - Talk14:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
When it comes to the statement [of the Iranian president, my comment] and Israel there is a common point. Both countries feels unsafe within their terriorial boundaries. Many arab countries have not recognized Israel's presence in the world.
There is a common point in the problematic concerning Iran and Israel. Israel feels unsafe and thus resorts to aggressive methods. Iran feels unsafe in that there is a risk for an attack against the country. The both countries have more in common than what we have in common with them."
Iran feels unsafe in that there is a risk for an attack against the country. The both countries have more in common than what we have in common with them." - true, we can't conclude here that this Kurdish emigré suggested wiping israel off the map. Factual inaccuracies are here nevertheless: firstly, Israel does not threaten Iran, but the Iran has brutally threatened Israel (and continues doing so). And to say that a totalitarian regime where non-muslims are sometimes regarded as sinful animals [7] has very much in common with a democratic country (-note that militant commies and i think even islamists have their rep.-s in israeli parliament-), where religious freedom is respected -- not true.--Constanz - Talk14:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
in intervention 99 a Social Democrat MP seconds the comments made by the Foreign Minister, and addresses the Iran issue, without refering to Özükürt's comments.
in intervention 100 Lars Lindbald (moderates) seconds the Foreign Minister and Hamilton, and appeals to 'isolate the Left Party on this matter'. In intervention 101 and 102 centre party and christian democrat MPs seconds previous comments.
In intervention 103 Özürküt responds:
"Jag vill inte gå i polemik i den här frågan. Vad jag försöker säga är att nationella staters territoriella suveränitet borde respekteras för både Israel och Iran. Om vi inte kan tänka de två tankarna samtidigt hamnar vi i en problematik med mänskliga rättigheter och demokrati. Det är vad jag försöker säga.
Det är ingen hemlighet att vi är ganska isolerade i vår tanke för Irak. Vi ser att Irak är ockuperat. Resten av riskdagen säger att det inte är ockuperat. Det är inte så konstigt att vi har olika synpunkter också när det gäller Iran.
"
Translated:
"I do not wish to go into polemics on this matter. What I'm trying to say is that the territorial sovereignity of national state should be respected both concerning Israel and Iran. If we cannot think the two thought at the same time we come into a problematic on human rights and democracy. Thats what I'm trying to say.
There is no secret that we are rather isolated in our thoughts for Iraq. We see Iraq as occupied. The rest of the parliament says it is not occupied. Its not so strange that we have different viewpoint also concerning Iran."
In intervention 104 a soc dem MP comments that there is differentiation in criticizing Israel for occupation against Palestinians and wishing to wipe Israel off the map. She seconds the Foriegn Minister, but never refers directly to Özürküt. In Intervention 105 the Foreign Minister sums up, discussion on trade relations with Iran, dialogue on human rights, etc., but does not refer to Özürküt's statements.
--Soman12:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Removal of text II
Latest comment: 19 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
Constanz inserted the following: "More typically for Western communist parties, VPK permanently condemned Israel's actions against Palestinians and avowed support for the Palestinian people's liberation movement, which at the time used clearly terrorist tactics. In addition to this, like other communist parties, VPK criticised right-wing dictatorships in the Latin America and elsewhere, while not focusing on permanent repressions and human right violations on the other side of the Baltic Sea. Swedish left-wing human right watchers hardly ever acknowledged any of the crimes committed in the USSR, even after the Gulag Archipelago was published in the West."
I object to this text:
1. It is placed under 1960s. The description of the party stand on Israel/Palestine is factually incorrect. In the 1960s the party was not clearly pro-Palestinian. Hermansson had sided with Maki in the Israeli communist split, on his suggestion the youth wing left WFDY during the controversy over which Israeli group would be represented at the World Festival of Youth & Students.
2. The second sentence, although some wording have been removed ('unfortunately'), still has an argumentative and insinuating tone. Criticism of regimes in Latin America was hardly a monopoly of the communist parties. Moreover, the party was not engaged in Latin American issues in the 1960s, that started more after the 1973 Chile coup. Concerning the Baltics and USSR, VPK positions did not differ dramatically from official (public) Swedish positions at the time.
This is regrettably almost true, as Soc dem gov had accepted Soviet occupation de facto, and was nearing de jure. But Moderates and liberals didn't wholly share this idea, especially as there were baltic MPs among these. Nevertheless, i wouldn't say any other major party approved soviet totalitaruianism or 'der real existierende sozialismus'.--Constanz - Talk15:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes, as Toomas Hendrik Ilves has written: This stood in stark contrast to what some Eastern Europeans have dubbed the ‘Olof Palme School of Human Rights’: attention to human rights violation directly proportional to the distance between the national capital and the locus of violations. Eastern Europe from the late 1960s onward was increasingly preoccupied with the poor state of human rights under (in many cases US-supported) regimes in Latin America and elsewhere.East Europeans wondered why West Europeans seemingly demonstrated less concern regarding human rights violations in their immediate neighbourhood.[8]
Of course the analysis of socialism in the USSR differed from the communist party and the others. However, it was not an issue that actively divided Swedish politics. Ingvar Carlsson stated, on his last visit to the USSR, that Western capitalism did not have monopoly on social system.(not sure about exact wording)
3. The third sentence talks about the left in general (whereas this article deals with a specific party). Moreover, the wording 'crimes committed in the USSR', is a bit odd. Did they (the left-wing human rights watchers) say that there was 0 criminality in the USSR? The wording presupposes certain political foundations, that is unsuitable for a general encyclopedia of world-wide use. Lastly, it attributes far to much importance to a single book. I'm not saying that the Gulag Archipelago didn't have any reprecussions on the public debate in Sweden, but it would be unrealistic to have expected the party to have changed their behaviour drastically based on it. --Soman15:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
This book had tremendous effect on some western commies, for example Italian CP headquarters were full of party membership cards returned by disiluusioned ones (from a documentary on Solzh.)--Constanz - Talk15:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC).Reply
Well, it did not have that impact in Sweden. Remember that PCI had around 1.8 million members (in 1980, not sure about the time of Gulag Arch). If 1% of members resigned, it would be a lot of cards...
All in all, my idea is clear: VPK and other western commieparties have the still ongoing habit of criticising almost every act by their imaginary enemies of imperialism, while at the same time closing their eyes before the atrocities committed by their idols, be it USSR or whatever, now obviously islamic terrorists have been awarded the part of being worshipped by european leftists.--Constanz - Talk15:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
all in all, your idea is a systematic bias. VPK did condemn soviet interventions in Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia and Poland. VPK leaders had contacts with oppositionals in DDR. VPK believed in dialogue with the East European parties, and was a strong advocate of reform within the Socialist Bloc. --Soman15:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
To remind you
2. The issue of substantiation referred to the statement that the Swedish left never protested against human rights abuses in the USSR. Even the hardline SKA protested against human rights abuses in the USSR by the end of the 1950s. --Soman 14:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, really? Could you be more specific? Did they translate Solzhenitsyn into Swedish and promote it? Did they condemn 1949 deportations from Baltic states? Or, let us say, supported the Baltic Appeal 1979, which demanded an end to Soviet occuppation and publishing MRP secret protocols by the USSR?--Constanz - Talk 14:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you please note which kind of Soviet repressions in the Baltics were then condemned by the anti-USSR VPK? Before you delete my obviously clear notice that they were hypocrites, when they condemned continuosly right-wing governments thousands of km-s away, while closing their eye before what happened next to them -- pls answer me on the isse.
PK leaders had contacts with oppositionals in DDR. VPK believed in dialogue with the East European parties, and was a strong advocate of reform within the Socialist Bloc. If only you could be more specific, did they communicate with dissidents like Enn Tarto, Aleksandr Solzhenisyn and Andrey Sakharov or 'Stasi dissidents' like Gregor Gysi? Which reforms did they propose -- suggested using less torture, and suggested giving more Volkskammer seats to DDR puppet parties, yeah? --Constanz - Talk16:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Why would they communicate with Solzhenitsyn? Is anyone not endorsing him per definition a Stalinist? How popular is he in Russia today?
Suggestions of reforms dealt with proposals to liberalize press laws, non-interference in other states (like czechoslovakia, afghanistan, poland), to address enviromental issues, etc.
These notions are rather general. Did they propose abolishing censorship for example? Legalising political opposition movements? Definitely not. Non-interference is also a bit dubious word, for SU interfered permanently into the internal matters of Eastern bloc and without it, this bloc would have ceased to exist very quickly. I think the VPK only rejected the most pure forms of aggression, military invasion.--Constanz - Talk16:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
About the contacts between DDR dissidents and VPK leaders, there is one interesting detail in UG. When Lars Werner was asked about contacts with SED, Werner answers but then goes on to talk about his contacts with oppositionals. Then, I'm the middle of the sentence the scene is cut. That was obviously not a subject of public interest to the makers of UG. The exact quantities of beer drunk by Werner at the DDR embassy was, however, of extreme importance.
Moreover, don't insult yourself. You know very well that 'hypocritic' cannot be NPOV at wikipedia, no matter the circumstance. As to the bahviour of the Swedish communist party and the situation in USSR, there is an issue of the 'bunker mentality' of the party. The party permanently considered itself as being under attack (a perception founded in the fact that the party was virtually completly isolated in Swedish politics for decades, and subject to state persecutions), and thus denounced any criticism of the USSR as imperialist/fascist lies. A consideration that wasn't easened by the rhetoric of the Swedish right-wing, that frequently made statements about the USSR to which there were no proofs (see image for graphic example). --Soman20:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)ReplyFile:Sverigeskvinnor.jpgSwedish right-wing poster from 1928. Women beening sold as merchandise by bolshevik functionaries
and thus denounced any criticism of the USSR as imperialist/fascist lies. it seems that we've reached consesus here (if you want, you may add in the article, that consideration wasn't easened by the rhetoric of the Swedish right-wing,. --Constanz - Talk15:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
RfC
Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This is a right decision. The main dispute seems to be whether it is allowed
1.to include criticism from opposing parties (all except for VP, thus the latter's POV is that of minority)
2.is it appropriate to refer to VPK stance on USSR totalitarian regime (in fact apologetics of it)
3.is it right to emphasise that during the Cold War Swedish communists condemned West for 'undemocratic acts', 'violating human rights', 'waging wars' and 'oppressing their people' (yes, having read tens of politics books from Soviet era, I can imagine their zealous fight against 'US imperialism', 'Israeli aggression', and support for the 'just cause of the colonised Namibia and Palestine' etc) -- VPK doing this, while remaining admirers of the Soviet bloody totalitarian regime (their neigbour next door, so to say) and ideology with the highest number of victims.
If Soman says something doesn't suit to this or that section then of course criticism section is available as well (nevertheless s/he was continously removing text from criticism section, be it the text added by me or User:Itake) --Constanz - Talk15:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm not against having a criticism section as such, but I think the section should correspond to a summary of contemporary mainstream criticism against the party. It should not become a slushbucket of every negative comment raised against the party that is availible on the web. It should not just be copypaste of right-wing blogs, sources that does not separate facts from mere speculations.
A reasonale division of content could be criticism on relations with state-bearing parties in Socialist Bloc (relating to the latter part of the Cold War, which is the main focus for media discussion), economic policy and internal dissent (VVV, etc.). I possible disposition would be approx 40-40-20%.
The goal of the article cannot be to state a specific political agenda. Constanz may well feel that VPK were hypocrits in their international policy. That does, however, not entitle him to insert accusations in the main article in an unencyclopediatic manner.
Regarding Constanz's point nr. 3, I beleive that it is a problematic feature for the discussion. Constanz assumes, based on general dislike of Communism, that VPK has taken certain stands etc., without backing up material. The history of the Swedish party has its specific characteristics, and cannot be understood without also addressing material relating to its own history. It did, as previously mentioned, not have identical policies on Palestine as CPSU did in the 1960s. --Soman17:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Swedish Communists' stance on human rights situation in the USSR
Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I maintain that the passage on Sweden's relation to the Baltics doesn't belong in this article. This article is about one specific party, and it is impossible to list all issues and countries the party didn't take a stand on. However, I feel that it is appropriate to make some comments here:
VPK had a different relationship to the Soviet Union than the rest of Swedish political scene. The comments on 'Olof Palme school' doesn't really fit into the article. Note that VPK and Olof Palme did not have any good relationship. Although Palme was pursuing progressive agendas on the international arena, he was essentially an anticommunist. Palmes mother came from a Latvian aristocratic family, and Palme had a very antagonistic relationship to the Swedish communists.
Sweden's relationship to the Baltics has to be seem at the backdrop of the 2nd world war. Sweden was, although formally neutral, essentially an Axis ally. After the war the country was left with a moral deficit. Moreover all parliamentary parties, except the communists, had taken part in the wartime government. Thus the moral dilema was thus shared amongst the political elite. There was generally no will to question the USSR on the Baltic question, as the Baltic states were perceived as having been on the German side in the war.
Constanz claims that it is hypocrisy that VPK criticized human rights abuses in other corners of the world, whereas not crtiticizing human rights abuses in its geographical vicinity. However, there are other perspective on this. Geographic distance is not the only distance. One should not underestimate the effects of the Iron Curtain. What happened on the other side of it was not a mainstream discussion, and one did not have any high expectations in general. Sweden perceived itself as part of the western world. When the Vietnam War (or rather said the American Vietnam War) the absolute majority of Swedes sympathized with the American side. When news came out that the white, democratic USA was capable of exterminating entire villages, turning entire rural areas into concentration camps, etc., it was a traumatic shock, that caused a stern reaction. The South Africa issue was in many ways similar. USA was not 'far away' in the mental map for most Swedes, but Moscow was.
If you point out VKP's difference from the other Swedish parties on USSR matters - then naturally I may refer in the article to VKP's special position of criticising constantly 'world imperialism' and its 'appalling crimes', while on the other hand (let's keep balance!) being apologists of a totalitarian regime with as well as no human rights. That's my point.
And I haven't heard anything so far of Soman's declared 'VPK supporting dissidents in USSR' and Swedish commies condemning human right abuses (--not in 'capitalist hell' but in 'commie paradise'). --Constanz - Talk
On one hand, the article as it is doesn't really hide the relations between the party and the Soviet Union. On the other, writing what the party which issues that a group has not taken stands on can, by the nature of the question, not be presented in an NPOV way. One could compare with the fact that Moderate Party for decades refused to condemn the apartheid regime in South Africa (their youth wing was the only one not taking part in the 'Isolate South Africa Campaign'), etc. --Soman17:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Moderate Party for decades refused to condemn the apartheid regime in South Africa yes, there's no reason why one shouldn't note the fact in the corresponding article. Nevertheless, i'm inclined to think that Moderates and Liberals were much more willing to criticise certain bourgois regimes, than were the Swedish communists willing to criticises communist regimes (which were all totalitarian without a single exception).--Constanz - Talk09:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ideology section
Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
There are only two sentences in the article that explicitly describe the party's ideology; meanwhile, a whole section is devoted to criticism. Forget the row over the criticism section for a bit; this article needs an ideology section, so readers will actually know what specific values/motives are being criticized. Since I don't have the time, would anyone else care to start up the section? -- Cheers -- WGee01:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
For someone who has referred to the Left Party (which you call the VPK) and its analogues as "commieparties", perhaps you should be a bit more humble in your accusations of bias. Also, please remember that neutrality is subjective; thus, NPOV disputes will naturally arise. Accusing one of intentionally promoting a POV (whether true or not) is not the best way to deal with such disputes, however. -- WGee01:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
who has referred to the Left Party and its analogues as "commieparties", Fortunately not in any article, i think. There's no point in disguising one's belief in talk. i'm politically incorrect, hence i tend to use such short forms (e.g nazi pro national socialist etc).--Constanz - Talk08:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well, "Nazi" is an accepted term in political science, whereas "commieparties" is a propagandistic term of yours, so there's definitely a difference between these two "short forms". Anyway, back to the matter at hand: is anyone (who can read Swedish, of course) willing to create an Ideology section? -- WGee22:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Recent erasures by Soman
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
1.Well, it looks like a massive campaign of concealing some aspects of VP has begun. Removing communist crimes/anti-communist section as a whole (do it once more, and i'll list it as vandalism)
2.Is it that Soman believes to have the right to decide which article may be disputed and which not (removal of NPOV tag, when dispute is obvious, I think Cosntanz + Itake against Soman)--Constanz - Talk17:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Please remain civil. And before you decide, out of anger, to report Soman as a vandal, please read Wikipedia's vandalism policy, which clearly states that NPOV violations are not vandalism. Also, what "entire sections" are you talking about, exactly? -- WGee20:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
NPOV concerns in "Criticism" section
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
While I wait for a Swedish-speaking Wikipedian to create an ideology section, I will interject my opinion on the Criticism section.
This whole section is a mess, to be honest. Virtually all of the claims, inferences, and arguments in this section are unsourced and are liable to be deleted as per Wikipedia's original research policy. Also, there are a lot of "weasel phrases" and POV terms in this section, which also harm the its neutrality. Although there is no need to (since almost the whole section is orginal research, as of now), I will list my most prominent concerns:
1. The Left party permanently considered itself as being under attack (a perception founded in the fact that the party was virtually completly isolated in Swedish politics for decades), and thus denounced any criticism of the USSR as imperialist/fascist lies, a consideration that wasn't easened by the rhetoric of the Swedish right-wing.
According to whom, the person who inserted this sentence? Needs sources.
2. The party chairman Lars Ohly used to be a member of the Swedish-Cuban Friedship Association of which Eva Björklund is a member aswell, an organisation notorious for their support of the regime on Cuba. The party is frequently criticised for their stance towards Israel and terrorism, and the party's youth organisation has funded a terrorist movement (PFLP) in the middle-east.
Am I supposed to believe this without any sources?
3. In difference to several other major political forces in Sweden, the Left Party does not possess any major media outlets of its own.
The media outlets that are "possesed" by other political forces should be explained in detail and with sources.
4. Criticism against the party is continuously raised in the mainstream media.
Is it? This sounds like it could be the opinion of one editor.
5. Despite some past criticism on the Soviet Union and other former communist regimes, VP does neither approve condemning communist ideology, under which banner all the crimes were committed, nor the past Communist totalitarian regimes itself.
Such a statement must be sourced, and is not written in a NPOV. Also, despite the misinformation spread in the West, the Soviet Union was not "communist", but a self-declared socialist state. Please read the article on communism to learn why the Soviet Union was not communist. This language has to be cleaned up to make it more accurate and neutral.
6. On behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left (which was unanimously against the resolution), Mats Einarsson, representative of VP condemned the resolution brought before Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).
The goal of the resolution and its premises ahould be explained in brief. Also, MR. Einarsson said: "There have been massive violations of human rights in states ruled by parties and regimes that claimed to be communist. That should be condemned, as should the massive violations of human rights in the name of democracy, freedom, Christianity or civilisation." Meanwhile, the above paragraph says that the VP does not condemn the regimes of Communist parties. Such contradictories are commonplace in original research.
7. This, however, is regarded a peculiar statement, as Nazist ideology was once criminalised exactly due to crimes the Nazi regime committed. Furthermore, communist ideology has been regarded as violent and undemocratic in nature by Western mainstream economic and political scientists.
This is obviously the opinion of one editor (i.e. orginal research). First of all, Nazism is the ideology invented by Hitler and his associates, so of course the crimes of Hitler's regime represent Nazism. Stalin, Lenin, etc., on the other hand, did not invent socialism or communism. Therefore, the first sentece of the preceding expert is nothing more than the non-sensible opinion of one editor. Moreover, which mainstream economists and political scientists consider communism (the ideology, and not the "Communist Party" regimes of the 20th century) undemocratic and violent? All of them? Needless to say, such a suggestion is ludicrous.
All of the original research in this section should really be removed immediately. For now, however, I will simply insert the appropriate banners and give you two a suitable amount of time to clean up the section (in case you actually have sources readily available). But if no progress is being made, I will delete the unsourced work, and perhaps an editor can keep a draft of the section on the talk page, where editors can propose changes.
Furthermore, with regards to the rest of the article, In-text citations can be made using the preferred FNCite.php system, so readers can associate facts and assertions with particular publications. Otherwise, it is difficult to decipher what is original research and what isn't.
