Talk:Citizens' Coalition

Pov

The corresponding article on svwp has been declarad as not being Notable and also been seen as POV as no reliable third party sources exist. See sv:Diskussion:Medborgerlig Samling (2014)Yger (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Note that this is heavily contested in those discussions. Google turns up about 23k hits on the party: https://www.google.se/search?source=hp&q=%22medborgerlig+samling%22&oq=%22medborgerlig+samling%22 It has about 1200 members and increasing. I am affiliated with the party, but these statements should be objective enough. Hmc1282171021 (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

It is only contested by a number of New acocunts. None of the experienced editors beleives it is notable enough (yet).Yger (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I have been here for over 11 years, believe that it is notable enough, and that it seems to be a much needed influx of non-partisan reason and rationality into Swedish politics.

Speaking of which, here is a notable newspaper article about the party that can be referenced by the Wikipedia page: http://www.expressen.se/ledare/susanna-birgersson/medborgerlig-samling-sa-sansade-att-de-inte-syns-/

Also, it is not in your interests either to attempt to shut down public awareness regarding the party's existence, given that it serves a long-term function of taking away votes from the Sweden Democrats, as a far less suspicious alternative for people who are tired of political correctness taken to Orwellian thought crime extremes. David A (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I was talking of the 8-12 new account that has occured on svwp to just discuss this issue~. And the link you refer to is not an analysis of the party.Yger (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Nevertheless, as I mentioned above, canvassing for likeminded people in order to shut down public awareness of the party does not serve either your personal interests, those of the democratic process, or Swedish politics as a whole. You are taking an irrational approach to this issue. David A (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

...and you are talking politics instead of relevance. Dnm (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I am saying that given the constantly increasing massive amounts of crime and other social problems (355000 elderly in poverty, lack of social security even for gravely disabled, falling education and health care standards, widespread Islamism, etcetera) following the enormous immigration to Sweden from the 3rd world, it is inevitable that the parties that openly talk about said problems and promise to do something about them will continuously grow, no matter how much the Orwellian censorship and thought crime advocates attempt to stop it.

Currently we have to choose between the Sweden Democrats, who have an extremely suspicious history, and the Citizens' Coalition, who are not privately any more extreme than the sentiments that they are openly advocating.

As such, it is in Sweden's best long-term interest to allow awareness of a party that can counteract the Sweden Democrats, and play well with the traditional alternatives. From a rational perspective, your combined efforts to shut them up are strongly playing against your own interests, and it would be much preferable to search for news articles and other references to improve the quality of this page rather than delete it outright. David A (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yet again You are talking politics and not relevance. Your personal print of view on the swedish immigration policies and effect there of is of no interest. You can advocate the party elsewere, maybe a personal blogg would be suitable. This is a encyklopedia, not a party pamflette. Beside the point, your statements about the effects of the immigration is wrong, at least if you read the official statistics. Dnm (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Personal interest or Swedish interest is not relevant here, only Wikipedias interest. Does an article about a new, smakl and yet uninfluencial political party gain the encyclopedia or is it only an atempt from party members and officials to gain publicity? /Esquilo (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The only reason for this articles existence is to use it as an argument for the inclusion of an article at SvWP. Le Lapin Vert (talk) 23:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

A number of news articles with information to improve upon the page

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/varmland/kdu-s-ordforande-avgar

http://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/varmland/borgerliga-alltfor-vanstervridna

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article22244247.ab

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/halland/uteslutningshotade-moderater-haller-presskonferens?

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/ost/rolf-k-nilsson-lamnar-moderaterna

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/skane/risken-ar-att-det-blir-kattskit-av-alltihop

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/halland/laholms-kommun-jo-anmals

http://www.laholmstidning.se/2017/02/17/de-har-kickat-igang-valrorelsen-till-2018/

http://www.laholmstidning.se/2017/03/20/partier-kommer-overklaga-till-forvaltningsratten/

http://www.laholmstidning.se/2017/02/01/vildar-far-flytta-till-eget-horn/

http://www.laholmstidning.se/2017/02/02/nytt-forsok-fa-bort-kahlin/

http://www.laholmstidning.se/2017/08/26/kahlin-har-gjort-allt-vad-jag-kunnat/

http://www.laholmstidning.se/2017/03/20/forskoleprotest-i-ranneslov/

http://www.hallandsposten.se/nyheter/laholm/ingen-extern-utredning-av-läckta-personakter-1.4674176

http://www.hallandsposten.se/nyheter/laholm/politiker-vill-stötta-visselblås-1.4601307

http://www.hallandsposten.se/nyheter/laholm/mikael-kahlin-jo-anmäler-laholms-kommun-1.4583325

http://www.hallandsposten.se/nyheter/laholm/kahlin-kommunen-mörklägger-1.4570611

http://www.hallandsposten.se/nyheter/laholm/oppositionen-pratar-ihop-sig-inför-valet-1.4371575

http://www.hallandsposten.se/nyheter/laholm/kommunråd-kräver-besked-från-kahlin-1.4180639

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=128&artikel=6641722

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=128&artikel=6641100

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/skane/smapartierna-vinner-mark-i-skane

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/svtforum/alliansen-utmanas?

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=93&artikel=6370525

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=112&artikel=6473769

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=159&artikel=6473265

http://www.dagensopinion.se/josefin-utas-tar-plats-borgerlig-framtids-partistyrelse

http://www.dagensopinion.se/moderaterna-som-borgerlig-framtid-värvat-över

http://www.dagensopinion.se/c-och-sd-avhopp-ger-borgerlig-framtid-plats-fullmäktige

http://www.dagensopinion.se/borgerlig-framtid-värvar-värmlands-kdu-bas

http://www.dagensopinion.se/borgerlig-framtid-vill-ha-finsk-läroplikt

http://www.dagensopinion.se/borgerlig-framtid-tvingas-byta-namn-maktstrid

http://www.dagensopinion.se/borgerlig-framtid-så-skapar-vi-riktigt-jobbskapande-näringspolitik

http://www.dagensopinion.se/de-hoppade-c-och-m-borgerlig-framtid

http://www.dagensopinion.se/borgerlig-framtid-sprider-svenska-våren

http://www.dagensopinion.se/borgerlig-framtid-hottar-upp-både-sajten-och-partiprogrammet

http://www.dagensopinion.se/sveriges-nya-parti-medborgerlig-samling

http://www.dagensopinion.se/moderaternas-konkurrent-vi-växer-så-knakar

http://www.dagensopinion.se/de-startar-konkurrent-till-moderaterna

http://www.dagensopinion.se/nystartat-parti-ställer-upp-riksdagsvalet

http://www.dagensopinion.se/medborgerlig-samling-jo-anmäler-myndigheten-samhällsskydd-och-beredskap

http://www.dagensopinion.se/politiskt-parti-sällar-sig-till-jo-anmälarna-mot-svenska-institutet

http://makthavare.se/2017/07/03/de-ar-smapartierna-som-krigar-om-utrymmet-i-visby/

http://makthavare.se/2016/02/11/utas-outas-lamnar-miljopartiet-for-borgerlig-framtid/

http://makthavare.se/2015/04/27/borgerlig-framtid-vill-utmana-alliansen-och-sd/

Politics that the party advocates:

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/halland/stora-planer-for-nya-partiet?

https://www.svt.se/opinion/wallgren-malmberg-lenke-om-jarva

https://www.svt.se/opinion/nya-vapendirektivet-ogenomtankt-symbolpolitik?

https://www.svt.se/opinion/jamstalldhet-ar-inte-detsamma-som-likhet

https://www.svt.se/opinion/svar-till-spf-seniorerna

http://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/debatt-kvp/forhandla-inte-bort-rattsstaten/

http://www.expressen.se/debatt/detta-sager-nagonting-sorgligt-om-var-tid/

http://www.expressen.se/debatt/freda-landslagen-fran-sana-har-pr-jippon/

http://www.expressen.se/debatt/sd-kommer-att-fa-minst-25-procent-2018/

http://www.expressen.se/debatt/ingenting-forskonas-nar-allt-politiseras/

http://www.aftonbladet.se/debatt/a/84yP1/toppuppdragen-gar-till-regeringstrogna

http://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/debatt-kvp/minska-utjamnings-bidraget-till-malmo/

http://www.expressen.se/debatt/vilka-grupper-ska-det-lagstiftas-om-harnast/

http://www.expressen.se/debatt/konskvotering-ar-inte-jamstalldhet/

http://www.expressen.se/debatt/mp-har-forlorat-sin-sjal--nu-lamnar-jag-partiet/

http://www.expressen.se/debatt/bojkotten-av-sd-far-inte-ga-fore-allt-annat/

http://www.expressen.se/gt/ledare/debatt-krafttag-mot-skottlossningar-nu/

http://www.expressen.se/debatt/slang-inte-bidrag-efter-privata-klubbar-1/

http://www.expressen.se/debatt/dags-att-satta-stopp-for-roffarmentaliteten/

http://www.expressen.se/debatt/vad-bidrar-jag-med-som-en-man-inte-kan/

http://www.gp.se/nyheter/debatt/politisk-korruption-har-blivit-vardagsmat-1.4382139

David A (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Even though it does not matter, I find it quite interesting that this account posts this list at the same time the MED party-user does it. The campagn through lite of accounts linked go the party continues their effort... and the links are fört the Most part opinion articles written by the party itself. Bad sources. Dnm (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

David A likely copied it from the list I made here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Citizens%27_Coalition&oldid=803110398 which would be, what? 15 minutes before I posted the original list? Also, the first 45 links are plain news articles that I submitted (and David A posted here), The following 21 opinion pieces are labeled as such and there is no attempt to pass them off as anything else, regardless of what you claim Dnm. Your attempt to discredit people is just like what happened on SvWiki where you had some of the admins support you: "Only MED supporters could argue for a page for MED, consequently anyone who argues for a page must be a MED supporter". According to that reasoning, the only ones who are neutral are the ones who agree with you. Everyone else can be dismissed as party supporter or at least sympathizer. Here is a suggestion: instead of complaining about how biased the article is: make it less biased! Pure facts can't be biased can they? Merely acknowledging the fact that the party exists can hardly be "biased information"... or?. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, improve on the article (using statements that is supported by neutral references of course!). Have fun! Hmc1282171021 (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I have not discredit anyone on SvWP, but i must be honest that I have grown really tired of your campangn against SvWP. Besides that I find it funny that your party finds Wikipedia that important for your party in the election campangn. From a relevance point if view, I think that show how insignificant you are at the moment. Wikipedia is not a plattform for politics, please respect that. But improve your article if you think you are relevant. I do not think it is relevant and therefor i wont "improve" it. That is your job. Keep in mind that opinion articles make bad sources and does not show relevance. Dnm (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I copied the list of news articles after I saw it in my watchlist, yes. David A (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Several other persons have already worked on the article changing it over time. Me, or anyone affiliated with the party could be considered biased in some way or the other, consequently we won't change it – that has to be done by others. What I've simply been doing is to refute your claims about the party, claims that you have failed to show any support for, whereas I – on the other hand – have been able to back it up with proof. My interest here is simply to ensure that the facts are right and that no-one makes up lies about the party. If the page remains or not is not up to me, I simply wish things to be based on facts rather than made up stories. As for the SvWiki situation, it's a bit more complex, since there is a "Medborgerlig Samling" page that people mistakenly take as somehow being connected to us, and SvWiki-admins adamantly refusing any clarification. Even the line "There also exists a party with the same name, founded in 2014" was deemed too much of an "advertisement" for the party. Hmc1282171021 (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

So all of this is apparently politically motivated censorship then. The responsible admins of the Swedish Wikipedia do not seem very professional or NPOV in their work, if that is the case. David A (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, this is how this totally unimportant party stacks up in social media: http://www.lgwallmark.com/2017/10/partikommunikation-i-sociala-medier-september-2017/ – this doesn't prove relevance or anything. Just might be interesting Hmc1282171021 (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

What is the actual facts being disputed?

Since this was marked POV by Paradisets portar it would be useful to know exactly what's disputed? Hmc1282171021 (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I wonder that as well. David A (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The first two parapraphs simmply do not use a neutral language in describing the party and its policies, and read more like an advertisement. What does "responsible environmental politics" entail? Do MED have a party line of "constructive criticism"? Who describes their policies as "sensible"? What does it mean to "carefully manage" the Nordic welfare system? Et cetera. Paradisets portar (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Paradisets portar I suggest you just edit it. For what it's worth I don't think it's good either – and I'm affiliated with the party. A simple, neutral introduction would be better in my opinion, so cutting away about 90% in that introduction would be something I'd completely endorse. For obvious reasons I avoid editing this article, so I can only hope for someone else to do it. In my personal opinion the first sentence would be sufficient, ie: "Citizens' Coalition (Swedish: Medborgerlig Samling, MED) (alt.: Borgerlig Framtid) is a green liberal-conservative political party in Sweden.". Any comment on the politics could be expanded in "Ideology and political positions" but if anything is added it should be kept neutral. Anyone interested in the party's politics can visit the party's website – there's absolutely no need to elaborate on political standpoints. Hmc1282171021 (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm taking a shot at NPOV-ing the article. I'll remove the sentence "The party has been described as "too reasonable to be heard", and their method of constructive criticism pared with sensible policies, as coming second to Parties exploiting more sensational issues." It's WP:UNDUE (i.e. not "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources") as partly unsourced and partly taken from an opinion piece by what the paper calls an independent columnist. The part about criticism and sensible policies isn't supported by the sources.

I'll ask for clarification on some point and remove WP:PEACOCK words.

I'll tweak the politics para some. I change "removing marginal taxes" to "abolishing state taxes on income", since marginal tax always exists as long as there's income tax. I also changed the part about standard deduction to the actual amount. I read the business policy program and it doesn't support the existing text about living off your wage.

Finally, I'll rewrite the text about registering the name with the Election Authority. There's nothing special or "succesful" in collecting the required number of signatures and filing the paperwork, after which the registration is virtually guaranteed. Also, a party doesn't have to be registered to take part in the elections, but the registration does protect the name. Sjö (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmc1282171021 The problem is that my searching yielded no impartial sources even for "green liberal-conservative". The external sources merely state the party's ideology (when they do so at all) as "right-wing". Ex.: Kahlin och Klinker lämnar M för annat parti Paradisets portar (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The most straightforward should be what the party states that they are, since that is what the members voted for and expect Idéprogram, is there any dispute in regards to the party's ideology as opposed to what's stated? If they are not liberal conservative, what would they be? Newspapers usually report the stated party ideology as in articles like these Nya partier siktar på Riksdagen. It's actually rare that an analysis of a party's ideology is dissected by third parties. Look at how Liberala Partiet, Piratpartiet etc none of them have third party references to their ideology – sources are all the party's own documents. Consequently that should be sufficient. Hmc1282171021 (talk) 12:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Hmc that it should be used in lack of better options. David A (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Paradisets portar Here is a SVT article which conclusively states the party as being liberal conservative (if there ever was any doubt) Hmc1282171021 (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Paradisets portar I note that the article has been edited a lot since you put in your note. Any reason to keep it still? Hmc1282171021 (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that it can probably be removed. David A (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that it's too early. There are still POV statements that Paradisets portar and I have objected to. See e.g. Paradisets portar's first edit in this section. Sjö (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing to support the abolishion of state tax in the party program or any other source, marginal tax however is something that they want to remove in favour of a flat tax rate. There's no direct link betwen income tax and marginal taxation, a.k.a progressive taxation. I'll rephrase to "flat tax rate" and re-add the section on marginal taxation.Possible Declaration (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Abolishing the state tax is right there in two of the sources in the section: "slopande av den statliga inkomstskatten"="abolition of state taxes on income". But the sources say nothing about a flat tax rate or the marginal taxes (which exist even with a flat rate). If the party has a new position on taxes they haven't put it on their website yet. Sjö (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Not radical right wing

For some reason the people are pushing that the party should be considered radical right wing. Aside from a few early references in 2018, dismissing the party as "populist", there is about zero reason – judging from the actual politics they are promoting – to characterize tha party as such. A label in passing does not make for a reliable analysis.

IF the references actually had tried to analyse the politics of the party, then that would have had been at least some evidence for the fact. That's not the case here. Instead what's referenced is an offhand remark in an opinion piece by a left wing tabloid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmc1282171021 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

We now have a WP:RS calling it as much (The European and Russian Far Right as Political Actors: Comparative Approach). At the risk of treading in WP:OR territory, we can also look at MED's party program where we will find policy proposals quite similar to SD's and AfS', including:

• characterizing Muslim immigration as a demographic threat and a threat against Swedish democracy
• calls to ban public (Muslim) prayer. This despite MED also claiming to be pro free speech and pro free assembly
• wanting to abolish the anti hate speech law (HMF)
• wanting the Swedish military to act as police, including considering "members of terrorist organizations" to be legitimate military targets
• repatriation
• criminalizing helping paperless migrants, as well as denying healthcare to said migrants

In light of this I see no reason to doubt the present source characterizing the party as far-right, given its similarity to other parties also characterized thusly. KetchupSalt (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

There are two problems with the source that make it problematic to include - let's think of WP:ONUS here. First problem is that the source you bring up does not in fact elaborate on why the party would be far-right. This is usually not required, but in the case where you have someone actually questioning the reason behind such classification, it would be. Plus there is another problem...

The another problem is that the source does appear questionable. Why? Let's take a look at what parties it also classified as far-right - The Brexit Party, Traditional Unionist Voice, Norwegian People's Party, and the Finnish Seven Star Movement. None of these are classified as far-right on Wikipedia. This is particularly important because there WAS a debate on this regarding the Brexit Party, and a clear consensus was made that the party is not far-right. Subsequent attempts at this also produced a clear consensus against this move. Meanwhile, the Finnish Seven Star Movement is... centre-right.

As for your analysis, I think the problem with this approach is that it would be WP:OR. If you can find me proof that the way political scientists classify a party as far-right is by finding 6 random similarities between their program and the program of two parties commonly considered far-right, then you have made your case. Otherwise it strikes me as a bit, well, desperate. Brat Forelli🦊 13:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Bourgeois Future

That might look like a good translation of "Borgerlig framtid", but it isn't, even though it's literally correct. "Bourgeois" is a class term. "Borgerlig" does not connote "bourgeois" in a Swedish political context, it means "center-right". Traditionally all the center-right parties from the Liberals (mild conservatives) to the Moderates (conservatives) have been called "borgerlig". A typical "borgerlig" politician in Sweden would have views roughly corresponding to center-right Democrats in the US. 2A02:AA1:101C:C6F8:E5BB:CACA:4BD7:54B4 (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

"Borgerlig" does not connote "bourgeois" in a Swedish political context

It literally does. The bourgeois parties serve bourgeois interests. It is of course amusing that they have adapted the moniker for themselves, but that is just grädde på moset. KetchupSalt (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)