Talk:Sweden-bashing

This article was submitted for deletion

This article Sweden-bashing has been submitted for deletion. The discussion page is Articles for deletion Sweden-bashing.

I replaced my edits with the draft submitted by (talk) on the Articles for deletion Sweden-bashing page.

My edits, while well-intentioned, were not adding in a positive way to the discussion about this article.Oceanflynn (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

For comparison, the original article creating by User:Liftarn before I began editing was as below:

Sweden-bashing is a political strategy used by people, usually politicians of some form, outside Sweden to strengthen their domestic purposes or to hinder Swedish diplomacy. The reason is often that the US view Sweden as a socialist country that can not be allowed to be successful. Later on Sweden became the symbol of everything republicans think is wrong with Europe: feminism, environmentalism, openness to refugees and back in the 1970s, resistance to the Vietnam war. Conservatives may also because they don't want an example that there may be a trade-off between economic efficiency and equity.

History

In the 1950s US journalists described the "Swedish sin" as a problem in the Cold War and came with false statements about alcoholism, suicide rate and divorce rate. Sweden-bashing was also used in the 1960s election between Eisenhower and John F Kennedy. The Sweden-bashing geared up in 1976 when Time reported about the "surreal Swedish socialism". During the 1980s Sweden-bashing intensified and the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs described it as the "1984 reports". The reports was usually based in anecdotes, but became popular in the United States.

Also see

• Last Night in Sweden

References

References

Category:Politics of Sweden Category:Politics of the United States Category:Anti-national sentiment

POV

User:Factchecker atyourservice seem to think the version supported by reliable sources in some way is POV, but refuses to tell why. Please explain. // Liftarn (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I've explained why and I'm not alone.

This is silly. There was wide consensus at the deletion discussion that your article was badly written and generally violated policy, yet you remained oblivious to those comments, kept editing aggressively in the same fashion while the discussion was underway and now the result is that the article is an even larger mess pushing an extremely niche concept propounded by a few social scientists as generally accepted fact. It's littered with weaselly claims about unexplained criticisms made by unidentified commentators. On top of that it's in horrible English and littered with opaque and probably meaningless jargon. What exactly is "Sweden-bashing is a genre used in the discourse about Sweden" supposed to mean?

I've made patient talk page appeals. I've spent a goodly chunk of my own time on a rewritten and vastly improved draft of your original attempt, thereby trying to show you what a well-written article on this subject would look like, using careful attribution and qualification of language to limit the scope of what is being claimed to something short of this concept reflects God's own universal truth. I've tried to use tags to illustrate problems with the way you're writing the article. I've been met with reverts and stonewalling. At this point I have to ask, did the two of you even bother reading the comments at the deletion discussion? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 17:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Factchecker. David A (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The edits you made pushed an extreme POV not found in any of the sources and totally misrepresents the subject. Edits are welcome, but please refrain from putting your own opinions into the article and base it on what reliable sources say. // Liftarn (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

How is this POV? I thought that it was far less slanted, and more matter-of-fact than the alternative. David A (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Because it's not based on one editors personal opinion rather than what the sources say. It would be like saying ""Anti-semitism" refers to a perception among some observers that Jews is subjected to unfair criticism" instead of giving the facts. A more balanced intro would be "Sweden-basing is a term for a political tactic mainly used in the United States..." and then go on to describe how it is used. // Liftarn (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not an expression of WP editor views to present a narrowly held subjective opinion as a narrowly held subjective opinion. That's required by policy.

It is very, very well-established that hatred of Jews exists and is called Anti-Semitism. It is not well-established that criticism of Swedish socioeconomic policies is a "political tactic". So your suggested alternative is deeply inappropriate because it presents the highly subjective theories of a few commentators as if they were widely accepted fact, without any basis in sourcing. Just because a source makes a claim, and just because the claim deserves to be discussed in a WP article, does not mean that Wikipedia should promulgate that claim in its own editorial voice.

Have you read the policies regarding use of Wikipedia's editorial voice and attribution of non-factual claims? They make it clear we should not write leads the way you suggest. Have you also read the comments at the deletion discussion? I want a clear yes/no answer at this point because you just don't seem to get it. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

According to the sources it is an established term for the political tactic. If you want it to claim that it isn't well-established I suggest you first find some reliable sources saying that and then come back here. // Liftarn (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

You're presenting opinions in factual language; doing your own research of primary sources in an effort to find evidence confirming the claims;misrepresenting sources by presenting incidents or commentary as evidence supporting this theory even though the sources don't say anything of the sort; you're doing silly sourcing tricks like repeatedly inserting, over objection, duplicate citations to a single NY Times Magazine article in an apparent effort to dress the article up with things that look like citations to academic sources; you're even grossly taking sides in a dispute, presenting one newspaper's claim that another newspaper's op-ed contained false claims in dry factual language, in outrageous violation of the convention and rule that the dispute should be identified and the views attributed.

And then your paragraph about Trump's comments on Sweden contains completely unsourced claims that appear to be outright false—you say that Trump "repeated false allegations from a Fox cable news report", but the sourcing doesn't say that, and the claim appears to be BS. You've been removing tags requesting a claim be explained, identified, attributed, etc., leaving the objected-to weaselly vagueness in place. In short this article is grossly in violation of multiple core policies from beginning to end, it is not written well or dispassionately or in an encyclopedic tone, and you're showing nothing but hostile indifference to all mention of that.

Once again I remind you the consensus was that the article needed to be rewritten to correct existing problems, not enlarged without fixing the problems. The admin closed it acknowledging that it might have to be deleted if the rewrite did not occur. I don't want that, I just want you to write a good and informative article instead of a bad and misleading one. Could you please acknowledge the comments and concerns of myself and others who have come to the discussion? Factchecker_atyourservice 22:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Please be more specific. I'm not the only one involved in this article, but everything I've entered have been based on what reliable sources say. I have presented facts as facts, while you seem to want to present facts as opinions and that is simply not acceptable. If you have any problems with the article I kindly ask you to be specific about it and give examples. // Liftarn (talk) 07:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Trump's Sweden-bashing the source says "Donald Trump spreads "fake news" about Sweden in general- and Malmo in particular.". That he simply parroted what he heard on Fox does not appear to be sourced from that article, but we can probably find other sources for that. // Liftarn (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think that increasing the outrageous POV pushing is going to help resolve this dispute.

"Sweden-bashing is a term used for a rhetorical tactic in politic where you attempt to win domestic arguments by attacking Sweden"

Really, seriously, is that the kind of nonsense you now propose to add? Factchecker_atyourservice 16:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I still agree with Factchecker. David A (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

That is what WP:RS says. Like I said before. If you want to put something else in the article I suggest you first find some sources for it. // Liftarn (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Point me to some source text that supports that. Factchecker_atyourservice 06:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

For instance at [1] you try to change the definition from being about the word and how it is used to be about a "perception". We should define the term, not promote unfounded ideas that it is a "perception". // Liftarn (talk) 07:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

My description is a paraphrase of discussion taken from the Joakim Palmkvist/Olle Lonnaeus article, where the authors speculate on possible motives behind Israeli criticism of Swedish press laws:

One [possible reason for the criticism] is to gain domestic support. The other is to put pressure on Sweden as chairman of the European Union in advance of coming peace talks on the Palestinian conflict. The third alternative, that does not seem plausible, is that Israel really thinks that Carl Bildt and Fredrik Reinfeldt will give in to pressure, criticise the Aftonbladet article on organ theft and thus go against the constitution.

That is as close thing I have found to source text presenting a succinct definition. It'd be nice for us to have a definition but it has to have some basis in sourcing. That is why I asked you to point out some source text that would support a different definition, if you think it needs to be changed. Factchecker_atyourservice 13:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

According to WP:LEAD the introduction should summarise the entire article so it would be best to start with that. // Liftarn (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Summarizing an article that does not contain a sourced definition will not help us construct a sourced definition. If we want to try to do that, we're going to have a definition it must have some basis in sourcing. Palmkvist and Lonnaeus say things about Israel that would loosely support what I've currently got in the lead. Marklund is more explicit and identifies it as the view of Sweden "as both a model and a dangerous example of a welfare state." Your previous lead, in part, included that language. Would you favor using that Marklund quote as the definition?

Or if you don't want to deal with that now the lead could be expanded to summarize the article. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Most sources says it's about US politics so Israel is an outlier. Also from where do you source "a perception"? That is not in the sources. // Liftarn (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Tags

@Liftarn: could you summarize the issues that you think remain in the article, or point me to previous comments I may have missed? Factchecker_atyourservice 15:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned several times earlier you try to put things into the article that is not supported by any sources. Also the entire tone like "Sweden is subjected to unfair criticism by non-Swedes" what is the source for that? // Liftarn (talk)

Liftarn, all of your previous suggestions/attempts at wording this part of the article have resulted prose that ranged from badly written to false. Please say a few words about how you think the descriptions in the lead and article could be improved without straying from NPOV and the basic need to report views without endorsing them. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Factchecker. David A (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

See above, but one that is really obvious is "refers to a perception among some academics, journalists and Swedish government officials". This is both unsourced and pushed a very biased view of the subject. Like I said earlier it would be like wringing "Anti-Semitism is the perception from some persons...". Perhaps you should try to find a better way to phrase it rather than to blindly revert to your POV fork or the article. The intro should cover these facts:

• It is the name of a political tactic/rhetorical trick.
• Is is mainly used for internal US politics.
• The idea is to attack Sweden (for real or imaginary faults)

A key phrase is "Do you want to have it like in Sweden?"[2]

This offers an interesting idea about the root reasons, but I don't think it can go into the article as is don't explicitly mention Sweden bashing. // Liftarn (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Liftarn I've fairly reflected the source material you have previously brought to the table. Could you suggest some actual article text, with direct reference to quoted source language? I don't think you will find anything that clearly supports the first two of your three bullet points. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you please do the same. So far you have not been able to source your text to anything. As I see it you present a very biased view of the source material and some things looks entirely made up. Some better sourcing is badly needed. Ok, some key points from [3]

• "Fox News and Donald Trump's horror vision of Sweden are part of a propaganda tradition with roots in the Cold War."
• "The alleged drawbacks of Swedish society is a result of Sweden's alleged generous immigration policy and its alleged wholehearted embrace of multiculturalism. Equally implicitly: Do not do as the Swedes, then it is possible that in Sweden! The model has become a cautionary example."
• "But Sweden is a favorite of alt-right movement as Sweden's "openness" so long been seen as a positive role model by both the American "liberals" as well as progressives around the world."
• "But the current presentation of a a negative image of Sweden is a part of a long tradition of American conservative Sweden criticism."
• "But the distorted image of Sweden should not be swept under the rug as another result of the new media-oriented policy in which facts and relevance seem to be increasingly less important. It also reflects a more tense international political situation where "Sweden" once again - as in the past during the Cold War - seems to be about to begin to fill a special role in the global public opinion."

// Liftarn (talk) 08:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Even more statements by Carl Marklund — fine, but how do you think these contradict the article or show problems with it? Factchecker_atyourservice 17:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

So you still refuse to back up your version of the intro text with facts? I have shown the sections I used to make my version of the into text, now it's your turn. Because you didn't just made it up out of thin air, did you? // Liftarn (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Holy crap. The article as currently written was written by me and it fairly reflects the sources. If you disagree we need to talk about specifics. If you think the word "perception" reflects some Godawful NPOV problem, I've already asked you to suggest an alternative way of wording it. (I note your latest attempt was "Sweden-bashing is a term used for a rhetorical tactic in politic where you attempt to win domestic arguments by attacking Sweden" which I think even you must realize was deeply problematic.) You've posted a bunch of source quotes with no proposed article content and no suggestion as to how these pieces of source text show an inaccuracy or fix-able problem with the article text. Ranting in generalities can't help because it doesn't tell me what you want. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am perfectly aware that the current article is your POV fork of the original article. The text written by you does not reflect the sources and some of it is pure fabrication. I have suggested an into text that is more in line with what the sources say. I also not that you still haven't presented any source for the claims in your intro text while I have given the sources I used for mine. Please give reliable sources for your claims. Without sources to back it up with it can't go into the article. // Liftarn (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Since you're not being terribly forthcoming, at this point I have no choice but to assume you're referring again to the word "perception", and I've already asked you for alternative wording. How do you think it should be phrased?

Also what false or unsourced factual claims, or "pure fabrication", do you think are in the article at present? Factchecker_atyourservice 17:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The claim that it is a "perception among some academics, journalists and Swedish government officials" is both unsourced, extremely biased and really in your face so that may be a good place to start. A description more in line with what the sources say would be "is a term used for a rhetorical tactic in politics where you attempt to win domestic arguments by attacking Sweden". The wording is a bit clumsy, but at least is based on what the sources say. // Liftarn (talk) 06:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Obviously you need to post source language that you think supports that paraphrase, because I've read all the sources you've used and I don't think there's any language supporting that particular generalization. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I see that you still haven't presented any source that backs up your claim. As for my text is backed by reliable sources as you can see. Also this[4] that says "'Sweden bashing' is used as a way to strengthen the actor's or the disinformant's own, often domestic, purposes.". So where are your sources? // Liftarn (talk) 11:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, those statements would be the view of the "Swedish government officials" that the lead already refers to. You realize views are supposed to be attributed to those espousing them, rather than stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice, right? Factchecker_atyourservice 17:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any reason to believe the report is a lie? The report is a reliable source and thus it can be used directly without needlessly attributing it per WP:YESPOV where it says "Avoid stating facts as opinions". // Liftarn (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

A "lie"? I'm not sure what that would even mean. A politically loaded partisan statement just dripping with highly debatable value judgments? Yeah, it's that. The fact that this issue ebbs and flows depending on when Sweden's farthest-left party happens to be in power says quite a lot, doncha think? Carl Marklund himself notes that foreign criticisms of Sweden have found quite a receptive audience among Swedish conservatives. Go read YESPOV again beginning with the words "uncontested and uncontroversial". Factchecker_atyourservice 17:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to back up your claim that it is "a politically loaded partisan statement just dripping with highly debatable value judgments"? Do you have any reliable sources saying it's contested and/or controversial? You know, on Wikipedia you can't just make things up, but you must have reliable sources that backs up your claims. // Liftarn (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

We also use things called reading comprehension and editorial judgment, and we have policies that tell us to attribute views in appropriate circumstances.

The prose I've written is a fair paraphrase of the sourcing, yours is not. You haven't presented a single source even remotely suggesting any of your various formulations are correct, including rhetorical tactic in politic where you attack Sweden to win domestic arguments, and such claims appear silly in light of what people like Marklund actually say about the concept. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

as your intro (and the entire text) is about as fair and balanced as Fox News I utterly disagree with your statement. I have given source for it (see above and below), but you still have not given anything to back up your claims in the text except your own personal feelings and they are not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. I'm sorry, but you appear to be just stalling and not interested in any discussion. // Liftarn (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request :

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Sweden-bashing and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

User:Factchecker atyourservice: you are blocked for wp:ew, so no Wp:3o response yet, because I need clearer explaination of the dispute. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC) Never mind. It is pretty clear to me that User:Liftarn is right here: User:Factchecker atyourservice does not have a WP:Reliable source. So that should be removed. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC) That leaves the wider issue of the tone of the article, notably the violation of WP:YESPOV ("Avoid stating facts as opinions"). If we have something stated in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and no reliable sources dispute it it should be stated directly instead of being presented as the opinion of some random bystander. // Liftarn (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Reliable source? Is this a reliable source on the topic? It seems like it. It seems to be published by Sveriges Radio. If there are no objections, I think we should have it in the article.VR talk 22:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Sveriges radio is indeed a reliable source. // Liftarn (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Yeah, that exact article was used in multiple prior revisions but got lost in the shuffle of edit warring. Restored now. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC) An list of references regarding the situation in Sweden This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Here are several relevant fact sources. Some of them should at the very least be important enough to include in the article: It was decided to open Sweden for mass-immigration from the 3rd world in 1975: http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/proposition/regeringens-proposition-om-riktlinjer-for_FY0326 In 1975 only 421 rapes were reported to the police in Sweden: https://www.bra.se/bra/publikationer/arkiv/publikationer/2008-11-21-brottsutvecklingen-i-sverige-fram-till-ar-2007.html To compare with 5920 the year 2015: https://www.bra.se/bra/brott-och-statistik/valdtakt-och-sexualbrott.html The amount of women in Sweden subjected to sexually related crimes went up with 70% between 2014 to 2015: https://www.bra.se/bra/nytt-fran-bra/arkiv/press/2016-11-03-utsatthet-for-sexualbrott-har-okat-bland-kvinnor.html There were over 480000 sexually related crimes against women in Sweden 2015: http://www.bt.se/sverige-varlden/480-000-sexbrott-mot-kvinnor-i-sverige-pa-ett-ar/ http://www.bra.se/download/18.37179ae158196cb1721ac8/1478089201798/2016_Utsatthet_for_brott_2015.pdf At least 90% of all murders and attempted murders through gun violence in Sweden are performed by either immigrants or those with at least one immigrant parent: http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/vanligt-med-utlandsk-bakgrund-bland-unga-man-som-skjuter/ 94.5% of all career criminals in Stockholm, Sweden, are either immigrants or have at least one immigrant parent: http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/qs/gangen-inifran/brotten-skulderna-bakgrunden--sanningen-om-de-gangkriminella-i-stockholm/ According to the Swedish police department, there are 53 areas in the country where the police has lost control of crime and religious extremism/Islamism. 23 of them are extremely criminal. There are at least 186 social alienation areas in sum total. In 1990 there were only 3 of them: https://polisen.se/Global/www%20och%20Intrapolis/Rapporter-utredningar/01%20Polisen%20nationellt/Ovriga%20rapporter-utredningar/Kriminella%20natverk%20med%20stor%20paverkan%20i%20lokalsamhallet%20Sekretesspr%2014.pdf http://www.westmonster.com/8-new-areas-added-to-swedish-police-no-go-zone-list/ http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/hemliga-listan-23-omraden-ar-nu-sarskilt-utsatta/ http://c1845.cloudnet.se/nyheter/utanforskapets-karta/attachment/23270-utanforskapets-karta-2014-05-27/ http://www.dnv.se/nyheter/ny-rapport-utanforskapets-karta-en-uppfoljning-av-folkpartiets-rapportserie/ According to the leader of the ambulance drivers' union, Gordon Grattidge, the police, and other rescue workers, cannot enter such areas without being subjected to severe violent assaults, such as stone-throwing lynch mobs: http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-truth-about-sweden/article/2007071 http://www.weeklystandard.com/video-head-of-ambulance-union-confirms-no-go-zones-in-sweden/article/2007000 http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/773310/Swedish-medics-military-equipment-enter-no-go-zones-Ambulance-Drivers-Union According to the Swedish police department, the use of hand-grenades in Sweden among criminals is the highest in the world for countries not currently at war: https://www.svd.se/svenska-attacker-med-granater-sticker-ut-i-varlden There is a floating distinction between the jihadists and extremely violent criminals in Sweden: https://www.dagenssamhalle.se/kronika/flytande-graens-mellan-gaengen-och-jihadisterna-33125 The number of physical assaults against boys between the ages of 15 and 17 in Sweden have increased by 68% during the last two years: http://www.tv4.se/nyheterna/klipp/ungdomar-tappar-f%C3%B6rtroendet-f%C3%B6r-r%C3%A4ttsv%C3%A4sendet-3911550 The number of sex crimes in Swedish festivals went up by 1000% in 2016 compared to the previous year, right after taking in 203000 immigrants in 2015: http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/brottscentralen/tjejer-ofredas-pa-grona-lund-helt-oacceptabelt-/ The police of Sweden reports that: "Society is not equipped to deal with this great a number of criminal actors (...) Police and other social actors lack the ability to handle the problem." http://www.expressen.se/ledare/rikspolischefen-har-tappat-kontrollen/ The number of genital-mutilated women in Sweden are several times higher than 38000: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/mangdubbelt-fler-konsstympade-kvinnor-an-man-trott Sweden will take in 374000 relatives to previous immigrants during the next 4 years: http://www.svd.se/i-asylkrisens-spar-374-000-anhoriga-vantas The number of immigrants that will apply for asylum to Sweden 2016-2020 in sum total: https://www.migrationsverket.se/download/18.2d998ffc151ac38715917594/1485556216677/Migrationsverkets+prognos+oktober+2016.pdf 10000 immigrants arrive in Italy every week, and mostly want to go to northern Europe: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/02/italy-calls-european-countries-take-migrant-ships-country-struggles/ 355000 Swedish elderly live below the poverty line: http://www.expressen.se/dinapengar/355-000-lever-under-gransen-for-fattigdom/ 11% of the youths in the suburbs of Gothenburg admit to supporting Jihadism (non-Muslims were included in the survey): http://www.gp.se/nyheter/g%C3%B6teborg/studie-var-tionde-elev-st%C3%B6ttar-religi%C3%B6sa-extremister-1.3908356 80% of Muslim women in Gothenburg admit to live under the threat of honour culture: http://www.gp.se/nyheter/göteborg/utbrett-hedersförtryck-mot-flickor-i-göteborg-1.3908432 There are thousands of Jihadists in Sweden: https://www.svd.se/sapo-tusentals-radikala-islamister-i-sverige/om/hotet-mot-sverige https://www.thelocal.se/20170616/thousands-of-violent-extremists-in-sweden-security-police/ The EU admits that extremely few of the immigrants to Europe have been actual refugees, and are rather there for economic reasons: https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/819670/Migrant-crisis-EU-admits-hardly-any-people-arriving-Italy-refugees-deportations/ Germany admits that most of the immigrants almost completely lack education and work skills: https://amp.ft.com/content/022de0a4-54f4-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f 82% of immigrants to Sweden who claim to be underage are really adults: https://www.rmv.se/aktuellt/det-visar-tre-manader-av-medicinska-aldersbedomningar/ Over 90% of the young 3rd world immigrants are men, not women: http://www.migrationsverket.se/download/18.7c00d8e6143101d166d1aab/1446451028489/Inkomna+ans%C3%B6kningar+om+asyl+2015+-+Applications+for+asylum+received+2015.pdf A report about the intense antisemitism in the Muslim communities of Sweden and Europe: http://kantorcenter.tau.ac.il/sites/default/files/PP%203%20Antisemitisms%20160608.pdf A study about antisemitic violence in Europe. The Muslims and the far left are the by far greatest perpetrators: http://www.sv.uio.no/c-rex/english/news-and-events/news/2017/antisemitic-violence-in-europe.html The Muslim Brotherhood has a very strong foothold and influence in Sweden: https://www.msb.se/Upload/Kunskapsbank/Studier/Muslimska_Brodraskapet_i_Sverige_DNR_2107-1287.pdf It is also considering to move its international headquarters to Sweden: https://ledarsidorna.se/2017/03/is-the-muslim-brotherhood-moving-to-sweden/ David A (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC) Does any of those mention Sweden-bashing? If not they are of no use here. // Liftarn (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC) The point is that the article seems to claim that when anybody uses Sweden as a warning example, they are automatically lying demagogues trying to win political points. The above articles and statistics show that this is far from necessarily the case. There is plenty to legitimately criticise about Swedish policies. David A (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC) If they don't say anything about Sweden-bashing they can not be used for the article. // Liftarn (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Why is it criticism rather than anti-nationalist term? I don't understand why Swedish bashing used for criticizing the government and its people. We know that Swedish are nation-state like neighbor countries and it should be a form of racism and xenophobia and the article focuses only the government. Criticism is not hatred. That silly stuff in Wikipedia. If you want consider the hatred of its people and government, you want to create Anti-Swedish sentiment. 196.188.245.157 (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)