This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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:
http://www.samuelsiren.com/vpk.php http://members.chello.se/stridsberg/vansterpartietshistoria.html (Och korresponderande NE artiklar) http://www.socialistiskapartiet.se/e107_files/downloads/vp_sp_vp_historia.html
And of course, the famous TV-show that made it all public: http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=2232 Itake 09:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC) (previously unsigned comment by me)
Note: Propaganda Journalists such as Samuel Sirén is the biggest producer of liberal bullshit in this country. The article have no sources, and only by watching i can fint serveral faulty "facts". Besides, i never hear anything about disputes in the left party, rather fights among the partys in the right wing alliance, who never shares as much as a single opinion. Wikipedias articles are supposed to be neutral, so for gods sake, dont mix in Sirén.
A small note: Almost daily problems is completely untrue. I, myself is a member of the left party and there are not any big issues. The main problem only was when Lars Ohly said he was a communist wich was not a problem either, except those who did not truly understand what he meant. There are tons of ways to see on communism after all and he was mostly critizied for supporting dictators he didnt support.
As I said, only a small note. I dont tend to edit the article because my skills in writing is yet to poor.
Also, using a liberal link (that doesnt even work) as a source for the fact that she is critiziesed isnt a good idea. The pages on a website like that cant be very neutral.
User: Anarand
Thank you for editing Itake. Rabid anti-communism is an endemic problem on English language sites. I appreciate the efforts to keep the VP site reasonable.
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:
-- Soman 14:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
-- Soman 15:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
http://home.swipnet.se/cuba/debatte.htm for the abbrivation.
Itake 16:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
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. Itake 16:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
'Makt och Ägande-dokumentet', [1], -- Soman 13:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
User:itake has again started attempting to insert POV language into the article.
-- Soman 10:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Perphaps lack of light isn't the decisive factor of darkness? Yeez...
EDIT: No wait, I am going to dignify it with a response: Your Mother
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. -- Soman 23:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
-- Soman 12:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
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. Itake 14:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
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". -- Soman 13:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
-- Soman 15:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Constanz is reinserting removed material, which has been criticized on the talk page, without motivating the passages. In brief:
-- Soman 09:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
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:
-- Soman 11:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
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. -- Soman 11:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
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.
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.
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."
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. -- Soman 12:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
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."
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 - Talk 15:11, 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 - Talk 16:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Suggestions of reforms dealt with proposals to liberalize press laws, non-interference in other states (like czechoslovakia, afghanistan, poland), to address enviromental issues, etc.
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.
I've up this article for RfC. -- Soman 20:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
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. -- Soman 17:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
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:
-- Soman 07:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
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 -- WGee 01:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
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 - Talk 17:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
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.
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.
3. In difference to several other major political forces in Sweden, the Left Party does not possess any major media outlets of its own.
4. Criticism against the party is continuously raised in the mainstream media.
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.
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).
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.
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 should be made using the preferred Cite.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.
WGee 00:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
i am in no position to answer all quiries at the moment (trying to use a french keyboard, which feels really awkward and goes superslow). 1. As to several parts of texts originally edited by itake, and later reinserted by contanz, my criticism remain, explained in earlier posts at this talk page. ("notorius", "SVEK", etc.) 2. The text about einarssons position on PACE resolution is clearly overdimensioned. Einarsson in this regards represents not only the Swedish party, but the GUE group as a whole (in which several communist parties are members, like KKE, KPFR, etc.) A separate article could be written about the PACE resolution, its political background and cricism raised against it. 3. "This, however, is regarded a peculiar statement, as Nazist ideology was once criminalised exactly due to crimes the Nazi regime committed". It completly false. Nazi groups are completly legal in Sweden. 4. I repeat that i don't wish that the "criticism" section to become a general slush-bucket of contemporary slander. "Criticism" should reflect mainstream criticism against the party, not material randomly collected from swedish right-wing blogs. 5. As per ideology, the party is socialist and feminist. There is not much more to state. I'd prefer an expanded "Policies" section instead, as ideology cannot be seen as separate from actual political work. -- Soman 19:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
3. I actually meant condemning the Nazi crimes etc. Hitlerite ideology is nowadays clearly regarded as abnormal, criminal. 4. well, all the mainstream parties, both left and right criticised the Iran statement. All political forces, except of course for communists and former communists supported the PACE resolution. PACE material was certainly not not material randomly collected from swedish right-wing blogs-- Constanz - Talk 08:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
"Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to articles in order to improve them — most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you've written deleted, moved to the talk page, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism." [8]
Therefore, Soman's edits do not constitute vandalism, Constanz; he was merely removing original research. So instead of disparaging him you should be thanking him for improving the quality of the article.
Also, please do not re-insert any orginal research into the article; there is no justification for it. Instead, keep a draft of the section on the talk page, where you and other editors can attempt to bring it up to Wikipedia standards.
WGee 01:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Constanz repeatedly inserts text, without answering to the quiries on the talk page. With the risk of being repetitive, here a summary of sentences that I find objectionable:
-- Soman 16:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Again Constanz does not adress the core fact issues at stake, but accuses others of being communists. Few points:
-- Soman 07:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Rather NPOV factor of the following passage: "This, however, is regarded a peculiar statement, as Nazist ideology was once condemned 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." ? -- Soman 14:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Do note that VP is not an abbrevation used for the party. It abbrevation used is (v). -- Soman 14:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I have not been explained the reason for this erasure. This paragraph is sourced -- I used A Report to the Jarl Hjalmarson Foundation seminar on April 13, 1999 By Andres Küng ( [14]), where primary sources (Ny Dag) are used. I repeat: the version by Soman has this factually correct material removed. The article no longer contains correct notion on Swedish Communists' attitude to the forced takeover of the Baltic states and Swedish communists' praisal of Stalinist regime set up. I object to it.-- Constanz - Talk 16:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
a) I do not agree that I'm "removing every paragraph that shows VP not in the best light". Study the edit history of the article, and you'll see various examples of edits made by me that differ for official party history. b) As per Baltic history; I obviously consider that the inclusion of the Baltic states into the USSR went through military annexation. But why is it so shocking that the SKP newspaper described the interbellum baltic republics as "the worst reactionary terror regimes of Europe"? Of course one could question the exact wording (worst?), but if you deny the severeness of white state terror, then aren't just as hypocritical as the people you are calling hypocrites? -- Soman 07:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems that Soman has decided not to talk any more and just revert; well, hopefully admins take action. As for giving up discussion on the Swedish Communists and their Soviet praisal matter, Soman's decision does not seem peculiar: my paragraphs have solid proof and the motivatioin for erasure is obviously the intention to whitewash these chapters of Swedish Communist Party's history.
Also, Talk:Olof_Palme#User:Soman.27s_comments_revealing_his.2Fher_lack_of_knowledge reveals some problems Soman has faced with his/her endeavours.-- Constanz - Talk 11:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
VoA protected this, I've unprotected it (somewhat impolitely; apologies) since I blocked Soman for WP:3RR. As far as I could see form the history, it was a one-against-all edit war. Do let me know if I'm wrong William M. Connolley 20:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
1.Proof please. IP adresses do not match 2. it's not so hard to count one's reverts, is it? Advocatus diaboli 11:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems strange to me that a newbie's first edit would be a revert, and that he already knows the 3RR. As for the anon. editor, it's only slightly less suspect, as he has only two edits made a month ago, on an article also edited by Constanz [16]. I also noted that Advocatus Diaboli has made a new edit, this time to defend a redirect made by Constanz and whose deletion has been proposed by Soman. For all these reasons, I believe a user check should be made to see if Advocatus Diaboli is a sock-puppet of Constanz. Have care.-- Aldux 21:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. This is developing into a bit of a mess, cos I jumped in. Apologies all round. So... I've re-protected it; a review of the edit history shows I was wrong. Apologies in particular to Soman (but, he still broke 3RR). I've reverted AD's last edit, because as A says above, AD is almost without doubt a sock. Um... William M. Connolley 21:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Thus, the inclusion of the source, particularly without explanation, is not pertinent to criticism of the party and amounts to slander. One is innocent until proven guilty, and this Statewatch organization (whose reputability I seriously question) is not in the position to decide which person "clearly" violated EU or Swedish law. The criticism section is not a venue to cite every source that portrays the subject negatively. -- WGee 01:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
And so on. And so forth
But the difference as of now could be seen here current version without criticism
Just, to explain my absence from the discussion, I'm currently abroad with little internet access. Briefly, I do not disapprove of mentioning current analysis by the party towards USSR and other socialist states, but I believe that the statement on the PACE resolution does not reflect it sorrectly. For a better and more complete analysis by the party towards the USSR, there is a publication called 'Lik i Garberoben?'. There should be a reference to that publication in the article, with a summary of its content. -- Soman 13:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I've added RfC, considering the recent additions and erasures.-- Constanz - Talk 07:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Please read Liberal Party (Utah) and Democratic Labour Party (Trinidad and Tobago), the only articles concerning political parties that reached featured status. Also, I urge you to read Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles. There is no need to include "criticism"; simply include the party's relevant history and ideals, and let the reader draw their own conclusion. Do not intently dig up every piece of information that disparages the Left Party, for it is endless, just as criticism is endless against the Republican Party (United States), for instance (hence there is not a criticism section is that article, even though the Republican Party is one of the most controversial in the West). Clearly a criticism section is not appropriate in this case. -- WGee 01:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
A.D. completly misses the point, namely that the question at stake is what was an issue in Swedish politics at that time and not would you would like to have been an issue. The impact of Finnish-Soviet war was tremendous in Swedish politics at the time, whereas the Baltic had a much lesser impact. I'm not talking just about SKP, but about Swedish society at large. Thousands of 'volunteers' were mobilized to fight against the USSR in Finland and a massive support programmes were initiated (in reality, 'neutral' Sweden hardly acted as a neutral country in this case). Even sectors of the left, like Flyg's Socialist Party and some syndicalists, joined the Finland volunteers (which would later lead those sectors and individuals to make drastic political turns). SKP was the sole force in Swedish politics representing a different view on the Finland war, a pretext used to unleash violent attacks against the party. The impact of the war in Baltic republics cannot be compared with this. --Soman 15:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Please see [22], a cover of the SKP publication Arbetar-Tidningen from March 1940 (i.e. well before the war between Germany and the Soviet Union), portraying Nazis as whining pigs. -- Soman 11:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I object to removing absolutely encyclopedic passages on VP(K)'s historical stance. We mustn't reveal only its dissenting opinions with the World Communist Movement, but also acts done in line with Comintern and Moscow.-- Constanz - Talk 15:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Constanz inserted this passage of text, which I opt to remove: "Consequently from the party's stance on Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, VPK initially retained nutrality towards Nazi aggression in Norway. Ny Dag wrote on April 24 1940: "There is no hatred towards the German soldiers. One frequently sees Norwegian workers and German soldiers in friendly discussions on streetcorners or in beer parlours."" First of all, its grossly incorrect to label the party VPK when speaking of 1940. Moreover, I consider the quote being used in an insinuatory manner. To say that the Norwegians didn't hate the German soldiers is far from the same as to say that the party was in favour or neutral towards of "nazi aggression". I have previously on this talk page stated this opinion. I think that its better to use official party texts, as opposed to newsclippings when giving citations in the article.
I would like to add though, that I do not oppose including a passage the party's stance towards the war in Norway in the article. Developments in Norway was of central interest in Sweden at the time, unlike the Baltic example. -- Soman 15:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out that my latest reversion is not only an issue of content but also of disposition of the article.
the baltic issue was of marginal importance to the party at the time. Two quotes are now in the text. I propose using the one which specifies the general line of the party towards the war as the primary one. Moreover, I did some minor language checks based on the Swedish version (where the text, I suppose, are in original). -- Soman 16:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
please preserve some sense of dispotional unity in the article when editing. Look at [23] The MRP is now mentioned twice, in a seemingly unrelated way. I would suggest Constanz to try to read something else about the history of the party than just a highly selective collection of quotes. -- Soman 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Itake was right again on Korea issue: På VPK:s 28:e partikongress 1987 skrev partiordförande Lars Werner följande devota hyllningstelegram till den totalitära regimens ledare Kim Il Sung: ”Vänsterpartiet kommunisterna och jag personligen gratulerar Dig hjärtligt med anledning av Din 75-Brsdag och vill uttrycka vår höga värdering av de stora insatser Du gjort under decennier för Koreas arbetarklass och folk och i den världsomspännande antiimperialistiska kampen. etc! Lägg ned Vänsterpartiet!-- Constanz - Talk 17:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
It ought to be mentioned that the latest "source" added as a reference by Constanz [24] carries the title "Close down the Left Party!" (Lägg ned Vänsterpartiet!). I suppose that is a highly objective article. -- Soman 19:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Constanz uses SOU 2002:93 as a source. The report is availible is full at [25]. On page 211 there is no quote to back up the claim that Constanz has made in regards to funding from DDR. -- Soman 09:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
mötts med skepsis. Invändningarna har bland annat gällt att utbetalningarna från rumänska fackföreningsfonden inte behöver ha avsett kontantstöd till partiet utan bekostande av de svenska studenternas utbildning vid partiskolorna i Moskva. Så länge ingen fullständig redogörelse finns för vad som skett efter det att Rumänska fackföreningsfonden fattat sina beslut är den tolkningen - och andra liknande – möjliga." translation:
At least 3 editors have broken 3RR on this... so I've re-protected it. Discuss: William M. Connolley 13:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I've unprotected again to see what happens William M. Connolley 11:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Leaving aside my objections of inclusion of various passages, I thought it might be of interest to explain why i chose to use the Swedish version of Küng's article as a reference. I suppose Küng uses the original quotes in his Swedish articles. I've read through the Swedish version, and my translation is slightly different. The differences are not very major, but I believe that Wikipedia should strive for as exact translations as possible.
Concerning the (fp) article,
I gnerally agree with Soman's edits; I don't see any reason for fulling of quotes the history section. I'm not certain I can agree with the removal of this: "According to historian Lars Björlin, East Germany had funded Swedish communist party and organisations close to it with annual allowance ranging from 20,000$ to 150,000$. [1]" Orthodox Communist parties have long been financed by USSR, and this is a fact of some relevance, not a criticism, but a fact which should be put in the history section, while the criticism section should simply be removed.-- Aldux 13:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
To explain my recent reversion of ADs edits:
-- Soman 15:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Since the article [27] is again used as a source, it should perhaps be in order to share some details of this article. It contains no sources, just a link to the TV-program Uppdrag Granskning.
-- Soman 15:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Some comments on Constanz's latest edits:
-- Soman 21:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
1.I ask you again: Do you claim that the article is not reliable, as far as quotations from Vänsterpartiet leaders' statements are concerned? Do you insist that these citations found there are fabrications by V-opponents?-- Constanz - Talk 14:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
2.And you still haven't answered to my complains on your wording that reduces V's past praisal of communist dictatorships and relationships with these bloody tyrannies to 'anecdotes'.-- Constanz - Talk 14:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
To describe VVV as a splinter-group of (v) is completly erroneous. VVV was started as a fraction within (v), but at an early stage declared itself as a non-party forum organizing people belonging to various political parties. There was never any definitive break between the vvv-ers and (v), some vvv-members left (v) but others (notably Johan Lönnroth) didn't. Thus vvv does not fit in the list of splits. -- Soman 13:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Just saw that it says "refers to atleast THREE parrties, BOTH of which where once communist", something like that. Just thought I'd bring it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.67.24 ( talk) 18:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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:
http://www.samuelsiren.com/vpk.php http://members.chello.se/stridsberg/vansterpartietshistoria.html (Och korresponderande NE artiklar) http://www.socialistiskapartiet.se/e107_files/downloads/vp_sp_vp_historia.html
And of course, the famous TV-show that made it all public: http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=2232 Itake 09:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC) (previously unsigned comment by me)
Note: Propaganda Journalists such as Samuel Sirén is the biggest producer of liberal bullshit in this country. The article have no sources, and only by watching i can fint serveral faulty "facts". Besides, i never hear anything about disputes in the left party, rather fights among the partys in the right wing alliance, who never shares as much as a single opinion. Wikipedias articles are supposed to be neutral, so for gods sake, dont mix in Sirén.
A small note: Almost daily problems is completely untrue. I, myself is a member of the left party and there are not any big issues. The main problem only was when Lars Ohly said he was a communist wich was not a problem either, except those who did not truly understand what he meant. There are tons of ways to see on communism after all and he was mostly critizied for supporting dictators he didnt support.
As I said, only a small note. I dont tend to edit the article because my skills in writing is yet to poor.
Also, using a liberal link (that doesnt even work) as a source for the fact that she is critiziesed isnt a good idea. The pages on a website like that cant be very neutral.
User: Anarand
Thank you for editing Itake. Rabid anti-communism is an endemic problem on English language sites. I appreciate the efforts to keep the VP site reasonable.
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:
-- Soman 14:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
-- Soman 15:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
http://home.swipnet.se/cuba/debatte.htm for the abbrivation.
Itake 16:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
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. Itake 16:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
'Makt och Ägande-dokumentet', [1], -- Soman 13:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
User:itake has again started attempting to insert POV language into the article.
-- Soman 10:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Perphaps lack of light isn't the decisive factor of darkness? Yeez...
EDIT: No wait, I am going to dignify it with a response: Your Mother
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. -- Soman 23:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
-- Soman 12:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
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. Itake 14:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
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". -- Soman 13:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
-- Soman 15:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Constanz is reinserting removed material, which has been criticized on the talk page, without motivating the passages. In brief:
-- Soman 09:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
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:
-- Soman 11:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
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. -- Soman 11:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
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.
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.
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."
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. -- Soman 12:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
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."
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 - Talk 15:11, 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 - Talk 16:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Suggestions of reforms dealt with proposals to liberalize press laws, non-interference in other states (like czechoslovakia, afghanistan, poland), to address enviromental issues, etc.
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.
I've up this article for RfC. -- Soman 20:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
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. -- Soman 17:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
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:
-- Soman 07:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
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 -- WGee 01:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
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 - Talk 17:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
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.
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.
3. In difference to several other major political forces in Sweden, the Left Party does not possess any major media outlets of its own.
4. Criticism against the party is continuously raised in the mainstream media.
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.
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).
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.
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 should be made using the preferred Cite.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.
WGee 00:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
i am in no position to answer all quiries at the moment (trying to use a french keyboard, which feels really awkward and goes superslow). 1. As to several parts of texts originally edited by itake, and later reinserted by contanz, my criticism remain, explained in earlier posts at this talk page. ("notorius", "SVEK", etc.) 2. The text about einarssons position on PACE resolution is clearly overdimensioned. Einarsson in this regards represents not only the Swedish party, but the GUE group as a whole (in which several communist parties are members, like KKE, KPFR, etc.) A separate article could be written about the PACE resolution, its political background and cricism raised against it. 3. "This, however, is regarded a peculiar statement, as Nazist ideology was once criminalised exactly due to crimes the Nazi regime committed". It completly false. Nazi groups are completly legal in Sweden. 4. I repeat that i don't wish that the "criticism" section to become a general slush-bucket of contemporary slander. "Criticism" should reflect mainstream criticism against the party, not material randomly collected from swedish right-wing blogs. 5. As per ideology, the party is socialist and feminist. There is not much more to state. I'd prefer an expanded "Policies" section instead, as ideology cannot be seen as separate from actual political work. -- Soman 19:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
3. I actually meant condemning the Nazi crimes etc. Hitlerite ideology is nowadays clearly regarded as abnormal, criminal. 4. well, all the mainstream parties, both left and right criticised the Iran statement. All political forces, except of course for communists and former communists supported the PACE resolution. PACE material was certainly not not material randomly collected from swedish right-wing blogs-- Constanz - Talk 08:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
"Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to articles in order to improve them — most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you've written deleted, moved to the talk page, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism." [8]
Therefore, Soman's edits do not constitute vandalism, Constanz; he was merely removing original research. So instead of disparaging him you should be thanking him for improving the quality of the article.
Also, please do not re-insert any orginal research into the article; there is no justification for it. Instead, keep a draft of the section on the talk page, where you and other editors can attempt to bring it up to Wikipedia standards.
WGee 01:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Constanz repeatedly inserts text, without answering to the quiries on the talk page. With the risk of being repetitive, here a summary of sentences that I find objectionable:
-- Soman 16:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Again Constanz does not adress the core fact issues at stake, but accuses others of being communists. Few points:
-- Soman 07:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Rather NPOV factor of the following passage: "This, however, is regarded a peculiar statement, as Nazist ideology was once condemned 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." ? -- Soman 14:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Do note that VP is not an abbrevation used for the party. It abbrevation used is (v). -- Soman 14:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I have not been explained the reason for this erasure. This paragraph is sourced -- I used A Report to the Jarl Hjalmarson Foundation seminar on April 13, 1999 By Andres Küng ( [14]), where primary sources (Ny Dag) are used. I repeat: the version by Soman has this factually correct material removed. The article no longer contains correct notion on Swedish Communists' attitude to the forced takeover of the Baltic states and Swedish communists' praisal of Stalinist regime set up. I object to it.-- Constanz - Talk 16:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
a) I do not agree that I'm "removing every paragraph that shows VP not in the best light". Study the edit history of the article, and you'll see various examples of edits made by me that differ for official party history. b) As per Baltic history; I obviously consider that the inclusion of the Baltic states into the USSR went through military annexation. But why is it so shocking that the SKP newspaper described the interbellum baltic republics as "the worst reactionary terror regimes of Europe"? Of course one could question the exact wording (worst?), but if you deny the severeness of white state terror, then aren't just as hypocritical as the people you are calling hypocrites? -- Soman 07:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems that Soman has decided not to talk any more and just revert; well, hopefully admins take action. As for giving up discussion on the Swedish Communists and their Soviet praisal matter, Soman's decision does not seem peculiar: my paragraphs have solid proof and the motivatioin for erasure is obviously the intention to whitewash these chapters of Swedish Communist Party's history.
Also, Talk:Olof_Palme#User:Soman.27s_comments_revealing_his.2Fher_lack_of_knowledge reveals some problems Soman has faced with his/her endeavours.-- Constanz - Talk 11:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
VoA protected this, I've unprotected it (somewhat impolitely; apologies) since I blocked Soman for WP:3RR. As far as I could see form the history, it was a one-against-all edit war. Do let me know if I'm wrong William M. Connolley 20:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
1.Proof please. IP adresses do not match 2. it's not so hard to count one's reverts, is it? Advocatus diaboli 11:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems strange to me that a newbie's first edit would be a revert, and that he already knows the 3RR. As for the anon. editor, it's only slightly less suspect, as he has only two edits made a month ago, on an article also edited by Constanz [16]. I also noted that Advocatus Diaboli has made a new edit, this time to defend a redirect made by Constanz and whose deletion has been proposed by Soman. For all these reasons, I believe a user check should be made to see if Advocatus Diaboli is a sock-puppet of Constanz. Have care.-- Aldux 21:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. This is developing into a bit of a mess, cos I jumped in. Apologies all round. So... I've re-protected it; a review of the edit history shows I was wrong. Apologies in particular to Soman (but, he still broke 3RR). I've reverted AD's last edit, because as A says above, AD is almost without doubt a sock. Um... William M. Connolley 21:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Thus, the inclusion of the source, particularly without explanation, is not pertinent to criticism of the party and amounts to slander. One is innocent until proven guilty, and this Statewatch organization (whose reputability I seriously question) is not in the position to decide which person "clearly" violated EU or Swedish law. The criticism section is not a venue to cite every source that portrays the subject negatively. -- WGee 01:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
And so on. And so forth
But the difference as of now could be seen here current version without criticism
Just, to explain my absence from the discussion, I'm currently abroad with little internet access. Briefly, I do not disapprove of mentioning current analysis by the party towards USSR and other socialist states, but I believe that the statement on the PACE resolution does not reflect it sorrectly. For a better and more complete analysis by the party towards the USSR, there is a publication called 'Lik i Garberoben?'. There should be a reference to that publication in the article, with a summary of its content. -- Soman 13:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I've added RfC, considering the recent additions and erasures.-- Constanz - Talk 07:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Please read Liberal Party (Utah) and Democratic Labour Party (Trinidad and Tobago), the only articles concerning political parties that reached featured status. Also, I urge you to read Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles. There is no need to include "criticism"; simply include the party's relevant history and ideals, and let the reader draw their own conclusion. Do not intently dig up every piece of information that disparages the Left Party, for it is endless, just as criticism is endless against the Republican Party (United States), for instance (hence there is not a criticism section is that article, even though the Republican Party is one of the most controversial in the West). Clearly a criticism section is not appropriate in this case. -- WGee 01:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
A.D. completly misses the point, namely that the question at stake is what was an issue in Swedish politics at that time and not would you would like to have been an issue. The impact of Finnish-Soviet war was tremendous in Swedish politics at the time, whereas the Baltic had a much lesser impact. I'm not talking just about SKP, but about Swedish society at large. Thousands of 'volunteers' were mobilized to fight against the USSR in Finland and a massive support programmes were initiated (in reality, 'neutral' Sweden hardly acted as a neutral country in this case). Even sectors of the left, like Flyg's Socialist Party and some syndicalists, joined the Finland volunteers (which would later lead those sectors and individuals to make drastic political turns). SKP was the sole force in Swedish politics representing a different view on the Finland war, a pretext used to unleash violent attacks against the party. The impact of the war in Baltic republics cannot be compared with this. --Soman 15:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Please see [22], a cover of the SKP publication Arbetar-Tidningen from March 1940 (i.e. well before the war between Germany and the Soviet Union), portraying Nazis as whining pigs. -- Soman 11:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I object to removing absolutely encyclopedic passages on VP(K)'s historical stance. We mustn't reveal only its dissenting opinions with the World Communist Movement, but also acts done in line with Comintern and Moscow.-- Constanz - Talk 15:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Constanz inserted this passage of text, which I opt to remove: "Consequently from the party's stance on Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, VPK initially retained nutrality towards Nazi aggression in Norway. Ny Dag wrote on April 24 1940: "There is no hatred towards the German soldiers. One frequently sees Norwegian workers and German soldiers in friendly discussions on streetcorners or in beer parlours."" First of all, its grossly incorrect to label the party VPK when speaking of 1940. Moreover, I consider the quote being used in an insinuatory manner. To say that the Norwegians didn't hate the German soldiers is far from the same as to say that the party was in favour or neutral towards of "nazi aggression". I have previously on this talk page stated this opinion. I think that its better to use official party texts, as opposed to newsclippings when giving citations in the article.
I would like to add though, that I do not oppose including a passage the party's stance towards the war in Norway in the article. Developments in Norway was of central interest in Sweden at the time, unlike the Baltic example. -- Soman 15:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out that my latest reversion is not only an issue of content but also of disposition of the article.
the baltic issue was of marginal importance to the party at the time. Two quotes are now in the text. I propose using the one which specifies the general line of the party towards the war as the primary one. Moreover, I did some minor language checks based on the Swedish version (where the text, I suppose, are in original). -- Soman 16:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
please preserve some sense of dispotional unity in the article when editing. Look at [23] The MRP is now mentioned twice, in a seemingly unrelated way. I would suggest Constanz to try to read something else about the history of the party than just a highly selective collection of quotes. -- Soman 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Itake was right again on Korea issue: På VPK:s 28:e partikongress 1987 skrev partiordförande Lars Werner följande devota hyllningstelegram till den totalitära regimens ledare Kim Il Sung: ”Vänsterpartiet kommunisterna och jag personligen gratulerar Dig hjärtligt med anledning av Din 75-Brsdag och vill uttrycka vår höga värdering av de stora insatser Du gjort under decennier för Koreas arbetarklass och folk och i den världsomspännande antiimperialistiska kampen. etc! Lägg ned Vänsterpartiet!-- Constanz - Talk 17:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
It ought to be mentioned that the latest "source" added as a reference by Constanz [24] carries the title "Close down the Left Party!" (Lägg ned Vänsterpartiet!). I suppose that is a highly objective article. -- Soman 19:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Constanz uses SOU 2002:93 as a source. The report is availible is full at [25]. On page 211 there is no quote to back up the claim that Constanz has made in regards to funding from DDR. -- Soman 09:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
mötts med skepsis. Invändningarna har bland annat gällt att utbetalningarna från rumänska fackföreningsfonden inte behöver ha avsett kontantstöd till partiet utan bekostande av de svenska studenternas utbildning vid partiskolorna i Moskva. Så länge ingen fullständig redogörelse finns för vad som skett efter det att Rumänska fackföreningsfonden fattat sina beslut är den tolkningen - och andra liknande – möjliga." translation:
At least 3 editors have broken 3RR on this... so I've re-protected it. Discuss: William M. Connolley 13:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I've unprotected again to see what happens William M. Connolley 11:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Leaving aside my objections of inclusion of various passages, I thought it might be of interest to explain why i chose to use the Swedish version of Küng's article as a reference. I suppose Küng uses the original quotes in his Swedish articles. I've read through the Swedish version, and my translation is slightly different. The differences are not very major, but I believe that Wikipedia should strive for as exact translations as possible.
Concerning the (fp) article,
I gnerally agree with Soman's edits; I don't see any reason for fulling of quotes the history section. I'm not certain I can agree with the removal of this: "According to historian Lars Björlin, East Germany had funded Swedish communist party and organisations close to it with annual allowance ranging from 20,000$ to 150,000$. [1]" Orthodox Communist parties have long been financed by USSR, and this is a fact of some relevance, not a criticism, but a fact which should be put in the history section, while the criticism section should simply be removed.-- Aldux 13:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
To explain my recent reversion of ADs edits:
-- Soman 15:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Since the article [27] is again used as a source, it should perhaps be in order to share some details of this article. It contains no sources, just a link to the TV-program Uppdrag Granskning.
-- Soman 15:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Some comments on Constanz's latest edits:
-- Soman 21:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
1.I ask you again: Do you claim that the article is not reliable, as far as quotations from Vänsterpartiet leaders' statements are concerned? Do you insist that these citations found there are fabrications by V-opponents?-- Constanz - Talk 14:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
2.And you still haven't answered to my complains on your wording that reduces V's past praisal of communist dictatorships and relationships with these bloody tyrannies to 'anecdotes'.-- Constanz - Talk 14:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
To describe VVV as a splinter-group of (v) is completly erroneous. VVV was started as a fraction within (v), but at an early stage declared itself as a non-party forum organizing people belonging to various political parties. There was never any definitive break between the vvv-ers and (v), some vvv-members left (v) but others (notably Johan Lönnroth) didn't. Thus vvv does not fit in the list of splits. -- Soman 13:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Just saw that it says "refers to atleast THREE parrties, BOTH of which where once communist", something like that. Just thought I'd bring it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.67.24 ( talk) 18:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |