Talk:Racism in Sweden

Issues with this article

This article makes a number of sweeping statements, without any inline citations, and its references seems to be a collection of blogs. Not exactly in line with my interpretation of WP:NPOV or WP:RS. Its collection of derogatory terms, which in itself could be questionable for a Wikipedia, consists of an unsorted collection of terms which are indeed derogatory, mixed with offical statistical terms used in demographics, and neutral adjectives going back to Old Norse if not before. It seems to be based on the assumption that any description of a non-Swede in the Swedish language is derogatory and stems from racism, which does not seem like an ideal basis to build an NPOV article on. While encyclopedic articles on racism in X-country, using a comparative approach, could be of a value, I'm not sure if there is anything to salvage in this article. Tomas e (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Much of the content was also a copyvio from the ENAR source, which I've removed. People, please don't copy directly from sources: rephrase and summarize the material instead. I also removed the unreliable blog and forum sources, and moved it to "Racism in Sweden", which is probably a better title. Feel free to start working on expanding it again, as the topic could surely use more content than the meager stub that remained after removing all the copyvios and unencyclopedic lists. henrik•talk 09:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Good work - I'm glad you found the copyvio, the article is better as an informative stub whuch can grow rather than a list of insults! pablo_hablo. 12:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, and on a sidenote I'm happy that I'm now again able to ask for chocolate in Swedish without immediately being branded a racist by Wikipedia... Tomas e (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This looks fine now! One small change from me - I removed the internal link to a Wikipage that does not exist for the European network against racism. Replaced it with an Internet link to their homepage. --JohnTheSupercargo (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, good idea to link to them. Since no one here seem to have any complaints about the current contents I've removed the POV tag.

However, I also reinstated the redlink - the only times redlinks should be removed is if we definitely should not have an article about the subject. The European network against racism seems to be a notable organization (I did a brief search and found many press mentions), and thus hopefully someone will get around to creating an article about them one of these days. In the mean time, the redlink is a reminder that even 2.9M articles isn't all of human knowledge :-) henrik•talk 12:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is virtually devoid of information, thereby actually giving the (incorrect, I presume) impression that the topic is a non-issue in Sweden. If it can't be made much more substantial, it would probably be best to merge it ... I've added some cleanup tags. (PS) Here is a recent article re. the walkout at a UN conference. The issue is clearly of concern, but very multifaceted. Steipe (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is still devoid of useful information. Other than quoting an average newspaper about racism, little is covered about the white supremacists and white power movements in the country. Islamic issues of the past few years is omitted entirely. This articles requires a full rewrite as it does not meet the standards of Wikipedia. Sapphirecut (talk)

Rename

Should this be retitled to reflect the cited increase in prejudice against Muslims in Sweden? Islamophobia is not per se racism. pablo_hablo. 16:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A better term may be xenophobia. --dab (𒁳) 15:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

slavs are missing

The list of people suffering from the effects of segregation is missing slavic populations. The poles usually only work in lower class jobs and dont have the same chance as natives at having as successfull careers. Same goes for russians and lithuanians. These groups should be added to the following paragraph.

"affecting mainly Romani people, Black people, Muslims, Jews and Latinos .["

Islamophobia in article

@User:TylerBurden The phrasing of that paragraph isn't great. To say that the "Muslim population" is targeting Jews is a generalization that tars the whole group as antisemitic and violent. It promotes Islamophobic tropes that are in line with far right populist rhetoric. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, the majority of anti-semitic violence and rhetoric in modern day Sweden comes from the Muslim population, not specifically "Islamist" groups. To write "Islamist" as you did contrary to the references, is to imply that the sources say it is only a specific group within the Muslim population responsible for anti-semitism, whereas it is a wider problem. A group can be a victim of racism and still hold their own racist views, and to describe that is not "victim blaming". TylerBurden (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@User:TylerBurden An article about racism in Sweden is being used to advocate racism and that's appalling. You added a single source about antisemitism in a single Swedish city a decade ago. The majority of Swedish Muslims are not committing antisemitic acts, so yes, it very much is a specific sub-set of the population. There has also been a surge in antisemitic neo-Nazi/far right activism. The article underplays the significance of the far right - which is also "increasing" in numbers and presence. No mention that Sweden is home to a leading European hate group that has committed antisemitic acts and "poses an increased threat to the Jewish community in the Nordic region, and particularly in Sweden", according to the ADL. No mention that the World Jewish Congress has noted this hate group as part of a wave of increasing antisemitism that the Swedish government must combat. No mention of the numerous antisemitic statements uttered by right-wing Swedish politicians. No mention that a synagogue shuttered because of Nazi harassment. To claim that the increase in antisemitism is solely due to Muslims is a flat out lie. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bohemian Baltimore Calm down, and try to assume some WP:GF. I am not the even the one who added the content, I am just trying to make sure the article follows Wikipedia policy and standards. You have several times added content straight into the lead, contrary to MOS:LEAD, and added "Islamist" which was pure WP:SYNTH. If you feel content is missing, then add it with support of reliable sources, that would be improving the article rather than using racism as an excuse to downplay antisemitism by Muslims. If you are offended by that information being displayed then that is unfortunate, but Wikipedia is not censored. The content in question now clearly states that it is radicalized members which is in line with what the references say and doesn't imply at all that it is all because of all Muslims in general. TylerBurden (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@TylerBurden I'm perfectly calm. By minimizing white supremacy, the article functions as a promotion of far right ideology. It doesn't matter who wrote it, the problem remains. The lead is biased. I'd say the fact that Sweden never underwent de-Nazification like some other European countries, and that it has a century-long tradition of Nazism that has persisted into the present, is extremely relevant and does belong in the lead. But there was no mention of that in the lead or anywhere else in this article. The perfunctory mention of Nazis in the Islamophobic paragraph still needs a source. I noticed that you scrubbed the content I added, when there was nothing preventing you from simply moving it to the Nazi section. This is you adding content to the lead without any sources, no? Maybe that should have been added to the body of the article instead. Nowhere have I suggested removing information about Muslim antisemitism, nor have I removed anything. I have suggested writing about it in a way that isn't Islamophobic and addressing the whitewashing of white supremacy in this article. Both forms of antisemitism can and must be adequately mentioned. I'll also note that the section on antisemitism only mentions Muslims, but never mentions Nazis. The article lacks balance and it scapegoats Muslims in the process. Plainly, that needs to be fixed. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bohemian Baltimore Your confrontational attitude, passive aggressiveness and accusations of racism and now censorship makes you quite difficult to collaborate with. You appear to have entered the article with a POV that only certain aspects of racism in Sweden should be highlighted, while taking massive issue with the fact that antisemitism in Sweden being an issue nowadays highly connected with Muslims is displayed. You twisted the references to downplay this, and you are calling the content "Islamophobic" and "racist" (Islam is a religion, not a race or ethnicity). You are assuming bad faith not just about me, but the entire article. I have made edits after your shoehorning of content into the lead to establish them in the body in line with MOS:LEAD, that is not "censorship". What might be considered censorship would be downplaying antisemitism because the perpetrators are Muslims, that is not editing with a WP:NPOV.

I have explained all the issues backed by both policy and the WP:MOS, so I refute all of your accusations, and kindly ask you to stop assuming bad faith. I have not censored you, on the contrary I have moved your content where necessary and dealt with policy violations such as WP:SYNTH. Focus on improving the article rather than throwing accusations around, like I said if you feel content is missing, then WP:FIXIT rather than throw all these accusations around. TylerBurden (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh and that diff is from January 2022, where I had been an active Wikipedia editor for a few months, forgive me for not being familiar with Wikipedia guidelines at that point, but it seems like a grasp to go to something that happened almost two years ago when you are doing it in the present repeatedly despite being informed about WP:LEAD. TylerBurden (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)