Talk:Swedish Anarcho-syndicalist Youth Federation

References

While it may be true that SUF has engaged in violence and sabotage as means to further their political acts, none of Itake's "references" tell of criticism. Please see and read WP:REF, and find proper references for your claims. Or, rewrite the passage to fit the references, and format the references properly. -- Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Both of us being able to read Swedish, both of us know that the sources in mention specifically mention the word "criticism". So no, everything is in order. Itake 14:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I am fully able to read Swedish, and the only mention of criticism in one of them is the Police's criticism of jobbjakt.se, and the second doesn't even speak of criticism. Actually, it states that encouraging crime isn't even illegal. Whatever the case, they should also be properly referenced - although I could do that if you just dig up some actual references! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, you just lied. If you could read Swedish, you would understand the full meaning of this sentence: "Charlotte Bloom på SUF tillbakavisar kritiken"Itake 11:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Upon a re-reading, I grant you that point. I'll write it into the article, wait a few minutes. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There. I considered wiki-linking Ulrik Hofsöe, but I don't think he is very notable. His criticism isn't very notable either, I suppose, but we'll put it there to make you happy? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policies on POV pushing, just so you know. Itake 15:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a lot of policies. I do believe I follow them all. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

In order to properly deal with the aftermath of the little edit skirmish, I've done my best to actually find the criticism Itake was talking about in his edit summaries. I've tried the following keyword combinations while googling:

• "Syndikalistiska Ungdomsförbundet"
• "Syndikalistiskt Ungdomsförbundet kritik"
• "SUF"
• "SUF kritik"

(limited to Swedish language hits only.) I have thereafter browsed through the first four pages of search results looking for criticism, and to be perfectly honest I did find A Sweden Democrat criticizing the participation of the Social Democrats, the Left Party and the Greens in Nätverket Mot Rasism (NMR), as "extreme left" organizations such as SUF and AFA, and an article from Socialist Justice Party basically whining about SUF and RKU not liking RS.

Further, we've got a news search on DN.se, revealing nothing but the fact that Itake found the exact same results considering that he tried to put in the second and third hit into the article. One has since been removed as 1) it's not criticism, and 2) it was about the Invisible Party, and the other has been referenced and properly inserted into the article, describing the Swedish school teacher Hofsöe's criticism om SUF's summer campaign of 2005.

A search on SvD.se yields no results at all. Nor does a search on Aftonbladet.se.

In desperation, I finally tried some more google searches: "kdu suf", "muf suf", "luf suf" (which admittedly returned more Sweden Democratic criticism against the left in gerneral), and finally, "cuf suf". You'd think at least the last one would return something, but nope. Nil, nada. Zero.

I've done what I've could here. I can honestly not find any sourcable criticism against the Swedish Anarcho-syndicalist Youth Federation that's worth mentioning. And for sure, SUF has not been "heavily criticised for engaging in sabotage and violence as means to further their political aims" as Itake claims.

Sincerely, Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that claims such as "heavily criticised for engaging in sabotage and violence as means to further their political aims" must be backed up by reliable sources. This applies for any article about political groups on Wikiedia, no matter the political orientation. Inserting such claims without legitimate references is considered point-of-view pushing, and does not belong on Wikipedia. Spylab 22:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section, part II

I removed this section again, and I'll explain why here.

SUF has been heavily criticised for engaging in sabotage and violence as means to further their political aims, and encouraging people to commit illegal acts and/or commiting illegal acts themselves.

OK, fine. Let's see the sources Itake provided for this statement:

• [1] <-- is already cited earlier in the text
• [2] <-- deals with Osynliga Partiet, put it in the Invisible Party section or even the article on the Invisible Party
• [3] <-- deals with Osynliga Partiet
• [4] <-- 1) deals with Osynliga Partiet, 2) is hardly very critical (although other blog posts may be)
• [5] <-- deals with Osynliga Partiet
• [6] <-- deals with planka.nu - SUF's relation to Planka is that some members of SUF once started it, nothing more.
• [7] <-- deals with planka.nu
• [8] <-- his latest post does criticize SUF and OP by calling them undemocratic

That leaves us with the first (already cited) and last (blog post) references useful at all. Those two references hardly motivate an entire section, especially with the wording "heavily criticized", and even more as blog posts aren't considered very good sources: see WP:V and WP:RS.

Perhaps it should be noted that while it is true that Osynliga Partiet was a campaign initiated in part by SUF, Osynliga Partiet does not mean SUF and nor vice versa. It also has it's own article. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets see:

[9] <-- deals with Osynliga Partiet, put it in the Invisible Party section or even the article on the Invisible Party

[10] <-- deals with Osynliga Partiet

[11] <-- deals with Osynliga Partiet

Osynliga Partiet was a campaign initiated, started and funded by SUF. So yes, its quite relevant.

"[12] <-- 1) deals with Osynliga Partiet, 2) is hardly very critical (although other blog posts may be)"

Its been made clear on numerous occassions that Frederik Federley does NOT like Osynliga partiet, so I'd say its criticism. Itake 23:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"[13] <-- deals with planka.nu - SUF's relation to Planka is that some members of SUF once started it, nothing more.

[14] <-- deals with planka.nu"

...nothing more??? Its a campaign started by SUF, its a criticised campaign. Thats all it needs for relevancy. Itake 23:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So no, that leaves us with yet another torrent of links that show criticism. And thats not even counting the ones you deleted. Itake 23:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Osynliga Partiet was a campaign initiated in part by SUF, and in part funded by SUF. Granted, SUF financed part of the campaign - primarily the free stickers you could get from wapiti.se. But tell me, how much does it cost to grab a stone and throw it through a window? The more controversial parts of the campaign where definitely not funded by SUF, as they were free.

If it is so that Federley has criticized SUF, provide sources for that and not for something else.

Is Planka.nu a campaign started by SUF? I had no idea, seriously. Could you provide a source?

Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Funded and started by SUF. Thats all that is needed.~

I just did. Read, then comment.

[15], [16]

Itake 00:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What's the deal with SUF + Osynliga Partiet?

My point on Osynliga Partiet is that while part of the campaign was funded by SUF, single actions carried out by fractions of the Invisible Party carry no connection to SUF. In the first of the three sources in question (about Jobbjakt.se), OP or SUF isn't even criticized - jobbjakt.se is criticized by the police for giving in to the demands of OP.In the second (about OP adding KD), the perpetrators are referenced to as "anonymous left-wing activists" - they may or may not have been members of SUF, we do not and will not know. In the third, they are referred to as "a loosely connected network on the utter left edge", and we think we can all agree on that SUF does not compose the entire utter left edge. Nor is SUF loosely connected - it is quite clear that OP consists of other things than SUF members. As thus, criticism directed at Osynliga Partiet cannot be taken as criticism directed at SUF - although a reference for critcism directed at SUF's involvement in Osynliga Partiet would be more than welcome. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wooo, entirely and utterly wrong. Wheter the fractions in question carry connection to the SUF or not is irrelevant, since the SUF officially supports Osynliga partiet. Because Osynliga Partiet is a campaign started by the SUF, and funded by the SUF. So naturally, criticism on one of them becomes criticism on the other. Saying otherwise would be like saying criticism on George Bush doesn't reflect on the Republican party. As for the perpetrators, Osynliga Partiet admitted to being behind every single one of those deeds. So there's nothing anonymous about it. Itake 01:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Federley criticizing SUF

What you sourced from Federley's blog was this:[17]. It basically reads "hey, there's an article about OP on WP", a quote from Swedish Wikipedia, and finally a comment from Federley himself: "Reko kids...". I find it exceptionally hard to consider anything in that blog post criticism, and even if we ignore that part blogs should preferrably not even be cited as sources at all (see WP:V and WP:RS). Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Your standards on criticism are ridiculous. Edit history clearly shows you previously did not even consider the word "criticism" to constitute criticism. Its a fact that Federley criticises SUF. Itake 01:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I admitted that I was wrong on that one, remember? It may be so that he does criticize SUF, but in the blog post you referenced he does not. Also, see WP:V and WP:RS about citing blogs in the first place. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And so finally, planka.nu

So, Planka.nu is a campaign run by SUF? Let's see the source you cited, [18]. It begins with this (loosely translated by yours truly):

Planka.nu is a network of local campaigns working locally for free public transport. Today we exist in Stockholm County, the Gothenburg area, and in Östergötland county.

A few paragraphs later, under "history", we find what you are probably referring to (again translated by... moi):

Planka.nu was started by a bunch of syndicalists in SUF-Stockholm the year 2001 when the politicians of Stockholm County despite reduced quality of public transport once again decided to raise the price of the month card to the unbelievable 500 SEK.

What can we read from this? That five years ago, it was started by a few members of a local SUF club. It is not declared being a SUF campaign, declared as being run by the same SUF members, declared as being part of SUF - it's connection to SUF is even looser than that of the Invisible Party.

In order to verify my point further, let's see the end of the opening paragraph in the Swedish Wikipedia article you cited (again, my translation):

The campaign is now no longer a SUF campaign and is run in a loosely connected network.

What can we read from that? That SUF no longer has anything to do with Planka.nu, and what you are guilty of an association fallacy. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice try. Wheter SUF is no longer associated to planka.nu or not is obviously not relevant, since the criticism is still of a campaign that THEY started. Swedish wikipedia, with the same references, state that its a campaign run by the SUF. It was started by SUF-Stockholm. The planka.nu site links to SUF-Stockholm. SUF-Stockholm links to the planka.nu site. Planka.nu is declared a member of Osynliga partiet, Osynliga partiet was a campaign run by the SUF. Association fallacy? Right...Itake 01:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

I would suggest deleting the criticism section if you don't intend on changing it. However, its existence can be justified. Instead of having a paragraph like this paragraph that I completely made up:

Often, small animals are considered cute. Many children enjoy small animals, although many also unintentionally torture them.^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]}

Have one like this:

Because of their apparent natural weakness, sympathizing with small animals is common, especially in small children^{[1]. 68% of surveyed children[2] have noted that they want a small animal, and the sales of small animals have increased over the past 10 years.[3]. However, injuries often result to small animals because children do not know how to handle them[4], and many pet stores require parental approval for the purchase thereof[5]. Small animal deaths in the past 20 years have occured largely from children[6]. This may be due to the treatment of small animals as property, and not beings with volition.[7]}

OK, I had a bit too much fun with that, and most of it probably isn't true. But you get my point: don't just group sources under a big umbrella. Cite something specific from each one.

Don't just say that there were acts of violence: mention individual ones, and reactions to those. Wikipedia does not summarize information so much as it takes information from many sources, and makes a textual compendium of the content therein.

In addition, I would hesitate to use a blog as a source. If the blog links to a more specific source, use that one. See WP:V#SELF for more information.

That's all. Itake, if you want to specify exactly of what nature is the criticism of the Federation, and not just saying there is some, and furthermore noting that it is "heavy" (a POV statement, in my insignificant opinion). Have you heard of Nietzsche's camels, who bear the burden of duty? (See point number 6) In this case, be a camel. Bear the burden of putting together research. Don't just write over the subject of criticism of this group, be thorough, and write in it. Although on Wikipedia you can't go to the lion stage (due to WP:OR), regarding the burden of putting together factual information, this section can be good!

I note the same thing to Jobjorn. As this section stands, it's a bit vague. In my opinion, do not delete it, but make changes in it similar to what I did to the small animal section. Be a camel!

That's all. Thanks for reading. If I'm being too esoteric, please forgive me. Gracenotes ^T § 02:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Great, now let's make a new criticism section.

I hope we can now all agree on that that the current criticism section isn't very good. As thus, I will now remove it and try to write a better one. Itake, please, do not simply revert - respond to Gracenotes' suggestion here or improve my work. If not, I'll just take it to WP:RFC so that we can have it settled. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This is one hours' worth of work, so don't remove it, please! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 03:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like the section should just be removed. I mean, come on, the chairman of CUF uttered a harsh word about them once? This is criticism? Swedes are more diplomatic and restrained about criticising each other, true, but even adjusting liberally for that, none of this rises to the level of notability. "Democrats don't think Republicans are really the best choice in the upcoming election, News at 11." Arker 22:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Article

I added the anarchism bar but it needs to be adjusted in relation to the pic. Blockader 18:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing criticism section

Well, Itake is now gone, and I think we can all agree that the current criticism section is, although very well-sourced, ridiculous. So, Fredrick Federley whined about a sticker in his blog once. And then, non-notable low-ranking Centre party youth league kids? Come on. Sweden Democrats? That really feels like inserting a criticism section describing the alleged failings of the Jews from a nazi standpoint in the article on Niels Bohr. It's kind of far-fetched. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with removing that non-notable section. Very few Wikipedia articles have "criticism" sections, and I see no need for one here.Spylab 13:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• • User:Leopierini re-instated the section (through copy-pasting - references and formatting was lost). I reverted that since 1) there's a talk page consensus on not including it and, primarily, 2) User:Leopierini is one of the persons cited in the criticism section, as secretary of CUF Jönköping. An obvious Conflict of Interest here. The two edits constituting the revert are also his only edits. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SUF-logo.gif

Image:SUF-logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)