This template is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The entire 'ideas' section reads like an election pamphlet. Concepts like "Democracy, Freedom, Human rights, Human dignity, Positive liberty, Social justice, Solidarity, Sustainability" are by no means unique to Soc Dems, and the links say very little about Soc Dem ideology. I propose they be deleted, the question is what should substitute it? --Soman 10:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
They were added here because they are also present in the Christian Democracy template, and it proved impossible to persuade a couple of editors to accept their removal. I maintain that any criteria applied to this template must be applied in equal measure to the Christian Democracy template. -- Nikodemos 10:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I think we meed strong criteria for the inclusion of ideas for all templates, because I belief that these ideas are very useful, if they have proper criteria. C mon 16:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no qualms with the current version (which should not be surprising, as I was the last editor of the template). Right now, the template is limited to:
Dear C mon, your opinion counts exactly as mine, so I don't understand why we can't return to the previous version of the template. I think it is fairly more practical to have templates without "show" buttons. They are more easily manageble. --Checco (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
After six days, I can only observe that there is no consensus on the edits of C mon, as he is the only one defending them in this talk page... --Checco (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Checco, in the case of this particular template, I did not create the shows, that was User:Morgan695here and you are the only one contesting this. So I can't say that there is consensus for rolling back. C mon (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right (sorry), but, as we are talking about a handful of templates, I agree with you when you say that we need a more centralized discussion. I don't think it is ok to have some templates with the shows and some without. We need a single decision on all the navigational boxes on political parties. --Checco (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I created a centralized place for discussion about the show/hide-issue here. I invite every one to participate. C mon (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Tony Blair? Is he a social democrat ? Cme34 (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I am shocked to find that Tony Crosland has been removed from the list of people. He is surely the leading theorist of modern social democracy in Britain. It seems quite ridiculous to include Bulent Ecevit and Gerhard Schroeder, essentially merely opportunist politicians, but to leave out an influential intellectual such as Crosland. -- Alarics (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I added Lassalle, who is certainly the most important figure of Northern-European (or now NW European) social democracy. Following your comments, I removed Blair and Schröder, who are not of the stature of the others, i.e., they are not considered the leading politicians of their country, etc. Thanks! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
“From his style to his policies Mr Corbyn would, in Norway, be an unremarkably mainstream, run-of-the-mill social-democrat. . . . Yet, here in the United Kingdom a politician who makes similar policy-proposals . . . is brandished as an extremist of the hard-left and a danger to society.”
“Across Europe social democracy – and for all the charges of Marxist extremism thrown at Jeremy Corbyn, his ‘spend more money on the welfare state’ manifesto was resoundingly social democratic – has long been on the slide.”
“Corbyn wants to nationalize key industries. He is a socialist, not a social democrat.” (emphasis added)
Because this issue approaches a biography of a living person, I’m not immediately reinserting Corbyn, but please provide information that contradicts my understanding. —LLarson (said & done) 13:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Is Corbyn actually notable enough? He's not a prime minister or an academic; he has not held a high political (government) office, or offered theoretical insights. It seems as if his inclusion is jumping on the bandwagon. I note that Ed Miliband is not listed, for instance. --Hazhk (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
None of the audio/visual content is hosted on this site. All media is embedded from other sites such as GoogleVideo, Wikipedia, YouTube etc. Therefore, this site has no control over the copyright issues of the streaming media.
All issues concerning copyright violations should be aimed at the sites hosting the material. This site does not host any of the streaming media and the owner has not uploaded any of the material to the video hosting servers. Anyone can find the same content on Google Video or YouTube by themselves.
The owner of this site cannot know which documentaries are in public domain, which has been uploaded to e.g. YouTube by the owner and which has been uploaded without permission. The copyright owner must contact the source if he wants his material off the Internet completely.