Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:13, 25 December 2016

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Ideology and links to Nazism

We have had some difficulties sourcing this in the Danish article as there haven't been much serious research done on the party - and a debate whether is Neo-Nazi or not. Both Daniel Carlsen and the wast majority of leading members are former Neo-Nazis (in DNSB). We decided against labeling them as Neo-Nazi in the introduction and inserted a section about the debate around this. The party has an authoritarian structure (the leader can only be toppled by a 5/6 majority in the Executive, which only includes 4 members (one of which is party leader Carlsen..) ;-) They are not Holocaust deniers. Carlsen says he never was, but had to pretend when he was a Nazi ("you buy the whole package when you become a National Socialist"). You have to be of European descent to become a party member, non-white adopted children and mixed race Danes are not accepted even if fully culturally Danish (in modern Denmark ethnic Danish is usually used for people who are considered "culturally Danish" regardless of race and this is how Nation Conservatives use ethnicity - so they are far more racialist than other Nationalist parties in Denmark (like Danish Unity).--Batmacumba (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Poll

The party commissioned a poll from Gallup saying 16% of voters considered voting for them and 3%+ would. They held a press conference at the Royal Library to announce this. Beforehand the public was held in suspense as to whether they would announce they had enough signatures to get ballot access. This episode and the poll should be mentioned.--Batmacumba (talk) 07:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Whether polls belong in articles can be questioned (just imagine if other parties had additions to their articles every time some poll was published!). However, if you think it belongs; fine. I've tweaked the info to remove the risk of misunderstandings. As mentioned in the Politiko reference and its link to the actual Gallup poll, 12.6% might vote for the party and 3.4% would. In the wiki article it read as if 16% were in addition to the 3.4% (i.e, a total of 19.4%) when in fact the former number includes the 3.4% (i.e., 12.6% + 3.4%). I've modified it to remove the risk of this misunderstanding. If you think there's a better way to write it feel free to modify it, but only if done in a manner where misunderstandings aren't likely.

Furthermore, I noticed you reverted the hatnote. Disregarding the fact that blank reverts usually are reserved for vandalism and alike, this was highly questionable. I guess you understand Danish, but if you don't please check a dictionary: The word "Danes" is synomous with "Danish people". Unsurprisingly, Danes and Danish people lead to the same wiki article, too. Considering the fact that English-languaged sources sometimes use "Danes' Party" (should be redirected to this article) for it, it is obvious that this easily is confused with the name "Danish People's Party". I hope you'll provide an explanation why you think these essentially synomous names are unlikely to be confused. 80.62.116.99 (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

This particular poll influenced the perception of the party from being seen as a "sect" to being mentioned in the media along with Nye Borgerlige as a party that could enter the Folketing. Its not just some random poll. I agree in general that a single poll isn't worth mentioning, but I think this one is an obvious exception.--Batmacumba (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Danish is my native languge. I have no strong feelings about the hat note, I just found it superfluos. I see "People's Party" as a logical linguistic unit, and there are plenty of "People's Parties" around in anglophone countries, so I would assume an anglophone would see it that way as well rather than reading it as "Danish People's". I would suggest you create a profile if you want to do serious editing. My gut instinct is that edits made by anonymous editors are usually either superfluous or wrong, and I am not alone in sharing that instinct.--Batmacumba (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I can not see why this poll should be viewed as an exception. I have removed the poll. You are saying "This particular poll influenced the perception of the party from being seen as a "sect" to being mentioned in the media along with Nye Borgerlige as a party that could enter the Folketing." I do not think Misplaced Pages should be a platform for "changes in perception" of anything. So the reasons to include the information in the encyclopedia is extremely weak and speculative. This one source are not enough to say a change has taken place, and therefore i guess this is your opinion or do you have any sources indicating this? Dnm (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Yet again, Batmacumba, are just reverting without responding on the talk page. If no answers comes i will remove the poll again. It surely feels like there are some WP:Conflict of Interest here. Dnm (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I resent that accusation. It is a cheap shot accusing your critics of association with far right politics. Especially since you are familiar with the discussion we have had about this complex issue on Danish wiki.--Batmacumba (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

You can resent that if you feel like it, but you have made it clear that you have a conflict of interest (here, and on DaWP and SvWP). I have not the slightest doubt about this. Dnm (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I have done no such thing and implying that is slanderous. On the contrary I have tried to be as nuanced as possible.--Batmacumba (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Does not self-identify as National Socialist

The party has developed quite a bit during its history and does not self-identify as National Socialist, so if you want it described as such please discuss it here first and do not use "old" sources. We have discussed this quite thoroughly on Danish wiki and I encourage you to listen to the result of our debate before you change this.--Batmacumba (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Ofc they do not, but others than the party itself thinks so. Do you have a non-party affiliated source saying they have changed from neonazism to something else? Dnm (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Cherrypicking and misrepresentation of sources regarding 'Nazism' claims

At first, you shouldn't throw around false accusations about vandalism, it could potentially get you banned considering you initiating this edit war. It's never vandalism to express fair critique.

To the matter: One issue is that you're deliberately misrepresenting some of the sources, failing WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Your refs to omni.se, Aftonbladet and Information never explicitly state that PofD is a Nazi party. Furthermore, Information explicitly states that PofD is nationalist.

Next issue is that expo.se fails WP:RS, as they're driven by a clear political agenda ("Expo granskar, dokumenterar, analyserar och upplyser om intoleranta, rasistiska och högerextrema grupper och idéer..") , in the same way Breitbart fails WP:RS.

You're mostly using Swedish sources, which is very strange, considering PofD being a novel and minor Danish party. The famous opinion corridor is prevalent in many Swedish mainstream media, including Sydsvenskan, giving them a inherent political bias. One (1) journalist labelling PofD as Nazi in an unrelated context about Facebook hate groups - does not make PofD a Nazi party as an undisputed truth. Thus it is not random, why you chose Swedish media over Danish media about such a sensitive Danish subject, it is a politically motivated choice. If you can present Danish MSM explicitly stating that PofD is Nazi, then it wouldn't be cherrypicking sources and thus a violation of WP:NPOV. You may only write that 'The Swedish newspaper Sydsvenskan mentioned the party as being neo-Nazi. ' as to keep neutrality.

This source is your only sound source. But you may not write 'many experts and assessors', just because one 'expert' argues that PofD is Nazi. You may write, that 'Chris Holmsted Larsen from University of Roskilde argues, that the PofD is neo-Nazi. ' or the like. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's what I'm seeing in local and international press:

Danish nationalist party distributes ‘anti-refugee spray’: Chairman and founder of the party, former neo-Nazi Daniel Carlsen, said the spray could be used for self-defense. Possession of pepper spray is illegal for citizens in Denmark.

Danish nationalists hand out cans of 'refugee spray': The party, which was founded by a former Neo-Nazi and wants to see all non-Western immigrants kicked out of Denmark, put labels on cans of hair spray reading ‘Refugee Spray: Legal effective'

Iceland’s football team slams Danish party’s racist post: “If you don’t think that Europe and Denmark should be transformed into an African backyard, then enter your email address at www.stemdansk.dk so the Danes’ Party can be allowed to run for parliament,” the post reads.

So there's a definite connection, but it's unclear what a "former neo-Nazi" mean. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It means that he used to be in a neo-Nazi party (from he was 17 to 20). I am not sure various newspaper sources helps us here. Journalists tend to use various ideological terms carelessly. There is a dearth of good sources because the party is so insignificant. On Danish wiki we ended up contacting a young researcher who had conducted more in depth studies for a comment, and he was reluctant to label it neo-Nazi, but as his ph.d. dissertation is unpublished it can not be used as a source on English wiki. The party has clearly absorbed many nationalists from a non-Nazi background, and Carlsen himself was very young when he was a Nazi and may have genuinely moderated, so its tricky, but I think the previous version was more or less okay, but that some of all the Swedish sources (especially Expo) should be weeded out.--Batmacumba (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am not interested of a political discussion. If you have sources present them, if you do not have sources leave it be. I have discussed in this kind of articles (about far-right/extreme right-wing phenomenons) since 2010, and always are the same objections raised and political arguments presented. And i wont be a part of it. But i will answer about Expo.

It is true that the Expo has a clear objective. The foundation states its purpose as to "inform the public of racism and xenophobia by newspaper production and newspaper publishing", "to defend democracy and freedom" against racist, extremist and totalitarian ideologies. For this purpose, Expo get government grants. Their business is to examine and report on far-right movement activity. They have simply chosen to specialize their issuance and their skills, and this does not make them unusable as a source.

Expo are viewed as experts by the Swedish Government, universities, right-wing and left-wing media alike. Expo has the support of all the political parties in the Swedish Riksdag besides the far-right party Sverigedemokraterna. Expos Foundation Board consists of conservative politicians, social democrats, liberals and so on, and many of these have previously been ministers in the Swedish government and head of state departments. So, to say it is a leftist newspaper is a result of ignorance or a deliberate lie. The only ones that truly can think expo is leftist are those who are a part of the far-right/extreme right-wing movement.

I use the sources i can find, read and understand. Danish is not my native tongue.

The article of today presents both the party's self-image as well as third-party assessment/analysis of the party and its ideology, and the sources are reliable. Dnm (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, pi.167, you mean that the expertorganisation on right wing extremism, Expo, in Sweden is not a reliable source because it is stated in their founding papers that they will research on right wing extremism? This organisation, Expo, is used as experts for the Swedish governments (both this left government and the former right) and in the board are there former ministerns from both Socialdemokraterna and Moderaterna, but the research is not based on that. Adville (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

"The only ones that truly can think expo is leftist are those who are a part of the far-right/extreme right-wing movement." aha, 'defending' critique with spewing unfounded ad hominem nonsense, great strategy..

But seriously, don't bullshit me about their neutrality. 'Expert' is an unprotected title. Expo Foundation was established by the notorious far-leftist author Stieg Larsson. He was the Expo magazine's co-founder and editor-in-chief until his death. Former "chief-of-research" Tobias Hübinette was an AFA member, anarcho-syndicalist and convicted criminal. Note that Expo is only dealing with 'intolerance, racism, right-wing extremism', I wonder why. If Expo's truely unbiased, then they'd be researching all kinds of extremism from all sides, including left-wing and religious extremism. No, expo.se fails WP:RS. Such biased people should never be considered reliable assessors of what is "intolerance, racism, right-wing extremism". --80.63.3.167 (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

They are seen as experts by powerful societal institutions, such as the government, universities, and the media (from left to right of the spectrum). That says a lot. What you or I personally think is of no consequence. Thus, Expo as a source is valid and reliable. Dnm (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The source still fails WP:NPOV. Whether it is used by some "societal institutions" says absolutely nothing to this critique. Your government is an entity with a political agenda itself, just like the government of DPRK is such a one. The media - yes, some media. Your mainstream media biased by the åsiktskorridor indeed. Right-winger Avpixlat and Fria Tider will not agree with you.

You see, in Denmark, we have a similar organisation called Researchkollektivet Redox. But at least, we are honest about their political bias here. You don't fool anyone. I really don't think we should allow a left-leaning site pretending to be unbiased as WP:RS, as long as right-wing media like Breitbart are blacklisted as RS. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Does this mean that you dismiss both the former right wing governments experts about right wing extremism, and also the whole Swedish media (except two small extrem right populistic bloggs, sv:Avpixlat described as a "racistic hate site, Xenophobic and rightextreme" (11 sources in the top of the article, even international) and Fria tider that use to defend antisemitic writers according to Swedish Committee Against Antisemitism). Can't you do better? isn't this POV from you? Adville (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

You have just proved the point I made earlier, 80.63.3.167, that: "The only ones that truly can think Expo is leftist are those who are a part of the far-right/extreme right-wing movement." Your entire post is screaming "this is my POV, and not facts in the least". As I said earlier to Batmacumba: "With all due respect, what you think is appropriate sources or not is not particularly interesting in this context (I am not interested in a political discussion or political evaluation of sources)." That you dislike Expo, Swedish mainstream media, and the right-wing and left-wing governments of Sweden, universities and so on, are of no consequence when it comes to NPOV. Your opinion/conspiracy theories are suitable for blogs, not for encyclopedias. Dnm (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Adville, what a way to address the issue of expo.se's bias by attacking the credibility of FT and Avpixlat (with biased sources like expo.se and Swedish MSM as well) and hurl ad hominem against me. So ... you missed my point completely. To both of you: I don't consider Avpixlat and Fria Tider RS, as they have a political agenda. expo.se is neither RS, they just pretend to be neutral while they're not. When you have an organization run by far-leftists like the founder Larsson and 'chief-of-research' Hübinette devoted to criticize certain right-wing elements, such an organization cannot be NPOV, as the people behind are inherently motivated by a political agenda. As mentioned before, NPOV would be referring to an organization of politically unaffiliated researchers investigating all kinds of extremism, be it right-wing, left-wing or religious. Expo.se has an unavoidable bias, even though you claim otherwise.

Also, "right-wing" is not an absolute term. What's called right-wing in Sweden is not the same as right-wing in, for instance, the U.S., where only SD could possibly compare with the American Republican Party. Your definition of "right-wingers" using expo.se as an "expert" source doesn't include SD, which is indeed also right-wing, but not of the politically correct kind that expo.se and your mainstream media approve of, due to SD's sociocultural stance. Of course, just because your government uses a certain source, doesn't mean WP should use them too - your government is not NPOV, as no government can be NPOV.

Try relating to the issue, not deflecting it on everybody else questioning expo.se's credibility as being "far right", believing this label should nullify their arguments. Consider a reverse situation: Imagine that Jimmie Åkesson created a so-called 'politically neutral organization' 'researching' 'intolerance, hatred and left-wing extremism' labelling Vänsterpartiet of today as Stalinist, would you *honestly* accept that as a credible, reliable, neutral source? --80.63.3.167 (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I beg you pardon, but I am not attacking any credibility. I am using sources to show other readers here that you are trying to compare ordinary papers, researchers and two governments with two extremist pages on the net. That shows your bias. It is also clear why you try to do this - to make every source you do not like to be a "bad source". I say as user Dnm said in the thread here under: "Stop it. If you want to change something you need sources, not speculation, not politics, not conspiracy theories. Do not you see that your arguments are plain POV?". With your way of thinking CERN should not be used as a source about physics, because they have said clearly "we will investigate physics". It IS true that Larsson was one of the funders, but it is also true that the board consists of person from the whole political sphere in Sweden (exept Sd, which do not like to be reminded when their politicians talks antisemitic, as an example.). So stop this attacking on serious sources, when you have no facts. Say what is bad in the specific source, why do you think the specific part is not good et cetera. (to say "I do not like Larsson therefor this is not good" is no serious[REDACTED] discussion). You have showed your bias by taking Avpixlat as a serious source, and by doing that you do not seem to be here ta make a neutral page but to white wash it. Adville (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Try at least to read my comment instead of attacking a straw man - I'm not "whitewashing" sites like Avpixlat, for I said: I don't consider Avpixlat RS, just like expo.se shouldn't be considered RS. Anyway, to get one thing straight, Avpixlat is not necessarily "extremist" just because expo.se and some of your politically correct MSM are claiming so (for comparison, I've never seen Danish MSM label Avpixlat an "extremist media"). You should not complain about my perceived bias, while you're having obvious difficulties with not presenting subjective material from biased sources as an evident truth.

Again, your country's kind of "right wing" is quite different from, let's say, the American right wing. This "spectrum" including "right-wingers" in expo.se don't include SD, which is right-wing comparable to American standards, but your MSM and expo.se associate it with extremism and whatnot, because SD's political viewpoints don't fit into the narrow consensus on sociocultural politics as defined in the famous åsiktskorridor. That's called being biased.

One thing, politics ≠ physics and excuse me, you're an absolute moron if you think that expo.se is like CERN in terms of scientific validity. I'll be honest, I'm quite discombobulated with this degree of naïvité. So, let's say I am a Golden Dawn member and I decide to create a 'research group' on 'left-wing extremism', excluding people with certain political opinions, that I disagree with. You wouldn't raise any suspicions about any inherent bias? You couldn't imagine me having a political agenda behind? Expo's 'chief of research' was a criminal anarcho-syndicalist AFA member. One of your 'researchers' Alex Bengtsson tweeted that 'Marxism is a science and a doctrine of ideas.' Is this a special Swedish kind of unbiased, reliable, neutral research or what? --80.63.3.167 (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

You mean our country? Because with your knowlenght about avpixlat et cetera you are not from the us. So I guess we have had this discussion on svwp before, you and I. You keep saying about one of the founders, but you seems to not understand what I say anout the board. You keep trying to misskredit with nothing to come with than your political propaganda and bias about teo persons in expo. You also keep mentioning the åsiktskorridor (which happens to be a word only used i the slightly more extreme parts of the Swedish right) but you did not mentioning the other sources on avpixlat from other countries that also calls them extrem etc. This shows your bias. Please come with facts or stop trying to misscredit a good source just because you do not like the research it is doing on right wing extremism (and stop callong me a morron, you know what I mean with the example. Both are experts in their field and open with what field. By using bad language in a discussion you just show you have nothing to vime with more than own opinion. ) Adville (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Stop speculating about me, and start making convincing arguments about expo.se's postulated neutrality. I've presented my doubts, now it's up to you to refute them. If you cannot, I shall remove the references to expo.se, delete the mention of 'Nazism' in the infobox and finally collect and summarize some refs into a separate section about allegations of Nazism, as to ensure NPOV. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hahaha, you have done nothing more than saying your own point of view in this matter. I have showed how Expo is used as experts in a whole country, while you instead says that the whole of the Swedish established media, governments and scientists are POV, you miscredits a whole countrys media and system, and says you have no bias? This is not about "your doubts", because you have not come with any sources at, just accusing me for things. Where are your "refs", that you say you'll use? Please post them on this page in a new section before you do anything in the article. And before you try to erase a neutral source, that is often miscredited like you do by Sd and other far right in Sweden, come with some serious sources that shows Expo is lying in their research, because you haven't given anything at all that shows they are lying or exaderating. Adville (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

1) You know, we're discussing expo.se being RS or not, but you're still spewing ad hominem at me. I'm disappointed at your ... diminutive comprehension capabilities.

2) Ignoring all your straw man attacks, your only content was: "I have showed Expo is used as experts in a whole country." This claim is still completely irrelevant to the question of their inherent bias. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not interested to be a part of your political discussion on what is a good source or not. Me and user:Adville have made it clear why Expo et al. are good sources. We have done so by giving you concrete examples on the question "why" Expo et al. are good sources. The only thing you have contributed with is politics and false accusations. If you do not have anything else this discussion is over. Dnm (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

When you say nothing new to the discussion it is no use to answer. My point is clear and you have seen it. As you know, by looking at your own discussion, you can not just erase sources, then you risk being blocked again. It is not the one who has proved the sources sre good that are blocked. Adville (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I say nothing new? Because you do not address what I am actually saying and blabber about my perceived agenda and making empty statements about "what you have done". Stop acting like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and don't flatter your own sources as "good" without considering these issues first:

• Expo.se is inherently biased, violating WP:NPOV and is thus not WP:RS because they're agenda-driven - being created and managed by known far left figures and solely critizing certain right wing elements. It is completely irrelevant whether they're used by SOME parts of the Swedish government, SOME media etc. in this context, as expo.se's making a political choice in their reporting and this choice is fitting the political orientation of key persons in this organization. Don't you know the concept of source criticism or what? Expo.se cannot be considered WP:RS in order to ensure WP:NPOV, as WP should not be a dump of actively WP:POVPUSHING agencies like expo.se, that is so per aforementioned reasons. Also, it is completely rubbish to make comparisons of politics to physics at CERN, as absolute answers to ideological issues don't exist in such a subjective field - it is impossible to (dis)prove these loaded questions with a lab experiment. There's no clear common societal consensus yet in Denmark about PofD, being multiple reasons herefore. So: If Sydsvenskan or Chris Holmsted Larsen is making a **claim** about PofD being Nazi, it shall never be presented as a universally acknowledged truth, especially concerning PofD not identifying with Nazism, the small age of this party and thus them not having a detailed, elaborated policy yet, making it cheap for people of certain political orientations to throw around brash, unfounded accusations. Allegations about Nazism should be treated as allegations - in a section about Nazism allegations... as to ensure neutrality, which is why I collected the only two useful sources - one source being EB interviewing CHL from RUC (a left-leaning university though, but still not an ideologically driven agency like expo.se, so it's up to the reader to evaluate the source) and one Swedish MSM itself. I think that is a fairly neutral, proper coverage to say that X and Y claims Z and W when dealing with controversial topics, and your constant revertings while refusing to properly answer my criticism border WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior. Also, note that some sources were deleted because of:
• Failure to obey WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Reference spamming is not an argument. You're adding irrelevant sources, these are omni.se and Aftonbladet - AB does not explicitly state that the Party of the Danes is neo-Nazi, and omni.se does in fact explicitly state that PofD is nationalist. So they simply do not accurately represent the claim of PofD being Nazi, which is why they'd be deleted. Is that hard to understand? Consider also the currently WP:UNDUE amount of Swedish MSM sources on this Danish topic, giving unnecessary room for a certain viewpoint promoted by these sources. WP should reflect various viewpoints and not just be an echo chamber for Swedish MSM.

So, with omni.se, Aftonbladet and expo.se discarded, this means we're left with EB and Sydsvenskan, whose content could be appropriately summarized in a separate section. Yes, I can erase refs that don't live up to WP standards, because you have not soundly accounted for an acceptable use of every single of them, while I have stated my concerns. This is not a bannable offense just because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 21:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Swedish sources

This is mostly an explanation to non-Scandinavians. I have basically given up on this article until a particular Ph.D. thesis on "the new right" in Europe is published in a year or so, which includes a section on the party and should make it possible to source the article adequately. In general the Swedish "establishment" (media, academia and political system) is seen as heavily biased regarding issues pertaining to immigration, integration and Islam on the Danish centre-right and right wing. This view is shared by centre-right politicians and the writers of editorials in large Conservative dailies such as Jyllands-Posten and Berlingske Tidende. So using Swedish sources for an article about a Danish nationalist party inevitably provokes many Danes (think using exclusively British sources for an article about Irish republicanism). For the same reason Expo has a bad reputation on the Danish centre-right (and naturally far right, but that is less significant). It would probably be sensible to a) reduce the number of sources as there is no reason to source the same info more than max. two times and 2) try to find non-Swedish sources saying the same thing. Not because the Swedish sources aren't valid per se, but because having them acts as a red rag and provokes unnecessary edit wars.--Batmacumba (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

What you are trying to say is that enwp should not use sources that are Swedish just because they do not follow your opinion? Isn't that POV? I have been in a discussion like this about Chiles dictator where one from Chile tried to erase the word dictator just because the Chilean government had made a law forbidding that word about "the man" in school textbooks. We can not follow what a government in another country says, nor shall we follow some kind of censoring sources from other countries just because they are not agreeing with our own opinion. You, as a Danish, know very well that the bridge between our countries makes so we hare quite tight bound together and our researchers in Sweden are looking at other Nordic countries too. Why then dismiss Swedish sources? Adville (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I am just trying to explain why this way of sourcing the info will continue to cause edit wars. That is all. Cutting a few of the many Swedish newspaper articles used to source the claim of neo-Nazism and replacing some the Swedish sources with Danish by fx. Rikke Peters would limit the "red rag" effect. And of course its POV (though not my personal POV, but that of a much larger group), but that is besides the point. It was pragmatic advice and background info to non-Scandinavians wondering what is going on. Its not something I will personally go into. Like I said, I am waiting on a dissertation.--Batmacumba (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

In my experience, they cause edit wars because some editors do not respect sources what they do not agree with personally. If everyone could respect valid and reliable sources this would not be an issue, thats why we shall not censor sources people do not like... (we are not the three monkeys "don't se hear or say anything upsetting") Adville (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

In this case there will never be consensus about what is a valid and reliable source (simply because so many researchers in this field see it as part of their job to help combat the phenomenon they research, thereby mixing the researcher and "activist" role), but my point was much more pragmatic and down to earth. You got some second rate sources (Swedish newspaper articles), which could easily be replaced with other second rate sources (Danish newspaper articles) and the Neo-Nazi info is "over sourced" (something doesn't become more true because you cite 3 or 4 newspaper articles). So its not really about censorship. The text would stay the same and the sources say (roughly) the same. Just in a less provocative manner. But I will leave it to neutral non-Swedish/Danish users to make that call. Like I said it was mostly background info to non-Scandinavians, who may wonder what all the fuss is about.--Batmacumba (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

If that is the consensus outside of Misplaced Pages, it will be what we write on Misplaced Pages. The political discussions you are constantly starting is not doing anything good and has no part to play on Misplaced Pages. Stop it. If you want to change something you need sources, not speculation, not politics, not conspiracy theories. Do not you see that your arguments are plain POV? Dnm (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)