Talk:Massutmaning

False flagging for deletion. There is a similar article written in Swedish. GreenManXY (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Please explain the Swedish name
Xx236 (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there's a good source for this – it's rather obvious in Swedish, so not as necessary to spell it out. As the article currently states, the title basically translates to "Mass Challenge". What's lost here is the wordplay – it's based on the term "massinvandring" ("mass immigration"), which has been used especially by far-right groups and other critics of the Swedish stance on immigration over the last decade to describe immigration to Sweden. /Julle (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Criticism towards extreme amounts of immigration of people of generally low education, and frequently very extreme value systems, is not a right, left, or center issue. It is simply a matter of consequence analysis for the stability and sustainability of a society, and it severely dishonest to systematically mischaracterise anybody with such concerns as automatically having far-right economic viewpoints.

As for the title, it is a wordplay on "mass immigration" and Swedish politicians consistently describing severe social problems as "challenges". David A (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The query by Xx236 was left prior the introduction of the 'approximation' now used in/as the lead. Given that the existing translation is being queried, I suspect that any such translation is not up to editors but to reliable secondary sources before this descends further into a contravention of WP:NOR, ergo I'm tagging the translation for a source. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Allegations of WP:SYNTH
Tino Sanandaji directly references that Hans Lööf is a participant in the Vinnvandring pro-immigration campaign (which can be verified by sources). Another link here. claims the edit should be removed according to WP:SYNTH, but it is not a WP editor who is making the connection between the critique and Lööf's campaign, it is Sanandaji himself, therefore WP:RELEVANT. Please discuss whether WP:SYNTH is applicable when it's not the editor that draws the connection. Imo WP:SYNTH is inapplicable because Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. does not apply because Sanandaji is a source. AadaamS (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) You did not use Sanandaji as a source. (2) It is wholly inappropriate to use a specific critique (in this case, weak slander) of the two economists as a description of them. Imagine if Barack Obama would described as "Barack Obama, the American politician and close associate of Bill Ayers,... ". Wholly inappropriate. RS don't describe Obama or the economists like that nor should Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Calling it "slander" is POV, as that implies that being a pro-migration campaigner is a bad thing in itself. It is true that I didn't use Sanandaji as a source, bc newsitems were behind paywalls. So I found one at last: if you click the link I posted above, you will see near the bottom of the page that Sanandaji is the source. We could instead write that Sanandjai pointed out in his response that Lööf is a spokesperson for the Axfoundation Vinnvandring pro-migration campaign. This article is not about Barack Obama, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Please discusss the issue and sources at hand. Only Lööf is a campaigner, not Martinsson. AadaamS (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) I used Obama as an example to explain why it's inappropriate to use a critique as a description but the level of obtuseness is so extreme that you of course did not get it. (2) An op-ed by Sanandaji is not RS for the assertion. (3) By participating in a seminar, one does not become a "spokesperson" for the organizer of the seminar: this is precisely why we require RS coverage, so that disingenuous or uninformed editors don't write up blatantly incorrect and unsubstantiated rubbish in an attempt to slander WP:BLP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is substantiated that (1) Sanandaji stated that Lööf is a campaigner (2) that Lööf is participant in said campaign. And here. You can attack me for being obtuse, disingenous and uninformed, but all that rhethohric cannot destroy what the sources say. Also, this article isn't a biography on Lööf or Sanandaji, it's about the reception & critique of a book. Even Lööf himself acknowledges that he is a participant in one of his responses - thus not "slander". AadaamS (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Translation of book title
I removed "Citation needed" for the book title. "Mass" means "mass" and "utmaning" means "challenge". Anyone can look that up in a dictionary, so no source is needed. FranzGall (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:RS. Third party, reliable sources are required. We're not talking about translating an excerpt from a reliable source, we're dealing with WP:NOR for a book which is straddling the border between meeting with WP:N and being WP:PROMO and WP:ADVOCACY. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Translating simple words can by no means be regarded as original research. FranzGall (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:PROMO and WP:ADVOCACY can be dealt with separately. Those rules have nothing to do with translation. FranzGall (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have now added a newspaper source for you as a source for the translation of two common everyday words. FranzGall (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How is it a reference? And how are the other policies something to 'be dealt with separately' when the whole article is being developed as a promotion piece for the book in question? All I've seen happening since the article's inception is the stringing together of dubious sources in order to form an equally weak article based on information gleaned from the blogosphere rather than reliable sources. It barely scratches out a case for notability. Filling the piece out using user generated and self published sources is not acceptable for English language Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You may contest the content and quality of the information given about the book – or the existence of the article itself, but now the topic for discussion is what the book title means in English. I found a source for translation of the title that I acknowledge as better than the one I used before. The book title is mentioned in the text, clear for all to see. You won’t get a better source than this one. Why? Well, there are seldomly ”official” translations of book titles to other languages, why would there? The only other possible source would be a dictionary. FranzGall (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding notability, the books author Tino Sanandaji was ranked by the Politico journal as one of the 28 people that will „most likely to shape our world in 2018“. That and its status as bestseller (according to a.o. Politico) should be enough a reason to have a page on Wikipedia for his book. Source. FranzGall (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You're still WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Where has it been established that 'Politico' is WP:RS according to Wikipedia standards? While the process of discussion goes on, and while sources are still in question, you follow bold - revert - discuss, not bold - revert - revert. You are edit warring content, and I am asking you to desist. As it stands, the bio on Tino Sanandaji has been cut back and edit warred over because of the weakness of the sourcing. Wikipedia is a tertiary resource, not an amalgam of any stuff that exists in the universe because it is flavour of the month. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, nor does it serve as a surrogate current affairs venue per WP:RECENTISM. Please read these policies and try to comprehend how Wikipedia works. While 'Politico' may serve as an acceptable source for the translation, it is not a reliable source in itself. The problem with directing readers to dubious sources is that we end up validating the source as being reliable... just as you've assumed that their top 25 list is good coin. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a long article about Politico. I cannot see any information there leading to the conclusion that it's a dubious publication. Regarding the translation of the word "massutmaning": what kind of source is acceptable to you? Is there actually any such source? Maybe you could contribute yourself with finding an acceptable source, instead of just reverting my seriously meant edits and making accusations? Also, you must understand that this is not about Sanandaji and the content of his book; you could discuss "recentism", "notnews" and so on with someone else. This is simply about the translation of the title as a service for those not understanding Swedish. In the article itself quotes from Swedish sources have been translated, of course with no source to the translation itself. In the same way no source should be needed for the translation of the book's title. But I have reverted my edit now. I have much better things to do than fight over a petty detail such as this. FranzGall (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed the cn tag. Iryna, do you know Swedish? Because anybody who knows Swedish could confirm the translation. --Hegvald (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is, apparently, not a requirement to even know Swedish in order to dispute translations from Swedish into English. Imho non-Swedish speakers disputing translations from Swedish into English without pointing out how or why a translation is incorrect violates WP:Assume good faith. (Hegvald: jag talar svenska. Hejsan!) AadaamS (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also I challenge anyone who thinks this book does not meet WP:GNG to simply nominate for deletion instead of coming with vague insinuations. AadaamS (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

neutral presentation of reception
In a blog post, Sanandaji lists a number of names who gave his book positive reviews: "ssar Lindbeck, Erik Lindqvist, Sven-Olov Daunfeldt, Robert Östling, Magnus Henrekson, Pontus Braunerhjelm, Henrik Jordahl" in total 15-16 names. He also metions that Vetenskapsrådet gave a positive review. The only researchers crticising the book are Lööf and Martinsson. Are there references for responses are Lööf and Martinsson. Is the focus on criticisms by L&M WP:UNDUE weight?. AadaamS (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)