User talk:Dylansmrjones/Archive 2

English Democrats Party
Irvine22 is a well-known troublemaker on nationalism in the UK, with a long series of blocks behind him - I suggest you just ignore him, rather than reacting. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Aahh.. that's why Snowden wrote that thing with shame and you replied with that double a-thingy :p ... oh well, I'm still going to post something about the flawed "academic" paper. It should stop the use of such an unreliable source. They could at least have sourced their statements. And used objective measurements (tricky but not impossible). I'll ignore the irvingthingy btw. Dylansmrjones (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be intrigued to see your explanation of why you think it is "unreliable", given that it is by a recognised academic expert - and .  I hope it's not because you disagree with it.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My objections are technical and not political. I definitely agree with some parts of the paper and I think I disagree with other parts. However it doesn't matter since it is only a draft. That explains the flawed methodology and the severe lack of source references. Which is a BIG no-no in scholarly communities. Dylansmrjones (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"numerous reviews in e-magazines" (Midori (web browser))
If they are notable, please add them as references. -- Marawe (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Søren Krarup and Scania
Three years ago Mr. Krarup created a "tempest in a teacup" making claims on Swedish (and German) territory for Denmark. In my opinion this infamous statement should no be in the article History of Scania. It has not "due weight". Wikipedia policy says under "Due and undue weight": ''Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give "undue weight" to the Flat Earth belief.'' As a matter of fact he soon scaled down his claims after the interview, saying: it was "frugten af en journalists utroværdige vidtløftighed". He was more or less provoced to say what he said. Revanchism in Denmark or irredentism in Scania may exist, but they are so insignificant opinions so they clearly are of "undue weight". --Vedum (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your opinion (and my opinion) are irrelevant. I have proven it is not a tiny minority. That is your belief, and you have not put forth any sources what-so-ever. Søren Krarups partially retractment does not invalidate the notability of the incident. Nor is he a minor Danish politician. You have an unhealthy nationalist agenda, and I suggest you stop that. I oppose the removal of the sentence, but I do support extending the coverage in order to give it due weight. Your swedish POV is not a trustworthy guideline for measuring due/undue weight. And I want sources for those statements from Søren Krarup. One should also not forget the views of Jesper Klein, a famous Danish actor and writer. But perhaps he too is only a minor person of zero importance according to your standard? Dylansmrjones (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I do not know if Mr. Krarup is a "major" or "minor" politician. But he is not a member of the government and he does not express the official Danish view. The president of Argentina, e.g., every now and when puts claims on the Falkland Islands. That has of course "due weigt". I have not a "nationalist agenda". But could you explain what you mean by writing: And oppression (Social Fascism) is a major issue in Sweden. You have neither free speech nor free and fair elections.. In what way are elections in Sweden less "free and fair" than in other countries??  --Vedum (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you don't know whether he is major or minor, then don't write that he's a minor politician. Being a minister or not is irrelevant in this regard. Some of the most wellknown members of the parliament have never been close to become a minister. Nor are all ministers members of the parliament. Or even particularly wellknown in Denmark. Nor do ministers necessarily represent the official view. The official view (if any) is irrelevant in regard to determin the majority view (if any). I've never considered minority vs. majority in this regard. I looked merely at the incident and whether it was controversial or not and whether it was notable. Having many wellknown Danes considering Scania to be Danish culturally and etnically deserves more weight than your opinion. So does the opinion of linguists. Scanian is a Danish dialect. The Scanian regiolect of Swedish is not a Danish dialect, except in the sense that Swedish is a modern dialect of Old Danish. But the same goes for Modern Danish and Icelandic. The swedish elections are unfair and unfree in several ways. No proper free speech (e.g. social repercussions if you have a different view than the mainstream accepted, as well as censorship on parties representing views the system does not want spread), you cannot vote in secret per se (e.g. everybody can see whose party list you are taking with you), and strong social repercussions for those who dare to challenge the majority. And of course, parties get to pay their own ballots. Which again creates a situation where the big ones can protect themselves against the small parties. In order for elections to be free and fair all participants must be secured proper ways to communicate with the population and voting must happen in secrecy. Complete secrecy. Sweden have neither free speech, tolerant mind, nor free and fair elections. And yes, you do have a nationalist agenda. You may not recognize it as such, but it is a nationalist agenda. Or perhaps 'bias' would be a better word? Dylansmrjones (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)