Jump to content

Talk:Rasmus Paludan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Translation of "Stram Kurs"

[edit]

This article currently has the party name "Stram Kurs" translated to "Straight Course". The Danish word "stram" actually means "tight" in English. In the context of a political party that would then be the English word "stringent", i.e. "Stringent Course". 2A02:AA1:1621:8659:E4D1:9CC1:8C88:E667 (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2023

[edit]

Change "extremely opposed to" to "opposed to". Use of "extremely" is redundant, unusual and seems like editorializing. 37.155.49.66 (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: Changed the wording to "strongly" instead. Curbon7 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophilia

[edit]

Re: Paludan´s chats with underage boys. The articule reproduces Paludan´s response: "aludan did not deny the claims, but denied any wrongdoing, stating that he did not know how old the people he was talking to were, and that the boys or the moderators in the chat would have stopped him if he had overstepped any boundaries". However the chats were made public and it is obvious that he knew they were minors: Anti-Muslim extremist Rasmus Paludan engaged in sex chats with minors (trtworld.com) Ymeine2023 (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section. Police have chosen not to act. Vague insinuations where there has been no actual action do not belong on a BLP. The lack of police action strongly suggests there is no prosecutable offense, and the source is trying to create hype by speculating. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BLP "underage chats"

[edit]

When a newspaper makes vague accusations, a living person denies them, and law enforcement declines to pursue a case, it does not rise to the level of notability.

This is especially true for BLP—regardless of his odious political beliefs, an encyclopedia can't recycle vague newspaper accusations when law enforcement evidently considers it unlikely that there was a prosecutable breaking of the law.

It's important that police have chosen not to act. The newspaper cited is trying to imply that Aludan acted against the law. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I have removed the section (again) [1]. Especially so, since media has now reported that the police closed the investigation without any finding whatsoever, see [2]. --Jeppe fra Ribe (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was notable news in Denmark, and no one denies it happened (actual recordings exist), just that it wasn't prosecutable. Other bizarre facts omitted from the article is his prior prosecutions for stalking young men[3], and that he's married to the ex-girlfriend of convicted murderer Peter Madsen[4] (which happened right after these chat allegations, coincidence, of course). FunkMonk (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
/* BLP "underage chats" */ Your source says nothing about prosecutions for stalking. Paludan has never been prosecuted for stalking. It was not noticeable news since it was only mentioned in one tabloid. That same tabloid has now written that the police did nothing. --Jeppe fra Ribe (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you read Danish, and sure you know TV2 and Avisen Danmark are not "tabloids": "Dokumentet er et polititilhold fra 2012, hvori det fremgår, at Rasmus Paludan igennem længere tid havde udsat en dengang 24-årig mand for chikane og stalking i en sådan grad, at politikeren fik forbud mod at opsøge eller kontakte den unge mand i fem år." FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TV2 and Avisen Danmark have not reported about the Discord incident. As far as your quote it says nothing about prosecutions. The quote merely stated that a restraining order was issued, which expired in 2018 without further incident during the 5 years it was valid. -- Jeppe fra Ribe (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that's the point, the article doesn't mention these other well-sourced issues (and you ignored his bizarre marriage). FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is a whole section in the article on that:
https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Rasmus_Paludan#Restraining_order
I do not think that is relevant per Wikipedia:BLP but at least a restraining order (even thought it expired) is a decision by the government. -- Jeppe fra Ribe (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 20:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

5x expanded by Thismess (talk). Self-nominated at 18:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Rasmus Paludan; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: The hook isn't quite accurate - it implies (or even states outright) that Paludan caused the controversy from 2023 Quran burnings in Sweden, but that isn't what our article there says, it says "The most notable of them occurred on 28 June 2023, when a 37-year-old Iraqi Assyrian refugee Salwan Momika ripped out and set fire to pages of the Quran". Paludan may have been first, but does not seem to have been the most controversial. So we need either a rephrasing of the hook (was the first of the... ?), or a completely different hook (maybe the 2022 Sweden riots; or that he's a regular candidate for office despite a noticeable effect of brain injury; or that he founded a church; or that he's a hard line anti-immigrant while himself being an immigrant; or that he's banned from Sweden; many, many others ... the article is just full of "hooky" possibilities!).

Also, thought the image is technically acceptable, I think there's a very similar but noticeably better image, here at the right. You'd need to put it in the article, but again I think it's just better than the proposed one: he's got his eyes open, and slightly less double chin, and it's more obvious that the book being burned is the Koran, which is often printed with a geometric design cover, rather than just any paperback. GRuban (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to rewrite the hook to be more accurate in terms of sequence of events. Otherwise I am of course fully aware of everything else you write, but I found my selection of hook and image to be the most noteable and preferable (in the image his attention/eyes is more focused on the burning, and the burning/book is more lively). Thismess (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: after some reconsideration, I have decided to withdraw the proposed picture (and any other) from the nomination, as I think it might just be too controversial for the main page in any case. Thismess (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thismess: Would you be OK with "began a major global controversy"? I don't think "what caused" adds much. --GRuban (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I've updated the hook now. Thismess (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--GRuban (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rasmus_Paludan&oldid=1256409722"