Talk:Folketing

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Nyalliance.jpg[edit]

Image:Nyalliance.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

Folketing → Folketinget — This article should be moved to the correct grammatical form - singular genitive absolute. There is only one Folketinget in Denmark. Alternatively it should be moved to The Folketing, which is the English pendant. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 15:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This might come as a surprise, but my Devil's advocate approach did not bring the slightest of evidence out there when I searched on the net and in textbooks, so I must fold the argument. I think the argument was needed, but in this case there really is no alternative that holds. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 01:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move again[edit]

Folketinget → Folketing

Wikipedia:Naming conventions says "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article." A search of the digital archive of The Times gives 303 instances of 'Folketing', the first in 1861, but only three for 'Folketinget'. If we are to use the Danish word at all, then 'Folketing' is its natural form in English, and grammatical inflections in Danish really don't apply. 'Folketing' is where the article was for more than five years, and no one seems to mind that form of the word still being used in the article, so long as the word 'the' is in front of it. In the page name Folketing, 'the' has to be implied, just as it is in all other page names which have omitted the word 'the'. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The official website for the Danish parliament http://www.ft.dk/English.aspx (in English) writes "The Folketing" http://www.ft.dk/~/media/Pdf_materiale/Pdf_publikationer/English/The_Folketing.ashx , so "Folketing" must be correct in English. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the Danish parliament's web page is now invalid and the current one (6- dec-2015) says "Folketinget". (http://www.thedanishparliament.dk/). --unsigned

And today, 13 August 2023, that site quite consistently says "the Danish Parliament" with no mention of either Folketinget or the Folketing (except for the logo which shows the official Danish name "Folketinget" as part of the logo). But on some pages on the site it says "Member of the Folketing" (https://www.thedanishparliament.dk/en/searchresults?sortln=asc&party=%7B3CFDAB2C-71AF-43D1-A120-0FC5966310B3%7D&); these pages all seem to be automatically generated from a database, so the reason for stating "the Folketing" there could be that it's a technical database string that is unavailable for the normal editors to change. Just wanted to mention this. --Jhertel (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of arms of the Folketing of Denmark.svg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Coat of arms of the Folketing of Denmark.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed Lists[edit]

The following statement is factually incorrect:

Parties select their candidates using a closed list. Thus, voters select the party of their choice, not any specific candidate.

A single glance at a Danish ballot shows this to be false.[1]

It also contradicts the wikipedia page on open lists, which cites Denmark as an example.

If no one objects, I would like to correct this. 184.69.77.162 (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/staff/michael_gallagher/DenmarkVoting.php

"Folketinget" does (most likely) not mean "the people's thing"[edit]

The article states: "(Danish: Folketinget, pronounced [ˈfʌlɡ̊ətˢeŋˀð]; lit. the people's thing)" As a Dane who has lived all my life in Denmark and speaks Danish fluently I do not believe this translation. "Folketinget" is a compound word of "Folke" = "people('s)" and "tinget", the articel states this is a conjugation of "ting" = "thing", but the correct conjugation of "ting" is "tingen". I believe the correct origin is the old danish word "tinget" which means some thing like "parliament" or "council". Thus it seems like these two danish words are being confused and that the translation is incorrect. (6- dec-2015)

If you follow the link (which leads to Thing (assembly)) you will find that the English word "thing" has the same double meaning as the Danish word.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- You are fast, apologize for the blunder, should I delete this section or what is standard procedure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHiggsField (talk • contribs) 23:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it is fine to keep it here untill it is archived by the bot. It will serve as an answer to others who might have the same question.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Folketing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Party colours[edit]

Since the official colours of the different parties sometimes can be hard to distinguish, particularly in the parliament map, I propose to use the colours the media usually uses. For example Danish state owned DR uses red to represent A, orange for Ø, babypink for F and purple for B. This makes the parties of the red bloc more easily distinguishable. You can see an example here: https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/politik/resultater/folketingsvalg. This could also be changed on the wiki-pages for the different elections (2019, 2015, 2011 etc.) Any thoughts? Cmaack (talk • contribs) 10:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Party groups in infobox[edit]

108.2.77.116 seems to undo every change I make to this. There are two issues: (a) where the NA-seats should be placed, and (b) if there is an official opposition, distinct from other parties in the Folketing.

(a) I have provided a source from 26/6 that says that Siumut sits in the Social Democratic parliamentary group. I have also provided a source from days before the election saying that the Union party sits in Venstre's parliamentary group, and that the Faroese Social Democratic Party does not sit in the Social Democratic group. The same source states that the Faroese Social Democratic Party does not oppose the red bloc (it was from before the election, hence the strange wording). Furthermore, I have provided a third source from 26/6 saying that IA have agreed to support the new government. This is the reason they are placed where they are, and changes to this should should be backed by better sources than those I have provided.

(b) I have yet to see any source that there is a this called the "official opposition" in Denmark, and that is because it doesn't exist. This is a thing in Westminster systems, but not in the Danish. There is no shadow cabinet either. There therefore is no meaningful split between the parties traditionally regarded as belonging to the "blue bloc", and then parties like The New Right and The Alternative. We can discuss if the block should be called "other parties" of "opposition" or something similar, and frankly I don't really care about that. ― Heb the best (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The statement written above by User:Heb the best, link to contributions, Heb the best is absolutely ridiculous. Why? First of all he/she claims to have found a source from 26/6 that says that Siumut sits in the Social Democratic parliamentary group. Well, he/she falsely claimed that they had found the multiple sources, but it was I who provided the sources about the group, not Heb the best, you can see my edit, that it was I that provided the sources. (108.2.77.116). The user had provided no sources that I asked for and I had provided 3 sources. The user kept reverting my edits and placing their favorable choice. I had to provide the source about the Social Democrat and Venstre group which led to the point where the user stopped reverting. In the composition before the elections, there was a category of official opposition where the Social Democrats were placed and others were, other opposition. I said the official opposition was built by the Blue Bloc and other unaffiliated parties go to other opposition. Then I had previously asked the user to provide a source to support their claim that Inuit Ataqatigiit supported the government. The user failed to provide the sources I asked for and still reverts to their preferred option. - 108.2.77.116 (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am uncertain if you have read what I wrote, and looked at my edit before reverting. You seem to totally disregard my sources and the merits of the discussion, but only focus on whether it is your version that is live or not. All my claims are sourced, as I carefully explained above. None of your claims are properly sourced. That is the difference between our two versions. I reckon that I was wrong in my first edits about the NA-seats not sitting in parliamentary groups, that's why I went looking for more sources and corrected myself. All my sources was someone I found myself (even though this is irrelevant to the discussion). You linked three sources in this edit, but one was a Chinese news telegram of preliminary results and useless, one was a 10 year old encyclopedia entry on Siumut, and the third was a recent DR-article, but said nothing about parliamentary groups, only who they supported as PM, which is very different. None of those could be used to settle the questions.
You are right that the split into an "official opposition" was there before the election, but that does not mean that it should remain there. In fact, claiming that an opposition is official is unsubstantiated if not supported by a source. If you have any, please provide it. As long as there is none, we should just write "Opposition". And if we does that, there is no reason to distinguish between opposition and other opposition.
I will not revert you changes at this moment, as this is already an WP:EDITWAR, and I does not wish to participate in those. But beware that I intend to follow up on the case. I the mean time, I urge you to look though the case, and judge it on the merits, and not who did what. Please state clearly exactly what it is with my version, that you have problems with. ― Heb the best (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have perfectly read into what you wrote, but you certainly did not about what I wrote. Your claim that you had provided sources directly to me is false. Another thing I am concerned about is you claim to say that Inuit Ataqatigiit is supporting the government, then I asked for you to provide the sources to support your point, which you have failed to provide. I cannot possibly disregard you in any way about your sources because first of, you didn’t provide any, but you however claimed that the sources I had provided were yours, which is very concerning. On the issue of Official Opposition, The Blue-Bloc is a team of parties just like the Red-Bloc, I perfectly explained the use of official opposition. Venstre is the main opposition party and their partners join them as the Blue-Bloc. I also believe other parties isn’t the right term for the situation. Anyways, due to the constant reverting by you, I now say that I do not wish to revert any edits made by you, neither do I want to engage in a WP:EDITWAR with you, but unfortunately the reverts you had made in the past led to an edit war. I also won’t revert any edits at this moment, but beware as well, that I also intend to look into this case and I also urge you to list all things that you disagree with about the edits.-108.2.77.116 (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are having problems reading my links or perhaps you don't understand Danish, so I will parse them here, with the relevant content translated:
  • https://sermitsiaq.ag/aki-matilda-partimoedewow (26/6): "It have been some hectic and overwhelming weeks for Siumut's newly elected and young member of parliament, Aki-Mathilda Høegh-Dam (S). (...) But she feels that she have been well received by the social democratic group, where she participates regularly in the group meetings."
  • https://pov.international/tam-valgkamp-pa-faeroerne/ (3/6): "Sambandsflokkurin is sister party to Venstre, and Javnaðarflokkurin is sister party to the Social Democrats (...) It is only Sambandsflokkurin who will become a part of a parliamentary group, if they win a seat. All the other large parties have said that they will not be part of a parliamentary group. Javnaðarflokkurin have said that they will not work against the red bloc."
  • https://knr.gl/da/nyheder/ia-er-positiv-over-aftale-bag-ny-regering (26/6): "With the agreement, Inuit Ataqatigiit in the Folketing have agreed to be a part of the parliamentary majority in the Folketing behind a coming S-government"
On question (a), I have an issue with the Faroese Social Democrats being places under "Government", as they do not sit in that parliamentary group, and that Inuit Ataqatigiit are listed under opposition, as they are supporting the government.
On question (b), I have a problem with the distinction into "Official Opposition (Blue Bloc)", and "Other Opposition" specifically because there is nothing official about the blue bloc. It is just a short hand for the parties on the right side of the political spectrum. In addition the blocs are not entirely well-defined. Are The New Right part of the blue bloc? Well, during the election campaign, Løkke ruled out basing his government on their seats. And yet they were grouped with the other right-wing parties, when committee seats were distributed. In the same grouping, The Alternative were together with the red bloc, however they consider themselves as part of (the only member of) a green bloc, which some medias accept, and some don't. As such, we should just have a single grouping, naming all parties not actively supporting the government. ― Heb the best (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per the official websites own page on the subject: ″the opposition consists of party groups not in the government, or giving support to the government. Therefore, it’s pretty clear that there is only one opposition and not two. Skjoldbro (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I perfectly read your links that you provided just now. I think its you who has problems understanding what I am talking about because you listen only to yourself. I am relieved that you finally provided a source that supports your claim that Inuit Ataqatigiit supports the government. However, I am still concerned that you said no the first time, that Siumut and the Social Democratic Party aren’t in a group with Social Democrats and Union is with Venstre’s group, then you said yes, when sources were provided by me and admitted to being incorrect, and now you say no again, thats what doesn’t make sense. Siumut and The Social Democratic Party participate in a parliamentary group with Social Democrats, that’s why they are in government, it’s not just meetings that they participate in, they sit with the Social Democrats as well, same for Union with Venstre. If they weren’t, then they would be just supporting the government, but they do not have separate groups. On my part, I will agree that perhaps the Blue-Bloc and Official Opposition won’t be the correct use for this issue and we can stick with one not two oppositions. I will agree that the composition should include the following to which you have said should be there, Inuit Ataqatigiit supporting the government and getting rid of official opposition. However, I believe that the Social Democrat/Siumut/Social Democratic Party group stays in government, not separated and Union/Venstre group stays as well. I have also edited the Folketing to what has been discussed and agreed on but, the other issue (groups) has been left as it is (due to still being discussed). -108.2.77.116 (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the four parties are providing confidence and supply, it means supported by, so the revert of Frederiksen Cabinet is unnecessary. -108.2.77.116 (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good, it now seems that we agree on all but if the Faroese Social Democratic Party are part of the government group, or if they merely supports it. On that note, I will repeat the above source (POV International) states that the Faroese Social Democratic Party (Javnaðarflokkurin) are not a member of the Danish Social Democratic parliamentary group. Can we agree on what the source say? I have seen no source saying that they are part of the parliamentary group. But please find one, if you can.
For the record, the three sources above have been present since these two edits: [1] [2], and also linked in this edit: [3]. You seems to have missed that, which explains the confusion. However, this is process and ultimately irrelevant to the result, and I don't think we should continue arguing over that. ― Heb the best (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


No, I’m not confused at all, I think its you who is getting confused because I asked for a link to the source, not direct me to an article of where the sources are and the first two edits give no sense about where sources are, only the third explains where the source is. Anyway, I will not agree on one part. I have seen your sources, which you have finally provided, I don’t know why it took so long to give me a link of the source, but I have seen your sources and I admit my mistake about the Union Party and the Social Democratic Party being in groups, but I will not agree on Siumut. I have also provided you a source, which I urge you to read and not to miss, [4], which states Siumut is in the Social Democratic Parliamentary Group. - 108.2.77.116 (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My patience is wearing thin; I have shown much already. May I propose you consult the introduction to Wikipedia, You don't seem to know what a diff is or how to recognize a source in one, and the general etiquette about performing edits while discussing them. And are unable to understand what I am saying.
Pinging all editors since 25/6 when the new government deal was agreed, so we can put an end to this discussion: Gust Justice, BALMAINM, Spicemix, Cat Elevator, Cmaack, Karma1998, HapHaxion, Sadwick7, Skjoldbro. To you uninvolved editors, I propose that the parties grouping in the infobox is to look like in this edit, with the exception that "Other Parties" are replaced by "Opposition". This is backed by the sources in the infobox, of which the relevant content have been translated above. ― Heb the best (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my stance, then I am also perfect happy with a "flattened" version of this list, as in this example. In fact I think I prefer this, as this is how most sources describe them. Then the two parties (Siumut and Union) that are members of the parliamentary groups can be noted with a footnote. What I mainly oppose is that the four parties are grouped according to different criteria. The best criteria seems to be if their members are part of the parliamentary groups. And if we settle on this criteria, then the grouping should of course be backed by sources. ― Heb the best (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My patience has run out due because the user has failed to understand what I am telling them. The user asked me to provide a source, I did, but the problem is the user doesn’t believe what it says and keeps reverting to their preferred method. The user also refused and failed to provide sources that I asked for twice about a specific topic on Inuit Ataqatigiit supporting the government, The user finally gave me the source that I asked for at the third time that it was requested. I propose keeping the current composition on Folketing as it is, with Siumut and the Social Democrats in a group together [5] and keeping opposition in place and not turning it into other parties, simply because it is an incorrect use for this issue. On Frederiksen Cabinet, which is being reverted and I have repeatedly given the explanation to a different user of what the meaning of Confidence and supply is. I propose keeping the initial version of the article before the reverting began. [6], now [7].

Pinging all editors since 19/6 that have edited on the article Folketing, so this discussion can be ended: Gust Justice, BALMAINM, Spicemix, Cat Elevator, Cmaack, Gust Justice, BrownHairedGirl, Sadwick7, HapHaxion. - 108.2.77.116 (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So a few thoughts on this: There is no "official opposition" like in the UK. The closest thing you have to anything official are the two election groups that are divided into the two standard blocs, but the term "official opposition" is not a term in Danish, so it shouldn't be used in English. Now there is a distinction to be made between the right wing parties, which clearly is more of a proper faction, and the Alternative, but to be honest, displaying it in the infobox makes it seem like it is more official than it really is.

As for the North Atlantic seats, I propose actually just displaying them as seperate parties. Officially, the SD group only consists of the Social Democrats (48 MPs and 2 Ministers). Their sister parties might attend the group meetings, but there isn't anything official about it. Same thing goes for Venstre and Union Party. Also, it doesn't make sense to imply that Siumut is part of the government.
So while technically only the four main party leaders signed the agreement, it is implied that the Social Democratic sister parties support the government. As for IA, I'd have them support as well even though the source is intentionally vague. Gust Justice (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that "participating in the group meetings" does not mean that you officially are part of the group. I don't want Siumut to be displayed as part of the SD-group unless there is a source that their member is officially part of the group, which she is not according to the official website. Gust Justice (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those issues have already been agreed on, but on the case of Siumut, it clearly states that they sit in a group with the Social Democrats. Why are they in government? Because it’s one parliamentary group, Siumut doesn’t have ministers, but they sit in one parliamentary group. It is stated here [8]. - 108.2.77.116 (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source you are linking is from 2010. There is no source that says their member officially is part of the group. On the official website, the party is treated as its own group. Gust Justice (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gust Justice for stepping in. I am happy with the current version, except that the footnotes have disappeared. This discussion should end right here. @108.2.77.116: You have been edit warring much, not only here, but also on Frederiksen Cabinet, it seems. Beware that edit warring is against the rules (WP:EDITWAR), and you can be temporary banned for it. ― Heb the best (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say thank you, Gust Justice for handling this situation properly by providing the information needed, in order for the debated questions to be proven, which User:Heb the best has failed to do. Now, @Heb_the_best: You have been edit warring way to much, it was not me who started this. It was my edit that was on the article before you started edit warring, which lead to the situation of an (WP:EDITWAR) caused by your reverting. You have not handled this issue in a proper way due to constant refusal to provide sources when requested, me having to repeat three times to you to provide the sources needed to prove your point, and for making false claims that I didn’t read your sources. If, you make an edit, you must provide sources for it to be approved, you cannot simply claim anything without a source. Beware, that your actions can lead to a temporary ban on Wikipedia, due to the constant refusal to provide sources to any user when requested, constantly causing edit warring before talking to other users on talk pages, and editing articles with unsourced information. -108.2.77.116 (talk) 24:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change party colors to the ones used by the media?[edit]

I know that there is a section on it, but I am starting a new one since the other one is a year old. The current party colors that are used, especially for the left-wing parties, are #1 too similar to each other and #2 not the color used by the media (sources: DR, TV2) and familiar to most people. I have changed these, but these have gotten reverted by an editor whose view is that the official color should be used. I want people's views on this just so that it can be settled.

Colors used
Party Wikipedia DR TV2 My proposal
A #F04D46 #A82721 #D1163E #F04D46
B #E5007D #733280 #712F87 #733280
C #004931 #96B226 #4AA127 #004931
D #127B7F #127B7F #01515C #127B7F
E #004224 #6C8BB8 #5C77A3 #6C8BB8
F #BF031A #E07EA8 #F50896 #E07EA8
I #3FB2BE #3FB2BE #47BED4 #3FB2BE
K #E5440E #8B8474 #FE8300 #B1A269
O #FCD03B #EAC73E #F4B912 #FCD03B
P #0198E1 #998F4D #807740 #998400
V #002883 #254264 #065BB2 #002883
Ø #D0004D #E6801A #F82D00 #E6801A
Å #00FF00 #2B8738 #78C31E #00FF00

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gust Justice (talk • contribs) 10:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Folketing&oldid=1187646866"