Talk:Anders Fogh Rasmussen

About Anders Fogh Rasmussen's alleged homosexuality

How serious are the rumours about his homosexuality? Is it just a stupid thing that people say, or are they real rumours? He's obviously in favour of gay marriage, so maybe people extrapolate liberally. I can't find an overwhelming number of mentions of these rumours on the internet in either english or danish, and the ones that do show up are somewhat dubious. Should we be including this sort of "rumour" in an encyclopedia? In any case, I think it would be wise to include a link of some sort to proof, since it does not appear to be widespread knowledge. Peregrine981 00:49, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am a Dane, and I have actually avoided hearing any of the rumours. You would need to convince me that he really is gay with a respected reference before I would agree to mention it here. Since the rumour isn't very wide-spread, and maybe not true, we shouldn't mention it as long as it is just a rumour. Thue | talk 17:27, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

He is married to a woman, right? The rumours are nothing but that: rumours. They should not be included. 83.93.190.29

I am also Dane. And if you read newspaper, which I do. You would have had the option to have read serval of articels about Fogh being gay. Especially in Ekstra Bladet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.198.10.138 (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your description of Extra Bladet isn't correct, and it is not encyclopedic to include mere slander. Fogh is not the first politician that is being smeared this way, but nobody has ever presented even the slightest proof that Fogh and Marek should be anything more than friends. Or perhaps some people just can't bear the thought that politicians have friends just like everybody else. Fogh is married and the father of several kids. Besides, repetition of mere smears is not allowed by Wikipedia policy. Valentinian ^{T / C} 08:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Guys, take a chill pill here. Within Denmark, the alleged "rumor" of Anders Fogh being gay is NOT very widespread, and not many people at all would put any weight whatsoever to it. In fact, it has only been mentioned in a few of the worst tabloids, and even then never as a "fact". So I would hold my horses on this one, if it gets on the article I would certainly think it flies in the face of the WP:BLP policy. 86.14.229.187 (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Being a norwegian citizen living in Denmark I too have on several occasions stumbled across the rumours of Anders Fogh Rasmussen's sexual preferences. They have never been substantiated nor have they found their way into main stream media. More importantly, though, is that there is no tradition in Denmark for prying into politicians' personal lives. Being a proportional parliamentary democracy, danish politics still evolves around parties rather than individuals. Denmark is also a very liberal society as far as sexuality is concerned. --192.38.5.215 20:35, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)Roger Christensen

That's absurd. Anders Fogh Rasmussen have been married with Anne-Mette Rasmussen for a long time and have 3 children. Unless someting substantial turns up this rumour should be ignored and certanly not mentioned in the encyclopedia.

I don't think his sexual obsevation is very significant overall. He's married, and whether it's a marriage of love or of practical reasons should be immaterial to the public, so long as both he and his wife are happy with it. What matters is his impact on politics. Bantaar (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

About Anders Fogh Rasmussen's view on gay marriages (2)

I removed the following: Anders Fogh Rasmussen caused controversy in his support for gay marriage, and he made it clear his support was 'personal' rather than based on his role as prime minister. Because it's bullshit. It's true that he supports gay marriage, and that he said it's his personal view. However, it's not like his party is against gay marriage (they just don't have any official politic about it), and since almost everyone here in denmark share his view it has never caused any controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.185.7.8 (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What about his time as tax minister?

When he was tax minister in 1992 where there aint something about that he left the post becouse of some accusations that he made tax "fraud"? --80.197.219.8 16:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think i owns all danish persons 20 kr... Because of his actions.

His term as minister of taxation was marked by many attempts to cut staff, and this turned the (remaining) bureaucrats quite hostile towards him. The downsizing also produced a lot of confusion in the department. Later, a number of accounting errors in the department were discovered, and two rumours about the errors persisted: 1) that they had been made deliberately by the bureaucrats, hoping that "good figures" would make the angry boss stop his cuts, and 2) that the mistakes had in fact been made accidentally, but no-body dared tell the boss they existed fearing for their own jobs. Consequently, the errors were never corrected. When the story broke, Anders Fogh Rasmussen assumed full responsibility and quickly resigned his office. An official inquiry found that he had not violated any law. --Valentinian 22:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Um yes, Rasmussen was actually downright FIRED by the Schlüter government as a tax minister for breaking the rules. Bantaar (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Nazi connections

I removed the following text added earlier today, as no source was cited.

Allthough Anders Fogh Rasmussen's father collaborated extensively with Nazi Germany during WW2, and Anders Fogh himself was part of a Neo-Nazi youth organisation in his late teens, he later switched allegiance to Venstre.

Thue | talk 08:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Utter bull****. --Valentinian 15:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thats interesting. Do you have sources on that? --194.255.124.250 09:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced libel is not only unencyclopedic but also expressly against Wikipedia policy. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Being Nazi is the most usual form of useless accusation against a right wing politician, just as being a communist is the most usual against a left wing. Unless there is actual evidence, I'd say the chances are 99,9% that it's made-up, since it's EXACTLY the kind of thing people would make up. I don't particularly like Anders Fogh, but I hate people who apparently have no respect for other people and throw hollow accusations and exaggerations at them. There is a bloody lot of difference between right wing and neo-nazi!62.107.24.213 (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Typical american-style of rubbishing. If he is not gay, there MUST be a nazi ancestor anyway. I have learnt how those idiots think and argue. --84.141.41.129 (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit by User:Asbent

User:Asbent appears to like adding material about what he claims is a Muslim outrage against Anders Fogh Rasmussen. I have reverted this edit twice today (13 December 2005) and I have no intention of breaking the WP:3RR but I fail to see what possible relevance that edit has to this page.

The Muslim outrage has to do with a Danish newspaper - Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten - printing 12 caricatures of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. Diplomats from Egypt and a number of other counties made an official protest and demanded Anders Fogh Rasmussen bring Jyllands-Posten under his control. AFR replied that the government of Denmark, like all other Danish governments since God knows when, believes in Freedom of the Press, and that - under the Danish Constitution - he had no powers to intervene in this dispute. If anyone felt offended, he urged them to use the legal system to solve the dispute. The relevant section of the Danish criminal code is §266B (the clause against racism). Had AFR said anything else, he'd have violated the Constitution's §77. This states that censorship may never again be introduced but that publishers are legally responsible for what they print. Danish law gives him absolutely no authority to intervene in a newspaper's editing.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen has not supported Jyllands-Postens action at all. In fact, he's said that he thought printing the caricatures was a rather bad idea. In my mind, the Prime Minister's, and Jyllands-Posten's - based on a number of articles I've read in that paper - the dispute only involves Jyllands-Posten, not the Danish goverment or anybody else. I'd really like to see a very good reason to include User:Asbent's edit in this page. --Valentinian 22:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop vandalising this article, Valentinian. The reason to keep this addition in the article is very simple: Mr. Rasmussen's comments to not step in and suppress freedom of press caused an international uproar amongst muslims and thus, in my opinion, it is a very important part of his premiership. I will once again edit this into the article. Should you want to reword it, be my guest. However, do not delete it again. (http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2005-11/18/article02.shtml, The ambassadors of 11 Muslim countries called on Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the prime minister, to take "necessary steps" against the "defamation of Islam".))--Absent 13:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Valentinian appears to be from Denmark, so I have to weigh his opinion on Danish law a little more highly than Absent's. Also, the information does not belong in an encyclopaedia article about Rasmussen, since we cannot afford to print a paragraph or two on every comment he ever made. Also note that there is a difference "ambassadors requested an apology", and your report of "all muslim countries imposed sanctions on Denmark". Can you reconcile these? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You can edit the article then as you wish, I however think this section is very important in regards to Mr. Rasmussens premiership.--Absent 14:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Asbent, You are entitled to you own opinion, but 1) Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, 2) this "uproar" started more than two weeks before AFR stated that he'd not violate the Constitution. You have not provided any source of documentation for Muslim nations imposing sanctions upon Denmark or upon AFR personally. That's why any such references belong in the article about Jyllands-Posten. I've followed that case, and I read the paper daily. And no, I'm not part of any conspiracy or whatever. --Valentinian 14:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You liar, you were involved in the whole 9/11 debacle!!!!!!!! (I kid, of course) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's put it this way; nobody outside of Denmark cares about his tax reform: on the other hand, very many people outside Denmark are interested in the fact that there are still non-dhimmi leaders in this world who are willing to take a stand for Democracy instead of being bullied and subsequently subdued by muslims to manipulate free speech so as to not "offend" their mighty religion.--Nosharia 23:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I love your username Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I love how I totally owned you in the beslan article--Nosharia 14:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You what now? looks at the article, confused What the hell? You haven't even edited it...stop dreaming about being a WP troll at night. Also, don't fuck with articles, especially not ones on my watchlist. Cheers. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

New edit about cartoon controversy

So what's the consensus, we're mentioning it, not mentioning it? Typically our articles such as George W. Bush, Paul Martin and such do not note what seems to be a relatively minor controversy, but perhaps this is a huge issue in Denmark? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 00:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose a brief mention is in order. It's not often that Denmark appears prominently in international news or sparks diplomatic furor, even over so petty a controversy. User:NTK 14:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Denmark not appear prominently in the news over a petty matter? Clearly you haven't heard of Hans Island! ;) grins Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)}

I suppose it is appropriate with a *brief* paragraph now. This issue has now been blown out of all proportion. A lot of Arabs now demand that 1) the PM apologizes towards the Muslim world [for something he has had nothing to do with] and 2) that he outlaws Jyllands-Posten altogether and imposes censureship [which would be the worst violation of the Danish constitution ever!] Today Jyllands-Posten's buildings in both Århus and Copenhagen had to be evacuated following a bomb threat, and the evening news shows footage of Palestinians burning Danish flags and images of the Prime Minister. --Valentinian 20:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed link to support Freedom of Speech after looking up page 70 in Modood, T., R. Zapata-Barrero and A. Triandafyllidou, Multiculturalism, Muslims and citizenship on google books. No doubt that Rasmussen has stated on numerous occasions that he supports freedom of speech. However, he has not stated on numerous occasions that did not approve of the message in the cartoons. In fact, he was reluctant to state that did not approve the message in the cartoons. This is important because the crisis might have been avoided if he had stated this in an early phase of the conflict. Added Rasmussen's description of the crisis as the Denmark's worst international crisis since World War II. Added new citations to the appearence on Arabic telvision. 87.72.122.147 (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Municipal reform

• "Under the proposal the number of counties (amter) would be reduced to five from thirteen". -- I am pretty certain that's not right. Anyone know what it should say? Jdcooper 18:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The thirteen counties are being replaced by five new "regions". See Regions of Denmark. --Valentinian 00:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

To be a part of global provocation

I suppose every Law system doesn't accept slander, insult and satire incorrectly publication about a person. What about a Prophet which is respected over than 1,5 billion people all over the world. Unfortunately Denmark ,whether willingly or not,hosted this unconscience event. I describe these cartoons as a global provacation it's a silly explanation to evaluate this publication as a freedom of press. Why? What do they know about ur Prophet? How many message do they hear from him? Simply nothing. How many Europen knows this clue belongs to him. "A man who killed an innocent person is supposed to be killer of all humanity." As an example Islamic thought doesn't permit to sink a ship which has 99 savage banditsand only one innocent for the sake of him or her. In this century, unfortunately because of some occupations, uneducation and any other reasons some(very few) Muslims accept violance as describe theirselves. But most of Muslims reject this. On the view of our Prophet, current Muslim leaeders say "A Muslim must not be a terrorist or A terrorist must not be supposed as a Muslim. I invite Danish people to learn more about Prophet Muhammed. I invite Danish PM to consult to some leaders who are known as conscience as Clinton, Annan; about returning from his great fault. I invite Jillyan Posten to excuse clearly and rejecting to be a part of Global Provocation. ~

The above is an unsigned comment. To the uploader: You may assume what you want, but Danish law is crystal clear: Everyone is entitled to print almost whatever they want. The restriction is that people may not e.g. print accusations that everyone from (insert country name here) are terrorists or criminals or something like that, racism is not allowed. It is not allowed either to falsely accuse somebody of having committed crimes or something like that. But these are pretty much the only restricions. Newspapers are not regulated or controlled by the government, the police, the army or anybody else in power. The businessmen that own them, decide what they print. This is called "freedom of the press", and no Danish politician is prepared to give that up. It is also allowed to make jokes and caricatures about Christians, Jesus, Jews, Danes, Swedes, etc, and this is frequently done and accepted by the public. Images of Jesus much much worse than the ones of Muhammad have also been printed, and this is in a Christian country. People accept this. It is not the first time a cartoon of Muhammad has been printed either. If you want to read the relevant paragraphs, the articles is the Danish Constitution of 1953, §77 and the Danish Criminal Code § 140 and §266 B. On a more general note: Remarks like these belong to the page on the Muhammad cartoon controversy, not here. --Valentinian 00:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

And I invite Moslems and Arab Leaders to learn something about European law. And I invite you all to tell us how and why Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who doesn't have any ties with the newspaper, who doesn't have it in his power to stop a newspaper (despite what Arab leaders say), and who has all along regretted the offence the cartoons have caused Moslems despite having nothing to do with it, should apologize! --Thf1977 09:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Muslims are not interested in the Danish constitution or the justifications for these nasty and unwarranted cartoons. We want an apology from the newspaper for insulting us like this in the worst possible manner. We also dont care how you people slander Christianity or each other. That is your nasty culture and you can continue it. We want an apology for insulting us like this.

If you are a Muslim you might be interested to know that this entire episode has only hurt one single group in Denmark: the immigrants from Muslim nations. The vast majority of them are peaceful and lawabiding citizens - in fact many of them were kicked out of the Middle East because they opposed religious fundamentalism there. But islamist terror has made some Danes begin to view these people with suspicion, which is not warranted. In Denmark, nobody controls what a newspaper prints - unlike in the Middle East. In a democracy, the government couldn't care less what newspapers print. The only thing the idiots burning the Danish embassy in Beirut accomplished was to decrease the chances of a lot of young Muslims in Denmark trying to get a job. After the attacks in Beirut, many Muslims in Denmark demonstrated *against* the idiots in Beirut. The Danish economy is extremely strong and probably the strongest in more than 30 years. In fact one of the strongest in Western Europe. And nobody cares about Arla's tiny exports to the Middle East. My mistake, one more effect has happened: Danes have become more willing to invest in alternative energy sources, so we'll be less affected by future increases in oil prizes. And don't have any illusions that we are afraid of an "oil embargo" or something similar. Denmark has plenty of oil fields of our own in the North Sea, far away from the Middle East. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Constitutional charges against Danish Prime Minister

I would like to see an article on how the Danish Prime Minister is being charged as breaching the constitution of Denmark and Danish law by involving Denmark in the bloody war and occupation of Iraq. There also calls in Denmark and Europe to put him to trial as a war criminal. this could have important ramifications for other world leaders, including George W. Bush and Tony Blair of the U.K.

The above comment was made by IP: 69.196.139.250 at the time: 03:39, 13 February 2006

Actually, there have been no calls of the sort, and there is no discussion in Denmark about Fogh having breached the constitution. So the above is just plainly wrong... Also, I fail to see how anyone can view the Danish presense in Iraq as an occupation - they are there with the blessing of a democratically elected government... --Thf1977 07:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments, remarks, edits and additions with four(4)~ as per policy. If you are not logged in or have an account please still sign with four tildes, tis will tell the rest of the visitors when the comment was made.

Angelbo 23:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there was the case of 12 citizens (later joined by the father of a KIA soldier) who sought to bring a case before the Danish high court, that given that the war was not sanctioned by the UN the parliment violated the Danish constitution in sending troops to Iraq (but not Afganistan), however, this is as close as you'll get. Also, the case was rejected on the basis of the individuals lacking a personal interest in the case (a requirement under most code law systems) Justpedersen 21:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The entire argument was rather thin as well, since the Danish Constitution does not refer to the United Nations at all, so "unconstitutional" - hmm, no. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need to touch on the finer points of international law, but generally speaking a country does not have to willing state that it acknowledges international treaties for them to be applied to its territory and actions, and in this specific case, the court wisely made no comment on the matter of whether or not Denmark was participating in a non-defensive and hence illegal war, but simply commented that the claimants had no individual interest and hence no case Justpedersen 15:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Cartoons, why?

Pardon me, but how on earth are som caricatures in Dagbladet Information relevant to an encyclopedia article on a prime minister? "Information" only has around 20000 readers and its stories and news coverage is rarely debated or recited in other Danish media. Surely, these cartoons are only relavant to the paper's core readers - I don't recall them mentioned elsewhere. There is a NPOV problem here!

(this unsigned comment was posted by 84.238.25.152).

Apparently somebody believed them to be relevant, but yes, they are not relevant at all. They've been completely ignored in Danish media, and they contain absolutely no new information. The one with Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Abu Laban might be relevant in itself, but not the other ones. --Valentinian ^(talk) 10:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, It seems like noone bothers to explain the very good reason for including some quite unnoticed cartoons in this article. I'll do some editing soon. Medico80 17:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Being a Dane myself and having never hear about them before, I found them a funny side story. I would include them on the basis that the size of the article expands Justpedersen 21:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, now they are deleted. Let's consider this topic closed - don't revert.

Who is posting threats and not signing their ID?--IceHunter (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I deleted a large chunk of the section regarding the cartoons. It took up like 20% of the article on Anders Fogh and had descriptions on lots of issues not directly related to him. If people want to read about it, they can go to article about the cartoons. While it was a severe crisis, it should certainly not be 20% of the an article about Anders Fogh Rasmussen. --LasseFolkersen (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal votes

Rasmussen received the most "personal votes" of any politician in Denmark with 61,792.

But the article on Poul Nyrup Rasmussen says:

Rasmussen currently sits as an MEP after winning a record number of 407,966 votes for an individual (from Denmark) in the European Parliamentary elections in 2004.

Who's right? Or is it that AFR's record is for Folketing elections and PNR's for EU Parliament elections...? Tamino 12:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Anders Fogh Rasmussen holds the record regarding elections to Parliament (Folketing elections). Poul Nyrup Rasmussen holds the record for MEP elections. The latter figure will naturally be higher since MEP elections consider Denmark to be one unified constituency (5.4 mill. people, so around 4 mill. could vote for Poul Nyrup Rasmussen). In elections to parliament, each politician stands in his / her own constituency but people can vote for the candidate in the entire county. To complicate matters further, the Greater Copenhagen District is devided into three regions for this purpose. Anders Fogh Rasmussen stands in Glostrup constituency in Copenhagen County (around 618,000 inhabitants, and 380,000 voted in the 2005 parliamentary elections [1] .) Hope this clears it up. Valentinian ^(talk) 13:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War

This section needs some help. The second and third paragraphs contradict each other, and the last two paragraphs do not seem incredibly relevant. If someone who knows enough about Denmark to know which one is correct can fix it, I would be much obliged. Heavy Metal Cellist ^talk_contribs

I've tried to sort the matter out a bit. I hope it's better now. Valentinian ^(talk) 21:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

I believe I have cleared up the contradiction, by merging the contradictory statements and putting them into a proper time frame. --Mlindow 09:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the text was clearer before. Rasmussen's lack of interest in Iraq's presumed WMDs began before the debate about them seriously broke in the U.S. and U.K. Many Danish journalists wanted Rasmussen to confirm that he was simply following the American claim that Saddam had WMDs. AFAIK he always rejected this, simply stating that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant that needed to be removed. I find it somewhat improper to edit this page since I am a member of the same political party, but I am going to add a {{fact}} since a source is definitely needed here. And preferably one from when the debate took place, not material written several years later. But to the best of my information, the current version is incorrect. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 12:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Bilderberg

I think that it should be included that Anders Fogh Rasmussen participated in the secretive Bilderberg group in 2000 and 2003

http://www.bilderberg.org/2000.htm
http://www.mirrorberg.org/2000.htm
http://www.bilderberg.org/2003.htm
http://www.mirrorberg.org/2003.htm
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bilderberg_2003

My edit regarding his resignation in 1992

I've changed some factual errors in the recently-added post about AFR's resignation as minister of taxation. No court proceding ever took place. Had it taken place, it would have been "Rigsretten". What was carried out was a commission of inquiry that furthermore complained that the papertrail in the Ministry of Taxation was impossible to follow with misplaced files etc. very likely due to the massive and chaotic restructuring / cutbacks this department faced at the same time. Even this [2] "I hate the cabinet and they're all crooks"-website agrees that the dispute involved postponement of two payments respectively from 1988 to 1989 (DKK 16.5 million) and 1989 to 1990 (DKK 35 million). This might be bad accounting practice, but the amounts of cash are completely nil compared to the total size of the Danish public budget, this amount is completely ridiculous. I guess back then, one could have built one tiny school for this amount of cash, but that's about it. I've seen at least one municipality with much bigger accounting errors. The same webpage's speculation about why the opposition was "forced" to bring down AFR is complete rubbish. The opposition tried to get rid of the cabinet any way they could see fit, just like the same parties (now back in opposition) constantly demand the resignation of several cabinet ministers. It can be quite amusing following how often some of the Social Democratic or Radikale spokesmen demand somebody's resignation on TV, but after all, it is an opposition's job to constantly try to bring down the sitting cabinet. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 08:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Valentinian

I haven't changed anything in the article itself, but feel that at least two points in the above needs comments: 1) AFR's "resignation" as minister of taxation was in fact him being fired by the primeminister. his "crime" - which had nothing to do with the amount of money, but the fact that he had "grossly misguided" (the words of the commision of inquiry, not mine) the parliament and hence the danish people - was considered so serious, that a majority of said parliament would have removed their support for the entire government, thus leading to its fall, had he stayed in office. 2) Furthermore, his downfall was not due to the left opposition but was actually heralded by the entire parliament, from far left (SF - Socialists People's Party) to far right (Fremskridtspartiet - the forerunners of today's Dansk Folkeparti - Danish People's Party)

Sorry if i've violated any WP-guidelines, this is my first posting here. Oh, by the way, I'm native danish and lives in Copenhagen. 2jakes 20:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Greetings 2jakes. First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. It is always a pleasure to see more Danes on this project, and no, you haven't violated any guidelines, so no problem there.

Do you know if the report is somewhere on the net? I'd like to read it. This paragraph is mostly based on my memory of this event, and I don't have photographic memory. Regarding the first part of your message; as I remember the story, Schlüter would very likely have sacked AFR in order to save the cabinet's life, but Fogh managed to step down before Schlüter got around to actually doing it. Was this a voluntary resignation? Well, I consider the resignation of the Santer Commission to be voluntary so I judge Fogh by the same token (some might call this analysis somewhat legalistic, but as I see it, a person is either sacked or not; just like a woman can't be half pregnant.) :) You are quite correct that the background to this story is that the Progress Party threatened with withdrawing its previous support of the cabinet, something which would have brought it down, and that this decision was the event changing the previous parliamentary status quo. It is also possible that my interpretation of these events are somewhat coloured by the fact that I'm all too familiar with seeing bigger budgetary screw-ups in my own town. AFAIK, it has never been proven that AFR deliberately mislead Parliament nor that he actually ordered the department to rig the books. I do of course agree that he did hold the political responsibility of being in charge of a department in disarray. The last description of these events that I've read are Fogh's own [3] but, again, if the report is somewhere on the net, I'd like to read it. Regards. Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Valentinian

Thanks for the hearty welcome:-) I tried to find something on the net not too biased on the commisions report and the political struggle going on on- and offstage at the time, but, alas, I couldn't. Whatever I found, it was either from the far left or in complete support of our man of choice:-). But I distinctly remember the wording of the commision quoted above, "grossly misguided" and tv-clips with the late Lilly Gyldenkilde (from SF) and (also late) Kirsten Jakobsen (Fremskridtspartiet), both stating after the publication of the findings of the comission that Anders Fogh Rasmussen would have to go. It is no more than two years ago, I think, that these clips were shown on the sole national commercial tv-station in Denmark (TV2), based in your city:-) I of course agree with you in that Anders Fogh Rasmussen formally resigned - but in order to understand the events, it is equally important to know the background of this resignation - that the parliament found his crime so serious that they would have let the entire cabinet fall, had he not resignated.

But back to the report from the commision: I'm sure that a closer research of the webpage of the parliament [4] would yield the result we're both looking for. Regards 2jakes 21:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Alleged torture hush-hush

There's been a lot of controversy about a case in which danish soldiers with the danish government knowing, have transferred Afghan/Taleban prisoners of war to american prison camps in which they subsequently have been tortured. It has been revealed in a documentary called "Den Hemmelige Krig" meaning "The Secret War" in referral to the alleged 'hush-hush' done by the government. Would someone with the time, dig into this and create a section. Has been done in the danish article.

IPA

IPA [fo] is pronounced like the surname of Dario Fo (as Dario Fo is pronounced in italian not in english) which is not how Fogh is pronounced by anyone in Denmark, except as I noted people speaking with a strong funish dialect. To be correctly trabscribed it requires a stød - written [foˀ]. If you continue to claim that the transcription [fo] has been used by "domestic media" then I will require sources for that - and it will have to be sources that are reliable when it comes to representing pronunciation in ipa such as a dictionary or linguistic publication - a news paper article will not do. I agree that it is important to note that his surname is often left out.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it's a little difficult to find references, unless I go rummaging through tons of material from TV Avisen and TV2 Nyhederne, or perhaps Radioavisen. I'm fairly sure that I have heard it pronounced as in Dario Fo many times in the media (DR and TV 2). That's why I find your claim a little dubious. Strong dialects aren't the norm on the news, even if dialects have gotten a little more leeway in the last decade or so. The only thing I have at the moment is the satirical "minimalstat" song, where his name is pronounced [fo] (but this really isn't a solid source at all, of course). Sakkura (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the pronunciation in the minimalstatssang clearly is supposed to rhyme with "bog" and "klog" which means its pronounced with a diphthong as fɔʊ̯ˀ]. The pronunciation [foˀ] rhymes with "so". If Fogh were to be pronounced there as simply [fo] there would be no native danish words to rhyme with it. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Go back and listen to it again (0:12, 0:29, 1:31, 2:25 and 2:34 in the clip). It's even more conspicuous because it does not rhyme properly with "bog" and "klog". Sakkura (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It is true that some of the times it is pronounced only with stød as in [foˀ] (rhyming with so and klo) none of the times it is pronounced without stød. Anyway it should be uncontroversial to state that the most common pronunciations are those that rhyme with klog and those that rhyme with klo. If a pronunciation rhyming with Dario Fo, Otto and Kosovo exist it is clearly a minority pronunciation. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Roj TV

The article currentlt reads: "So far, it is not proven that Roj TV has any form for connection to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK)[discuss], therefore Roj TV must be legal in Denmark according to the Danish law." But, the manager of Roj TV is quoted saying: "Manouchehr Tahsili Zonoozi, a Kurd from Iran who is the station's general manager, acknowledges that the station maintains contact with the PKK, but insists it is not controlled by it." in the article about Roj TV.

I suggest that we write the following instead: So far, it is not proven that Roj TV is the mouthpiece of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), therefore Roj TV is considered legal in Denmark according to the Danish law." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.91.24 (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Roj Tv is the television of terrorists, even in cartoons people blow up theirselves, rasmussen and his country loves it.--85.100.171.3 (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence in question. It should only be added in an neutral and well sourced manner, i.e. including reliable sources and representing both the Turkish, Danish, and perhaps the international opinion on the matter. As it stood, it was just unsourced opinion. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 06:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The sentence "So far, it is not legally proven that Roj TV has any form for connection to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), therefore Roj TV must be legal in Denmark according to the Danish law." is not just an opinion but a neutral explanation of the problem. Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Without reliable sources, it stands out as an opinion. By all means add it with sources, because then I agree that it isn't opinion. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal life?

What, no section on mr. Rasmussens personal life? Married\unmarried, children, family, is there no info on this? 94.212.216.150 (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

And no discussion of Anne-Mette's career (documented on YouTube) as a competition dancer? :-) --RenniePet (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, I find it strange his personal life is not mentioned. 94.212.216.150 (talk) 08:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

His wife, Anne-Mette, has a page on the Danish Wikipedia: http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne-Mette_Rasmussen --RenniePet (talk)

Why is so dark skinned and hair for a Dane? 86.162.140.127 (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

He probably has Sami bloodline. 86.178.171.132 (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Rasmussens

The only Danish person I've ever known was named Rasmussen. Is it just a chance impression, or is Rasmussen a very, very common name in DK? Sca (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's the ninth-most common last name in Denmark: [5] -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Still, it's a bit of statistical oddity that Denmark has had three prime ministers in a row named Rasmussen (Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Lars Løkke Rasmussen). --RenniePet (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well. There are about 100,000 people with this last name, out of about 5,500,000 people. That's 1.8 % of people. So the chances of three in a row are 0.18 to the power of 3 - that about 0.6 % chance that three in a row would be named Rasmussen. Rasmussen is the ninth most common name in Denmark - so if we multiply by eight, we will get a too low estimate of the chances of three PMs in a row having the same last name, among the top nine last names. That's about a 4.5 % chance. Conversely, the chances of any one combination winning the lottery is, depending on the lottery, perhaps one in 10 million. So not that odd, perhaps. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 07:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, my studies in statistics go back almost 40 years, but still... 1.8% is 0.018, not 0.18. And my comment was very imprecise, not suitable for a quantitative answer. I guess one way to try to look at it more quantitatively is like this: Given that we have the first Rasmussen (Paul Nyrup), what are the chances that the next two PMs will also be Rasmussens? Answer: 0.018 x 0.018 = 0.000324, or about one chance in 3100. Not good odds if you're a betting man. :-) --RenniePet (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It IS a funny coincidence, but not very unlikely given the name's wide spreadth in Denmark. It'd be FAR more odd, say, that America had two presidents named Bush... Bantaar (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Minister of Finance

There was a successionbox saying Rasmussen was Minister of Finance from 1990-1992, which i deleted, which was then edited back. Anders Fogh Rasmussen has never been Minister of Finance... I don't really think it is up for debate? http://www.fm.dk/Om%20os/Historie/Tidligere%20ministre.aspx Harald ss (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

He was "økonomiminister" ("Minister of Economic Affairs"). I guess from lack of this ministry in most other countries (except China it seems. Edit And a few other countries as well, fixed the disambig of that link), that there was no other suitable box for that. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Reason for deployment of Danish troops to Iraq

This article states that Danish troops were deployed to Iraq because of "Iraq's continued refusal to cooperate with UN inspectors in violation of the UN Security Council's resolution." In fact, in the months before the Iraq War began, Baghdad was cooperating with the UN inspectors. The latter were ordered out of the country by the UN itself just before the start of the war. This article is continuing to peddle a right-wing myth that was concocted to try to justify the Iraq War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.65.102 (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Filmography

213.185.28.192 added a filmography section to the article. I undid it, and 213.185.28.192 redid it, leaving a comment on my talkpage. I don't want to get into an edit war over this, so instead, I'll leave it for now and try and see what consensus on the filmography is here on the talkpage. The filmography contains two documentaries about Fogh Rasmussen and Denmark's involvement in war; it also contains a fictional movie about the murder of Fogh Rasmussen. The way I see it, a filmography should contain either movies by or starring Anders Fogh Rasmussen, of which to my knowledge there are none. Furthermore, Fogh Rasmussen is, I'm sure, featured in many, many more documentaries than these two. Judging from 213.185.28.192's comment on my talkpage, the inclusion of these documentaries may also be construed as POV: "Excuse me sir, but that Anders is not in any of the film is a complete lie. The two documentary movies are particularly interesting because they reveal Anders and his government as war criminals not following the Geneva conventions, this might be interesting for the general public to know since he is now chairman for NATO. The journalist of "Den hemmelige krig" was prosecuted for misinformation and Anders government answered with a 300 page long report. The journalist was later found not guilty. I was not aware that Wikipedia in this sense is suppressing liberty of speech and censoring crucial background information of general interest, just because you happen to have wicked political views...". The information in this comment may actually, if well sourced, be appropriate to the article on Anders Fogh Rasmussen, but this does not follow from putting it in a filmography section. The article on Tony Blair, for instance, has a section entitled Portrayals and cameo appearances which does not contain documentaries, but does contain both movies and series he's actually appeared in, as well as info on who has played him in movies like The Queen. But what does people think? -Lilac Soul ^{(Talk • Contribs) • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here!} 05:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously it is wrong to include this information in a "filmography" when it is not concerning a person that is in the moviebusiness. I agree that the information, that critical and (in Denmark) acclaimed documentaries about Fogh and some of his politics exists, and that they sparked much debate at their release, could be worthy of mention, but it would need some sources to establish this. I propose a deletion of the filmography and I invite the IP-user to add the information in the article itself, if he/she is capable of coming up with some sources as well as writing about it in an NPOV-manner. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sentence

As I know this is not true: "Rasmussen has focused almost exclusively on the tyrannical nature of Saddam Hussein's regime." If no source can be found, I think the statement should be deleted. Rerumirf (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Flat vs marginal tax rate (in the lead of this article)

Regarding:

the Conservative coalition partners repeatedly argued for more tax cuts and a flat tax rate at no higher than 50%.

I think that should be marginal tax rate, not flat tax rate. A flat tax rate of 50% would raise the overall tax rate for most Danes!

In particular, I have never heard the Conservative party talk about a flat tax rate. That is usually reserved for the party Liberal Alliance and usually a proposed flat tax rate of 40%.

--Mortense (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"What trust may there be after such incidents?" - Rasmussen secretly recording Vladimir Putin

Can this be added to the wikiepedia article, it's been widely cited in many news sources?

Vladimir Putin said that current NATO General Secretary Anders Fogh Rasmussen secretly recorded and leaked a private conversation with him, when he was the head of the Danish government. Initial reaction was a denial issued through NATO Spokesperson Oana Lungescu who commented - “These accusations are complete nonsense. During his term in office as Danish Prime Minister, Mr Fogh Rasmussen never brought a dictaphone to record meetings with Mr Putin or anybody else.” Mr. Gulbrandsen, a journalist with Danish public broadcaster DR, told Politiken that his subject was indeed wearing a microphone when he met with Mr. Putin in Brussels in 2002. Mr. Rasmussen was wearing the microphone to be heard during a meeting with journalists, and he didn't take it off when he later met with Mr. Putin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C3E:73A0:21B:77FF:FECC:E4ED (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090317085725/http://www.dr.dk:80/DR1/Dokumentar/2008/0124145625.htm to http://www.dr.dk/DR1/Dokumentar/2008/0124145625.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)