Talk:Danish withdrawal from the European Union

Factual accuracy

(Statement of challenge to factual accuracy that should have been given before rather than after the suggestions and sources that follow)

That only DPP support withdrawal from EU (The New Right does also), that all Eurosceptics want to leave the EU (many wish to reform it from within, including Red-Green Alliance which is super-sceptical of EU), that Denmark has a Euroscepic majority (this contradicts the following sentence and the polls below, the source says nothing about a majority), and that Denmark has had a fixed exchange rate since the no to the Euro (technically true, but they have had it for way longer than that), and the opinion polls equating "optimistic"/"pessimistic" and "tend to trust"/"tend to not trust" with remain/leave.

Beyond the factual issues, the article grossly misrepresents the topic. It puts way too much emphasis on DPP, a party which until June have been wobbly on the topic, while completely forgetting the People's Movement against the EU and the Red-Green Alliance. Having a single quote from a DPP-member as background is very undue. I can also say that the Danish article on the topic (a mere translation of this one), is in the process of being deleted because it is simply too bad.

— Hebsen (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions and sources

Posted half a year prior to the {{disputed}}-template being applied.

Hey, just saw this article, and though I would drop some suggestions and sources.

• I think this article should be developed into a broader scope about Eurosceptism in Denmark. It could be a child-article to Denmark and the European Union, which already have a section about eurosceptism. A "Daxit" (as it is mostly called) is well-described for its onw article, but only understood in the broader context.
• The history and background section should be merged into a history section placed at the beginning of the article. See these articles for excellent sources:
  • https://danmarkshistorien.dk/leksikon-og-kilder/vis/materiale/ef-eu-modstand-i-danmark/
  • https://danmarkshistorien.dk/leksikon-og-kilder/vis/materiale/danmarks-medlemskab-af-ef-og-eu/
  • https://danmarkshistorien.dk/leksikon-og-kilder/vis/materiale/danmark-i-ef-1973-1993/

The first is about EU sceptisism, and the other about Danish membership in general. They are all in Danish, but I think you can get a long way using Google Translate.

• Danish EU-sceptism have long been centered around People's Movement against the EU. Whereas they started out as a broad cross-party organization (and still try to appeal that way), they have for many years now been mostly the left-wing exit movement. They have been represented in the European Parliament for over 40 years, but lost their last seat in the 2019 election, mainly because the Red–Green Alliance (Denmark) decided to contest the election instead of supporting them. See these articles:
  • https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/politik/ep-valg/uden-mandat-foerste-gang-vi-var-simpelthen-de-stoerste
  • https://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/danmark/mindeord-ved-eu-modstandens-doed
  • https://danmarkshistorien.dk/leksikon-og-kilder/vis/materiale/folkebevaegelsen-mod-eu/
• DPP, which have been the right-wing scepticists party, have supported a referendum previously. But in more recent times, especially following Brexit, they have been more "zig-zaggy". Their current position is to await the result of Brexit. See these sources:
  • https://www.altinget.dk/eu/artikel/df-profiler-mener-at-eu-er-til-fordel-for-danmark
  • https://policywatch.dk/nyheder/christiansborg/article11108089.ece
• The New Right, who entered parliament in 2019, is also against EU and wish for a referendum. See this source:
  • https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/politik/nye-borgerlige-vil-forsoege-stille-op-til-europa-parlamentet
• The Red–Green Alliance are also against EU, but in 2019 they dropped their demand for an immediate referendum, also due to the Brexit. Now they wish to change EU from within, or perhaps a referendum if the terms are clear. Source:
  • https://finans.dk/politik/ECE11250051/enhedslisten-parkerer-krav-om-dansk-udmeldelse-af-eu-efter-britisk-kaos/?ctxref=forside
• We should not call Messerschmidt a populist, and in addition he is no longer in the European Parliament.
• Watch out for overlinking. Words such as pretty and results does not need linking
• Party names are preferred to be written by their common name in english. This is typically found by using the name in their article.

These are all just suggestions. Do as you wish with them, because I probably will not find the time and interest to contribute besides this comment. Happy editing! ― Hebsen (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

article

@Hebsen:, you tagged the article as "factual accuracy disputed" but nothing in what you wrote above supports that challenge. "Could be more detailed" is not a reason for that tag. Also, from your description, "Daxit" is a WP:FRINGE interest in Denmark so it seems to me that any more detail would be disproportionate. I really think you should revert your tag. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, some things that immediate comes to mind is this: That only DPP support withdrawal from EU (The New Right does also), that all Eurosceptics want to leave the EU (many wish to reform it from within, including Red-Green Alliance which is super-sceptical of EU), that Denmark has a Euroscepic majority (this contradicts the following sentence and the polls below, the source says nothing about a majority), and that Denmark has had a fixed exchange rate since the no to the Euro (technically true, but they have had it for way longer than that), and the opinion polls equating "optimistic"/"pessimistic" and "tend to trust"/"tend to not trust" with remain/leave.

Beyond the factual issues, the article grossly misrepresents the topic. It puts way too much emphasis on DPP, a party which until June have been wobbly on the topic, while completely forgetting the People's Movement against the EU and the Red-Green Alliance. Having a single quote from a DPP-member as background is very undue. I can also say that the Danish article on the topic (a mere translation of this one), is in the process of being deleted because it is simply too bad. I have an idea that I at some point will fix the article (turning it into a Eurosceptism in Denmark article), but it will not be today. ― Hebsen (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hebsen:, thank you, that clarifies matters considerably. I have stricken my request that you revert and instead agree that it is appropriate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

It is very, very odd that a person like Jens-Peter_Bonde, who was for decades a defining figure in the danish anti-EU movement, is not linked to at all from this article. This is just one example of what seems to be a very right-wing biased article, almost like it was written by a person with close links to or very clear sympathies to DPP - the article has a clear element of POV. Also words like "daxit" or "danexit" are hardly used in Denmark, implying that the writer does not have knowledge of current danish lingo. Actually the most commonly used word is "dexit" because it rhymes with "Brexit". I also find it weird that a word, allegedly in common use in Denmark, is sourced by a German link.--Honymand (talk) 08:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The article refers to "Danish Eurosceptics" and "Danish Pro-Europeanists" as if these were well-defined groups speaking with a unified voice; this, I think, is part of why it's so contradictory. The Danish population at large appears mostly content with the current level of EU membership, opposing both a withdrawal and closer integration. This middle-of-the-road position (epitomized by the Danish opt-outs and confirmed by more recent referendums and opinion polls) is hardly captured by such simplistic terms as "Euroskeptic" or "Pro-Europeanist". — Kwi | Talk 19:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

October 2020 attempt at fixing it

Wname1, I recently actually did something about the FACTUAL issues with this article (there are still issues with dueness), but you reverted everything, again without any explanation why the revert was justified. I acknowledge that I did not provide a very detailed edit rationale, but I hare now removed the problematic content in small bites, when each bity accompanied with at rationale in the edit summary. If you have any isses with the changes DO NOT REVERT! Instead, explain on this talk page why you things my edits should be undone. ― Hebsen (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

These edits were (unsurprisingly, unfortunately) once again reverted by Wname1. Ping to other editors active on this page the last month: John Maynard Friedman, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Tammbeck, DeFacto, Gaspsinidia. Do you approve of reject the following edits of mine: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]? Each one have a elaborate edit comment explaining why the edit is an improvement. I do not claim they edits are perfect, but they are at least an improvement compared to the current state of the page. ― Hebsen (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Approve of the two edits proposed by Hebsen Tammbeck^talk 20:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Tammbeck, I did not make only two edits, I made a series (the two linked are the start- and endpoint). I will edit my comment for clarity. ― Hebsen (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

OK - keep up the good work Hebsen Tammbeck^talk 20:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, I approve of the series of edits proposed by Hebsen Tammbeck^talk 21:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Haven't looked at your edits in detail, but they look generally ok. Per [15] we can assume that Wname1 don't intend to participate in this discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hebsen:, your proposals look sound to me too. Please reinstate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Facebook group

We have a dispute over whether it is appropriate to include mention of Danexit group on facebook.

Policies WP:FACEBOOK, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:CHERRYPICKING, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNOTABLE and arguably even WP:TRIVIA all apply. The article already reflects the balance of political opinion in Denmark, as reliably measured through the ballot box. It is not appropriate for Wikipedia to imply that this group has more credence than does the democratic process. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Like in this version [16], obviously not. Could possibly be considered as WP:ELMAYBE #4. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

A good point but it would still struggle to meet the test of wp:notable unless an RS reported it (and if so, we could just use the RS). Is it mentioned on the dk.wikipedia article? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

If I may quibble on terminology, wp:notable (whether a given topic warrants its own article) doesn't apply, but WP:PROPORTION is closer. Btw, the Danes deleted that one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

However, "Auf einer Facebook-Seite mit dem Namen „Danexit" gibt es tausende Dänen (auch ältere Däninnen), die gerne die Europäische Union verlassen wollen. Diese „Gruppe wurde am 14. Juli 2019 erstellt" auf Facebook." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

And the editor who added that sentence to de.wikipedia is the same person who is pushing it here. And it is uncited there too. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It is that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Today at 5 p.m. I had a phone call with a German person from Wikipedia. This person said that I have to take part on the talk page. I didn't know what to say about on talk page myself, because this part of facebook is small, good, visible and had no errors, ok the only bad thing is the sentence ((also older Danes)), which I deleted. I have also to find a Reference, but I had no time (on my day) to do it. Wname1(talk) 19:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Wname1 The issues is not whether or not the sentence is true, the question is whether it is appropriate to include in this article. It is not appropriate, and it should not be included. Here is a number of reasons why:

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and there is nothing that suggest that this Facebook group is notable or important enough to be included. To demonstrate that, one needs to find reliable sources covering this group. Reliable sources are for example news articles, but not facebook groups.
• The inclusion of this Facebook groups comes off as advertisement of it, that is, an attempt to attract more member to the group.
• Mentioning this Facebook groups gives it undue weight, and the reader will be given the impression that there the is a huge popular wish for DK to leave the EU, when in fact the other way around, namely that there is an overwhelming majority that support the EU-membership (A 2019-poll says that if there were an referendum, 66% would vote to remain, and 22% would vote to leave[17]).

Besides these issues, there is also an issue with how you edit Wikipedia. You act as if you own this page, but you don't. You insist of having your version and your content on the page, and enforce it through edit warring. This is not how Wikipedia operates. I have pointed out numerous factual errors and other issues with this article, but you just ignore it and does not try to engage with other editors, unless you are forced to it, like now. In fact, you just reverted my recent changes, where I correct a lot of factual errors, and again reinstated problematic content. This is a problem, and if you do not change your editing style, you will find it difficult to continue to edit Wikipedia. ― Hebsen (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Other remarks

Today at 5 p.m. I had a phone call with a German person from Wikipedia. This person said that I have to take part on the talk page. I didn't know what to say about on talk page myself, because this part of facebook is small, good, visible and had no errors, ok the only bad thing is the sentence ((also older Danes)), which I deleted. I have also to find a Reference, but I had no time to do it. Wname1 (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Was the call about de.wikipedia or en.wikipedia? You will never be called by anyone from the Wikimedia Foundation, so it must be another editor. You need to check de.wikipedia too in case there is a similar discussion about your addition of the same material there.

No-one is questioning whether or not "this part of facebook is small, good, visible and had no errors": the question is whether or not it merits being included. So you have to answer the policy challenges as set out in #Against above (except WP:PROPORTION instead of WP:NOTNOTABLE): please do so at #In favour above when you are ready. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Only about en.wikipedia we spoke. On Wednesday and Thursday between 2 hours we can call this wikipedia German groupe.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wname1 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Schleswig (BRD discussion)

Wname1 keeps trying to get this text into the article, without showing in any way how it is relevant to the topic:

The politician Søren Espersen (Danish People's Party) believes that all of Schleswig should come back to Denmark, saying "We would like to have a Denmark up to the Eider (...) of course".

Espersen himself said that he wasn't being serious, that it was a joke. I have reverted again per WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss.

The only way it could become worth including is if a referendum ever did get called and if a reliable source drew attention to the prospect of a hard border between Schleswig-Holstein and the Region of Southern Denmark. (xref Brexit and the Irish border). Right now, to put any such thing in the article would be a gross WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTAL violation.

But I can't figure how why Wname1 thinks it should go in so, via this BRD discussion, perhaps they could enlighten us? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The text have nothing to do with the topic of this article, so of course it should not be included. By now at least three editors [18] [19] [20] have done removed it, with Wname1 reinstating it each and every time. Wname1, you should present your case on why it should be included, and then we can discuss (here on Wikipedia, we resolve content disputes by discussion, not by edit warring). There is currently a consensus against having it there, so it stays off until you convince enough editors for the consensus to change. ― Hebsen (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Added again and removed by me.[21] Also added at Søren Espersen, but it makes more sense there, possibly out of WP:PROPORTION though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

European Commission

Why is the European Commission not giving any polls on the subject of public opinion in March 01.03.20. It will be interesting whether there will be another public opinion in November 2020. Wname1 (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Then ask the Directorate-General for Communication about Eurobarometer if you really want to know, don't ask rhetorical questions here. These polls are expensive so are done on a fixed frequency. Newspapers will commission polls if they believe that the topic is 'hot' enough to recover the cost through increased circulation: the fact that they haven't tells you that it is just boring and the result is obvious. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm now taking a break on the Danish withdrawal from the European Union site and doing other things. Have a nice winter, John Maynard Friedman. Wname1 (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

What do the European Commission polls actually portray? I checked the source link, the Eurobarometer polls of 2013 and 2018. There is a "do you trust the European Union" question and the trust, at least for 2013, is much lower than shown in the table. For 2013, the actual numbers are: Tend to trust EU 45 %, tend not to trust EU 47 %, don't know 8 % (Source: Eurobarometer 2013 Fact Sheet on Denmark, English language version, page 2, Qa10). There is no mentioning of the words "pessimistic" and "optimistic" in neither the country report for Denmark nor the fact sheet for Denmark. There are questions about expectations for the economy, employment etc., but obviously these have nothing to do with support for the EU. Thus, some figures in the table appear rather unfounded. It is a big problem that the reference is only a link to the Eurobarometer front page of the respective year, not a specific reference to the document, question or page! Also, the polling institute is not the European Commission, but was in 2013 TNS Gallup and in 2018 Kantar Public. --Sasper (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Background section

Not much of a background, is it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

LOL - And I'm pretty sure that whatever Kristensen said he didn't say it in neither German nor English. An English translation of a German translation of a Danish quote as the only content of a "background" section seem rather redundant and unencyclopedic. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 08:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know, maybe it does a good job of conveying the air-headedness of the campaign. "The success of Brexit" – when even the UK's (nominally independent but government funded) Office for Budget Responsibility projects UK GDP to be 5% lower than it would be as a member; when Jacob Rees-Mogg ("Minister for making a success of Brexit") has to write an article for a tabloid asking for ideas, six years after he campaigned for it [and, as soon as he won, promptly moved his hedge fund to Dublin]; the list goes on – that success of Brexit? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Image disagreement

File:Pernille Vermund - Ny Borgerlige.jpg

I'm not saying it's not a nice image

Myself and another editor are nearing in WP:EW territory on the inclusion on this pic, if someone feels like having an opinion on that. I'm fine with removing the pics of the other people too, they don't add much but at least they are mentioned in-text. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC

MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE says in summary that images should be used only to illustrate, not to decorate. So if Pernille Vermund (sic?) is not even mentioned in the text, let alone substantively, the conclusion is obvious – delete. The same applies to the other images too: if the person portrayed is not important in the narrative, the image should be deleted. No doubt there is an appropropriate Commons Category that can be mentioned in the See also. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) You can still see the woman on these messages https://www.thelocal.dk/20160922/meet-denmarks-new-anti-immigration-party/ it is a picture of She where it is written about "withdrawal from the European Union and international conventions." Wname1 (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Yep, it mentions the view of her party. Not a reason to have her pic in this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

28/05/2019 https://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/eem/1822-the-social-democratic-left-favourite-in-the-general-elections-in-denmark. "Even further to the right of the People's Party, Pernille Vermund created the New Right in 2016. This party is asking for an even stricter immigration policy than the one defended by Kristian Thulesen-Dahl's party. Liberal from an economic point of view, it also supports Denmark's withdrawal from the EU and from several international organisations." Is it interesting? Wname1 (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Not to me, it mentions the article-topic only in passing. And like The Local, it states the party's view. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment Coming back to MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, the image must pass the test of illustrating a [view]point that is substantially covered in this article. Of course if such substantial (and WP:DUE) coverage were added to the article, the image would at that stage become wp:due – but not before. Right now, it seems to me that GGS's position is the more valid one but added material could change that. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that this issue has still not been satisfactorily solved. I agree that the photos (currently, two party leaders' photos) do not seem to fulfill the criteria in MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE and should consequently be removed. Økonom (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing, nothing about Vermund in the article, and the other pic doesn't really explain anything IMO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Minor thing

EP-constituency-DK

I happened to look at the leadimage and suddenly wondered "What the heck is wrong with Poland?" Do we have the same map but with countries instead of constituencies? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Some alternatives at Category:SVG locator maps of Denmark (location map scheme), but I like the EU-blue color.

Article should be deleted - Wikipedia is NOT a Crystal Ball

• DELETE - If this, and similar articles, remain on Wikipedia... then hundreds if not thousands of new articles that could be written on all sorts of other "hypothetical" issues. 92.184.108.148 (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  You can see criteria at WP:GNG. I have no strong opinion, I know the Danes deleted it on their WP. WP:AFD has directions on how you nominate for deletion, there's a rather strict format, and I think you have to WP:REGISTER first. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  Category:Public policy proposals may be of interest. And there's more, like Isle of the Cross. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

context

Article could benefitore on context. Why did it stay out from the treaty of Rome to 1973? What about Maastricht referendum, and opt outs. The traditional 'reluctand European' theme could perhaps be addressed discussed useful. 91.84.189.190 (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Frankfurt am Main.

As with Brexit, GB knew after some time with this correct information (it was Zürich) that they could hold a referendum. The same to do Danexit with the information that "Frankfurt am Main" for a referendum correct is. What is the opinion? Wname1 (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Wname1, you need to provide more information to explain what you mean. I see no reference to Frankfurt am Main in the article and there is no user:Frankfurt am Main.

The Constitution of the United Kingdom has no requirement for a referendum to permit major changes. The government can hold an advisory referendum if it so chooses. It is not required to act on its outcome. If it does, it can interpret the "advice" as it wishes. That is why the UK had such a vague question and so ended up with the hard Brexit that only a small minority wanted (and that contradicted statements made by the "Leave" campaign).

Hopefully the Constitution of Denmark has a more rational approach to such important questions. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Fwiw, Elections_in_Denmark#Referendums. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand the question, though I'm guessing GB = UK (and not GB). What could Frankfurt am Main possibly have to do with a Danish hypothetical referendum? If the question is not about improving this WP-article, Wikipedia:Reference desk may be what you're looking for. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

"In 1848, the March Revolution took place in the German states. The convened National Assembly met in Frankfurt's St. Paul's Church and drafted the St. Paul's Church Constitution, the first all-German and democratic constitution in Germany." Small information. Wname1 (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

There was a lot of it about that year, but what it has to do with Danish withdrawal from the European Union or indeed Brexit escapes me. As for the very idea of the UK learning anything about referendums from Germany (or indeed anywhere else beyond the shores of this scepter'd isle and thus beyond the edge of civilisation) clearly hasn't been paying attention. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@JMF, the difficulties to understand Wname1 seem to go beyond en-WP:[22], I'm referring to the thread started by @Grim. Noting that I used google translate to read that, as I don't speak German. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Wname1 has been keeping users busy crosswiki for years with his poor language skills and the poor quality of his contributions in articles. Revert, Ignore or Block. --Grim (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)