Talk:Swedish Compulsory National Service Act

Could someone please enlighten me as to why this entry should be deleated? I can't really see why. Bias? Poorly written? Original research? I'm all ears. Adrilver (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV and other issues

This article has a number of issues.

First, its name. Although it refers to a political proposal in Sweden and events surrounding it, the term "in Sweden" appears nowhere in its title. And although I'm a native Swedish speaker, I'm somewhat at a loss as to what the corresponding Swedish name for this article should be, since it seem to use a number of home-made translations of terms without reference to terms common in English usage. Perhaps its title should not make reference to a "Motion" at all in order to be more clear.

I moved the article; its title now makes clear that it's a Swedish law.--Wi2g (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several POV issues. Focusing on similarities to Hitler-Jugend as the most prominent part of the lead seems a bit unencyclopedic and an attempt at a Nazi smear. Expressing "suprise" at certain newspaper's standpoints is also not up to NPOV standards.

Tomas e (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It needs improvement, not deletion

I can definitely see your concern here, and I mainly agree with it. Many of the terms, are more or less translated on meaning rather than knowledge of the actual word. This proposal was called "Värntjänstförslaget" and consequently I've tried to convey the meaning in the title. Maybe one should use the original Swedish name, and then put the approximate translation into brackets in the text? Or as you suggested add "in Sweden" if the meaning seems unclear, and maybe make a better translation, which I however was unable to do seeing I couldn't find any direct match.

You're probably right on this one too. However, to the best of my ability I've only expressed for instance surprise when this indeed was the general feeling at the time which the source material would suggest, such as when a major player breaks a previous pattern and expectations. Now, of course they might be biased for exactly this reason, so feel free to delete bias where ever it can be found, as it doesn't add much at any rate.

Moreover, I think that the Nazi-focus is in place when it comes to discussing the newspapers reactions, but I can definitely see why it should not be in the first few summarizing rows.

All that said, I think that it means that this entry needs improvements in several different ways, but hardly deletion? Adrilver (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with improving rather than deleting - which BTW would not be the natural consequence of the tags I added, so don't worry. :-) Will try to have a new look at the more recent edits and the article in due course, to see if we can remove the POV tag sooner or later. Tomas e (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]