Talk:Thorkild Grosbøll

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Denmark Low‑importance

	Denmark portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

BLP

This article was created as a translation of the Danish article.--Nø (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Danish article has a number of sources and a list of literature that ought to be integrated into the English article too. I'm too busy, but perhaps someone else...?--Nø (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A note of cation vis-a-vis the "DCI.dk runthrough of the case"

This link is to an organisation known as "Dialogcentret" ("the Dialogue Centre", a misnomer if ever there was one). This organisation was set up and run by conservative Christians 1973-2011 (it is no longer active) to warn about anything from New Age to Christian sects. Hence it is not surprising that it sums up the Grosbøll case with a barefaced plea for orthodoxy and appeals to consequences:

Skadelige virkninger i Grosbølls kølvand

Grosbøll har stillet spørgsmålstegn ved grundlaget for folkekirkens tro, trøst og ritualer. I det hele taget skaber han stor utryghed omkring, hvad kristendommen står for, og hvad man kan regne med. Denne usikkerhed gør, at overtro og skadelige former for religiøsitet har fået lettere ved at sprede sig under dække af at være fortolkninger af kristendommen. Denne usikkerhed gør, at præster, der beskæftiger sig med sjælesorg til svage, syge og døende (fx hospitalspræster) rapporterer, at det er blevet vanskeligere at formidle en troværdig trøst og et troværdigt håb til disse udsatte grupper. Denne usikkerhed gør, at kristen mission og dialog med ikke-kristne bliver besværlig. Man kan jo ikke være i mission eller dialog, hvis ingen kan se, hvad man står for. Denne usikkerhed gør, at mange folkekirkemedlemmmer er blevet usikre på om deres kirke overhovedet er forpligtet på kristen forkyndelse. Og om der er nogen grund til at tage folkekirken alvorligt. Dermed er mange kommet i tvivl om, hvorvidt de har et kirkeligt hjem.

My translation of the above amounts to:

Damaging effects in Grosbøll's wake

Grosbøll has questioned the foundation of the Church of Denmarks, faith, comfort and rituals. Generally, he creates great uncertainty about what Christianity means and what we can count on. This uncertainty has made it easier for superstition and harmful types of religiosity to spread under tne cover of being interpretations of Christianity. This uncertainty has led to reports from priests who minister to the vulnerable, sick and dying (e.g. hospital priests) that it has become more difficult to provide a credible comfort and hope to these vulnerable groups. This uncertainty makes Christian missionary work and dialogue with non-Christians more difficult. One cannot be engaged in missionary work or dialogue if nobody can see what you stand for. This uncertainty has made many members of the Church of Denmark uncertain whether their church is even wedded to a Christian ministry. And whether there is any reason to take the Church of Denmark seriously. In addition, many has begun to doubt whether they have a home in the church.

It's clear that the objection to Grosbøll is that dissent in the church and doubt and uncertainty in general is just bad and then makes vague assertions about alleged problems springing from such uncertainty.

Mojowiha (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Date format

There is consensus that the date format should be changed to DMY. MOS:DATERET does not prevent all changes. The strongest evidence in favour of changing were that the style guides for the two largest Danish universities on dates written in English support DMY. starship .paint (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I suggest we change the date format to DMY instead of MDY that we use now. The rationale is that this article have strong national ties to Denmark, which uses the DMY date format. This will also make it consistent with nearly all other articles with strong national ties to Denmark. Note that MOS:DATETIES does not apply to non-English speaking countries, but that MOS:DATERET allows the format to be changed if there is a consensus for it. I am seeking that consensus now. ― Hebsen (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support change to DMY date format. Tammbeck (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MOS:DATERET. There is no reason to change the date format for this article. Doremo (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DATERET is not a reason not to change the format. DATERET asks to get consensus before changing the date format - this discussion has started. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. DATERET allows us to find good arguments for a specific date format to be used in an article. DMY makes a lot more sense in an article about a European topic, because it is the date format used in these countries. Also, there is no particular reason to use the MDY format in an article not even remotely related to the US (which is the only country on the planet, where the MDY format is being used, and even there the DMY and YMD formats are quite common meanwhile) just because the first editor used it, perhaps even without putting much thought into it (I don't know) - unless no consensus could be found for a change to DMY. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The argument "because it is the date format used in these countries" is irrelevant because it is not related to English in any way. No good argument has been presented for changing the date format. Doremo (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DMY predominates in English language sources from Denmark: [1] [2] [3] [4] Tammbeck (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are simply some examples of DMY format; they do not establish predominance any more than this example[5] argues for MDY. In any case, predominance of what Danes might use when writing English is irrelevant. I have no objection to the date format for this article being changed by consensus, but no compelling—or even good—arguments have been presented for such a change. So far the proposal is a very good example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Doremo (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't MOS-issues inherently IDONTLIKEIT? I mean, style is subjective. If would be better if DATETIES covered non-English speaking countries. The fact that DATERET opens up for the possibility to change the format by consensus directly legitimize these kinds of discussions. ― Hebsen (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On predominance, yes it is hard to establish that by sources, specifically because those are typically just examples (Also, be aware that some (not all) web pages adjust the date format depending on the users browser language settings, more specifically the Accept-Language HTTP header). I would point to the style guides for writing in English from the two largest universities in Denmark, University of Copenhagen [6] and Aarhus University [7]. I have not been able to find other style guides. Furthermore, almost all article on the English Wikipedia with strong national ties to Denmark uses DMY (I have tried, but failed, to find one that doesn't). This fact also shows something. Could you elaborate on why you think it is irrelevant how Danes write English? ― Hebsen (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant because Denmark is not an English-speaking country. If the Danes all used YMD in English, that would not be an argument for using YMD on English Wikipedia. If the Danes all used decimal commas (e.g., 3,14) or »angle quotes« in English, that would also be irrelevant for English Wikipedia. Doremo (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All your examples here refer to styles that is not allow by MOS, so we agree on those. In the light on MOS:DATETIES, we agree to. In this case, however, both DMY and MDY is allowed by MOS, and the argument is not DATETIES, but "strong national ties" in a more general sense. ― Hebsen (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read "strong national ties" at MOS:DATETIES: "ties to a particular English-speaking country". There is no "more general sense" there. Denmark is not an English-speaking country. There is nothing in MOS to support this suggestion; it is based solely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Doremo (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have. This change is not based on MOS, except that MOS:DATERET allows the date format to be changed by consensus. This directly legitimize having discussions about what date format to use, though I admit that these can be seen to have WP:IDONTLIKEIT-vibes. I have presented my argument why I think a change of date format is merited in this case, and you have said you think it is a bad argument. Now lets hear what others think. ― Hebsen (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have requested this to be closed. For context, this sparked this discussion that did not lead to any changes to MOS:DATETIES. ― Hebsen (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Doremo, Hebsen, Matthiaspaul, and Tammbeck: - closed, on the basis of discussion here. starship .paint (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.