This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article needs to say what the law was - and what she did rather than saying circumventing "controversial law" Secretlondon 15:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't something be mentioned about her actions surrounding the tsunami chatastrophe? Some people claim that that was a more important factor for her resignation than the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy was. - Chebab 15:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I heard her answer in the radio about a month ago, and I heard the chief editor, the man who found this interesting piece of information and wrote about it in "Riksdag & Department". Try as I might, I can only interpret her words, despite hearing her defence, as a lie. None of the reporters in media that I have seen or heard here in sweden call it merely an "accusation" or "alleged".
There is an interesting point to how the lie was laid bare. "Riksdag & Department" is a kind of internal paper to the government, which reads internal writings, documents, pm, etc, since all writing by the state is in principle open to public access according to "offentlighetsprincipen". The editor in chief pointed out that according to four public documents, Laila had been fully aware of the actions that were about to take place, and at least tacitly approved of them.
Merely "accused" or "Alleged" are words that imply that someone has contested the accusation, but I did not hear anyone, including Laila herself, contest that she knew about the events.
However, whether or not what she did was against the part of the swedish constitution which says that government is not allowed to interfere with the freedom of the press is something that would have had to bedecided by a court. MyPOV is yes.
I am grateful for info on what I may have missed here. DanielDemaret 14:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I put this in just in case it was unclear why closing a web site might be considered serious in Sweden: Her involvement in closing the website is seen by many as a violation against that part of the Swedish constitution dealing with press freedom.
DanielDemaret
14:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Please shorten, wikify, and otherwise improve :) DanielDemaret 14:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I think she is the only minister in Sweden ever to have resigned twice, but I doubt that this is notable enough for the article, is it? DanielDemaret 14:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to add things that are notable that are not in the references. However, there are notable details in the references aplenty if anyone cares to enrich the article with this.
DanielDemaret
17:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The article contains a very obscure "This theory requires Freivalds to have lied to the cabinet, something many have found unlikely" with no sources or hints as to exactly what was not lied about. It's irrevocably clear that Freivalds DID lie to the media about not having been informed - hence the quote is at best obfuscating. It serves no purpose, so I'm cutting it out.
Also, is there any reason why the article has a "noindex" tag? I believe this would mean that it doesn't show up in search engines when someone searches for Laila Freivalds. From a brief reading this type of tag seems quite rare, and has been added manually. Could someone with better knowledge of Wikipedia indicate whether that is as expected? I can't find the rules about which articles should be no-index tagged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.137.3 ( talk) 21:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article needs to say what the law was - and what she did rather than saying circumventing "controversial law" Secretlondon 15:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't something be mentioned about her actions surrounding the tsunami chatastrophe? Some people claim that that was a more important factor for her resignation than the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy was. - Chebab 15:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I heard her answer in the radio about a month ago, and I heard the chief editor, the man who found this interesting piece of information and wrote about it in "Riksdag & Department". Try as I might, I can only interpret her words, despite hearing her defence, as a lie. None of the reporters in media that I have seen or heard here in sweden call it merely an "accusation" or "alleged".
There is an interesting point to how the lie was laid bare. "Riksdag & Department" is a kind of internal paper to the government, which reads internal writings, documents, pm, etc, since all writing by the state is in principle open to public access according to "offentlighetsprincipen". The editor in chief pointed out that according to four public documents, Laila had been fully aware of the actions that were about to take place, and at least tacitly approved of them.
Merely "accused" or "Alleged" are words that imply that someone has contested the accusation, but I did not hear anyone, including Laila herself, contest that she knew about the events.
However, whether or not what she did was against the part of the swedish constitution which says that government is not allowed to interfere with the freedom of the press is something that would have had to bedecided by a court. MyPOV is yes.
I am grateful for info on what I may have missed here. DanielDemaret 14:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I put this in just in case it was unclear why closing a web site might be considered serious in Sweden: Her involvement in closing the website is seen by many as a violation against that part of the Swedish constitution dealing with press freedom.
DanielDemaret
14:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Please shorten, wikify, and otherwise improve :) DanielDemaret 14:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I think she is the only minister in Sweden ever to have resigned twice, but I doubt that this is notable enough for the article, is it? DanielDemaret 14:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to add things that are notable that are not in the references. However, there are notable details in the references aplenty if anyone cares to enrich the article with this.
DanielDemaret
17:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The article contains a very obscure "This theory requires Freivalds to have lied to the cabinet, something many have found unlikely" with no sources or hints as to exactly what was not lied about. It's irrevocably clear that Freivalds DID lie to the media about not having been informed - hence the quote is at best obfuscating. It serves no purpose, so I'm cutting it out.
Also, is there any reason why the article has a "noindex" tag? I believe this would mean that it doesn't show up in search engines when someone searches for Laila Freivalds. From a brief reading this type of tag seems quite rare, and has been added manually. Could someone with better knowledge of Wikipedia indicate whether that is as expected? I can't find the rules about which articles should be no-index tagged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.137.3 ( talk) 21:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)