![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
This article is largely based on a few incidents of dubious representativity, combined with personal reflections. There is an alarming lack of references to relevant legislation etc -- Orland ( talk) 13:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Child Welfare Services (Norway) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Insert correct information about the violent and unlawful behavior of Child Welfare Service of Norway.
81.243.134.213 ( talk) 22:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The Norwegian Child Welfare Services ("Barnevernet") is a large government body, with its legislation, history, administrative strutuce and specialized serrvices. It involves helping parents to become better parents, it involves also moving children to live with foster parents. The latter is, of course the most discussed and criticized part of the service. Sometimes Barnevernet are criticized for taking action too late, and sometimes they are criticized for taking action too early or without due cause.
Neither of this is seriously represented in this article.
The main part of the text and references are concentrated on three different, individual cases concerning "diplomatic incidents". These should be removed as per WP:UNDUE. One such case was previously removed by User:Iselilja in november. I tried to remove to more such incidents in december, but these were reversed by Contributions/86.92.93.202. Then, another dutch ip expanded further. I am now removing again, and call for other good editors to assist in keeping this article as good as possible. Bw Orland ( talk) 11:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Both Orland and Iselilja are a prime example of personal POV, as Norwegians you have vested intrest in removing valid information that shows your country in bad light. The section "Criticism and diplomatic incidents" takes only a third of the page, which can be hardly desribed as "undue length." On the contrary, it presents crucial information regarding the agency, because that's what it's best internationally known for. Indeed, that's why I named the section that way. And even if the section was of undue length (it isn't), there exists no justification for complete removal of any mention about criticism and diplomatic incidents. That gave your motivation away.-- 31.220.27.24 ( talk) 06:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Orland made changes at 19:55, 27 January 2015, that he sees as solving undue details in the article. While I agree the article has these issues, Orland solved it by removing only negative information about Norway. This only amplifies other's worries about Orland's impartiality and neutrality, esp. when being Norwegian. Iselilja defends Orland's edit, and accuses editors of previous versions of non-compliance with WP:BLP w/o explaining why. I can say that I really don't see any WP:BLP violation here, and think Iselilja only dreamed it up to justify his erasure of negative info about Norway. -- Peterchc ( talk) 01:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.177.118 ( talk)
Nordmenn har en personlig interesse i artikkelen at de er skamfull for å innrømme hva de Barnevernet hadde gjort. Severák ( talk) 18:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Child Welfare Services = Nazism 177.86.143.129 ( talk) 18:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Virtually no information is known about this case. Sources mention that "christian indoctrination" is only one of the charges against the couple which resulted in them losing their children. We do not know what these charges are as it is an active situation. All sources are from Christian sources who are trumpeting the religious persecution angle without any information to back this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.87.15 ( talk) 22:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The source http://www.vl.no/meninger/kommentar/do-not-use-the-word-persecution-lightly-1.668127 is a Norwegian Christian newspaper. So, it looks ok. Quote: "The local newspaper Firda reported that the couple now risk six years in prison for violating the criminal law section covering «domestic abuse» for «threats, coercion, deprivation of liberty, violence or other violations». Even clearer: The parents are being charged for violence against their own children." Of course, as already stated, they have admitted to spanking their own children, so they are formally admitting guilt. Note that the newspaper is neutral about the case, it does not side with either party, and thinks that one of the possible solutions would be reuniting the family. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Carl Schmitt stated that believing in an ideology is not in itself a crime (in a state of law). So, according to the above source, the Bodnarius are not punished for "indoctrination". Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I suggest carrying out the following changes in the near future:
If anyone disagrees in any of the above suggestions, please let me know. Best, Hanno ( talk) 17:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The page is allegedly not neutral since more than four years but the editors, who claim to know the subject haven't contributed to make the page neutral. Xx236 ( talk) 08:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I would once more like to raise the issue of
Privacy (
BLP). As the article stands now, it identifies several clients of the Child Welfare Services by name. I cannot help thinking that this is a violation of the personality rights of these clients and, more seriously, of their children. The children certainly haven't asked for this public attention (while, in some cases, the parents may have), and it represents a serious (additional!) burden for the children involved.
Now it seems that in some cases the names of the families are mentioned in press coverage outside Norway. (In Norway, media don't normally identify clients or victims by name, especially when children are involved.) However, this does not in itself justify doing the same on Wikipedia. Other media have to defend their practice, we have to defend ours.
In this case, it is my opinion that the name of client families does not add anything to the subject of the article. The motivation for mentioning these cases in the first place, has been, I assume, to document criticisms raised against the Child Welfare Services. This goal is equally well achieved without providing the names of the clients and children involved. My suggestion is therefore, not to remove these cases, but to anonymise them.
If you have opinions supporting or opposing this view, please let me know. Best wishes,
Hanno (
talk)
11:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Above, the issue of the non-neutrality has been brought up, but it hasn't really been answered. So I bring it up once more. The non-neutrality tag was added by Orland with the following reason: "This article is largely based on a few incidents, combined with personal reflections. There is an alarming lack of references to relevant legislation etc". A lot has happened with the article during the intervening 4½ years (see the article as per 19 May 2012), and it is my impression that the original reason is not valid any more. A non-neutrality tag should be removed when it is no longer justified. I would therefore like to know:
When nobody argues (and gives a reason) for continued non-neutrality, I will remove the tag within a month or so. Best wishes, Hanno ( talk) 19:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Why does the title include "the"?-- Khajidha ( talk) 20:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
There are many articles in Polish (you wouldn't understand) and in Norwegian (I don't understand). The only English text https://christiancoalition.world/news/read2/warto-rozmawiac-jerzy-kwasniewski-silje-garmo Xx236 ( talk) 09:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
https://theculturetrip.com/europe/norway/articles/how-norways-child-welfare-service-is-creating-world-wide-controversy/ Xx236 ( talk) 10:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Reverted 7 edits by Norwaybreakshumanrights (talk): Largely cited to facebook which is not a RS (TW) You have removed recent information about expulsion of Kowalski, not from FB. Xx236 ( talk) 13:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2019/july/norwegian-nightmare-barnevernet-preys-on-children-and-parents-nbsp Xx236 ( talk) 08:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/lifestyle/case-exposing-double-standards-norways-cps Xx236 ( talk) 13:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Child Welfare Services. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 1#Child Welfare Services until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Seeing the edits on this page, some are editing this page to Theft Services or organised Crime Services
A semi protected status can be granted to prevent this.
I believe such cases have increased after the movie Mrs Chatterjee vs Norway released in my home country of India, which shows a case related to this organisation, following which some editors with Indian IPs are vandalizing this page SunnyandBunny 21 ( talk) 18:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
This article is largely based on a few incidents of dubious representativity, combined with personal reflections. There is an alarming lack of references to relevant legislation etc -- Orland ( talk) 13:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Child Welfare Services (Norway) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Insert correct information about the violent and unlawful behavior of Child Welfare Service of Norway.
81.243.134.213 ( talk) 22:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The Norwegian Child Welfare Services ("Barnevernet") is a large government body, with its legislation, history, administrative strutuce and specialized serrvices. It involves helping parents to become better parents, it involves also moving children to live with foster parents. The latter is, of course the most discussed and criticized part of the service. Sometimes Barnevernet are criticized for taking action too late, and sometimes they are criticized for taking action too early or without due cause.
Neither of this is seriously represented in this article.
The main part of the text and references are concentrated on three different, individual cases concerning "diplomatic incidents". These should be removed as per WP:UNDUE. One such case was previously removed by User:Iselilja in november. I tried to remove to more such incidents in december, but these were reversed by Contributions/86.92.93.202. Then, another dutch ip expanded further. I am now removing again, and call for other good editors to assist in keeping this article as good as possible. Bw Orland ( talk) 11:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Both Orland and Iselilja are a prime example of personal POV, as Norwegians you have vested intrest in removing valid information that shows your country in bad light. The section "Criticism and diplomatic incidents" takes only a third of the page, which can be hardly desribed as "undue length." On the contrary, it presents crucial information regarding the agency, because that's what it's best internationally known for. Indeed, that's why I named the section that way. And even if the section was of undue length (it isn't), there exists no justification for complete removal of any mention about criticism and diplomatic incidents. That gave your motivation away.-- 31.220.27.24 ( talk) 06:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Orland made changes at 19:55, 27 January 2015, that he sees as solving undue details in the article. While I agree the article has these issues, Orland solved it by removing only negative information about Norway. This only amplifies other's worries about Orland's impartiality and neutrality, esp. when being Norwegian. Iselilja defends Orland's edit, and accuses editors of previous versions of non-compliance with WP:BLP w/o explaining why. I can say that I really don't see any WP:BLP violation here, and think Iselilja only dreamed it up to justify his erasure of negative info about Norway. -- Peterchc ( talk) 01:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.177.118 ( talk)
Nordmenn har en personlig interesse i artikkelen at de er skamfull for å innrømme hva de Barnevernet hadde gjort. Severák ( talk) 18:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Child Welfare Services = Nazism 177.86.143.129 ( talk) 18:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Virtually no information is known about this case. Sources mention that "christian indoctrination" is only one of the charges against the couple which resulted in them losing their children. We do not know what these charges are as it is an active situation. All sources are from Christian sources who are trumpeting the religious persecution angle without any information to back this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.87.15 ( talk) 22:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The source http://www.vl.no/meninger/kommentar/do-not-use-the-word-persecution-lightly-1.668127 is a Norwegian Christian newspaper. So, it looks ok. Quote: "The local newspaper Firda reported that the couple now risk six years in prison for violating the criminal law section covering «domestic abuse» for «threats, coercion, deprivation of liberty, violence or other violations». Even clearer: The parents are being charged for violence against their own children." Of course, as already stated, they have admitted to spanking their own children, so they are formally admitting guilt. Note that the newspaper is neutral about the case, it does not side with either party, and thinks that one of the possible solutions would be reuniting the family. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Carl Schmitt stated that believing in an ideology is not in itself a crime (in a state of law). So, according to the above source, the Bodnarius are not punished for "indoctrination". Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I suggest carrying out the following changes in the near future:
If anyone disagrees in any of the above suggestions, please let me know. Best, Hanno ( talk) 17:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The page is allegedly not neutral since more than four years but the editors, who claim to know the subject haven't contributed to make the page neutral. Xx236 ( talk) 08:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I would once more like to raise the issue of
Privacy (
BLP). As the article stands now, it identifies several clients of the Child Welfare Services by name. I cannot help thinking that this is a violation of the personality rights of these clients and, more seriously, of their children. The children certainly haven't asked for this public attention (while, in some cases, the parents may have), and it represents a serious (additional!) burden for the children involved.
Now it seems that in some cases the names of the families are mentioned in press coverage outside Norway. (In Norway, media don't normally identify clients or victims by name, especially when children are involved.) However, this does not in itself justify doing the same on Wikipedia. Other media have to defend their practice, we have to defend ours.
In this case, it is my opinion that the name of client families does not add anything to the subject of the article. The motivation for mentioning these cases in the first place, has been, I assume, to document criticisms raised against the Child Welfare Services. This goal is equally well achieved without providing the names of the clients and children involved. My suggestion is therefore, not to remove these cases, but to anonymise them.
If you have opinions supporting or opposing this view, please let me know. Best wishes,
Hanno (
talk)
11:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Above, the issue of the non-neutrality has been brought up, but it hasn't really been answered. So I bring it up once more. The non-neutrality tag was added by Orland with the following reason: "This article is largely based on a few incidents, combined with personal reflections. There is an alarming lack of references to relevant legislation etc". A lot has happened with the article during the intervening 4½ years (see the article as per 19 May 2012), and it is my impression that the original reason is not valid any more. A non-neutrality tag should be removed when it is no longer justified. I would therefore like to know:
When nobody argues (and gives a reason) for continued non-neutrality, I will remove the tag within a month or so. Best wishes, Hanno ( talk) 19:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Why does the title include "the"?-- Khajidha ( talk) 20:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
There are many articles in Polish (you wouldn't understand) and in Norwegian (I don't understand). The only English text https://christiancoalition.world/news/read2/warto-rozmawiac-jerzy-kwasniewski-silje-garmo Xx236 ( talk) 09:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
https://theculturetrip.com/europe/norway/articles/how-norways-child-welfare-service-is-creating-world-wide-controversy/ Xx236 ( talk) 10:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Reverted 7 edits by Norwaybreakshumanrights (talk): Largely cited to facebook which is not a RS (TW) You have removed recent information about expulsion of Kowalski, not from FB. Xx236 ( talk) 13:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2019/july/norwegian-nightmare-barnevernet-preys-on-children-and-parents-nbsp Xx236 ( talk) 08:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/lifestyle/case-exposing-double-standards-norways-cps Xx236 ( talk) 13:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Child Welfare Services. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 1#Child Welfare Services until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Seeing the edits on this page, some are editing this page to Theft Services or organised Crime Services
A semi protected status can be granted to prevent this.
I believe such cases have increased after the movie Mrs Chatterjee vs Norway released in my home country of India, which shows a case related to this organisation, following which some editors with Indian IPs are vandalizing this page SunnyandBunny 21 ( talk) 18:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)