This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 17:01, 9 March 2009 (Signing comment by 80.216.159.186 - ""). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:01, 9 March 2009 by SineBot (talk | contribs) (Signing comment by 80.216.159.186 - "")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the FRA law redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | A news item involving FRA law was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 19 June 2008. |  |
Sources
Here's some sources to look into.
- http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/04/sweden_wiretap_bill/
- http://www.thelocal.se/12334/20080610/
- http://www.thelocal.se/12370.html
- http://www.thelocal.se/12428/
- http://www.thelocal.se/12514/
- http://www.comon.dk/news/den.svenske.stat.vil.overvaage.al.internettrafik_36575.html
- http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/18/eavedropping_sweden_now_legal/
History
As of now, this article isn't very encyclopedic: it says a law was passed and that lots of people hate it. While this is true, it says nothing of it's history. Rest assured, I will cover this. Just wait and see. Plrk (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
UEFA European Football Championship
As a football fan I of course wonder what UEFA European Football Championship has to do with FRA-lagen? Is it necessary to include all published statements, especially when they are completely off topic, like this one? Please remove it from the article. //StefanB sv (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's not "completely off topic"... Sweden participated, and thus, most Swedes sat in their chairs at home watching football, instead of paying attention to reality and the world around them. It's an age old trick that criminal elites have used throughout history when they wish to implement some new legislation, bill or pass a draconian law. One good example is: Two days before Christmas, while most of the US Congress was at home with their families, they rammed through the Federal Reserve Act... 81.233.185.12 (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- The actual reason for it being notable enough for inclusion was that a prominent Swedish politician compared Sweden to Russia and the government to that of Stalin. Far from all published statements are included, but an official statement by the spokesperson of a major political organization is included. Plrk (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Relevance of most of the text?
Most of the text of this article, about a law which now has been passed by the Swedish riksdag, consists of various pieces of opinion on the bill from political youth organizations and various companies and websites. It reads very much like a list, the encyclopedic relevance of which must be questioned. This is the problem of writing Misplaced Pages articles somewhat in the style of campaign blogs (but less POV) - the content easily becomes outdated and less relevant. In a democracy, laws are passed by the legislature where the people's elected representatives vote - and not various youth organisations (which sometimes have very few active members), but still the article is focused on their (stated) opinions. My suggestion: state that the proposal was highly controversial and sparked much debate, that some organisations affiliated with the governmental parties were against it, and cite the voting results. Then ditch everything else which goes through the position of all these organisations. Tomas e (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Although I've written most of the content, I agree. It's too much. But it's all pretty notable, I can't pick what goes and what stays. And creating a subarticle ("Criticism of the FRA law") would just move the problem. However, it is without doubt notable and worthy of inclusion that all riksdag party youth organizations - mind you, including those whose mother parties are in favor of the proposal - are against the proposal, along with many other reputable political and economical forces (Google, Bahnhof, Teliasonera, Journalistförbundet, Advokatsamfundet - the list goes on and on). Plrk (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Seriously, I'd say the protests against the law are more notable than the law itself. Plrk (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
While shorter than when I wrote my comment above, the relevance of what's left isn't that good. "Worries" from the Danish National Church about legislation in Sweden? To me that's a comment that's edited in if you're looking for arguments from one side, irrespective if that side is well informed. Because note: zero content on the explanations from the Swedish Prime Minister, Minister of Defence, Director-General of FRA and other people, which have invariably included strong statements that the critics have misunderstood a lot. A clear case of undue weight, which means that I've readded the POV template. For the moment, this article is very substandard in relation to the corresponding sv:FRA-lagen. Tomas e (talk) 08:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Harmony between articles
Could someone who speaks Swedish please work on making this article and the Swedish article essentially the same? It has more sources, etc. I know that they have the criticism merged with the article there, but we can also mix that with our criticism article. 69.177.200.165 (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Synchronisation or no synchronisation, this and the criticism article definitely need to be updated. --Kizor 11:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh hey. --Kizor 10:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Childish nitpicking
Alright, while I'm not a great fan of Aftonbladet and what it stands for, the last piece of text in this article is laughable. "that prioritize gossip, exaggerate recent events and other "junk"...
If it's not a reliable source, just edit away the "facts" presented. A comment like the one above has no place in a dictionary, online or not. Whether people will accept the facts presented by the magazine is up to them, just make a hyperlink to Aftonbladet as the source of the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.159.186 (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Category: