Talk:New Right (Denmark)

Name

How should Nye Borgerlige be translated to English? I translated it to New Civic, but I am sure there is a better English name for it. Kaffe42 (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

This online newspaper says "Nye Borgerlige, which roughly translates to ‘The New Right’ (a spokesperson told The Local that it did not have an official English name)": https://www.thelocal.dk/20161004/meet-denmarks-new-anti-immigration-party — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.0.251 (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, The New Right could also work. There isn't really an English word for the political term 'borgerlig', so until the party come up with an official English name, I think we'll stick with New Civic Party as the name. Thanks though! Kaffe42 (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Foreign mainstream media have started to report on the party recently, and they also use "The New Right", so I think it would be better if this was also used here. http://www.politico.eu/article/meet-denmarks-new-anti-islam-anti-immigration-anti-tax-party-nye-borgerlige-new-right-pernille-vermund/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.181.248.18 (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kaffe42 English doesn't have Borgerlig or Bürgerlich (germ.) over Article have the same problem

bourgeoise=bürgertümlich?

• Fatherland League (Norway): The Fatherland League's goal was a national coalition of all centre-to-right "bourgeoise" (borgerlige) and nationally minded forces [...]
• Free Democratic Party (Germany): [...] citizens in Hamburg established the Party of Free Democrats (PFD) as a bourgeois Left Party and the first Liberal Party in the Western zones.
• Bourgeois Alternative
• National Democratic Party of Germany (East Germany): The SED Board [...] stated that "these politically unclear people" should not vote "cadets" for the bourgeois parties [...] at the next election.
• Deutscher Verband: The Deutscher Verband was a coalition of bourgeois German speaking political parties [...]
• 1927 Free City of Danzig parliamentary election: Bürgerliche Arbeitsgemeinschaft/Bourgeois Working Alliance
• First Marx cabinet: The focus was thus on a new "bourgeois" cabinet based on Zentrum, DVP, DDP and possibly DNVP.

conservative=konservativ

• Conservative Democratic Party of Switzerland (germ.: Bürgerlich..., fr.: bourgeois, it.: Borghese)

civic=staatsbürgerlich, städtisch

• Conservatism in Germany: [...] frequently referred to as belonging to a larger centre-right (bürgerlich, "civic") faction within the German party system
• Civic Alternative (see Bourgeois Alternative)

centrist=zentristisch, Mitte

• Centrist Democrats (Bürgerliche Demokraten)

or even Right=Rechte (rechts) Braganza (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

"Borgerlig" is very hard to translate into English, I'd say "Right" is probably the closest. One thing that should be noted, it's not "Det Nye Borgerlige" but just "Nye Borgerlige" which is "New Right" not "The New Right". (Det Konservative Folkeparti on the other hand is "The Conservative People's Party") Jw2036 (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Political position

After User:Vif12vf has removed my edit twice, I would like to avoid an edit war and seek consensus about removing "far-right" as a political position of the party. Den Store Danske, the most comprehensive contemporary Danish language encyclopaedia writes "The party belongs to the right side of the political spectrum" and under the Purpose and Ideology heading as having a "restrictive immigration policy". https://denstoredanske.lex.dk/Nye_Borgerlige

The Great Norwegian Encyclopedia, one of the most influential Norwegian language encyclopaedias defines it as similariry as such: "Nye Borgerlige is national-conservative and belongs to the right side of the political spectrum". https://snl.no/Nye_Borgerlige

In his book titled Temaer til samfundsfag (Themes for Social Studies) used in Danish gymnatiums, author Kaj Pinholt Jespersen doesn’t come close to describing the party as far-right and mentions that Nye Borgerlige "in particular highlight its strict immigration policy". (page 92). isbn=978-87-7970-505-0

DR, the largest broadcasting cooperation in Denmark does not in any way describe the party as such. https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/webfeature/nyeborgerlige

Nationwide newspaper Kristeligt Dagblad says that the party is critical about immigration and islam. https://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/politik-begyndere/overblik-partierne-i-danmark

I think it should be obvious why these are more im line with Wikipedia:Reliable sources than three foreign media news articles, two of which not having NB as its main theme and one being a breaking breaking news article from 2017. WP:RSBREAKING WP:CONTEXTMATTERS--Marginataen (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

More than 48 hours have now passed since my initial post without a response. If a further 48 hours pass without a response as well, I’ll consider that consent to remove the wording.--Marginataen (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

A further 48 hours have now passed, and the wording is removed.--Marginataen (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi :) I think there is something wrong about how we classify Denark Democrats as right to far-right and this as just "right-wing". If it was up to me, we'd therefore remove far-right from Denmark Democrats, and add far-right her. Kristeligt Dagblad explains them as very critical of immigration, and they have in the past had 3 un-negotiable demands, which for me connects the party to the further out on a political spectrum.

Altinget also compares them to Front National in France and Brothers of Italy, who are both far-right on wikipedia.

I wanted to hear you thoughts about making this chance, so that we won't have edit wars.

Hav en god dag :), Thomediter (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Several reliable Danish sources label New Right the "most right-wing party in Parliament", e.g. DR here and Dagbladet Information here. Information on the Denmark Democrats, which is a younger party, is more scarce, but e.g. the Danish Professor of politology Jørgen Goul Andersen places them closer to the political centre than New Right in this article, which also depicts New Right as the right-most party in Parliament, so I agree that it seems more correct to reverse the labels of the two parties in question. --Økonom (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm gonna take a decision already, as I don't really think there is much to debate. From my point of view it seems clear that there is a wide support for referencing the party as right-wing to far-right. This is visible due to at least Vif12vf, Økonom and myself - all believing that it is the party's position.

In terms of sources, there is a point from Marginataen that several sources describe the party as right-wing instead of far-right. However there are also various sources, as Økonom provided, which described the party as far-right. Therefore instead of classifying the party as just right-wing or just far-right, we classify it as right to far-right.

This supports the sources that have been provided, both the ones describing it as right and also those who does it as far-right.

Obviously, if this edit sparks disagreement, we can take a look at it, and start and RfC as last resort, but as it is right now, it really looks like there is support for right to far-right, and that removing far-right is mostly coming from a single editor, so I'm going with that. Thomediter (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nye Borgerlige, FT-gruppe 2022.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Name

I would like to suggest the articel's name changed into "Nye Borgerlige". Several political parties do not have their names translated. For instance Komeito in Japan or La République En Marche ! in France.--Marginataen (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC) I have tried to change the name but for some reason I couldn't do it without a ---Marginataen (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Marginataen Because you didn't have administrator privileges to delete the existing page at Nye Borgerlige, you couldn't complete the move. I do, and I have completed the move. —C.Fred (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Almost the whole current text has been written by @Marginataen, who has a conflict of interest regarding the party, cf. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Marginataen. The COI seems mirrored in the text in various passages, e.g. in the coverage of the events during the first months of 2023 concerning the election of a new leadership and the role of Mikkel Bjørn. I suggest that the text be revised to reflect a more neutral description of the party's development and to remove the present tendency to recentism, describing some events in exceeding detail. Økonom (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

In the noticeboard Økonon references, it is quite frankly not accurate that I was ruled to have a COI. Rather, I received a six-month edit block from Mikkel Bjørn's page due to promotional editing. This, I pointed out to Økonon in the last comment on the noticeboard, whereafter administrator Bishonen archived it.

I would very much like to discuss the content of the article, but if we cannot be equals in a civilised discussion, I don't think this can be very fruitful. I am not into speculation about his motives but must say that I do not consider Økonom a neutral part in anything that has to do with right-wing politics and wants, if I know him right, to revise," AKA delete half the article. Therefore, I would greatly appreciate it if major revisions were executed by other Wikipedians. These can, of course, be per Økonom’s suggestions :)

On the contentual points: When writing the history heading, the entire lifespan of the party must be taken into account. In this case, we are dealing with a party that is less than eight years old. As the party did not enter Parliament before 2019, it received very limited coverage from 2015 until 2019. Therefore, the period we are working with is very much just four years. The history section should be written with that in mind. Right now, there is i.e., legitimate doubt of weather the NB will even be elected to the Folketing in the up-coming election. If it dies, a thorough deception of the events leading up to it is crucial. Likewise, if it continues for the next 100 years, much of the current article would just be reduced to a few sentences. Time will tell.

Recognising that I was edit blocked from Mikkel Bjørn's page, everything mentioning him should be read critically and revised accordingly. This is especially true of the last two paragraphs under "2022 election and Vermund resignation". Marginataen (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Marginataen, your account of the end of the COI discussion is incorrect. You ignore the concluding comment by Drmies, including "Promotional editing and COI go hand in hand ...what other conclusion can we draw but that there is indeed a conflict of interest? ...if COI editing seems to happen in related articles, that block can be expanded to cover those articles as well."

The problem in the present article apart from the unencyclopedic recentism is the undue weight attached to some of the information. There has been a lot of newspaper coverage of various incidents and pieces of criticism connected with the party during its whole life-time. The present text ignores most of these, but seems to expatiate on negative events following Mikkel Bjørn's leaving the party, framing the description to fit with Bjørn's point of view. The selection of news to include or exclude from the article should not be made by a close connection to one of the protagonists, so a rewrite is advised to create a more neutral article. Økonom (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Økonom, as an outsider I can't really see what you're seeing; I think you need to point at some specific things. Ha, maybe Favonian can be of help here. I did see that you trimmed 12% fat off the article with those redundant citations: I think you can cut more--is that Marginataen who adds those? Marginataen, why? And while I have you, your attempts to avoid answering whether you have a COI or not are becoming humorous, and if specific evidence of POV editing or disruption is presented for this or other articles, you can be sure that your partial block might be extended. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I have now done some revisions based on Økonom's revision of Mikkel Bjørn's page. What do you think about the mention of Bjørn now, @Økonom? I only read the bottom of the noticeboard from 13 June and didn't realise that you, Drmies, had added a comment on 20 June. My bad. If PE goes hand in hand with COI, I have definitely had a COI with regard to Mikkel Bjørn. I don't think anyone would say that I have done PE on this article. It was, i.e., me who added the mention of Vermund's Paki controversy as well as Lars Boje Mathiesen's leadership.

The first four years of the party's existence were basically just a waiting game until the 2019 election happened. Apart from the 2017 local elections, really nothing happened during that period. On the contrary, during 2023, the party went through its first ever change of leadership, with the new leader being expelled just a month later. Now, Vermund is expected to once again become leader in 2023. The point is that sometimes significant events happen quite quickly, which is not simply recentism. To Økonom: Would you please give sources to thoese various incidents and pieces of criticism in order to discuss their notability? Marginataen (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Marginataen, first things first. "I have definitely had a COI with regard to Mikkel Bjørn", you said, and yet you have avoided that question for months: you were asked in May 2023 already, on your talk page, and only now, after being asked, after being partially blocked by Bishonen, after an ANI thread, you answer the question, though without disclosing it properly according to the guidelines that Økonom already pointed you to in May. Honestly, I have totally run out of believe in your good faith, and if we can't trust you on a matter for which you have already been partially blocked, why should we trust you anywhere else in article space? You can answer on your user talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Drmies, some elaboration as an answer to your request from 23 June about exemplifying my reservations to the text: The present version seems to concentrate all negative developments for the party to the section called "2023 leadership crisis", which by construction starts right after Bjørn left the party. Though the party has undoubtedly been weakened by the events of 2023, several of the mentioned problems do not specifically pertain to that period. The headline itself seems somewhat OR, I cannot find any mention of "lederskabskrise" (Danish for "leadership crisis") in Danish media in this connection, and in any event it seems wrong to include the unanimous election of Boje Mathiesen as chairman in February as part of a leadership crisis. The media started using the word crisis for the party in earnest when Boje was subsequently suddenly expelled because of financial disputes. During the headline "Later developments (March 2023–present)" the readers get the impression that a lot of members and local councillors have left the party after these events, but in fact the numbers pertain to a considerably longer time span, and media stories of laocal councillors or other active members leaving the party as well as unreliable membership countings have been available long before March, or even January (e.g. here (in Danish). Likewise, the expulsion of Svend Pedersen in March for derogatory remarks is correct, but it seems like undue weight to single him out, as similar expulsions have been executed by the party many times before without being mentioned specificially in the text. Pedersen, though formally an original party co-founder, is completely unknown to the general public and is not seen to have played any significant role in the party history before his expulsion. It would be more appropriate to make a general remark about membership ebbs and flows, councillor defections and the occasional expulsion of radical members somewhere else in the text, though it is natural to mention that the events of 2023 caused a renewed exit. Some of the other wordings in the text seem also dubious. "a larger discussion about Boje moving the party line away from conservatism" seems OR, though the line fits well with the narrative of Bjørn and his followers, and their views are reported by some media. Former leader Vermund "retracting her former pledge" seems a rather negative way of describing her change of decision regarding leaving politics in light of the changed situation. Finally, some of the sources earlier inserted do not seem to live up to RS standards, though I think this problem has been eliminated by removing an excessive number of references. --Økonom (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Økonom, I'm really being more of an administrator than an editor here, and so I'm sort of staying away from content. I think my edits have consisted of cleaning up excessive citations but without really looking much at what the text was--I am going to leave that to the experts. Maybe you should look around for some more editors with Danish backgrounds. Also, please divide such big chunks of texts into paragraphs (you can use {{pb}} for a paragraph break)--it's hard to read. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Founding and outside the Folketing

Hello. First of all, I want to declare a personal or professional connection with this article's subject. I have on my sandbox written a revised version of the heading "Founding and outside the Folketing" that I suggest to be looked at and considered implemented into the text. Thank you. User:Marginataen/sandbox/NB --Marginataen (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Marginataen: You created that page twice in article space, not in your own userspace; I have moved them to User:Marginataen/sandbox/NB and User:Marginataen/sandbox/NB II. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 16:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. You may just delete II as they are identical Marginataen (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Marginataen: I took a look at the requested text and compared it to the old text. I noticed a sentence was removed.

The party was founded as a reaction to the 2015 European migrant crisis.

@STEMinfo: The sentence is not removed. I just moved it. Look at the last sentence of the second paragraph. I did add the word "largely", however.--Marginataen (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Marginataen: I didn't see that. Sorry. I think that sentence is better where it currently is, with the information about the foundation of the party. I was just about to make the changes when I realized that you duplicated several reference names, which creates errors. Specifically, references :0, :1, :2, :3 and :6 in the proposed text will have to be renamed, since those references already exist in the current text. If you want to revise the text and ping me, I can review and implement the changes. There are also a few grammar items that I will fix. STEMinfo (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC).

Thank you, STEMinfo. Feel free to edit and improve upon this proposal when implementing into the text as well as in my sandbox. I must say that I really don't get it. The names of the references are chronologically after the first time they appear in the text, so I really can't change them as far as I'm concerned. I am under the impression that if you just implement it, some bot will quiet quickly fix source errors. Marginataen (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

"Feel free to edit and improve upon this proposal when implementing into the text as well as in my sandbox." As Wikipedia is a volunteer project, those types of formatting changes to "source errors" are expected to be made by the COI editor themself prior to submitting the request for review. STEMinfo has asked the COI editor to revise their proposal. Once the asked-for revisions to these source errors are completed by the COI editor, they are invited to submit the new edit request incorporating those changes below this reply post at their earliest convenience. Regards,  Spintendo  00:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Marginataen/sandbox/NB. I am not exactly into the technical about what "source errors". However, I have now changed the sources to [cite news] and done some polishing to the proposal. Based on STEMinfo's feedback, I've moded the sentance about the 2015 migrant crisis up and also shortened the mention of the working title. Marginataen (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Marginataen: It's possible you may be confused by my comment. Take your new text and copy it over the current text, click preview and then scroll to the ref section to see what I'm talking about. (Don't save, of course) The red errors are duplicate ref names for different content. The ref naming process you used doesn't work when adding content with preexisting refs with the same system generated names. STEMinfo (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

All right, try taking a look at it now. The source errors should be fixed. Marginataen (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Marginataen: You have to ping people in case they aren't watching the talk pages. See how I pinged you. I made the changes. The sources match the content, and I can't detect any bias. Others can review the changes to confirm. Hopefully Danish speakers familiar with the background. Also, you don't need five sources for the party platform. I reviewed them and noticed that one source mentions all three platforms. STEMinfo (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@STEMinfo: I'm sorry for not pinging you. Thank you so much for taking care of my request:) Marginataen (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@STEMinfo Hello STEM. I've made a new text proposal right here on my sandbox free from source errors :) Don't get why I didn't have to post it here last time. Best regards,

Link: User:Marginataen/sandbox/NB Marginataen (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

References

2019 general election

Howdy y'all. I've in my sandbox written a revised version of the heading "2019 general election" that I would like to be considered implemented into the text. I've made sure that there're no source errors.--Marginataen (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit requests need to be on the talk page. Please place the proposed text here, below this reply post, along with a new {{edit COI}} template. Regards,  Spintendo  23:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Spintendo:Last time, I didn't need to post it hear but just linked to my sandbox as I have also done this time. User:STEMinfo Marginataen (talk) 08:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There needs to be a permanent record of the requests that are made. Your sandbox does not meet that definition. Regards ,  Spintendo  15:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

First legislative term

• Rename "2019 general election" to "First legislative term"
• Replace image under "First legislative term" with collage
• Replace 1st paragraph under "First legislative term" with the 2 paragraphs below
• Replace officeholder table with the one below

Comments:

• The current sub-heading "2019 general election" is really not that much about the 2019 election itself but rather the party's first term in Parliament until the 2022 election. I therefore find "First legislative term" to be a more fitting title.
• A collage of the first four MPs of the party would be significantly more informative than just another image of Vermund.
• A comparison of the current first paragraph with the two ones, I suggest it replaced with can be viewed below. In summary, I've added some more detalins (e.g. background about the 2019 election).
• Regaring the officeholder table, the images in it have been cropped from squares to upstanding rectangles, making them more viewable. Jesper Hammer has been removed as he is not relevant. In this edit, Økonom also tried to remove him from the officeholder table.

Marginataen (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Leading up to the election set for 17 June at the latest, Nye Borgerlige repeatedly stressed their three demands for supporting incumbent Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen with several polls above the 2% threshold. In April however, leader of the far-right party Stram Kurs led by Rasmus Paludan went viral in Danish news, within two weeks achieving the necessary signatures to run. Its sudden emergance in the campaign was decribed as a significant obstacle to the party's electoral chances. File:Pernille Vermund, oktober 2021.jpg File:Peter Seier, 2018.jpg File:Mette Thiesen, oktober 2021.jpg Nye Borgerlige's first members of the Folketing. Clockwise, from top left: Pernille Vermund, Lars Boje Mathiesen, Mette Thiesen and Peter Seier Christensen At the election on 5 June (Constitution Day), Nye Borgerlige obtained 2.4% of the vote, equal to four seats, whereby the party acquired representation in the Folketing, whereas Stram Kurs with 1.8% did not surpass the 2% threshold. The party's first parliamentary group consisted of Pernille Vermund (South Jutland), Peter Seier Christensen (Zealand), Mette Thiesen (North Zealand) and Lars Boje Mathiesen (East Jutland). As the majority shifted to the left at the election, leader of the Social Democrats Mette Frederiksen the same month formed a minority government (Frederiksen I) to which Nye Borgerlige would serve as an opposition party for the remainder of the election period. − In the election campaign before the [[2019 Danish general election|2019 general election]], Nye Borgerlige was unexpectedly challenged by the sudden emergence of the [[Far-right politics|far-right]] party [[Stram Kurs]], but at the election on 5 June, Nye Borgerlige obtained 2.4% of the vote, equal to four seats, whereby the party acquired representation in the Folketing, whereas Stram Kurs with 1.8% did not surpass the 2% [[Electoral threshold|threshold]]. NB's first parliamentary group consisted of Pernille Vermund ([[South Jutland (Folketing constituency)|South Jutland]]), Peter Seier Christensen ([[Zealand (Folketing constituency)|Zealand]]), Mette Thiesen ([[North Zealand (Folketing constituency)|North Zealand]]), and [[Lars Boje Mathiesen]] ([[East Jutland (Folketing constituency)|East Jutland]]). As the majority in Parliament shifted to the left at the election, the leader of the [[Social Democrats (Denmark)|Social Democrats]] [[Mette Frederiksen]] formed the same month a [[minority government]] ([[Frederiksen I Cabinet|Frederiksen I]]) to which Nye Borgerlige would serve as an opposition party. + Leading up to the election set for 17 June at the latest, Nye Borgerlige repeatedly stressed their three demands for supporting incumbent [[Prime Minister of Denmark|Prime Minister]] [[Lars Løkke Rasmussen]] with several polls above the 2% threshold. In April however, leader of the [[Far-right politics|far-right]] party [[Stram Kurs]] led by [[Rasmus Paludan]] went viral in Danish news, within two weeks achieving the necessary signatures to run. Its sudden emergance in the campaign was decribed as a significant obstacle to the party's electoral chances. At the election on 5 June ([[Constitution Day (Denmark)|Constitution Day]]), Nye Borgerlige obtained 2.4% of the vote, equal to four seats, whereby the party acquired representation in the Folketing, whereas Stram Kurs with 1.8% did not surpass the 2% [[Electoral threshold|threshold]]. The party's first parliamentary group consisted of Pernille Vermund ([[South Jutland (Folketing constituency)|South Jutland]]), Peter Seier Christensen ([[Zealand (Folketing constituency)|Zealand]]), Mette Thiesen ([[North Zealand (Folketing constituency)|North Zealand]]) and [[Lars Boje Mathiesen]] ([[East Jutland (Folketing constituency)|East Jutland]]). As the majority shifted to the [[Left-wing politics|left]] at the election, leader of the [[Social Democrats (Denmark)|Social Democrats]] [[Mette Frederiksen]] the same month formed a [[minority government]] ([[Frederiksen I Cabinet|Frederiksen I]]) to which Nye Borgerlige would serve as an opposition party for the remainder of the election period. References No. Portrait Leader Took office Left office Time in office 1 Pernille Vermund Pernille Vermund (born 1975) 19 October 2015 7 February 2023 7 years, 115 days 2 Lars Boje Mathiesen Lars Boje Mathiesen (born 1975) 7 February 2023 9 March 2023 30 days (1) Pernille Vermund Pernille Vermund (born 1975) 28 October 2023 Incumbent 194 days

 Not done @Marginataen: I'm declining this for several reasons. The grammar is poor. For example, there's a typo in the first sentence. I can get around that, but more importantly, it's not clear what is changing, and why. For example, you removed the entire acting service of Jesper Hammer in the table, with no reason given. You're asking a lot of the volunteers to verify what you want to change, try to read your mind about why the change should be made, and verify the info in the sources. Perhaps if you made your request a little at a time, and used a side by side version to show what's changing? I am working on a short guide to help people with requests, and it shows the syntax of putting the "before" and "after" text side by side. See COI requests for novices. STEMinfo (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@STEMinfo: I took a look at the other COI edit requests and now realise mine was way too big. I've taken your advise and cut down my request to 2 paragraphs, added a text comparison templat and just made it more overseeable.--Marginataen (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)