Talk:odalism

People keep shoving various opinions into this page. We should reliably source it once and for all from something better than blogs. Equinox ◑ 18:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Heck, I would probably even be ready to RFV it, since most uses seem to be mention-y. S URJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 18:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

There was a TV service, heavily biased, cited as source. I provided the description and sense from the same person used in the old source, Vikerner, but without bias.User:Winniler
 * The bias of a first-party source is the worst bias of all. S URJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 18:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

It's the source. And clearly states the meaning and attributes. Otherwise we are misrepresenting things deliberately.User:Winniler
 * I don't think you understand what a first-party source is and why relying on one for a definition is bad. It's like writing "the third best country to do business in Africa" on Rwanda just because there is an article on the website of the government of Rwanda saying so. S URJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 18:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

So, an old source misrepresenting the concept was okay, but a first han source is not? As he wrote: https://thuleanperspective.com/2013/07/31/why-odalism/ This is not academic at all.User:Winniler
 * We're not interested in your racist "sources". Fuck off. DTLHS (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, read what I already wrote above about first-party sources and why they are bad. The gist is that they're not reliable for defining an ideology like this. S URJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 19:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

To me seems you are heavily biased User:Winniler So you are saying that is okay to misrepresent the words of a person, but not to use his actual words. Hmmm... User:Winniler
 * I don't see any misrepresenting anywhere, it's more like they simply state what they have observed. I could give away a clearly broken water bottle, proclaim that I only give away water bottles that are not broken, yet it's quite obvious that the water bottle is broken. S URJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 19:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

"Obvious" only for biased "BBC-sources". Politics don't belong here, only Facts do. A politically-aligned TV channel misrepresenting a concept for own political agenda is a politically-aligned TV channel misrepresenting a concept for own political agenda. And that is Not a reliable source or interpretation. User:Winniler

RFV discussion: September–October 2018
Three uses (rather than mentions) in durably archived sources? If found, some well-sourced definition is also necessary; also see Talk:odalism. S URJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 18:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The white supremacist sense is newly proposed and confined to some cult-like fringe figures. Other occurrences of the new sense are mentions. Normally we could simply move such a protologism to the List of protologisms. But this word also has a different, older meaning. Is it possible to move just one sense? --Lambiam 21:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Who cares? If it can't be verified it can just be deleted, like any other nomination here. DTLHS (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * But it looks like it can be verified, although not exactly in this spelling. --Lambiam 05:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Should we move it to Odalism? DTLHS (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The coiner himself calls it “Ôðalism”, with a majuscule + diacritic and also with an eth. --Lambiam 05:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Since all uses I see for the neological, nationalist sense use a majuscule O, I’ve moved over that sense to a new page, as first suggested above by DTLHS. --Lambiam 13:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * One of those cites used lower case! Kiwima (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake in copying the quotations. The one with a lower-case o was misplaced; it only belongs at . --Lambiam 20:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)