Talk:Ola Tunander

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would consider this article to be POV[edit]

In particular the comment on Weinbergers' statements on Swedish TV presents the leftist POV on the submarine debate. The other side considers it to be taken completely taken out of context with Weinbergers' comments referring to NATO support and training, not NATO submarines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.107.201 (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sisters and brothers[edit]

Has deleated: “He had a sister, Petra (born in 1945), who died unexpectedly in 1967, when she was a mere 22 years old, and one half-brother, Pontus Tunander.”

The sentence is not very important and includes two mistakes.


NPOV dispute[edit]

More than two months ago, on 8 December 2010, “Janm67” put a “NPOV dispute” sign over this article. There is no comment on the “talk page”.


The “NPOV dispute” page says: “The editor who adds the tag [NPOV dispute sign] must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies ... Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.” http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute


The page about “Tagging pages for problems” says: “Anyone who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag.” http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems


The “Template: POV” page states:

• "Do not use this template [NPOV Tag] unless there is an ongoing dispute in an article.

• The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor.

• The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.

• This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." (http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Template:POV#When_to_remove)


“Janm67” has added a NPOV dispute tag on this article, but he has not added any comments on the talk page for more than two months. No specific passages have been presented as biased. According to the Wikipedia rules, the “NPOV dispute” tag should not have been added to this article, and to quote the rules: “This tag may be removed by any editor”.


But let us look at the article as it stands: The article is neutral in tone and language. It presents a number of facts about Tunander’s academic carrier and some of his main contributions in a couple of fields. The article does not state whether Tunander is right or wrong. It presents his career, what he has written and how some of his writings have been received.


On the view history page, “Janm67” argues that Tunander is “controversial”, but any scholar who has presented something new is by definition “controversial” in the eyes of the other. The fact that Tunander has contributed to books with various ministers of foreign affairs and defense or has written in and been a referee for the most prestigious international journals cannot be a reason for putting a “NPOV dispute” sign over the article.


The problem seems to be that Tunander’s books about submarine activities in Swedish waters in the 1980s also bring up indications about U.S. and British activities. This has become a sensitive issue in Sweden, and it has been followed by a debate. However, this very fact, that there has been a debate is presented in both the Swedish and English Wikipedia articles. Both supporters and critics have been properly referenced. There are references even to critics like General Bengt Gustafsson, who has been most disgraceful to Tunander, and the article ends with: “the Swedish controversy is still ongoing”. The article certainly mentions the criticism. However, if “Janm67” prefers an article that discredits Tunander rather than presents him, this should not be a Wikipedia article. Accordingly, the “NPOV dispute” sign should be removed.


If someone wants to present the Swedish debate on submarine intrusions more extensively, it should rather be done in a separate article and not in an article about a scholar, because any debate could easily dominate a biography. Such a biography could easily expand to several pages driven by competing views, which would give a completely false picture of the scholar. It is better to have such a debate in a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhaphidophora (talk • contribs) 15:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet submarine incursions not run by NATO![edit]

The claim that "However, in the 1990s, Tunander was told by U.S. and British officials that these operations were run by the U.S. and the U.K." is not correct. Tunander may claim that he was "told by U.S. and British officials that these operations were run by the U.S. and the U.K.", but that is another matter. As a point of fact what Tunander claims is only that he was told that there had been joint naval exercises. That is probably true, but it also shows that he had no direct knowledge of this. The submarine incursions were quite separate, where not joint operations, but hostile incursions. All evidence suggests that the USSR was responsible. Tunander's claims do not refute this, though he was obviously trying his best to protect his Soviet paymasters.125.236.202.112 (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ola Tunander. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geopolitics, dual state, and terrorism[edit]

A former contributor has added a political comment claiming that Tunander has linked the 2011 terrorist attack in Norway of Anders Behring Breivik to Israel. Tunander actually does the opposite. Breivik’s 1500-page manifesto was strongly influenced by the pro-Israeli anti-Jihadism of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, and Breivik present himself in the manifesto as belonging to a European-wide crusader network of Nordic, British, Baltic, Belarussian and Serbian national conservatives. Tunander discusses several hypotheses, one after the other, and he finds that Breivik’s pro-Israeli anti-Jihadism does not seem to be linked to his claimed network or financing. Tunander concludes that Breivik’s claimed support for Israel cannot explain his actions and may rather indicate the opposite. Someone in this national conservative network may use the terrorist act to put the blame on Israel. This article is relatively short and has no relevance for the author’s biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odvarius (talk • contribs) 21:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


This article has major issues: self-promotion and conspiracy theory whitewashing[edit]

This article is extremely problematic, and relies on the fact that English readers are likely to be unfamiliar with Tunander's reputation and his role in the two countries where he he has lived and worked: his native Sweden and Norway, where he was affiliated to PRIO.

In Sweden, Tunander is chiefly known for promoting a fringe narrative about 1980s submarine incursions in Sweden, blaming an elaborately staged NATO false flag operation involving much of the Swedish military top brass. One should note that there are rival theories about these incidents and there exists a debate in (sometimes) good faith about what actually happened. However, Tunander is an outlier even among those who dispute the government's conclusion that Soviet submarines were responsible for most/all violations of Sweden's sovereignty. He has nonetheless achieved a measure of mainstream visibility for being consulted in official investigations some decades ago, although it is worth noting - the article, of course, doesn't - that none of them supported his theories.

Apart from the submarine debate, Tunander is mainly known in Swedish and Norwegian public life as a conspiracy theorist. I did a casual search for press mentions of Tunander's name in recent years, and what surfaces – apart from submarines – is essentially only articles where Tunander is derided for being a conspiracist, a Putin apologist, scientifically dishonest, or all of the above. For example, he is taken to task for his 9/11 truther activism (various claims: al-Qaida isn't responsible, al-Qaida worked for CIA, the World Trade Center was blown up by bombs and not airplanes, etc), and for promoting theories about shadowy US, Israeli, anti-Russian or other interests being involved in the murder of Swedish PM Olof Palme, the 2011 Arab uprisings, the Anders Behring Breivik massacre, the MH17 jet shootdown in Ukraine, and so on.

Some links below in Norwegian and Swedish:

https://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kronikk/i/lAya9/Konspiranoia-om-22-juli-og-Israel https://www.minervanett.no/tunander-og-putins-propaganda/155654 https://www.expressen.se/debatt/tunander-agnar-sig-at-konspirationsteori/ https://www.expressen.se/kultur/platt-fall/ https://www.kkrva.se/wp-content/uploads/Artiklar/081/kkrvaht_1_2008_11.pdf https://www.dagen.no/Nyheter/Norsk_forsker_antyder_at_Israel_st%C3%A5r_bak_Breivik-21727 https://www.vg.no/nyheter/meninger/i/rqyR3/alle-konspirasjonsteoriers-mor https://www.aftenbladet.no/utenriks/i/GgJll/Forskere-er-uenige-om---11-september-angrepet https://www.aftenbladet.no/lokalt/i/kKjk9/Tror-ikke-pa-offisiell-119-forklaring


It is not a very flattering portrait that emerges, and Tunander's supporters may certainly argue that other journalists and academics are being unfair to him. But it is a fact that this is the mainstream's view of his work, and none of it comes through in the Wikipedia article. It is highly one-sided and exploits the language gap to falsely suggest that Tunander enjoys mainstream credibility in Sweden and Norway, when in fact he does not.

Considering the inclusion of details about his family background that seem to have no online or published source, I think one can safely assume that it has been written in part or whole by Tunander himself, which is no less problematic.

To be clear, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having an article about Tunander - he is a professor after all, and a prolific writer - or with presenting his views, which are not without supporters. This article, however, is an un-encyclopaedic whitewash designed to promote his theories and embellish his influence and credibility.

My suggestion is to scrap the current version entirely and instead make it a straightforward biographical article, noting his publications and claims and theories, without any special pleading for his points of view, while also clarifying, in some delicate way, that he is not widely perceived to be a credible source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.130.212 (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Not on the fringe but mainstream and in line of swedish official view contrary to above comment

83.253.130.212 argues that “Tunander is chiefly known for promoting a fringe narrative about 1980s submarine incursions in Sweden blaming an elaborately staged NATO false flag operation involving much of the Swedish military top brass” and that Tunander “is an outlier even among those who dispute the government's conclusion that Soviet submarines were responsible for most/all violations of Sweden's sovereignty.” 83.253.130.212 argues that the article “falsely suggest that Tunander enjoys mainstream credibility in Sweden and Norway, when in fact he does not.”

Any scholarly research that liberates itself from an old paradigm is at the time by definition not “mainstream”, but let us first find out if Tunander’s “enjoys mainstream credibility”. Tunander’s analysis is supported by Ambassador Mathias Mossberg, the Secretary General of the latest Swedish Submarine Inquiry (from 2001). Mossberg was also the Secretary General for the 2002 Swedish Security Policy Inquiry (the Swedish Cold War history report 1969-1989) and recently Swedish representative to the inquiry of the death of Dag Hammarskjöld for UN Secretary General António Guterres. Mossberg had been Soviet expert in the Swedish Foreign Ministry and he had been heading the Foreign Ministry’s Analysis Group. Mossberg has written a foreword to Tunander’s latest book (in Swedish: “Det svenska ubåtskriget”, Medströms 2019). Of course, a scholar does not have to arrive to the same conclusions as the Government, however the Government has not concluded, as 83.253.130.212 states, “that Soviet submarines were responsible for most/all violations of Sweden's sovereignty”. This is false. The latest official inquiry concluded that it may have been both Western and Soviet intrusions.

The first inquiry (the Parliamentary Inquiry) from 1983 concluded that the intrusions originated from the Warsaw Pact, most likely from the Soviet Union. In 1987, however, a Government Group under former chief of Swedish military intelligence, Major General Bengt Wallroth, wrote a report for Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson stating that there was no evidence supporting these earlier claims about Soviet intrusions. This Government Group report was declassified in 2001.

The second inquiry from 1995 with General Bengt Wallroth as its Secretary General concluded that there had been no evidence for pointing to the Soviet Union or to any other particular state. This inquiry rejected the conclusions of the 1983 inquiry. This is also what then Defence Minister Anders Thunborg later stated: “It was wrong to point to the Soviet Union”. The 1995 inquiry argued that there had been a number of intrusions into Swedish waters, but there had not been possible to tie these intrusions to any particular state. In 2000 former US Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and former UK Navy Minister Keith Speed claimed, in long TV interviews, that they had operated submarines in Swedish waters regularly and frequently to test the readiness of the Swedish Naval forces. Prime Minister Göran Persson said the following day in the Swedish Parliament: “If there are any documents I don’t know, but I know that a former Secretary of Defense, a US Secretary of Defense, in a long interview, in clear wording, has presented a rationale for what, according to his view, NATO apparently did in our waters”.

The third inquiry was appointed shortly after this interview. Prime Minister Persson appointed Sweden’s former Ambassador to Washington, Rolf Ekéus, to investigate what had happened, and he appointed Ambassador Mossberg as its Secretary General. Tunander was recruited to the Inquiry as a Civilian Expert. This third inquiry (from 2001) concluded that there may have been both Soviet and Western submarine intrusions. The report states: “There is no solid evidence that allows any conclusions to be made about the nationality of the violating submarines. [… The Soviet Union can] scarcely be excluded as a possible violating state. Nor can the possibility of intrusions by Western submarines be excluded. Nevertheless, the fact remains that it has not been possible to identify the nationality of any of the submarines.”

This is now the official Swedish view. However, after new evidence appeared in 2007-2008, Ambassador Mossberg wrote a book (in 2009 with a new edition in 2016), that strongly suggests that intrusions most likely originated from the West. Ambassador Ekéus wrote a support on the cover of Mossberg’s book, and Mossberg wrote a foreword to Tunander’s recent book. It is true that many officers in the Swedish Navy still believe that these intrusions primarily originated from the Soviet Union, but neither the Government inquiry’s top representatives, nor the intelligence service has found support for this “Navy view”.

In the Nordic countries, Tunander’s contributions were supported by Norwegian Commodore Jacob Børresen, who wrote the relevant parts of the Norwegian Defence History (2004), by Danish Chief Investigator Svend Aage Christensen and historian Frede P. Jensen, who wrote the official Danish Cold War History Report in four volumes (2005), by Colonel and Professor Pekka Visuri, who wrote the Finnish Cold War History (2006), and by Finnish President Mauno Koivisto (2008), who argued that the intrusions most likely were Western provocations. There have, of course, also been other views in the Nordic countries: some supporting the hypothesis that there were Soviet submarines and others that there actually was nothing at all. These views have all been part of the Swedish and Nordic debate. However, major representatives of the Scandinavian Cold War History Inquiry reports have supported the analysis made by Tunander. Tunander’s books and articles do not “promote a fringe narrative”.

Tunander does not argue that the intrusions into Swedish waters were staged by NATO as stated by above critic. Tunander argues that some of the British operations linked to Stay Behinds were coordinated by two NATO committees, but these submarines were most likely never detected. He supports the view of former Chairman of NATO Military Committee General Vigleik Eide and of former British NATO Secretary General George Robertson that these had been national operations and not operations decided within the framework of NATO.

Tunander published a Norwegian book in 2018 about the Libya War (“Libyakrigen”). The book has a foreword written by the former Chief of the Norwegian Intelligence Service, Major General Alf Roar Berg, who expressed criticism of the war and strong support for Tunander’s book. The fact that four out of five of Tunander’s recent books have forewords written by responsible generals, ambassadors and historians writing the official inquiry reports does not make Tunander into a “fringe” academic with lack of “mainstream credibility”. In the public sphere, different scholars and analysts have arrived to different conclusions, and this controversy is emphasized in the article. Tunander’s conclusions, however, have been closer to those made by several above-mentioned ambassadors and historians writing the official inquiry reports. He has probably also contributed to their change of view.

83.253.130.212 argues that the article “promotes” Tunander’s “theories” and “that he is not widely perceived to be a credible source”. This is not fair. An article about Tunander obviously has to present his scholarly research, similar to articles about any other scholar. The Wikipedia article about Hans Morgenthau presents his “political realism” as a contribution to international relations theory, despite that he politically was not considered “mainstream”, because he turned against the Vietnam War. An article about Samuel Huntington will bring up his ideas about “the clash of civilizations”, which some people did not consider “mainstream”. Tunander refers to Morgenthau in his analysis of the “dual state”, while Huntington refers to Tunander in his analysis of the Euro-Russian divide. If you present Morgenthau’s and Huntington’s ideas, this does not mean that you are “promoting” them.

83.253.130.212‘s statement about Tunander not being “perceived to be a credible source” is rejected by the official Danish Cold War History report, by the Finnish Cold War history and by the Secretary General of the official Swedish Cold War history inquiry and of the official Swedish submarine inquiry. The latter concluded that Tunander is not just “credible”, his recent book reflects “the current state of research about what happened in the Swedish waters in the 1980s” (from Mossberg’s foreword to Tunander’s book 2019). The Danish report considers Tunander’s analysis credible, because it is consistent with analyses made by the Danish intelligence service, and the Danish report considers Tunander and former Chief Historian of the CIA, Benjamin B Fischer, as the only credible scholars in the world writing about psychological operations (see Vol. 3, page 478). In Norway, Tunander wrote the chapter on “Norway and the Nordic Region” for the regular text book in political science, and he wrote the Foreign Ministry’s official text on the Nordic Region on the Foreign Ministry’s own website. Of course, there are people that like to comment on anyone and like to discredit anyone, who is not considered politically correct, but that has nothing to do with scholarly research.

One last more private comment: This author was last year invited to Swedish authorities analyzing the security policy of the 1980s. Tunander’s research on the submarine intrusions into Swedish waters was carefully analyzed and his arguments were taken very seriously by the most senior officials.

What 83.253.130.212 considers “mainstream” is certainly no longer the official Swedish view. New information has already made this “mainstream view” obsolete and it might soon be turned into a “fringe view”. Wikipedia better represent contemporary research rather than that of yesterday.

21:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Knowmore1919 (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Knowmore1919 (talk)[reply]

Wikipedia editors need to intervene[edit]

The subject of this article is deceptively editing his own biographic page. See further up on this talk page.

If you look at the editing history, it shows that Tunander has openly been editing the Tunander article using his own name (the account Svenor.1966/Ola Tunander). Look at the editing history of that account, and then look at the creation of this article. The article is first written by Tunander on his own user account. On the day that he stops editing it (3 November 2010), another account (Agnetesch), which has previously only edited the article related to Tunander's workplace, PRIO, copies the text from his personal account to create a Tunander article.

In other words, the article as it stands was written by Tunander himself.

Furthermore, the editing history also shows that several other accounts have since been created for the sole purpose of editing the Tunander page. These include Polstein, Darkwaters, Odvarius, and perhaps others. They are likely to be sock puppet accounts used by Tunander to continue to control his biography and ensure that it remains the hagiography he originally wrote.

It seems to be a pattern. To respond to the accusations above, Tunander has now created another account (Knowmore1919), still pretending to be a different person.

This is abuse of Wikipedia by a conspiracy theorist seeking to present himself as a respectable mainstream author. 80.216.1.242 (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 80.216.1.242. Unclear if you have proved the point. You only establish that an account called User:Svenor.1966 had a role in the development of this page. Continued discussion should happen at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Ola Tunander. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

80.216.1.242 represent a biased and politically plagued comment on the fringes of debate

First, I am not Ola Tunander as above commentator falsely claims and though the comment of 83.253.130.212 and 80.216.1.242 shows plenty of biased, politically taunted and conspiratorial language I will stay clear from that in my comment.

On 4 September 2019, 83.253.130.212 argued that “Tunander is chiefly known for promoting a fringe narrative about 1980s submarine incursions in Sweden”. On 22 December, 80.216.1.242 wrote that Tunander is a “conspiracy theorist seeking to present himself as a respectable mainstream author”. The two authors are clearly biased against Tunander. They are not neutral, and their contributions are part of a domestic Swedish debate. These authors have a political agenda. Also on 22 December, the article on Tunander was largely rewritten. Their claim that Tunander does not enjoy “mainstream credibility” is definitely false. Let us see what happened in Sweden on this very day.

On 22 December, the webpage “Bevara Alliansfriheten” https://www.alliansfriheten.se/korten-pa-bordet-i-ubatsfragan/ had an article about Swedish submarine intrusions and the new book by Tunander: Det svenska ubåtskriget (The Swedish Submarine War). The article was written by four prominent members of the Swedish establishment, Sven Hirdman, Pierre Schori, Sune Olofson and Mathias Mossberg, who had been responsible for the Swedish policy in the 1980s (politically and diplomatically) or responsible for the media coverage or for the Government inquiry afterwards. They describe Tunander’s book as “an important contribution to the research about the submarine intrusions in the 1980s”.

Sven Hirdman was State Secretary for Defense from late 1970s to early 1980s in the Center-Conservative Government of Thorbjörn Fälldin. The Diary of Chief of Defense General Lennart Ljung reveals that Hirdman, at the time of the submarine intrusions, rather functioned as a minister of defense, because the minister himself was seldom available. Hirdman was later Ambassador to Israel, Chief for the Swedish National War Materials Inspectorate, and for ten years (1994-2004) Swedish Ambassador to Moscow (including responsibility for Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan). He was a member of Swedish Academy of War Science. In 2005-2011, he was Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps at the Swedish Foreign Ministry. Hirdman wrote a chapter about midget submarines for SIPRI already in 1969.

Pierre Schori was 1976-1982 the International Secretary for the Social Democratic Party. 1982-1991 during the years of submarine crisis under Prime Minister Olof Palme and Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson, he was State Secretary for Foreign Affairs and the number two in the Ministry. If you read the Diary of General Ljung and the now declassified documents from the British Foreign Office, he appears to be at least as important as the Minister himself, first Lennart Bodström and then Sten Andersson. Schori had 1994-1999 the position as Deputy Foreign Minister, and 2000-2004, he was Swedish Ambassador to the United Nations. He was for several years, the liaison between Henry Kissinger and Fidel Castro, and he kept his ties to Henry Kissinger also in the 1980s. At the Ministry in the early 1980s, he was responsible for the internal and now declassified report on the submarines. Sune Olofson was, during the years of submarine intrusions, the defense reporter for the largest Conservative daily Svenska Dagbladet (Swedish Daily). He became Op-Ed Editor for Svenska Dagbladet in the 1990s until 2009, when he retired after 28 years at the newspaper. Of all Swedish newspapers, Svenska Dagbladet was most active in bringing up the submarine intrusions, which the journalists at the time believed to have been Soviet intrusions.

Mathias Mossberg had been responsible for the Soviet Union in the Swedish Foreign Ministry, he served as Assistant Undersecretary, Ambassador and close advisor to the Foreign Minister Sten Andersson. In 1996-2000 he served as Director of Policy Planning heading the analysis section of the Ministry. In 2001 he was the Secretary General of the official Swedish Submarine Inquiry (the latest Swedish submarine inquiry that concluded that the submarines could have been both from the West and from the Soviet Union), and in 2002 he was Secretary General for the official Swedish Security Policy Inquiry. He served as Vice President of the EastWest Institute in New York (2003-2006) and recently as the Swedish representative to the UN- Investigation on death of former UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld. Mossberg also wrote a book on the submarine intrusions in Swedish waters, I mörka vatten (In Dark Waters, 2009; 2016).

These four individuals were not marginal representatives of the security policy establishment of Sweden. They are some of the most senior and most experienced members of the Swedish diplomatic, political and editorial community, and they strongly support the research made by Tunander. They refer to their communication with top-officials in the US intelligence community, with Henry Kissinger and his with his close advisor Helmut Sonnenfeldt and they refer to the conversations between former Defense Minister and Parliamentary President Thage G Peterson and his opposite number, US Secretary of Defense William Perry. The claim of 83.253.130.212 that “Tunander is chiefly known for promoting a fringe narrative about the submarine incursions in Sweden”, and that he doesn’t “enjoys mainstream credibility in Sweden” is simply not true. One might argue that the Swedish establishment is not unified on this issue, but that was also very clearly stated in the Wikipedia article on Tunander. The article was accordingly neutral, while 83.253.130.212 and 80.216.1.242 for some reasons wants to deny that Tunander is a recognized scholar.

83.253.130.212 and 80.216.1.242 have to explain why these and other representatives “the official Sweden” supports Tunander. To rewrite the article on professor emeritus Ola Tunander the way proposed by 83.253.130.212 would not only ignore his academic credentials, it would disregard the support he has received from the official Sweden. It would also represent a biased and politically taunted view on the fringes of the ongoing debate on the submarine intrusions in the Swedish waters in the 1980s.

Knowmore1919 (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Knowmore1919 (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am Odvarius. I see that user 80.216.1.242 above claims I am a sockpuppet. I can confirm that I am indeed an independent individual and that the comment I posted the 21 July 2019 about Mr. Tunander's journal article on the Norwegian "July 22 terrorist" is my personal opinion. I do know Mr. Tunander, but not too well on a personal level. I have looked into his findings about submarines in Swedish waters, but not on an expert level. However, as a professional information worker I am worried to see how some actor(s) with an agenda try to discredit him personally when they dislike his research. I post this here as I see no "#Ola Tunander" on the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, I apologize for any violation on Wikipedia's guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odvarius (talk • contribs) 10:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ola_Tunander&oldid=1200728415"