Talk:Christian Tybring-Gjedde

message: I'm not sure why reliably sourced content from one of Norway's biggest newspapers (Dagbladet) has been repeatedly removed from this article. I have repeatedly requested that the account (and IP) that continues to blank the material bring their concerns here, or to WP:BLPN, to discuss the removal, but they have chosen to simply continue blanking the content. As the information can be seen as negative or contentious I have double checked to ensure the references actually say what the article is asserting and they do support the material. There may be a perfectly good reason to remove the sentence, but unless the editor wishing to remove it explains why the source should not be considered reliable we will never know. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is a big WP:BLP issue at hand here. Please rewive the OTRS for futher discussion about this at OTRS ticketid 6481097. Nsaa (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Can only confirm what Nsaa said, there are issues with the content. Jeblad (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Two quick bits - 1) The edit summary for the removal includes the acronym PFU, but it redirects to Plaque-forming unit, could you provide the correct link? Also could you provide the OTRS ticket number? I would like to assist if possible. The ID number provided is not pulling up any info. Please disregard the request if it is in the no.wiki queue as I won't have access. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: PFU is an acronym for Pressens Faglige Utvalg. - Soulkeeper (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Soulkeeper. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's enough to cite the Wikipedia policy WP:BLP in this case: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.". The source for this story is a tabloid Verdens gang … Nsaa (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm very aware of BLP policy and spend a great deal of time on the OTRS quality queue which is why I was asking for the ticket number. The content that was removed was sourced directly to Dagbladet (specifically this link), I'm not sure where Verdens gang comes in? Is there a concern that Dagbladet based their story on a Verdens gang tabloid story? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've understand it, its based on that article in Verdens gang. Look there for the citate that he actually comes with, NOT the ingress or the heading (the journalist do a all pupil -> muslim pupil change for. ex. Bad as hell. Its like saying that black students should not be allowed into the store at school time instead of all students should not be allowed into the store at school time ... Ok? ) Nsaa (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Another problem with the source .... Say no more about the journalist writing these stories . They don't even now the difference between a Star_of_David and Yellow_badge. That Dagbladet article is useless as a source. Nsaa (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Content blanking

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Christian Tybring-Gjedde. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100305210701/http://www.dagsavisen.no/innenriks/article472477.ece to http://www.dagsavisen.no/innenriks/article472477.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100830132217/http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article3785439.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article3785439.ece
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130222202748/http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/innenriks/politikk/valg2005/article409937.ece to http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/innenriks/politikk/valg2005/article409937.ece
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substantial portions of this wiki page violate the BLP standards concerning neutrality, slander, and unsourced. Seek consensus before major polemic claims. Also, avoid excessive repetition.--2601:681:4A00:4FE0:14F8:E172:1C68:7C7A (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Spurious claims of "BPL" is not carte blanche to blank large parts (almost the entire lead section) of a solidly sourced article that you don't like, in this case e.g. The New York Times', The Guardian's and scholars' description of him as far-right. A Wikipedia article by definition includes "repetition" (learn more here: WP:LEAD). --Egulbrandsen (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

text: You have been cautioned (by other editors than me) against your blanking and disruption, and nobody has agreed with your ridiculous claims of non-existent "BLP" (or "BPL" as you called it) problems. This is an encylopedic article, based on high-quality mainstream sources. Nothing in the article is unsourced, or undue, or anything. That the far-right fringe agrees with the article is not a requirement. --Egulbrandsen (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

text: As pointed out by others in the noticeboard discussion you started, you don't understand BLP. There isn't much point in arguing with you when you don't contribute productively to the article, don't understand that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and when you'll probably be blocked soon anyway, after edit-warring against nearly half a dozen editors to blank large parts of the article. --Egulbrandsen (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Bio of Living Person (BLP)

message: American news outlets for the past 2 days are constantly attacking him as "extremist right". Americans have an election in a few days that relates to this person via his support of Trump via a nomination for a prize. Wikipedia should not reflect what short-term political commentators are doing because the edits of the past 48 hours have turned this article from moderate to "he is approximately Adolf Hitler". --fs 06:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You should read your Pew link more carefully: "Note that this report measures the political leanings of the audience rather than the source itself." Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Far-left political bias